: Should my query lead with the detective, or with the crime? In a lot of detective or mystery novels, the detective is the POV character and the protagonist, but the initial hook has little

A query or cover blurb for a murder mystery must contain three elements: the detective, the crime, and the element connecting them both. The weight of each element is variable, and the first and second can easily switch places. For a character-driven psychological study of a 'defective detective' archtype, lead with the protagonist. In almost all other cases, lead with the crime. Tying them together can be very meaningful, or it can just be a short line establishing plot urgency.

For example: Detective Alice is a [series of qualifications] who [series of emotional events]. When a serial killer in [location] [incredibly grisly description], can she overcome [obvious emotional issues] in order to catch the killer on time?

Second example: A killer is stalking [location], hunting [specific victim profile] and [incredibly grisly description]. Detective Alice, a [series of qualifications], is charged with catching the murderer. Can she overcome [external obstacle] and catch the killer on time?

---

(0)

I think this may be a Heisenbug. I've linked to the wiki, but basically this is a problem that appears only when looked at too closely. I just came across this in my programming studies, and like many, I fall in love with new words and want to use them.

In this instance, you may have bugged the perception by highlighting "meanwhile." In the normal flow of reading quickly, this may have been inconsequential.

Somewhere (sorry for the completely unscholarly reference) I read an essay by Orson Scott Card explaining why he became, er, less than enamoured by writing workshops. It was this tendency to look too closely at things. If you have won the reader's attention, and he or she is engaged in the material, things like "his eyes rolled down the front of her blouse" are perfectly grasped. The literal meaning of the words, though hilarious, are not perceived at all. [I got that from Stephen King, er somewhere].

Now, to do something I learned from Japanese stylists, an essay should always be concluded with "What's wrong with what I said."

Here's one thing that might be wrong with the foregoing thesis. The excerpt does not read like a chunk of story. It reads like a precis, a synopsis, and abstract, or a blurb.

Now, if that's the case, then it should be polished to critical perfection--if such a thing exists.

For a blurb, I don't like the "meanwhile" either. I would favor a harsh, contrasty jump. This way we have the jarring effect of going from the protagonist's to the antagonist's viewpoint. Since this is a story with a definite "good guy" and a definite "bad guy." It's appropriate to put in a shock bang! First, we have a detective who gets clues by listening to seashells? OK. I'm in the story. That's a great opener. Now, give me something about the killer, oh, stung to death by jellyfish? Hah. Lead with that. That's the counter to the seashell listening. It's equally weird, and... enticing. The object of the blurb is to make you want to read the story.

So...

"....in his ear, but/however/suddenly! the seashells are silent/strange/frightened about what appear to be jellyfish marks on the first body."

[Edit] What's really wrong with this thesis.

As Standback points out in the comment below, I have misused the term "Heisenbug."

I reproduce his comment here because I do not wish to misinform people.

A Heisenbug isn't a problem that wouldn't exist if you weren't looking for it; it's a problem that clearly exists, but which changes its behavior in reponse to seemingly-trivial attempts to investigate it, making it infuriatingly difficult to track down to a root cause.

Evidently, there's a looser definition that rolls around physics departments at the colleges I've been associated with; that is, "a problem that is actually caused by looking at it." That was what I meant. Calling that a "Heisenbug" was a new twist.

---

(0)

I think you can vary the structure depending on the story.

By way of example, mystery writer Jennifer Moss splits her descriptions: of her three novels and one short story, two start with the detective, Ryan Doherty, and two start with the crime.

For example, the first one starts with the detective, and segues into the case:

After his partner is killed and girlfriend takes off, Detective Ryan Doherty has one last chance to save his career with the double murder of ad execs Scott and Carly Redding. Ryan quickly learns that life wasn’t so lush at the Reddings’ agency, Town Red Media, where the list of ex-employees runs fifteen pages long.

And a later book dives right into the case, and the detective is more incidental to the description:

When rapper Terrico James claimed to be “mightier than Jesus,” nobody took him seriously…until someone did. Terrico’s dead body ends up nailed to a cross and Chicago Detective Ryan Doherty is on the case. Was it a fringe religious sect making a statement? Or Terrico’s protégé, Mandy Ross, a petulant pop star who sheds hearts like glitter in her path? With the help of his partner, Matt Di Santo, and the spirit of his dead partner, Jon, Ryan fights his way through cultural divides to find the murderer.

My feeling is this: If the crime is personal, or the detective is going through something which is as important as the case, you can start with the detective smoothly. If it's "just a crime," and the detective happens to get that case, start with the crime.

---

(0)