The Ten Commandments for Detective Fiction (2017)(elizabethspanncraig.com)
elizabethspanncraig.com
The Ten Commandments for Detective Fiction (2017)
https://elizabethspanncraig.com/mystery-writing-tips/ten-commandments-detective-fiction-1929-brief-history/
68 comments
After reading some Nordic detective, I reached the conclusion that a severe dependency must be a requirement for admission to police academy. Divorce, accidental kills, being the only survivor of a crash that killed your family, etc., are extra points which set your career on a quick path to D.I. One cannot imagine the horrors that constitute the life of a police commissioner.
> I reached the conclusion that a severe dependency must be a requirement for admission to police academy
I'm thinking it goes back at least as far as Inspector Morse, although I'm not sure whether we'd say he had a dependency on real ale or Mozart....?
Perhaps a certain lack of joy?
I'm thinking it goes back at least as far as Inspector Morse, although I'm not sure whether we'd say he had a dependency on real ale or Mozart....?
Perhaps a certain lack of joy?
Obligatory: https://youtu.be/I-OOpZitfd0 (all of 36 seconds long and every one of them worth it)
Swedish crime show, standing in a forest, snow on the ground, dark but not night, possibly in the afternoon:
"He committed Finnish suicide"
"What's that?"
"He drank himself to death"
Later on...
Detective to the pathologist as they stand over the body of completely naked woman in the morgue:
"What can you tell me about this woman?"
"Judging by her perfect white teeth I'd say she's American"
"He committed Finnish suicide"
"What's that?"
"He drank himself to death"
Later on...
Detective to the pathologist as they stand over the body of completely naked woman in the morgue:
"What can you tell me about this woman?"
"Judging by her perfect white teeth I'd say she's American"
I think a lot of the recent Scandinavian noir has overblown that part. I do recommend the Martin Beck (Beck) series which was the original series that started the whole Scandinavian noir genre. It’s very 80s and has a less dramatic protagonist DI
> Contemporary mystery authors too often feel the need to create the illusion of depth by having alcoholic protagonists with messy personal lives
I agree with you. Messy personal lives and often sex scenes or gore that add nothing to the story. I find it off-putting and disturbing (not necessarily morally disturbing, more as noise or feeling disconnected from the author: I don't get why are you telling me this, am I missing the point, should I be enjoying this?) and find myself retreating to old classics like Poirot, Father Brown, Miss Marple and Sherlock Holmes again and again
I agree with you. Messy personal lives and often sex scenes or gore that add nothing to the story. I find it off-putting and disturbing (not necessarily morally disturbing, more as noise or feeling disconnected from the author: I don't get why are you telling me this, am I missing the point, should I be enjoying this?) and find myself retreating to old classics like Poirot, Father Brown, Miss Marple and Sherlock Holmes again and again
There was a fair amount of complaint about the tacked-on Poriot backstory in the recent Death on the Nile movie. IMO, filling in every blank makes characters less interesting, not more.
https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/i-cant-stop-thinking-abo...
https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/i-cant-stop-thinking-abo...
The problem is that if you're going to have the reader follow a particular detective around for several books, the reader will eventually want to see more sides to the character than just the professional one; treating the detective as merely a detective, solving cases that otherwise don't engage his or her wider life. begins to feel very mechanical and shallow, even--if it's not too strong a word--exploitative. Hence the "messy personal lives," stories where the criminal kidnaps the detective's spouse, etc. Nothing says the detective has to be an embittered alcoholic or some other cliché, but I think there's good reasons behind the trend.
> Contemporary mystery authors too often feel the need to create the illusion of depth by having alcoholic protagonists with messy personal lives.
It's a trope that makes some sense though. People who are doing work that requires them to travel for long periods of time, spend lots of time alone, or where they obsess over every detail of something for days on end could easily strain relationships and cause issues in their personal lives, while constantly dealing with cases involving horrible things can easily lead to drugs/alcohol use. It's still a cliche and it's sure to get old, but I almost feel like you'd need a good explanation for avoiding it. How does a character who has spent years seeing the worst things have zero issue dealing with it? How does a person whose income in inconsistent, whose lifestyle has them disappearing for days at a time, and whose work consumes them not have issues with their personal life?
Not that you can't have a detective who is independently wealthy or works as part of a team, or who never travels, or never deals with the kinds of cases that would cause them to have trouble sleeping at night, but if you do have that kind of character the rest of it just sort of follows.
It's a trope that makes some sense though. People who are doing work that requires them to travel for long periods of time, spend lots of time alone, or where they obsess over every detail of something for days on end could easily strain relationships and cause issues in their personal lives, while constantly dealing with cases involving horrible things can easily lead to drugs/alcohol use. It's still a cliche and it's sure to get old, but I almost feel like you'd need a good explanation for avoiding it. How does a character who has spent years seeing the worst things have zero issue dealing with it? How does a person whose income in inconsistent, whose lifestyle has them disappearing for days at a time, and whose work consumes them not have issues with their personal life?
Not that you can't have a detective who is independently wealthy or works as part of a team, or who never travels, or never deals with the kinds of cases that would cause them to have trouble sleeping at night, but if you do have that kind of character the rest of it just sort of follows.
> the Celestial is over-equipped in the matter of brains, and under-equipped in the matter of morals.
Indeed, what a line!
Indeed, what a line!
Full context matters here:
> Why this should be so I do not know, unless we can find a reason for it in our western habit of assuming that the Celestial is over-equipped in the matter of brains, and under-equipped in the matter of morals.
Knox is criticizing this assumption, not endorsing it.
> I only offer it as a fact of observation that, if you are turning over the pages of a book and come across some mention of ‘the slit-like eyes of Chin Loo', you had best put it down at once; it is bad.
I definitely agree with Knox's harsh judgment of the books that used to include such lines! I am reminded of the many ridiculous and racist caricatures of Chinese, African, Native American, and many other cultures in the (otherwise fairly wonderful) Tintin comics by Hergé.
Of course, writing a rule against including any Chinese people in detective fiction is going much too far, and is also racist; but no doubt Knox's writing here is a product of his time.
In fact, the first detective novel I ever read was "Walking Shadow" by Robert B. Parker, where his tough PI Spenser and his comrades Hawk and Susan Silverman go up against some Boston area tongs, and the Chinese people in that book are interesting, "round" characters; so I'm glad Parker had either never heard of this particular rule and chose to ignore it.
> Why this should be so I do not know, unless we can find a reason for it in our western habit of assuming that the Celestial is over-equipped in the matter of brains, and under-equipped in the matter of morals.
Knox is criticizing this assumption, not endorsing it.
> I only offer it as a fact of observation that, if you are turning over the pages of a book and come across some mention of ‘the slit-like eyes of Chin Loo', you had best put it down at once; it is bad.
I definitely agree with Knox's harsh judgment of the books that used to include such lines! I am reminded of the many ridiculous and racist caricatures of Chinese, African, Native American, and many other cultures in the (otherwise fairly wonderful) Tintin comics by Hergé.
Of course, writing a rule against including any Chinese people in detective fiction is going much too far, and is also racist; but no doubt Knox's writing here is a product of his time.
In fact, the first detective novel I ever read was "Walking Shadow" by Robert B. Parker, where his tough PI Spenser and his comrades Hawk and Susan Silverman go up against some Boston area tongs, and the Chinese people in that book are interesting, "round" characters; so I'm glad Parker had either never heard of this particular rule and chose to ignore it.
> the many ridiculous and racist caricatures of Chinese [...] in the (otherwise fairly wonderful) Tintin comics by Hergé.
From what I remember of the Blue Lotus, it was the Japanese antagonists who got the short end of the stick in that regard, so at least the book in China avoided that issue (unlike the books set in the US and Africa)
From what I remember of the Blue Lotus, it was the Japanese antagonists who got the short end of the stick in that regard, so at least the book in China avoided that issue (unlike the books set in the US and Africa)
How about "Don't make the murderer a stereotype". (I suspect the Chinaman rule is in there because at the time, a bunch of less-well-done detective stories used it as an easy way to make a villainous villain. Well, until recently, you could do the same with the stereotyped-villain-du-jour. Depending on your audience, you still could today.)
> alcoholic protagonists
It's been a while since I last read 'Red Harvest' but I remember an awful lot of laudanum.
It's been a while since I last read 'Red Harvest' but I remember an awful lot of laudanum.
I thought it was just the guy who had been gassed in the war, and then the narrator. But I remember Paul Theroux, in one of the railroad books, finding all the drinking in The Thin Man distracting.
I think that rough alcoholic detectives are more from 1990ties. then contemporary. But I may be reading different books then you.
That's been going on for a very long time. "The Big Sleep" has a protagonist with a messy personal life; "The Thin Man" has a protagonist who drinks throughout the book, and complains at the end that he didn't get to drink nearly as much as he intended.
It's interesting to think of Big Lebowski as a detective movie and compare it to the rules that are in this including the Chinaman.
"Walter Sobchak: What the f** are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."
"Walter Sobchak: What the f** are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."
One of my favorite detective stories is Dead yellow women, by Dashiell Hammett. Includes a crazy chase through hidden tunnels in San Francisco's (early 1900s, opium dens, etc) Chinatown.
See also: S.S. Van Dine's Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories
https://www.openculture.com/2016/02/20-rules-for-writing-det...
https://www.openculture.com/2016/02/20-rules-for-writing-det...
I know this one from the Umineko visual novel series. Detectives in the Umineko universe are dimension-hopping reality auditors who wield the "rules of detective fiction" as rhetorical weapons (and sometimes literal weapons) when jumping into stories to fight against witches who are trying to create unsolvable mysteries to increase peoples' belief in magic. There's one detective who uses Knox's 10 rules, and another who uses Van Dine's 20 rules. It's a really fun, really meta story, one where the main characters are both participants in the story and genre-savvy readers debating who the murderer is using trope knowledge.
>I. 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.
I've often been annoyed at modern police shows like law and order that I think fail to introduce the suspects sufficiently. The modern formula seems more like one suspect leads to another then another then another then the confession. There's seldom any way for the viewer to suspect who's actually guilty early on, unlike murder she wrote or columbo, so there's no payoff when you find out who it was.
I've often been annoyed at modern police shows like law and order that I think fail to introduce the suspects sufficiently. The modern formula seems more like one suspect leads to another then another then another then the confession. There's seldom any way for the viewer to suspect who's actually guilty early on, unlike murder she wrote or columbo, so there's no payoff when you find out who it was.
Doesn't Law and Order oftenly introduce the criminal early on? It's not about the investigative part, but being able to go through the full law enforcement process including the judgment part. Law and Order isn't a detective show in my opinion.
Also worth reading in this genre is Raymond Chandler’s The Simple Art of Murder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simple_Art_of_Murder
https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20140930/html.php#Page_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simple_Art_of_Murder
https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20140930/html.php#Page_1
> 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
At some point, I realized that Watson is much less dumb, then submissive and constantly verbally bullied. Or rather, that we perceive him through the way Sherlock (or his equivalent) constantly puts him down, even when his reactions are not dumb at all. And since Watson equivalent never stand up for himself, he is dumb for reader who don't think about him.
And once you notice it, it is quite frequent in literature. When character gets insulted by other characters without standing up for himself, people will take from it that character is stupid - even in cases where that character was completely normal or even for right all along.
It actually works the same way in real life too.
> science
Interestingly, when you look at detective stories with scientific accuracy, the evidence detectives use is super shoddy. Most of it is at bike-marks accuracy at best - guaranteed to imprison innocents often.
All this is because I read too many of detective stories.
At some point, I realized that Watson is much less dumb, then submissive and constantly verbally bullied. Or rather, that we perceive him through the way Sherlock (or his equivalent) constantly puts him down, even when his reactions are not dumb at all. And since Watson equivalent never stand up for himself, he is dumb for reader who don't think about him.
And once you notice it, it is quite frequent in literature. When character gets insulted by other characters without standing up for himself, people will take from it that character is stupid - even in cases where that character was completely normal or even for right all along.
It actually works the same way in real life too.
> science
Interestingly, when you look at detective stories with scientific accuracy, the evidence detectives use is super shoddy. Most of it is at bike-marks accuracy at best - guaranteed to imprison innocents often.
All this is because I read too many of detective stories.
One reason why I prefer the classics (Agatha Christie, G.K. Chesterton, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc.) is that a lot of modern mystery authors think they need to be both mystery writers and comedians. The voice of the narrator, if not the characters themselves, is often snarky and sarcastic, and I find it incredibly off-putting. So if I could offer an additional commandment, it would be to acknowledge that you might be as clever as you think you are, but you're probably not as funny as you think you are.
I've noticed this - but for me it's not the comedy per se, it's that modern authors (particularly in the noir style) want their detective to be a constant source of witty comebacks. You feel like the other characters are just there to deliver setup lines, so the detective can amaze us with his devastating zingers.
Ironically, Raymond Chandler - whom I imagine many such modern authors are trying to imitate - commented somewhere in his letters that the detective should almost never get the punchline. He pointed out that it was more effective to have the bad guy deliver the zinger, and the detective just take it on the chin and shrug it off, leaving the heel unsure whether to try to top his own line or just awkwardly make his exit.
Ironically, Raymond Chandler - whom I imagine many such modern authors are trying to imitate - commented somewhere in his letters that the detective should almost never get the punchline. He pointed out that it was more effective to have the bad guy deliver the zinger, and the detective just take it on the chin and shrug it off, leaving the heel unsure whether to try to top his own line or just awkwardly make his exit.
But to a large extent the appeal of Poirot and Miss Marple is the levity they add.
Not the GP, but I think there's a difference between a leading character who is inherently humorous or says humorous things vs the narrator doing it. And in cases where the narrative is first person from the perspective of someone in the story (mostly famously The Murder of Roger Ackroyd), it should remain relatively flat and observational rather than being puffed up with a lot of that character's thoughts, opinions, or personality.
I found that Father Brown from G.K. Chesterton also added a lot of levity
> the reader deserves a fighting chance to solve the mystery without the author’s use of cheap tricks.
though I found he frequently didn't leave much (any?) chance for the reader to solve the mystery, though for me the mystery and its solution was never really the focus of the stories anyway.
> the reader deserves a fighting chance to solve the mystery without the author’s use of cheap tricks.
though I found he frequently didn't leave much (any?) chance for the reader to solve the mystery, though for me the mystery and its solution was never really the focus of the stories anyway.
> The detective must not himself commit the crime
Violation of this rule ruined an otherwise amazing PC game for me, which shall remain nameless to avoid spoilers.
It was borderline silly to have the detective you played for 90% of the game narrating his thoughts on what clues meant, and on who the culprit might be, only to then turn out to be the murderer ...
Violation of this rule ruined an otherwise amazing PC game for me, which shall remain nameless to avoid spoilers.
It was borderline silly to have the detective you played for 90% of the game narrating his thoughts on what clues meant, and on who the culprit might be, only to then turn out to be the murderer ...
(Trying to stay spoiler-free)
I'm trying to discover which one you mean - I remember one which matches somewhat, but in which you control so many characters that you definitely don't spend 90% of the time controlling the one that ends up being the culprit.
(But that game also just threw a handful of red herrings at the wall that ended up being completely meaningless, so it was a bit of a lame duck, rushed into release like all the releases by this "auteur" have been before and since)
Apart from that, on the not strictly speaking detective side of things, there is also Planescape: Torment which pulled this whole idea off spectacularly (to the point that it has become tropey in the other direction again).
I'm trying to discover which one you mean - I remember one which matches somewhat, but in which you control so many characters that you definitely don't spend 90% of the time controlling the one that ends up being the culprit.
(But that game also just threw a handful of red herrings at the wall that ended up being completely meaningless, so it was a bit of a lame duck, rushed into release like all the releases by this "auteur" have been before and since)
Apart from that, on the not strictly speaking detective side of things, there is also Planescape: Torment which pulled this whole idea off spectacularly (to the point that it has become tropey in the other direction again).
Now I'm curious which one you are talking about :D
I was talking about this one: https://bit.ly/3uvMGst
Yes, Planescape Torment is amazing, but at the same time, the whole "it was you all along" is clear from the beginning of the game, the game doesn't try to mislead you in any way.
I was talking about this one: https://bit.ly/3uvMGst
Yes, Planescape Torment is amazing, but at the same time, the whole "it was you all along" is clear from the beginning of the game, the game doesn't try to mislead you in any way.
( I was talking about https://bit.ly/3AyXgCI )
If it is the game I think you are thinking about then I disagree that you control "so many characters", but yeah you aren't controlling the culprit most of the time. Also god the plot of that game was dumb and made no sense at all
Paul Auster's City of Glass is a good postmodernist read which violates a lot of these rules and other conventions of the genre.
The other two books in his New York Trilogy (Ghosts and The Locked Room) do a similar job of deconstructing the genre in different, similarly mindbending ways.
As an aside, I've never seen anyone do a better job of describing the very specific feeling of long walks in Manhattan. I recommend it to anyone who doesn't understand the joy I find there.
As an aside, I've never seen anyone do a better job of describing the very specific feeling of long walks in Manhattan. I recommend it to anyone who doesn't understand the joy I find there.
I'm always complaining to my wife about movies with a detective/mystery component where the key to the whole thing is revealed after the mystery is solved and is is something that we, as viewers, could not possibly have known. It feels the same as using magic. It's always seemed to me that it should be possible for the viewer to solve the mystery at the same time as the protagonist, given only what the viewer knows so far. It's validating to see that this is considered a vital component of a detective story, at least by some.
Dective fiction is usually about the process of justice when someone breaks a commandment, frequently the sixth, often involving seven, eight and nine. I'm looking forward to the meta-detective novel in which a critic investigates violations of the Ten Commandments of Detective Fiction.
The appropriate punishment might be more suitable to a fantasy novel: To sentence the writer live for a time as a character in a world built by an even more arbitrary, capricious and inscrutable author than Jehovah.
I'd read that.
The appropriate punishment might be more suitable to a fantasy novel: To sentence the writer live for a time as a character in a world built by an even more arbitrary, capricious and inscrutable author than Jehovah.
I'd read that.
This seems like a perfect set of rules to write dull detective fiction. Some of the best works I have read (or seen) from this genre violate a lot of these rules.
You have to know the rules to break them effectively. Like, if your story is about a new kind of poison, which your reader cannot know anything about, awesome. But understand that your story is now about that new poison, not about solving the murder, because solving the murder is impossible without special, in-universe knowledge.
Good authors did not started by writing hundred formulaic stories first. Instead, they tended to seek own way even as they learned from predecessors.
I don't like this saying, because in literature and art generally it leads to formulaic repetitive stories. If you dont break rules before learning them, you will never learn to break them. And when it is most common advice there is, we get the situation in which you can predict the rest of average book or movie after first 10 minutes.
It is much better when authors treat rules as optional formulas - follow or not and be aware there is a lot more to choose from.
I don't like this saying, because in literature and art generally it leads to formulaic repetitive stories. If you dont break rules before learning them, you will never learn to break them. And when it is most common advice there is, we get the situation in which you can predict the rest of average book or movie after first 10 minutes.
It is much better when authors treat rules as optional formulas - follow or not and be aware there is a lot more to choose from.
> Good authors did not started by writing hundred formulaic stories first.
Maybe not hundreds, but I bet many good authors started by writing a few dozen formulaic stories first. Humans learn through mimicry, and I don't think storytelling is any different.
> If you dont break rules before learning them, you will never learn to break them.
If you're good at your craft, you end up learning the rules regardless; the only question is how efficient are you at doing do? The best way to learn is through mistakes, but you can choose to learn from others' mistakes, so you don't need to make them yourself.
That's what the "rules" are: things other people have done, that didn't work. They aren't absolutes, but they're good starting points, and until you have some sort of intuition about things, breaking the rules should at least make you stop and consider why you're doing so, and if you're doing so in a way that will work.
Maybe not hundreds, but I bet many good authors started by writing a few dozen formulaic stories first. Humans learn through mimicry, and I don't think storytelling is any different.
> If you dont break rules before learning them, you will never learn to break them.
If you're good at your craft, you end up learning the rules regardless; the only question is how efficient are you at doing do? The best way to learn is through mistakes, but you can choose to learn from others' mistakes, so you don't need to make them yourself.
That's what the "rules" are: things other people have done, that didn't work. They aren't absolutes, but they're good starting points, and until you have some sort of intuition about things, breaking the rules should at least make you stop and consider why you're doing so, and if you're doing so in a way that will work.
> I bet many good authors started by writing a few dozen formulaic stories first
I don't think this is true based on authors I know. The ones I know that started with dozen formulaic stories wrote formulaic stories whole their lives. They might have been good formulaic stories, but still.
The ones who did not wrote formulaic, were going outside formulaic from the beginning.
> Humans learn through mimicry, and I don't think storytelling is any different.
Mimicry of formulaic story is exactly same formulaic story. Yes, you will learn how to wrote that one formula if you go this way.
> The best way to learn is through mistakes, but you can choose to learn from others' mistakes, so you don't need to make them yourself.
That does not imply you should write few dozen formulaic stories before attempting to create something else. You can study other writers without writing formulaic stories.
I don't think this is true based on authors I know. The ones I know that started with dozen formulaic stories wrote formulaic stories whole their lives. They might have been good formulaic stories, but still.
The ones who did not wrote formulaic, were going outside formulaic from the beginning.
> Humans learn through mimicry, and I don't think storytelling is any different.
Mimicry of formulaic story is exactly same formulaic story. Yes, you will learn how to wrote that one formula if you go this way.
> The best way to learn is through mistakes, but you can choose to learn from others' mistakes, so you don't need to make them yourself.
That does not imply you should write few dozen formulaic stories before attempting to create something else. You can study other writers without writing formulaic stories.
> The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson,
Watson was not stupid and I wouldn't trust an author who read him that way. Matched with
> Thou shalt strive to create a detective who has flaws.
it suggests audiences who must be spoon-fed or they will be lost and confused. "The Detective Solves Crimes To Ease The Guilt Over His Tragic Loss And The Side Character Has No Backstory So Don't Waste Any Mental Space On Him!!"
Watson was not stupid and I wouldn't trust an author who read him that way. Matched with
> Thou shalt strive to create a detective who has flaws.
it suggests audiences who must be spoon-fed or they will be lost and confused. "The Detective Solves Crimes To Ease The Guilt Over His Tragic Loss And The Side Character Has No Backstory So Don't Waste Any Mental Space On Him!!"
Did the original essay specifically mention Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? I read it a long time ago.
Also, there is, for those not big on detective fiction, Edmund Wilson's essay "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?"
Also, there is, for those not big on detective fiction, Edmund Wilson's essay "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?"
It doesn't mention that one, but it alludes to it.
See also Who Killed Roger Ackroyd by Pierre Bayard, in which the author argues for a different outcome to the case.
See also Who Killed Roger Ackroyd by Pierre Bayard, in which the author argues for a different outcome to the case.
An additional commandment I can think of is that the crime has to be something significant, like a murder. I wouldn’t want to read a story about a detective solving a petty crime or finding a lost dog.
From the way she was carrying on I was expecting this to be about her son. Her husband seemed oddly unaffected though. As she continued discussing his habits, I slowly pieced it together. Morning walk, careful hair brushing, just the right food, not too wet, not too dry... I had to interrupt her.
"You're talking about your dog? I don't do dogs." I said.
At this point, the husband slid an envelope across the desk filled with cash. It was at least twice my daily rate.
"Look," he said, "I need this done, and I need it done discreetly. Find the dog, or bring me its collar." The woman began to object, but a glare from her husband stopped her.
This was more than a missing dog case. It had to be, no one put up that much, in cash, up front just for a dog. You put up posters in the neighborhood, you don't hire a PI. Alarm bells were ringing in my head, but the rent was due, and Aberlour isn't cheap.
I opened my desk drawer and casually slid the envelope into it. "Do you have a picture of..."
"Beaumont. His name is Beaumont," the woman supplied.
...
"You're talking about your dog? I don't do dogs." I said.
At this point, the husband slid an envelope across the desk filled with cash. It was at least twice my daily rate.
"Look," he said, "I need this done, and I need it done discreetly. Find the dog, or bring me its collar." The woman began to object, but a glare from her husband stopped her.
This was more than a missing dog case. It had to be, no one put up that much, in cash, up front just for a dog. You put up posters in the neighborhood, you don't hire a PI. Alarm bells were ringing in my head, but the rent was due, and Aberlour isn't cheap.
I opened my desk drawer and casually slid the envelope into it. "Do you have a picture of..."
"Beaumont. His name is Beaumont," the woman supplied.
...
I would read this.
> An additional commandment I can think of is that the crime has to be something significant, like a murder. I wouldn’t want to read a story about a detective solving a petty crime or finding a lost dog.
Dirk Gently[0] would like a word...
[0]] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently_(pilot_episode)
Dirk Gently[0] would like a word...
[0]] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently_(pilot_episode)
> ... a plot involving time travel
A violation of Knox Rule number II.
A violation of Knox Rule number II.
Oh, it's not a problem. It's clear from the beginning that it involves time travel, and the story unrolls perfectly linearly.
I think you've kind of proven my point, as Dirk Gently is more of a comedy than a mystery. The absurdity of a detective finding a lost cat is what makes it funny. And then all the rest about time travel... I mean, if you want to make a comedy mystery you would want to violate as many of these "commandments" as you could.
>I think you've kind of proven my point, as Dirk Gently is more of a comedy than a mystery. The absurdity of a detective finding a lost cat is what makes it funny. And then all the rest about time travel... I mean, if you want to make a comedy mystery you would want to violate as many of these "commandments" as you could.
A reasonable point. Although I'd say that humor (if done well) is a boon, rather than a detriment to mysteries (most fiction, actually).
And cats always make things better[2]!
As someone who enjoys mystery novels, I've noted that minor mysteries are often used as a device to bring the detective into situations where larger issues may be afoot[0][1].
It seems to me that if a mystery is engaging, the underlying "crime" isn't as relevant as the storytelling, clue planting and the thought process of the detective.
At the same time, mysteries generally deal with serious crimes (especially murder), as it amps up the (fictional) stakes and provides a reason for the interest and participation of the detective.
But that needn't be the case -- as long as the mystery is interesting, the prose is of good quality and the characters engaging. At least that's my take.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Clapham_C...
[2] cf. Lillian Jackson Braun's "The Cat Who..." mysteries[3].
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Who_series
Edit: Fixed reference indices.
A reasonable point. Although I'd say that humor (if done well) is a boon, rather than a detriment to mysteries (most fiction, actually).
And cats always make things better[2]!
As someone who enjoys mystery novels, I've noted that minor mysteries are often used as a device to bring the detective into situations where larger issues may be afoot[0][1].
It seems to me that if a mystery is engaging, the underlying "crime" isn't as relevant as the storytelling, clue planting and the thought process of the detective.
At the same time, mysteries generally deal with serious crimes (especially murder), as it amps up the (fictional) stakes and provides a reason for the interest and participation of the detective.
But that needn't be the case -- as long as the mystery is interesting, the prose is of good quality and the characters engaging. At least that's my take.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Clapham_C...
[2] cf. Lillian Jackson Braun's "The Cat Who..." mysteries[3].
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Who_series
Edit: Fixed reference indices.
The Encyclopedia Brown series rode the lost dog/petty crime train to 20+ volumes.
That's why I had changed my original comment from "no one would want to read" to "I wouldn't want to read" :P
[deleted]
But if that lost dog was the only one that could tell you which well Timmy fell down, then it might be more significant
Is there a similar formula for science fiction or fantasy? It seems that the rules are looser, particularly for scifi, but maybe multiple formulas exist within the genre.
Thou shalt not cite Quantum theory for everything.
Nor nanomachines
(looking at you, Metal Gear Solid 4)
(looking at you, Metal Gear Solid 4)
Everytime I read articles like this I feel the urge to make writing a hobby, but I just can't get to it. Feels like I'm missing out but I'm not sure.
Just finished season 1 of "Only Murders in the Building", and it has some great examples of these principles IMHO.
Funny how many modern movies break most of these rules
Contemporary mystery authors too often feel the need to create the illusion of depth by having alcoholic protagonists with messy personal lives. It’s cliche, and it put me off the genre for good about a decade ago.