Agathon #14: The Sittaford Mystery (1931)

Tansy and I started out with a challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication – we’re blogging as we go along. We spoil all the things!

Yes, it’s been a while, but we’re still going! The Sittaford Mystery is also sometimes called Murder at Hazelmoor.

KATHRYN: First I need to say that I didn’t actually note the giant spoiler on the front cover, until I was photographing it for the blog...



This feels like a fairly ‘typical’ Christie murder mystery, although it has the distinction of including neither Miss Marple nor Poirot. Instead the detective in charge of the case is an Inspector Narracott, who is described as competent and intelligent, but doesn’t have much in the way of defining features otherwise. Indeed for the first ten chapters of the book I was wondering if Christie had written a mystery in which the detective had no personality at all. Come chapter eleven, however, it becomes apparent that Inspector Narracott is not the star of the book at all. Enter Emily Trefusis, determined to clear her fiance, Jim Pearson, who has been wrongly accused of the murder.

Normally I would be thrilled with a plucky young lady intent on solving a mystery (think Tuppence or Bundle) but I did not warm to Emily. Yes she is a capable young lady, but one of her primary methods is to fool men into thinking that she is less capable than she is, so they help her. Maybe if I was reading this in 1931, this would appeal, but here in 2013 the idea makes me weary. Can’t she just be capable and awesome without hiding it? Emily also seems to be very brittle, which I guess might be the case if your fiance has been accused of murder. She doesn’t seem to have much of a sense of humor and it is really not clear why she wants to marry Jim Pearson in the first place, as he seems to be completely incompetent and not even in an adorable way. (It is explained away by Emily declaring she needs someone to giude and look after. Again, this doesn’t appeal to me as a 21st century woman. Too much work!!)

I’m not sure any of the characters in this book rang true, nor were any that likeable. Instead we get a series of cardboard cutouts - old retired army men, grumpy invalids, flighty young women, and anonymous policemen. And while there are clues scattered through the book, and tied up neatly in the end, it felt a bit like an anticlimax. There didn’t seem to be much at stake, and I didn’t really care who had done it.

Even the ‘red herring’ sub plot, which involves an escapee from nearby prison on Dartmoor, is fairly abruptly resolved - to the extent that once the escapee is (spoiler alert) recaptured, his daughter’s response can be pretty much boiled down to ‘Oh well, he’s got pneumonia now. It’s probably just as well if he dies...’

I noted in ‘A Murder at the Vicarage’ that Christie used a first person narrator to good effect to mask the identity of the murderer until Miss Marple chose to reveal him. So just for the record, ‘Sittaford’ used 3rd person/omniscient narration, and the reader follows more than one character. Once Emily works out who did it, we get a few vague descriptions of what she has found, including a declaration of ‘I know who did it now, but not why’, and then that scene fades to black until the final reveal. This kind of felt like cheating…

TANSY: My apologies for the long delay on this one, I read it back when I had pneumonia last year, really enjoyed it and then never got around to writing it up!

I liked Emily a bit more than you did, K. I found her quite likeable in that Bundle-Tuppence sort of way. I also very much enjoyed the way that her detective work revolved around the exchange of confidences - she feels a lot like a junior Miss Marple. I also liked the journalist she dragged around with her, Charles, and enjoyed their banter.

It was a bit odd that the murder mystery seemed to be less central than the ongoing theme that everyone could see there was something romantic going on between Emily and Charles, and that despite working to save Jim from prison, she was *obviously* going to ditch him for our hapless young reporter. The idea of course is that Emily is herself in denial about this - and the rather odd sort of punchline is in fact that she was right all along about her feelings for Jim and not actually fancying Charles, thank you very much, and she planned to marry the man she was actually engaged with.
While I agree with you that Jim was totally uninteresting, I did find it amusing that Christie was playing with (and debunking) the trope and that Emily did not in fact change her mind purely because Charles was in love with her. Almost like she (Christie) thinks that unrequited love isn’t remotely romantic and doesn’t deserve to be rewarded…

(I have an unfortunate glitch in my programming that responds far too sympathetically to unrequited love stories, and have been trying to debug myself for years to no avail, so I must admit at this point that I was shipping Emily and Charles like mad, damn it).

I think this book might be the point where Christie has realised she’s a bit too sharp and cynical for the genre she’s writing in - it’s set up almost as a parody of her own previous works, with all the details about the murder and the trick to it and so on. But maybe that’s just because she is using so many elements that are used in more iconic books or indeed dozens and dozens of her imitators? This is the first Christie set in a snowbound manor, yes?

It was all terribly clever with the trick to it, but there was something that felt a bit off about it - like a short story worth of plot held together with banter and flirting. Still, I did find it very readable even with a lung that didn’t work, so there’s that.

Coming up:
1932: Peril at End House, Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp
1932: The Thirteen Problems, Miss Marple Shorts
1933: Lord Edgware Dies (also Thirteen at Dinner ), Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp

Agathon #13: The Murder at the Vicarage (1930)

Tansy and I started out with a challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication – we’re blogging as we go along. We spoil all the things!
 
KATHRYN:
So, first, I just need to get it off my chest that one of my first shocks in this book is that Lettice Protheroe’s name is Lettice, and not Lettuce. I have read and seen this book several times before and to me she is always *Lettuce*. Having read the book before also meant that the murderer was not a surprise, nor were any of the other mysteries that were uncovered during the story. And this meant I could really focus on how Miss Marple is portrayed in her first full length book*. Miss Marple is certainly not the star of ‘The Murder at the Vicarage’, which is narrated, perhaps appropriately, by the Vicar (Mr Clements). She is introduced of one of several gossipy old ladies at a morning tea held by the Vicar’s wife, the inappropriate Griselda, and both the Vicar and Griselda have relatively low opinions of these ‘old cats’, as they are referred to often. Actually I suspect that Christie might have been writing this book so that Miss Marple herself was a surprise - it only becomes apparent that Miss Marple’s ‘gossip’ has rather more substance than Mrs Price Ridley’s or Miss Hartnell’s as the story develops. I wonder if anyone realised how iconic she would become.

The narration by the Vicar is quite reminiscent to that of Hastings narration for Poirot - or even of Dr. James Sheppard (the murderer) in ‘The Murder of Roger Ackeroyd’, and it seems to be a common technique for Christie to use in her proper ‘whodunnits’ (as compared to the slightly whacky spy stuff we have also seen to-date). I guess it’s a good technique because the narrator can be led on a few wild goose chases and suitably surprised when the murderer is revealed. The narrator can also be unreliable - quite spectacularly so in the case of Dr Sheppard - and even I think a little bit in the case of the Vicar, who I think doesn’t like to admit just how much he loves his inappropriate wife.

Miss Marple doesn’t have a constant companion, so I will be looking with interest to see how the narration is undertaken in future Marple books (because for the life of me I cannot remember!!) I was surprised that Miss Marple’s nephew, the writer Raymond West, was present in this, her first book. I had imagined he was an addition of later stories, and he was a good deal more fashionable and callow than I remember him, though again perhaps that again is coloured by the Vicar’s narration (and potential jealousy of the attraction of Griselda to Raymond!)

And just a word on the murderer(s). Is it my imagination, but have a number of Christie’s murderers to-date been rather charming men who turn out to be far more ruthless than first seems? Perhaps I should start a tally. I also wonder how scandalous it was that Lawrence Redding and Mrs Protheroe were having an extramarital affair in 1930. It’s not so shocking now, but there are a number of hints that several ladies could have been gallivanting around with Lawrence, which surely was a bit risque?

All in all, I really enjoyed this reread of ‘The Murder at the Vicarage’. It’s full of excellent misdirection, character studies and village gossip, which is really what I think of when I think of a Christie whodunnit.

*Apparently Miss Marple’s first appearance was in a short story ‘The Tuesday Night Club’, written in 1926. However the collection it was published in - ‘The Thirteen Problems’ - was not published until 1932, so we have a few books to go until we get to it...

TANSY:
I really enjoyed this! I hadn’t read it before so I was quite surprised at how unappealing Miss Marple was early on - she seemed really gossipy and horrible and gradually became more and more likeable as the story went on. By the end she felt more like the Miss Marple I know from later books - gentler and more knowing and subtle. Possibly this is a case of the character simply growing as the author wrote her, but I like to think it’s because, as you say, the vicar’s perspective also shifts throughout the novel.

The story felt so similar to Roger Ackroyd, largely because of the way the narrator was set up, that I was almost convinced that our lovely vicar had in fact done the murder himself, except that I was fairly sure if she had pulled that trick again I would have heard about it. The Len-Griselda relationship was fascinating, and itself something of a mystery to be unravelled. I was very happy that there was nothing at all to be suspicious about either of them, as Griselda in particular was such a funny character. How terribly modern of her to commit to being an appalling housewife, and to cleave to her bad maid in order to keep her!

Len reluctantly convincing Mary to stay was one of my favourite scenes in the book, but it was full of all kinds of domestic gems.

The plot of this one is fascinating too - it’s another tricky one, though not as famous I guess as ‘they all did it’ or ‘the narrator did it’ to be talked about more? But I like that once again Christie is providing meta commentary on the genre of the murder mystery, in this case noting that realistically, the most obvious suspect is usually the murderer. And of course this has the whole ‘if a murderer was clever they would act suspiciously because acting innocent is a dead giveaway’ trick to it, which is nicely done.

Raymond was quite appalling! I’ve never seen him on screen before, only remember Miss Marple talking about him, so I was quite amused by what a vulgar intellectual snob he seemed to be. Again, though, the vicar’s perspective colours everything.

All in all, this is a lovely launch for Miss Marple and I like how much we get to see her working out how exactly a little old lady should go about being a detective, from first principles. Can you believe it was another twelve years before she appeared in another novel? Thank goodness for short stories!

Coming up:
1931: The Sittaford Mystery (also Murder at Hazelmoor ), Emily Trefusis, Inspector Narracott
1932: Peril at End House, Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp
1932: The Thirteen Problems, Miss Marple Shorts
1933: Lord Edgware Dies (also Thirteen at Dinner ), Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp

Agathon #12 - The Mysterious Mr Quin [1930]

Tansy and I started out with a challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication – we’re blogging as we go along. We spoil all the things!  

TANSY:
What a bizarre collection of stories!

 I’m not sure if these are terribly meta or actually paranormal – it seems to me that in these tales Christie is actually pointing out the inherent ridiculousness of the coincidences and highly mannered events of her own novels by making the coincidence factor so terribly high that it borders on magic.

Satterthwaite and his odd friendship with Mr Quinn is a hard relationship to pin down – it feels almost seductive in some stories (totally slashtastic) and in others something more innocent and playful, reminiscent of when the Doctor breaks in a new companion in Doctor Who.

Many elements in the stories feel deeply like Christie – the characters and backgrounds – but the stories themselves are so tangled up with gothic romance, ghostly prediction and a kind of magical realism that they feel also totally unlike her other work.

I’m bewildered. What does the last story even MEAN? Did Mr Quin murder the Russian dancer himself? Is he Death? If he’s Death, why does he spend so much time trying to prevent tragedies and suicides, especially those involving young lovers?

Some of the stories are quite playful and fun – the one with the opal and the Chinese box made me laugh out loud. “He’s been in prison a year!” and they remind me at times of the Isaac Asimov Black Widowers short stories in their construction. I wonder at what the effect of them would be on their own, as originally published, rather than in this whole collection.

 Still bewildering, I imagine.

Also, have they made THIS one into a Poirot or Miss Marple TV movie? Because I would really love to see how the hell they could manage it.  

KATHRYN:
 So, like, I think this is my favorite Christie short story collection to-date. Which is not to say that I loved it and want to marry it, but it did irritate me much less than I remember previous collections (note: I am am opting to AVOID rereading earlier entries to check the veracity of my memory!!)

I totally agree that this collection had a very different, almost mystical, tone compared to Christie’s other works to date (second note: from Christie’s foreword in my copy, she refers to Quin as ‘not quite human’,and that she wrote ghost stories before she wrote crime, which suggests that the paranormal notes were intentional, and Christie did indeed write SPECULATIVE FICTION). However, I think it’s for this reason that I was happy to accept a level of melodrama and coincidence that I would have found unbelievable in a Poirot or Tommy and Tuppence story (or Miss Marple, but we haven’t technically got to her yet).

 I remain bemused by Mr Quin – he seemed to be just a useful plot point in more than one story. However, I did rather love Mr Satterthwaite, and his characterisation as a gossip who knows EVERYBODY (worth knowing, of course), but who also feels he lives outside of everything as an observer. It seemed to me that his character developed over the course of the collection (intentionally or not), and perhaps it was this development that made the collection more interesting for me, compared to the others where the main players have been previously developed in novels, and therefore remain fairly static.

In the forward to my copy, Christie also suggests that the collection also describes the story of the original Harlequin, but Wikipedia tells me there are many interpretations of Harlequin so I can’t work out which one she actually means… (Third note: I did check IMDB, though, and it does not appear that this particular work has been adapted for the small or large screen!)  

COMING NEXT:  
The Murder at the Vicarage (1930) 
The Sittaford Mystery (also Murder at Hazelmoor) (1931)

Agathon #10 - The Seven Dials Mystery [1929]

Tansy and I are reading every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication – we’re blogging as we go along. We spoil all the things! (Tansy's post is here: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-10-the-seven-dials-mystery-1929/ )

TANSY:
How much do I love Bundle in this story? She’s quite my favourite kind of character in old-fashioned novels: the relentlessly sensible young lady with a sense of humour and an adventurous spirit. I actually loved most of the characters, and would happily have read book after book featuring Bundle’s bumbling gang of chums and reprobates as they solve! Crimes! Together!

I’m rather in love with Superintendent Battle too, and was convinced until right at the end that he and Bundle were destined for each other. I was quite cross that her line about how it was a good thing he was married came AFTER she had got engaged to Bill, as I could have done with it much earlier so as not to get my hopes up.

Also, house parties. I think all novels should have house parties in them.

Plotwise, I was slightly in dread of another Agatha take on secret societies after The Big Four, but this one was actually clever and well executed. The twist as to who was the missing Number One, and the double twist about what the society were actually up to worked so very well, and just as I was breathing a huge sigh of relief about Battle not being a bad guy, I got whomped in the jaw by Jimmy.

Oh, Jimmy. You were so adorable and feckless. I wanted you and Bundle to fight crime together in a vaguely inept fashion forever. And NONE OF IT WAS TRUE.

I had been spoiled for Roger Ackroyd, but this is the first time a Christie has socked me with a revelation that made me seriously consider going right back and reading the entire book again from scratch. Because, JIMMY. He can’t be arsed getting out of bed in the morning, and he’s a criminal mastermind? Also his doe-eyed wench, whom we were told couldn’t be trusted, but in such a ‘oh she’s going to be cute and jump into the investigation too’ way as opposed to ‘by the way, she’s evil.’

I am a bit sad about Jimmy. Also that Bundle has now been married off and so probably won’t turn up again. Sigh. I would trade Poirot for 20 more Bundle novels in a shot.

My absolute favourite scenes were those between Bundle and her father, so witty and warm and teasing each other. His response to the boring chap asking for her hand in marriage was hilarious too. If we can’t have Bundle back, I’ll have Lord Caterham! He’d be a splendid amateur detective, doing everything from his armchair at the club, in between long naps and the occasional hand of bridge.


KATHRYN:
I have to say that this is my absolute favourite introduction to any of the Agathon books we’ve read so far. Hjinks with alarm clocks! House party! A girl inexplicably named Socks! (Subtle). And all leading quite effortlessly into the first murder of the book. The humour in the introductory chapters – and indeed most of the book – lies within with Christie’s excellent character studies of, not only the gay but scatty young people who are staying at Chimney’s, but also poor Lady Coote and her inability to deal with the servants she has inherited with the lease to Lord Caterham’s (and Bundle’s) stately home.

And (pending Bundle’s arrival on the scene), there’s Jimmy. Charming, sincere, and incompetent Jimmy, who I’m sure I’d find completely irritating if I knew him in real life, but is marvelous to read. Possibly one of the most shocking things for me about Jimmy turning out to be the villain was that he did not commit his crimes for some ideological reason. He was not part of some international spy conspiracy. Instead he committed theft and murder purely for financial gain. And, despite this being the most logical reason for Jimmy to be the criminal, it just seemed to totally at odds with his carefree nature. It broke my heart a little (though I guess that might be the point…)

Like Tansy, I was a bit in dread of the possibility that the ‘Seven Dials’ would end up being a copycat of the ‘Big Four’, so was relieved when we got to the twist and found out that the Seven Dials are the good guys. Still, like many of Christie’s conspiracy/spy books (as compared to her more cerebral who-dunnits), the mystery is a bit over the top and the plot somewhat haphazardly gathered together at the end. This story is not as well crafted as ‘Roger Ackroyd’ and I think Christie has simply removed most of Jimmy’s dastardly deeds to off-stage, such that there wouldn’t be too many pointers even on a reread, even in the sections of the story told from Jimmy’s point of view.

Still, this kind of action suits the characters, and I don’t actually think the main point of this book is the who-dunnit. For my mind the real value of this book is the charming characterisation of Bundle, Jimmy and their pals, as they race around making themselves useful (even though they often don’t get up until 11 am).

COMING NEXT:
Partners in Crime (1929)
The Mysterious Mr Quinn (1930)

Agathon #9 - The Mystery of the Blue Train [1928]

Tansy and I started out with a challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication – we’re blogging as we go along. We spoil all the things! (You can read Tansy's review here: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-9-the-mystery-of-the-blue-train-1928/)

KATHRYN:

So my favorite part of reading ‘The Blue Train’ this time round, was the first sentence of the afterward, which accompanied my copy:

‘In an interview published in 1966, Agatha Christie declared that ‘The Mystery of the Blue Train’ was certainly the worst book she had ever written’. She further described it as ‘commonplace, full of cliches, with an uninteresting plot’.

Like ‘The Big Four’, which preceded it, ‘The Mystery of the Blue Train’ falls in that period of Chiristie’s life when she disappeared and ultimately divorced her husband. While the circumstances in which Christie wrote the book probably colour her opinion, it’s not great, and certainly the cliche part is very true. On many occasions, particularly in the first opening chapters, Christie uses the nationality of a character as shorthand for their personality. Even the heroine of the piece, Miss Katherine Grey is characterised as cool and very English.

I think the murder plot was serviceable enough. Setting it on the train enabled Christie to mess around with the timing of events, and there are several potential murderers (with of course none of them being the actual murderer!) There are some reasonable twists and misdirections, although I found the accompanying love story a bit meh. The romance of Katherine Grey with both Derek Kettering and Major Knighton is an important component of the mystery. However, they both fall in love with her very quickly, and bounder and philanderer Derek Kettering is eventually redeemed on the back of his murdered (American) wife, and this left a bad taste in my mouth.

Probably my favorite pieces of the actual *book* were a couple of exchanges between Poirot, and his newly hired manservant Georges (or George, in the common English). In these Christie produces some very nice characterisation and gentle humor, more reminiscent of that in ‘Roger Ackroyd’. Georges becomes a long standing character, so it was nice to recognise this as his first appearance as well.

The other thing of note is that Miss Grey originally hails from St Mary Mead! We are still to reach a Marple story, so it was interesting to see this mention early on – particularly as Katherine comments that ‘things don’t happen in St Mary Mead’. (I guess they will in a few years!)

TANSY:
I think I liked this one a lot more than Agatha did! Certainly it was miles more enjoyable than “The Big Four.” I think that even though it’s not as clever as some of her other books, it almost is, and you can see the shape of her grand masterwork mysteries going on in the background.

It was very slow to start, especially as it wasn’t obvious which character we were supposed to be following until Katherine turned up – before that it could as easily have been Ruth or her father! And while I would happily have read a much longer book about Katherine and her new life as a wealthy woman, I was sad that Agatha seemed to lose interest in her towards the end, writing her out off camera.

But Poirot is lovely in this one, when he finally appears. He seems to be enjoying life again and I enjoyed his scenes with Georges, with Katherine and with Lenox who totally deserves to be a heroine in her own book.

I did think the twist was rather good, as it was set up RIGHT from the start that the Comte was an obvious blackguard, and Derek just as bad, and the dancer mistress blatantly murderous but too selfish to do it herself… I wondered how on earth you could have a mystery with only two suspects, and to that end had half an eye on Katherine being a very sneaky murderess. But the bit with the male-impersonating maid and especially the revelation that the lovely, awkward pre-murder scene between Ruth and Katherine was not in fact Ruth at all is a beautiful detail. I wonder how on earth they manage to deal with it in a TV/film adaptation, as it only works because this is prose, and third person head-jumping prose at that.

I also liked that the ‘nice guy’ secretary was not in fact the nice guy at all, but that doesn’t mean that Derek deserves Katherine in the least. I hope she comes to her senses, ditches him, and runs off on a girly Mediterranean cruise with Lenox.

The St Mary Mead bit made me giggle. Obviously Miss Marple hasn’t moved there and started murdering people yet!

COMING NEXT:
The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)
[Eileen “Bundle” Brent, Superintendent Battle]
Partners in Crime (1929)
The Mysterious Mr Quinn (1930)

Agathon #8 - The Big Four [1927]

Tansy and I started out with a challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication – now we’ve dragged Nick along with us for the ride, and we’re blogging as we go along. We spoil all the things! (see Tansy's post for some of the most eye-opening coverart yet! http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-8-the-big-four/#more-7122)

TANSY:
Is it me or was this a really, really weird story? It’s like all of the early Agatha spy and espionage capers got crammed into a Poirot tale, and he’s spending most of his time pretending valiantly that he’s not in the wrong book. But he so is!

I liked having Hastings back very much, as I’ve missed his voice, though I am a touch irritated that Cinderella was packed off to South America and we don’t get to see her. The bit at the beginning where Hastings jumps off the boat and finds Poirot about to get on a boat himself to go see him is utterly adorable.

But the rest of it? O.M.G.

Is this the first time that Christie has written Poirot a story that feels like it’s supposed to be his last? Actually you could probably argue that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd had that feeling, but this one seems designed as a swansong – and not a very successful one considering that the next novel up is also a Poirot story.

I’ve left it a bit too long between reading the book and reviewing it, but the whole Big Four guff wasn’t that much clearer while I was reading the thing – the whole elaborate story felt like a massive fake-out, and it was all the more disappointing that it was in the end quite a serious threat.

The relationship between Poirot and Hastings does feel very real and earnest, and is the only thing pinning the flimsy, melodramatic plot to the pages. The scenes where Hastings believes his wife has been kidnapped and that he has to betray Poirot (but still wants to warn him) are marvellous, very heartfelt and chilling, and make the book worthwhile, but the rest of it is pretty ridiculous.

My headcanon will remain that the whole thing was a massive con set up by Cinderella as an entertaining jape for her husband’s birthday, and to get him back with Poirot because he had been so sad without him and their adventures.

See what I mean?

KATHRYN:
No, Tansy, it’s not just you. This story is very weird. I do actually remember reading this back in my unformed years, when i just read whatever Christie was available in the library. So I was already expecting ‘cracked out’ going in (and was also really intrigued that Christie had followed up the the skill and subtlety of Ackroyd with ‘cracked out’). However, even with forewarning, ‘The Big Four’ appeared even more cracked out than I had remembered.

BUT! BUT! It’s not Christie’s fault! Well it’s still her fault, but there was a reason for this book, as was explained to me in the afterward that accompanied my version of the book (my version lives in a 1920s omnibus with Ackroyd and The Blue Train). Christie had lost her writing mojo, after the death of her mother and the breakdown of her first marriage. She also had a book contact to fill, and needed money. Therefore she took a bunch of short stories already written, which all referenced the idea of The Big Four, wrote some filler and an ending, and the rest is history! So, yes, the book is awful, but it is justifiably awful, and well done her on fulfilling her contract!

Learning this made me forgive a lot of the issues with the book, and it was a relief to learn that my main impression – that story felt like a random collection of short stories, rather than a novel proper – was completely reasonable.

It is also nice to have Hastings back, although he is an awful arse for a lot of the story. I was NOT impressed that he forgot about his wife for months on end. I’m sure Cinderella was perfectly able to take care of herself, but I did feel it reflected a rather large character flaw on Hasting’s – particularly when he goes google eyed over lovely young stenographers at the drop of a hat.

It was also lovely to see portrayal of a Brilliant Lady Scientist. Madame Olivier may have been nuts (and evil), but she’s also kinda Madame Curie on steroids, so I’m happy to have her. It almost makes up for the rather stereotypical portrayal of the Russians, Chinese and French…

So I’m not as disappointed with this book as I might have been, though I do hope it remains an oddity rather than something Christie revisits again.

NICK:
So, Agatha Christie gets her Sax Rohmer on. And her Conan Doyle. And a few others that haven’t lasted.

Much as I love (some of) the pulps the Big Four owes life to, I really didn’t like this book much.

It has many of the tropes of the pulps – ill-defined weapons that could change the course of naval war, Russian exiles, fancy killing devices, masters of disguise, inscrutable oriental master villains, plots to control the world, even an underground base from which to rule – the ending is almost like a Bond film in some ways.

The book feels almost completely “un-Christie”. Even though she often broke out of the “cosy” mystery genre for which she’s mostly remembered, it still feels very strange when she departs from the genre as thoroughly as she does in the Big Four.

The Big Four is competently written although, while the individual linked mysteries that make up the book are generally competent, I had no connection with the overall plot about the Big Four bad guys trying to control the world. It seemed excessive and overly flamboyant for both Poirot and for Christie herself, who is much better when the motivations of her villians are more venal.

There were some highlights, too. I kind of liked Madame Olivier – but Countess Vera Rossakoff, the fallen Russian adventuress, has always been one of my favourite side characters in the Poirot stories (as much as she owes to Irene Adler). She’s one of the strongest of Christie’s female characters, for mine, in that she acts through her own agency and largely seems in control of the events and not, as many others were, a mere puppet carried along by the events surrounding her.

COMING NEXT:
The Mystery of the Blue Train (1928)
[Hercule Poirot]
The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)
[Eileen “Bundle” Brent, Superintendent Battle]
Partners in Crime (1929)/The Mysterious Mr Quinn (1930)

Agathon #7 – The Murder of Roger Ackroyd [1926]

Tansy and I have taken the challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication and we’re blogging as we go along. We spoil all the things! We’re joined this time by guest reviewer Cranky Nick. (see Tansy's post here: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-7-the-murder-of-roger-ackroyd-1926/)

TANSY:

To me, this book is the first one that feels like an Agatha Christie to me – or at least, what I think of as an Agatha Christie. It’s also one of a handful of her books where I knew going into it what the gimmick/trick to it was – as with The Orient Express, the solution to the murder is a matter of general pop culture knowledge.

[DID I MENTION SPOILERS??]

But I was impressed at how fun and interesting the novel was to read, even knowing the trick to it. I think Christie is quite devastatingly clever with this one (a dreadful precedent to have to live up to for her whole career) because the book seems designed to be reread with care, or read with the knowledge of the solution. It was far from a ‘spoiler’ – I knew that the narrator was the murderer, and yet I couldn’t see for a good chunk of the novel how he had managed to do it, and unravelling the howdunnit was great fun.

I also really enjoyed the clever phrasing in which our unreliable narrator was concealing his acts – I could often spot where it was being done, but didn’t always know what was being concealed.
One of the great misdirects of this novel is that Poirot treates Dr Sheppard (our narrator) as if he is a replacement figure for Hastings, who previously narrated his stories – indeed, he often tells us (by telling Sheppard) how similar the two men are, which encourages us to think of Sheppard as being both trustworthy and slightly dim. Though in fact, if you’re reading (as I was) with a suspicious mind, it becomes fairly obvious that the two men aren’t the least bit alike, and Poirot is messing with everyone’s heads.

While I liked Hastings, I have to admit that the Poirot of this novel is my favourite so far – his intelligence and subtlety comes across much better than in the earlier books where he’s really only smarter than Hastings (not hard). Here you see him really enjoying himself and stretching his intellect – and maybe this is the first time he’s had a seriously worthy adversary?

I also enjoyed the cast of characters as a whole – Sheppard’s relationship with his dizzy gossip of a sister Caroline, and all the social details that come across, and the many revelations that are unravelled in the course of the story. I can see why this one is so well known – while I have enjoyed reading her early books and the bizarre fluffy spyish romps, this is the first book where I get the sense that Christie has really got a handle on what she is doing.

NICK:

I was also quite surprised at how readable Roger Ackroyd was, even when you know the twist. I originally read this when I was very young, but have always avoided a retread, because I assumed the novel would survive a spoiled ending – but that’s certainly not the case.

Even when you know the twist, and you’re looking for a way to trip up the narrator and “solve” the crime early, Roger Ackroyd is still a very engaging novel.

What mostly fascinates me with this book, though, is how much of a risk Christie was prepared to take with Poirot. Published in 1926, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, is only her sixth novel – and only the third including Poirot (there was also a collection of short Poirot stories, Poirot Investigates).

The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and Murder on the Links were both narrated by Captain Alfred Hastings, in very much the tradition of Sherlock Holmes – with the “narrator as stooge” trope to the fore. Hastings often plays a role in the solution of the crimes in earlier works, but is almost never correct. The central character, though described through Hastings, is still Poirot.

Poirot was barely a character in Roger Ackroyd – he was described only partially by the narrator, who (for obvious reasons) didn’t give the full insight into his character and actions that the earlier books, narrated by Captain Hastings, did.

Reading it again, it’s clear how big a shift it was for Christie. To take what was becoming her defining character and relegate him to the sidelines, and to depart so radically from the earlier “narrator as stooge” theme was an extraordinarily bold step.

The flaws are the usual Christie ones – in particular, the side characters are little more than cardboard cutouts etc.

The wikipedia description pretty much sums them up, sadly

“The suspects include Mrs. Cecil Ackroyd, Roger’s neurotic hypochondriac sister-in-law who has accumulated personal debts through extravagant spending; her daughter Flora; Major Blunt, a big-game hunter; Geoffrey Raymond, Ackroyd’s personal secretary; Ralph Paton, Ackroyd’s stepson and another person with heavy debts; Parker, a snooping butler; and Ursula Bourne, a parlourmaid with an uncertain history who resigned her post the afternoon of the murder.

The initial suspect is Ralph, who is engaged to Flora and stands to inherit his stepfather’s fortune. Several critical pieces of evidence seem to point to Ralph. Poirot, who has just moved to the town, begins to investigate at Flora’s behest.”

None of them really move beyond those fairly shallow descriptions. I had some hopes for James Sheppard’s sister, Caroline, the village gossip – but she largely disappears from the narrative by the end.

It’s still a very readable book, though, well worth reading again.

KATHRYN:

Roger Ackroyd is one of the quintessential Christie novels. The setup is entirely traditional – there’s a big house in the English countryside, an excellent assortment of hangers on and poor relations for suspects, and a lovely, changeable timeline of alibis and non-alibis. And right in the middle of this, Christie swings out perhaps the biggest twists in who-dunnit-storytelling of its time (apparently there were complaint letters to The Times upon publication!). I’ve read Ackroyd several times over the years so rereading it for review now was interesting because, not only did I know who the murderer was, I’m sufficiently familiar with the book to remember when Dr Sheppard (and Christie) is diddling us. I did wonder if this would make the experience anticlimactic, and to be honest I do feel some regret that I can’t have the revelation that I presume I felt on my first reading because, unfortunately, I have no recollection of my first time. However, I still think this is Christie’s strongest work to date, so it was still a pleasure to work through the book and watch what she did.

Probably my biggest surprise for this work is that it’s only Christie’s 3rd Poirot novel, and only her 7th book overall (including one collection of shorts). In my mind Ackroyd sits much later in oeuvre – probably partly because it is one of her classics, but also because Poirot is described as being so old! He’s come to King’s Abbot to retire, Hastings has run off to Argentina (presumably with Cinderella). It feels like things are winding down for Poirot, yet Christie will be writing about him for another 50-odd years.

Regardless of the twist, I found the novel itself is very entertaining and funny. Some of my favorite scenes are when Dr Sheppard is describing the behaviour and opinions of his sister, Caroline. The evening game of mahjong in particular hugely entertaining, while the running joke of Poirot being a retired hairdresser is also very fun. I think Christie does an excellent job with Dr Sheppard. When he’s not murdering people, he has a gently snarky humor and he’s a lot cleverer than Hastings (poor Hastings!) Combine that, with his relatively awful sister, and Dr Sheppard is a very sympathetic character – which is another way Christie has pulled the wool over the reader’s eyes. Having said that, I’ve always been particularly concerned how Caroline took the news that her brother was a murderer (and – perhaps worse – a blackmailer). I’ve always been afraid that she would have been completely undone by the revelation, which is of course ridiculous because she is Not Real!!

COMING NEXT:

The Big Four (1927)
[Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp]
The Mystery of the Blue Train (1928)
[Hercule Poirot]
The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)
[Eileen “Bundle” Brent, Superintendent Battle]
Partners in Crime (1929)
[apparently the main character is a mystery!]

Agathon #6 – The Secret of Chimneys [1925]

It’s been a while, but we’re finally back! Tansy and I have taken the challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication and we’re blogging as we go along. Spoilers are likely. (Tansy's post is here: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-6-the-secret-of-chimneys/)

Agathon #6: The Secret of Chimneys [1925]
Anthony Cade, Superintendent Battle, Eileen “Bundle” Brent

TANSY SAYS:

Here we go again! This is another Agatha Christie novel that doesn’t fit my apparently-narrow previous idea about what an Agatha Christie novel was. Instead it’s another of these early – what do we call them? Not quite spy novels, more intrigue romps. Definitely not a murder mystery, though there is murder and mystery aplenty.

Having said that, the plot of this one is even more bonkers than I have come to expect from Christie’s early work, and the various threads of lost European royalty, con men, posh people with titles and dead bodies frankly bemused and befuddled me. Having said that, my heart was won very early on by the gorgeous and banterrific Virginia Revel – I paid attention pretty much for her, and everything that came out of her mouth.

Christie writes marvellous young women! I tend to find all her younger male characters quite bland, with only the older and more character-laden men being worth paying attention to (with the possible exception of Hastings) and in this book I did enjoy the gruff and intelligent Superintendent Battle. But the absolute stars of The Secret of Chimneys for me were Virginia and, to a slightly lesser degree, Eileen “Bundle” Brent (whom I see from our spreadsheet is going to make a comeback, hooray!)

Virginia feels very much like a British version of the kind of characters Katherine Hepburn used to play in the 30’s: she’s witty, beautiful, flirtatious, and utterly in touch with her own frivolity. She’s also very sexually confident, and enjoys half her male acquaintance being in love with her. I liked that she was originally brought into the conspiracy because the aristocratic blokes trying to deal with – all that complicated plot business which I won’t pretend I understand or remember – admired her charm and intelligence. Then of course, while they tried desperately to patronise her, she ran rings around them constantly. In another era, she would totally be alongside Patrick McNee in the Avengers. Is it too much to hope there was a movie version of this novel made in the 60’s starring Diana Rigg?

Bundle on the other hand is a quieter sort of female, more docile and domestic, and yet she is every bit the wit that Virginia is – snarkier and more understated in her remarks. I enjoyed their double act and would have liked to see many more scenes with them together.

[SPOILERS]

The reveal at the end about our con man protagonist (sort of) Anthony Cade being a secret prince and heir to the throne of Whereverslovakia was hilarious and awful in its bizarreness, even if it made a terrible kind of sense. And it was totally worth it for the scene in which he tells Virginia exactly who it is she married.

“How perfectly screaming!”

KATHRYN SAYS:

This installment felt a bit soulless to me. My major trouble is with hero of the story, Anthony Cade. He’s FAR too perfect, and even when you think he’s down and out, you find out later he’s not (cos he’s perfect). And Christie keeps mentioning his bronzed face and lean body, which to be honest is a little unsettling! Perhaps what I found missing from this installment is a bit of grit and grime (which seems a little odd to say when there’s murder, and leaving-of-bodies-beside-the-road, but there you go), but everything seemed to sort itself put far too neatly. Also, this novel was quite uncomfortable to read from a race point of view – it starts off with a few derogatory remarks about Africans, and then moves on to some less than flattering mentions of Jews, and ‘dagos’ (which in this case seemed to mostly be referencing citizen of the fictitious European country Herzoslovakia). ‘The Secret of Chimneys’ was published in 1925. Obviously it’s a book of its time, but does that make it ok? Does this represent Christie’s own views or is she just writing what she sees?

The main positives of the book are Christie’s female characters. Virginia Revel is the kind of women I’d want to be in 1925 (most specifically independently wealthy and quite able to run her own life). I probably have a bigger a soft spot for Bundle, though, – so earnest and pragmatic and one of those young ladies of a certain age who gets lumped with an unusual nickname. I’d love to know if this was common at the time, or if it’s just a ‘Christie’ thing. I can think of several young ladies of Christie’s invention who have suffered an unusual nickname (Lettuce is one that comes to mind), indeed Bundle’s younger sisters have already given the monikers of Guggle and Winkle at 10 and 12! Also, I have to admit that the book does have some fairly charming chapter titles: Anthony Disposes of a Body, Mainly Political and Financial, Anthony Signs on for a New Job.

So in summary, some good lady characters (though I’m not sure it passes the Bechdel test), a motley assortment of uninspiring men, and a far too neat resolution. Not awful, but not great either.

TANSY COMES BACK TO SAY:

I know we don’t normally do right of reply, but I wanted to agree with your point about the casual racism in the book, something that’s very much of its time but also not going to become LESS of an issue with Agatha Christie as we go on.

I’m pretty sure that it does pass the Bechdel Test (we should check in with this for each book!) because of the bit where Virginia calls up Bundle and says she’s coming to Chimneys, nothing would keep her away, what ho, old girl.

The chapter where Anthony disposes of the body is pretty great, and the ramifications of this demonstrate that Christie’s sense of humour was pointed sharply inwards – she’s poking fun at the same genre conventions that her novels rely upon.

COMING NEXT:
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)
[Hercule Poirot]
The Big Four (1927)
[Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp]
The Mystery of the Blue Train (1928)
[Hercule Poirot]
The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)
[Eileen “Bundle” Brent, Superintendent Battle]

Agathon #5 - Poirot Investigates (1924)

Tansy and I have taken the challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication and we’re blogging as we go along. We’re calling it the Agathon! You can find Tansy’s post over here: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-5-poirot-investigates-1924/ If you’d like to read the conversation going on in the comments. As a warning, there may be spoilers, though they will be signposted.

5 – Poirot Investigates (1924)
Short Stories (Featuring: Poirot and Hastings, Inspector Japp makes an appearance)


KATHRYN SAYS:
So Poirot Investigates is the first short story collection that we’ve read as part of the Agathon, and I have to say I’m felling fairly meh about it. If anything these shorts remind me of flash fiction - they’re all gimmick but no have real character development (perhaps we should call it Flash!Christie!) and this leaves us with a set of very varied mysteries, in which Hastings is always wrong, Poriot acts a little silly but is superciliously right in the end. Of course. Granted, this just might be how Poirot and Hasting interact forever more (I guess we shall see!), but at least in a novel it only happens once, rather than the 11 times it occurs in this collection. I think another issue is that in a novel, the suspects often play a very central part in the story, with their own character development and plot. This is really missing in these shorts - there is very few secondary characters at all, and I think none that rate more than a cursory look, be they villain or victim.

The one story that seemed to buck this trend for me was ‘The Kidnapped Prime Minister’, in which Hastings relates a mystery from during the war when Poirot was not as well established and actually shows some doubt in his abilities! This short also makes some reference to actual historical events, and I did wonder how much based on fact they might be. (Though the Prime Minister in question is a fake - who knew there were so many!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom). I guess also of note was ‘The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb’, in which Poirot and Hastings travel to to an archaelogical dig in Egypt. In this short the setting it doesn’t rate much of a mention, but Christie sets at least two future stories at archaeological digs so it’s interesting to see it first popping up here. (Christie’s second husband was an archaeologist, which fueled her interest in this area).

TANSY SAYS:
I was pretty ‘meh’ about this one too - and I agree it feels like the same story told over and over. Few of them are interesting enough characterwise to justify them being there, and they really don’t improve for being collected together in this way. ‘The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb’ was actually one of my favourites, perhaps because it did rely on characters and characterisation rather than a succession of posh ladies whose jewels are being stolen or whatever. Though of all the jewel-stealing-posh-ladies stories, my favourite was ‘The Adventure of the Western Star’ but that could be because it was the first in the collection, so I hadn’t tired of them yet. Another stand out for me was ‘the Case of the Missing Will’ because I kind of love stories about inheritance and tricksy old dead millionaires for some reason. Considering, though, that the premise is that their ‘modern woman’ employer is having to earn her inheritance by proving to her dead uncle that the intelligence and education he disapproved of in life is actually worthwhile, it would have been nice if the answer to the question ‘is it cheating to just hire Poirot to solve the riddle’ was answered by her and not by a certain smug Belgian.

Disappointing to get so much Hastings here, in so many stops and starts, but no character progression or hints as to what’s going on with Cinderella or anything with his private life. He really is just a cypher here, narrating a bunch of fairly ordinary cases and getting to be dumber than Poirot. What a life! To be honest, I kind of hope he snaps at one point and beats his employer over the head before running away to join the circus.

COMING SOON
The Secret of Chimneys (1925)
Anthony Cade, Superintendent Battle
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)
Hercule Poirot
The Big Four (1927)
Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp
The Mystery of the Blue Train (1928)
Hercule Poirot
The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)
Eileen "Bundle" Brent, Superintendent Battle

Agathon #4: The Man in the Brown Suit (1924)

Tansy and I have taken the challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication and we’re blogging as we go along. We’re calling it the Agathon! You can find Tansy’s post over here: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-4-the-man-in-the-brown-suit-1924/ if you’d like to read the conversation going on in the comments. As a warning, there may be spoilers, though they will be signposted.
4 – The Man in the Brown Suit (1924)
Featuring: Anne Beddingfield, Colonel Race
TANSY SAYS:
This is another of those books which actually isn’t a classic murder mystery – or what we think of, I guess, when we say ‘Agatha Christie mystery’. It’s another of those adventure-spy-flapper-thriller-romances like The Secret Adversary. I rather like them – suspense without all that dreary grit and manly upper lip. Can we call them jollysuspenses?
I like Anne as a narrator a lot, and it’s a little sad that this is her only outing. I did however, adore Colonel Race with a fiery passion, and I’m not sure I can forgive her for running off and marrying that weird passive aggressive ‘hero’ instead. All this might have something to do with the fact that whenever I read ‘Colonel Race’ my brain substituted ‘Colonel Brandon’ and so all I could see was Alan Rickman in Sense & Sensibility. Who, by the way? GOT THE GIRL. Still, apparently there is much Colonel Race to come. Here’s hoping he gets his own romance at some point.
Anne is definitely of the Tuppence mould of heroines – a girl on her own who goes out in search of Adventure. I loved the fact that she was obviously educated, smart and literate (with a fine vocabulary) and yet also quite endearingly dumb as a stone. The idea of spending her entire inheritance on a random cruise ship to South Africa in the hope of solving a crime is audacious and I liked her from that moment.
Also, and this is hugely spoilery, so beware, but the use of the dual narrative with the diaries of Sir Eustace Pedlar was incredibly well done. Nothing in the diaries were lies (well I don’t think so, but I wasn’t committed enough to go back and check), but there was a lot omitted, including of course the fact that he was totally the villain of the story. I think Anne’s obvious sympathy for him (which is honest) and the fact that he gave her permission to use those diary entries were really good touches that allowed Christie to get away with the trick. And of course this is her flirting with the idea that I believe will be important later on – making the murderer the least likely person, and even the narrator himself.
Mrs Blair was a great supporting character – I liked her a lot, and got a kick out of the fact that in the 1980’s movie, she was played by Rue McClanahan. Great casting!
The plot was of course very complex. I found myself a lot less interested once we got off the ship – that was the setting that most appealed to me, and I missed it when we hopped off at the other end. My favourite twist in the tale was the many identities of Chichester/Pettigrew/Minks, particularly how the running joke of Sir Eustace wanting a pretty secretary was turned into a key plot device. Sir Eustace himself is an excellent villain, especially because things he said when we thought he was a lovable buffoon suddenly take on this hugely sinister edge when we realise the truth – and because he is exactly the same character before and after the reveal.

KATHRYN SAYS:
I’m not sure I love Anne Bedingfield as much as I loved Tuppence, but I certainly ADMIRE someone who will spend the entirety of their measley inheritance on a one way ticket to Cape Town**. Freak’n A. I am someone who as yet has never travelled anywhere without all my accommodation being sorted, let alone across the world with no extra money! Anyway, I digress. I feel like I’m starting to feel a repetitive by saying that once again we do not have a typical Agatha Christie novel. True, we’re only at book 4. Is she still finding her way? Do I have serious misconceptions about what an Agatha Christie novel actually involves?
I did love the structure of this book with excerpts of Sir Eustace’s diary interspersed with Anne’s narrative and, as Tansy has pointed out, it hints at some of the future narrative structures that Christie uses to shield her murderer. To me, this book has three definite stages, or acts: the prelude in London, hijinks on the ship and then a rather dashing section in Africa. I felt the most focussed section of the story was the ship hijinks, but the section in Africa also intrigued me. Yes, it is rather fractured – people heading off in cars and trains and doubling back, kidnapping, and stops for ice cream sodas along the way. However once everyone settles, there is some really interesting description of scenery from Cape Town to Rhodesia, and then again of riots in Johannesburg. I did wonder if Christie write this from first hand knowledge, and according to Wikipedia (yay) the book does have some parallels to incidents and settings of a round-the-world work trip taken by Christie with her first husband, Archie Christie, in 1922. Perhaps this is why this book was written when it was. Again this Christie novel ends with LOVE, however it is not as satisfactory as previous outings. Anne’s love interest is perhaps a bit too manly and tortured for my liking – where’s the fun in that?

**First Class ticket, mind you – though I do appreciate a young woman travelling alone could probably have not gone second class in 1924!
COMING SOON
Poirot Investigates (1924)
Short Stories.
5. The Secret of Chimneys (1925)
Anthony Cade, Superintendent Battle
6. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)
Hercule Poirot

Agathon #3: Murder on the Links (1923)

Tansy and I have taken the challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication and we’re blogging as we go along. We’re calling it the Agathon! . As a warning, there may be spoilers, though they will be signposted. Tansy's post is here: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-3-murder-on-the-links-1923/

3 - The Murder on the Links (1923)
Featuring: Hercule Poirot and Arthur Hastings

KATHRYN SAYS: Well I’m happy to report that in ‘The Murder on the Links’, Poirot is not longer housesharing in the countryside with seven other Belgians, but is instead flatsharing in London with Hastings! We find him at breakfast, bemoaning the lack of interesting cases for him to solve - rather he is receiving requests to speak to the local Scout group. But, of course, an interesting letter then turns up almost immediately, urging Poirot to travel to France to aid a millionaire apparently in fear of his life.


Murder on the LinksBut I’m getting ahead of myself. The book actually open with Hastings meeting a mysterious and somewhat irreverent young lady on a train, AND HE FALLS IN LOVE. Perhaps not right there on the train, but during the course of the book, Hastings finds his Cinderella. And we’re not just talking about the normal misguided Hastings-love, but a full-blown, sacrifice-his-friendship-with-Poirot-if-he-must type of love. Indeed having read this book before, the thing I remembered most from my first reading was Hastings defiant actions to save his beau (Small spoiler: she didn’t do it, phew.). What’s more, Hastings’ Cinderella appears to be delightful. She is impertinent, devious, acrobatic, and not afraid to call him prehistoric when he expects her to be more horrified about a murder than she is.

Barring the fact that I have read this book before, ‘The Murder on the Links’ does make me question what I consider the ‘typical’ Poirot mystery. Rather than occurring in one location, there’s a lot of travelling in this book and scenes change quire rapidly. Furthermore, after wondering in my review of ‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’ whether there would ever be a Poirot book without the traditional Poirot-gathers-everyone-in-a-room-and-tells-em-who-dunnit scene, here we are in only his second book and THERE ISN’T ONE! Instead the murderer is revealed after Poirot sets a trap to catch them in the act.

As noted in previous reviews by Tansy, Christie still seems to be making a commentary on murder mysteries in her text, with the appearance of a rival Detective to solve the mystery - Monsieur Giraud. He is the polar opposite of Poirot and from Christie’s description we know we should not like him from the start. Poirot’s commentary on Giraud’s detective style is entertaining and I particularly liked his commentary on the ‘romantic’ idea that all important clues must be infinitesimal. As Poirot says, ‘A clue of two feet long is every bit as valuable as one measuring two millimetres!”

Finally, as a postscript, ‘The Murder on the Links’ was available from my library as a graphic novel, so I got that out too. Alas, I didn’t think much of the translation. I found a lot of characterisation and plot details missing, while the smooth rendering of Poirot’s figure seemed to border on parody. It simply didn’t have the emotion or drama of the original novel.

TANSY SAYS: Yep, we’re back in meta commentary territory again - or in fact, this being only Christie’s third novel, we’ve never left it. The story opens with reference to a compelling opening to a story (“Hell!” said the Duchess) and then goes on to rework it for Hastings’ own purposes. I also felt that the whole plot (which is utterly preposterous, relying on several coincidences colliding at once) hinged largely on a couple of people designing an imperfect murder mystery scenario based on the conventions of the genre. Christie’s universe is one in which her characters are immersed in the appropriate (for the story they’re in) body of pop culture, which goes to show that all those film & TV makers in the 90’s weren’t as smart as they thought they were!

I love Cinderella - though I’m not sure she’s ever as awesome as she is in that opening scene, bowling Hastings over with her unladylike declarations and wicked sense of humour. I haven’t yet decided if she’s played by Katherine Hepburn or Lauren Bacall, but she’s just that type, and I can’t for the life of me see what she sees in him!

Poirot is intriguing me as a character, probably because I was so uninterested in him in my younger days (I preferred Miss Marple) and because I never read these early books. He’s so enabling of Hastings’ bad behaviour, and a complete matchmaker, though he also delights in being several steps ahead of everyone. If he reminded me of Sherlock Holmes in his first book, his twinkly eyes in this one are making me think more of the Doctor. He seems to live on a different plane of reality to everyone else!

I think the solution is over-complicated for a Christie, as I said before. Such a mish mash of events colliding on the one night! I also think it’s odd that no one ever suggested that the young pair at the centre of the story might actually be brother and sister, which seemed to me to be a definite possibility considering the timing of the whole thing. On the whole, the pleasure of this one is from the interactions between Hastings, Poirot and Cinderella rather than the story itself, though I did appreciate that Hastings did so much working-out-of-stuff in his own brain, even if he was often wrong. And I liked the little detail with the daggers, and how the ‘one of a kind’ murder weapon was actually not, which can be seen as symbolic considering the storyline of the sisters, Bella and Dulcie.

As a side note, did you notice that the sisters in this story are called Bella and Dulcie? Their parents weren’t giving them a lot to live up to at ALL!

Can’t help thinking Poirot is so keen to marry Hastings off so he can be rid of him! Though I see there’s at least one more book coming which features the duo, so look forward to seeing how things turn out with the romance. Will we be seeing Mrs Cinderella Hastings? I loved the bit where her acrobatic skills and sturdy wrists came in super handy, and can totally see Poirot thinking she might actually make a better partner in crime.

COMING SOON
4. The Man in the Brown Suit (1924)
Anne Beddingfeld, Colonel Race
Poirot Investigates (1924)
Short Stories.
5. The Secret of Chimneys (1925)
Anthony Cade, Superintendent Battle

Agathon #2: The Secret Adversary (1922)

Tansy and I have taken the challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication and we’re blogging as we go along. We’re calling it the Agathon! . As a warning, there may be spoilers, though they will be signposted. Tansy's post is here:  http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-2-the-secret-adversary-1922/


2 - The Secret Adversary (1922)
Featuring: Tommy and Tuppence, Inspector Japp (mentioned)

KATHRYN SAYS: I think it’s fascinating that Agatha Christie is now best known as a writer of Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot murder mysteries, and here we are at book two at the Agathon and it’s a spy novel!

‘The Secret Adversary’ opens with childhood chums Tommy Beresford and Tuppence (Prudence) Cowell running into each other in London. World War I is over and there is a dearth of jobs for both ex-VAD women, like Tuppence, and ex-Army men like Tommy. They decide to form a joint venture the "The Young Adventurers, Ltd.", and hijnks ensue, as they are become embroiled in finding a missing American girl and tracking down a spy ring that is threatening to bring down the British Government. Even though I had already read it before, I found it quite exciting.

Is it a good spy novel? Well, given what I’ve read of John le Carre and Frederick Forsythe (who to be fair did write about the Cold War, whereas this is between WWI and WWII), I’m not sure it’s a particularly accurate one. Other than Mr Brown, the villians are cardboard cutouts -there’s a Russian and a German and a man from The Union (gasp!), and an Irishman from Sinn Fein. I have no idea how it actually relates to the politics of the time, but it comes over as a bit simplified. However, the level of detail in the political, erm, plot, contrasts signficantly against those parts of the novel that are rendered in lovely detail, such as the very detailed and specific description of how Tuppence went about posing as a maid for Rita Vandermeyer (and her qualifications for doing so). And, at the heart of this very jolly spy book, there is a murder and a mystery and Christie weaves these both into the story very well (though perhaps with a few less red-herring-y clues as in a Poirot novel). I also have to note that I *love* that this is a spy book where eating is important! Tommy and Tuppence are continually sitting down to buns or a good lunch of sole (particularly once they are ensconced at the Ritz).

After Tansy noted Hasting’s propensity for ill-advised love in her review of ‘The Mysterious Affair of Styles’, it dawned on me that Agatha Christie books actually have a fairly high romance quotient. Two books in and we are two for two on ill-advised marriage proposals, for example. I’ll be keeping an eye out for more romance in books to come. I don’t want to include spoilers for ‘ The Secret Adversary’, but I will note that Christie writes the sort of Repressed English Love that made me so fond of Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett, and this certainly something interesting to realise about both myself and Agatha.

So. In summary I love Tommy and Tuppence - or perhaps more accurately I am fond of Tommy and I love Tuppence (I have failed to wax lyrical about Tuppence’s independence and initiative, but yea she is awesome). Christie only wrote 5 Tommy and Tuppence books (4 novels and 1 short story collection) over 50 years, approximately one every decade and one of the things I’ve been looking forward to particularly in the Agathon is reading them in order, and watching how the characters grow and age with each book. I would love to know what prompted her to write about Tommy and Tuppence in her second book, after having made what appears to have been a promisinig start with Poirot in ‘Styles’ (if anyone can point me towards a good biography of Christie that tells me this, please leave comment!)

TANSY SAYS: Hijinks ensue indeed. This novel is utterly bonkers! It feels more like a screwball comedy than a mystery or spy novel, and I find it fascinating that once again we are getting meta-commentary about genre conventions from Christie in the mouths of her characters - in this case I was particularly charmed by Tommy’s ruminations on how hard it was to follow a person in a cab in real life, as opposed to the cinema!

The first quarter of the plot is so entirely dependent on crazy coincidence that I got the feeling that Tommy and Tuppence were both completely aware that they were in a novel, and determined to make the most of it. Halfway through the story, though, the banter and the jolly japes become rather grim in a scene which makes it clear (or did at least to me) that one of two people our rapscallion heroes have in their confidence is actually a bad un - and very cleverly, the novel twists back and forth on the question of which right to the end.

I’m glad we had this interesting point, because otherwise the disastrously long separation between Tommy and Tuppence threatened to bore me - Tuppence remains interesting when her partner in (solving) crime is absent, but Tommy rather less so, except when he is talking about Tuppence.

But oh - I wouldn’t have cared if the plot was ten times duller than it is, not when these two are around with their suppers at the Ritz and their pound notes, and simmering affections below banter and bluff. I’m rather sad to know that I won’t get to see *this* Tommy and Tuppence, the careless twenty-somethings on the verge of real life, in future books, but I am terribly interested to see how they grow up.

As a side note, I love the fact that this novel is so deeply rooted in its time - from the Lusitania to the war history of our heroes (Tuppences wartime career is hilarious in the detail she recounts) and all manner of other social detail. I always find it fascinating to read novels that feel like historical novels - that is, are aware of things which people would later find of historical interest, if that makes sense.

Also, I’m pretty sure that significant chunks of this novel were pinched for a Trixie Belden plot. Just saying.

COMING UP SOON:
3. The Murder on the Links (1923)
Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings
4. The Man in the Brown Suit (1924)
Anne Beddingfeld, Colonel Race
5. Poirot Investigates (1924)
A short story collection! (presumably involving Poirot :-) 

Agathon #1: The Mysterious Affair at Styles (1920)

Tansy and I have taken the challenge to read every book written by Agatha Christie, in order of publication and we’re blogging as we go along. We’re calling it the Agathon! You can find Tansy’s post over here if you’d like to read the conversation going on in the comments. As a warning, there may be spoilers, though they will be signposted.

1 - The Mysterious Affair at Styles (1920)
Featuring: Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Inspector Japp

TANSY SAYS: Wow, I was not expecting the first person narrator. It’s all very Watson and Holmes, isn’t it? I rather loved Hastings, silly rabbit that he is, and the way we get to see Poirot through his eyes. Also his tendency to fall in love with unattainable women and accidentally propose to entirely different women! It’s all a bit Dorothy Sayers, really. Is that heresy?

I knew nothing about Hastings going into this - I’ve never read a book with him as narrator before and it’s funny to see Poirot as part of this odd partnership. Also, I’m a little taken aback to see Poirot described as so VERY old, retired already... goodness. Doesn’t he have another 50 years of crime solving to go?

I always enjoy the mechanics of Christie’s plots, and it’s interesting to see that even at this early stage, she’s trying to pull a bait-and-switch on the reader, messing with their expectations. I thought it was funny that the first chapter has a very post-modern discussion about murder mysteries, and how they work, and that the whole plot of this one hinges on this being a universe of clues and unnecessarily complicated murder plans - which do not go entirely to plan! It always amuses me that it’s the murderer’s errors that make things harder for the detective, because it’s unpredictable. I was genuinely surprised that the story went as far as a trial, as I’m not used to murder mysteries having that kind of time frame, but of course that was sneaky, too.

Sneaky, sneaky lady.

Oooh, and I was delighted to see all the professional references to poisons, knowing that Christie herself worked in a dispensary during the war. Wonder if all that knowledge will come in handy for her in the future?

I read this one as an eBook on the iPad, from Project Gutenberg, and don’t recommend this edition at all - there’s a fairly VITAL clue missed, a note which Poirot and Hastings find, and which was evidently supposed to be depicted as an illustration. I got to find out what it said several chapters later, but it was still very annoying. Only crumpled second hand paperbacks for me in future!

KATHRYN SAYS: And so the Agathon begins! I was quite surprised to find that despite being familiar with the title, I don’t actually think I’ve read this one before! In a lot of ways this is a very typical Christie/Poirot read – action occurs at a country house, wills and money are involved, and there is a twist at the end (which, actually I was glad to be surprised with because for a while there Christie looked like she went down a relatively staid path). The book also culminates in a very traditional Poirot-gathers-everyone-in-a-room-and-tells-em-who-dunnit, and I was pleased to see that too. Actually, it will be interesting to see if any of the Poirot books don’t include that scene – certainly I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

One disappointment for me was that I would have really loved to have seen how Hastings and Poirot actually met, and how they got to know each other (and what Hasting really thought of Poirot at the beginning!). However, it seems that they met ‘off-screen’ before this first episode – indeed even Japp turns up having worked with Poirot back in 1904. I will have to see if anything is mentioned in other books, but Poirot’s journey from Belgium to England also seems have been glossed over, though I assume WWI was a driving force for the move.


The Mysterious Affair at StylesHastings’s pathway through the murder was a quite typical one for him - he manages to misinterpret most of the clues, but gives Poirot a spark of inspiration through an unexpected remark, and he is ultimately kept in the dark by Poirot so he doesn’t ruin the catch (poor Hastings!). Even in this first book a lot of Poirot’s particular characteristics seems quite developed, though there are certain character traits that pop up later that are not in here – his love of crème de cassis, and his obsession with his moustaches for example. I did, however find it amusing, given his fastidiousness, that Poroit one house-shared with seven other Belgians. I can imagine it must have driven him quite mad!

I borrowed my copy of ‘The Mysterious Affairs of Styles’ from the library (Ulversoft Large Print Edition no less!), and it’s quite nice to begin this way because most of my Christie exposure came in my teens when I would always check out the ‘C’ shelves at the library to see if there were any Christies there that I hadn’t read. From my research for the Agathon, the library system still has most of her books and most of them are checked out, being read right now. Also, it wasn’t til I gathered a whole lot Christie paperbacks (Fontana mostly) that I realised how absolutely cracked out some of the cover art is, and the mish-mash of clues represented on the cover of this hardback is no exception.

COMING UP SOON:
2. The Secret Adversary (1922)
Featuring: first appearance of Tommy and Tuppence; Inspector Japp (mentioned)
3. The Murder on the Links (1923)
Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings
4. The Man in the Brown Suit (1924)
Anne Beddingfeld, Colonel Race

It's the Agathon!

So some time last year Tansy tweeted that she would like to read all the Agatha Christie books, in order, and I replied 'ZOMG! I would totally like to do that too! (or words to that effect) and a hazy plan was hatched to do it 'next year'.

And about a month ago we finally acknowledged that next year was now this year, and we confirmed our commitment to the project, and we made a list of the books (and a spreadsheet, with colours), and I finally checked how many Christies I actually had on my shelf (shockingly only 11 - I thought I had *heaps*), and then I wondered where I might find the rest.

And so I checked out bookmooch, and put out some calls to the Australian bookcrossers, and suddenly I was overwhelmed with Christie paperbacks (plus a smattering of hardcovers), thanks to the generosity of a quite significant group of people, who did not actually think I was completely mad (actually I think some of them did think I was/am mad,  but they supported me anyway.  how nice!). 

So now I have a goodly stash of Christie (41 in hand, more on the way,  and the love of a good Library system too),  and I am so pleased that we are about to do this! I'm really looking forward to reading them in order.  I'm looking forward to filling in all the cracks I haven't read yet (particularly for example for Tommy and Tuppence, who have always intrigued me with the one or two books I have read), getting more context of what Christie was doing when she wrote them, and identifying all the side characters that look to pop up again and again, but who I've never really noticed. I'm also very pleased to be doing it with Tansy,  who always has such crunchy interesting things to say about books (and here is her intro to the project: http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/agathon-thon-thon/). I hope I will be able to provide some crunch along the way too.

So without further ado,  let the Agathon begin!