
A couple of months ago, I was in a group of writers discussing our stories, when I got one of the nicest compliments I’ve ever received. Fellow mystery writer, Mindy Quigley, said, “What I like about your heroines is that they aren’t stupid.”
She went on to clarify. “It’s not that they don’t ever make bad decisions, but they weigh those choices and consider the consequences before acting on them.”
It was all I could do not to beam like a fool when she said that. You see, I hate the willfully stupid amateur sleuth. Now, by definition, we have to cut the amateur sleuth a lot of slack because she has no business doing what she’s doing in the first place. (I say “she” because the vast majority of the time the amateur sleuth is female) We know she isn’t supposed to be sneaking around buildings after hours, or poking through suspect’s desks and filing cabinets or questioning everyone in town. She doesn’t have the authority to be where she is, doing what she’s doing, and any evidence she gathers is tainted–which is probably why so often she must rely on forcing the killer to confess. We go along with this because we love the vicarious thrill of the investigation. We like solving puzzles, we like seeing justice done.
But what I can’t stand is when the female amateur sleuth is willfully stupid.
For starters, I need to have more motivation for her involvement than just being a Nosey Parker. Sure, in long-running series, it can be challenging to come up with strong reasons for our heroine sleuth to get herself involved… we can’t threaten every member in an extended family (I’m looking at you, Jessica Fletcher) without someone eventually calling us out on that. But once an amateur sleuth gets a few murders under her belt, I can see where members of her community might ask her to get involved because they trust her more than the police. That works for me.
But when the police actively tell the amateur sleuth to butt out, maybe it’s not a good idea for her to respond back by telling the law enforcement official that he stinks at murder investigations. Or that she thinks he may be in on whatever corruption is happening in the small town of Picturesque (population: varies depending on author’s needs). Even better, maybe she shouldn’t say those things when she is alone with said LEO and no one knows where she is.
On the same thought, maybe our amateur sleuth shouldn’t decide to confront a murder suspect by herself at some lonely destination that Doordash couldn’t find without GPS and a bloodhound. This just happened recently in a story I had really been loving up to that point, and I nearly chucked the book across the room when I came to this scene.
If an amateur sleuth makes bad decisions–and sometimes this is necessary to move the story along–at the very least, they need to show us they realize they aren’t making a smart choice. Spare me the heroine supremely confident in her own ability to bring a killer to justice who goes around telling the police they are such bumbling idiots they couldn’t find a box of doughnuts placed in the middle of their desk. Or the heroine who gets involved in solving the crime without any personal stake in the matter whatsoever. Or the heroine who is repeatedly told by law enforcement to stay out of the case but persists anyway because they know best.
I feel strongly about this, and yet also feel I’ve painted myself into a corner with the Ginny Reese Mysteries. If you’re a fan of the series, you’re well aware of the slow burn romance between Ginny and Joe Donegan, the local sheriff. Joe’s tolerance for Ginny’s interference has been tempered by the fact they are still attracted to each other, but as their relationship deepens, so does this gap between Ginny’s actions and Joe’s acceptance of them–both on a personal and professional level. At some point, Joe either has to turn a blind eye to her activities or actively collaborate with them. If not, her amateur sleuthing may eventually destroy their relationship. Believe me, I’ve thought about the different ways to solve this problem. But my point is, if Ginny persists in her amateur investigations, she does so knowing what she is risking: the case, her life, and her future relationship with Joe.
So yeah, a perfect heroine would be boring–and no cases would be solved. But the heroine who effectively says, “I’m so sure I’m right, I’m going to insult the only people who can lock up this criminal and instead go confront said killer alone with nothing but the power of my persuasive argument for back up… ” Yeah, I’m going to lose all respect for her.
You can give me all the pretty little cozy towns, the quirky characters, furry sidekicks, and love interests in the world, but if I don’t respect the main character, you’ve lost me as a reader.
The title of this blog post is a quote from Toni Morrison, “All good art is political. There is none that isn’t.” She goes on to point out that Shakespeare and Aeschylus wrote plays poking at kings, and that good art should be beautiful and political at the same time. That she wasn’t interested in art that wasn’t rooted in the world.













