English Mysteries Club discussion

Open to all. I will be picking up the book tomorrow...

I loved this book. It got me into reading all the others in the series. Terrific characters.

I liked this book a lot, although I think the following books are better!

I'm just getting started on this book but already I am drawn into the main characters and into the mystery. Early on she sighs that "...fat is a state of mind" and reveals that she weighs "...twelve and a half stone." Can someone explain? ...I know, I'm from Texas.

Bill wrote: "I'm just getting started on this book but already I am drawn into the main characters and into the mystery. Early on she sighs that "...fat is a state of mind" and reveals that she weighs "...twel..."

1 stone = 14 pounds

And I don't think that makes her fat anyway :)

Leslie wrote: "Bill wrote: "I'm just getting started on this book but already I am drawn into the main characters and into the mystery. Early on she sighs that "...fat is a state of mind" and reveals that she we..."

What? You didn't do the math for us? You're slipping, Leslie. :)

LOL Susan! I make 12.5 stone to be 175 lb

Whether that is fat or not depends in part with how tall she is...

I liked this one a lot too and went on to reading the rest of the series. The characters are wonderful!

Karen wrote: "I loved this book. It got me into reading all the others in the series. Terrific characters."
Me, too! Now I'm waiting for the next new one. I liked all the characters and fortunately they are all carried through the whole series.

I am on hold at the library for mine. I can't wait. I read the last book last month which was a big mistake. There were tons of relationships that didn't make sense to me. Are we going to do the whole series like we do with Morse, Leslie? I hope so.

This is on my 'to-read' list too - so hoping to join in but might be a bit behind as i have so many to read!!

Just started this - I have had it on my kindle for SO long....

I started this yesterday, and although I am not far enough into it to judge the mystery (plot, characters, etc.), I am not loving the present tense writing style.

I have just finished today and think that this story was excellent! Very atmospheric setting and engaging characters. There were a few minor issues, but overall, to me, it was great storytelling.

Bill wrote: "I have just finished today and think that this story was excellent! Very atmospheric setting and engaging characters. There were a few minor issues, but overall, to me, it was great storytelling."

I agree although the 'minor issues' bugged me more than you apparently. But I liked it enough to want to read more. Maybe when I have finished the Morse series, I will pick up this one.

Susan, you mentioned some interest in that - anyone else?

I really like Ruth but my favorite character is Cathbad. He will get more and more interesting as the series continues and I hope that isn't considered a spoiler.
I didn't have a choice about reading the whole series because each book seem to end in a "cliff hanger" and I just had to keep finding out what would happen next.

I haven't got to that bit yet - she's still obsessing over the cats at the moment (never a good sign admittedly). I certainly prefer this to Morse, as I stalled on the first book of that series.

Are all the books in this series written in the present tense? This threw me a bit to start with - I kept wondering if the tense would change as the book went on.

I'm only a couple of chapters in, but I do like the main character, Ruth. I also like the setting and I'm generally feeling enthusiastic about getting into the story and characters.

I am sorry for revealing too much and have removed it to prevent anyone who hasn't seen it from doing so.

That's ok Diane - you intrigued me, it didn't spoil anything :) However, I will also edit my post - just in case....

I have finished this now. It was an atmospheric mystery, but I can't say that I warmed to any of the characters. Not sure about reading on in this series.

Diane wrote: "I really like Ruth but my favorite character is Cathbad. He will get more and more interesting as the series continues and I hope that isn't considered a spoiler.
I didn't have a choice about readi..."

Is Cathbad a recurring character? Well, obviously he is from your comment, but I am surprised.

I read the last book in the series to review and Cathbad was a character in that. In fact he has quite a major role so hold onto your hat.

Must admit I was a bit put off by the present tense too, but after a bit, I got used to it and forgot about it as I got caught up in the story. I think Cathbad is a bit of a Marmite character - you either love him or hate him!

Cathbad improves as the series progresses and becomes quite interesting . Funny, I never noticed the tense so I guess it didn't bother me. haha
I just got the latest in the series The Outcast Dead from the library today and can't wait to read it. The bad apart is that I'm so far ahead of our buddy read that I can't remember what happened when.

Hi, everyone. I read this one a while ago but not so long ago as to have forgotten it. I've since read the rest of the books in the series-so-far, and I really like them.

Sorry to say, but yes Ruth is fat. WHO CARES!?!?! She is a successful, interesting, professional woman who is sexually irresistible to Nelson, who is married to a beautiful, stylish, thin woman who loves him and has given him two beautiful daughters. Who says fat women can't play the romance game?

This leads me to one of the (minor) weaknesses of the series. Occasionally, Ruth gets into physical combat with the bad guys. Not credible. Not necessary, either. Neither she nor Nelson should be mixing it up hand-to-hand at their ages. That's what the young, strong members of Nelson's squad (both male and female) are there for.

I love Cathbad. Yes, he comes back later in the series, and he continues to be great.

My favorite parts of this first book in the series were the "solution" to the mystery (which I won't reveal in case some of you haven't finished) and the descriptions of Ruth's past and present interactions with her ex-boyfriend. (SPOILER: Note that her having gotten fat since she dumped him doesn't prevent him from desperately wanting her back!)

I don't think Ruth's actually fat, although she obviously has an issue with her weight. I thought it a little much that she fondly thought Nelson' s wife would like to give her a 'makeover' at the end of the book, considering what had happened (plot spoiler, so won't say any more). There was a little too much of intelligent, academic Ruth - so insecure, but obviously adored by all the men - Ok fair enough. However, although Nelson' s wife was shown as thin and attractive, there was a slight sneer about her job and aspirations which I found quite unpleasant.

Susan wrote: "I don't think Ruth's actually fat, although she obviously has an issue with her weight ..."

175 lbs (12.5 stone) for a woman of typical height - let's say 5' 6" (1.67 m) - is clinically obese, whether you want to call her fat or overweight, or heavy, or whatever. Personally, the term "fat" brings to my mind someone who is enormous, like the fat lady of the circus, which clearly doesn't fit Ruth, so I would describe her as overweight. But that is just my personal (and admittedly incorrect) meaning of the word fat...

I had mixed feelings about Nelson's wife - (view spoiler)[I guess that we are supposed to think she is at least a little bit unpleasant to help justify Nelson and Ruth sleeping together (hide spoiler)]…

Susan wrote: "I don't think Ruth's actually fat, although she obviously has an issue with her weight. ..."

Given how pervasive this "issue" is, I think that owning it and talking about it in straightforward words of one syllable -- f . a . t -- would be good.

We detective-fiction addicts have been given many chances to love and admire male detectives who are fat ... or old or alcoholic or bald or ... you get the picture. Who among us did not love Andy Dalziel, for example? Yet, all of the successful female detectives whom we read about are "lookers." Why?

That being said, I don't think Ruth would be as compelling a protagonist as she is if she were fat but otherwise the same as every other female detective we've met. Her profession is fascinating. Her middling status in the academic world is fascinating. Her attraction to Nelson is at least a little bit weird (in a good way).

And these books offer plot as well as characters. A great find.

What do the rest of you think of Erik and his role in the story?

I had no problem with her weight, her attractiveness or her personality through most of the storyline. I quite liked her up to the end of the book and then her comment about Nelson's wife totally threw me. She was shocked about Erik's marital behaviour. Disapproving about Shona's affairs. Yet utterly indifferent to Nelson's wife and daughters. I disliked her at that point, although the book itself was well written.

Joan wrote: "Susan wrote: "I don't think Ruth's actually fat, although she obviously has an issue with her weight. ..."
Agatha Raisin's age and weight are one of the main reasons I enjoy the series. How many late middle-aged female central character detectives are there? And ones that come from a lower income background?
To get back to The Crossing Places, I never got the feeling that there was a slight sneer about Michelle's occupation or aspirations or that she was a little unpleasant. No, she wasn't as intellectually challenging to Nelson as Ruth but I still got a good vibe about her. But then I didn't notice the present tense either so maybe I'm just not the best judge. haha
I think Nelson is attracted to Ruth because she is so different from Michelle and also because of her compatible work methods. He and Michele have been together for many years and sometimes different is intriguing. I suspect that for the long haul, even if Ruth were more sophisticated in her appearance, he would really like a wife less challenging. Just a feeling I have.

Susan wrote: "I had no problem with her weight, her attractiveness or her personality through most of the storyline. I quite liked her up to the end of the book and then her comment about Nelson's wife totally ..."
I agree with you. I can't remember Ruth's comment about Michelle but her disapproval of the behaviors of others was selective. On the other hand, that makes her very human.

Yes, it was a good read and perhaps I am being too touchy, but I just lost sympathy with the main character. I do agree that overweight women - much like older women - are under represented in fiction.

@Diane: Good point about Agatha Raisin. I've actually remarked on this very site that, although Agatha can be pretty obnoxious, I often sympathize with her, because she is genuinely human and not at all typical of female detectives. I shouldn't have said "all of the successful female detectives..." in my earlier message. Almost all.

"Genuinely human" is a lot of why Ruth is such a great character. Yes, she is critical of Shona, but she sticks with their friendship and would help Shona in a pinch. It's pretty hard to be friends for life with someone and not find some important things to criticize! I also don't think that Ruth is "utterly indifferent" to Nelson's wife and daughters. She is drawn to Nelson, as he is to her, and she gives in to her desire, but she recognizes that his primary responsibility is to his family and doesn't try to demand anything from him.

We're concentrating on the characters and hardly saying anything about the plot. I thought it was a good one. I loved Griffiths's descriptions of the location as well.

Maybe we are getting so wrapped up in personalities because if we discuss the plot, we risk "spoilers".

I thought the plot pretty good also except I did wonder how the girl could have remained a prisoner in that location without anyone ever in all those years hearing anything or seeing him carrying food and water out there and being curious. If I remember correctly, wasn't it a lookout station? I would have found it more believable if he had had an underground bunker in his house.
Has anyone in the group ever visited the area where Ruth lives? Has it been accurately portrayed?

I would really like to discuss Agatha's obnoxious behavioral issues. Maybe we could read one out of the series as the book of the month.

Diane wrote: "... I would really like to discuss Agatha's obnoxious behavioral issues. Maybe we could read one out of the series as the book of the month."

We did read one of the Agatha Raisin series as a BOTM. The Quiche of Death in April 2013.

Are there spoiler rules for this discussion thread, e.g., a date by which we assume people have finished reading?

Joan wrote: "Are there spoiler rules for this discussion thread, e.g., a date by which we assume people have finished reading?.."

Nothing official, but I would go along with the BoTM schedule and say that after the 15th (which was yesterday) spoiler tags aren't needed.

Leslie wrote: "Nothing official, but I would go along with the BoTM schedule and say that after the 15th (which was yesterday) spoiler tagss aren't needed."

Good. So let me address something that you tagged as a spoiler.

I don't think that Griffiths's intention is for us to regard Michelle as unpleasant. Michelle has been just about as good a wife to Nelson and mother to his children as a high-school sweetheart can be. But her worldview, although it has evolved since high school, has diverged from Nelson's -- which has also evolved but in a different direction. It's not surprising that he is sexually attracted to other women. And Ruth is an appealing novelty in his expanding and evolving worldview; why shouldn't he want her? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Michelle is sexually attracted to other men, but the culture in which she and Nelson were raised deems it to be a far, far greater transgression for her to act on those feelings than for him to act on his. So it's not surprising that he's done so, and (as far as we know so far) she hasn't.

I've read all of the books in the series so far, and I think that Michelle, Nelson, and Ruth continue to do the best they can in these circumstances. None of them was presented with a really good option; they muddled through with the less bad options. Don't we all?

Diane - re your plot spoiler, I didn't understand that either. I thought the plot had some obvious holes. Actually, the more I look back on this book the less I like it.

Although, that is an interesting point in itself. Had I just read this book without discussing it, I probably would have thought it was an OK mystery and shelved it (well, on my kindle, but you know what I mean). Now that I think about it, in order to discuss it, I am aware of the problems. Perhaps that is unfair to most mystery books, which probably do not withstand too much scrutiny. When you have people wandering around the marsh in the dark, you can overlook the obvious - that it is near a car park and is, presumably, a fairly public place, even if it is a remote location.

Joan wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Nothing official, but I would go along with the BoTM schedule and say that after the 15th (which was yesterday) spoiler tagss aren't needed."

Good. So let me address something that..."

I am willing to take your word on this, as Michelle barely makes an appearance in this book. It was just my impression from the little that we do see of her.

As for Nelson (and/or Michelle) being attracted to other people, of course it is not surprising. However, I am curious about your comment "... the culture in which she and Nelson were raised deems it to be a far, far greater transgression for her to act on those feelings than for him to act on his. So it's not surprising that he's done so, and (as far as we know so far) she hasn't." Are you referring to British culture of the 1970-80s? Is it really regarded as more acceptable for men to cheat than for women to cheat in modern day England?

Susan wrote: "Diane - re your plot spoiler, I didn't understand that either. I thought the plot had some obvious holes. Actually, the more I look back on this book the less I like it..."

I thought from the way that the hide was described that it was a) in a very remote area surrounded by marsh and bog, so unlikely to have casual walkers near by and b) someplace he went to everyday (or at least on a regular basis) as part of his job, so anyone seeing him wouldn't think about it. It was clear from the way it was described that he only opened the trap at night, so no-one would see him carrying food. That part of the plot seemed OK to me, although I don't know when he would have dug out the underground room.

Leslie wrote: "However, I am curious about your comment '... the culture in which she and Nelson were raised deems it to be a far, far greater transgression for her to act on those feelings than for him to act on his. So it's not surprising that he's done so, and (as far as we know so far) she hasn't.' Are you referring to British culture of the 1970-80s? Is it really regarded as more acceptable for men to cheat than for women to cheat in modern day England? "

I'm very far from an expert on British culture of the '70s and '80s. However, every culture I've encountered imposes far harsher penalties on women for marital infidelity (and for sexual self-indulgence generality) than it does on men. This differential in harshness is shrinking as time goes on, but it's still there. It was bigger in the '70s and '80s than it is now; despite all of the "sexual-revolution" talk of "the sixties," things were still more classically sexist back then than they are now. Harry and Michelle Nelson also grew up working class in Blackpool; my impression is that Elly Griffiths wants us to conclude from that that they had "conventional beliefs" drummed into them more heavy-handedly than some of the rest of the characters in these books.

The hide in which he hid her was in sight when the police were searching (so presumably near the dig ten years ago when he first snatched her). The car park was mentioned as being busy in the summer season, so was also presumably within walking distance and used by bird watchers? Yet although Ruth stumbled in during a very noisy storm, she heard her as soon as she shouted. I couldn't see the possibility of nobody else entering the hide (used for bird watching) at all over the last ten years. Kids? People sheltering from the weather? Dog walkers? In which case, surely someone else would have heard her? Anyway, I think I won't post on this thread any more - I didn't like it, but I don't want to be too negative about a series which many of you are obviously fond of!

I started this book today because there's such a good conversation going on about it. This is one of the better comments section we've had. Sometimes the talk is so anemic. I read the last book first so it'll be interesting to see how things develop.
Joan, I think it was and still is harder on a woman to have marital infidelity. We have, and always had, a double standard.
Leslie, I am still smarting on you calling her obese at 175 pounds. Maybe she is technically but I don't think it's fair to beat her up for it. Of course, as a heavy woman I am quite sensitive to that. I just have a hard time when women beat each other up on stuff like that.

I don't want to be too negative!

I didn't mind the infidelity too much until the end, but Ruth seemed so smug and unrepentant. I still feel there was a sneer there somewhere!

I didn't feel you could describe her as 'obese' either - even if she technically was.

Look whose Idea was this???? I am now hooked and should really be finishing Morse!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too little time way too many books!

I didn't mind the infidelity too much until the end, but Ruth seemed so smug and unrepentant. I still feel there was a sneer there somewhere!
Susan, I didn't like Ruth's cavalier attitude either. She had nary a care about Michelle and this after she was crushed at finding out that she wasn't so special after all to Eric.
Before when you mentioned a sneer at Michelle, I was thinking, and don't ask why, goofy I guess, that you were referring to the author's opinion, not Ruth's. But yes, I think you're right, Ruth rather discounted Michele, a subtle sneer.

Susan wrote: "Leslie, I am still smarting on you calling her obese at 175 pounds. Maybe she is technically but I don't think it's fair to beat her up for it. Of course, as a heavy woman I am quite sensitive to that. I just have a hard time when women beat each other up on stuff like that..."

I wasn't "beating her up" or trying to be judgemental, just stating a fact. I myself am clinically obese, although I would not call myself fat.

Here is a quote from WebMD:
"Doctors usually define "overweight" as a condition in which a person's weight is 10%-20% higher than "normal," as defined by a standard height/weight chart, or as a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 30.

Obesity is usually defined as a condition in which a person's weight is 20% or more above normal weight or as a BMI of 30 or more. "Morbid obesity" means a person is either 50%-100% over normal weight, more than 100 pounds over normal weight, or sufficiently overweight to severely interfere with health or normal functioning.

Approximately 60 million Americans, nearly one-third of all adults and about one in five children, are obese. In 2008, only one state -- Colorado -- had an obesity rate less than 20%."

A woman of 5' 6" has an ideal weight of 117 - 143 lbs.
175-143=32 lbs over the maximum ideal weight
(32/143)*100=22% over the maximum ideal weight

22% > 20% therefore obese…

I do think that Joan had a good point when she said: "Given how pervasive this "issue" is, I think that owning it and talking about it in straightforward words of one syllable -- f . a . t -- would be good." but it is also clear that this is an issue that people are sensitive about, myself included. Interesting how this stigma of being fat is so gender-specific.

Susan wrote: " Anyway, I think I won't post on this thread any more - I didn't like it, but I don't want to be too negative about a series which many of you are obviously fond of! ..."

That would be a shame. I like hearing different perspectives on a book, as long as people aren't trying to convert me to their own opinion. I hope that you didn't feel like I was trying to change your mind - I wasn't; I was just describing how I had pictured the hide.