I went looking for Witness for the Dead fic, but was disappointed by the lack of Thara/Pel-Thenhior (there's a bit more now, which makes me happy). Sadly, I struggle with the world building in that universe enough to be unable to be the fic I want to see in the world.

Just finished Piranesi (I am binging that NPR list. I should probably slow down, but I've got 4 books whose loans will expire in the next week/10 days.) I think I liked it? It was sort of like the T Kingfisher books, but without the creeping dread. I think I'd have liked it more had I imprinted harder on the Narnia books. It is a very lock-down-y sort of book (which makes sense having read one of her interviews.)

I know I liked Piranesi a whole lot when I read it but I'm not sure I could remember the details of why. I found it the opposite of horror, sort of, and seemed both comforting and revelatory.

I knew I loved Piranesi and gave it 5 stars on Goodreads. I looked to see if I had a review and it read "That was a very satisfying experience. Loved the atmosphere of the world and the characters. It is not quite possible for me to describe why; you have to read and enter this experience yourself.". Not real helpful, but it was pretty hard to describe. My rare reviews are usually for my purposes only.

I just saw where there is going to be a collection of authorized new Miss Marple stories coming out next year and I think I am intrigued. I am generally against these authorized extensions - I haven't read the Poirot ones but that seems like a bad idea without looking into it any further, and I have read the unfinished books of Marsh, Sayers and Allingham that some else was authorized to finish. The Allingham was not bad, but the next book in that series (was written by her husband from some notes she had left) allowed me to gently disengage with only a little rancor. I got sucked into the whole Jill Paton Walsh Wimsey continuation because, and this is an embarrassing weakness that I feel I must admit, I liked the covers. In general, the problem with these authorized revivals or whatever the term of art may be is not necessarily that are badly written or the mysteries are not as good or whatever, but essentially that the authorized author and publisher have decided that the important aspects of the characters and so forth that they choose to continue are not what I think are important (or even correct interpretations) and yet they are authorized and that is, I think, what irritates me. In an introduction to some compilation of something else, some guy who presumably has some expertise said that Money in the Morgue was "unquestionably the best of its kind" which made me abandon that book for a while, appalled. Clearly mileage may vary, but I'm going to take a stand and say I am against them.

My point is, despite all that, a collection of short stories by a variety of authors seems like a different kettle of fish and might be pretty fun.

I tried a "new" Poirot mystery and did not like it.

Thank you for taking the hit on that, Dana.

PBS was doing a pledge drive with lots of Agatha Christie (and they kept calling her "Agatha" as though she were a friend, which annoyed me no end) and at the (frequent) breaks, they'd have the officially approved writer for the continuation of her books ... and I was just, no. So often the writers taking up to continue a much-loved author's work seem to miss what was so appealing about the books. Either they miss it or aren't capable of picking it up ... or, possibly, a publisher/estate demands that they do something specific.

Exactly, Toddson. Like they don't understand what was good about the original.

Sometimes authors do that with their own creations, too, but it's so damn common with the baton-passing projects.

I feel like it happens less with fannish creations? Or maybe it just doesn't bother me because it's not officially endorsed.

I've been thinking about this. I tend not to like authorized extensions. The last Amelia Peabody, which was apparently finished by a writer and close friend of Elizabeth Peters was beyond awful. The characters were stereotypes of themselves and there was no humor.

I don't know whether I'll give new Miss Marple stories a chance. Short stories may work better, but I think I just have a very specific vision of certain characters and it's like fingernails on the chalkboard when the new version doesn't match up to the original.

On the other hand, I enjoy re-envisioned versions of classics - the Cumberbatch Sherlock, the Laurie King Mary Russell books, "Clueless", "10 Things I Hate About You", etc. They're more creative and I don't have the same expectations of the characters - they're new versions, they shouldn't match up exactly.

I seem to be assuming that with multiple authors writing for the same collection they'll want to put their own spin on Miss Marple and not actually try to produce more Agatha Christie. That may not be warranted.