Talk:Detective fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Crime task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

One the one hand I respect the work everyone has put into this article, while at the same time, this article having Detective as its main article title for this genre, just isn't correct. It's MYSTERY fiction and not Detective fiction. That's what authors of the genre call themselves (their organization is the "MYSTERY Writers of America") and publishers don't classify it as Detective Fiction but MYSTERY(look on the spine of any paperback by any of the authors in this article and it will say Mystery). Plus, many MYSTERY novels frequently don't have a so-called "detective" as the investigator but a whole host of types who do the investigating. At the very least, "mystery" should be the Main subject genre title and not "crime" or "detective." So, the name detective fiction is anachronistic but I don't want everyone to go ape if I decide to take the time to rename everything and change the redirect page, etc., etc. MS, 15, Dec. 03

If you want to create an article at Mystery fiction, you go ahead, even if it's no more than a REDIRECT to Detective fiction. However I think you'll probably find that Mystery covers more than just Detective fiction; there's also various types of supernatural mysteries which don't usually fall within the Detective genre. Please also bear in mind that Wikipedia is international, and MYSTERY Writers of America is not. You say: many MYSTERY novels frequently don't have a so-called "detective" as the investigator but a whole host of types who do the investigating.; in that case the lead character is an amateur detective. Phil 12:45, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
No rash decisions please. Those labelling problems cannot really be avoided: The question here is whether one considers crime or mystery the all-encompassing term. True, there are straightforward crimes that do not include any mystery; on the other hand, there are supernatural mysteries which are nothing to do with crime.
Having said that, I believe it is possible to draw the line exactly there:
(1) A mystery fiction article yet to be written should concentrate on supernatural matters and boldly state that "mystery fiction" as in "Mystery Writers of America" (no Americocentrism intended here) is just a synonym for crime fiction (which it is, come to think of it -- "Mystery" probably sells better, as in "A Charles Paris Mystery").
(2) The detective fiction article could be partly rewritten and actually focus on the historical role of the detective in fiction, whether police, private, armchair, or whatever.
KF 15:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think that detective fiction and crime fiction are synonymous. The latter genre includes some novels which are straight narratives of criminal endeavour, with no detection involved.

Dramatic 19:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely. Is there anyone who thinks crime fiction and detective fiction are synonymous? In case you are referring to my above statement, however, all I'm saying is that the term "mystery fiction" is being used rather indiscriminately and, exactly because of its vagueness and elusiveness, should not be made the basis of a Wikipedia article on any aspect of crime fiction (the latter being, at least as I see it, the generic term). --KF 20:52, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
First, let's drop the "Wikipedia is international - MWA is American" business; this is the English-language version, and it should be primarily concerned with English-language countries. Also, mystery in the classical sense of something religious, supernatural, or occult is, as far as I've seen, never used by fans or publishers as a generic classification (that is, as "mystery fiction"). Stories that depend on such themes are generally published as "fantasy", "horror", or "religious" fiction.
That said, in my experience publishers and fans seem to use the labels detective, crime, and mystery pretty much indiscriminately, until they are classifying a particular story. This seems true on both sides of the Atlantic. I have both British and American publications, and they both seem to use all three terms freely.
For instance, the two largest magazines in the genre, Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine and Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, use "mystery" as a catchall term in their titles. In the past EQMM divided its stories internally into "crime" and "detective" categories (but not "mystery"); decades back, EQMM dropped the categories, apparently thinking them unnecessary. Writer's Market used to have categories for "Crime & Detective" and "Mystery" publications; their distinction was that "Crime & Detective" published both fiction and nonfiction, while "Mystery" was almost exclusively fiction. Many of my paperbacks (Brit and American) say "mystery" on one side and "crime" or "detective" on the other.
As a long-time reader of the genre, it appears to me that "mystery" is the most commonly-accepted catchall term, but "detective" and "crime" are both heavily used. Bear in mind that none of the three can be completely accurate: As KF pointed out, many mystery stories contain no crimes, and many crime stories contain no mystery; it often happens that neither variety contains a detective, even an amateur.
I could accept any of "mystery fiction", "detective fiction", and "crime fiction" as an acceptable catchall, although my personal preference is "mystery fiction" — because it seems the least specific. It's even possible that three independent articles should be written, noting that each of the three overlaps the other two. I do not think that an article on mystery fiction should concentrate primarily on supernatural themes; this is not familiar usage.
One more point, and I'll bring this bleeding essay to a close. "Detective fiction" or "crime fiction" is more likely to apply to series works than to collections of unrelated stories, because it's nearly impossible for a series of stories to feature recurring characters without at least one of those characters being either a detective or a police officer. Thus Agatha Christie and John Dickson Carr were stars of the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", even though their books were often published as "mysteries". ajad 01:18, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I have moved Hercule Poirot from the list of Police Detectives to Private Eyes, which I also believe is the wrong category for him. In the first Poirot book we are told that he had been a police officer in Belgium for a number of years but that he was now retired in England. Christie never wrote a story in which he is shown in an official role. It is clear, therefore, that he should not have been classified as a Police Detective.
Well, actually, there's "The Chocolate Box", in which he is shown working as a Belgian police officer. But I believe Poirot qualifies as a private investigator. Accounting4Taste 17:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear that he should be called a Private Eye either. I have placed him there because in a few of his stories he is depicted as being a "consulting detective" in the manner of Sherlock Holmes. In most of his stories, however, he is clearly a meddlesome amateur. The term "private eye" has other overtones, I think, such as those exemplified by Philip Marlowe and Spencer, and clearly Poirot has very little in common with them. I think he should be moved into the Amateur category, but will wait to get some other opinions on this.

This brings up the matter of Nero Wolfe. He is, at present, listed as an Amateur. Since he makes his living purely as a consulting detective, however, with his assistant Archie Goodwin handling the Philip Marlowe side of the business, so to speak, I believe that he should almost certainly be moved to the Private Eye section.Hayford Peirce 01:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the quandrary of Poirot; although I believe amateur is wholly the wrong category for him. As he had training, police contacts, was a respected member of the Sûreté and was employed/engaged freelance rather often in the books by either clients or the police, he doesn't belong in the same category as the rest. However, Christie doesn't show him as a professional, and he has the financial independence to refuse clients unless he becomes interested... How would we feel about placing him in the Other category with a tag of, say, "retired police detective" or "occasional freelance ex-detective"? Marc Alexander 19:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Yet time and again authors resort to that deus ex machina-sort of device. Is it just because they have to meet their publisher's deadline and cannot think of any other ending to their latest novel? Or is it because they are mediocre writers in the first place? Or is one coincidence per novel acceptable now? A special case of illogical plotting seems to be the murderers' reluctance to kill off the hero or heroine of the story... In many cases, instead of just pulling the trigger, they embark on a lengthy discussion of their criminal record, detailing all their crimes -- no doubt mainly for the reader's benefit, but shouldn't a good author be able to think of other narrative devices that help the reader catch up on what they have missed so far?" NOPV, anyone? There must be a better way to say this without sounding so snobby. Fishal 20:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] the hoi polloi

This is the sort of pedantry "up with which I will not put," as Churchill remarked about the admonition about not ending sentences with a preposition. Probably 95% of all users say "the", rightly or wrongly, the same way they say "The Mossad" instead of "Mossad". (And why shouldn't they? Who the hell says, "I called CIA today" instead of "I called the CIA"?) In any case, here's a brief article about hoi polloi and "the":

  • the the "hoi polloi" debate
  • (Usage Disputes)
  • Yes, "hoi" means "the" in Greek, but the first 5 citations in the OED, and the most famous use of this phrase in English (in Gilbertand Sullivan's operetta _Iolanthe_), put "the" in front of "hoi".This is not a unique case: words ike "alchemy", "alcohol",

"algebra", "alligator", and "lacrosse" incorporate articles from other languages, but can still be prefixed in English with "the". "The El Alamein battle" (which occurred in Egypt during World War II), sometimes proffered as a phrase with three articles, actually contains only two: _alamein_ is Arabic for "two flags" (which is appropriate for a town on the border between Egypt and Libya), and does not contain the Arabic article _al_.

  • Source: [Mark Israel, 'Usage Disputes: the the "hoi polloi" debate', The alt.usage.english FAQ file,(line 2519), (29 Sept 1997)]

Hayford Peirce 04:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Spelling question: Cosy or Cozy? (it's currently with the s, it looks funny to me but since it's a valid alternate spelling I left it for now.) 00:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Marple's Swansong?

I'd suggest that "Sleeping Murder" may not be correctly shown as Miss Marple's swansong. Although it was the last full-length book published about her, it was written many years earlier (during the 1940's) and there is no actual reason to think that it takes place during the 1970's; indeed, some of the context makes it very unlikely that it takes place later than the 1950's.

However, I'm not sufficiently sure of my ground to do an immediate edit. Any thoughts?

Jon_Rob 193.60.199.36 14:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holmes' Swansong?

I'd suggest His Last Bow isn't; recall, ACD tried to kill him, but fan protest forced him to revive... On a related note, who's written the Bell mysteries in Murder Rooms? Trekphiler 07:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on Swansongs

Should "Busman's Honeymoon" be shown as Wimsey's swansong? At least one of the 3 stories in the collection "Striding Folly" takes place later than this. And even if short stories are excluded, what about "Thrones, Dominations", which is at least partly by Sayers? Jon Rob 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rules Lists

I have a problem with list of rules given here. They are apparently all taken (without reference) from <http://www.mysterylist.com/declog.htm>. This is not only an unreliable source, but the author of that page admits that the Haycraft section is "paraphrased or reinterpreted" and "just to provide flavour". Apart from leaving much out (the original version by Haycraft is some 28 pages long), it also contains added comments such as "If it works, then it's OK, right?", which are not Haycraft's views. Also: Grobius Shortling is not an authority on the subject. He is just the guy who compiled that website I mentioned and added his own opinion. I'm new to Wiki, so don't quite know how to do this, but I would suggest putting a warning on this entry altogether. --Tanyushka 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] style still too informal?

I removed the question mark from the Whodunit section title. Other than that now-removed question mark, I don't think this article as it now reads is too informal for Wiki. Its prose is lively, yes, but it does seem to me to be in the bounds of encylcopedic prose. I'm not clear on what the state of the article was when the "informal" tag was placed on it, but I think it could well be removed now. Thoughts and comments?PaulLev 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since there seems to be no objection - or even discussion - about the above point, I've removed the tag. I read the article again, and it seems fine (at least by my scholarly lights). If someone thinks the tag should be replaced, that can always be done and then discussed.PaulLev 06:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalize

I've added the globalize tag to the article, since it seems to me (not an expert in the genre though) that it is overly anglo-centric, ignoring e.g. the works by Georges Simenon starring Maigret. Fram 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Games

What about Dick Gumshoe from Phenox Write: Ace Attuorny? I think he deserves a mention. 209.181.224.182 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV detectives inclusion on lists?

Since as I understand it this is an article on detective fiction as a type of literature, do others agree that the list of "fictional detectives" should be limited to characters from detective stories and books, excluding characters from other media such as television? Such characters could be mentioned in other articles about television "police dramas" etc. I was going to delete but thought maybe I should ask first, in case I am mistaken in the scope of the article.

btw I'm glad someone added le commissaire Maigret to the list of police detectives! I myself was just going to do so recently but my IP address was in a range that was at that time auto blocked.

[edit] Robert van Gulik

I would add Robert van Gulik's Judge Dee to the list--16 novels and a collection of short stories--beginning with The Chinese Gold Murders and ending with Murder in Canton.

[edit] "Protestant Bible"

Just a minor quibble on an article that is getting markedly better over time (thanks to the contributors). There are many different versions of the Bible, but there is no single book called the "Protestant Bible". Different Protestant denominations have disagreed just as widely on which books belong in the Bible as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have. This means that even within Protestantism, the Apocrypha (the stuff left out) is also an inexact term and may refer to different groups of texts. Can I suggest the following rephrasing: ". . . the story of Susanna and the Elders from the Book of Daniel, Chapter 13 (a story considered apocryphal by Protestants)". I know this last bit borrows a phrase from the article on Susanna and the Elders, but I can't think of any more precise and elegant way to express it. Mardiste 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable detectives

I've removed an entry which is considerably less notable than its surrounding entries -- * Jack Reacher — Lee Child. If Lee Child's sales ever get anywhere near any of the remaining detectives in this section, or the degree of notability can be demonstrated to match (for instance, if someone writes a reference book about Lee Child's work), then this entry can be re-considered. Accounting4Taste 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is a list of debuts/swansongs necessary?

I'd suggest that this section could be removed entirely, or perhaps moved to its own article. What this section seems to be doing is noting the first and last appearances of various detective characters, and that information can usually be found by looking at a bibliography. If the "swan song" is different than the last story to have been written (such as Hercule Poirot) then that distinction can be made within the article devoted to that detective character. I just can't see the utility of this section within an article devoted to detective fiction as a broader category. Accounting4Taste 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering/Editing

I found a reference book that provided a chronological outline of the history of detective fiction, in rough terms, and have used it to re-order and edit this article. There was some very interesting material which regrettably qualified as original research, which I removed. I am familiar with most of the reference works on detective fiction and I can't think of how those interesting bits could be backed up with citatons.

One thing I wanted to make clear is that the Golden Age mystery is not equivalent to the cozy.

My feeling now is that there is a lot of material in this article which should be split off into pages of its own, notably the very precise categorized lists like the two entries under "Catholic detectives" and the debut/swansong table. However, I've made extensive changes tonight, expect to see things edited as other editors take a hand, and will pause for a while to see if other editors have opinions they care to express. Accounting4Taste 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

The second paragraph of this article now reads: Commonly in detective fiction, the investigator has some source of income other than detective work and some undesirable eccentricities or striking characteristics. He or she frequently has a less able assistant, or foil, who never asks to make apparently irrelevant inquiries and acts as an audience surrogate for the explanation of the mystery at the end of the story.

The highlighted bit is puzzling. I wonder if this clause was meant to imply "who never asks to make apparently irrelevant inquiries, but is asked (by the detective) to make them." Or was it meant to read "who is asked to make apparently irrelevant inquiries" or something along those lines?

Please will someone who understands the point (if such a person exists) change the wording. Otherwise I think it should be dropped. Thank you. Wanderer57 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I think the whole paragraph should be dropped. It's original research, by and large, and doesn't represent any part of detective fiction except the "amateur detective" based on Sherlock Holmes -- and the cliche outlined therein was vieux jeu by the 1940s. Accounting4Taste 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Rules?

The section called "Proposed Rules" does not contain either proposed rules or a link to them. Is this an oversight, or something that is going to be fixed? Thank you. Wanderer57 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rathbone2.jpg

Image:Rathbone2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spillane2.jpg

Image:Spillane2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)