An interesting comment exchange (Thanks, Maxine and Barbara!) has got me thinking about one of the most common myths about murderers – that they are loners with few friends. It really is an unfortunate misconception because there are lots and lots of introverted people who don’t murder; many in fact are sleuths. There are also plenty of outgoing, extroverted people with lots of friends who do murder. Just a quick look at crime fiction will show you what I mean.
In Agatha Christie’s Mrs. McGinty’s Dead, Superintendent Spence asks Hercule Poirot to investigate the murder of a charwoman who it seemed at the time was killed by her unpleasant lodger James Bentley. Spence doesn’t think Bentley is guilty but he’s been assigned to another investigation so he can’t go back over the case. Poirot agrees to look into the matter and travels to Mrs. McGinty’s village of Broadhinny. When he begins to examine the case he finds that several of the village’s residents have been keeping secrets. Mrs. McGinty found out more about one of those residents than it was safe for her to know and that’s why she was killed. What’s interesting about this mystery in terms of this post is that Bentley is a loner. He doesn’t have a lot of friends (he actually claims to have none at all) and he’s not comfortable socially. That predisposes a lot of people to believe he’s guilty. In fact, though, I don’t think it’s giving away spoilers to say that Spence is right to question Bentley’s guilt.
In Margaret Yorke’s Speak For the Dead, we meet Gordon Matthews, who’s recently been released from prison where he served a sentence for manslaughter in the death of his wife Anne. When Anne’s father Oliver Randall hears that Matthews has been released he’s worried that Matthews will try to get custody of the two children he had with Anne and who are now living with Randall and his wife. So Randall hires private investigator Michael West to find Matthews and see how and where he’s living and whether he poses a danger to the two children. West discovers that Matthews has married again, this time to Carrie Foster. West also finds that Gordon Matthews is not the person he’s made himself out to be. At the time of his trial for Anne’s murder, Matthews claimed that she was a promiscuous alcoholic shrew and that on the day of her death, they had an argument that went too far and that’s why he killed her. But West finds that those stories about Anne are most likely not true. In fact, Matthews has told a lot of people a lot of lies about a lot of things. But he’s personable and persuasive, so he’s gotten away with it. The closer West gets to the truth about Gordon Matthews, the more danger he sees for Matthews’ new wife Carrie. In this novel, Gordon Matthews may be outgoing and may have the ability to draw people to him, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed murder and wouldn’t do so again.
In Paddy Richardson’s Hunting Blind, fledgling psychiatrist Stephanie Anderson has been assigned to work with a new patient Elizabeth Clark. At first Clark won’t even speak, but very slowly and with a few setbacks she tells Anderson her story. Several years earlier Clark’s younger sister Gracie disappeared and despite a major search effort, she was never found. There wasn’t even a body. This story eerily resembles Anderson’s own personal history. Seventeen years earlier, Anderson’s younger sister Gemma disappeared, also with no trace. Anderson wants to lay her ghosts to rest so against her better professional judgement, she gets as much information as she can from Clark. Then, she decides to search for the person responsible for Gracie’s and Gemma’s disappearances. The more she learns the more Anderson is pointed in the direction of one particular person. That person is friendly, outgoing and on the surface definitely not the type people fear and it’s interesting to see how that quality of getting on easily with lots of people has served the perpetrator very well.
There are also many fictional sleuths who are loners, or at least who don’t have a large social circle and lots of friends. For instance, there’s Luiz Alfredo Garcia-Roza’s Inspector Espinosa. Espinosa is a cop in Rio de Janeiro, which means he gets involved in all sorts of cases, some of them quite ugly. He’s dedicated to his job, but that’s not really the entire reason he’s not married. He certainly has relationships. He has lunch and dinner with acquaintances and lovers. And he certainly has the social skills he needs to function easily. But Espinosa isn’t what you would call a gregarious, outgoing kind of cop. He’s gotten quite used to being a bachelor and it most ways it suits him.
Åsa Larsson’s Rebecka Martinsson is also a fairly introverted person. She has a few close friends such as her grandparents’ neighbour Sivving Fjallborg. And she certainly can get on with people when she needs to do so. In fact, in Until They Wrath be Past, it’s her ability to get people to open up to her that allows her to find out the real story behind the murders of seventeen-year-old Wilma Persson and her boyfriend Simon Kyrö. The two young people are murdered one day while they are diving in Lake Vittangijärvi to explore the ruins of a plane that went down there during World War II. When Persson’s body surfaces the following spring, Inspector Anna-Maria Mella and her team investigate the murders. With Martinsson’s help they trace the murders to long-ago events in the area and to the way World War II affected some of the families in the area. Despite Martinsson’s ability to function around people, she is a loner. She is not interested in a large crowd of friends or a big family. She treasures her time alone and sometimes seems more comfortable with animals than with people.
And then there’s Tony Hillerman’s Jim Chee. He’s a member of the Navajo Tribal Police and also a member of the Navajo Nation. It’s not the custom of the Navajo people to live in large groups as people do in cities. So Chee is accustomed to spending time alone or with very few people. He’s certainly got the social skills he needs to work with others. He has some friends and throughout the course of the series that features him he has three important relationships, the last of which ends in marriage. But Chee is by nature an introvert who doesn’t spend a lot of time surrounded by friends. He is content with his own company.
There are a lot of other examples of sleuths and other protagonists who aren’t necessarily extroverts. There are just as many examples of fictional murderers who are (I’ve actually had to be careful about that in this post so as not to give away spoilers). So really, I think we need to scotch that rumour about “the quiet ones” or “the loners” giving all the trouble, OK? Thank you. 
*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Men At Work’s Who Can it Be Now?.
Very good points here. At times, even a favorite detective, Harry Bosch, has his periods of “aloneness.” And Inspector Adamsberg, commissionaire of Paris, can’t deal with his personal relationships and is a loner sometimes.
Erlendur can also be by himself and ruminate. There are many lonely detectives.
And as you say, there are many social committers of crimes. I am thinking of Guido Brunetti’s investigations of many individuals who work, have families and many friends and yet, are murderers. And there are many who fit this profile, but no time for spoilers.
Kathy – You are quite right that even detectives who do get a bit more socially also have times when they want to be alone. It doesn’t make them less friendly, but sometimes they want to spend time by themselves. And yes, there are indeed plenty of criminals who are friendly, outgoing and get on with just about everyone. And yet they’re murderers…
Very thought-provoking post, Margot. I can see police personnel and even private eyes as dedicated introverts and even sometimes anti-social jerks, but it would be a lot harder for amateur sleuths to do what they want to do without the benefit of friends and acquaintances who provide the gossip and rumors that often fuel their investigations. Even the sleuths who would prefer to be left alone, and I’m thinking of Betty Webb’s Lena Jones here, must force themselves to play well with others to get the job done.
Pat – Now, that’s an angle I hadn’t thought of on this question so thanks for bringing it up. Amateur sleuths have to have a certain amount of ability to “get out there” socially. That’s how they get the information they need to solve cases since they can’t always rely on police status to get people to talk. So cop characters can afford to be less outgoing – that’s a well-taken point.
Margot: As I was reading your memo of sleuths who want to be left alone I was thinking of Harry Bosch. I am glad kathy d. had the same reaction.
I think of Nero Wolfe as the sleuth of the mystery world happiest to be by himself with his books and his orchids.
Another sleuth comfortable with being by himself is Napoleon “Bony” Bonaparte. Working in the remote areas of Australia he can be totally alone for days.
Bill – Right you are about both Bony and Harry Bosch. And of course Nero Wolfe is indeed a classic example of a detective who is perfectly happy with his own company. He is more at ease with his books and his orchids than he is with most people. There are times when Wolfe won’t really even speak to the people in his own household. That’s why Archie Goodwin makes such a solid complement to WOlfe’s personality. It’s an interesting relationship.
Yes, I think on the whole detectives (in fiction) tend to be loners. Even a sociable one such as Ruth Galloway enjoys living alone (well, now with her baby) & reading her crime fiction, etc. Inspector Sejer, Harry Hole, Elvis Cole, Kinsey Millhone….all examples of popular detectives who spend most time alone in addition to the egs above (not sure if “enjoy” is the right verb in some cases!).
Criminals are usually less well-characterised in the books I read. Their main role seems to be to be detected & caught, so we often don’t see much in the way of how they live their daily lives as I suppose that would give away too much of the plot (unless the book is from the criminal pov). I guess that is why the “in italics mad mind” cliche is so popular, as authors can use it without giving away whose mind they are writing about.
Maxine – That’s a well-taken point about how to depict the criminal’s point of view and lifestyle. There are ways to do so; I think both Åsa Larsson and Karin Fossum, among others, follow the different characters’ lives even before we know who exactly did what. But it really can be difficult without giving too much away, especially with a “whodunit” kind of story. And you’re right about italics, too. I’ve read a lot of novels in the last few years where that’s the strategy the author uses to share the criminal’s point of view. It can work but honestly I think it’s overdone.
I agree with Bill about Nero Wolfe. After all, these sleuths need to have alone time to think deep thoughts.
As far as murder suspects go, the ones in my books usually need to be able to go out and about in town–to be gossiped about and to have an opportunity to be questioned by sleuths.
Elizabeth – You’re absolutely right about that! Suspects generally need to be social enough to get out and about. That’s how they stir up gossip, that’s how they talk with the sleuth (if the sleuth is an amateur sleuth) and that’s how they place false clues if they want to implicate other people. There are some people who “keep themselves to themselves” and become suspicious that way. But in general suspects usually are social enough to be noticed.
I think that’s the great thing with writing crime fiction is the ability to delve into human behaviour. It’s what I love. People are complex and what drives each of us is different. We also wear different masks when we’re in different circumstances so what one person sees of us, another won’t. Fabulous for crime novels
Rebecca – Oh, how right you are! People are complex and our motives for doing what we do are so fascinating sometimes. As you say, too, we do act differently depending context and I find that fascinating as well. No wonder crime writers are so interested in human behaviour.