IdleRich
IdleRich
"From forth the fatal loins of these two ordinary Joes. A single star-cross'd killer takes others' lives"
Last edited:
what are you reading now?
"From forth the fatal loins of these two ordinary Joes. A single star-cross'd killer takes others' lives"
IdleRich
IdleRich
At least a letter to be "...opened in the event of my death". Maybe it's related to what I was saying before about the difference between their persona as a powerful killer and their real life self. Possibly the Zodiac didn't want it to be known that the sinister mastermind who had outwitted three police forces was in fact a slightly overweight, balding insurance clerk called Nigel. Maybe he was self-aware enough to realise that the figure who was so powerful when he held a gun to the heads of a couple of teenagers and so arrogant when he was writing letters to the papers, would be made to look like a slow-witted fool when he was in the dock being cross-examined by a far better educated barrister who was used to operating in that world and who would peel away his mask and then pull apart his painstakingly created character to reveal him as a sad inadequate who took revenge on the world cos he couldn't get an erection and did it by picking on the weakest people, and needed a gun even to do that.
IdleRich
IdleRich
As for reading these books... I personally tend to steer clear of them, I do think it could become unhealthy. That's not a criticism of anyone else who does choose to read them, but I feel it would be unhealthy for me. Above I said that I didn't find that particular scene in Zodiac disturbing, but I do think reading a book with lots of similar scenes would kinda pile up on top of me and become disturbing... or else it wouldn't, and in a way, that would be even worse.
That seems perhaps a slightly strange thing to say when this conversation about killers has overtaken the reading thread, but I do find that dissensus is often good when a subject has captured a load of people at once and got them all talking, and I'm glad we don't have strict rules which limit good conversations when they occur in what is - let's face it - the wrong place.
That seems perhaps a slightly strange thing to say when this conversation about killers has overtaken the reading thread, but I do find that dissensus is often good when a subject has captured a load of people at once and got them all talking, and I'm glad we don't have strict rules which limit good conversations when they occur in what is - let's face it - the wrong place.
william_kent
Well-known member
from what I can gather ( not read the book, just seen the author on some youtube video ) he's saying there was no Zodiac Killer, just a bunch of unrelated murders committed by different people, but what happened was a hoaxer managed to create a bogeyman by writing letters to the papers taking credit for those crimes. Then the hoaxer writes a bestselIer which then gets made into a feature film. I don't think anyone takes this theory seriously.
Last edited:
jenks
thread death
If it’s online check out the David Tennant RSC version it’s quite moving at the end as he realises the games up and this political operator has out manoeuvred him totally.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Ah I see.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
Up to act 4 now. Can't believe how much I like Richard now after hating him so much at the beginning, everything he says after coming back from Ireland is extraordinary. I suppose Lear (and probably others) pulls a similar trick and pushes it into the tragedy category rather than just a history.
Was thinking one thing this play maybe lacked is humour, like those bawdy scenes with Falstaff in Henry IV, but this act where they're all throwing down gages to the point where one guy has to borrow a gage off a bystander to throw is pretty hilarious, even though it comes at a very serious point in the play.
I loved the little garden scene, just before then too, with the Queen eavesdropping on the gardener.
Last edited:
re the fascination with true crime / serial killers, i come back to the end of 'from hell' by alan moore quite a bit, specifically this page where he talks about 'Koch's snowflake'
Infinite length, but restricted area.
"Each new book provides fresh details, finer crennelations of the subject's edge. It's area, however, cannot extend past the initial circle: Autumn, 1888, Whitechapel."
So same thing with Zodiac. Endless scope to rethink / redraw / reinvestigate.
And part of the appeal is witnessing the investigator fall deeper into the hole, and you go along with it as reader.
Infinite length, but restricted area.
"Each new book provides fresh details, finer crennelations of the subject's edge. It's area, however, cannot extend past the initial circle: Autumn, 1888, Whitechapel."
So same thing with Zodiac. Endless scope to rethink / redraw / reinvestigate.
And part of the appeal is witnessing the investigator fall deeper into the hole, and you go along with it as reader.
jenks
thread death
Yep - it's earlier than HIV but i think you can see how it's start of his brilliance - not much comedy in there but the gage scene is funny - a production i saw had them throwing it onto a very dusty stage so that by the end of it they're all coughing in a cloud of dust
woops
is not like other people
by a good 330 years
jenks
thread death
Pt2 is more ragged but there’s some brilliant moments in there - there are some very dark parts in it. It doesn’t have a Hotspur (obvs) to work as a counterbalance to Hal.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
Well, that was fantastic, so many good speeches. I especially loved the one where he's looking in the mirror and then smashes it. And I was glad to see Richard go down fighting.
I'll start Richard III tomorrow I reckon. Was putting it off cos it's really long and has shitloads of characters but I reckon I'm ready for it now.
HIV pt2 is well worth it, only a notch below part 1 ime, and you get more Falstaff.
I'll start Richard III tomorrow I reckon. Was putting it off cos it's really long and has shitloads of characters but I reckon I'm ready for it now.
HIV pt2 is well worth it, only a notch below part 1 ime, and you get more Falstaff.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
Smashed Richard III already, great read.
Read Act 1 of Measure for Measure thus morning - I'm finding this one a lot more difficult than the others I've read so far (maybe with the exception of Hamlet). I'm having to look at the footnotes quite a lot which I usually try and avoid as much as possible to keep the flow going. The plot seems fairly straightforward so far but the language itself is quite knotty and convoluted in this one.
Read Act 1 of Measure for Measure thus morning - I'm finding this one a lot more difficult than the others I've read so far (maybe with the exception of Hamlet). I'm having to look at the footnotes quite a lot which I usually try and avoid as much as possible to keep the flow going. The plot seems fairly straightforward so far but the language itself is quite knotty and convoluted in this one.
jenks
thread death
Not often I read something I actively dislike but wading through Alex Pheby’s second in his Mordew trilogy. I quite liked the first one - I don’t do fantasy stuff and there was enough plot and character for me to ignore all the things that annoy me - the world building in particular. But this one, he’s decided to put in interminable chunks of pseudo philosophy to try and give it intellectual heft - whole eye glazing over pages. And then the bastard sticks in an appendix of ‘events not covered in the main body of the story’ - my guess his editor tried to nix the pages but he insisted they found a space for them. It is a shame because I like the publisher - Galley Beggar a lot. Yes, I know, I could have just not finished it…
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I heard lots of people liked this book, so it must be good.