Mystery

I am currently doing some research on writing mystery novels, and I noticed something about my way of reading them. You see, even if it's a Fair-Play Whodunnit, I don't actually stop reading at any point to build my own conclusions on who the perpetrator is and how exactly he committed a crime. I just keep on reading because:

1. I know it's gonna be revealed in the end, anyway (except when it isn't, but I'll address that)
2. The story is just so good, I am more interested in what happens next rather than my own thoughts on its outcome
3. I subconsciously fear that correctly guessing the culprit will be a major spoiler that'd ruin my fun
4. Likewise, guessing incorrectly would frustrate me upon The Reveal and ruin my ego [grin]

Of course, unless I am fully absorbed in the narrative, I do get thoughts like "The Butler Did It!" after certain scenes, but these are just hunches without conscious thinking behind them, and they usually point at several different people throughout the story, so they don't count.

There are two cases when this doesn't take place, however. One is when the mystery is deliberately Left Hanging in the end. The other is if the mystery is published episodically (TV episodes, serial novels, etc.). In the former case, I have all the time in the world (barring Word of God or a sequel) to indulge in Wild Mass Guessing. In the latter, the brain cells are activated for the period between episodes/novels.

In other words, unless the author forcibly disconnects me from the story, I would always prefer to wait until The Reveal proper rather than trying to deduce the mystery myself.

I was wondering whether other readers had similar experience.

I don't try to solve while I'm reading, but since I very rarely read a mystery in one uninterrupted sitting, I find that I tend to speculate and try to solve it during the times I'm not actively reading it.

I am a fast reader. ^^; But in the event I am interrupted while reading, I simply stop thinking about the book (except thoughts like "I gotta get back to reading") and avoid discussions out of fear of spoiling something for myself.

I never stop reading a book to figure out the mystery on my own, but I might try to solve it some random time between readings. But that's only if I happen to think about the mystery at that moment, it's not something I'd regularly do.

At one time I would try to solve mysteries. Then I realized that mystery writers always seem to hold back one key piece of evidence, so there is no way to solve the case without it. For instance, in "Ten Little Indians," the killer fakes his own death—how can you possibly suspect someone who appears to be one of the victims?

I felt something like this, too, in most mystery stories I read.