TIPS - Knocks' Decalogue
Excerpt from A ‘Treatise on Mysteries’, by Roan A. Knocks. Additional commentary by Naor A. Knocks.
I. It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story. A mysterious stranger who is revealed at the last minute spoils the play altogether.
II.It is forbidden for an excessive use of magic to employed as a detective technique. Magic is a powerful tool, and a unicorn detective has many more options at his disposal. But should magic be used to solve the crime entirely - for instance, a lie detecting spell that finds the culprit, or a monitoring spell which catches him red handed, you should stop and consider what kind of story you really want to tell.
III. It is forbidden for hidden passages to exist. Without the proper clues and foreshadowing indicating such a passage exists and having the detective discover them, it is no more than a cheap trick that removes the readers ability to reason.
IV. It is forbidden for unknown powers or hard to understand scientific devices to be used. Any hack can imagine an insane type of magical plant or potion that conjures up strange effects and impossible scenarios. A mystery should be solved by the powers of pony deduction, not the authors magical fantasy. Likewise, if the solution to your mystery requires a long science lecture at the end, throw it in the trash.
V: It is forbidden for griffons or other monsters to figure into the story. ** While this certainly seems inappropriate from a modern perspective, my father’s view here should be considered in context. Tensions between Equestria and the Griffon Empire were high at the time, and many shoddy writers used cheap caricatures of Griffons, as well as various magical beasts as their culprit, denying the reader a true suspect.
VI. It is forbidden for accident or intuition to be employed as a detective technique. Clues should be found through genuine deduction and investigation. Your detective must not, for example, look for the lost will in the works of a grandfather clock because an unaccountable instinct tells him that it is the right place to search.
VII. It is forbidden for the detective to be the culprit. This is the ultimate deception to pull on the reader, and why it is forbidden should be fairly obvious. This only counts for intentional crime. If, in the course of the mystery, the detective triggers an accident that leads to a murder, it is still forgivable.
VIII. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented. Perhaps the simplest of all, yet the most important core to a good mystery. To solve the crime, present the clues. All clues must be foreshadowed earlier in the story.
IX. It is permitted for observers to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard. Whether intentionally trying to deceive the detective, speculating on their own, or just plain misguided, any character is allowed to project their own interpretations on to the events of the story. It is the job of the detective and the reader to sift through all the information to decide what is reliable and what is merely a red herring.
X. It is forbidden for a character to disguise themselves as another without any clues. This is too easy of a dodge, and too much of a cliche to be taken seriously.
Stats
Page generated in 0.018 seconds
Total duration
805 users online
1,136,830 hits today, 2,280,440 yesterday
FIMFiction
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Follow & Support Us
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
Well... I didn't think it was some mythical spirit anyway, so that isn't surprising... Also, I knew it couldn't be 7 before it was even a listed rule... this story is too good for you to ever be that cheap.
I'm now trying to decide if my current theory would run contradictory to rule 8. On the one hand, I feel like the clue that ties the whole theory together was presented, but on the other... it kind of wasn't, in that if it was, in fact, a clue, it was only hinted at, and by it's very nature not focused on or explicitly revealed...
Also, given the listed exception to rule 3, I'm trying to decide if the bit with the letters qualify as hinting at a secret passage... Probably not...
Oh bother...
Well, as you recommended me previously, here I am.
I must say, it is quite a delight to see Bern and Lam-, I mean, Infinite Miracle and Absolute Certainty weave themselves into this story. The first one with her own particular brand of deviousness, the second with the subtlety of a 30 metric tons truck riding a landslide. The only way Absolute Certainty could be more conspicuous would be using a neon sign, and I'm pretty sure she considered and rejected it because she couldn't find a pink enough neon.
I'll try to keep most of my theory for myself for the time being. I can't take any credit and I think it would spoil the fun of quite everyone.
Okay, so can I ask a clarifying question?
Let's say the detective received a clue openly, in a way that the audience is aware it happened, but didn't realize it was a clue, and therefore didn't point out it was a clue to the audience, who therefore might also not realize it was a clue? Would that violate rule 8?
Also, I think your link to the blog post explaining the original rules may have given away too much about rule 3...
4171847 It essentially means the solution to the mystery given in the end will be built on clues that have been presented in at least some way to the audience. Clues don't have to be obvious, or called attention to, or elaborated or speculated on. Chekov's gun and all that. But they have to exist.
For example:
Wrong: The detective picks something up that isn't elaborated on and muses cryptically. This is later revealed to the audience to be the case solving clue.
Right: The detective picks up something, and it's shown to be a discarded cigarette butt. The audience then has the chance to speculate on what a discarded cigarette butt could mean, whether or not the detective saves his reasoning to the end.
I love how you changed rule 5 to suit the Equestrian culture. Awesome world building.
I actually started reading this because I wanted to write my own murder mystery and needed to verse myself in the genre a bit more. Not only has this been helpful, but the entire story is interesting and gripping. I was right there with Twilight at the ending of Fluttershy's first story. There was no closure, nothing was solved, everyone was dead. Let's hope the sequel provides more answers to the mystery. Great story so far!
I love you.
I'm 16k into my own murder mystery, and I've been trying to find others stories in the genre. The first rule is probably my favorite horror trope of all time. The lanky butler opening the doo, and then being revealed as the killer is SO GOOD!
Also, I noticed that your bio has changed from "unemployed layabout" to "employed" layabout. Congratulations!
5852576 Thanks. It's not much of a job, but it pays the bills for now.
Knox's Decalogue, (and ponifications thereof) like most rules involving writing, are more like guidelines than hard and fast rules. They should definitely be considered when writing mystery, especially if you want it to be considered Fair Play. They can be broken, but it should be done so knowing and understanding the purpose of the rule in the first place, why you're breaking it, and what it means to the story.
5852597
I myself am of the opinion that there's only one actual rule in writing, and that's that there are no rules. Every 'rule' of writing from 'show don't tell' to 'avoid purple prose' can and has been broken to great effect somewhere by someone. In the end, they're more like useful guidelines that writers should utilize but not necessarily follow to the letter.
In the end, it's up to the author to decide what to break and how to break it. No one else.
I have no idea what umewhatever is, so needless to say I'm INCREDIBLY lost.