Writing How do you construct an authentic fake red flag as a psychological thriller twist?

[Eldoria]

Authentic Fake Red Flags as Psychological Thriller Twists​

In psychological thriller mystery fiction, the main villain is often disguised from the beginning of the narrative. The narrative provides foreshadowing regarding whom the villain is. So when the twist is revealed, it feels organically surprising. You can't suddenly turn a character into a villain without foreshadowing; that would be a cheap, forced twist.

Therefore, ideally, the protagonist and the reader have relatively equal information to give them an equal chance of uncovering the mystery. Here's the problem: the disguised villain is usually within the circle of characters the protagonist interacts with throughout the story. To create an organic twist, you need to sprinkle foreshadowings among the characters surrounding the protagonist.

However, if the hints are too obvious, the twist's effect will be diminished because the reader will have guessed the twist from the start. It's especially for veteran readers, who are usually familiar with tropes and can guess the villain early on based on narrative clues.

For example, characters who are too perfect/too good are often suspected of being villains (look at Sosuke Aizen!) or certain suspicious traits, such as narrow eyes (not racist, but cliché. Even narrow eyes became a viral trend in Korean fiction a few years ago).

Paradoxically, the clearer the foreshadowing, the less surprising the twist. The more vague the foreshadowing, the more forced the twist feels.

Therefore, you need to play between setup of the foreshadowing, reader expectations and pay off. Personally, I offer two approaches to psychological thriller twists through faked red flags:

First, breadcrumbs. You can spread the foreshadowing evenly across many characters. Each character has the potential to be a villain. From here, the protagonist and the reader need to critically observe, interpret, and deduce to distinguish who is the victim, who is the witness, and who is the villain.

Now, this is where the thriller twist comes in: the protagonist might mistakenly assume the villain. The true villain is revealed through self-revelation after the false calm. The effect is that the reader might feel shocked at having mistaken the villain: "Hmm... maybe it's him, right? Eh... I was wrong."

Second, double bluff. You consistently provide clear foreshadowing to a spesific villain. For example, narrating a character who is too perfect to be true. The protagonist and readers might suspect that character is the villain. Then, you can narrate a false flag that the character is not the villain. For example, through the heroic behavior of the suspected character at a critical moment to dispel the protagonist's and readers' suspicions.

Well, this is where the thriller twist comes in. After an anti-climax, the scene reveals that the character is indeed the villain. The reader is made to suspect, then their suspicion is disproved, only to have their initial suspicion reconfirmed. The effect is, the reader might say, "The villain must be that suspicious character. Oh, it's not him?! Crazy? It really is him!"

Well, that's the false red flag twist technique. Will this twist become a cliché (easy to predict)? Of course, the twist that is revealed is no longer a twist. It will become a cliché for those who have studied it.

The point is, to create a twist, we need to play around with the setup in the form of foreshadowing, reader expectations, and an out-of-the-box payoff. My question is, how do you construct an authentic red flag that's faked as a psychological thriller twist?

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Its difficult to do well. One of my all-time favorites was in the novel sequel to Psycho (called simply "Psycho II" but completely different from the movies), which has Norman Bates's psychiatrist trying to prevent a movie being made about his patient's life... only to have Norman escape from his care... And it seems he's up to his old tricks, until the next to the last chapter, when the previously unidentified corpse in the truck that Norman used to escape turns out to be ... Norman Bates himself. And the sequel to that (both sequels written by the author of the original story the movie was based on - "The Very Bad Friend" - Robert Bloch), Psycho House where all the murderers are dead, someone is reopening the hotel, and now there are bodies piling up again... which pulled the unusual twist of apparently clearing the most likely suspect right after the first murder - only to reveal that was false information at the end ...

There was a K-Drama my wife was watching where the opening scene made it look like the female lead was a serial killer - but she's being blackmailed by someone who APPARENTLY fabricated the evidence... and there's a nice police psychiatrist who keeps flirting with her... and it seems he knows who is blackmailing her. But if it was unclear if it was actually HIM or one of his patients - or the mysterious brother he talks to sometimes on the phone and who seems to know an awful lot about everyone. I never saw the ending (I think she lost interest in that one as it got too complex).

 

[MFontana]

Movie wise; the original Scream film did an exceptional job with this premise.
Watching it fresh, you are going in expecting one killer; and that it is going to be one of the characters close to the protagonists/in their friend group.
Then they all start suspecting one another, and all of them COULD be the killer, so when the twist comes, you're caught completely off guard. Not a matter of whose the killer, but there were multiple killers all along.

I'd also point you towards Empire of Exiles by Erin M. Evans as another great, multi-layered mystery story. I can't say much without spoiling it though. Only that it was exceptionally well done, and kept me guessing (and reading) cover to cover.

Now, if I were writing one myself, and yes I've toyed with a few ideas, I'd probably create a tiered mystery first. Where the villain is the mastermind behind everything (IE: Prof. James Moriarity in Sherlock Holmes) and he/she pulls strings to manipulate others into committing their own villainous acts against one another to keep the attention off him/her.

Mind you, this is just all speculative right now.
Foreshadowing, Misdirection, and the Unreliable Narrator would be among the most frequently used literary tools for that narrative with a touch of Dramatic Irony layered in as well to really ramp up the tension.

The most important question I'd say should be asked in this kind of story is; "What if...?" as the reader is trying to sort through who the villain is alongside the protagonist.

 

[Fairemont]

I actually created one such red herring in a story Im working on right now.

One of the better ways to do it is to make competence suspicious. For example, procedures are followed, but the wording and actions associated with those procedures tend to cast suspicion on the competent one.

In my story, a man is murdered in a granary, but he was starting to look suspicious because his name appeared one a couple of documents that threw up red flags.

Rather than summoning him for questions, the Assistant Administrator suggested that they send people for the records, and then bring him back with them. It fit procedures better.

The other investigators agreed.

In the next scene, a few men show up in the late evening is murdered.

She looks suspicious by coincidence, but was merely follow procedures and acting with competence.

She continually reinforces her suspicious red herring role by being trying to remain overly competent, and thus looks like she is trying too hard to cover something up.
I suppose it is worth mentioning that I also introduced her alongside another man. He is the one in charge of the granary. Unlike her, he is guilty of grain fraud, but not directly associated with the murder.

He spends the entire time sweating bullets and looking super guilty just by being in the scene, and gets real suspicious later when he takes more initiative than needed to conducted minor investigative things like taking inventory of tools and grain to make sure nothing was stolen before he was asked to.

The granary workers also thought to report back to him before they reported to the authorities, which makes him look even more suspicious. They all mention its just policy to notify him of any problems, and murder is a big problem, so it was more instinct to go to him first than it was criminal intent.

So, by introducing both of these characters and running them parallel, it becomes harder to figure out which is really guilty.

 

[MFontana]

I actually created one such red herring in a story Im working on right now.

One of the better ways to do it is to make competence suspicious. For example, procedures are followed, but the wording and actions associated with those procedures tend to cast suspicion on the competent one.

In my story, a man is murdered in a granary, but he was starting to look suspicious because his name appeared one a couple of documents that threw up red flags.

Rather than summoning him for questions, the Assistant Administrator suggested that they send people for the records, and then bring him back with them. It fit procedures better.

The other investigators agreed.

In the next scene, a few men show up in the late evening is murdered.

She looks suspicious by coincidence, but was merely follow procedures and acting with competence.

She continually reinforces her suspicious red herring role by being trying to remain overly competent, and thus looks like she is trying too hard to cover something up.
I suppose it is worth mentioning that I also introduced her alongside another man. He is the one in charge of the granary. Unlike her, he is guilty of grain fraud, but not directly associated with the murder.

He spends the entire time sweating bullets and looking super guilty just by being in the scene, and gets real suspicious later when he takes more initiative than needed to conducted minor investigative things like taking inventory of tools and grain to make sure nothing was stolen before he was asked to.

The granary workers also thought to report back to him before they reported to the authorities, which makes him look even more suspicious. They all mention its just policy to notify him of any problems, and murder is a big problem, so it was more instinct to go to him first than it was criminal intent.

So, by introducing both of these characters and running them parallel, it becomes harder to figure out which is really guilty.

I know who the guilty party is.
It was the Butler. The butler did it.
(Not seriously, but figure if I guess it enough, I'll be right sooner or later)

 

[Fairemont]

I know who the guilty party is.
It was the Butler. The butler did it.
(Not seriously, but figure if I guess it enough, I'll be right sooner or later)

I have like seven people who could technically be guilty, but havent locked in on who yet, which has been interesting because it makes them all suspicious right up until I decide who the murderer is haha