Having read the article and the book, I decided to ask myself the question: What does the article reveal about Cross?
The first thing I found interesting was the possibility that Cross didn’t like her school as much as Sayers did—or really at all. In the article, Cross states “When one loves a college as much as Sayers…and if one is a writer, one will write of it someday, in a novel as profound and enduring as Gaudy Night if one is talented and lucky” (255). Cross did write about a school in New York, but because she didn’t specify it or go into much detail about it at all, it’s clear that she doesn’t like the school a great deal at all—especially not anywhere near where Sayers does. Also, she doesn’t even stage the murder there or stage any action of substance there.
Another thing I learned about Cross is that she values strong women, just like Sayers. She commends Sayers for creating the character of Harriet, a woman who was “autonomous, intellectual, unwomanly, and ultimately, lovable” (258). In response, we see that Cross creates the character of Kate. She definitely seems to have some qualities of Harriet, leading me to guess that Sayers was a source of inspiration for Cross. Kate is similar to Harriet because they both feel the urge to play detective and solve the case even though neither of them are actually in this field, although Harriet is closer since she writes novels about it. Like Harriet, Kate is also lacking love in the beginning, but finds it in the end with her detective friend (Reed)—just like Harriet (Sir Peter Wimsey). In addition, like Harriet, Kate’s friends were involved in the mystery; just like the women of the SCR were suspects, so were Emmanuel and Nicola. This allowed and motivated both Harriet and Kate to pursue interests in the case and help solve it.
Judging from the article’s scholarly tone and focus on both Sayers’ love for school and theme of independent women, I think Cross valued Sayers’ views and had great respect for Sayers as well.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
More on the Cross Article
Another issue that Cross discusses in Gaudy Night is the “new-found equal love between men and women” (256). Clearly, this refers to the relationship between Peter Wimsey and Harriet. It can be thought of as an “equal love” because Harriet was an independent woman—an intellectual—who didn’t want to take the traditional role and simply be a wife and mother. She didn’t want a man to rule over her. Over the course of the novel, Harriet finally realizes and accepts that she is in love with Wimsey and wants to marry him (She reminds me of Elizabeth from Pride and Prejudice because of her stubbornness to marry), thus creating an equal love in the sense that they're equal in partnership and that he won’t rule over her, which he has no intention of doing.
One thing I didn’t agree with was the fact that Cross believes that Wimsey “changes in the course of the novel.” Sure there is some growth in his character since he finally accepts the fact that Harriet may not ever marry him. Still throughout the novel he maintains a persona of a charming hero (like somewhat of Pride and Prejudices’s Mr. Collins with his excessive complements but with more wit and knowledge) who won’t take no for an answer and will keep waiting until Harriet finally decides to marry him. I don’t see much change in him because he was this way throughout the book, even going so far as to be overjoyed that Harriet allowed him to buy her an expensive chess set. Then again, this could be the result of the fact that throughout the novel, the reader only sees Wimsey through Harriet’s eyes, which Cross pointed out and I never realized before. He first appears in person about a half to three quarters of the way into the book. Before this point, the reader is only able to learn about him through Harriet’s thoughts (obviously a clear indication that she likes him since he’s always on her mind) and letters from him.
Another point that I didn’t realize while reading the story is the fact that Wimsey represents the “ideal man” and needs to marry Harriet because “metaphorically speaking, [she] killed and abandoned her lover when she outgrew him.” This is an interesting view on this point but hones in on the fact that Harriet is not your typical woman of the time, since this could be seen as unwomanly (the women are supposed to depend on the men, not outgrow their partner and stop loving him). Instead, Harriet is strong, heartless and independent instead.
Overall, I agree with Cross’s assessment and view on the novel: “by a strange insight…she [Sayers] told…a story similarly unique in its own culture, of a female hero coming to self-awareness and autonomy, and sharing equally with the male protagonist the perilous journey to self-development” (257). It’s about Harriet’s mental journey--she learns more about herself and is able to confront her feelings about marriage and love.
One thing I didn’t agree with was the fact that Cross believes that Wimsey “changes in the course of the novel.” Sure there is some growth in his character since he finally accepts the fact that Harriet may not ever marry him. Still throughout the novel he maintains a persona of a charming hero (like somewhat of Pride and Prejudices’s Mr. Collins with his excessive complements but with more wit and knowledge) who won’t take no for an answer and will keep waiting until Harriet finally decides to marry him. I don’t see much change in him because he was this way throughout the book, even going so far as to be overjoyed that Harriet allowed him to buy her an expensive chess set. Then again, this could be the result of the fact that throughout the novel, the reader only sees Wimsey through Harriet’s eyes, which Cross pointed out and I never realized before. He first appears in person about a half to three quarters of the way into the book. Before this point, the reader is only able to learn about him through Harriet’s thoughts (obviously a clear indication that she likes him since he’s always on her mind) and letters from him.
Another point that I didn’t realize while reading the story is the fact that Wimsey represents the “ideal man” and needs to marry Harriet because “metaphorically speaking, [she] killed and abandoned her lover when she outgrew him.” This is an interesting view on this point but hones in on the fact that Harriet is not your typical woman of the time, since this could be seen as unwomanly (the women are supposed to depend on the men, not outgrow their partner and stop loving him). Instead, Harriet is strong, heartless and independent instead.
Overall, I agree with Cross’s assessment and view on the novel: “by a strange insight…she [Sayers] told…a story similarly unique in its own culture, of a female hero coming to self-awareness and autonomy, and sharing equally with the male protagonist the perilous journey to self-development” (257). It’s about Harriet’s mental journey--she learns more about herself and is able to confront her feelings about marriage and love.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Article on Gaudy Night by Amanda Cross (Carolyn Heilbrun) from Shakespeare’s Mother and Other Women (written in 1986)
Having read Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers and then In the Last Analysis by Amanda Cross, analyzing both of their styles, I decided to read an article by Cross about Sayers’s book. It was very interesting and thought-provoking, especially since it looked at the story from a different view than I did since I was reading Gaudy Night focusing most of my attention on the academic mystery aspect of the novel.
From the article, I learned that Sayers attended Oxford and loved it just as she portrays her heroine Harriet Vane to love the fictional Shrewsbury College of Oxford. In fact, Cross discovers that many of Sayers’s life experiences were included in the novel. For example, Sayers knew somebody who was badly injured in a car crash, just like she described Wimsey’s nephew who was injured and hospitalized after a car accident. Also, in the novel, Harriet frequently noted how there were new buildings on campus, suggesting the old v. new battle to ensue as Sayers does in a letter to a friend as she comments about the opening of new buildings at the college she attended at Oxford. Cross learns a great deal about Sayers from these letters that she wrote her friends, especially those to Catherine H. Godfrey whom she refers to as Tony. (I’m curious as to why she gave Catherine this male name…)
I also thought it was interesting that Cross states the “moral center” of the novel is “we must abandon any idea that we are the slave of chance, or environment, or our subconscious; any vague notion that good and evil are merely relative terms, or that conduct and opinion do not really matter; any comfortable persuasion that, however, shiftlessly we muddle through life, it will somehow or other all come right on the night” (254). The first thought, in which Cross uses the strong, connotative word “slave,” suggests that the novel was about forcing us to realize that we are not held down by chance and/or the area we live in but instead, we can lead our own lives. Based on the book, this leads me to believe that Cross is referring to the fact that women don’t have to be just wives and mothers, as was customary of the time, but could be more—like intellectuals. At the same time, I think it reflects the idea that even these intellectual women, although many were opposed to marrying, could marry if they chose, even though it may have been unconventional by society’s standards or by standards of the women at Shrewsbury. The rest of the quote conveys the fact that we should not be influenced by others' conduct or opinions and that these people’s true views will be revealed in the night as they were on the night of the gaudy in the novel, when all the mayhem began. I think Cross presented this concept in an eloquent way, and after analyzing it, I am able to agree with it.
From the article, I learned that Sayers attended Oxford and loved it just as she portrays her heroine Harriet Vane to love the fictional Shrewsbury College of Oxford. In fact, Cross discovers that many of Sayers’s life experiences were included in the novel. For example, Sayers knew somebody who was badly injured in a car crash, just like she described Wimsey’s nephew who was injured and hospitalized after a car accident. Also, in the novel, Harriet frequently noted how there were new buildings on campus, suggesting the old v. new battle to ensue as Sayers does in a letter to a friend as she comments about the opening of new buildings at the college she attended at Oxford. Cross learns a great deal about Sayers from these letters that she wrote her friends, especially those to Catherine H. Godfrey whom she refers to as Tony. (I’m curious as to why she gave Catherine this male name…)
I also thought it was interesting that Cross states the “moral center” of the novel is “we must abandon any idea that we are the slave of chance, or environment, or our subconscious; any vague notion that good and evil are merely relative terms, or that conduct and opinion do not really matter; any comfortable persuasion that, however, shiftlessly we muddle through life, it will somehow or other all come right on the night” (254). The first thought, in which Cross uses the strong, connotative word “slave,” suggests that the novel was about forcing us to realize that we are not held down by chance and/or the area we live in but instead, we can lead our own lives. Based on the book, this leads me to believe that Cross is referring to the fact that women don’t have to be just wives and mothers, as was customary of the time, but could be more—like intellectuals. At the same time, I think it reflects the idea that even these intellectual women, although many were opposed to marrying, could marry if they chose, even though it may have been unconventional by society’s standards or by standards of the women at Shrewsbury. The rest of the quote conveys the fact that we should not be influenced by others' conduct or opinions and that these people’s true views will be revealed in the night as they were on the night of the gaudy in the novel, when all the mayhem began. I think Cross presented this concept in an eloquent way, and after analyzing it, I am able to agree with it.
Monday, March 3, 2008
In the Last Analysis Wrap Up
I’ve just noticed that this book may perhaps also be considered academic because the whole hunt itself is like that of one in a novel. More than once, Kate tells Jerry that he was literary in order to lift his spirits, since he was down about not making it much further in the case. For example, after going to Chicago and interviewing Daniel Messenger (the man who Janet left money to in her will), Kate tells Jerry he’s literary, referring to how he heroically decided to handle the situation and take it into his own hands to solve the case—it could be found in a novel. Also, at one point, on the verge of giving up on finding the true murderer, Kate remarks how silly it is that she is playing detective. She tells herself she cannot do play detective just because she admires the detective Peter Wimsey Gaudy Night (her favorite).
It also still bothers me how Kate comes to the conclusion that Michael Barrister is an imposter who killed the real Mike years before. There is no evidence to this fact. Perhaps it was the emphasis on Janet’s beauty that Kate began to look into others’ appearances and discovered that Mike’s was different. It’s difficult to tell. All we know is that he did indeed kill both the real Mike and Janet, although this is not explicitly stated to the reader. I find this odd, as well as the fact that in this book and the last (Gaudy Night) the reader never discovers what happens to the murderer/perpetrator in the end. What happened to Imposter Mike? Pro-mother Annie? I guess this is not the point in an academic mystery. It’s more about how the detective arrived at the right conclusion and found the culprit as opposed to what the consequences were. Still…it might be fun to know…
Both books also have “cliff hanger endings” as well. A new potential romance starts up between Reed and Kate as the reader sees at the end as Reed unexpectedly joins Kate at the airport on her vacation to Europe, saying “It was simply no good expecting myself to sit in New York imagining you following clues and dropping literary allusions” (of which seems to be the central point surrounding the academic piece of the novel). Similarly in Gaudy Night, it is unclear of what will happen between the two lovers, Peter and Harriet. It’s assumed they’ll marry…but then what?
I’ve also come to the conclusion that perhaps the “last analysis” deals with the fact that at her analysis, Janet was murdered, thus making it her last. Or perhaps it refers the fact that it was Kate’s last analysis of the case before she would probably have to give up her search and resume normal life.
Either way, ultimately, I liked the book and its fast paced style in comparison to Gaudy Night. Unfortunately from reading this book I was not able to determine the reason Cross might commit suicide in the future. There were no clues in the book or even mention of suicide…I guess I’ll never know.
It also still bothers me how Kate comes to the conclusion that Michael Barrister is an imposter who killed the real Mike years before. There is no evidence to this fact. Perhaps it was the emphasis on Janet’s beauty that Kate began to look into others’ appearances and discovered that Mike’s was different. It’s difficult to tell. All we know is that he did indeed kill both the real Mike and Janet, although this is not explicitly stated to the reader. I find this odd, as well as the fact that in this book and the last (Gaudy Night) the reader never discovers what happens to the murderer/perpetrator in the end. What happened to Imposter Mike? Pro-mother Annie? I guess this is not the point in an academic mystery. It’s more about how the detective arrived at the right conclusion and found the culprit as opposed to what the consequences were. Still…it might be fun to know…
Both books also have “cliff hanger endings” as well. A new potential romance starts up between Reed and Kate as the reader sees at the end as Reed unexpectedly joins Kate at the airport on her vacation to Europe, saying “It was simply no good expecting myself to sit in New York imagining you following clues and dropping literary allusions” (of which seems to be the central point surrounding the academic piece of the novel). Similarly in Gaudy Night, it is unclear of what will happen between the two lovers, Peter and Harriet. It’s assumed they’ll marry…but then what?
I’ve also come to the conclusion that perhaps the “last analysis” deals with the fact that at her analysis, Janet was murdered, thus making it her last. Or perhaps it refers the fact that it was Kate’s last analysis of the case before she would probably have to give up her search and resume normal life.
Either way, ultimately, I liked the book and its fast paced style in comparison to Gaudy Night. Unfortunately from reading this book I was not able to determine the reason Cross might commit suicide in the future. There were no clues in the book or even mention of suicide…I guess I’ll never know.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Mystery Demystified
As Reed, Jerry, and Kate continue to attempt to gather information in favor of Emanuel with hopes of finding the murderer, Kate adds an “academic aspect” to the novel by attending a party with others teacher. She goes to the party to meet Frederick Sparks, a patient of Emanuel’s, in order to find out more about him and establish his alibi and whether or not he seems the type to commit murder. Unfortunately, she doesn’t learn much from the encounter—except that he most likely didn’t commit the murder. Instead, from conversations during this party scene, the reader is introduced to lives of the faculty at college. At some colleges, the faculty members feel they are treated lower than the students, and even lower than the new technology (like Sparks). Also, they are annoyed with having to attend so many committee meetings and with reading excessive amounts of mimeographed communications when they have classes to teach and papers to grade. Although this presents an interesting discussion/argument that I rarely considered before—the viewpoint and hectic life of a teacher—I am confused as to how this relates to the story. What is the purpose of this conversation? Surely it is not only included for the academic aspect…
Aside from this, the man who Janet was seen with (by student Anne Dribble), is finally identified. He is described as looking like Cary Grant, referring to Michael Barrister, the gynecologist who works in the same building as Emanuel. It’s also discovered that the young man in the photo found in Janet’s purse is also Mike Barrister. Messenger, person who Janet leaves money to in her will, identifies Mike as his college roommate (which explains why Barrister is young in the picture). This can’t possibly be coincidence—Janet and Barrister must know each other. Finally he admits that they did, but he is able to concoct such a convincing story that even Reed believes him and thus he becomes a free man again.
Because she believes it’s suspicious for Mike to be the man in the picture, have gone out with Janet, and personally know Janet’s beneficiary, Kate continues to analyze evidence and on a hunch sends Jerry to Canada and the Michigan area to discover more about Mike’s past. There Jerry learns that Mike supported an old lady (who is dead now), but that there was a time when the payments to her caretakers stopped. Jetty also learned of Mike’s romance with Janet Harrison. Given this, and other, information, somehow Kate arrived at the conclusion that the Michael Barrister she met was an imposter. It is never revealed to the reader how she arrives at this decision, but she does. Perhaps it’s just a hunch or the fact that from Jerry’s interview with Messenger, she learned that Mike read D.H. Lawrence novels. Either way, Kate surmised that imposter Mike (that resembled real Mike) killed the real Mike and stole his identity.
Finally, after some thought, Messenger was able to bring solid evidence into the case: the Mike he knew wore a heel in his shoe because one of his legs was longer than the other. Messenger also knew that Mike had an operation for it as well—an operation that leaves a scar. This was indeed the piece of evidence needed to clear Emanuel’s, and Kate’s, name. After compromising police work, Reed and his detectives were able to get Barrister to undress so they may see the scar on his spine—of which there was none.
End of story. Imposter Mike murdered Janet because she was beginning to realize that he wasn’t Mike. Janet and the real Mike had to part ways for a while, but she knew their romance wouldn’t die and when she returned to New York to find him, he was changed (as Messenger noticed as well).
Currently, I am confused about the story. How is this academic mystery? It must be due to the great depth with which the case was analyzed, that gives it reason to be considered academic mystery—not to mention the fact that Kate was a teacher and Janet was the student. Still, is there something more? I am also stumped as to what the title signifies…why is the word ’last’ used?
Aside from this, the man who Janet was seen with (by student Anne Dribble), is finally identified. He is described as looking like Cary Grant, referring to Michael Barrister, the gynecologist who works in the same building as Emanuel. It’s also discovered that the young man in the photo found in Janet’s purse is also Mike Barrister. Messenger, person who Janet leaves money to in her will, identifies Mike as his college roommate (which explains why Barrister is young in the picture). This can’t possibly be coincidence—Janet and Barrister must know each other. Finally he admits that they did, but he is able to concoct such a convincing story that even Reed believes him and thus he becomes a free man again.
Because she believes it’s suspicious for Mike to be the man in the picture, have gone out with Janet, and personally know Janet’s beneficiary, Kate continues to analyze evidence and on a hunch sends Jerry to Canada and the Michigan area to discover more about Mike’s past. There Jerry learns that Mike supported an old lady (who is dead now), but that there was a time when the payments to her caretakers stopped. Jetty also learned of Mike’s romance with Janet Harrison. Given this, and other, information, somehow Kate arrived at the conclusion that the Michael Barrister she met was an imposter. It is never revealed to the reader how she arrives at this decision, but she does. Perhaps it’s just a hunch or the fact that from Jerry’s interview with Messenger, she learned that Mike read D.H. Lawrence novels. Either way, Kate surmised that imposter Mike (that resembled real Mike) killed the real Mike and stole his identity.
Finally, after some thought, Messenger was able to bring solid evidence into the case: the Mike he knew wore a heel in his shoe because one of his legs was longer than the other. Messenger also knew that Mike had an operation for it as well—an operation that leaves a scar. This was indeed the piece of evidence needed to clear Emanuel’s, and Kate’s, name. After compromising police work, Reed and his detectives were able to get Barrister to undress so they may see the scar on his spine—of which there was none.
End of story. Imposter Mike murdered Janet because she was beginning to realize that he wasn’t Mike. Janet and the real Mike had to part ways for a while, but she knew their romance wouldn’t die and when she returned to New York to find him, he was changed (as Messenger noticed as well).
Currently, I am confused about the story. How is this academic mystery? It must be due to the great depth with which the case was analyzed, that gives it reason to be considered academic mystery—not to mention the fact that Kate was a teacher and Janet was the student. Still, is there something more? I am also stumped as to what the title signifies…why is the word ’last’ used?
Friday, February 22, 2008
And the mystery heats up...
Two things that keep reappearing in the novel are that Janet was a very beautiful girl, “odd…that someone should have murdered her,” and that “April is the cruelest month.” I’m curious to figure out how these two elements fit into the story. Could Janet’s beauty be a motive to kill? Could April have some significance to Janet? Then again, isn’t it ironic that April is chosen for Janet’s month of death since it usually signifies rebirth, innocence, youth, and new beginnings?
Aside from these observations, new pieces of evidence are slowly being introduced into the case thanks to Kate, her soon-to-be-nephew Jerry, and Kate’s detective friend Reed. For example, it has been discovered that Janet left a will (why??). In it, she left her share of money to a man named Daniel Messenger, who upon being questioned by Chicago police claims to have never met the girl, which is very suspicious and only leads to more questions (FYI: he lives in Chicago and the novel takes place in New York). Also, by cleverly “bumping into” Emanuel’s patients (i.e. Horan and Frederick Sparks), Kate and Jerry have been able to find out more about them and assess their potential to commit murder. Shockingly, in a twist of events, Kate herself has become a target (similar to in Gaudy Night how Harriet is targeted in order to threaten her to stop trying to find the perpetrator). Thanks to Reed, Kate now knows that an anonymous letter has been sent to the police claiming that Kate murdered Janet because she published one of Janet’s papers as her own and was in love with Emanuel and felt threatened by the girl’s beauty and presence. The police are taking it seriously and have moved Kate to their suspect list because Kate is so closely connected with Emanuel and his family, but it doesn’t make sense since she’s the main character of the story and wouldn’t have sent Janet to Emanuel (her supposed lover) in the first place if she was threatened by the girl. Plus, it’s been brought to the readers’ attention that not too long ago Kate was engaged to be married. (Why is it that the women in these two books were engaged to be married, but didn’t end up doing so? Common theme?)
I’ve also realized that what makes this book part of the academic genre is the fact that it has so many academic allusions—far more than Gaudy Night. Being an English professor, Kate’s character is prone to spark up literary conversations. Even though she is playing detective and trying to clear Emanuel’s name (and now her own!), she still has classes to teach and often mentions how she must still tackle Thomas Carlyle or Daniel Deronda. I’m sure I would have a greater understanding of this book—or at least of the humorous comments made pertaining to books, if I read more of the classics/authors mentioned. (For example, at one part, a fellow professor/friend of Kate’s, remarks that Frederick Sparks, whom Kate is attempting to find out about, “thinks The Cenci is better than Macbeth.” Having knowledge of The Cenci would help me understand exactly what significance this has and what it means in the academic world. In the least it would help me understand why this is shocking.) In this respect, I feel this genre could have a tendency to exclude people because not everybody is familiar with the novels it brings up. Then again, although these allusions add to the novel, one can certainly understand it and even enjoy its plot having not read any of the other novels it alludes to.
Still, this fact proves to me that in order to be academic, a novel must include a literary air or mention several literary works. Gaudy Night took place at a college (which is obviously academic since there were classes, students, etc.) and used bits of Latin throughout. In contrast, this book In the Last Analysis was only set at the college when Kate was interrogated by the detective and told that Janet had been murdered. Instead, it focuses more on literary novels and authors, like D.H. Lawrence whose novels could somehow be connected with the case…
Aside from these observations, new pieces of evidence are slowly being introduced into the case thanks to Kate, her soon-to-be-nephew Jerry, and Kate’s detective friend Reed. For example, it has been discovered that Janet left a will (why??). In it, she left her share of money to a man named Daniel Messenger, who upon being questioned by Chicago police claims to have never met the girl, which is very suspicious and only leads to more questions (FYI: he lives in Chicago and the novel takes place in New York). Also, by cleverly “bumping into” Emanuel’s patients (i.e. Horan and Frederick Sparks), Kate and Jerry have been able to find out more about them and assess their potential to commit murder. Shockingly, in a twist of events, Kate herself has become a target (similar to in Gaudy Night how Harriet is targeted in order to threaten her to stop trying to find the perpetrator). Thanks to Reed, Kate now knows that an anonymous letter has been sent to the police claiming that Kate murdered Janet because she published one of Janet’s papers as her own and was in love with Emanuel and felt threatened by the girl’s beauty and presence. The police are taking it seriously and have moved Kate to their suspect list because Kate is so closely connected with Emanuel and his family, but it doesn’t make sense since she’s the main character of the story and wouldn’t have sent Janet to Emanuel (her supposed lover) in the first place if she was threatened by the girl. Plus, it’s been brought to the readers’ attention that not too long ago Kate was engaged to be married. (Why is it that the women in these two books were engaged to be married, but didn’t end up doing so? Common theme?)
I’ve also realized that what makes this book part of the academic genre is the fact that it has so many academic allusions—far more than Gaudy Night. Being an English professor, Kate’s character is prone to spark up literary conversations. Even though she is playing detective and trying to clear Emanuel’s name (and now her own!), she still has classes to teach and often mentions how she must still tackle Thomas Carlyle or Daniel Deronda. I’m sure I would have a greater understanding of this book—or at least of the humorous comments made pertaining to books, if I read more of the classics/authors mentioned. (For example, at one part, a fellow professor/friend of Kate’s, remarks that Frederick Sparks, whom Kate is attempting to find out about, “thinks The Cenci is better than Macbeth.” Having knowledge of The Cenci would help me understand exactly what significance this has and what it means in the academic world. In the least it would help me understand why this is shocking.) In this respect, I feel this genre could have a tendency to exclude people because not everybody is familiar with the novels it brings up. Then again, although these allusions add to the novel, one can certainly understand it and even enjoy its plot having not read any of the other novels it alludes to.
Still, this fact proves to me that in order to be academic, a novel must include a literary air or mention several literary works. Gaudy Night took place at a college (which is obviously academic since there were classes, students, etc.) and used bits of Latin throughout. In contrast, this book In the Last Analysis was only set at the college when Kate was interrogated by the detective and told that Janet had been murdered. Instead, it focuses more on literary novels and authors, like D.H. Lawrence whose novels could somehow be connected with the case…
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
No New Leads
In a way, this book is most similar to Gaudy Night due to the fact that it takes a while for action to occur. The book is still interesting, but like in Gaudy Night there are “lulls” where no results are produced in the case. Right now, there are no new leads—Emanuel is still the primary suspect. The picture of a young man that the victim, Janet, had in her purse at the time she was murdered has still not been located. Instead, there have been more interrogations.
Kate reintroduced the academic setting by going to Janet’s dorm room, located in the Graduate Women’s Dormitory, and questioning her neighbors. However, although I thought this might be promising and bring in the academic aspect, so far it hasn’t since even her neighbors don’t know much about Janet. She was a solitary person who didn’t seem to have any friends. Even the girl who knows everybody’s business, Jackie, had little to say about Janet except that Janet carried a notebook all the time, was being analyzed (which the reader clearly already knows), and was once spotted with a man (whom she cannot remember the face of). While looking through Janet’s school records, Kate only developed more questions like why did Janet move to New York and why did her grades drop from A’s in college to B/B-‘s in grad school? Was something on Janet’s mind?
Aside from this, Kate has her niece’s fiancé Jerry on the case as well who is attempting to analyze the mystery from the male perspective and as an objective third party, which involves monitoring Emanuel’s movements (behind Kate’s back) to make sure he is indeed innocent. So far, all he discovered was that the porter’s suit was stolen when Janet’s room was broken into and that Emanuel does not seem to be the type to murder somebody.
Then again, it’s difficult for both Kate and Jerry to extract information because they are not real detectives and people won’t readily respond to their questions without knowing the reason they’re being asked. For this reason, they must casually lead into conversations and be cautious of how much they ask and how they ask it. This differs from Gaudy Night since, in that book, there wasn’t as much questioning and it didn’t have as much of a “detective aura” about it. For this reason, the sheer analytic approach in solving the murder seems to make this book academic.
An interesting thing I noticed about this book is that I have no perception of time while reading this novel. It seems modern. In Gaudy Night, due to the social customs of the 1920s and the obvious gender role differences, I was constantly reminded of the time period. This simply isn’t present in Cross’s novel. That’s what makes this mystery so interesting—it can apply to this time period. It could easily be the script for the next episode of CSI or Law and Order.
Kate reintroduced the academic setting by going to Janet’s dorm room, located in the Graduate Women’s Dormitory, and questioning her neighbors. However, although I thought this might be promising and bring in the academic aspect, so far it hasn’t since even her neighbors don’t know much about Janet. She was a solitary person who didn’t seem to have any friends. Even the girl who knows everybody’s business, Jackie, had little to say about Janet except that Janet carried a notebook all the time, was being analyzed (which the reader clearly already knows), and was once spotted with a man (whom she cannot remember the face of). While looking through Janet’s school records, Kate only developed more questions like why did Janet move to New York and why did her grades drop from A’s in college to B/B-‘s in grad school? Was something on Janet’s mind?
Aside from this, Kate has her niece’s fiancé Jerry on the case as well who is attempting to analyze the mystery from the male perspective and as an objective third party, which involves monitoring Emanuel’s movements (behind Kate’s back) to make sure he is indeed innocent. So far, all he discovered was that the porter’s suit was stolen when Janet’s room was broken into and that Emanuel does not seem to be the type to murder somebody.
Then again, it’s difficult for both Kate and Jerry to extract information because they are not real detectives and people won’t readily respond to their questions without knowing the reason they’re being asked. For this reason, they must casually lead into conversations and be cautious of how much they ask and how they ask it. This differs from Gaudy Night since, in that book, there wasn’t as much questioning and it didn’t have as much of a “detective aura” about it. For this reason, the sheer analytic approach in solving the murder seems to make this book academic.
An interesting thing I noticed about this book is that I have no perception of time while reading this novel. It seems modern. In Gaudy Night, due to the social customs of the 1920s and the obvious gender role differences, I was constantly reminded of the time period. This simply isn’t present in Cross’s novel. That’s what makes this mystery so interesting—it can apply to this time period. It could easily be the script for the next episode of CSI or Law and Order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)