Facebook #36 – Marsh

A Surfeit of Lampreys is an absolute joy to read.  I am not finished with it, but I am almost dreading finding out who the murderer is.  Marsh has done a beautiful job of creating murder suspects with whom I am absolutely in love and a murder victim whom I absolutely detested.

 

Facebook #35 – Louisa Smith

The Louisa Smith case has stalled somewhat.  I am hoping to dive back into some additional research next week in the hopes to tracking down newspaper articles and contemporary sources on the murder.  However, I’m already working towards a possible solution.

Blog#34 – Nagio Marsh

A Surfeit of Lampreys is an absolute joy to read.  I am not finished with it, but I am almost dreading finding out who the murderer is.  Marsh has done a beautiful job of creating murder suspects with whom I am absolutely in love and a murder victim whom I absolutely detested.

Inspector Alleyn intrigues me as well.  I think he is different because we get a glimpse of his thought process.  He has his “Watson” in Fox, but the narration changes the entire feel of the work.  Where we only see Holmes process of detection from an outsider’s perspective, Marsh’s narration allows us brief glimpses into Alleyn’s inner workings.

One particular example of this stuck out to me when Alleyn was interviewing Lady Charles, and the narrator acknowledges that he’s “perfectly prepared to make use of her [maternal] terror, he did not enjoy the knowledge that he had stimulated it.”  Alleyn certainly isn’t immune to the emotional turmoil that accompanies his job.  This clearly sets him apart from Holmes.  It was also interesting to “watch him” process Lady Charles’ testimony.  He clearly saw through her attempts to lead him to the conclusion that Violet was mad.  The encounter ended in her frank admission that she thought Violet “dotty” and had attempted to lead him in that direction as well.

 

 

 

Facebook #33 – The Walrus or the Hooker?

My group had a discussion about investigating the walrus or the hooker.  While the walrus is a perfectly weird animal and would have made an excellent subject, PD James tells us that murder “carries an atavistic weight of repugnance, fascination and fear… [and] is the ultimate crime for which no human reparation can ever be made.”  Murder is a source of fascination for readers, and I was hoping that it would provide more interest than a random walrus.  Here’s hoping that it was the right choice…

Here are some things we know:

• Louisa Smith was a prostitute murdered on February 10, 1889 (a Sunday morning)
• She was living with a laborer named John Luxford.
• She was last seen alive when a woman, Emily Atkinson, left her in the company of another woman, Emma Maguire, at 10:45pm.
• She was “turned out” of a gated area with an unidentified man between 11:00pm & 12:00am (Saturday night)
• She was discovered unconscious and bleeding from the mouth by John Cheeseman (a barrister’s clerk) at 12:30am
• Louisa was sent to the police station and forwarded on to the infirmary, where she arrived about 3:00 am Sunday morning.  She died a few days later (Thursday) of her injuries without ever regaining consciousness.
• Her postmortem showed a nasty blow to the back of the head (behind the right ear), a bruise above the indention made by the blow, and a fracture at the base of her skull.  In addition, the membranes of her brain contained blood, and there were clots at the base of her brain.  Her lips were cut, but the teeth weren’t loosened.

Louisa Smith’s murder was not an unusual occurrence.  Prostitution has always been a dangerous occupation for many reasons.  The “intimate” nature of the profession demanded secrecy and privacy.  Many of these women found themselves in prostitution because they had little choice in the world.
Louisa Smith was unmarried, but she was living with a man.  This presents a “chicken or egg” dilemma.  Did she take up prostitution as a way to make a living because she was a fallen woman or did she become a fallen woman because she took up prostitution?

 

Either way, there is little doubt what she was doing on a street corner at that time of night.  The man who was last seen with her has been assumed to have been her murderer, but I’m not so sure.  There are details to be lifted and nuances to be explored before one can make that assertion.

 

Sources so far:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper – Unsolved Murder of Louisa Smith

The Man Who Would Be Jack: the Hunt for the Real Ripper

There are primary sources that we are hoping to get access to – fingers crossed.

Facebook #32 – Gaudy Night

My Point of View

Drowning in characters, lost in details.

Facebook #31 – Gaudy Night

Harriet Vane’s Point of View:

I know what I want…wait…

Facebook #30 – Gaudy Night

Lord Peter’s Point of View:

I don’t want to own you.

Post #29 – Gaudy Night

I think I may have figured it out.  I haven’t read any summaries or even pursued any reading on the novel for fear of coming across spoilers.  Here’s my hypothesis.

The Poisoned-pen is Mrs. Robinson, who now calls herself,  Mrs. Goodwin (whose history I had confused with Annie’s).   The novel tells us that something unfortunate happened to her husband, possibly suicide.  As Lord Peter uncovers details about the falsified thesis, it becomes more and more likely that the Robinson who shamed himself with the false conclusion and theft of the letter is none other than Mrs. Goodwin’s (Annie’s) husband.  She was forced to leave and change her name to shake off the academic shame that was associated with her husband’s actions and fate.  She sought a job at Oxford to pursue vengeance on the community that she believes killed her husband.  Maybe she knew Miss DeVine was there, maybe she didn’t.

There is also some connection with the Jukes family, otherwise, she wouldn’t have left her children there.  I haven’t worked out all the details, yet, and am still about 50 pages from the end of the novel, so we’ll see if I was accurate.

*** Disclaimer***  –  I had the Robinson connection, just got Mrs. Goodwin and Annie’s connections and history mixed up, but in my defense, if there hadn’t been a bazillion characters, I might have gotten it exactly right… Well, maybe I would have. 😉

I am also happy that Harriet and Peter have found that balance, the quest of which I can understand.

Blog# 28 – Gaudy Night

Gaudy Night explores the same gender issues over and over again.  It’s clear that the 1930s Oxford question of whether women can “have it all” is still being asked in 2014 Alabama.  I’m a wife, a mother, a teacher, and a student, and I can give an absolute answer to the question of whether a woman can have it all – A woman cannot have all she wants of everything; however, she can have a little bit of all of it.  I sympathize with Harriet and her struggles with what she wants.  I read Kate Chopin’s The Awakening as an undergraduate student, and it changed my life.  I had never thought about the concept of a “mother-woman,” but that’s exactly what I had been raised to be.  I watch my grandmother fry chicken all day, and then, wait unit everyone else had eaten before she prepared her plate.  That meant that she worked all day and settled for whatever her family didn’t want.  I knew after reading that novel that I didn’t want to be that person. I didn’t want to sell who I was for the traditional role of the “mother-woman.”  Harriet is struggling with the idea of giving herself up to the role of a “wife-woman.”  Will she lose herself if she marries Lord Peter?  Will the gains be enough to offset the loss of her independence?

The good news for Harriet is that Lord Peter doesn’t want to take her independence.  He makes that very clear during their boat trip.  Harriet says, “Peter, it’s a shame.  Let me introduce you to some nice little woman who adores being protected.”  His response is very clear when he tells her:

“I should be wasted on her.  Besides, she would always be deceiving me, in the kindest manner, for my own good; and that I could not stand. I object to being tactfully managed by somebody who ought to be my equal.  If I want tactful dependents, I can hire them.  And fire them if they get too tactful.”

Fortunately for Harriet, it sounds like she would have a partner and helpmeet rather than the traditional definition of a husband.  Maybe Lord Peter has “lived enough” to be enlightened.  That’s my guess.  From the sound of things, he’s looking for some calm in the storm, not to be captain of another ship.  I have high hopes for them.   As for me, I’m incredibly fortunate in my husband.  He is my partner in all things and my biggest cheerleader for “my things.”  My wish for Harriet is for her to see Lord Peter in that way.

As for the question of whether she “can have it all”…  Even though Miss Hillyard’s  contempt for the domestic life is off-putting, there is some truth to her absolute compartmentalization of life.  Women cannot have all of everything.  There are sacrifices to each aspect of our lives.  I think the trick is to find the balance.  What are we willing to give from one area to gain in another?  The answer is different for every women.  I don’t make cupcakes for my boys’ classes, but I am improving myself so that they will ultimately benefit from my education.  That’s my balance.

Facebook #27 – Father Brown

Soo… proceedings have begun to make Chesterton a saint.  I mean I’ve enjoyed Father Brown, but I’m not sure that I think Chesterton as his creator ranks up there with Mother Theresa…

Here’s a link to the article:

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/27/saint-g-k-chesterton-delight-others-worry-effort-canonize-writer/

Anybody want to make the case?