Many people's interpretation of "reasoning" is extremely pathological, and it's just as horribly horrible, as if there are three or five people in a detective novel that does not die, and the murderer does not appear at the last minute, it cannot be called "reasoning".
Reasoning is not so mysterious, it is very common, basically every ordinary person knows it, it's just a matter of level.
This is like basically everyone knows mathematics, but not everyone can become a "mathematician". Nevertheless, the fact that most people "know math" will not change.
So what is reasoning, we can give a very everyday example.
For example, you see a scratch on a table, and then based on the shape of the scratch, you infer that it may be caused by iron products, because wood and plastic objects cannot form such scratches, and such iron products are likely to be knives. If you have more experience, you can also recognize which type of knife it is, and even narrow it down, and draw a conclusion that it may be a brand and who owns this type of knife nearby.
This is a simple reasoning. It doesn't have so many double evils in Tokyo. Ordinary people can know a little bit, but a good detective can think about it on a deeper level.
Reasoning is only a means of application in the process of investigating the case, not all, not the only one. Even the "superior detective" Sherlock Holmes can't do it alone every time. In the 60 cases in the original book, Holmes could not completely solve it. There are more than ten (that is, he will make a major mistake in every six cases). In reality, Li Changyu can't be up to 10,000 people alone. Among the thousands of cases he has handled, hundreds of cases have not been resolved yet.
Many people say that the reasoning of "Sherlock Holmes" is very weak, but strictly speaking, except for a few works such as "Sherlock Holmes" and the Allan Poe short film, most detective dramas cannot be said to be reasoning. Those are just YY.
Many popular detective novels nowadays, do they have reasoning? No. In the process of writing, the author deliberately omitted the key plot-especially the unfavorable description of the prisoner, so as to make the reader "surprised" when the prisoner appeared on the scene.
No matter how wonderful these techniques are, they can only be called "suspense", not "reasoning".
Although these stories appear in the form of detectives, they are essentially just "Guess who I am", "Which cup is the ball in", "I guess I guess I guess", "The harem man will finally meet Which heroine to take away?" Only, even if it does not appear as a homicide, the writing method of these stories can be established.
This is not the case with "Holmes", and "Fu" does not emphasize that the case must be a homicide, the crime scene must be on an isolated island, and the prisoner must be "guess who I am."
Although Conan Doyle misunderstood the details of snakes drinking milk in the famous "Holmes" series, Doyle made a mistake about snakes. Understand), but it is still a masterpiece of reasoning. This work was once listed as a reference in police schools in the United States.
Let's review the process of solving the case of "The Spotted Belt Case" Holmes. After he identified the suspect, he carefully observed the situation in the suspect's house, and then carefully explained the client's general approach to the next. One place was ambushed and watched until the evening (this is a very long, painful, but necessary process), finally confirming the criminal's criminal tactics and motives.
In this very professional process of solving the case, Holmes did not stay in the room and talk about it on paper, and then solved all the problems. Instead, he combined a variety of methods to solve the case. Reasoning was just one method used in this process.
Conan Doyle himself has a certain degree of detective knowledge, and is different from many mystery novelists in later generations, so in the process of writing he highlights the details of criminal investigation, rather than simply "the criminal is among us" and "the criminal's murder method." How interesting".
Of course, "Sherlock Holmes" is essentially a novel and cannot be regarded as a criminal investigation textbook. Because Conan Doyle himself is very superstitious, the later works of the original novel tend to be excessively idealistic, and even the teaching incident is slightly sci-fi.
Nevertheless, the reasoning of "Sherlock Holmes" is still far above many popular detective novels today.
Some people use Lizhi's point of view in "Bingguo" to prove that the reasoning of "Sherlock Holmes" is inferior to later works.
"Bing Guo" can only be regarded as an author's personal opinion. It is not without fallacies. For example, Satoshi said that narrative tricks did not exist in the era of "Holmes", but were promoted in the era of Christie.
Isn’t that true? totally not. Narrative tricks are one of the five basic stories in the creation of detective novels. Modern detective novels were created by Poe. His five detective short stories are basically the five foundations of later detective novels. His "The Murderer is You" is a typical narrative trick. The "I" in the story is The culprit of the mischief at the ball, and the author deliberately concealed this in the writing process. "I" did not have a good impression of the prisoner, but in the narrative process, he emphasized the prisoner's merits and deceived the reader's sight.
The narrative and trick novels of later generations basically did not break out of the mode of "The Murderer Is You", and "I" is usually positioned as the last criminal (such as "Roger's Mystery"), but whether "I" is the mastermind or not, this The principle of point creation is still the same.
Finally, criticize some people's notion that Watson is "mentally handicapped".
The reason for this strange conclusion is that "readers thought about it, but Watson didn't think about it."
But the question is, why "readers thought about it"? To a large extent, this is because these stories have been imitated, plagiarized, and scrambled, and no longer have any freshness, so that the end of the story is known by half of the story.
But in the era of "Sherlock Holmes," these stories were not "old-fashioned".
Watching adventure movies now, if the protagonist’s father disappears, he will probably be the final BOSS, because many works are compiled in this way, which makes people feel both visually, but the sentence "I am your father" in "Star Wars" back then ", but shocked everyone present, because this was not so popular at the time.
What kind of logic is it to use the things that later generations have scrambled as a standard to measure the predecessors, and then say that the predecessors are "old-fashioned"?
"Baskerville Hound" is not so novel today. It is clear who the murderer is, and what the hound is can be guessed at a glance, but then the master of the secret room Carl Dixon commented: "If it is not a masterpiece, Then I can’t think of any works worthy of such an evaluation.”
PS: Holmes and the author Conan Doyle are very different in character and values. First of all, Conan Doyle hates Sherlock Holmes very much. This is a blessing. Fans basically know that he does not regard "Detective Sherlock Holmes" as his masterpiece. Secondly, Doyle is very superstitious, but Lao Fu has repeatedly broken the superstition in the story. The wisdom of Holmes is not the same as that of Conan Doyle. Perhaps the author is not interested in the characters in his own writing, but instead makes him more free to create these characters.
View more about Elementary reviews
