Anna Taylor - an inspiration in more ways than one

Anna is reading 'The Beekeeper' for us.

She recites her words with such intense pain and emotion that it entrances me into the world of the situation and pulls me to a satisfying calm; and that's also because she has a clear and gentle reading voice to top it off.
The story itself is very graphic: in terms of description, memory, word usage as well as a striking simplicity which makes it flow wonderfully; words painting a perfect picture to my ears.  I was captured already by the first few words about her mother saving her own life because it opened the story with the intriguing scent of a catastrophe and is sure to snatch the curiosity of the reader/listener. The best part about it is the fact that the events told are of true factors (Anna admitted that she may have gotten carried away with the profile of the atmosphere but there's nothing wrong with that as rules are made to be broken!) and I laughed as Anna told us her lecturer had said it was very well written but quite the unbelievable situation.

Another aspect of the story that makes it refreshing, is the fact that her mother is described as a negotiable, calm, tender and simple woman; despite being withheld in a life-threatening circumstance by a man who claims she knows him, and who had obviously had no experience whatsoever as a murderer. He holds that knife the way an artist holds a lit match up to a canvas; dripping in sweat and with the overpowering stench of hesitation and doubt. Everything is described so vividly yet simple, it's impossible to not love this piece of hers.

Anna discussed with us also her writing processes, and revealed that 'The Beekeeper' is the only story in which she does not use dialogue punctuation - so as to preserve the idea of a spoken true story from a narrative point of view. I asked Anna whether or not her mother actually had -at the time of being in the house with this delusional stranger- had actually experienced flashbacks from her past relating to her family, early life, traits, and the treasured tradition of the hallway cupboard filled with fruit jams, liqueurs, chutneys and the history behind it all as it is told in the story she had. Anna responded, saying that because she remembered many details of the house so well, the telling of her mother's surroundings and the history behind them merged naturally into the story.

She really is quite clever. One of her greatest strengths, I believe personally, is her use of the 'zoom in, zoom out' technique which she used frequently in 'The Beekeeper' to prolong the story's intensity as well as preventing the reader from becoming burdened by the weight of events and emotion; it's a good way to keep the reader hooked, also. Like the cliff-hanger of a program, or a commercial break. I swear this woman inspires the hell out of me without realizing.


I asked Anna another question: did your mother actually know the man in the house, as he had claimed over the phone and when he invaded the house?
She said he might have lived a few houses down, known her vaguely from somewhere, met her briefly and even talked with her, but not enough to secure a memory, let alone a fondness for him.
I was tempted to ask also whether or not he had any distinct tones/octaves/grooves in his voice that could rule him out from the number of people her mother knew, if he left any evidence behind, and if her mother remembered whether the shoes he was wearing were old or new.
It's pretty much a given though, that he would have left something behind. Anyone can, and  without intention; dripping sweat as profusely as he had been in the story would make tracking his arse a piece of cake. Even a simple conversation between two people in the vicinity of a crime scene can prove to be a fatal move on the criminal's part, as DNA and bodily fluids are extracted in microscopic particles from the mouth; not to mention the silent shedding of human skin cells too. This is why forensic examiners, medical examiners, detectives and crime scene investigators are required to wear special clothing that protects them from disturbing evidence and to preserve the original nature of the scene. Metal stepping plates which are sterilized everyday and readily available for examiners are used also for this purpose.
As for the evidence of shoes... obviously the impression of the soles would narrow the search down significantly. All it would take is a visible impression (after tests being run), a comparison through a pattern-block of shoes database, then eventually a rundown of where the shoe was purchased and analysis of security footage at such place. Any shoe -old or new- can have its impression lifted with the use of adhesive tape or gel-lifter. Footwear prints in dust are usually preserved using an electrostatic lifter. An electrical discharge is generated across the surface of metallised foil, causing a dusty impression to adhere to the surface. It won't do a criminal any more justice to use a pair of new shoes, either. Brand new shoes have remaining oils from manufacture in their soles and through the skin of their exteriors; these oils can be just as incriminating as a bloody shoe print left behind and attempted to be cleaned away which a reagent called luminol (this reagent reacts with iron found in hemoglobin) can determine whose body the blood came from and the shape of an impression; results are most effective in the absence of light.
....Holy shit I'm geeking out and straying from the original objective of this blog. BACK TO ANNA TAYLOR! (luckily I didn't spurt this to her; its enough for her to know I am a crime writer). Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.


Well, whether you like it or not, I'm going to end the blog on a similar note: a psychological review of the man in question, who visited Anna's mother's house and threatened to take her life.
Now! In the story, the man's role is firstly introduced to us when he calls the house. He claims that he knows Anna's mother yet he refuses to distribute his name and requests that she meet him at the movie cinema up the road. Upon realizing that this isn't going to happen, he decides to take a vicious leap by surprising her with a visit; only now he has the intention to "kill her if she doesn't do exactly as he says" - which proves later to be a bluffing statement and merely a mask to preserve his manliness and egotism in fear of exposing his vulnerability and true feelings which he feels would make him an easy target to manipulation and sensitivity.


My initial response to this section is that he grew overly-paranoid for several reasons which led him to travel to the house to investigate his speculations. Generally with some, the more one knows/likes another, the more paranoid they grow in fear of a series of things.
One being -and obviously correct- that she wouldn't meet him at the theater as asked (which possibly led to feelings of self-consciousness, confusion and anger at himself).
Another is the fact that subconsciously, he knew that she doesn't know him which contributed to the angst of my first theory and developed into a delusional state where he genuinely starts to believe that they know each other but also believes she is plotting against him so he must take charge of the situation - violence and intimidation style.
Another is the prospect that he was somewhat psychologically/mentally damaged prior to the encounter in the house, and was therefore vulnerable to romantic or any notion of emotive attachment which led him to believe that if he asked her on a date, she would willingly agree and from then on, things would progress positively. This may have been a subconscious reaction of a past event that affected him altogether in the relationship department, therefore abusing his trust and heightening his paranoia. If things did not go according to his perfect plan, he would resort to other matters including threatening her life, use of a dangerous weapon, and poor control of the situation that later proves he was in definite hesitation/doubt as to whether or not he was doing the right thing. He cannot be labeled as insane, however, since his lack of control and overpowering reaction to the events indicates he was aware of his actions. Because of the eruption of empathy and consideration towards Anna's mother's safety and health near the end of the story -as well as negotiating with her over a period of time along with the risk of her escape- I believe he really was fond of her and originally took to such circumstances only to gain a higher position over her and to get her to satisfy his lustful cravings and fantasies; maybe he thought that if he listened to her and trusted her, he would obtain her own trust and something could spurt from that.
He never really wanted to hurt her, otherwise he would have been unaffected by her convincing him to let her go out and collect her laundry from the clothesline and to fetch some vinegar for her bee sting. He sweat, shook and hesitated too much and allowed her to escape but that doesn't rule out the general possibility of a true murderer lurking. Sometimes all a murderer in his shoes needs is some practice and experience to control someone and an accompanying agenda, which strengthens their motive and numbs all consideration/empathy for the victim. Some don't need even that, are just born/raised with intimidating tendencies and with the ability to appear "normal" in the eyes of society.
However I don't believe the man in the story was of a homicidal complexion. He was just a delicate man, really, starved of affection and who went to extreme measures to obtain it with force. But as we all know, some good things come to those who wait; and it certainly won't be handed to you if you don't deserve it.