Agatha Christie: An English Mystery by Laura Thompson (2007)

Key facts

Agatha Christie was born Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller on 15 September 1890. So just add a ten to the year of publication of any of her books to get her age when it was published – ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ 1934: 34 + 10 = 44 (in fact 43, as it was published in January and she was born in September, but you get the basic idea).

The surname Christie derives from her first husband, Archie Christie, who she married on Christmas Eve 1914, as the First World War was settling in for the long haul (p.94).

In total Agatha Christie published 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, as well as six non-detective novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott.

She created the famous fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple who have featured in countless movie and TV adaptations, not to mention radio, video games and graphic novels. Over 30 movies have been based on her works.

She wrote the world’s longest-running play, the murder mystery ‘The Mousetrap’, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952.

She is the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.

Her novel ‘And Then There Were None’ is the world’s best-selling mystery novel and one of the best-selling books of all time, and with over 100 million copies sold.

Childhood

Christie was born into a wealthy upper middle-class family in Torquay, Devon, and was largely home-schooled.

Frederick and Mary Boehmer

Her parents were an odd couple. Her mother, Clarissa ‘Clara’ Margaret Boehmer was born in Dublin in 1854 to British Army officer, Frederick Boehmer, and his wife Mary Ann West. Boehmer died in Jersey in 1863, leaving Mary to raise Clara and her brothers on a small income.

Nathaniel and Margaret Miller

Two weeks after Boehmer’s death, Mary’s sister, Margaret West, married the widowed American dry-goods merchant, Nathaniel Frary Miller.

Foster Clara

To help her impoverished widowed sister, Margaret and Nathaniel agreed to foster nine-year-old Clara Boehmer. In other words, at a very early age Clara was taken away from her mother and brothers and raised by her aunt and never ceased to regret it.

Frederick Miller

Now Nathaniel had a son, Frederick from his previous marriage. Fred was born in New York City and travelled extensively after leaving his Swiss boarding school, returned for visits as Clara grew up. In 1969 i.e. six years into this fostering arrangement, Nathaniel Miller, like Frederick Boehmer before him, died young, leaving Margaret a widow.

Frederick Miller marries Clara Boehmer

Fifteen years after Clara’s father died and nine years after Nathaniel Miller died, in 1878, this Frederick Miller, now 32, proposed to Clara, now 24, and she accepted. They were married in London in 1878.

Madge and Monty

Their first child, Margaret ‘Madge’ Frary, was born in Torquay in 1879. The second, Louis Montant ‘Monty’, was born in Morristown, New Jersey, in 1880, while the family was on an extended visit to the United States.

Fred and Clara buy Ashfield

When Fred’s father (and Clara’s foster father), Nathaniel, had died in 1869, he had left Clara £2,000, something like a quarter of a million in today’s money. In 1881 Fred and Clara used this to buy a villa in Torquay named Ashfield. It was here that their third and last child, Agatha, was born in 1890. Note the age difference between her elder siblings: Madge was 11 years older, Monty 10 years older.

Home schooling

Clara actively prevented Agatha from going to school, believing she should be home schooled. The result was Agatha largely taught herself, not least by voraciously reading everything in her father’s library.

Fred Miller dies

In 1901 Agatha’s cheerful, lazy father Fred died from pneumonia and chronic kidney disease. Christie later said that her father’s death when she was 11 marked the end of her childhood. Two points about this:

1) Fred never worked a day in his life and cheerfully lived off investments. However, income from these had steadily declines, with suspicions of embezzlement or sharp dealing by his American trustees. Whatever the precise reason, Fred’s death left Clara severely straitened for funds. Not that impoverished – she could still afford the upkeep of Ashfield and some servants but could no longer afford to entertain or maintain the traditional upper middle class lifestyle (p.58).

The matriarchy

The other point is The Matriarchy. All these men died young, and the womenfolk lived on with the result that Agatha was raised in a household of women (Clara and Madge), and made regular visits to her great-aunt the ‘magnificent’ (p.77) Margaret Miller in Ealing and maternal grandmother Mary Boehmer in Bayswater.

Nice old ladies

There are dashing young chaps in her novels, older professional men such as judges and police and so on, but I think Agatha’s upbringing in a matriarchy left a strong impression on her fictional world. Her novels abound with highly enjoyable older women, Miss Marple just being the most obvious. The utterly conventional values attributed to characters like Miss Marple or Miss Peabody or numerous others, have such warm-hearted authority because they are, in fact, the values of the utterly conventional Agatha.

  • Miss Jane Marple – elderly spinster who lives in the village of St. Mary Mead
  • Mrs Price Ridley, Miss Wetherby, Miss Hartnell – Miss Marple’s three friends who make up the quartet of old ladies in St. Mary Mead, in the first Miss Marple book, ‘Murder at the Vicarage’
  • Mrs Harfield – who Katherine Grey is a companion to (The Mystery of the Blue Train)
  • Miss Lavinia Pinkerton – suspects there is a murderer at work in the village of Wychwood under Ashe (Murder Is Easy)
  • Miss Caroline Peabody – tubby, sharp and witty spinster lives at Morton Manor, and is the oldest resident of Market Basing (Dumb Witness)

Laura Thompson on Agatha’s childhood

It’s Agatha’s childhood, girlhood and teenage years, mostly spent at the women’s family home of Ashfield, which Laura Thompson’s biography really dwells on. It gives a vivid and sympathetic portrait of a late-Victorian childhood and a girl growing into a young woman during the Edwardian decade, raised with traditional values which Thompson clearly sympathises with.

Music

Music for a while was a passion. Agatha learned piano as a girl and as a teenager took singing lessons to a very high standard. Thompson has page after page quoting Agatha’s diary and letters and the autobiography she wrote at the end of her life to describe her intoxication with music. She had a classic late-Victorian sensibility, with lots of vapouring about beauty, fancy dress balls where people dressed as characters out of Tennyson, she had a lifelong love of Wagner’s music (Wagner died in 1883, so by the 1910s when she was in love with it, it was 30 or more years out of date) (p.61).

Paris

In 1905, Clara sent Agatha to Paris, where she was educated in a series of pensionnats (boarding schools), focusing on voice training and piano playing. She was very good at both but not good enough to take them up professionally. Agatha stayed in Paris for nearly two years. Presumably this influenced the nationality of her greatest creation, Hercule Poirot – not the fact that he’s Belgian so much as Agatha’s confidence in rendering his French speech patterns.

Conventional

Thompson tried to make much of her heroine’s intelligence and Agatha was fluent and articulate and thoughtful, there’s lots of works and autobiography to quote from –but all of it is second rate. There is nothing about ideas or challenging books she read or intellectual pursuits. Instead, as she hit 18 and ‘came out’ to society, Agatha spent all her time going to parties and dances and concerts, amateur theatricals and attending fox hunts (p.64), flirting with large numbers of eligible young men, endlessly discussing their merits with her watchful mother, Clara.

As to her beliefs, she was a run of the mill, ordinary, devout Anglican. As to feminism and women’s rights, Agatha thought it was her role and fate in life to get married. That’s what women of her age and class did, and she never changed her view.

So it’s no surprise to learn that she was a lifelong Conservative voter (p.353).

The Mary Westmacott novels

In describing Agatha’s early years, Thompson draws heavily on the set of six Westmacott novels. Christie was so unstoppably prolific that alongside her murder mysteries she wrote six ‘ordinary’ non-detective novels, about love and relationships etc, sometimes described as ‘romantic’ novels’. They gave her ‘the chance to better explore the human psychology she was so intrigued by, freed from the expectations of her mystery fans’ as her grand-daughter explained.

To distinguish them from the murder mysteries she came up with a nom be plume based on her own middle name (Mary), Westmacott being the blandly English name of some distant relatives. The six Westmacott novels are:

  • Giant’s Bread (1930)
  • Unfinished Portrait (1934)
  • Absent in the Spring (1944) – she wrote this in less than a week!
  • The Rose and the Yew Tree (1947)
  • A Daughter’s a Daughter (1952)
  • The Burden (1956)

Thompson quotes from them extensively. Thus ‘Giant’s Bread’ concerns a sensitive young musician named Vernon Deyre, and Thompson reckons Christie poured into it a lot of her own feelings for classical music, for studying, practicing and performing; and similarly with autobiographical elements of the other books.

Marrying off Agatha

Clara had successfully married Madge off in 1902 to James Watt who had taken her off to his family home in the Midlands. Monty had joined the army and was posted overseas. What about Agatha? For Clara, and Agatha herself, adulthood meant marriage.

1907 to 1908: Trip to Egypt

Clara decided to spend the winter of 1907 to 1908 in the warm climate of Egypt, which was then a regular tourist destination for wealthy Britons. They stayed for three months at the Gezirah Palace Hotel in Cairo. Christie attended many dances and other social functions; she particularly enjoyed watching amateur polo matches.

First story

At 18 Agatha wrote her first short story, ‘The House of Beauty’, while recovering in bed from an illness. It was 6,000 words about ‘madness and dreams’. Her imagination had a decidedly Gothic turn. Subsequent stories dealt with spiritualism and the paranormal. Some of this lingered on into her mature novels, such as the powerful séance scene at the start of The Sittaford Mystery (p.78).

1909: first novel

Around the same time, in 1909 Christie wrote on her first novel, ‘Snow Upon the Desert’ based, predictably enough, on the winter she’d just spent in Egypt (p.67).

Conventional

Agatha was utterly conventional. About everything she had ‘the conventional, sensible attitude’ (p.116). As she came out, aged 18, she took to a life of country house parties, riding, hunting and countless dances, and numerous flirtations with eligible men.

‘Cairo meant nothing to me – girls between eighteen and twenty-one seldom thought of anything but young men’ (Agatha’s Autobiography, quoted p.68)

She had short-lived relationships with four men and an engagement to another (p.74). And Laura Thompson comes over as every bit as conventional, expecting no depths or insights from her heroine. She writes so well about Agatha’s life because she functions at the same shallow, Readers’ Digest level.

It was delight, all of it; the life that any normal, healthy, attractive, young girl would want to live (p.60)

1912: Archie Christie

In October 1912 she was introduced to Archibald ‘Archie’ Christie at a dance given by Lord and Lady Clifford at Ugbrooke, 12 miles from Torquay (p.73). The son of a barrister in the Indian Civil Service and an Irishwoman Ellen, known as Peg, Archie was a year older than Agatha (born September 1880). He was a Royal Artillery officer who was seconded to the Royal Flying Corps in April 1913.

Archie proposes

The couple quickly fell in love. Three months after their first meeting, Archie proposed marriage, and Agatha accepted. (She was something of a pro at all this, having already received three proposals of marriage, and actually being engaged to someone else when Archie proposed, to one Reggie Lucy, p.79.)

Anti-feminism

‘I hate a slobbering female,’ said Miss Percehouse. ‘I like one who gets up and does things.’
(The Sittaford Mystery, Chapter 17)

A naive feminist like Lucy Worsley thinks Agatha is a feminist heroine, but Christie was expressly anti feminist in both the tendency of her characters and stories, and explicitly, in her letters and autobiography – in fact anywhere and everywhere she could express an opinion.

Satirising feminist characters

The novels feature a number of loud-mouthed feminists who Agatha heartily satirises, boomingly women’s libbers like Lady Westholme in ‘Appointment with Death’ or the pretentious (and alcoholic) feminist author Salome Otterbourne in ‘Death on the Nile’. Rather:

[Christie] had a deep regard for working women. Not the strident ones who waved the feminist flag, like the politician Lady Westholme in ‘Appointment with Death’, proclaiming that ‘If anything is to be accomplished, mark my words, it is women who will do it’… (p.85)

Agatha’s anti-feminist attitudes

Pages 83 to 84 are just some of the many where Thompson makes crystal clear how utterly conventional Agatha was in her notions of gender roles. It was a woman’s responsibility to get married. She never considered a career of any kind. I’m going to quote from these pages to really convey the flavour.

To Agatha [marrying Archie] was fate; it was her female destiny. Having been brought up to express herself in any way she chose, she expected only to marry. This was her upbringing, which she had no urge to question. Girls of her sort did not have careers. They had husbands.

Agatha, despite her extraordinary achievements, would always assert that a career was a man’s job – ‘Men have much better brains than women, don’t you think?’ was a typical comment – and that the true value of a woman lay within the personal arena.

‘It makes me feel that, after all, I have not been a failure in life – that I have succeeded as a wife,’ she wrote to her second husband, Max, in 1943.

So as a girl she never chafed against the limits of her life: the conventions, the corsets, the need to speak low or sing to a teddy bear. Unlike her near-contemporary Dorothy L. Sayers – who, at the time of Agatha’s entry into the marriage market, was chewing the intellectual fat over cocoa at Somerville [college] – she had no desire to break free. She felt free anyway.

For all that she loved the novels of May Sinclair, she shared none of her feminist concerns. The frustrations of a girl like Vera Brittain, then at Oxford with Sayers, whose Testament of Youth rages against the male-dominated conventions of the time, would have been utterly remote from her.

The truth is that she liked a man’s world. She saw beyond it, although not in a political sense; later she would live beyond it, with her success and self-sufficiency; yet she loved being female and never felt circumscribed by her sex. She had grown up in a matriarchy after all. And she understood – as ‘cleverer’ girls perhaps do not – that female strength could show itself in many different ways… (pages 83 to 84)

Romantic love

Thompson has page after page after page describing Agatha’s initial love for Archie. Although her mother instantly saw the danger that he was a) selfish and b) attractive to other women, Agatha (who Thompson repeatedly tells us was immature and still basically ‘a girl’) saw the whole situation in Victorian terms, as something out of Tennyson, she as the pure-hearted lady Elaine cleaving to her handsome Sir Lancelot etc etc. He was ‘her dream come true’.

1914: VAD

When the war broke out Archie was sent to France almost immediately and Agatha hastened to join up as a nurse in a VAD:

Voluntary Aid Detachments (VADs) were organizations that provided support to the military during World War I. These detachments, formed by the British Red Cross and the Order of St. John, played a vital role in staffing hospitals and providing various services like nursing, cooking, and general aid.

Doctors

Dr Lord approached the bed, Nurse O’Brien fluttering behind him. Mrs Welman said with a twinkle: ‘Going through the usual bag of tricks, Doctor: pulse, respiration, temperature? What humbugs you doctors are!’
(Sad Cypress, part 1, chapter 5)

As a nurse Agatha saw at first hand how pompous and incompetent many doctors are. There’s a police doctor in most of the murder mysteries, but some doctor characters play larger roles and, by and large, they’re pretty unflattering characters.

  • The Mysterious Affair at Styles – Dr Bauerstein, sinister
  • The Murder of Roger Ackroyd – Dr Sheppard, the murderer
  • Why Didn’t They Ask Evens? – Dr Nicholson, a sinister drug addict
  • Murder is Easy – Dr Thomas
  • Cards on the Table – Dr Donaldson
  • The Sittaford Mystery – Dr Warren
  • And Then There Were None – Dr Armstrong, the murderer

Thompson describes Agatha as being as unflappable and sound in her work as a nurse, calmly describing the amputations, the severed limbs, the crying men, briskly getting on with the work (p.94). This is very much of a piece with the attitude which comes over in the books, brisk and no-nonsense, ‘Stop crying, girl! There’s a job to be done! Pull yourself together!’

And with her extraordinary ability to be interrupted at any point of writing a novel, go out for lunch or dinner, go to a party, come back and pick up exactly where she left off, and carrying on writing. Extraordinarily nerveless and anxiety-free (p.129). What a gift!

1916: The dispensary

In 1916 a drug dispensary was opened at Torquay hospital and Agatha switched to it from nursing. The hours were shorter and the pay better (p.103). The detailed knowledge of drugs, medicines and poisons she acquired her was to stand her in good stead for the rest of her life. The murder in her first detective novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, is entirely premised on professional knowledge of the action of poisons.

Twenty-four years later, in ‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’, the feel for drugs and poisons acquired in Torquay hospital dispensary, along with the relationships between the processions involved, was still underpinning the storyline of a dentist who appears (for a little while at least) to have poisoned a patient with a combination of adrenaline and prococaine.

‘These things happen—they happen to doctors—they happen to chemists…Careful and reliable for years, and then—one moment’s inattention—and the mischief’s done and the poor devils are for it. Morley was a sensitive man. In the case of a doctor, there’s usually a chemist or a dispenser to share the blame—or to shoulder it altogether. In this case Morley was solely responsible.’
(‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’, Chapter 2, section 1)

Unintellectual

Thompson tries to persuade us how imaginative Agatha was and yet what comes over is how utterly unimaginative she was, uninterested in politics, uninterested in suffragettes or feminism, uninterested in any social issues, in philosophy or any of the humanities – but with a vivid sense of her class of people, conceived as stock types.

Surely that’s one of the secrets of her success, is how utterly unthreatening her books are; how populated they are by reassuringly conventional jolly good chaps and plucky chapesses, stern judges, reassuring police inspectors, and so on. Everyone observes the decencies and common courtesies. It’s their lovely manners and good behaviour which are so attractive, reassuring and comforting. Seen from this angle the murders almost don’t register.

Readability

And this goes a long way towards explaining probably the biggest single explanation of her success, which is her immense readability.

The invention of Poirot

Poirot arrived fully formed in her first novel. Later she at various times tried to explain his creation but couldn’t because she was a deeply unreflective, unintellectual writer. Belgian refugees during the war provided the nationality, the rest she plucked from circumstances around her and voilà, he was fully formed. A miracle. What’s so impressive about Poirot is how much he doesn’t change over the next 40 years.

The feature which struck me most about Poirot from his first appearance is that he is old, in fact he has retired from being a detective on his first appearance. And he is old like Miss Marple. So Christie’s two great characters are outwith any concern for sex, outside relationships, the marriage market, the whole thing. Outsiders to the fierce competition over sex, mates, children, resources, jobs, reputations, money. It’s because of this that the books they appear in can observe the silliness of human sex lives – and family rivalries and bitterness about money – with such detachment and amusement.

Yes, amusement, that’s the watchword, the key quality of Christie’s novels and the main reason I like them. I don’t care that much about the murders and the silly clues and the ludicrous explanations; I enjoy the humour of the characters and, above all, the amused, smiling tone of her narrative voice.

1919: Parenthood

The war ended, Archie was demobilised fairly quickly and got a job at the Air Ministry. The couple took to living together as man and wife, something they hadn’t actually done during the war. Within a year Agatha was pregnant and delivered of a baby girl. Like everything else in her life, Agatha accepts pregnancy as the fate of a young wife here, as in everything, adopting the conventional, sensible attitude.

But she wasn’t a natural mother for the simple reason that she herself was still a girl.

Agatha did not need a perfect child: she herself was perfect to Clara. So in love was she with being a daughter… that she was unable to find true fulfilment as a mother. (p.122)

It is a recurring theme in her later novels that mothers often don’t like or resent their daughters (p.123). Lots of evidence that she never really bonded with Rosalind.

Something about this marvellous, bright, sharp-edged child seems to have shrivelled Agatha’s maternal impulses in the bud’ (p.268)

Nonetheless, they came to have a respectful relationship, joshing bonhomie concealing the underlying tension. Thompson quotes a character from the novel ‘Five Little Pigs’:

Many children, most children, I should say, suffer from over attention on the part of their parents. There is too much love, too much watching over the child. It is uneasily conscious of this brooding, and seeks to free itself, to get away and be unobserved. With an only child this is particularly the case, and, of course, mothers are the worst offenders.

Or this from Dumb Witness:

‘What is she like, your cousin?’
‘Bella? Well, she’s a dreary woman. Eh, Charles?’
‘Oh, definitely a dreary woman. Rather like an earwig. She’s a devoted mother. So are earwigs, I believe.’

She was sometimes angry or frustrated that she would never be to her daughter what her mother, Clara, had been for her, her all-in-all.

Writing for money

Archie suggested she write another novel, in fact he actively supported her writing career. ‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’ made her £25 for serialisation rights in the Weekly Times. Its sequel ‘The Secret Adversary’ made the grand total of £50 and sold better than Styles. There followed in quick succession ‘The Murder on the Links’, ‘The Man in the Brown Suit’ and a bunch of Poirot stories.

1922: tour of the white Empire

Archie was offered a job touring the white Empire nations (Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) to promote the upcoming 1924 Empire exhibition. He took Agatha and they were abroad travelling for most of 1922.

Thompson judges the novel she wrote during and about the trip, ‘The Man in the Brown Suit’, to be her most joyful and sexy. The heroine, Anne Beddingfield, falls madly in love with the tall adventurer Harry Rayburn and is given to bold idealistic speeches:

‘I shouldn’t dream of marrying any one unless I was madly in love with them. And of course there is really nothing a woman enjoys so much as doing all the things she doesn’t like for the sake of some one she does like. And the more self-willed she is, the more she likes it.’
‘I’m afraid I disagree with you. The boot is on the other leg as a rule.’ He spoke with a slight sneer.
‘Exactly,’ I cried eagerly. ‘And that’s why there are so many unhappy marriages. It’s all the fault of the men. Either they give way to their women—and then the women despise them, or else they are utterly selfish, insist on their own way and never say ‘thank you.’ Successful husbands make their wives do just what they want, and then make a frightful fuss of them for doing it. Women like to be mastered, but they hate not to have their sacrifices appreciated. On the other hand, men don’t really appreciate women who are nice to them all the time. When I am married, I shall be a devil most of the time, but every now and then, when my husband least expects it, I shall show him what a perfect angel I can be!’

Archie was often quite ill on the trip. On their return his job in the City had gone to someone else and he was unemployed and miserable for months. Their (relative) impecunity is turned to comic account of the start of the first Tommy and Tuppence novel, The Secret Adversary.

1924: Brown and money

In 1924 the Evening News offered Agatha £500 for the serialisation rights of ‘The Man in the Brown Suit’. This brought home to her and Archie (and her sister and mother, Clara) that Agatha was looking at the makings of a real career and serious money. With the money she bought her first car, a grey Morris Cowley (p.153).

Agatha always drove a hard bargain, as producers at the BBC were later to complain. Money is a central preoccupation of her books and their characters. Money is the motive in 36 of the 55 murder mystery novels.

There was a silence, and then Tuppence burst out:
‘Money, money, money! I think about money morning, noon and night! I dare say it’s mercenary of me, but there it is!’
‘Same here,’ agreed Tommy with feeling.
(The Secret Adversary, Chapter 1)

In 1924 she signed a three book deal with Collins, who were to remain her publisher for the rest of her life, having left Bodley Head after her initial five-book deal which she felt had taken advantage of her.

1925: Chimneys

In Thompson’s view ‘The Secret of Chimneys was perhaps the happiest book that Agatha ever wrote’ (p.143).

1926: Ackroyd

Her first book for Collins, ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’, transformed her reputation. It is often described as the ‘ultimate detective story’. This is for the simple reason that the narrator, honest-sounding Dr Sheppard, turns out to be the murderer. That’s it.

In ‘Roger Ackroyd she revealed for the first time her natural quality of translucency: her ability to control every sentence of her books, yet allow them breathe free. Agatha did not impose. Nor did she interpose one atom of herself between her writing and her readers. Her words communicate exactly and only what is required; which is not the same as saying they have no life beyond what is on the page. They have, in fact, the mystery of simplicity. They are the conduits for her plots, which are ultimately simple. (p.156)

Agatha’s qualities

Agatha was not a naturally descriptive writer. (p.139)

‘She was by nature remarkably unobservant’ she wrote of herself in ‘Unfinished Portrait’ (quoted p.139)

Agatha was not an especially humorous woman. (p.143)

Chimneys is what nowadays would be called a snobbish book…Impossible to deny that Agatha lived in an enclosure, that of the upper middle class into which she was born. (p.145)

Archie and Agatha grow apart

In 1924 Archie finally got a job in the City and was happy. He was taking home £2,000 a year. He took up golf and slowly this became an obsession. Soon he played every weekend, and resented anyone coming to stay who didn’t play. Agatha tried her best but wasn’t very interested and wasn’t very good. She had thickened since having Rosalind. She was 35 and her young good looks had gone. She rarely drank alcohol (good) but her favourite drink became a mix of milk and cream, such as she had loved as a girl at Ashfield. She put on weight. Archie began to dislike her schoolgirl gushiness, her chunkiness, her resentment at his weekends at the golf course.

Clara dies

Then her mother, Clara, died, on 5 April 1926. Agatha (‘too much of a child herself’) was devastated and went down to Ashfield to spend months clearing out the house of her childhood. Archie reacted badly: he disliked illness and hadn’t wanted to hear about Clara’s decline and refused to go down to comfort or help Agatha. It was the end of the marriage though she didn’t realise it.

Agatha disappears

The most famous incident in Agatha Christies life was when she went missing for 11 days and sparked a nationwide frenzy. She left her car abandoned off a lane on the North Downs overlooking a quarry with a deep pool nearby. The Surrey police were convinced she had killed herself. Day after day more volunteers joined the search scouring the Surrey countryside and numerous people claimed to have sighted the missing woman all around the UK.

Thompson devoted pages a slightly staggering 72 pages to the incident, page 186 to 258. Frankly I find this kind of thing quite staggeringly boring, as it doesn’t really seem to have impacted her writing – certainly not as much as her projection of herself into upper middle class settings, her xenophobia, her ingenuity, and her thumpingly conventional view of human nature do – based on her ‘obtuse and childlike’ character (p.179).

In Thompson’s the whole thing was a ploy to win back Archie’s love. While Agatha was away in Torquay weeping over her lost childhood, Archie decisively fell in love with a younger, sexier woman, named Nancy Neele. Archie told Agatha about it in August 1926, and asked Agatha for a divorce. After many recriminations, they agreed on a three-month trial period to try and save the marriage, but the months passed and Archie continued to spend much time in London or at friends’ house parties with Nancy in attendance.

Finally, in December things came to a head. On 3 December 1926 they had a big argument after Archie announced his plan to spend the weekend with friends, unaccompanied by his wife, but in the presence of Nancy.

Late that evening Christie disappeared from their home in Sunningdale. The following morning, her car, a Morris Cowley, was discovered at Newlands Corner in Surrey, parked above a chalk quarry with an expired driving licence and clothes inside. It was feared that she might have drowned herself in the Silent Pool, a nearby beauty spot.

The disappearance quickly became a news story. One newspaper offered a £100 reward. Over 1,000 police officers, 15,000 volunteers, and several aeroplanes searched the rural landscape. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gave a spirit medium one of Christie’s gloves to find her.

Christie’s disappearance made international headlines, including featuring on the front page of The New York Times. According to Thompson she wrote and posted a letter to Archie’s brother, Campbell Christie, i.e. her brother-in-law, explaining that she needed time away and was going to a spa in Yorkshire and she caught a train from London to Harrogate where she checked in under the name Mrs Neele. That, of course, was the name of his husband’s mistress.

In Thompson’s view, Campbell Christie was intended to get the letter on the Monday morning, ring up Archie who would have been distressed at her disappearance, and got on the next train to Yorkshire. Harrogate, according to Thompson, is the kind of Yorkshire equivalent of Sunningdale, very posh, and so it shouldn’t have taken Archie long to track her down.

According to eye witnesses (notably a Mr Pettelson, a cultivated Russian exile) she had a lovely time in the Swan Hydropathic Hotel where she checked in, spending the days sightseeing and the evening joining in singing and music making or billiards in the drawing room.

The main source of the delay and the escalation of a private marital squabble into a national manhunt appears to have been the obsession of the police officer in charge of the investigation, police Superintendent Kenward, that Agatha had killed herself. Even when (belatedly) informed of the letter in which she simply explained that she’d gone to stay in Yorkshire, he refused to believe it. Only when guests at the hotel approached the local police to claim that the mysterious Mrs Neele looked strikingly like the missing Agatha, did the cops intervene and invite Archie up. He walked into the hotel at dinner time on the tenth evening and simply identified Agatha, for himself and to a detective who’d accompanied him.

So it appears to have been a pitiful cock-up by the police, egged on by a tabloid press always keen for a scandal. To the members of the press who quickly flooded the hotel, and the railway stations on the route to her sister’s house outside Manchester, then back at their home in Surrey – Archie gave out the same rather desperate story that Agatha had suffered a breakdown accompanied by complete amnesia. The press and most of the public didn’t believe this and Thompson thinks it’s a lie.

Failure and divorce

As an attempt to win Archie back by sparking panic and regret, it was a miserable failure.

Having, as she thought, helped to destroy her marriage by leaving Archie alone while she grieved for her mother, she had now delivered its death blow by making herself an object of public ridicule, and Archie an object of public loathing. (p.256)

Archie lived at the unhappy family home in Sunningdale while he tried to sell it, Agatha lived in a flat in London with her daughter. They met once in 1927, where she begged him again to return but he simply stated he was in love with Nancy and only waiting for her to return from the round the world cruise her family had packed her off on to get her out of the limelight, before he wanted to marry her. So in spring 1928 Agatha petitioned for divorce and was granted a decree nisi against her husband in April 1928. This was made absolute in October 1928 and two weeks later Archie married Nancy Neele. Game over.

(Incidentally Archie remained married to Nancy for the next 20 years, till her death from cancer in 1958. It wasn’t just a flash in the pan.)

(Also incidentally, Agatha, up till then a fairly devout Anglican, never attended communion again after her divorce, p.290.)

The relevance of Agatha’s disappearance for her books

Thompson cites a shrewd quotation from P.D. James who says that Archie’s betrayal and desertion was the first real trauma she’d ever faced in her pampered protected life, that she never really recovered from it – and that this shaped her fiction.

Anybody who’s written about Christie’s novels makes the same point which is that, no matter how brutal the murder(s) and how byzantine the plot and backstories, in the end, everything comes out right: the guilty party is identified, everyone else is vindicated, surprisingly often one or more couples who we’ve met during the narrative end up getting married; and Poirot makes everything better, by tying up all the loose ends and leaving us with one of his little quips, very much like the Afterword to an Elizabethan play craving their audience’s indulgence.

On this reading, every single one of her detective stories does the same thing, which is throw us into death, disorder and ever-more bewildering confusion before… slowly, slowly leading us back up into the light. Thus every one of the novels can be seen as a cathartic experience. Almost every one leaves us with a jaunty smile on our faces.

For Thompson, the failure of her marriage represented Agatha finally growing up after 38 years of pampered privilege: not financially (the couple had been hard-up after the war, and Agatha had independent income from her writing) but in psychological terms. Her mother and her husband abandoned her, within a matter of months. No longer young or attractive or living a life of dreamy illusions, Agatha changed character, buckled down, and became a really professional writer.

The comment about no longer good-looking may sound sexist but it’s Thompson’s view that it came as a liberation.

Without the burden of normal female expectations, she found herself free. There was no longer an obligation to be a certain kind of woman: slim, pleasing, feminine. She could absent herself from these restraints. She could formulate a persona and wear it like a suit of armour – present it to the world in place of herself – and inside she could be whoever she chose. That was the freedom of the creator.

And so she became the staggeringly prolific professional writer. Between 1930 and 1939 Agatha produced 17 full-length novels, plus short stories. Although ‘Agatha Christie’ was her legal name, after the divorce it became a pen-name, a fictional name, a persona. And she used it to create radical reinventions of the detective novel:

  • the murderer who pretends to be a victim
  • the murderer who pretends to be a serial killer
  • the murderer who is also the investigating policeman
  • the cast of suspects who are all innocent
  • the cast of suspects who are all guilty

Mary Westmacott

But while she addressed the murder mystery novel with a kind of cold-blooded forensic experimentalism, at the same time she embarked what became a series of six novels under the alter ego of Mary Westmacott. See the section above. Knowing that they were written soon after her life-changing divorce sheds a different light on them and explains why Thompson mines them so heavily to depict the ‘real’ Agatha.

Travels and Max

In 1928 Christie left England and took the (Simplon) Orient Express to Istanbul and then onto Baghdad. Obviously the Orient Express trip provided the material for the book of the same name.

In Iraq she became friends with archaeologist Leonard Woolley and his wife, Katherine. They stayed with her at her new London home and then invited her to return to their dig in February 1930. On that second trip, she met archaeologist Max Mallowan, 13 and a half years her junior. She was 39, he was just 25 (Max b. 6 May 1904; Agatha b. 15 September 1890) (p.284). The precise occasion was when he took her and a group of tourists on a tour of his expedition site in Iraq.

By the standards of the day it was a fairly quick romance. Christie and Mallowan married in Edinburgh in September 1930. Unlike her first marriage, and like Archie and Nancy, Agatha and Max’s marriage lasted the rest of their lives, until Christie’s death in 1976.

Agatha accompanied Mallowan on all his subsequent archaeological expeditions, and her travels with him contributed background to several of her novels set in the Middle East, notably ‘Murder in Mesopotamia’, ‘Death on the Nile’ and ‘Appointment with Death’. His last trip back to Ur, the ancient city being excavated by Woolley was in 1931.

According to Thompson, Woolley’s wife, Katherine Woolley appears only thinly disguised in ‘Appointment with Death’ as the murderee, Mrs Leidner, a cold woman who enjoyed trifling with all the men around her – a rare instance of Agatha basing a character on an identifiable real life person.

Critics accused young Max of being a gold-digger and Agatha certainly funded his expeditions, notably one to Arpachiyah in Iraq in 1933. In 1935 he took Agatha to Chagar Bazar in Syria. Max wasn’t a brilliant excavator but he was brilliant at organising digs and keeping up to 200 local workmen under discipline. Agatha wasn’t that interested in the finds, but happily played the loyal wife and was also very interested in exotic wildflowers.

It was also, often, extremely uncomfortable, but Agatha was tough and healthy, and always despised complaining women. (p.314)

It’s true she featured archaeologists in some of her books: in ‘Murder in Mesopotamia’ but most critically in ‘Death in the Clouds’ where the narrator mocks the pretensions of the father and son team of archaeologists.

Thompson analyses the relationship at length but what it boiled down to was that Max restored her faith and trust and allowed her to return to a kind of state of pampered childhood, the state she enjoyed with her beloved mother and, at first, with Archie, till he got fed up of her gushing girliness: Max restored it to her and, thus liberated, her imagination was set free to roam far and wide, taking the detective story genre to pieces, and putting it back together in all kinds of interesting forms.

Buying houses

During the 1930s Agatha bought a number of houses with her earnings. At one point Thompson mentions properties at:

  • Sheffield Terrace
  • Campden Street
  • Half Moon Street
  • Park Place
  • a mews cottage at 22 Cresswell Place, Chelsea, SW1 (1929)
  • Lawn Road (p.344)

She finally, reluctantly, allowed beloved Ashfield to be sold but she had bought a comfortable home at Wallington near Oxford (Winterbrook; 1934) abut her romantic purchase was of the grand white house named Greenway, which overlooked the banks of the River Dart in Devon (also 1934).

On page 348, Thompson states that Agatha owned four houses: so presumably that’s Winterbrook, Greenway and two in London, so the other properties must have been flats.

Second World War

Max had a distinguished war career. According to his Wikipedia entry:

After the beginning of the Second World War he served with the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in North Africa, being based for part of 1943 at the ancient city of Sabratha in Libya. He was commissioned as a pilot officer on probation in the Administrative and Special Duties Branch on 11 February 1941, promoted flying officer on 18 August 1941, flight lieutenant on 1 April 1943 and for some time he also had the rank of wing commander. His first role with the RAF was as a liaison officer with allied forces and, later in the war, as a civilian affairs officer in North Africa.

Thompson summarises Max’s career rather differently on page 319, emphasising the initial struggle he had to find a post.

Peripatetic

Greenway was commandeered by the military before being handed over to the American navy in 1942.(Naval officers billeted there painted a mural round the cornices of the library, celebrating their feats, which sounds like a bit of a liberty).

So Agatha spent the war years in London, moving between her half dozen properties, but mostly at Lawn Road Flats in Hampstead.

Agatha’s prolific war years

Agatha kept on writing at a prodigious rate. Between September 1939 and August 1945, she published:

  • And Then There Were None (1939)
  • Sad Cypress (1940)
  • One, Two, Buckle My Shoe (1940)
  • Evil Under the Sun (1941)
  • N or M? (1941)
  • The Body in the Library (1942)
  • Five Little Pigs (1942)
  • The Moving Finger (1943)
  • Towards Zero (1944)
  • Absent in the Spring (1944)
  • Death Comes as the End (1945)
  • Sparkling Cyanide (1945)

And this doesn’t include the plays she adapted from her own novels, sometimes radically rewriting the endings. Prodigious output, eh?

Five Little Pigs

Of all of these, Thompson singles out ‘Five Little Pigs’ as the masterpiece. This is because of the unusually intense and real feeling with which she describes a marriage on the rocks, as the husband falls for a much younger woman (although, typically, the situation turns out not to be quite as straightforward as it seems for the first three-quarters of the book). It has a ‘lived’ quality, which most of her novels don’t, really.

Stephen Glanville

During the war, while Max was away, Agatha had a brief flirtation, of sorts, with Stephen Glanville, a historian and Egyptologist ten years her junior. He helped her write her strangest novel, a murder mystery set in ancient Egypt, ‘Death Comes as the End’ (pages 330 to 335).

Shakespeare

She developed an intense passion for Shakespeare, attended numerous productions, and adapted her novel, ‘Ten Little N******’ for the stage, in 1943.

Hospital volunteering

In 1940 Agatha began to give a few days a week to voluntary work at University College Hospital, in the dispensary, the same kind of work she’d done during the first war.

Rosalind comes of age and marries

Thompson uses her war chapter to bring us up to speed with the life of Agatha’s difficult daughter Rosalind. Born in 1919, she ‘came out’ in 1937. In 1940, aged just 21, after a brief courtship, she surprised Agatha and Max by marrying a soldier, Major Hubert de Burr Prichard, in Wales. In 1943 they had a child, Mathew Prichard. A year later Major Prichard was killed in the invasion of Normandy. Five years later (in 1949) she married the lawyer Anthony Hicks and kept the married name Rosamond Hick to the end of her life.

Fat as a psychological defence

According to Thompson it was really during the war years that Agatha completely lost her youth and figure and became the stout middle-aged woman we know from the photos. Becoming fat made her sad but ‘she loved to eat’ (p.328). Thompson has a lyrical paragraph describing the change in Agatha’s self image:

It was a long way from the slender, fairy-like girl who had married Archie Christie: between those two there had been the mystery of physical allure, which Agatha still conjured in her books but had deliberately destroyed for herself. She had, indeed, coarsened. She did not merely his behind the public persona of ‘Agatha Christie’; she sheltered within a shroud of flesh, dense and unwieldy, a symbolic defence against the sharp agonies of the past. (p.328)

And even more so after the war:

Her large comfortable physicality was a defence against wounds, and after the war it grew more massive still. She lost the last trace of the attractions she had held, until her early fifties, for a man like Stephen Glanville. Her weight rose to nearly fifteen stone, her legs swelled immensely and she became extraordinarily sensitive about photographs.

And quotes a friend of Stephen Glanville’s daughter who met her in Cambridge in the 1950s:

‘I thought the sight of her surprising, with a fat, somewhat uncoordinated body and messily applied lipstick.’ (p.364)

It made her unhappy but this was the course she had adopted.

Tax troubles

To the amazement of Agatha, her agents in both the UK (Edward Cork of Hughes Massie) and the States (Harold Ober), towards the end of the 1930s she got into trouble with the tax authorities in both countries, trouble with ramified and complexified and ending up dogging her for decades. Thompson’s account begins on page 345 and then the theme recurs for the rest of the book.

As far as I can make out, the problem had two causes. Until the later 1930s Agatha had been categorised by the US tax authorities as a ‘non-resident alien author’ and so didn’t have to pay tax on income earned through the sale of her copyrights in the US, plus the increasing amount of movie and theatrical rights sales. All this changed when the US authorities decided that the wildly successful popular British novelist, Rafael Sabatini, did have to pay tax on the income he earned in the States. In 1938 the US tax authorities began to pry into Agatha’s affairs, quickly revealing how much she earned in the Sates and backdating her tax liability to the start of her career (in 1920). They started impounding her US earnings while the case went through the courts.

But in the meantime, back in the UK Agatha continued to live an upper middle class life, maintain her half dozen properties, with staff etc, and enjoy the high life, but with no income coming in from the States (p.359). She began to go into debt and borrowed to maintain her lifestyle. But at the same time, although she continued to be prolific and popular, wartime conditions in Britain also hit sales, revenue and publishers payments.

Then in 1945, the new Labour government put up tax thresholds to fund the welfare state and other policies, and people like Agatha, well off but not rich, were penalised.

A combination of all these factors means that the war years were marked by growing concerns about her income, her tax, and her lifestyle, worries which dogged her for decades to come.

The impact of war

Several novels Agatha published just after the war deal with its impact:

  • The Hollow (1946)
  • Taken at the Flood (1948)
  • The Rose and the Yew Tree (1948)

With their mood of restlessness and dissatisfaction (p.351).

The post-war

Thompson commences her account of Agatha’s post-war years with a couple of generalisations:

It was in the middle of the century that the phenomenon of ‘Agatha Christie’ really took off. In 1945 she was a popular and successful author whose new books always sold out a print run of 25,000. But by 1950 she was a global brand estimated to have sold 50 million books! And receiving increasing amounts of fan mail (p.361).

Two paradoxes about this:

1. It is generally agreed that this huge popularity came just as the quality of her novels began to fall away. In the 30 years from 1945 to 1976 she wrote a handful of outstanding books, but most of them war solid, reliable, formulaic. Not many matched the brilliance of the 20 or so year before (1926 to 1945) and especially ‘the period of intense, sustained creativity around the war which marks the high point of her achievement’ (p.356).

2. The other paradox is that her fame became truly enormous more from the adaptations of the books than the books themselves. Thus movie versions of:

  • Love From A Stranger (1937)
  • And Then there Were None (1945)

And theatrical adaptations of:

  • And Then there Were None (1943)
  • Hidden Horizon (adaptation of Murder on the Nile; 1944)
  • Murder at the Vicarage (1949)
  • The Hollow (1951)
  • The Mousetrap (1952)
  • Witness for the Prosecution (1953)

Not to mention radio, for example a series of weekly adaptations of the Poirot stories on American radio.

Goodbye

And with that, with Agatha having married off her daughter, undergone a period of prolific productivity, had a brief flirtation but remained fundamentally true to the man who rescued her wounded heart (Max), settling into middle-age and overweight, becoming a global brand but sinking into ever-murkier disputes with the tax authorities in two countries – I’m going to leave this biography. Maybe, when I’ve read the later books, I’ll pick it up and review the post-war years. But not now.


Credit

‘Agatha Christie: An English Mystery’ by Laura Thompson was published in 2007 by Headline Review. Page references are to the 2008 paperback edition.

Related reviews

The Big Four by Agatha Christie (1927)

‘It is a duel to the death, mon ami. You and I on the one side, the Big Four on the other.’
(Poirot striking the tone of melodrama right from the start, The Big Four, Chapter 2)

There was a cold malignity about her that froze me to the marrow. It was so at variance with the burning fire of her eyes. She was mad—mad—with the madness of genius!
(The overwrought shilling shocker tone of this terrible book)

‘Mon ami, he overlooked the little grey cells of Hercule Poirot.’ Poirot has his virtues, but modesty is not one of them.
(Even when he’s appearing in a terrible book, Poirot’s egotism remains undented, Chapter 11)

‘The Big Four’ is the fourth novel by Agatha Christie to feature her Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot. Like most of them it is narrated by Poirot’s dim sidekick, Captain Hastings. At the end of the second novel Hastings had headed off for South America with a beautiful young woman he had met during the adventure and who he intended to marry, which explains why the third novel in the series is narrated not by him, but by a temporary replacement, Dr Sheppard.

‘The Big Four’ opens with Hastings returning from what he tells us has been 18 months on a ranch in the Argentine and looking forward to looking up old friends in London, notably ‘A little man with an egg-shaped head and green eyes—Hercule Poirot!’

However, the novel is drastically different from it predecessors and most of its sequels for two reasons: first of all it was cobbled together from what were initially a dozen short stories which had been published separately and, as a consequence, it feels very bitty and episodic and, above all, rushed.

But the more obvious difference is that it is not a traditional murder mystery at all: instead of the staid English country house setting, this is a story of international intrigue and espionage featuring a secretive international organisation along the lines of John Buchan’s ’39 steps’, the fiendish international enemies that plucky Bulldog Drummond has to fight, the kind of gang that Tintin would find himself up against in the 1930s.

In fact it’s so completely different in content, tone and pacing from the traditional murder mysteries that it could possibly be categorised as spy fiction, an international thriller.

Plot summary

Hastings discovers that Poirot is about to dash off himself, and to South America, where he has been lured with the promise of an enormous fee. He wishes he wasn’t going because he has become more and more interested in an international crime cartel called The Big Four.

While they’re discussing this, they hear a noise from the bedroom and find a man in rags and covered in mud who has obviously climbed up through the window into Poirot’s bedroom and can only repeated his name, Mayerling, Poirot’s address before he collapses. When Hastings mentions the Big Four it triggers the man reciting, as if hypnotised, details of the organisation and its four leaders: Number 1 is a Chinese political mastermind named Li Chang Yen*; Number 2 is probably American; Number 3 is a Frenchwoman; and Number 4 is known only as ‘the Destroyer’.

Leaving the man in the care of their housekeeper, Mrs Pearson, Poirot insists they rush off to Waterloo to catch a train to Southampton, so Poirot can catch his boat to South America. But half way there he has an insight and realises the whole South America job was to lure him away from England altogether. So next time the train stops he and Hastings jump out and hotfoot it back to London.

Here they discover the man Mayerling is dead, gagged and poisoned. They fetch a doctor to confirm the death but no sooner is that sorted than a man arrives claiming to be from Hanwell Asylum. He claims the muddy man Mayerling is an escaped lunatic, confirms the identity of the body, then leaves, promising to send someone to collect it.

It’s only a bit later, as he examines the body, that Poirot comes to the conclusion that the Hanwell Asylum man was Number 4, the Destroyer, in disguise, come to meet the gang’s number one enemy, Poirot, in person.

A week later Poirot invites Hastings to come with him on a visit to a British expert on the criminal underworld of China, one Mr. John Ingles, to find out more about Li Chang Yen. Ingles tells them that the Big Four are behind everything wrong in the world:

‘Everything. The world-wide unrest, the labour troubles that beset every nation, and the revolutions that break out in some. There are people, not scaremongers, who know what they are talking about, and they say that there is a force behind the scenes which aims at nothing less than the disintegration of civilisation. In Russia, you know, there were many signs that Lenin and Trotsky were mere puppets whose every action was dictated by another’s brain. I have no definite proof that would count with you, but I am quite convinced that this brain was Li Chang Yen’s.’

And:

‘What exactly he hopes to get out of it all I cannot pretend to say for certain,’ went on Mr. Ingles; ‘but I assume his disease is one that has attacked great brains from the time of Akbar and Alexander to Napoleon—a lust for power and personal supremacy. Up to modern times armed force was necessary for conquest, but in this century of unrest a man like Li Chang Yen can use other means. I have evidence that he has unlimited money behind him for bribery and propaganda, and there are signs that he controls some scientific force more powerful than the world has dreamed of.’

(Might be worth noting that this was only a decade after the English author Sax Rohmer kicked off his series of adventure novels about the fiendish criminal mastermind Dr Fu Manchu in 1913, another archetypal figure who went on to have nearly as prolific an afterlife as Poirot, in numerous novels, short stories, radio shows, comic strips and comic books, TV and movies, until the intrinsic racism of the stereotype became unacceptable. See ‘No Chinamen’, below.)

Ingles describes a succession of journalists who’ve published articles about then promptly died in mysterious circumstances, not to mention a young scientist who came to him suffering from a nervous breakdown having carried out disgusting experiments on Chinese coolies for Li Chang Yen, and that night Ingles’s house was set on fire and the scientist died.

Ingles shows Poirot a letter from a Jonathan Whalley, who lives in Hoppaton, Dartmoor, claiming his life was in danger from the Four. So Poirot on the spot tells the others he is heading off by train for Hoppaton straightaway. It’s that kind of book, helter-skelter, cartoon panic movement.

Inevitably they arrive at Hoppiton to discover that Whalley is dead, murdered, bludgeoned then had his throat cut. Poirot does his thing and is able to prove that the servant the police arrested, although he turned out to have a criminal record and was caught stealing some of the dead man’s Chinese curios, did not do it. A man disguised as the local butcher did it with a frozen leg of mutton. Poirot attributes this man to be the aforementioned Number Four, same as the Hanwell Asylum man. In other words this is all a preposterous farrago.

Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard had been called to the scene and now introduces a new character, an American named Captain Kent. He tells an even more preposterous story, about how in a recent disaster loads of ships and torpedo boats were dashed against the American coast. A roundup of criminal gangs produced papers suggesting it was all caused by a new Superweapon, ‘some powerful wireless installation—a concentration of wireless energy far beyond anything so far attempted, and capable of focusing a beam of great intensity upon some given spot.’

So Captain Kent was dispatched to come to Britain and meet a British scientist who’s said to be the leading expert in this field, one Halliday. Only one problem, said Halliday went missing two months ago on a trip to Paris. His worried wife lives in Surrey so guess what? Off to Chetwynd Lodge, near Chobham, our little gang next head.

Halliday’s wife explains that her husband went to Paris to meet the famous Madame Olivier, checked into a hotel, spent a day meeting colleagues and visiting the Madame, went back to the hotel, dinner, bed, next morning went out and has never been since.

So guess what? Off to Paris head our gang. They interview Madame Olivier, a tall, obsessed woman, about her meeting with Halliday and she compares it with her own research into radium C which has remarkable properties.

Leaving her laboratory, they are almost crushed by a tree falling in the street! Humour lightens the preposterousness of all this:

‘But for my quick eyes, the eyes of a cat, Hercule Poirot might now be crushed out of existence—a terrible calamity for the world. And you, too, mon ami—though that would not be such a national catastrophe.’

Poirot realises Halliday was kidnapped before he even got back to his Paris hotel. The hotel staff who reported seeing him didn’t really know him and were seeing an imposter. Returning to Madame Olivier’s villa he unmasks her recently appointed secretary as Countess Rossakoff, an old antagonist (who in fact first appears in this ‘novel’). She admits she was hired by the Big Four to help kidnap Halliday but claims he has been moved from the villa next door where he was originally incarcerated.

She makes a deal with Poirot, Halliday for her liberty. He agrees so she phones the bad guys and arrange for Halliday to be delivered to their hotel. When they get back to their room they find Halliday alive, but worn and shattered. But he cannot say a thing. He tells them if he says anything the Big Four will kill him and his family.

Halliday departs for England back to his family. Poirot and Hastings are just discussing what to do next when there’s a knock at the door and a tall hook-nosed gentleman enters. He is an emissary from the Big Four and offers a huge bribe if Poirot will cease investigating them and go back to domestic murders. Hastings makes a bolt at him but the man throws him using a Japanese ju-jitsu move then escapes dressed as a hotel porter.

On the floor is a wallet he dropped which contains a piece of paper saying the next meeting of the Big Four council will take place at 11am on Friday and it is now Friday 10.30am. But Poirot immediately sees that it is a trap and doesn’t budge.

Instead they receive a telegram from Madame Olivier asking her to revisit them. She tells them last night her secretary disappeared and her laboratory was burgled. She tells them they stole some stuff but failed to take the most valuable item, her supply of radium, locked in a lead-lined safe and invaluable. Poirot is certain they’ll return so he tells Madame Olivier to act innocently and tell her assistants nothing.

Then he makes Hastings join him on a train back to England. Why? Because they are certainly being watched. Which is why he gets a friend of his, Pierre Comnbeau, to pull the emergency cord on the train and while he is arguing with the guards, Poirot and Hastings climb off, change into disguise and head back to Paris.

They are just preparing to stake out Madame Olivier’s villa when they are jumped, bound and gagged. They are carried into the house and up to the safe which swings open to reveal… Steps down into a secret underground chamber! Here is waiting for them a tall imperious Frenchwoman who is clearly the Big Four’s Number Three. When she takes off her mask it is to reveal herself as none other than… Madame Olivier!!

She taunts her tied and bound victims and asks Poirot if he has any last requests. He asks for a cigarette so she takes out his cigarette case and puts one in his mouth. At which point he tells her it’s a miniature blowpipe charged with a little dart tipped with lethal curare. Even Indiana Jones wouldn’t be so cheesy. So Poirot forces Madame Olivier to unbind Hastings who promptly ties her up and frees Poirot.

They get free of the villa but when Hastings asks if he’s going to give her up to the police, Poirot points out they have no evidence whatsoever, in fact all the evidence could be twisted to accuse them of breaking and entering. No. Back to London tomorrow!

Back in London they’ve got a letter from Abe Ryland the American multimillionaire who offered him the fabulous sum to go to Buenos Aires, but now Poirot wonders whether he is Number Two, what with his immense fortune, power and influence, and the fact we know Number Two is American.

So Poirot goes to meet Ryland. The chief outcome of this is to discover that the millionaire needs a secretary so Poirot returns to tell Hastings he will put him forward. He’ll even get a testimony from the Home Secretary who he once did a great favour for (this sounds exactly like Sherlock Holmes).

Hastings is rigged up with a ridiculous amount of make-up and even padding in his cheeks, goes to meet Rylands in his rooms at the Savoy under the fake name of Major Arthur Neville, is hired and taken down to his country house, Hatton Chase, where he meets the rest of the staff.

After three weeks a pretty maid comes to him complaining that she hates being shouted at and is thinking of quitting. She explains that she usually opens Mr Ryland’s mail except for ones on blue paper but this morning when not concentrating opened a blue one by mistake. He was furious and started yelling at her. She noticed it had a little 4 in the corner but the message was quite innocuous and short.

Hastings is v excited because he thinks their plan is working so he gets her to repeat the letter to him. Later that evening he realises it’s in code and is asking its addressee for a meeting that in the quarry not far from the house. Next day Hastings sends a letter to Poirot in London telling him about the meeting, leaving it up to him whether he wants to come or not. That evening he waits till his day’s duties are done then sneaks out and down to the quarry. However, when he gets there Ryland and colleague are waiting there with guns. The whole thing was a setup. Now they just await Poirot and then, he explains, they’ll arranged for them both to be killed in a fatal landslide.

Sure enough a few minutes later Poirot quietly appears in the quarry but when Ryland tells him ‘Hands up’ Poirot quietly explains that ten policemen and detectives are watching right now, whistles, and they come forward. Ryland and sidekick are arrested and Poirot explains that he always intended Hastings to be bait for some kind of trap – much to Hastings’ disgruntlement.

But there’s another twist. Next morning at breakfast, Inspector Japp arrives and tells them Ryland and the entire staff swear the whole thing was a prank set up by the staff and that Ryland himself was never in the quarry. The man they took to be Japp was heavily dressed and swathed in coat and hat and turned out to be the footman. Ryland was in bed all the time.

Here, half way through this preposterous farrago, I’m going to stop summarising. The remaining stories or episodes are:

The affair of the Yellow Jasmine

Poirot investigates the death of a Mr Paynter in Worcestershire. Before his death, Paynter had written in ink ‘yellow jasmine’ on his newspaper, and attempted to draw a Number Four. Poirot reveals that Paynter’s attending physician, a Doctor Quentin, was in fact Number Four and it was he who gave Paynter an injection of yellow jasmine.

The greatest power for evil in the world to-day is this ‘Big Four.’ To what end they are tending, no one knows, but there has never been another such criminal organisation. The finest brain in China at the head of it, an American millionaire, and a French woman scientist as members, and for the fourth—

The affair of the Dead Chess Player

Chess grandmaster Gilmour Wilson dies from heart failure while playing Russian refugee Dr Savaronoff. Poirot deduces that the real Savaronoff died in Russia and that Number Four impersonated him, killing Wilson in order to preserve his cover. More info about the master of many disguises and killer, Number Four:

‘Ivan is none other than the famous Number Four.’
‘What?’
‘Yes. The man is a marvellous character actor. He can assume any part he pleases.’
I thought back over past adventures, the lunatic asylum keeper, the butcher’s young man, the suave doctor, all the same man, and all totally unlike each other.

Hastings is kidnapped by Chinese

Who blackmail him, telling him they have kidnapped his wife in Argentina. They force him to write a letter to Poirot telling him to rush to this address because they want to kidnap him, too. But when Poirot arrives he throws a gas bomb into the building which knocks the baddie Chinese out (Poirot himself is wearing a gas mask under a muffler).

The life and death of Flossie Monro

Poirot gives a long list of reasons why he has deduced that the killer, Number Four, must be an actor, of a particular age, height, build and hair colour. And how, because of his ability to adopt disguises, he thinks he is an actor. After extensive research he’s narrowed it down to a list of four and he’s put an ad out in newspapers targeting friends or family of the four to get in touch.

Flossie Monro, a down-on-her-luck actress and one-time girlfriend of one of the four, Claud Darrell, gets in touch and they take her for lunch. She reveals a few tell-tale habits of Claud and promises to send them an old photo she has. but barely have they got back to their flat than there’s a call from a hospital saying Flossie’s been brought in after being hit by a car.

They rush to the hospital but Flossie dies just before they arrive. So they race to Flossie’s flat only to discover it ransacked and the photograph taken from its frame.

Poirot tells the Home Secretary and French Prime Minister about the Big Four

Hastings has to put on his best suit for the occasion. The French Prime Minister is outraged when Poirot tells her that French national heroine Madame Olivier is among the conspirators.

Poirot’s brother

‘I think—I really think—that I shall have to bring my brother into this.’
‘Your brother,’ I cried, astonished. ‘I never knew you had a brother?’
‘You surprise me, Hastings. Do you not know that all celebrated detectives have brothers who would be even more celebrated then they are were it not for constitutional indolence?’
Poirot employs a peculiar manner sometimes which makes it well nigh impossible to know whether he is jesting or in earnest. That manner was very evident at the moment.
‘What is your brother’s name?’ I asked, trying to adjust myself to this new idea.
‘Achille Poirot,’ replied Poirot gravely. ‘He lives near Spa in Belgium.’
‘What does he do?’ I asked with some curiosity, putting aside a half-formed wonder as to the character and disposition of the late Madame Poirot, and her classical taste in Christian names.
‘He does nothing. He is, as I tell, of a singularly indolent disposition. But his abilities are hardly less than my own—which is saying a great deal.’
‘Is he like you to look at?’
‘Not unlike. But not nearly so handsome. And he wears no moustaches.’
‘Is he older than you, or younger?’
‘He happens to have been born on the same day.’
‘A twin!’ I cried.

The first part of this is so obviously a direct copy of Sherlock Holmes and his smarter older brother Mycroft Holmes, as to be shameful.

The only woman Poirot ever admired

Sherlock Holmes was said to have only been smitten by one woman, Irene Adler, the only woman to ever outsmart him. Again, in what seems to be a shamelessly direct copy from Holmes, Christie tells us Poirot had a soft spot for only one woman in the world, Countess Vera Rossakoff, and for more or less the same reason i.e. she was a smart enemy.

Poirot, for some reason or other, had always had a sneaking fondness for the countess. Something in her very flamboyance attracted the little man. She was, he was wont to declare in moments of enthusiasm, a woman in a thousand. That she was arrayed against us, on the side of our bitterest enemies, never seemed to weigh in his judgment.

The affair of Mr Templeton’s illness

At a country house down in Hertfordshire. Except that they’ve barely finished dinner with the various family members suspected of poisoning Mr Templeton and gone up to their bedroom, when Poirot hurriedly tells Hastings they must climb out the window, down the ivy and run away. The young man they met at dinner was playing with his bread in exactly the way poor dead Flossie Monro told them that Claud Darrel did. So it was all a trap.

Death of Poirot

They have only just got back to their rooms in London than Hastings strikes a match to light the fire and there’s a gas explosion. When he comes to he finds local doctor, Dr Ridgeway, bending over him, relieved to see that he’s alright but telling him that Poirot didn’t make it.

This is a really low-down cheap trick, because we know Poirot isn’t dead, in fact we only have to flick ten pages later in the book to find him chatting away to Hastings. It’s the cheapest trick in the book to fake his death and have Hastings tug at our heartstrings for a few pages. Shame on you, Dame Agatha!

  • Hastings is called to the deathbed of a Chinaman stabbed in the street.
  • Hastings is warned to leave England by a stranger in a Soho restaurant.
  • Hastings is warned to leave England by the Countess Rossakoff
  • Hastings receives a letter from Poirot’s own lawyers telling him to leave England

So he takes ship for Argentina but in the middle of the night is woken up in his cabin and told he is being transferred to a Royal Navy destroyer (!) and taken back to the coast of Belgium. From here he is taken into the forest of the Ardennes and eventually to a villa where… he is reunited with a very alive Poirot! As every reader knew he would be.

They wait and wait for months until the time comes and a British secret service agent comes to tip them off. They take train to Paris, change and train on towards Italy. En route Poirot tells Hastings the Big Four have built a secret underground headquarters in the Dolomites and from here they will send out messages to the thousands they control in each country to achieve world domination. The significance of Madame Olivier is that she has solved the problem of atomic power.

‘I believe that she has, to a certain extent, succeeded in liberating atomic energy and harnessing it to her purpose. Her experiments with the nitrogen of the air have been very remarkable, and she has also experimented in the concentration of wireless energy, so that a beam of great intensity can be focused upon some given spot.’

The whole thing has gone wildly off the rails to become a sub-H.G. Wells fantasy, with Buchan and Bulldog Drummond thrown in.

They arrive at a hotel in sight of the (fictitious) Felsenlabyrynth, ‘all big boulders piled about in a most fantastic way—a path winds through them’.

They notice one of the guests, a young bland looking man, walking around the terrace then notice him at dinner time. He comes over to their table and makes polite conversation and is just leaning over to light a cigarette when all the lights go out and Hastings passes out.

This is because the young man was Number Four and he broke an anaesthetic glass under their noses. As Poirot and Hastings passed out, accomplices from other tables gagged and bound them, carried them through the hotel, out the back, along underground passages and out into the open and up up up the mountainside.

By the time Hastings fully regains consciousness they are at the opening in the Felsenlabyrinth. There’s a huge boulder in their way but one of their captors presses a magic switch and the rock swings out of the way to reveal a secret passage into the mountainside. they’re carried along this into a cavern.

Claud Darrell aka Number Four controls them at gunpoint and takes them into another room with four big chairs. In two of them are sitting Abe Ryland and Madame Olivier and Darrell climbs into the fourth. Entering the room to join them comes the Countess Rossakoff. However she is the one who realises that Poirot is not Poirot – it is his twin brother and she pulls off his fake moustache to prove it.

So Achille reveals this is all part of the plan, that their mountain hideaway has been known and watched for months, that most of the guests at the hotel as secret service agents from the allied governments. He tells us his shoes were laced with aniseed so dogs could follow his trail and will have found the secret entrance behind the big boulder. Meanwhile the cunning Poirot is outside guiding all these operations against them.

Then things get even cheaper and cheesier. There are explosions in the distance so the three bosses go off in different directions, leaving the Countess Vera Rossakoff. Quickly Achille says he will offer her anything she desires if she will set them free. She thinks she’s being cruelly ironic when she asks him to bring her dead son back to life. But Achille tells her to look in his wallet which the baddies had put along with all their belongings on a table and she gasps as she finds in it a photograph of her son. He is still alive. Achille promises to reunite her with him. And so she undoes their bindings.

So she guides them through the underground labyrinth of tunnels right through the mountain and out the other side. They have barely emerged into the open before there’s an enormous explosion and they are thrown to the ground.

No twin after all

When Hastings regains consciousness he’s in a hospital bed and Poirot is looking down at him. Poirot explains there was never any twin, the entire twin story was a scam – he discoloured his eyes and skin and shaved off his precious moustaches and gave himself a scar on the lip – but it helped that Hastings believed it. Why, you may well ask. Poirot’s explanation is that:

The whole crux of the affair was to make them believe that Hercule Poirot was still at large directing operations.

But this is no answer. Why would that make any difference, when they knew the combined intelligence agencies of half a dozen countries were lined up against them? In other words, the climactic play or gambit or scam with which Poirot saves the day seems curiously hollow and pointless.

Anyway: three of the four were killed when they blew up their own mountain; and Poirot now shows Hastings a newspaper cutting reporting that notorious master of crime Li Chang Yen had killed himself after engineering a revolution which had failed.

So that’s that, then. What a shambolic, cheap and superficial farrago. Graham Greene suppressed his first two novels as he came to realise they were sub-standard. Surprising Christie didn’t suppress this little horror. Poirot’s final words are:

‘Together we have faced and routed the Big Four; and now you will return to your charming wife, and I—I shall retire. The great case of my life is over. Anything else will seem tame after this. No, I shall retire. Possibly I shall grow vegetable marrows! I might even marry and range myself!’

All this talk of retirement. And yet we know that he had barely even started what would turn out to be forty more years of novels, stories and adventures.

*No Chinamen

In 1929 author and priest Ronald Knox wrote a jokey Ten Commandments for writing classic detective stories. Rule Five was ‘No Chinaman must figure in the story’. Delving a bit deeper, Knox explained that: ‘I see no reason in the nature of things why a Chinaman should spoil a detective story. But as a matter of fact, if you are turning over the pages of an unknown romance in a bookstore, and come across some mention of the narrow, slit-like eyes of Chin Loo, avoid that story; it is bad.’

‘The Big Four’ is a textbook demonstration of this rule.

Heightism

Captain Kent was a tall, lean American, with a singularly impassive face which looked as though it had been carved out of wood.

Mrs. Halliday received us at once, a tall, fair woman, nervous and eager in manner.

Madame Olivier was a very tall woman, her tallness accentuated by the long white overall she wore, and a coif like a nun’s that shrouded her head.

‘Mademoiselle Claude, one of my assistants.’ A tall, serious-faced young girl bowed to us.

A man stepped into the room and closed the door behind him. He was a tall, thin man, with a slightly hooked nose and a sallow complexion.

Number Three – A woman stood there, tall and imposing, with a black velvet mask covering her face.

Ryland was sitting at a table… It was my first sight of the American millionaire, and, in spite of myself, I was impressed. He was tall and lean, with a jutting out chin and slightly hooked nose.

Dr. Savaronoff – was an imposing figure. Tall, gaunt, with huge bushy eyebrows and white beard, and a face haggard as the result of starvation and hardships.

The bearer of the message was a tall impassive Chinaman, neatly but rather shabbily dressed.

I was facing an immense cushioned divan on which sat a tall thin Oriental dressed in wonderfully embroidered robes, and clearly, by the length of his finger nails, a great man.

M. Desjardeaux, the French Prime Minister – Standing with his back to the fireplace was a tall thin man with a pointed black beard and a sensitive face.

Mrs. Templeton, a tall dark woman, with sinuous movements and uneasy eyes.

Thoughts

This is a bad book. Don’t bother reading it. The basic scenario and idea of the Big Four is twaddle.

‘There is in the world to-day a vast organisation—an organisation of crime. It is controlled by four individuals, who are known and spoken of as the Big Four. Number One is a Chinaman, Li Chang Yen; Number Two is the American multi-millionaire, Abe Ryland; Number Three is a Frenchwoman; Number Four I have every reason to believe is an obscure English actor called Claud Darrell. These four are banded together to destroy the existing social order, and to replace it with an anarchy in which they would reign as dictators.’

Captain Kent is correct to find it all preposterous nonsense:

‘What was the idea in sinking those boats? Are the Big Four a German stunt?’
‘The Big Four are for themselves—and for themselves only, M. le Capitaine. Their aim is world domination.’
The American burst out laughing…

As should the reader as they throw this book in the bin. As to the ‘cases’ which punctuate the text, they’re clever but trivial because, dealt with so quickly, they never develop a fraction of the depth, grip and traction of the novel-length stories. There are some gestures towards the deeper characterisation of the proper novels:

Poirot nodded, as he arranged the glasses in a neat row on the tray. His love of order was as great as ever.

‘My dear Japp, all through dinner my fingers have been itching to rearrange your own tie-pin. You permit, yes? Ah! that is much more pleasing to the eye.’

Poirot’s eyes were shining with the green light I knew so well.

I realised that Poirot’s vanity was of the case-hardened variety which could withstand all attacks.

And the usual comedy at Hastings’ expense:

Poirot was most childishly delighted with this discovery [of enemy notes about their characters]. Personally I could not see that it was of any value whatever, especially as whoever compiled the notes was ludicrously mistaken in some of his opinions. I pointed this out to my friend when we were back in our rooms.

‘My dear Poirot,’ I said, ‘you know now what the enemy thinks of us. He appears to have a grossly exaggerated idea of your brain power, and to have absurdly underrated mine, but I do not see how we are better off for knowing this.’

But basically Christie ‘phoned it in’, as the Americans say. Tripe.

ITV adaptation

Some or all of this sprawling set of stories was adapted for ITV’s Poirot series starring David Suchet, series 13, episode 2.


Credit

‘The Big Four’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1927 by John Lane. References are to the 1984 Pan paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews