Late Queen Problem

The **Late Queen Problem** (後期(こうき)クイーン的問題(てきもんだい), *Kōki Kuīn-teki Mondai*) refers to a set of analytical theories as posited by Japanese literary theorists, especially Rintarou Norizuki and Kiyoshi Kasai, during the honkaku renaissance. In essence, the term refers to the hypothesis that unfalsifiable assumptions and systematic uncertainty combine to prevent the reader from ever engaging in a fair puzzle-solving process within a fictional work.

More technically, the late Queen problem refers to an effort to revise the assumptions of "fair play" as understood by conventional theorists, especially among Western writers. Traditionally, theorists believed that honkaku style mystery fiction could guarantee a sense of fair play to its audience simply by following conventional guidelines — such as the most widely accepted mystery rules. The late Queen problem instead asserts that so long as the audience can never prove beyond all doubt that the author is not willing to lie to them, and so long as their perspective on the world is subjective, they cannot build any foundation for puzzle-solving within the work.

## Origin

Theorizing the late Queen problem begun with Rintarou Norizuki's journal article "Early Queen Theory", published in Contemporary Thought in 1995. In it, Norizuki argued that two unresolved epistemological paradoxes within mystery novels that prevented the reader from ever reaching a truly a "fair" perspective on the puzzle presented before them. These became known as the twin late Queen problems, and formed the core of all subsequent discussions of the late Queen problem. They were:

1. Even though the detective may present their deductions and solve the case, can the accuracy of this deduction be proven with certainty?
2. In the mystery novel, does the detective play the role of an arbitrary god and decide the fate of the rest of the cast?

In other words, the very nature of a fictional world prevents the certainty that is necessary for the audience to completely trust the events of fictional works, leading to the detective being seen as nothing more than a flawed, fickle god. So long as they lack such certainty, the reader can never truly encounter a "fair" work of mystery fiction. This theory was build on the discussion of the works of Ellery Queen, especially their earlier works. The Queen duo prioritized fairness above almost all over mystery authors, and were even willing to break the fourth wall in order to guarantee the reader of the fairness of the puzzles presented in their novels. Despite this, Norizuki argues, even Ellery Queen works do not escape from the dilemma of uncertainty. How is the reader to be certain that the guarantees are fairness are not themselves lies, and how do they prove that the detective's deduction is not premised on incomplete evidence?

## Theory

The twin late Queen problems as presented above are presented as philosophical problems with the very nature of mystery novels. However, other authors and theorists, such as Kiyoshi Kasai, have demonstrated that these philosophical problems present concrete challenges to the processes of deduction and reasoning that an audience can attempt to participate in. Just a few of the concrete problems implied by the late Queen problem include:

* The audience cannot exclude the possibility evidence that was not uncovered by the detective would exonerate the culprit, or implicate a different suspect.
* The audience cannot prove the existence or non-existence of something as abstract as a "motive" for the crime.
* Since detectives are only human, the audience cannot exclude the possibility that there are other valid explanations that the detective failed to notice (The Poisoned Chocolates Case problem).
* Although only one culprit may seem possible within a "fair" mystery, other culprits may become viable once the audience allows for "unfair" solutions.
* Since the author may be lying, the audience can never truly accept the truth as given.

Such problems can become lethal to the fundamental premise of a mystery novel. For example, even if the audience is given assurance that a particular character is telling the truth, and only one culprit emerges without an alibi due to such testimony, the reader may refuse to believe the author and thereby come to believe the crime remains possible for multiple suspects.

Literary critic Koujin Karatani compared the existence of the literary theory of the late Queen problem to the scientific formulation of Godel's incompleteness theorems. So long as the late Queen problem remains unaddressed in a work, it is argued that coherent boundaries and limits cannot be set on the range of possible solutions that the audience can come to. As a result, the very premise of a fair game-like mystery breaks down. In other words, even if a puzzle may seem fair, since the axioms leading to the questions cannot themselves be proven to be complete, there is no such as a complete answer.

### The why-whodunit paradox

The core of the late Queen problem theory is most concerned with the inherent uncertainty of evidence, and how the fallibility of human characters recontextualizes any solutions to any mystery as presented within a text as being merely subjective truths. However, it also challenges the conventional definitions of a "culprit", and how such an abstract concept interacts with the act of solving a "whodunit" puzzle. Under conventional theories of mystery construction, the "who", "how", and "why" elements of a crime are treated as three separate puzzles which when combined allow the reader to reach the full truth. However, the late Queen problem presents challenges to any such formulation that treats these elements as even partially separate.

If we cannot prove that the deductions of the detective represent the complete truth, or that the facts as presented are comprehensive, one could be presented with last minute alterations to one element that override our assumptions about the preceding "truth". In other words, since the existence of additional facts cannot be disproven, there is always the potential for new information that overrides the prior understanding of "how" or "why" a crime was committed, and this new truth can overflow and alter our understanding of the "who".

Of particular interest is the interaction between the "why" and "who" elements. Since the whydunit of a crime is particularly at the mercy of the subjective perspective of the reader, it is often the least provable of all of the elements of the crime. In such circumstances, it is possible for there to be the addition of a new "why" element that thoroughly overturns the previous understanding of "who" and "how", even without contradicting any existing evidence. If, for example, it was revealed that the "culprit" as deduced within the story was merely the pawn of a secret mastermind who held the true motive for the crime, the meaning of the resolution of the mystery would completely shift without changing any of the important material facts. By way of this paradox, the late Queen problem uses the element of motive to thoroughly complicate our understanding of a whodunit puzzle.

## Further Reading

Iterative recursion blog. *About Rintarou Norizuki's Queen Theory (In Japanese)*: Retrieved 2021-03-16.

Myster-Book Addiction. *What is the late Queen problem? Thorough commentary! (In Japanese)*: Retrieved 2021-03-16.

Kastel. *Zaregoto Series: An Introduction to Shinhonkaku Mysteries and Nisioisin*: Retrieved 2021-03-16.