Plotting a mystery! Where do I start?

Hey, guys. I decided to revive my favorite Plot Bunny, but I'm running into all the same walls that made me shelve it in the first place. It's basically a story about bumbling paranormal investigators trying to expose a big conspiracy (think The X-Files, but played entirely for laughs), but while I have the characters, the setting, and the "mythos," I can't seem to hammer the plot into a recognizable A-to-B kinda shape.

I figure it's a mystery story at heart, but I have no idea how to plot one of those. When and how should I reveal pertinent information? When are red herrings appropriate, and how many is too many? How can I make sure the protagonists' discoveries aren't too easy or convenient? I realize these are broad questions, but if any of you can steer me in the right direction, that'd be much appreciated.

edited 22nd Feb '18 11:19:37 PM by ThriceCharming

You could start with the answer to the riddle, then work your way backwards. So, to keep it simple, let's say it's a who-done-it and the "it" is a theft. You'd start with what the crime was (e.g. theft of a letter), who the victim is (e.g. a politician), how the crime was committed (e.g. it was left in the open, the thief noticed her reading it, he stole it right under her nose but she couldn't say anything at the time due to present company), and then finally why the crime was commited (e.g. the thief wants power and this is one way to blackmail the politician later). Note that the story I just described is one of Edgar Allan Poe's (Purloined Letter), and most of the story doesn't even involve the answers to these questions, but rather how to solve the riddle. In the case of the Purloined Letter, it's having a particular, adaptable paradigm that cannot be successful if one relies on method.

I would start there; at least that can give you the answer of "when" to reveal information. You have the answer of how to solve the riddle, then you work backwards in what information is needed to get to that conclusion. And in order to get to the solution to the riddle, you need to — y'know — have the riddle figured out.

For revealing pertinant information — continuing the answer about when to reveal what — think about a maze on a piece of paper. With one, simple glance the player has every piece of information they need to solve the maze. And by the time they get totally through the maze, they have all the knowledge necessary to (a) understand what they just went through and (b) agree that the layout of the maze was "fair." What I mean is that, as you think about what information to give when, you may want to ask whether the info is "fair" to give. And then at the end of plotting, ask yourself whether anybody could have this information and totally understand the conclusion.

Yes, actually writing so clearly would not make a good mystery story. I have two examples, one good and one bad. The good example can help answer the questions of how to reveal information, when to use red herrings, and how to not make discoveries too easy. The bad example can help answer the questions about how many are too many red herrings, and about convenient discoveries.

In the Harry Potter series, most notable in the second book, Rowling actively hides pertinant information from the reader. But were you to read the book again, you could see that all the necessary information is actually there. She often hides crucial evidence in lists (e.g. the diary in Ginny's things) and in relatively innocuous descriptions (e.g. when Harry starts trying to figure out who's the baddie Ginny reacts a certain way but it's described in such a way that you'd only notice the second reading). Moreover, the red herrings never totally cover up the clue. It's a distraction, sure, but if the writer took out the red herring the clue would still be there. This makes the discoveries possible though not easy. That's the good example.

The bad example is the much more recent Sherlock series, especially in the first episode. The crucial information (e.g. the fact it was raining and the body is still wet, the bruises on the body's calves) is not shown or mentioned on screen at all until after Sherlock tells Watson about them. Even worse, though, the information that is shown is totally unhelpful. If the writers took out the red herrings, there'd be no clues at all. I mean, Sherlock doesn't give hints since he tells Watson directly. Moreover, important thought processes (i.e. how Sherlock reaches his conclusions) are totally ignored and are replaced by drama. What I mean by this is that, instead of telling Watson how Sherlock knows so-and-so has X factor in so-and-so's life, Sherlock just states the conclusion matter-of-fact-ly and every character in the show responds as though he is or may be correct. This is way too convenient, writing-wise, and there's a dependence on red herrings.

Remember that mystery writers need to take us through some of that information so that we can get to the same conclusion. Mystery genre readers want to corroborate the protagonist's conclusion, not simply identify with the character. Generally speaking, obviously. So as long as they can do that, it should be good to go.