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...)
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI 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