Why is it that everytime there is an "alternate" story, it ends up being tied to the past? What allure does it hold?
I understand that the reason for an alternate plot/story is that we need something else to "intellectually challenge" since solving the actually crime based on following clues and making deductions is no longer necessary. The puzzles provide that "intelligence" that we amaze at and are fascinated by. It's amazing how Kreizler can predict or follow the movements of the serial killer...and quite amazing how Langdon can solve the next riddle in the Code... We are amazed by his deducing powers (connection back to Holmes).
In the Rule of Four, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphilli is tied back to a mystery/secret of the burning of art. The Da Vinci code is tied back to the masons and the Holy Grail while the Dante Club is tied back to Dantes Inferno. These are all old european mysteries.
Why does it always go back to these locations?
Yet again, it doesn't always. But... I don't find myself comparing the Deception Point to Holme's either. It is very similarly written to the Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons...but I don't include it at all in the discussions.
This might be because the "historical thiller" part of this blog is limiting it.
The old ties back to ancient mysteries gives a tying-together factor with the other texts, which actually are older.
But, I must still continue with the point... --why do these 3/4 books have alternate story lines that end up tying back to post-renaissance, or renasissance period, etc. Even more so, some of these "mysteries" are entirely fabricated, with a historical background only....so why these specific time periods? What does it hold? Opinions are greatly welcome.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Dante Club - Revisiting - How does the setting affect it.
"The detective bureau...had been established in Boston with the aim of providing intimate knowledge of criminal's whereabouts, and therfore most of the chosen dectivies were former rogues themselves... detectives revereted to old tricks (thier favorites being extortion, intimidation, and fabrication) to secure thier hsare of arrest and warrant thier salaries... The last problem in the world he needed now would be his detectives trying to connive money from the wealthy Healeys' grief. pg 25
This immediately sets up the inefficiency of the police system. It has not reached teh sophisticated level of today and is not of much consequence. Though there are a few good "cops" like Officer Rey and Chief Kurtz, the rest are mostly useless, narrowminded and easily bribed. Thus, most of the police force is of no use in this investigation.
Rather, they are incapable themselves of solving the crimes, because these crimes are more intellectual and logic based than science and dna and fingerprinting, since these techniques obviously weren't devleoped before the 1900s.
So, by setting up an ineffective police station(which is actually an apt description of it), Pearl makes this "mystery/murder" one that needs to be solved solely through the intellect of the Dante Club, and those they choose to include.
Even more interesting, though is that this seems a combination of a Holmes' and Brown story.
Though it is set in the 1800's, and thus before the invention of technology, enabling it to be a mystery solved by deductions and logic - which it does have some of the time, it is also a mystery/thriller like Brown's novels. There are continual murders throughout the book which keep you interested and "spooked/scared/interested", but at the same time, there is also the translating of Dantes Inferno, and the solving of that which they believe is the key to the murder.
So, while it is a book based in looking for clues, interviewing suspects, and making deductiosn like a holme's story, it also includes the murders, thrills, and alternate story line of Dante's Inferno, much like that of Brown's Da Vinci Code.
This immediately sets up the inefficiency of the police system. It has not reached teh sophisticated level of today and is not of much consequence. Though there are a few good "cops" like Officer Rey and Chief Kurtz, the rest are mostly useless, narrowminded and easily bribed. Thus, most of the police force is of no use in this investigation.
Rather, they are incapable themselves of solving the crimes, because these crimes are more intellectual and logic based than science and dna and fingerprinting, since these techniques obviously weren't devleoped before the 1900s.
So, by setting up an ineffective police station(which is actually an apt description of it), Pearl makes this "mystery/murder" one that needs to be solved solely through the intellect of the Dante Club, and those they choose to include.
Even more interesting, though is that this seems a combination of a Holmes' and Brown story.
Though it is set in the 1800's, and thus before the invention of technology, enabling it to be a mystery solved by deductions and logic - which it does have some of the time, it is also a mystery/thriller like Brown's novels. There are continual murders throughout the book which keep you interested and "spooked/scared/interested", but at the same time, there is also the translating of Dantes Inferno, and the solving of that which they believe is the key to the murder.
So, while it is a book based in looking for clues, interviewing suspects, and making deductiosn like a holme's story, it also includes the murders, thrills, and alternate story line of Dante's Inferno, much like that of Brown's Da Vinci Code.
The openings of the books.
There are some aspects I want to address in the opening of "Mystery/Detective/Thriller" novels.
How do they open? -- I always feel myself comparing them to Brown's novels... I have no idea why.
The Dante Club - 2 openings (which is the same as the Rule of Four). An article opens that is seemingly disconnected, but we later realize it is the beginning of the introduction of the "worms" used to kill in the opening murder. And then, it opens with a police chief investigating a murder scene. There are two different openings for this book, but it essentially opens with a murder that needs to be solved. And, being of the 19th century, it is perfectly fine to use "reasoning" rather then scientific knowledge to solve it.
The Rule of Four - 2 openings. The first occurs centuries before and is the death of two messengers. It sets quite a morbid and "adventurous/exciting" outlook for the book, which it does not uphold. It then reopens with the introduction of the college students and another murder soon after.
The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons - opens very similar to the Rule of Four in the descriptions of the initial murder, however it is more connected to the mystery that needs to be solved. This opening is effective because it immediately begins the novel with a mystery and begins it high-paced and intriguing, which the rest of the builds off of and continues.
The Holme's stories. These typically open with HOlmes still in his apartment and being introduced... with the mystery brought to him. As in, someone comes asking for his help, whether it is a client or the police, and then he investigates the scene. It is a much less dramatic and anticipation packed beginning when compared to the DaVinci Code.
The Alieniest and the Angel of Darkness i remember opening in slightly different ways. It's similar to the Holme's story in the sense that the characters are awoken and then brought to the scene of the crime. However, at the same time it's similar to a Brown novel because it opens with a murder which is analyzed and described.
I think the reason why the Holme's stories open the way they do is because Holme's needs to be able to analyze the character's/clients more than the other novels do. A lot of his solving of the crimes is based on his own observation skills. Also, the novel isn't based on the psychological mind of the killer or how he killed but rather WHO the killer is. For this reason, the time before when the clients are introduced or background information provided is essential. Also, since Doyle sets the scene as Watson looking back and describing the crimes, it makes more sense to start it off with background info, and start it as it occurred and as they knew of it. That means... sitting in their house waiting for the call to action.
Most of these other books open with a murder, but some are more effective than others. The opening for the rule of four was intriguing and different, but later seemed almost random since it didn't connect very well to 2 college boys trying to solve the riddles of a book. The Alienist and the DaVinci code are different - the opening murders are effective in capturing the attention of the readers and setting the mood and pace for the rest of the book. In the Alieniest, the mutilation fo the bodies served to show there was a deeper pyschological reason for the murder, while the murder and position of the curator in the daVinci code was used as a starting clue to the rest of the code. These "murders" are effective because they are part of the "mystery" that needs to be solved, and therefore are important to the novel. This wasn't the same for the Rule of Four, as I already said in a previous post.
(I almost felt as if the opening was a copy of the style/opening of Brown... but just not nearly as effective when considering the book as a whole) -- in general it opened well, with great mysteries and interest and then died towards the end because of "lame" answers/connections"....
And that concludes my "openings" for now.
Thinking about it, I wished I had compared the Italian Secretary to a real Holme's novel a little more... maybe i will.
How do they open? -- I always feel myself comparing them to Brown's novels... I have no idea why.
The Dante Club - 2 openings (which is the same as the Rule of Four). An article opens that is seemingly disconnected, but we later realize it is the beginning of the introduction of the "worms" used to kill in the opening murder. And then, it opens with a police chief investigating a murder scene. There are two different openings for this book, but it essentially opens with a murder that needs to be solved. And, being of the 19th century, it is perfectly fine to use "reasoning" rather then scientific knowledge to solve it.
The Rule of Four - 2 openings. The first occurs centuries before and is the death of two messengers. It sets quite a morbid and "adventurous/exciting" outlook for the book, which it does not uphold. It then reopens with the introduction of the college students and another murder soon after.
The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons - opens very similar to the Rule of Four in the descriptions of the initial murder, however it is more connected to the mystery that needs to be solved. This opening is effective because it immediately begins the novel with a mystery and begins it high-paced and intriguing, which the rest of the builds off of and continues.
The Holme's stories. These typically open with HOlmes still in his apartment and being introduced... with the mystery brought to him. As in, someone comes asking for his help, whether it is a client or the police, and then he investigates the scene. It is a much less dramatic and anticipation packed beginning when compared to the DaVinci Code.
The Alieniest and the Angel of Darkness i remember opening in slightly different ways. It's similar to the Holme's story in the sense that the characters are awoken and then brought to the scene of the crime. However, at the same time it's similar to a Brown novel because it opens with a murder which is analyzed and described.
I think the reason why the Holme's stories open the way they do is because Holme's needs to be able to analyze the character's/clients more than the other novels do. A lot of his solving of the crimes is based on his own observation skills. Also, the novel isn't based on the psychological mind of the killer or how he killed but rather WHO the killer is. For this reason, the time before when the clients are introduced or background information provided is essential. Also, since Doyle sets the scene as Watson looking back and describing the crimes, it makes more sense to start it off with background info, and start it as it occurred and as they knew of it. That means... sitting in their house waiting for the call to action.
Most of these other books open with a murder, but some are more effective than others. The opening for the rule of four was intriguing and different, but later seemed almost random since it didn't connect very well to 2 college boys trying to solve the riddles of a book. The Alienist and the DaVinci code are different - the opening murders are effective in capturing the attention of the readers and setting the mood and pace for the rest of the book. In the Alieniest, the mutilation fo the bodies served to show there was a deeper pyschological reason for the murder, while the murder and position of the curator in the daVinci code was used as a starting clue to the rest of the code. These "murders" are effective because they are part of the "mystery" that needs to be solved, and therefore are important to the novel. This wasn't the same for the Rule of Four, as I already said in a previous post.
(I almost felt as if the opening was a copy of the style/opening of Brown... but just not nearly as effective when considering the book as a whole) -- in general it opened well, with great mysteries and interest and then died towards the end because of "lame" answers/connections"....
And that concludes my "openings" for now.
Thinking about it, I wished I had compared the Italian Secretary to a real Holme's novel a little more... maybe i will.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Climax and Conclusion x 2 - The Rule of Four and opinion
So.. I mentioned before that there are two plots in the story, thus it makes sense that there are two climaxes and conclusions, too.
Plot with respect to solving teh Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.
1. Climax - occurs when they solve the puzzle using the rule of four. Which, in fact was pretty anticlimatic considering the fact that it's just following a pattern instead of using intellectual powers to solve riddles. Still, it is climatic because we finally find out the mystery and secret of the story.
2. Conclusion - This is the most interesting part of the book in my opinion. We find out the history behind the author and why he wrote this book. It ends up tying everything back to the post-renaissance time when the pope/important religious figure head was destroying all the artwork and etc. Anyways (trying not to spoil too much...) i didn't get the check whether its true of not, but it's interesting becuase everything gets tied to a bigger idea. It gives it an effect of a Brown book, becuase it's almost like there is a secret organization thign going on. Anyways, this resolution/explanation compeltely resolves the mystery by providing all teh background behind it.
The Plot of Danger....
1. The Climax is the burnign of the eating house becuase everyone's lives are in danger. Also there is an ambiguous ending with deaths and blah blah etc. that makes it all so dramatic. IT was a very "action" like conclusion. But I just felt it was confusing and not as effective as it could have been.
COnclusion - Here is the interesting part. We find out that Paul has actually survived and has discovered the tomb. It makes everythign a happy ending. THough I wish it wasn't liek that.
Now for critique/my opinion.
It would have been better if Paul had died. This is too much of a happy ending. --but that's just my personal opinion.
Now onto what makes the book good. The plot and idea of there being a secret behind the writing of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili is the driving factor behind this book.
Though it is entirely made up - the idea that we can still be solving mysteries from long past draws us in and intrques us. I think we're attracted to the idea that there is still more to be discovered and secrets to be uncovered. I mean, the idea that there was a "DaVinci" code captured us all. It's basically the same concept. THere is some code/mystery from long ago that has yet to be solved, that we are solving now. We're getting connected to the past.
Plot with respect to solving teh Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.
1. Climax - occurs when they solve the puzzle using the rule of four. Which, in fact was pretty anticlimatic considering the fact that it's just following a pattern instead of using intellectual powers to solve riddles. Still, it is climatic because we finally find out the mystery and secret of the story.
2. Conclusion - This is the most interesting part of the book in my opinion. We find out the history behind the author and why he wrote this book. It ends up tying everything back to the post-renaissance time when the pope/important religious figure head was destroying all the artwork and etc. Anyways (trying not to spoil too much...) i didn't get the check whether its true of not, but it's interesting becuase everything gets tied to a bigger idea. It gives it an effect of a Brown book, becuase it's almost like there is a secret organization thign going on. Anyways, this resolution/explanation compeltely resolves the mystery by providing all teh background behind it.
The Plot of Danger....
1. The Climax is the burnign of the eating house becuase everyone's lives are in danger. Also there is an ambiguous ending with deaths and blah blah etc. that makes it all so dramatic. IT was a very "action" like conclusion. But I just felt it was confusing and not as effective as it could have been.
COnclusion - Here is the interesting part. We find out that Paul has actually survived and has discovered the tomb. It makes everythign a happy ending. THough I wish it wasn't liek that.
Now for critique/my opinion.
It would have been better if Paul had died. This is too much of a happy ending. --but that's just my personal opinion.
Now onto what makes the book good. The plot and idea of there being a secret behind the writing of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili is the driving factor behind this book.
Though it is entirely made up - the idea that we can still be solving mysteries from long past draws us in and intrques us. I think we're attracted to the idea that there is still more to be discovered and secrets to be uncovered. I mean, the idea that there was a "DaVinci" code captured us all. It's basically the same concept. THere is some code/mystery from long ago that has yet to be solved, that we are solving now. We're getting connected to the past.
2nd Attempt at Analysis: The Rule of Four
First of all, I just have to add my own personal opinion on the book. From the summary it sounds like a high paced mystery/thriller novel. And from the way they mention murders and broken up families, it seems as if there is a secret organization that goes around destroying the lives of anyone who works with this book. However, that is not the case. The "destroying" comes from dedicating too much time and pride into solving a book/mystery. It's the suffering that comes from obsessing over one thing, which possibly is one of the themes of the book.
Like I mentioned before, though there is a murder in the novel, the focus of the book is on the past and on solving the riddles. In some sense, this book is more "realistic" than other ones like the DaVinci code or Angels and Demons. It is set in a college campus and most of the stress and craze in the plot has to do with relationships, plagerism, obsessions, and friendships. The "danger" level is kept at a minimum in comparison to other books.
Ok. Danger = Second plot of the story. The first plot of the story is the solving of the puzzles and mysteries of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.
Danger: The only bits of danger in this book are the initial murder, then the bursting of the steam pipe, the burning of "I forgot the name of the eating house" and the murder of another professor at the end of the book. Oh, and the initial murder centuries ago - that was a very "brown-ish" start.
I have to be critical here. The murders/thriller aspects of the book are quite a bit disconnected from the general plot at times. This books shifts a lot from present to past, to way long gone past, but the focus is on the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.
Ok.. so I forgot the real initial murder. It wasn't of a grad student, but of a messenger that openned and read mail he wasn't supposed to. This took place in the 1500's/before. They were killed for exposing the secret, making it seem like there was a secret organization that would execute people in the future for going too deep into the story/secret. But, that, is completely false. There is no secret organization. In fact, the author of the book, though guarded and secretative, wants the secret to be found out eventually. Though it brings with it the appeal of history, it is a book set in teh present and not past.
The second murder in the story seems like it could possibly be following that of teh initial one and it does add and create a "mystery"/"thriller"/scary atmosphere, however it doesn't completely work nor does it add as much to the plot and story because there is no clear reason for the murder. It is clear that there is no secret organization. In fact the only destruction it causes is from obsession over it. Even more limiting, the "book that has shattered careers, friendships and families", has only shattered families and etc. within "Tom Sullivan", the main characters family and friends. What I mean is this book only covers the life of Tom Sullivan and his college friends and his dad and his friends. That's a pretty limited scope for being a book that has "shattered" so much. It's mainly Tom that has suffered the most.
After that second murder within, what the first 50 pages of the book, there is relativiely no danger until the end of the book. Yes, one of the characters gets burned and that's horrific, but that was purely by accident. It seemed more distracting to the plot then anything else, because it was almost random. I think it's kind of random because at this point of the book, the focus is more on solving the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, then it is on thier present situation...
It's not until the end of the book does the idea of "mortal danger" starts. We find another murder, and find the murderer and then there is a fire which threaten's their lives. This makes everything more climatic- but that's about it.
The real climax of the book has already passed at this point, that's why. The climax was solving that final missing puzzle - The Rule of Four. I'll address that in a later post. That's it for this for now.
Like I mentioned before, though there is a murder in the novel, the focus of the book is on the past and on solving the riddles. In some sense, this book is more "realistic" than other ones like the DaVinci code or Angels and Demons. It is set in a college campus and most of the stress and craze in the plot has to do with relationships, plagerism, obsessions, and friendships. The "danger" level is kept at a minimum in comparison to other books.
Ok. Danger = Second plot of the story. The first plot of the story is the solving of the puzzles and mysteries of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.
Danger: The only bits of danger in this book are the initial murder, then the bursting of the steam pipe, the burning of "I forgot the name of the eating house" and the murder of another professor at the end of the book. Oh, and the initial murder centuries ago - that was a very "brown-ish" start.
I have to be critical here. The murders/thriller aspects of the book are quite a bit disconnected from the general plot at times. This books shifts a lot from present to past, to way long gone past, but the focus is on the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.
Ok.. so I forgot the real initial murder. It wasn't of a grad student, but of a messenger that openned and read mail he wasn't supposed to. This took place in the 1500's/before. They were killed for exposing the secret, making it seem like there was a secret organization that would execute people in the future for going too deep into the story/secret. But, that, is completely false. There is no secret organization. In fact, the author of the book, though guarded and secretative, wants the secret to be found out eventually. Though it brings with it the appeal of history, it is a book set in teh present and not past.
The second murder in the story seems like it could possibly be following that of teh initial one and it does add and create a "mystery"/"thriller"/scary atmosphere, however it doesn't completely work nor does it add as much to the plot and story because there is no clear reason for the murder. It is clear that there is no secret organization. In fact the only destruction it causes is from obsession over it. Even more limiting, the "book that has shattered careers, friendships and families", has only shattered families and etc. within "Tom Sullivan", the main characters family and friends. What I mean is this book only covers the life of Tom Sullivan and his college friends and his dad and his friends. That's a pretty limited scope for being a book that has "shattered" so much. It's mainly Tom that has suffered the most.
After that second murder within, what the first 50 pages of the book, there is relativiely no danger until the end of the book. Yes, one of the characters gets burned and that's horrific, but that was purely by accident. It seemed more distracting to the plot then anything else, because it was almost random. I think it's kind of random because at this point of the book, the focus is more on solving the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, then it is on thier present situation...
It's not until the end of the book does the idea of "mortal danger" starts. We find another murder, and find the murderer and then there is a fire which threaten's their lives. This makes everything more climatic- but that's about it.
The real climax of the book has already passed at this point, that's why. The climax was solving that final missing puzzle - The Rule of Four. I'll address that in a later post. That's it for this for now.
The Rule of Four - Description
Taken from http://www.randomhouse.com/bantamdell/theruleoffour/about.html
About the Book
An ivy league murder, a mysterious coded manuscript, and the secrets of a Renaissance prince collide memorably in THE RULE OF FOUR — a brilliant work of fiction that weaves together suspense and scholarship, high art and unimaginable treachery.
It's Easter at Princeton. Seniors are scrambling to finish their theses. And two students, Tom Sullivan and Paul Harris, are a hair's breadth from solving the mysteries of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili—a renowned text attributed to an Italian nobleman, a work that has baffled scholars since its publication in 1499. For Tom, their research has been a link to his family's past — and an obstacle to the woman he loves. For Paul, it has become an obsession, the very reason for living. But as their deadline looms, research has stalled — until a long-lost diary surfaces with a vital clue. And when a fellow researcher is murdered just hours later, Tom and Paul realize that they are not the first to glimpse the Hypnerotomachia's secrets.
Suddenly the stakes are raised, and as the two friends sift through the codes and riddles at the heart of the text, they are beginning to see the manuscript in a new light—not simply as a story of faith, eroticism and pedantry, but as a bizarre, coded mathematical maze. And as they come closer and closer to deciphering the final puzzle of a book that has shattered careers, friendships and families, they know that their own lives are in mortal danger. Because at least one person has been killed for knowing too much. And they know even more.
From the streets of fifteenth-century Rome to the rarified realm of the Ivy League, from a shocking 500 year-old murder scene to the drama of a young man's coming of age, THE RULE OF FOUR takes us on an entertaining, illuminating tour of history—as it builds to a pinnacle of nearly unbearable suspense.
Just helping to illuminate on what the Rule of Four actually is...
About the Book
An ivy league murder, a mysterious coded manuscript, and the secrets of a Renaissance prince collide memorably in THE RULE OF FOUR — a brilliant work of fiction that weaves together suspense and scholarship, high art and unimaginable treachery.
It's Easter at Princeton. Seniors are scrambling to finish their theses. And two students, Tom Sullivan and Paul Harris, are a hair's breadth from solving the mysteries of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili—a renowned text attributed to an Italian nobleman, a work that has baffled scholars since its publication in 1499. For Tom, their research has been a link to his family's past — and an obstacle to the woman he loves. For Paul, it has become an obsession, the very reason for living. But as their deadline looms, research has stalled — until a long-lost diary surfaces with a vital clue. And when a fellow researcher is murdered just hours later, Tom and Paul realize that they are not the first to glimpse the Hypnerotomachia's secrets.
Suddenly the stakes are raised, and as the two friends sift through the codes and riddles at the heart of the text, they are beginning to see the manuscript in a new light—not simply as a story of faith, eroticism and pedantry, but as a bizarre, coded mathematical maze. And as they come closer and closer to deciphering the final puzzle of a book that has shattered careers, friendships and families, they know that their own lives are in mortal danger. Because at least one person has been killed for knowing too much. And they know even more.
From the streets of fifteenth-century Rome to the rarified realm of the Ivy League, from a shocking 500 year-old murder scene to the drama of a young man's coming of age, THE RULE OF FOUR takes us on an entertaining, illuminating tour of history—as it builds to a pinnacle of nearly unbearable suspense.
Just helping to illuminate on what the Rule of Four actually is...
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Rule of Four - The Analysis
I'm going to try and analyze the text according to the "new question".
So, this isn't a traditional mystery/detective novel. Though a murder occurs, the majority of the novel is not spent in tracing down the murderer but solving some huger more important plan, the puzzle of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI. And actually, the murder and everything else that happens in the story is tied back to the book. So, in reality the murders that occur are all parts of the bigger story - of what happened to people working on the book in the past, decades earlier, what happened months earlier, and what happening in the present with regards to the book, and its progress.
"Mystery" novels of this time period are no longer straight forward detective novels where you find evidence, make deductions and then try to capture the murderer. Most of the "detectiving" in this story was solving the puzzle and the riddles in the book.
The focus of the book was not focused on the murders at all. --- The reasons for this - it was just a result of the book, and the police were on top of it already anyways - they have effective systems to solve the murder themselves. Nowadays, there aren't any detectives working to solve murders, unless they are privately hired for a special case where the police have failed or if a family is rich enough to do so. However, a private detective probably does not have the same amount of technology and equipment that the police have - so they would probably do a worse job then the police (this is solely speculation, i have no idea what a job as a private detective is like.... maybe i shoudl look it up).
I'm actually kind of lost now. So I'm going to leave it at that.
I'll come back to it later. I'm struggling a little with the analysis I think... What am I looking for?
So, this isn't a traditional mystery/detective novel. Though a murder occurs, the majority of the novel is not spent in tracing down the murderer but solving some huger more important plan, the puzzle of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI. And actually, the murder and everything else that happens in the story is tied back to the book. So, in reality the murders that occur are all parts of the bigger story - of what happened to people working on the book in the past, decades earlier, what happened months earlier, and what happening in the present with regards to the book, and its progress.
"Mystery" novels of this time period are no longer straight forward detective novels where you find evidence, make deductions and then try to capture the murderer. Most of the "detectiving" in this story was solving the puzzle and the riddles in the book.
The focus of the book was not focused on the murders at all. --- The reasons for this - it was just a result of the book, and the police were on top of it already anyways - they have effective systems to solve the murder themselves. Nowadays, there aren't any detectives working to solve murders, unless they are privately hired for a special case where the police have failed or if a family is rich enough to do so. However, a private detective probably does not have the same amount of technology and equipment that the police have - so they would probably do a worse job then the police (this is solely speculation, i have no idea what a job as a private detective is like.... maybe i shoudl look it up).
I'm actually kind of lost now. So I'm going to leave it at that.
I'll come back to it later. I'm struggling a little with the analysis I think... What am I looking for?
The Rule of Four - Description of What is was.
So.. here's the breakdown.
The Rule of Four is a mystery/detective book, similar to the Da Vinci Code. It opens(close to the beginning at least...though not the first page) with a murder - making it a thriller- but that doesn't dominate the entire book. Rather, most of the book is dedicated to solving the mystery/puzzle of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI.
The main charcters Tom and Paul are very intelligent and are the hero's of the story, much like Robert Langdon is in the Da Vinci code.
Just connecting: The story is thriller-ish and mysytery because of the murder in the beginning of the book. It creates a sense of danger and urgency since the lives of the main characters are at risk at times and are involved. This creates the "fear" and "adrenaline" in the book, which all tie into the "surprizing" conclusion at the end. And, actually, Paul and Tom don't go around hunting down the murderer, but rather stumble upon it when they are looking for the necessary clue to crack the final message of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI.
The rest of the novel, and the "mystery" part of it comes from solving the puzzle of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI (Which is some long and famous book from the middle ages/renaissance? don't remember). Here's where some people probably draw another parallel to the DaVinci Code. Much like how Brown created the story of teh Holy Grail, Caldwal and Thomason created a mystery from the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI. (It was something about having riddles worked into the text/story that would lead to some great treasure ... that the author was beign secretive about).
And yeah, basically allthe "intelligent' and detective worked involved the solving of the riddles which were indeed very interesting at times. Most of the novel takes place as recollections - they are the memories of Tom and the months before the murder where he describes what it was like to work on the book - almost as if he's giving us background information on it. Then after the background/story/most of the mystery of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI is solved we go back to the present were they have to deal with getting the last piece to solve the puzzle and fighting for thier lives'ish.
In the end, when they solve the puzzle they learn of the story and life of the narrator and find out that it is the direction to some underground tomb that stores great artwork and pieces from the renaissance.
The Rule of Four is a mystery/detective book, similar to the Da Vinci Code. It opens(close to the beginning at least...though not the first page) with a murder - making it a thriller- but that doesn't dominate the entire book. Rather, most of the book is dedicated to solving the mystery/puzzle of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI.
The main charcters Tom and Paul are very intelligent and are the hero's of the story, much like Robert Langdon is in the Da Vinci code.
Just connecting: The story is thriller-ish and mysytery because of the murder in the beginning of the book. It creates a sense of danger and urgency since the lives of the main characters are at risk at times and are involved. This creates the "fear" and "adrenaline" in the book, which all tie into the "surprizing" conclusion at the end. And, actually, Paul and Tom don't go around hunting down the murderer, but rather stumble upon it when they are looking for the necessary clue to crack the final message of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI.
The rest of the novel, and the "mystery" part of it comes from solving the puzzle of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI (Which is some long and famous book from the middle ages/renaissance? don't remember). Here's where some people probably draw another parallel to the DaVinci Code. Much like how Brown created the story of teh Holy Grail, Caldwal and Thomason created a mystery from the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI. (It was something about having riddles worked into the text/story that would lead to some great treasure ... that the author was beign secretive about).
And yeah, basically allthe "intelligent' and detective worked involved the solving of the riddles which were indeed very interesting at times. Most of the novel takes place as recollections - they are the memories of Tom and the months before the murder where he describes what it was like to work on the book - almost as if he's giving us background information on it. Then after the background/story/most of the mystery of the HYPNEROTOMACHIA POLIPHILI is solved we go back to the present were they have to deal with getting the last piece to solve the puzzle and fighting for thier lives'ish.
In the end, when they solve the puzzle they learn of the story and life of the narrator and find out that it is the direction to some underground tomb that stores great artwork and pieces from the renaissance.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Yup... It's an even newer direction than I thought
So... I finished reading the Rule of Four. So, I blog about that in a later post but....
For now, I'm thinking of changing my question again and here are my thoughts.
Sherlock Holmes is a mystery novel based in the deductions of genious Holmes - he uses bits of scientific evidence, but science, DNA recognition, like we have now aren't as important to him becuase they don't have them yet.
I remember in his first detective story, he uses footsteps to approximate the height of the suspect, but those are all very elementary. Helpful, but they don't have the same accuracy and respect that DNA sampling has today.
So, unless the book is set in Holme's time period - like the List of 7, the Italian secretary and the Dante Club are ---- everything kind of falls apart.
You don't need a Holmes character in the Rule of Four - because the police and detectives have quite enough technology about fingerprinting, DNA sampling, survallaince video tapes, amber alerts, and etc. to find out who the culprit is - if not soon, eventually.
Also, it's not like the Alienist and the angel of darkness where the police system is corrupt and have secret deals that prevent them from caring about really caring about what is going on.
If the book is set in a time period pre- all the developments in technology - reasoning, finding clues and making deductions are all big and good. They are also especially interesting because we aren't as familiar with those types of logical thinking - since we're stuck in a time period where you just find DNA or video survaillance and you can nail the person.
That is probably why "Holmes"-like characters like Kreizler in the Alienest or Jack in the LIst of 7.
However, once you move into the modern time - books like the Rule of Four and the DaVinci Code stray from that path. I think the Dante club might too... not sure (really gotta go reread that one!!)
The Rule of Four and teh DaVinci Code (Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress, Deception Point), all those books open with murders (Even teh Dante Club), but the goal and plot of teh story is NOT to solve those murders, but rather to solve the bigger plot that these murders are connected to. In the Rule of Four, it is solving that huge book (I already forgot it's name) - and the secret that it holds.
In the DaVinci code (It's solving the daVinci code) - I forget why they are solving it. If anybody remembers could you please share? I don't wanna have to look throughout the book. But I will if I have to.
Angels and Demons - it was about the murders I remember-ish ... but I feel there was more. My memory is really failing me!!! This is what I get for reading solely for the plot. Gotta analyze more.
But, anyways all those "recent" books had plots and mysteries to solve that weren't about the murder only. They weren't only looking for who the murderer was. THat was NOT thier goal. Rather, they were trying to sovle some huge complicated, adn immensely interesting puzzle.
So... here's the point where the question changes.
I was talkign to Ms. Clapp about this and her pet theory is this:
As we moved into the modern age with DNA, and more substantial/scientific evidence that could link murderer to the crime scene. Unsolvable murders are a lot more difficult to get away with. AND, murders that aren't solvable by the police are not quite so many. There isn't a need for a detective for a regular case of murder, even with "strange" circumstances.
So, people like Holmes would essentially be out of the job.
That is the reason for why we have thrillers/mystery novels that go in another direction and solve some other bigger cultural or ancient mystery. And, that makes sense in my opinion.
So, that's where I want to move with my question now. I might have to do some more re-anzlyzing of the other texts, that I've read recently but....
What do you think?
For now, I'm thinking of changing my question again and here are my thoughts.
Sherlock Holmes is a mystery novel based in the deductions of genious Holmes - he uses bits of scientific evidence, but science, DNA recognition, like we have now aren't as important to him becuase they don't have them yet.
I remember in his first detective story, he uses footsteps to approximate the height of the suspect, but those are all very elementary. Helpful, but they don't have the same accuracy and respect that DNA sampling has today.
So, unless the book is set in Holme's time period - like the List of 7, the Italian secretary and the Dante Club are ---- everything kind of falls apart.
You don't need a Holmes character in the Rule of Four - because the police and detectives have quite enough technology about fingerprinting, DNA sampling, survallaince video tapes, amber alerts, and etc. to find out who the culprit is - if not soon, eventually.
Also, it's not like the Alienist and the angel of darkness where the police system is corrupt and have secret deals that prevent them from caring about really caring about what is going on.
If the book is set in a time period pre- all the developments in technology - reasoning, finding clues and making deductions are all big and good. They are also especially interesting because we aren't as familiar with those types of logical thinking - since we're stuck in a time period where you just find DNA or video survaillance and you can nail the person.
That is probably why "Holmes"-like characters like Kreizler in the Alienest or Jack in the LIst of 7.
However, once you move into the modern time - books like the Rule of Four and the DaVinci Code stray from that path. I think the Dante club might too... not sure (really gotta go reread that one!!)
The Rule of Four and teh DaVinci Code (Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress, Deception Point), all those books open with murders (Even teh Dante Club), but the goal and plot of teh story is NOT to solve those murders, but rather to solve the bigger plot that these murders are connected to. In the Rule of Four, it is solving that huge book (I already forgot it's name) - and the secret that it holds.
In the DaVinci code (It's solving the daVinci code) - I forget why they are solving it. If anybody remembers could you please share? I don't wanna have to look throughout the book. But I will if I have to.
Angels and Demons - it was about the murders I remember-ish ... but I feel there was more. My memory is really failing me!!! This is what I get for reading solely for the plot. Gotta analyze more.
But, anyways all those "recent" books had plots and mysteries to solve that weren't about the murder only. They weren't only looking for who the murderer was. THat was NOT thier goal. Rather, they were trying to sovle some huge complicated, adn immensely interesting puzzle.
So... here's the point where the question changes.
I was talkign to Ms. Clapp about this and her pet theory is this:
As we moved into the modern age with DNA, and more substantial/scientific evidence that could link murderer to the crime scene. Unsolvable murders are a lot more difficult to get away with. AND, murders that aren't solvable by the police are not quite so many. There isn't a need for a detective for a regular case of murder, even with "strange" circumstances.
So, people like Holmes would essentially be out of the job.
That is the reason for why we have thrillers/mystery novels that go in another direction and solve some other bigger cultural or ancient mystery. And, that makes sense in my opinion.
So, that's where I want to move with my question now. I might have to do some more re-anzlyzing of the other texts, that I've read recently but....
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)