I'm working on the final details of the April issue. Hope to get the PDFs out tonight and printed copies out tomorrow. I've had to do a last minute fix when I discovered a book I had listed had been previously published in 2008. Doh! Filling in the blank spot.
Steve doesn't have shooting tonight. There' s a class at the gun club tonight -- and he's not helping with it tonight. He will help with the class tomorrow night and Saturday. There are gun shows on tv that he usually misses on Wednesdays that he'll get a chance to watch now so he's not too unhappy.
I'd like to finish the poetry book tonight that I'm reading for the book festival.
Here's the PK's Notes for the April issue:
I have brought you all here today to discuss….murder. Sound familiar?
Do you read crime fiction to solve the puzzle? Are you in a race to figure out whodunnit? Or, in some cases, whydunnit? That was the purpose of the early mystery novels. The reader goes up against the author who was supposed to play fair and provide all clues in order for you to solve the crime prior to or without having the detective explain it to all who were gathered for the exposition. So what is considered fair? First and foremost the villain must appear or at least been mentioned plainly in the story fairly early -- no out-of-the-blue bad guy of whom we’ve never heard. There must be clear motivation for the crime and not be a random, roaming killing. The key to the solution of classic mysteries is that the victim is the most important clue. Discovering all about the kill-ee often leads to the killer. It’s all about motive and opportunity, baby, and someone who had no choice but remove an obstacle.
Years ago I stage managed a production of Agatha Christie’s “And Then There Were None” in summer repertoire theatre. The gimmick of the play – and the villain -- was to remove a statue from the mantle each time there was a new victim. From behind the set, I was in charge of removing the figurines by taking out the square piece in the flat and slipping out the next statue, hopefully unseen. Ah ha — another Indian figure removed and another character was a goner! Unfortunately, there was one point in the play where the only opportunity timing-wise I had to do the disappearing act was apparently always seen by the audience and I could hear twittering in the audience. This was a bad thing because the actor playing the killer was actually on stage at the time and couldn’t have “dunnit”. Not a brilliant moment — and not playing fair. Why do bad guys do that anyway – making these useless, dramatic gestures? Or go on and on explaining how evil and smart he or she is until the hero saves the day? But that’s an essay for another time.
In my own reading, I actually do not try to solve the crime before the end of the book. For me, it takes me out of the flow of the storytelling if I am constantly putting everyone’s words and actions under the eyeglass. I think the art of detecting involves facial expressions, body language, and unguarded moments of people who aren’t in the spotlight, so to speak. Catching these "gotchas" can’t be done on the written page unless the author literally points it out to us. Detecting, to me, means looking in the places that we’re not supposed to in order to uncover and discover secrets; the author in crime fiction puts the flashlight — or “torch” in Brit mysteries —where he/she wants it and reveals the puzzle on his schedule. So instead, I just hang on to the coattails of the sleuth and enjoy the ride.
Gotta keep busy... Have a good night!
Much love,
PK the Bookeemonster
No comments:
Post a Comment