Madrugada
Since: Jan, 2001
Dealan
Since: Feb, 2010
#5: Dec 27th 2010 at 7:06:10 AM
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?
Under World. It rocks!
Total posts: 6

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:
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.