Title: Double vision
By
Author: Tracie Rae Griffith
Tag line: Jackson’s
business partner saw things a little too clearly!
Police characters: Detective Kristine
Johnson, Sgt. Bill Morgan
The gist: Jackson’s business partner, Ken, accused him
of embezzling. He gave him seven days to
return the money, but even then he was going to call the police and report the
crime. Jackson asked if they could talk
further about it in Ken’s home office the next day. They agreed to meet at noon. Jackson decided to deal with Ken permanently and
had no intentions of returning any of the money. When he had a chance he slipped pills into Ken’s
ever-present glass of bourbon in his office, he falsified documents to make it
look like the company was losing money. And
he wrote a fake suicide note for Ken. Then
he waited and watched until Ken drank his liquor and slumped over the
desk. Using gloves he placed the empty pill
container in the waste basket next to the desk, placed the falsified documents
and suicide note under Ken’s hand. He
even took Ken’s reading glasses out of his pocket and placed them on the dead
man’s face. He then called 911. He told police he thought it was a suicide. When the detectives arrived, Jackson told them
that the business had been losing money, that Ken had poor health issues, (rattling
off several health problems), a failed
marriage, and that he drank too much.
When asked who inherits Ken’s shares in the business, Jackson admitted
he would, but added a failed business isn’t worth much.
A week later
Jackson was shocked to find the two detectives at his door. They arrested him. Detective Johnson told him that his business
partner saw things a little too clearly and that’s why Ken killed him.
Crime scene: The office of Jackson and Ken.
Clues: The reading glasses.
Suspects: Suicide
or Jackson the business partner.
Red herrings: None.
Solution: At the time of his death Ken was wearing
contacts. He would never have put
reading glasses over his contacts. The
police knew the scene had been set up.
My two cents: I thought the story
read well, and was paced in a brisk manner.
The characters were believable and there was ample motive. There were no problems with the police work,
and I noticed this author kept it simple in that department; no time of death,
no witnesses to sequester for questioning, no initial crime scene or patrol officers
arriving. Simple is good. Not much chance to go wrong.
My only
gripe is the contact thing. The reader
is supposed to be able to figure out the perp by the body of the story (no pun
intended). How would the reader know the
guy wore contacts? And why would he have
reading glasses in his pocket if he wore contacts? Ken
and Jackson had been business partners for at least a year according to the
story, yet Ken didn’t know his partner wore contacts? He knew plenty of other health details that
he gave the police, even high cholesterol.
If I were
going to commit suicide by pills, I’d down the pills and wait for death. I don’t think I’d be sure to put the RX
container in the trash. It would be
right there on my desk next to the glass.
Yet, I’ve seen that done many times in these stories. Curious.
It’s too bad
WW gave the whole thing away in the tag line.
Even the title is a giveaway. Why
do they do that?
4
Stars…because the reader is not able to figure it out.
13 comments:
Received this in my e-mail today. Always nice to hear from nice people. The return email address is from a different Michael than the one who drops by from time to time.
"Hello Ms. Lebel,
I found your blog a few months ago shortly after I had submitted a mini mystery to Woman’s World. I appreciate your blog for several reasons, but most importantly, it provides me an opportunity to view all of the stories that are being published along with your critique, which by the way, is very insightful.
I find myself viewing your blog several times a month and it has truly helped me gain an understanding into the breakdown of the mini mysteries. I look forward to the day when I will see my stories (positive thinking here) published in Woman’s World, and then here for you and your followers to critique.
Michael"
Nice to have a message of appreciation sometimes, isn't it, Jody. Fingers crossed for Michael.
I agree about this story, good pacing and decent plot, but like you I was also a bit peeved about those contacts. A hint about Ken having red, watery eyes that day, or Jackson noticing a recent optician's appointment in his diary or something, would have given us a clue that he had started wearing them. Ken having his reading glasses in his pocket didn't bother me, though, as a lot of people keep their glasses with them in case they need to take their lenses out for some reason. Otherwise, a pretty good story.
I agree. There is no way for the reader to figure this one out--and isn't that what a Solve-it-yourself mystery is all about? I liked the idea of the "double vision" as a giveaway, but felt cheated that I couldn't have guessed it from the text.
@Mary Ann
I hope Tracie Rae will drop by and tell us what WW changed. I know she said they changed the title.
@ Berita Thanks for stopping by. Always enjoy comments from my readers.
Hi!
Not much was changed, but an important sentence was left out.
"He watched the glint go out in his victim's eyes." The glint was supposed to refer to the contacts.
Keep writing, everyone!
Tracie Rae
@ Tracie Rae
Thanks for leaving us a post. I never would have thought of contacts as being the 'glint' though. Contacts don't die. If they did indeed produce a glint, it would still be there in the man's eyes. A 'glint going out' refers to life leaving the body, so I still wouldn't have gotten it. To me it would have been better for the police to find some contact lens fluid in his desk or some dry eye contact drops in his pocket. Other than that, it was a great story. :)
This story was well written, but I don't like mysteries where the solution comes out of left field and wasn't previously mentioned or even hinted at. As a reader, I felt cheated. I would definitely not give this one 4 stars. I'm surprised at everyone's generosity.
If a glint goes out in someone's eye it's either through disappointment, or the life leaving their body, not an indication that they wore contact lenses. Sorry, Tracie Rae but that's not a clue I could ever have drawn that conclusion from.
@ Bettye
To be consistent and to avoid my personal likes and dislikes, the stars are given out in five different areas: motive, police work, pacing/writing, character work, and clue. This story had four things working for it, but a missing/poor clue. So it got 4 out of the 5 stars. Once the star rating is given, then I take the liberty to dish out some snark if I feel like the story deserves it.
Tracie Rae, sometimes it is hard to think of just the right phrase to offer a clue but not hit the reader in the face with it. I was thinking you might have said something about the victim's "glassy eyed stare" to hint at the contacts. I think mysteries are very hard to write.
Good grief, what a robot question now. Soups on! Oh, now it is just numbers. Yiiiiiiiii!
My lip is stuck out a little. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I got a lecture from Johnene on one of my rejections about the necessity of including a clue in the story for the discerning reader to see. Yet, lately, I'm noticing that, increasingly, clues are placed in the solution box rather than in the story. Curious about this.
@ Tamara.
"Curious about that". As you should be. There's no clear direction from WW it seems. No consistency. And the next story, which I'll post tomorrow, has the same problem. It's all about what tickles Johnene's fancy these days.
Post a Comment