Why Mysteries Are So Fascinating--and How That Reason Connects to Fiction Generally

In an episode of House, House--while sleep deprived--begins to witness exactly how he makes deductions. The process by which he makes connections and figures out cases is slowed down/exposed.

"This is so cool," House says.

And it is.

This slowed-down process is, I think, what makes mysteries so compelling. It isn't so much the SURPRISE ending. If so, people would never rewatch mysteries; I know people who don't, but most people do, hence CSI, Law & Order, House, Castle, Columbo, and multiple other mysteries are available on DVD--to be watched over and over and over.

Often, I will rewatch a mystery right up until the denouement. I keep the denouement on, but I start reading or typing on my blog. After all, I know what it is. What I turned the episode on for was the middle process of piecing together the mystery.

To a large degree, this piecing together explains and excuses dumb dialog. You know: the dialog where detectives define cop terms for each other or explain why they should look at C suspect rather than A suspect. And you're thinking, "Uh, guys, that decision would have happened two days ago in real life."

But what we are seeing is the slowed-down process--like House, we are watching how the dots get connected. The fact is, most police officers/detectives act on a combination of instinct and experience. By the time you do X numbers of cases about Y, you know to check suspect C immediately. But we get to see how the brain actually works when instinct and experience come together. (On a side note: yes, I think this happens. I think the brain does process and make connections even when we aren't aware of it happening. After staying awake all night a few years ago, I went to work. I was closing the car door, and I could feel my brain deciding to reach out and lift the handle of the door to make sure the door was locked. My brain was actually operating before my physical response. You don't realize how seldom that happens until you haven't slept for 24 hours. Yes, it is cool. It is also really freaky and dangerous.)

And I think that to a large degree, this business of showing connections is what makes all fiction compelling, not just mysteries. I wish I could say I was the first one to come up with this theory; I'm not, I just can't remember who did. But the first time I came across this theory, I went, "Yes! Yes!"

Human beings love to uncover things from a particular perspective. With most mysteries, if you're told the story straight--woman doesn't want to disappoint her parents who expect her to do great things with her life, so she sets up a fake charity, claiming to help people in Central America but actually she is pocketing the cash and when a young intern figures out what she is doing, she kills the intern--it is still interesting (and this is mostly how Columbo episodes operate) but when it is over, it's over. Unless you have Peter Falk investigating, there isn't any there for the there to go. (And even with Peter Falk, you have a particular perspective: HOW will he uncover the truth?)

But this particular Law & Order: CI episode doesn't start from beginning or even with the main players. It starts with the detectives investigating a loose end that leads them and us back to the main players.

In other words, we uncover information bit by bit from a particular perspective.

And this is how ALL fiction operates: information is uncovered, and the actual act of uncovering fascinates us. We are fascinated when the boy dressed as a girl is revealed as a girl. We are fascinated when the neighbor is revealed as a spy. We are fascinated when Bruce Wayne is revealed as Batman (to us, if not to the book/film's characters) no matter how many times it happens.

This is why supposedly too-sophisticated-to-use-old-devices writers who DON'T want to give viewers the satisfaction of the couple-running-to-each-other-across-the-field miss the point: we want to see the same thing over and over and over again in different guises. We want to see kids reunited with parents. We want to see husbands and wives forgiven. We want to see truth uncovered and told.

Let's face it: we homo sapiens are just a bunch of voyeurs.

And the best fiction satisfies our voyeuristic desires--without making us feel lousy about it.

Z is for "Zut alors!" or What Kate Has Learned From This Project

What I (tried) to read: The Marriage Bureau for Rich People by Farahad Zama

This book is an obvious attempt to build on the success of Alexander McCall Smith's No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency.

Okay, that might not be fair. Maybe, Zama came up with the idea before McCall Smith became popular, and McCall Smith's success simply enabled him to sell his idea. Or, maybe he didn't but was inspired by McCall Smith (and why not?!). Or, maybe he just thought, "I could make a buck by doing the McCall Smith thing in India!"

Whatever his reasoning, I couldn't get into the book. McCall Smith rambles but does go somewhere. Although the first book focuses on Mma Ramotswe's biography, McCall Smith supplies little mystery arcs to keep you interested.

The Marriage Bureau provides lots of stuff-is-happening but no little stories. I kept thinking, "THIS chapter will give me a story about matchmaking," but no, just more information about the main character. So I gave up.

Having said that, the "Z"s are an excellent place to end--ha ha--because they excellently sum up how this project has gone. What do the "Z"s specifically prove about reading literature generally?

1. There's a lot of books out there that I have no desire to read.

Many, many, many books have been printed about characters' ANGST-RIDDEN/PROBLEM-RIDDEN LIVES, involving EMOTIONAL CHANGE and INSIGHTFUL, PROFOUND INSIGHTS AND PROFUNDITIES.

Oh, blech.

But people must read these kinds of books because people keep publishing them.

2. There's a lot of writers people have never heard of.

A lot of my students think that having a literary career means writing a novel that takes off and makes them famous. This is kind of understandable when you realize that most of my student's lives have been dominated by Harry Potter and Twilight.

Or it's just the age. Here's a confession: I thought the same thing at 20. AND I was trying to get published (unlike many of my students), so I should have known how hard it really was.

The truth is, publishing a novel is impressive but no guarantee of stardom. Unfortunately.

3. There are good writers you haven't heard of or read.

Out of the writers I read, the only one I have gone on to read more of was Elkin. However, I enjoyed reading Xenophon, Wroblewski, Trollope, Paton, Grant Morrison, Letts, Ishiguro, and Dreiser. Also, in browsing the letters, I was exposed to writers like Deanna Raybourn.

4. You can learn from bad writing.

It's unfair to keep picking on Jeffers since I don't actually think she is a terrible writer; I just disagreed with her vision. But reading Jeffers is what led me to write A Man of Few Words.

I don't think reading Hesse led me to do anything, but I sure had fun analyzing the Siddhartha.

5. There are a finite number of books.

Sure, there are many, many "S"s and billions of "C"s, but there are only so many "Z"s, no matter how many different libraries you go to.

The finite number of books is still an awful, awful lot.

Am I going to read them all?

No.

But it's nice to know that I could--if I did absolutely nothing else with my life ever again.

Will I do a project like this again?

Yes, although my next reading project will involve non-fiction and the Dewey Decimal system. But I will have a system. I like having a system to force myself to read more than mysteries, romances, and humor memoirs. I place a high premium on comfort in my entertainment; I've never believed that books and television must have an EDUCATIONAL purpose. Still, a systematic approach opens the possibility that I'll find something good or discover an opportunity to respond in a constructive, fulfilling way.

But I doubt I'll go back to the "Z"s for awhile.

Looking for Fun Examples!

This Spring, I will be teaching Business Communications and Interpersonal Communications. I am very excited about both of these courses!

I am looking for clips as well as articles and books that highlight topics in both courses. For example, in Business Communications, I discuss getting a job. I found a great Caesar Millan article about his career path and how he used his past experiences to get him where he is today (the thing I like about the article is that Millan is one of those success stories that involve the whole process of yucky jobs to good jobs to vision; too many times, students think that life is going to be "I write a story which catapults me to fame"; it does happen; it just doesn't happen very often).

I would be interested in any suggestions! (And writing this list helps me brainstorm as well.)

Here are specific instances where a clip or article/interview, etc. would enhance the material (including examples I've already come up with):

Business Communications

• Finding the right job (Dead Like Me actually has some funny clips about this)
• Bad interviewing techniques and good ones (ditto)
• Relating to good bosses and to bad bosses
• Being a good or bad team member
• Good or bad meetings (Big Bang Theory and Stargate: Atlantis both supply good examples of bad meetings--they are easier, and more fun, to televise than good meetings)
• Conflict resolution
• Good or bad reports/memos
• Doing research on the job (investigation)
• Arguing in favor of a new business plan, new business, new way to advertise (thanks to Eugene for the clip from Other People's Money)
• Speaking before an audience: good and bad examples (I have one very funny example from Home Improvement where Tim dresses like a woman to help Jill prepare a speech)

For Business Ethics, I'm using The Apartment (Jack Lemmon and Shirley McClaine plus the awesome Fred McMurray; how could such a nice guy be so slimy!)

Interpersonal Communications

• Communication complications (communication isn't just one person talking, the other person listening; the speaker is getting feedback from the listener at all times--I have a great example from Law & Order where the detectives go to tell a mother that her child is ill, and Logan gets progressively more upset because the mother isn't responding normally)
• Roles that people adopt and how those roles change the way they communicate (think code-switching)
• How perceptions affect how we communicate--how we bring assumptions to a conversation (this doesn't have to be a negative thing; people should bring their knowledge and previous experiences to a conversation)
• Bad versus good stereotypes (the textbook calls it categorizing versus stereotyping; eh, tomate-o, tomah-to)
• Negative versus good ways to handle emotions
• Non-verbal communication (uh, I won't be using Lie to Me; the textbook argues that people who use Lie to Me techniques are usually WORSE at spotting deception than people who don't because they fail to pick up on verbal cues; I'm afraid I agree)
• Use of language to establish convergence (match one's speech patterns to others--people in cliques do this)
• Use of language to establish divergence (where speakers use speech patterns to set themselves apart from others)
• Communication differences!

Cultural differences (I have a great Miss Manners letter that I'm going to use here)
Gender differences (so . . . a clip from every "married-people" sitcom ever made)
How children communicate
How teenagers communicate (badly?)

• Improving Communication!

Creating a positive communication environment
Disclosing information--when it is good, when it is bad
Forgiveness
Listening--ineffective versus effective
Listening responses: mirroring, prompting, asking questions, paraphrasing, supporting

It may sound dopier than it actually is. A surprising number of students are freaked out by this course (which is a required elective--an elective that is required for some, but not all, majors), and I want to make it as much a practical experience for all personality types as possible (rather than some kind of "I'm going to turn you all into camp counselors!" ordeal). Here's how people communicate--here's what you can do about it (in a reasonably productive way): that's my approach.

New List on the Mike-Kate Video Club!

This time we are doing sit-coms. Both Mike and I realized, after deciding on the genre, that saying, "Let's do sit-coms" is like saying, "Let's eat 10 elephants!"

Consequently, we narrowed the list using some fairly rigorous (for us) criteria. First, we chose a theme: friends and family. Then, we set aside sit-coms like News Radio because it is more work than friend-oriented as well as Fraiser and 3rd Rock From the Sun because they are fairly broad in their approaches (family, friends, work, aliens, the arts, romance, university life, etc. etc. etc.).

We also set aside British sit-coms. (Hey, we'll get to them someday!) And, finally, we kept the list to 10. A vast number of family-oriented 80's sitcoms did not make the final cut.

Here is the list:

1. Bosom Buddies: Review December 10th
2. Golden Girls: Review December 17th

BREAK: MERRY CHRISTMAS!

3. How I Met Your Mother: Review December 31st
4. Big Bang Theory: Review January 7th
5. Friends: Review January 14th
6. Dharma & Greg (cross-over between friend-oriented sitcoms and family-oriented sitcoms): Review January 21st
7. Family Ties: Review January 28th
8. Cosby: Review February 4th
9. Full House: Review February 11th
10. Home Improvement: Review February 18th

Our plan is to watch the pilot and then review a selection (our choice) to report on. Please feel free to do the same!