The Parlor PI's discussion
NOV Book Discussion CONCLUSION– MSW: "A FATAL FEAST" (Chapt. 18-25)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
I think I could've done without JB's flying a plane though it didn't ruin things for me. Just felt a little odd knowing she doesn't drive yet she's going to fly a plane.
And a Merry Christmas to you, LovesMysteries!
Tina wrote: "I think I could've done without JB's flying a plane though it didn't ruin things for me. Just felt a little odd knowing she doesn't drive yet she's going to fly a plane."Why doesn't JB drive a car? I think the book said why but I forgot at the moment.
Mod
Tina wrote: "Don't know, LM? We should sleuth it out online."I've checked online for an answer but not a sausage. Interestedly, I found out that the author Donald Bain has a private pilot's license as well. So this is why JB has one too.
I wondered about the flying too! Can't drive but flies?
Mod
Tina wrote: "Indeed, PI's. Doesn't add up."As to the flying, I guess Donald Bain was trying to have JB do something that's unexpected of her to do, to show that JB is a woman full of surprises, but honestly I prefer JB riding her bicycle instead. It's simple and JB is a simple woman. But I guess if you're writing a long-running series, you feel compelled to include new facets to the character(s) to add a freshness to the series.
Interesting tidbit from Wikipedia about Jessica Fletcher:"It is established early on in the series, that Jessica cannot drive. This was written into the programme after it was revealed that Lansbury had no license". Don't know if it's true!
I liked this book a lot and am going to read another book in the series that I have on hold called A Little Yuletide Murder. Should be fun for the holidays!
Mod
I think I read Yuletide Murder but I'll look into it again. I know I read the Halloween MSW twice. I love her series. They get a little formulaic after a while but one can break them up here and there with a read from another series or author.
Mod
As to the flying, I guess Donald Bain was trying to have JB do something that's unexpected of her to do, to show that JB is a woman full of surprises, b..."
I guess they wanted to keep things fresh and like you say, a little unexpected to wake things up a bit.
Tina wrote: "I guess they wanted to keep things fresh and like you say, a little unexpected to wake things up a bit. "And as you said in an earlier post, the series gets formulaic after a while. But I still prefer Jessica riding her bike.
What did everyone think of the confrontation between JB, Linda and Victor Carson? Honestly, I didn't care much for it at all. It could have been much better if the scene were only between JB and Linda. This chapter is concerned with revealing who killed Hubert Billups. Victor wasn't really needed.
Mysteries in the past used to have the traditional drawing room solution and while I like these, it's not always needed. A Fatal Feast doesn't use that device but it uses a more mild-action-oriented sequence. I think the scene could've been written and executed in a better way, rather in a more poignant manner without all this unnecessary action which felt amateurishly and clumsily written (especially with all the rain and the wind in the background which adds even more to the amateurishness). I prefer a poignant scene and this makes more sense concerning the state of Linda's feelings and her situation. Here's a woman, due to her husband's actions, moving from state to state and can't appear to live a normal life. And just when she settles into Cabot Cove, she senses danger. She's plagued with fears once she sees Hubert Billups that could get in the way of a possible normal and safe life. She tries to get Jessica to understand and when she doesn't then she could pull out the small pistol (don't know why I'm thinking of that 'small pearl-handled pistol' used by Jacqueline de Bellefort in Death On the Nile! I guess if you're going to go you might as well go out in style, haha!) then Metzger and the police can come onto the scene (maybe have them hide within Jessica's house in the other room somewhere) -- this is somewhat similar to the scenario in Agatha Christie's A Murder Is Announced. Anyways, this sounds better rather than sticking Victor into the scene, having Jessica answer the phone, and her running outside with Metzger approaching– it's just . . . . . MEH.
Mod
I loved the David Suchet, David Soul DOTN and found the actress who played Jacqueline de Bellefort a capable talent. Then again, I loved her in Forsythe Saga so there's that. Emily Blunt was fairly new to the big screen but wow, she took to her role like fish to water. It was all good. However, the earlier DOTN with Peter U. was good too. Hard to pick a preference as I do love David Suchet as HP.
Tina wrote: "Your conclusion sounds good, LM. It would've worked nicely. And though I feel for Linda having no real life, I think of the murdered vics who didn't even have that."At this stage with so many books that Bain has written in the MSW series, I felt that the confrontation between Jessica and the murderer should have been written better. But I will definitely read more entries from the series in the future ;)
Speaking of murdered victims, it's a shame that Hubert Billups wasn't the same man that he once was and that his marriage was dissolved. It seems that Billups was a shell of who he once was. But with all the damage done to him, to his brain and other places, do you think (A) it was convincing for him to go to Cabot Cove and to look for Victor Carson (aka Vincent Canto) or (B) do you think it would have been better if Billups completely lost his memory, innocently ended up in Cabot Cove and unfortunately due to his eccentric nature with looking at and following others that Linda thought that Billups was onto her and her husband?
Mod
LovesMysteries wrote: "But with all the damage done to him, to his brain and other places, do you think (A) it was convincing for him to go to Cabot Cove and to look for Victor Carson (aka Vincent Canto) or (B) do you think it would have been better if Billups completely lost his memory, innocently ended up in Cabot Cove and unfortunately due to his eccentric nature with looking at and following others that Linda thought that Billups was onto her and her husband?I think the second scenario that I bought up with Billups totally losing his memory and unfortunately getting killed due to Linda's fear and suspicions clearly without knowing that Billups wasn't actually a threat to her and her husband's livelihood would have worked a lot better -- it would've put more of a tragic spin on the story and would have bought out a more powerful and poignant scene in Chapter 24 between Jessica and Linda (only the two of them without Victor in the scene) in the way that I formed earlier in the discussion.
Sorry if it appears that I'm dissecting the story too much but for someone like myself who's becoming more serious in my writing, particularly mystery stories, I'm trying to point out what appears to work in other writer's stories and what could be better so I can take what I'm learning to improve my own writing.
Mod
I took a look at the reviews of "A Fatal Feast" my link text and one particular review stood out to me mentioning something I didn't notice as I read and even after I finished the book. I don't know if you guys noticed or not but in Chapter 13 Hubert Billups is murdered and earlier in the chapter there's a reference to the 13 at dinner superstition. Hubert is the 13th member to be invited at Jessica's Thanksgiving dinner and not only is he murdered but it's set right in the 13th chapter! Very cleverly done on the part of the author and the reader can easily miss it -- I sure did!
Mod
I like the reference to the 13 at dinner superstition. This is also mentioned in the 1933 mystery "Lord Edgware Dies" and if you haven't read it I definitely recommend it!
Mod
Tina wrote: "LM, I did catch the 13 at dinner in Lord Edgeware Dies. Both book and film were great. I think this title also goes as 13 For Dinner?"You're right ;)
Hope one day we'll discuss a few of the Golden Age mysteries?
Mod
The book did a perfectly good job of portraying Victor Carson laying low and not participating too much in the holiday festivities or with the other neighbors in Cabot Cove and it made me as a reader become very inquisitive and suspicious. I felt that Victor's suspicious attitudes perfectly fit in with the Witness Protection Program part of the story. In other words, it wasn't thrown out of left field and up in our faces all of a sudden. I can see the overall connection and how it could have been pieced together if only I focused on it more intently. But with Linda, I felt that her motive with protecting her and her husband was kind of thrown out there. How could the reader ever suspect that without being given subtle clues and hints earlier in the story especially since character development took a huge chunk before we even got a dead body. Throughout the story, Linda was the one who involved herself in Cabot Cove (unlike her husband who mostly hid in the shadows and often left the functions rather early) and it makes sense as we look back because she wants to live as normal a life as possible since she has moved repeatedly due to her husband. But I felt that as a reader, within Chapters 1-12, there should have been some subtle signs such as her looking behind her back thinking someone was following her or her feeling uneasy or suspicious about Hubert Billups, etc -- just something so that in the end when we find out why Linda committed the murder we can make a connection to what was said or acted from earlier that won't seem as if the solution was suddenly thrown at us. On another note, on page 27, when Jessica Fletcher suspects a slight Boston accent and when Linda indirectly says that she hasn't been there, the author slips in this clue right before our very eyes (the author handles it beautifully) but we the readers don't give it much thought until the end and when we see the connection we say, 'How could I have missed that?' In a mystery you have to suspect everything that comes your way – every word that is said, the things NOT said, every action, every movement, every visible clue, etc. But it's so easy to miss that minor detail about Linda's Bostonian accent since it's mention in a normal everyday kind of conversation -- who would raise their suspicious attention to something like that when there doesn't appear to be anything suspicious about it? And there's nothing in Linda's demeanor to suspect anything queer going on . . . . until we look back in hindsight and re-read it and we see that she was a bit surprised when asked if she went to Emerson college. By the way, I'm almost finished discussing A Fatal Feast. Just a few more things to point out then I'm done! Like a bee, I'm trying to get out all the nectar I can and there's still some left to pull ;)
Mod
Buzz, buzz, LM. Get that nectar. ;-)
Before this discussion comes to a final close I would like to have this particular matter from the book cleared up. How did Hubert Billups think he was going to find the one (Vincent Canto, aka Victor Carson) who planned and orchestrated his attack and attempted murder back in Boston when he didn't even know what Canto looked like? Canto didn’t actively participate in the attack so he wouldn’t have had a clue of the mastermind’s appearance. All he knew was his name and the location he currently resided in, being Cabot Cove (pg. 263). And when Hubert was at Jess's Thanksgiving dinner in Chapter 13, Victor was there but there appeared to be no inkling in that chapter to indicate that Hubert recognized Victor from all those years ago. In Chapter 24, when Linda explained how she felt threatened by Billups and asked Victor how come he didn’t get rid of him, Victor responds by saying, “I didn’t need to. He didn’t have enough of a brain left to hurt us. He thought he knew me, but he wasn’t sure.” So is it true in the end that Billups didn’t know what Vincent Canto looked like and couldn’t recognize him at JB’s dinner? If Billups is looking for someone in which he doesn't know the appearance of, it doesn't make much sense so this must be the result of a messed up brain from that attack.
Mod
Tina wrote: "Many ills of Billups' motive, behavior can conveniently be hidden under the blame of his brain injury, damage. Covers a multitude of the author's sins. Clever device."So his behavior of finding someone whom he didn't know whom he looked like is under the blame of his brain injury, right?
One of the things I love about reading and writing mysteries is the option of choosing so many clever devices that are out there. But Tina, do you think there are clever devices out there that have yet to be discovered or do you think all of them have been used so there's really no originality these days?
Mod
Tina wrote: "I was just thinking that, LM Where does a writer go from here? Revisiting old plotting, techniques or relying on some new material offered by the information, tech age? There must be some techniques that one hasn't visited or used in a while. What's old is new again? I suppose something also strikes a chord in the mind of the writer. The artist."We can take plots, techniques or devices from writers who influence us, plant them in our own stories, and still put our own unique stamp on it. For example with Agatha Christie's first mystery "The Mysterious Affair At Styles", the book wasn't 100% original but at the same time Christie was able to keep “Styles” fresh and original. So there are similarities to other authors and yet there are differences. Mainly focusing on the similarities, for firstly, I'm sure a murder set at a country house has been done plenty of times before her; secondly, Christie uses the Holmes/Watson character template and in “Styles” Capt. Hastings returns from WWI on sick leave and Watson similarly does the same but he returns after serving in the Second Anglo-Afghan War; thirdly, both Hastings and Watson returns and comes across an old friend of theirs in both respective premiere mysteries; fourthly, she uses poison, of course a much-used device before Christie, but the difference is she puts a new spin on the way it’s used on the victim, something I think wasn’t done before in crime fiction until she did it; fifthly, I didn’t know this until I read “Agatha Christie: The Woman and Her Mysteries” by Gillian Gill in which she explains the scene in The Mysterious Affair At Styles where the culprit hides a document by tearing it into long strips and placing them into a “spill jar” on the mantlepiece. Now Christie wasn’t the first one to use this clever device of altering a document and hiding it in plain full view in a prop -- in this case a spill jar. I found out that she borrowed the device and the same prop from Anna Katharine Green’s The Leavenworth Case which she was heavily influenced by. But surprisingly that same device from Green was taken from Edgar Allan Poe! Poe didn't use a spill jar as his prop for the device, but Green took the device and put a new spin on it, creatively thinking of a different prop from the one Poe thought of. And from what I read, The Leavenworth Case by Green still had its differences even with the influences she borrowed from. I read that Green’s book “departed from Poe's stories of crime and retribution, by focusing very specifically on procedure, both forensic and police procedure, and legal criminal procedure.”
I was just thinking of that quote from Ecclesiastes that says, "there's nothing new under the sun". Everything has practically been covered and done before but I think what a mystery writer can do is take a plot, a technique, a device, a character template and turn it on its head. In other words, they can take it and go down another path instead of the same one traveled down before. Agatha Christie did this perfectly with The Body In The Library where a body discovered in a library was already a cliche by the time she wrote it. And I'm sure with "A Fatal Feast" the brain injury device has been done plenty of times so I'm assuming Donald Bain took this device and put a new spin on it.
Speaking of borrowing plot devices, another one just jogged my memory. Another good example would be Ngaio Marsh’s 1943 Colour Scheme and Rex Stout’s 1947 Man Alive. Both plots involve a person jumping in a geyser. In one book the jump is actually a murder which results in an espionage case, but in the other, and here’s the twist, a man jumps in naked and it’s assumed to be suicide but was it really? Both titles used the same kind of death but the results are completely different in both.
I don’t think a writer can ever stop being influenced by other writers and incorporating it into their work, whether it be consciously or subconsciously. And nothing's wrong with that as long as he/she is original as a whole.
And like you said Tina there are some techniques and plot devices one hasn’t used in a while so it wouldn’t hurt to use it or use one done recently and again dare I say it, put a new spin on it and go in a different direction. I think that’s how a writer can keep not only their work fresh and original but the genre as well.
Mod
Gong to watch Suchet version of HP's Christmas again before the holidays totally get away from me. There's just something about that film adaptation that brings the Christmas feeling home for me.
OKAY, well I think this brings our book discussion of "A Fatal Feast" to an end! It's been a great, exciting discussion and I will definitely read some more in the series. As to "A Fatal Feast" here's how I rate it:
*** out of 5 stars
Anyways we are DONE and I would like to hear your opinions on the book, did you guess the right murderer, what did you think of the mystery and the solution, what were some things that you think could have been better, etc. I got a ton to discuss and I do have some questions concerning the solution of the mystery and other things but we'll get to that all in due time.
Let's start discussing!
. . . . and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!