When you live in a house that is well on its way to its second century things need doing from time to time. Currently it is the kitchen, work which involved removing the units to see what was going on behind them. As a result I have not had a functioning kitchen since last Tuesday! All will be well - eventually - but in the meantime it's a bit chaotic here. Hence the short and rather distracted post.
Hope that normal service will be resumed without too much delay.
One of the threads that crime writers are very involved with is motive. Why does the villain do that? What is the reason behind the crime? We need to know. I've been told that in the real world of crime fighting not so much. Other evidence is found to be more useful. Certainly writers and readers need to know about it. Successful books are often lauded for the memorable characters and maybe motive fits with this.
As a writer who combines two genres I read both crime and romance. I tend towards what is known as the 'cosy' end of the crime spectrum - the Agatha Christie type puzzle. Cosies are essentially domestic and so are the motives - love, hate, envy, revenge, greed - most of the seven deadly sins. Occasionally there is a plot involving spies and state secrets - I'm thinking of Sherlock Holmes, called in when some top secret plans go missing and saving the day - but these tend to be historical settings, where the venue is often the country house party for the plans to be discussed in a meeting arranged out of the spot light. So - still on a domestic level, possibly with a locked room element added to the mix. Modern spy stories are a different matter and a genre of their own.
I'm also an occasional reader of the more sweeping thriller - mostly American - the kind of thing written by Harlan Coben. I struck me, having just finished one of these that the motive here is something that does not really occur in a cosy - power. Often a cover up when someone who is seeking it wants to obliterate evidence of some past sin.
It's something I am going to think about.
Warning - may be minor spoilers
Last week I went to see the theatre version of Murder on the Orient Express, which is currently touring. Very good - stylish set, good ensemble acting and an excellent central performance by Michael Maloney as Poiret. I highly recommend it. Having seen it I returned to the original Agatha Christie book to check on things that I thought had been changed. It was an interesting comparison exercise. Fewer suspects- understandable as large casts on stage cost money. A dramatic shooting that ended the first act - an idea lifted, I suspect, from Death on the Nile (which will also be touring later this year). Differences in the characters. Rachett - the victim - was very different from the book - a flamboyant gangster based on the version played by Jonny Depp in the Ken Branagh film - the Albert Finny version played by Richard Widmark was nearer to the original. The biggest change was the central role of Mrs Hubbard. From a typical American widow abroad she has metamorphosed into a glamourous man eater. A great deal of fun, and played with gusto on stage by Christine Kavanagh appears to have undergone the sea change in the Finney version when Lauren Bacall played the part. There are other small things, but most of what I remembered from the book are there.
It made me think about the life that a book has outside a book. Film, TV, audio. There are stories of authors being heart broken over changes made - with general advice of 'Take the money and run' being regularly handed out.
I don't do audio - tends to send me to sleep - but I know lots of people love it. Film in various guises is always interesting. I know I have been one of the indignant mob when a favourite has been mangled.
But we always have the book - the place where it is just you and the author and your imagination. The place where it all begins.
I have a very long standing fascination with Tarot cards - so it was no real surprise that when the Warburg Institute announced that the opening exhibition for its new gallery space, following a multi million refurbishment, would be a Tarot exhibition that I organised a quick day trip to London to take a look.
It was worth it. Not a large exhibition and with an academic flavour, as one would expect from an organisation that is part of London University, it was a wonderful glimpse into the history of these fascinating cards. Originating as playing cars for a game similar to Bridge, over time they evolved into the devices for divination that we now associate with the pack. The historic cards on display - some dating from Italy in the time of the Renaissance - were worth seeing and I was especially interested too in the small section that dealt with new realisations of the cards, using all sorts of art work, many originatng in the pandemic. The ducal courts of Italy had cards painted by the court painters -luxurious and beautiful - but the deck that is most recognisable is of course the Ryder Waite Smith deck. Ryder the publisher, Waite the interpreter of the meanings and Pamela Coleman Smith - for may years barely acknowledged - as the creator who did the art work. Unacknowledged like so many women artists in the past, but now getting her proper recognition. I don't like the way the word iconic has become an overused buzz word, but in this case I think it is applicable. If you think of the Tarot this will be the deck that comes to mind.
The Tarot features in the Work In Very Slow Progress and the exhibition, and the work I am doing for the current evening class on Paganism has crystalised how it will feature in the book. It is a great feeling when you suddenly get an insight of how part of the plot is going to work out.
One of the best parts of being a writer.
