2011-03-19, 21:41 | Link #101 |
Senior Member
|
I read The Tokyo Zodiac Murders by Shimada (mentioned in End) and Honeymoon to Nowhere, which have been translated into English.
Mike Grost's page is a good place to start.
__________________
|
2011-03-21, 12:58 | Link #103 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-03-23, 01:30 | Link #104 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Van Dine's The Benson Murder Case:
Now, this was his first novel ever, so, I figure it would take him a few to get good... Does the writing get better? And the mystery? Mind you, I only solved it in the first chapter because I got loaded up with strategies from Umineko and knew exactly what I was looking for, but I don't need the mystery to be impossible to figure out to enjoy it... For those that have read a lot of other traditional mystery novels... do any of the other mysteries do much better than this? Does Ellery Queen, for example? |
|
2011-03-23, 02:07 | Link #105 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
I might try digging around on the Japanese web if nobody knows anything offhand.
__________________
|
|
2011-03-23, 14:46 | Link #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
Quote:
You seem to have completely ignored the writing, and if that's the result of Umineko's influence, then that is a shame. |
|
2011-03-23, 20:54 | Link #107 |
Slashy Slashy!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Age: 34
|
Van Dine is very dry, and very British (despite his being an American). I wouldn't really recommend him unless you're already a die hard mystery fan.
For some nice follow-ups to Umineko, try John Dickson Carr's "The Three Coffins", or Nicholas Blake's, "Thou Shell of Death". Or try some hard-boiled stuff - Dashiell Hammett's "Maltese Falcon" or Raymond Chandler's "The Long Goodbye". |
2011-03-23, 21:47 | Link #109 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
Dry writing is dry. And biased reply is biased. Quote:
|
||
2011-03-24, 15:54 | Link #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
__________________
|
2011-03-24, 19:12 | Link #113 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
Quote:
What you gave the story was a cursory glance rather than drinking it in like it deserves. That you dismissed everything as: Quote:
Van Dine's style is about much, much more than the puzzle itself, this is especially true with the Benson case. If you just didn't like it, then I wouldn't object to a matter of taste, but to simply dismiss a classic Golden Age story like that as bad, well, then I really have to call foul on your assessment. The Benson case is a classic for the writing in it, and there's a lot more to that story than just being dry. It deserves more credit than you're giving it. |
||
2011-03-24, 20:55 | Link #114 | |
Slashy Slashy!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Age: 34
|
Quote:
It's like someone writing an essay called, "Why America is not Inferior to Japan". Anyone who is not a raging otaku will be like, "well, duh." |
|
2011-03-25, 13:00 | Link #115 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
Which is why I wanted to know if it improves. Because maybe the main characters were meant to be developed further along in the series. But apparently I don't get the answer to that question because I somehow read it "wrong." Which is a patently absurd reaction to my query. Quote:
So I thank you for being the one to bring up the word 'bad' with this novel. But anyways, about the story... Sorry, but there really isn't much else there. Please name something if you think there is rather than making this somehow a problem with *me*. The only things I can think of that are 'there' are the elements about the puzzle and the reasoning behind the puzzle. That I got and they were fairly decent. I can see that even though this is Van Dine's first novel that he has the basic mechanics of writing a mystery down fairly well. But this is supposedly a novel, right? Not some kind of simple logic puzzle. So you can't tell me that the characters Vance, Markham and Van Dine were anything other than totally flat. Maybe that's how he wanted to play it out, but it really is boring then to watch flat characters go around as mouth-pieces of the author. If there's a lack of character development, or even characterization (except for Vance who we get a good description of) then normally we should have some kind of interesting plot. But the plot consisted mostly of them going around talking to people. Or, wow, sometimes the people come to them! The only somewhat interesting twist, which, if you were somehow not paying attention is that Markham never gets his ideas right. That's it. Actually, I went on to his second book (I think, going by publishing date), the Canary Murder Case and I was utterly shocked that Van Dine actually *said* something. "By all means," was his first utterance. Did he even say anything in the previous novel? And also Vance seems to be undergoing some more characterization. So maybe it picks up later on. Which is what I was trying to ask. Honestly, telling me that somehow I read it "wrong" without telling me anything else about how great the book is is not very useful. You could have at least told me that it gets better later... does it? Or maybe it doesn't and you know these stories remain rather flat and you have to take it out on me, personally. |
||
2011-03-25, 16:46 | Link #117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
And what I was hinting at you missing, Kylon, was how absurdly easy it was to present disjointed coincedences and facts as evidence to prove any number of theories, but the apparently most important aspect when determining which suspect to go after is determined by the psychology of the characters.
It was all one big justification of Vance's approach. Before you ask "why mention it now"? It's because you've satisfied my curiosity that you may have realized the possibility of what I was getting at, but simply discarded it. However, you've made it plain that you missed it entirely, so consider this a freebie. |
2011-03-25, 16:56 | Link #118 | |
Slashy Slashy!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Age: 34
|
Quote:
"16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations." Granted, Van Dine's commandments are somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But yeah, don't expect the guy to go out of his way to make his novels an entertaining read. He's only interested in presenting a problem for people to solve. |
|
2011-03-26, 00:18 | Link #119 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
It's hit-or-miss sometimes, but a few of his stories are really, really good. But as far as characterization and all? You are probably off avoiding him, really. I love his stories because to me a good mystery is about a larger than life detective godstomping a mystery. But if you want something else... It's a matter of opinion, I suppose. |
|
2011-03-26, 02:41 | Link #120 |
Slashy Slashy!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Age: 34
|
Oh yeah, Van Dine's a smart guy - no doubt about that. And it's certainly better to omit literary extras in your mystery, rather than writing bad literature.
But eh, what can I say, I like my mysteries to have a bit of life to them. |
|
|