|
|
Post by Salzmank on Aug 12, 2017 20:31:04 GMT
alfromniOut at the moment, but I'll take a look when I get home. What happened with the man in the iron mask story? I was intending on working out that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 12, 2017 20:33:29 GMT
SalzmankOh I deleted The Masked Prisoner. Started thinking that it had already been done in part with Hannibal Lecter.  But don't let that deter you if you think you can come up with something else. Will I put it up again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Aug 12, 2017 22:44:17 GMT
SalzmankOh I deleted The Masked Prisoner. Started thinking that it had already been done in part with Hannibal Lecter. But don't let that deter you if you think you can come up with something else. Will I put it up again? Whatever you'd like. I'm certainly game for it! |
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 12, 2017 23:19:34 GMT
Salzmank , BATouttaheck , Pete , brimfin , jervistetch Don't know if this will work... The Masked PrisonerI've always been intrigued with the guy that history named as "The Man in the Iron Mask". Not the Dumas and Hollywood invention but the real guy. What is known about him can be read here... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_Iron_MaskHowever, getting away from Dumas, Hollywood and history, can anyone think up a synopsis of a new story called "The Masked Prisoner" about why a convict is masked from everyone except those sworn to secrecy under threat of death, and who cater for the convict's immediate welfare? Use characters, scenario, and the era of your choice. That said, if you wish to use the information and elaborate on what's known of the real prisoner in the "iron" mask please do so. I don't yet have a synopsis myself, so I too have to get my thinking cap on. NB. No Hannibal Lecter or The Lone Ranger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Aug 13, 2017 0:19:16 GMT
Salzmank , BATouttaheck , Pete , brimfin , jervistetch ... The Burglars
... MORNING. Mrs Greenwood is found beaten to death! a) Harry`s fingerprints on the window and round the shop b) Trevor was seen c) Harry's grudge? d) ? ================= Any ideas how to proceed guys? First of all, a good story, Al; I really like the idea (and that delightful phrase "claustrophobic comfort"), and there are a number of directions we could go with it. (Did you--or your son--ever read Anthony Horowitz's The Devil's Door-Bell or Raven's Gate? Both start off similarly to "The Burglars," though they're supernatural thrillers.) Is there a genre that we're intending? I'm guessing a mystery because Mrs. G has been found beaten to death, but we could also do it as a Hitchcockian "man on the run" thriller or something like that. Children's--or teenage--story, I suppose? I'll first start off with addressing possible continuations as a mystery story. The obvious suspect is Harry, who disliked Mrs. G and whose fingerprints were found all over the shop--although we know the brave leader fled "...over the adjoining field like a bat out of hell..." The police don't know this last part, of course; and, finding the fingerprints, take Harry in for questioning--and quickly follow that up with also questioning Trevor (he was seen). Meanwhile, the long arm of the law also checks Mrs. G's son (let's call him George), who inherits by the will--he's in the background, but they're still checking up on him. Back at the police station, Harry lies brazenly and says poor Trevor was the mastermind who set up him and Peter (and Peter "substantiates" Harry's mendacity); there is a scene in which Trevor's mom says she is disappointed in him; the police don't yet arrest Trevor, as they still want to investigate Harry (as his fingerprints were found, after all). Trevor uses that brief time to investigate, trying to find the real murderer. A few different ways (that I see) that we can go with the solution: 1. Harry is the murderer. It would be psychologically deceiving (methinks) to make the reader think he knows that Harry booked out of there and thus cannot, logically, be the killer--oh, but he is. Shoring up his courage afterwards, he returned after the officer left and, in a fit of anger, killed Mrs. G. And he has a fine alibi, too: Trevor, who doesn't like him when he "snitches," still has to confess that he saw Harry run off and (as far as he knows) never come back. I would call this solution somewhat Christean, as Agatha liked using double-bluffs and false alibis.
2. The policeman is the murderer. (I'm not sure which one--Bert or his partner.) Trevor knows he was in the area, but the reader doesn't suspect he would ever be the killer... Problem: motive. Which leads us on to...
3. George Greenwood is the murderer, but he committed the crime while dressed as a policeman. His motive was, of course, the money in the will. He and his partner, also dressed as a policeman, have a police radio and waited for the night that Mrs. G called the police. (Not altogether unlikely, hypothetically: perhaps there were a number of break-ins at the time--perhaps, even, Greenwood and his partner were the ones responsible.) They intended to get in quickly, before the actual police arrived, murder Mrs. G, and go off to set up their alibis. (The partner was the one who spoke to Mrs. G, of course.) The kids, however, broke up their plans, which is why the one "police-officer" threatened Trevor but didn't question him any more.
4. Pete is the murderer. I don't really know why or how (except possibly in the same way Harry could have done it?), but he seems a non-entity story-wise (he's Harry's crony, more or less), and such a character is often the "least likely," in the true sense. (That is to say: making, say, Trev's mom--or Trevor himself--the murder is "least likely," yes," but it's so unlikely as to become likely to the reader who knows a mystery-author's penchant for twist endings--if that makes any sense!)
Now, to be perfectly honest, one could do the whole thing as a Hitchcockian thriller and still use one (or none) of these endings, and just insert the clues through the back door. I was intending to try my hand at such a thriller one of these days... Hope any of that actually helps! |
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 13, 2017 0:33:19 GMT
Wow! Now you've left ME speechless. Much to think on there. As it's 01.30 here, I'll look over it more thoroughly later. Many thanks. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Aug 13, 2017 0:38:14 GMT
Wow! Now you've left ME speechless. Much to think on there. As it's 01.30 here, I'll look over it more thoroughly later. Many thanks. :-) Thanks. I just like working this stuff out. |
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 13, 2017 9:27:13 GMT
Salzmank Incidentally I haven't read those novels, but I can't speak for my son. This story was written about 25-30 years ago. I'd actually forgotten all about it until these Author! Author! challenges appeared. Thought it might make a good one. I retrieved it from an old CD on which I saved it. I have many such starts and stops saved. I kept them for future reference. There really wasn't any particular genre intended as it was only a short exercise, and an entity unto itself. It was I who thought it had possibilities for further development, but as said, I never got round to it. At my age I probably still won't, I tire more and more as time passes by, so feel free to use it if you wish. My son won't mind, he's moved on to other pastimes. Harry, Pete and Trevor are friends, but are they close friends? Recall that Trevor was roped in for a dare, so it wouldn't be an automatic assumption that Harry would be taken in straight away. The first to be brought in, or more likely to be interviewed at home with his mother in attendance (this is the UK not the US) would be Trevor as he was seen hanging around the area by the cops. (Sub plot - budding romance between Trevor's mother and the investigating officer?). Would Trevor give Harry away? Under pressure I think he would. Then, courtesy of fingerprints, Harry would be found to have been on the premises. Denial of knowledge of the killing would follow of course. Blood splatter, blood or no blood on Harry? The alibi of "George" would have to be ascertained. That should take care of Chapter 2, and give us time to figure out where to go next. The background of the old lady would seem to be logical. I think the secret will be to keep it light, and not delve too much into psychological, scientific, and dark complications. Set perhaps in the late 70s/early80s before DNA profiling became a tool of forensics.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 13, 2017 10:50:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Aug 17, 2017 1:19:25 GMT
alfromni Apologies for not yet responding to your PM; I think you're largely correct, but there are one or two points I'd like to run by you about the subject--I've just been so busy lately, as usual. Thanks for the offer! It's your and your son's idea, and I won't borrow it, but the offer is greatly appreciated. I think what you wrote is apt for Ch. 2 and that, potentially, we could decide what how to proceed from there. alfromni , brimfin , jervistetch , Pete , BATouttaheck , et al. New riddle, of the straightforward "riddle" mode rather than my elaborate stories or even Author! Author! See below:
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 17, 2017 4:00:26 GMT
SalzmankTheir are three errers in this paragraph. Study it carefully and see if you can find all of them. There not their
Errors not errers
Only TWO not Three ?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 17, 2017 7:56:59 GMT
Salzmank - OK. I suggest we continue with the subject via PMs rather than clog up the thread. However if anyone else has ideas, please submit.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 17, 2017 19:50:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Aug 18, 2017 2:18:06 GMT
BATouttaheckA  That's it! My apologies, I was gone all day today.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 18, 2017 2:23:06 GMT
Salzmank no problem. It's just so rarely that I can even begin to "get" the riddles .. even the simple ones... that I get antsy to know if I was right !
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 18, 2017 8:05:51 GMT
Salzmank, Pete, brimfin, BATouttaheck, jervistetch (et al) I watched the 1944 US War Dept documentary called "Know your Ally: Britain"... www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrH77D3fiuk...in which is explained the then differences and similarities between the US and UK (go to 17.10 to 18.00 of the film), and which also contains a phrase which puzzles me... "...freedom of the press, freedom of religion. They may not be important to Hitler, but all these things are are a common heritage of John Q Public and John Britain." Question --- What does "Q" stand for?
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 18, 2017 13:28:48 GMT
alfromni I "researched" and have not yet found any specific reason for the "Q". Perhaps it just sounds good. Wiki link
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Aug 18, 2017 15:52:59 GMT
BATouttaheckThanks Bat. Yep, I did the same and as yet have come up "Q"lueless. Asked other American friends I have around the web, and they don't know either. It says in the wiki link you supplied... "John Q. Public was the name of a character created by Vaughn Shoemaker, an editorial cartoonist for the Chicago Daily News, in 1922"... but that's all. No meaning for Q.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 18, 2017 17:07:34 GMT
alfromniI think that it's just that "Q" is one of those "full stop" type letters/sounds that "works". Try any other letter and it just doesn't sound quite as effective. Maybe a throwback to John Quincy Adams but that's a real stretch !
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Aug 18, 2017 19:56:48 GMT
alfromni and BATouttaheck I too thought that (1) it might be a reference to John Quincy Adams and that (2) it just "works," phonetically, in the phrase. With 1, though, "John Q. Public," referring just to the generic everyman, first entered print in the '30s, so I doubt Adams can be the real answer. (It was a long stretch anyway, though, as Bat noted!) 2 is still entirely possible, and I think it's the answer, but let just add that "Quincy," simply as a name (rather than a reference to the president), was far more common in 1937 (and 1922) than it is today. So it could have been an attempt just to give this everyman an appropriately everyman name. ETA: "Straight Dope" message board link. ETA: I did some more research, and now I think that q is just a variable, as in x and y in mathematics. It still doesn't rule out what everyone wrote before, but it's something to consider.
|
|
