Friday, August 01, 2003
Murder Mysteries: A Discussion between Denny Haynes & Francis Delaney
Murder Mysteries by Neil Gaiman and P. Craig Russell, recently released by Dark Horse as a hardcover for $13.95, is one of the finest crafted stories I’ve read in a long time. One of the reasons I had an increased interest in reading this story as soon as I did (I’m horribly behind on my comic reading) is that a friend of mine read this book and soon returned it. The reason was due to the ribbing by his friends and I guess his discomfort in the “gay angel lovin’” scene, as I jokingly refer to it. The reason this piqued my curiosity is that I wanted to see if the story was good enough to overshadow this minor story point, and it did. I plan on speaking with my friend and sharing my thoughts on this book as I feel he missed out on a wonderful story because he focused on something that was shocking to him; instead of focusing on how well Gaiman wove this tale and how gorgeously Russell illustrated Murder Mysteries.
After reading this book I loaned it out to a buddy and had a great discussion with him about the book, which lead to my discussion with Francis Delaney who posts as Asbel on the Bendis Board. I figured I’d share this discussion with others by using it for my column, as an experiment, in the hopes people will give this book a look. SPOILER WARNING!!!
Francis: I have read the original short story as written by Neil Gaiman and I have heard the radio production that Sci-Fi’s Seeing Ear Theater produced, but in neither of those formats did the fact that the Angel Raguel took something from the Listener seem so important.
What was it that we are supposed to think was taken? What memory? The dream he has on the plane suggests something horrible on the part of the Listener, but I'm attached to my original interpretation of the story (that it was a vehicle to tell the story of the Silver City). What is/are your interpretation(s)?
Denny: Well, I feel kind of stupid, but I started the book really tired and completely missed the bookend stories and the VERY first page I just completely missed or forgot. My initial reading without discussing it was that I got your interpretation as well, that it was a vehicle to tell the story of the Silver City.
However, after talking with a buddy of mine and looking the pages over again - the first page shows the chimes and someone saying "NO, this is madness!" and a gush of blood, in the middle the angel being murdered, and then it cuts back to the chimes. Gaiman then tells the story of the man going to the ladies apartment and then afterwards wondering how he got to where he was and assuming she must have given him a ride home - showing a lapse of time, a memory loss similar to the movie Primal Fear, like he had a "spell".
The dreams he was having at the end and the red handprint showing up on the little girl's picture of the two angels, and then the headline of the murders suggests that the guy murdered the two women and the little girl. I plan on rereading it, but that's what I got out of it.
Did you notice in the end where he’s in the elevator and Gaiman seems to make a parallel to the story of the angels going back to their rooms after they perform their function?
I didn't agree with the Theology, but what a great story.
Francis: I think it may have something to do with the inherent realness of the graphic medium. When reading the story in just text (as Murder Mysteries was originally written) the handprint on the picture that you mentioned becomes an abstract, symbolizing the murder in the Silver City and the corruption it caused, but the whole thing becomes much more real when you're looking at a picture of what was described in the book rather than just imagining it. I now lean towards the interpretation that the Listener (don't think he had a name) actually killed the two women and the child, and the Angel Raguel took that memory from him, but that was not my original interpretation and it's hard to wrap my head around. This new interpretation comes wholly from the fact that I’ve now read the story in graphic novel form.
The "NO! This is madness!" line that takes place before the first “bookend” section is not in the original story and I believe it's the two Angels arguing about Love right before the first murder (ever) takes place.
I like the parallel you noticed between the Angel in the Silver City and the Listener in the elevator, I hadn't noticed that before and I like it.
See, I regard theology in general as a great story, so it fits well with the way I look at things. Plus I like that the Lucifer presented in Murder Mysteries fits perfectly with Gaiman's portrayal of him in Sandman and now Mike Carey's portrayal in the Lucifer series.
Denny: The reason for my thinking that “NO! This is madness!” coming from the woman is that I assumed the chimes were not from the Silver City, but the woman’s apartment and that Gaiman was drawing another parallel with what happened to the angel in the Silver City and that of the fate befalling the three victims.
It's a pretty neat story. Like did you notice the Christmas tree in the apartment had fallen and the angel was on the floor? You really have to pay attention when you read this book.
My problem with the theology is Gaiman's portrayal of God being unjust; He's not. I don't believe God would give an angel a task that would lead to his demise and that of another angel to set up Lucifer because he needed him to rule Hell. I think this is a human beings attempt at understanding something bigger then we might be able to. I just note a flawed theory or impression of God. That doesn't mean it was a bad story, I very much enjoyed it, but I just don't agree with the theology of it.
Francis: Gaiman's portrayal of Lucifer is a rather tragic one. He believed he was leading a rebellion of his own free will, but the catch is that Angels have no free will, only Humans do, and it was all part of the Plan in the first place. I understand your point of view, and agree that it makes for excellent fiction.
Denny: This reminds me of the conversation between the angels Loki & Bartleby in the movie Dogma. I always seem to enjoy stories that have religion as a backdrop, regardless of whether I agree with their interpretation or representation, I guess because it is one of the topics people are told never to discuss, which just seems absurd to me, but that’s just my opinion.
On that note we’ll end this little “experimental” column – let us know how we did, our strengths, our weaknesses, and who knows maybe we’ll try this again. Hopefully it will lead to some people checking out Murder Mysteries by Neil Gaiman and P. Craig Russell; and if you do pick it up, let me know what you think!
Writer: Neil Gaiman
Artist: P. Craig Russell
Publisher: Dark Horse
Price: $13.95
Murder Mysteries by Neil Gaiman and P. Craig Russell, recently released by Dark Horse as a hardcover for $13.95, is one of the finest crafted stories I’ve read in a long time. One of the reasons I had an increased interest in reading this story as soon as I did (I’m horribly behind on my comic reading) is that a friend of mine read this book and soon returned it. The reason was due to the ribbing by his friends and I guess his discomfort in the “gay angel lovin’” scene, as I jokingly refer to it. The reason this piqued my curiosity is that I wanted to see if the story was good enough to overshadow this minor story point, and it did. I plan on speaking with my friend and sharing my thoughts on this book as I feel he missed out on a wonderful story because he focused on something that was shocking to him; instead of focusing on how well Gaiman wove this tale and how gorgeously Russell illustrated Murder Mysteries.
After reading this book I loaned it out to a buddy and had a great discussion with him about the book, which lead to my discussion with Francis Delaney who posts as Asbel on the Bendis Board. I figured I’d share this discussion with others by using it for my column, as an experiment, in the hopes people will give this book a look. SPOILER WARNING!!!
Francis: I have read the original short story as written by Neil Gaiman and I have heard the radio production that Sci-Fi’s Seeing Ear Theater produced, but in neither of those formats did the fact that the Angel Raguel took something from the Listener seem so important.
What was it that we are supposed to think was taken? What memory? The dream he has on the plane suggests something horrible on the part of the Listener, but I'm attached to my original interpretation of the story (that it was a vehicle to tell the story of the Silver City). What is/are your interpretation(s)?
Denny: Well, I feel kind of stupid, but I started the book really tired and completely missed the bookend stories and the VERY first page I just completely missed or forgot. My initial reading without discussing it was that I got your interpretation as well, that it was a vehicle to tell the story of the Silver City.
However, after talking with a buddy of mine and looking the pages over again - the first page shows the chimes and someone saying "NO, this is madness!" and a gush of blood, in the middle the angel being murdered, and then it cuts back to the chimes. Gaiman then tells the story of the man going to the ladies apartment and then afterwards wondering how he got to where he was and assuming she must have given him a ride home - showing a lapse of time, a memory loss similar to the movie Primal Fear, like he had a "spell".
The dreams he was having at the end and the red handprint showing up on the little girl's picture of the two angels, and then the headline of the murders suggests that the guy murdered the two women and the little girl. I plan on rereading it, but that's what I got out of it.
Did you notice in the end where he’s in the elevator and Gaiman seems to make a parallel to the story of the angels going back to their rooms after they perform their function?
I didn't agree with the Theology, but what a great story.
Francis: I think it may have something to do with the inherent realness of the graphic medium. When reading the story in just text (as Murder Mysteries was originally written) the handprint on the picture that you mentioned becomes an abstract, symbolizing the murder in the Silver City and the corruption it caused, but the whole thing becomes much more real when you're looking at a picture of what was described in the book rather than just imagining it. I now lean towards the interpretation that the Listener (don't think he had a name) actually killed the two women and the child, and the Angel Raguel took that memory from him, but that was not my original interpretation and it's hard to wrap my head around. This new interpretation comes wholly from the fact that I’ve now read the story in graphic novel form.
The "NO! This is madness!" line that takes place before the first “bookend” section is not in the original story and I believe it's the two Angels arguing about Love right before the first murder (ever) takes place.
I like the parallel you noticed between the Angel in the Silver City and the Listener in the elevator, I hadn't noticed that before and I like it.
See, I regard theology in general as a great story, so it fits well with the way I look at things. Plus I like that the Lucifer presented in Murder Mysteries fits perfectly with Gaiman's portrayal of him in Sandman and now Mike Carey's portrayal in the Lucifer series.
Denny: The reason for my thinking that “NO! This is madness!” coming from the woman is that I assumed the chimes were not from the Silver City, but the woman’s apartment and that Gaiman was drawing another parallel with what happened to the angel in the Silver City and that of the fate befalling the three victims.
It's a pretty neat story. Like did you notice the Christmas tree in the apartment had fallen and the angel was on the floor? You really have to pay attention when you read this book.
My problem with the theology is Gaiman's portrayal of God being unjust; He's not. I don't believe God would give an angel a task that would lead to his demise and that of another angel to set up Lucifer because he needed him to rule Hell. I think this is a human beings attempt at understanding something bigger then we might be able to. I just note a flawed theory or impression of God. That doesn't mean it was a bad story, I very much enjoyed it, but I just don't agree with the theology of it.
Francis: Gaiman's portrayal of Lucifer is a rather tragic one. He believed he was leading a rebellion of his own free will, but the catch is that Angels have no free will, only Humans do, and it was all part of the Plan in the first place. I understand your point of view, and agree that it makes for excellent fiction.
Denny: This reminds me of the conversation between the angels Loki & Bartleby in the movie Dogma. I always seem to enjoy stories that have religion as a backdrop, regardless of whether I agree with their interpretation or representation, I guess because it is one of the topics people are told never to discuss, which just seems absurd to me, but that’s just my opinion.
On that note we’ll end this little “experimental” column – let us know how we did, our strengths, our weaknesses, and who knows maybe we’ll try this again. Hopefully it will lead to some people checking out Murder Mysteries by Neil Gaiman and P. Craig Russell; and if you do pick it up, let me know what you think!
Writer: Neil Gaiman
Artist: P. Craig Russell
Publisher: Dark Horse
Price: $13.95
