The Heroes in Crisis Murder Mystery *SPOILERS AHOY*

[theoneandonly]

the suspense would be in the identity of the killer and whether he could be stopped before he strikes again which is exactly fitting the definition of the genre however king does a poor job of denoting it so it may not work for some readers to call it so and perhaps if the reader hasn't been spoiled by the internet the suspense factor would have been more prominent till the perpetrator old son of a gun wally is revealed though of course it doesn't make sense that the particular perpetrator would have been likely to commit such a crime accidentally and tried to cover up what he did in order to undo the event which option he has always staunchly opposed. ultimately perhaps it's a poor example of a suspense thriller but the elements are present even if you choose to turn a blind eye towards it or you do not feel that the narrative worked particularly in depicting so.

[Dred]

I've actually been pondering this idea for awhile and since I'm in a more manageable mood I'd like to present it to you all. How would you judge a mystery? Obviously this "murder" mystery is a subset of that, and there's actually some very famous literary rules about how one should go about conveying a mystery to the reader in a competent manner: Conan Doyle's rules for a mystery. Some of this language is kind of particularly coded in the era and to his particular style (relying on, say, "detectives" but that's a catchall term for people investigating the mystery). But there's hardly a better foundational analysis of a mystery than these rules. Also, the value of these rules are mostly about establishing things early and throughout for the sake of the reader's investment in the mystery, so it's largely unaffacted by #9 waiting to come out. So let's dive in:

1: The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow.

This one is a bit odd. Wally is technically mentioned early on, but as a victim. Also, due to his perspective as a victim, we do get to see his thoughts. But they are not from his perspective as the killer at that time, so it doesn't undermine that premise for Doyle in the spirit of it. I think it fails at the first part of the story (despite us knowing Wally is the killer for metatextual reasons, he is not presented as a viable suspect at the beginning within the pure confines of the story because he is a "victim"), but succeeds at the latter, despite being slightly contradictory in both aspects. So just kind of ehhhh. Half marks.

2. All supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course.

This is obviously where it fails the the most. Now, the thing about this is, what is supernatural or preternatural in comics is laughable. There are people with mystic and absurd superpowers. But the spirit of this assessment is that there are no absurd ideas that undermine the story that aren't ruled out at the beginning. There is no information the reader couldn't know because of its supernatural nature. This fails because, as said, King created a new supernatural phenomenon (Speed Force breakdown explosion) to create the stipulation for the murders. This is a no no in mystery writing because creating something the reader can't possibly be familiar with means it is not a mystery to be solved, but one to be conveyed. A blanket, handwaived reason for how things were down and how the people died fails the spirit of this concept to its fullest. It's all about available information to the reader -- nothing about the Speed Force explosion or superhacking are things anyone could have known before being shown. And I think I can safely claim this since I may know more about the culprit than perhaps any person reading these comics. Full marks against.

3. Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable.

Again, a bit weird in the scope of a superhero comic with holodeck AIs, but the premise of this is as the reader is reading along you can't abuse the premise of secret passages and throughlines because then the story becomes about following those secret passages rather than the mystery. I think it technically succeeds here: There was one secret, magic room and that was the sanctuary AI holodeck. Nothing is used outside of that, we were aware of it and how it functions from issue 2 onwards. Successful attribution, no marks against.

4. No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end.

This one is also mostly correctly followed. Now poisons is a bit of a stringent term, but it essentially means no objects or items that have not been explained or understood can be part of the story. King accomplishes this: The AI is established, Booster's malfunctioning equipment is an allusion and his gear is well known to the reader (time travel, skeets, blasters, shields). Harley's gear is trivial. Wally had no gear. The confessionals are known from the beginning. All tools and objects are known and established, except Booster's ability to scan corpses for how old they are relative to birth. That's a heretofore unexplained piece of gear in Booster's history and kind of integral to the plot and the reveal of who the culprit is. Almost perfectly executed on a lot for this front, especially the allusion with Booster's gear malfunctioning (because Wally tampered with it), but still a bit of failure in a rather important scene. Half marks, I suppose.

5. No Chinaman must figure in the story.

Ugh, so, yes, this is obviously dumb and racist. Let me explain the meaning of this. The "Chinamen" in 1800s euphemism is the catchall badguy who society knows is "inherently bad" (sorry, I know, SUPER racist) who does the deed. This is not an appeal to not allow chinese people into the story, it's an appeal to not using shady figures who are obviously at fault because of how people inherently view them negatively. Again, Doyle was racist as racists were in that sense but he saw the use of "Chinamen" as undermining to the premise. In this story you could maaaaaybe classify Harley in this case -- someone who is obviously bad, shady, and capable of doing the crime from the beginning and thus losing the suspense, but she's had a longtime push as an antihero. Poison Ivy is the only other known "baddie" in the story but she is not established as a potential culprit early on, just a victim. This one is iffy because of Harley's nebulous status as a bad guy. This is the rating I'm most willing to budge on because it's a bit tenuous, so I ere on the side of half marks.

6. No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right.

This never happens. There is never a point where some obvious guffaw or mistake hands the culprit (Wally) to the detectives (in this case everyone but Wally). Wally hands the proof over himself, Booster uses the aforementioned tech to figure it out. The detectives are largely stumped at the culprit's behest for most of this. No one ever goes, without explanation or reason, "I think it might be Wally West!" then uses that unexplained thought process to go find some clues to figure it out. No issue here, no marks against.

7. The detective must not himself commit the crime.

Yep. Harley, Booster, Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, Batgirl, Ted all could qualify as "the detective" at one point in time in this series and none of them are the culprit. No marks against.

8. The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.

So this is essentially saying, "Don't have the detective figure it out then spend a bunch of time hiding that secret from the reader -- once the detective figures it out the reader should summarily be informed." This is never the case, so there is no issue here. Booster immediately tells the reader what he's found out, Batman and Barry immediately say who they believe did it, etc etc. No marks against.

9. The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.

So this one is more a storytelling mechanic of Doyle, using a layman (Watson) to convey the ideas in simple terms. The foursome is the detective and the layman in one, none of the sussing out by anyone who isn't the culprit is above the head of the reader. No conflict here, no marks against.

10. Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them.

Lol, massive failure. You couldn't fail this one harder. Time travel suicide doppelganger dropped in the last 10% of the story is about as breaking this as you could possibly believe. Full marks against.

These are the fundamental tenets of a mystery from the most renowned mystery writer in history. Judging from these and weighing them equally (I would not personally but I find this a valuable thought experiment) I would assign 1 for no issues or success, .5 for "eeehhhh" or otherwise nebulous execution of the tenet, and 0 for obvious failure. edit: I've gone back in and edited the marks for and against so people could judge how I rated the success in applying these tenets.

6.5 out of 10. Not as bad as I would rate it personally, but I didn't really come up with this to justify my biases. If anyone disagrees with how I rated this feel free to, you know, discuss with me.

[theoneandonly]

I have no time to read all that. As I said it may be termed as a suspense thriller in some respects. whether you agree or not with it is besides the point. maybe it would help to see what the writer comes up with next instead of getting into a snit now and fucking around blindly due to the narrative not working for you and then see what genre/sub genre would ultimately the narrative fall under.

[jetengine]

The problem I think is as you suggest its a very mediocre mystery at best, but its dragged out for so long and is incredibly implausible (Harley Quinn we all know realistically is a unpowered human and Booster is an idiot, theres no way they could kill half the heroes at Sanctuary) with a heavy focus on mangled attempts at talking about mental health that its just awful.

The actual detective work done was mostly irrelevant save for one detail by Booster.

I have no time to read all that. As I said it may be termed as a suspense thriller in some respects. whether you agree or not with it is besides the point. maybe it would help to see what the writer comes up with next instead of getting into a snit now and fucking around blindly due to the narrative not working for you and then see what genre/sub genre would ultimately the narrative fall under.

So you've got time to wait for am issue to release but not to read a post ? Lol

[jetengine]

*Big post about mystery rules*.

Would a modern example of the "Chinaman" rule be if the villain was Middle Eastern ?

[Dred]

Would a modern example of the "Chinaman" rule be if the villain was Middle Eastern ?

Yes. Generally the concept is do not use a character that readers would be expected to be prejudiced against at the outset to lead people by their prejudice. Either as the actual culprit or as a distraction. Doyle saw it as a lazy technique that had no value or service to the story itself. It was specifically Chinamen in Doyle's day, but the premise is basically "Don't include a culprit who's obviously the bad guy and people will immediately know is a bad guy." Imagine if The Joker was a culprit. It immediately leads people into a preconception they have.

The problem I think is as you suggest its a very mediocre mystery at best, but its dragged out for so long and is incredibly implausible (Harley Quinn we all know realistically is a unpowered human and Booster is an idiot, theres no way they could kill half the heroes at Sanctuary) with a heavy focus on mangled attempts at talking about mental health that its just awful.

The actual detective work done was mostly irrelevant save for one detail by Booster.



So you've got time to wait for am issue to release but not to read a post ? Lol

So, detective work is not technically necessary for the reader. The Detective in the abstract is the viewer's point of view character. For us it jumps around early on between a few, but those people all meet up eventually to have a more unified "Detective" point of view.

The detective work is less important because the culprit confesses. That caveat is not part of Doyle's tenets for a mystery, but I think the tenets listed largely are relevant to the story at hand. They're fundamental aspects of what defines a mystery and this was a mystery story no matter how you slice it.

[Franny6422]

I am done 'whining'. The thread is yours. Enjoy yourselves. It's a place to discuss stuff with fellow fans. If this one isn't fun anymore, I or anyone else can just start another one. No worries.

Agreed jetengine. Sorry Bored l did have the most utmost respect for you, but you have turned this into a debacle. I jumped on the bandwagon as you were extremely rude to 'married guy.' People are discussing on this thread, and they are fellow fans. Maybe ones who have slightly different views, that's all. That last post brings the words 'rattle' & 'pram' to mind. What happens if someone posts something you don't like on any new thread? I am pleased to read that I'm not the only one concerned about your attitude. Would like to think we can all agree to disagree, and enjoy the debate. I apologise again to you 'Bored' but that was a harsh and unnecessary response to 'married guy's post in my opinion. And 'no' I don't know him. As for 'Heroes in Crisis' it has Is followers and detractors. That's good. Married guy's original post was discussing the 'murder mystery' aspect in the fact that he thought it wasn't handled well, some reason' you took exception to this and practically dismissed him. His views are just as valid as your own. May I ask, are you a moderator? If so, I'm not sure you represented yourself accordingly in your last few posts. I started a thread 'Pick & choose' when I last looked' two folk seen to be having a 'go' at one & other? Their prerogative, rather they didn't. They were way off topic, but I just read around them and enjoy. I stepped out of line recently and was reprimanded. Rightfully so. I apologised and am more mindful of other folk now. I do think you should stop being so narky (for want of a better word) and 'married guy deserves an apology. However that's up to yourself. I wish you the best and remember the words of Nolan' s Joker "Why' so serious?"

[Franny6422]

I would have avoided this series entirely had I known it would tie in with Johns’ garbage. Gross.

Are you not enjoying 'Doomsday Clock?' What are your views on 'Heroes in Crisis?' Do you feel it has lived up to the murder/mystery element?

[Stingo]

I'm curious to see how King wraps it all up and I'll wait until then before I post my full review on the series. I will say there have been more "highs" on this series for me than "lows."

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Agreed jetengine. Sorry Bored l did have the most utmost respect for you, but you have turned this into a debacle. I jumped on the bandwagon as you were extremely rude to 'married guy.' People are discussing on this thread, and they are fellow fans. Maybe ones who have slightly different views, that's all. That last post brings the words 'rattle' & 'pram' to mind. What happens if someone posts something you don't like on any new thread? I am pleased to read that I'm not the only one concerned about your attitude. Would like to think we can all agree to disagree, and enjoy the debate. I apologise again to you 'Bored' but that was a harsh and unnecessary response to 'married guy's post in my opinion. And 'no' I don't know him. As for 'Heroes in Crisis' it has Is followers and detractors. That's good. Married guy's original post was discussing the 'murder mystery' aspect in the fact that he thought it wasn't handled well, some reason' you took exception to this and practically dismissed him. His views are just as valid as your own. May I ask, are you a moderator? If so, I'm not sure you represented yourself accordingly in your last few posts. I started a thread 'Pick & choose' when I last looked' two folk seen to be having a 'go' at one & other? Their prerogative, rather they didn't. They were way off topic, but I just read around them and enjoy. I stepped out of line recently and was reprimanded. Rightfully so. I apologised and am more mindful of other folk now. I do think you should stop being so narky (for want of a better word) and 'married guy deserves an apology. However that's up to yourself. I wish you the best and remember the words of Nolan' s Joker "Why' so serious?"

Totally understand why you would feel that way, but it was much ado about nothing. I wasn't replying to married guy and already apologised to anyone who felt they were being treated harshly.

For the record, this was my response to married guy's perfectly reasonable post:

"When the story is done, we can judge how good or bad of a murder mystery it was until we see how King sticks the landing."

And this was in my later reply that was not in response to married guy's post:

This isn't directed at anyone specifically. Just a general request for the hard-core HiC haters out there who keep chiming in with the exact same comments over and over again. We've heard you. You don't like Heroes in Crisis for the same reasons. Got it. Thanks.

My subsequent replies to married guy after people incorrectly assumed that post was specifically directed at married guy appear to have been deleted, but I did indeed apologize for any confusion that was caused, which was entirely my fault because I shouldn't have assumed that people would read the first post laying out the intent of the thread.

You're right that I used to be a mod, so I spent many, many years trying to keep flame wars from erupting on the old Green Lantern Forum, the Superman Forum, and the DCU Forum. Life got in the way and stepped down from CBR's mod community almost a decade ago. If it seems like I act like one at times, that would be the reason. Old habits die hard.

For the record, this thread is for anyone to do with as you will and I apologize again for any problems or offence my weird "This is a thread for people enjoying Heroes in Crisis to talk about the Murder Mystery elements" guidelines caused. When I have something more to say about Heroes in Crisis, I will start up a new thread that's less confused in its intent.

[kjn]

I myself has appreciated this thread and your efforts to keep it civil and constructive, Bored. It has served not only as a place to discuss the mystery, but also as a spot of high signal-to-noise for civil discussion on the series. Both the good parts and the bad parts of the story, because it was always kept grounded and constructive. It's only in the last week or so it broke down.

[BatmanJones]

I myself has appreciated this thread and your efforts to keep it civil and constructive, Bored. It has served not only as a place to discuss the mystery, but also as a spot of high signal-to-noise for civil discussion on the series. Both the good parts and the bad parts of the story, because it was always kept grounded and constructive. It's only in the last week or so it broke down.

Hear, hear.

[Franny6422]

Bored, could you possibly start HiC review/overview thread, for its detractors and followers. Let the debate begin. Take Care.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Bored, could you possibly start HiC review/overview thread, for its detractors and followers. Let the debate begin. Take Care.

I could, but there's already a perfectly good all purpose Heroes in Crisis thread right here for anyone who wants to debate its merits with people who love HiC with every once of their being, people who hate HiC with the passion of a thousand suns, and everyone in between! It's a whopping 201 pages long already and shows no sign of stopping.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=Heroes+Crisis

[numberthirty]

I don't get it.

What would be the point of starting a review/overview thread when what is essentially a "General Discussion" thread for the title already exists?

The entire point of this thread was to have a sidebar to the whole "Let The Debate Begin..." bit. That thread already existed. It has since June of last year.