MATTERS FOR FURTHER STUDY

by Byron McAllister

Where I live, the weather is sometimes chilly, to say the least. Today, the outdoor temperature is below that for which the thermostat is set, and one of us left the front door open. The furnace came on, which may possibly waste energy.

My wife, who is scientific-minded, said the furnace may have come on as a result of leaving the door open. Now, as everyone knows, if one turns over a rock, one can find a person who looks to the general public pretty much like a scientist, and who will disagree with pretty much anything you encourage him or her to disagree with. With the aid of at least one such person, I can cast doubt on the hypothesis that leaving the door open caused the furnace to come on. From this, I could show that no such hypothesis has ever been entirely proved, meaning that it is not a fact but only a theory. Majority opinion being what it is, I might have to invent a compromise, but there are examples available for me to follow: I suggest that the matter “deserves further study.” Should the scientists (and, of course, administrators of whatever industries may assert that they have an interest in the matter) decide, as some think they may do, that, in fact, leaving the door open does cause the furnace to turn on, it will then be necessary to study the question whether these investigators were truly objective in drawing their conclusions. Keep in mind that the furnace has, at times, turned on when the door was not open, further weakening what is, at best, a theory.

The question whether having the furnace on while the door is open has not been permanently settled, either, and deserves further study—and, if necessary, study beyond that . The position of atmospheric scientists as to whether more harm is done by our paying for the house's exuding heated air than would be done by depriving the (usually) cool climate in which we live of that heated air is also a suitable subject for a study. The whole business is quite analogous to the obviously politicized matter of whether emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could result in any sort of climatic change, a question which even our national government agrees merits further study—and, if anybody questions the results of that study—study beyond that.

Does all of this relate in some way to mystery writing? Well, jumping the gun a little, since we should study that question further before announcing a result, let me report simultaneously on the many mystery writers' conferences I have attended. At each, we are informed on the one hand that if we are truly writers, we have only to proceed with confidence, writing what is in our hearts, ignoring the unpredictable vagaries of the market place, and, on the other hand, that publishing is becoming more and more difficult as time goes by and the big publishing houses concentrate on books about or even by celebrities and not by complete unknowns like ourselves. In other words, we can make good, if we persist, although our chances of success in the field are not good at all, no matter what. These views are sometimes conveyed by different people, sometimes by the same person. Theories, both of them, requiring further study. Of course, while we are studying them, the situations to which they refer—we're talking about the market place for mysteries, of course—is in a constant state of flux, so that any conclusion we may draw will require further study.

Or is the market in a state of flux? Aha! Something else that requires further study. If we carefully study the market and then carefully study our ability to sit down and write for that market while simultaneously disregarding it and keeping in mind that it is rigged against us, even though in a state of flux—if it is , in fact, always changing— if , I say, we study this matter carefully, we may conclude that what is required is further study. And while we are studying whether the further study should be studied, we are wasting energy out the front door (unless, of course, that is a matter that requires further study) and justifying inaction on a scale only exceeded by whole nations and their incessant analyzing whether or not to study matters ostensibly (but, remember, perhaps not?) of great importance to us all.

Luckily, a great deal more than the exhortations and the warnings that require further study goes on at any given writers' conference. So I keep going to ‘em. In between, I try to write stuff, and, being lazy, the only thing along those lines that I study is whether the writing does anybody, me included, more harm than good. So far, that study is coming out just the way I like it to—while the “front door” and the “global warming” studies, both far simpler to complete, rearrange all the facilities I use in the writing and are supposedly beyond my control. (Except that, as for the front door, my wife, who isn't easily pushed around by political theorizing, found the evidence compelling and has now closed it.)