I know we don't write a lot of mysteries around here, but wanted to ask the question anyway.

Do you think the CSI effect will make readers expect more from mystery writers? Will they expect detective characters to use a bunch of gadgets?

How do I know if I don't read/watch them? I catch a Perry Mason here and there. Every now and then Angelina Jolie or someone similarly compelling is in a mystery and my husband rents it.

I tend to think that CSI-type investigation lends itself more to the visual medium of television-- and that good ole' brain problem solving works better on the written page.

JMHO,
~LL

If it's present day, you might want to keep up to date with all the latest advances into crime investigation technology. While reading your book, someone might think, "Why doesn't the detective just use a *insert latest gadget here*?".

quote:

---

Every now and then Angelina Jolie or someone similarly compelling...

---

On the other extreme, there are hard-core blood and guts style mysteries that hold nothing back. These can even treat murder as it really is (at least if they are well done). They are in no way prudish. They know what their material is and they write about it like erotic romance novels.

I've never heard of the CSI efffect but I do think it haunts us a bit. Especially when it comes ot modern-day mysteries, people do expect the detective to be able to use forensic science to figure things out. So the mystery writer must understand forensic science and its limitations and come up with plausible reasons why, in this case, it's leading the investigator in the wrong direction. (At least in a satisfying novel.) Personally, I find forensic science a bit dry, though. It takes all the fun out of a mystery.

I also think the expectations are far too high. I see reports of murders on TV all the time that aren't combed over for traces of DNA evidence. I have a feeling that this usually happens when rich or otherwise high-profile people are killed. Furthermore, I don't think forensic science is as good as people think from watching CSI.

quote:

---

I see reports of murders on TV all the time that aren't combed over for traces of DNA evidence. I have a feeling that this usually happens when rich or otherwise high-profile people are killed.

---

Actually, this is not true. It's now a standard forensic tool. Even before DNA sequencing became a standard forensic tool, combing a scene for traces of the murderer's blood/hair/semen/etc was standard, for the past few decades at any rate.

The reason that you don't see it on the news is because it is just that standard, like fingerprints. When was the last time you saw a news report where they mentioned that the investigators were combing the scene for fingerprints? Probably not in your lifetime (or mine, I'm not that old). Also, police release information to the media that they think is going to be useful in helping generate tips, composite sketches, descriptions of suspicious vehicles, sometimes a "profile" of the probable killer (all these can be entirely mistaken, of course). It would be stretching the imagination to suggest that releasing fingerprints to the media could generate a tip (what, people are going to start visually checking the fingerprints of everyone they meet?) but it would be basically impossible for the public to use a DNA sequence. Besides, it makes more sense to save the evidence (DNA testing uses tiny amounts of material, but it is fundamentally a destructive test) for when they have a high probability suspect to test it against.

You'd only hear about DNA evidence in real cases when several conditions obtain. First, there has to be a trial, where the defendent is basically claiming innocence. Second, the trial has to be a media circus involving a famous person or a notorious case. Third, there must be DNA evidence that strongly implicates the suspect.

You'll notice that the second condition mostly does limit times you'll hear about DNA evidence to the trials of rich defendents and high profile cases (wealthy defendents tend to have wealthy victims, the same tends to be true of high profile cases generally). That doesn't mean that DNA evidence isn't used in other cases, you simply don't hear about it that often (you almost never hear about cases where DNA evidence exonerates the accused, though this actually happens more often than cases where it convicts anyone).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0923_040923_csi.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm

I really got to thinking about this when we were talking about hiding information from the reader. We were discussing ways to misdirect the reader with information, and it occurred to me that it will get harder and harder to misdirect the reader, while still allowing the detective character to look intelligent. Odds are that the average reader also watches CSI, so they will probably get frustrated with that sort of technique.
Will they think the character a poor detective if they don't immediately see the clues?

I agree with Lullaby Lady that problem solving is still going to be intriguing to them, but will they be satisfied with that alone? We will need to create a reason why forensic science was not available (time period) or used. Or, maybe explain that they were inconclusive.

I guess another way to write a mystery is to make a common person the investigator.

quote:

---

"When I tell someone what I do, I never have to explain it now," he says. "They know what a crime-scene (technician) does. At least, they think they do."

---

Doesn't that just say it all?

quote:

---

Do you think the CSI effect will make readers expect more from mystery writers? Will they expect detective characters to use a bunch of gadgets?

Could it help us because the population knows the lingo?

---

Forensic detective stories have been popular for more than a century and CSI is more a product of them than it is likely to have an effect on the way writers write, imo. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle practically invented forensic mysteries (invented might be the wrong term, perhaps popularized would be the better). It is probably due mostly to him that forensics in fiction - written or visual - is so popular even today.

quote:

---

because the whole point of jury selection is to weed out anyone that doesn't seem pretty gullible...

---

"Who are these people? What did they do? Why does it matter? What's an IRAN? Is it one of those jokes like ICUP?"

Two muffins are sitting in an oven. One muffin says, "Gosh, it sure is hot in here." The other muffin says, "WHOA!!! A talking muffin!!!"

quote:

---

I guess another way to write a mystery is to make a common person the investigator.

---

Another case of "write what you know." I'd guess that is why there are so many mysteries with sleuths who are not police or forensic investigators. Even private eyes don't have access to as much data.

Robyn - spell it out loud. Little kids love potty jokes. I'm just astonished the joke is still circulating.

The astonishing thing is that my brother still points out no parking signs with delight and comments on how important it is that we not pee there.