Finally, it’s time to make a conclusion. In the six articles before, I tried to classify the “locked-room mystery” based on my personal knowledge. They are:
- Tricks to lock the room (simple or obscure)
- Tricks to commit the murder (must be at the scene?)
- Tricks to dispose of the weapon (never leave anything)
- Timing tricks (inferring is always inferring)
- Locking tricks (brave, cautious)
- Location tricks (wonderful illusion!)
- Locked-rooms with other motives (maybe I can escape)
- someone besides the murderer (why you did that?)
- Locked-rooms that are “open” (new form, old tricks)
- Locked-rooms that are not meant to be (do not think too much)
Of course, due to my lack of knowledge, such classification is surely incomplete. First, in order to create a clear and organized classification, I delibarately overlooked some possible cases. Second, some of the classifications might be inflexible, which seem to be improper. Third, to control the length, and for my personal shortcomings, discussions aren’t to the depth.
But, as I’ve mentioned, it is a destiny that a classification be incomplete. More importantly, real cases are not so simple as we discussed on paper. In fact, only when a story successfully combined several tricks could it be considered as a masterpiece. So, as a reader, one can’t rely too much on such classifications.
However, it does not mean that this series of articles is invaluable (otherwise why I wrote it). I always hold the view, that the journey, the process of seeking truth, is much more important than the truth itself. Once you know how to solve it, you have already solved it. So, in my articles, I tried to focus more on the process of deduction, not just the answer. I hope, that my words, could be benificial to those who have read them.
Now I must make a ending, but it’s not the destination. As I continue my study, I will work hard to make my article better. Of course, I don’t intend to edit settled articles again, so I’ll talk about those new things with new topics.
To be continued.