Reading the Detectives discussion

While reading The Golden Age of Murder, I've just come across the ten 'rules' of detective fiction drawn up by Ronald Arbuthnott Knox. I had seen them in the past but hadn't remembered them all!

Here's a link to them:
http://www.thrillingdetective.com/tri...

I'm just wondering what anyone else feels about writers sticking to the rules - both in the Golden Age and now? Are there any where it really annoys you if the writers break them?

Personally, I totally agree with the last one - I'm left fuming if previously unmentioned identical twins turn up, as happened in a couple of mysteries I saw recently on TV!

Looking through the list, I also particularly hate the detective spotting a clue, tucking it away, then bringing it out of his pocket 100 pages later! So I agree on that one too.

Judy wrote: "Looking through the list, I also particularly hate the detective spotting a clue, tucking it away, then bringing it out of his pocket 100 pages later! So I agree on that one too."

Yes, that always strikes me as "cheating". Sherlock Holmes did this all the time.

I also dislike it when the solution is arrived at due to serendipity so I agree with rule #6 ("No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right."), though perhaps it is a bit strong.

I don't mind the detective stumbling into a clue now and then as long as the reader is aware of it at the time -- what I don't like is the detective/amateur sleuth stumbling into a previously unthought-of solution at the very end (like accidentally running into the murderer as he is disposing of crucial evidence). This happens a lot in the modern cozies.

In general, a useful set of rules, but not complete. I suspect that we could come up with some additional rules here which are quite as important.

For example:

If a cipher or coded message is involved, it must be one which the reader of average intelligence has a reasonable chance of deciphering with some but not extreme effort. (This rule is, I fear, broken in Sayers's Nine Tailors, but to say more about that here would be a spoiler. But while I love that book for the most part, I think the cipher element is unfair to the reader.)

It is interesting that one mentions the 'Watson' solving the crime. I don't want to give anything away, but in the Georgette Heyer (and many other books of this period, including Sayers) the detective actually investigating the crime is totally over shadowed by the gifted amateur. Both Parker and the Inspector in the Heyer invites the amateur along with them quite happily. Yet, surely in Death in the Stocks, Giles Carrington has more than a little conflict of interest?!

Susan wrote: "It is interesting that one mentions the 'Watson' solving the crime. I don't want to give anything away, but in the Georgette Heyer (and many other books of this period, including Sayers) the detect..."

To say nothing of Chief Inspector Japp, whom I don't think ever solved a case without Poirot!

Very true, Leslie!

Susan wrote: "It is interesting that one mentions the 'Watson' solving the crime. I don't want to give anything away, but in the Georgette Heyer (and many other books of this period, including Sayers) the detect..."

Do you think they mean detective as in 'main person solving the crime' rather than 'police detective'? Sherlock Holmes wasn't a police detective and that's where the term 'the Watson' comes from. Poirot was retired from detecting, Wimsey isn't police. So I think it might mean something broader than police detective perhaps?

Michelle, I am sure that you are right. It just was amusing to think about those "Watson"-type characters who are the official policemen :)

Yes, yes, emphatically yes. Though I think rule 5 ("no Chinaman") might need clarification. I'm pretty sure it means "no gratuitous exoticism", but that doesn't seem especially clear.

I think it's clear that by "detective" they mean the sleuthing hero: Poirot, Marple, Wimsey, etc. etc..

Personally, I would add a rule that the detective should never be surprised by the culprit at the moment of denouement. The detective absolutely has to know whodunnit at the moment of denouement, even if they just figured it out in a brainwave five minutes earlier.

It really annoys me when the denouement is set up so that the killer reveals themselves, and the detective essentially goes "OMG, I should have known, because clue clue clue." Or worse, when the detective accuses someone else in an honest mistake (traps laid for the actual killer are fair game) prompting the actual killer to make the denouement.

Chris, thanks for your thoughts on this - totally agree that it's annoying when the detective doesn't actually detect whodunit and just finds out by chance!

I've just found Ronald Knox's full piece where he set out the rules (it's quite long), and he goes into more detail about the 'no Chinaman' rule here - it seems he means 'no stereotyped descriptions of Chinese characters'.

(Just returning to edit this post a year on because I looked back at the link below and realised it contains a couple of possible spoilers for GA novels!)

http://tinyurl.com/abojf3d

I'd always assumed what he really meant was that there should be no international gangs turning up, as that's something I sometimes find rather annoying - especially if it means that several characters are involved in the murder.

Still with the 'no Chinaman' rule, here is an article by Golden Age expert Curtis Evans which sheds some more light on it.

http://thepassingtramp.blogspot.co.uk...

Aha! As a Chinese character myself, I heartily approve.

Leslie wrote: "Susan wrote: "It is interesting that one mentions the 'Watson' solving the crime. I don't want to give anything away, but in the Georgette Heyer (and many other books of this period, including Saye..."

Sometimes I think Japp might lose his job without Poirot's help. LOL

Sherry wrote: "Sometimes I think Japp might lose his job without Poirot's help. LOL"

It's been a while, but I remember picking up one of the Gervase Fen mysteries and being quite tickled by the author's take on this. Gervase Fen, the hero, is a professor of English literature. His attendant Lestrade (I forget his name) is, outside of police work, a successfully published poet and, it is implied, better at Fen's official profession than Fen himself.

I've just read a mystery for another group in which the villain was the policeman who found the body, and it is interesting how many commentators said that they wondered if he might have been the murderer but dismissed it because he was one of the police. So even when people don't necessarily know of "the rules", instinctively they feel it isn't fair to make the murderer be one of the detecting team.

Christopher wrote: "Sherry wrote: "Sometimes I think Japp might lose his job without Poirot's help. LOL"

It's been a while, but I remember picking up one of the Gervase Fen mysteries and being quite tickled by the au..."

One of the nominations for April is a Fen mystery, The Moving Toyshop. I love Crispin's sense of humor!

Just bumping this thread because I was wondering if anyone thinks there should be any more "rules" than those on the list drawn up by Ronald Knox?

I wouldn't mind seeing a rule saying that not more than one disguise can be used in any book! I seem to have read quite a few mysteries recently featuring an amazing number of disguises, which make it very difficult to guess whodunit.

Looking back over the discussion, I see Chris had already suggested a rule about codes and ciphers. Any more?

I really don't like it when the missing, long lost brother/cousin/uncle turns up from gold mining in South Africa or somewhere... It isn't cheating as such, but I just find it a bit too easy.

Susan wrote: "I really don't like it when the missing, long lost brother/cousin/uncle turns up from gold mining in South Africa or somewhere... It isn't cheating as such, but I just find it a bit too easy."

I agree.

Yes, that is a bit of a pain.

Also when any character suddenly appears for the first time in the last few pages and turns out to be the murderer!

I'd seen the rules before but didn't realize they were turned into the oath the Detection Club members had to take (supposedly penned by Dorothy Sayers):
(I really need to read the Golden Age of Murder book!)

"Do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect the crimes presented to them, using those wits which it may please you to bestow upon them and not placing reliance on, nor making use of Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo-Jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence or the Act of God?
I do.
Do you solemnly swear never to conceal a vital clue from the reader?
I do.
Do you promise to observe a seemly moderation in the use of Gangs, Conspiracies, Death-Rays, Ghosts, Hypnotism, Trap-Doors, Chinamen, Super-Criminals and Lunatics; and utterly and forever to forswear Mysterious Poisons unknown to Science?
I do.
Will you honour the King’s English?
I will."
(Rules of the Detection Club (circa 1929))

Oh well Im not very smart about the whole detecting thing.. so I dot realy worry about this. I read detective stories for the characters and the story per se, and I have found that the odd few non Sayers ones that I've read from this era, just aren't very good as regards memorable characters or atmosphere... So i've stopped trying now to read other ones.

I'd love to see a moratorium on the Castle maneuver, where some fairly average person attaches himself at the hip to a detective and is given completely idiotic levels of access to an investigation. There was some decently logical justification on the show, but I read a book recently that was just a shockingly stupid attempt to use the premise, badly.

Actually, that leads into my opinion on the original question, which is kind of the same as my opinion on abiding by a lot of rules of writing. If you know what you're doing, if you're a smart writer, you can get away with just about anything. If none of that applies, you shouldn't try it. You have to know the rules, really know them, in order to break 'em.

(Whenever I see "jiggery pokery" I think of this:
The Doctor: Yeah, I came first in jiggery pokery, what about you?
Rose Tyler: Nah, I failed hullabaloo.)

Miss M wrote: "..."Do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect the crimes presented to them, using those wits which it may please you to bestow upon them and not placing reliance on, nor making use of Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo-Jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence or the Act of God?
I do...."

Well, Grant certainly relies on his famous intuition a lot. Granted it's masculine and not feminine intuition, but still . . .

Tracey wrote: "(Whenever I see "jiggery pokery" I think of this:
The Doctor: Yeah, I came first in jiggery pokery, what about you?
Rose Tyler: Nah, I failed hullabaloo.) ..."

Chuckle!

Judy wrote: "Just bumping this thread because I was wondering if anyone thinks there should be any more "rules" than those on the list drawn up by Ronald Knox?..."

Miss M wrote: "...Do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect the crimes presented to them, using those wits which it may please you to bestow upon them and not placing reliance on, nor making use of Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo-Jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence or the Act of God? ...

This is an important 'rule' for me -- my tolerance for mysteries which get solved in the last 2 chapters by 'jiggery-pokery' has diminished over the years. A lot of the contemporary cozy series seem to use coincidence, luck or accident as the means of figuring out the culprit -- or maybe I have just been incredibly unlucky in the ones I have read...

Leslie wrote: "A lot of the contemporary cozy series seem to use coincidence, luck or accident as the means of figuring out the culprit -- or maybe I have just been incredibly unlucky in the ones I have read... .."

No, I think you're on to something. But my opinion of one of two reasons is that too many mediocre writers have jumped in to the genre, and they don't have the skill, or aren't willing to take the time, or a combination of those, to develop a mystery along the classic lines. It's much easier to write a pop novel with a mystery and use the last chapter to toss in an ending by intuition or guesswork or happenstance that it is to work at embedding clues along the way which adequately explain the mystery and give the reader a fair chance of solving the problem without making them so obvious that it's a no brainer who did it.

The mystery writers of the Golden Age were excellent writers who happened to choose to write mysteries. Today excellent writers prefer to write literary-prize-eligible novels and leave the mystery writing to second or third rate writers.

There are a few exceptions, but many more who aren't.

I said one of two reasons. The other, I think, is a trend away from the classic mystery format into two other formats: one, the macho suspense format exemplified, for example, by Lee Child's Jack Reacher. The other is the story novel with a bit of a mystery slipped in. I think, for example, of the Hamish Macbeth novels. Beaton seems more interested in writing about the life of Hamish and his animals than in getting serious about presenting a fair mystery puzzle for the reader to work through.

Everyman wrote: "Leslie wrote: "A lot of the contemporary cozy series seem to use coincidence, luck or accident as the means of figuring out the culprit -- or maybe I have just been incredibly unlucky in the ones I..."

I do think that too many mediocre writers are out there, not just in the mystery genre -- perhaps due to the availability of self-publishing? Maybe if we went back to calling it 'vanity publishing' it would help!

Leslie wrote: "I do think that too many mediocre writers are out there, not just in the mystery genre -- perhaps due to the availability of self-publishing?"

I think it predates self-publishing. I think it dates from two societal trends: one, universal education starting in the mid 18th century which created a vastly greater population of potential readers looking for light entertainment, and two, the rise of leisure time with the reduction of the work day and work week down to only 40 hours. A third trend, perhaps, was the development of mass transportation allowing people to live further from their job locations and commute by train, bus, or subway, and also go on longer journeys for visiting or recreation, giving a period of time where many people found reading the best way of passing the time, but where newspaper reading was much more awkward than reading a paperback novel. But in such situations, light reading that didn't require thought or much attention was necessary; hence the rise of the mystery and along with it the romance and to some extent the science fiction paperback.

I think you are right, Everyman. 'Pulp' fiction that was cheap and disposable and never meant to be taken seriously.

I think a lot of modern writing really shows the danger of the 'creative writing course' where writers tend towards a format - a lot of the writing is plot driven - written as though readers cannot remember anything, or there will be a spate of similar books; such as dual time frame historical novels. Tired formats, too many books which are similar, 'hooks' in cozy mysteries, such as crime solving cats and the lack of a good editor...

Still, there are enough good books out there and there has always been a lot of bad writing about. I do agree with Everyman though that GA writers cared about their craft and wrote well - if writing mysteries was looked down upon by the literary elite, they started the Detection Club and cared about their craft themselves.

I'm just bumping this thread because I've just come across an even longer list of 20 'rules' drawn up by American Golden Age writer S.S. Van Dine.

John mentioned the other day in another thread that the complete set of 12 Philo Vance books by this author is currently 49p in the UK.

I slightly belatedly decided to grab this and was interested to see that there are actually 2 different complete editions for 49p in the UK!

One of them, MURDER MYSTERIES - S.S. Van Dine Edition: 12 Detective Novels in One Volume (Illustrated): The Benson Murder Case, The Canary Murder Case, The Greene Murder ... Dragon Murder Case, The Casino Murder Case..., not only contains the 12 books but also begins with the rules!

Here is a link to read the rules online:

http://www.thrillingdetective.com/tri...

Reading through these rules, I'm immediately startled by the third one:

There must be no love interest in the story. To introduce amour is to clutter up a purely intellectual experience with irrelevant sentiment. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.

Many of my favourite authors break this particular rule, including Dorothy Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, Margery Allingham, etc, etc!

I do think sometimes romance can slow down a book oo much, but in general I'm very happy to have love interest mixed up with the mystery, so I'm quite glad not everyone obeyed Van Dines' edict.

Christie rarely uses romance, as such, but she likes to 'tidy up' characters by marrying them off at the end - as we saw demonstrated in The Moving Finger. Much of the charm in Sayers is the relationship between Peter and Harriet, so obviously, yes, that is a rule best ignored!

It's good to ignore it sometimes, but mostly when an amateur detective is at work. With police procedurals I think it should be strictly observed.

I probably read police procedurals but what exactly does that mean, is it books where only the police solve the crime? So something like Ian Rankin and Rebus or Patricia Cornwell, or a personal favourite of mine Sharon (SJ) Bolton?

Everyman wrote: "No, I think you're on to something. But my opinion of one of two reasons is that too many mediocre writers have jumped in to the genre, and they don't have the skill, or aren't willing to take the time, or a combination of those, to develop a mystery along the classic lines. It's much easier to write a pop novel with a mystery and use the last chapter to toss in an ending by intuition or guesswork or happenstance that it is to work at embedding clues along the way which adequately explain the mystery and give the reader a fair chance of solving the problem without making them so obvious that it's a no brainer who did it."

One of the things I want to do is write mysteries that shows that I KNOW the genre and as you said alot of contemporary mystery writers don't take the time to know the genre they're writing in and I think if you see how many mysteries they read in their lifetime you would see the lack of knowledge and skills they have, which wouldn't happen if they voraciously read the genre more. One of the things that worry me is writing mysteries that won't stump the reader while playing fair at the same time. I worry about being not only a mediocre writer but a mediocre mystery writer as well. I'm not interested in writing these fluffy, soft cozies that writers are doing today. I'm more into the Golden Age type of mysteries, where the mysteries take center stage with their ingenious plots. I care about the craft of writing and constructing well-crafted mysteries. I never want to craft poorly done mystery/suspense stories

Susan wrote: "Still, there are enough good books out there and there has always been a lot of bad writing about. I do agree with Everyman though that GA writers cared about their craft and wrote well - if writing mysteries was looked down upon by the literary elite, they started the Detection Club and cared about their craft themselves."

Do you think today's mystery writers care about their craft the way GA writers did? How would define the meaning of caring about the craft?

Judy wrote: "Reading through these rules, I'm immediately startled by the third one:

There must be no love interest in the story. To introduce amour is to clutter up a purely intellectual experience with irrel..."

While I also love many GA authors who break that rule, some of the more recent 'cozies' go too far in my opinion, being really romances with a dash at a mystery in the background. Unfortunately for me, they also tend to be the type of romances that I don't care for (too much about sex and not enough romance)...

I also dislike most mysteries which violate rule #5 (which a lot of the above-mentioned cozies do):

"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."

LovesMysteries wrote: "Susan wrote: "Still, there are enough good books out there and there has always been a lot of bad writing about. I do agree with Everyman though..."

Do you think today's mystery writers care about their craft the way GA writers did?"

Certainly some of them do though perhaps in a different way than in the Golden Age -- more emphasis on the psychological aspects and less on creating a logical puzzle (maybe?)...

I think the Detection Club rules were set up somewhat tongue-in-cheek and one of the club founders, Agatha Christie broke a rule right off the bat with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd Also it appears that the "no China man rule" was a little poke at Sax Rohmer for his Fu Manchu books

Leslie wrote: "
I also dislike most mysteries which violate rule #5 (which a lot of the above-mentioned cozies do):

"The culprit must be determined by logical deductions--not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. "

I would add to that that we have to see the detective finding the clues and solving the crime with them. It's one of my problems with the Hamish Macbeth mysteries; I like Hamish a lot as stories, but as mysteries they're in my opinion weak because he just comes up with the solutions apparently out of thin air. Whereas Nero Wolfe, for example, seems to come up with solutions out of thin air until he explains, which he always does, what that subtle clue was that everybody saw but nobody but he understood. The identity of a man because of the pseudonym he used. Identifying the writer of a manuscript by the way he paragraphs and uses an unusual phrase (once you look for it, you start to notice it not only in books but in your own writing). The relationship between two people who aren't supposed to have a relationship because of one brief remark. And so on.

That's the way it's supposed to be done!

Compete side track based on Everyman's comment about recognizing writing styles. There is new book, The Spy Who Couldn't Spell, non-fiction, on identifying a spy through his spelling mistakes. I haven't read it but the review sounded interesting.

I'm curious to know if anyone thinks that the modern mystery books are weakened by the use of the advanced science of forensics. In the GA, it was all done by brain power and deduction with no help from the DNA findings or blood spatter experts.

But they also had the death penalty! DNA may not be as 'romantic' as brain power/deduction, but I think its certainty more than makes up for possibly condemning the wrong person.

I totally agree, Betsy but I was just curious if readers thought that the certainty of forensics took away the author's ability to come up with a complex puzzle and an interesting detective...............or does it make any difference?

I think it does make a difference. The story lack it's charm and sometimes the puzzle poses no difficulty. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the modern forensic.

I think it makes the detective (and author) work harder because of scientific accuracy. In the GA many of the detectives were amateurs who came up with the right answer because they were fiction and their plots fit what the authors wanted. Even the detectives of the time period had that luxury because the author was embellishing their talents.

In mysteries of today, more than deduction is needed. Scientific proof can make or break the story (unless it's a cozy where anything seems to go) so perhaps you're right that the story is 'diminished' in some way. Perhaps that is why we learn so much more about the personal lives of detectives now, however, I admire today's authors for the work they put in on the scientific elements. 'Little grey cells' just aren't enough anymore.

Thanks for the comments Betsy and Marcus. I always argue with myself about that question. Being a huge fan of the GA authors, I tend to lean toward that style of detection ......and then I pick up a book by Tana French or Val McDermid and my self argument goes down the tubes!!!