Smoke and Ashes

I didn't realize that recovering from alcohol addiction could be more painful than quitting opium.

In the novels, as you know, Wyndham has said a time or two that he was unsure of some detail because of either being high or in the throes of withdrawal. He noted that delusions were common to opium. In Death in the East this comes into play at least once (so far). While in the midst of withdrawal at the ashram, he isn't sure he's seen what he's seen.

It looks like Wyndham faces 5 to7 days of hell and then some painful recovery and recuperation time after. At the ashram are others who have a similar addiction or who are addicted to other drugs.

For sure. In fact, I believe it was one of the Liebermann books that used the technique to good advantage. But this one chapter 1905, another chapter 1922, rinse and repeat, is much too formulaic. He cuts the stories short, when he should add a bit to each. It is a bit like bad film editing. This often results in a jerky product with scenes moving too quickly from one to the other without giving the viewer a chance to take things in. The flow of the story suffers. 

I think that's true. It also occurs to me that the problem is that there isn't enough contrast between the stories. Yes, Wyndham is doing something a bit different in the 1922 story, but you can see it leading to standard detective stuff.

The 1905 story is nothing special (so far). The only intriguing element is seeing Wyndham as a rookie cop. And he's obviously going to catch the eye of the Scotland Yard detective at some point for recruitment.

But think about the two parallel stories in Godfather II. They were way different. And the early (De Niro) story is laying groundwork and giving depth to the later Pacino story. But I don't get those vibes from the 1905 story at all. It just seems a bit blasé.

I'm at the point where Wyndham is through with the primary part of his treatment. Brother Shankar sends him to stay in town with Preston for a while in Jatinga. We are led to superficially believe this is because Brother Shanker knows that idleness in the ashram could be particularly dangerous for Wyndham.

However (assuming you've gotten this far), I wonder if Brother Shanker doesn't suspect that Preston has something to do with the murder of the Belgian and simply wants Wyndham nearby him. After all, how strange was it that when Preston first saw the body of Le Corbeau, he threw up? Yes, this has become a fashion cliché for someone to lose their guts over the merest trifle. When someone loses their guts when some constable comes across a truly horrendous mutilation, that's understandable. But a guy with no apparent injury laying in a stream induces a reaction of up-chucking? Did these two already know each other well then?

When Wyndham first arrives at Preston's abode, he noted the walls "decorated with framed charcoal etching of the male human form in various contortions: the sort of art that some consider tasteful, and others consider an offence under section 292 of Indian Penal code."

Preston has cameras about his house as well. He's a photographer. Might Le Corbeau have been sneaking off that night to Preston's house for some illicit rendezvous? And because Le Corbeau superficially looks like Wyndham, Wyndham has wondered if the fellow he thinks he's seen in the shadows a time or two may have mistaken Le Corbeau for himself.

Nothing Mr. Flu hasn't thought of. But those are my thoughts on the 1922 plot. And here's a wry thought by Preston speaking to Wyndham about the availability of alcohol:



Incredibly, having just gotten over (or on the way) an addiction to opium, Wyndham sends a telegram to Surrender-not to come post haste to Jatinga – and bring a bottle of whiskey.

I loved this line. Gooch is speaking to young 1905 Wyndham about the realities of the press:



Still the same in 2022. There's very one odd phrase by the writer, speaking of the London press again:



Throw under the omnibus? Really? Some modern phrases can have surprisingly old beginnings. But this one?

And I liked this bit earlier when Wyndham was finally turning the corner on withdrawal:

Actually, it hadn't occurred to my that Shankar might think Preston could have had something to do with Le Corbeau's death. 


My thought is that it is possible that Le Corbeau was murdered because the culprit mistook him for Wyndham.  When two similar looking men are raving in the night, it is hard to tell them apart. 

Think, big black car. 


Big Black Car

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I also have a problem with Wyndham so easily cozying up with the Sully thugs.

Listen, we know Wyndham is no angel. But as I remember, he got hooked on opium as a result of treatment for injuries during or after the war. Old story.

And we get that in 1905 he's a bit naive. Still, are you telling me that solving the case of one murder in London (aren't there dozens a year?) is going to make your career? Is that worth selling yourself to the mob on the off chance?

This seems way out of character for him, as was sitting down with the journalist. I don’t imagine you're five minutes on the force before they tell you to keep your distance from journalist. But Wyndham was acting like the really had no idea what kind of quid pro quo the journalist had in mind.

I don't mind seeing into these shady sides. But the author has bent his characters to try to fit this stuff into. A typical fault of today's writing. Thin in character development.

But let's say the journalist was a little more savvy and maybe had kinda-sorta tricked Wyndham into a closer relationship by the journalist maybe saying he had an important tip for the cop. He gives him the tip then there is the implied expectation of something later in return. A much more interesting way to handle it.

Exactly.

While trying to Google info about Captain Sam Wyndham's age, I ran into this article that basically says "If you like the Banerjee books, you'll like the Inspector Khattak–Rachel Getty mysteries by Canadian author Ausma Zehanat Khan."

Well. Cold day in hell, and all that:



Sorry to make your eyes roll so far back into your head. That was my reaction as well. Still, I consider it possible that someone write a realistic, even gritty, cop story from the perspective of a Toronto Muslim community-policing cop. I just think it would be hard to do so without it being unintentionally funny.

We return you to 1905 India...unless it's 1922.

Chapters from about 28 to 34 have taken a real dive, in both timelines. I find myself skimming. The plot is not only a boring cliché but the actually grammatical writing is bad in places...even down to bad punctuation. I wonder if he was heavily drinking when he wrote this section.

Forgive my xenophobia, but a Muslim Pakistani-Canadian cop. It really should have been a trans Muslim Pakistani-Canadian "community policing" cop. Think of the thrilling blurb on the dust jacket: