lb:knox.decalogue
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| lb:knox.decalogue [2025-10-10 09:17:25] – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | lb:knox.decalogue [2025-10-20 14:10:16] (current) – [Commandment 5] ninjasr | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ====== Knox Decalogue ====== | ||
| + | **The Ten Commandments of Knox** or the **Knox Decalogue** are a series of ‘rules’ for mystery/ | ||
| + | Thus the rules were established to help make the games fair for participants and to avoid the author from tricking the audience or making the game unfair. | ||
| + | Now that I've become immersed in [[lb: | ||
| + | The reason I find it interesting is because it gets very close to what I figured out regarding the mechanics of storytelling. It's //scarily close// but isn't quite there, so most of the commandments are [[lb: | ||
| + | |||
| + | As a complete side-note, I'm wondering whether Golden Age authors were among the closest to get to storytelling theory? That may explain their success, since a very well-written story (mechanically) is more likely to be popular and profitable. | ||
| + | {{tag> | ||
| + | ===== Analysis ===== | ||
| + | I'm going to lay out the Decalogue first before I analyze it. I'm getting these rules from Wikipedia, the evil, but I'll double-check other sources much later.\\ | ||
| + | The Ten Commandments are: | ||
| + | ((: | ||
| + | - The criminal must be mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to know. | ||
| + | - All supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course. | ||
| + | - Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable. | ||
| + | - No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end. | ||
| + | - No Chinaman must figure in the story. | ||
| + | - No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right. | ||
| + | - The detective himself must not commit the crime. | ||
| + | - The detective is bound to declare any clues which he may discover. | ||
| + | - The " | ||
| + | - Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them. | ||
| + | Though it should be noted that most of these can be summarized as “don' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Now it's time for the analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Commandment 1 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The intent of this rule is to prevent the writer from making the criminal a character that has never been seen thruout the story and is only revealed at the last minute.\\ | ||
| + | Basically, the criminal has to have been adequately introduced to the audience. It's easiest and best to do this at the start of the story. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, this doesn' | ||
| + | |||
| + | For example, the ‘culprit’ in Firewatch is someone we never see with our own eyes, but we know he's there because he's talked about. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The purpose of the latter point I don't really understand, so I'll have to think about it later. | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 2 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | This is sensible only if the supernatural agencies are not adequately explained.\\ | ||
| + | If this is a story where (for example) telepathy is a known factor, then it can be. | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Minority Report// (is a bad film, but I digress) builds its mystery 100% on a supernatural element. It's not inherently bad, so this is one of the worse rules. | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 3 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'll quickly note that the version of this that I encountered first was the Umineko one where it is rendered as < | ||
| + | That one is a lot more exclusionary and, consequently, | ||
| + | |||
| + | So...because the actual commandment is a bit different, my initial write-up is not applicable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The only issue I take with this one is that it's “not more than one”. I think secret rooms and passages are fine if they' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Because I don't want that previous write-up to go to waste, here's an expandable section where I go over it. I think that it's still useful, just that it's not a response to the commandment.\\ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | To explain this problem, I'll ask the following question: what is the functional difference between a hidden passage and an unmentioned hallway? | ||
| + | |||
| + | An unmentioned hallway is a hallway that is never seen (on-screen or in narration), never spoken about (by any of the characters), | ||
| + | It exists...just that it's never mentioned. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This may sound like an absurd example, but there are cases where authors hide information from the audience that all or most of the characters are aware of. See //Glass Onion// by Rian Johnson.\\ | ||
| + | It could also be a thing in the primary world. Think about how often you explain what hallways are present in your home to guests. Probably never, right? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Basically, only the audience doesn' | ||
| + | |||
| + | If this hallway were to be used as part of the resolution at the end, it would be just as (if not more) infuriating as a hidden passage, right? The reason being that the audience wasn't told that it exists. The story ‘cheated’ by not explaining things. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The issue with the hidden passage isn't that it's hidden, but whether it's hidden from the audience or not. The audience //must// know information relevant to solving the case.\\ | ||
| + | It has to be properly established and hinted at, not just revealed at the end. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that //Clue// (the film) might employ hidden passages properly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 4 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | I think the key point is the “explanation at the end”. As long as something is adequately established, | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 5 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | A Chinaman must figure in the story. | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 6 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | This gets into the problem of coincidence in stories.\\ | ||
| + | I think this one is also unambiguously good without further context. In a mystery, the audience must be given the reasoning behind the mystery – and the reasoning must be reachable with the evidence presented. | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 7 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | This is sensible in general, but I think it's fine as long as the detective isn't acting incoherent. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What this means is that he can’t be uncovered as the culprit while he was actively working to uncover them. This implies that the detective // | ||
| + | Though that would be an interesting premise for a mystery. | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 8 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | This one is also unambiguously good, since the audience needs to know the same clues as the detective. This rule is violated by, for example, [[lb:death in paradise]]. | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 9 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | This is one of the more context-sensitive commandments...I think?\\ | ||
| + | This one only applies if the ‘Watson’ is the POV character or narrator. Not if the POV character is a detective. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It should be noted that [[lb: | ||
| + | ==== Commandment 10 ==== | ||
| + | <WRAP center-text> | ||
| + | This one is unambiguously good and says exactly what is required in order for it to be fine: establishment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Violated by //Glass Onion: A Knives Out Story//. | ||