To Marple or not to Marples, Is Not The Question. Which is?

By Pat Gulley

And so PBS Masterpiece Mystery has finished another version of Miss Marple, though why they had to redo so many of the stories the previous two had already done escapes my reasoning. Of course, why they add Poirot and Miss Marple to stories that were never theirs to begin with is also a big question, but that’s for another time.

Which Miss Marple is your favorite? Mine is Joan Hickson because to me she looks the most like the one Agatha Christie created and wrote about. Fluffy, small, frail looking, and blustery in speech, though she always seemed to make herself clear—maybe not to the detectives—but certainly to us. She looked like every little old lady everyone looks at once or twice in their lives and thinks: senile, dim, gaga, helpless, or desperately in need of our assistance moving across the room. And as we soon learned when reading Miss Marple stories: Dump, fool us! And though Joan didn’t play her to the end when she was forbidden any kind of heavy activity like her gardening, we knew she’d get there with that clever mind of hers still as sharp as ever.

I should clarify my statement by saying I never saw Barbara Mullen or Grace Fields, and I don’t expect there will ever be a way of seeing Barbara’s performance, though maybe, just maybe Netflix might come up with a copy of the 1956 version of A Murder Is Announced with Gracie Fields from Goodyear Television Playhouse. It could happen. Googling Goodyear Playhouse brought up a lot of facts, but no pictures or a place to see the adaptation preformed.
Margaret Rutherford’s characterization was either her own idea or some scriptwriter’s idea of what the ignorant public expected. The dim witted sidekick doing all the grunt work apparently was mandatory because the only detectives we would recognize was in the Sherlock Holmes vain. Angela Lansbury and Helen Hayes did fair jobs, but they were offered as elderly women of the time, with all that went with the current sensibility, not to mention what suited the style and looks of the actress.

Geraldine McEwan did a pretty good job, though the back story added to Marple’s past stunk to high heaven for me because Agatha told us about Jane’s upbringing and there was no love affair. Probably in keeping with the current assumption that insists the ignorant public requires some sex in every story they see on TV or in the movies. And though adding Tommy and Tuppence in later life into one of Geraldine’s stories was interesting, I’m sure you are all aware of the fact that it is Miss Marple who was actually added into that Tommy and Tuppence story. So, while we are at it, just why did Geraldine’s stories all seem to be a combination of two books? Who gives free reign to writers to do that? Or is it the production company that makes them do it? Inquiring minds want to know! At least major Agatha fans do. (See another time above.)

And now we have Julia McKenzie. She looks straight out of the 50s, in her tidy hat and tweed suit, but much younger than the Jane Marple of the books. The thing that bothered me about most of Julia’s stories is that she seemed to have been dropped into them out of the blue. No rhyme or reason for her to be there in the room or stay there. In one, she was hiding behind a shutter and sneakily listening. And the fact that the stories chosen were all ones we’ve seen several times before, we knew they could have been done better. So they weren’t exactly fun to watch. Agatha wrote some good stories for the 50s and 60s (she took her stories straight out of the headlines of the day, you know) so McKenzie should be able to do a tolerable job for the times. I wish they’d do Third Girl—it’s about roommates—definitely one of my favorites because it reminds me of my time in NYC with roommates. So we’ll see, but she isn’t replacing Joan Hickson anytime soon for me.

Here’s a list of the Marples.

Julia McKenzie 2009
Geraldine McEwan 2004
Joan Hickson 1984-1992
Gracie Fields 1956
Helen Hayes 83 85
Angela Lansbury 80
Margaret Rutherford early 50s?
Barbara Mullen 1949, so said Mystery Scene Magazine.

Which is your favorite, and why?

Exercise and Diet in order to Over Eat.

By Pat Gulley

I’ve decided to cruise again. We’re going to do an Eastern Canada and New England repositioning cruise, and of course, I expect the menus and food to be spectacular. Oh, and we'll have a high tea at the Chateau Frontenac. We’ve been on this cruise line several times, and they really know how to stuff…eh, I mean feed you.

Which brings up the problem of overeating, and the fact that I carry a few extra pounds as it is. Sooooooooo! I guess I’d better start exercising. Heavy sigh, with shoulders drooping.
Well, I didn’t join a club, as we think of joining—going in and paying money. There’s this exercise program attached to many health insurances for seniors called Silver Sneakers, so I went into a club and asked about it. Somehow I walked out signed up. Okay, I hate to exercise, so I went once or twice then started missing weeks at a time.

Then I put my deposit down on the cruise and I vowed to work out more. I’m presently up to once a week. I know, I know, I have to go more often if I expect to eat on the cruise guilt free.
Fortunately the classes for this program are not instructed by those healthy-as-a-horse, skinny-as-a-rail, robust-and-enthusiastic-for-all-things-body-damaging lunatics who think 50 pushups followed by 50 squats is for weaklings. No, these are reasonable, 50 minutes is the length of the whole Cardio Circuit class and 45 minutes for Range of Motion and Yoga is strictly of a gentle nature. I’m sure I can do it. Can I get up to three or even four times a week? Do I have the strength of will—never mind body—to do it and maybe even lose a few pounds? Keep tuned!
However, it occurs to me—why am I trying to lose weight in order to over indulge on a cruise?

If I’m applying some kind of twisted logic here, the explanation escapes me. I mean, wouldn’t the logical thing be to wait until the cruise is over and I REALLY need to lose some weight? Bad logic, bad idea, defeatist thinking, Stop That!

And what about those extremely wise and sensible words to live by: Every time I say the nasty word exercise I wash my mouth out with chocolate. Words to live by, but not if I don’t practice what I preach.

No, I’m going make the effort and hope I’m at four times a week by the end of September. Any thoughts?

Encouragement here, people, I need every scrap I can get!

Loooooonnnnnnnngggggggggg Sentences, and why I love them.

by Pat Gulley

The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest for the worst first line was announced recently on:
www.bulwer-lytton.com and very funny the winner and runners-up are. Seems they are all massive sentences, punctuated oddly with multiple ideas on one subjects scrabbled together.

Side note: If you go to the site to read them, before doing so scroll down the home page to 2007 Bad Sex In Fiction Award for the laugh/scare of your life. Never mind that this stuff actually got published, it sort of makes your eyes cross in wonder how the world population got so high if this is considered reasonably good sex.

But I digress, which I’m sure you expect from me by now, so back to the subject I’d like to talk about: Very Long Sentences.

This is frequently a topic of discussion on many lists and is the subject of many panels at cons. The general view is that they are bad, almost evil, here in the US, and the above contest seems to be consistently won by those putting them forward at their worst. I don’t think the Brits agree with us. They feel good punctuation can overcome anything. I agree, and I like looking for and discovering the well written mile-long sentence.

So, surprise, surprise, when I was given a book I was sure I did not want to read, but being desperate one afternoon, I picked up Joy Fielding’s STILL LIFE and had a very pleasant surprise in the first line. It just blew me away. It told you so much in one sentence and set the scene for the whole first chapter that I read the chapter without stopping to question anything. Then I went back and reread that first sentence about 5 times studying and dissecting, and trying hard to learn something. Oh, and there were three sentences in that first paragraph.

Yes, I admit to loving those sentences. And I know several people who do too. We consider ourselves secret addicts, and we're probably like many British writers because they have no qualms about writing those paragraph length sentences. However, an American author who does a great job with them is Caleb Carr. His two Alienist books have a multitude of those let-me-tell-you-a-story-between-two-periods type sentences, much to my delight. A Canadian, who is so-so—but I’d read his St-Cyr and Kohler books no matter how many times I have to go back and figure his lengthies out—is J. Robert Janes.

So the question is: Why are they so disliked, and by whom? A writing teacher I once asked professed to liking them, but never advocating them because few students got them right—probably making her job harder—and she felt simple sentences allowed Them to express themselves more easily. I suppose fast readers and skimmers might dislike them if they have to stop and read more carefully. And since editors and agents have to read so quickly, maybe that’s why they prefer simple sentences.

So what do you think of long, long sentences? And why do you think those who dislike them, really hate them? And do you write long sentences, then go back and chop them up?

Oh, about STILL LIFE. It’s considered a mystery, but I have to say not the kind I’m interested in. After the first few chapters, I admit to skimming—looking for more of those sentences too—but the story just didn’t engage me. It’s about a woman in a coma, who could hear everything going on around her and came to realize her 'accident' wasn't. I would say that if you are in a bookstore, though, it is well worth picking the book up to read that first sentence, and then judge for yourself if the whole book is for you. The book is well written and smooth flowing.

Floating Home Living

Floating Home Living

by Pat Gulley

I live in a floating home. No, not a boathouse or a houseboat, a floating home! It sits in the water, but never goes anywhere accept up and down the stanchion pole that holds it in place to my row. Here in the Pacific Northwest there are several neighborhoods of floating homes existing on rivers, lakes, and sloughs. They’re rather picturesque, if I may say so, and some clever photographer has even put out a very nice book on them and included some in California and Florida.

It is not like living on a boat. There’s nothing different about living in a floating home from living in a land house, same kind of rooms, floors, staircases and kitchen equipment. The differences are mostly in the care and maintenance, and definitely the lifestyle. Categorically, no more lawn mowers or rakes; gardening is done in pots (every size imaginable) and between logs if you want to grow water plants. Several of my neighbors have water iris gardens. I tried it, the geese and ducks wrecked it. (More about @#%$&# water fowl later.)

Many of my neighbors have boats and park them along side their houses, or have garages built in. There is space between the rows that allow for boats to move in and out, and quite often, boaters traveling my slough will pull in to take a look. During the summer and in high wind storms are the only times you will feel any movement. When the river is low, we may occasionally bounce against the bottom. It doesn’t do any damage as the houses float on many squares of wrapped float. See picture. The house sits on stringers, they sit on logs, and the logs rest on the float. In the summer when there is a lot of traffic on the river, we may rock a little bit if a boat is traveling too fast. Several residents have bull horns to tell those guys about the 5-mile-an-hour speed limit on our slough.

Each square now costs about $125 each. Last winter cost me 3 squares. I have about 30 under the house.

Deck parties are a summer staple and they can move from deck to deck if it’s an open party, and not a family thing.

During the winter you have to watch the temperature closely. If it drops below freezing, water must be trickled from one or more indoor faucets to keep the pipes from freezing. All sewer and water lines run outside. You are attached to the sewer line with a honeypot. It requires yearly maintenance to make sure it doesn’t have any leaks. I’m a row captain in our 17-row moorage, and once a year I go around with a bottle of dye and get my neighbors to flush some down the toilet so I can watch their honeypot pump and make sure nothing flows into the river. BIG fines if a state inspector comes along and catches that happening. Waste and toilet paper are the only things that can be flushed down a toilet. Guests using my downstairs bathroom are confronted with a sign instructing them on flushables.

Oh, and there is no procrastination over shoveling snow. It’s not a matter of worrying about someone slipping on the walk; it’s a matter of not wanting your house to sink from the weight. Not that the house would totally sink, but enough so that water could find a way into the house.

I wish someone would have taken a picture of me and my neighbors during our huge snow and ice storm last December. There I was, hanging out my bedroom window bashing away at the hard layer of ice that had formed over the snow on the back porch roof, while my neighbor was up on a ladder shoveling it off. The ladder sat on the back deck and he had to throw the snow on to it, while his wife shoveled it off the deck. Several houses during that storm tilted to one side and several outer ends of decks lifted out of the water from the weight of the snow.

Oh yes, those ducks and geese! Try thinking of a band of roving dogs constantly barking and pooping in your yard. We’re like a condo group in our moorage, we each own our house and slip, and we collectively own the whole moorage, which consists of the strip of land along the bank of the river and the walkways. The state owns the water, and we lease it from them in 20 year increments. We have a rule in the regulations that asks the membership to please not feed anything: beavers, raccoons, ducks, and geese because it attracts mice and rats and sometimes seagulls. But you know how some people feel about animals. Bread and seed go out by the handfuls. Anyway, several geese and ducks have taken to lounging on the end of my back deck and some exposed under logs I have there. Well, the whole area looks like a toilet. No amount of banging on the window or shouting out the windows scares them one bit anymore. They just squawk and poop all the more. Not even my darling Hugo, a blue heron, who lives in the moorage and comes to visit occasionally, makes me think good thoughts about water fowl.

Hugo, logs, stringers and the 'bird toilet'.

Who’d-a-thunk that living on the water would make people think of building fences, but that’s exactly what I’m going to do this summer with white plastic lattice sheets. Let them squawk about that!

Canadian Movies and Rights

Movies Made In Canada leads to Rights in other Countries.
by Pat Gulley

Cable television has brought us a slew of stations showing movies that will never be seen in theaters. They are made for TV, and they all seem to be made in Canada. I can’t remember when I first noticed this, but when I did I started paying closer attention to the credits to see where the movie was made. (And believe me, this isn’t an easy thing to do! Have you noticed how much faster TV credits roll, and inevitably they are shrunk down so the station can do previews or advertising.)

Anyway, it made me wonder. I already knew that film makers from Hollywood moved production to Canada to take advantage of the better buy the US dollar had against the Canadian dollar, and because of this there are many big productions studios in British Columbia and Quebec producing for Hollywood. When the dollar weakened, there was one big article about moving a lot of that production back to California, however I never found anymore scuttle on that idea. Do you remember when David Duchovny demanded that X-Files production move back to California when his wife became pregnant?

But it wasn’t production that got me cogitating, rather why all these movies had to be about things that go on in the USA. What’s wrong with things that go on in Canada? Canadians have love lives, love triangles, deceases, mayhem and murder, right? I mean, that TV show, Da Vinci Files was very good, and the police and forensic procedures in Canada were as interesting as those in the US. And when something happened that required comparisons between our procedures and laws and theirs, then the show became even more interesting.

So, why don’t we get more stories that take place in Canada? Is there an assumption that we have no interest in the lives of our near neighbor or other countries? Then why are foreign crime stories from France, Italy, British Isles and Australia, oh yeah and Russia, so popular? Maybe it’s because all the shows are ordered by Hollywood, and I’m sure we all know what they think of the herd out here. Oh well.

All this different country stuff then brought my thinking around to the only times I ever give writing a nonfiction book any consideration. It’s usually when I’m watching a police show that takes place in foreign lands. It would be a comparison of the laws and rights we American take for granted. As an agent for a world travel company, I was always surprised to hear how many Americans believed that these rights were theirs no matter where they traveled on the planet. The book, or pamphlet, would compare such things as ‘reading you your rights before being arrested’ ‘search and seizure’ ‘right to a lawyer’ and a few others with those of countries Americans travel to frequently: Mexico, Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, The Bahamas and China or Japan.

If you get BBC America you may have watched the original, British version of Life on Mars? The cop that finds himself back in 1972 keeps getting his Caution to criminals mixed up? He always wanted to give them the 2006 version, which was changed sometime in the 90s. Our Miranda is more like their 1972 version, and most Americans would be surprised by the difference.

My biggest fear would be not getting all the details correct, but some brief comparisons would raise a lot of American eyebrows. How many people who went off to the Chinese Olympics would have been shocked to find out how many rights they’d given up just by stepping off the airplane and on to Chinese soil?

Do you think it would sell?