PARK RIDGE
A Senior Center Murder

PARK RIDGE

Interview with a Reader

[The following is an informal interview which I conducted with one of my readers.]

READER: First of all, let me say that the book is well-written, the characters well-developed. In fact, I can see people I know in each of the characters. My dad played cards (poker) for hours with his cronies and found those he played with an interesting lot. It is a few of those, and other family friends, that you could have used to give birth to each player.

AUTHOR: Let's talk about whodunnits and whydunnits. I know you have a preference for "who."

READER: The whodunit has a fascination for me because I love intrigue, real mystery, and puzzles of just about any kind. This book lets you know immediately who committed the murder and how. There is no mystery there. The "why" in most whodunits is sometimes almost irrelevant to the story. In PARK RIDGE it is the "why" that is key.

AUTHOR: You had said previously that the motivation for the murders was unclear, or that you just didn't understand the motives.

READER: The motives are clear - e.g. Jack killed Gordon because he hated being pushed by Gordon to go on trips that Jack didn't want to join. Then Jack killed Leonard because Leonard was in charge of the woodworking class and Jack was injured during class. Sophie was killed because she got the job of art director that Margaret wanted and thought she would get. I realize that there are people who are vindictive and out to get revenge for even imagined slights. I'm not that way at all and so these motives for murder made little sense to me.

AUTHOR: The injury in the woodcarving class and the slight over the art class are incidental, to my mind at least. They aren't the real reason why the card players felt they had to kill. There was a long history of resentment. There was also the formation of the mini-gang taking placel; one of the requirements to belong was to commit murder.

READER: You said that the book deals with moral issues, particularly about the way people treat other people, and I clearly see what you mean. I was reading more for entertainment than for deep insights into the ethical behavior of people. "Light reading" is the way I unwind at the end of the day. I work hard, am always with people, and don't want to have to dig for deep meanings when I read a mystery. I want to be entertained.

AUTHOR: You have a problem with why the card players put up with what we're calling abusive behavior on the part of the activity boosters.

READER: Why did they [the card players] stay at the Senior Center? They could have gone to the home of any one of the group, played Pinochle to their hearts' content, been hassled by nobody. What was the draw of the Senior Center, especially since they obviously had problems with the people there?

AUTHOR: [We talked for a bit about why it should be the card players who should leave - rather than that the behavior be halted. I argued that they had a right to play at the Senior Center if they wanted to.]

READER: There was nothing wrong with their playing cards at the Center. The space is provided for activity of any kind. However, as I said before, if you don't feel welcome, you go someplace else.

AUTHOR: [The conversation shifted slightly.]

READER: So why did the activities director or the Center director put up with it?

AUTHOR: The Director, Teresa Cusentino, had a great deal of responsibilty. She knew most everyone by name and was concerned and compassionate. But she didn't realize how something which was "good" - and I use that expression for the sake of argument - like going on a trip, could become a weapon in the wrong person's hand. Every time we draw a line, call something good, we run the risk of someone misunderstanding (or getting the message we did intend, even intended maliciously) that if they disagree, make a different choice, then they are bad. Or that the activity/non-activity they chose is bad. The sense of superiority that participation created was the real evil. Teresa did eventually come to understand that. That's why she wrote the conference presentation that she did.
[We returned to the silence of the card players]

READER: Why didn't they challenge the challengers? Why didn't the four card players mention the problem to someone in authority when it first began? I understand that there are people who cannot/do not complain about anything for whatever reason (e.g fear of retaliation; fear that they may be asked to leave; fear of being considered a bother). This is not my style (I deal with confrontation pretty well) and so am frustrated that these seniors put up with the abuse for so many years rather than finding a way to deal with it and then committed murder in order to "get even" with their abusers.

AUTHOR: [we then talked about elder abuse. My reader argued that the elderly put up with it because they feel they have no options. I mentioned spouse abuse; she countered that those women stay because they feel they deserve to be abused. She insisted that the card players could have chosen to leave and didn't. She said that that's the part she really didn't understand. She wanted them to leave rather than commit murder. I then remarked that the idea of people choosing violence was not unique to my book.]

READER: That people can act in an evil fashion…that they can choose evil. Of course I believe this. How can I not when there is so much evil in the world? I think that in this particular case there are two evils - that of abuse of people and that of retaliation/murder. Both are wrong. Perhaps the second evil could have been averted if the first evil had been dealt with in some way.

AUTHOR: Conflict and its resolution are what make for a story.

READER: This is a "people behaving badly" mystery and there would be no story if there was not evil of some description.