Sorry for taking so long to get in on this. Been a crazy time lately. I've actually had the reading done in a timely manner, just didn't get time to put a post out for the first section. To be honest, about the only thing I had to say about the first 3 chapters though was that I can't understand the stinking English accent. Seriously, they need subtitles for these books. Anyway, I'm starting to decipher some of this foreign language, so here are some brief thoughts.
First I don't think the doctor dunnit. The only way I see him being involved is if we find out in the end that this was a humongous conspiracy and everyone conceivable was involved. Sure there was the love interest potential and such, but why is he trying to take pressure off of Thibbs at the inquest, if he's guilty? (Granted there was no chance Thibbs was in trouble anyway, but still, I think the point holds)
To be honest, I think currently I lean towards Levy disappearing quite of his own will, and being either the murderer or co-conspirator in the case of the naked guy. So there you have it, no crime in the Levy disappearance and Levy is the prime criminal in the naked guy case. There very well may be multiple co-conspirators in on things with Levy though, but I'm still working on that.
Oh and for proof....I've got nothing, just my feeling based on reading mysteries a lot in my life. Its a hunch.
Finally, two things, first I find it annoying when books make tongue in cheek marks about their book or genre. I.E. at least twice so far the characters in this book have made comments about how this mystery was not typical of mysteries you might read about. I don't have the exact quote, but there was one in relation to no muddy footprint right after the rain on the roof, as would be found in a mystery novel. Second, I find it annoying that they still don't seem to be deadset on the two crimes being somehow linked. Of course their linked....c'mon now...Okay that's it for now, I'll try to catch on ya'lls posts and make some comments there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So, based on your comment on em's post and your post, i'm guessing you don't like Peter all that much?
Just remember that he is a Lord and quite used to getting his way. And he does do quite a bit.
I like the inside joking about mysteries. Seems more postmodern than you would expect from an older novel.
Actually, other than the fact that he and Parker haven't yet seemed to fully decide the two mysteries are related, I am quite fond of Peter. I don't mind that he's an arrogant jerk towards his friend, mostly because I'm not his friend. I'm just reading about it in a book, and it is much more amusing (than demeaning) from this vantage point.
I guess I don't like postmodern then, because I'm not a big fan of the "inside joking" in any book. I think its because when I'm reading a book, I want to be absorbed into a story. Each time I see a comment like that though, it briefly takes me out of the story and puts me in a relationship with the author and his/her views on literature, genres, etc. Without these pinpricks of annoyance I can stay within the story and engrossed with the characters of the story and don't have to think twice about the author.
Don't get me wrong, there is a place for literature criticism, and it can be quite interesting, but I want to go searching for it in a test book or essay, not find it nestled into the midst of this good book I'm trying to read.
--Chris--
Your points are valid of course. I guess I never found them pulling me out of the story.
And i'm guessing on the postmodern thing. i'm sure Sarah would know better.
Gaudy Night (another wimsey book) is one of my faves because it has peter very vulnerable. just very open. and it's set in oxford, the university and that's just ace.
Self-referentiality can be part of the post-modern. For this novel, I would say that it might be Sayers having fun with what she knows, being an academic and literary critic herself (I think some of her novels can also be classified in the academic fiction genre, which I love). I always smile whenever the characters mention their case isn't turning out like it would be in a mystery novel.
I'm glad that the detectives haven't assumed that the two cases are related. We know it (or assume it, and I do as well) because we know the genre, but as they've stated they're not in a mystery novel (well, they don't realize it), so they can't just match up cases. If our police officers connected crimes based on whoever else they were brainstorming with, we'd be unhappy citizens.
Oh, and since you're listening to this too Chris, how's the American accent for the railway guy on yours? Mine is pretty funny.
My mistake....the accent comment was said tongue in cheek. I'm actually reading it, however, with the slightly older English vocabulary I find myself struggling at times to keep up on what's going on all the time. I need the modern American version (i.e. subtitles).
Post a Comment