Title:
Playing hardball
By Author: Gary Delafield
Tag
line: It looked like someone in Cody’s life was
a stone-cold killer…but who?
Police
characters: Sheriff Joe Watkins
The
gist: Cody lay dead, a bloody stone doorstop the
apparent weapon. His wife, home from shopping with two unpacked store bags
nearby, found her husband. Cody had been
planning a get-together with his buds to watch the ball game, so she went to
the mall. The wife claimed she was only gone for about an hour to an hour and a
half and when she got home the house was quiet. She appeared to be upset, but made a comment
about now really being a baseball widow. She gave the sheriff the name of the two pals,
although she never actually saw them arrive; Jim co-owner with Cody of an auto
repair shop, and Nathan, owner of Espresso Garden coffee shop.
When the sheriff arrived at the coffee shop to speak
with Nathan, the man thought he was a customer and offered coffee. Nathan said he arrived at Cody’s for the game
a little before one, didn’t see anyone including the wife, and he left early
because he said Cody was drinking and trying to get him to wager on the game. Jim had not arrived by the time Nathan left.
When the sheriff questioned Jim, he was home watching
the second game of a double header. He
said he went to Cody’s house, rang the bell, but no one answered. The sheriff
asked if the wife was there and Jim said, no, she had gone out shopping. He
said he looked in the window and saw the TV was not on and surmised that Cody
had changed his mind about getting together.
The sheriff knew who had killed Cody.
Crime
scene: Cody’s house.
Clues: The fact that the wife was shopping.
Suspects:
Nathan,
the wife, or Jim.
Red
herrings: The ‘widow’ remark made her look cold, perhaps
guilty.
Solution: How
could Jim know that the wife was out shopping if he never went into the
house? Jim and Cody argued about
business, it became physical, and Jim grabbed a stone doorstop and hit, and
killed, Cody.
My
two cents: This story flowed along well. The police work
was good. Although not in the ‘gist’
above the story mentions that the sheriff wouldn’t have the official coroner’s
report until tomorrow, but that a blow to the head appeared to be the cause. The
title and the tag line both work. We have three suspects. Although not a great red herring the cold
remark from the wife did put a little suspicion on her. The clue is a well used
one; only the killer knows the details, but frankly that’s how it is in the
real world, and that’s how detectives get their man. Or woman.
I can’t find a reason not to give this story 5 stars.
8 comments:
It was a good story, well paced and with enough extra details to throw us off the scent, but I got confused by the mention of the 'unpacked' shopping bags on the table. To me, if they are unpacked, then the shopping has been taken out, so I thought, 'oh, it's another of those where the wife has come home, killed the husband, and then calmly got on with putting away her shopping while waiting for the cops'. Now I'm thinking that unpacked was meant to mean that they were still full of stuff. Any thoughts anyone?
@ Chris. I see your confusion. I took it to mean the bags were still full of the things she bought...that she had not yet unpacked her purchases, which tells us she found her husband dead as soon as she came home. But you're right, an unpacked bag could be empty. A better choice of word is needed in that spot.
I think the American reader takes "unpacked bags" to mean that nothing has been removed from them yet. I see what Chris means, though. It is just our funny language. Probably better to mention that the bags were still "full".
Jody, just harping back to those all-encompassing rights that WW now want for a moment, I noticed in the reproduced version you pasted into the 'Just to be sure' section that one of the specifications is 'non-exclusive', which begs the question, are they saying that they want the right to sell, reproduce, etc., the story but that you CAN still also include it in your own self-published anthologies, or whatever. NON-exclusive seems to me NOT to mean ALL RIGHTS. Has anyone actually queried this with them? I wonder if we aren't all jumping to the wrong conclusion.
@ Chris. We are giving Bauer the non-exclusive rights to do whatever they want with our story, including selling it to another publication. It's non-exclusive to them...not us.
A non-exclusive license agreement is to license content to someone, but the company granting the license can also license the content to other people.
Clear as mud?
R-i-g-h-t. Clear as the proverbial.
Well, now, isn't that interesting. I just read the paragraph down at the bottom of your blog, Jody. So basically, anyone who sells to WW now is writing for hire. Do you suppose the publisher will actually exercise that option? Who wants to publish WW stories second hand? Tell me, and I may go there in the first place. Does anyone know the motive behind this move by Bauer?
@ Mary Jo
The big guys at Bauer don't reveal their policy change reasons to the general public as a rule. It's an internal executive decision that was made in some boardroom meeting. It wasn't something that was released in a PR that I'm aware of.
I'm thinking that maybe a 'collection' book or single edition of the magazine with only fiction may be in the future. If that's the case, they can include our stories and not pay us again.
Post a Comment