Could it be that as with Christie and Wodehouse when there is Magistrate scenes only 1 of them is an Actual important Character so only they are mentioned, although the other 2 may be there but there is no need to mention them so they aren't. or it could be Licence on the part of Christie and Wodehouse.
Well there can be one person on the bench handling the case and making the decisions but they are called District Judges, not just merely "magistrates" but I guess that wouldn't matter because they are fulfilling the role of what an actual magistrate does, even if he does serve on the bench with two others.
I think regardless of whether Colonel Protheroe is on the bench along with 2 other magistrates or whether he is on the bench alone, what matters and what we get from the text is that he IS a magistrate and he IS involved in the process of handling the case and making the decision. Colonel Protheroe could be on the bench by himself . . . and that could make some sense if he is a magistrate of a small village. But if he shares the bench with two other magistrates he is still involved in the final decision and if that is the case maybe when he confers with the other 2 magistrates, due to Protheroe's intimidating presence and strong personality he influences them and makes the other 2 magistrates agree with his verdict. Basically, it's up to the reader to use his/her imagination on how they want to see how Protheroe's positioned in the magistrate court. I've been leaning on either two of these positions that I mentioned earlier in this post, mostly on the first, but now I think I lean more on the 2nd one which seems to make more sense now. And as Tommy_A_Jones said, the other 2 magistrates could be there but they are not important characters as Colonel Protheroe is. I know in the Geraldine McEwan version, when Colonel Protheroe made a decision he was on the bench along (he sat in the middle) with 2 others and he seemed to preside over the proceedings and was the actual spokesman (announcing the verdict for the criminal though we don't see him conferring with his compatriots).
But this has been on my mind for a while because I'm currently writing a story and I thought about making one of my characters a magistrate and I wanted to get this business straighten out with how many is on the bench and all that and I just wanted to be accurate. Okay, now I'm done rambling and thinking too hard on this matter
hlo every one A friend wanted a bloody story, so she wrote Hercule Poirot's Christmas, I imagine her as a strong willed person who wrote for herself, but no one is that indifferent to public opinion. Can you see signs that she is writing in particular places or types of,people? What things do you think her readers liked, plot and surprise wise?
hlo every one A friend wanted a bloody story, so she wrote Hercule Poirot's Christmas, I imagine her as a strong willed person who wrote for herself, but no one is that indifferent to public opinion. Can you see signs that she is writing in particular places or types of,people? What things do you think her readers liked, plot and surprise wise?
Once particular instance concerns the book Death Comes As The End when she had settled on her own particular ending until family friend Stephen Glanville, the man who recommended she wrote a mystery set in Ancient Egypt, also recommended to Christie an ending which she decided to use instead of the original. Unfortunately, there is no copy of the original ending but Christie kind of regretted not sticking to her guns. I wish we the fans could get an inkling of what the original ending was.
In "Curtain Up" by Julius Green, Peter Saunder's who helped with Agatha Christie's plays said, "I had since wanted to do a Christie evening of three one-act plays. My idea was that as many people prefer her short stories to her full-length novels, the theatre-going public might like three plays for the price of one. Agatha was very unwilling to do this, but I am afraid I didn't refrain from reminding her how right I was about Witness For The Prosecution and in due course, she produced Rule Of Three, three one-acters." So Agatha Christie carried on with The Rule Of Three but overall this is how Christie felt about those one-act plays and how some of the plays were not fully what Christie wrote: 'It should not be forgotten, though, that none of the three plays was presented as Christie herself had originally envisaged. . . . . her unique ending for The Patient has been replaced with something far more conventional, eventually scribbled by her on some small sheets of hotel notepaper at the start of the second tour in Wolverhampton. . . ..Christie's own theatrical imagination displayed a far more intriguing frame of reference than that of those responsible for delivering her work.' In a 1971 letter to her daughter Rosalind concerning The Rule Of Three plays, Agatha Christie wrote, "I wrote the three short plays entirely to please Peter Saunders but I didn't enjoy them - and they were not really successful."
Comments
But this has been on my mind for a while because I'm currently writing a story and I thought about making one of my characters a magistrate and I wanted to get this business straighten out with how many is on the bench and all that and I just wanted to be accurate. Okay, now I'm done rambling and thinking too hard on this matter
A friend wanted a bloody story, so she wrote Hercule Poirot's Christmas, I imagine her as a strong willed person who wrote for herself, but no one is that indifferent to public opinion. Can you see signs that she is writing in particular places or types of,people? What things do you think her readers liked, plot and surprise wise?
In "Curtain Up" by Julius Green, Peter Saunder's who helped with Agatha Christie's plays said, "I had since wanted to do a Christie evening of three one-act plays. My idea was that as many people prefer her short stories to her full-length novels, the theatre-going public might like three plays for the price of one. Agatha was very unwilling to do this, but I am afraid I didn't refrain from reminding her how right I was about Witness For The Prosecution and in due course, she produced Rule Of Three, three one-acters." So Agatha Christie carried on with The Rule Of Three but overall this is how Christie felt about those one-act plays and how some of the plays were not fully what Christie wrote: 'It should not be forgotten, though, that none of the three plays was presented as Christie herself had originally envisaged. . . . . her unique ending for The Patient has been replaced with something far more conventional, eventually scribbled by her on some small sheets of hotel notepaper at the start of the second tour in Wolverhampton. . . ..Christie's own theatrical imagination displayed a far more intriguing frame of reference than that of those responsible for delivering her work.' In a 1971 letter to her daughter Rosalind concerning The Rule Of Three plays, Agatha Christie wrote, "I wrote the three short plays entirely to please Peter Saunders but I didn't enjoy them - and they were not really successful."