Peters and Rankin

I came across some of Ellis Peters' non-Brother Cadfael murder mysteries at an op shop in Devonport the other day, none of which I'd read or seen before. Decided to start with A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs. It's an Inspector Felse mystery, though since he's on holiday with his family in this one his detective work is minimal. The plot is neat enough, with a few surprises, though I thought I'd figured out the villain early on, and for once was right. Except that things weren't quite as they seemed, and Peters had one or two twists up her sleeve before the end.
The dialogue made things seem very dated - it was written in 1965. Perhaps the most curious thing was having both the 18-year-old and the 15-year-old boys in the story call their respective mothers Mummy.  Even among the middle-classes of that period I would have thought this was a little odd.  In this book the characters don't seem to have distinctive voices, and sometimes when Peters doesn't qualify who's speaking, you can't actually tell who's speaking from what's being said. It seems that it takes a much stronger character, like Cadfael, to lift the bar for Peters.  In the Cadfael books it's generally seemed to me that most of the characters had personality - as opposed to having it described. I find this with Agatha Christie too.  If one of her strong characters, such as Poirot, or Miss Marple, is missing, the tone of the dialogue goes downhill.  These strong characters somehow make the other characters take on more life.  Of course there are Christie books in which nothing comes alive, but they aren't the majority.
I finished reading another book I picked up secondhand, last night: Ian Rankin's Doors Open. Compared to the more well-known Rebus books (Rebus is another character who lifts everything around him) this is largely a lightweight story, though it has an intricate plot and some considerable violence towards the end.  But it shows that Rankin isn't going to die as an author if he's not writing about Rebus. Still, the main character here isn't as rounded as Rebus, and he and the other characters are mostly subservient to the plot. The characters aren't memorable, as Rebus is, but they do well enough given their own room to play in, and the story is very entertaining, especially the way in which the professional criminal (as opposed to the amateurs he's surrounded by) keeps us guessing as to whether he's actually got a heart with a leaning towards culture or not.
The plot centres around an improbable heist - pinching reasonably famous, and certainly valuable, paintings from the storage warehouse belonging to Scotland's National Gallery, replacing them with fakes and then pretending there was no actual heist at all. Of course it all unravels, and the best part of the book is seeing how the various individuals react to the unravelling.  If you've had enough of gloomy Rebus for the time being (and when you think you have you find you can still take more of him) try this one out.  You'll read it in great gulps.

Mr Prosser

The song and dance about Mr Prosser because of his hyperbole about young Muslim males seems to have died down, perhaps because it was really nowhere near as big an issue as all the other politicians (except Mr Peters) made out.  In his article in Investigate, Mr Prosser was plainly writing in an exaggerated fashion, which is what hyperbole means: the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.  [My italics]
The only reason all the MPs took it literally was because (a) they felt it was the PC thing to do - tolerance and all that; (b) Mr Prosser became the scapegoat for all those 'mistakes' that other politicians make - either intentionally or unintentionally.  It meant they could heap all the garbage on him and make themselves smell clean.
The Green Party made this statement, which is equally full of hyperbole: "...the Green Party moved that Parliament affirm "that all New Zealanders, regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity, should be treated equally before the law and that the rights and dignity of all people, in particular of Muslims, should be upheld, and that the House acknowledge the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for one another, to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us, and act with justice, equity and respect in all that we say and do." Fine words, but note the phrase 'in particular of Muslims'.  This could easily be read as putting Muslims on a rung higher than everyone else.  Is that what they meant?  Very unlikely.  
And note the other phrase 'to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us.'  Compare this to this clause from the Green Party's Policy on Women: Review abortion services to ensure equity of access for women throughout New Zealand.  So it's all right to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us in a fancy, rhetorical style, but when it boils down to honouring the sanctity of the lives of children as yet unborn, the Green Party wants to ensure that women claiming their 'right' to do what they want with their own bodies, can abort these children.  
With one hand the Green Party hoists itself up a notch with its fine words; with the other it drops back again into the same old tired slogans.  
In another paragraph from the NZ Herald's report we have: But while some, including Dr Ghani [President of the Federation of Islamic Associations], said they accepted [Mr Prosser's] apology at face value, others, including Prime Minister John Key and Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres, were doubtful.  Mr Key's comment was: if he's apologised he's just doing that to move on. 
Huh?  Would Mr Prosser apologise in order to stand still?  He had no reason to apologise in the first place, but having apologised he's supposed to act as if he hasn't apologised.  Please, Mr Key.  Speak logically if you will (and remember that every time you open your mouth you tend to contradict something you said on other occasion; it's all reported by the media).  David Shearer said anyone holding Mr Prosser's sort of views shouldn't be an MP.  Really?  I'd be interested to hear what the criteria are for being an MP.  It might be enlightening. 
The right honourable Hone Hawawira was so incensed with Mr Prosser he wouldn't even let him make a personal statement in Parliament.  Where was the Speaker at that time - or has Harawira decided that he makes the rules in the House now?  Note that this is the same Mr Harawira who swore in response to a question from a student at Waikato University in which the student, Steve Baron, referred to Māori as a "minority group," (which statistically, they are). Harawira said Mr Baron was a racist who "lumped Māori in with other minorities like homosexuals and Asians.....He tried it on and he got his comeuppance."   The same Mr Harawira who was part of a group that assaulted University students with bats and hoses.  The same Mr Harawira who said he "wouldn't feel comfortable" if one of his children came home with a Pākehā partner, but he asked whether "all Pākehās would be happy with their daughters coming home with a Māori boy? The answer is they wouldn't." He was asked, since some of his whānau have dated Pacific Islanders and he didn't have an issue with it, "does that make him prejudiced?" He said "Probably, but how many people don't have prejudices?"
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said Mr Prosser should leave Parliament.  'This is hate speech, I'm concerned that NZ First continues to support him.'  Green Party members are very concerned about 'hate speech'. A 74-year-old German female pensioner was dobbed in by the German Green Party for carrying a 'hate speech' sign in a demonstration; Presidential Candidate for the Green Party, Roseanne Barr, called a Christian speaker 'an accomplice to murder' for disagreeing with liberal views about gay marriage. The problem is, that what the Green Party calls 'hate speech' used to be called 'free speech' - in other words, a different opinion on some particular question.
Act Party leader John Banks said while he'd probably made more mistakes than Mr Prosser, "he needs to fall on his sword."  It's interesting to hear Mr Banks admitting to making mistakes - he's never apologised before for most of his blunders since he's been in Parliament.  
 So, as usual, the upshot is that if there's a chance to win points off an MP, or a Party, then other MPs or Parties will do so.  Never mind about governing the country; just waste heaps of expensive time (even more expensive since the last politicians' pay rise at Christmas) on issues that are small in the overall view of things.  Perhaps Mr Prosser was foolish to write in such an exaggerated fashion.  Nevertheless he's pointing at a real problem, which is that airport security since 2001 has become a nightmare: it's expensive, it's time-consuming, and it's mostly unproductive.  And worst of all, the innocent passengers who just want to get from A to B are the ones that suffer.

Greens and the elderly

The political party debate last night on Channel 3 brought more Tweets to my Twitter page than any other subject has ever done.  Even my son-in-law made some comments.  It was all very invigorating, and it hasn't stopped.  I don't think anyone made any more sense of anything as a result (not assisted by Paul Henry getting in on the act) but at least everyone was involved.

Tonight it seems the Greens are taking over Twitter, pushing their policy on child health/poverty in NZ.  I think their concern for child health/poverty is admirable, but it's interesting that the only person with any concern - as far as I'm aware - for older people is Winston Peters.   On the other parties' radar, the older and elderly don't even appear.

I've replied to the Greens tweets about child poverty with a couple of questions about whether they're concerned for older people.  No tweets in response, at this stage.

Update on this: 
Someone at the Greens has sent me a tweet: We sure are. Sue Kedgley did a report about it last year.  

I've now downloaded the report and will have a look at it after Downton Abbey has finished....

Summer of the Danes

I've just finished Ellis Peters' The Summer of the Danes, the 18th in the Brother Caedfel series. And the most disappointing.

Peters' stylish writing is there, but the story is dragged out and often repetitious, and there's a tiredness about the whole thing that makes for weary reading. I only finished it because I wanted to; there wasn't much to encourage the reader to do so.

The book begins with a chapter that must rank as the only really tedious one in the series - it's full of names and who done what to whom and what bit of the country they're fighting over, and the characters, when they get a chance to actually speak amongst the seemingly endless narration, sound as though they've had the life washed out of them. I had to keep going back to figure out who was who.

There's a murder, of course, (100 pages in) but strangely Caedfel has almost nothing to do with the solving of it. In fact no one actually solves it - the murderer confesses on almost the last page of his own accord. One of the great pleasures of the Caedfel series has been the neat plotting and the element of suspense. Both of these are sadly lacking in this episode.

There's a good deal of huffing and puffing between the Welsh prince whose land has been invaded by the Dublin Danes (Danes in Dublin? - who but Peters would have told us that) and the leader of the Danes. The latter has been brought to the area near Anglesea by the prince's younger brother after he was ousted from his castle for attacking another noble Welshman. The Danes are seen as generous but feisty characters; the Welsh prince is noble and generous and austere even. They personally never come to blows, but talk to each other like a couple of politicians. A little dreary.

There are some underhanded blokes - one of them the murder victim - but they're more annoying than dangerous. And there's a 'girl with spirit' - a fairly typical actor in the Peters' canon; she gets what she wants, of course.

For years we've been unable to find a copy of this book in order to complete the series. Consequently I was looking forward to reading it. Pooh, I'm very disappointed.

Another take on Martha and Mary

One of the stories in the New Testament that always niggles me is that of Martha and Mary, and the way Jesus speaks to Martha when she asks for help in the kitchen. It turns up in Luke's Gospel, chapter 10 and verses 38-42.

Luke is the most sympathetic of the Gospel writers when it comes to women, so perhaps in this story his sympathy is with Mary who is definitely doing something out of the ordinary. That may be why Martha seems to get the bum's rush.

However, while I appreciate what Mary does, I always feel for Martha: she's got a houseful of people on her hands, no one helping her in the kitchen, all the blokes sitting around being spiritual, and no one seeming to care that she's trying to get some food ready for when they stop being 'spiritual' and come down to earth, as it were. So the discovery of the poem ‘Unauthorised Version’ by U.A. Fanthorpe, (on Bosco Peter's Liturgy site) was a delight.

It's spoken from Mary's viewpoint, but the intriguing thing is that she doesn't take Jesus' side - she takes her sister's. She doesn't apologise for her own behaviour particularly, but she certainly understands where Martha is coming from, and reminds us that Martha is no slouch when it comes to the spiritual side of life - consider Martha's behaviour at her brother's tomb. She's the one who speaks the theology at that point; she's the one who's in Jesus' face asking why he'd left things too late. She's great!

You can find the poem on Bosco Peter's Liturgy site, and you can also find a sermon preached by Colin Gibson (of Mornington Methodist Church in Dunedin) on the subject. He included the poem in his sermon. (I don't always see eye to eye with Colin on theology, but in this instance I think he's pretty close to the mark.)