K Is for Knowing–or Not: #atozchallenge

 

Three scenarios:

  1. A lone woman hears a sound in the middle of the night. She doesn’t know what it is, so she goes in search of the source: to the attic, the basement, the back yard, the barn, the woods, the creek. She might take a flashlight and/or a bat. She wears her pajamas and bedroom slippers.
  2. Chief Detective Smith, sitting at her desk in the incident room, after weeks of an investigation with too many clues and no idea how they fit together, suddenly jumps up, says to Detective Sergeant Jones, “Call the traffic division and find out the name of the Dalmatian that rides with Firetruck #12,” picks up her gun, and heads for the door. “Where are you going?” says Detective Sergeant Jones. Chief Detective Smith runs out to nobody knows where. [Alternate: The ransom note says, “Come alone to a dark corner of the park.” And the detective does.]
  3. A man or a woman, take your pick, kneels in the garden cutting roses/stands over the stove stirring soup/hears a knock and answers the door, take your pick, and looks up and says, “Oh, it’s you. What are you doing here?” And then doesn’t say anything else at all.

I see them all the time in mystery/suspense/thrillers on television, but I don’t believe them because

  1. If I hear a sound at night, I don’t go looking for it. I crawl under the covers or, depending on the nature of the noise, under the bed. Even when I know it’s just an armadillo banging on the water pipes under the house.
  2. Any detective who does what Chief Detective Sergeant Smith does–and she does it nearly every week, same time, same station–would end up getting either fired by her boss or coshed by the suspect she’s chasing, or by her partner, who’s had enough.
  3. The “You?” is old and tired.*

Why do writers use them?

Because the character needs to know. The lone woman needs to know what the sound is. The detective needs to know if she’s right about whodunit. The victim needs to know the murderer.

And the writer needs to conceal. A lone woman sneaking around in a dark attic builds suspense. A detective flying to a showdown builds suspense. A victim recognizing his murderer builds suspense.

And because they work. Viewers, and readers, are willing to temporarily suspend disbelief. I am willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story playing out on the screen–even when one side of my brain is saying to the other, “That is totally unrealistic.”

Now to my real concern: Will I ever stoop to using one of these conventions? Send a woman into the dark where a hobgoblin awaits? Send a detective off to meet a bad guy without telling anyone where she’s going? Let a little old lady in gardening gloves be axed by her best friend without giving her the chance to get out of the way?

I don’t know.

***

*Actually, come to think of it, #3 might be totally realistic.

3 thoughts on “K Is for Knowing–or Not: #atozchallenge

  1. My wife is getting tired of watching TV with me because I complain about all this stuff. I get tired of the same tropes being used all the time. I can’t even watch most of the cop dramas on TV because they are all cookie cutouts of the same show. They are all the same.

    And the most insane thing about them is how they solve their crimes. Some inconspicuous clue is found and conversations like this happen.

    “There was red mud on the bottom of the victim’s shoe, but the mud in the area was almost black.”

    Another detective says, “Wasn’t the body find on Westbrook. There’s a pig farm near there. That would explain the black mud.”

    “Oh yeah. The pig farm. Pig manure is rich in potassium. I once read a magazine article while waiting in a doctor’s office about how potassium when introduced to fluoxetine hydrochloride often turns red.”

    The medical examiner is startled, “Fluoxetine hydrochloride? That’s one of the main ingredients of Prozac.”

    “So, the victim was probably prescribed Prozac.”

    Medical examiner again, “It’s more likely he mixed it to have high enough concentrations to trigger a reaction.”

    The detective runs out of the room, “Check with local pharmacies to see if any of them have a worker who matches the description of our victim and did not show up for work yesterday.”

    I just made up the above scenario, but I have seen that scene hundreds of times.

    This incredible shot in the dark based upon some obscure recollection always turn out to be correct and how they end up solving the crime. These crimes get solved every week by dumb luck and obscure details based upon a tiny fragment of knowledge one of the detectives or investigative staff just happened to recall. It drives me crazy. I can’t watch them.

    I am at Transformed Nonconformist. I usually write humor pieces, but I am getting serious this month. I’m writing about people who have deeply impacted my life.

    Like

  2. I’ve never used any of the scenarios (and hope I never do) but I’ve seen them on TV a number of times. That’s when I usually reach for the remote and switch to another channel.

    Like

  3. How about this? The owner of the little guest house in a remote rural town in Central Texas goes up the steps on the front porch, inserts her key into the lock on the entrance door, and discovers that……….

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.