本格本格本格は~

With further ado, let’s go!

本格とは 変格とは
二つの違い 見せつけてやる

自称の学者曰わく
“推理が大人になっていた”
謎解きの様な諸事万端
古臭く 不要だ
でもそれ欲しくない 遊び足りない
懐かしい地上最高のゲーム
主人公の名前と同じペンネーム

鍵は紛失
妥当な手順を踏みなさい
世界の事態だけが犯罪
天才な探偵は存在しない
社会派じゃ強硬なルールです

カー~ 本格本格本格は
唯一残された治療法です
凡庸発想沼沢に
あなたのせいで溺れています
嗚呼 生み出せない
令和の為に無双のエラリー
本格本格本格は
能力を要し 読者への挑戦がある

考えの中に天才で
すべてのトリックを理解だろう
パズルは気密みたいが
ユダの窓 四方の壁にある
校を重ねて 発明してみて
十角館角数を変えて
飢えた虚無へあなたを捧ぐ

密室を脱出
魑魅魍魎とか百鬼夜行とか問題にならない
宇宙か魔法か推理としてはふさわしくない
電話雪で使えなくなる
神聖始祖からの十戒です

カー~ 本格本格本格は
奇想の力だけ限界です
現代推理実況の救世主は私たちやろがい
とうとう停止されて
果てしないコージー流小説ファクトリー
本格本格本格は
洞察がなければ逆転じゃ 十分じゃない

本格本格本格は
(本格本格本格は)
本格本格本格は
いつも一つである真実

本格本格本格は
不可能犯罪とは可能性です
自己矛盾進路で
崩された あなたのアリバイ
嗚呼 押し付けやめて
無味無臭無色の謎なきミステリー
本格本格本格は
まだ誰も知らないけど
ときはきた青春のタイム!

What is ‘honkaku’? What is ‘henkaku’?
I’ll show the difference between the two right now!

Quoth the self-proclaimed ‘scholars’:
“The mystery has grown up”,
All the things akin to puzzle-solving
Are, first, outdated, and, second, useless;
But I don’t want that! I still want to play
The dearly beloved grandest game in the world;
So that the pen name is the same as the protagonist.

The key is missing!
Please follow the proper procedure;
There is no crime but ‘condition of the world’;
Genius sleuths do not exist in reality;
These are the unbending rules of of social school.

Ca———arr! Honkaku, honkaku, honkaku is
The one and only remaining remedy;
Into the bog of mediocre ideas
We are sinking because of you specifically;
Ah! There is now way you can give birth
To the matchless Ellery needed for Reiwa;
This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!
Skill is necessary; there must a challenge to the reader!

You are geniuses inside your own imagination;
You have comprehended all the tricks;
Your puzzles look airtight, and yet—
All four walls of them are full with Judas’ windows!
You keep editing, desperately try to invent, but you can
Only change the number of sides in the decagon house;
I will offer you to the hungry nothingness!

Escape the locked room!
‘Various spirits and monsters are out of the question’,
‘Space and magic are inappropriate for mystery’,
‘Phones are rendered useless because of the snow’—
These commandments came from sacred ancestors.

Ca———arr! This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!
Only the tier of fantasy is the limit!
Saviors of current mystery scene are nobody but us;
Please stop at last
The factory of endless cosy-style fiction!
This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!
Without discernment, just turnabout is not enough!

This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!
(This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!)
This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!
The truth is only one!

This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!
The impossible crime is the possibility!
You follow the route of self-contradiction,
And your alibi has been broken;
Ah, stop pushing on me
This taste-odour-colour-less mystery-less mystery!
This is honkaku, honkaku, honkaku!
We are yet unknown, but—
Our moment has come, the time for the young hearts!

The Very Model

I am the very model of a honkaku philologist,

To any list of mystery rules I shall compile a better list,

I always reach completion in deduction inferential,

I know to separate the accidental from intentional.


I understand the state of genre and current critics as they are,

By which I mean the need for more respect towards John Dickson Carr,

In discord interaction and in every hypothetical —

poetical? prophetical? memetical? Aha!

I interact the very way that is the most benguetical.


I interact the very way that is the most benguetical,

I interact the very way that is the most benguetical,

I interact the very way that is the most bengueti-guetical.


I always deeply delve in facts that very few of you have seen,

I am aware the late Queen problem is in fact the early Queen,

In all the careful details that each other person sadly missed

I am the very model of a honkaku philologist.


I’m very well acquainted with the path of Japanese suiri,

My book, when it is done, will be the sixth out of the very three,

I have attained ability to take the new Natsuhiko

And never drop the book in such a way that it destroys my toe.


For every one of those who always seek the most essential

But look at lots of books and feel the horror existential,

I put the effort that can only be described as vigorous —

Rigorous? Coniferous? Villanous? Aha!

I have produced the priceless treasure of detective syllabus.


I have produced the priceless treasure of detective syllabus,

I have produced the priceless treasure of detective syllabus,

I have produced the priceless treasure of detective sylla-syllabus.


I have compiled the very best deductive bibliographies,

I have outmemed the memers when connecting everything to cheese,

But is this kind of research truly what the world before had missed?

I wonder if there is a need in honkaku philologist…


But—

The treasure chest of mystery is truly inexhaustible,

The iceberg goes extremely deep and deeper, and I mapped it all,

I made the locked library to make it ever obvious

How everything but novels is as indispensable for us.


I dug the websites for the most obscure of all Mephisto lore,

Read Christie, Hoch, and Carr, and Queen, and Dickson, and then Hoch once more,

The Kyoto’s bookstores were immense but also could not satiate —

What I ate? Is it bait? Celebrate? Aha!

And this I say to Jimbocho: I will arrive, and you just wait.


And this I say to Jimbocho: I will arrive, and you just wait,

And this I say to Jimbocho: I will arrive, and you just wait,

And this I say to Jimbocho: I will arrive, and you just, you just wait.


And if my efforts somehow help the whole deductive genre to grow

And make it easier to read Ooyama Seiichirō,

In all the precious details that would otherwise be ever missed

I am the very model of a honkaku philologist.

New Locked Room Library, 2 (and more) months in: Statistics, Write-ins, Oh My!

The Locked Room Library project is working actively. Today, at over two months since the start, it is time to give some statistical overviews and discuss more gritty details.

To start: out of sixteen participants, I am actively receiving and updating the votes from twelve. Out of the remaining ones, one has requested to send their votes only once, at the end of the project; two are also compiling their votes in private; and votes from the remaining one are still expected. But what are the current results?

Well, out of all possible votes that could have been cast by those twelve that are currently active, over 34% have been cast. (As it will be half of designated time soon, does not seem active enough – but, again, I am one of the worst in this relation…) Today’s library (4+ Y votes) contains 110 works (for comparison, there were 113 works in the previous one):

  • 36 (10) novels;
  • 32 (8) short stories (including 4 available only in TV adaptation);
  • 22 (4) manga stories;
  • 13 (4) games or game episodes;
  • 2 (1) anime stories;
  • 2 (1) interlocked short story collections;
  • 2 TV episodes;
  • 1 novella.

28 works are at the highest level of library, those with 6+ Y votes. Their numbers are given above bold in parentheses.

On the other hand, no single work has yet received that many N votes to make appearing in library impossible – this (together with the possibility to change your vote) still opens the chance for all!

Now, two matters for discussion.

Do We Need to Change 4+ and 6+ levels of acceptance to library?

    With people still not yet voted and lots of works remaining unrated by even the most active ones (the most diligent participant has rated 436 of 571 works to date), it is very possible that the coming of those would extend the resulting library to unsustainable scales. However, after many thoughts and discussions, I don’t believe it’s a problem anymore. If the result is a list of, say, two hundred stories, good for the readers!

    On the other hand, there is a phenomenon of ‘highly controversial’ stories: those that enter library despite having the same – or even more – N votes than Y. A possibility had been discussed to exclude those from the result – but I won’t do that anymore, just mark their status separately after conclusion. (There are 14 such works in library now – none in top library yet, even though, say, having 6 Y and 7 N is perfectly possible.)

    How Do We Add Write-in Stories?

      In the announcement, I promised it would be possible to add more stories for consideration – but not the procedure. I have now set is as follows.

      Each participant may introduce a write-in story by contacting me directly. However, by doing that, this participant commits to vote Y if the work would, indeed, be included. After that, the work appears in the write-in list (which will be now sent to all participants), and other participants may mention to me that they are in support of one or the other. Once again, being in support is committing to Y if it is included. As soon as a work gets two supports from different people (three, including the original nominator), it is officially a part of the list: I will manually add it to the charts where I can (with three Y votes), and those who use unchangeable charts should add it on their own. By the way, two works have been added to the chart already in this way!

      So, let’s go on, continue evaluating the stories, pondering on the write-ins, and (addressing specifically those who have not responded yet): if you wish to send me some intermediate form of your list so that I could add it to the library statistics, please do! It will be very welcome indeed.

      The Dr. Gideon Fell Chronology, Compleat and Revised

      Fell, Gideon, retired; formerly schoolmaster, journalist, and historian;
      b. Stavely Manor, Garth, Lincolnshire, 1884; sec. s. Sir Digby and Lady F.;
      grad., Eton and Balliol, Harvard (U.S.A.), BA, MA (Oxon.), PhD (Harvard), LLD (Edinburgh).
      Fellow of Royal Historical Society, Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor (France).
      Publications: Romances of the Seventeenth Century (Smith, 1922); The Drinking Customs of England from the Earliest Times (Crippen & Wainwright, 1946).
      Clubs: Garrick, Savage, Detection.
      Hobbies: Reading and detection of crime.
      Present address: 13 Round-Pond Place, Hampstead, London NW3.
      – Detective Who’s Who

      I decided to move my Dr. Gideon Fell chronology here to make it more accessible, and also extend and correct it in the meanwhile. Now it includes the short works as well, enjoy!

      According to the venerable The Man Who Explained Miracles (p. 436), there ‘was the attempt of Punch cartoonist Francis Wilford-Smith to treat Sir Henry Merrivale as the Baker Street Irregulars treat Sherlock Holmes—that is, to sort through inconsistencies and to work out a chronology of his adventures. Wilford-Smith sent the chronology to Carr in 1967. He replied that he accepted the chronology as official and would “defend it against challenges”’. To my knowledge, there is no access to such a chronology at the moment, and, anyway, it would be a challenging problem to try and work one out ourselves. So, let us try! But we shall start with Dr. Gideon Fell instead.

      However, some problems we encounter are systematic and thus must be addressed beforehand:

      • We must decide whether we allow stories to be set after the moment they were written/published. There is no obvious way why Carr would write about future; however, sometimes, when a different solution seems unavoidable, we would perhaps be forced to stretch this a bit.
      • Some stories supplement their dating by some pairing of a week-day to a particular date; others have only such a pairing to be of use. However, they are rarely relatable: as we shall see, Carr’s week-days, while they can and frequently are correct when writing about the publishing year or the year before (obviously, he could consult with actual calendars), they become ravingly wrong as soon as his pattern changes to resetting his novels into the ‘nostalgic past’. So, can they be trusted if they are the only evidence? I assert ‘yes’, but only if they produce years close enough to the publishing one to assume actual consultation with a physical calendar.

      Let’s get going!

      Novels

      • Hag’s Nook (1933): July 1931(?)

      This novel’s dating rather depends on the following, but on its own it can only be based on a shaky assumption (Chapter 5), being a stream of consciousness from Tad Rampole:

      ‘The calendar in the lower part of the clock-case showed a staring figure where he had been last July 12th, and couldn’t remember.’

      This, basically, just means that the room where he was staying at Dr. Fell’s possessed a calendar open on ‘July’. We will have to confirm or disprove it by the data from the following novel.

      • The Mad Hatter Mystery (1933): March 1932

      Thankfully, we can confirm it (Chapter 1)! Not only Dr. Fell claims knowing Tad from ‘last July,’ but the article, “Hat-Fiend Strikes Again!, by Philip C. Driscoll” is dated 12 March during the conversation, which is March 1932, as this is the date when, according to Hadley, ‘the defendant did… abstract the helmet of Police Constable Thomas Sparkle’. This settles the previous story.

      • The Eight of Swords (1934): August 1932?

      Beside (Chapter 1) ‘the diabolical August heat’ besetting Hadley, August being confirmed multiply, there is no year, month, or date in the whole of the novel to refer it to any particular year, or even attach it to the previous ones! Unless there are tie-ins in the further novels (hint: none), we are unable to determine the year. Assuming, just assuming, that it is set both after the previous two and before the book’s release, we can trim it down, but to two options: 1932 and 1933. The latter keeps the distance between setting and printing more constant; yet, after a lot of studying of the weather reports I suspect that the August described in the aforementioned novel is rather the 36-degree-Celcius one of 1932 and not a fairly ordinary 26-degree one of 1933.

      • The Blind Barber (1934): May 1933(?)

      It is easier to start with Morgan’s visit to Dr. Fell, which is (Chapter 1) on the morning of the next day after the Queen Victoria ‘was to dock at Southampton on the afternoon of May 18th’. However, what is the year? During the trip, an article by Leslie Perrigord is read (Chapter 9), ‘reprinted by permission of the author from the Sunday “Times” of Oct. 25, 1932’. This declares  autumn of 1932 a firm past for our story and, if we accept no future settings, makes the May of 1933 almost the only option (and more logical for article to be fairly recent).

      • Death-Watch (1935): September 1932

      The story starts (Chapter 1) at ‘the night of September 4th’ which is even more obviously expanded (Chapter 5) into ‘September 4th, 1932’. (I wish all of these that simple.) The first hint that the stories do not happen consequentially!

      • The Hollow Man (1935): February 1935(?)

      The novel is consistent with (Chapter 1) referring to a span of dates starting with ‘Wednesday, February 6th’; however, there is no year. A leap year like that should start on Tuesday (1924 in all pre-Fifties XX Century), and an ordinary one should begin similarly (as the 6th of February precedes leap-day): these are 1929 and 1935 from the period we are concerned with. The appearance of 1935 is catchy.

      • The Arabian Nights Murder (1936): June 1935(?)

      An equally long chain of days fixes (Chapter 1) the setting on ‘Friday, June 14th’. Seemingly content with these dates, Carr chooses not to elaborate. Once again, chase the correspondences: the Tuesday-starting common years still fit (1929, 1935), but now they correspond to leap years with Mondays (1912). As previously, 1935 is the obvious candidate.

      • To Wake the Dead (1938): February 193?

      Though the main events take place in February, the coupled reference is one (Chapter 3) to ‘Tuesday, January 12th’ and many more to that effect. This is, however, problematic due to printing date: both common (1926, 1937) and leap years (1932) fit when starting on Friday. Here we have an obvious second contender in 1932; however, the attractiveness of the pre-publishing year is undiminished.

      • The Crooked Hinge (1938): July 1936(?)

      From the outset (Chapter 1) it offers us a series starting with ‘Wednesday, July 29th’. Let’s see where… Common > Thursday (1925, 1931); Leap > Wednesday (1936). Well, not exactly previous, but still…

      • The Black Spectacles (1939): September 1938

      A catastrophe. Because it is so nontrivial to untangle the date that I have to re-read the novel to determine the dating – and thus I read JDC instead of dating him. These are the dates mentioned in here:

      Pompeii scene (Chapter 1) is set on ‘Monday, September 19th’.

      Hadley’s arrival (Chapter 2) is both ‘the third of October’ and after The Crooked Hinge.

      ‘Last June 17th’ is the poisoning day (Chapter 2), a ‘Thursday’.

      The first is most explicit: it refers to common year on Saturday (1921, 1927, 1938) or leap year on Friday (1932). 17 June is Friday on both, but last year has those on Thursday.

      • The Problem of the Wire Cage (1939): August 1935(?)

      The series in this novel starts (Chapter 3) with ‘Saturday, August 10th’. This corresponds either to an (already seen) common year on Tuesday (1929, 1935) or leap year on Monday (1940). As we see, these both are problematic: either this is set into the future (but in this case not a single mention of the Germans, as opposed to Merrivale’s And So To Murder is glaring), or much towards the past, which is a sub-par solution but more in the line with the intensifying back-setting which will now proceed.

      • The Man Who Could Not Shudder (1940): March 1937

      The book boringly (Chapter 1) suggests itself starting on ‘Saturday, March 13th, 1937’, thus inaugurating one of two trends: the one of setting stories into the past (which would be clearer for Merrivale’s) However, it does not yet start the one of choosing arbitrary week-days for these (1937 is a common year on Friday, and thus any March 13th is exactly a Saturday – can we assume at this date Carr stored old calendars, or was he lucky?).

      • The Case of the Constant Suicides (1941): September 1940

      The novel (Chapter 1) goes explicit: ‘the first of September,’ when ‘the heavy raiding of London has not yet begun’. There is no more clear way to refer to 1940.

      • Death Turns the Tables (1941): April 1936 (sic!)

      One of the complicated ones. The series starts (Chapter 4) with ‘Friday evening, the twenty-seventh of April’. This is either a common year on Monday (1923, 1934, or even 1945) or a leap one on Sunday (1928). With this, it becomes unclear what to do with (Chapter 2) the ‘transparent picture hats which were fashionable in that year 1936’ (emphasis mine). An equally clear claim! The 1936 calendar, one of a leap year on Wednesday, gives us 27th of April as a Monday. Apparently, the time has come to override the date by year: as “April” and week-days are more important, one could read ‘twenty-seventh’ as “twenty-fourth” etc.

      • Till Death Do Us Part (1944): June 1937(?)

      And, at once, a new complication. Carr, apparently, decides that a week-day is enough of a definition and does nothing but (Chapter 3) identifying a ‘Thursday, June tenth’. This is either a common on Friday (1926, 1937, 1943) or a leap on Thursday (1920). A sudden appearance of, though a wartime one, but the year preceding publishing is tempting, but so is 1937, which offers no intersection with the previous cases. The definition (Chapter 1) of the rural England as being ‘in opulence, a year or so before the beginning of Hitler’s war’ seems a way to exclude the 1940’s setting, and 1937 is not contradictory, with ‘beginning of Hitler’s war’ possibly referring to the Anschluss of Austria on March 1938, thought the start of WWII is also a near exact fit.

      • He Who Whispers (1946): June 1945

      Now all the datings become simple and explicit (and too-frequently ignoring week-days!). This is possibly the last time we need a coupling of a week-day. The book (Chapter 1) start with a ‘Friday, June 1st’; it would be a Monday common (1934, 1945) or a Sunday leap (1928); out of these, the presence of the pre-publishing year of 1945 is striking. The fact that (Chapter 1) indeed ‘the war is over’ is confirmed immediately, supporting it: Dr. Fell series, much less than other one, hides away from the time and is willing to proceed into the future.

      • The Sleeping Sphinx (1947): July 1946

      The book (Chapter 1) refers to ‘Wednesday, July tenth’ and the following correspondences. A common for it is Tuesday (1929, 1935, 1946); a leap is Monday (1940). Out of these, the desire to fix 1946 is confirmed, however, by a super-explicit (Chapter 1) detail: ‘April just before the war ended’ is the same as ‘a year and three months and something’ before now!

      • Below Suspicion (1949): March 1947 (sic!)

      We won’t be dating Butler’s solo yet; however, this book is simple. The date (Chapter 2) is given as ‘Tuesday, March 20th’. Common year would be a Monday (1934, 1945), and a leap would be Sunday (1928). However, there is an explicit one: the final chapter features a letter from Dr. Fell, dated ‘22nd June, 1947’! While it is possible to assume that Carr chose to complete the novel with some correspondence of two years later, both the fact that the war is explicitly over (Chapter 1) and an air of immediate response in the letter itself rather point to the fact that it is the week-day one should ignore, the setting is 1947, and ‘March 20th should be read as “18th March”.

      • The Dead Man’s Knock (1958): July 1948

      This is the longest venture into the past in the whole Fell canon – and not even to the pre-war one! Despite being published in 1958, the structure of dates, starting (Chapter 1) with ‘Friday evening, the ninth of July,’ which, if common, is Friday (1937, 1943, 1954), and, if leap, is Thursday (1948), hints to a 1948 solution, or, at worst, a 1954 one. Furthermore, the book twice confirms the first date, by mentioning (Chapter 2), say, a ‘new Chevrolet, in that year 1948’.

      • In Spite of Thunder (1960): August 1956

      The novel is set some time into the past: the series (Chapter 3) starts with ‘Friday, tenth August’ which is a common on Monday (1934, 1945, 1951) or a leap on Sunday (1956). The final date is confirmed (Chapter 2) by the ‘present of 1956’.

      • The House at Satan’s Elbow (1965): June 1964

      The series (Chapter 1) starts on ‘Wednesday, June 10’, which could be a Thursday common (1942, 1953, 1959) or a Wednesday leap (1964). The appearance of 1964 is remarkable; and the text (Chapter 1) confirms it ‘during the early spring of 1964’.

      • Panic in Box C (1966): April 1965

      This is very detailed and explicit: the novel (Chapter 1) sets itself in ‘January, ‘65’ and moves itself (Chapter 1) right to ‘Monday, April 19th’, which fits.

      • Dark of the Moon (1967): May 1965

      Nothing is easier. The story (Chapter 1) claims that Sunday, May 2nd is ‘today, 1965’ – and is correct. The distance with the previous one is uncomfortable, but feasible.

      Radio plays

      • Who Killed Matthew Corbin? (1939-1940): December 1939 – January 1940

      Presented in three parts, on December 7, 1939, January 7, 1940, and January 14, 1940. Besides clearly giving the date ‘1939-1940 (the solution)’ in the script, it aims to recreate a live presentation of an interview with Dr. Gideon Fell, so these exact dates are clearly assumed.

      • The Black Minute (1940): January? February? 1940

      The setting is described as ‘London, 1940’ in the script. The story aired on February 14, and, assuming Carr not setting it into the future, it fits the shrill and windy weather.

      • The Devil in the Summer-House (1940): October? 1940

      The play aired in October. The setting is described as ‘London, 1940’. There are no clues but the setting seems to purport a live translation again.

      • The Hangman Won’t Wait (1943): February 1943?

      Aired on February 9th. Other then that, there are no indications, but the story seems to be set up as a live performance.

      • The Dead Sleep Lightly (1943): March 1933

      The setting is described as ‘London, 1933’, ‘ gusty March evening ten years ago in London’.

      Short stories

      • ‘The Wrong Problem’ (1936): summer 1936?

      The story gives almost no hints. The events under investigation took place in August, around thirty years ago, which was after Joseph’s mother died in around 1904. The season allows the possibility of seeing swans and seems vaguely summer. The story was published on August 14th. So, the setting could be any summer between 1934 and 1936; without any additional information, I would fix it on the publication year.

      • ‘The Proverbial Murder’ (1943?): September 1939

      Douglas G. Greene tries to date the story and come to no better conclusion than ‘shortly before the declaration of war in 1939 or during the so-called Phony War between October 1939 and Spring 1940’. Yet the text explicitly says about a ‘mellow September weather’, so there is only one option.

      • ‘The Locked Room’ (1940): June 1940

      A ‘fine June morning’ finds Dr. Fell in his study. The story is published in July. Seton is clearly escaping the war to the US, so the year is also clear.

      • ‘The Incautious Burglar’ (1940): summer 1940?

      Published in October. There are no indications except references to the unbearable heat. Like the previous stories, setting in the publication year seems to make sense.

      • ‘Invisible Hands’ (1957): summer 1957?

      No indications except a hot night. Published in August 1957, which seems a good spot to place.

      • Bonus: ‘She Wouldn’t Kill Patience’ by Ooyama Seiichirō (2002): November ?

      Frank met Raspail in ‘late October’, which was ‘a month ago’. But it is still ‘a late autumn evening’, so late November and not December. The ‘murder in the clockmaker’s house’, that is, Death-Watch, took place ‘several years ago’. The setting is pre-war, but could likely be any year.

      And now for the complete chart: here bold stands for “there is explicit year information in the book, and any possible additional information backs it up”; bold underlined for “there is explicit year information, but something, normally week-days, contradicts it and should be over-ridden”; italic for “the dating can be only deduced by evidence, normally week-days, but this allows us to reconstruct it”; and no marking for those dates which are conjectural even with the evidence.

      1931, July: Hag’s Nook
      1932, March: The Mad Hatter Mystery
      1932, August: The Eight of Swords
      1932, September: Death-Watch
      1933, March: The Dead Sleep Lightly
      1933, May: The Blind Barber
      1935, February: The Hollow Man
      1935, June: The Arabian Nights Murder
      1935, August: The Problem of the Wire Cage
      1936, April: Death Turns the Tables
      1936, July: The Crooked Hinge
      1936, summer (August?): ‘The Wrong Problem’
      1937, February: To Wake the Dead
      1937, March: The Man Who Could Not Shudder
      1937, June: Till Death Do Us Part
      1938, September: The Black Spectacles
      1939, September: ‘The Proverbial Murder’
      1939, December – 1940, January: Who Killed Matthew Corbin?
      1940, February: The Black Minute
      1940, June: ‘The Locked Room’
      1940, summer: ‘The Incautious Burglar’
      1940, September: The Case of the Constant Suicides
      1940, October: The Devil in the Summer-House
      1943, February: The Hangman Won’t Wait
      1945, June: He Who Whispers
      1946, July: The Sleeping Sphinx
      1947, March: Below Suspicion
      1948, July: The Dead Man’s Knock
      1956, August: In Spite of Thunder
      1957, summer: ‘Invisible Hands’
      1964, June: The House at Satan’s Elbow
      1965, April: Panic in Box C
      1965, May: Dark of the Moon

      Merrivale for later…

      Epode

      Adrift in endless waves of unrelenting sea
      Beneath the thunder’s canopy,
      Celestial be rage or Neptune’s progeny
      Decided this day’s destiny,
      Emerge alive and safely disembark at shore
      Familiar and prosperous—
      Good sailor’s dream comes true by navigator’s own
      Hand, mind, and eye reliable.
      Imagination thrives in warmth and happiness:
      Just as you seat by hearty stove,
      Kaleidoscopic swirl of sleuths and mysteries
      Leaps out of pages yellowing.
      My hope is, should you dip your toes in mystery,
      No hidden gem you ever miss,
      Of many options currently available
      Pick all the best and skip the duds,
      Queen’s quorum overtake and climb the hill of Carr,
      Rejoice in Christie’s genius,
      Start in the locked room with Poe and walk the path
      That reaches Roger Ormerod.
      Unknown it might be, daunting and disheartening:
      Vast literary ocean’s span
      Where plot and puzzle rule, no matter text or game,
      Xylography or web release.
      Yet there is one solution well available:
      Zoom in and use the Syllabus!

      New Locked Room Library: Second Round, Go!

      For various external reasons, the selection process took longer than I expected, and now one month turned into three. However, the result is exquisite, and now it’s finally time to pick the New Locked Room Library!

      Each participant of the first stage (and there were sixteen of them in total) will in the next few days receive the complete chart of the works selected by everyone. The chart will contain an empty “Pick” column, where each of you should put one of two options: “Y” (including) or “N” (not including). However, it is not permitted to put “Y” for the works you have not read! It is perfectly okay to put other signs, such as “-” or nothing, to visually demarkate unread works from the consciously not selected ones, but in the final count these will be considered equivalent to “N”.

      In any case, there should be sufficient time to experience all of the works included: we set the preliminary timeframe for the second round to be 6 months, May 1st – October 31st, with the possibility of moderate extensions, if needed. It is currently planned that each work with 4 votes will enter the final New Locked Room Library, while each work with 6 votes will join the top section of it.

      For the convenience of the participants, a “Comments” column is provided in case they wish to explain their reasoning in more detail, both for the works chosen and rejected (please tell me individually whether it would be okay to select some of your comments for the final release!). Before the end of the deadline, I will be expecting the filled-out copies of the chart back, after which I will make the final count. It is perfectly okay to discuss your choosing process before the deadline, if you wish so: for example, feel free to post about the works from the list on your own blogs!

      The chart includes the IA, Amazon and other links in order to facilitate the search for the stories for you. However, in trickier cases please contact me!

      Additionally, if, during the process, you suddenly realize there is some work wrongly absent from the chart – or maybe a new work or translation is issued during the selection process and immediately requires being entered – please inform me at once with argumentation, so that I could, if worthy, include such a work into the table!

      Now some statistics for the curious. The selection contains 571 works in total: 277 novels (+2 only available in TV adaptations), 171 short stories (+7 only available in TV adaptations), 59 manga entries, 26 whole games or game segments, 9 individual TV episodes, 7 novellas, 4 anime episodes, 4 radio plays (guess which author monopolizes this one), 2 interlocked short story collections that were too tightly bound to split them, 2 fanfiction works, and 1 (animated, by the way) film. We are going to trim this selection to a manageable size. For comparison, the previous Locked Room Library contained 113 books, even though they had no short stories or other formats.

      One more detail: there are some works that have a tendency to crop up in similar lists but will not be found in the current one. The thing is: these rightly famous works do not contain impossible crimes at all – at least according to the definitions in the previous post! I will not give the titles here, as that would be spoilers, but the participants will surely notice them being missing.

      I will not be providing the count of how many people selected each individual work; in fact, this had not even been counted. One is sure: Death of Jezebel absolutely dominated, being the only work that had been introduced by almost every single participant.

      Good luck!

      New Locked Room Library

      In 2007, a panel of experts and reviewers has assembled to select the best of the best, crème de la crème, John Dickson of the Carr impossible crime novels ever created. The result went down in history as The Locked Room Library.

      But now, more than fifteen years have passed. A great number of works were written. An even larger amount were translated. Many seem-to-be perennial classics were re-evaluated, while works previously not considered came finally under spotlight. And, most importantly, the inordinate amount of novellas, short stories, manga, games, films, TV series, fanfiction, cheese wrap descriptions have… continued to exist, oftentimes offering puzzles more challenging and solutions more daring than ever seen in the novels. Meanwhile, the erudition and range of our bloggers and connoisseurs have increased to its best.

      So, everyone! Let’s finally do the thing and create the current, unquestionable™, totally correct™, today’s Locked Room Library!

      I suggest the following process of selection, that deliberately mirrors the old one. Any member who wishes to participate should, with the deadline of, say, a month, that is, to February 25th included, send me a list, in no particular order, of the works they deem to be the best impossible crimes of all time.

      There is no upper limit to the amount of works included. After that, I will compile them into a joint alphabetized list, and the second part of selection will proceed.

      Any works in any formats are okay (individual works: not whole short story collections, unless you manage to offer a collection that solves the same impossible crime throughout the whole extension and requires the revelations of all the individual elements for it).

      The works must be reasonably available in English, with the reasonable scope of “reasonably”. They must not be formally published as long as they can be obtained in a sensible way. For books, being sold as e-books on Amazon OR being available for borrow at IA OR being provided by the author if you ask are a fair estimation of availability (but it being necessary to purchase a paper copy on Amazon as the only method to obtain is not). Works that no other participant can reasonably be expected to acquire should not be incorporated.

      If it is not immediately obvious that a work features an impossibility, explain yourselves. Do not fear spoilers, I don’t get bothered of them. For some consistency, let us assume that, whenever the crime is impossible only if you accept additional conditions (such as “this character must be not be the criminal” or “this character must be the criminal”), that is, Amara’s Doylist impossibilities, these are allowed. However, works where the presence of impossibility is revealed only after solution (such as, “upon revelation it was a person who was not suspected because of the crime being physically impossible for them”) are not.

      The kind of works to be included are those which, you feel, could be suggested to an impossible crime lover on the strength of the impossible crime alone.

      • An amazing impossibility? Include, even if the whole work is lackluster.
      • A work that has “being an impossible crime story” as its raison d’être and is awesome as a work in total? Include, even if the impossibility itself is lacking in inspiration. It is possible to have a mediocre impossibility that works for the awesomeness of the book specifically by its mediocrity, and these, I hold, are great impossible crimes.
      • For a work with a mediocre impossibility, imagine the impossible aspect of the crime being thrown out. If the work is still awesome, don’t include, but if that impossibility being impossibility was the whole point, include.

      In any doubts whether you should include, please do include! But be precise: there are two different individual impossible crime works called The Curse of the Bronze Lamp, you know.

      It is okay to send the list in several parts, as long as you are ready and they all fit by the deadline. Feel free to reach out to me in any form, such as: writing to me on Discord, on Twitter, on Bluesky, or even to miogacu (at) gmail (dot) com!

      At the second step, I will merge all the lists (including my own!) and send the result to whoever participated in first part. You vote yes or no for each, but can only vote no for those you haven’t read (I will set up a deadline nice enough allowing you to read them for that sake). Works voted by four participants will be included, and those voted by six participants will be included at the top.

      This was originally announced at the honkaku discord (wait, you haven’t heard of honkaku discord? Do join!), and yet there are so many amazing people in the mystery world right now. Fancy yourselves an impossible crime expert? Participate! Know someone who is? Send the invitation to them! Maybe you write impossible crimes? Do join! And let the best cheddar win!

      A New Paradigm of Mystery Classification

      Update 28.05.2024: Edited for clarity.

      This post has been wrought out of many ponderings over the eternal question of “what is a mystery” and “what categories mysteries have”. It is an attempt to refine my previous discussions by introducing a wider definition while salvaging the previous one, by introducing a dichotomy of categories.

      The inspiration came from scottkratner in the comments here, who wisely pointed out the importance of pinpointing the quality of “sudden retrospective illumination” as a form of reader’s enjoyment.

      But I was also pondering a very important dichotomy Amara of Solving the Mystery of Murder has introduced in On A Defense of the Impossible Alibi Problem and “Doylist” Impossibilities. Now it seems to me that it can be fruitfully extended beyond delineating which crimes in mystery are impossible and can be applied to the structural features of mysteries in general.

      On one side, there are the “Watsonian”, or internal, plot points, which make sense from the limited point of view of the characters within the story. Other plot points are “Doylean”, or external, requiring the whole picture available ot the omniscient narrator to resolve. Any internal point is also external by definition, but not necessarily otherwise.

      We may postulate:

      Definition 1. A mystery is a situation with an unknown fact. Such as: a crime has been committed, hence there must be a perpetrator. However, their identity is unknown.

      Definition 2. A contradiction is a seeming logical mismatch in the known facts. Such as: a crime has been committed in a room apparently locked from the inside and devoid of persons.

      A puzzle is either is a situation that is either a mystery, or a contradiction.

      Definition 3. The perpetrator is the person or persons responsible for creating the puzzle by making effort to have some facts hidden or creating a seeming logical mismatch.

      The sleuth is a character in the story who searches for a solution to the puzzle based only on the facts available to characters and not to the omniscient narrator or the perpetrator (= available internally).

      Definition 4. It is said that a puzzle is given a logical solution if an explanation is provided that fulfills the following two conditions:

      1. it fits to both the stated problem and the rules of the world;
      2. it is completely findable based on the given facts without employing any other tools but logical reasoning over them.

      We speak about an external logical solution, if it is findable by the reader based on the facts provided to the reader; an internal logical solution, if it is findable by the characters based on the facts available to the characters.

      Definition 5. The property of fair play is the provision to the reader of any data available to the sleuth.

      Primary Notion 1.

      A Doylean story (or, a story of reasoning, or an external mystery) is a story featuring a puzzle which in the climax and as the main element of plot resolution is given an external logical solution.

      Primary Notion 2. A Watsonian story, (or, as I still insist, a deductive story, or an internal mystery) is a story featuring a puzzle which in the climax and as the main element of plot resolution is given an internal logical solution (by the sleuth employing only logical inference).

      Corollary 1. In a Doylean story, all the data sufficient to reach the solution are provided to the reader. In a Watsonian story, all the data sufficient to reach the solution are provided to the sleuth.

      Proof. As the climax of a Doylean story, an external logical solution must be provided. By definition of an external logical solution, it is completely findable by the reader based on the facts already given to the reader. The second case resolves analogically.

      Corollary 2. A Watsonian story with fair play is a Doylean story.

      Proof. In the climax of a Watsonian story, a the sleuth establishes an internal logical solution. Hence, all the data required to reach the solution had been available to the sleuth. But, by fair play, the same facts are then available to the reader. Thus the reader may repeat the same logical steps and find the solution, which is in this case also external.

      Note. The theses of “What Is Vital in Deductive Story” are spread as follows:

      World-consistent (by Definition 4.1), prepared, conveyed, explicated are properties of both a Doylean and a Watsonian story. Internally soluble, logically reachable (as stated), internally derived are properties of a Watsonian (deductive) story proper. Unique is, strictly saying, not demanded, though welcome.

      Note that it is possible for a story to be Watsonian but not Doylean; a story with the super-sleuth giving final reasoning based on the facts found by them but not revealed to the reader beforehand would qualify.

      And Then There Were None, Trent’s Last Case, Boileau-Narcejac are all Doylean stories (external), yet not Watsonian (internal). The ‘internal’ definition generally agrees with my previous definition of a deductive story.

      What is Vital in Deductive Story

      Decided to quantify the points of disagreement by listing the minute details that may or may not, by personal takes, be relevant. Clearly, some are dependent on the others, but not symmetrically so.

      1. The problem must be internally soluble, that is, the solution must be reachable by a character, not requiring data available only from the omniscient narrator or the criminal.
      2. The solution must be logically reachable, that is, without requiring any other process than pondering logically over data available to the participants of the plot.
      3. The solution must be unique, that is, already the data available to the participants of the plot must make it the only possible solution and eliminate all other possibilities.
      4. The solution must be world-consistent, that is, do not break the established rules of the world or involve rules that are not logically derivable both for the participants of the plot and the reader.
      5. The solution must be prepared, that is, the author must have developed it as opposed to just winging it and never bothering whether the data are even consistent.
      6. The solution must be conveyed, that is, the author must reveal the solution to the reader.
      7. The solution must be explicated, that is, the author must describe how the solution fits with the data available to the participants of the plot and how pondering logically is able to reach it.
      8. The solution must be internally derived, that is, it must be reached by some character or characters in the plot through pondering logically over data available to the participants of the plot, as opposed to being revealed by the omniscient narrator or the criminal or discovered by non-logically bound actions.

      I strongly believe that all these entries, except maybe 3, are a must. What do you think?

      Deductions for Today

      More ramblings about my largest pet peeve. I am at risk of turning into Mr. Lechard if this goes on.

      I have touched this topic on the surface when talking about trains, but now wish to express it emphatically: I think that Japanese and East Asian mystery in general does one thing in a decidedly different way as compared to the current Western one.

      Namely, it does not run away (and did not, throughout the preceding century of development) from setting stories in modern life. Up until Golden Age, the English-speaking (and not only English-speaking) authors wrote about their contemporaries. In Japan, this art was never lost; while there is an abundance of historical mysteries for those primarily interested in those, there is never a problem to find a mystery set in the current era (or even in a sci-fi setting).

      When the Western author looks at DNA and cameras, they typically think “that’s a reason to set the story in the 30s”. The Japanese authors thinks “wow, a challenge”. Typical Western stories decrease the stakes by putting a wall between the characters and the readers. “It’s inherently safe because all the characters lived 100 years ago.” “It’s inherently safe because the characters inhabit a different world, like a bygone England, or even an imaginary England learned by reading Golden Age novels.” Meanwhile, the Japanese stories punch the reader out of complacency by showing recognizable people from the streets and recognizable events from the streets and tying them into puzzles.

      That’s why A. Carver is a much, much bigger event on the mystery landscape than Jim Noy and Tom Mead, in my opinion: it does exactly that. It brings discomfort to the reader not expecting such an attitude – seeing recognizable types of people from modern life recreating a Golden Age puzzle. It should have never been so discomforting – because, once again, the Golden Age people wrote about their own days, at it was concidered normal.

      Writers, study the East Asian works in modern setting. Writing such a mystery is not hard – I argue it is sufficiently easier as you are not tied in the extraneous task of recreating the past vividly and correctly. That’s what is really needed to restore the deductive approach.

      And trains.