Where Authors & Readers find each other

Matthew D. Brown (Author)


Solving my murder mystery – part one

December 29, 2023 in games-and-stuff by Matthew Brown

In the update, I hinted that the first step was to resolve the guests and plus-ones. In this post, I am going to walk you through some of the clues and try to figure out who the guests and plus-ones were.

This is the grid that I suggested you might want to use to track clues. I made it in a spreadsheet. I will post screenshots of my spreadsheet as we go through the clues to make deductions, inductions, and educated guesses. We will try to work around the terrible job that your officers have done getting information to you. By the end, we will have a working theory for the pairings of the guests.

We are going to focus on filling out the first box.

As per the introduction post, we know that the following people were there:  Albert Smythe, Wesley Harper, Jason Samuels, Amara Samuels, Owen Johnson, Rohan Wooster, Sue Smith, John Greene, Bret Jones, Jack Dent, Daniel Jenkins (obviously), and Evelyn McMillan. We know that John Greene came alone and was a victim. We can exclude John Greene and Daniel Jenkins as he was the host and the other victim.

That gives us 5 pairs of people which we can later seek to match up with five cars, five feuds, and five gifts. A safe early assumption would be to pair Jason Samuels and Amara Samuels. Anyone who wants to make a fuss about this assumption would have to wait for a much later clue that confirms it. I’ll place Jason as the driver because who drove and who did not shouldn’t make any difference.

The first clue gives us quite a bit more to work with. Jack, the BMW, and some carnations all go together. That means we can list Jack as a driver and pair him with the BMW. Additionally, with a little real-world knowledge, we can see that carnations are cheap flowers. Thus, we can tentatively place the gift of cheap flowers with Jack and the BMW while eliminating such pairings from the Samuels couple.

If you are feeling especially inductive, you might pencil Jack in for the debt inductive, you might pencil Jack in for the debt feud. After all, he gave a cheap gift and has a battered old car. That’s far from hard evidence so I’m going to leave that one unmarked for now.

Our knowledge grid may look something like this now:

As the murder method was poison, we should prioritise the givers of the wine and the port. For now, we can remove Jack from our prime suspects list.

The next clue gives us a lot to work with. We get Wesley Harper as a driver and Rohan Wooster as his plus-one. We also learn that Wesley was involved in a feud about gossiping.

This removes Rohan from being Jack’s guest and Jack is decoupled from the gossip feud. Our connection graph now might look something like this:

We only have two more drivers to identify.

Albert Smythe, Wesley Harper, Jason Samuels, Amara Samuels, Owen Johnson, Rohan Wooster, Sue Smith, John Greene, Bret Jones, Jack Dent, Daniel Jenkins, and Evelyn McMillan.

We can also deduce a few negatives from this data.

Clues three and four do not help us pair drivers and guests. We will come back to them later.

Our earlier intuition about Jack is supported by clue five where we learn that Jack, Albert, and Jason all had financial connections to the victim.

Clue six gives us a lot more to build on.

Evelyn claimed that she did not know who Sue Smith was but that Smith probably came with Jack or Owen.

This gives us one more driver and a guest. It also decouples Evelyn from both of them as she did not remember exactly who they travelled with.

Clue seven puts Evelyn in the love triangle feud. Once we have her in the guest and plus-one square we can add that to our knowledge graph.

Clue eight is not a direct help yet. Knowing the port was fake may be useful once we know who gave the gifts. Doubly so as clue nine implies that the poison was ingested. Clue ten pretty much nails that one down. This clue confirms what we already know.

The clue from IT is mostly plot.

This clue is not of use to us yet. This clue confirms that a feud was the motive.

This clue decouples Jones from the Tesla.

We then learn that Rohan Wooster and Jack Dent had a famous falling out and the two no longer speak to each other. If Rohan came as a plus-one, he was clearly not Jack’s plus-one. We already worked that out.

This clue confirms our assumption to put the couple with the same last name together. We can strongly pencil them in for the betrayal feud.

Our knowledge graph plus strong hunches now looks like this:

This clue would allow us to inductively associate Sue with a gift and then with a driver.

Meanwhile, this clue confirms our hunch about Jack, connecting him to the debt feud. This clue confirms it.

This clue tells us stuff we already know but adds that Jack does not even own his car.

Finally, we learn something new. “The Bentley is registered to Mr Smithe. No relevant evidence was found in the car.” However, we soon realise that our officers can’t spell. We will have to make an assumption that Mr Smithe is actually Mr Smythe.

That assumption allows us to fill out the rest of the names like this:

We can now go back over our clues and gather more information from them. For example, we learned that Evelyn did not travel with Jack or Owen which places her with Albert Smythe by process of elimination.

This clue hides a whole range of questions. “Bret Jones denies any feud between the victims and Mr Johnson.” This gives us a connection between Jones and Johnson and casts doubt on Jones’s claim as we have five guests and five feuds. An earlier clue said, “Bret Jones has priors for attempting to bribe a police officer. You would like to interview him but none of the officers thought to take contact information.”

Whatever else is going on we can pencil Jones in as the plus one for Johnson. This finishes our grid (with some tentative guesses). It is here that we recall the clue that said Sue worked in a supermarket. Somewhere that often sells carnations and other cheap flowers. You could be forgiven for concluding that our educated guesses are correct.

While we may need to remain open to correction, we now have a fairly decent foundation upon which to pair gifts, cars, and feuds. You don’t even need them all. We only need to learn who gave the wine and the port and then we will have our prime suspects.

At the end of this walk-through, we have a reasonable picture of who the guests and their plus-ones were. We can now make some logical deductions and fill out more of the knowledge graph. Then we need only go back through the clues and start to work out who our prime suspects are.

Did you conclude the same pairings? Have you found any flaws with the conclusions that might break open your case? Do you already have a prime suspect?

I will post another update soonish where we will try to work out who drove each of the cars. This will allow us to test our assumptions and suspicions.

Why the Earth moving is not a Time Traveller’s problem (probably)

December 6, 2023 in reflections-and-thoughts by Matthew Brown

For the 7th of December #TimeTravelAuthors question set by Julie Bihn, will be (unless any of you go back and change it) the question of the Earth moving. I shall make the case that this is not a problem at all. Or, rather, I will make several independent cases.

“But the Earth moves, so if you travelled in time, you’d end up in space.” Thoughts?

Julie Bihn‘s question for day 7 in December in the original timeline

Here are NNNN reasons why I think this might not be a problem for your Sci-Fi story.

Reason 1: Screw it. Write it the fun way anyway.

There is a lot to be said for fun stories without overthinking everything. So what if the hard sci-fi fans moan? We’re not predicting the future, we’re telling stories to entertain and amuse our readers.

Reason one is – this is not a problem if you decide it’s not a problem.

Reason 2: Gravity

In General Relativity, space-time is bent by gravity. Time passes every so slightly differently for satellites than on Earth. The difference is tiny but it does exist.

If spacetime is shaped by gravity, why should a non-standard journey through it not also be shaped by gravity? The reason you don’t end up in space is because you travel in time relative to the Earth’s centre of mass.

Reason 3: Magnets

The Earth has a strong magnetic field which contains the passage between times within itself. The reason you don’t end up in space is because of the powerful influence of a planet-sized magnet. This has the added benefit of being plausible enough to get the story onto the interesting bits.

This is pretty close to what I used in my as-yet-unnamed novel. (It’s written but I’ve got a fair bit of tightening up to do).

In this particular story, the method of time travel is through spheres which link two points in time and space. They are spheres because a hole in a three-dimensional space would be three-dimensional too. These spheres (called portals, tunnels, or wormholes depending on who you ask) are strongly influenced by magnets or even just sizable lengths of steel or iron.

Reason 4: Yeah, that’s weird we thought it would be a problem too

The reason time travellers don’t end up in space is unknown. It turns out it just isn’t a problem. Some very smart people worried about that no end but it just turned out to be perfectly fine.

There is nothing wrong with lampshading the expectation and getting on with the fun stuff of the actual story.

For those who might not know, lampshading is a trope where you recognise that the mic is in the shot and you hang a lampshade on it so we can all pretend that it is a lamp. In other words, you acknowledge the issue and then dismiss it as something the author has clearly understood and fixed. This allows us to suspend our disbelief and just enjoy the story.

Here is a TV Tropes link if you have a spare couple of hours.

Reason 5: We thought of that already.

The movement of the Earth has already been factored into the calculations. The reason that ending up in space is not a problem is that some very smart people already did the maths.

This works because the smart people are very smart and have no intention of explaining it right now because there’s not enough time.

Reason 6: The unobtainium compensator takes care of that

There is some complex or eldritch device that protects against that sort of nonsense. A bit like fuel injection systems, we don’t really know how they function but we are glad they work.

This has the advantage of possible trouble for the heroes went he device is broken, stolen, or is otherwise offline. Thus they are forced to solve the problem without time travel this time.

Reason 7: What are you talking about – there’s no such thing as absolute motion

This reason argues that the frame of reference is all wrong for that ending up in space nonsense and our time travel just does not work like that.

This is similar to reason one where we just say “shut up” and get back to the adventure. It was such an important point that I felt it deserved mentioning twice.

Conclusion

Your story does not have to please everyone. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t have to please anyone. We’re dealing with time travel fiction here. Hard Sci-Fi gatekeepers need not apply. Besides, those guys are probably explaining Primer to each other with interesting diagrams – we’re safe to just have a fun story.

When you write the story, you get to decide what is and is not a problem your characters must overcome. If space and planetary motion are not important to your story then don’t worry about them. It is your story, write it how you want to.

Anyway, my little rant aside, what explanations does your time travel story have? How do you solve the ending up in space “problem”? Drop a comment (or a mention) and let me know your thoughts.

The Case for Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi: A Manifesto

November 25, 2023 in reflections-and-thoughts by Matthew Brown

There is a sense you can get in some quarters that Sci-Fi that isn’t serious (Hard Sci-Fi) is (in some gatekeeper way) invalid. I’m calling BS on that right here. Soft Sci-Fi is still Sci-Fi. Fans of the hardest Sci-Fis might not like it but the world does not turn on what you like or dislike.

Serious Sci-Fi is all well and good. Serious Sci-Fi will always be important. But not all Sci-Fi needs to be serious. When did having fun start being the enemy? What is the world without a little playfulness? Boring. That’s what it is.

In this post, I am going to make the case that:

  • Silly Sci-Fi is valid Sci-Fi.
  • Sci-Fi as an escape is perfectly fine.
  • We shouldn’t let the gatekeepers determine what we write.
  • No, really. Screw gatekeepers. Put them in your story and blow them out of the nearest airlock.
  • It is time to lock cynicism in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet inside a disused lavatory with a sign don’t the door saying, “Beware of the Leopard”.

Silly Sci-Fi is valid too

There is something to be said for Sci-Fi that is just fun. Silly even. Silly and fun Sci-Fi is the gateway genre that will lead people to the harder and more sciency Sci-Fi. Or not. There’s no rule that says that just because you like your Sci-Fi as hard as concentrated unobtainium the rest of us can’t enjoy something a bit more fanciful.

The reason that Sci-Fi is what it is today is because of soft pulp Sci-Fi. My first taste of Sci-fi was shoddily filmed with wobbly cardboard sets. The stories were daft sometimes, sure. But you know what, they captured my imagination. They made me want to write my own adventures.

It is a lie that good writing is serious writing. Good writing is whatever silly adventure that you read because it makes you happy. Life is too short not to be happy at least some of the time.

Bring back fun stories.

Sci-Fi should sometimes be an escape

Daft old Doctor Who episodes let me believe that there can be more to this world than just the hum-drum of everyday life. There were times when the imagination that those old TV programs awoke was what got me through some dark times.

Sometimes, that TV program, that book, that adventure is what keeps us hanging on. I believe that to deny someone that escape is wrong.

There are days when a darker and gritter version of now is too much. That’s when soft, silly, fun, and daft Sci-Fi comes to our rescue.

As Sci-Fi fans, we must not put limits on what is or is not allowed. As authors, we each have the potential in us for Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi adventures that could be what enables someone to enjoy a long commute. Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi that gives someone a moment away from the headaches of life.

Don’t we all deserve that moment of escape?

Writers of the world, embrace your Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi plots

Maybe our Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi won’t foretell the next great technology. But so what? Do we only write to be right or do we write to tell interesting stories? Stories only we can tell. It is time to tell those stories.

There is already enough super serious stuff in the world right now. Do you know what there is a shortage of though? There is a shortage of fun and playful Sci-Fi. There are not enough fresh voices bringing us fun adventures because of the lie that good writing is serious writing.

If you are reading this, I want you to make a promise. Not to me but to yourself. Promise to write something just because it seems fun. Not to win any literary awards. Not to impress your agent. Just have fun with a story.

Bring back fun stories.

Beware of the Leopard

It has become all too fashionable to be cynical. All our heroes have to be dark and edgy. The world must be grim. And no one had better have any fun at all. Otherwise, the literature police will come and arrest you or something.

We don’t need another cynical author with darker and edgier characters. What we need is something fun. Something to make us smile. Something to bring a little joy to our readers.

We need fewer byronic heroes and more people finding that the council display department is in a silly place.

The world needs more brave captains. More pop-culture aware wierdoes going on adventures. I want to read about two mates flying through space in a garden shed with a forcefield around it. I want time travel. I want dinosaurs and I want a few exploding planets, please. Where are the stories where the important MacGuffin was back at home all along?

I want silly. I want daft. I want fun. I want Saturday morning cartoon adventures. I want a fresh cup of tea. But most of all I want fun. The world would be too dark without fun. We need fun. Now more than ever.

What happened to those adventures where there never was any doubt that the characters would arrive home safe and sound in time for a cup of tea before the next adventure starts? When did writing fun Sci-Fi become wrong?

Bring back fun stories.

Some sort of conclusion thing

The point that I have so verbosely been making is this: We need more Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi.

We need more for Silly-n-Fun everything but especially Sci-Fi.

This is my challenge to you. Read more Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi. Just enjoy daft adventures unironically and without the slightest guilt. Let us stop being ashamed of our weirdness. Let us be proud of our love of fun.

For my fellow writers, I have another challenge. Write something not to be the next big thing but because a few other weirdos like you and me will enjoy reading it. Bring back fun stories as only you can.

And when you find something fun or you make something fun. Please share it with me. I too like fun. I am proud to loudly declare that I love Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi.

Let’s start a movement. A movement for fun fiction – #SillyNFunSciFi #BringBackFunStories

Use as needed. Summary: I grant you permission to replicate this post unchanged as long as it features a prominent link back to this page. Ideally with a rel-canonical if you know how.
Legal version The Case for Silly-n-Fun Sci-Fi: A Manifesto
by Matthew D. Brown is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Do you need more murder mystery clues?

October 12, 2023 in fun-distractions by Matthew Brown

The murder mystery logic game had its last update at the end of last week. In theory, this is enough clues to solve the case and identify the killer.

Theory is all well and good but do you need more clues? Speak up now because I am planning the reveal – including how the clues fit together. If you want to solve it yourself, you may wish to avoid the spoiler-filled answer post when it drops.

Is blog commenting dead?

October 5, 2023 in other-blogging by Matthew Brown

I wrote a blog post about blogging. Not here but on my other site.

The last time I questioned if blogging was dead I accidentally won a laptop. That was a long time ago. I am confident there is no laptop prize draw hidden in today’s topic but as Hugh (Hugh’s Views and News), Brenda (Curiosities, Castles and Coffee Shops) and Erika Kind (Share Your Light) have been discussing blog commenting especially within the WordPress.com ecosystem, I thought I’d throw my two pennies worth in.

I’m going to start with my own blogs and comments journey and then talk about Hugh, Brenda, and Erika’s posts to compare with my own experiences.

Read the full post on my other site:
The Fantastic Site of Lord Matt

Blog Activity