The book is going well, though I’ve recently been met with the question that I presume all writers get: Is it a WhoDunnit or HowDunnit?
Obviously this is a method used by many crime writers that it is almost at the point of becoming cliché. Although great for suspense, red herrings can be hard to pull off if a book is based on a WhoDunnit.
Of course, a HowDunnit demands that the “Who” is known. This can eliminate the suspense of not knowing who is responsible. However, the exploration of how it is done can create a whole plot by itself. But it makes red herrings impossible.
So at the moment, I’m struggling to decide. Could there be a possible combination of both? There is often that middle-ground where it starts with a WhoDunnit, and then, when the person responsible is revealed, it becomes a HowDunnit, but is that not cliché?
But then it also got me thinking…Not only are the Who and How important, but the writer must also appreciate the Why, Where and When (What doesn’t really apply).
The reason why person responsible does their evil doings is probably another important thing to consider. Again, this could be a whole new part to the plot…
I keep on seeing location being promoted as a key part of any writing, and I’m starting to believe the fact that it is severely underrated. Location can be of major importance and can prompt new ideas…
OK, so maybe not an important one, but time may have an importance when it comes to other events. At night it is probably quieter and less busy – which may be a possible point to pick up on.