dfordoom ([info]dfordoom) wrote in [info]vintage_crime,

more rules for detective fiction

On the subject of rules for detective fiction, here are Monsignor Ronald Knox’s famous ten rules:

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.
All supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course.
Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable.
No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end.
No Chinaman must figure in the story.
No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right.
The detective must not himself commit the crime.
The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.
The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.
Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them.


And this is the oath devised by G. K. Chesterton for the Detection Club in Britain:
“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 Act of God?”

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 7 comments

[info]keen_jean

June 17 2008, 18:42:16 UTC 3 years ago

I don't know, I'm a fan of jiggery-pokery and Chinamen. :)

[info]the_jester1

June 18 2008, 10:29:23 UTC 3 years ago

So was Charlie Chan created as an act of defiance?

Also, I thought the detective's "hunch" was not only allowable, but a popular device in detective fiction.

[info]dfordoom

June 18 2008, 11:02:10 UTC 3 years ago

Also, I thought the detective's "hunch" was not only allowable, but a popular device in detective fiction.

The rules only applied to the Golden Age of the 20s and 30s. And mostly even then to British detective fiction. You were never going to get Dashiell Hammett to obey any of those rules!

[info]pimpinett

July 17 2008, 18:25:34 UTC 3 years ago

I'm willing to make exceptions, but generally I like these rules (and Chesterton is hilarious, as always). I really dislike crime stories that hinge on supernatural powers - I find some of John Dickson Carr's stories rather disappointing in that way - and I tend to agree with Sayers (I think it was Harriet Vane who said it) that lust murderers are boring and a little unfair to the reader. I enjoy them on TV, but in detective stories I like good, solid motives.

[info]dfordoom

July 18 2008, 05:42:55 UTC 3 years ago

I agree about motives. To me a story with a psycho killer or a serial killer is a cheat, because they don't have comprehensible rational motives. I prefer murderers who commit murder for a reason. And I prefer murderers who are essentially ordinary people who are driven to commit murder for an understandable motive, a motive that makes sense to the murderer.

I don't object to sex as a motive, as long as it's ordinary everyday lust, and as long as it works as part of the story. The person's lust has to be for someone that you could really imagine they would lust after.

[info]pimpinett

July 18 2008, 17:40:48 UTC 3 years ago

Yes, love and lust is definitely an solid and understandable motive - it's the ones who kill for the joy of killing I don't like.

[info]dfordoom

July 19 2008, 05:18:58 UTC 3 years ago

Yes, I totally agree with that.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…