Knox's 3rd (Chiru)

[the2ndSign]

Alright, I've just finished Episode 5 and this has been bothering me.

It's stated over and over again in red that "hidden doors must not exist", citing the 3rd commandment of Knox's Decalogue. However, according to the real Knox Decalogue, "Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable".

https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/tips-masters/ronald-knox-10-commandments-of-detective-fiction

Anyone else notice that? Did Ryukishi intentionally change it to fit his story? Should I just shut up and keep going?

Please don't spoil later episodes.

[Karifean]

Ryukishi streamlined the rules for modern times. He also left out things like the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ rule which was a cliché back in the day but isn't really relevant now. So yeah, the Knox Decalogue in Umineko is slightly changed from the original. But the purpose remains unchanged.

[Sergent H]

Originally posted by Karifean:

Ryukishi streamlined the rules for modern times. He also left out things like the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ rule which was a cliché back in the day but isn't really relevant now. So yeah, the Knox Decalogue in Umineko is slightly changed from the original. But the purpose remains unchanged.

As said. Actually all rules are quite different than Knox's original rules.
Because an explanation with a hidden door would be quite awful for these scenario

[the2ndSign]

Aside from the omission rule #5 regarding the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, all of the others except #3 basically have the same meaning. The wording has been changed, but that's about it. That's why it stuck out to me in the first place. If all of them had been slightly off, I'd have assumed right away that it was a slightly different decalogue created for the Umineko/WTC universe. The fact that only one was completely different was what bugged me.

[Sergent H]

I think the #5 : "No chinese are alloxwed in story" refers to the fact that people can not confuse someone to another ; based on the "chinese are alike" stereotype. Which is always said in Red that someone can't use the name of another etc....

[Sergent H]

Btw the real #3 is something like that : "The use of more than one secret passage will not be tolerated . Even in the case of a single secret passage would require the action happens in a house where the presence of this type of device was predictable."

And as we know, no hidden path was "predictable"

[the2ndSign]

"I wouldn't put it past Grandfather/Kinzo." It worked for the whole jumping out the window thing in the study. I think it was said at more than one point in the story that there were even rumors about Kinzo having secret passages here and there, as it would be very like him. He had an entire mansion built in secret, after all. I'm not sure it's quite right to say hidden doors wouldn't be predictable.

[Sergent H]

I think "predictable" means the detective will always find it if there is one during an investigation.
Because like say another rule : " It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented."

[fouritchytasty]

If im not mistaken there is 1 hidden passage in the game related to the epitaph. This would effectively render the number of secret passages to be 0. (but I do believe ry07 just futzed the rules just like the red to make the mystery "solvable")

[Yurie]

Originally posted by fouritchytasty:

If im not mistaken there is 1 hidden passage in the game related to the epitaph. This would effectively render the number of secret passages to be 0. (but I do believe ry07 just futzed the rules just like the red to make the mystery "solvable")

There's two hidden passages related to the epitaph. One is the "riddle" that needs to be solved, while the other is a route to the same location locked via a key held by the family head. That second path however isn't revealed until Episode 7. It's just a passage that allows access without having to go through solving the riddle everytime the key holder wanted to go down there.

[Veltharis]

Originally posted by Sergent H:

I think the #5 : "No chinese are alloxwed in story" refers to the fact that people can not confuse someone to another ; based on the "chinese are alike" stereotype. Which is always said in Red that someone can't use the name of another etc....

Obviously way late to the discussion, but my understanding of the unfortunately worded "No ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" rule is a bit different...

Not to get political, but the time period when Knox crafted his Decalogue was in the late 1920s (if I recall). During that period there were large numbers of Chinese and presumably other Asian migrants coming to Western nations and, much like the more modern social climate surrounding Central and South American migrants to the U.S., there was a fair bit of cultural backlash against them. They became a type of stereotypical go-to villain group for media at the time, much as you don't have to look hard to find TV dramas in recent years that feature a Hispanic gangster or drug dealer, regardless of how undeserved such treatment was then or is now.

Now then, classic mysteries are meant to be a type of game, which is to say there is meant to be a challenge for the reader to identify the culprit. As a result, Knox's 5th actually takes on a somewhat different meaning. Namely, it recommends the author not include characters that the reader could guess at being the villain based purely on the social stereotypes of the time, if for no other reason than it takes away from the challenge. The point is to have to reason it out - if you can simply go, "Oh, this one's the only [Chinese/Hispanic/Muslim/Black/Etc.] character, so obviously they're the culprit," then if you are right, you solved it way too easily, and if you're wrong, there's a good chance you'll feel cheated because the author pulled a "bait and switch" on you. Better then to just avoid having characters like that in your story in the first place.

Now obviously there are problems with this line of logic, particularly from a more modern and less Anglo-centric perspective, but it is ultimately a creation of its time, as was the man who wrote it.

The key is that it encourages the author to make uncovering the villain a challenge, rather than playing to the reader's (assumed) preconceived notions as a cheap and easy hook.

[Sergent H]

Originally posted by Veltharis:

Now then, classic mysteries are meant to be a type of game, which is to say there is meant to be a challenge for the reader to identify the culprit. As a result, Knox's 5th actually takes on a somewhat different meaning. Namely, it recommends the author not include characters that the reader could guess at being the villain based purely on the social stereotypes of the time, if for no other reason than it takes away from the challenge. The point is to have to reason it out - if you can simply go, "Oh, this one's the only [Chinese/Hispanic/Muslim/Black/Etc.] character, so obviously they're the culprit," then if you are right, you solved it way too easily, and if you're wrong, there's a good chance you'll feel cheated because the author pulled a "bait and switch" on

Brilliant. I didn't know about this history fact.
Your explanation fit perfectly for the mystery novel indeed

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Originally posted by Klepty Snatchngrab:

Aside from the omission rule #5 regarding the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, all of the others except #3 basically have the same meaning. The wording has been changed, but that's about it. That's why it stuck out to me in the first place. If all of them had been slightly off, I'd have assumed right away that it was a slightly different decalogue created for the Umineko/WTC universe. The fact that only one was completely different was what bugged me.

Actually, #9 was changed. In the original, it was "The Watson must not conceal anything from the detective, and must be slightly below the intelligence of the average reader". I don't quite remember what it was changed to, but I know it wasn't that. Also, #10 was slightly changed, from being merely unknown twins and doubles, to including disguises as well.