Detective fiction is remarkably constrained in space, time, plot and theme when contrasted with sf. Furthermore, the explanation of the detective's reasoning in the concluding chapter transforms a novel from a work of literature into something more like a crossword puzzle.
Maybe the explanatory passages in the three Trygve Yamamura novels (see above) are not overly obtrusive? - although rereading these works yet again is not on my current agenda.
Also, reading Poul Anderson's mysteries has not inspired me to read much other detective fiction. I was already a fan of Holmes (also here and here.) I got into Montalbano through television. Many of Asimov's Black Widowers stories are trivial. I think that I have found yet another instance of under-explanation in The Mysterious Affair At Styles.
I will stay with sf. (See also Getting Into Detective Fiction, Maybe...)
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
I can see why you find the mystery genre to be "...remarkably constrained in space, time, plot and theme when contrasted with sf." I myself am no longer the mystery reader I was many yeara ago. Nonetheless, I still regard the mysteries of Dorothy L. Sayers, John Dickson Carr, and Robert van Gulik with affection, and I hope to reread some of their works.
As we know, Poul Anderson liked mysteries and tried his hand at writing them. Alas, I concluded his Trygvi Yamamura novels to be not among his better books. But I thought better of those of his mystery short stories that I managed to find.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment