Peter Moiseev's "The Science of Murder"
Peter Moiseev
The Science of Murder
The rules of the detective fiction or what is a difference between detective fiction and "hard-boiled" one
The general opinion - which, as one knows, is not accepted either to analyze or criticize it - states: normative poetics is outdated; no genre can be dictated what it should be. At the same time, one forget that one can talk about a genre only as long as it has a little bit clear boundaries; normativity, therefore, is a consequence of distinctness.
It seems that the last hundred years only one genre has declared its normativity - it is detective fiction. The most famous detective rulebooks were written, as one knows, by Ronald Knox ("The Ten Commandments of Detective Fiction") and S.S. Van Dine ("Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories"), although there were others - Stefan Brockhoff, for example, or Rina Brundu Eustace. These authors themselves wrote detective stories, sometimes brilliant (such as Knox's “The Three Taps”), so they knew what they were talking about. Nevertheless, they were cruelly ridiculed for their adherence to principles. Van Dine was accused of failing to become an upper class detective writer (how it follows from wrongness of his theory is a mystery). Josef Škvorecký tried to write the cycle of detective stories, each of which would violate one of the Knox commandments. As a result it turned out to be such a low-grade waste paper that one can't imagine Knox's better protection.
But one of the most famous attacks against the genre of detective fiction was the appearance of so called “hard-boiled” fiction. In common, these two genres had nothing to divide - so different their genre nature and target audience were. However, the "hard-boiled" novel - or, more precisely, some of its representatives, first of all Chandler - declared war on the detective stories. In his attacks one circumstance is surprised us and has been remained unnoticed: Chandler does not correct the detective fiction's rules, does not offer his own version - but simply ignores them. As a result, the controversy takes on a funny sound. Knox, Van Dyne, Freeman, Chesterton and others like them say: there must be this and that in a detective story. Chandler: But that's unrealistic! And that's all. Then there are arguments about how and by whom murders are committed in reality, as well as praise to Hammett and his followers - "you are going the right way, comrades!" No explanation how to write "hard-boiled" novels - although its plots are really built completely differently to detective ones. Moreover, no further attempts would be made later to create a set of rules for “hard-boiled” novel similar to the rules of Van Dyne or Knox. But why it was so? It is a very good question.
If one looks again at Chandler's essay, "The Simple Art of Murder”, it would become obvious that he, in essence, didn't say anything about the genre: he offers to writers a topic (more precisely, even demands it from them) - the theme of real crimes. Well, realism of Hammett's or Chandler's plots can be argued. Of course, crimes are committed there by professionals, and detectives are not as smart as in a detective story; of course, there are more scenes of violence than in a detective story, and heroes speak the language of the street - but don't try to convince me that the plots of "The Maltese Falcon" or "Farewell, My Lovely" are taken from life. They don't need to be taken from life: the main thing that distinguishes "hard-boiled" novels from other works of the same genre (no, not the detective fiction, but which - a little later), is the entourage: criminality, shootouts, brawls, squabbles and the hero of a western moved to the big city.
And then there is a problem here: in addition to all this entourage, it is necessary to tell the readers some story. Without a doubt, it may not be as sophisticated as in a detective story - the pathos of Chandler's "Simple Art" is in common reduced to justifying the simplification of the plot. But there must be some kind of story. And then Chandler accidentally talks about the nature of this story: the defender of simplicity and realism suddenly admits that “the story (“hard-boiled” novel - PM) is his (sleuth's - PM) adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would be no adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure”. This frank confession almost negates everything what Chandler had written before: the realism of the adventure novel would be inevitably limited, in fact, just to the entourage and so would be reduced.
And it also explains why "hard-boiled" novel is a novel "without rules": the genre of adventure fiction does not have such a refined type of rules as the detective one; here the main aim is dynamics and unexpected plot twists. The only rules here can be considered as the violation of the detective fiction's rules: the criminal may be discovered by accident, he may be a character who appeared at the end of the plot, there may be several criminals - in general, everything is as in detective fiction, but just the opposite.
But since the authors of the "hard-boiled" novel declared themselves detective writers, they had to borrow from the detective fiction not only the theme of the crime (moreover, for the detective fiction it is not obligatory), but also a semblance of a puzzle. According to the apt expression of Soviet critic Georgiy Andzhaparidze, in “hard-boiled” novels there is no mystery, but there are "unexplained circumstances." It can be added that sometimes there are no unexplained circumstances - just in the finale, the author sheds additional light on events by reporting facts that he hid up to that moment. As a rule, the denouements of the "hard-boiled" novels and stories are not too original but often almost directly borrowed from detective stories: a kidnapped person may be alive, healthy and unharmed; brother and sister may be husband and wife (or lovers), weaving an intrigue against the innocent lover, and so on.
Actually, the strength of the detective genre is not (only) in unexpected outcomes: in detective plot the explanation of the unexplained is offered.
To offer instead just an explanation of the unexplained circumstances is to greatly reduce the degree of intellectual efforts.
An imitation of a detective fiction is often achieved in “hard-boiled" novel by using artificial obfuscation: throughout the half of the plot new characters and storylines are introduced, then they are more or less skillfully unravelled. Chandler was the master of such plot structures, Hammett was too but in lesser degree; but the thing is that if a storyline hangs in air, the reader may not notice this - if there are enough lines.
Taking something from the detective fiction, the "hard-boiled" novel takes even more from the dime novel, differing from it only in its "realistic" flavor. This "realism" really helps to ignore the rules of the detective fiction: yes, in the detective story criminal organizations and professional bandits are prohibited - but in reality they exist! Yes, Ronald Knox does not recommend "letting" Chinese characters into detective stories (they filled the dime novel of the beginning of the century) - but in reality there are Chinese people too! As a result, the whole arsenal of Edgar Wallace's worst works returned to the "hard-boiled" novels. It is not highly noticeable in the oeuvres of the best representatives of this kind of literature, their talent and new ("realistic") style allow to disguise a lot, but - the fact remains.
In general, the emergence of "hard-boiled” novel can be considered as a riot of those writers who found it difficult to dream up beautiful detective puzzles (Chandler admitted this difficulty quite frankly) and those readers who were too lazy to solve it. Nick Carter was kicked out the door - but he came back out the window. Of course, both Hammett and Chandler were quite decent writers (especially the second) and masters of their craft. Yet their aim was to make things easier for the writer; and the simpler the task, the less the merit of solving it. Rules are a useful thing, whatever you say.
Original text in Russian: https://godliteratury.ru/articles/2018/03/22/nauka-ubivat-pravila-detektiva
Translation by me
The Science of Murder
The rules of the detective fiction or what is a difference between detective fiction and "hard-boiled" one
The general opinion - which, as one knows, is not accepted either to analyze or criticize it - states: normative poetics is outdated; no genre can be dictated what it should be. At the same time, one forget that one can talk about a genre only as long as it has a little bit clear boundaries; normativity, therefore, is a consequence of distinctness.
It seems that the last hundred years only one genre has declared its normativity - it is detective fiction. The most famous detective rulebooks were written, as one knows, by Ronald Knox ("The Ten Commandments of Detective Fiction") and S.S. Van Dine ("Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories"), although there were others - Stefan Brockhoff, for example, or Rina Brundu Eustace. These authors themselves wrote detective stories, sometimes brilliant (such as Knox's “The Three Taps”), so they knew what they were talking about. Nevertheless, they were cruelly ridiculed for their adherence to principles. Van Dine was accused of failing to become an upper class detective writer (how it follows from wrongness of his theory is a mystery). Josef Škvorecký tried to write the cycle of detective stories, each of which would violate one of the Knox commandments. As a result it turned out to be such a low-grade waste paper that one can't imagine Knox's better protection.
But one of the most famous attacks against the genre of detective fiction was the appearance of so called “hard-boiled” fiction. In common, these two genres had nothing to divide - so different their genre nature and target audience were. However, the "hard-boiled" novel - or, more precisely, some of its representatives, first of all Chandler - declared war on the detective stories. In his attacks one circumstance is surprised us and has been remained unnoticed: Chandler does not correct the detective fiction's rules, does not offer his own version - but simply ignores them. As a result, the controversy takes on a funny sound. Knox, Van Dyne, Freeman, Chesterton and others like them say: there must be this and that in a detective story. Chandler: But that's unrealistic! And that's all. Then there are arguments about how and by whom murders are committed in reality, as well as praise to Hammett and his followers - "you are going the right way, comrades!" No explanation how to write "hard-boiled" novels - although its plots are really built completely differently to detective ones. Moreover, no further attempts would be made later to create a set of rules for “hard-boiled” novel similar to the rules of Van Dyne or Knox. But why it was so? It is a very good question.
If one looks again at Chandler's essay, "The Simple Art of Murder”, it would become obvious that he, in essence, didn't say anything about the genre: he offers to writers a topic (more precisely, even demands it from them) - the theme of real crimes. Well, realism of Hammett's or Chandler's plots can be argued. Of course, crimes are committed there by professionals, and detectives are not as smart as in a detective story; of course, there are more scenes of violence than in a detective story, and heroes speak the language of the street - but don't try to convince me that the plots of "The Maltese Falcon" or "Farewell, My Lovely" are taken from life. They don't need to be taken from life: the main thing that distinguishes "hard-boiled" novels from other works of the same genre (no, not the detective fiction, but which - a little later), is the entourage: criminality, shootouts, brawls, squabbles and the hero of a western moved to the big city.
And then there is a problem here: in addition to all this entourage, it is necessary to tell the readers some story. Without a doubt, it may not be as sophisticated as in a detective story - the pathos of Chandler's "Simple Art" is in common reduced to justifying the simplification of the plot. But there must be some kind of story. And then Chandler accidentally talks about the nature of this story: the defender of simplicity and realism suddenly admits that “the story (“hard-boiled” novel - PM) is his (sleuth's - PM) adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would be no adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure”. This frank confession almost negates everything what Chandler had written before: the realism of the adventure novel would be inevitably limited, in fact, just to the entourage and so would be reduced.
And it also explains why "hard-boiled" novel is a novel "without rules": the genre of adventure fiction does not have such a refined type of rules as the detective one; here the main aim is dynamics and unexpected plot twists. The only rules here can be considered as the violation of the detective fiction's rules: the criminal may be discovered by accident, he may be a character who appeared at the end of the plot, there may be several criminals - in general, everything is as in detective fiction, but just the opposite.
But since the authors of the "hard-boiled" novel declared themselves detective writers, they had to borrow from the detective fiction not only the theme of the crime (moreover, for the detective fiction it is not obligatory), but also a semblance of a puzzle. According to the apt expression of Soviet critic Georgiy Andzhaparidze, in “hard-boiled” novels there is no mystery, but there are "unexplained circumstances." It can be added that sometimes there are no unexplained circumstances - just in the finale, the author sheds additional light on events by reporting facts that he hid up to that moment. As a rule, the denouements of the "hard-boiled" novels and stories are not too original but often almost directly borrowed from detective stories: a kidnapped person may be alive, healthy and unharmed; brother and sister may be husband and wife (or lovers), weaving an intrigue against the innocent lover, and so on.
Actually, the strength of the detective genre is not (only) in unexpected outcomes: in detective plot the explanation of the unexplained is offered.
To offer instead just an explanation of the unexplained circumstances is to greatly reduce the degree of intellectual efforts.
An imitation of a detective fiction is often achieved in “hard-boiled" novel by using artificial obfuscation: throughout the half of the plot new characters and storylines are introduced, then they are more or less skillfully unravelled. Chandler was the master of such plot structures, Hammett was too but in lesser degree; but the thing is that if a storyline hangs in air, the reader may not notice this - if there are enough lines.
Taking something from the detective fiction, the "hard-boiled" novel takes even more from the dime novel, differing from it only in its "realistic" flavor. This "realism" really helps to ignore the rules of the detective fiction: yes, in the detective story criminal organizations and professional bandits are prohibited - but in reality they exist! Yes, Ronald Knox does not recommend "letting" Chinese characters into detective stories (they filled the dime novel of the beginning of the century) - but in reality there are Chinese people too! As a result, the whole arsenal of Edgar Wallace's worst works returned to the "hard-boiled" novels. It is not highly noticeable in the oeuvres of the best representatives of this kind of literature, their talent and new ("realistic") style allow to disguise a lot, but - the fact remains.
In general, the emergence of "hard-boiled” novel can be considered as a riot of those writers who found it difficult to dream up beautiful detective puzzles (Chandler admitted this difficulty quite frankly) and those readers who were too lazy to solve it. Nick Carter was kicked out the door - but he came back out the window. Of course, both Hammett and Chandler were quite decent writers (especially the second) and masters of their craft. Yet their aim was to make things easier for the writer; and the simpler the task, the less the merit of solving it. Rules are a useful thing, whatever you say.
Original text in Russian: https://godliteratury.ru/articles/2018/03/22/nauka-ubivat-pravila-detektiva
Translation by me