Twenty Rules For Writing Detective Stories[Annotated]

by S.S. Van Dine

No Description Available

Genres: Nonfiction, Writing, Mystery

9 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 8, 1939

About the author

Pseudonym of Willard Huntington Wright

Reviews

[Eternauta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Δεν θα συμφωνήσω με όλες τις θέσεις του "μανιφέστου" αλλά η βιβλιοδεσία, το χαρτί και η επιμέλεια της μετάφρασης (με μικρά τυπογραφικά κοσμήματα) από το Ουαπίτι δίνουν χαρά στην όραση όσο και στην αφή!

[tortoise dreams · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun look at guidelines for detective stories from back in the day by the creator of one of the most effete detectives of all time. Not to be taken too seriously since Van Dine broke his own rules when necessary. I wonder if someone has put together in one place the various commentaries on mystery writing, as those by Raymond Chandler, Edmund Wilson, John Dickson Carr, et al.

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading

[Tim Orfanos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ο Dine γράφει έναν από τους πρώτους οδηγούς συγγραφής αστυνομικών ιστοριών και μυθιστορημάτων, εμπνευσμένος από τη αντίστοιχη βιβλιογραφία μέχρι περίπου τα τέλη της δεκαετίας του '20 με αρχές της δεκαετίας του '30. Εκ πρώτης αναγνώσεως, πολλοί μπορεί να θεωρήσουν ότι κάποιες συμβουλές του είναι ξεπερασμένες, ωστόσο συντελούν με ξεκάθαρο και σαφή τρόπο στο να καταλάβει κάποιος γιατί και πώς γράφονται οι εύστοχες και ουσιώδεις αστυνομικές ιστορίες.... ακόμα και μέχρι την εποχή μας - η μετάφραση είναι, επίσης, αρκετά εύστοχη.

Ένα μίνι-εγχειρίδιο χρήσης για τους λάτρεις της αστυνομικής λογοτεχνίας, αλλά και για φερέλπιδες συγγραφείς αστυνομικών μυθιστορημάτων ή βιβλίων μυστηρίου.

Βαθμολογία: 4,2/5 ή 8,4/10.

[Divine]

More like a list of rules to break for writing detective fiction! It's so funny to me that the most lauded fiction forwarding the genre to the general public are actually the ones that contradict such rules. I think this is just Van Dine's personal preference and might be a little side eye to other works he just doesn't like lol.

At the top of my head, I already identified authors who are well known for breaking these kinds of rules like Dorothy L. Sayers (on romance), Agatha Christie (on a lot of things haha!) who has her most celebrated works doing the exact opposite of this and Knox' Decalogue, Rex Stout both employing it with Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin! My most favorite mystery from him, "Some Buried Caesar", glaringly does the opposite from one specific rule. And of course the Japanese contemporaries like Soji Shimada and Masahiro Imamura. Even Detective Conan (with that large body of work) play off a lot from these rules!

This was a fun read not as a guide for writing but as an ironic guide in context to how the genre looks today. I do agree with Rule #19 wholeheartedly: "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." Personal motivations driving the murder is far more satisfying!

If you do want to write a murder mystery, I think starting off with Anthony Horowitz' talk in YouTube about the genre is a really good introductory point. Love that guy.

[Zakdj · Rating 2 out of 5]

Van Dine is a very respected and well regarded writer within the sphyre of detective fiction, so his 20 rules do come from a place of deep understanding within the genre. My issue is that, while these rules are comprehensive for the time it was made, a lot of its rules feel like like guidelines in trying to make a detective story better and things he really doesn't like in a mystery. That distinction is important, as what should charitably be a guide of sorts for aspiring authors, it reads more like a list of complaints he wishes others was more willing to follow.

These rules are grossly restrictive in many ways, finding that aspects that detract from the main focus of Detective, Victim and Culprit should be done off with and wouldn't make for a "Pure" mystery. If you are a avid reader of Agatha Christie, you can read this list as a to do list in what she not only used in her own mysteries, but made some of the most important and influental novels in the genre intentionally breaking these rules.

I'd almost advise the opposite of these 20 rules in a lot of ways, instead of strictly forbidding yourself from using what is "Cliche" and "Predictable to a well read fan" can stop you from seeing how to create something fresh with what has come before.

I've always had issues with Dines 20 and Knox's 10, and while this list isn't as outdated as Knox's 10, it feels like to learn from it by not following what it says. Rules and restrictions can only ultimately serve to make a genre more stagnent than it is to breathe new life into it.

You can follow what he says to the letter, make a "Pure" mystery that abides by every single one of these without diviation, but don't be surprised if your mystery, ironically, ends up feeling more hollow and by the books because of it.

Go read Chandler's Ten instead, bluntly.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very of the time, and I have a suspicion that he and Agatha Christie had had a spectacular falling out - this at time's reads like a Response Article, rather than an actual set of guiding principles.

[ally douglas? · Rating 5 out of 5]

silly lil list i love

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

S.S. Van Dine, the creator of Philo Vance, writes a dated but useful guide for understanding the mystery form. The book is a fascinating source of mystery writers Van Dine admired in 1928.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clearly lays down some important rules for detective fiction, rules which hold up even 90 or so years after the piece was first published. Also does a great job of establishing the boundaries between mystery novels and related genres, like secret service fiction, and in explaining why those distinctions matter. A great resource for mystery writers, fans of detective fiction, and dungeon masters looking to craft their next adventure.

[Filipa Pedroso · Rating 5 out of 5]

Masterpiece.