Melissa Chan

Supposedly set in the early 1990s (post AFL), the depiction of society and the weekly footy game on Saturdays fits the 1970s more. It depicts a perception of life in the past when football was only on Saturday afternoons and those attending, even at the MCG, could guarantee their parking spot would be vacant; and women didn’t work, but were slaves to the kitchen and their husbands. Set in a Moonee Ponds which still had cheap housing, a group of “football widows” want to have their Saturdays off from childcare and housework and come up with a solution.… (plus d'informations)

Not sure if I've developed a bit more tolerance for the issue based style of this series, or whether or not it's balanced out a bit better in this book than it was in TOO RICH.

What it could actually be is a bit more of a plot, which helps immensely with the shouty / tell don't show problems of the first book. The issues are all still here, and this time they are not muddied by the silliness of the surrounding plot points, with the focus being on a rather convoluted series of deaths, that you know are obviously going to be connected up at some point.

There's still the inexplicable cop / determined independent Feminist detective pairing, which simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever. On any level, and I think that's probably contributing to the biggest problem of this book - somebody's bumping off high profile blokes left right and centre and the investigation is down to an amateur with family connections to one of the victims and a few token police efforts?

Leaving aside my whinging, the one thing I'm really finding interesting about these books is how far Australian crime fiction (female or male writers / issues based or not) has come since the early 1990s.

http://www.austcrimefiction.org/review/guilt-melissa-chan… (plus d'informations)

Little housework first - Melissa Chan is a pseudonym for Dr Jocelynne Scutt, Australian feminist lawyer, writer and commentator. TOO RICH was published in 1991 by Spinifex Press, and I distinctly remember when reading it originally at the time of publication, feeling somewhat "cause battered" by the end of the book.

Re-reading it again, some observations remained constant, some became more finely attuned with the passing years. The constant is that whilst nobody could possibly object to the righteousness of the feminist message being delivered, particularly given the time in which the book was originally published, the message gets lost in the delivery. The problem is with the stridency, which, with the passing of years, I can now articulate more clearly. TOO RICH is falling way too short of show, don't tell. Tell is not strong enough - it is, to be frank, rather on the shouty side. Made me profoundly uncomfortable then, makes me even more so now. Particularly as the more finely attuned observation with the passage of time is inconsistency. Whilst hammering away with the messages of affirmative action, TOO RICH has a plot which is extremely clichéd. We've got the chubby, slightly "unacceptably" wealthy, nouveau rich, working class done good, battered wife; versus the gorgeous, thin, attractive, gold digging girlfriend. We've got a message which is trying to say something real and pertinent about the difficulties that abused and battered women have in getting their life back on track, alongside some mindless prattle about Lady this, and society event that, and off to Hong Kong and Paris for the weekend shopping. We've got the one dimensional daughter married to the vacuous son of the landed gentry, the all hope lost drunken disappointment son, versus the abused but worthy daughter who rejects her background....

Worse than that, we've got the pointless pairing of the heart of gold cop, and the determined independent Feminist detective, for absolutely no apparent reason, other, one assumes, than to make some sort of statement about the lack of women in the upper echelons of police detecting at the time. Or something. Frankly I'm grasping for reasons.

Add to that a series of red herrings that whiffed, and TOO RICH was. For taste - not body size or bank balance.… (plus d'informations)