![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apparently LJ is down again...
Apr. 6th, 2011 11:57 amI do have one DW invite code if anyone wants it. Or at least I did last time I checked.
Trucking right through that Vicky Bliss mystery. Doesn't require much attention. I can scan pages and pages and get the gist. Literary, this isn't.
While enjoyable in places, I've quibbles with the writing style and plot. This mystery is actually an excellent example of how a female narrator/protagonist is actually subsidiary to her own story and narrative. Relegated to observer or commentator, and being swept along by the men in the story, with the men propelling the action and plot. She is little more than their mutual sidekick.
An unfortunate trend in cozy mystery/gothic mystery fiction particularly of the 1900s through 1970s, where often the female heroine is well Nora Charles or Irene Adler to the brilliant Nick or Sherlock. Although I think, to be fair, they had more to do than Vicky appears to in The Laughter of Dead Kings. Also they weren't the protagonists of the novel, well Irene Adler wasn't. Granted this could change since I'm only a quarter of the way through. But I doubt it.
The problem with this tatic is the reader often feels distanced from the story and at times grappling with the heroine's motivation. (In this case it's actually more the former than the latter, since Vicky's motivation is clear: adventure and love). Also a first person narrator, male or female, who does not drive the plot and is not pushing the action - can at times make the whole story feel a bit like a journalistic account. You, the reader, are less invested.
Might as well put the whole thing in third person omniscent.
Fitzgerald took this approach as did Christopher Isherwood to great effect in the Great Gatsby and Berlin Stories, but in both cases their narrators suffered from it, perhaps deliberately. Vicky to Peters credit does not come across quite as narcissitic and detached as the narrators in those tales. Actually she isn't like that at all. What she comes across as is the gal following the guys along with barely a question or hesitation, because she is devoted to them and its fun. As she states at one point - "we might as well be married, with all the love, honor and obey". I'm beginning to wish there were a little less obeying.
Just a quibble. Which for the most part did not exist in Peter's earlier novels featuring the Bliss character. In those novels - Vicky drives the action and is the detective, more or less. Here, it feels as if both John and Schmidt do.
And Vicky is well just a long for the ride. Also, Peters seems to have the same issues with sex scenes - they take place off page, after the fade to black. And usually with a lot of poetry being recited.
Trucking right through that Vicky Bliss mystery. Doesn't require much attention. I can scan pages and pages and get the gist. Literary, this isn't.
While enjoyable in places, I've quibbles with the writing style and plot. This mystery is actually an excellent example of how a female narrator/protagonist is actually subsidiary to her own story and narrative. Relegated to observer or commentator, and being swept along by the men in the story, with the men propelling the action and plot. She is little more than their mutual sidekick.
An unfortunate trend in cozy mystery/gothic mystery fiction particularly of the 1900s through 1970s, where often the female heroine is well Nora Charles or Irene Adler to the brilliant Nick or Sherlock. Although I think, to be fair, they had more to do than Vicky appears to in The Laughter of Dead Kings. Also they weren't the protagonists of the novel, well Irene Adler wasn't. Granted this could change since I'm only a quarter of the way through. But I doubt it.
The problem with this tatic is the reader often feels distanced from the story and at times grappling with the heroine's motivation. (In this case it's actually more the former than the latter, since Vicky's motivation is clear: adventure and love). Also a first person narrator, male or female, who does not drive the plot and is not pushing the action - can at times make the whole story feel a bit like a journalistic account. You, the reader, are less invested.
Might as well put the whole thing in third person omniscent.
Fitzgerald took this approach as did Christopher Isherwood to great effect in the Great Gatsby and Berlin Stories, but in both cases their narrators suffered from it, perhaps deliberately. Vicky to Peters credit does not come across quite as narcissitic and detached as the narrators in those tales. Actually she isn't like that at all. What she comes across as is the gal following the guys along with barely a question or hesitation, because she is devoted to them and its fun. As she states at one point - "we might as well be married, with all the love, honor and obey". I'm beginning to wish there were a little less obeying.
Just a quibble. Which for the most part did not exist in Peter's earlier novels featuring the Bliss character. In those novels - Vicky drives the action and is the detective, more or less. Here, it feels as if both John and Schmidt do.
And Vicky is well just a long for the ride. Also, Peters seems to have the same issues with sex scenes - they take place off page, after the fade to black. And usually with a lot of poetry being recited.