“Murder by Tradition” by Katherine V. Forrest
The first thing that struck me about this novel is the lack of a physical description of Kate in the opening pages of the story. Whether this was a conscious decision on the author’s part I'm unsure, but I found the lack of physical description encouraging in establishing Kate as a legitimate detective. As the story continues I was puzzled when Kate declared her victim as being gay by just looking at his bloodied corpse. The idea that she just sensed it undermines the paradigm of crime solving because it isn’t based on fact, but intuition. My feeling is that intuition can very often be correct but it doesn’t fit into the scientific method so it’s not rational and therefor separates her from her male counterparts.
The next thing that struck me about this novel was Ed Taylor. This guy could be the poster loser for bigotry in every form I could possibly think of. Although I hated him he did make me stop and think about all the assumptions that are made regarding gay and lesbian people. Not that I haven’t heard a lot of them but the hatred he put forth really shocked me. Having never been a victim of this kind of hatred made me more sympathetic to the day to day struggles that gay and lesbian people go through, just to be who they want to be. It’s not a topic I have ever given much thought, but I feel it woke me up a bit.
The other thing that struck me about this novel was the fact that the perp was caught half way through the novel. This is a change from our other books so I was curious where it was going to lead us and why? Prof. Lohn’s paper pretty much cleared that up. Which again I found very interesting. The “eye” and the “I” is a really cool concept and I have thought about other detectives in this way and have found a similar pattern (that is with the female ones). It does seem to me, that to conform as closely as possible to the paradigm these female detectives do struggle with the “I” part of them. When ever they show any movement in that direction they move away from the paradigm and end up pushed into a box where they are no longer accepted as ratiocentric beings.
“The Skull Beneath the Skin” by P.D. James
Cordelia, what a contrast to V.I. Warshawski. Although I found her likable I’m not sure why she ever wanted to be a private eye. Was it just to assist little old ladies in finding their wayward pets? I guess I find this idea insulting to Cordelia’s intelligence. Cordelia does through the course of the novel show keen insight and a pattern of logical thinking that gives her credibility but other times I think she seems weak and unsuited for the job she’s agreed to do.
I’m wondering if the contrast is on purpose. Does P.D. James want Cordelia to be strong yet show a vulnerable side as well? This may be the author’s attempt at further distorting the paradigm. She begins by the fact that Cordelia is a woman and continues by allowing her to show qualities that society would deem feminine. Cordelia is so unlike V.I., but perhaps that isn’t all bad. V.I, while being very effective does defeminize herself and really display’s some very masculine tendencies. I question whether she is doing damage to the female cause by doing that. Perhaps Cordelia is doing more to subvert the paradigm by not caving to the stereotypical ideas of what a private eye should be. I’m not sure I’m convinced either way, hopefully further reading on this genre will help me decide.
On a separate note I was shocked to discover that P.D. James may have intentionally altered Cordelia’s character from the one in her first novel. Was she upset that feminists were praising Cordelia’s character? Is feminist a dirty word? I’m not sure what actually happened but I intend to read the first novel and maybe gain some insight. I find this very interesting and intend to do some further investigation into what James’s motivation may have been.