Joy Ann Ribar is the author of the Deep Lakes cozy mystery series, the latest of which is Deep Wedded Blues. You can find out more about her on her website, www.joyribar.com, or by clicking here, read her last post here, and buy her books here.
We’re surrounded. Security and traffic cameras monitor our moves. Cell phones invade our privacy through GPS tracking and memorizing where we shop, what we search, and with whom we interact. Tapping into modern tech tools like DNA testing, advanced facial recognition, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence – Well, I could write a mystery in two chapters, one to describe the crime, and one to solve it.
But who wants to read that mystery?
I recently participated on a panel at Murder As You Like It, a mystery conference hosted by Mechanicsburg Mystery Bookshop in Pennsylvania. Our panel included three historical mystery authors and two modern cozy authors, discussing past and present techniques used by amateur detectives.
What may be surprising is that the differences in techniques are small, at least in fiction. Historical authors on the panel, Joyce Tremel (who also writes as Joyce St. Anthony), Kate Belli, and Christine Trent talked more about lack of modern transportation and the gender of their sleuths (females) as the biggest roadblocks to investigations in the past. Their timelines in crime solving were slowed by the lack of modern conveniences and by the pushback against women interested in the art of detection. If you haven’t seen Miss Scarlett and The Duke, I highly recommend the series. Miss Scarlett is a prime example of professional setbacks for women during the Victorian era.
In historical mysteries, women’s fashion and social status were hindrances to crime solving, too; or were they?
The above authors discussed how social status is used as a boon in sleuthing. For instance, a high class woman was both educated and well connected, and able to circulate somewhat freely in social circles. On the other hand, a servant could keep their ears open, hearing gossip and secrets, and use keen observation skills, since they were supposedly invisible. Servants knew their employers’ schedules, and used that to their advantage to sneak around the estate. Of course, servants had their own network in exchanging information among the gentry.
Where Victorian fashion is concerned, many noble women used decorative fans for coded communication, used hair pins to pick locks, or faked a fainting spell caused by the tortuous corset. Sadly, it is difficult to run away from an attacker when one is wearing pounds of clothing, cage crinolines, and laced up boots with tiny heels. Fashion also made it difficult for the female protagonist to escape on horseback.
Technology, however, has always been a tool used in investigations. Even the Victorians were able to collect fingerprints, known as finger marks, although a modern database didn’t exist for identification. By the end of the 1800s, a facial recognition system was utilized in urban area police stations. The face was deconstructed into sketched strips of various hair styles, foreheads, eyes, nose and cheeks, mouths, chins and necks. By putting together different combinations of the strips, a suspect could be identified. The method reminds me of Guess Who?, a childhood game I loved to play with my brother.
I enjoy the TV series, Murdoch Mysteries, which features examples of the most modern technology of the time period (late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries), some of it just in prototype stages. I laughed when I saw the main character wielding a new-fangled device called a metal detection machine, which looked like a stack of wooden rings attached to the handle of a primitive plow. The detection part was made possible by two power cords attached from the machine to its power source – a bicycle. The machine was used to locate a bullet from a murder weapon.
Since I write contemporary mysteries, someone might say my work is easy. I don’t have to do historical research and I can rely on modern conveniences and technology. That’s true, but where’s the fun in that?
An amateur sleuth like Frankie Champagne in the Deep Lakes Cozy Mysteries, doesn’t have access to facial recognition software, ballistic reports, or DNA evidence. Instead, like her predecessors of old, she relies on the art of questioning and her intuition. Being a detective, whether professional or amateur, requires talent. Observation skills, followed by asking the right questions in the right way, tops a Google search or Social Media snoop any day.
Of course Frankie has poked around a suspect’s social media accounts. In Deep Bitter Roots, she looks at photos a suspect posted, which leads her to other persons of interest. Interestingly, it’s Frankie’s old-school mother who notices the outdated fashion and chipped nail polish worn by the suspect, an important revelation in furthering the plot. Human observation is often better than technology.
In Deep Wedded Blues, Frankie, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, relies on her people skills to investigate the origins of a mystery illness infecting people in her hometown. Her interactions with members of the Amish community, outcasts, and busybodies help her construct a surprising resolution, but not without pertinent knowledge her best friend has, or connections her family and baking crew bring to the table.
Personal webs are more meaningful than digital ones. Like the amateur sleuths in classic mysteries, Frankie is socially connected. It’s handy to date the local coroner and exchange butterhorn pastries for case updates with the semi-retired police officer. But rather than relying on others for information, Frankie always gets her hands dirty: searching for evidence, interviewing potential suspects, and going undercover.
Since mysteries are plot driven, physical snooping engages the reader when mere mouse clicking never will. A curious sleuth overhearing conversations of heated dialogue entices the reader more than reviewing a social media post. Face-to-face encounters showing gestures, facial expressions, actions, and reactions make for real discovery. When our brave main characters are in danger, readers keep turning pages. A sleuth who doesn’t do anything except sit behind a computer screen. Well, how boring is that? I’ll give the last words to Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple who said, “Really, I have no gifts – no gifts at all – except perhaps a certain knowledge of human nature.”
Fascinating post, Joy! We do rely a lot on technology to solve crimes. I recently saw an article in my local newspaper asking for information on a homicide. The homicide happened on a mountain trail where there were no cameras or other technology that is often used to solve crimes. They also stated there was very little physical evidence. A hard crime to solve for sure and a great reminder that sometimes technology still doesn’t help us.
Right on, and I don’t want to downplay the use of technology in solving real crimes. There are lots of mystery genres that feature technology effectively. In my world of writing cozies and amateur sleuths, technology can’t be center stage. In the real world, we’re so fortunate to have technology but as you pointed out, there’s still crimes happening that defy technology to solve. That’s where good investigating has to shine. Thanks for reading, Kathleen.
Thanks for your interesting post, Joy! I agree that full-on technology and cozies don’t often mix. Given my quartet of tech-savvy teenage sleuths, it isn’t easy taking their devices away from them, but I find ways to do so as often as possible. When they have to use their superpowers of questioning, critical thinking, observation, and planning next steps, the plot and characterizations are enriched.
Fun blog post. I often think of DNA testing as a game changer in solving mysteries, but a savvy FBI agent told me the key is knowing exactly what place to look for testable DNA. You can’t test everything, and the tests take a long time and cost a lot of money.
I’m sure the police would love to solve crimes as quickly as our fictional detectives do. It might just be a big deterrent for criminals.
Love this post, Joy! I also enjoy a historical mystery series featuring Fiona Figg by Kelly Oliver. Set against a WWI backdrop, Fiona is hampered by fashion, so she often goes undercover dressed as a gentleman. Gotta love it!
Yes! Fiona is on my list. I was part of a Bouchercon panel led by Kelly Oliver. She’s terrific.
I really enjoyed your comparisons of writing mysteries in different eras and the challenges of writing them. I remember when cell phones were new, they were the bane of many authors existence, but with time we’ve all learned how to integrate them effectively. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
Right. Cell phones have become indispensable, haven’t they? Thanks for reading, Colleen.
Joy, I’m a huge fan of your series—I’ve read every book. One thing that really stands out in the Deep Lakes Cozy Mystery Series is Frankie Champagne’s active role in the investigations. She’s not one to sit back and wait for information-she’s always in the thick of it, searching for evidence, interviewing potential suspects, and going undercover. This dynamic and engaging approach is what makes the series so addictive!
As important as technology is, human brain power is still needed to figure out connections, notice behavior that doesn’t fit, and understand motivations – sleuths aren’t going to be out of business anytime soon!
Thank goodness for that and for all of us authors who love our fictional sleuths. I continue to believe in the power of the human brain over all things technological.
I love your series and I love your mention of “personal webs.” My own two series use “personal webs” a lot and maybe it’s a featured technique of my sleuths. I often see and hear on news stories how detectives, cops, etc. want to talk to everybody they can with any opinion or shred of info about a crime. The detectives today still know “personal webs” are often the best way to find the evidence or suspect. No tech needed often enough to solve a crime.
Thanks, Christine. You hit the nail on the head with your comment. I do believe our books attract readers because of those personal webs.