View attachment 29722
I kind of like the old school when the how of a murder is the most important bit. The classic whodunit (you got the how and you got the who) Later when you focused on the why (instead of adding it to make the picture complete) they tend to broaden the perspective of the crime with both positive and negative aspects. The books get longer and more presumptious. And also the characters must be "real" meaning they cant be a poirot or a holmes anymore, They have to have all these private problems, like addiction to alcohol, a messy marriage or divorce, moneyproblems and so on. Some can pull it off, a lot cant. Most often, as a reader. i just say, get on with the story and dont bother me with his private life that has nothing to do with the crime. Mostly i blame Dorothy Sayers for this because she let her Lord Peter fall in love and get married. She could write and could pull it off but very few are as good as she was. But people started thinking if she can do it why not i? One who fell in that trap was Elisabeth George whose badly disguised variation of lord Peter also marries. After that her books has been under par. I want a book to entertain me if its a crime or detective story. A good plot is the backbone of that. Somehow when authors add on muscles, and clothes and everything else to make it look human sometimes the backbone is lost in the mix. And a story without that backbone,no matter how good the characters are and how good the setting descriptions are, are not a good crime or detective story. Poirot or Holmes never really were realistic characters but they served their purposes in the books admirably. The recent characters are much more realistic but also lacks the charming quirks the old school possessed.
Sorry for the lecture. just some thoughts that popped up when i read these old whodunit and compared it with many of todays exploits in the genre.