View Single Post
Old 2012-05-26, 10:37   Link #234
TwilightsCall
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to TwilightsCall
Speaking of Van Dine, that is one thing that drove me absolutely crazy when reading seacats.

Was Van Dine's 17th deliberately misinterpreted for the story, or was that actually a mistake?

It reads like this:

Spoiler for Van Dine's 17th:


This doesn't mean that the murderer 'doesn't feel guilt,' it means that the guilty party is not a professional criminal.

In the end I realize that its not really a big deal, and the fact the characters discuss it as the way you interpreted it kind of absolves the error by explaining it to the reader, but I must admit it really did bother me when I was reading it

I had some beef with the way a few of the other Van Dine's were interpreted/used/...ignored, but this is the one that stood out as being incorrect more than just forgotten.
TwilightsCall is offline   Reply With Quote