Okay book if you want to explore writing according to a structure.

But I don't agree to all of it. For instance the statement: "In mystery writing, you simplify the problem of motive by creating a visible resource base." From the examples, it seems the resource base is something like money or some property that the killer wants or wants to protect. But what about a killer that kills for revenge (and gains nothing, but the knowledge the victim won't be a pest anymore)? Or a killer that kills accidentally? Those situations too can be a puzzler for the sleuth. Or are plots like that to sophisticated for the weekend novelist?

And apparently you must create a catalyst, the character that "makes things happen". As if finding the killer is not enough motivator for the sleuth. I needed more of a definition of what a catalyst is and does. There were many examples, but I still didn't get the point why this one character is a catalyst and some other character that makes things happen (almost) as much, isn't.

The main idea though, getting to know the characters helps develop the plot, is useful. As is the overall message: put bum in seat and get to work.