I wish someone would read Neil Gaiman's "Murder Mysteries" and his commentary about the story and then explain it to me.
I have the distinct feeling a few of the important points are flying right over my head.
When I first read the story, I was content. It's a great frame tale and I like what he does with angels and the LA setting. My contentment burst when I read his commentary. He states, "I tried to play fair with the detective part of the story. There are clues everywhere. There's even one in the title."
Me not get it.
The clue in the title is the plural, but I don't understand if the murders of the two women and child in the paper allude to the narrator's friends or even if the narrator is himself their murderer. There's mention of the drawing of angels with the bloody handprint, but where does that fit in?
I've read analysis on different sites, but no one's conclusions gave me a solid satisfaction. I want answers that make me say, "Oh, of course! Now I understand!"
I'd write to him, but he's busy and I don't want to deal with the disappointment of not having my e-mail answered (I'm ever so sensitive).
This sounds like a job for The Explainer!