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?