I agree with the "pact" idea, especially as regards the basic
whodunit
formula, although in rereading some classic Sherlock Holmes
(if I can admit
this deviance here), I am reminded that the reader doesn't
get to "see"
precisely what Holmes sees, which makes a difference in the
competition
with the detective. (We are trapped with the less acute
perceptions of
Watson.) But there definitely is a pact or compact with the
reader that
every author must keep in mind ("how to write" books teach
the articles of
these compacts).
And, yes, the police procedural, as "insider fiction," is
held to higher
standards of accuracy. But, to paraphrase a recent post, what
if all the
reader knows are other police procedurals and film or tv
representations?
That's the case for many (most?). I am reluctant to say I
have anything
more than fictionally based standards by which to judge. When
I
discriminate, it is more on the basis of what one author has
convinced me
is real, as opposed to another author's version--which is to
say I am
"convinced" probably by the power of the first author's
literary realism.
Aware of these limitations, I will always feel more confident
in judging
aspects of character, internal coherence, causality and
style. The
competition with the detective in the classical mystery is,
in a sense,
largely a matter of playing the game that the plot
offers.
The more you know about the reality behind the fiction, I
suppose, the more
that accuracy or Reality will become the critical factor in
deciding
whether to read on.
Bill Hagen
<billha@ionet.net>
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.