[HN Gopher] The Ten Commandments for Detective Fiction (2017)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Ten Commandments for Detective Fiction (2017)
        
       Author : Tomte
       Score  : 83 points
       Date   : 2022-07-06 11:47 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (elizabethspanncraig.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (elizabethspanncraig.com)
        
       | watwut wrote:
       | > 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
       | 
       | At some point, I realized that Watson is much less dumb, then
       | submissive and constantly verbally bullied. Or rather, that we
       | perceive him through the way Sherlock (or his equivalent)
       | constantly puts him down, even when his reactions are not dumb at
       | all. And since Watson equivalent never stand up for himself, he
       | is dumb for reader who don't think about him.
       | 
       | And once you notice it, it is quite frequent in literature. When
       | character gets insulted by other characters without standing up
       | for himself, people will take from it that character is stupid -
       | even in cases where that character was completely normal or even
       | for right all along.
       | 
       | It actually works the same way in real life too.
       | 
       | > science
       | 
       | Interestingly, when you look at detective stories with scientific
       | accuracy, the evidence detectives use is super shoddy. Most of it
       | is at bike-marks accuracy at best - guaranteed to imprison
       | innocents often.
       | 
       | All this is because I read too many of detective stories.
        
       | _def wrote:
       | Everytime I read articles like this I feel the urge to make
       | writing a hobby, but I just can't get to it. Feels like I'm
       | missing out but I'm not sure.
        
       | ksdale wrote:
       | I'm always complaining to my wife about movies with a
       | detective/mystery component where the key to the whole thing is
       | revealed _after_ the mystery is solved and is is something that
       | we, as viewers, could not possibly have known. It feels the same
       | as using magic. It 's always seemed to me that it should be
       | _possible_ for the viewer to solve the mystery at the same time
       | as the protagonist, given only what the viewer knows so far. It
       | 's validating to see that this is considered a vital component of
       | a detective story, at least by some.
        
       | tpoacher wrote:
       | > The detective must not himself commit the crime
       | 
       | Violation of this rule ruined an otherwise amazing PC game for
       | me, which shall remain nameless to avoid spoilers.
       | 
       | It was borderline silly to have the detective you played for 90%
       | of the game narrating his thoughts on what clues meant, and on
       | who the culprit might be, only to then turn out to be the
       | murderer ...
        
         | ThePadawan wrote:
         | (Trying to stay spoiler-free)
         | 
         | I'm trying to discover which one you mean - I remember one
         | which matches somewhat, but in which you control so many
         | characters that you definitely don't spend 90% of the time
         | controlling the one that ends up being the culprit.
         | 
         | (But that game also just threw a handful of red herrings at the
         | wall that ended up being completely meaningless, so it was a
         | bit of a lame duck, rushed into release like all the releases
         | by this "auteur" have been before and since)
         | 
         | Apart from that, on the not strictly speaking detective side of
         | things, there is also Planescape: Torment which pulled this
         | whole idea off spectacularly (to the point that it has become
         | tropey in the other direction again).
        
       | ModernMech wrote:
       | An additional commandment I can think of is that the crime has to
       | be something significant, like a murder. I wouldn't want to read
       | a story about a detective solving a petty crime or finding a lost
       | dog.
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | But if that lost dog was the only one that could tell you which
         | well Timmy fell down, then it might be more significant
        
         | nobody9999 wrote:
         | > An additional commandment I can think of is that the crime
         | has to be something significant, like a murder. I wouldn't want
         | to read a story about a detective solving a petty crime or
         | finding a lost dog.
         | 
         | Dirk Gently[0] would like a word...
         | 
         | [0]] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently_(pilot_episode)
        
           | ModernMech wrote:
           | I think you've kind of proven my point, as Dirk Gently is
           | more of a comedy than a mystery. The absurdity of a detective
           | finding a lost cat is what makes it funny. And then all the
           | rest about time travel... I mean, if you want to make a
           | comedy mystery you would want to violate as many of these
           | "commandments" as you could.
        
             | nobody9999 wrote:
             | >I think you've kind of proven my point, as Dirk Gently is
             | more of a comedy than a mystery. The absurdity of a
             | detective finding a lost cat is what makes it funny. And
             | then all the rest about time travel... I mean, if you want
             | to make a comedy mystery you would want to violate as many
             | of these "commandments" as you could.
             | 
             | A reasonable point. Although I'd say that humor (if done
             | well) is a boon, rather than a detriment to mysteries (most
             | fiction, actually).
             | 
             | And cats _always_ make things better[2]!
             | 
             | As someone who enjoys mystery novels, I've noted that minor
             | mysteries are often used as a device to bring the detective
             | into situations where larger issues may be afoot[0][1].
             | 
             | It seems to me that if a mystery is engaging, the
             | underlying "crime" isn't as relevant as the storytelling,
             | clue planting and the thought process of the detective.
             | 
             | At the same time, mysteries generally deal with serious
             | crimes (especially murder), as it amps up the (fictional)
             | stakes and provides a reason for the interest and
             | participation of the detective.
             | 
             | But that needn't be the case -- as long as the mystery is
             | interesting, the prose is of good quality and the
             | characters engaging. At least that's my take.
             | 
             | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League
             | 
             | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Clap
             | ham_C...
             | 
             | [2] cf. Lillian Jackson Braun's "The Cat Who..."
             | mysteries[3].
             | 
             | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Who_series
             | 
             | Edit: Fixed reference indices.
        
           | everybodyknows wrote:
           | > ... a plot involving time travel
           | 
           | A violation of Knox Rule number II.
        
             | marcosdumay wrote:
             | Oh, it's not a problem. It's clear from the beginning that
             | it involves time travel, and the story unrolls perfectly
             | linearly.
        
         | kej wrote:
         | The Encyclopedia Brown series rode the lost dog/petty crime
         | train to 20+ volumes.
        
           | ModernMech wrote:
           | That's why I had changed my original comment from "no one
           | would want to read" to "I wouldn't want to read" :P
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | slowmovintarget wrote:
         | From the way she was carrying on I was expecting this to be
         | about her son. Her husband seemed oddly unaffected though. As
         | she continued discussing his habits, I slowly pieced it
         | together. Morning walk, careful hair brushing, just the right
         | food, not too wet, not too dry... I had to interrupt her.
         | 
         | "You're talking about your dog? I don't do dogs." I said.
         | 
         | At this point, the husband slid an envelope across the desk
         | filled with cash. It was at least twice my daily rate.
         | 
         | "Look," he said, "I need this done, and I need it done
         | discreetly. Find the dog, or bring me its collar." The woman
         | began to object, but a glare from her husband stopped her.
         | 
         | This was more than a missing dog case. It had to be, no one put
         | up that much, in cash, up front just for a dog. You put up
         | posters in the neighborhood, you don't hire a PI. Alarm bells
         | were ringing in my head, but the rent was due, and Aberlour
         | isn't cheap.
         | 
         | I opened my desk drawer and casually slid the envelope into it.
         | "Do you have a picture of..."
         | 
         | "Beaumont. His name is Beaumont," the woman supplied.
         | 
         | ...
        
       | mypastself wrote:
       | Love all of these (including the seemingly offensive "Chinaman"
       | one), but I disagree with most of the updated list.
       | 
       | Contemporary mystery authors too often feel the need to create
       | the illusion of depth by having alcoholic protagonists with messy
       | personal lives. It's cliche, and it put me off the genre for good
       | about a decade ago.
        
         | nineplay wrote:
         | There was a fair amount of complaint about the tacked-on Poriot
         | backstory in the recent Death on the Nile movie. IMO, filling
         | in every blank makes characters less interesting, not more.
         | 
         | https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/i-cant-stop-thinking-abo...
        
         | AnimalMuppet wrote:
         | That's been going on for a very long time. "The Big Sleep" has
         | a protagonist with a messy personal life; "The Thin Man" has a
         | protagonist who drinks throughout the book, and complains at
         | the end that he didn't get to drink nearly as much as he
         | intended.
        
         | tgv wrote:
         | After reading some Nordic detective, I reached the conclusion
         | that a severe dependency must be a requirement for admission to
         | police academy. Divorce, accidental kills, being the only
         | survivor of a crash that killed your family, etc., are extra
         | points which set your career on a quick path to D.I. One cannot
         | imagine the horrors that constitute the life of a police
         | commissioner.
        
           | logifail wrote:
           | > I reached the conclusion that a severe dependency must be a
           | requirement for admission to police academy
           | 
           | I'm thinking it goes back at least as far as Inspector Morse,
           | although I'm not sure whether we'd say he had a dependency on
           | real ale or Mozart....?
           | 
           | Perhaps a certain lack of joy?
        
           | thematrixturtle wrote:
           | Obligatory: https://youtu.be/I-OOpZitfd0 (all of 36 seconds
           | long and every one of them worth it)
        
             | labrador wrote:
             | Swedish crime show, standing in a forest, snow on the
             | ground, dark but not night, possibly in the afternoon:
             | 
             | "He committed Finnish suicide"
             | 
             | "What's that?"
             | 
             | "He drank himself to death"
             | 
             | Later on...
             | 
             | Detective to the pathologist as they stand over the body of
             | completely naked woman in the morgue:
             | 
             | "What can you tell me about this woman?"
             | 
             | "Judging by her perfect white teeth I'd say she's American"
        
         | watwut wrote:
         | I think that rough alcoholic detectives are more from 1990ties.
         | then contemporary. But I may be reading different books then
         | you.
        
         | bigbillheck wrote:
         | > alcoholic protagonists
         | 
         | It's been a while since I last read 'Red Harvest' but I
         | remember an awful lot of laudanum.
        
           | cafard wrote:
           | I thought it was just the guy who had been gassed in the war,
           | and then the narrator. But I remember Paul Theroux, in one of
           | the railroad books, finding all the drinking in _The Thin
           | Man_ distracting.
        
         | xhevahir wrote:
         | The problem is that if you're going to have the reader follow a
         | particular detective around for several books, the reader will
         | eventually want to see more sides to the character than just
         | the professional one; treating the detective as merely a
         | detective, solving cases that otherwise don't engage his or her
         | wider life. begins to feel very mechanical and shallow, even--
         | if it's not too strong a word--exploitative. Hence the "messy
         | personal lives," stories where the criminal kidnaps the
         | detective's spouse, etc. Nothing says the detective has to be
         | an embittered alcoholic or some other cliche, but I think
         | there's good reasons behind the trend.
        
         | karencarits wrote:
         | > Contemporary mystery authors too often feel the need to
         | create the illusion of depth by having alcoholic protagonists
         | with messy personal lives
         | 
         | I agree with you. Messy personal lives and often sex scenes or
         | gore that add nothing to the story. I find it off-putting and
         | disturbing (not necessarily morally disturbing, more as noise
         | or feeling disconnected from the author: I don't get why are
         | you telling me this, am I missing the point, should I be
         | enjoying this?) and find myself retreating to old classics like
         | Poirot, Father Brown, Miss Marple and Sherlock Holmes again and
         | again
        
         | autoexec wrote:
         | > Contemporary mystery authors too often feel the need to
         | create the illusion of depth by having alcoholic protagonists
         | with messy personal lives.
         | 
         | It's a trope that makes some sense though. People who are doing
         | work that requires them to travel for long periods of time,
         | spend lots of time alone, or where they obsess over every
         | detail of something for days on end could easily strain
         | relationships and cause issues in their personal lives, while
         | constantly dealing with cases involving horrible things can
         | easily lead to drugs/alcohol use. It's still a cliche and it's
         | sure to get old, but I almost feel like you'd need a good
         | explanation for avoiding it. How does a character who has spent
         | years seeing the worst things have zero issue dealing with it?
         | How does a person whose income in inconsistent, whose lifestyle
         | has them disappearing for days at a time, and whose work
         | consumes them not have issues with their personal life?
         | 
         | Not that you can't have a detective who is independently
         | wealthy or works as part of a team, or who never travels, or
         | never deals with the kinds of cases that would cause them to
         | have trouble sleeping at night, but if you do have that kind of
         | character the rest of it just sort of follows.
        
         | hpkuarg wrote:
         | > the Celestial is over-equipped in the matter of brains, and
         | under-equipped in the matter of morals.
         | 
         | Indeed, what a line!
        
           | john-radio wrote:
           | Full context matters here:
           | 
           | > Why this should be so I do not know, unless we can find a
           | reason for it in our western habit of assuming that the
           | Celestial is over-equipped in the matter of brains, and
           | under-equipped in the matter of morals.
           | 
           | Knox is criticizing this assumption, not endorsing it.
           | 
           | > I only offer it as a fact of observation that, if you are
           | turning over the pages of a book and come across some mention
           | of 'the slit-like eyes of Chin Loo', you had best put it down
           | at once; it is bad.
           | 
           | I definitely agree with Knox's harsh judgment of the books
           | that used to include such lines! I am reminded of the many
           | ridiculous and racist caricatures of Chinese, African, Native
           | American, and many other cultures in the (otherwise fairly
           | wonderful) Tintin comics by Herge.
           | 
           | Of course, writing a rule against including any Chinese
           | people in detective fiction is going much too far, and is
           | also racist; but no doubt Knox's writing here is a product of
           | his time.
           | 
           | In fact, the first detective novel I ever read was "Walking
           | Shadow" by Robert B. Parker, where his tough PI Spenser and
           | his comrades Hawk and Susan Silverman go up against some
           | Boston area tongs, and the Chinese people in that book are
           | interesting, "round" characters; so I'm glad Parker had
           | either never heard of this particular rule and chose to
           | ignore it.
        
             | AnimalMuppet wrote:
             | How about "Don't make the murderer a stereotype". (I
             | suspect the Chinaman rule is in there because at the time,
             | a bunch of less-well-done detective stories used it as an
             | easy way to make a villainous villain. Well, until
             | recently, you could do the same with the stereotyped-
             | villain-du-jour. Depending on your audience, you still
             | could today.)
        
             | baud147258 wrote:
             | > the many ridiculous and racist caricatures of Chinese
             | [...] in the (otherwise fairly wonderful) Tintin comics by
             | Herge.
             | 
             | From what I remember of the Blue Lotus, it was the Japanese
             | antagonists who got the short end of the stick in that
             | regard, so at least the book in China avoided that issue
             | (unlike the books set in the US and Africa)
        
       | ilamont wrote:
       | Is there a similar formula for science fiction or fantasy? It
       | seems that the rules are looser, particularly for scifi, but
       | maybe multiple formulas exist within the genre.
        
         | purist33 wrote:
         | Thou shalt not cite Quantum theory for everything.
        
           | baud147258 wrote:
           | Nor nanomachines
           | 
           | (looking at you, Metal Gear Solid 4)
        
       | becquerel wrote:
       | Paul Auster's City of Glass is a good postmodernist read which
       | violates a lot of these rules and other conventions of the genre.
        
         | InitialLastName wrote:
         | The other two books in his New York Trilogy ( _Ghosts_ and _The
         | Locked Room_ ) do a similar job of deconstructing the genre in
         | different, similarly mindbending ways.
         | 
         | As an aside, I've never seen anyone do a better job of
         | describing the very specific feeling of long walks in
         | Manhattan. I recommend it to anyone who doesn't understand the
         | joy I find there.
        
       | Balarny wrote:
       | Umineko fans represent
        
         | teddyfrozevelt wrote:
         | Where are my Virtue's Last Reward fans at?
        
       | keiferski wrote:
       | Also worth reading in this genre is Raymond Chandler's _The
       | Simple Art of Murder_ :
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simple_Art_of_Murder
       | 
       | https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20140930/html.php#Page_1
        
       | mysterydip wrote:
       | Just finished season 1 of "Only Murders in the Building", and it
       | has some great examples of these principles IMHO.
        
       | cafard wrote:
       | Did the original essay specifically mention _Who Killed Roger
       | Ackroyd_? I read it a long time ago.
       | 
       | Also, there is, for those not big on detective fiction, Edmund
       | Wilson's essay "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?"
        
         | karaterobot wrote:
         | It doesn't mention that one, but it alludes to it.
         | 
         | See also _Who Killed Roger Ackroyd_ by Pierre Bayard, in which
         | the author argues for a different outcome to the case.
        
       | greggeter wrote:
        
       | jawns wrote:
       | One reason why I prefer the classics (Agatha Christie, G.K.
       | Chesterton, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc.) is that a lot of modern
       | mystery authors think they need to be both mystery writers and
       | comedians. The voice of the narrator, if not the characters
       | themselves, is often snarky and sarcastic, and I find it
       | incredibly off-putting. So if I could offer an additional
       | commandment, it would be to acknowledge that you might be as
       | clever as you think you are, but you're probably not as funny as
       | you think you are.
        
         | JackFr wrote:
         | But to a large extent the appeal of Poirot and Miss Marple is
         | the levity they add.
        
           | baud147258 wrote:
           | I found that Father Brown from G.K. Chesterton also added a
           | lot of levity
           | 
           | > the reader deserves a fighting chance to solve the mystery
           | without the author's use of cheap tricks.
           | 
           | though I found he frequently didn't leave much (any?) chance
           | for the reader to solve the mystery, though for me the
           | mystery and its solution was never really the focus of the
           | stories anyway.
        
           | mikepurvis wrote:
           | Not the GP, but I think there's a difference between a
           | leading character who is inherently humorous or says humorous
           | things vs the narrator doing it. And in cases where the
           | narrative is first person from the perspective of someone in
           | the story (mostly famously _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_ ),
           | it should remain relatively flat and observational rather
           | than being puffed up with a lot of that character's thoughts,
           | opinions, or personality.
        
         | fenomas wrote:
         | I've noticed this - but for me it's not the comedy per se, it's
         | that modern authors (particularly in the noir style) want their
         | detective to be a constant source of witty comebacks. You feel
         | like the other characters are just there to deliver setup
         | lines, so the detective can amaze us with his devastating
         | zingers.
         | 
         | Ironically, Raymond Chandler - whom I imagine many such modern
         | authors are trying to imitate - commented somewhere in his
         | letters that the detective should almost never get the
         | punchline. He pointed out that it was more effective to have
         | the bad guy deliver the zinger, and the detective just take it
         | on the chin and shrug it off, leaving the heel unsure whether
         | to try to top his own line or just awkwardly make his exit.
        
       | nineplay wrote:
       | > The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson,
       | 
       | Watson was not stupid and I wouldn't trust an author who read him
       | that way. Matched with
       | 
       | > Thou shalt strive to create a detective who has flaws.
       | 
       | it suggests audiences who must be spoon-fed or they will be lost
       | and confused. "The Detective Solves Crimes To Ease The Guilt Over
       | His Tragic Loss And The Side Character Has No Backstory So Don't
       | Waste Any Mental Space On Him!!"
        
       | lqet wrote:
       | This seems like a perfect set of rules to write _dull_ detective
       | fiction. Some of the best works I have read (or seen) from this
       | genre violate a lot of these rules.
        
         | thomascgalvin wrote:
         | You have to know the rules to break them effectively. Like, if
         | your story is about a new kind of poison, which your reader
         | cannot know anything about, awesome. But understand that your
         | story is now _about that new poison_ , not about solving the
         | murder, because solving the murder is impossible without
         | special, in-universe knowledge.
        
           | watwut wrote:
           | Good authors did not started by writing hundred formulaic
           | stories first. Instead, they tended to seek own way even as
           | they learned from predecessors.
           | 
           | I don't like this saying, because in literature and art
           | generally it leads to formulaic repetitive stories. If you
           | dont break rules before learning them, you will never learn
           | to break them. And when it is most common advice there is, we
           | get the situation in which you can predict the rest of
           | average book or movie after first 10 minutes.
           | 
           | It is much better when authors treat rules as optional
           | formulas - follow or not and be aware there is a lot more to
           | choose from.
        
             | thomascgalvin wrote:
             | > Good authors did not started by writing hundred formulaic
             | stories first.
             | 
             | Maybe not hundreds, but I bet many good authors started by
             | writing a few dozen formulaic stories first. Humans learn
             | through mimicry, and I don't think storytelling is any
             | different.
             | 
             | > If you dont break rules before learning them, you will
             | never learn to break them.
             | 
             | If you're good at your craft, you end up learning the rules
             | regardless; the only question is how efficient are you at
             | doing do? The best way to learn is through mistakes, but
             | you can choose to learn from others' mistakes, so you don't
             | need to make them yourself.
             | 
             | That's what the "rules" are: things other people have done,
             | that didn't work. They aren't absolutes, but they're good
             | starting points, and until you have some sort of intuition
             | about things, breaking the rules should at least make you
             | stop and consider why you're doing so, and if you're doing
             | so in a way that will work.
        
               | watwut wrote:
               | > I bet many good authors started by writing a few dozen
               | formulaic stories first
               | 
               | I don't think this is true based on authors I know. The
               | ones I know that started with dozen formulaic stories
               | wrote formulaic stories whole their lives. They might
               | have been good formulaic stories, but still.
               | 
               | The ones who did not wrote formulaic, were going outside
               | formulaic from the beginning.
               | 
               | > Humans learn through mimicry, and I don't think
               | storytelling is any different.
               | 
               | Mimicry of formulaic story is exactly same formulaic
               | story. Yes, you will learn how to wrote that one formula
               | if you go this way.
               | 
               | > The best way to learn is through mistakes, but you can
               | choose to learn from others' mistakes, so you don't need
               | to make them yourself.
               | 
               | That does not imply you should write few dozen formulaic
               | stories before attempting to create something else. You
               | can study other writers without writing formulaic
               | stories.
        
       | havblue wrote:
       | >I. 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.
       | 
       | I've often been annoyed at modern police shows like law and order
       | that I think fail to introduce the suspects sufficiently. The
       | modern formula seems more like one suspect leads to another then
       | another then another then the confession. There's seldom any way
       | for the viewer to suspect who's actually guilty early on, unlike
       | murder she wrote or columbo, so there's no payoff when you find
       | out who it was.
        
         | a1o wrote:
         | Doesn't Law and Order oftenly introduce the criminal early on?
         | It's not about the investigative part, but being able to go
         | through the full law enforcement process including the judgment
         | part. Law and Order isn't a detective show in my opinion.
        
       | ldjb wrote:
       | See also: S.S. Van Dine's Twenty Rules for Writing Detective
       | Stories
       | 
       | https://www.openculture.com/2016/02/20-rules-for-writing-det...
        
         | harpersealtako wrote:
         | I know this one from the Umineko visual novel series.
         | Detectives in the Umineko universe are dimension-hopping
         | reality auditors who wield the "rules of detective fiction" as
         | rhetorical weapons (and sometimes literal weapons) when jumping
         | into stories to fight against witches who are trying to create
         | unsolvable mysteries to increase peoples' belief in magic.
         | There's one detective who uses Knox's 10 rules, and another who
         | uses Van Dine's 20 rules. It's a really fun, really meta story,
         | one where the main characters are both participants in the
         | story and genre-savvy readers debating who the murderer is
         | using trope knowledge.
        
       | hirundo wrote:
       | Dective fiction is usually about the process of justice when
       | someone breaks a commandment, frequently the sixth, often
       | involving seven, eight and nine. I'm looking forward to the meta-
       | detective novel in which a critic investigates violations of the
       | Ten Commandments of Detective Fiction.
       | 
       | The appropriate punishment might be more suitable to a fantasy
       | novel: To sentence the writer live for a time as a character in a
       | world built by an even more arbitrary, capricious and inscrutable
       | author than Jehovah.
       | 
       | I'd read that.
        
       | dekhn wrote:
       | It's interesting to think of Big Lebowski as a detective movie
       | and compare it to the rules that are in this including the
       | Chinaman.
       | 
       | "Walter Sobchak: What the f** are you talking about? The chinaman
       | is not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in
       | the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude,
       | chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American,
       | please."
        
         | inasio wrote:
         | One of my favorite detective stories is Dead yellow women, by
         | Dashiell Hammett. Includes a crazy chase through hidden tunnels
         | in San Francisco's (early 1900s, opium dens, etc) Chinatown.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-07-06 23:01 UTC)