What kind of mystery writer are you?

I’ve meaning to write this post for a few days but the semester has started, I’m backing teaching and it’s a crazy time of the year.  A couple of weeks ago Maxine at Petrona, responding to a post by Martin Edwards, discussed ‘what kind of a mystery reader are you?’  Martin had readers divided into two groups: "those who like to try to solve the mystery themselves, before the solution is revealed, and those who simply enjoy the story and make no serious effort to work out what is going on."  I guess I’m in the first group, though I don’t try too hard, and I don’t mind too much if there’s not much of a mystery in the book.  In fact, a few of my favourite books in the last year or so have been more about exploring a particular life or time or idea, rather than being a whodunit – Philip Claudel’s ‘Brodeck’s Report’, Dave Zeltserman’s ‘Killer’, Daniel Woodrell’s ‘Winter’s Bone’ and ‘The Ones You Do’, and Alan Furst’s ‘The Foreign Correspondent’ – all crime novels that have twists and turns, but no real revelatory moment of solution. 

It seems then that crime writers fall into two camps, those that are seeking to create a puzzle that they invite readers to try and solve as they read (or enjoy when it’s revealed), and those that are trying to do something else, such as exploring a particular idea or way of life, etc.  And my sense is that those that set up a puzzle are divided into two groups as well – those that are planners and work out the entire plot and puzzle in advance, and those where it unfolds through the writing.  I’m in the latter camp.  I have no idea how a story is going to unfold and end when I start.  My strategy is largely to keep as many people in the frame for as long as possible and see where the writing takes me.  If the story involves a murder, then who the perpetrator is will often change a few times in the journey until I settle on an outcome I’m happy with.  And the puzzles are with a small 'p' - they are not trying to come out of left field, or involve a massive twist, and I leave some puzzles unsolved (as many crimes are).  It’s the same with writing my academic books – I have no predetermined argument and therefore no idea as to how they’re going to unfold either.  The argument emerges through the writing and often the argument is open-ended.

So, what kind of writer are you – puzzle maker or social commentator or something else?