“Taking stock of what I have and what I haven’t: What do I find?” (Irving Berlin)
It’s Saturday night, and I’m kicking back in front of the ol’ blog site. I checked out my stats a minute ago: twenty posts shy of two hundred and a little less than two months away from my second anniversary. Why, I’m a babe in the woods . . . at least in blog years.
Over at The Green Capsule, my friend Ben was extolling this lovely community that has blossomed around a shared love of classic mysteries. In size and geography, we’re stretched pretty thinly around the globe. You probably didn’t find a group like us hanging together in your high school cafeteria. (Although I am proud to say that I was part of a club at my high school called The Sherlock Holmes Society, where we wrote and collected mystery stories and watched old movies. And I’m especially proud to say that I never wore a deerstalker cap to meetings, unlike some members I could mention.) Some folks might dismiss us as niche fans, as geeky boys and girls wasting their time on a tiny segment of literature that is no longer relevant. Too bad for you, folks! When I imagine what our online discussions would look like if conducted in real life, I envision something like a yeshiva where we argue back and forth around esoteric points, all of us dressed in black. And yes . . . a few might be wearing a deerstalker cap.
Ben goes on to point out how fraught with danger our blogs can be, especially to the neophyte mystery reader. (And why are we doing this except to expand the readership of this fabulous sub-genre?) Most of the crew I hang with not satisfied to merely churn out reviews. They are scholars, passionate students of an art form, who love nothing more than to delve into the very essence of the GAD novel: it’s structure, it’s cultural significance, and, perhaps most of all, the technical tricks of the trade. Such a pleasurable pastime comes with a dangerous risk – of spoilers!! One of my favorite pastimes is to engage with other fans in a discussion of every element of a novel we all read, including – gasp! – the solution!
I told you this blogging business was not for the faint of heart, baby!
To aid new readers of his favorite author (John Dickson Carr), Ben posted five Carr titles he strongly encourages a new reader to read before the plot or solution gets spoiled for them. This requires a careful vetting of any possible sources, like – oops! – this blog, where spoilers might run rampant. Not to be outdone by someone providing such a valuable service, I have decided to return the favor for my favorite author, Agatha Christie. This is frankly tougher to attempt with Christie because she is more famous than Carr, and most of her titles have been filmed. But I’m willing to give it the old college try.
Like Carr, Christie created her own bag of tricks which she utilized over and over again. One of the proofs of her greatness is the vast number of variations she found on the same theme. Still, the thoughtful reader who decides to tackle the entire Christie canon – whether they read the books in order or hop back and forth (as I did when I first read her) – will start to notice certain patterns emerging from one book to another. And if you are scholastically inclined and decide, like Ben and me, that it gives you pleasure to read what others have to say about certain books, you may find yourself coming across references to other Christie titles where the reviewer/blogger/devil says something like, “This is a wonderful reverse of the trick Christie uses in The Affair of the Goldfish.” Later on, you pick up Goldfish and almost immediately glom onto the solution, thanks to that careless comment by this person whom you would now like to see swimming with the fishes.
In approaching this list, I made one rule for myself here, and that was to stick with five, and only five, titles. This isn’t a list of “Ten you should read” or a “best of” list (although a few of these titles are included on my list of favorites. No, the fact of the matter is that each of these books should be read by a newcomer to Christie before it’s too late and somebody spoils things for you or you happen upon an inferior adaptation on late night TV (which might not spoil the original for you after all if the screenwriters have seen fit to “improve” upon the source material, as some idjits did, by giving the story a different murder or even a whole new plot in a specious effort to make Christie more “fit for modern audiences.”)
A couple of other points: by making a commitment to read these titles, the reader new to Christie might consider it preferable not to read the books in order. The reason for this is that I’ve chosen amongst the titles some that employ devices Christie used more than a few times, and I am choosing what I believe to be the best example of that device. To give as vague an example as I can, Christie employs a certain trick in her premiere novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, that is essentially repeated at least half a dozen times throughout her career. Almost all of those “reruns” are better than the first example. That doesn’t mean you can’t read the books in order, since you can rest assured that Christie was an expert at cloaking her devices in different garb. You might not recognize a certain pattern as you read. But then again, you might. It’s up to you.
One final caveat: Arguably the most famous title Christie produced will not be found on the list below since I maintain that every human being should read And Then There Were None (a.k.a. Ten Little What-have-yous) before they die. ATTWN is part of our cultural literacy, and it is simply one of the finest crime novels ever written. It also is not your typical GAD novel, and its brilliance isn’t based on particular tricks of the trade. The list below contains solid detective novels, whose structure and solution deserve to be approached with no previous knowledge.
What I propose to do is threefold: 1) I will name the book and provide a brief description; 2) I will give you an argument as to why you should read it; and 3) I will provide a section about why I think this book deserves its place upon this list. WARNING: Part 3 could be construed as analytical, and although no real aspects of the solution will be mentioned or discussed, even the briefest allusion of this aspect of a murder mystery has the power to spoil. Those of you who want not even an oblique hint about what makes this book worthy of reading before someone spoils it for you might want to avoid this section until after they have read the book.
For want of a better method, I list the books chronologically.
- The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)
What it’s about: This is the third novel Christie wrote featuring Hercule Poirot. In the first, he had just retired from the Belgian police force and emigrated to Great Britain. Now here he is, having decided to retire from the pursuit of criminals for good and instead turning to his newfound passion of creating a truly delicious vegetable marrow from his new home in the charming village of Kings Abbot. Such pursuits never work out for a famous detective, and sure enough Poirot soon finds himself investigating the murder of a neighbor, local industrialist Roger Ackroyd.
Why you should read it: With its village setting and suspect list that reads like it’s from Classic Mystery Central Casting –the greedy sister-in-law, the bluff major, the over-efficient secretary, the soldier at odds with civilian life, the sexy maid, the dour housekeeper with a secret – I imagine that Ackroyd is a pure representation of what it felt like to pick up a British whodunit in the 1920’s . . . and this “typical” mystery is written by one of the best!
Why you should read it fast: Ackroyd is one of a very short list of mystery novels whose endings are a spectacular surprise. (Note: several of the titles on that list are by Agatha Christie.) It is not the first or the last time this device has been used, and I have to warn you that the device is so famous that when mystery bloggers come across another author’s work that utilizes the same basic trick, they often say something to the effect that the novel they’re reviewing can’t help but remind you of another much more famous novel by a much more famous author —-and everyone knows they’re talking about Ackroyd! I will say this: if, by chance, the ending is spoiled for you, read the book anyway just to observe and admire how Christie pulls the wool over your eyes.
- Death on the Nile (1937)
What it’s about: It begins in the smallest of ways, with a sordid romantic triangle like you’d find in both classic literature and a romantic potboiler. Linnet Ridgeway is a rich and beautiful young lady. Jacqueline de Bellefort is her oldest friend, the daughter of an impoverished nobleman. Simon Doyle is Jacquie’s handsome, simple fiancé who needs a job. Linnet ends up marrying Simon, and Jacquie becomes obsessed with destroying their happiness. The novel moves to the Doyles’ honeymoon in Egypt, and there it expands to include a vast and varied assortment of passengers on the steamship Karnak. Murder rears its ugly head not once but three times. Unluckily for the culprit, Hercule Poirot is traveling down the Nile, too.
Why you should read it: Particularly in the first half of her career, Christie interspersed her more intimate domestic mysteries with epics like this: large casts, exotic settings, and slightly more complex entanglements. Many of these titles can be lumped under the category of Christie’s “travel” books: Murder on the Orient Express, Murder in Mesopotamia, Appointment with Death, and so on. I felt it was important to include one of these titles. All of them are brimming with flavor, thanks to Christie’s extensive travels throughout the Middle East. But Mesopotamia suffers from murder plot that caves in on itself due to one too many outrageous circumstances, and Appointment and Orient Express suffer mightily in some folks’ estimations from the “Dragging the Marsh” syndrome: an over-reliance on info dump by interview. Still, I toyed with including Orient Express here because, like Nile, its central backstory is so rich and the finale so satisfying that its weaknesses can be pretty much overlooked. But the central triangle in Nile is, to me, so emotionally satisfying in the way it plays out that I feel this is a must-read title in the canon.
Why you should read it fast: By the time this book was published, Christie had used a variation on the same trick three times before, and she would go on to employ further variations many more times during her career. Nile is, to my mind, the most dramatically satisfying version of this trick. I think this is proven by the highly entertaining film version of the novel, which is mostly faithful to the book and which you should definitely watch after you have read the novel. That movie – and another TV adaptation – tend to pop up on the small screen now and then, another reason to read Nile before you literally come face to face with the solution.
Crooked House (1949)
What it’s about: The Second World War is finally over and Charles Hayward, newly decommissioned, rushes home to marry Sophia Leonides, the girl he worked with and fell in love with in Cairo. But Charles discovers Sophia’s family in an uproar: Aristide Leonides, the patriarch, has been poisoned to death. Sophia refuses to marry Charles while a murder investigation hangs over her head, so Charles arranges with his father, who happens to be the Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard, to be allowed to assist the police with their inquiries. As he meets the eccentric members of Sophia’s family, he begins to wonder if a romantic happy ending will ever be in the cards for him.
Why you should read it: Unlike an author like Carr, whose works are bathed in strong atmosphere and attain a Gothic sort of grandeur, or Queen, who forever coupled his mystery plots with theological ponderings and other Big Ideas, Christie dealt in the prosaic. Her situations and settings were everyday: she focused on the upper and lower middle classes, and her characters ranged from noblemen to servants, from the nouveau riche businessman to the struggling artist. Nobody could create a family drama like Christie, and her novels are paved with clans just recognizable enough to seem familiar yet dysfunctional enough to lead to murder most foul.
And while the Leonides clan doesn’t necessarily stand head and shoulders above all the other Christie families, one thing that sets this book apart is its lack of a series detective. Charles Hayward is a compelling character with a strong personal motivation to solve the case unlike, say, Arthur Calgary in Ordeal by Innocence, whose reason for being in the novel smacks of the Big Plot Device and who, after turning the Argyle family upside down is pretty much relegated to the sidelines for much of that novel. Thus, as a family murder and a standalone title, this is one of the best of both worlds.
Why you should read it fast: This is another one of those books, like Ackroyd, that goes on the special list due to its solution. Christie only did this kind of thing once, and while other major authors – Allingham and Queen come to mind – did the same thing, Christie does it better. Plus, we are finally being treated later this very year to a film version of the Christie novel they said could not be filmed! Do not watch the movie until you have read the book!!!
- A Murder Is Announced (1950)
What it’s about: The village of Chipping Cleghorn is stirred up by a mysterious ad that appears in the local gazette announcing that a murder will be committed at the home of one of its citizens. As a lark, several of the neighbors happen to drop by when, at the announced time, a person actually dies. Fortunately, that sharp-witted old spinster, Miss Jane Marple, is vacationing at a nearby spa where the victim worked, and she sorts out the complicated private lives of the villagers in order to find justice for the rising count of victims. The unraveling of a complex mystery plot plays out as a post-war England takes stock of the social changes the conflict has wrought.
Why you should read it: Where do I start? It’s the best of the twelve Miss Marple mysteries. It has one of the best hooks in all of mystery fiction. I wouldn’t call it the quintessential village mystery because it’s better than that. It’s a cogent study of the small domestic changes wrought in British village life after the war. What’s more, those changes aren’t just atmosphere; they figure importantly into the mystery itself. And it is a most brilliantly clued piece of detective fiction, one that bears more than one re-reading in order to study the techniques of a master at work.
Why you should read it fast: The central conceit here is found in a great many Christie novels, but it is actually a common trick throughout the genre, found in both the classic and the hard-boiled sub-genres. You might as well read one of the best versions of this concept sooner rather than later. The novel is thick with clues, the kind that you hit yourself over the head about for not having noticed them. You might as well enjoy all the masochistic pleasure of this ritual before some bloody fool opens his yap and starts discussing how clever Christie was in this particular novel at dangling clues right in front of your face
- After the Funeral (1953)
What it’s about: Another Christie family, the Abernethies, endure not only the loss of their patriarch but the eroding of a classic way of life for Britain’s upper middle class. And to the older generation’s dismay, the younger generation doesn’t even much care about that. Amidst the squabbling between the relations over who will inherit the business, the plate service, and that lovely green malachite table, the family is pulled up short by crazy Aunt Cora, who announces right after the funeral that Richard Abernethie’s death was obviously a murder. When Cora herself is subsequently – and brutally – slain, Hercule Poirot is engaged to secretly investigate both deaths.
Why you should read it: This is personal: Funeral is one of my favorite Christie novels, and I think it’s her last great one. Not only is it superbly clued, it can also be quite funny: the family members are nicely assorted, and their arguments are rendered with great humor; plus, Poirot’s attempt at “undercover work” finds him at his most impish. And it can be poignant: the opening moments when the elderly butler reflects on the end of a grand old era is as effective an any old episode of Downton Whatsis!
Why you should read it fast: I don’t think I can say too much here without giving the game away. Suffice it to say that Christie is the mistress of misdirection, and she scores a bulls-eye here. This title rarely gets discussed and may not be on as many “ten best” lists as it deserves to be, so you probably won’t run into too many spoiler issues. All I’ve got is that you should read it fast because it’s that good.
Now I would love to hear from you: Which title(s) do you think should go here, either in place of one of my choices or in addition to them? Naturally, while I tend to allow spoilers for the sake of discussion, this post requires some delicacy for all those potential new readers that are flocking to my blog!!! All I ask is that you provide a warning for any spoilers you include at the start of your comments (as I will do as needed if I reply.)
Ah Sweet Mystery! 
Great post. Intriguing titles.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more, Brad, about those titles. They’re definitely titles that could easily be spoiled for new-to-Christie readers, especially The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. I’m also thinking of Lord Edgware Dies…
LikeLike
You didn’t mention Murder On The Orient Express !
LikeLike
But everyone already knows the ending to Orient Express, don’t they…?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No I didn’t, and I happen to like MOTOE more than a lot of people. Twelve-year-old me jumped out of his chair at the end of that one. But I gave some of my reasons above, Santosh. I was trying to find one representative title to cover certain categories. The problem is that I had to be vague about those categories to avoid spoilers. MOTOE could have easily fit into the “shocker ending” category instead of Roger Ackroyd, but I chose the latter – rightfully, I think. There’s nothing scientific about my choices, but I totally get why the train book could fit on this list!
LikeLike
A friend of mine is due to read MOTOE in the coming weeks in preparation for the movie. She has no idea how it ends, and I’m rather stoked to see what she makes of it…
LikeLike
Brad, thank you so much for this, you’ve really performed a service. As you know, I’ve yet to embark on my journey with Christie and this list here may well be more valuable than a top 10 list. I’ve already had Death on the Nile on my TBR pile, nudged along by the spoiler-fest you and JJ staged several months ago.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, unfortunately, was spoiled for me by none other than John Dickson Carr himself. In the under appreciated The Man Who Could Not Shudder, Dr Fell provides some commentary on murder mysteries and divulges the key twist. Of course, I actually blame JJ for this, as he is the one who just had to mention how audacious an ending TMWCNS had – a comment I couldn’t resist. To make matters worst, I actually had TMoRA on my TBR pile at that time – it was second from the top!
I made the inexcusable error of watching the recent production of And Then There Were None, rather than reading the book. I know, I know. My mind justified that it would be a good way for me to see if I was interested in actually reading Christie. It’s unfortunate, because after watching the movie I read up on the differences between the film and print version, and the print sounds much better. I’ll try not to make the same mistake with Murder on the Orient Express (the solution of which, gasp I don’t actually know).
You’ve stirred my interest with the rest of your list, and so I may use this as a guide for my first few books. Crooked House and A Murder is Announced sound great.
Hopefully your post and mine stir some conversation about non-Carr and non-Christie titles to read before they’re spoiled.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, it really should be a topic for the Verdict of Us All group!
LikeLike
I REGRET NOTHING!! Though you have no idea how hard I kicked myself for forgetting that TMoRA spoiler; I’ll make it up to you one of these days, Ben, I promise…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some vague spoilers, though nothing too specific, I think:
I would have included the ABC Murders. First of all, those who dislike Orient express because it’s too talky (I’m not one of them) can’t complain here. A lot of stuff it’s happening- And it’s not done just for the sake of some thrill, but because it’s important plotwise.
The Plotting in general is excellent, and it’s was one of the cases where the solution is obvious and yet so well hidden. Also, even if it is just a minor part of the book, Christie has fun satirizing the newspapers.
And now I try to be as vague as possible: At one point in this novel, Christie mentioned a fox hunt, which was a very interesting and fitting metaphor to use in this book, with which she has some interesting things to say that are still relevant today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that The ABC Murders is worthy of inclusion. It is unlike any other Christie novel, and eighty-one years after its publication it still reads like a dream. I suppose I didn’t include it here because it’s so entertaining (almost an adventure rather than a mystery) that it can’t be spoiled – even if some dirty dog names the killer or gives away the central conceit. Darn it! If I had only been able to name six!!! Who made the rules here?!?
LikeLike
You get five – no more, no less!!! And just wait – next week I’ll be dropping my Hake Talbot edition!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Har-har! I could do Ellery Queen. Maybe that would stop you boys from sniveling!!!
LikeLike
Feel free to censor this comment Brad but in my head I always felt like Christie went through certain permutation – the book where nobody did it because all the suspects die, the books where everybody did, the one in which the detective did it and the one in which the narrator did it. I have no idea if she really approached plotting like this, but you know exactly which books I mean and I suspect this is why we remember them as these are such high concept devices. I am of course unwillingly on pain of death in a locked room with a pair of spears jammed down my sleeves and trousers to reveal which titles go with the descriptions …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also the one where the investigating police officer did it !
LikeLike
Well, that one had been done well before she got there, but again, absolutely fair point Santosh because we all know the one you mean.
LikeLike
Christie was notoriously reticent about her process, Sergio. Honestly, the most frustrating of her books to me was her autobiography, where she mattered on about nursery governesses and boyfriends and barely discussed her career. Did you read either of John Curran’s wonderful books about Christie’s notebooks? They’re fascinating, but all we really get is that she jotted down ideas voraciously and haphazardly. I think she picked up ideas from her readings too and thought to herself, “I wonder how I would pull that off.”
In other news, I’m halfway through writing my own mystery about a man found dead in a locked room with a pair of spears jammed down his sleeves and trousers. I hope you’ll like it . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
As long as the Queens get an Orange acknowledgement 😉
LikeLike
Loved it Brad – great concept, beautifully executed. I’m going to have to think if I can define another concept in this area. Nothing jumps to mind: I think you’ve nailed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me first just say that I loved this post, Brad. What a wonderful blog yours is turning out to be. As for Christie, well, turns out she’s (well, her books) the main reason I am an Anglophile to this day and why on my first and only trip overseas, I concentrated on England, Scotland and Wales. AND why we saw THE MOUSE TRAP in London on one of our first nights there. And why we stayed at the same hotel in Harrogate where Christie stayed during her famous disappearance. Those are my bonafides.
Now for the books. I actually found the ending of DEATH ON THE NILE more astounding than the ending of THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD, but I can see why had to include TMORA as it is her second most famous book and really not to read it is just plain silly. (As for DEATH ON THE NILE, I have a hard time rereading the very beginning of and usually just skip it and begin the book in Egypt.) Another thing: I also found the ending of THE MAN IN THE BROWN SUIT more intriguing than TMORA. I’ve always felt that the way she pulls the wool over our eyes in TMITBS is even more dazzling. Plus I liked the characters much better. P.S. The filmed version of TMORA with David Suchet is to me, unwatchable. Not because of Suchet, but because of the bad casting of the doctor and the lackluster way they interpreted the story.
AFTER THE FUNERAL is especially good, one of my favorites as well. The idea that people will commit murder for all sorts of maybe unsatisfying reasons is a Christie specialty, I think.This one has some lovely red herrings in it as well.
A MURDER IS ANNOUNCED – I would agree that this is possibly the best Jane Marple, though A POCKETFUL OF RYE jumps out at me as well. (This one has another type of similar ending which Christie also re-used in several novels.) And also, I’d have to add THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY with its incredible twist which I won’t mention here, but I it’s the kind of thing I don’t remember Christie using anywere else? Can you? An excellent adaptation was filmed with Joan Hickson which followed the book closely with an brilliant cast including Sting’s wife as one of the characters.
P.S. When I’m reading A MURDER IS ANNOUNCED, I always think but why did the killer bother with all the rigamarole when it would have been much easier to…and then I think, then it wouldn’t be a Christie book. And I do ADORE the filmed adaptation with Joan Hickson and a truly stellar cast which followed the book and didn’t ruin the story trying to ‘modernize’ it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SPOILERS HERE: For me, Yvette, it pays not to think too hard about the “rigamarole” aspect of A Murder Is Announced, or any other mystery, for that matter. But I will admit that this particular killer doesn’t strike me as the sort who would go to this kind of trouble to protect themselves. They would just sneak off to the spa and murder Rudi. The killers in Lord Edgware Dies and Murder in Three Acts are given motivation to commit their particular complex acts (SPOILER: Isn’t it odd that these two killers share the same profession?), but Announced is by far a better book than either of them!
Regarding The Body in the Library, I love everything about that book except the actual murder plot itself which is okay but not my favorite. The killer in Nemesis does the same thing, although in that case they act alone. But the spoof of that wheezy old mystery trope, the marvelous presence of the Bantrys, and the fact that Miss Marple is in the thick of this one from start to finish, rather than a sort of deus ex machina saved for the middle or the end, make Library delightful.
And I really MUST re-read TMITBS . . . it has been ages!
LikeLike
Really enjoyed reading this and your similar Ellery Queen post, Brad…and I also highly appreciate your continued championing of Christie, who always gets kudos for her audacious plots but overlooked for her skills with dialogue and psychological insight. Her only real fault, for me, is the lack of interest she displays in mood and setting (I’m thinking of her “travel” novels here, which could really be set anyplace, for all the trouble she takes at describing places where she had actual spent a good deal of time in real life. This is in direct contract with Gladys Mitchell, whose plots sometimes don’t really hang together but who excelled in mood, atmosphere and establishing a sense of place).
A Christie title you didn’t mention but that’s a particular favorite of mine is CARDS ON THE TABLE, which I find really ingenious. I can’t remember being more annoyed at any television adaptation than I was at ITV’s version of this story for Suchet’s POIROT. A more egregious example of screenwriters thinking they could do better at plotting than Christie herself you’d be hard-pressed to find. Just wrong-headed on so many levels, and to think this might be the only exposure many viewers get of this classic mystery is disappointing, to say the least. The later POIROTs – and esp. the post-Joan Hickson MARPLEs – were particularly guilty of this re-jiggering of plot and character. That said, I think the POIROT series adaptations of THE HOLLOW and, particularly, FIVE LITTLE PIGS, were splendid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, Jeff! I adore Christie, but you’ll get no argument from me about her lack of all the things you mention. Ironically, I think that’s one of the reasons she’s so popular. Atmosphere, mood, tone, sense of place . . . we’ve both seen authors who can do that brilliantly. Yet it can slow down a good plot if overplayed, (Carr could be guilty of this, and early Ellery Queen overwrote to excess), and as you pointed out with Mitchell, it is no substitute for a mediocre plot! I haven’t read Christie’s travel book, Come, Tell Me How You Live, so I don’t know whether being freed of the requirements of plotting a crime, she gave vent to a more lush writing style. It certainly did not happen in her Autobiography, though, so I don’t hold out much chance for it.
SPOILERS AHEAD: Yeah, we could talk at length about the ITV adaptations.The changes made to Cards on the Table, a book I also love but didn’t include here because, frankly, it’s fun to read whether you know whodunit or not, were strange indeed. The thing was, the changes here were so arbitrary. I don’t mind that Dr. Roberts was gay, but why make him so? To hint that he and Shaitana were lovers? Then how do you explain Major Despard being at the dinner? Why switch Meredith and Rhoda as good/bad girl and future wife of Despard? It actually makes Shaitana so wrong that the whole premise of the plot becomes suspect.
But this is far from the worst culprit when it comes to mucking about with Christie. What the heck was the idea with Appointment With Death?!? Why add Tommy and Tuppence to By the Pricking of My Thumbs and then make them a miserable couple and her a drunk?!? Why change the murderer in The Sittaford Mystery, The Body in the Library, The Secret of Chimneys, and more? Why add incest to EVERYTHING?!?!?!? Christie knew exactly when to add a dash of sensationalism or to imply something truly awful. She was so not a tabloid scandalmonger, and some of these ITV adaptations simply dunk her in the shite! And other episodes get her so right, so what gives?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed on all of the above, Brad. The recent ITV adaptations have been notoriously bad at making unnecessary changes. The character assassination of Tuppence and Tommy in THUMBS is truly appalling. CARDS stands out to me as the worst because of it being one of my absolute favorite Christie novel. The recent BBC adaptations haven’t been much better. While I admired much about their take on AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, last year’s WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION was borderline unwatchable. And they completely bungled their Tommy and Tuppence 6-parter by making Tommy an incompetent boob and Tuppence a nag. Why is it that the TV studios could nail these characters and stories so much better in the 80s, but not now?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I guess they thought by making Tommy & Tuppence a miserable couple and the latter a drunk gave each of their characters some kind of depth. Depth. . . HA! Don’t make me laugh! You don’t have to give a character depth by making them sleazy and a wreck! We see this in so much of modern mysteries and thrillers — in books and on television. What made T&T such interesting characters is their dialogue — their banter and it sparkles, it’s rhythmic, crisp, and witty. It goes back and forth with such fluidity. Their marriage was not a drag. It was a happy one and they enjoyed one another. This is missing from the unforgivable By The Pricking of My Thumbs and in the recent 6 part series that was luckily cancelled . . .. thank goodness! Why can’t we watch characters that are happy, cheerful, optimistic instead of ones that pull down our moods?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I much rather have a strong plot then great descriptions providing atmosphere, mood and sense of place. Those things has its place but that’s not going to make me continue reading the story alone. It’s the story itself. It’s in the conflict and tension that makes me go on. If the story was great and there is a good balance of description, sure I’ll read it but again, description alone doesn’t make a story. Too much description can stifle the plot, slow it down and ultimately bore the reader and for a writer that’s a cardinal sin.
Christie is criticized for many things, one of them being providing little use of descriptions. Writing beautiful descriptions of a place or a scene is quite a talent but storytelling is one too and often gets the short end of the stick. Christie was a master at storytelling. She wasn’t trying to be a literary writer like P.D. James wanted to be, transforming the genre more in the style of Dorothy L. Sayer’s writing — perhaps a bit more polished then Sayers. Agatha Christie gave just enough description for you to set the theatre of your mind to work but her focus was to move the story and tell the best possible one for that moment.
LikeLike
In my opinion a lot of the later Poirot films with Suchet, aside from Five Little Pigs, The Hollow, Sad Cypress, and After the Funeral, were such a disappointment. I think the problem is that the series forgot what made it popular to begin with. Poirot’s character changed dramatically — his personality darkened — in episodes like Murder On The Orient Express and the way Poirot treats Capt. Hastings in the last episode Curtain disappointed me to no end. In the beginning we see the old camaraderie that we got in the early series but then Poirot returns to his darkened personality from Orient Express. I know the last book from the series has a different tone and feel but I just didn’t expect Poirot acting as though he were godfather from the Mafia as what we got from the film. I’m disappointed with Curtain because it could have been so much better. I didn’t mind the the direction of the show with the removal of Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp and Miss Lemon but I didn’t expect the show to change Poirot and insert elements that doesn’t give off the feel of an Agatha Christie book, making ridiculous changes to the stories as in Cards On The Table.
LikeLike
In terms of atmosphere, mood and sense of place, I’m currently reading The ABC Murders and in Chapter 8 Poirot and Capt. Hastings returns from the crime scene of the first murder. It begins with:
“Well?” I (Captain Hastings) demanded eagerly.
We were seated in a first-class carriage which we had to ourselves. The train, an express, had just drawn out of Andover.
Then Poirot and Hastings discuss the murder and possible characteristics of the ABC murderer. Christie doesn’t provide details of the train possibly crossing the countryside or either of the characters looking out the window with Christie describing what they see. It’s not needed. The atmosphere, mood and sense of place is in the “conversation” between Poirot and Hastings which gives rise to tension and suspense, making the reader want to read on. As I read, I could SEE the two in the carriage and HEAR the sound of the train in the midst of the conversation. Christie allows us to use the theatre of our minds, using little to no description. Again, the focus is on the conversation, not what’s going on around them. As we’re focusing on the conversation where the tension and conflict resides, Christie inserts aspects of Poirot’s character that can easily be missed, unless we are fully in-tuned or we re-read the book picking up on things we missed the first time.
LikeLike
I said this before Jeff concerning the change of Tommy Beresford’s character in the recent 6 part series. He fits the kind of stereotype that men are perceived in modern society. And what is that you ask? Bumbling, weak idiots who are pathetic and spineless as a jellyfish. I see this all the time on TV, whether it be films, shows and even commercials. This is not the Tommy Agatha Christie wrote. If only she were alive today she would blush with absolute embarrassment at the change conceived by these “geniuses” who are changing Christie’s work, her plots and characters. This new Tommy acts like a little boy and Tuppence needs to care for him. This is not how Christie wrote them. Tommy & Tuppence’s marriage didn’t portray one as mother and son but of husband and wife. This new Tommy needs to MAN UP! Thank goodness this drivel was cancelled. The 80s version of the characters still stands as the definitive portrayal in my book. Looks like it will for quite some time because I hold out no hope for any new Christie adaptation coming out these days.
LikeLike
Pingback: FIVE BOOKS TO READ BEFORE THEY’RE SPOILED FOR YOU – The Random Edition | ahsweetmysteryblog
Pingback: To be Read – Agatha Christie edition – The Green Capsule
Pingback: Death on the Nile – Agatha Christie (1937) – The Green Capsule
Pingback: Crooked House – Agatha Christie (1949) – The Green Capsule
Pingback: TEN REASONS YOU SHOULD LOVE CARDS ON THE TABLE (And Deplore The TV Version) | ahsweetmysteryblog
I was doing some reading on Christopher Bush today to figure out if I should buy a particular title. Right in the middle of a review, the author drops a one line spoiler of The Murder on the Orient Express (yes, I actually didn’t know the ending, thank you). I’m hoping I still get some enjoyment out of the title, but it just goes to show how you can never truly prevent the spoiler.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shades of The Burning Court! Sorry that happened to you, Ben. This occurs with unbecoming regularity to most of us. I notice that every time a newspaper writes a “tribute” to Christie, two sure features are: 1) the adoption of a patronizing tone as the writer calls Christie “the grande dame of the cozies” and reveals a complete lack of understanding about the author; and 2) a cavalier reveal of one or more solutions, as if to say the solution of a mystery is just another ending to a book, or “Doesn’t everybody know this?” MotOE has one of those finales you don’t forget, but I hope you still derive pleasure from the book when and if you do read it!
LikeLike
Belated reply here: Ben’s misfortune regarding MOTOE is one reason I feel that “high concept” solutions (Orient Express, Roger Ackroyd, Crooked House, Hercule Poirot’s Christmas, The Mousetrap, Endless Night, a few others) are the titles most likely to be spoiled by a throwaway reference. It’s unlikely that the solution of Death on the Nile will be spoiled unintentionally or carelessly, unless someone says something like “it’s basically the same solution as…” (and with one title, there goes the game). After the Funeral is another title unlikely to be spoiled by a four-word blurb. Even And Then There Were None— which admittedly has a high concept PREMISE- doesn’t really have a high concept solution (except one that reveals the nature of the culprit’s deception method, which could apply to nearly all of the characters). Of course, any whodunit could easily be spoiled by mentioning a specific name (“Mr. Gleebish did it”) or occupation (“The real estate agent did it”), but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Even a claim such as “You’ll never guess who did it” is a possible spoiling factor, especially with a high concept twist. I’m sure that a first time reader of Roger Ackroyd or Crooked House is far more likely to be fooled without hearing such a claim. The mere expectation of such a twist makes it many times more vulnerable.
LikeLike
Keeping a post alive 30 months later!! Nice, Scott! 🙂 Obviously, those solutions with the “four-word spoilers” are special occasions, but I love to be fooled by something that is not high concept even more. I’ve often said that Roger Ackroyd is rather ordinary in every way but its murderer (and all the different duties that murderer has), and while I’ve found more subtle differences as I study it, I had a lot more fun reading After the Funeral, which can’t be explained away by a short statement. At least for most of the high concept titles you mentioned, the solution isn’t necessarily the best thing about the book. It is so in The Mousetrap, which is why that play isn’t something we need to rewatch.
LikeLike
Exactly my point. To say that Christie was brilliant because of these high concept solutions (which is often the credit she is given) is to merely say she’s as smart as a class of high school students (nothing against your students, mind you, but it’s just not the kind of praise that describes genius). But to do with these high concepts what Christie did is indeed the sign of genius.
LikeLike
Pingback: N or M? (1941) by Agatha Christie – crossexaminingcrime
I wasn’t suggesting that the “high concept” solutions were superior— indeed, in one respect, just the opposite. The high concept aspect aspect I consider a liability (you’ll note that none of my top four favorite Christie novels— And Then There Were None, Five Little Pigs, Death on the Nile, After the Funeral— have high concept solutions).
But personally, I do find the solutions the best thing about most of the high concept novels— just not the high concept aspect of them. For instance, much (if not most) of the brilliance of MOTOE is contained in its solution, but only a small part of that brilliance is covered by “_____ ____ did it.” That’s the other aspect of liability to these solutions in my opinion: not only can they be spoiled carelessly with a throwaway sentence, but people attribute all of Christie’s cleverness to that simple sentence, thus seriously underrating her genius. I believe that practically ANYONE could come up with the “high concept” solution of Roger Ackroyd (tell yourself students to “think outside the box and come up with a murder mystery solution that would shock everyone” and I think within one class session they’d come up with the high concept of Ackroyd, Hercule Poirot’s Christmas, Murder in the Mews, and maybe Peril at End House). But it takes an Agatha Christie to make the solution of Akroyd (or the others) truly work.
Even when critics note the cleverness of Christie in having Dr. Sheppard deceive only through omission, they almost always still overlook what I consider to be Christie’s most brilliant stroke— her finding a motivational justification for Sheppard deceiving the reader.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My students DO create mysteries every spring, and if I could have a dollar for every time a group asked me, “Can we make the detective the killer?” I would have . . . many dollars. If I could add to that some money for every use of a cliche or the breaking of a Knox/Van Dine “rule,” I might be able to pay off my condo. Kids always gravitate to “breaking the rules” and in a rule-heavy genre like GAD, they’re all over that.
(I usually say, “Well, you can make the detective the killer, but that’s what the other groups asked, too . . . I’m just saying . . . “
LikeLike
Exactly my point. To say that Christie was brilliant because of these high concept solutions (which is often the credit she is given) is to merely say she’s as smart as a class of high school students (nothing against your students, mind you, but it’s just not the kind of praise that describes genius). But to do with these high concepts what Christie did is indeed the sign of genius.
LikeLike
Ach! You remind me of one of the most humiliating moments in my career. I was new to teaching and was simultaneously taking a writing class in the evenings. I wrote a story of which I was fond – and for which I had received praise from my writing teacher and classmates – so I thought I would do an experiment. I gave my high school English students passages from Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Faulkner, and I added a passage from my own story. Without exception, my kids found my own passage the most gripping and well-written of the four. I was on cloud nine – until a friend reminded me of who was doing the evaluating.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie – Mysteries Ahoy!