Wagstaff and McClean
 | Average Customer Rating: Recommend Wagstaff & McClean is a slightly comic thriller-cum-mystery. I like mixing relationships, so we have a large, aging, laid-back and depressive male Detective, faced with an extremely small, fast talking, accident prone and manic female Lawyer. They are opposites in every way, so its fun seeing them together and finding out what happens. As you may guess, the results aren't exactly what the two characters themselves expect either. Product details and pricing info |
|---|
1 Customer Review Posted
- Almost, but no cee-gar...
- I have to admit, I'd read Mr. Richards' yummy bio and was mightily intrigued by his predilections for "strong female characters," and "alternative lifestyles."
From the author's self-description and bold-as-bold depiction, I was somehow magnetized to the promise of his fiction.
Regrettably, what I thought would res-on-ate was apparently more akin to a Richards pon-tif-i-cate.
Alright...I'll quit while I'm ahead on the rhyming.
Truth was, folks out there in Amazonia, I was digging Janet Wagstaff's gags, not to mention that the dame had a darn good repartee with Mr. McClean (wicked moniker, postscript!), but this Short's plot was majorly shenanigan-esque.
The author clearly has a firm grasp of dialogue and flow. It's also readily obvious that Richards has a capacity to write well and that he does so often, especially within his genre.
For instance, one of the winningest lines I'd scribbled down on my scratch pad as I was mulling over the read was: "You can't make friends and influence people if you keep knocking them over or spilling coffee on them." When I got to that point, I was expecting more of the same; alas, t'wasn't to be.
Richards also took too long -- IMHO -- getting to the central crux of the matter: the interplay between Wagstaff and McClean. It took David three pages (!!!) to get through a bumbling coffee-spill moment at the crack of the story. I didn't really see the need for that -- three pages?! Alright, a page maybe -- max. two, fine -- but we could have been through with this characterization and moved onto the next deal before the next Ice Age. Why waste precious narrative space, bubs?
To me, it seems like Richards is normally a very good author who just plainly didn't take the requisite time to make this particular selection as best as it could possibly be.
To wit:
** too many "anglicised" words when you're clearly writing a piece which falls with the Chandler-ian/Billy Wilder spoofy mould: I don't have a problem with British-inspired English...I use it occasionally myself when required, I'm Canadian...but keep things consistent, m'kay? "Sycamore and Twelfth" [ps where is that? Does it matter? Though it sounds to me like the States, and if it is, better stick to your knitting] doesn't mix well with McClean's outbursts of "out with it then!", or the use of the term "lock-up," (ADM -- what IS that anyways?) or "larder," or even the word "queue." Americans don't talk like that, as you and the rest of the universe already know from too many bad Hollywood flicks, so it just steals from the "reality" of your piece, Davey-doo. Do it more than twice, and you've already got me thinking that you simply haven't done your homework.
To butcher a W and M phrase, and pardoning the pun if you will, your Short wasn't editorially "McClean."
** certain lacklustre formatting: I counted at least three (3) missing page/scene breaks within your 27pp. whodunnit which is completely "not on." Why wasn't this "mccleaned" up in advance, or is this a foreshadowing of Wagstaff's affected klutziness? I'm left wondering...dum-dee-dum...
Guess what I'm trying to say here, DGR, is that this could've been a lot better than it was. Pity.
You had me going right from the word "coffee-spill," and the skirt swap incident was "delish," and dare I forget to mention the magnificent "Bozo case."
But then you lost me when Wagstaff kept leaping on the conference table (ouch! That's gotta be harsh on the kneecaps!), one too many times for my liking. Why the need to constantly emphasize this? Couldn't you have Janet do some other acrobatics, like her Jackson namesake? I mean, come ON, she IS only 4'11"...
My ultimate feel was that this was the sort of work which Richards might have done for himself. Like the kind of "writer's practicum" or "warm-up" all us writers are prone to do most mornings just to get our creative juices flowing.
Considering that WAGSTAFF AND MCCLEAN possesses moments of writerly brilliance, I suppose Richards felt that he could rework 'er into something useable, just to swim over here with the Amazon Shorts "fishes."
But, sorry bubs, I was expecting much more.
Shame on me. Seems as though I drew one too many times from the proverbial well tonight.
Oh well...we'll get 'em next time Davey.
-- ADM - 2006-07-03, 0 of 0 people found this review helpful, Rated:
