Whodunits have a special place in my bookshelf. In fact, that's about the only genre I read apart from comics. And just like any other traveller, whenever I am on the go, I buy a paperback to make my journey a little less tiresome. Good ones keep me engrossed to the extent that sometimes I don't even realize that I have arrived at my destination. The not so good ones act as Valium and put me to sleep even before the journey starts. So either ways, they work for me.
And just like any whodunit connoisseur would agree, I like my detective fiction to be served in a particular way. The story should not have too much violence, should provide a lot of exercise for grey cells, should keep one guessing till the last page and last but not the least be ‘unputdownable’ (NY Times Bestsellers list parlance for top thrillers).
However, of late, I have come across novels that have plots that compel me to digress from what I'm reading or have a plot where technology solves the mystery in a matter of few pages. Stuff like hi-tech wizardry, special gadgets and procedures that are used to bust crime, description of the locales, their history, and so on have become an integral part of modern thriller fiction. Just like those CSI series on TV (which, of course I like). Though I am not against special stuff being included, sometimes they simply don't help in maintaining the unputdownable feel. For example, a Tom Clancy novel gives you so much info about weapons, aircraft, etc., that once you are through with the novel, you can’t but resist Googling about the weapons and the science behind them. But if you asked me about the plot, I would be hard pressed to recollect it.
When I was reading the “Da Vinci Code”, I stopped halfway through the novel and ended up reading so much about the Templars, the Freemasons and the Opus Dei that I could have written a separate thesis on each one of them. In the process, when I got back to the novel from where I had left, I had forgotten the main plot and some characters and so had to go back 50 pages to recapitulate what had happened thus far. Though it was annoying, in a strange way it was also satisfying. I am sure I would not have done as much research as I did even if the history of Templars had been my main project during Graduate School. But then, it was no longer an ‘unputdownable’ for me.
And then there are these other types of thrillers where a Doctor is a protagonist. In such stories, usually, the human characters take a back seat and the research and scientific work done by the Doc to unravel the criminal or a special cutting edge clandestine project that creates zombies or something to that effect becomes the main character.
Before I forget, the mobile phone is another invention that has taken some sting out of thriller fiction. In recent years, the mobile’s ubiquitous presence has helped in solving many cases. After the plot meanders for a while, someone finally remembers to figure out who last called the victim or establishes a pattern of calls from the billing details and et voilà, mystery solved!
I could go on but then I’d no longer enjoy these novels any more. Nor would you. In short, one does not need special skills to figure out the advancement in science and technology has changed the way thriller fiction is written. I’m sure that going forward things will change some more but I hope they don’t change by much.
And it is precisely for this reason that I long for the old-fashioned novels penned by Dame Agatha Christie and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when things used to be lot simpler. Though a little less sophisticated, a lot depended on human nature and instincts than on anything else. Stories dealt with complex people hiding secrets and were set in an atmosphere that had well, atmosphere. In these stories, any kind of scientific research would be rudimentary and would not overshadow the main character’s quest for truth or the characters he would encounter and thus make them memorable forever.
For instance, have you ever noticed Hercule Poirot walk into the Coroner's office and ask for information on how the victim died and the established time of death? Or see Sherlock Holmes use fingerprinting techniques to identify a potential suspect? Or did Perry Mason ever depend on GSR (that's gunshot residue for non-detective fiction buffs) analysis and DNA (Di-oxy something.. just Google DNA) sampling to get his clients acquitted (Yes, DNA sampling did not exist then but that’s exactly my point) in the court of law? More than scientific evidence, it was the perseverance of these fictional heroes (and the genius of the authors thrown in for a good measure) and their constant study of the human nature that solved crimes. The stories made us relate to the characters, understand their emotions and intentions and finally break into wry smiles thinking, “Oh! How did I miss that? It was staring right into my face all the time.” Or how many times did you fervently wish that one of the characters who grew upon you was not the sheep in wolf’s clothing? Nevertheless, it was a totally different but efficient approach to solving fictional crimes back then. People might argue that this is no way to go about unravelling mysteries in the real world, but then that's the whole reason why I read fiction.
For me, whodunits are essentially complex math equations that can either be solved using a paper and pencil or by using a computer software. Using a paper and pencil takes time but it gives immense satisfaction. That’s because you spend considerable time mastering various formulae and techniques to understand, memorize and then analyze them thoroughly before applying them to solve such equations. Whereas, if you used a computer, all you would need to do is just type in the key parameters and it would spew out the results in a jiffy. This means that even if you are just about skilled at using the computer software but have not done your due diligence in Math, you can still solve the equation and get all the answers. But then you would never be an expert. For me solving how it was done does not always mean finding who did it. But if you are the type of person who thinks that the end justifies the means then I’d argue no further. Instead, I’ll pick up my copy of “The Adventures of Feluda” and enjoy Feluda solving crimes the old-fashioned way. So long.
And just like any whodunit connoisseur would agree, I like my detective fiction to be served in a particular way. The story should not have too much violence, should provide a lot of exercise for grey cells, should keep one guessing till the last page and last but not the least be ‘unputdownable’ (NY Times Bestsellers list parlance for top thrillers).
However, of late, I have come across novels that have plots that compel me to digress from what I'm reading or have a plot where technology solves the mystery in a matter of few pages. Stuff like hi-tech wizardry, special gadgets and procedures that are used to bust crime, description of the locales, their history, and so on have become an integral part of modern thriller fiction. Just like those CSI series on TV (which, of course I like). Though I am not against special stuff being included, sometimes they simply don't help in maintaining the unputdownable feel. For example, a Tom Clancy novel gives you so much info about weapons, aircraft, etc., that once you are through with the novel, you can’t but resist Googling about the weapons and the science behind them. But if you asked me about the plot, I would be hard pressed to recollect it.
When I was reading the “Da Vinci Code”, I stopped halfway through the novel and ended up reading so much about the Templars, the Freemasons and the Opus Dei that I could have written a separate thesis on each one of them. In the process, when I got back to the novel from where I had left, I had forgotten the main plot and some characters and so had to go back 50 pages to recapitulate what had happened thus far. Though it was annoying, in a strange way it was also satisfying. I am sure I would not have done as much research as I did even if the history of Templars had been my main project during Graduate School. But then, it was no longer an ‘unputdownable’ for me.
And then there are these other types of thrillers where a Doctor is a protagonist. In such stories, usually, the human characters take a back seat and the research and scientific work done by the Doc to unravel the criminal or a special cutting edge clandestine project that creates zombies or something to that effect becomes the main character.
Before I forget, the mobile phone is another invention that has taken some sting out of thriller fiction. In recent years, the mobile’s ubiquitous presence has helped in solving many cases. After the plot meanders for a while, someone finally remembers to figure out who last called the victim or establishes a pattern of calls from the billing details and et voilà, mystery solved!
I could go on but then I’d no longer enjoy these novels any more. Nor would you. In short, one does not need special skills to figure out the advancement in science and technology has changed the way thriller fiction is written. I’m sure that going forward things will change some more but I hope they don’t change by much.
And it is precisely for this reason that I long for the old-fashioned novels penned by Dame Agatha Christie and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when things used to be lot simpler. Though a little less sophisticated, a lot depended on human nature and instincts than on anything else. Stories dealt with complex people hiding secrets and were set in an atmosphere that had well, atmosphere. In these stories, any kind of scientific research would be rudimentary and would not overshadow the main character’s quest for truth or the characters he would encounter and thus make them memorable forever.
For instance, have you ever noticed Hercule Poirot walk into the Coroner's office and ask for information on how the victim died and the established time of death? Or see Sherlock Holmes use fingerprinting techniques to identify a potential suspect? Or did Perry Mason ever depend on GSR (that's gunshot residue for non-detective fiction buffs) analysis and DNA (Di-oxy something.. just Google DNA) sampling to get his clients acquitted (Yes, DNA sampling did not exist then but that’s exactly my point) in the court of law? More than scientific evidence, it was the perseverance of these fictional heroes (and the genius of the authors thrown in for a good measure) and their constant study of the human nature that solved crimes. The stories made us relate to the characters, understand their emotions and intentions and finally break into wry smiles thinking, “Oh! How did I miss that? It was staring right into my face all the time.” Or how many times did you fervently wish that one of the characters who grew upon you was not the sheep in wolf’s clothing? Nevertheless, it was a totally different but efficient approach to solving fictional crimes back then. People might argue that this is no way to go about unravelling mysteries in the real world, but then that's the whole reason why I read fiction.
For me, whodunits are essentially complex math equations that can either be solved using a paper and pencil or by using a computer software. Using a paper and pencil takes time but it gives immense satisfaction. That’s because you spend considerable time mastering various formulae and techniques to understand, memorize and then analyze them thoroughly before applying them to solve such equations. Whereas, if you used a computer, all you would need to do is just type in the key parameters and it would spew out the results in a jiffy. This means that even if you are just about skilled at using the computer software but have not done your due diligence in Math, you can still solve the equation and get all the answers. But then you would never be an expert. For me solving how it was done does not always mean finding who did it. But if you are the type of person who thinks that the end justifies the means then I’d argue no further. Instead, I’ll pick up my copy of “The Adventures of Feluda” and enjoy Feluda solving crimes the old-fashioned way. So long.
.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment