|
For many mystery readers, including me, Golden Age
conventions define what makes a mystery good, whether it was written
long ago, or recently.
Here’s a summary of the Rules for Golden Age mystery
fiction, or, put another way, the rules that make a book a good mystery:
-
The reader must have equal opportunity with
the hero/heroine for solving the mystery. There must be clues, and
all clues must be available to the reader.
-
There must be a corpse, the earlier the
better, and the reader should care about the victim, unless the
hero/heroine is the prime suspect, so that the death puts him or her
in jeopardy. Or, perhaps the dead person is important to the
hero/heroine in some other way; or he or she has important reasons
for investigating the death of the victim. In this case the reader
will care about the victim for the hero/heroine’s sake, rather than
for the victim’s sake.
-
The guilty person must have a prominent
part in the story. He or she cannot appear at the last minute.
-
The criminal must be caught through the
deductions/actions of the hero/heroine, not by accident or
coincidence; and those deductions must be logical and sensible, not
absurd or magical/supernatural.
-
There should be multiple possible suspects,
and clues that can have more than one interpretation. Ideally, there
is an obvious suspect to whom circumstantial evidence points, but
who is not guilty.
-
Accuracy is essential, especially in
details.
Some celebrated books, even found on lists of “best
mysteries” compiled by various authorities, ignore those rules. For
example, in Iain Pears’s The Raphael Affair,
no crime is committed until page 100 (of a 226-page book), and the
reader first learns that a murder has occurred on page 134. The reader
meets the victim on page 96, and has very little contact with him
thereafter. In short, the reader doesn’t know or care about the victim.
That’s two big rules broken, and in my view, The Raphael Affair
is not a successful mystery. (Page numbers refer to the Berkley
Prime Crime paperback edition, 1998.)
Consider Sarah Caudwell’s Thus Was Adonis Murdered,
1981, about which a reader commented, “the clues, such as they are, lead
nowhere,” and, “could the guilty person at least be a suspect?” (In
fact, the identity of the murderer and the solution to the crime
apparently occur by magic.) Thus Was Adonis Murdered has some
interesting elements, but in my opinion it is not a successful mystery.
Curiously, the book sometimes appears on “art mystery” lists, although
it has almost nothing to do with art. I sometimes wonder if those who
compile the lists of various kinds of mysteries read the books, or just
pull them out of the air.
|
|