Question about P.D. James' "The Private Patient"
newnomv2
authors. Her early books are so good, and she's a skillful writer. I
always like the beginnings of her books, where she sets up the
premise, suspects and locale. But midway through, I lose interest.
This book was the worst case yet. I felt like the author had lost
interest as well. Maybe the James pattern of isolated locale, small
circle of suspects is as stifling to her as it can be to her readers.
The only interesting character was the victim. I would rather have
read a book about her.
Most of the suspects were either cold and snobby or ciphers, barely
developed. Dalgliesh is as insufferable as ever. I rolled my eyes at
things like the discussion of what name to give the murderer, because
AD doesn't like using soubriquets like X. Miskin and Benton could, I
feel, be interesting in their own book. The interjection of Emma
Lavenham's friends was pointless. (Of course, I find the whole Emma
subplot to be pointless anyway.) Some plot developments seemed
surprisingly predictable, not to say hackneyed.
Having said all that, I'm embarrassed to say it, but I am actually
unclear about the end of this book. To my question:
Spoilers
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
In the meeting with the lawyer in the nursing home, it wasn't clear to
me whether the will really was forged. Dalgliesh certainly seemed to
think it was, and that (not revenge for the daughter's suicide) was
the primary motivation. But the lawyer was being so cagey and/or the
writing was oblique, so I wasn't quite sure what we were supposed to
think.
Thanks for any enlightenment.
Francis A. Miniter
> General rant, first. P.D. James is one of the most frustrating
> authors. Her early books are so good, and she's a skillful writer. I
> always like the beginnings of her books, where she sets up the
> premise, suspects and locale. But midway through, I lose interest.
> This book was the worst case yet. I felt like the author had lost
> interest as well. Maybe the James pattern of isolated locale, small
> circle of suspects is as stifling to her as it can be to her readers.
> The only interesting character was the victim. I would rather have
> read a book about her.
>
> Most of the suspects were either cold and snobby or ciphers, barely
> developed. Dalgliesh is as insufferable as ever. I rolled my eyes at
> things like the discussion of what name to give the murderer, because
> AD doesn't like using soubriquets like X. Miskin and Benton could, I
> feel, be interesting in their own book. The interjection of Emma
> Lavenham's friends was pointless. (Of course, I find the whole Emma
> subplot to be pointless anyway.) Some plot developments seemed
> surprisingly predictable, not to say hackneyed.
>
I had looked forward to the previous book, *The Lighthouse*
, because I was _sure_ that there had to be some literary
connection to Virginia Woolf. Alas. Then to read a dry,
one might say "s[c]illy", story, completely disheartened me.
And before that, *The Murder Room* had such potential to
explore the inter-war culture of England, potential that was
wasted.
I have *The Private Patient*, but I did not buy it new. I
waited until it was available used. And still I have not
read it. I agree that her early work is first rate; but,
now, she should just stop writing.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Pogonip
> General rant, first. P.D. James is one of the most frustrating
> authors. Her early books are so good, and she's a skillful writer. I
> always like the beginnings of her books, where she sets up the
> premise, suspects and locale. But midway through, I lose interest.
> This book was the worst case yet. I felt like the author had lost
> interest as well. Maybe the James pattern of isolated locale, small
> circle of suspects is as stifling to her as it can be to her readers.
> The only interesting character was the victim. I would rather have
> read a book about her.
I, too, read and enjoyed her earlier books, but I couldn't finish this
one. After a detailed description of rooms, I thought I'd fallen into a
Russian novel, but I nodded off before finding out. I hope you find
your answer, but it won't be from me.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Janet
> General rant, first. P.D. James is one of the most frustrating
> authors. Her early books are so good, and she's a skillful writer. I
> always like the beginnings of her books, where she sets up the
> premise, suspects and locale. But midway through, I lose interest.
> This book was the worst case yet. I felt like the author had lost
> interest as well. Maybe the James pattern of isolated locale, small
> circle of suspects is as stifling to her as it can be to her readers.
> The only interesting character was the victim. I would rather have
> read a book about her.
She is also obsessive about meals. But seems to have very old-fashioned,
pedestrian taste in food.
> Most of the suspects were either cold and snobby or ciphers, barely
> developed. Dalgliesh is as insufferable as ever. I rolled my eyes at
> things like the discussion of what name to give the murderer, because
> AD doesn't like using soubriquets like X. Miskin and Benton could, I
> feel, be interesting in their own book.
I agree. Especially if the book was written by someone else. <G>
I was under the impression that the will itself was probably not forged, but
was an iteration--I believe that the man was fond of making new wills--that
was possibly never signed and certainly improperly witnessed. So it probably
wasn't the one in force.
As I was reading, I also thought that it was likely that the real will
disinherited the gay son and possibly even Candace, given the lawyers
remarks about injustices done to daughters.
But it was definitely left deliberately vague, I'd say.
newnomv2
newnomv2
unsatisfactory in a mystery novel of this type. At least it's better
than the book I read a few months ago, which concluded with no suspect
nor motive being found, and the police no longer actively working the
case.
Thanks to all for their comments. It seems many people feel the same
way about the last few books. The sensible thing for me would probably
be to stop reading them, but it's hard to give up on a well-loved
author.
On Jul 19, 1:56 pm, "Janet" <boxh...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
Mortimer
news:3429b369-c55d-4577...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
It seems many people feel the same
way about the last few books. The sensible thing for me would probably
be to stop reading them, but it's hard to give up on a well-loved
author.
====
The real mystery about P D James is whether she designs her characters to be
insufferable or whether they just turn out that way.
Dalgliesh gets more and more peremptory and is now such a cold fish that
he's deep-frozen! I can't imagine him ever having a laugh or letting his
hair down.
Mark Alan Miller
> General rant, first. P.D. James is one of the most frustrating
> authors. Her early books are so good, and she's a skillful writer. I
> always like the beginnings of her books, where she sets up the
> premise, suspects and locale. But midway through, I lose interest.
> This book was the worst case yet. I felt like the author had lost
> interest as well. Maybe the James pattern of isolated locale, small
> circle of suspects is as stifling to her as it can be to her readers.
> The only interesting character was the victim. I would rather have
> read a book about her.
I couldn't agree more. This was a BAAAAD book. But I did like the victim.
What does James have against investigative reporters? Every character in
the book acts as if she's a baby killer. Is the term only used in England
for the sort of journalist who writes for tabloids about celebrity
misdoings? Here in the US, investigative reporters were heroes to many of
us, back when newspapers still spent money on such things. Woodward and
Bernstein, etc.
> Most of the suspects were either cold and snobby or ciphers, barely
> developed. Dalgliesh is as insufferable as ever. I rolled my eyes at
> things like the discussion of what name to give the murderer, because
> AD doesn't like using soubriquets like X. Miskin and Benton could, I
> feel, be interesting in their own book. The interjection of Emma
> Lavenham's friends was pointless. (Of course, I find the whole Emma
> subplot to be pointless anyway.) Some plot developments seemed
> surprisingly predictable, not to say hackneyed.
Yup, all this is right on. I like Miskin and Benton and their interplay is
fun. Every time Dalgliesh reappeared I felt like napping.
I think we're supposed to assume it was forged, as there are too many
circumstances that can't be otherwise explained, but that it didn't lead to
the murder. In this case, I think James left it unresolved intentionally.
There are always loose ends the police don't have time to pursue, and this
would be one of them.
Mark Alan Miller
rdanw...@gmail.com
i find her books tediously long, beautifully written, far too many charcters to keep track of ... why did Agatha Christie have to be the one and only crime writer to get it right?