I didn't like the Sherlock books I read. They seemed to be along the lines of "that guy is guilty because the type of mud on his shoes can only be found in this specific part of the town, where the only store that sells the murder weapon is located. Oh, and by the way, there is no way to know that by reading the book, although there is one point where it says his shoes aren't clean, without mentioning mud specifically".
I feel like it's "cheating", giving you a mystery book where you don't have all the clues to solve it yourself, and in the end it just pulls some "facts" never mentioned before to explain who did it.
I prefer Agatha Christie's books. At least I regularly guess who did it with her books, but still not often enough that I don't get surprised on occasion.
Although I dislike her whole "everyone who's not guilty still would have a perfect reason to kill the victim and either went on the scene of the crime about the right time for a totally different reason or is lying through their teeth because they think the person they love did it".
I liked the Rouletabille stories, too. Gaston Leroux wrote these I believe.
I didn't like the Sherlock books I read. They seemed to be along the lines of "that guy is guilty because the type of mud on his shoes can only be found in this specific part of the town, where the only store that sells the murder weapon is located. Oh, and by the way, there is no way to know that by reading the book, although there is one point where it says his shoes aren't clean, without mentioning mud specifically".
I feel like it's "cheating", giving you a mystery book where you don't have all the clues to solve it yourself, and in the end it just pulls some "facts" never mentioned before to explain who did it.
I never felt the reason to read a Sherlock Holmes book was to figure out the mystery yourself. You're not being told from the perspective of Holmes, you are almost always being told the story from the perspective of Watson. It's not a "whodunnit" sort of thing as much as we're just being taken along for the ride, and Arthur Conan Doyle's warm prose and remarkable characterization make it an extremely delightful one.
Oh, I totally realise that it's not the point. It's just that when I read a mystery, I want to be given tools to solve it. And I feel cheated if in the end I realise I didn't have the opportunity to. So I stopped reading these.
And I feel it's normal, not being told things from the detective's point of view. Otherwise we would know who it is when they know who it is. The point isn't being told every conclusion but only the facts, and having to reach the conclusions yourself. In that, we're like the assistant who tags along and doesn't really get everything but is trying his hardest to figure out what happened and why.
The way I see detective stories, the reader is in the shoes of the detective, getting things from the end and having to go back to the beginning (the crime). The author, being more in the shoes of the criminal (first coming up with the crime, then wondering how to do it, etc) although they're in charge of the whole story of course.
I prefer Agatha Christie's books. [...] Although I dislike her whole "everyone who's not guilty still would have a perfect reason to kill the victim [...]".
That's exactly why Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" is pretty awesome -
all twelve of the suspects turn out to be guilty
.
I agree with your sentiments on the clues thing. It's a bit of a cheap trick to introduce additional random facts and/or characters at the end, leaving you with no chance of guessing whodunnit.
I agree with your sentiments on the clues thing though. It's a bit of a cheap trick to introduce additional random facts and/or characters at the end, leaving you with no chance of guessing whodunnit.
Yeah, although I've come to realise that it's just about different expectations. I hated the movie The Birds because
I thought the whole point of the movie was to figure out why the birds do that, and when it's never revealed I felt cheated and was all "then what was the point of watching it?"
but that's only because of the expectations I had.
Since I know I couldn't read them and not feel cheated, I've just been avoiding books that seem to be that way. But I'm trying not to blame them. If I read most books just for the story, I guess I can understand why some people want to read mystery books in a more "passive" way too.
That's exactly why Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" is pretty awesome -
all twelve of the suspects turn out to be guilty
.
I agree with your sentiments on the clues thing. It's a bit of a cheap trick to introduce additional random facts and/or characters at the end, leaving you with no chance of guessing whodunnit.
Dr. Who (Cushing) and his granddaughters, Susan (Tovey) and Barbara (Linden), show Barbara's boyfriend Ian (Castle) the Doctor's latest invention, a time machine called Tardis. When Ian accidentally activates the machine, it takes them to a petrified jungle on a world devastated by an ancient nuclear war fought between the Daleks and the Thals.
So this guy named Dr. who is some scientist who invents something called a Tardis and meets these 'Daleks'?
Well, don't blame me, it's like 2 movies in the 60s, I bet nobody's ever heard of them. Also, I didn't know 'Who' is a French name.
Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. The programme depicts the adventures of a mysterious, humanoid alien known as the Doctor, who travels through time and space in his spacecraft, the TARDIS (an acronym for Time And Relative Dimensions In Space), which normally appears from the exterior to be a blue 1950s British police box. With his companions, he explores time and space, faces a variety of foes and rights wrongs.
The programme is listed in Guinness World Records as the longest-running science fiction television show in the world, and as the "most successful" science fiction series of all time, in terms of its overall broadcast ratings, DVD and book sales, iTunes traffic and "illegal downloads."
[...]
The programme originally ran from 1963 to 1989. After an unsuccessful attempt to revive regular production with a backdoor pilot in the form of a 1996 television film, the programme was successfully relaunched in 2005
[...]
The Doctor has been played by eleven actors. The transition from one actor to another is written into the plot of the show as regeneration, whereby the character of the Doctor takes on a new body and, to some extent, new personality. Although each portrayal is different, and on occasion the various incarnations have even encountered one another, they are all meant to be aspects of the same character.
The Cat in the Hat is a 1951 novel by Dr. Who. Originally published for adults, it has since become popular with adolescent readers for its themes of teenage confusion, angst, sexuality, alienation, and rebellion. It has been translated into almost all of the world's major languages. Around 250,000 copies are sold each year, with total sales of more than sixty-five million. The novel's protagonist and antihero, The Cat, has become an icon for teenage rebellion
Comments
I feel like it's "cheating", giving you a mystery book where you don't have all the clues to solve it yourself, and in the end it just pulls some "facts" never mentioned before to explain who did it.
I prefer Agatha Christie's books. At least I regularly guess who did it with her books, but still not often enough that I don't get surprised on occasion.
Although I dislike her whole "everyone who's not guilty still would have a perfect reason to kill the victim and either went on the scene of the crime about the right time for a totally different reason or is lying through their teeth because they think the person they love did it".
I liked the Rouletabille stories, too. Gaston Leroux wrote these I believe.
And I feel it's normal, not being told things from the detective's point of view. Otherwise we would know who it is when they know who it is. The point isn't being told every conclusion but only the facts, and having to reach the conclusions yourself. In that, we're like the assistant who tags along and doesn't really get everything but is trying his hardest to figure out what happened and why.
The way I see detective stories, the reader is in the shoes of the detective, getting things from the end and having to go back to the beginning (the crime). The author, being more in the shoes of the criminal (first coming up with the crime, then wondering how to do it, etc) although they're in charge of the whole story of course.
That's exactly why Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" is pretty awesome -
I agree with your sentiments on the clues thing. It's a bit of a cheap trick to introduce additional random facts and/or characters at the end, leaving you with no chance of guessing whodunnit.
Actually,
Yeah, although I've come to realise that it's just about different expectations. I hated the movie The Birds because
Since I know I couldn't read them and not feel cheated, I've just been avoiding books that seem to be that way. But I'm trying not to blame them. If I read most books just for the story, I guess I can understand why some people want to read mystery books in a more "passive" way too.
I'm obviously not so great on detail...
Yeah, and that one where
Oh, wait, was that Agatha Christie?
Doctor Who? Is that the french show with daylicks and robomans?
Surely you jest.
I haven't watched Dr. Who much lately, though I watched it alot when I was a kid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECpe4rrUXX0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2oCK89xxNQ
Oh, I found it:
So this guy named Dr. who is some scientist who invents something called a Tardis and meets these 'Daleks'?
Well, don't blame me, it's like 2 movies in the 60s, I bet nobody's ever heard of them. Also, I didn't know 'Who' is a French name.
Are...are you serious? I can't tell. The hour is working against me.
but, just in case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who
No, the guy who wrote the original book.
Yeah, I found it: