First of all, hi everyone. I joined the site a long while back and found it very helpful, but life got in the way of my writing. I've recently been inspired to take up the pen again for a project that I'm really excited about, but I've run into a roadblock and could really use some help/input. I'm currently fleshing out what I guess could best be described as a thriller/murder mystery with some elements borrowed from other genres. My problem lies with my antagonist. I know that there is a precedent set in fiction (particularly more fantastical fiction) for serial killers who tease their would-be captors with hints to their victims/identities, crime scene tableaux, etc. Characters such as Hannibal Lecter and the Riddler come to mind. I've got a killer who is highly intelligent, extremely smug, and, for lack of a better word, bored. He gave up the game years ago when the authorities could not make any sense of his clues. When my protagonist starts putting the clues together and resurrects this cold case, the villain is intrigued to have an opponent on his intellectual level for the first time and is inspired to take the game up again. Here's my problem: does this make any sense whatsoever? What would his end game be? In one scenario, the hero goes the way of the previous investigators and doesn't figure it out. In the other, the murderer keeps killing until the hero figures out the clues, hence having led to his own downfall...which makes little sense to me. Am I overthinking the logic of a character who is clearly not well? Can hubris really be a justifiable excuse for his continuing the game? If he sees the hero catching on, does he continue his killing or does he panic and stop? (I don't see his ego allowing that.) Any thoughts would be truly appreciated!
Have you ever looked into real-life serial killers? This sounds like an intriguing combination of Zodiac (sent a puzzle to the media, it was solved, then he sent three more that have never been solved) and BTK ("retired" for over a decade, the cases went cold, but then when people started looking back into the case, he capitalized on the renewed attention by writing to the press again, presumably with plans to start killing again).
Aside from recognition for his intelligence, what is your antagonist's payoff for these murders? There are those who would let being eluded go to their heads to the point that they get careless but this one gets bored of it.
I should clarify that he's "bored" in his everyday life and relationships. He feels smarter than everyone around him and sees this as a challenge. So maybe recognition of his intelligence is a payoff? Perhaps instead of getting careless, he increases the puzzles' difficulty as the protagonist catches on. You've at least got my gears turning, so thanks!
I have looked them up, but if I'm being honest, I'm at work and don't feel like being flagged for researching serial killers too much! I'll be sure to delve further into them when I'm home tonight. Thank you!
To add a bit more detail: the killings start as a sort of sick wager between two men who each claim to be able to solve the other's crime. The problem is that one of the men thought the whole concept was just drunken musing, and the other went through with it (kind of Strangers on a Train-like). When the more innocent of the two threatens to blow the whistle, he becomes another victim. So when the protagonist starts figuring out the clues, the murderer suddenly has another sparring partner.
Sounds intriguing. I'd say, he might not care if he's caught or not, so long as he's caught "fairly". He's at the top of his game and he's going to play till he loses. So, he wouldn't be setting up clues for the intent that the protagonist find him, but to keep the game going so he can keep testing himself. He'd probably start out easy so the protagonist can catch up and then increase it until he's really pushing himself further than he has before, so he can see if the protagonist is that much more brilliant than the other detectives. Also, you could have him make the same wager he made with his friend by sending the protagonist a note (five bucks says you can't solve these murders) and at the end when he's caught, he pays the guy five bucks. (Or, if he dies, he leaves five bucks in his pocket in an envelope for the protagonist to find.)
I think it would make more sense of him "continuing the game" as a kind of tease towards the person investigating and as a "I am better than you even though you are figuring out more clues then anyone else". It more or less would be his ego talking and the serial killer would want to be the best. So if someone started picking up the clues the killer may start killing again to see if the detective (or whoever it is) is really that smart and once he starts getting closer the killer puts the detective on his hit list because he doesn't like the idea of anyone being smarter than him. Hope that helps.
There was an episode of Criminal Minds that did a similar idea. The killer, played by Jason Alexander, actually turned himself in before he completed all of his kills to see if they could figure it out. He would answer questions for them but wouldn't give them any direct answers. It's one of my favorite episodes. Might give you a little insight into your own character.
Thanks for the advice, everyone. This did make me feel a bit better about the character, and I like the idea of him simply being motivated by a sense of competition and superiority. The twist that I didn't mention is that my protagonist, Regan, is no detective, but somewhat of a ghost whisperer. She knows who the murderer is from the start, based upon what the victim has told her. When the murderer discovers that she's on to him, he restarts the game, assuming that she's figuring out his clues. In reality, Regan is completely out of her league and is forced into an uneven battle of wits, but can't let on that she's behind the curve. So it's not really a "Who done it?", since we know from the start. It's more of a "How do I prove it?", since the testimony of a ghost doesn't hold up well in court.
Ah, so less "thriller/mystery" and more "straight up thriller" How might the killer respond to the fact that the psychic had "cheated"?
