He's guilty of being at odds with a few of the Golden Age "rules" (there were countless such lists at the time, as mystery literature was booming at the time), but it's not like he's a rebel without a cause here. Christie defied all conventions throughout her career for the sake of inventive and original storytelling. Gosho isn't nearly as innovative, but he's at no more fault than virtually all other contemporary mystery writers.
To throw out a bit of perspective, one of the earliest lists of any real consideration was Ronald Knox's Decalogue (which was meant to be a little tongue in cheek, but also a criticism of the lower echelon of mysteries out there that were essentially "cheating" readers):
1. The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow.
2. All supernaural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course.
3. Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable.
4. No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end.
5. No Chinaman must figure in the story.
6. No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right.
7. The detective must not himself commit the crime.
8. The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.
9. The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.
10. Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them.
Of course, this was written many years ago and is pretty reflective of the times (I still laugh at #5). It was first published in 1929, which gives you a better sense of the literary deceits that were being utilized at the time.
As far as I'm concerned, Gosho's only real, serious problem with concern to the lists you posted is the disguises. Yes, he's established that ridiculous disguises are commonplace in his work on more than one occasion, but the point that many look over is that it doesn't
excuse the fact that it is unremarkable writing. Citing other unscientific/implausible events hardly justifies their inclusion--it more gives us reason to not consider it a thoroughly expert mystery series in some respects. Mystery scholars would no doubt scoff at some of the madness that goes on in Conan, and I'm right there with them when it comes to the disguises.
Even so, he's not really adhering to many rules here considering many of the ones he has broken end up as reversioned plots that Christie herself invented. Many, many mystery series (and non-mystery ones, really) have taken elements from Christie's bibliography and used them as their own (such is her influence). Gosho's work is no different there.
Xcommando wrote:I loled at this part
e) Learning that the culprit was familiar because the dog didn't bark.
Episode 2. :-X
This also wasn't Gosho's own invention, you know.
