Rules for Writing Detective Stories by S.S. Van Dine (1928) | Hacker News Reader

Rules for Writing Detective Stories by S.S. Van Dine (1928)

thrillingdetective.com

57 pointsnetworked21 comments

This list walked into my life like a jilted mistress out of the rain. It was all function, sleek jagged lines like a panther cut out of alabaster. I like my lists with a little more style, panache, verve. Not because I like pretty things, but because I want something this list can never give me: I want character.

"Come off it, sweetheart," I challenged, knowing that the list was just a façade, all crumbly and worse for wear. "What's the real story?"

The list shrank back. "I'll not be questioned from the likes of you, why, you... reader!"

The moll knew. Decades of fanatical typing but declining sales had forced the list to put on airs, to rise above the common man. But chumps like me could see right through it, and she knew it. Oh, she knew it.

I leaned back in my chair, and took the last drag on my stub of a cigarette. Exhaling, I blew smoke toward the open door. She turned, and followed it out into the dark night. Into the city that knows how to keep its secrets.

Raymond Chandler's thoughts on the subject[1][2] make a nice contrast with this list. I haven't read any S.S. Van Dine, but in general I strongly prefer Chandler's approach over other mystery authors of the time.

[1]"Ten Commandments for the Detective Novel" http://www.thrillingdetective.com/trivia/triv116.html

[2]"The Simple Art of Murder" http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/chandlerar...

His books were very dry and quite boring because of this. He is more known for these rules than for his novels, which says a lot. Most of the great mystery writers (especially Agatha Christie and John Dickson Carr) violated several of these "rules" in each of their novels.

This clarifies my observation. As i was reading down the list of rules, I tried to think if some of the most enjoyable stories I can recall stuck to these guidelines strictly, doesn't appear to be the case. Maybe it's just my taste, but i then tried to recall what masterpieces this author has to his name but no big names came to mind. would be interesting to delve deep into his work then contrast his style with others.

In such a masterpiece as "and then there were none", which is by far the most sold mystery book ever, Christie chose to ignore 4 of these rules, at the very least. For instance (I mention this one because this is not a spoiler), there is no detective at all in this novel.

Didn't read a lot of books from Van Dine, I just remember they are very dry, because he is fascinated with the mechanics of the detective novel. I didn't like it, but give it a try, his approach might appeal to you.

A good author knows the rules. A great author knows when, why, and how to break them.

Asinine or not, he certainly had a point with rule 3: "There must be no love interest in the story. To introduce amour is to clutter up a purely intellectual experience with irrelevant sentiment. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar."

If only the makers of genre movies would take this rule to heart! It would make for tighter plots and shorter running times. How many thrillers, action flicks, superhero films, disaster, spy and scifi movies have been marred by inserting some half-baked love story into it?

While I hear your point, not being too much into love stories, all those mentioned genres have so much repetition and pointless fluff, that presence of love story is smaller problem. As in, fix plot holes and half baked dumbness in writing and the impact will be much bigger then usually few minutes of fanservice in the presence of minor romance.

We are talking about genres that completely lost any suspense and thrill, because ending is predictable from the beginning.

Exactly. I would already be happy if the characters would think before they act.

Granted. Although I am often amazed by the amount of bad scriptwriting going on in genre movies (I mean come on, how much do they pay these writers?), I cannot be very offended by it. In genre movies the plot is usually little more than an excuse to get from one set-piece to another. In action movies such a set-piece would be a chase or stuff blowing up, in kung-fu movies it would be a fight, in horror movies something horrible, in porn... well you get my drift.

For me, it killed pleasure from watching them and I used to like them. Especially in horror, to be scared I need to sort of believe it. When I don't, then it becomes merely disgusting. Similar with fights, I don't feel thrill nor anything of the sort anymore. I used to like fights, but when all characters act like unreal idiots I end up wishing they all killed each other in the end. They never do.

It is as if genre movies completely resigned on story and writing. It is just eye candy at this point.

I don't think it used to always be like that, because I have seen some older movies lately and characters (including supporting cast) made more sense.

I was talking to an actor friend yesterday, one of the things he said was that if you think about story narrative in terms of compressing human experience, romance stories have the highest 'ratio'. You can unpack an mind-boggling amount of information from even the most trivial and silly onscreen romance. Every glance, every change in tone of voice, conveys meaning.

After hearing that, I can now see why they get added to every single movie.

The superhero and spy genres have their own traditions, and both include love stories. It's part of the escapist fantasy and often used to raise the stakes, by eg putting Lois in danger.

> The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.

Many TV shows fail on this point trying to surprise the viewer with an unexpected result which ironically becomes so common that ends up being predictable from the first few minutes of the show.

Edit: they also fail in number 2 and 5.

That is primary reason why I don't like watching Dr Who. My kids love it but most episodes are magically resolved at end for my liking.

A nice list, though I think my favourite detective story would fail on at least one point; indeed, ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’ by Agatha Christie succeeds largely because it goes against one of the rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Murder_of_Roger_Ackroyd

"Murder on the Orient Express" also goes against the list, same for Sherlock Holmes in general.

I think it's one of those situations in which you deviate from the rules either because you don't know what you are doing, or because you know precisely what you are doing.

One thing I like about this list is that it's so focused on the audience. Van Dine's priority is being fair to the reader and giving the reader an enjoyable experience and most importantly making sure the reader gets exactly what they came for when they pick up a mystery novel.

Although modern writers would likely find a list like this too narrow, I think the base point of being fair to the reader is a good one. It's one that, as many others have pointed out in this thread, many mystery stories today would benefit from.

There must be no love interest in the story. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no "atmospheric" préoccupations.

I realise that my favorites detective stories (those of brother Cadfael from Ellis Peters) all break those rules to good effect, building a good sense of place and time. The romance always involve characters concerned by the crime (suspect, family member of the deceased, guilty party...), but never the detective.

True Detective breaks almost all of these, some for the worse, most for the better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com