- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
What flaws did you have issues with in Still Life? Are these flaws forgivable? Why or why not?
We never want to get too negative about books, we’re here to appreciate them. But we do want to acknowledge and explore all aspects of the books we discuss, as objectively as possible. Our philosophy is that nothing in life is perfect, but there can be beauty or a lesson to be learned in the imperfections.
-
It’s a quirk of mine that I tend to examine medical details when I read any book. I’m an RN, so it’s part of my DNA, I think! (I have a hard time sitting through a lot of medical shows without making comments, too, sadly.) When I read this book, I wondered about the supposition that an arrow shot into Jane in the angle that it did had passed through her and ended up in high in the trees. And Armand’s thinking about the picture of St. Sebastian, and those arrows sticking out of him, and thinking the artist must have gotten it all wrong. I got the impression that we were supposed to believe that all arrows passed through the body they were shot into. So, I had to look into this. (If this grosses you out, I’m sorry! Please don’t read further!)
There are different types and strengths of bows and arrows, of course. Who knows what type they were using on poor St. Sebastian, but they may not have been as sturdy as those used today, so I will give that painting the benefit of the doubt. As for Jane, I suppose the murderer was close enough to have it pass through her, and I’m sure LP did sufficient research to know that this was possible in some instances, but I found some interesting medical cases involving arrow injuries where the arrow did indeed pass through the sternum (breastbone); however, in those cases, the arrow remained inside those particular people, whether because there wasn’t sufficient velocity or the other structures encountered (ribs, lungs/mediastinum/heart, and even the spine in one case). And I kept thinking that in order for that arrow that killed Jane to have ended up high in the trees, the killer would have had to have shot at an angle that was below her somehow, not straight on. And Ben was tall, and she was short. It didn’t fit for me.The other medical thing that caught my eye was in the finale, when the men tumbled down the stairs, sustaining various injuries (much to Clara’s annoyance). Armand, no lightweight, landed on JG with enough force to crack his ribs, and it was enough that he was bleeding from his mouth afterwards, yet he seemed in pretty good shape. In one of the later books, it’s even mentioned that JG had been “coughing up blood” in that encounter, so I didn’t take that blood as coming from a mouth injury. In my experience, people who have been coughing up blood after a chest injury like his have some bleeding going on in their chest; they probably wouldn’t have been as asymptomatic as JG seemed to be. I wanted to get a chest x-ray ordered and have a chest tube kit on standby! Very nitpicky of me, I know, but it threw me out of the reality of the story briefly. These little things in no way deprived me of my enjoyment of the book, however; they just weren’t that important in the overall telling of the story, and I can accept that easily.
-
Thank you for this. I never would have questioned these things.
-
That’s very kind of you, Nancy. I know it wouldn’t make much difference to many people, and rightfully so! I’m just a nerd that way.
-
-
Love this analysis Susan. I too wondered about Jean Guy bleeding from his mouth. I’m not an RN but unless a rib punctured a lung it would be unlikely to cause this. I just shrugged it off and made an excuse that he bit his tongue. In re: to the arrows, what bugged me was I wondered why the police didn’t pursue both Peter and Ben more as suspects right from the start considering they were both involved in the archery club. It just seemed that Matthew Croft got far more attention than the other two, but I could be misremembering some of the details. My one bugaboo was actually the motive of the murderer. I just thought the Fair Day explanation as the reason Ben killed Jane just seemed a bit far-fetched. Yes, being included in the Fair Day painting broke his alibi but if Timmer died it was highly unlikely that anyone would connect the dots that foul play was involved and that there would be an inquest. Plus would it not have been far simpler for Ben to simply lie and say he came back to town because he had forgotten something or wanted to check in on his mother? Would anyone really have noticed that he was in the painting and jump to the conclusion he’s a killer? Would Jane have? Doubtful. Certainly, by killing Jane he actually increased the odds that he would be caught. I guess he panicked but he wasn’t a very clever villain.
-
Thanks, Maureen! Yes, my mind immediately thought that JG must have a punctured lung. But, oh well! Glad he didn’t, for his sake!
I think you’re quite right in that Peter and Ben didn’t get as much scrutiny as Matthew. They were briefly considered, but I suppose it’s because of the way Matthew’s wife was acting; they knew something was wrong at that house once they visited there, and one thing led to another, and then once they decided it was either Matthew or Phillipe, they didn’t look further until that other arrow was found.
Good point about the motive for the murder. I do agree that it was probably a big overreaction on Ben’s part! I don’t think it was nearly as obvious a clue as Ben thought it was. I accepted it, though, because as you say, Ben wasn’t a very clever villain. And as Peter said, “The one time he actually acts he condemns himself.”
-
-
-
I didn’t look for flaws in the technical sense: not my field. But I thought there were flaws concerning the backstory of some of the characters. Myrna for example. we know she was a psychologist but nothing else. Ci see that as a flaw. And it dies naje me wonder why that is missing.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.