It took longer than expected, but I finally finished a solid draft of Killer Pete. I’m going to take a month-long break. I’m going to read, exercise, meditate…anything but write. Whenever an idea comes to me, I’ll make a note of it. The next story will have a smaller cast and more action. Pete is very much a investigative story, one interview after another leads to a concentration of evidence. A benefit of a short story collection is that the stories offer different narrative structures. I follow an investigative story with an action story and follow that with a specific trope.
Because of Pete‘s structure, it lends itself to a challenge-to-the-reader interlude. Last time I got rid of it because the other stories didn’t work as well with it. This time, I might include the challenge in the final product. So, while I understand it means nothing without context. Here’s the challenge:
At this point in the narrative, the reader possesses every fact necessary to solve the mystery.
No further evidence will be introduced, and nothing has been withheld or distorted.
The locked door, the telephone call, the automatons, the key on the floor—each detail stands as it was first described.
The question, then, is simple: Can you match wits with Rowan Manory?
Consider carefully:
- Who killed Horace Cobb?
- Why?
- How did the killer escape the locked room?
- Why was the key taped to the floor?
- What was Killer Pete’s role in the murder?
- Why did Rowan ask Elias to identify the picture of Orlen Boone?
- How does the phonograph recording prove the identity of the killer?
My TBR is flowing out the windows. It’s time for some reviews. Watch this space!
James Scott Byrnside 