I don't like Agatha Christie's crime novels. There is no doubt that his very well-written, enjoyable books, full of exciting twists and turns, do not appeal to me because they are boring. Written by György Tóth Jr.
I already know who the murderer is when the murder takes place, but from then on, this great writer blurs and confuses the clear situation, that is, all her books are based on scams, and I really don't like being scammed.
This reminded me of the fact that Ferenc Gyurcsány wrote the main work of his life, a crime novel, the title of which makes the work suspicious, to say the least. Why did you give the book the title "Death of the Cross"?
Maybe I'm wrong, because I haven't read the crime novel, but knowing the background of the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I'm afraid that his usual anti-church attitude cannot be missing from the great work. I tell you, I haven't read it, but I most likely won't, because the title already put me off.
Even more its author.
At the book launch, Gyurcsány began a confusing discussion about the existence of God, according to which he either exists or does not exist. Either God created man, or man created God, which is why God exists in both cases, but in a different way. He then added that he admires faith in itself, but he is not reconciled with the churches.
It's his soul, it's not a crime if someone doesn't like churches, but what does that have to do with a crime story? Or maybe death on the cross is a catchy title? I don't really care, because the above explanation hides the apparent crumbs of reason, but in fact it can be identified with confusion.
In simpler terms, the author says something that makes no sense in the world.
I would not engage in a lengthy analysis of why Gyurcsány's brainstorming is absurd, suffice it to say that if God had been invented by man, then - contrary to Fletó's claim - he does not exist, but is merely a product of fantasy. Because someone imagines something, it does not become an existing thing.
Just as in a crime novel, the crime does not become real just because the author imagined it and put it on paper.
What was a funny element of this book presentation, however, was the way brother Ferenc explained why he dared to write the crime story. Because he wrote the first chapter just for himself, for fun, and then sent it to a scribe for an opinion. The review read: "Not too bad." And he gave advice for further writing.
If the comrade I am referring to reviewed the article - and who, according to the news, is indeed her - then I am not surprised that the wise leader did not receive negative criticism. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the iconic scene in the film The Witness, when Comrade Virág advises the sensitive writer to prepare the fabricated indictment.
"-...I won't leave the frogmen. Comrade Virág, what do you think?
"I think frogmen are good." The metal boxes could perhaps be rewritten.
"Rewrite?" Good, but then you tell me how to rewrite it.
– Maybe I'm saying something stupid, but how about, for example, if the box remained, but sewn in reindeer skin. Maybe it would be more authentic.
"Not bad." You have a very good writing streak, Comrade Virág, why don't you write?"
Is it "not so bad"? It seems that the sensitive writer persuaded Fleto to write.
Ad absurdum, it may even be that Gyurcsány's work is not so bad. However, knowing what was said at the book launch, I assume that he listened to the advice and wrote the groundhog skin, that is, he also sewed his anti-church into the crime story.
Whether it is, I will never know. As I said, Death on the Cross put me off reading it.
I rather hope for the triumph of the cross.
György Tóth Jr
Cover image source: konyvesmagazin.hu
