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?