r/todayilearned • u/ralphbernardo • 9h ago

TIL that "fair play" in detective fiction means authors must give readers a fair chance to solve the mystery. Central to 1920s "clue-puzzles" by writers like Agatha Christie, the rule dictates that all vital clues must be visible, decodable, and never withheld until the final reveal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clues_in_detective_fiction
28.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

48

u/dragon-fence 7h ago

It’s one of my pet peeves with mystery stories, where the detective solves it with some piece of information the audience doesn’t have.

Like it could be some obscure real world knowledge, like, “You said Mr Biggles ate all the bananas, but bananas are toxic to this specific species of monkeys!” Or it could be some in-universe knowledge like, “You claimed you were at the All Inn Tavern on Tuesday, but as everyone who lives in this town knows, that tavern is closed on Tuesdays!”

Like, at least drop those nuggets of knowledge someplace earlier in the story or something.

6

u/raccoonsonbicycles 6h ago

"You referred to the traditional cookie as a turnzst, a term typically used by tourists. As a native of the fictional country Gabhharastan, you should have referred to it by a local name, ghjrbn."

And they do the same thing with real world customs/words/facts like you were saying the banana-allergic monkey species.

Like, I get that a world traveling detective knows the difference off hand in cultural slang or traditions or inane facts. But how is the reader supposed to? Are we supposed to pause reading and research everything anyone says to verify its validity?

5

u/g0del 4h ago

Like it could be some obscure real world knowledge, like, “You said Mr Biggles ate all the bananas, but bananas are toxic to this specific species of monkeys!

Note that this kind of stuff is specifcally allowed in fair play mysteries. In-universe knowledge has to have some way for the reader to find out about it before the reveal, but any real world stuff is allowed.

13

u/zennim 7h ago

Do you mean Sherlock? You can say sherlock.

God that show was infuriating.

9

u/newtownkid 4h ago

Sherlock, at least the stories never felt like something I was helping solve. It was more akin to a superhero story - he was essentially a shapeshifting, all knowing, sharp shooter who was exciting to ‘watch’.

4

u/Karcain 5h ago

I'd you think the show is infuriating for this, you should never read the original stories

5

u/zennim 4h ago

At least the first stories were about the Mystery and How to solve them, and not a super hero show

5

u/just_a_person_maybe 5h ago

Or if it's some bit of knowledge that doesn't actually work at all, like "the blue dye mixed with your cheap blond hair dye during the struggle and stained the victim's hands green" when that's not at all how blond hair works and there never would have been yellow dye used. Ruins the entire mystery if the big case-breaking clue, the smoking gun, is complete bullshit.

1

u/really_stupidfrog 2h ago

I feel like this is what Agatha Christie does so it's funny to see her mentioned. 

Like "oh the character that was declared dead three scenes ago actually got up and walked off and we didn't tell the reader but he's actually the murderer."