 |
| Pfui! |
Pronounces Stout:
Lists of pontifical dicta have been drawn up by various experts, but they seem to me to be a lot of nonsense....The most frequently repeated rule, generally assented to, is the most nonsensical. It says, "You must play fair with the reader," meaning that in the course of the narrative the reader must see and hear everything that the detective sees and hears. I don't know why people like S. S. Van Dine and R. Austin Freeman and Dorothy Sayers have insisted on it, since every good writer of detective stories, including them, has violated it over and over again.
Stout says Sherlock Holmes often found evidence he did not tell Watson (and the reader) about, and it "is the same with Dupin, Lecoq, Father Brown, Poirot, Wimsey, Perry Mason--practically all of them." He declares that a detective fiction writer need not worry about practicing "fair play," then, but s/he does need to have "the required qualifications for a storyteller":
You can create people in your mind that you get excited about; you can devise and develop a plot situation, you have a sense of structure and form; and you can write readable narrative and dialogue. Thus equipped, you can write good stories, but it doesn't follow that you can write good detective stories. For them you need something more.
What, you must be asking. Stout answers:
You need, not the kind of mind that likes to solve puzzles, but the kind that likes to construct puzzles, which is quite different. You also need considerable ingenuity if they are to be not only puzzles but good ones.
What do you think? Is "fairness" in the presentation of clues important to you in a classical detective fiction, or do you care more about the other elements--storytelling skill and ingenuity in puzzle construction--outlined by Rex Stout?
Well, in this case I am reminded of what Manfred Lee said to an excitable fan towards the end of his life, in which he saud that yes, the early Ellery Queen stories played fair, but only if the reader was a genius! And I love how much Stout sounds like Wolfe here!
ReplyDeleteThe particular rule for 'fair play' that sometimes gets cited, that the reader knows everything the detective knows, is a limitation that would rule out a lot of perfectly fair puzzles. And then, what's the idea behind it? The reader isn't really playing a competition with the detective (who is a fictional character) but with the writer.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand some of the more striking instances of 'unfairness' in the Sherlock Holmes stories involve explanations that hinge on facts we hadn't been shown. Perhaps people fastened on the wrong point (with a puzzle mystery, I feel cheated if I don't have enough information to solve the mystery - whether the detective had more is irrelevant). But these kind of artificial limitations (if they're not too silly) can be a creative impetus too.
Nigel, that's a good point. I think too that I would define a "fair play" detective novel simply as one where we the readers have been provided with clues sufficient to enable us to solve the puzzle, if we are clever enough.
DeleteI think the key point is "the required qualifications for a storyteller." The writer of crime fiction has to be able to do more than line up clues and mislead the reader. He or she has to tell a good story. Every good novel, in any genre, has a good story at its core. The rest is window dressing.
ReplyDeleteHi, Susan, thanks for the comment, enjoy your work, by the way!
DeleteI agree that the ability to spin a good tale is essential (it's interesting that Stout seems to agree with Jacques Barzun that the detective story is a "tale"). I suppose I would argue that part of the storytelling art of the classical detective tale is that it have clues for the detective (and the reader) to decipher to solve the mystery. Without those, the mystery tale may be a good tale, but it's really not classical detective fiction, I think. Stout seems to be saying it's only really necessary, as a matter of definition, that the detective "be the hero."
I tend to get annoyed if the solution depends on someone's passing remark on page 96. Yes, it was revealed to the reader, but it's not the sort of thing that the average reader will ever notice. My favourite mysteries tend to have 'clues' that only make sense when you change the perspective of how you are looking at the puzzle. Reading SILVER BLAZE as a ten year old I was puzzled by the 'Dog in the night time' speech from Holmes, but then slapped my forehead when he explained the meaning of what he said a few pages later. You don't get all of the clues, but you are given a sporting chance to guess the solution. It's a much harder thing for the author to construct those sorts of puzzles, but it's much more satisfyiing when they succeed.
ReplyDeleteI think clueing is part of the art of constructing a classical detective story, because many readers get pleasure out of having had at least the chance to deduce the mystery, to be able to look back, as you describe, and see how you might have done it (or pat yourself on the back for having done it).
DeleteI think too that Stout in his books is fair, or fair enough anyway!
Or at least many of his books anyway!
DeleteWell, you know I love Rex Stout so he could say just about anything and I would agree. but...
ReplyDeleteI don't really care about fair play or enough clues, I just want to enjoy the story. I loved Susan's comment. I do often try to figure out the culprit, but often I am trying to guess who the author wants us to think it is, and see if the author can fool me.
I think I'm merely paraphrasing other comments here, but I think that "fair play", for me, is -- if I can look back after finishing the book and think, "Oh, if I had only noticed such-and-such, or interpreted the meaning of XYZ properly, I could have figured out the solution." I want to have been fooled or tricked, not cheated. In fact I ENJOY being fooled, but not being cheated. I'm not sure if the definition of fair play has anything to do with the information that is available to the detective protagonist; I don't see why that relationship is important, since prima facie the detective will have enough information to solve the crime in a book.
ReplyDeleteThat being said -- I'm always happy to read a story that intrigues me and makes me think about *something*, whether or not it's "fair". I very much enjoy stories where the writer has "played fair but only if the reader is a genius"; that's in fact something I find extremely enjoyable. But I also enjoy inverted mysteries, etc., because like many people here, a good story is a good story to me. I know what kinds of stories amuse me, but I'm always ready to be pleasantly surprised.
I like all sorts of mystery fiction, but for "classical" detective fiction I like the idea that I have a chance to solve the mystery (theoretically). Though there are some theoretically "fair play" mysteries, like some of R. Austin Freeman's for example, where you would be be a science expert like his detective to have a chance to really solve the mystery. I still enjoy these, because I like learning about the science and seeing how the detective goes about solving the case.
ReplyDeleteI'd say you only need to play fair if you are actually presenting the story to the reader as a challenge to solve it themselves. Otherwise, if it is a good story and a good read, why care?
ReplyDeleteI don't really mind if the author doesn't play strictly fair. I do agree with Raymond Chandler when he said, "The solution, once revealed, must seem to have been inevitable. At least half of all the mystery novels published violate this law."
ReplyDelete