Title: Planted
evidence
By
Author: Maria Gregory
Tag line: The
detective wanted to learn who had permanently altered Mrs. Prescott’s morning
routine!
Police characters: Detective Patty Lane.
The gist: A preliminary crime scene analysis indicated
that Anne Prescott, a wealthy widow, may have been poisoned. Three suspects were identified as having
motive and opportunity; her niece, her nephew, and her housekeeper. All of them were mentioned in her will. Det. Lane was investigating the murder. She knew that Ms. Prescott was a woman of
habit who had an iron-clad morning routine.
She rose at seven daily, showered, dressed, and drank one cup of black
coffee prepared by her housekeeper before she went into her garden to pick
fresh flowers for the house which she arranged in a glass vase on the table. She then did a crossword puzzle from the morning’s
paper. Det. Lane viewed the crime scene,
which had not been disturbed. There was
a half-full mug of coffee and fresh flowers on the table.
The body was
found slumped over the table by her niece who had arrived at 8:45. Det. Lane interviewed the housekeeper who
said she works every weekday. She said she arrived at 7:15 (the morning Ms.
Prescott was found dead) and made coffee.
She claims Ms. Prescott came downstairs and gave her a grocery list and
a list of errands as she does every Tuesday morning. She showed the list to Detective Lane. The housekeeper had nothing good to say about
the niece and nephew. She claims they
just started coming around recently because Ms. Prescott’s health has been
declining.
The niece
claims she and her brother were taking good care of their aunt, and it was true
that they hadn’t visited her much before because her aunt was very independent. She hadn’t planned on visiting the day her
aunt was found dead, but she just had a feeling so she dropped by. She said her aunt loved to tell her stories
about when she was young. She pointed to
the vase of flowers and said “Just this morning she was talking about how her
fresh flowers reminded her of good memories of past admirers who used to bring
her flowers.”
The nephew
claims he didn’t see his aunt that morning she died, but he did go to the
property to borrow his aunt’s lawn mower.
He went to the shed behind the garage, took the equipment, and
left. He lost his job three weeks ago
and has been doing landscaping to make money.
Detective
Lane knew who murdered the aunt.
Crime scene: Ms. Prescott’s home.
Clues: The timing of Ms. P’s routine and what was
found at the crime scene.
Suspects: The
housekeeper, the niece, the nephew.
Red herrings: The nephew had lost his job. The housekeeper had nothing good to say about
the two relatives. They had just started visiting their aunt.
Solution: The niece did it. She knew the housekeeper did errands on
Tuesdays and would be out but she didn’t know of her aunt’s unwavering
routine. Ms. Prescott didn’t bring in
flowers until after she finished her coffee.
Trying to make the room look ‘as usual’ the niece put fresh flowers in
the vase. She was impatient for her
inheritance and hurried things alone with a dose of poison. The fresh flowers clued in the detective that
the niece was lying.
My two cents: I was very happy to
see good police work, including a crime scene preliminary cause of death,
included in this story. Nothing negative
to comment on there.
There were
several good red herrings that made the reader think the housekeeper may be
involved.
Little
details that bothered me. The niece
called the police at 8:45. That seems a
bit late for a woman who had coffee around 7:30 every morning. Isn’t
it a bit difficult to tell day old flowers from fresh flowers? Couldn’t the
flowers found in the vase, the reason the detective became suspicious that the
niece was lying, be yesterday’s flowers? Where was the newspaper?
I think the
real clue was that the niece told the detective that ‘Just this morning my aunt
said –- “ She couldn’t have been talking to her aunt that morning, if the aunt
was dead when she walked in as she told the police.
I think the solution was the victim here,
perhaps of disjointed editing.
The title and tag line worked for this story. It was well
written, well paced with a nice inclusion of red herrings, police work was
good, and there was motive, which gives this story 4 stars. The clue was a bit fuzzy. Was it the fresh flowers on the table that
clued in the detective, or the fact that the niece claimed she spoke to her
aunt when the aunt was supposedly dead when she walked in?
36 comments:
Jody-agree with your four stars. The setting was such a bore though - a blast from the past of WW, as opposed to the recent stories set in a campground, a comic book store, a second-hand store. These are places, it seems to me, much more in tune with today's life, as opposed to big old houses owned by rich ladies with housekeepers. I don't know any such, and wouldn't know where to find a housekeeper, should I suddenly need one!
@ Julia. I'm an only child so I don't have to worry about any nieces and nephews killing me for my fortune. Oh, wait. I don't have a fortune. That's quite -- um -- unfortunate.
Jody - you should do stand up comedy. I think of this (your blog) as sit-down comedy anyway)!
You've raised some good points that hadn't occurred to me when I read the story, Jody. Yes, the flowers could have been yesterday's - cut flowers only start to look tatty after a few days in water. And the niece also made a mistake in admitting that she and her aunt had spoken that morning when she had initially claimed she'd found her slumped over the table. Yet that didn't feature as a clue in the solution. I wonder if it did in the original version, and was edited out?
I had the housekeeper pegged as the murderer, so it was a nice surprise to be wrong, although the half-finished coffee seemed a bit of a weak clue on its own. I felt the story needed more, although it was nicely written.
@ Chris. I thought it was the nephew because he had lost his job. Good red herring there.
I didn't catch the clue about her speaking to her 'dead' aunt until later when I started writing the blog. The flowers clue was weak, yet that drove the whole story solution. Go figure.
It wasn't the most dynamic story I've ever read, but not the worst either. It had a female detective and three suspects, which along with old ladies WW seems to just love. And there was nothing wonky with the police work, which I just love. The characters were believable.
I think the author was the real victim here. The big clue WAS screwed up, probably in editing.
These little mysteries are like those puzzles where, if you pull out the wrong piece, the whole thing collapses. I think editing them to fit the magazine would be a nightmare. You can see what happens sometimes.
@ Mary Jo. Here's my comment to that: It's not rocket science.
No, it is the science of putting together a puzzle that can be solved by examining all the pieces. When a piece goes missing (edited), the whole thing falls apart.
Some people are better at it than others.
Dear Mary Jo and Jody - I guess I don't understand why that much editing is needed IF we all follow the guidelines and stick to the "formula" of three suspects, a misleading clue or two. The stories themselves are almost painfully formulaic to my way of thinking. I doubt that John Floyd or some of the other FC's (frequent contributors) really require that much has to be done to their work. I think problems result (not just in WW) when editors edit as they read, not finishing the script all the way through. I know some local newspapers do that and the result is a choppy read. But daily newspapers have extremely short deadlines and a great deal of competition. I don't think that is true of WW. Anyone out there know?
Am I the only one who thought of the old Patty Duke show (her character's name was Patty Lane) when reading this story?
BTW, I couldn't figure out the clue in this one, which ended a winning a streak for me.
Patty Duke? I counted the words in one of the mini-mysteries and it was 766. Does that tell you anything? I guess the editor was doing a little "amending". Or they count length by so much space, not actual words. Julia, I thought newspapers just cut off the end of a story if it was running too long.
Mary Jo - No, I do not think that cutting off the end of a story is standard practice any more, although I understand it was at one time. Research changed that, and computers changed it even more.
Jody, I don't understand all the editing either. Sometimes editors edit just for the sake of editing and, in doing so, make unnecessary changes and create the opportunity for mistakes. For one thing, I think they change things without looking at the sentence before the change, thereby repeating words and phrases.
Julia, I meant to address you as well in above comment.
@ Bettye. As soon as the story starts spitting out times -- the woman rises every day at 7:00, housekeeper gets there at 7:15, the niece came at 8:45 -- I start to twitch. I know I'm going to have to stop reading for pleasure and now conduct a little timeline so I can pick out the killer. But then when I read the solution, I had to go back and read the story again. The solution didn't match the clue on this one. Arrrrggghh.
@ Tamara. I do understand the need for editing. If someone wanted to submit an advice/info piece for my blog and I liked the idea but the spelling was off, or the grammar was poor, or the sentence structure was wonky, I'd edit the piece before I'd 'publish' it in my space. But I'd be sure not to change the meaning of the thing.
I'm quite sure the top editors at WW have journalism degrees, and I say that because WW asks for a JD even for the lowly assistant to the assistant editor jobs. And I understand being rushed, but this is a national magazine with millions of sales per week. This is their job. This is what they do. They rose to the top because they know what they're doing and how to do it. And they've been in that position for years. Maybe the top editors are handling too many departments. I believe Johnene also does the travel pages, right? You can only stretch one person so far.
Jody, I believe we've tossed this issue around in this blog before, but I'll repeat myself. I do understand the need for editing; I just don't understand the need for unnecessary editing -- like for instance, adding a conversant's name in the midst of a conversation, not only making it sound unnatural but opening the door for a mistake, such as inserting the wrong name, messing up the whole story. I know it's just a trite romance story and I got my check, but I did work hard putting it together according to specifications. It is common knowledge that editors are pressed for time, but they do have time to change that which could be left alone and work just fine. I am echoing Julia's question above about the need for so much editing in these stories, which sometimes are not improved by the changes. I know they "know what works" but remember my romance where the two protagonists ate pizza in a broken elevator and then he invited her up so he could cook her dinner "that night"? What? I had written "tomorrow night", which definitely worked better, but the editor had plenty of time to make that questionable change.
@ Tamara. Ah, yes, I remember the elevator/pizza/dinner timing conundrum. You were quite angry. Don't blame you. It's not their name on a story that doesn't work, it's yours.
They added a brother in my romance. My story was centered around a woman coming home to a house that was broken into. The cops come and before they leave they give her a list of things to do (it's a standard victim list they use in those situations) like fix the window, change the locks, etc. She's a strong modern woman. She tackles the list and has her messy house back in order by nightfall. But nooooooo... WW has to add a brother to come and do the list. Give me a break. And they changed the thing that was stolen from a silver vase to a silver teapot. No reason. Someone else told me they changed her dress color from something like green to blue.
So I get what you're saying about silly, time wasting changes that often alter the story for no reason. And you'd think if they were rushed, they'd be glad to not have to change things. Someday I'm going to run into a magazine editor and I'm going to grill her...and I'll get back to you.
Jody - Fixing wonky sentence structure, correcting errors in spelling and punctuation - all that is (or used to be) considered copy editing. Just sort of cleaning it up for publication: copy editing. It's necessary on dailies where reporters often write on the fly. But changing the color of a dress? Adding a wholly unnecessary character? Come on, that's called (in my book): justifying your paycheck. As in, "Oh, I'm crazy busy, I've got four stories to edit (meaning re-write?). I do not believe that Tamara or Bettye or John need much in the way of copy-editing, so the "editors" tinker with the actual writing. At least, that is what it's looking like to me now. I promise if I ever get something printed in WW, I will send you the unedited version for comparison on the blog.
They added a bloke to do the things on the 'victim list', Jody? Arggh, that's outrageous. That's like going back a dozen decades to when women were too genteel to wield a drill or organise a locksmith. WHY did they feel the need to do that; are they stuck in the dark ages?! I'd have been furious if that was mine.
Changing the color of a dress? That was me (I). In a romance, it was a soft, filmy, peach color and Johnene changed it to turquoise. I just put my head in my hands and said, "Why?" She also changed the name of the guy to something that I considered boring and generic (unsuitable to his character) and sugared up the ending. I have to agree with Julia on that one: Justifying the pay check.
The editors have to have a degree in Journalism? Well, that is a far cry from achieving a degree in creative writing which I suspect some of your people have. Yet, there are some editors who consider themselves better creative writers than are the actual authors they are editing. I think we can assure them that is not necessarily true.
Julia, I can see how "writing on the fly" could be a little sloppy, but I think anyone who is a serious story writer will make sure grammar, sentence structure, spelling and punctuation are as perfect as possible before submitting their work to a periodic publication.
Johnene didn't fool much with my firemen's story, but that was a long time ago. Since then I have not had the time of day from WW. (I am a master of cliches.) Yes, I know there are only 52 slots a year in each of their two genres. So I guess its just a crapshoot.
Therefore, good luck to everyone.
Dear Mary Jo,
By writing on the fly, I meant this sort of situation (in which I have found myself, more than once): You (reporter) are charged with responding to any police call that comes over the scanner IF it has a newsworthy code (like a four-car pile-up). So off you go, and meet the photographer from your paper at the scene. But the deadline is only 45 minutes away, so you call the story in. You dictate it. This still happens, believe it or not. In that case, you as the reporter would be far more concerned with ACCURACY of the names of the vics, the time of the accident, make and year of cars, response time of emergency personnel and other such things, than you would with the proper punctuation or even spelling EXcept for the spelling of the names. The copy editor's job in that situation is vital. She will clean up your copy for you, that's what I meant by "writing on the fly." Of course in creative writing, when you are writing on spec and not on any deadline except one you have created for yourself (I'll submit this by Tuesday), and where no real actual people are involved in the story, then you will, naturally, submit a polished, perfectly punctuated, spelled, etc., story. I did not mean that journalists feel free to skimp on their effort before submitting a story - far from it, but they face different challenges than creative writers; that's all.
@ Chris. I was NOT happy but it was my first sale and I didn't even know they could/would change details. Couldn't do anything about it anyway. I certainly wasn't going to complain and get put on a 'difficult to work with' list. Then I got a second contract quite soon after. And then the fat check came... and I was much calmer. haha.
@ Julia. I can easily see how reporters that call in the story would need the assistance of a copy editor. Half the time I type West Palm and it comes out West Plam. More than half the time. And you certainly wouldn't want to rely on auto-correct... that would be a nightmare in that business.
Julia, yes, I knew what you meant. I just don't want the new writers of the little WW stories (or others) to think that it is the editor's job to clean up their careless mistakes. More likely, they would never be read. I have actually heard some "writers" say that the editor can do those corrections. Wise up.
@ Mary Jo. Careless mistakes, misspells, and poor grammar get you Patty's rejection letter, and fast.
Yes, I've known writers who thought that spelling and grammar corrections were the editor's job, too. They were sending in work littered with errors in the mistaken belief that all that mattered was 'the story'. Nope, it's the whole package they want, as clean and polished as you can get it.
Jody, I've had an editor change one of my stories in such a way that the whole thing fell apart. It was a ghost story where a character who'd made a fleeting appearance early on as a young boy came back into it as a man in his fifties. That was the giveaway that the lead characters were ghosts, since five decades had passed since he'd caused the accident that killed them. The fiction editor clearly hadn't read it properly because, for no reason that I could understand, she changed his age to twenty-something. I was so upset, I wrote and asked why the change had been made, since it demolished the whole structure. She emailed straight back full of apologies, saying she hadn't realised the character was the same person. Of course, it was too late by then, the story was in the mag and it looked like I'd made a chronic error. I think that's why I always temper my comments here with that possibility, that maybe the author wasn't responsible for whatever clanger we are perceiving as wrong.
@ Chris. I'm no ghost expert. if there is such a thing, but if you die as a child you stay a child forever.... right? You come back and play with the toys or swing on the swings. You don't age... do you? Thinking that way, maybe that's where the editor got confused with the boy/man ghost.
No, it was the boy who'd caused the accident who'd grown older, Jody, not the people who'd died in the crash. They were newlyweds on their way to their honeymoon hotel and they were forever the same age. The boy had grown up to become the innkeeper at the hotel they were heading for and some years before he had seen their signatures start to appear on the hotel register, growing stronger with each passing year. This being their fiftieth anniversary, he was convinced they would finally reach their destination. They did, but the story was ruined by the editor's changes. There was no confusion in the story as I submitted it, she just hadn't read it properly and decided to make her own, unnecessary, alterations. Very annoying.
@ Chris. Ah, I see. Very annoying indeed. Absolutely ruined the story. I wonder if the magazine got letters about it? I mean besides yours... :)
Doubt anyone would bother to write in. Like us, they'd probably just read it and think, oh, the writer sure got that wrong! Such is life.
Ladies and gents, just a follow-up on the HBO contest. The entry portal was handled through withoutabox and was to be open for entries on March 4th. They didn't say what time, so I checked at 12:05 AM on March 4th EST. Nope. It was in the process of being set up but it wasn't open. Their time clock had PST on it. Okay. So I get up at 3:00 AM my time midnight their time ... nope, it's still not ready but now it says entry date is March 5th. So I go back to bed. I checked on it at (their time) 7:00AM and 9:30A, same thing. Entry date is still listed as March 5th. I figure, okay, it was a misprint in the article. Just in case, I check it today again at 1:30 their time.... FULL. ENTRIES CLOSED. *&#$@$
Obviously, you have to keep right on their tail. Sorry you missed the cut, Jody.
@ Mary Jo. Thanks.
Oh well, it was a long shot anyway. I would have liked to have that 'try' under my belt, but in reality after I read some of the comments from other writers who were uber excited about the opportunity, I could tell right away I was out of my league. Some have been trying for years and have dozens of scripts ready to pitch. I might have been taking up one of those 1000 spots that a seriously dedicated screen writer should have. Someone whose dream it was to shoot and pitch a TV series.
Things always work out for the best. At the very least, I tweaked my play and added more time to it. I think I'll send it out to festivals and small playhouses. That's more in tune with my work at this point and where I'm more likely to make a sale.
But it was fun while it lasted.
Onward and forward.
I think things have a reason and the fact that you got that script out of the drawer and worked on it means none of your effort was wasted. Give those small playhouses and contests a try. That's where you learn your craft, same as writing for lesser paying mags before you submit to WW. It's all a learning curve. When the HBO contest is run again you'll be ready for them.
@ Chris.
Thank you my UKBWF -- UK best writer friend. :)
Post a Comment