My biggest reason for being on IMDB is talking of authors I love with other fans.
Who'll join me in this thread ? I hope there are many of you : )
Here's a question to help get the talk going :
Who else would love to be as cool and incredible as Aunt Vespacia when they get to be in there 70s ? : )
Laura
If you've read all the books, I'd like to ask you a question. I was so in love with charlotte and pitt that I bought all the books in hardback that I could find (mostly used). But then I bought a new hardback which I could scarcely afford and Charlotte was barely in it! (I'm at my computer and while not as old as Vespacia I'm damn close and cannot remember the name of the novel). I felt, well, put out and a little betrayed by the author (giving her history that's another story). My question is, did she just throw Charlotte away(woman gets in your way dispose of her--a pattern?)? Was it just that one book or did she never come back? While I still enjoy Pitt and Gracie and the rest, it just isn't the same for me. I never even started the Monk (? spelling) series because I liked the team idea.
share
Hey, I finally got a response to my thread ! : )
I'm sorry to have to tell you though, that I haven't read all Anne Perry's books yet, so I'm not fully qualified to answer your question.
I think I've read/listened to some where around half of both the Thomas + Charlotte Pitt series and the William Monk series.
I did read on Anne Perry's official website where she in one of her responses to a reader's question ( I don't recall the exact question ) said that she'd actually become a little bored with Charlotte's character as compared to Pitt's and so hadn't had her in all of them as much. My experience so far with the books in this series ( I've read several out of order - some were the more recent books ) has been that Charlotte's involvement in the mysterys varies widely book to book.
You would probably greatly enjoy the Monk series too as there is a strong female lead character as well as Monk involved in solving the cases.
Laura
Have either of your read 'Fashionable Funeral'? I see it listed on other sites, but not on Anne's official site.
shareNo, I'm sorry, I haven't.
I don't recall having heard of it.
It's nice to get another response to my thread : )
Laura
It is all right if I read the books out of order? Or is it essential that I read them in order?
share
I would say not essential. I started both series some where in the middle because I just grabbed what the library had on hand. Also I was unfamiliar with the author and had no knowledge of where they started.
I do have to add though that since becoming a fan of these that I've been going through them systematically as I like the sense of continuity it gives to the characters ( as in personalities maturing and lives adjusting and such ).
Have you read any of A.P.'s books yet/which have you read ?
Laura
I've only read 'The Cater Street Hangman', but I just ordered a lot of Anne Perry books from an e-bay seller. So I'll be reading the last 5 books from the Thomas Pitt series & the 1st book in the WWI series.
Silly question, but is the 'a' in Cater Street, a long 'a' or a short 'a'? lol I haven't seen this movie yet, so I can't figure out how it's pronounced.
I started with Cater Street because I saw it on A&E (absolutely perfect show I thought). I only watched it because I had heard Ann Perry's history on Dateline or somewhere. Thank goodness I did--I was totally hooked. Thanks for letting me know about the Monk series also being a team. I'll try those.
shareHey, I'm sorry I never answered the "a" question !
I haven't been on IMDB in forever as I'm moving and it's become an extended and very time consuming effort.
As for the "a", I believe it's a long a. I've been listening to very talented english readers read Anne Perry's books on tape and they pronounce the a long.
BTW, I haven't got a chance to see the movie yet either. I really hope Netflix gets it : )
[deleted]
It is nice to start at the 1st book in a series and then read 'em in order, but there is not a mystery series, and that includes the series by Anne Perry, that I have found that you could not pick a book out at random and start to read it and not understand what was going on.
I have read 3 or 4 of the books in the Charlotte and Thomas Pitt series, the last 3 or 4, and not read the other 2 dozen or so books in the series, and I have never had any trouble undersanding what was happening.
One of the the things I like about the series is the complexity of the characters. Not normally black or white, but various shades of grey, but . . . having said that,and I don't know whether this is typical or atypical of the series, having picked up a reprint of the 6th book in the series "Bluegate Fields," the characters are even more complex than in her later books.
neither master nor servant
the abused - the abuser
the guilty - the innocent
the hater - the lover
the liar - the truth teller
the thoughtful - the thoughtless
the whore - the client
Except for the last pair, which are two different people, each of the contradictory pairings belong to one person.
I'll also say, it is probably the most lurid and sordid of her novels. Even more so then the one I read in Perry's William Monk series in which the heroes have to break up a pedophile ring operating on the river. Maybe because that one concentrates on the abusers, while this one concentrates on the abused. I have not even finished half of the book, and already the book has touched on . . .
a bathtub drowning -- child molestation -- a child murderer -- child prostitution -- a dead boy -- ephebophilia -- hebephilia -- incest -- a murder of a child -- perjury -- pimping -- prostitution -- slavery -- sodomy -- syphilis -- teenage male nudity -- and voyeurism.
So, it is alright to pick a book out at random and then read 'em out of order, but maybe read her early novels before her later novels, as they seem to be better written. At least, the storytelling seems to be tighter.
Someone mentioned the cost of producing this for TV, and if I can remember it correctly, at the time, this was one of the most expensive--up to that time--movies made for TV, which is why another one was not made. The cost to do another one was not justified by the ratings of the first one. Though, I'd like to see them revive the series and do all the books for TV.
shareFrom "Bluegate Fields"
And then there was Albie. What's it all about Albie? It's the story of Albie and Arthur.
The story starts out well. An aristocratic youth found dead in the sewers of a London slum. Found stark naked, sodomized, and with a case of syphilis.
And a story with more similiarities than differences.
Both boys were homosexual or bisexual.
Both boys were about the same age.
Albie was 17.
Arthur was 16.
Both boys were child prostitutes.
Both boys were being pimped out to others.
Both boys had families that abused them.
Both boys had no choice.
Albie was sold into sexual slavery by his family.
Arthur was not smart enough to make the right choice.
Both boys enjoyed some aspect of it.
Albie enjoyed the power he had over his clients.
Arthur enjoyed the sex.
Both boys had reasons to keep at it.
Albie
(a) food
(b) shelter
Arthur
(a) the illicit thrill of doing something illegal
(b) the money
(c) revenge against a family he dislikes
(c) the sex
(e) all of the above
(f) none of the above
Both boys slept with the same man.
Both boys were murdered.
Both boys were drowned.
Even the differences seem to favor Arthur over Albie.
They came from different backgrounds.
Arthur was of the upper class.
Albie was of the lower class.
Albie had more street smarts than Arthur.
Arthur was probably less intelligent than Albie.
Albie had been at it longer.
4 years
Arthur probably less than a year.
Arthur had syphilis. Albie probably did not.
Albie was emotionally dead inside. Arthur was more emotionally alive inside.
Arthur was still something of an innocent. Albie was not.
Albie hated his life for the most part. Arthur loved his life for the most part.
And yet . . . And yet . . . Anne Perry likes Albie and dislikes Arthur.
It might be that she cannot get a handle on Arthur. His personality. His relationships.
Or, it might be, like some people, Anne dislikes pretty boys, and Arthur was suppose to be really good looking, even pretty.
Or, it might be, in this case, Anne suffers from a severe case of reverse snobbery.
Whatever? Arthur deserves better at the authoress' hands. And maybe he'll get it when they turn the Charlotte and Thomas Pitt series into a TV presentation. If the BBC can cough up over $25,000,000 to make "The White Queen." Then, they should be able to cough up as much to make this series into a TV presentation.
Anne Perry is a good writer, but a good writer that contradicts herself--alot. At least she does in "Bluegate Fields."
"There was no need. No cause." Page unknown.
Spoken as if the hero did not know what upperclass children needed. Which contradicts what we know about him. As he was raised on an upper class estate, where his parents were servants, raised and educated with the children of the estate owner, of course, he knows what upperclass children need.
"That's not exactly a child." Page 164
Of course, she can change her mind as to what is a child, but in her last book, Daniel Pitt, who is 11, is said will not be man to he is 17 or 18. Where the "child" here is only 16 or an year or two younger.
"Given the original premise that Arthur was as much sinning as sinned against." Page 48.
A writer is not suppose to keep things back from their readers, but to make that statement, she keeps back from her readers what was the original premise.
"Explain as an accident." Page 148.
As if Arthur's drowning in the bath could not be explained as an accident, which contradicts criminal history and a case known as "Brides in the Bath," where a man drowned one or more of his new brides in the tub and got away with it, because he claimed they drowned by accident.
"The quick violence--and then the corpse to be disposed of." Page 267
Contradicts the murder, as if there was only one murderer, when the supposition that there were two makes more sense. One--passionate--to kill the victim. The other--dispassionate--to dispose of the victim's body.
"jerome would be acquitted." Page 275.
Contradicts what we know about human behavior. He may have been acquitted in the legal court, so he will not hang, but he'll never be acquitted in the court of public opinion where he'll always be believed to have a hand in the death of one of his pupils. So, he'll most probably never teach again, as no parent will ever trust him again with one of their children.
Anne Perry in "Bluegate Fields" never tells us all that the police do to solve the murder, but even by the standards of that day, there are things that they could have done, which she does not mention.
1. Check Albie for syphilis.
And they do not even have to get his permission, if they check him after he drowns.
2. Check with the hansom cab drivers who work in the area of the victim's home.
And she even mentions this in one of her later books, how hansom cab drivers work a specific area, so check with them to see where the victim went.
3. Talk to the servants in the victim's home.
Or, at least try to talk to the servants, as servants see and hear everything, and maybe they have seen or heard something about the victim, that would help solve the case.
4. Find the source of the blanket.
Ha! She mentions later in the book that the body, before it was placed in the sewer was wrapped in a blanket. Wrapped in a blanket, which makes more sense than carrying a naked body out into the street.
5. Find where the body went into the sewer.
They know--approximately--when the body went into the sewer, and when and where the body came out of the sewer, and there, I am sure, sewer workers who know the sewers better than the back of their hand, so it might be possible to find where the body went into the sewer, which should be close to the site of the murder.
6. Find the victim's boots and clothes.
They had some value to an used clothes dealer, so it is possible, that while the victim was stark naked when found, his clothes and boots could have been sold to an used clothes dealer, and one most likely in the area of the murder site. And, certainly, somebody would know know what the victim was last seen wearing.
Questions
1. Would Albie be replaced, as if he never existed?
I'm not as certain about this as the authoress. If Albie performed fellatio, which is common now, but a speciality act then, on his clients, and the other boy did not, then the answer is no.
2.Why aren't they in school?
Arthur is of the age old enough to attend public school or a boarding school like Eton, Harrow, Rugby, etc, and so is his younger brother.
3. Was Arthur one of Albie's clients?
If so, they could have been each other's salvation. Instead, they were each other's death.
4. Was Arthur pimped out to other men by his older cousin?
In another of her books, the authoress states that they were men, who'd pay alot extra, for a whore who was actually an upper class woman slumming. I can see the same for men, who' like boys, who'd pay alot more, for a boy from the upper class that was slumming.
5. Why was Albie killed?
I've never been clear on the motivation for that.
6. Where were the lesions on Arthur?
He caught the lesions from the infectious lesions of another person--a man, but as he was most likely the receptor of sexual intercourse or the bottom boy in the sexual duo, they should have appeared anally or rectally, so how could he see them, when he was in the tub?
The Good
Her novels are seldom just about one thing.
Paragon Walk = rape + incest
Bluegate Fields = boy whores + syphilis
Death in the Devil's Acre = prostitution (male, female, adult, child) + abortion
Hyde Park Headsman = homosexuality + spousal abuse
Midnight at Marble Arch = rape
The Bad
The endings. They are abrupt. At least more abrupt than most authors'. And that refers to her later novels, as well as her early novels.
Neither Bad Nor Good
Introspection. There is alot of introspection in her novels. There again more than most authors. That is neither bad nor good, but it may be why there have been no more films after "The Cater Street Hangman," as introspection is hard to put on film.