Friday, March 21, 2014

Appearing in issue #12, March 24, 2014


Title: Murder’s all the rage

By Author: Richard Ciciarelli

 


 Tag line:   Heather had made someone very angry. Now the detective had to figure out who!


Police characters:  Detective Penny Gray and Sgt. Mike Howard.

The gist:   Det. Penny is called to the scene and let in the house by Sgt. Howard, who tells her the back door was open and it was his opinion that’s how the killer got in. Penny noticed the dining room was set with a lace tablecloth, china plates, and a vase of pink roses in the center.  The lady of the house was lying on the kitchen floor dead, with a knife jutting from her back.  Her husband told Penny that he and his wife had been having problems but tonight’s dinner was a celebration of their reconciliation.  He said he even stopped on the way home at the florists to buy her her favorite pink roses, but when he came home he found her dead.

Additionally he said his wife was the school principal and just a few days ago had suspended two students for smoking in school.  The fathers of the two students ‘went crazy’ and confronted her. Things got so out of hand security had to be called.  The first father said his son was just offered a basketball scholarship but will now not be able to qualify because of the suspension.  The second father was upset that his daughter, who had a good shot at becoming class valedictorian, was now out of the running.  Both men felt the principal could have given a less harsh punishment that wouldn’t ruin the plans of their kids. 

Father number one had been siding a house when the murder occurred and said the occupants were on vacation and he had no witness.  The second father owned a convenience store and stated he was the only one working that day.  The second father acted a bit hostile at being questioned.

It was noted that the victim’s home address was easily accessible from the phone book, and that her house backed up to a patch of woods where someone could approach unseen.

Penny knew who the killer was.

Crime scene:   Principal’s home.

Clues:   Pink roses in the vase.

Suspects:  The husband, one or more of the two fathers, or some crazy man who came out of the woods.

Red herrings:  Father #2 was acting hostile.  Neither father had an alibi.  The back door was open.

Solution:  The husband said he stopped to buy roses and came home to find his wife dead…yet the roses were in the vase on the table.  After further questioning he admitted that his wife was not interested in reconciling and was going to file for a divorce. 

My two cents:    Let’s start with the police, my favorite part.  The sergeant wouldn’t call in a detective, who is of less rank, to work the case.  They might work it together, but the story has him basically being the doorman, waiting for a ‘real’ detective to show up.  The door would be manned by a uniformed officer.  Perhaps they were called in together and he just got there first. But that’s not the way it reads.  Okay, I’m picky about stuff like that.  So sue me.

Next:  the clue was revealed pretty much at the beginning of the story.  Once I read it, I didn’t feel the need to read further…but I had to to do this blog.  The clue wasn’t hidden well.

Next: this is just an observation on my part and doesn’t reflect on the story or the author.  The two fathers, in my opinion, should have put the blame where it belonged, on their two smoking kids.  Those kids messed up their opportunities, not the principal, who was following school department protocol.  That the parents confronted the principal and caused a scene just shows that the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.   

Next:  There are sets of rules that each principal must follow.  These rules are mandated by the school board in their district.  Principals have little leeway.  To be angry at the principal because she is following the rules when she imposed sanctions against kids who were not following the rules is just ignorant.  More importantly, does it warrant murdering someone over?  And you might get one moron father in this situation, but two?  The circumstances in this story lack credibility.

Next:   What’s the motive again?  Many, many people want to get divorced.  They don’t stab their spouses for asking.  Was he going to lose his house, his business, his reputation?  Did they have a terrible fight?  I would have liked more in this area.

This wasn’t a bad story.  But it wasn’t a great story either.  Sort of in the middle, hence the two stars.

By the way, in the tag line, it should read ‘whom’.  A’hm jus sayin’.

34 comments:

Chris said...

I'm with you on the boneheaded fathers, Jody, they really annoyed me. But that doesn't mean they weren't good possibles for the killing. Stupid people do stupid things. We've all seen ignorant people ranting about stuff and thought - but YOU did the dumb thing to start with, so live with the consequences. For me, they were good red herring suspects.

I was more surprised to see the flowers in the vase solution used again, as I'm sure I saw an almost identical one a few weeks ago. Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

Other than that I thought the story was nicely written - if only that clue hadn't got another airing.

Jody E. Lebel said...

@ Chris. So true -- about the stupid people. The world is full of them. I'm not sure about the clue. Maybe I should go back and make a folder of all of the clues already used. Although, it doesn't seem to matter one bit as they get reused all the time...so maybe I'll just save my breath. (Chris, is 'save my breath' a term familiar in the UK?)

Chris said...

Yes, Jody, as is a waste of breath, meaning not worth the bother of speaking.

Tamara said...

Chris, I just noticed a line in a Ruth Rendell mystery that I think is a British expression: "I don't 'give a stuff' what you think." Pretty neat.

Mary Jo said...

I thought the story ended with the pink roses. That would be really short. Also, rules are often set aside for exceptional students. Well, I live in California and I don't even know anyone who smokes any more. Stringent laws against it, so it is inconvenient in the extreme to find a smoking place. Maybe outside in the rain.

And Jody, in case you haven't noticed, the word "whom" has gone the way of the dinosaurs. I think who was the correct word in the tagline anyway. ...the question was who did it. I cannot see it from here, and I don't remember exactly what it said.

Chris said...

Tamara, yes, 'I don't give a stuff' is slang for I don't care. It's the polite version of an altogether grittier expression.

M D'Angona said...

Chris, The rose solution was almost a duplicate of the housekeeper putting away the groceries, even though there was a body on the floor story from just two weeks ago. I thought the exact same thing when I read it. Does anyone have any rough idea just how many mystery stories are submitted to WW on a weekly or monthly basis? Previously I thought I read somewhere it was around 400 month? Too high? Too low?

Chris said...

Not my imagination then. I suppose, to be fair, there are only so many plots and scenarios available to play with, but it did ring a bell as being a repeated solution done up in a different guise. Not that that is the author's fault. Given how long the selection process takes, they won't have known someone had done something similar when they submitted it.

I've no idea how many subs WW get each month, Michael, but if it's as many as 400 it's no wonder it's so hard getting a yes. That's stiff competition.

Jody E. Lebel said...

@ Michael. According to the Novel & Short Story Writers Markets from several years ago, WW receives 2500 submissions per month. Don't know if that's still the case, but I bet it's not far off. The current N&SSWM doesn't say.

Jody E. Lebel said...

@Mary Jo. The tag line was: Now the detective had to figure out who! With the hated/obligatory exclamation point of course. I think (wouldn't bet money on it and I hate the who/whom thing) the answer would be "It was him or her" and that would be whom. My head is starting to hurt. My spell checker said to change it...if that means anything.

I know it's antiquated but you'd think a mag like WW with its gazillion editors would be more...I don't know...proper in their English? As writers we're expected to do out best work...that should go both ways IMO. ((grumble grumble))

M D'Angona said...

2500, if that is near the total, it would be interesting to know how many get dropped off at the various points of the selection process. I would guess a vast majority get cut at first read due to length or just lack of a cohesive story?

Jody E. Lebel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jody E. Lebel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jody E. Lebel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jody E. Lebel said...

@ Michael. that's my guess. The first readers weed out the best ones and send them on. Johnene is the second weeder-outer. Then the final decision is made by the top editor. Johnene has been overruled at times by the Big Kahuna.

Jody E. Lebel said...

PS all those deletes above are from me. I can't seem to hit the right keys this morning.

Chris said...

2,500 submissions a month? Are you kidding me? Sheesh. That's an awful of rainforest we're getting through.

Jody E. Lebel said...

@ Chris...yes, but it makes the sale even sweeter to know your story was chosen from the massive pile. It also explains why some great stories get rejected. The first reader probably gives each submission a quick first-page glance, and if you don't catch his/her eye right away (which would warrant a full reading of your story) your baby is tossed in the rolling bin that gets pushed over to the rejection minions who stuff your SASE with that evil standard rejection letter and then gleefully send it down the mail chute. May they suffer paper cuts on both hands.

Jody E. Lebel said...

By the way it is rumored that Johnene has barrels of paperclips in her garage. hee hee

M D'Angona said...

I was under the impression that it went to Jersey, then to Carolina, then Seattle. Where is the Great Oz, who has the final decision after Seattle?

Jody E. Lebel said...

The marching orders (as of last year anyway) are:
Patricia Gaddis, first reader, North Carolina. I've also gotten South Carolina post marks as well at this stage. It's just a guess, but maybe she lives on one side and works on the other. Or there may be a slew of people under her.
Next: Johnene Granger, Seattle.
Last: Stephanie Saible, New Jersey. Editor in Chief. She has the final say.

Chris said...

Somewhere along the Yellow Brick Road, I guess, Michael.
Shame on you, Jody, wishing paper cuts on those poor minions. I'm thinking warts and hair loss at least ;-D

Tamara said...

Very funny, ladies -- the evil thoughts, that is. Jimmy Meiss told a friend of mine that between the two -- mysteries and romances -- they get 30,000 per year. She read them (now it would be Gaddis)and sent her picks in a big box to Granger in Seattle. I'm assuming that Granger then sends her picks-of-the-week to EIC. I've had a few that were selected by Granger and rejected by EIC. In those cases, Granger's note has read, "I'm sorry this cute romance didn't make it" -- in all cases it was a romance; I've written a lot more romances than mysteries. Right now I'm rushing to the mailbox for one of each -- and they are beyond late. I wonder what's going on.

Jody E. Lebel said...

@ Tamara. Do you know if Jimmy worked from home?

Jody E. Lebel said...

Oh...is Jimmy the reader or ...?

Tamara said...

Yes, I was speaking of Jimmy the first editor (now Patty Gaddis). I never knew whether she worked at home. Just that she was approachable and would chat on the phone. She also was oepn to re-writes, just with the "no promises" stipulation. I've been hesitant to call Patty Gaddis, and I know better than to call Johnene. Sometimes I email Johnene; sometimes I get a response, sometimes not. (I need an editor to remove some of my "sometimses". ha ha)

M D'Angona said...

I emailed Johnene when I had to send my story in after acceptance. She was very pleasant and spoke about what they look for in a mystery story, especially the clue. That seems to be the key. (of course, basic grammar and story flow goes without saying)The clue should be IN the story, and not to make the reader try and come up with the solution on their own (without back-up in the story).

Chris said...

Which makes me wonder why so many of the stories don't follow that rule. It's a given that the way to solve the mystery should be there for the reader to find, yet how many do we see where the solution reveals something we hadn't been told before? That's what's so galling sometimes.

Jody E. Lebel said...

It's nice to hear that Johnene is easy to work with. She does have a Facebook page. She looks normal...for an editor that is. :)

Tamara said...

Johnene rejected one of my stories because I didn't reveal the clue. I realized after I sent it that I could have added one sentence of dialogue (by a detective) and solved the problem. I was hoping she wouldn't catch it; I planned to add the revealing sentence when I emailed the accepted story to her. Hah! She was on top of it. Then I read others that have no such revelation, and I wonder how they got through..... I've submitted a similar story and am awaiting word now -- and it's late.

Jody E. Lebel said...

@ Tamara. Usually when a woman is waiting and it's late...she's pregnant. Best wishes for a lovely literary baby. Let us know. We'll throw you a shower.

Tamara said...

There are two stories late -- I'm having twins.

Mary Jo said...

Hi Jody, I just got back to your site and found the grammar question. First of all, as I am sure you know, by rules of grammar, "It was he or she." Whom is an objective case. Who is the noun, and also the guy who did it.

You really get people going here. We should have a party.

I am still in love with my Waffle Club group. Unfortunately, I am not a very good mystery writer, but I hope I am learning.

Tamara said...

Wondered where you were, Mary Jo.