A tale of mystery.

A detective story often starts with a lie.They also start with a crime - of course. But the lie I refer to might be an alibi the criminal uses; a personal motivation of the detective persona (they tell themselves it's justice, instead of their real personal drivers such as trauma or revenge); the assumptions around a motivation for the crime. Mystery stories are founded on lies, and our nature beckons us, the audience, to uncover the truth.Here is a personal opinion: what makes good detective stories is not the mystery itself. I am fond of whodunnits - detective stories that center on finding the culprit of a crime - but even fonder of howcatchems, the inverted trope where the who in the equation is revealed from the get-go. The journey lies on uncovering the why. That is not so say a howcatchem won't have impressive plot twists, as it is common in such stories. The plot twist is a big deal in mystery stories, as uncovering the plot way ahead of time defeats the purpose of the genre itself. yet, we all know that one friend with a special talent to ruin an otherwise decent movie, book or game. It is like they have a sixth sense for plot twists and are capable to dig them out early on. [full disclosure, I am one of these annoying friends]Telegraphing is not, in fact, a magical skill on the audience part but something writers can add to the story without even realizing it. The lines between telegraphing and foreshadowing are blurred, and mystery stories often live within this space. The writer wants to leave breadcrumbs to tie the solution together once the twist comes, but also can't be too obvious. Foreshadowing lies in subtlety, not on crooked road signs that end up sticking out like sore thumbs. Let's make an impromptu example. Say our protagonist is investigating two suspects on a small town murder. One is an estranged friend who knew the victim back from high school, and another is the obvious husband. They uncover that husband and said friend were having an affair, but there is eloquent proof that the husband was out of town on the night of. The friend also has an alibi, having attended a beginner pottery class that night. The detective can't place neither on the crime scene at the time of the murder, but following the affair as motivation, pays a visit to the friend to ask some questions. In their house, they spot a plethora of ceramic pots, which the suspect confirms were all made by them. The detective leaves, puzzled for not having found any new clues.It is an obvious example, but the inconsistency stands out pretty clear - a long-time ceramist, even a hobbyist, wouldn't need to attend a beginners' class. The estranged friend committed the crime and used the class as an alibi. Here the telegraphing affects the narrative in two ways: giving away the plot, and hurting the trust the audience builds with their protagonist, now seen as untrustworthy for missing an "obvious" clue. A foreshadowing version of this same example might have been to show but not tell about the ceramic pots in the suspect's house (if you want to get very Agatha Christie), reveal an unreliable narrator, or have the detective find marks on the crime scene early on and describe them "like grooves on clay". Once the audience revisits the story in their head, they notice the signs were there all the time, explaining a character's behavior, a motivation (the why) or even reframing the entire account of facts.A detective story often ends with the truth, be it the truth the audience seeks or what the protagonist needed to find. Either way, we all win.-Maíra