From Mary Anna...Do law enforcement and archaeology mix?

This week's topic is "Cops," which is a little problematic for me.  I write about an archaeologist, and I write mysteries.  I like for readers to feel like they're still in reality, even when they're really in my imaginary world.  Thus, I put a lot of thought into whether my plots are plausible, or even possible.  Any one writing a series about an amateur sleuth is going to face a particularly knotty problem:  Most people do not stumble over dead bodies every year or so.

By choosing an archaeologist for my series character, I avoided some of that problem.  Faye is out there digging for buried stuff all the dang time.  It's not completely impossible, or even implausible, that she might encounter a corpse or a treasure big enough to inspire murder.  Still, just because someone finds a buried skeleton does not mean that the police are going to involve her in the investigation or spill their guts about what they've learned.  Faye's dealings with law enforcement are necessarily going to be at arm's length.

Or are they?

After a few books in which there were good reasons for Faye to be involved in the investigation, I found that she had built up something of a resume'.  She had built a track record of working with police who were dealing with a specialized kind of crime.  On occasion, this resume has even gotten her hired to help as a consultant.  I can't say I planned it, but as I begin the eighth book in the series, I'm working with a character that a cop might want to have hanging around his or her investigation.  This is incredibly freeing as I think of plots for books I might want to write in the future.

For those of you who enjoy amateur sleuth mysteries, what do you think?  Do you enjoy the book more when there's a good reason for the protagonist to be involved in yet another murder?  Or do you suspend your disbelief to the point where you don't really care if there's a good reason, as long as there's a good story?

Mary Anna

Comments

[Staci]

As long as the story is good, I'm willing to ignore the fact that the amateur sleuth really has no business solving the crime. I recently read a mystery where the author spent half the book making excuses as to why the protagonist was trying to solve the murder, as if she was worried the reader would obsess over it. I found the excuses really distracting and wished she'd just never said anything.

[Mary Anna]

Agreed. Sometimes a writer just needs to have the courage of her convictions. :)

[Ann]

I'm a "suspend disbelief" reader myself. I agree with Staci (and with you, Mary Anna). I prefer a write just forge ahead with the story, and not obsess about the "reality" of dead bodies everywhere and amateur sleuthing issues. :-)

[Liz]

Seem to recall Dame Agatha was married to an archaeologist.

[Margaret Lucke]

Sounds like you've found a great solution, Mary Anna -- a detective character who has logical reasons to "dig" into a crime and a way to let her evolve from an amateur sleuth to a semiprofessional one.

[Mary Anna]

Yes, Agatha Christie was married to an archaeologist and traveled with him to the Middle East for digs. At least three of her books have archaeological themes. I know, because I read them back-to-back. :)

[Michael A. Black]

Actually, there are similarities between a detective and an archeologist. Both are trying to dig up the past to find out what happened. And I love those pesky, amateur sleuths trying to solve the crimes. It's an expectation the reader has when he or she picks up a cozy-type mystery.