Hello, readers and mystery-solvers!
You've heard of books and movies being a form of escapism from reality, but what about when the stories themselves are about characters trying to escape their own lives?
Running from danger is one thing but what about running from emotions? From feelings??
Cozy mysteries aren't my vibe because the detective shouldn't be cozy and comfortable; they should be in emotional turmoil. Okay, okay, maybe that's a little harsh, sorry, but what makes a mystery fascinating is that in addition to asking the "who, what, where, when, why, and how", is when our detective starts to question EVERYTHING about their own life and perspective.
Low-stakes chill detectives are fine when the mystery is in short story form, then the detective can just get away with throwing brutal burns at his assistant (sorry, Hastings, but you usually deserve it), but if I'm going to invest my time in a full mystery novel, I want to be questioning everything. My own life should go through its own emotional changes.
This didn't always use to be the case. When I was younger I ate up Nancy Drew for the plot, for what came next. When I read The Mysterious Affair at Styles as a youngin', I thought the romance plot was a distraction and just wanted to get back to it. Now I think Ms. Christie was onto something.
 |
| Me, as I'm not usually a huge fan of romances, but get the characters reevaluating everything they thought was true about their relationships and I am sold. |
And that finally brings me to the topic of this post: stories that use mysteries for the protagonist to escape thinking about the future, specifically marriage.
I'm not talking about the tension of a detective falling for one of the suspects. That's its own recipe for angst and something I'm sure all the romantasy fans* would be into if they came into this genre.
*Isn't that the whole draw of a dark and brooding love interest who could be Dangerous? Isn't that the allure of the femme fatale in old noir? The beautiful woman that is probably working with the killer but still drags the detective on and he goes with it because she's so /beautiful/? I don't get it, so back to the topic at hand.
I'm talking about stories that make our detective/protagonist question not "should I start a relationship?" but "should I commit to this relationship? Should I marry this person?" yet that's a terrifying thought so our main character throws themselves into solving a mystery instead of solving that question.
This may seem oddly specific and exceedingly niche, but it's happened three times now in stories I've come across recently, so let's talk about it. 'Cuz three times equals a pattern which is a sign that I should blog about it! So let's look at some examples in the order that I experienced them.
Disclaimer: not being in a marriage myself, but having gone to one (1) wedding this year I am obviously The Expert in this subject. (Nope). Hey, I get to go to another wedding in December**, so two (2) weddings must make me The Source of Knowledge on this! (Still nope.) Heck, I've never even been in a relationship period, much less a committed relationship, so I don't know anything about marriage outside the fictional realm. This post is not about whether I think marriage is good or bad or something else. It's about how the characters react and get to their own conclusions. Make your own decisions outside of that!
**Today I'm actually missing said second friend's bridal shower due to winter weather inconveniences so consider this post as my way of venting my frustration about that.
A note about spoilers: the fun part of mysteries is finding out the "who done it" so I won't spoil that for you! I'm just talking about some themes and character development in these stories, but will leave all the twists and reveals for you to encounter yourself. So feel free to keep reading without fear even if you haven't seen or read any of these! Maybe you will be convinced to read/see them by the end...
Example #1: Gaudy Night - by Dorothy L. Sayers:
Note: this is not Harriet Vane's first book, but it's the first and only book I've seen her in (yes, I've read this series books 1 AND 12. Not 1-12). I should probably start with book 6, Strong Poison, to see Harriet's entrance, but for my argument today, we're just talking about this entry in the series.
Harriet Vane goes back to her alma mater, Shrewsbury College, for a class reunion (aka a gaudy) and there she witnesses some vandalism. She sticks around to help one professor get a book published, but incidents keep happening that makes the school officials wonder how long they can keep things running smoothly if funding and more is threatened by these outbursts from the mysterious Poison Pen.
This book may be in the Lord Peter Wimsey series, but it is undoubtably Harriet's book. We don't even see Lord Peter until halfway through or so. And this book is the longest in the entire series. Actually, all the longest books in the series all have Harriet in them (Gaudy Night, Have His Carcase, and Busman's Honeymoon). This tells us that Harriet is a pretty important character, and that Ms. Sayers is going to expound on her feelings so listen up, people.
 |
| Not actually Harriet and Peter, but I haven't seen the TV show, and you know how I love using images for dramatic pauses, so we need my other 1930s power couple detectives to accompany this. |
In Gaudy Night, Harriet is deeply contemplating her place in this world and what she wants in life. And we don't really know it for half the book, but one thing that keeps coming back is Lord Peter's persistent marriage proposals. She's conflicted about what it would mean to have the proper partner, and what if that right balance is not what society says it should be? So you know what, maybe it's better to just avoid it all together as “A marriage of two independent and equally irritable intelligences seems to me reckless to the point of insanity” (Sayers, Gaudy Night).
Everyone is trying to tell her what a woman's place in the world should be but no one is listening to what she thinks a woman's place in the world should be. The inequality there rubs Harriet wrong but not everyone seems to see it that way.
"“The rule seemed to be that a great woman must either die unwed ... or find a still greater man to marry her. ... The great man, on the other hand, could marry where he liked, not being restricted to great women; indeed, it was often found sweet and commendable in him to choose a woman of no sort of greatness at all.” (Sayers, Gaudy Night)***
***I was just going to use my favorite quotes that I already have written down, because my older sister has my copy of the book, but fiiiiiiine, I'll look up more applicable quotes another way. Thanks, Goodreads.
This story takes place at a women's college and is about vandalism that seems to be targeted at women who are not filling the perpetrator's definition of what a woman should be. Is this what's ahead of Harriet in life? Always being attacked by those who think she is taking the wrong path, regardless of what she chooses? Can she ever get a break from the judgement?
She's been outside of usual society roles before (I get the impression? That she was living with a man she wasn't married to? Again, I should read book 6) and understands scorn and rejection, but it seems like everyone has an opinion of what they think she should be and she's just trying to block it all out. But each step she takes to be indifferent to it is another step to her not being able to trust her own emotions.
“I imagine you come across a number of people who are disconcerted by the difference between what you do feel and what they fancy you ought to feel. It is fatal to pay the smallest attention to them.”
“Yes,” said Harriet, “but I am one of them. I disconcert myself very much. I never know what I do feel.”
“I don’t think that matters, provided one doesn’t try to persuade one’s self into appropriate feelings.”(Sayers, Gaudy Night)
It's tricky enough to be trying to figure out who the "Poison Pen" is, but to make matters more complicated, Harriet runs into Lord Peter's nephew who is very charming but has a tendency towards trouble so he ends up in the hospital and wants her to act as his go-between to Lord Peter. Aka the one person she doesn't really want to talk to. Yet he gets thrown back into her life and she in his.
She's finding purpose in the academic life but doesn't feel safe as she doesn't know which of her colleagues is judging her and ready to strike at her for living her life outside of expectations. The only one she can trust is...Peter. He listens. He knows her darker, more unfortunate past, but he doesn't judge her for it. He's seen his share of the underbelly of the world (again, I'm assuming so, as dark things must have happened in books 2-10), but he's drawn to her honesty (and she to his) which is often seen as a failing of saying too much, not a virtue of saying what's true.
(I'm assuming from what I've read about Strong Poison that we get Lord Peter's thoughts on the matter? That one maybe falls into the "I'm falling in love with a suspect" camp? This is my third reminder that I should just read that book already.)
At the beginning, Harriet's quite cynical as she sees the worst in everyone. But that's because she also sees the worst in herself and doesn't understand how Peter can possibly see anything else. It's flattering as "However loudly we may assert our own unworthiness, few of us are really offended by hearing the assertion contradicted by a disinterested party," (Sayers, Gaudy Night) but is it true? Harriet is a famous mystery author and gets praise enough for her work, but that feels empty when no one really knows her (Hello, Ms. Dorothy L. Sayer, is this a self insert?). In addition to that, Harriet has the problem of her own mystery characters having too many feelings and not enough action:
“Harriet had been only too right about Wilfrid. She had spent portions of four days in altering and humanizing Wilfrid, and today, after a distressful morning with him, had reached the dismal conclusion that she would have to rewrite the whole thing from the beginning. Wilfrid’s tormented humanity stood out now against the competent vacuity of the other characters like a wound.” (Sayers, Gaudy Night)
(What are you talking about, I would read the heck out of Wilfrid's tormented humanity!)
Harriet has been fairly successful in shutting her own feelings down, but against her best efforts she's still very empathetic and is concerned that her own actions and wants will have a negative impact on someone else's life (...as happened in book 6?). A very revealing line says: "I wish one could teach people nowadays that the doctrine of snatching what one wants is unsound." (Sayers, Gaudy Night), and it's true that just plowing ahead with what you want regardless of feelings of others can be detrimental, especially if you're trying to control them, Poison Pen-style. But she's also trying to figure out what she wants, and maybe will learn along the way that it's okay to have wants and following through doesn't mean that she's snatching them away from others. Especially if someone (...the person she wants to be in a relationship with) wants the same thing for her that she does, then that unites them.
This book is SO fascinating because it is an exploration of the zeitgeist of the time, whether in a political sense (there are some wild throw-away comments about Hitler) or in a societal sense (women's role in the world), and what it does is give a niche little picture of England in 1935 and the full spectrum of thoughts therein, without really landing on what is the correct answer. Because maybe there isn't a correct answer, and maybe each possibilities for life are as varied as the people who live them. It doesn't feel like we're getting a lecture on Dorothy L. Sayers's personal thoughts (I feel like I would have to read this multiple times to even get an inkling of any undercurrents of her own opinions), but just see Harriet contemplating what feels right for herself.
Fascinating, right??
 |
| Nora thinks so. |
This section got a little longer than I intended (the book is 500 pages! it has a lot to say!) but onto the next example.
Example #2: Enola Holmes 3 (2026):
This one probably needs the least amount of explaining how it fits because...well, it's on the poster. If my explaining how it aligns with the subject doesn't need much description, then that gives me more time to talk about what it means.
Enola is en route to the church to get married when a mystery rides up to her. So she runs away from getting married. Literally. But she can't really help it, not when her brother Sherlock has been kidnapped! Then people start dropping like flies and more kidnapping and mayhem ensues. Tewkesbury (her fiancé) is very understanding, saying of course everything should stop until they find Sherlock, but then it comes out that Enola was kind of already late to the wedding BEFORE she learned of Sherlock's abduction.
Because she's kind of having second thoughts. So now she has to resolve her feelings and her brother's disappearance before it's too late.
But let's back up. Unlike my other examples in this post, this film has more to it than is covered in the 109 minutes, but has a two other movies backing it up. At first I wasn't sure this film was on theme with the two previous movies, but by the end I thought "oh, yeah, it fits."
All of the films have centered around Enola learning about herself and determining her own place in the world ("the future is up to us!"). She's learned she can be alone, but being alone doesn't mean she has to be lonely. She's made a name for herself--Enola Holmes. It was given to her and for a long time she didn't understand it or didn't want to be part of, but she's embraced it and made it her identity...and is she now going to give it up?
She's being thrust into the expectations of a huge family with a large legacy and while it was fun to defy her own family's expectations (take that, Mycroft!), this feels like a lot of people to let down. It feels equally wrong to fit their standards for the rest of her life.
 |
| When you're conflicted enough to prefer walking into literal fire than walking into a marriage. |
This...this feels like she's giving up a part of herself. She's already giving up the alone part of herself (Enola backwards = alone) in a relationship, but can she give up the Holmes part of herself, too?
Tewkesbury is also questioning who he wants to be. He's felt confined for most of his life (he tried running away from his family once upon a time and while he ended up going home anyway, that changed his life for the best as it lead to him meeting his favorite person). He's also felt constrained by what he must do, as being in the House of the Lords is a job full of compromises that hurts his moral compass. And now he's learning his family's legacy is deeper and darker than he could've imagined, so he's uncertain of his place in the world.
The one thing he's certain about is Enola.
"Why are you so good to me?""Because I’m choosing to be. You’re all I have, Enola, and I’m not going to lose you."
They're in Malta which is a beautiful destination wedding spot, but also a new place and everything feels foreign and not like home. Maybe the one thing Enola is certain about among all these formalities and traditions...is Tewkesbury.
Her family history is complicated, but while her mother tried to train her to not need any of them, Enola failed cutting them all out of her life by creating a relationship with Sherlock. Having him missing is making her reevaluate who else she doesn't want to lose.
Maybe the rituals and ceremonies aren't important, but who she chooses to do them with. Maybe neither of these kids are defined by their ancestors, but can make their own way.
Mystery marriage pattern aside, I didn't love this film nearly as much as the first two in the series, but I had fun with it. It's about legacies and how the oppressed can make a name for themselves and de-colonialism even makes a fun guest appearance! There are plenty of historical anachronisms, but the setting made me even more interested in the place and time period. If making me want to do research is a result of this movie, then that must be a win.
And last but not least:
Example #3: Rear Window (1954):
To compliment the contemplation of these lovely ladies, it's time to have a man ruminate on marriage and how he can get out of it. Gender swapping problems for the win!
Mr. L. B. "Jeff" Jefferies has been stuck inside for weeks due to his broken leg and he's had a lot of time to think about things. Like the future and what to do next. He's always been in a line of work outside of a normal office job (photography!) and after being cooped up for ages, he's itching more than ever to get out and do ANYTHING. Preferably something dangerous somewhere exotic.
Stella (his on-site nursing assistant) gives the advice that he should just settle down and marry his girlfriend, Lisa, who is absolutely crazy about him (this is one of the reasons I like watching old movies, they give me so many fun old-timey phrases to work with, phrases like "crazy about him." But also, who wouldn't be crazy about Jimmy Stewart?).
 |
| I don't know if I can handle the intensity of all these blue eyes. |
However, if "settling down" is anything like what he's been going through the last few weeks (i.e. not doing ANYTHING) then that sounds like the worst thing imaginable. Boring and unbearable, even if Lisa and Stella are doing everything to make him comfortable.
Besides, Lisa is a socialite in the fashion industries who has never even broken a fingernail, much less crawled through jungles to get the perfect shot. He thinks she's just not up to his lifestyle and doesn't want to give up his own line of work to fit hers. He thinks she's not capable of "roughing it," of handling all the trials and discomforts his job makes him go through.
 |
| Don't worry, Lisa proves him wrong. But also stays herself. It's brilliant. |
So Jeff is trying to figure out how to break it off with Lisa before she expects too much from him and wants him to pop a certain question about a certain topic that is certainly making him uncomfortable.
And that's when the plot gets going to make him question things even more; he begins to suspect that his neighbor across the way has murdered his own invalid wife.
Crazy behavior for any movie, but what makes this so gripping is how it is tied into Jeff's internal conflict. That's what makes a good story, baby, and why Hitchcock is the king of suspense that he is (also why I'm not as big a fan of North by Northwest (1957) and The Birds (1963), because while they are iconic, they don't give me enough outside of the suspense. Feel free to make a case for either of those and convince me of any internal conflict present therewith-in.)
Jeff has spent the summer observing the highs and lows of his neighbors, the heartbreaks and the triumphs, and mostly it seems to all boil down to heartbreaks. Is that what a relationship would boil down to, hatred of ones partner to the point of cruelty and murder? If so, then why would a relationship do him any good when he's better off traveling the world, being only devoted to his camera?
He gets invested in solving what has happened to that man's wife, proving that something terrible has happed before anything else horrific can take place. Because he can't leave the room due to being in a wheelchair, Lisa becomes his eyes and ears. Through this, she proves multiple times how much she means to Jeff and that she is more than capable of doing what it takes (in a dress and heels, I'd like to see you try that Jeff).
Here, a wedding ring isn't just a clue in a case but a symbol of what Jeff is trying to avoid.
The story isn't just a thriller about the nefarious secrets that hide behind closed blinds, it's a story of reevaluating what matters in life, and who you can trust to share a home with.
I don't know, I just vibed and had a good time. A good way to experience some gripping anxiety in the comfort of my own home.
(If you think that's a lot of images of Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly looking out a window, then you're right. That's literally the movie.)
Conclusions:
This is where I now gather all the suspects in one room and slowly and tactically reveal the points of the case to gasps and the murderer trying to run, but I already had my partner block the only exit---Ahem.
You're probably just all wondering is what my point is.
The uniting theme between these works is getting to the heart of the mystery...and the mystery of the heart. I appreciate when mysteries probe the problems we hold in our hearts, not just the problems in front of our eyes. So if there's ever a time to talk about marriage for this curmudgeonly romance-hater, then mysteries are a great time to do so.
I probably wouldn't spend much time on these stories on their own, but it interests me that they are strangely part of a collective. I find it notable that mysteries can serve as a medium for characters to think about this, as much in 2026 as in 1935 and 1954. Figuring out feelings and the next steps in life can be as mysterious and baffling as any crime.
Many good detectives have an accomplice or sidekick, and I guess these characters have chosen a more permanent position for said partner.
In the grand scheme of things, all of these characters worrying about this is probably much ado about nothing, but I'm always down for making much ado about mysteries, and the other stuff can come along, too, provided that it makes me think about more than just the plot.
 |
| Every good detective tries to figure out who's lying. |
Me trying to come up with a title as I like a good alliteration:
Nuptial noir?: Noir only applies to Rear Window.
Wedding woes?: Not specifically mystery enough.
An alibi of avoidance?: ...I guess it's the best we've got.
Other semi-mystery marriage stories for your perusal:
- The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency - by Alexander McCall Smith: I'm not including this one in the main post because I don't like it I didn't realize what was happening soon enough. Despite me over-analyzing every story I encounter, I am often oblivious and miss things, usually in the romantic sense (y'all, I read the entirety of The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society without realizing a relationship was developing until they were professing their feelings to each other. One of the reasons I like the movie better is I can pick up on characters giving each other doe eyes sooner). So the romance angle kind of came out of left field for me here and more confused me than anything else, but if I wasn't so shocked, if we'd be able to stew in it a little more, then the same principles as above would probably apply. Avoidance for the win.
- When the Phone Rings (2024): this one doesn't count in the same way because the two main characters are already married to each other. But that was done under duress and through the mystery they are finding out if they want to stay married to each other. So I suppose that's a link to what we've been talking about.
- Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011): there's a wedding, but it's not so much "I'm not sure I want to get married, maybe I should solve this mystery first" as much as "I WANT to get married so stop dragging me away from it to solve your stupid mystery, Sherlock!"
- Sherlock, episode "The Sign of Three": a mystery happens at a wedding, so that's different than using a mystery to avoid the union. This is more using a mystery to avoid making a best man speech, which is procrastination at its finest.
 |
| The answer to if I should now be a Wedding Planner and make my clients solve mysteries first. |
Thank you so much for wading through all my mysterious connections and making it to the end! Can you see the clues for how these stories fit together? Have you read or watched these? (Anyone want to talk Hitchcock with me? I always want to talk about Hitchcock).
Does it seem mysterious to anyone else that I came across all my story examples in the last year or so? Have any of you encountered this theme anywhere else? If you were in a mystery, what truths about yourself would you be avoiding?
Thanks for reading!
Chloe the MovieCritic
.jpeg)
