So, I have an unlikely group of crime solvers, tracking down suspects, piecing together the evidence and getting into a whole bunch of shenanigans along the way. How many characters do you think is ideal for a crime-solving team? I feel like four is manageable. I don't know if a pair would be better or if I need more in the mix. So, writer friends, what are your thoughts? How many characters does it take to solve a crime?
Seems like the standard in detective fiction (or at least most of the ones I've read) is for there to be one character. Sometimes a second character that rises to a level above that of the background characters serves either as a foil, or a sounding board for the main character. Sometimes the secondary character serves another purposes--physical abilities, for example, that the main character lacks. But I see one character most often in detective/mystery books. I don't know why it couldn't be four, though. A team like that seems to be more common in TV, though you see it in writing as well. I don't think there is an approach inherently better in terms of a group versus solo character. The choice changes the story you're telling, and to me that's the key consideration.
I've seen teams most often, usually small ones. In one of my favourite series, it's a team of three, but they don't work together the whole time. I suppose that can be handy because then you can have the benefit of having different characters to interact the way all characters do, but it you feel as though they might weigh the story down at one point, you can come up with a reason why they might be left behind right now. I've also seen the main character ask her friends to find things out for her because they might have access to information that she doesn't. Another advantage of having multiple detectives is that you can use their dynamic as an extra plot point of you feel the book needs it. I read one book written from the perspective of the "Watson" of the two who felt under-appreciated because the main detective felt that she was so much smarter than her and therefore kept dismissing all her ideas. I've got six detectives for my book, but they don't do everything as a group. I suppose it depends whether your character is a professional detective or not. If they can just knock on someone's door and say "I'm from the police and I need to speak to you about X", I suppose it would be easier to just have one, when there's no/less need for discretion.
You might consider doing something that I have seen several detective series do, which is to have a sort of rotating gallery of secondary characters. This is notable in the Anita Blake and Dresden Files series. Depending on the problem that the main character is facing he or she might need to tap the talents of a number of his associates, maybe even more than one. Depending on the problem your detective is facing, he might need the help (or be helping) any number of a rogues gallery of friends, associates or adversaries.
Thanks for your response. My novel isn't a detective novel, but my characters are invested in the situation and believe they would benefit by solving a crime that police and others aren't really doing much about. I thought my novel was about something else, but this unsolved mystery adds more to the story, and I think I really needed that. So, it's not a detective solving the crime. My characters are lacking resources and at times common sense that could help solve this crime. At first it was kind of one guy. Then I decided his girlfriend might help out. I thought my novel was about their relationship, but thank God it's not because that could get pretty boring. Then I brought in another guy. And I just brought in another woman. I feel like this is my core four. They all have a different personal reason for solving the crime. And I don't know if they stay together or even solve the mystery because I'm making it up as I go. This is the craziest story/situation I could think up. I'm not too far into my novel. I'm probably right around 20k. The first 10k introduces the relationship and other problems as well as bringing in the core four who start to team up around 10k words. And, of course, the crime takes place in those first 10k words. The crime probably happens at about 5k words. These are my guesses without looking at it. It's interesting that you mention tv shows because my fear recently has been that I am writing some sort of messed up Scooby Doo episode. I feel like my dark comedy might be going a bit over the top, making everything ridiculous. But it's really hard to tell if I'm looking for reasons to hate this book and quit it or if it's okay. I don't watch tv, and I hope I'm not writing anything that is more like a tv show than a novel. That would suck. But it's kind of what made me ask this question. I don't want to be writing a tv show. And all I need is pretty much a van and a dog to turn this Scooby Doo. Maybe I should breakup the four? Maybe it's the group that's making me think Scooby Doo? Are you also working on some sort of mystery/crime solving novel? I don't really think my novel would fall in that category exactly, but I've got something like that going on. I just feel like I'm at a point where I should make some sort of decision as to how big a role these characters should have in the crime solving and the book. Thanks for your thoughts. Just out of curiosity, how long would you say the detective fiction stories you've read are in general? And are the crimes always solved? I really haven't decided on any sort of ending. I'm sort of taking this one word at a time in hopes of actually finishing it.
My characters are not police or detectives. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Are your six actually detectives? That must be some pretty big crime if they are. If they are not detectives, how did you come up with six? Do you find it manageable? Also wondering what sort of POV you are using? I'm not sure if that makes any difference on the number of characters you have crime solving or doing whatever. I'm using first person. I found it gives me a focus and keeps things from going off in a million directions. My POV is not the main crimesolver. in fact, this character probably cares the least if the crime is actually solved.
Sorry, but again none of my characters are real detectives. Doesn't the layman solve crime anymore? This is probably another reason I feel like a writer for the Scooby Doo show.
You don't mention how serious the crime is, but what should determine how many characters you use, in my opinion, is what their stake in solving it will be. If you have a good reason for each of them wanting to solve this particular crime, and each of them has a strong enough personality (not necessarily dominant, just interesting to the reader) to carry their part of the story, then I think four will be fine. Scooby Doo is a crime-solving team—who take on whatever crimes fall into their laps. Your characters sound like four people who need a particular crime solved for personal (differing?) reasons. They aren't a team looking for a crime to solve. They form a team to solve this particular crime. Just don't give them a Great Dane. Mind you ...this could turn into quite a satire. I wait, with interest, to see how this develops.
I wasn't entirely clear either. I sort of assumed that they weren't detectives. I tried to make that clear with my final paragraph, but evidently that didn't work. What I was saying was that a larger group size would help with discretion as different people may be able to ask different questions in different places without raising eyebrows. I prefer stories where the characters aren't detectives and have to hide their investigations, so no, none of mine are detectives. They're actually royalty/nobility of a fictional country, and they're teenagers, which is why they need so much help. I'm writing in first person, in a sort of casebook, but I don't know if that would affect the number of detectives.
It depends/ One character - a "lone wolf" perfectly fits into a dynamic hard-boiled detective. A pair of characters is great for the classic approach (Holmes/Watson) when you show how ingenious is your investigator on a contrast with his/her "simple" companion. The trick here is to make sure your reader feels somewhere in-between those two. A group of three - can still work as three main characters who have an equal amount of your attention. Groups of four-five characters have to have at least one or two leaders among them and the others would be kinda secondary. More than five chars are hard to follow for a reader, especially a younger one. Teenage detectives... There's a great example of how that can be done - Enid Blyton's The Famous Five. Note: if you write in the first person it might be confusing for a reader if you switch between the focus characters. FP POV is nice when you don't switch, and in this case, you're likely to have a group with one strong leader (the main character) or a pair.
1 to commit the crime. 2 at the minimum to solve it. (No you can't have the the one who committed the crime help, cause that is cheating.) Just seems more likely that 2 peoples deductive reasoning is a bit stronger than the individuals. As well as the fact that one person could make more mistakes by assumption, if there is no one else to challenge the broader speculations that they have. Doubly so if the character(s) doing the investigation have little/none exp. in actual detective work. Have fun sleuthing.
If it is not a detective novel then I would look at La femme de kita. I loved the way the characters interacted, but you weren't always sure who the bad guy was. The one I'm working on now "Sting of the WASP" has several college students, a computer whiz, a red neck (muscle) and a few outlier FBI agents that are pissed off because Homeland was established. Making it look as if the FBI couldn't do their job. So, I guess I'm saying as many as it takes.
I believe we are using detective as a shorthand. A detective can be an amateur, it just means a person who is trying to solve a crime or discover something. So when I say 'your detective' I just mean the person trying to solve the crime.
as many or as few as you want ... in general a police team will be loads (depending on the crime) , however a big number will be harder for the reader to keep track of
I agree the reader may get lost. As the misses says, "Why do you have so many characters?" Honestly that's not what bothers me. It is the POV changes, as there are several back stories. I may have to kill one of the characters early.
If I'm being totally and absolutely honest, even in most larger mystery-solving crews in the end it ends up being only one character doing any of the legwork and actual solving. But, ignoring that, anywhere from 2 to 4 seems to be the standard, 5 if you include the talking dog.
"IT" had seven, as far as I remember and that didn't feel like too many. It's a matter of how you can handle it. More than three is difficult to work with, from a writer's point of view since you'll have to make them do things all the time and not leave them mooching alone in the corner (assuming they will be working as a group). If they are not a group a-la-scoobydoo, then the more the merrier. People having their own mission and their own little part of the problem to solve is actually fun to do rather than a chore. The proper question is, are there enough things to do for so many characters?
I would say my characters have more than enough to do now that I've put them in charge of solving a mystery/crime. The truth is I haven't decided if these guys are going to be successful when it comes to getting to the bottom of the the case they are on or then what would even happen. This isn't a genre novel, so I'm not sure I really need to have my characters solve the crime. The crime is sort of an aggressive subplot if that makes sense. And the crime solving gives the story a quicker sense of progression as what's really at stake is more of an obvious but slow build. It is kind of fun to talk about these things. It gives me an extra sort of boost to write on and see what's working and what will work. At the same time, I would like to address problems before they infect too much of the story. Thanks to all you who shared your thoughts about this.
You should have one master-mind, one side-kick, and any extras should be back-up characters with specific abilities.
Thanks, but that's not going to work for me. I've also never heard of that rule, but I'm not a fan of the sidekick thing. I think that's been done enough times.
I think that more than two primaries and one secondary is likely to be where it gets unwieldy and harder to manage. I say this based on reading a whole bunch of murder mysteries. Different genres may be, well, different. (Edited to add: Tuppence and Tommy and the office boy. Holmes and Watson and Lestrade. Holmes and Russell and often one other person--when it was Holmes and Russell and Ali AND Mahmoud it got a little crowded and frequently one or other of the Hazrs got sidelined. Monk and Sharona and either Stottelmeier or occasionally Sharona's kid. Miss Marple and a police detective and the individual with a stake in the case. Kate Shugak and one or the other of the two cops and sometimes one other person in the cast of that world. The Fugitive and Tommy Lee Jones. Miss Oliver and Poirot. Magnum and that British guy and often one of his buddies. Quincy and Sam and sometimes that cop and sometimes their boss. James Rockford and that cop and one other person in the cast of that world. Etc.)
I probably wasn't clear enough there. That's not a rule at all, just my thoughts. You said you wanted four characters. What I mean is that if you have too many people all trying to solve the crime, it's likely to confuse the reader and make the story difficult to write. Every time they encounter a clue are they going to have a big group discussion and vote about it? Someone needs to be in charge. A side-kick doesn't need to be like Dr. Watson - a clueless observer - they could be just as smart as the MC, but the MC should be in charge. There is nothing to stop the other members going on some side missions away from the main group, creating subteams with different dynamics. Perhaps one or two of them will be competing for the top position in the group, whatever that is.
