Whodunit?

Years ago, I took a class in genre writing with Marvin Kaye. He taught us the formulas for several genres of writing: Science Fiction, Suspense, and Mystery. At that time mysteries seemed more clear cut. There was one body (a character we barely knew and didn't particularly sympathize with), several suspects, and one master detective to put all the clues together.

Today, mysteries have become far more complex. There may be more than one detective at work, and their characters are far better drawn than the detectives of the past (other than Sherlock Holmes that is). Not only that, but there may be more than one criminal at work, and there are almost always multiple bodies.

It makes for more interesting reading than the more straightforward mysteries of the past. I just finished Dr. Death by Jonathan Kellerman. I've been a fan of his Alex Delaware series for quite some time now. This was a convoluted tale, all right. I figured out one of the murderers before he was revealed in the book, and another was obvious, but the third seemed to come completely from left field. I suppose the clues were there, but maybe I missed them.

So is it better for the reader to be able to guess "whodunit" partway through the book, or should we be in suspense until the bad guy/gal is finally revealed? Is it good to feel cleverer than the clever detective, or more satisfying to watch a brilliant mind at work?

I'm glad I figured out the identity of the worst of the killers, but it's also fascinating to be surprised and then groan when the "obvious" clues are recounted. I'm also glad that mysteries are more complex and psychologically engaging than they used to be. They're also more gruesome, but I'll have to take the bad with the good.