Happy dance of joy
apm at alumni.uwaterloo.ca
Sat Jan 22 16:05:48 EST 2005
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:41:28PM +0000, minnow at belfry.org.uk wrote:
> >Well, I'm rather fond of "Regency Buck", personally. I have to say that I
> >don't think the mystery is worked very well; there are no clues to the
> >reader about the natures of the two men that would allow the proper "ah-ha"
> >moment when All Is Revealed (in fact, I recall the denoument confusing me
> >mightily when I first read it!).
> What's worse is that the heroine has been deliberately kept in the dark and
> allowed to think that her much-loved brother has been murdered. That
> sucks. And what's more it's cheating not to allow the reader to have the
> information needed to work it out for oneself, and Heyer actively points in
> a wrong direction at one stage.
well she does do some hinting because I had figured out who was the baddie
the first time I read it, well before the end.
There was also another one I read from the library (I can't remember the
title) where it's located mainly on an estate in the country and someone
is attempting to murder someone else and I had figured out who was the
baddie just from a couple out-of-character things they said. Now which
one was that ... I think it might have been The Quiet Gentleman.
But then, I don't read a lot of other mysteries so maybe I just have low
standards for mysteries and if I can sort it out I feel well-pleased.
That said, I don't mind not figuring it out if I can see the clues in
hindsight. For example, I love The Triumph of Bacchus by Douglas
Skeggs, which I hadn't figured out, but which worked out very
satisfactorily. It's about a stolen painting, and half the story
is from the point of view of someone trying to do a *very* convincing
copy of this old painting so there's all sorts of neat stuff about
grinding pigments and ageing the painting.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj