Transcript
Speaker: Welcome to Clued in Mystery. I'm Sarah. And I'm Brooke, and we both love mystery. Brooke. Hi, Sarah.
Speaker: I wonder if people know that there are rules to writing a mystery. Well, and there's not just one set of rules, Brooke. There are many variations, and that's what we're going to be talking about today.
Speaker: We often refer to the golden age of mystery, and that period is generally the 1920s and the 1930s, although many of the authors who came to fame during that time continued to write in the decades beyond.
Speaker: As you said, we also refer to the rules of mystery. Arguably, the most famous version is the set credited to Ronald Knox of the Detection Club. These were the 10 rules or commandments originally drafted by Knox in 1929.
Speaker: This was not the first time that someone tried to codify the rules of mystery. American author S.S. Van Dyne shared 20 rules in 1928 in the American magazine.
Speaker: And although Knox's rules were often considered to be tongue-in-cheek, Van Dyne took his rules a little more seriously, according to Martin Edwards. Raymond Chandler also offered his own set of rules in 1948. And I found a copy in a book called The Notebooks of Raymond Chandler. And i Brooke, have just enjoyed reading this so much and highly recommend it to anybody who's even a little bit interested in mystery.
Speaker: The common theme among all of these sets of rules is fair play. That is, the reader must be given enough information to solve the crime along with the detective. And we can maybe talk about some of the ways that these different sets of rules set that out.
Speaker: And I think it would be also really interesting, Brooke, for us to talk about the ways that the rules differ. Yes, that sounds great, Sarah. um You know, when we were kind of reading through the different sets of rules, and I had not come across the Chandler rule, so I'm very interested to hear today what he recommends. I was thinking how, you know, no other...
Speaker: least commercial genre, has this kind of strict rules. There's definitely formulas to romance. You kind of know what you expect. A horror book has like a sort of story arc that's very familiar.
Speaker: But... As far as I can really tell, this is the genre where there's like, these are the things that must or should not happen. And I think it comes back exactly to what you mentioned right off the top is because this is the genre where you want that fair play with the reader.
Speaker: Yeah. And, and I think there's a couple of things and, you know, i'm I'm thinking about the conversation that we recently had with Jessica Brody, where she talked about structure and there are some rules around structure or expectations that you have to meet to make it a satisfying mystery. And I think that's true, like you say, for any genre, right? In, in horror, in romance, it,
Speaker: um mystery, science fiction, all of those. there are There are conventions that are associated with those genres that if you stray too far from those, readers who are very familiar with those conventions are not going to like your book.
Speaker: her Right. But I think what yeah we're talking about in the rules, it's not so much about the structure, but about the mystery itself and ah and and its solution and the way that it's solved. And so at least three different authors have set out rules. And I think, you know, if you did a little Google search, you would find multiple other variations that people have at taken these rules or the, you know, collectively, what is this? 32 between
Speaker: ah between k nos chandler and ben dyingne ah And so there are some duplicates, absolutely, that like there there are some common elements across all three of them. But there are some some differences. And it really is, I think, in how each of these authors felt a mystery should play out.
Speaker: Right. Right. And okay, so let's talk about some of those things that are very similar, like for our listeners who maybe haven't ever looked at these rules, like what we're talking about here. um One thing that is very similar is obviously the idea of the fair play. And this is that all the clues, all the evidence should be available to the reader at some point in the story in order for them to come to the same conclusion as the sleuth. And that's probably the biggest, i as I said before, I've never looked into Chandler, but I've read his books and I'm pretty sure he probably believes in fair play. They want readers to have a fighting chance to solve the mystery themselves. And I think that is one thing that is equal across the board on these.
Speaker: Yeah, and and each of them kind of get to that fair play in slightly different ways. So the detection club, um the criminal must be mentioned in the early part of the story.
Speaker: but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to know. So the Detection Club or Ronald Knox really felt that, um you know, you can't introduce the culprit in the final pages of the of the book. um But as readers, we we can't know what this character is thinking, which It's something that has been strayed away from. So it's not one of those sacrosanct rules. But that first part that the criminal must be mentioned in the early part of the story. Other fair play or other statements that support fair play that the detection club or Ronald Knox made are
Speaker: The detective is bound to declare any clues which he may discover. Right. So we can't have um the detective learn something and then keep that to himself. That's kind of what the sidekick is for, is for him to discuss that with the sidekick. And then at there is a Knox set out a rule about the sidekick saying the sidekick of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal from the reader any thoughts which pass through his mind. His intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly below that of the average reader.
Speaker: That's right. And then, so S.S. Van Dyne, the way that he framed fair play, it's this is his very first rule. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery.
Speaker: All clues must be plainly stated and described. And then the second one is no willful tricks or deceptions may be played on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.
Speaker: That's right. And I think something that else that falls into this category that is quite equal across the board is The idea of supernatural or um divine solutions, I guess. Knox says all supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course.
Speaker: And Van Dyne agrees in a way by saying... The problem of the crime must be solved by strictly naturalistic means. and He goes on to say methods such as slate writing, Ouija boards, mind reading, seances are taboo.
Speaker: We can all definitely think of stories that use those scenes or devices. And so there's like another rule that has probably been bent. Yeah, and and Chandler had something similar. He said it must be realistic in character setting and atmosphere. It must be about real people in a real world.
Speaker: h ah But as you say, that is that, you know, criteria that these authors have set out is one that several authors have played with and and played with quite successfully.
Speaker: In terms of those rules that must not be broken. i do think that that that one about um that the detective must reveal everything that he learns or or suspects. um I mean, i I think that's pretty fundamental, right? Yeah. Because it it is not satisfying when I've seen, I can think of lots of television shows that have done this where, ah you know, the detective sees something
Speaker: And then there's no revelation about what he's figured out as a result. We, the viewers, don't get to see what he has seen. and then it's not until the conclusion of the story where he says, well, effectively, remember 20 minutes ago when I looked inside this box, right, that you didn't get to look in um that told me that, you know,
Speaker: so-and-so was the was the murderer um and yeah that's not a particularly
Speaker: that's not a particularly satisfying experience because then you don't get to play along right you're not part of the investigative team which i think is part of the the the real appeal of these of these stories Yeah, I agree. And this actually layers in really nicely with our discussion about interactive mysteries this season. Because even if the book isn't specifically written to be interactive in the way like, say, choose-your-own-adventure book is...
Speaker: As a mystery reader, we want to take part in this intellectual puzzle. And yeah, you're you're right. If you don't have all the information that the detective does, then it's just no fun. And I hate those shows where you see their face and they're shocked, but then they never turn the camera around to show you what they're so interested in. i i sometimes have to turn off the television. I'm like, this isn't going to be any fun anyway.
Speaker: Yeah. Well, and so SS Van Dyne, he wrote out 20. um oh no, my math was wrong. It was 42 rules between all of these, isn't it? Oh, that's right. Anyway, he wrote out, ah you know, a few that I think these are rules that are broken again and again and again. So one, um there must be no love interest in the story.
Speaker: Another, there simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse, the better. no crime No lesser crime than murder will suffice. We have an episode where we talk about mysteries without murder, and and they can be very popular and um equally satisfying, right? ah And then there must be one detective that to bring the minds of three or four, 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 who at the outset pits his mind against that of the detective.
Speaker: again we have talked about books where it's particularly amateur sleuths right a group of amateur sleuths so Robert Thurgood series is it called the the Marlow Murders um yes uh or the Thursday Murder Club right like these are groups of people who have taken an interest in solving solving a crime and Those books only work because it is a group.
Speaker: Yeah. Only murders in the building. That wouldn't be any fun with just Mabel. Exactly. Yeah. You need that interplay between the characters um because they use each other to come up with the, with the solution. Yeah.
Speaker: Another one of his that is often broken to the point of being cliche is a servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. And I mean, we literally have the saying, the butler did it, right? Because, and perhaps that's the reason why Van Dyne made so many of these rules. He actually thought that these things had been overdone, which I had to kind of chuckle because he's writing this in 1928. Like, okay, people, no more butlers, right? like This is still quite early in the days of mystery. But you know he thought that these things were already too rote, too cliche. So you know no love interests, all these things that we've outlined, no seances, um because they were overdone. And clearly that's not the case because here we are a hundred years later, still enjoying some of the stories that intentionally break his
Speaker: rules I think you're right, Brooke, that he was writing in response to ah things that he was seeing happening. And I think Knox was probably the same, right? um the on The limit on secret passageways, for example, ah or um not having twins as the solution, right? So, you know, these things that you just see again and again, and even though it wasn't phrased in what
Speaker: we would consider a particularly correct way now, at Knox's criticism of having the criminal be a foreigner, right? Someone who is from another country or another culture. and I think he was writing that um not to be racist, but to say like,
Speaker: we shouldn't be racist. Yeah, the opposite of racist. Exactly. Like we we shouldn't be um blaming someone just because they are from another another country. Right.
Speaker: m I think that both the secret passageways and the twins rule still go back to fair play though, because the way that those can get in the way of a good mystery is that it creates this coincidental or too simple explanation. And like at the end, you're like, oh, there was a twin. Like, and to me, that's still just an issue of fair play. Yeah, I think you're right, Brooke. And I think fundamentally, that's what these rules are about is how do we make sure that we are honoring the readers, right? By giving them something that that they enjoy and is satisfying.
Speaker: yeah Let's talk a little bit about the detection clubs take on these rules and how they used them because I think that their um use was much more liberal and kind of tongue in cheek. But These rules were probably for at least a bit only really discussed between their invite only members, I would say. And if you've listened to our episode about the detection club, you'll remember that they took this oath to uphold the rules as they held a human school named Eric. um
Speaker: So they would go through the list and in part it, says, do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect the crimes present 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- poggery coincidence or act god I mean, very fun, but still this portraying a lot of the same things we've already talked about. ah I think probably the way you can know how much fun they were having with this, though, is the warning and the curses that they had to accept that if they broke these rules, things that might happen to them is, may other writers anticipate your plots. May your publishers do you down in your contracts. May total strangers sue you for libel.
Speaker: May your pages swarm with misprints. May your sales continually diminish. I mean, so much fun. ah But I love the idea that they just wanted to protect the integrity of the genre.
Speaker: hu Definitely. And once again, I'm thinking of something that Jessica Brody said to us that because we know that the members of this club did break the rules and I don't think many of their sales continually diminished. But Jessica mentioned, and I think it was really smart, that if you are going to break a rule, that there needs to be a purpose for it and a reason for it and do it in a very intentional way. And so let's take, for instance, the idea of twins.
Speaker: You can write a fantastic mystery about twins, but you do it in an intentional and fair way, and then and then you can, quote unquote, break that rule. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think that's a that's a good point. So when we're talking about authors breaking these rules, a lot of the time when it works, it's been done with that with that thought behind it.
Speaker: hu A couple of rules that I think were interesting in Van Dyne's list. um One is about the professional criminal. So a professional criminal must never be shouldered with the guilt of the crime in a detective story.
Speaker: Crimes by housebreakers and bandits are the province of the police department, not of authors and brilliant amateur detectives. Yeah, isn't that interesting? um It almost means that he was like leaning towards the cozy end of the spectrum, doesn't it? However, their sleuths weren't necessarily always amateur. So I found this to be kind of an interesting dichotomy there.
Speaker: Yeah, that's an that's an interesting observation. and and often –
Speaker: The golden age is and considered to be cozy, although we know that Agatha Christie wasn't a cozy author. So um one thing that Chandler wrote is yeah he split this over two rules. So number five is it must have a sound story value apart from the mystery element, i.e. the investigation itself must be an adventure worth reading.
Speaker: And then number six, to achieve this, it must have some form of suspense, even if only intellectual. This does not mean menace, and especially it does not mean that the detective must be menaced by grave personal danger.
Speaker: This last is a trend, and like all trends, will exhaust itself by over-imitation.
Speaker: There again, he's talking about how these things have already been sort of tired out. Yeah. And he goes on to say, you know, there must be conflict, physical, ethical, ah or emotional. And there must be some element of danger in the broadest sense of the world word.
Speaker: He says there there needs to be some tension, but you can't have only tension, right? That gets too much for the reader. Yeah. And I think that's ah i think that's ah actually a great tip for authors is to...
Speaker: not continually be adding conflict without having some sort of little resolutions along the way. So I enjoy that that tip.
Speaker: Another thing that Chandler wrote is that it it must punish the criminal in one way or another, not necessarily by operation of the law. It is a part of the logic of detection. If the detective fails to resolve the consequences of the crime, the story is an unresolved cord and leaves irritation behind it.
Speaker: Yes, it does. I agree with that. There needs to be some sense of justice. And he's right. It's not always that the person goes to jail, but somehow that villain, you know, gets their due. An interesting thing about Chandler's in this book that I found the, um his list, he's added addenda. So he's got another...
Speaker: dozen or so ah rules. So now I think we're up over 50.
Speaker: And he says... um in that In his addenda here, he talks about that um love interest nearly always weakens a mystery story because it creates a certain type of suspense that is antagonistic and not complementary to the detective's struggle to solve the problem.
Speaker: So I think it's really interesting that... And romance and love are elements that appear in at least two of these lists of things that shouldn't be included in mysteries. And as we say, those have been done quite successfully.
Speaker: Well, and don't we have like the femme fatale in Chandler books? Like, which I realize that's not like a true romance story, but there's usually some sort of push and pull between the beautiful woman and the detective. Maybe I'm maybe i'm ascribing stories to him that aren't fair, but that feels very Chandler to me.
Speaker: But maybe it's not romance, right? Yeah. Yeah, I guess we need to think about what men from this era would consider romance. Maybe they're talking about like very mushy, you know, love scenes kind of a thing versus just the interplay between men and women.
Speaker: Yeah. and And he goes on. He actually has a couple of rules where in this addendum where um he talks about romance. So um it was point six where he says love interest nearly always weakens a mystery. And he concludes that point by saying a really good detective never gets married. He would lose his detachment. And this detachment is part of his charm.
Speaker: And then the seventh point is the fact that love interest is played up in the big magazines and on the screen doesn't make it artistic. Women are supposed to be the targets of magazine fiction and movies. The magazines are not interested in mystery writing as an art. They are not interested in any kind of writing as an art.
Speaker: So he's really making some some commentary on what else is being produced at the time. Right. So I think these were public he wrote these down.
Speaker: Apparently in 1948. So, you know, what other kind of media was available at the end of the nineteen forty s
Speaker: Yeah, that's super interesting. Well, Brooke, this is not the only conversation that we are going to be having about the rules because we are very fortunate to have Frances come back, bookseller from the Chronicles of Crime, to come back and talk about this topic with us.
Speaker: Yes, I cannot wait for that interview. Frances is so knowledgeable about the mystery genre, and I'm sure we're going to have a wonderful conversation. But for now, listeners, thank you for joining us on Clued in Mystery.
Speaker: I'm Brooke. And I'm Sarah. And we both love mystery.
Speaker: Clued in Mystery is written and produced by Brooke Peterson and Sarah M. Stephen. Music is by Shane Ivers. If you liked what you heard, please consider telling a friend, leaving a review, or subscribing with your favorite podcast listening app.
Speaker: Visit our website to sign up for our newsletter, The Clued in Chronicle, and get mystery news, podcast updates, and bonus episodes. We're on social media at Clued in Mystery.
