Re: RARA-AVIS: Implausible?

From: Patrick King (
Date: 16 Oct 2010

  • Next message: Patrick King: "Re: RARA-AVIS: Still on early Ellroy"

    It's hard to argue on this one, Jack.

    Patrick King

    --- On Fri, 10/15/10, Jack Bludis <> wrote:

    From: Jack Bludis <> Subject: RARA-AVIS: Implausible? To: Date: Friday, October 15, 2010, 10:12 AM



          When we are honest with ourselves, more than half of all mystery novels are implausible, and that's generous, and about 90% of TV mysteries are contrived.

    True crime is always enhanced, sometimes to make it seem more plausible, sometimes to streamline, and sometimes to tell a story that is not much of a story from a dramatic point of view.

    The implausibility in fiction or non-fiction comes in various aspects: plot, character, motivation, execution, and solution.

    A giant of a man forces Marlowe to go with him to a club? Why?

    Marlowe takes someone who is little more than an acquaintance to Tijuana? Why? (The movie was far more convincing in the why area.)

    People jumping up to courtroom confessions? Nah.

    My deceased father-in-law used to say, if someone didn't do something lame-brained stupid in the beginning, there would be no story.

    Why pick on Chandler or Christie or any of them. We suspend our disbelieve when we start to read. We try to make it plausible when we try to write.

    Maybe all fiction, mystery or not, is implausible, but we love it all the same.

    Jack Bludis

    "Shadow of the Dahlia," a Shamus finalist novel at

    and new trade Paperback and downloads.






    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 Oct 2010 EDT