the "fair play" mystery

[ratzo]

I was reading today about Mike Barr's Maze Agency (which sounds like a pretty cool comic) and the article mentioned how it was a "fair-play mystery," meaning that all the clues are there in the story for the reader to try and solve before the hero does. My question then is this: why would anyone write a mystery any other way?

[Donald M.]

I was reading today about Mike Barr's Maze Agency (which sounds like a pretty cool comic) and the article mentioned how it was a "fair-play mystery," meaning that all the clues are there in the story for the reader to try and solve before the hero does. My question then is this: why would anyone write a mystery any other way?

Inability/lack of talent to do so naturally?

[Bright-Raven]

Basically, the prevalent attitude is this:

You (the reader) are not supposed to be as smart as / smarter than the protagonist of the novel. Therefore, the writer must parlay elements into the story to try to fool you, so that the character can demonstrate their (and the author's) mental superiority.

Hey, you asked. Didn't say you were going to like the answer.

[BcAugust]

Though to be fair, a lot of "fair play" mysteries tend to require knowledge that may be unknown to most of their readers. I'm reminded of Agatha Christie, the near queen of fair play mysteries, that completely stumped me.... by including a reference to hundreds and thousands.

[Greg Hatcher]

Playing fair is HARD, no question. But when it's done well, it's a thing of beauty. As for why anyone would write a mystery any other way? Well, there you get into the age-old argument over whether or not you still call them mysteries or just 'crime fiction' or 'suspense.' (Which is, you know, really kind of a dumb argument. They're called 'mysteries' because that's what they're called, same as 'comics' are called 'comics' without necessarily being funny. As far as I'm concerned, it lets me know where they're shelved in the bookstore, so who cares.)

As for why anyone would write a whodunit without playing fair? I don't know... mostly I think it comes down to bad writing. Even the greats could have an off day. The Long Goodbye and The Maltese Falcon are brilliant novels that ALSO succeed as fair-play whodunits... but some of Hammett and Chandler's short fiction, viewed as whodunits, are pretty crappy.

I'd disagree with BR, though, about the protagonist being smarter. There are a lot of books like that, sure, starting with Sherlock Holmes and on up (incidentally, Doyle was NOT all that great at the fair-play whodunit, the Holmes stories are carried by the personality of Holmes.) If you want to see a GOOD example of this that still plays fair, I'd recommend Rex Stout's The Silent Speaker starring Nero Wolfe. That novel is a masterful piece of plotting and misdirection, yet it's all there for you and you come away from it thinking, okay, yeah, that guy WAS a genius. Plus it's funny.

But the BEST mysteries are the ones that have you and the protagonist solving the crime AT THE SAME TIME. Those are damn near impossible to write well but it can be done. In movies, think "Chinatown." But the best ones in print for my money are Ross MacDonald's Lew Archer novels. Those are intricately and beautifully written, to the point of being literature.... and they STILL WORK as mysteries, the hardest kind to write, the ones where you and the detective are neck-and-neck. I'd recommend The Chill as the best of these. Just a harrowing, emotionally violent book.... AND a magnificently plotted mystery that is exquisitely fair.

[Bright-Raven]

Greg:

I was just saying that many so called mystery writers tend to write in such fashion because they aren't skilled enough to write it "fair play". Holmes stories being one of them, and yep, those books suck as "fair play" and are carried by the character. And Stout's Nero Wolfe series is hit and miss in terms of consistently pulling off the style. Sometimes the character overpowers the mystery.

[MWGallaher]

My favorite author, Harry Stephen Keeler, wrote the exact opposite of "fair play" mysteries. In one notorious example, the guilty party is mentioned by name for the first time in the very last sentence of the book!

Trust me, mysteries you have no chance of figuring out can be far more fun to read.

[Shem the Penman]

I'm not so sure about calling Christie's mysteries "fair play" -- something like The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is the absolute antithesis of fair.

My favorite fair play mystery is Ellen Raskin's The Westing Game -- it's a book where, when she finally reveals the solution, you'll look back and wonder how you could possibly have missed it in the first place.

[BcAugust]

I'm not so sure about calling Christie's mysteries "fair play" -- something like The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is the absolute antithesis of fair.

My favorite fair play mystery is Ellen Raskin's The Westing Game -- it's a book where, when she finally reveals the solution, you'll look back and wonder how you could possibly have missed it in the first place.

Interesting. I've never found Christie unfair, unless it's something I don't know that stops me from noticing. The Westing Game I found frustrating, then again, I read it as a pre-teen and found the reveal... disappointing.