|
This is a rad idea, I'll join in as well. I should be able to finish this by this evening as well.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
I finished on my ride to work this morning as well. So I am already confused: The shooter was the only one killed, correct? Miss Blacklock's ear is injured and bleeding, but the only one actually dead is the "shooter" who they say shot himself (although he obviously didn't). It just threw me, because there was a lot of commotion and I was waiting for them to say which of our "heroes" died. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:
Definitely spoil the latest chunk. I assume people are going to want to discuss stuff they are ready to discuss (like I just did) while others might join in later and catch up, or just want to check updates. For example, right now we aren't even sure when we are supposed to be done with our first chunk so someone who starts and comes in for an update on the timeframe might see a bunch of spoilers on accident.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Zola posted:I'm going to add a bit to this excellent beginning. This is a fantastic write-up, and is certainly helping to get the characters straight in my head. I typically read pretty fast, absorbing the mood and ideas but not really stopping to think about specific details, so maybe I should slow down a bit on this one. One thing your write-up helps expand upon is my favorite part so far, which is at the end of section 2 of chapter 2 where everyone is tiptoeing around the subject of "the murder" and Mrs. Harmon comes in and just blurts it out, causing Julia to crack up. At first I thought that she was just the airhead that she appeared to be but its even better if she is totally in on the joke and was just doing it to rattle everyone. Thanks for adding in the newspapers everyone got too, I had a feeling that might be important. Good idea about removing the spoiler tags later Prof, it will probably help as we progress to be able to easily go back and read theories and notes. When we do, I would suggest putting a warning up in the OP in case people join in later on. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Cool. The weekend is pretty busy for me so I might fall behind a bit, but will make it up early next week, depending on where everyone gets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Finished this afternoon (up to 7 that is) and I have been going back over the chapters. There is a ton of detail and I am certain quite a bit of them are red herrings, so here are just some key thoughts: I was trying to chronicle who was standing where, there are a few ambiguities but I am pretty sure Colonel Archibald is lying about where he was. During the blackout scene back in chapter 3, his wife calls out "Where are you, Archie!", but later in their account she says that she grabbed his arm. The only other person who commented on him was Julia who says he may have followed Patrick into the other room for Sherry. I'm not sure about the room layout but this might put him in position to get behind the shooter (Patrick said he was considering rushing him before the shooting started). There also seems to be a recurring theme regarding Blacklock and presenting herself as wealthy. The gardener at Dayas Hall mentioned her wearing fake pearls and costume jewelry in the "noovo ar (art nouveau?)" style. When she is interviewed she is also wearing cameos, as the inspector notes. There is also her opening a new bottle of Sherry since a half-empty one had already been open for months. Finally, Bunny mentions that Letty was holding a silver vase with violets in it when the lights came on; although this might be a mistake because Letty claims she was holding a cigarette case, but it could indicate that she was trying to protect some of her wealth (someone else mentioned they had some nice silver but nothing else worth stealing). There also seems to be something suspicious about the violets, they mention them several times as being dead and out of place. Finally, there seems to be something more to Bunny. Like Bunch, she appears fairly innocent and daft, but at key points she seems to know something. First of all, the story of how she came to live with Blacklock only a few months ago seems pretty suspect. And while she plays dumb and forgetful, she is the one who remembers the shooter immediately and even offers an on-the-spot theory that he was there before only to spy on the house, which Letty then comes to believe. I also think her "worrying" might be an act to get Letty worked up or possibly to try and convince everyone of her "theory" of what happened (she convinces Letty about the "spying on the house" theory and now she is really trying to push the idea that it was revenge, maybe to throw the scent off of her). Pretty much from the start she is trying to convince Letty that this is something sinister and much worse than Letty originally thinks herself. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Dec 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Just wanted to see where everyone was at and when we would be moving on to the next section. No rush of course, just eager to continue!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Okay, I've read up to Chapter 10, theory time: So the main theory right now is that Julia and Patrick are Randall Goedler's neice and nephew "Pip and Emma", but at this point in the book this seems a little too obvious and is probably a red herring. But at the same time it still seems evident that Patrick and Julia are not who they say they are, especially when you couple them showing up recently with all of these events as well as Blacklock's generosity. My current theory is that they are actually Miss Marple's nephew Raymond West and his wife. This is possibly far-fetched but I have a few clues which have convinced me of this. The first thing that caught my attention was the mention of his wife "making a name for herself painting pictures of dead flowers", and the fact that the dead daisies at Little Paddocks being out of place. More intriguing though are the fact that 1)they are connected to the town and especially Mrs. Harmon (who we all previously suspected) through Miss Marple, 2) Raymond West is a writer of books that Miss Marple considers "unpleasant" and are possibly crime thrillers, 3) earlier Mrs. Harmon had talked at length about the murder book Death Does the Hat Trick which I am now thinking Mr. West wrote. My guess is that, Raymond came across the case doing research for some of his writing, or potentially because Mrs. Harmon became a fan of his and told him. Whether or not they were planning on posing as Pip and Emma or what their endgame was I am not entirely sure. The inspector mentioned that this story was like "a best selling mystery" so maybe he is just doing it to write a book about it. I am still not sure how the other people fit into it. Mrs. Haymes seems like she is in on it, but I doubt it was Scherz she was talking to in the summer house. I also still think something is up with Bunner but I am not sure if she is an idiot savant, or if she heard about the murder from someone, or if she is in on it. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Thanks! I still think there is a lot going on with the other characters and there are some obvious red herrings floating around but I am still fairly certain about those two. I assume everyone is pretty busy for the holidays but I am looking forward to continuing to the next section. I might read a few chapters since I am off the next few days. And yeah, I don't think it's childish to admit the Pussy talk is hilarious. The first time it was pretty innocuous but the line Vain quoted was so over the top it seems like it would fit in a period piece SNL sketch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
Rogue1-and-a-half posted:Shoot, missed the first one! Maybe we could go ahead and pick the next one, so everyone would have plenty of time to get ahold of a copy. There is still plenty of time to join in on this one, it is a fairly easy read (although you have to pay attention to details) and we are only halfway through after a few weeks. You can always catch up quickly and then read over the current discussion for extra clues!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Haven't caught up just yet, but today on the Kindle Daily Deal there are 50 mysteries and thrillers for under $2, although I am not savvy enough to know which are who-done-its. I also noticed another Agatha Christie novel (and hey it says it's a Miss Marple Mystery!) in this month's "under $3" section. I doubt it would be worth it to pick the next book from these, but if anyone is a fan of this book or mysteries in general it might be worth checking out!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Zola posted:I'm not going to spoiler this clue because it has already come up a couple of times in earlier chapters, but Dora is upset that someone apparently left a lit cigarette on one of the tables and burned it. I don't remember if anyone was smoking in that scene, I'm going to go back and look. I noticed that too early on. She actually alternates between all 3, and specifically in one of the most recent chapters she seems to stop to correct herself and apologize. There is definitely something up with her, she is either playing dumb or actually is dumb but is unwittingly helping the killer(s) without realizing it. I am leaning toward the former because in this latest section there is a bit which talks about how she treats Blacklock's possessions as if they were her own. I have been lazy at home but now that I am commuting again I am back on track. I should finish the 13th chapter over lunch today. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jan 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Finished this afternoon but had to reread parts of chapter 13 since it confused me again: Not entirely sure what to make of the whole exercise Miss Marple had with Bunch where she compared the current residents to past cases (I guess that's what they were). So it seems to be meant to give us insight into the characters, but I am not sure if its supposed to be a direct comparison or what. Right now the implication is that Patrick isn't to be trusted (he was compared to the "nastiest one"), Col. Easterbrook might be the father of Pip and Emma, Mrs. Easterbrook is probably lying about where she is from. Miss Marple mentioned that Bunch was wrong on one; she seemed to skip over one that could be Hinch it seems (the one who stopped the bank robbery) or maybe one of them was supposed to be her?. Also Miss Marple seemed to think of something right when the waitress mentioned her name was Julia and that she thought they were talking about her. I'm honestly kinda stumped by that whole section, any thoughts? Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jan 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Esoteric Scientist posted:I just reread this part of chapter 13, and realized you’re right. Miss Marple describes 8 people, and Bunch names 7. Other than the person who stopped the bank robbery, the Dora-nurse association seems off to me, since Dora has (almost) nothing to gain with Letitia’s death. Well, there is still the possibility that Dora is not who she says she is. There seems to be a recurring theme of people coming back after so many years that you wouldn't recognize them, and Dora would fit the bill. As far as I know, all we really know of her is that she went to school with Letitia and then showed up years later with health issues; fake-Dora could be the mother of Pip and Emma (for example) and just looked up someone who Letitia went to school with. quote:As for the waitress part, maybe it had more to do with the “naturally if you think someone's talking about you, it's only human nature to listen” part than the “Julia” part. It’s hard to tell how much of the conversation she had overheard. Maybe someone and asked her to do it? This I agree with 100% and was also what I was thinking, but I couldn't figure out what it would be referencing if that were the case. The "if you think someone's talking about you" might imply that there are people with the same/similar names or someone copying someone else's identity maybe? There was also the whole thing with Mitzi overhearing Phillipa and Rudi, and then when she read the paper she thought she was going to be the one murdered, so maybe it has something to do with that, and she heard more than she let on? I'm not sure but I am excited to read the next part, I should finish on my commute home tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Esoteric Scientist posted:Yeah, I don’t really trust Dora. It seems to me that she knows she’s supposed to be dumb. The thing is, even if she’s an impostor (which I don’t doubt), I think the only scenario where she would really benefit from Letitia’s death is if she’s actually Sonia, or somehow related to Pip and Emma. And she would most likely have to know the real Dora, her story, traits etc. otherwise she would raise suspicions. My guess is that if she’s an impostor, she’s not related to Pip and Emma or the murder, but somehow to the real Dora. Well, based on this current section (chapters 14-16) she does get her own age wrong, so this "playing senile" thing could be a way to get around not knowing much about the real Dora. Of course, at the end of Chapter 16 she dies so that kind of takes her out of the running for the murderer, but I still think there is (was) something up with her. Man, lots of twists and turns in this section, I might hold off trying to formulate a theory for now since it seems like there are so many possible avenues and potential suspects that there must be a ton of red herrings. It does help to talk it out though so keep the posts coming! Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jan 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Any other thoughts? Is everyone caught up?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Go for it! We are up to Chapter 16 which according to my Kindle is about 60% through the book. You should be able to catch up pretty quickly, we have been reading about 3-6 chapters a week I would say depending on everyone's schedule. I wouldn't read through the thread until you catch up since we have unspoilered everything until chapter 14, although you can always use ProfessorProf's posts as benchmarks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Holy smokes! Twists and turns continue but it seems like it is being narrowed down. I'll need to go back over some of this stuff later, there definitely were a few interesting things like Murgatroyd's (RIP) testimony.With the emphasis on she wasn't there I can only assume she was talking about Letitia herself. I also definitely want to go back and see who was near the lamp as that seems to be incredibly important over the past few chapters. There was also something weird in Chapter 18 concerning Letitia's letter and Goedler making"enquiries". It seems like Miss Marple finds the use of "enquiries" versus the Inspectors use of "inquiries" interesting. The only thing I can find is that "enquiries" is used more in British English and it distinguishes more informally asking questions from "inquiry" which is a formal investigation. So the question is who he was asking and what specifically it means that he was just asking around versus formally investigating. I was thinking it might indicate perhaps that Stamfordis is known by Letitia and he was asking her these questions, I can't otherwise see why the distinction could be so important. It's starting to look like Letitia might be up to no good. Any thoughts? Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Are you implying Letty might have staged the holdup initially and then the murders for reasons unknown? Hell, for the poisoning could have been done by her any time and we don't know where she was when Murgatroyd was strangled do we... Yeah, possibly. At this point I might just be biting at red herrings left and right. But the way she said it and the way Miss Marple was very interested about the emphasis of the words. The other interesting thing about the Murgatroyd thing, if she was talking about one of the other women she might have been suspicious or afraid, I get the impression that she is innocent enough that she would just be confused about Letitia's absence more than anything. Like I said, at this point there are so many random clues and odd behavior just being tossed around that its hard to find a clear set of clues leading to a solid theory. I'm hoping we can get more discussion and perspectives going and maybe narrow it down a little more. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Concerning pouring liquid over the frayed wire, when the Inspector first arrived he noticed the silver vase with the dead flowers, and I believe Dora made a comment to the affect of "I must have forgotten to water them"! Now I am convinced that someone poured the water out onto the lamp for that very reason, especially since that's exactly what happened to Bunch and Miss Marple in the scene from the previous chapter. I also just remembered while typing this up that Dora made the comment that she thought Letitia was holding the flower vase before the lights went out, but someone (Letitia herself or an accomplice? I'll have to go back over that section) corrected her and said it was the silver cigarette case. I think there is definitely more evidence hidden in that letter that the Inspector confiscated. Marple was interesting in some of the wording, and the Inspector made the comment that the description of Sonia Goedler "opening and closing her hands like a cat" reminded him of someone. You make a good point about the emphasis on which word possibly pointing to different people. Although now that I remembered the vase details I am really leaning more toward Murgatroyd referring the Letitia herself. Phillipa might also be an interesting choice since there is clearly some stuff going on with her (her husband returning, Letitia changing her will, etc.) Bunch was the first outside character to mention Easterbrook's gun but there was that whole scene where Easterbrook and his wife discussed his gun being missing and when the last time either of them had seen it, and specifically whether or not it would be able to be used in the murder based on when it went missing. Although from the way the scene played out it could indicate that either one of them was lying to cover their tracks or that they are both just trying to convince themselves that the gun wasn't involved. I'm definitely going to have to go back over some parts on my lunch break and ride home, I am starting to piece together some ideas and narrow things down but its still hard with so many open threads. It seems like it will all wrap up in the next section so I want to get a working theory before we move on. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Good catch with the arthritis. Letitia possibly being Sonia Goedler in disguise is where I was leaning, but I wasn't sure if there was any evidence of that other than her being super suspicious right about now. So in which case I am thinking previous suspicions about Dora, Patrick and Julia are probably backwards. They kept repeating the idea that a family member you haven't seen in a long time might as well be a complete stranger, but that could also mean that those 3 wouldn't recognize the real Letitia. Phillipa could still be Pip or Emma (I always liked someone's mention that "Pip" could be short for Phillipa), and her talk with Letitia about the inheritance could have just been staged to mess with Julia. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
I think you're dead on with the Lotty thing, it was definitely mentioned in the previous chapter that the Inspector thought Miss Marple's "e's" looked like "o's", and with Dora constantly fudging the name it's obvious Marple meant to write "Lotty". I hadn't considered that it was someone named Charlotte, I just assumed Bunny was aware that it wasn't Letitia Blacklock and just kept messing up the name. I have a small theory on the "Delicious Death" thing. It was after eating the cake that Bunny felt ill and needed to take aspirin. My theory was that the cake had something in it to make whoever ate it ill so that they would take the poisoned aspirin. It seems roundabout - why not just poison the cake? - but by doing it this way you could have more control over who exactly to poison (i.e. if someone you didn't expect to eat the cake does you could give them non-tainted aspirin, or you could eat the cake yourself without suspicion, etc). I am still skimming back through and working on a more concrete theory, I will post it here this afternoon. I think we are on the same page thinking it is fake Letty, but I still have some details to work out and want to think about the other clues. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Okay, final theory time: Or most of one at least. I still think we are gonna find out some shady stuff about the various characters but I think I have an idea of what is going on with "Letitia Blacklock": So after skimming back over and Autumncomet's excellent catch, it seems obvious that I was wrong and the fake Letty isn't Sonia Goedler but Charlotte Blacklock. She was obviously cured by the iodine treatment, based on the text Autumncomet and also a comment Miss Marple made to Blacklock about preferring "the old-fashioned remedy of big black bottles of medicine". I am also going to assume based treatment and Lotty's arthritis symptoms that it was a muscular disease which she suffered from. And the "pearls" clue comes from her condition acting up and causing her to hand to spasm and rip off the pearls. So that covers the Iodine, the pearls, the Letty/Lotty confusion, as well as the "sad affliction bravely borne". It also means that Bunny obviously knew which Blacklock it really was. In a conversation with Miss Marple, Bunny also mentioned that "old age pension doesn't go very far" and then later Marple refers to a case where a lady was drawing double pension from a dead woman. I believe that is what was happening with Letty/Lotty, and I think she let Bunny in on the act, which explains why she would be confused about things. OR, it might just be a parallel to this case, where Lotty is assuming the identity of Letty in order to collect the Goedler fortune. It might also indicate that Bunny was also using the same scheme, she seemed confused about her own age (59 versus 64), and it would be important for Lotty to correct that in the presence of company since she was supposed to be her friend from school and therefor the same age. During the shooting, Lotty used the vase with the violets to pour water onto the defective lamp, which was later swapped out with the other lamp (this is why Bunny mentioned seeing the flash and hearing the crackle before the lights went out). I've already put forth my theory on the "Delicious Death" being used as a catalyst to lead someone to the poisoned aspirin. I am not sure about 'making enquiries', it seems to imply that it was not a formal investigation but just asking questions. I thought this might mean that he was asking Letty herself but she mentions that she only saw him once. It could still imply that Sonia and Letty were closer than it seems, and R.G. was pestering her about it. So Lotty is posing as Letty to draw double pension, or possibly to get at the Goedler fortune (I'll get to why I am not 100% sure this is the case in a second). Rudi Scherz (from Berne, the last clue) shows up and almost spoils the whole scam by recognizing Lotty. So she stages the whole thing (probably through Phillipa Haymes, who I will also get to in a sec) in order to murder him and get him out of the way. I am going to go out on a limb and say that Dora Bunner was Sonia Goedler. I couldn't find anything about Dora opening and closing her hands like a cat, and she isn't short and dark but technically we got that description from Lotty (after she pauses and says she wouldn't recognize her after all these years) and the pictures of her were hidden. Emma says her mother and father split them up, and Phillipa says her mother died several years ago but was probably lying, and she was the one who set up the whole thing with Rudi Scherz. It also fits with Dora being about 5 years younger than Letty would be, her showing up out of the blue, and my previous idea that Letty and Sonia had been close (hence the "enquiries" being important, R.G. was gossiping with his sister's friend, not conducting an investigation). So Lotty had the motive to murder Rudi Scherz. She may have been worried that Sonia was going to slip up since she had already revealed too much (I was originally going to say that maybe she hadn't known about the fortune, but she is the one who brings it up to the Inspector). Phillipa may have agreed because of Sonia's degrading mental condition - this would mean the nurse who euthanized her patients in Marple's story was actually meant to be Lotty and not Dora. Finally, either Lotty or maybe Pip heard Murgatroyd and Hinch working out the case and showed up to kill her. I am still not 100% on Pip either, and she is the one wrench in my Sonia theory. She may be telling the truth and thinks her mother died years ago and came seeking Letty Blacklock. That would explain why she didn't react to her mother being murdered. Or Sonia Goedler may be dead and Pip is planning on splitting the fortune with Lotty, which is why she helped arrange the Scherz thing (the summerhouse scene is still ambiguous in either case). But the main thing throwing me off is that Lotty got upset when Sonia died because she was the only one her knew her true identity, which means Pip probably didn't know (and was maybe helping her mother or oblivious). So that is my theory as of now! I might have some revelations, and if anyone has any other additions or corrections let me know. I am excited to move onto the conclusion! Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Zola posted:
This was exactly my line of reasoning. Everyone assumes she was upset because the pearls were real. If they were real, she wouldn't have rushed out of the room and left them rolling around on the floor. I think she was upset because all the stress was causing her condition to flare up again. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Good theories all around. Is it absolutely necessary that Bunny is Sonia though? If Rudi could recognize Charlotte and give the game away, why couldn't Pip or Emma/Julia? While I guess it's possible, I feel like it complicates matters. I mean, I don't know that she is, it was a theory because it seems to me like Sonia is in the mix somehow especially since the Investigator said her hand thing reminded him of someone. Emma claims that her mother split her and Pip up, and Pip says her mother died, so either one/both of them could be telling the truth or lying or in on it and it would fit. I am guessing Pip is in on it but Julia/Emma is telling the truth about never meeting her mother. I admit I don't have anything very solid, except the facts that: 1) I don't think Dora was who she said she was, 2) I think Sonia is in the mix somewhere, 3) it fits my idea of the "enquiries" clue by making Letty/Lotty and Sonia closer than they seemed. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Zola posted:
Man I had this post all written out before and I apparently didn't submit. So I was thinking about this and something occurred to me. You make a good point about Rudi being the closest young man to matching the story since the other two don't especially seem to be ladies' men. But at the same time Rudi was always a patsy from the start. And, since I think we are at least in agreement that Letty is actually Charlotte, there seems to be a theme developing of reversed expectations. We were hinted several times that people wouldn't recognize family they haven't seen in a while, and at first this seemed to refer to Patrick and Julia, but it turns out it is true for at least Lotty as well. We also have a reversal of expectation from a character we thought was a man but turned out to be a woman: Pip. So what if we are again playing with gender reversal for the role of this character. Phillipa is the only character we have seen to have people fawning over them: we had the extended scene of Edmund trying unsuccessfully to woo her. What if we assume that Rudi was also in love with her, and that is how she hooked him into the whole plot (assuming that what Mitzi heard in the summerhouse is what it seems; someone did have to set up Rudi after all). Also in the scene with Edmund, she mentioned she has "another name" - Joan. Could she be the -J from the letter in the Times at the beginning of the book? Also, I'm not sure this has anything to do with the mystery, but I noticed when going back over the beginning that Edmund is reading The Daily Worker and his mother admonishes him for his politics. The dude is totally a commie! And ProfProf, I am ready whenever you guys are! Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Zola posted:Mrs Cray's son was spoiled and "got in with a queer lot" is definitely Mrs Swettenham and Edumund, because of that very fact. Ahh, excellent point about Edmund! You just blew my mind with this. Another thing I had always found fishy was Letty's comment in her letter when R.G. asks her if she would ever fall in love a criminal, she replies something like "I don't think I should fall in love with anyone". Originally I assumed this might be a hint that Letty was in love with R.G. and was embarrassed when he asked her, but it fits with your theory that she actually was in love with Dmitri, and obviously would be embarrassed to tell Goedler after his ranting. I'm a little torn on Rudi because "Dora" recognized him as the young man from the hotel and not as Lotty's nephew. But then again the only details we know are from Bunny's initial outburst (which caused Blacklock to have her rushed out of the room and given brandy, possibly to keep her from blurting out something incriminating?) and then what Blacklock and Bunner told the Inspector, which probably would have been rehearsed. There definitely is the confused comment Letty gave when the Inspector first said his name, which indicates that she thought it would be something else! Autumncomet posted:Likewise, I don't think Dora was Sonia, but admittedly I have no evidence besides gut feeling and some bias. To be fair I only really have a gut feeling. I am fairly sure Dora wasn't who she was supposed to be and Sonia is the only person unaccounted for is my main suspicion. Letty has to be Lotty but I am iffy on anyone else, I just thought I'd throw that idea in and see if it sticks. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Yeah, Phillipa was my one sticking point about the Bunny = Sonia theory. I will read this shortly on my next break and we can discuss the ending!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:
]Haha, yeah, we did get a tad crazy at the end. I think it is because our prediction of not-Letitia came right on the heels of them revealing who Pip and Emma were. So at that point it just seemed like, why not? We have at least 3 hidden identities, why not go all out! Still pretty psyched we were able to figure out the Lotty connection, good job on that one Autumncomet. I also did like the epilogue with Edmund and Phillipa refusing to subscribe to the Gazette and the Totmans being totally incredulous about it. Edmund is totally still a commie, though. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jan 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 22:27
|
|
Ending spoilers:
|
So is the basic requirement for running one of these just reading ahead to determine what are good stopping points, and then of course announcing when the final section is coming up to get people's final guesses in? Or should we have fully read the book first? This is the first pure Whodunit I have ever read, but I do read a good deal, so I wouldn't mind running one of these. Probably not the next one because I would like to give myself time to find one and read the story ahead of time and make my own guesses, but if this does continue to be a popular thread I'll queue up one or two books to get ready for future reads. Suggestions are of course welcome, especially from those of you in this thread who have read a bunch before and want to read something new along with us.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:I think the only actual requirement is to know good stopping points to pace the thread, but it'd be a shame to skim over a book just enough to get that much without the fun of reading it properly. Yeah definitely, thats why I want to give myself time to read a full book and process and enjoy it before running one of these. I was just thinking we could maybe get a list of potential candidates together, that way I could read one myself and get ready for an upcoming read-through. Thanks for taking the lead on this one Maud Moonshine!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Off to a good start. I am also a big fan of the humor in this one, Luke is a pretty enjoyable smartass. So Mrs. Pinkerton seemed to imply (or maybe even outright state, I may have misread some of her rambling remarks) that the victims were all poisoned, which is how she knew that Dr. Humbleby was next, because he started showing the same symptoms the earlier victims had. Also add to the list of victims: Amy Gibbs - first person Pinkerton noticed with the symptoms before she died Carter - "he drank" Tommy Pierce - bully to smaller kids Those are the ones that Mrs. Pinkerton noticed. For now I am inclined to believe those are our only victims, especially since 5 people in a small town dying over the course of a few months might be considered "a lot" although those might just be the ones Pinkerton first noticed. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Carbon Thief posted:I'd really like to get in on the next book, but I've read that one, too. May I suggest something from Rex Stout, Ngaio Marsh, or one of the other "Golden Age" mystery writers? (There are plenty of other Christie novels I can't remember whodunit for, though, if you're sticking with her.) So I was going back because I remembered there had been suggestions of other books. Maud Moonshine, are there any books from either of these two writers that you have already read? I want to make sure we can get a book everyone can participate in, since it seems like you and Carbon Thief have both read a lot of Christie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Zola posted:I know nothing about mysteries, so those are fine by me. What about our other thread participants? Yeah, if you want to start one of those by all means. I definitely want to hear from the people who wanted to participate but had read these two books. Once they weigh in I will choose one, either from the Prof's list or otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
The Duke of Avon posted:I've just read the first three chapters, don't have much to speculate on yet. This is completely random, but could the limited number of men in the town somehow have something to do with it? I'm not sure what, exactly... Also, I suspect accusations of witchcraft will come up at some point. That sort've makes sense, and we have also had 3 of the 4 victims as men. Do you have any preference for which you want to read Zola? I am finishing up a few books and should be done probably by the end of next week with those, so at that point I'll probably pick and read through one of these for either the next book or after you. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Haha, well okay. I am still going to wait until I finish these books I am reading, and in the meantime I will look into those 3 to see which one I want to read. I'll let you know in the next few days.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
The Duke of Avon posted:Okay, wait a minute. When the hell did it become a foregone conclusion that the murderer was a man? I mean, I kind of got that impression too, but I don't think Miss Pinkerton ever said so and therefore I am calling it right now: the murderer is a woman. I was going to say this too. That one passage where Luke just repeatedly said man like "the murderer is a man who did manly things to kill these people and we must stop this man" stood out for me. I am sure it would have just been passed right over in Christie's day, but here it stuck out like a sore thumb and seemed like it is setting up for a reversal of expectations. I also gotta say I liked the handy reference in Chapter 7. I was just thinking that I hoped someone posted a clue list because I started lose track of all the characters and details and then Chapter 7 provided a handy list. Still don't have any solid theories beyond agreeing with The Duke just yet. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Zola posted:No, either is fine. We might consider switching from The Ponson Case to The Pit Prop Syndicate since Pit Prop Syndicate is on Project Gutenberg and is free, but I'm fine with whatever you choose--if you can't choose, just flip a coin and I'll take the other. So I was mulling this over this morning and I will go ahead and get the Body on the Beach. My brother gave me a $100 Amazon gift card for Christmas and somehow I managed to not spend it all the next day so the extra cost doesn't bother me, and I am leaning toward reading something more modern anyway. Of course the other people in the thread will need to buy it, but if everyone needs time to find and procure a cheap copy I figure we can always do Pit Prop Syndicate next.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Excellent catch! I know we have been told about Winky Pooh's ears multiple times at this point so it certainly is a clue. Is everyone ready to move on? Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
It would make some bit of sense - right now 3 of the 4 victims are men with bad reputations, and Amy has always seemed a little out of place. Now that I think of her murder being an accident, I am wondering whether the title "Murder is Easy" is in reference to the fact that the first murder was accidental and the rest followed because the murderer realized just how easy it was to get rid of people they didn't like. Now I am sort've suspecting Mrs. Pinkerton did it and that she might have just up and got hit by a car on accident on the way to turn herself in. Also FYI going to start on The Body on the Beach tonight! Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 23:02
|
|