Things generally go well! The last one I did was a Blue Rose game based on The Zebra-Striped Hearse, and that got all sorts of fun.

Have you used these sorts of relationship maps in your gaming? Have you used one drawn from a book or other source?

If you've not used R-maps, would you consider doing so in future?

Archer is also very much a blank slate. He has no connection to anyone in the case before the book starts, he has no relevant backstory, and he makes virtually no real emotional connections to anyone in the case. That makes things dispassionate, and may make it easier for the reader to identify with Archer.

Instead, things are kicked off by Dolly's investigations into her past when her father re-appears, and the coincidentally-timed attempt by Roy Bradshaw to marry Laura Sutherland without Mrs Bradshaw killing her.

Could the novel have been retold from either of their perspectives? Should it have been?

Does Archer's role as an outsider make the situation easier to understand for the reader? Does Archer's lack of emotional engagement strengthen or weaken the book?

Similarly, it's not a police procedural book, where evidence is collected and interrogated, using tried-and-tested procedures. 

Instead, Archer just moves through the situation, asking questions of people and putting together what they say. He doesn't so much investigate the situation as just shake trees and rattle cages to see what reaction he gets. 

Does Archer count as a "detective"?

Is this believable? Did you suspension of disbelief snap at some point?

Could you follow it? Did the various revelations make sense as they occurred, or did you get lost among the names and relationships?

It's rather similar to the advice of "three clues", or even Gumshoe's "core clues" as a way of ensuring the players get enough information to keep moving the game forward.

Is this "GM exposition" an approach to mysteries that you could use in gaming? Is it one you have used? Is it better or worse than the "uncover the clues" model?

One is the fog that surrounds Pacific Point at the start of the book. Does the fog represent Archer's inability to understand the situation with Dolly, Helen, and so on? What do you make of the occasion when Archer moves above the fog when he drives to Indian Springs to talk to Alice Jenks? Is that the point where things become clearer, either to Archer or the reader?

Another motif is the number of references to philosophy, especially Zeno's paradox. (Other Lew Archer books don't feature this motif.) Does this help the reader get a sense of Archer's perceived lack of progress? Does it help reinforce the academic/college setting of much of the book?

(There are a few nautical references in the book, but I'm not sure what to make of them in terms of helping the theme.)

Ross Macdonald wrote:

• The hotel photographer: "a thin spry man wearing a heavy camera like and albatross around his neck"
• Thomas McGee / Chuck Begley: "a man of fifty or so wearing an open-necked black shirt from which his head jutted like a weathered stone."
• Madge Gehardi: "Her eyes were the colour of gin."
• Laura Sutherland: "The front of her blouse curved out over her desk like a spinnaker going downwind."

It's a laconic style that seems characteristic of the hardboiled detective genre. 

Is this an effective style? Is it enough to paint a picture in your mind of people and places? Would you have liked more description?