http://pclengblog.blogspot.com/ I have not written any comments on mysteries for long. It may because I did not read much in the last 4 months. And it may because nothing worthy of commenting among my readings. Recently I just finished the novel Jane the Wandering Eye by Ms. Stephanie Barron, an American author. While I don’t get much from the book, I would like to write some. I got this book from my Auntie, who has lived in US for more than 20 years. She bought this book in an airport and decided not to read it after she read first ten pages, because the language used in this novel is quite difficult. The author Ms. Barron is a fan of Jane Austin. She wrote a series of mystery fictions characterized by Jane Austin’s first-person narration. Also, she employs Jane Austin’s language, the British English in 19th century. That is difficult than I used to imagine. A lot of vocabularies do not know me (not I do know them). The terminology, grammar, syntax and etc. are all different from the contemporary English. The story also encompasses many real historical factors; the editor adds many footnotes to explain the theater here was closed in 19xx; the character here is a real character, who died in 18xx; the term “morning” used in 1810s means different time slot from today’s meaning. These may suggest that the author does really master the relevant history. However, the information may be hard to be digested by readers without much interest and knowledge about that era. The story should be categorized as Golden Classic style. Jane was tasked by Lord Harold to secretly watch out his niece, a Lady flee from London to Bath. In a rout-part hosted by the Lady’s grandmother (a Duchess), a manager of a theater was murdered in a nearly closed room. Then a lot of “classical” clues, such as a necklet with a portrait of an eye, were found in connecting scenes. Subsequently, complicated relationships among earls, ladies, painters, and singers gradually surface. The identity of the murderer is of surprising effect, while it is somewhat too surprising that it a bit went astray from the original plot. Further, there seem too many lies during the story. In the first Chapter, the witness A says, “I did not see anyone go out of the room.” In Chapter Three, A says, “well, I lied. I saw a woman go out of the room, but I do not know her.” And in Chapter Five, A said, “well, I lied again. I actually saw a man walk out of the room and I know who he is.” In the final chapter, the detective says, “Well, A is a liar. Actually, he was not there then.” Such arrangement may be intriguing with proper construction. However, when every character plays in this way, readers will find it difficult to find a “base” in the story; what I read now will be overthrown next. When the truth is unfolded, I just wondered why the detectives did not ask more questions to each character. The puzzle is completely constructed on the lies; if any character said one more truth, the puzzle should have collapsed. Therefore, I agree with my Auntie’s words, “The author makes her story too difficult to read; no wonder she is not popular.” At least, I dare not to read her works before I am confident to my English ability. -- 拙著 <滅蜀記> 2008年12月12日台灣出版, 惠請各位支持批評指教。 Blog: http://city.udn.com/v1/blog/index.jsp?uid=Kea0111 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 216.165.4.142