I
am absolutely ecstatic! I have learned something I asked the Yahoo Group in
vain some time back, whether or not the Deputy D.A. Sampson character exists in
the books. Apparently he does! A deputy D.A. named Sampson figures into at
least one book, The Case of the Shoplifter’s Shoe. I’ve asked the person
who reviewed the book what the character is like, but I haven’t received a
reply yet.
Just
judging by what I subsequently read at Storrer’s site, I can’t quite figure out
what he’s like. I don’t like that at one point he’s coaching a witness on what
to say. But I’d have to actually read the book to see what’s fully going on; I
would imagine that Sampson fully believes that what he’s saying is the truth
and hence, doesn’t think it amiss to coach the witness into saying it. Yet still, it sounds more like the impetuous Bill Vincent than Sampson.
The television Sampson is sharp, smart, and seems
upright almost to a fault. He does try to drag answers to leading questions out
of some uncooperative witnesses, but just by treating them as hostile and
demanding they simply answer Yes or No, which certainly isn’t the same as
coaching them on what to say. And when accused of offering immunity to someone
wanted for manslaughter in Tennessee, he responds, “We resent that, Your
Honor!”
I
suppose, depending on the context, I might not find it out-of-character
for him to coach the witness. But I don’t think it’s right for either side to
do that with a witness, and knowing Sampson, he would likely agree and not
knowingly be a party to it.
Of
course, however, the book versions of the characters really are different in
many ways from their television counterparts, and not always flatteringly so. I
imagine it could be argued that the book characters have more faults and hence
are more human, but I say there are many ways to have faults and the way the
books do it isn’t the only way, nor necessarily the best way.
One
definite, but superficial, difference between the Sampsons is that his first
name in the book is given as Larry. I still like my choice of the name Gregory;
Larry just doesn’t sound as fitting for a character as strong and
determined and brash as H.M. Wynant portrayed him. And the television series
already has a deputy D.A. Larry anyway, in the form of Larry Germaine. So I’ll
probably keep using the name Gregory. It wouldn’t be the first time the books
and the television series have diverged on a name.
What’s
really weird is when the books and the television series agree on a name . . .
even if the titles and plots are completely different! On Friday night MeTV
showed The Shattered Dream, a television series-only episode. And after
reading the aforementioned very interesting review of the book version of The
Shoplifter’s Shoe, I have come to the realization that The Shattered
Dream used several names from The Shoplifter’s Shoe! This can hardly
be a coincidence. And since the stories are completely different, it’s a very
weird deliberate act.
First
off, the most glaring parallel is that both stories feature a prominent
character called Virginia Trent. In Dream, she’s the heiress to a
diamond business. In Shoe, she’s the niece of the defendant and is
always spouting psychology to explain people’s actions.
I
suppose that if that was the only parallel, one could possibly assume that it’s
a coincidence, even though Virginia isn’t a very common name. But it doesn’t
stop there.
In
Shoe, Virginia’s aunt is named Sarah Breel. In Dream, the murder
victim is using the alias Breel when he leaves his wife. And his wife’s name is
Sara.
And
it gets weirder still. Dream features a character called Irene Bedford,
who owns the diamond that’s absolutely central to the whole plot. Shoe
features Ione Bedford, who pretends to own nice things like the Bedford
Diamonds, which are also fairly critical to the story.
What
in the world? How did all of that happen? It almost makes me wonder if Dream
was originally intended to be a very loose adaption of Shoe, but
somewhere along the line someone decided it should be its own story. Later on,
when they finally got around to adapting Shoe in season 6, they kept all
the names. In fact, so far it seems to be one of the only times I’ve seen where
the book and the television names remain the same.
As
mentioned, I looked through Storrer’s site to see the details of the book
version of Shoe. I was impressed to see that aside from some fleshing
out of things, the basic plot was almost completely retained for the television
episode . . . until we came to the solution of the crime.
In
the television Shoe, of course, we find out that while Virginia thinks
her gunshot killed Austin Cullins, it actually went wild and Leonard Nimoy’s
character Pete Chennery was the actual murderer. But if I understand the book
version’s plot, it looks like in it, Virginia really did kill Cullins! She did
it out of reflex when he shot at Sarah, so it certainly couldn’t ever be
construed as cold-blooded murder. But Perry fixes things with legal trickery so
that Sarah Breel is exonerated and Virginia is unlikely to be prosecuted. And,
he says, the police are likely to think Chennery did the killing.
Um
. . . does that mean that Perry basically just set up someone else who’s
guiltless to take the blame? Or else he did nothing and just plans to continue
to do nothing and stand idly by if the police find Chennery (as Perry
admittedly thinks they won’t)? I know book-Perry does a lot more shady things
than television Perry, even at his worst, but this? I suppose I’d actually have
to read the book to know for sure what’s going on to that effect, but it
definitely doesn’t sound good from here.
In
any case, book-Perry really is quite a piece of work. I’m thinking more and
more that he and book-Della would probably make great friends with either
version of Simon Templar.
It
really puzzles me as to why, when Erle Stanley Gardner wanted to write
something to show lawyers in a better light, he instead wrote Perry as acting a
lot like a shyster and doing downright illegal things in at least the earlier
novels. How would that help public opinion? I guess it must have, or the books
wouldn’t have taken off so much, but I’m just sitting here thinking What in
the world? and being glad that the television Perry had his act cleaned up
quite a bit. I may be in the minority, but I really prefer when the protagonist
doesn’t have such questionable morality, especially if he’s in a position like
Perry.
I
suppose it could be argued that the difference between a regular shyster and
Perry is that Perry really cares about his clients and he isn’t just out for
money. But I don’t like how book-Perry doesn’t care whether his client is
guilty or not, since one of the defining traits of television Perry is that he
cares very much. Nor do I like that book-Perry really doesn’t care if the
murderer goes scot-free as long as he gets his client off (regardless of
whether the client is the killer). I know book-Perry is probably closer to real
lawyers, since I don’t imagine most real lawyers go around solving crimes and
digging up the killers except in unusual cases. But I guess even though
Hamilton is my favorite, I still kind of romanticize Perry a bit! That’s
definitely the television show’s influence, and I don’t mind at all.
Interestingly,
I guess the fact that book-Perry defends guilty clients sometimes and doesn’t
seem to care about exposing the real murderers in any case might mean the
reduction or elimination of the police apparently not doing their jobs well,
which is certainly how it looks in the television series when the wrong person
is arrested near constantly and Perry is solving the cases and discovering the
real criminals. Alternately, however, book-Perry’s attitudes don’t always make
him seem like such a great hero. Sometimes I like antihero characters, but I’m
just not crazy about Perry being one. And Sergeant Holcomb, in the books, seems
a lot more idiotic than any of the television police ever did.
I
guess, just as with those who prefer early episodes over later ones, and vice
versa, it really comes down to what’s wanted out of entertainment. And since I
prefer characterization over twisty plots, and feel that the television
characters deliver the type of characterization I find most pleasing, I will
always prefer the television series to the books, even if I can come to enjoy
the books as sort of an alternate universe.
That
said, I would still like to see a fanfiction story where book-Perry and
television-Perry somehow meet and compare differences in personalities and
attitudes and such. It would be so much fun! And looking at it in a meta light,
it could be very helpful for me and others to really see the similarities and
differences between the versions of the character.
If anyone reading
this has read the book version of The Shoplifter’s Shoe, I would really
like to know more about how Sampson is portrayed! I’m going to be trying to
track down a copy of the book, but since I really prefer shiny new books to
second-hand books, and it’s unlikely I can find a shiny new one, I’m not sure
when I’ll find a copy I want to buy. It’s also on Kindle, for those who like
intangible books. (I don’t.)
