Mysterical-E

When one of our readers, an accomplished writer herself, sent us an article for publication, I was delighted. After all Rina is a fan of Mysterical-E but she's a fan who lives in Italy! Apparently we get a number of hits in that country (makes me happy since that's my ancestral stomping ground).

Rina has written a piece which is more than just an update and more of a renovation, if you will, of S.S. Van Dine's set of rules for writing a detective story -- rules which are nearly a century old. As Rina would have it -- some things have changed since he penned those rules but a lot has not. She gives us a piece which is a fun read and a fun look at what plays in writing detective stories -- at least as far as Rina is concerned.

Rina's article also got me thinking about Van Dine's original rules and how looking at them before we read the new take, might be a good idea.

So, first you'll find the original and then Rina's article, translated from the Italian.

S.S. Van Dine

Twenty Rules
For Writing Detective Stories

(Originally published in American Magazine (1928 Sept),
and then 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.

AND NOW FOR RINA'S RENOVATION:

Twenty rules for writing a detective novel

A modern view

by Rina Brundu Eustace

They're eighty years old but don't look it!

I'm talking about the Twenty rules for writing detective stories by S. S. Van D ine (pseudonym of Willard Huntington Wright, 1888- 1939), the celebrated American crime writer of the golden age.

In reading and re-reading them a question spontaneously comes to mind: what modern author wouldn't endorse almost all of them? I say almost because, in reality, something has changed, not so much within the text , as in the production contex t. It goes without saying: times have changed!

The competition is ruthless, particularly in the form of avant-garde television series dealing with correlated themes (for example, the legendary CSI series, the original with William Petersen in the role of Gil Grissom), while the overcrowded internet doesn't skimp on criminal emotion at every click.

However, one can't deny that this literary genre (we'll dare to call it that, what harm will it do?) has demonstrated an unsuspected resistance to repeated attacks. Its strength originates from its being closed tight like a clam, conserving its peculiarities intact (perhaps thanks also to the supporting work by Van Dine!). Its firm structuring and style will, as far as I'm concerned, be the winning weapon that guarantees its survival and public success for many years to come.

That doesn't mean that some of the rules, set out eighty years ago by the American writer, don't have a somewhat obsolete quality, it's also pointless denying that others have been completely out-dated by the natural evolution of human feelings (and hence by the criminal practices engaged in, and by the investigation methods used!). We have to admit it. There's nothing bad or presumptuous about maintaining such a position; above all, nothing detracts from the author's greatness. In the same way, nothing stops the old teachings from existing alongside the new rules, which are intended to plug the leaks in that slice of time since they were formulated.

What follows is a liberal renovation, (ex novo, in reality!) of Twenty rules for writing detective stories , according to my extremely modest understanding. What is put forward is a personal view of elements of detective fiction and doesn't have any universal ambition. For these very reasons and for the respect that is always owed to those far worthier than ourselves, I will indicate, where necessary, any strong stance taken with regard to the Van Dine original.

A detective novel will therefore be much more valid when the author remembers:

1. A detective novel is a detective novel; it's not an adventure, spy, or romantic novel, neither is it a philosophical treatise or a literary work that will change the world. Furthermore, a detective novel, by its very nature, is always written from a starting point and NEVER from a finishing point (another aspect is the valid plots inserted in different literary situations, for example, the wonderful criminal plot in The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco). This means that if a crime novelist considers him or herself a well rounded writer, they will have to prove themselves through other works. In the same way, enlightened literary critics, in possession of the truth of things , should avoid feeling insulted and urging the expert populace not to take crime writers seriously; this promptly occurs every time there is renewed interest in their works!

2. A good detective novel doesn't have any other meaning ; so it's pointless singing the author's praises for highlighting significant social problems of today or for its subtle semantic qualities. A good detective novel must be judged, solely and exclusively, on the quality of its criminal plot and on the fluidity with which it is built into the story.

3. If it is true that detective novels can be written by anyone, it is also true that not everyone can write a detective novel. To opt for a similar style signifies confessing to be a symptom-free carrier of a mental perversion (viewed positively, we must say that such a perversion is always accompanied by an indispensable genial streak) that is expressed by this (by the style, to make things clear, not by becoming a serial killer hunted by Interpol!). This is a conditio sine qua non ; refrain therefore, ye literati desirous of dignifying the genre (driven mainly by financial need!), talented authors ready to prove yourselves, crime journalists justifying your deeds by relating first hand experience, and the like!

4. Atmosphere is an irreplaceable element of this type of fiction. This mainly means that a detective novel, in order to be one, must take hold of the reader from the first page, seducing and reassuring him so he feels at home . On this point, I don't agree with the instructions provided by Van Dine in rule 16. To justify my thoughts, I cite some of the genre's greatest works of all time: And then there were none, Mousetrap, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Murder on the Orient Express, etc . In these novels, the atmosphere becomes an active element of the plot; it's not by chance either that these were written by Agatha Christie , a masterful exponent of similar techniques (that are developed in experienced writers). Not to put too fine a point on it, throughout the works of this great English author, the capacity to create an atmosphere achieves at times a sublimity beyond the written style : for a detective novel lover, you only have to hold one of her books in your hand to feel at home !

5. A detective novel cannot exist without a good criminal plot! Call it what you wish, a crime novelist (it doesn't matter how famous, it doesn't matter how venerated he/she is!) who demonstrates a chronic incapacity to plot a perfect and ad hoc criminal mechanism, isn't worthy of the title.

6. Readers and investigators must enjoy the same opportunity of solving the mystery. All clues must be (plainly) presented and described. This rule is very similar to Van Dine's first rule. The difference is the adverb plainly that I've put in brackets. In fact, I consider that to protect itself from the previously mentioned invasion (television, cinema, internet), the detective novel must be able to defend itself with its own weapons, its specific characteristics, its writing style. The structural quality of a detective novel therefore rests on its capacity to provide clues (without transforming it into a misleading weapon!), thus giving attentive readers, and only them, the possibility of discovering the culprit with relative ease.

7. The solution to a detective novel must be unequivocal; there MUST only be one truth upon which the facts are based. This is also a key condition when judging the quality of the plot.

8. The solution to a detective novel must always be within the grasp of a capable reader.

9. The culprit can be any one of the characters, regardless of their role. Furthermore, there can be more than one culprit in the same novel. Here I find myself at odds with Van Dine's rules 10, 11, 12 and 17. In my opinion, the requirements of the story and the criminal plot justify these indications; one could give many examples of masterpieces in this genre that rely on the use of similar strategies ( Murder on the Orient-Express to name only one).

10. A detective novel can have several investigators. For instance, this happens when the police investigation runs parallel to that of the amateur detective. However, it is advisable that there should be only one hero-character in whose capacity for reasoning readers can place their trust.

11. There has to be a dead body! Indeed, on most occasions a single corpse is not sufficient!

12. There is no corpse without a crime! In other words, the story told MUST have at least one dead person who is the victim of the anti-hero's manoeuvrings.

13. Murders committed by criminal organisations have no place in the pages of a detective novel. Peculiar to this genre , and also the main element that gives it its fascinating quality, is the focus on the instinctive motivation for the crime. A detective novel reminds us that we are all potential assassins! Not only this: the more the character in question is beyond suspicion, the greater the possibility he (or she) is the culprit!

14. On the understanding that the culprit could be a minor character (see rule 9), the principle characters should be presented straight away, better still, they should be listed on a special page prior to the start of the story. The attentive reader, preparing to read a detective novel, should be regarded as a chess player about to start a game: naturally he needs to have all the pieces, but then it will be up to him alone to checkmate the killer!

15. Originality is also an essential element in a criminal plot. A writer can use strategies that are already familiar, whatever they may be, but a plot is not valid if it doesn't contain a particular feature of its own that distinguishes it from all preceding works.

16. The hero-character's investigative methods must always be supported by a broad capacity for logical reasoning and for an approach to the empirical fundamentals of the case, that is based on his experience (not only of criminal but also, and above all, of everyday things!).

17. The sporting anti-hero is another peculiarity of detective novels. By this I mean that a hero that makes measurable investigative methodology his first line of attack will be countered by an anti-hero capable of plotting a criminal plan with a scientific slant. The scientific base is provided by the experiment's reproducibility (no transcendental tricks here!).

18. The denouement of the story must always be the privilege of the hero-investigator.

19. The denouement can NEVER be partial. An attentive reader must ALWAYS be able to finish the book, with the minimum satisfaction of having had explained, not only the rationale behind every clue and its real valid status, but also that behind every misleading change (there has to be one! Otherwise it would be too easy!). In short, all the cards have to be laid on the table (there's never been a more appropriate place than this!).

20. A detective novel is above all a challenge from the author to the reader! It follows that attentive readers cannot limit themselves to pointing to one or other character as the certain killer. The chances of being correct are naturally very high, given the limited number of characters! There is no doubt, however, that a respected sleuth is distinguished from an amateur detective, not so much because they are invariably capable of finding the culprit, but because they are always able to explain, in detail, how the events took place. When we consider that matters can be brought to completion in one and only one way (see rule 7), that says it all!