Peg Herring's Blog, page 52
February 3, 2010
What Is Mystery? Believability
The mystery I'm reading right now doesn't have it. The descriptions are artful, the plot moves along, the situation is unique and interesting. But I feel the author's hand on my shoulder, pushing me along, trying to make me believe what she needs me to believe in order to get to her conclusion.
Characters say things that sound, well, out of character, and I hear her yell, "THAT'S A CLUE, READER!" People explode with anger, blurting out their secrets when they should be cautious and subtle. Several minor characters can't seem to decide what their own personality traits are. The protagonist has already told me twice how beautiful she is ... and I'm supposed to like her?
Finally, everyone in the book except the protag, her ethnic sidekick, and the wrongly-accused client is nasty and not afraid to show it. I can't help but think that if there were that many overtly mean-spirited people in one spot for long, the earth would open up and swallow them in pure self-preservation. I also hope the people of this author's state don't read her books: the Chamber of Commerce would cringe at her slamming of the whole state's morals, legal system, and inhabitants.
Will I finish the book? Probably. Will I read another by this author? Probably not. Good authors paint images that make us believe the people and situations are real, no matter how outre they may be. Second-rate authors try to force us to accept their view of the world, and their characters are cartoonish stereotypes, spewing bad dialogue and doing unreasonable things to move a clunky plot along. Second rate doesn't get a second chance from me; there are too many good authors out there.
Characters say things that sound, well, out of character, and I hear her yell, "THAT'S A CLUE, READER!" People explode with anger, blurting out their secrets when they should be cautious and subtle. Several minor characters can't seem to decide what their own personality traits are. The protagonist has already told me twice how beautiful she is ... and I'm supposed to like her?
Finally, everyone in the book except the protag, her ethnic sidekick, and the wrongly-accused client is nasty and not afraid to show it. I can't help but think that if there were that many overtly mean-spirited people in one spot for long, the earth would open up and swallow them in pure self-preservation. I also hope the people of this author's state don't read her books: the Chamber of Commerce would cringe at her slamming of the whole state's morals, legal system, and inhabitants.
Will I finish the book? Probably. Will I read another by this author? Probably not. Good authors paint images that make us believe the people and situations are real, no matter how outre they may be. Second-rate authors try to force us to accept their view of the world, and their characters are cartoonish stereotypes, spewing bad dialogue and doing unreasonable things to move a clunky plot along. Second rate doesn't get a second chance from me; there are too many good authors out there.
February 2, 2010
What Is a Mystery?
Sounds like it might lead to a "Who's On First?" situation: "What is a mystery? I don't know; it's a mystery to me." When we say we love mysteries, what do we mean?
It could mean we love picking out clues in a story and separating them from the red herrings. Some of the greats of mystery excel at the casual reference that is so important later in the story or the item clutched in the dead man's hand that could be nothing, could be something.
Some of us love the chase; the physical danger, the "Oh, *&^%" moment where we can't see how the protag is going to get out of this one, even though we're sure (well, almost sure) that it will happen.
Some of us love the characters: Jack Reacher, V.I.Warshawski, Inspector Gamache, or whoever, despite faults and flaws, makes us want to know how they're doing these days.
And some of us love it all. We can argue about whether suspense is mystery or thriller is its own genre or cozy versus hard-boiled, but for those of us who love it, a puzzle is usually enough. I may be in the mood for John Rain today and Gertie Johnson tomorrow. I am equally at home in Billy Boyle's WWII stories or Hester Latterly's Victorian era or Walt Longmire's modern-day west. As long as there's a plot that I can unravel along with the author and his sleuth, I'm there.
It could mean we love picking out clues in a story and separating them from the red herrings. Some of the greats of mystery excel at the casual reference that is so important later in the story or the item clutched in the dead man's hand that could be nothing, could be something.
Some of us love the chase; the physical danger, the "Oh, *&^%" moment where we can't see how the protag is going to get out of this one, even though we're sure (well, almost sure) that it will happen.
Some of us love the characters: Jack Reacher, V.I.Warshawski, Inspector Gamache, or whoever, despite faults and flaws, makes us want to know how they're doing these days.
And some of us love it all. We can argue about whether suspense is mystery or thriller is its own genre or cozy versus hard-boiled, but for those of us who love it, a puzzle is usually enough. I may be in the mood for John Rain today and Gertie Johnson tomorrow. I am equally at home in Billy Boyle's WWII stories or Hester Latterly's Victorian era or Walt Longmire's modern-day west. As long as there's a plot that I can unravel along with the author and his sleuth, I'm there.
February 1, 2010
Who Reads Mystery?
Smart people, of course!
Well, that's part of it. Mystery readers come in all shapes and sizes, but I've been to lots of conventions where they gather, and they are a dedicated lot. Authors sometimes cringe at the thought of meeting their fans, because they'll be put to the question: why was Character C's motive so weak? How did Character A travel from New York to L.A. so fast? And did you know that your Character B has blue eyes in book one and green eyes in book two? Oops!
So who are mystery readers? They notice details, like the sleuths they like to follow. They like a puzzle, but it had better make sense when all the pieces are in place. They gobble up mystery novels like tent caterpillars on a maple tree. And they love, love, love to talk about what they like and don't like in the genre.
The differences seem to come in the type of sleuth mystery readers like. Some really get into the smart-mouth hero; others like the reluctant sleuths. Some want lots of detail from the mind of the killer; others like him/her to be remote until the end, when motives spill out in a final desperate scene. Some want all the ends tied up: justice served, evil defeated. Others want recognition at the story's end that life just isn't like that.
So who reads mystery? I was correct at the beginning: smart people of many kinds, many types. The only requirement is the desire to pit your mind as a reader against the mind of the author. Let the battle of wits begin!
Well, that's part of it. Mystery readers come in all shapes and sizes, but I've been to lots of conventions where they gather, and they are a dedicated lot. Authors sometimes cringe at the thought of meeting their fans, because they'll be put to the question: why was Character C's motive so weak? How did Character A travel from New York to L.A. so fast? And did you know that your Character B has blue eyes in book one and green eyes in book two? Oops!
So who are mystery readers? They notice details, like the sleuths they like to follow. They like a puzzle, but it had better make sense when all the pieces are in place. They gobble up mystery novels like tent caterpillars on a maple tree. And they love, love, love to talk about what they like and don't like in the genre.
The differences seem to come in the type of sleuth mystery readers like. Some really get into the smart-mouth hero; others like the reluctant sleuths. Some want lots of detail from the mind of the killer; others like him/her to be remote until the end, when motives spill out in a final desperate scene. Some want all the ends tied up: justice served, evil defeated. Others want recognition at the story's end that life just isn't like that.
So who reads mystery? I was correct at the beginning: smart people of many kinds, many types. The only requirement is the desire to pit your mind as a reader against the mind of the author. Let the battle of wits begin!
January 29, 2010
The Author's Advice for the Reader
I've been following a discussion on Goodreads that concerns historical novels and the "truth" they present. I also spent many, many years teaching history, using novels as a way to make the past more interesting to students than the history books seem able to do. What I see is that there are two purposes to reading historicals, and the wise reader understands what her goal is and then how much she cares about truth as opposed to an exciting story.
First and maybe foremost, we read for entertainment. We love a certain era, certain characters, or certain events from history and want to see how each author presents them. We want to be swept away from the now, want to know how they did things back then, want to think about differences and similarities between us and people in other times.
The other reason we read historicals is to learn about the past. Many of us get most of our understanding of history from novels, and there's the rub: not all novels are created historically. A reader who picks up a certain book with no historical background to call upon may conclude that everything in the book is true, and that's probably a mistake. Almost all authors have to bend the truth a little to make a novel work, even if it's just telescoping time or adding minor characters.
In all probability, it doesn't really matter if you think Anne Boleyn had sex with her brother, but there are ways to become better informed. First, read the author's notes; often we want to let you know where we depart from the facts for the sake of a good story. Second, read more than one author's take on a character or time period. There are hundreds of books on Marie Antoinette, for example, so you can get a rounded view and decide for yourself whether she was wicked or merely misguided.
Finally, there's always nonfiction. If you are reading to learn and not just for entertainment, you can look up what original or scholarly sources say on a topic. Just be aware: there aren't any totally objective sources, so you, like the authors who write historicals, must decide for yourself if Richard III killed his nephews or not. (I vote not, but it's just my opinion!)
First and maybe foremost, we read for entertainment. We love a certain era, certain characters, or certain events from history and want to see how each author presents them. We want to be swept away from the now, want to know how they did things back then, want to think about differences and similarities between us and people in other times.
The other reason we read historicals is to learn about the past. Many of us get most of our understanding of history from novels, and there's the rub: not all novels are created historically. A reader who picks up a certain book with no historical background to call upon may conclude that everything in the book is true, and that's probably a mistake. Almost all authors have to bend the truth a little to make a novel work, even if it's just telescoping time or adding minor characters.
In all probability, it doesn't really matter if you think Anne Boleyn had sex with her brother, but there are ways to become better informed. First, read the author's notes; often we want to let you know where we depart from the facts for the sake of a good story. Second, read more than one author's take on a character or time period. There are hundreds of books on Marie Antoinette, for example, so you can get a rounded view and decide for yourself whether she was wicked or merely misguided.
Finally, there's always nonfiction. If you are reading to learn and not just for entertainment, you can look up what original or scholarly sources say on a topic. Just be aware: there aren't any totally objective sources, so you, like the authors who write historicals, must decide for yourself if Richard III killed his nephews or not. (I vote not, but it's just my opinion!)
January 28, 2010
Speaking Tudor- Anonymous- 1-28-2010
An anonymous noblewoman with strong opinions, also a character in HER HIGHNESS' FIRST MURDER, is our Thursday blogger.
I watched your leader speak last evening on the television, and it was quite intriguing. Your nation of elected leaders functions, though not very efficiently. Each man -- in modern times, each person -- has opinions as to how life should go, and if each is free to pursue that course, chaos is inevitable. Your Alexander Hamilton opined that "the people is a beast." Your beast does not know what it wants, only that no one wants to give up anything he already has.
A leader has two tasks: one is to lead, to take a nation in the direction he or she
feels it must go. If that leader has absolute power, things move most efficiently, and that is the way I would recommend your nation move. I will admit that the leader's personality may make things difficult in some areas, but when there is one voice of leadership, everyone knows what the goals of the nation are. Each person has the choice to work toward the leader's goals or be removed from the process. Efficient.
The other task of a leader is to provide what I will call the image of leadership.
He or she must appear capable and hopefully dedicated to the task. It seems to me
that your two-party system sets itself up to fail, since it almost required that the party out of power carp, whine, and in any way possible detract from the successes and goals of the other in order that it may put itself in power. They do that by attacking the leader's image, making him or her seems weak, and forcing decisions that appease the people's fears but are not in the best interests of the nation. When the party out of power convinces people the leadership cannot lead, they are elected, the roles reverse, and the process begins again.
Were I asked, I would advise your governments, American, British, and any others with similar systems, to give the "ruling" party full power, let it implement the plans it promised, and then decide, in four years, or seven, or ten, if it deserves to remain in control. To elect a leader and then refuse to let him do what he promised seems the height of inefficiency to me, and the detractors are quite annoying. I'm not a great fan of beheadings, but a few of them cause me to consider the benefits.
I watched your leader speak last evening on the television, and it was quite intriguing. Your nation of elected leaders functions, though not very efficiently. Each man -- in modern times, each person -- has opinions as to how life should go, and if each is free to pursue that course, chaos is inevitable. Your Alexander Hamilton opined that "the people is a beast." Your beast does not know what it wants, only that no one wants to give up anything he already has.
A leader has two tasks: one is to lead, to take a nation in the direction he or she
feels it must go. If that leader has absolute power, things move most efficiently, and that is the way I would recommend your nation move. I will admit that the leader's personality may make things difficult in some areas, but when there is one voice of leadership, everyone knows what the goals of the nation are. Each person has the choice to work toward the leader's goals or be removed from the process. Efficient.
The other task of a leader is to provide what I will call the image of leadership.
He or she must appear capable and hopefully dedicated to the task. It seems to me
that your two-party system sets itself up to fail, since it almost required that the party out of power carp, whine, and in any way possible detract from the successes and goals of the other in order that it may put itself in power. They do that by attacking the leader's image, making him or her seems weak, and forcing decisions that appease the people's fears but are not in the best interests of the nation. When the party out of power convinces people the leadership cannot lead, they are elected, the roles reverse, and the process begins again.
Were I asked, I would advise your governments, American, British, and any others with similar systems, to give the "ruling" party full power, let it implement the plans it promised, and then decide, in four years, or seven, or ten, if it deserves to remain in control. To elect a leader and then refuse to let him do what he promised seems the height of inefficiency to me, and the detractors are quite annoying. I'm not a great fan of beheadings, but a few of them cause me to consider the benefits.
January 27, 2010
Speaking Tudor - Hugh - 1-27-2010
Hugh, a visitor from 1537 and a character in HER HIGHNESS FIRST MURDER:
I am a simple man, and to me simple things hold the most interest. There is something in your time that I like very much, and that is your clothing.
Now I must say that it is not as fine-looking as my Welsh Guard uniform, which
has a grand and jaunty flair, but for comfort, your clothes are best.
Nothing I have found here scratches the skin the way woolens do, and most
things keep their color and shape, though you have a very mania for washing
them. I felt quite naked for a while without a proper hat, but Peg found
me something acceptable in dark blue with a gold-colored "M" emblazoned on it.
I find it odd that there are no laws about what a person may wear. I suppose your commoners are glad to be allowed to choose the colors and fabrics they like, but it
is difficult to tell who is noble and who is common among you.
Finally, boots. I have never worn boots that fit my feet so well, right from the first day. Those I was given are actually cut to fit a right or left foot, and this had to be pointed out to me so I did not confuse them. Once I understood the concept, it makes perfect sense, and I wonder why we did not think of it.
All in all, I like the garb of two thousand and ten, although I would not mind a bit more decoration for my own gender. Have you forgotten that it is the male of the species who is supposed to strut and preen and call attention to himself?
I am a simple man, and to me simple things hold the most interest. There is something in your time that I like very much, and that is your clothing.
Now I must say that it is not as fine-looking as my Welsh Guard uniform, which
has a grand and jaunty flair, but for comfort, your clothes are best.
Nothing I have found here scratches the skin the way woolens do, and most
things keep their color and shape, though you have a very mania for washing
them. I felt quite naked for a while without a proper hat, but Peg found
me something acceptable in dark blue with a gold-colored "M" emblazoned on it.
I find it odd that there are no laws about what a person may wear. I suppose your commoners are glad to be allowed to choose the colors and fabrics they like, but it
is difficult to tell who is noble and who is common among you.
Finally, boots. I have never worn boots that fit my feet so well, right from the first day. Those I was given are actually cut to fit a right or left foot, and this had to be pointed out to me so I did not confuse them. Once I understood the concept, it makes perfect sense, and I wonder why we did not think of it.
All in all, I like the garb of two thousand and ten, although I would not mind a bit more decoration for my own gender. Have you forgotten that it is the male of the species who is supposed to strut and preen and call attention to himself?
January 26, 2010
Speaking Tudor - Hannah 1-26-2010
Hannah, a servant at Hampstead Castle and a character in HER HIGHNESS' FIRST MURDER, visiting 2010:
I find it both wondrous and frightening to be in your time. I once thought the London streets noisy, but they are nothing compared to the sounds and sights I have experienced of late. Here there is no silence, and no darkness, either.
In our time, night was a time for rest. Yes, those of grand state could prolong the day with candles and rushlights, but for most of us, sunset was bedtime and sunrise the end of sleep. I think you must be confused by your ability to light the night, and I wonder that your bodies can adapt. In your cities there is no real night, for lights of all kinds burn so brightly that one cannot see the stars. That is a great loss, for they are beautiful, and folk need their rest.
And the noises! My sleep is disturbed by many frightful things, and though Peg assures me it is only the furnace (which I must admit is wonderful) or the self-moving carriages that pass the house night and day, I wake each time. During the day I shrink from the sound of machines that suck their power through long cords. Marvelous things, like the floor cleaner and the drying-hair thing Peg uses, but what a clamor they make!
I do not complain. I merely marvel that you accept without question the disruption of your thoughts, your sleep, your peace.
I find it both wondrous and frightening to be in your time. I once thought the London streets noisy, but they are nothing compared to the sounds and sights I have experienced of late. Here there is no silence, and no darkness, either.
In our time, night was a time for rest. Yes, those of grand state could prolong the day with candles and rushlights, but for most of us, sunset was bedtime and sunrise the end of sleep. I think you must be confused by your ability to light the night, and I wonder that your bodies can adapt. In your cities there is no real night, for lights of all kinds burn so brightly that one cannot see the stars. That is a great loss, for they are beautiful, and folk need their rest.
And the noises! My sleep is disturbed by many frightful things, and though Peg assures me it is only the furnace (which I must admit is wonderful) or the self-moving carriages that pass the house night and day, I wake each time. During the day I shrink from the sound of machines that suck their power through long cords. Marvelous things, like the floor cleaner and the drying-hair thing Peg uses, but what a clamor they make!
I do not complain. I merely marvel that you accept without question the disruption of your thoughts, your sleep, your peace.
January 25, 2010
Speaking Tudor - Simon
(Author's note: sorry for being MIA last week. Being a brand new Grandma took precedence!)
Simon Maldon, Guest in 2010 from 1537
I told a bit last week about my adventure with Her Highness, the princess Elizabeth Tudor. Now I will tell you about her, at least what I know.
The princess has been ignored by her father the king for most of her life, and I believe this pains her greatly. She admires him above all others, and his distaste for her, although understandable under the circumstances, is as bitter as gall.
His Majesty sees in Elizabeth the woman he once loved, the one he saw accused of the worst of crimes: witchcraft, incest, and wantonness. I know not what Henry really thought of Anne Boleyn, but to those who say Elizabeth is not his daughter I would say, "His Majesty knows she is."
I saw them together once, and it was obvious to me that each recognizes the other, not only as blood but as kindred spirits as well. Henry knows Elizabeth is his child; it is only that he wanted -- no, needed -- a son so badly that he rejected her mother, and her as well.
Although I do not claim to know what is in the mind of the king, I thought I saw in him a wish that he had not taken the path he did, for seeing Elizabeth grown, he must have known that she, of all his children, was the one most capable of ruling, the one with both the courage and the acumen needed to head the nation and lead it to prosperity.
Simon Maldon, Guest in 2010 from 1537
I told a bit last week about my adventure with Her Highness, the princess Elizabeth Tudor. Now I will tell you about her, at least what I know.
The princess has been ignored by her father the king for most of her life, and I believe this pains her greatly. She admires him above all others, and his distaste for her, although understandable under the circumstances, is as bitter as gall.
His Majesty sees in Elizabeth the woman he once loved, the one he saw accused of the worst of crimes: witchcraft, incest, and wantonness. I know not what Henry really thought of Anne Boleyn, but to those who say Elizabeth is not his daughter I would say, "His Majesty knows she is."
I saw them together once, and it was obvious to me that each recognizes the other, not only as blood but as kindred spirits as well. Henry knows Elizabeth is his child; it is only that he wanted -- no, needed -- a son so badly that he rejected her mother, and her as well.
Although I do not claim to know what is in the mind of the king, I thought I saw in him a wish that he had not taken the path he did, for seeing Elizabeth grown, he must have known that she, of all his children, was the one most capable of ruling, the one with both the courage and the acumen needed to head the nation and lead it to prosperity.
January 18, 2010
Speaking Tudor - Simon
Simon Maldon, visitor to 2010 from 1572:
I will tell you a little about my adventure with Her Highness, the Princess Elizabeth. We met due to my father's occupation, for he is a physician. He was called to Her Highness' home when a woman there broke her leg. I met the princess that day, and our mutual interest in languages led to more visits. During that time, strange murders were occuring in London. We knew nothing of it until the killer
struck within Her Highness' household. When that happened, nothing, not even His
Majesty, King Henry VIII, could keep Elizabeth from investigating the crimes. I
became her agent, going where she could not. It was the most dangerous time of my life, but it was also the most exciting. A cripple like me, involved in sleuthing,
connected with royalty, and, for once, important to the world.
I will tell you a little about my adventure with Her Highness, the Princess Elizabeth. We met due to my father's occupation, for he is a physician. He was called to Her Highness' home when a woman there broke her leg. I met the princess that day, and our mutual interest in languages led to more visits. During that time, strange murders were occuring in London. We knew nothing of it until the killer
struck within Her Highness' household. When that happened, nothing, not even His
Majesty, King Henry VIII, could keep Elizabeth from investigating the crimes. I
became her agent, going where she could not. It was the most dangerous time of my life, but it was also the most exciting. A cripple like me, involved in sleuthing,
connected with royalty, and, for once, important to the world.
January 15, 2010
Speaking of Those Tudors
I hope my Tudor friends have entertained and not offended. They do have opinions, which leads me to the subject of "they".
I'm always upset when people say "They used to believe ..." this or that. My response is that no time has a unified "they". I once had a visitor from what was then the USSR who was shocked to find that Americans don't all go clubbing every night or at least every weekend. (In fact, she was shocked that we don't HAVE any clubs where I live.) Folks in the future, watching our television shows, might say that "they" believed in Oprah's choices of what books to read, Simon's judgment of what is talent, and Dr. Phil's wisdom for how to live your life. I'm not criticizing any of those luminaries, since I've yet to watch any of them work their television magic. I'm just saying I am not one of "them", and I know lots of others who aren't either.
So when you hear that people of the Tudor era believed this or that, stop for a moment and think about who might have thought for himself, who might have known better and kept quiet to keep the peace, and who might have said out loud, "That's bollocks!" Just like "us", "they" were a varied and variably gifted lot.
I'm always upset when people say "They used to believe ..." this or that. My response is that no time has a unified "they". I once had a visitor from what was then the USSR who was shocked to find that Americans don't all go clubbing every night or at least every weekend. (In fact, she was shocked that we don't HAVE any clubs where I live.) Folks in the future, watching our television shows, might say that "they" believed in Oprah's choices of what books to read, Simon's judgment of what is talent, and Dr. Phil's wisdom for how to live your life. I'm not criticizing any of those luminaries, since I've yet to watch any of them work their television magic. I'm just saying I am not one of "them", and I know lots of others who aren't either.
So when you hear that people of the Tudor era believed this or that, stop for a moment and think about who might have thought for himself, who might have known better and kept quiet to keep the peace, and who might have said out loud, "That's bollocks!" Just like "us", "they" were a varied and variably gifted lot.
