|Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 11:13 am: |
Jeff, didn't want to clutter up JV's board further so I thought I'd just continue here.
Finally read the Lancelyn Green article in the New Yorker and thought the conclusion was fascinating, although I have my doubts. It's the sort of solution that sounds compelling and clever in the context of a narrative (just like a Sherlock Homes story), but real life, of course, is rarely so tidy. Grann admits as much at the end.
Not sure why Grann's so cagy about the identity of the fellow at the Pentagon. It's been published in other media sources. (It' Lellenberg.)
|Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 11:44 am: |
Gabe: I was somewhat disappointed at the ending and thought the author's approach to the article was pretty lame when I was done. Cause with what he eventually comes up with, the whole mystery aspect of it seems kind of trumped up. You mean to tell me, nobody thought the wooden spoon was used as a tournequit before that old guy who was Green's writing partner came up with it. When they first mentioned the wooden spoon, I assumed that's what it has been used for. And believe me, I'm never too sharp in solving these mystery angles. The real question is why the stuffed animals? The "Pentagon" thing was a good example of what I'm talking about -- basically a red herring in the storytelling. Unless, of course, the State Department wanted to confiscate the Conan Doyle file to remove secret information that
Moriarity actually fucked Mrs. Woodrow Wilson before handing it over to the British Museum.
Green sounded like he was a total lunatic.
|Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 12:31 pm: |
Frankly, Jeff, I thought the wooden spoon had been used to spank the stuffed animals.
The one question I had is, if Green wanted to stage it as a murder, why would he lock the door from the inside?
|Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 01:24 pm: |
Gabe: What murder mystery is worth its salt if there isn't a locked room involved? I guess.