4303Re: SHSI RE: Writing Detective fiction
- Dec 13, 2013It seems that a lot of these rules are just begging to be broken - is it possible that these were created to make the exceptions stand out even more? Most of the best detectives - and detective fiction - breaks some rule or the other...in fact, do we even have a single cult-status detective of any period who meticulously follows all these rules? I can't think of any.Won't it be a bit boring if we followed all the rules all the time? Does a significant part of Sherlock's charm not lie in his "flair for the dramatic"? Don't we like our detectives to be exceptional individuals - and brilliance/genius really can't be made to follow rules, can it? The quirks add the spice, the flavour!Sherlock Holmes and his adventures contravened most of them - though these rules came after him. Hercule Poirot and Jane Marple certainly broke quite a few - as did Tommy and Tuppence Beresford - not as famous, but I always thought they were fantastic. Coming down to contemporary times - "The Devotion of Suspect X". :)Cheers,JayJayantika GangulyGeneral Secretary & EditorSherlock Holmes Society of India
On Friday, December 13, 2013 4:50 PM, Tim Symonds <tim.symonds@...> wrote:
Dear Phil, there's a challenge in trying to emulate Doyle's style yet making it 'accessible' to the modern readership one hopes to sell to. We accept the style when we read the canon - ditto John Buchan - but whether a pastiche in the same style would get the reader today, who knows! I think it would be possible to construct an entire pastiche taking whole phrases and sentences from the canon - for example, 'A minute examination of the circumstances served only to make the case more complex'. (Adventure of the Empty House) or 'That is a dangerous argument my dear Watson'. (Norwood Builder). Etc.TimOh, such fun! Lots and lots of rules to break. Please remember that I have read/viewed/heard about 7,000 Sherlockian pastiches and that I have yet to find even ONE that follows the methods Doyle used to write 54 of the 60 Canonical tales. No one has duplicated his technique! A very few tales come close, in one way or another, but NONE use Doyle's methods in detail. That is, no doubt, why everyone complains that pastiches just don't have the 'feel' of the Canon.Perhaps someone will try one of these days, but no one has done it to this day.Sincerely:PhilPhilip K. Jones
An Ill-dressed Vagabond----- Original Message -----From: Amy C ThomasTo: roger johnsonCc: Tim Symonds ; Steve Emecz ; Balaji Narasimhan ; Brian Pugh ; Charles Patmore ; CHARLOTTE SMITH ; mailto:charlotte@... ; chick ; Claire Daines ; Chris Redmond ; Dan Andriacco ; David Marcum ; David Ruffel ; David Wilson ; Dean Turnbloom ; Dhanil Ali ; donald emigh ; Eddy Webb ; Steve Emecz - Hotmail ; Felicia Carparelli ; Fiona-Jane Brown ; Fred Thursfield ; George Walker ; Gerry Kelly ; Gerry O'Hara ; mailto:gmschatell@... ; Hannah Rogers ; Yuichi Hirayama ; mailto:hughcooke@... ; Joe Revill ; Joe Riggs ; John Worth ; mailto:jtaylornkc@... ; Kate Workman ; Kevin Gosselin ; Kieran McMullen ; mailto:kieronf@... ; Luke Kuhns ; Lynette Porter ; Madeline Quinones ; matthew elliott ; Mike Hogan ; mailto:mikepearson0@... ; Molly Carr ; MUDDYBOY3@... ; Peter Bevelin ; Peter Blau ; Peter Keeley ; Philip K. Jones ; Paul Spiring ; Rikey Austin ; Ross K Foad ; mailto:sadru@... ; Samuel Williams ; mailto:saseitz@... ; simon corble ; Tony Reynolds ; mailto:woffproff@... ; Tom Wheeler ; mailto:SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:52 PMSubject: Re: Writing Detective fictionA huge list of rules for me to break! Fantastic! I particularly love stories that follow the criminal's thoughts.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:41 PM, roger johnson <roger_johnson@...> wrote:I'd say that's a pretty sound summary. At about the same time Ronald Knox drew up his Decalogue, which he included in his introduction to Best Detective Stories of 1928-29 -1.The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow.2.All supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course.3.Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable.4.No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end.5.No Chinaman must figure in the story.6.No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right.7.The detective must not himself commit the crime.8.The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.9.The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.10.Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them.
And, of course, some of the finest detective novels have gleefully and successfully broken several of both Knox's and Van Dine's rules. Think of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Murder on the Orient Express, just for starters...
Subject: Writing Detective fiction
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:43:38 +0000Saw this online, dating to when Doyle was alive - 1928. Two bits of 'the rules' I found amusing:3. There must be no love interest.6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects."Twenty rules for writing detective stories" (1928)(Originally published in the American Magazine (1928-sep),
and included in the Philo Vance investigates omnibus (1936).by S.S. Van Dine
(pseud. for Willard Huntington Wright)THE DETECTIVE story is a kind of intellectual game. It is more — it is a sporting event. And for the writing of detective stories there are very definite laws — unwritten, perhaps, but none the less binding; and every respectable and self-respecting concocter of literary mysteries lives up to them. Herewith, then, is a sort Credo, based partly on the practice of all the great writers of detective stories, and partly on the promptings of the honest author's inner conscience. To wit:1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.4. The detective himself, or one of the official investigators, should never turn out to be the culprit. This is bald trickery, on a par with offering some one a bright penny for a five-dollar gold piece. It's false pretenses.5. The culprit must be determined by logical deductions — not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. To solve a criminal problem in this latter fashion is like sending the reader on a deliberate wild-goose chase, and then telling him, after he has failed, that you had the object of his search up your sleeve all the time. Such an author is no better than a practical joker.6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader's trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded.8. The problem of the crime must he solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic se'ances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.9. There must be but one detective — that is, but one protagonist of deduction — one deus ex machina. To bring the minds of three or four, or sometimes a gang of detectives to bear on a problem, is not only to disperse the interest and break the direct thread of logic, but to take an unfair advantage of the reader. If there is more than one detective the reader doesn't know who his codeductor is. It's like making the reader run a race with a relay team.10. The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story — that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest.11. A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person — one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion.12. There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.13. Secret societies, camorras, mafias, et al., have no place in a detective story. A fascinating and truly beautiful murder is irremediably spoiled by any such wholesale culpability. To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance; but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds.14. The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure.15. The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent — provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face-that all the clues really pointed to the culprit — and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter. That the clever reader does often thus solve the problem goes without saying.16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.17. A professional criminal must never be shouldered with the guilt of a crime in a detective story. Crimes by housebreakers and bandits are the province of the police departments — not of authors and brilliant amateur detectives. A really fascinating crime is one committed by a pillar of a church, or a spinster noted for her charities.18. A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. To end an odyssey of sleuthing with such an anti-climax is to hoodwink the trusting and kind-hearted reader.19. The motives for all crimes in detective stories should be personal. International plottings and war politics belong in a different category of fiction — in secret-service tales, for instance. But a murder story must be kept gemütlich, so to speak. It must reflect the reader's everyday experiences, and give him a certain outlet for his own repressed desires and emotions.20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect. (b) The bogus spiritualistic se'ance to frighten the culprit into giving himself away. (c) Forged fingerprints. (d) The dummy-figure alibi. (e) The dog that does not bark and thereby reveals the fact that the intruder is familiar. (f)The final pinning of the crime on a twin, or a relative who looks exactly like the suspected, but innocent, person. (g) The hypodermic syringe and the knockout drops. (h) The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in. (i) The word association test for guilt. (j) The cipher, or code letter, which is eventually unraveled by the sleuth.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>