Murdoch Mysteries: A Specific Structure in Six Acts

Before we talk about the general structure of a Murdoch Mystery let's look at the specific structure on one murdoch mystery. I want to pay special attention to how finding a body is used as a twist—something that spins the story off in another direction—right at the end of an act.

Number of Murders

The overwhelming majority of episodes opens with either finding a body or a murder being committed. Further, most (but by no means all) episodes have more than one murder.

What follows is loosely based on an episode of Murdoch Mysteries—“This One Goes to Eleven” from season 3, episode 6[link].  I haven’t looked at the script but it seems to me that this episode is most easily split up into 6 acts. Let’s take a look at the main points.

As you can see, "This One Goes to Eleven" has a whopping 4 murders and 5 bodies! That's a bit on the high side for a Murdoch Mystery but I thought this episode nicely illustrated how to end an act with a bang. Or, rather, with a twist that will hopefully keep the viewer watching.

This One Goes to Eleven, Season 3 Episode 6

Act One (1%)

The Inciting Incident: This event makes the change in the world that gets the story going. Often the Inciting Incident is a murder but in this episode it was the theft of Mrs. Sally Pendrick’s painting: "Bathsheba at her Toilet," by Rembrandt. (This was the first episode featuring Pendrick.)

The painting is stolen and a body is found in the elevator. No one can figure out how the murdering thieves pulled off the crime.

End of Act One: First body is found and it’s clear the detective is on the case.

Act Two (17%)

Doctor Julia Ogden examines the body at the crime scene.

Constable George Crabtree discovers how the murdering thieves might have gotten away.

Murdoch talks to Inspector Thomas Brackenreid at the police station about the case and they discuss who could be involved.

Brackenreid and Murdoch talk to an art expert (who also happens to be the murderer).

Murdoch interviews Mr. James Pendrick in the man’s office.

Murdoch meets Mrs. Pendrick (Mrs. Pendrick is the relationship character for this episode). Murdoch is very embarrassed because she is posing, nude, for a painting.

Murdoch meets Julia in the morgue and she gives Murdoch information about the body.

Murdoch revisits crime scene. He’s figured out how the painting was stolen and the guard murdered.

End of Act Two: Two more bodies are found seemingly murdered in the same way as the first.

Act Three (34%)

Julia Ogden is in the morgue examining the new bodies and gives Murdoch her report.

George Crabtree is in Murdoch’s office. He reports on what constables have found at the crime scene. Then George (as he does) goes on and on about the grisly nature of the crimes. Murdoch finds out the thieves are from Chicago.

Murdoch reports to Brackenreid about the thieves. He has discovered their identities.

Murdoch talks to Pendrick about the insurance policy and why he insured it for such an amount. Pendrick says that he, unlike his wife, sees art as an investment.

Murdoch searches for painter Luca Carducci, the fellow Murdoch is using as an art expert (Carducci is also the killer) and so goes to the place where artists hang out in Toronto. When Murdoch arrives he finds that Mrs. Pendrick is already there.

Mrs. Pendrick gifts Murdoch her painting.

Back at the station, Murdoch, Brackenreid and George Crabtree stand around the painting to figure out what it represents completely unaware it is intended to represent a nude woman. A humorous scene.

End of Act Three: Another body is found. It is Burt Lightman, the artist of the painting they were admiring.

Act Four (51%)

Burt Lightman was killed the same way as the thieves.

Murdoch searches Bert Lightman’s home. They find that in addition to being a modern painter he was also a talented classical painter. Which meant he was likely a forger.

Murdoch, in his lab, analyses the pigments Lightman used.

Murdoch consults Carducci again. Carducci tries to send Murdoch off on the wrong track but Murdoch overwhelms him with logic.

Murdoch talks to Mrs. Pendrick and tells her of his suspicions. She says she is shocked that Bert Lightman had taken advantage of her. (Later we find out she was likely behind the theft and murders.)

Back at the office Julia Ogden is gazing at Mrs. Pendrick’s painting. They talk about the case. Julia makes it plain she knows what the painting depicts—she is amused.

Murdoch and George Crabtree talk about the case. Murdoch discovers the clue he needs to find the stolen Rembrandt along with four copies.

Act Five (68%)

Murdoch is in his lab doing research.

Murdoch talks to Brackenreid. He has discovered that one of the five paintings recovered is the original. They discuss the murderer’s plans and motivations.

Murdoch returns the original painting to Mr. Pendrick. This is a trap. His expert—Luca Carducci—lies and says that the original is a copy.

Just as Carducci, the killer, is in the act of checking his purloined painting to see whether it's the original, Murdoch walks in. Murdoch accuses Carducci of being the murderer and asks him who he was working for. Carducci is about to kill Murdoch when Mr. Pendrick comes in and shoots Carducci dead.

Act Six: Wrap Up (85%)

Murdoch wraps up the case. Murdoch talks to Brackenreid and Julia Ogden about the case, the solution as well as the questions that remain open. He tells them he suspects Mr. Pendrick  of masterminding the theft.

Murdoch wraps up the relationships. Murdoch visits the significant characters—Mr and Mrs Pendrick—and either resolves the conflicts or shows where the relationships now stand, how they have changed.


So! That's season 3, episode 6. I think it breaks down nicely into six acts, but it doesn’t have to be six. Sometimes writers prefer six acts because they have to work with five commercial breaks!

As novel writers—and this is, ultimately, a blog about novel writing—we don’t have to worry about commercial breaks; at least not yet! So I think in my next post, when I go over a detailed general structure, I’ll use a four act structure with only two murders.  Stay tuned! :-)

---

Every post I pick something I love and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I’ve loved with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

The Murdoch Mysteries originated as a book series by Maureen Jennings, the first being Except the Dying.

From the blurb: “In the cold Toronto winter of 1895, the unclad body of a servant girl is found frozen in a deserted laneway. Detective William Murdoch quickly finds out that more than one person connected with the girl’s simple life has something to hide.”

---

I'll talk to you again on Friday. Until then, good writing!

Notes:

1. Murdoch Mysteries.

2. There is no such thing as a “normal” episode there are episodes which differ more than others. For example, the last episode of a season (these might, for example, place Murdoch himself in mortal danger). Also, though I love it when shows do quirky one-offs that appeal to die-hard fans (the characters go back in time, they find out that ghosts are real) these can be very different kinds of stories.

Murdoch Mysteries: The Characters

I love Murdoch Mysteries. I’ve watched the entire series, twice! It's a terrific series and enormously popular in Canada and the UK. My question: Why? What is it about this series that has not only captivated me but millions of others.

That's what I'm going to try and puzzle out in this mini-series. Today I'll talk about the characters and in my next post I'll dissect the structure of an episode.

Murdoch Mysteries: The Characters

Have you heard of Frank Gruber? Gruber once bragged that he could write “a complete mystery novel in 16 days”![1]

Gruber was a prolific writer in the age of Pulp. He wrote “more than 300 stories for over 40 pulp magazines, as well as more than sixty novels, which ... sold more than ninety million copies in 24 countries, sixty five screenplays, and a hundred television scripts. Twenty five of his books have sold to motion pictures, and he created three TV series...”[1]

Why I mention Gruber here is that he wrote a terrific article that The Thrilling Detective has reproduced, one that I think can help us when talking about murder mysteries and characterization.

The Protagonist

While the detective isn’t always a hero he tends to be, especially in English Murder Mysteries. Gruber writes:

“THE HERO. A hero must be colorful. He must have an occupation that is colorful or he must be a colorful person. In general, I have followed the theory that a regular policeman or detective is not colorful. Just think a moment about the greatest detective in all detective fiction - Sherlock Holmes - and you will quickly grasp what I mean by colorful.”[2]

Let’s take a look at Detective William Murdoch. What are his traits?

Detective William Murdoch

Murdoch invents forensic techniques and gadgets that are echoes of common technologies that exist today. He then uses his inventions them to solve cases.

Pro: Because of Murdoch’s use of these techniques he is able to solve crimes no one else can.
Con: His unconventional  methods open him to the ridicule of his peers.

• Murdoch is mild, the opposite of bold and colorful.
• He is Roman Catholic in a city that is aggressively protestant.
• Murdoch has no patience—or aptitude—for politics.

Now for the questions:

a. Does William Murdoch have a colorful occupation?

Is a police detective colorful? I think so! It’s certainly an interesting profession to a number of people. Think of how many shows have been wildly, insanely, popular and that had detectives as their main characters (CSI, Law & Order, etc., etc.)

b. Is William Murdoch a colorful person?

NO! Decidedly not. He is the sensible one, the one who never (or practically never) loses his temper. He is self-controlled, logical. But this gives the other characters a blank—or bland!—canvas to bounce off of. Drabness, Mildness, is Murdoch’s thing!

Murdoch's very drabness, sets him apart from everyone else. It’s not just drabness, mildness, but EXAGGERATED drabness. And, as such, it is, in its own way, colorful.

The Sidekick

FOIL. The sidekick is also called a helper and is often a foil for the protagonist, someone who emphasizes the detective's exceptional qualities by having contrasting ones. For example, Watson’s more ordinary mind provides a nice contrast with Sherlock’s brilliant one, just as Watson’s grasp of social niceties contrasted with Sherlock’s complete ignorance.

SUPPLIES A CRITICAL CLUE. Often the sidekick will supply the detective with the thought, the clue, the idea, that makes everything clear. Usually this is something that seems to be completely unrelated to the case, but it sparks something in the sleuth, he makes a critical connection he wouldn’t have done if he hadn’t heard it.[4]

Constable George Crabtree

How does this tie in with George Crabtree? Let’s see:

• Technical expertise. Generally speaking, George doesn’t have technical expertise and doesn’t especially desire any, though he doesn’t have trouble completing the tasks Murdoch sets for him and even, occasionally, comes up with a unique insight or two.
• Rather than being mild and retiring, George is outgoing and sociable. He finds it relatively easy to connect with others.
• Office Politics. George has more of a head for politics than Murdoch.
• Loyal. George is intensely loyal to both Detective Murdoch and Inspector Brackenreid. This is a trait he shares with William Murdoch.
• Unconventional thinking. One of the things I love about George is his ability to come up with a supernatural explanation for unexplained phenomena. He is the opposite of Occam’s Razor!

The Relationship Character

The relationship character, generally speaking, carries the theme of the story. Here’s what Gruber says about theme:

“THEME. This, to me, is the most important element of any mystery story plot. By theme I mean subject matter, what the story is about in addition to, over and above, the ACTUAL MURDER plot. To illustrate:

“‘Death and the Main’ is about fighting cocks. I give a reasonably inside account of how gamecocks are raised, how they are fought, etc. This is knowledge not possessed by the average reader and believe me, I did not know it until I read up on the subject, for the purpose of this story.

“My book, The Lock & the Key, was about locksmiths. A liberal education in making locks and keys was thrown into the murder plot. I knew absolutely nothing about locks and keys until I did research on the subject. I know no more than is in the book.

“If you have ever read Dorothy Sayers' excellent English mysteries, you will find that THEME figures superbly. In The Nine Tailors, the reader learns all about church bells, the art of bell-ringing, etc. In Murder Must Advertise, Miss Sayers discusses advertising in all its phases.

“HOWEVER . . . knowledge of a subject should be used sparingly. The mystery reader may not be as interested in the subject as you are.”

Dr. Julia Ogden

How can we apply what Gruber says about theme to Julia? To answer this, first, let’s look at a few of the good doctor’s defining traits.

• Doctor Julia Ogden is a modern woman, eager and more than able to shed confining Victorian prejudices.
• She is blunt, straightforward.
• She is Murdoch’s ally.
• She shares Murdoch’s fascination with science and gadgetry.
• Her family would prefer that she stopped working, married and had lots of children.
• Although she has no patience for politics she can navigate these waters better than Murdoch.

Julia’s function in the story is to help Murdoch solve the case by giving him information about the victim,  about the manner of his/her death, about what the victim was like in life—whether they had children, their age, how long it took them to die, relative fitness level, what they’d eaten, and so on.

Further, she is a nice contrast to Murdoch. She is often (in the best possible way) a complication, something that upsets the orderliness of his life. Something that makes him stretch himself as a person (e.g., because of Julia, Murdoch took dancing lessons! As did Julia herself.).

The Murderer

Frank Gruber writes:

“VILLAIN. Let's face it, the hero of detective fiction is a Superman. The villain must therefore be a super-Superman or have plenty of assistants. The odds must ALWAYS be against the hero.”[1]

Who the murderer is will, of course, vary from episode to episode, though there are commonalities between all, or at least most, of them.

• The murderer is almost always introduced within the first few minutes. Often, they seem to be a sympathetic character. 
• There is often some compelling reason why we don’t suspect the murderer. Perhaps they seem nice and Murdoch might have a crush on them. Perhaps they are acting as a consultant to the police and, generally speaking, police consultants aren’t murders. Or perhaps the murderer is a police detective.

---

Every post I pick something I love and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I’ve loved with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

How to Write a Mystery, by Larry Beinhart.

I first read this book YEARS ago and it’s great! Larry Beinhart talks about narrative drive, plotting, openings, scene construction, hooks, all the good stuff! Although Beinhart has written quite a bit he is perhaps best known for his book American Hero which was adapted into the film Wag the Dog.

---

All right! This post is only the beginning. On Wednesday I’ll go over the structure of a Murdock Mysteries episode.

Notes:

1. Frank Gruber, Wikipedia

2. Frank Gruber's "Fool-proof" 11 Point Formula for Mystery Short Stories.

3. Murdoch Mysteries, Wikipedia.

4. Mystery Writing Basics: Characters & Plot, by Angela Ackerman

The Secret of Agatha Christie’s Success: Deceit!

Agatha Christie’s book, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, was the very first murder mystery I ever read!

It’s not surprising I took to Christie’s work. The Guinness World Records lists Agatha Christie as the best selling novelist of all time. Her books have sold roughly 2 BILLION copies! Only the works of William Shakespeare and the Bible outsell her.

This makes me wonder: What is the secret to Agatha Christie’s success?

There has been talk of a formula but I think Christie simply had a handle on the structure of a good story and, specifically, the structure of a great murder mystery!

Beyond that, I think her phenomenal success can be traced to two things:

1. Christie introduced ROMANCE into the murder mystery. 

2. Christie was very good at hiding the identity of the murderer. And she usually did this cleverly and fairly. 

Today I’m only going to concentrate on (2), above. (If you would like to read more about including romance in a story, see: The Structure of a Romance Story.)

How to Make Readers Think the Murderer Couldn't Have Done It. 

There’s no other way to say it: Agatha Christie deceived her readers! And we loved it. How did she do this?

7 Ways to Disguise a Murderer:

1. Agatha Christie made readers think the murderer was a victim. (Peril at End House.) 

Examples: Peril at End House, The Tragedy at Marsdon Manor, And Then There Were None.

In PERIL AT END HOUSE Nick—the eventual murderer—convinces Poirot that someone is trying to kill her. She is subtle and drops clues she knows the great detective (who loves clues!) will pick up on.

In reality, she’s setting up her friend (Fredricka 'Freddie' Rice) to take the fall for a murder she is preparing to commit.

The following summary of Peril at End House (this is from the televised version starring David Suchet) contains spoilers.

Hercule Poirot and his loyal companion Captain Hastings are vacationing at a Cornish Resort: The Majestic. Hastings tells Poirot about an explorer—Michael Seton—who is attempting to fly around the world but who has disappeared. Shortly after this we are introduced to one of the main characters of the story: Magdala ‘Nick’ Buckley (Magdala is a family name). When Nick and Poirot meet she tells him in a casual, offhanded way that she has come close to death three times in the past few days.

After finding various clues, Poirot comes to believe someone is trying to murder Nick. But who? And why?

Maggie Buckley, Nick’s cousin, travels to Nick's home, End House—a gorgeous old place that Nick loves but which is mortgaged to the hilt and in desperate need of renovation—to help watch over Nick. Tragically, the night she arrives Maggie is shot dead. Since the two girls were both wearing black dresses, and since Maggie was wearing Nick’s fur wrap, the two girls would have looked almost identical. Everyone believes Maggie was killed because the killer mistook her for Nick.

After Maggie dies Poirot comes to believe Nick was engaged to Michael Seaton, the deceased world explorer. Michael Seton has left a will that leaves everything to his fiancee, Magdala. Nick is set to inherit millions! Now that Poirot knows why someone is trying to kill Nick the only question left to answer is who?

Strangely, the answer to this seems straightforward. Nick’s best friend, Freddie, is Nick’s primary beneficiary. If Nick dies, Freddie gets everything! The only trouble is, Poirot doesn’t believe it. Freddy is not stupid and the latest attempt on Nick’s life was facile. Besides that, Freddy had no clear motive. She didn’t need the money. She wasn’t desperate. The psychology was all wrong!

It’s here, about three-quarters of the way through the book, just after the all hope is lost point, that Christie gives Poirot the clue which reveals everything. It all hinges on a name. Nick’s given name is Magdala. Further, we know it’s a family name. At this point Miss Lemon and Hastings engage in silly wordplay, wondering what the nicknames are for various given names. Hearing them, Hercule Poirot asks himself: What is Maggie’s given name? What if it were Magdala ...? And, of course, it was. Magdala ‘Maggie’ Buckley was Michael Seton’s fiancee, not Nick!

Nick had killed Maggie so she could pose as Michael Seton’s fiancee and inherit his millions.

Her immediate motive: Nick was fanatically devoted to End House, and she would lose it if she didn’t get quite a lot of money very soon.

That’s the description! Sorry for the length. Peril at End House is, IMHO, one of Christie’s most clever mysteries.

You see the pattern? The murderer tries to be clever, sets themselves up as the victim and in so doing misdirects both Poirot and the reader.

The Tragedy at Marsdon Manor

When the BBC did their adaptation of this story they changed it a wee bit. It is the BBC version I’m referring to. Here’s a brief summary:

Mr. Maltravers has a weak heart, a failing business, a young wife and quite a lot of life insurance. Not the best combination! It is perhaps no surprise that soon after we meet Mr. Maltravers he is found dead of an apparent heart attack. His body is found under a tree said to be haunted by the spirit of a girl who committed suicide decades before. Mr. Maltravers' face is frozen in an expression of shock and agony. 

The victim's wife of two years is convinced that her late husband saw the girl’s spirit and was, quite literally, scared to death. She SEEMED devoted to her late husband, but appearances can be deceiving. Could she have had a motive for killing him? Or perhaps it is exactly as she claims, that a spirit inhabits the tree and it frightened her husband so much his heart gave out.

Mr. Maltravers’ had a brief dalliance with his secretary years before but his secretary—a severe woman of middle-age—still cares for him. Might her caring have turned into something darker?

Mrs. Maltravers is an attractive, intelligent woman apparently devoted to her elderly, ailing husband. Perhaps it isn’t surprising that one of her old friends, Captain Black, still carries a torch for her. He seems honorable, but what might he do to win her heart?

At first it seems as though Mrs. Maltravers is a victim. She sees a ghost in the big spooky tree and no one believes her. The ghost makes her mirror bleed and tortures her with visions of death and blood. At first it seems as though Poirot is nothing but solicitous toward the young widow but it gradually emerges that he suspects her.

Perhaps this particular story is a bit dated in that it relies on the reader suspending disbelief in ghosts and the like, but I found the adaptation convincing.

2. Agatha Christie made readers think the murderer was dead at the time of the crime. (And Then There Were None)

Christie makes the reader think that a certain character is dead and so, when another murder occurs, we think THAT character can’t have committed the murder.

And Then There Were None

And Then There Were None is Agatha Christie’s best selling book and probably one of the most popular novels of all time. Reading what follows will reveal the ending, so—if you haven’t yet—go read the book, then come back!

Okay. Here’s the plot:

Ten very different people are lured to an island by a variety of pretexts. Here’s the Wikipedia summary:

“All have been complicit in the deaths of other human beings, but either escaped justice or committed an act that was not subject to legal sanction. The guests and two servants who are present are "charged" with their respective "crimes" by a gramophone recording after dinner the first night, and informed that they have been brought to the island to pay for their actions. They are the only people on the island, and cannot escape due to the distance from the mainland and the inclement weather, and gradually all ten are killed in turn, each in a manner that seems to parallel the deaths in the nursery rhyme. Nobody else seems to be left alive on the island by the time of the apparent last death. A confession, in the form of a postscript to the novel, unveils how the killings took place and who was responsible.”

The murderer is one of the 10 (the classic closed society). He/she succeeds in convincing one of the other guests on the island, a doctor, to help him fake his death. The doctor—a man too trusting for his own good—agrees.

Every guest of the island—well, every guest except for the murderer!—is a victim. So we, the reader, see the culprit as a victim for most of the book. It is only at the very end, when everyone is dead, that Christie reveals the secret to the puzzle.

I think And Then There Were None was one of Christie’s best books. It was clever, filled with twists, and the whole thing held together after you read the solution.

3. Agatha Christie made the reader think the killer had a cast iron alibi. (Evil Under the Sun)

Christie tricked the reader into thinking the killer couldn’t have done it. Why? Because he/she had no opportunity.

Briefly, in Evil Under the Sun the murderers pose as a young married couple with more than their share of problems. He is carrying on an affair with Mrs ???, a wealthy movie star and she—delicate flower that she is ("I must get out of the sun, I burn so easily...") is devastated but tries to take her husband's philandering in stride.

The truth is that nothing is as it seems. The movie star is their mark, they've arranged to strip her of her wealth then kill her before she has a chance to protest. They work together to give each other an alibi for the crime. Mrs. R. makes it appear as though she was swimming with another guest at the time of Mrs. R's apparent death while Mr R is one of the two people who (apparently) found the movie star's body.

In reality, the 'body' Mr. R found was Mrs R playing dead. After the time of discover is set then Mr. R kills the movie star in his own sweet time. This was crusial because at that time Mrs. R had an alibi (she was swimming with ???) and Mr. R had been with other peole at every second up to that point. Afterwards (it was thought) it didn't matter where he was, but in reality it was after she was 'found' that the true murder occurred.

So you see,  Christie made readers think that Mr R wasn’t a member of the closed society, that his name wasn't on the list of possible killers (for more about 'closed societies' see my article English vs American Murder Mysteries).

4. Agatha Christie made the killer the narrator. (The Murder of Roger Ackroyd)

Making the narrator the killer isn’t considered fair play. Even though The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was one of Agatha Christie's most successful books, the writing club she belonged to—the Detection Club—(Dorothy L. Sayers, Baroness Emma Orczy and G. K. Chesterton were also members)—explicitly forbid its members from employing this technique. That said, Christie got away with it! Why? Readers, even though they grumbled a bit about it not being quite fair, LOVED the book!

(For more on Agatha Christie and the Detection Club: Agatha Christie's Secret: Break The Rules.)

That said, I’m not sure I’d recommend anyone else try making the narrator the killer, although I wouldn’t be surprised if someone gave a young Christie that very advice!

5. Agatha Christie made each suspect the murderer. (Murder on the Orient Express).

This was truly clever. What’s an implicit assumption readers make? That one (or possibly two) of the suspects are murderers. We don’t think: They all could have done it! At least we didn’t up until Murder on the Orient Express!

6. Agatha Christie made the murderer a police officer. (Hercule Poirot's Christmas)

In an English cozy police officers can be incompetent, arrogant, rash or stupid but they are not murderers. So Christie decided to make a police officer the murderer in Hercule Poirot's Christmas. And it worked beautifully!

7. Agatha Christie made the murderer a child. (Crooked House)

Kids are sweet and innocent, right? This is an Agatha Christie novel so ... not necessarily!

* * *

As I said at the beginning of this post, the trick to keeping your readers from guessing the murderer is to—in the fairest possible way—trick the reader. Part of this is making the murderer the sort of person we tend not to suspect. Someone we trust.

---

Every post I pick something I love and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I’ve loved with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

Treat Yourself: 70 Classic Snacks You Loved as a Kid (and Still Love Today), by Jennifer Steinhauer

I LOVED Twinkies as a kid, how about you? Or maybe you preferred Oreos or Fig Newtons? Here’s a book that will helps us recreate the classic oh-so-bad-for-you snacks! I haven’t tried any of these recipes myself—not yet! As soon as I get a kitchen, though, I’m making my own Twinkies. :-)

---

Notes:

1. Here I’ve only given one story as an example, but Christie used each of these techniques in many of her books.