SS Van Dine and the Rules of Detective Stories, Part 1

Know the Rules: If Only to Break Them

I’m working on a mystery novel, part of my Regency CSI series, and so I’ve been looking for guidance on making the mystery really mysterious. What do you know, mystery writers just LOVE to create lists of rules for… other mystery writers. The fellas are particularly driven to make restrictions and rules.

Here is S.S. Van Dine’s 20 Rules for Detective Stories. Van Dine created the Philo Vance series, but nowadays he’s better known for this list of rules!

I notice that Van Dine sometimes creates rules that deny the tricks and devices of other writers of the “golden era” of detective fiction, especially (cough) Queen Agatha, who definitely annoyed a lot of male writers. Also, he’s got a really narrow definition of “detective novel,” I think, and Miss Marple need not apply.

For space, I’ve deleted his long elaborations for each rule, some of which are quite amusing and thoughtful. But you can find them at the link in the end. I’m going to do this in two sets of 10, so that I can add my own cogitations on some of the rules.

The Van Dine Rules, part 1:
THE DETECTIVE story is a kind of intellectual game. It is more — it is a sporting event. And for the writing of detective stories there are very definite laws — unwritten, perhaps, but none the less binding; and every respectable and self-respecting concocter of literary mysteries lives up to them. Herewith, then, is a sort Credo, based partly on the practice of all the great writers of detective stories, and partly on the promptings of the honest author’s inner conscience. To wit:

1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described. (NO ARGUMENT THERE.)
2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself. (STILL NO ARGUMENT… THOUGH IT’S OKAY I THINK TO MAKE THE CLUES SO DISCREET ONLY A REALLY DISCERNING READER WILL GET THEM.)
3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar. (OOPS, MY REGENCY CSI DETECTIVE IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THOSE LOVELORN COUPLES! I GUESS I’M FOLLOWING DASHIELL HAMMETT’S EXAMPLE OF NICK AND NORA CHARLES, WHO WERE QUITE POPULAR IN VAN DINE’S GENERATION.)
4. The detective himself, or one of the official investigators, should never turn out to be the culprit. (ALICIA SAYS, UH, LET’S SEE… THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD IS CONSIDERED ONE OF AGATHA CHRISTIE’S GREATEST BOOKS… PERHAPS VAN DINE WAS JEALOUS. FOR THAT MATTER, IN OEDIPUS THE KING, OEDIPUS IS BOTH DETECTIVE AND MURDERER.)
5. The culprit must be determined by logical deductions — not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. (OKAY WITH THIS. OF COURSE, THERE’S ALWAYS THE ELEMENT OF CHANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THIS DETECTIVE IS THE ONE WHO ENDS UP DETECTING. AND IN MYSTERY SERIES, THERE’S ALWAYS THAT WEIRD COINCIDENCE THAT WHEREVER THIS DETECTIVE IS, MURDERS HAPPEN.)
6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. (WELL, -SHE- CAN ALSO DETECT. I’D ALSO ADD THAT A DETECTIVE DETECTS, BUT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A PROFESSIONAL -DETECTIVE-.)
7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. (THERE ARE “CRIME NOVELS” OF COURSE, WHICH INVOLVE NON-MURDER, BUT I DO KIND OF AGREE MURDER IS THE HUGE TRANSGRESSION THAT REQUIRES GREAT EFFORT TO SOLVE.)
8. The problem of the crime must he solved by strictly naturalistic means.
9. There must be but one detective. (NAHHH.)
10. The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story — that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest. (I AGREE, BUT I ALSO THINK THIS IS THE HARDEST RULE OF ALL.)

More next week! So which of these rules do you nod along with? Which do you think are outdated?