Tricks of the Trade: When to Buck Convention (And When Not To)

 Tricks of the Trade: When to Buck Convention (And When Not To)

As a reader, writer, and teacher of detective fiction, the concept of convention comes up often. Students need to learn the 'rules' as do writers. Readers come to understand them the more they read. When I'm reading during a semester, I often project what students might experience, new to the genre. Their often blissful ignorance of the conventions can make reading even more enjoyable, I think. Still, the budding writer doesn't benefit from this. They need to learn where the guardrails are and when they've crossed over them in a way that makes the novel unsalvageable. 

First, let me say that sticking to rules seems ill-advised. No beginning writer wants to just follow the formula. Yet there's no other way without accounting for luck or immense genius. Both exist. Neither should be counted on. Our first novel attempts should crash into the guardrails, scraping and denting them. The result is usually a good story with some obvious flaws that either get fixed in the editing process or the next book. The latter only happens if the crash into the guardrails doesn't end in a total loss.

We are told the best way to learn a genre is to read the classics and then the great ones of more recent vintage. I agree, with some caveats. There is certainly benefit to reading Holmes or Agatha Christie. The plotting and characterization in those books sets the tone for the detectives that follow. Every modern investigator in fiction carries the DNA from those early masterpieces. But I think diving right into those can serve as false inspiration or might drag the early writer down in doubt. Most of us do not want to write the next Sherlock Holmes. We want to tell our story on a more common level.

Ah, but the conventions. Let's start with possibly the most important. 

The Detective as Smarty-Pants

The detective needs intelligence. In some fashion, they stand out above the rest. That intelligence can manifest as a keen understanding of human nature, an ear for deception, or an eye for detail. They don't have to be smarter than everyone else but they should have a trait that enables them to find what most wouldn't. They must pit their mind against the villain and outsmart them in the end. This is a convention you should adhere to. Readers want the genius of Holmes or Poirot distilled down to a modern interpretation (that hopefully sheds much of the antiquated weight) for their detective. 

Where you can personalize and iterate comes from your implementation. The detective can be average and even appear to have common intelligence. But they have something that stands out, perhaps only coming to the surface under pressure from the villain/suspect. The investigation brings out the best in them. I think some of the best mysteries now showcase these everyday people doing extraordinary things. I don't personally enjoy the genius detectives (although there is a market for them) but I do like the more blue collar types.

The Relationship Issues

Somewhere along the way, the detective became embroiled in relationship problems. The first stem from the marriage to the job that leaves little for anything else. The detective often fails at romance and parenting. It's an ugly convention and I think you can buck this one.  I encourage you to. Let's have more centered detectives that enjoy a better work-life balance. The troubled detective chasing after their white whale had its time. Let's move on.

And let's also cease with the trope that detectives have random encounters. That damsel-in-distress element died a long time ago but the legacy remains. The detective sleeping with a partner, a witness, a suspect...that's been done. Sure, there is still a call for it, and I wouldn't tell anyone they can't write to this, but I suggest otherwise. Break new ground here.

The Addicted Detective

Holmes suffered addiction. I believe it came from a social discomfort and an inability to slow his mind. The modern detective went to the bottle (and further) because of the trauma they experienced. The solace found in alcohol made sense. Perhaps it still does. This is a convention you can buck. I say this mainly because if we have that detective with a healthy work-life balance and a supportive relationship, the addiction is not necessary.

You can, of course, write retro in this sense with some modern twists. Make them your own. Many have been done before but iterating can make it yours. The lure of pain medication, for instance, exists outside 'The Job' so it can creep into the detective's life. Or, someone close to them can suffer the addiction. Come up with something from the world around you. Detective fiction, at its heart, is about human nature and life experience. Show it through your story, through your eyes, your lens.

The Detective as Puzzle Lover

In Elementary, Sherlock, and House, MD, we see this trope. The detective gets seduced by solving puzzles. They live for it and it often outpowers everything else in their life. The modern detectives do the same, lured into late nights by the elusive enigma. They are dogged by the one that got away, forever seeing the solution to that puzzle in every case that shows a hint of the 'Big One'. It's a fine convention that can serve the writer when implemented well. Still, I suggest you buck this one.

Why? Because we often include it in a way that appears reminiscent of all the other examples. Again, that detective with a good work-life balance doesn't think of the puzzle when they are driving their kid to school or eating dinner. Maybe during the case for the novel, and even then, having the detective experience life outside the case can be refreshing. One way to both follow and buck this trope is to have the detective obsess over the case's puzzle and let it be known this is not normal. The other people in the detective's life can notice the shift and show concern. 

Some Final Thoughts

As a reader of Chandler and his article on the formula of mysteries, I think the formula is a great place to start and a terrible place to end. Follow the conventions so you get to know them, then buck them once you see the guardrails. After a while, destroy the guardrails. You can only do that when you have enough momentum.

My latest books, Ghosts of Days Gone By and To The Bone both pay tribute and give the Bronx Salute to the conventions of the genre. My characters (they are husband and wife) had a good marriage for decades. Now, they've hit the skids. It sounds conventional. But, both characters will realize their success in investigation came from their strong relationship. Now that they've both dove into their careers, separately, they realize marriage to the job always ends in an ugly divorce.

I'm playing with writing concurrent novels from each of their perspectives and it's caused me to really look at those conventions. I want my characters to feel fresh yet pay homage to the right notes readers look for. Yet, I tell my student writers to never care about what the reader thinks. Much like House expects, I lie. I just don't realize it sometimes.

Good luck with your writing. Always make it your own. Look for the times when it feels effortless and excruciating at the same time. That's your voice coming through. And when your character kicks back at you when you try to make them do something, follow their lead. They will take you where the story needs to go.