AmyStrange
Philosopher
What book is everyone reading at the moment? Part 2.
- Thread starter alex04
- Start date
AmyStrange
Philosopher
It can certainly seem that way, but I liked the way Perry got Holcomb's goat and made him look stupid in his earlier cases, especially in court, and later when Lt Tragg shows up, it became more of a cat and mouse game, and I loved that too. I guess you just have to love legal shenanigans like I do to appreciate it.
There's even one case where he makes Holcomb look like an idiot, and Tragg comes over afterwards to thank him---unofficially of course.
I agree, the court room scenes can sometimes seem formulaic, but I especially loved when Perry cross-examined a witness about forensics, because Erle Stanley Gardner himself was a big believer in the forensic sciences, especially those in the medical profession. He featured many of them in the forwards to his later books.
As you probably already know, Gardner was a lawyer who worked mostly for the impoverished, and some of his cases sound outrageous (to say the least), but they're also true.
In one case, he was up against a concerted effort to shut down the Chinese lottery by going after the shopkeepers who were selling the tickets rather than the big guys who were really behind it.
He learned when this shakedown was going to happen and went to all his clients the night before and had them switch around to different shops for the next day.
Obviously, none of the cops knew each shop keeper by sight and arrested all the wrong people with the wrong warrants.
Gardner had every single case thrown out of court using the legal theory that since the warrants were used to arrest the wrong people, they were invalid.
There's a book out with more stories like that, and I'm going to get it as soon as I can afford it.
IMO, Gardner was one cool guy, and when I read his books, I think of him actually out there, doing some of the things in real life that Perry did in fiction.
ETA: I also like that Perry sometimes has his silly moments, but those aren't as plentiful as I'd like. When I run across them, I'll try and point them out here in this thread.
-
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Tristan Chi
Critical Thinker
Well. That's it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorrows_of_Young_Werther Is me. Over and foreverer out.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Sadly, I am re-reading the 'Chronicles of Thomas Covenant' I'm finding that I hate the main character as much as I did the first time.
It is very rare that I want to punch a book, but there you go.
It is very rare that I want to punch a book, but there you go.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
And just to clarify, Gardner protested and pulled the rights because they wanted to focus more on the romance than the legal aspects.
ETA: I found the name of the book I mentioned earlier, Perry Mason, A Love Story: The TV Clues You Missed.
(The hilited part is where I made my mistake earlier)
-
Last edited:
Did nobody read Tristan Chi's post? 
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
I read it, but didn't understand it.
(And may still not.)
(And may still not.)
Did you click the link and see what the book is about? I did, and am very concerned.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Yes, but their next post was quite ordinary.
Maybe they meant: "I'm done, I'm not going to read another book again."
I avoid reading books like that, they mess me around to much.
Yes, maybe, and I agree, those sort of books are not for me.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
I don't know how true this is (sometimes Cracked has weird unbelievable stuff in their e-mails), but I just finished reading The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde about a month ago, and it would've been an interesting thing to know while reading it, even if it isn't true.
I also just found out (from the same source) that Mary Shelley got her inspiration for Frankenstein during an opium dream. I just finished reading this one last month too.
I don't know how true this is either, but I swear to god, Lewis Carroll was on some kind of hallucinogen when he wrote Alice in Wonderland.
But anyway, here's my original review of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde:
-
I also just found out (from the same source) that Mary Shelley got her inspiration for Frankenstein during an opium dream. I just finished reading this one last month too.
I don't know how true this is either, but I swear to god, Lewis Carroll was on some kind of hallucinogen when he wrote Alice in Wonderland.
But anyway, here's my original review of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde:
-
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
#1 The Case of the Velvet Claws (6.22)
Reading the first book of the Perry Mason series was a big relief from reading the classics, especially with their well-known fondness for long run-on sentences.
The jump from books with more description than dialogue, to ones that were overflowing with dialogue, was like a breath of fresh air to me. No more would I have to read a sentence twice, trying to figure out what the hell the author was trying to say.
In most (if not all) of the books in the series, Perry eventually ends up in the courtroom, but The Case of the Velvet Claws is one novel where that doesn't happen.
In this specific case, Della is disappointed with Perry for turning against his client and throwing her to the wolves, but when he's able to prove she's innocent afterwards, she promises to never doubt him again.
She keeps that promise throughout the series, even to the point of betting a month's salary (with Paul Drake) that Perry will once again prove his client's innocence, despite how dark the case looked in the next book in the series, The Case of the Sulky Girl.
Speaking of Della, one of the events that divides the series for me is when she begins to stay in the room with Perry to take notes of his interview with clients. Not too shortly after that, she even accompanies him when he does a couple B&Es, looking for evidence.
Some folks may see that as a negative, but the way Perry explained it almost makes it legal, and that also brings up the first thing I learned from reading these books. According to Perry Mason, almost every criminal law statute in the US has attached to it the idea that you also have to prove intent. In other words, Perry argued that there would have to be a criminal or felonious intent behind it before anything could be considered a crime.
Another important thing I learned is that if he helps a fugitive from justice, he can't be charged with aiding (giving the suspect support and help) if they are innocent.
When I come upon one of Perry's many explanations as to why those are true, I'll include it in my review.
A good example of the first point is if you were walking by someone's house and saw smoke pouring from it, would there be a criminal or felonious intent to commit a crime if you broke in to save their lives?
I'm sure some folks will want to argue these points, but I'm going to let Gardner kind of answer that by quoting a kind of modern day forward that he wrote to the third book of the series:
-
Reading the first book of the Perry Mason series was a big relief from reading the classics, especially with their well-known fondness for long run-on sentences.
The jump from books with more description than dialogue, to ones that were overflowing with dialogue, was like a breath of fresh air to me. No more would I have to read a sentence twice, trying to figure out what the hell the author was trying to say.
In most (if not all) of the books in the series, Perry eventually ends up in the courtroom, but The Case of the Velvet Claws is one novel where that doesn't happen.
In this specific case, Della is disappointed with Perry for turning against his client and throwing her to the wolves, but when he's able to prove she's innocent afterwards, she promises to never doubt him again.
She keeps that promise throughout the series, even to the point of betting a month's salary (with Paul Drake) that Perry will once again prove his client's innocence, despite how dark the case looked in the next book in the series, The Case of the Sulky Girl.
Speaking of Della, one of the events that divides the series for me is when she begins to stay in the room with Perry to take notes of his interview with clients. Not too shortly after that, she even accompanies him when he does a couple B&Es, looking for evidence.
Some folks may see that as a negative, but the way Perry explained it almost makes it legal, and that also brings up the first thing I learned from reading these books. According to Perry Mason, almost every criminal law statute in the US has attached to it the idea that you also have to prove intent. In other words, Perry argued that there would have to be a criminal or felonious intent behind it before anything could be considered a crime.
Another important thing I learned is that if he helps a fugitive from justice, he can't be charged with aiding (giving the suspect support and help) if they are innocent.
When I come upon one of Perry's many explanations as to why those are true, I'll include it in my review.
A good example of the first point is if you were walking by someone's house and saw smoke pouring from it, would there be a criminal or felonious intent to commit a crime if you broke in to save their lives?
I'm sure some folks will want to argue these points, but I'm going to let Gardner kind of answer that by quoting a kind of modern day forward that he wrote to the third book of the series:
A NOTE FROM ERLE STANLEY GARDNER
-
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Okay, so I admit that Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits has grown on me. I think part of the reason why I disliked it in the beginning is I really dislike oppression and violence, of which there's plenty in the book (along with a pretty bleak and uncaring setting in general) but looking back I can appreciate the message, the jokes, and the overall absurdity more.
I do maintain that the story requires some suspension of disbelief, though. For example,
Again, it was one of Pargin's first books, and maybe it's meant to be read as one of those action flicks where you're there for the fights and flashy explosions and the plot itself isn't really meant to make sense. Or, just read it as a horror story, where you're supposed to just bask in the, well, horror?
Anyway, for anyone interested, this video will give you a primer on the type of world and humour you'll encounter (not safe for work). For all the book's faults, it has such gems as 'he had the eyes of a man whose favourite joke was just a shrieking child falling down a flight of stairs'.
I do maintain that the story requires some suspension of disbelief, though. For example,
Again, it was one of Pargin's first books, and maybe it's meant to be read as one of those action flicks where you're there for the fights and flashy explosions and the plot itself isn't really meant to make sense. Or, just read it as a horror story, where you're supposed to just bask in the, well, horror?
Anyway, for anyone interested, this video will give you a primer on the type of world and humour you'll encounter (not safe for work). For all the book's faults, it has such gems as 'he had the eyes of a man whose favourite joke was just a shrieking child falling down a flight of stairs'.
Lennart Hyland
Muse
Currently reading Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger and The Cavalry that Broke Napoleon: The King’s Dragoon Guards at Waterloo by Richard Goldsbrough. The latter is very detailed.. been skimming some chapters.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
#2 The Case of the Sulky Girl (1.5)*
I don't know about anyone else, but when I first started reading Perry Mason, the first thing I learned about were assumptions, because they became a big part in helping to solve the fictional mysteries that I've read.
They can also help when writing them too.
I'm sure everyone's heard the trope that many fictional murderers were usually the least likely suspect. For me it was because of assumptions I made, like for example:
In The Case of the Velvet Claws...
In The Case of the Sulky Girl...
Also, if anyone watched the Perry Mason series on Max, you might remember that one part where one of the characters tells Perry (paraphrasing) that no one ever confesses in court, especially on the witness stand. Well if IIRC, that very rarely ever happened in the novels too, but it did happen a lot in the TV series with Raymond Burr, but not in the first two cases that I just watched above, but it does happen in the TV Show episode named after the novel's title, The Case of the lucky Legs (3.10).*
* (season.episode)
-
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Been reading and re-reading Michael Kurland's Moriarty series, about the adventures of the world's first consulting criminal and the obsessed Sherlock Holmes.
Good stuff, though The Infernal Device has a number of errors similar to the list I posted before of common mistakes of writing set in the late Victorian period.
Good stuff, though The Infernal Device has a number of errors similar to the list I posted before of common mistakes of writing set in the late Victorian period.
Tristan Chi
Critical Thinker
I got better!
Tero
Philosopher
Terry Pratchett: Thief of Time. I read it first when fairly new. Confusing to me as I picked it up at the book store and did not know it was part of a series.
Spektator
Is that right?
Finished Matthew Sturgis's Oscar Wilde: A Life. At nearly 1000 pages, it is a thorough biography, less concerned with assessing Wilde's literary legacy than with delineating Wilde's deliberately constructing and inhabiting a flamboyant, overbearing, and outrageous persona. Wilde's marriage, fatherhood,
rejection of heterosexuality and embracing homosexuality ("Uranian" love) and subsequent entanglement with Lord Alfred Douglas all get coverage. Douglas emerges as a wastrel, spendthrift (with Wilde's money) and hot-tempered to the point of insanity. His father, the Marquess of Queensbury, nurtured a deep hatred of Wilde - and of his own son. He threatened to shoot Wilde in some public place. Douglas persuaded Wilde to sue Queensbury - and the result was that Wilde in turn found himself tried and convicted of gross immorality and sentenced to two years in prison. This ended his writing career, except for the successful long poem "The Ballad of Reading Gaol," and ruined him financially, though he had never lived within his income. After two years of exile in Italy and France, Wilde died in Paris.
Wilde seemed to charm and amuse everyone he met. He must have been a wonderful acquaintance, but an exasperating and expensive friend. Sturgis shows his enchanting side but also his careless and needy one.
rejection of heterosexuality and embracing homosexuality ("Uranian" love) and subsequent entanglement with Lord Alfred Douglas all get coverage. Douglas emerges as a wastrel, spendthrift (with Wilde's money) and hot-tempered to the point of insanity. His father, the Marquess of Queensbury, nurtured a deep hatred of Wilde - and of his own son. He threatened to shoot Wilde in some public place. Douglas persuaded Wilde to sue Queensbury - and the result was that Wilde in turn found himself tried and convicted of gross immorality and sentenced to two years in prison. This ended his writing career, except for the successful long poem "The Ballad of Reading Gaol," and ruined him financially, though he had never lived within his income. After two years of exile in Italy and France, Wilde died in Paris.
Wilde seemed to charm and amuse everyone he met. He must have been a wonderful acquaintance, but an exasperating and expensive friend. Sturgis shows his enchanting side but also his careless and needy one.