|
Love reading this thread. I can't participate because I've read all books on the list, but reading the discussion and reactions is really fun. ProfessorProf posted:So! Next book, then. On the list: Out of those, She Died a Lady and Crooked House are the best ones. I would recommend "She Died a Lady" because John Dickson Carr has a very interesting approach when it comes to murder mysteries. He writes and treats them like a game between the reader and the writer(he even wrote an excellent essay called "The Grandest Game in the World" about the subject and if anyone is interested I can ramble about this for hou--okay days) which makes it perfect for this thread. Christie's style goes for a bit more style and flair than Carr but that's not a bad thing really, it's just a matter of preference. As far as difficulty goes, I think She Died a Lady is definitely the tougher one of the two if you are reading it normally...but considering the thread format, Carr's preference for dramatic challenges is going to make it a bit easier to solve. Crooked House is an excellent book too though, I just personally prefer Carr's style. Grawl posted:I'm new to this thread and really want to join. Can I vote for an Agatha Christie (which seems to be an easy introduction to mystery/detective fiction)? Christie is the most famous(nowadays) but I think Carr would work better as an introduction to be honest. Christie got famous by twisting mystery conventions so seeing them be played straight before seeing her twisting them could be pretty useful.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Would you be interested in running She Died A Lady for us? If not, I could read it to run it later, but it would take me a couple days. Sure, I would love to! Just to make sure I'm not forgetting anything, I'd basically just have to select stopping points and post a clue summary right?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Even the latter is not required - I just did it in the first round to keep discussion moving. All you have to do is control the pacing of the mystery for us, then laugh at us if we get it wrong in the end. Sounds great then! I don't mind making a character list and clue summary so I'll probably try to include that. I just skimmed the book on my kindle app and it seems like controlling the pacing of the mystery is gonna be pretty easy, I almost forgot how well constructed the book was. We can get started as soon as everybody is ready. She Died a Lady is on the kindle store for $6.30, so it should be pretty easy to find(the print version is a bit more expensive but it's pretty easy to find too).
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Alrighty then, seems like we have enough people ready to start. For the first assignment, let's read chapters 1-4. This book has pretty short chapters and this is pretty much the best place to stop. I have a character list prepared already but I'm going to wait until the next batch of chapters to post it for simplicity's sake.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
A part of me wants to rush and give the next assignment already, but I think I'm going to give people some more time to catch up since some people are probably still buying the book and all. It's probably worth noting I just finished pacing the rest of the book, so there's that. Question: Would people be interested in "pointless mystery trivia about the writer" just to give some background about his writing style in-between assignments or would I be just cluttering the thread with needless details?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:This sounds like fun. Go for it. In that case, here I go! Before I start I should probably note I'm writing this as I go and I don't have my entire collection with me at the moment, so a lot of this comes from memory. I may have made a mistake or two here. In any case... John Dickson Carr: A Quickish Summary Mystery writing used to get the same treatment fantasy(sometimes) gets nowadays, with some particularly annoying critics denying that they could ever have any literary value and some writers with far too much time in their hands angrily countering those points with numerous essays. John Dickson Carr had a bit of a peculiar take on the issue which is what(I assume) makes his writing style so different from even other Golden Age writers. Rather than arguing that mystery fiction could have literary value he held the firm belief that works that aimed for literary value were boring as hell. In the preface to "The Devil in Velvet (1951) Carr wrote that "The first duty of any novelist, a duty so often forgotten nowadays, is to tell a story." This belief that a story should be fun above everything else was something he emphasized quite a lot during his(ridiculously productive) career and earned him quite a few critics. Raymond Chandler could be considered Carr’s polar opposite in that regard, but more on their contrast later. Carr never engaged in the debate of whether mystery writing had any sort of literary value because he was borderline apathetic to the very idea of literary value in itself. He goes as far as to refer to mystery novels as "the noblest form of relaxation from academic work” and relinquish any sort of literary value or social commentary they might have. That is curiously not to say that his novels didn’t occasionally address(if only in passing) some social issues of the time, as he often portrayed taboo subjects(such as female sexuality) with an attitude that can best be described with “Eh, who cares?” It’s probably accurate to say that Carr didn’t avoid social commentary so much as hated the idea of actively trying to create it—if it came about naturally he would not take it out of the story. Here is where I unfortunately need to direct some of you to extra reading—I’m sorry. I will give out the cliffnotes version as I comment on it anyway, but I would recommend reading the material if only because they are incredibly fun to read. The material in question is Raymond Chandler’s essay “The Simple Art of Murder” and John Dickson Carr’s “The Grandest Game in the World.” I bring up those two essays because so strong is the contrast between them that they offer the best way to describe Carr’s style and motivation. Chandler argues that the puzzle-type story is rubbish and that the detective story should focus more on character and society as a whole rather than a puzzle. Carr’s interpretation of the genre was entirely different and borderline romantic: he saw the detective story as a game. He writes: quote:It is a hoodwinking contest, a duel between author and reader. "I dare you," says the reader, "to produce a solution which I can't anticipate." "Right!" says the author, chuckling over the consciousness of some new and legitimate dirty-trick concealed up his sleeve, and then they are at it-pull-devil, pull-murderer-with the reader alert for every dropped clue, every betraying speech, every contradiction that may mean guilt. This is the framework, the skeleton, the foundation of Carr’s style and “literary theory” as so it were. He relinquished any sort of social commentary in exchange for focusing solely on the above—on the idea of anticipating the reader’s every reaction and surprising his predictions. In "The Murder in Number Four" he likens the game to chess while highlighting their differences. "The great chess player is the one who can visualize the board as it will be after his move. The great detective is the one who visualize the board as it has been when he finds the pieces jumbled." He also passionately elaborates on the point of plot versus literary value in the essay, citing that quote:“The "literary" type, like the hard-boiled, is too apt to mistake style for substance. It imagines that with good writing, which sometimes becomes merely pretentious writing, you can disguise the lack of an original plot. Perhaps because of this writing philosophy(it is a bit of a Chicken-and-the-egg question) Carr became famous for the impossible crime novel. Carr’s most famous novels(and frankly, most of his novels in general) focused around crimes where not only was the murderer’s identity a mystery the very murder itself was a seemingly impossible problem. Perhaps the victim was found dead, in a room locked from the inside in a situation that makes suicide impossible, or perhaps there were no footprints giving the impression that the criminal had the ability of flight. The specifics of each story aside, Carr’s “challenge to the supernatural” as it so often seemed followed a strict formula: a murder happens but all evidence suggests it absolutely could not have happened. Then, the reader is posed with the challenge of either reaching the true solution or accepting the solution proposed by less intelligent characters in the novel—that the culprit is either supernatural or some other equally ridiculous theory. Though many writers wrote locked-room mysteries every once in a while(Christie herself who many of you are aware of wrote a few) few writers based their careers around them because of how difficult they were to write. Carr is the acknowledged master of the locked-room genre and affectionately referred to(by the title of his biography) as “The man who could explain miracles.” Carr’s influence in the locked room genre can best be summed up with the famous “Locked-Room Lecture” (spoilers for the stories Professor just mentioned in the post under this one. My bad!) from his masterpiece “Three Coffins” where the detective breaks the fourth wall and delivers an almost academic lecture on both the nature of the locked-room mystery and the many ways to create an impossible crime scene. Hopeford fucked around with this message at 23:51 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Alright, let's move on to the next assignment. You can unspoil your comments up to this point if you wish. If you are a bit behind, don't worry, the book's chapters are quite short so there's still more than enough time to join. We are going to go with Chapters 5-8. This stretch has so many fun-to-read bits, couldn't resist re-reading it as I was double checking the chapters.  Brief character list from chapters 1-4 to get you up to speed if you forgot a detail or two in-between assignments: Character List: [Accurate only in regards to information available to the reader up to chapter 4. Does not contain characters or information from chapters 5-8.] DR LUKE CROXLEY The narrator. He’s an old semi-retired family doctor whose only living relative is his son Dr. Tom—his wife having passed away before the story started. A somewhat grumpy, old fashioned man. DR TOM CROXLEY Dr. Luke’s son and a passionate doctor. His father describes him best: “He is the born country G.P.; he loves his work as I loved it. When Tom goes to see a patient, he gets wrapped up in the case and tells the patient all the imposing medical terms for what’s wrong with him. This impresses and pleases the patient; it inspires confidence to start with.” RITA WAINRIGHT Thirty-eight year old woman married to Alec Wainright and known to have an affair with Barry Sullivan. It was generally accepted by everyone that everyone knew about her affair except for Dr. Luke and Alec. Most importantly, she’s one of the two victims. ALEC WAINRIGHT Sixty-year old man married to Rita. He is known to enjoy alcohol a bit more than he should. He knew of the affair, but pretended not to know—thus making Dr. Luke the only one who didn’t know about it for a long time. He’s a bit of a nervous wreck and has an obsession with the news. In the past, people thought of him as a confident man, but this is no longer the case as the whole situation has taken quite a toll on him. MOLLY GRANGE Described by Dr.Luke as “a straightforward, sensible, pretty girl in her middle twenties. She had the fair hair and blue eyes of her mother, with her father’s practicality.” She is the daughter of Stephen Grange, who is the town’s local solicitor. She’s also the one responsible for introducing Rita to Barry Sullivan. BARRY SULLIVAN A young American man of about Molly’s age who had an affair with Rita. Dr. Luke described him as being rather good looking, “but not offensively so.” SIR HENRY MERRIVALE Said to be a detective of sorts. Currently staying with Paul Ferrars. He has fractured his toe somehow(“He was up to some shenanigans – can’t imagine what—“ as described by Tom) and was examined by Dr. Tom. He also supposedly swears a whole lot and will be kept in a wheelchair for six weeks at least. PAUL FERRARS So far known only to be an artist who Sir Henry is staying with. He painted a portrait of Rita Wainright some time ago according to Tom. JOHNSON The gardener. Alec fired him before the story started, Rita citing incompetence as the reason. Have fun reading! Dire Chinchilla posted:And also I have an embarassing question about something I didn't understand and I could use some help: Yeah, I'm pretty sure J.P stands for Justice of the Peace. So you are either correct or we are both wrong in that regard. Hopeford fucked around with this message at 20:07 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Going to leave the next batch of chapters here in case people want to use the weekend to read. Was going to post it earlier today but I had a minor car issue for most of the afternoon. Anyway, this time the batch is the same amount as the other ones. It's going to be chapters nine to twelve. I'm so, so sorry but the pacing kind of requires that (This will make sense once you finish chapter 12. I'm so, so sorry).
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Loving the discussion so far. I might be a day or two late in posting the next assignment because I'm out of the country in the moment and you know how chaotic schedules get, but I'll do my best to be on time. We are nearing the end of the book(there are only two chapter batches before the point of no return, I believe) so I think it's worth to slow down the pace a bit so that everyone can catch up and discuss it a bit more.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Alright, let's get on with the next batch of chapters. Don't worry if you aren't caught up yet, we aren't on the summation yet(but we will be next batch, so start getting ready). Chapters are going to be 13 to 15.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Grawl posted:Are you sure that's in chapter 15 or below? I don't remember that quote and I just finished reading till 15. Kindle search says it's from Chapter 12, so yes. Speaking of which--time for the final batch of chapters before the solution! We are reading up until the end of chapter seventeen. This book has a very clear cut-off point in regards to when the mystery is solvable--JDC is great with that--so you can definitely solve the crime there. A few minor clues will be presented after that point, but they are not at all necessary to solve the crime and are more like last-minute literary hints as opposed to actual clues. Anyhow, have at it! Culprit, motive, method, everything is solvable. Have fun with it! And for when you are done reading up to the end of chapter 17...[spoiler for chapter 17] "I saw the explanation of the whole thing." I love how blatant John Dickson Carr is with this bit. It's almost like he's going "Okay guys--this is it. Moment of truth. Ready?" wish more authors were as direct as him with this. It's so thoughtful!
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
By the way, if you guys want an updated character list or summary of anything to help you get through this final stretch just let me know and I'll do my best to help.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Here's an updated character list: INSPECTOR CRAFT: The "official police investigator" involved in the story. He believes that Dr. Luke is lying about the suicides because he can't think of any other explanation. DR LUKE CROXLEY The narrator. He’s an old semi-retired family doctor whose only living relative is his son Dr. Tom—his wife having passed away before the story started. A somewhat grumpy, old fashioned man. DR TOM CROXLEY Dr. Luke’s son and a passionate doctor. His father describes him best: “He is the born country G.P.; he loves his work as I loved it. When Tom goes to see a patient, he gets wrapped up in the case and tells the patient all the imposing medical terms for what’s wrong with him. This impresses and pleases the patient; it inspires confidence to start with.” RITA WAINRIGHT Thirty-eight year old woman married to Alec Wainright and known to have an affair with Barry Sullivan. It was generally accepted by everyone that everyone knew about her affair except for Dr. Luke and Alec. Most importantly, she’s one of the two victims. ALEC WAINRIGHT Sixty-year old man married to Rita. He is known to enjoy alcohol a bit more than he should. He knew of the affair, but pretended not to know—thus making Dr. Luke the only one who didn’t know about it for a long time. He’s a bit of a nervous wreck and has an obsession with the news. In the past, people thought of him as a confident man, but this is no longer the case as the whole situation has taken quite a toll on him. MOLLY GRANGE Described by Dr.Luke as “a straightforward, sensible, pretty girl in her middle twenties. She had the fair hair and blue eyes of her mother, with her father’s practicality.” She is the daughter of Stephen Grange, who is the town’s local solicitor. She’s also the one responsible for introducing Rita to Barry Sullivan. STEPHEN GRANGE He’s a solicitor at Barnstaple, but he lives here at Lyncombe. He's also said to have had an argument with Rita about something. BARRY SULLIVAN A young American man of about Molly’s age who had an affair with Rita. Dr. Luke described him as being rather good looking, “but not offensively so.” SIR HENRY MERRIVALE Said to be a detective of sorts. Currently staying with Paul Ferrars. He has fractured his toe somehow(“He was up to some shenanigans – can’t imagine what—“ as described by Tom) and was examined by Dr. Tom. He also supposedly swears a whole lot and will be kept in a wheelchair for six weeks at least. PAUL FERRARS The poor bastard who has to live with the great Sir Henry Merrivalve for now. Also, a painter. JOHNSON The gardener. Alec fired him before the story started, Rita citing incompetence as the reason. BELLE SUILLIVAN Barry's supposed wife. Claims to have chased after Barry all the way to the town the story takes place and then having gone through a series of events that ended with her being trapped in a room. Clue Summary: As for the clue summary, I had a rather lengthy list typed out but I think I need to refrain from using it. Actually knowing the solution to the mystery makes anything I point out suspicious by nature even if it's not spoilerish in itself. Plus there is the question of "If he didn't list this, does it mean it's not important?" that I would rather not get into. So instead what I'm going to do is to sum up what makes the crime impossible so that the problem is outlined as clearly as possible. --There are footprints leading up to the lover's leap and no footprints leading out of it. --Craft affirms that it is absolutely impossible for those footprints to have been faked. Again, if Craft and his team of policemen are correct, then those two people walked all the way up to the top of the lover's leap. --Again according to evidence, they were killed by close-range gunshots. --The confirmed weapon(again according to what the police tells us) was found nowhere close the lover's leap. --Therefore we are posed with this scenario as Craft summed it up all the way back in chapter Six: quote:‘You see how it stands. Two persons were shot as they stood on the very edge of a cliff. The murderer couldn’t have climbed up or down that cliff. Presumably he couldn’t fly. Yet he approached them and got away without leaving a footprint on that whole expanse of soil. If we hadn’t found the weapon later, it would have been a perfect crime passing as a double suicide. It may be a perfect crime even yet. I’d be interested to hear what you think about it.’
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:So I got impatient on my bus ride home and went ahead and finished. Obviously I won't say anything further to give anything away to people still discussing, but Carr does a really neat narrative trick in the last chapter which I am eager to discuss. I think this is the best of these we have done, or at least my personal favorite. You and me both! On that note, I think everybody is more or less settled on their final theories or at least very close to it. Everybody, feel free to post one last theory if you want but I'll go ahead and assign the rest of the book. I think I might have waited a bit too much on this but Carr's novels have so many details that I figured it was better to give everyone a week or so for their final theory. Let's go!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Well, we sure got our asses kicked. Not quite! Actually that's one of the things I liked the most about the book: it flat out told you the solution halfway through it and just counted on you not noticing because it was disguised in the middle of a funny Sir Henry moment. Here: ‘After all,’ Craft consoled him, ‘it might be a whole lot worse, even if you did slip. It’s nearly high-tide now and you’d only fall in the water.’ It said that the cliff was impossible to climb only in reference to the moment they thought the escape took place: when it was a 70 feet fall. The high tide changed things to a 40 feet jump, which is the kind of jump you can actually people doing on youtube for fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Solution spoilers here!(Just clarifying in case someone doesn't notice the "to the end of the book" assignment last page and thinks we are still discussing the rest of the book) That's actually the bit I was referring to when I mentioned in the "Books you just finished" thread that there were certain moments here I was wondering why they weren't cut out until I finished the book. Funny as Henry's scenes were, I wasn't sure why Carr had included two big scenes like that in a book this short. There was the introduction with the dogs, and the near cliff dive. After I was done and re-read the book I realized that it wasn't what he had put in them but what he hadn't. In the first scene, there was literally nothing of value added to the mystery solving, it was just hilarious how Carr went on overdrive with his prose to describe a mad, bald fat man on a wheelchair being chased by dogs. That was so out of place that when it came to the second scene I didn't even notice the solution being given away until I re-read that chapter before the summation. There are other small bits that I find really clever about the way Carr wrote the book(including two more tricks that were included and foreshadowed but never brought up explicitly during the final explanation) but I'll keep my mouth shut for now until more people get to finish the book.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
You guys were definitely pretty close, yeah. A few times I thought you guys had it but then you gave up on the lead to look at something else. I had to stop myself from posting a "hint" or two. I think it was mostly luck here - if any of you had happened to stumble upon the tide line during that Sir Henry scene, I'm pretty sure you would have all connected the remaining dots. You all more or less got the main points, the main issue was putting them all together because Carr's plots honestly come as close to putting together an actual puzzle as a book can. One neat trick I found that Carr did: Rita seemed surprised that the phone lines had been cut. The book is never explicit about this, but I think she honestly didn't know - everything points to her being more or less in the dark about the fine points of the trick. Sullivan was the one who played with Luke's car as well, so I think the idea is that she didn't know about the phone lines. I could be wrong about this, but the fact that it was emphasized over and over again that Barry was the one good at puzzles kind of gave me that impression. I think the main narrative trick here is the same as the one used in a certain famous Christie novel, but I think it's done more effectively here. In that unnamed-due-to-spoilers Christie example, the twist feels like it stretches the point of reason a bit, like it pulls back the curtain a bit too much and lets it be known that the character only acted that way so that the twist could exist. Here the twist feels more...organic, for the lack of a better word? Also as a bit of pointless trivia, the main trick used here is one Carr used early on in his career in a short story but it wasn't as refined as it is now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Oh I'm not arguing the plausibility making it more valid so much as making it more effective. Here it's when Henry said this: I’ve got an idea, if you or I were going to write an account that included some member of our own family, our own family, we’d write in just exactly the same way that the old doctor did.’ It jumps out better because I think a fair reaction to that would be "That is true, I very much would - and I should have seen it coming." I think a trick is at its most effective when it falls under that category, where it's something entirely simple but you don't see it coming. With Christie's twist(which was brilliant as well) what came to mind was "That was great but I can't blame myself for not noticing" if that makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
On the topic of the next book, I'm afraid I don't have a good Carr book to recommend. Well I do, just not for the purposes of this thread--let me elaborate on this a bit: Carr books can be pretty difficult to find since they've only recently begun to be released as e-books. This limits our number of choices quite a bit and the books we do have available all have a bit of an issue. The Plague Court Murders is one of Carr's earlier novels. It shows a lot of the elements that made him famous, featuring a locked-room mystery with a strong supernatural element. The main trick here is brilliant, but unfortunately as this is one of Carr's earlier novels it doesn't have as many neat details that form a very solid picture at the end. Don't get me wrong, I love the novel but if someone was to point at two specific points in the solution and ponder about the fairness of it, I couldn't defend the novel there, much as Carr is my favorite mystery writer. I do recommend it if you are prepared to get past at one or two strange points toward the end that are frankly unnecessary( the novel could have done without them and frankly would have been much better if that were the case). The Problem of the Green Capsule is an excellent novel featuring Carr's other famous detective, Dr. Gideon Fell. It does not have a supernatural element but it does have a seemingly impossible crime with rock solid logic behind it. The main issue with it is that(and this is a very personal objection) the pacing isn't too good. Because of the very technical nature of the crime, there are a lot of pages dedicated to the crime happening and describing what it was like. This sets up a very interesting thunderbolt solution at the end and I absolutely recommend reading this book whenever you have free time, but I think the slow pacing would make it kind of boring for a thread like this. He Who Whispers features the opposite end of the scale--it has a locked-room murder, supernatural atmosphere and amazing pacing. You just don't want to stop reading it. This is one of Carr's best books in regards to balancing prose with crime and I love it. But I actually like it so much I think it would be cruel to you guys to say "Alright, stop at this cliffhanger" when the book itself is basically set on top of a particularly tall cliff. Again another book I recommend but I'm not sure if it would be the best one for this thread, it just moves really fast. Three Coffins actually would be perfect for this thread. It has a reputation for being Carr's best novel and it's definitely his most famous. The main issue with it is that it's really, really hard to find. There's no official ebook of it, which could make it a bit...complicated. I do love it a lot though. There are a few other Carr books available as ebooks, but they got a bit more issues. And so to Murder is a very fun read, but it doesn't have much of a mystery. It's just Carr having fun with the plot and having Sir Henry act like a maniac. And--holy crap I just went to Amazon and there are a few Carr books I haven't read that seem to have been added as ebooks. Huh. OFF TO READ ALL OF THEM! No but seriously, what I'm saying is that I don't have much of a recommendation for the thread but also I don't have the gift of brevity or the virtue of knowing when to shut up about books. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
I will need to sit out the Christie one because I'm in a funny position with Christie books. I'm pretty sure I read every Christie book ever, but I read most of those as a kid because my mom had a ton of Christie books. I don't remember the plot to most of them but I know that if I start re-reading them I'll start to remember it. I'll read it along the thread even if I avoid posting speculation though!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
If you guys are doing a Carr book again I can totally run it if you guys want too. The only problem is that I never know when enough time has passed to assign more chapters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Man, you and everyone deserve a medal for not reading ahead, I don't know if I could do it. I distinctively remember that when I first read it I figured "Yeah, gonna read a few chapters and then go to sleep..." and before I knew it I was done with the whole thing and it was three in the morning.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
That's actually a book I haven't read yet! I haven't read much Freeman for some reason, so I can finally participate in one of those. Looking forward to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:So, since we're approaching the end: Does this thread still have enough steam in it for another book after this one? I know I do! I couldn't do this book because of some real life stuff eating my time, but I'm totally ready for another book now that I have free time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Well that's that. Did we actually solve anything, or was this round a total wash? I'm up for running something, but I'm not in a hurry or anything so if you want to do it first you can go ahead--your call. If I end up running it, I was thinking of going with something Ellery Queen because there have been a few kindle versions of his books recently and his "Challenge to the Reader" bits are perfect for this thread. Either that or a Carr book, because I'm a hopeless Carr fanboy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:From what I've read of the two, I'd vote for Carr over Queen, but if you're on the fence, I'll go ahead and run The Moving Finger. If you don't mind running The Moving Finger first then I'd be all for running a Carr book after that's done if the thread is still up for another novel, I think something like The Problem of the Green Capsule would work nicely. I also prefer Carr over Queen, though I gotta say, Queen's books improve a lot. They start very Van Dine-ish but then later he develops his own style and the puzzles become really fun, although the prose is always a bit of a chore to get through. I still prefer Carr more because his tricks tend to feel more "daring" if that makes sense and his writing just feels more fun.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:It may be worth mentioning at this point that, like Three Act Tragedy, this book changes some important details between the American and British editions for reasons I have never been able to discover. Time to pull out my mystery hipster card  ! The Moving Finger's changes are less changes and almost an abridgement, the American version cuts out a lot of the character development to focus on the mystery. Christie never had any qualms about editing her novels(a heavy amount of them was edited due to, uh, antisemitism) so my best guess is that the editors just wanted a shorter book and she was like "Yeah sure!" Man I had completely forgotten The Moving Finger was changed until you mentioned it though.And as far as Three Act Tragedy goes, my best guess is that it was a bit of localization. The original ending relies heavily on British divorce law of the time and most American readers were probably to be like "...Whaaaat" so again Christie was probably asked to change it slightly. Alternatively, she may have changed on purpose to make the novel "fair" to the average American reader.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Is (There were way, way too many people named Sherringford around the internet. I got a few too many "Hey are you the same guy from--" and figured it was easier to just change the name. Also Hopeford comes from Sherrington Hope, which was another name Conan Doyle had considered for(just like Sherrinford) before settling on Sherlock eng101: ...I'm such a nerd) I'm all up for running the next book, if you guys are up for some Carr. The Problem of the Green Capsule would be a good fit for the thread, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 17:43
|
|
) running the next book?
|
I'm totally here, I thought the thread had died and people weren't up for another book. If you guys are up to it, I can start The Problem of the Green Capsule whenever you guys want!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Well, if you guys are up to it, I'm ready for it!  The Problem of the Green Capsule. I'd recommend the kindle version since it's cheaper and it's a pretty short book. It has 20 chapters total. So how about we start going Up to the end of chapter 4? It's pretty short(under 40 pages to get there) and it ends on a really nice note. If I can geek out for a moment, this is one of my favorite John Dickson Carr books because he is clearly having a lot of fun with it. It doesn't have his "Supernatural" prose that comes with most of his other books and instead focuses on the murder mystery aspect of it to an almost cartoonish degree. It's like he went "I'm writing a puzzle—a great puzzle mind you—and I will make the story around it make sense, whether it wants it or not!" It's one of those books where the logic and plotting just feel...elegant. Hope you guys enjoy it as much as I did! (I have a few other comments about the book, but I'll shut up about those so I don't accidentally give out a hint) Hopeford fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Oops, I meant to the end of chapter 4. My bad!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
I think we are all caught up on it, so let's go to the end of chapter 7. Just three short chapters, but it packs a lot of info so I figured it would be better to take it slowly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I think enough time has passed we can now read to the end of chapter 11. It's a great stopping point that should make for some interesting discussion. It's around the time the book gets really interesting, in my opinion. Also as a small comment, chapter 9 has the most interesting footnote I've read in a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Sorry for taking this one a bit slowly, I was waiting to see if anyone else would catchup/join. Let's go up to the end of chapter 14. This is a pretty short book(20 chapters) so we should finish this pretty soon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Alright, finish line! To the end of chapter 17. This is the point where you can solve the crime. This is a very, very detailed and elaborate solution so I wouldn't worry too much about reconstructing the whole crime. If you want to solve it, I'd try focusing on the major trick. Really fond of this book, but--but I should really save my comments for after this, right? Okay, let's get on with it!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
I think you guys theorized as much as you possibly could, so I'm gonna go ahead and say read to the end of the book!
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Skuto posted:
It was really hard keeping my mouth shut while you guys were discussing this book because holy crap, you guys did really well. Way better than I did when I first read this, if I recall. The film swap totally blindsinded me when it happened, I think. It was the "then that film constituted Harding’s eyesight." line that made me go "Oh...OOHHHHHHH" when I got to it. Rand Brittain posted:Dickson Carr has a bad habit of deliberately misleading the reader. I've never forgiven him for one book in which Sir Henry Merrivale swears to the honesty and reliability of a character who then turns out to be the murderer, which is a serious violation of the "rules," at least to me. I wouldn't say that's a habit of his. I'm going to go ahead and guess that the book you are referring to is[book title spoiler]And so to Murderwhich yeah, was pretty bad. Frankly that book barely counts as a mystery, it's just him having fun with the setting. For the most part though, I'd say he sticks pretty close to being fair. I mean, he DOES mislead the reader like crazy--but it's usually pretty fair. That book aside. Plus that one book technically didn't have a murder, I would say it literally doesn't qualify as a murder mystery. Hopeford fucked around with this message at 15:53 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Hopeford, you said back when we started this you had some comments about the book; I think it'd be cool to hear those now. Sure! I've been dying to make a few comments. Green Capsule is a pretty strange Carr book in a way. Despite being a Fell story, it features none of his usual "creepy, supernatural atmosphere" deal. I think that's a very interesting stylistic change from his norm, especially toward the end. The prose is a bit on the dull side, but the plot is(to me at least) unusually, almost mechanically tight. It felt almost early Ellery Queen-ish in the sense that once you arrive at the main deduction("But how in blazes did Harding come to use those remarkable words, or any words at all? For up to that time we couldn’t see the Invisible Man; and neither could he.") it's pretty easy to unravel the whole plot. Most of all, what really impressed me about this book is that despite the slow first half, it has a really...convincing ending. One thing that I think Carr struggled with at times was the plausibility of his tricks. He even complained about this bit during his famous 'Locked Room Lecture' when he said that people took plausibility a bit too far when it came to impossible crimes. "Since apparently he has violated the laws of nature for our entertainment, then heaven knows he is entitled to violate the laws of Probable Behaviour!" were his exact words, and for the most part, I can understand his claim. For example, She Died a Lady(which we read here in the thread some time ago) the ultimate murder does have a plausible explanation, but even I have to admit that the circumstances around it were a bit fantastic, even if that didn't bother me too much. Now here, his ultimate trick was convincing enough. I was pretty skeptic on the "psychological murder" bit because I thought it would be some sort of trick that could potentially apply to some people, but not to all. Then when the trick came out my immediate reaction was "Ah, yeah. That would definitely fool most people because of the way memory works." Basically, it was just a novel with a bold claim and it managed the infinitely hard trick of backing it up. Which is why I have a really fond spot for the novel. That's not to say I think the novel is flawless--Carr had a nasty, nasty habit of overkilling the reader. He would not only prepare a devilishly clever trick, but also go for a cheap shot on top of the trick for what I can only suppose is the idea that there is no better victory than the kind where you go for your opponent while he's still down. I'm not saying he cheats, but he's kind of mean sometimes. For example, here, I think the gunshot was completely unnecessary. I think that comes back to what G.K Chesterton once said about detective stories. quote:What the writer has to remember, in this sort of game, is that the reader will not say, as he sometimes might of a serious or realistic study: “Why <did> the surveyor in green spectacles climb the tree to look into the lady doctor’s back garden?” He will insensibly and inevitably say, “Why did the author <make> the surveyor climb a tree, or introduce any surveyor at all?” The reader may admit that the town would in any case need a surveyor, without admitting that the tale would in any case need one. It is necessary to explain his presence in the tale (and the tree) not only by suggesting why the town council put him there, but why the author put him there. Over and above any little crimes he may intend to indulge in, in the inner chamber of the story, he must have already some other justification as a character in a story and not only as a mere miserable material person in real life. The instinct of the reader, playing hide-and-seek with the writer, who is his real enemy, is always to say with suspicion, Yes, I know a surveyor might climb a tree; I am quite aware that there are trees and that there are surveyors, but what are you doing with them? Why did you make this particular surveyor climb this particular tree in this particular tale, you cunning and evil-minded man?” And here, Carr openly made a surveyor climb a tree, for no reason other than the fact he knew the reader would ask "Why did you make this particular surveyor climb this particular tree in this particular tale, you cunning and evil-minded man?" Now, being fair here--it is not technically cheating to make a plot point that goes nowhere. I can almost admire the fact that Carr so blatantly created that point with an almost sort of giddy joy about it, like he was completely self-aware about how evil he was being with that. ALMOST. He was especially bad about that kind of thing with his early novels, like The Burning Court where he keeps adding on twists and cheap shots long after his clever trick has already succeeded, which leaves me wanting to scream "Bah gawd, somebody stop the drat match! He's already dead!" in an accent that I do not have. Carr really loved his overkills. That's not to say I don't love his books--I really do, and the man is my favorite author. But man that guy knew how to be petty in allowing the reader to win. He would not break any rules out of some twisted sense of sportsmanship, but he would bend do anything to make sure the reader didn't solve the mystery while still allowing him a fair shot at solving it, which I think is kind of endearing. Rand Brittain posted:He does something pretty similar in Death-Watch as well, where Dr. Fell tells a man that he respects him and would like to shake his hand, and then admits that it was a total lie when he reveals that the guy was the killer and a total creepo murderzoid all along. That one I didn't have much of a problem with, because I felt it kind of fit with Fell's character. It was kind on the iffy side of things, but I personally didn't mind it. I can see why that one would have bothered you though, yeah. It was definitely a borderline case. And So to Murder however...thaaaat was pretty bad, though again, that was more of a thriller than a murder mystery.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
I already read this book so I'm sitting out on the discussion, but I'm re-reading it along the thread just for fun. Will save any comments on the book until the thread is done with it, for obvious reasons. Have fun with it!
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 08:17
|
|