kkslider5552000 wrote:
"Did you hear about the kidnapping in the swamp?"
"Kidnapping? Really?"
"Yeah, but then she woke up!"
"Oh ho ho ho!"
"Oh ho ho ho!"
First of all
I love you. For serious. \o/
Second:
sstimson wrote:
...shakespeake is not a mystery writer.
Fair point
But let's get into that briefly
What is it that makes a story a mystery? Specifically DC. The way I see it, DC is mostly a whodunit, the ultimate mystery being who Anokata is. Now, I won't link to the tropes page as that will trap many for a long time, but what you want seems to be what they call a "Clueless Mystery". I'm also aware it's not like the bible when it comes to referencing, but it still proves my point quite nicely. I'll quote things straight from the page to make the point.
(what is in "quotes" and
italicized is from the tropes page, the rest is my own words)
The "Clueless Mystery" is a work where the author writes a mystery where it "
isn't intended to be participatory at all" and "
the reader is expected to simply come along for the ride". These types of mysteries make "
no effort...to provide the clues needed to solve the mystery" and many fans who view mysteries as a game to take part in using logical thinking to (essentially) deduce the puzzle at the heart of the story "
[feel] cheated in a game that the author wasn't really taking part in"
It's said that to easily spot a "Clueless Mystery" is to notice if the main character is the detective or not. If that's the case "
the author has an easy way of explaining the missing clues: the detective knew about them and their significance, but the narrator didn't." And this, my friend, is where my point and opinion lies
Detective Conan is not a Clueless Mystery. The main character is the detective. The title has his name
and profession in it. There have been, I will concede, some cases where Gosho has not provided sufficient clues or the "logic" was not sound, however, on the whole, we are given hints in every single case. We're given the motives. We're given the stories. Detective Conan is a Fair Play Whodunit, where the readers are given "
all of the clues necessary to solve the mystery at the same time as, or even before, the fictional detective"
And...It's kind of funny looking at the page because one of your main arguments very closely ties into something. And it ties in...in a bad way. Specifically: "
Clueless Mysteries often appear in the repertoire of usually-Fair Play Whodunnit writers, particularly when they get fed up with fans who start complaining that the puzzles are "too easy"". It does seem that Chek would find the mysteries easy, but as far as I can tell, she's having fun doing all this speculating. She's not complaining.
The reason Detective Conan should not change to a Clueless Mystery (on something big like Bourbon anyway) is that a majority of fans enjoy that puzzle feel, and, after 15 years+ of the same formula where hints have been given, if suddenly DC turns into a Clueless Mystery "
the audience that settles in for its usual clue-hunt is only going to have the rug pulled out from under them in the...last few pages. The clues that they can normally count on mean absolutely nothing. They're all red herrings, and the audience seldom gets any warning that the normal rules are off on holiday." It does touch upon an audience that enjoys them, which I believe you must be a part of, however it also says "
as long as they know beforehand that it's not a Fair Play Whodunnit."
Of course, as with anything, Clueless Mysteries can be done well, but I don't believe DC could pull it off at this point on something as big as Bourbon, especially with how far along that mystery is. In other words, some big twist with Bourbon would be considered to have been "
done badly, without warning, [and] under the guise of a Fair Play mystery" where it would "
seem lazy at best, and insulting at worst, as if the writer is mocking the audience in an "I'm more clever than you!" kind of way". Authors are very much told to "stick with what they know" and Gosho knows, and has always known, DC as a Fair Whodunit. Seeing as a Clueless Mystery is the exact opposite of that, it would not be what he knows at all and even for good writers writing about something they have no experience with is
tough.
sstimson wrote:
And again I ask this questions. Please answer, because by doing so, you might understand part of what I am trying to say.
How would you feel if after writing book one of a ten book story, before you had finished writing book two, someone publishes a guide to your mystery series with all the turns and twists and the ending already spelled out? I would feel like changing the story to keep the mystery a mystery. If you over doing leaving your clues and red herrings out where all know which is which, It becomes possible that by the end of the first chapter we are going to know the Butler did it.
I guess
sstimson wrote:
sonoci wrote:
sstimson wrote:
Okay I understand where you might be going, but if you were a mystery writer, how would you feel if at the end of book one of a ten book set, everything you were going to do had been written down and published as a guide to your series, even before you finished writing it?
I would feel that I wasn't doing a very good job to hold up the point I was trying to make xD
Wasn't a good enough answer? :V I guess I'll elaborate
My point is not to say that there needs to be clues everywhere and that everything needs to be revealed early on. No, not at all. There needs to be moderation in the way the clues are given and that includes foreshadowing. If I were writing a ten book set of a mystery, I'd be trying to manipulate the mystery so the certain theorists out there would be able to make conclusions necessary close to the 3/4 mark but need those last few hints to finalize everything that would come near the end. So, in essence, I would be hopefully be playing my cards so the brainiacs can have a theory they're confident in by around the end of the 8th/beginning of the 9th book but they need that last little clue in book 10 to carve it in stone. In that way, these hardcore theorists who got everything right get their reward when the scenario plays out just like they thought.
If I were to see someone's theories (for whatever reason) that were all right down to the smallest details...I wouldn't change what I had planned. To be honest, and really I don't want to put it this way but it's my true to-the-core opinion, if I were to change the outcome just because a fan got it right I would feel
disgusting. As an analogy, pretend you made up a game and invited a friend to play it with you. You tell them the rules and you start. But soon, your friend starts to beat you. So, at the last move, you utterly trump them with some "rule" that you "forgot to tell them about" when really you just made it up. Personally, nothing would make me feel...more
dirty than cheating someone that way.
