Joanna Challis's 'Murder on the Cliffs'
Dear Minotaur Press publishers (and particularly, editors)
As a long time mystery reader (and du Maurier fan), I wish to complain about Joanna Challis' novel "Murder on the Cliffs." I don't in any way dislike the idea of a novel's having Daphne du Maurier herself as the central character. This is an interesting angle with many possibilities. The problem is, though Ms. Challis may have writing talent, it is very raw and disorganized, and needs a good editor to rein it in, shape it and circle the dangling metaphors with a red pen. There are so many problems that it's hard to choose specifics, but here are just a few examples. (And please read them: I am an angry customer, and it will give you an idea of where problems might be caught in future books):
STYLE AND VOCABULARY; I understand that Ms. Challis is from Australia, but others living abroad have managed to write convincingly about Britain. Elizabeth George and Deanna Rayburn are the ones who come immediately to mind, but there are many others who go to Britain and immerse themselves for a few weeks, or have a British friend at hand at least before trying to make their characters speak like Brits. And even Canadians like myself know that the Brits do not call pharmacies 'drug stores', but 'chemists,' for example.
But everyone with either a good vocabulary or a good editor knows that the bulb on the end of a perfume bottle is not called a 'puffer', like something used by a modern asthmatic, but rather an 'perfume atomizer'. Also, what a woman gets just before her marriage are not 'bride gifts' (p.213) unless one is Margaret Mead commenting on Island tribes, but rather 'trousseau' items or even 'wedding gifts' or any manner of different, more elegant terms.
Then there are strange 'Shakespearean' intrusions where Ms. Challis overdoes the Britishisms, such as Lady Hartley's saying re her son, as she descends the steps towards Daphne (who has just arrived to tell her that Victoria is dead on the beach): "Has my lord been summoned? Summon him at once, I say." First of all, even in Shakespeare, 'my lord' used in that way would only be said by a commoner, or by nobleman's wife, not by a mother for her son. By long before du Maurier's time, such usage by anyone would have died out. "Has someone summoned Lord David?" would be more correct. The same goes for Mrs. Trahearn announcing, to Lord David, "Your lady mother wishes a word" (p. 177), which was okay when Juliet's nurse said it to her, but is ridiculous here.
And any editor should at once have caught problems like "Led to a wrought-iron lounge, propped up with faded green tasseled cushions, a midd-aged woman cloaked in the deepest and severest navy commanded, "Wait here, Miss du Maurier. I will inform her ladyship." This type of grammar error is like the expression, "We saw many little farm houses flying over Kansas", which is only correct if you are named Dorothy. "I was led.." would have been much better.
However, I don't know what, except 'overblown diction' is the problem with Daphne herself telling us, as she faced Lord David, (p.175):
"An almost remorseful smile accompanied this comment and a heated gulp dislodged its way down my throat. Steeling myself against the encased masterful masculinity adorning one of my favorite backdrops, a room full of books, I gestured to the book hidden behind his back," but it is worse than a Harlequin Romance and made me want to throw the book across the room. If Ms. Challis thought she was imitating du Maurier's romantic flair, she didn't succeed.
Also, dialogue here is too rigid, even for the 1920s. I know Ms. Challis is trying for the florid romanticism of Du Maurier, but really. Can you imagine anyone saying, as Miss Perony does on page 213, when asked what Victoria said to her before her death: "She laughed. It was a hysterical laugh through which she mentioned her future mother -in-law."
And would a nun call someone a 'strumpet" with three people, including her Mother Superior, present, even if she apologized afterwards? That sounds more like a Protestant exclamation, and not by a clerical person. And I say this as one who knows that nuns are just people like the rest of us---and as a Protestant.
PLOT DETAILS: The first detail I noticed is that the family at Padthaway weren't dressed in mourning after the murder. They should be shown doing so until at least the funeral and perhaps for a month or two afterwards. In this era, full mourning of a year was no longer the custom, but people didn't dress in peacock colors, even if, like Lady Hartley, they didn't like the victim. Victoria was about to marry the son of the family, after all, and he is upset. If they didn't wear mourning, this would be reason for Daphne to feel faintly scandalized, which she doesn't.
For the family to have dinner parties at all under these circumstances would have been unusual enough, but people do have to eat! Besides, the detective has to meet suspects. Having the family nanny at such a dinner is a bit odd, but might be something that Daphne would see as a sign of the family's extreme fondness for her. And since 'Jane Eyre,' having the nanny at the table has been used as a way to introduce everyone to both the reader and the main character. However, Daphne should be somewhat amazed at (and should comment on) seeing the chef dining with the family at a sit-down dinner party he himself cooked for --even if he is Lady Hartley's lover and someone Daphne has to meet to see all the possible suspects for the murder.
Also, I know that young Daphne has never been a detective before, but really, the author's decision to let every secondary character delay in telling her what truth he or she knows about the main characters and the murder at the book's heart, was not wise. While this kind of delay is a constant in mysteries, only weak plotters use it over and over, for every single character, and so heavy-handedly. I get the part about Daphne being the 'MIss Marple type' of detective who doesn't take control of a murder case and start questioning, but instead simply chats with all the suspects and then figures things out with her intuition and wisdom. However, Ms. Challis overdoes this to the point of tedium and unlikeliness.
And the fact that she is the one who found the body, is George du Maurier's daughter, is a class above some of the cast members, and wants to write a novel about the case, doesn't give her license to ask people interminable and personal questions about a murder case, unless she were working with the police or had a well-known reputation for solving mysteries. The reader has to wait until page 201 for someone to say, "Do you think finding the body gives you special license to conduct your own investigation?" To which I found myself shouting, "No, you don't!"
Also, long after the police have declared that this is a murder, not an accident, people are still asking one another if they believe this is a murder (p. 134), or saying that it can't be murder. And this even though poison has been discovered in the victim, so that it's not just as if this could have been a matter of Victoria's possibly being pushed off the cliffs. Along with the Ms. Challis' other delaying tactics, this seems a matter of padding the story, giving the character things to talk about to prolong the book.
And what about the police? You'd almost think that the chief police officer was alone in his job, or that he gave up investigating the case almost immediately. He orders no widespread search for the missing shoes on the cliffs or in the house itself, for example, or carries out no repeated questioning of suspects, and so on. And yes, I know that he is believed to be under the influence of this very powerful family, but at least he'd go through the motions, wouldn't he. And du Maurier herself doesn't help him out much. Twice she has the chance to tell him about the perfume atomizer (pp.237 and 245) and doesn't, for no discernible reason.
You may wonder why I finished the book. I did so hoping it would improve and wanting to see how such an incompetent writer would finish things off. Well, things got worse, and the book dribbled to an ending, as I might have expected.
Maybe this book looked good in a proposal, but it should have been edited better. Shame on you, Minotaur. Is this the way you edit all your books? Not once, in all the books I have received from the Mystery Guild, covering many types of mystery, have I found something so slipshod. It was a waste of my money. If I could burn it, I would.
Please feel free to pass this on to Joanna Challis; maybe she'll improve before her next novel. And yes, I know that there will be another novel. Sigh.
As a long time mystery reader (and du Maurier fan), I wish to complain about Joanna Challis' novel "Murder on the Cliffs." I don't in any way dislike the idea of a novel's having Daphne du Maurier herself as the central character. This is an interesting angle with many possibilities. The problem is, though Ms. Challis may have writing talent, it is very raw and disorganized, and needs a good editor to rein it in, shape it and circle the dangling metaphors with a red pen. There are so many problems that it's hard to choose specifics, but here are just a few examples. (And please read them: I am an angry customer, and it will give you an idea of where problems might be caught in future books):
STYLE AND VOCABULARY; I understand that Ms. Challis is from Australia, but others living abroad have managed to write convincingly about Britain. Elizabeth George and Deanna Rayburn are the ones who come immediately to mind, but there are many others who go to Britain and immerse themselves for a few weeks, or have a British friend at hand at least before trying to make their characters speak like Brits. And even Canadians like myself know that the Brits do not call pharmacies 'drug stores', but 'chemists,' for example.
But everyone with either a good vocabulary or a good editor knows that the bulb on the end of a perfume bottle is not called a 'puffer', like something used by a modern asthmatic, but rather an 'perfume atomizer'. Also, what a woman gets just before her marriage are not 'bride gifts' (p.213) unless one is Margaret Mead commenting on Island tribes, but rather 'trousseau' items or even 'wedding gifts' or any manner of different, more elegant terms.
Then there are strange 'Shakespearean' intrusions where Ms. Challis overdoes the Britishisms, such as Lady Hartley's saying re her son, as she descends the steps towards Daphne (who has just arrived to tell her that Victoria is dead on the beach): "Has my lord been summoned? Summon him at once, I say." First of all, even in Shakespeare, 'my lord' used in that way would only be said by a commoner, or by nobleman's wife, not by a mother for her son. By long before du Maurier's time, such usage by anyone would have died out. "Has someone summoned Lord David?" would be more correct. The same goes for Mrs. Trahearn announcing, to Lord David, "Your lady mother wishes a word" (p. 177), which was okay when Juliet's nurse said it to her, but is ridiculous here.
And any editor should at once have caught problems like "Led to a wrought-iron lounge, propped up with faded green tasseled cushions, a midd-aged woman cloaked in the deepest and severest navy commanded, "Wait here, Miss du Maurier. I will inform her ladyship." This type of grammar error is like the expression, "We saw many little farm houses flying over Kansas", which is only correct if you are named Dorothy. "I was led.." would have been much better.
However, I don't know what, except 'overblown diction' is the problem with Daphne herself telling us, as she faced Lord David, (p.175):
"An almost remorseful smile accompanied this comment and a heated gulp dislodged its way down my throat. Steeling myself against the encased masterful masculinity adorning one of my favorite backdrops, a room full of books, I gestured to the book hidden behind his back," but it is worse than a Harlequin Romance and made me want to throw the book across the room. If Ms. Challis thought she was imitating du Maurier's romantic flair, she didn't succeed.
Also, dialogue here is too rigid, even for the 1920s. I know Ms. Challis is trying for the florid romanticism of Du Maurier, but really. Can you imagine anyone saying, as Miss Perony does on page 213, when asked what Victoria said to her before her death: "She laughed. It was a hysterical laugh through which she mentioned her future mother -in-law."
And would a nun call someone a 'strumpet" with three people, including her Mother Superior, present, even if she apologized afterwards? That sounds more like a Protestant exclamation, and not by a clerical person. And I say this as one who knows that nuns are just people like the rest of us---and as a Protestant.
PLOT DETAILS: The first detail I noticed is that the family at Padthaway weren't dressed in mourning after the murder. They should be shown doing so until at least the funeral and perhaps for a month or two afterwards. In this era, full mourning of a year was no longer the custom, but people didn't dress in peacock colors, even if, like Lady Hartley, they didn't like the victim. Victoria was about to marry the son of the family, after all, and he is upset. If they didn't wear mourning, this would be reason for Daphne to feel faintly scandalized, which she doesn't.
For the family to have dinner parties at all under these circumstances would have been unusual enough, but people do have to eat! Besides, the detective has to meet suspects. Having the family nanny at such a dinner is a bit odd, but might be something that Daphne would see as a sign of the family's extreme fondness for her. And since 'Jane Eyre,' having the nanny at the table has been used as a way to introduce everyone to both the reader and the main character. However, Daphne should be somewhat amazed at (and should comment on) seeing the chef dining with the family at a sit-down dinner party he himself cooked for --even if he is Lady Hartley's lover and someone Daphne has to meet to see all the possible suspects for the murder.
Also, I know that young Daphne has never been a detective before, but really, the author's decision to let every secondary character delay in telling her what truth he or she knows about the main characters and the murder at the book's heart, was not wise. While this kind of delay is a constant in mysteries, only weak plotters use it over and over, for every single character, and so heavy-handedly. I get the part about Daphne being the 'MIss Marple type' of detective who doesn't take control of a murder case and start questioning, but instead simply chats with all the suspects and then figures things out with her intuition and wisdom. However, Ms. Challis overdoes this to the point of tedium and unlikeliness.
And the fact that she is the one who found the body, is George du Maurier's daughter, is a class above some of the cast members, and wants to write a novel about the case, doesn't give her license to ask people interminable and personal questions about a murder case, unless she were working with the police or had a well-known reputation for solving mysteries. The reader has to wait until page 201 for someone to say, "Do you think finding the body gives you special license to conduct your own investigation?" To which I found myself shouting, "No, you don't!"
Also, long after the police have declared that this is a murder, not an accident, people are still asking one another if they believe this is a murder (p. 134), or saying that it can't be murder. And this even though poison has been discovered in the victim, so that it's not just as if this could have been a matter of Victoria's possibly being pushed off the cliffs. Along with the Ms. Challis' other delaying tactics, this seems a matter of padding the story, giving the character things to talk about to prolong the book.
And what about the police? You'd almost think that the chief police officer was alone in his job, or that he gave up investigating the case almost immediately. He orders no widespread search for the missing shoes on the cliffs or in the house itself, for example, or carries out no repeated questioning of suspects, and so on. And yes, I know that he is believed to be under the influence of this very powerful family, but at least he'd go through the motions, wouldn't he. And du Maurier herself doesn't help him out much. Twice she has the chance to tell him about the perfume atomizer (pp.237 and 245) and doesn't, for no discernible reason.
You may wonder why I finished the book. I did so hoping it would improve and wanting to see how such an incompetent writer would finish things off. Well, things got worse, and the book dribbled to an ending, as I might have expected.
Maybe this book looked good in a proposal, but it should have been edited better. Shame on you, Minotaur. Is this the way you edit all your books? Not once, in all the books I have received from the Mystery Guild, covering many types of mystery, have I found something so slipshod. It was a waste of my money. If I could burn it, I would.
Please feel free to pass this on to Joanna Challis; maybe she'll improve before her next novel. And yes, I know that there will be another novel. Sigh.