Our latest theme/prompt is a little bit controversial in the crime writing world, because it breaks rule number eleven of S.S Van Dine’s twenty rules for writing detective stories:
A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person – one that wouldn’t ordinarily come under suspicion.
According to this rule the butler is far too obvious a choice to have as a culprit; but might it be such an obvious choice that it forces the writer to approach the storytelling in a different manner than they might a usual crime story? Or does the cliche in itself mean that nobody will expect the obvious simply because it is just that?
The rule also says The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person which fits with the social elitism of the upper and middle class readers of the time – a servant could not possibly match the intellect of the detective or their bosses! I am hopeful that bar a few “in real life” Emily Gilmore types this view has long since vanished! So why continue to uphold it by not giving the opportunity to the Butler to prove his smarts?
The latest fiction I came across where the Butler did it was an episode of Shakespeare and Hathaway watched during winter hibernation – when it became apparent that the Butler did actually do it I was very gleeful to answer my husbands usual question of “Did the butler do it?” with a positive! So maybe at the end of the day I just like a cliche and want to force other people to like them too!
So what do you think could the butler do it? If you think he can why not prove it by joining our February challenge.