Facebook #46 – So long.

My semester has been wild and crazy, but it’s been fun! I learned a ton, and it was a great experience. This class has changed the way I see detective fiction and has taught me some things about myself. That’s a win in anyone’s book!

Facebook #45 – Gaimen is Weird

When we read Raffles, Kate Woods Bartlett put it best when she said, “Cricket is weird.” That pretty much sums up my take on “A Study in Scarlet.” It was just weird… I get the alternative reality, and I get the “surprise” factor for the reader. However, it’s still weird.

Blog #44 – The most important thing we learned, surprises, humor…

The thing that most surprised me was my need for law and order through the justice system.  I’ve always thought of myself as sort of a vigilante cheerleader because I know the system is flawed and justice doesn’t always prevail.  However, I was incredibly disheartened by “The Five Orange Pips” and And Then There Were None.  The bad guys in both of those tales were eliminated, but I wanted to see them punished first.  Maybe it’s a desire to teach… stay with me on this… Maybe my desire for punishment through the system relies on the premise that people can learn from the mistakes of others?  “See what happens when you do things that are wrong?” Maybe I’m just bloodthirsty and the only good punishment is a public one?  I’m not sure, but whatever the reason, I know that for a detective/crime fiction novel to have a happy ending, there must be justice and it must be administered through the established system.

As for humor there wasn’t a lot in this class.  It’s tough to build in laughter when one is developing a murder mystery.  However, I will forever enjoy and appreciate the “exploded buzzard” moment in The Moonstone. In a novel that was a bit of a slog, it was a bright moment during which I laughed out loud.  The absurdity of it, in an incredibly intense moment of the plot, truly broke up the stress and gave me a moment to breath before launching back into the opium induced recreation.

Because of the format of the mystery project, I was not only able to solve the murder, I was able to give justice to the victim.  One thing that this project really brought home is that the only place justice always prevails is in fiction.  Real life is too complicated and unpredictable.  Real-world detectives are undoubtedly special people with exceptional powers of observation and intuition, but there are no Sherlocks or Father Browns to solve the mystery and bring the criminals to justice.  Even though this class dealt in fiction, the unsolved mystery project slapped me in the mouth with reality.  Louisa Smith didn’t have a Sherlock.  As a matter of fact, the only person she had on her side was a local constable who was overworked.  Unfortunately, solutions for murders like Louisa’s exist only in fiction because the real world gets in the way of justice for murdered prostitutes, then and now.

Blog #44 – Solution Process

My group and I worked in a private message to choose our mystery and compile any information that we had.  We kicked around the idea of different topics, including the mystery walrus, and I suggested that we look at the unsolved murder of Louisa Smith for several reasons. First, the crime was murder, and as PD James tells us, murder is the go-to crime for detective fiction because it sparks a readers’ immediate interest and holds it.  In addition, because she was a prostitute, her story would also have been largely ignored, and after reading the fiction from this semester where the good guys win and the bad guys get arrested, that injustice was intolerable to me.  Another appealing element was that her murder was during the late Victorian era, a time period that I have studied pretty intently over the past year.  I thought that might give me/us a leg-up on some background of cultural info necessary to develop a solution.  I was also able to use and share some research on Victorian prostitutes I had compiled in a previous semester.  Finally, and maybe the most selfish reason of all, was because the murder was nearly 120 years old, I knew that autopsy and crime scene photos would not be accessible.  Choosing one of the more modern mysteries would lead to modern technology putting me a little too close.  (I had to quit watching CSI because it put stuff in my head that I couldn’t shake – Oh, the price I pay for my neuroses).

After some discussion, we landed on the Louisa Smith murder and started researching.  Because of the nature of the murder, we did a lot of searching and re-searching for info.  We found a casebook forum on the Ripper murders that discussed Louisa Smith’s death.  It included the inquest information and several newspaper clippings.  Some of these people were whack-a-doos whose goal was to link every murder of a woman in the 1880s to the Ripper.  Smith’s death bore no similarities whatsoever to the Ripper victims, but the information was certainly helpful.

I continued to search and found several newspaper articles on the British Newspaper Archives website.  Unfortunately, the site is a subscription deal, and a pricey one at that.  I continued to work and discovered that Louisa Smith’s murder had been research be another Ripperologist, and he had devoted an entire chapter to her death.  I was pleased to find him because his book reiterated all of the information provided by the casebook forum.  Research that backs up research is always a good thing.

After our initial discussion of topic and the sharing of some information, we each went our own way to formulate a solution to the mystery.  At this point, I had all the major players, the important events, and the postmortem findings.  All that remained was to find a solution to Louisa’s murder, which I did. I chose to write from the perspective of another “working girl,” Erica wrote from the victim’s perspective, and Kate tackled the perspective of a detective.

 

All-in-all, the group aspect of the project was nice because it gave us an opportunity to work with someone when we needed, but not be confined by the dictates of the group – a pretty cool project.

Facebook #42

PD James tells us that murder is the most effective crime for a detective writer. Through our novel reading and mystery research, I wholeheartedly agree. There is nothing that strikes a human chord like the taking of another’s life. Murder is the way to go.

Facebook #41 – Mystery

I didn’t love doing the unsolved mystery thing… I didn’t hate it, either. I loved the IDEA of reexamining something that remains unsolved; however, the practicality of it was a stumbling block. Many of the mysteries were 100+ years old, and digging up that kind of history takes some doing and isn’t always super productive. Maybe looking back, a more modern mystery would have been a better choice, but geez…those are so depressing.

Facebook #40 – mystery solution

I enjoyed researching Louisa Smith and reexamining the facts of the case. Looking back at them through 21st century eyes was fascinating and very disheartening. Because Louisa was a prostitute, not much was done to solve her murder. One of the key witnesses (whose perspective I used to write my solution) was never even questioned. Maybe they couldn’t find her? More likely, they didn’t even try…

Blog #39 – Is Wargrave like Holmes?

I didn’t love And Then There Were None.  As the semester has progressed, I have begun to rely on those 10 commandments and on James’s “rules” for detective fiction to be satisfied with a novel.  In order for me to really enjoy a detective novel, I need there to be someone in charge, who is safe from incrimination, and who is smarter than I am (which isn’t saying much).  None of those things were present in this novel.  I hated that the judge was the killer – this is clearly a violation of the 10 commandments.  The detective can’t have committed the crime, yet the judge set himself up as the leader and central “detective” of the novel.  Bad form, Ms. Christie… The judge himself is an interesting character.  He is this interesting combination of vigilantly hero and psychopathic murderer.  None of his victims were innocent – all were guilty of something, and if brought into a court, would have been judged by man, maybe even Wargrave, himself.  However, Wargrave put himself outside the law and condemned them based his ability to “know” when people were guilty. There is something reminiscent of Holmes in this.  Even though the judge’s reliance on instinct contrasts with Holmes’ absolute commitment to logic and reason, Holmes lives by his own code of morality, just as the judge does.  What is it that sets them apart?  Morals, restraint, social constraints, logic and reason, emotional ties?  None of those are much different in one character than the other.  Would Holmes murder someone? Did he murder Moriarity?  Yes, he did.  When he sent Waston back in the “Final Problem,” Holmes knew that he would have to kill Moriarity to protect society from him.  How is that different from Wargrave deciding that he must ensure that dangerous criminals were removed from the streets to protect society from them? Maybe the argument is that Holmes isn’t a murderer because he sacrificed himself for the greater good.  Can’t the same argument be made that Wargrave, who offs himself at the end, sacrifices his life and reputation to deal out justice?  Clearly the two characters are different, and Wargraves’ indulgence of his morbid and immoral fascination with murder is what sets him apart from Holmes.  However, it seems that Holmes’ personality and passion for challenges put him in danger of falling down that slippery slope.

Blog #38 – Louisa Smith’s Murder Solved

This project sort of took on a life of its own, so I put the entire thing down in a separate blog page Louisa Smith’s Murder Solved.  However, here’s a brief summary:

On February 10, 1889, Louisa Smith was murdered by another working girl (Emily Atkinson)  who wanted to take Louisa’s labourer “husband,” John Luxford, for herself.    Opportunity presented itself when Louisa was conducting business in an alleyway that was Emily’s turf,” and Emily saw the chance to rid herself of competition for John and for the local business.  When Louisa finished with her final client of the night, Emily came up behind her and hit her in the back of the head with a coal hammer.  In the hands of a man, it would have split Louisa’s skull wide open, but in the hands of a woman, the rounded end made an indention behind her right ear and the pointed end fractured her skull at the base of her neck.  Lights out for Louisa.  This was before women were really suspected of violent murder, so it would have been easy for either Emily or Emma to have escaped the police’s notice as murder suspects.

My solution is told from the perspective from her friend and another working girl, Emma Macguire.  Emma saw the whole thing happen, and decided that she would dish out a little justice for Louisa’s murder herself before she disappeared into the distant reaches of the Empire.

Enjoy the read!

 

 

 

 

Facebook #37 – Surfeit of Lampreys

I was so worried that one of the character whom I had grown to love was going to be the murderer.  As the family’s deception and attempts to “circle the wagons” fell apart, I began to fret for them.  However, Marsh tied up all the loose ends (like the Victorian novelists I have grown to love).  She even managed to save the Lamprey family from their own financial disaster.  However, my favorite part was probably all of the allusions sprinkled throughout the novel.  The Macbeth references become central to the plot and the ultimate solution of the murder; however, I love that Marsh sprinkled in Hamlet as well.  I knew that the Shakespearean allusions were key to the solution of the murder, but I couldn’t decide who was being reference.   Great tool and wonderful way to keep me guessing. 🙂