For me, I always try to avoid coincidences in my own work. (Perhaps partly number six?) It's too convenient and I've seen too many reviews where readers dislike coincidences. The detective just happens to see/hear something or encounter someone, etc. Perhaps one coincidence near the beginning is okay--the amateur detective happens to find the body or something along those lines--but too many just feels lazy on my part as the writer.
Yes, a coincidence does sound like an "accident" that helps the detective, and I can see why readers would dislike coincidences because it feels like they are being cheated somehow. As you say, use of too many coincidences seems to signal that the writer is too lazy and must resort of a cheap coincidence in order to get past a tricky point. Agree!
The rule to not allow the criminal to be anyone whose thoughts the reader has followed may be too limiting. I kind of like the unreliable narrator when it's done well and think maybe a criminal whose thoughts are somehow so muddied or self delusional as to not allow the reality of their crime to seep in to their thoughts might be a nice surprise to the reader. 😊
I definitely agree that we have moved far away from that constraint (which is a century old!). And, yes, great point about an unreliable narrator who might not even fully comprehend the magnitude of their (criminal) actions. In film, The Machinist starring Christian Bale is a good example for those who know the film. Thanks for your comment!
For me, I always try to avoid coincidences in my own work. (Perhaps partly number six?) It's too convenient and I've seen too many reviews where readers dislike coincidences. The detective just happens to see/hear something or encounter someone, etc. Perhaps one coincidence near the beginning is okay--the amateur detective happens to find the body or something along those lines--but too many just feels lazy on my part as the writer.
Yes, a coincidence does sound like an "accident" that helps the detective, and I can see why readers would dislike coincidences because it feels like they are being cheated somehow. As you say, use of too many coincidences seems to signal that the writer is too lazy and must resort of a cheap coincidence in order to get past a tricky point. Agree!
And thanks for stopping by to leave this comment!
The rule to not allow the criminal to be anyone whose thoughts the reader has followed may be too limiting. I kind of like the unreliable narrator when it's done well and think maybe a criminal whose thoughts are somehow so muddied or self delusional as to not allow the reality of their crime to seep in to their thoughts might be a nice surprise to the reader. 😊
I definitely agree that we have moved far away from that constraint (which is a century old!). And, yes, great point about an unreliable narrator who might not even fully comprehend the magnitude of their (criminal) actions. In film, The Machinist starring Christian Bale is a good example for those who know the film. Thanks for your comment!