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

One, Two, Buckle My Shoe by Agatha Christie (1940)

‘It’s just like a serial, isn’t it? What’s the next thrilling instalment?’
(Jane Olivera mocks Poirot’s exposition of the case so far, p.102)

‘That dentist chap shooting himself, and then this Chapman woman packed away in her own fur chest with her face smashed in. It’s nasty! It’s damned nasty! I can’t help feeling that there’s something behind it all.’
(The same sense of some hidden meaning or conspiracy expressed in all Christie’s novels, voiced here by Alistair Blunt, p.151)

Within the limits of her chosen genre, I admire Agatha Christie’s experiments and innovations. Lots of her novels try out novel scenarios and variations on the basic idea of a murder mystery. This one belongs to the sub-genre of ‘murder mystery inspired by a nursery rhyme’, a category which she virtually invented – see Other Agatha Christie books and short stories which share this naming convention, such as Hickory Dickory Dock, A Pocket Full of Rye, Five Little Pigs, How Does Your Garden Grow? and ‘And Then There Were None’.

‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’ obviously refers to the popular children’s nursery rhyme:

One, two, buckle my shoe.
Three, four, shut the door.
Five, six, picking up sticks.
Seven, eight, lay them straight.
Nine, ten, a good fat hen.
Eleven, twelve, men must delve.
Thirteen, fourteen, maids are courting.
Fifteen, sixteen, maids in the kitchen.
Seventeen, eighteen, maids in waiting.
Nineteen, twenty, my plate’s empty.

(Actually the version I remember from childhood departs from this at several points.)

So the gimmick is that each of the novel’s ten chapters corresponds to one line of the rhyme. This is made most explicit when Poirot himself applies the rhyme, stating about half way through that he has ‘picked up the sticks’ (i.e. various bits of evidence) and now needs to ‘lay them straight’ i.e. arrange them into a coherent order. To give the passage:

He remembered how he had sat before, jotting down various unrelated facts and a series of names. A bird had flown past the window with a twig in its mouth. He, too, had been collecting twigs. Five, six, picking up sticks…

He had the sticks – quite a number of them now. They were all there, neatly pigeonholed in his orderly mind – but he had not as yet attempted to set them in order. That was the next step – lay them straight.

What was holding him up? He knew the answer. He was waiting for something. Something inevitable, fore-ordained, the next link in the chain. When it came – then – then he could go on…

And also, I was slow to realise the significance when very early on a car pulls up, the door opens, a woman’s leg emerges, wearing a shoe with a buckle, which snags on the door and comes off. Buckle my shoe. Indeed, the detail of this loose shoe buckle will turn out to be the thread which Poirot uses to unravel the whole case. Clever.

Plot summary

Poirot is going to the dentist. There are half a dozen people in the waiting room, going in or coming out of treatment, for the two dentists at the practice he visits, Mr Morley and Mr Reilly.

Next day Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard rings Poirot up and informs him that this bland inoffensive dentist, Morley, was found dead of a gunshot wound an hour after he treated Poirot. Was it suicide or murder?

So Japp and Poirot team up to interview all the employees at the practice and then all the patients in the appointments diary.

But barely have they started this process than another body turns up. A dodgy middle-aged foreigner, Mr Amberiotis, is found dead at his hotel, apparently from an overdose of the kind of local anaesthetic a dentist prescribes. For Japp this confirms the suicide theory: Morley accidentally gave Amberiotis a fatal overdose of anaesthetics, realised what he’d done, and killed himself out of shame and mortification. Doesn’t sound very likely, does it? Surely even a fool like Japp wouldn’t believe such an improbable story. And that’s one of the things wrong with this book; it never really persuades or grips.

Then another person on the list, Miss Sainsbury Seale steps out of her hotel (the Glengowrie Court Hotel) the next evening and doesn’t return for dinner or at all.

So everyone who attended the dentist’s that morning seems to be being bumped off or disappearing. Why? A whole new complexion is out on everything when Poirot goes out to Ealing to visit another patient on the list, a Mr Reginald Barnes.

One of the key figures in the waiting room was a ‘big bug’ named Alistair Blunt. Barnes now explains that Blunt is a key figure in the City and in the network of Britain’s financial system. If you were a foreign power seeking to overthrow Britain, or a communist activist seeking to sweep away the existing capitalist system, bumping off Blunt would be a good starting point.

So Barnes’ testimony to Poirot transforms this from being a boring domestic murder which would probably turns out to be about sex or who stands to gain from the dead man’s will – into an International Intrigue with overtones of spying and espionage. It plunges us back into the feverish world of Christie’s preposterous early spy novels like The Big Four, The Seven Dials Mystery and The Secret of Chimneys.

Here’s how Barnes explains it, to show you the cartoon level of the discourse:

‘That’s why certain people have made up their minds that Blunt must go.’
‘Ah,’ said Poirot.
Mr Barnes nodded.
‘Yes,’ he said. ‘I know what I’m talking about. Quite nice people some of ’em. Long-haired, earnest-eyed, and full of ideals of a better world. Others not so nice, rather nasty in fact. Furtive little rats with beards and foreign accents. And another lot again of the Big Bully type. But they’ve all got the same idea: Blunt Must Go!’

So Barnes’s theory is that ‘they’ (‘the organization that’s behind all this’) tried to persuade Morley to bump off Blunt but, when he refused, had to bump off him instead, and all the other people who, for one reason or another, might have seen or overheard something: Amberiotis, Miss Sainsbury Seal. So who actually shot Morley? His partner, Reilly.

So much for Mr Barnes’s theory. Is he right or is he paranoid and delusional? Poirot comes away wondering…

Next day Poirot goes to see Howard Raikes, a young American who was also waiting in the waiting room on the tragic morning (11.30 appointment). He finds him a firebreathing communist. I’m going to quote his big speech because of the way it echoes the sentiments expressed only a few years earlier by the writers of the Auden Generation, Auden himself and Louis MacNeice and especially Cecil Day Lewis who carried on being a communist after the war. When Auden wrote this kind of thing in verse in the early to mid-1930s it sounded thrilling and vivid; when Christie gives this speech to Raikes it sounds desperately immature and pathetic.

‘You’re Blunt’s private dick all right.’ His face darkened as he leaned across the table. ‘But you can’t save him, you know. He’s got to go – he and everything he stands for! There’s got to be a new deal – the old corrupt system of finance has got to go – this cursed net of bankers all over the world like a spider’s web. They’ve got to be swept away. I’ve nothing against Blunt personally – but he’s the type of man I hate. He’s mediocre – he’s smug. He’s the sort you can’t move unless you use dynamite. He’s the sort of man who says, “You can’t disrupt the foundations of civilization.” Can’t you, though? Let him wait and see! He’s an obstruction in the way of Progress and he’s got to be removed. There’s no room in the world today for men like Blunt – men who hark back to the past – men who want to live as their fathers lived or even as their grandfathers lived! You’ve got a lot of them here in England – crusted old diehards – useless, worn-out symbols of a decayed era. And, my God, they’ve got to go! There’s got to be a new world. Do you get me – a new world, see?’

Enquiries reveal that the missing Miss Sainsbury Seale was friends with a couple named Mr and Mrs Chapman and went to see them on the same day that Japp and Poirot interviewed her (at their flat in King Leopold Mansions, Battersea).

Enquiries reveal that Mr Chapman is currently abroad and that Mrs Chapman hasn’t been seen for weeks. In fact it’s over a month before one of the police investigators (Detective Sergeant Beddoes) becomes suspicious of Mrs Chapman’s lengthy absence and gets a pass key from the manager, and discovers a decomposed woman’s body locked in a trunk, presumed to be the missing Miss Sainsbury Seale.

When Poirot arrives, at Japp’s invitation, he sees that the woman’s face has been beaten to a pulp. All very disgusting but instantly made me realise – as always happens when anybody’s face has been smashed up in this kind of novel – that it’s been done to confuse the dead person’s identity and, sure enough, dental examination shows that the body is not Seale but Mrs Chapman.

Why? Maybe it’s just me but it felt like the story progresses at quite a slow pace. There are a lot of suggestive elements in it but somehow they don’t gel, and fail to create a sense of urgency or peril.

When he gets home, Poirot finds Mr Barnes waiting for him. He explains that Mr Albert Chapman, owner of the flat, is a spy! An agent for the British Intelligence Service, codename Q.X.912. The real question is why Barnes is telling Poirot all this? Out of the kindness of his heart, or has he been put up to it by someone?

Next thing Japp rings Poirot and tells him he’s been officially ordered to stand down the police enquiry into the murder. Clearly this has something to do with the Secret Service / espionage aspect of the whole thing. Japp is fuming at being stymied like this but Poirot, of course, being free of any official structure, can carry on investigating at will.

Next thing is Poirot receives a note from Alistair Blunt inviting him to come and stay at his country place at Exsham, in Kent. He’s barely finished reading the note when the phone rings and an unknown female voice tells him to give up his enquiries, steer clear of the case, keep his nose out of this business or else!

The narrative topples over into the ridiculous when there’s an attempt on the Prime Minister’s life. As he stepped out of Number 10 someone took a pot shot at him and missed. Now he just happened to be stepping out with what the press described as ‘a friend’ but Poirot quickly hears was the egregious Mr Alistair Blunt. Was the bullet meant for Blunt?

Not only that but the angry American communist Howard Raikes, one of the people in Morley’s waiting room that morning, just happened to be on the spot. He grabbed a man near to him and shouted to the police that he’d caught the shooter, only for this to be revealed as a mistake or decoy, because the person who fired the shot, a disgruntled Indian, was almost immediately caught with the gun on him. So what on earth was Raikes doing there and why on earth did he deliberately try to mislead the police?

As he prepares to go and stay with Blunt in Kent it becomes crystal clear that neither of Blunt’s womenfolk want him to go. Their relationship is a little complicated. Blunt was married to a woman named Rebecca Arnholt who was 20 years older than him, and a very successful financier in her own right, in fact critics said he only married her for her money. Julia Olivera was the niece of Rebecca Arnholt, being the daughter of Rebecca’s sister; and Jane Olivera is the daughter of Julia Olivera, and so Rebecca Arnholt’s grand niece.

Both of them are very superior creatures and loftily dismissive of Poirot who likens the scornful critical tones of old Mrs Olivera as like a ‘clucking hen’. It took me a moment to realise this is part of the joke or conceit or gimmick of the novel, whereby each chapter is named after – and to some extent cashes out or elaborates – a line from the rhyme, in this case ‘Nine, ten, a good fat hen’.

Poirot is driven down to the financier’s comfortable country house at Exsham in Kent in his chauffeur-driven Rolls (this is another obviously reassuring aspect of so many of Christie’s novels – it is that so many of the characters are reassuringly wealthy and upper class. It’s the same combination of nostalgia and fantasising about living that kind of life, that made the TV series ‘Upstairs Downstairs’ so popular when I was a boy, and more recently made ‘Downton Abbey’ such a hit. Petit bourgeois viewers and readers love fantasising about living the pampered lives of the Edwardian and Georgian upper classes, all country houses and huge staff.)

Anyway, the narrative had until now been all set in London and the urban setting gave the ridiculous spy story a kind of plausibility. Now setting switches to a plush country house, all gardeners and butlers, and changes tone entirely.

Here Poirot is introduced to Helen Montressor who is Blunt’s ‘cousin’. He interviews Blunt at great length, asking who would want to murder him etc. He discovers that one of the gardeners at the house is none other than Morley’s secretary’s fiancé, the touchy Frank Carter. He discovers that Jane Olivera a) hates and despises him (Poirot) for being so despicably bourgeois and b) reveals a surprising sympathy for Howard Raikes and his communist rhetoric.

The novel descends perilously close to farce when there is another assassination attempt on Blunt. Blunt is showing Poirot round his garden when a shot rings out. The bullet misses him but there is an immediate flurry in the laurel bushes and Howard Raikes falls through them, clutching Frank Carter who is holding a pistol. He claims he’s been framed, he was clipping some shrubs when the shot rang out and the gun was thrown at his feet.

When interviewed by the police, Frank claims he was offered the job by the Secret Service.

His instructions were to listen to the other gardeners’ conversations and sound them as to their ‘red’ tendencies, and to pretend to be a bit of a ‘red’ himself. He had been interviewed and instructed in his task by a woman who had told him that she was known as Q.H.56, and that he had been recommended to her as a strong anti-communist. She had interviewed him in a dim light and he did not think he would know her again. She was a red-haired lady with a lot of make-up on.

Poirot groaned. The Phillips Oppenheim touch seemed to be reappearing… (p.

E. Phillips Oppenheim (1866 to 1946) was a prolific writer of best-selling adventure fiction, featuring glamorous characters, international intrigue and fast action. So Christie’s two references to Oppenheim indicate how aware she was that her story, right from the start, verged on cheap populist melodrama.

Meanwhile, Raikes is on the scene both times someone fired a shot at Blunt. He is a communist hothead who thinks Blunt should be eliminated. Blunt’s posh niece Jane sympathises with him. Angry Frank Carter claims he’s some kind of fall guy for the Security Services. Behind all this lurks a series of unsolved murders and the involvement of a mystery British secret agent, Q.X.912. Could it get any more preposterous?

As usual, at this point I’ll stop summarising a) because it gets increasingly complicated before we arrive at the characteristically ludicrous and convoluted climax and b) I don’t want to give the game away.

 ‘I know, M. Poirot, that you have a great reputation. Therefore I accept that you must have some grounds for this extraordinary assumption—for it is an assumption, nothing more. But all I can see is the fantastic improbability of the whole thing.’ (p.225)

You can read the whole novel online.

Cast

  • Mr Henry Morley – dentist, ‘was a small man with a decided jaw and a pugnacious chin’
  • Miss Georgina Morley – Morley’s sister who keeps house for him, ‘a large woman rather like a female grenadier, ‘ tall and grim’
  • Gladys Nevill – Morley’s secretary, ‘a tall, fair, somewhat anæmic girl of about twenty-eight’
  • Frank Carter – Gladys’s fancy man, ‘ fair young man of medium height. His appearance was cheaply smart. He talked readily and fluently. His eyes were set rather close together and they had a way of shifting uneasily from side to side when he was embarrassed’ – turns out to be a blackshirt i.e. Fascist or, as the novel has it, ‘Imperial Shirt’
  • Agnes Fletcher – Morley’s house-parlourmaid
  • Mr Amberiotis – started as a Greek hotel keeper, known spy and possibly blackmailer
  • Alistair Blunt – quiet and modest and one of Britain’s great financiers
  • Rebecca Arnholt – Blunt’s dead wife, 20 years older than him, ‘a notorious Jewess’ in the words of Gladys Nevill
  • Julia Olivera – niece of Blunt’s deceased wife, Rebecca Arnholt, being the daughter of Rebecca’s sister
  • Jane Olivera – daughter of Julia Olivera and so Rebecca Arnholt’s grand-niece – American and offensive ‘She was tall, thin, and her face had an intelligence and aliveness that redeemed its lack of actual beauty. She was dark with a deeply tanned skin’ – madly in love with fellow American, Howard Raikes
  • Hercule Poirot
  • Alfred – boy assistant at the dentists’ surgery, ‘a boy in page-boy’s uniform with a freckled face, red hair, and an earnest manner’
  • Colonel Abercrombie – ‘a military-looking gentleman with a fierce moustache and a yellow complexion. He looked at Poirot with an air of one considering some noxious insect’
  • Miss Sainsbury Seale – posh, returned from India where she had unwisely married a Hindu who already had a wife, gives elocution lessons, keen amateur actress, ‘nearer fifty than forty. Pince-nez. Untidy yellow-grey hair’ – ‘a woman of forty odd with indecisively bleached hair rolled up in untidy curls. Her clothes were shapeless and rather artistic, and her pince-nez were always dropping off. She was a great talker’
  • George – Poirot’s butler
  • Chief Inspector Japp – of Scotland Yard, familiar figure from ten or so previous Poirot novels
  • Mr Reilly – Morley’s partner at the dental practice, young and flippant – ‘a tall, dark young man, with a plume of hair that fell untidily over his forehead. He had an attractive voice and a very shrewd eye’
  • Reginald Barnes – another patient (12 noon) who turns out to be a former Home office official and fantastically well informed about the international conspiracy to bump off Blunt
  • Mrs Harrison – proprietor of the Glengowrie Court Hotel
  • Mr Howard Raikes – American, embittered communist – ‘A lean hungry face, an aggressive jaw, the eyes of a fanatic. It was a face, though, that women might find attractive’ cf Ferguson in ‘Death on the Nile’
  • Mrs Merton – friend of Mrs Chapman, in whose flat at Battersea Miss Sainsbury Seale’s body is found
  • Mrs Adams – friend of Mrs Chapman, her name found on a letter in the murdered woman’s flat, lives in Hampstead, Poirot visits and questions

Method

‘You’re an odd man, M. Poirot.’
‘I am very odd. That is to say, I am methodical, orderly and logical—and I do not like distorting facts to support a theory—that, I find—is unusual!’

Women

Mrs Olivera clacked on. She was, thought Poirot, rather like a hen. A big, fat hen! Mrs Olivera, still clacking, moved majestically after her bust towards the door. (p.142)

Bookishness

Poirot asks the boy Arthur what he was reading:

What were you reading?’
‘Death at Eleven-Forty-Five, sir. It’s an American detective story. It’s a corker, sir, it really is! All about gunmen.’

‘Alfred reads detective stories – Alfred is enamoured of crime. Whatever Alfred lets slip will be put down to Alfred’s morbid criminal imagination.’

‘I’ve been looking forward, M. Poirot, to hearing a few of your adventures. I read a lot of thrillers and detective stories, you know. Do you think any of them are true to life?’
(Alistair Blunt)

As I’ve said, I think that Christie’s novels contain so many references to detective stories and thrillers in order to lower our standards of plausibility, help us suspend our disbelief and generally soften the reader up, ushering us into an imaginative world of preposterous goings-on.

Mr Barnes went on, tapping a book with a lurid jacket that lay on a table close at hand: ‘I read a lot of these spy yarns. Fantastic, some of them. But curiously enough they’re not any more fantastic than the real thing . There are beautiful adventuresses, and dark sinister men with foreign accents, and gangs and international associations and super crooks! I’d blush to see some of the things I know set down in print – nobody would believe them for a minute!’

The references to other detective stories, far from hiding the book’s artificiality, emphasise it, all the better to immerse the reader in the simple caricatures and preposterous plots of MurderMysteryWorld. As Japp remarks, citing the popular spy authors of the day:

As they went down the stairs again to No. 42, Japp ejaculated with feeling: ‘Shades of Phillips Oppenheim, Valentine Williams and William le Queux, I think I’m going mad!’ (p.122)

Sherlock Holmes

‘Talking of jobs, I’ve always been interested to know how you private detectives go about things? I suppose there’s not much of the Sherlock Holmes touch really, mostly divorce nowadays?’

The English

Among many other things, Poirot became vehicle by which Christie could express her amused fondness for her own nation and people. When Mr Morley’s secretary, Miss Gladys Nevill, comes to see him all of a-flutter, he knows how to calm her down.

Profiting by a long experience of the English people, Poirot suggested a cup of tea. Miss Nevill’s reaction was all that could be hoped for.
‘Well, really, M. Poirot, that’s very kind of you. Not that it’s so very long since breakfast, but one can always do with a cup of tea, can’t one?’
Poirot, who could always do without one, assented mendaciously.

Christie’s unfeminism

Glady’s boyfriend is unreliable, keeps losing jobs etc. But Gladys is naively confident that her love will redeem and change him, as so many women before her have made the same mistake.

‘But it will be different now. I think one can do so much by influence, don’t you, M. Poirot? If a man feels a woman expects a lot of him, he tries to live up to her ideal of him.’

Poirot sighed. But he did not argue. He had heard many hundreds of women produce that same argument, with the same blithe belief in the redeeming power of a woman’s love. Once in a thousand times, he supposed, cynically, it might be true.

In fact it is a running thread through all Christie’s books, this opinion that lots of women are attracted to bad men, to wrong ‘uns.

It was not as though he had any particular belief in, or liking for, Frank Carter. Carter, he thought dispassionately, was definitely what the English call a ‘wrong ’un’. He was an unpleasant young bully of the kind that appeals to women, so that they are reluctant to believe the worst, however plain the evidence. (p.171)

English sentimentality

‘It is not I who am sentimental! That is an English failing! It is in England that they weep over young sweethearts and dying mothers and devoted children. Me, I am logical.’ (p.204)

You only have to look at most Victorian art to see how vast a slab of sugary sentimentality used to be a central characteristic of the English.

Bookishness

Japp mocking Poirot’s claims that Morley was murdered triggers the self-mocking of her own genre and style which Christie deploys in every one of her novels.

‘If—only if, mind you—that blasted woman committed suicide, if she’d drowned herself for instance, the body would have come ashore by now. If she was murdered, the same thing.’
‘Not if a weight was attached to her body and it was put into the Thames.’
‘From a cellar in Limehouse, I suppose! You’re talking like a thriller by a lady novelist.’
‘I know—I know. I blush when I say these things!’
‘And she was done to death by an international gang of crooks, I suppose?’ (p.107)

After a minute or two, Japp went on with his summing up of the Sainsbury Seale situation.
‘I suppose her body might have been lowered into a tank of acid by a mad scientist—that’s another solution they’re very fond of in books! But take my word for it, these things are all my eye and Betty Martin. (p.109)

Wittgenstein

Poirot insists that solving a murder mystery requires a certain amount of fact finding, obviously yes yes yes – but then what is really required is thinking long and hard so as to arrange everything that is known into a logical sequence which fits all the facts and matches the psychology of the people involved i.e. is psychologically plausible. Hence his repeated insistence in all the books on the imperative importance of sitting back and thinking.

To be more precise, you have to find the right angle, the right vantage point, from which all the facts fit into a logical and psychologically consistent pattern. And so it is here, again.

A snare cunningly laid—a net with cords—a pit open at his feet—dug carefully so that he should fall into it.

He was in a daze—a glorious daze where isolated facts spun wildly round before settling neatly into their appointed places.

It was like a kaleidoscope—shoe buckles, 10-inch stockings, a damaged face, the low tastes in literature of Alfred the page-boy, the activities of Mr Amberiotis, and the part played by the late Mr Morley, all rose up and whirled and settled themselves down into a coherent pattern.

For the first time, Hercule Poirot was looking at the case the right way up… (p.176)

Now this idea, that a mental problem is only a problem because we are looking at it from the wrong perspective, and that what is required is not finding a solution so much as finding the right angle from which to regard the facts – this reminded me exactly of the later philosophy of the twentieth century’s greatest philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein. In my review of the brilliant biography of Wittgenstein by Ray Monk, I summarise his later attitude thus:

Wittgenstein isn’t about making theories or coming up with theoretical foundations. He wants to release people from their confusions and perplexities by making them see the ‘problem’ in a new way, from a different perspective. There are no solutions. But if you see problems from the right angle, they cease to be problems any more and so the lack of solutions, also, ceases to cause you anxiety and worry. Philosophy is the therapy which cures anxiety about philosophical problems.

Apparently Wittgenstein was fond of quoting the physicist the German physicist Heinrich Herz who struggled with the problems in mechanical theory bequeathed by Isaac Newton’s notion of ‘force’. But in his book ‘The Principles of Mechanics’, Herz explained that if you dumped the notion of force altogether and simply observed the wide variety of events which used to be corralled together to create the definition – if you actually just looked at what was in front of your eyes – then all the ‘problems’ raised by hanging onto Newton’s out-dated notion simply disappeared.

“When these painful contradictions are removed, the question as to the nature of force will not have been answered; but our minds, no longer vexed, will cease to ask illegitimate questions.” (Quoted in Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk, 1991, page 446)

Wittgenstein was delighted by this passage because it exactly epitomised his own approach to the so-called ‘problems’ of philosophy.

Which all closely matches the approach of the great fictional detective.

‘Me, I have dealt with crime for many years now. I have my own way of regarding things.‘

Poirot has a way, an angle, a perspective, which again and again solves complex mysteries which all his peers, whether professional or amateur, find impossible to solve. And he nearly always ends up by saying that, once regarded from the correct angle, most of these ‘insoluble’ puzzles turn out to be astonishingly simple.

So the twentieth century’s greatest detective and its greatest philosopher shared this fundamental approach in common 🙂

1930s slang: ‘lay’

Christie always lards Inspector Japp’s speech with plenty of Cockney slang to emphasise his lower class, not-so-well-educated character. I was struck in this novel by use of the word ‘lay’ which I don’t think I’ve seen used in this way before.

He was in close touch with some of our Central European friends. Espionage racket.’
‘You are sure of that?’
‘Yes. Oh, he wasn’t doing any of the dirty work himself. We wouldn’t have been able to touch him. Organizing and receiving reports – that was his lay.’

And:

‘Did you know that Miss Sainsbury Seale was a close friend of the late Mrs Alistair Blunt?’
‘Who says so? I don’t believe it. Not in the same class.’
‘She said so.’
‘Who’d she say that to?’
‘Mr Alistair Blunt.’
‘Oh! That sort of thing. He must be used to that lay.’ (p.108)

Thoughts

‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’ is a reversion to the preposterous atmosphere of international intrigue, secret crime organisations, spies and espionage, which characterised The Secret of Chimneys and The Seven Dials Mystery. Only with measurably less of the charm and humour which made those early novels so hilarious.


Credit

‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’ by Agatha Christie was published by the Collins Crime Club in November 1940.

Related links

Related reviews

Tono-Bungay by H.G. Wells (1909)

This is a long novel narrated in the first person by 40-year-old George Ponderevo, describing in a deliberately ramshackle, digressive way, his boyhood and early manhood, his doomed early marriage and, above all, his involvement with his uncle Edward Ponderevo who shot to fame and fortune – in a ‘comet-like transit of the financial heavens’ – on the back of the quack medicine he invented and which gives the book its title, ‘Tono-Bungay’.

Three categories of H.G. Wells novel

Wells wrote a terrifying amount, over 100 books, sometimes publishing three books in a year, not to mention the numerous short stories and countless magazine articles.

Gilbert Phelps, in his introduction to the Pan paperback edition, says you can divide Wells’s novels into three categories: the scientific romances; the social comedies; and the novels of ideas. He ‘went off’ as a novelist precisely as the first flush of his extraordinary science fiction gave way to the third category, his increasingly long-winded novels addressing various social issues and designed to put the world to rights.

Phelps suggests that ‘Tono-Bungay’ holds a special position in Wells’s oeuvre as containing elements of all three categories in a kind of equipoise. 1) The narrator is presented as a devotee of scientific knowledge, an innovative engineer working on the (very new) technology of flight and the book contains serious technical accounts of manned flight (in gliders and propelled balloons), as well as a surprising amount about radioactivity in the late episode about ‘quap’.

At the same time the book contains 2) a lot of social comedy i.e. a lot of the characters are grotesques and caricatures created for comic effect. There’s a lot of Dickensian boisterousness, especially in the early chapters.

And all this is entwined with sustained attempts at 3) broader social analysis. In his way, Wells attempts to get to the root of hidebound Little England and its uptight social hierarchies, its small-minded snobbishness. Later on, the book becomes an anatomisation of modern business and finance, the sham values of advertising, the ghastly need for social acceptability of the nouveaux riches, all described in punishing detail. To summarise:

In effect [Tono-Bungay] was the watershed between Wells the predominantly creative artist and Wells the predominantly propagandistic writer.
(Gilbert Phelps in the Introduction, p.xviii)

Autobiographical

I read Tono-Bungay when I was a student and have a vague memory of the exuberant character of his uncle and its commentary on Edwardian England which I found politically energising. Rereading it thirty years later I have a completely different view. On this reading the social analysis seems to me weak and vague, the character of Uncle Edward only appears intermittently and the entire quack medicine storyline lacks detail and conviction. What comes over to me this time is that it is extremely autobiographical; the strong feeling that in his Edwardian novels Wells is writing his autobiography again and again, that it is the only ‘serious’ story that he has.

What I mean is that Love and Mr Lewisham (1900) is about a young man who escapes from drudgery working as a bullied teacher in a rubbish little private school when he wins a scholarship to study at the science college in South Kensington but is distracted from his studies when he falls in love with a beautiful but poor and rather dim young woman and ends up dropping out altogether in order to marry her. This is what happened to Wells, who escaped drudgery as a teacher in a nonky little school to study Biology at the Normal School of Science (later, Imperial College) in South Kensington, but fell in love and married his cousin who turned out to be dim and conventional.

The hero of Kipps (1905), after a promising education finds himself condemned to drudgery in a haberdasher department store in Kent just like Wells was before he managed to escape to London, as Kipps escapes by inheriting a fortune, as in a fairy story.

So Tono-Bungay feels like Well’s third go at using the material of his own life, and this time it feels closer than ever to his actual life story and maybe this explains why it often feels more vivid and, at moments, more fierce and angry, than its predecessors.

For in real life, when his family fell on hard times his mother was forced to go back into service as a housekeeper in the big country house at Up Park in Sussex where Wells as a boy observed all the snobbery of the late Victorian era, both above and below stairs – and this is precisely the plot of the first part of Tono-Bungay. It describes the boyhood of the narrator, young George Ponderevo, whose mother is housekeeper in the big old country house of Bladesover, allowing him to view the snobbery of the old lady who owns the place, and of the fleet of servants who run it, at first hand.

Bladesovery

George’s mother is housekeeper at Bladesover, a grand old country house belonging to a terrifying old lady, Lady Drew, and her forbidding friend and companion, Miss Somerville, and it’s here that young George is brought up below stairs to know his place in a fixed and centuries-old hierarchy.

Bladesover is deliberately built up into a symbol of England with its snobbishness and narrow-mindedness and conservatism, which is to become a reference point or touchstone for the rest of the book.

Bladesover illuminates England; it has become all that is spacious, dignified pretentious, and truly conservative in English life.

The narrow-minded, snobbish, philistine, bigoted, Brexit, Daily Mail, conservative England which endures down to the present day, 125 years later. The narrator calls this blinkered mindset Bladesovery.

His mother sets the tone: her husband ran off, possibly to Australia, and abandoned her with the baby, with the result that she is fierce and embittered, and has destroyed every trace of her perfidious partner. Young George never even finds out his father’s name let alone what he looked like.

His mother has become narrow, crabbed, confined to the dark spaces below stairs with the other narrow-living, dignified staff, replicating the snobbery of their betters upstairs. Against all this stuffiness and fixity young George instinctively rebels. He is:

‘Disobedient,’ said my mother. ‘He has no idea of his place…’

‘You must be a good boy, George,’ she said. ‘You must learn…. And you mustn’t set yourself up against those who are above you and better than you…. Or envy them.’ ‘No mother,’ I said.

So these opening chapters describe the narrator’s boyhood as the son of the housekeeper in a rural grand house in Kent and vividly depict the elaborate social system whereby everyone is born into a ‘place’ and expected to remain there for life, victims of ‘that snobbishness which is the distinctive quality of English thought’.

True to form George rebels and causes trouble and after a climactic incident, he is exiled from the house, sent off to stay with his mother’s cousin to work in his seedy little bakery in horrible Chatham. This man, Nicodemus Frapp, represents the servile tradition perfected, and is a sort of caricature of incompetent simplicity. He is a Christian but made to represent a small-minded English type of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. George has to sleeps in same bed as Fripp’s two sons, which leads not to furtive teenage sex, as you might expect in a modern novel, but to the boys having fiery debates about the existence of God where George finds himself goaded into mocking the boys’ ignorant faith which eventually leads to a big fight and George runs away, walking the 20 or so miles back to Bladesover and presenting himself, unrepentant, to his exasperated mother.

It’s at this point that he is sent to live with another cousin of his mother’s, Edward Ponderevo, a pharmacist in Wimblehurst, 26 or 7, married, impatient, ambitious, with a joking supportive wife, Susan – Uncle Edward and Aunt Susan, and thus the Bladesover part of the book ends and the young adult part begins.

Critique of Bladesovery

When I was a student I think I thrilled to Wells’s repeated skewering of the Little England mindset, the kind of provincial ignorance I myself had to run away from in order to embrace the bigger world of ideas and experiences.

Wells puts some effort into trying turn Bladesover into a theory of British society. This has at least two distinct aspects.

1. Static analysis

The first is the static analysis or historical theory, the notion that Bladesover represents the fundamental social structure of England and the historical theory that it has been this way since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In the narrator’s view, English society was crystallised around the rule of the Whig landed gentry who owned all the land, who ran it from big houses, around whom was a constellation of other roles and jobs – the wide array of servants who served them in their homes, and then the professions (doctor, lawyer, architect and so on) who serviced their needs from local towns or cities. The entire paraphernalia of politics, the House of Commons and House of Lords, the awards system and so on, everything was constructed around the needs and demands of the landed aristocracy and had been so from 1688 to the time when the protagonist is a boy at Bladesover in the 1880s (p.80).

The cultural result of all this is that the aristocracy own culture, can afford to be cosmopolitan, have broad horizons and so on, while virtually everyone else is indoctrinated into the naive and blinkered belief that British is best, that this is the greatest country in the world, that foreigners with their silly languages and fancy cooking are ghastly and so on and so on, the Daily Mail, Daily Express mentality.

The serfs have completely assimilated the social structure which entirely benefits their betters, and aggressively champion their own subjugation – just like poor Northerners in our time fooled into voting for the Conservative party, the party of oligarchs and millionaires and non-doms. They love their own enslavement and react violently against anyone who suggests they think for themselves. They have the Daily Mail to do their thinking for them, to tell them who to hate and why – which is, broadly speaking, anyone who wants to change any aspect of the present most excellent state of the country.

Thus it is that, at various moments throughout the book, the narrator reverts to his theory of Bladesovery to explain this or that aspect of hidebound, snobbish English society (p.150). Even when he goes up to London to stay with his Uncle, who’s moved there, he, at first, sees the vast capital as an extended Bladesover, the Bladesover system devised to provide a golden life for aristocrats and their hangers-on in the law and the city, and drudgery for everyone else…

There have been no revolutions, no deliberate restatements or abandonments of opinion in England since the days of the fine gentry, since 1688 or thereabouts, the days when Bladesover was built; there have been changes, dissolving forces, replacing forces, if you will; but then it was that the broad lines of the English system set firmly. . . . The fine gentry may have gone; they have indeed largely gone, I think; rich merchants may have replaced them, financial adventurers or what not. That does not matter; the shape is still Bladesover…

2. Dynamic analysis

Having established, and repeatedly embellished, this reading of the theoretical, historical framework of British society, the novel then goes on to describe George’s dawning realisation that the system is, in fact, falling to pieces, and chronicles his slow, slow disillusion with the state of English society.

Specifically, George starts out as a very young man thinking everywhere will be as ordered and structured as life at Bladesover. Even after his personal life starts going awry he continues to work on the assumption that there is someone, somewhere, in control:

I still clung to the idea that the world of men was or should be a sane and just organisation…

Only slowly does he realise that no one’s in control and all is mess and muddle.

Just as I had always imagined that somewhere in social arrangements there was certainly a Head-Master who would intervene if one went too far, so I had always had a sort of implicit belief that in our England there were somewhere people who understood what we were all, as a nation, about. That crumpled into this pit of doubt and vanished…

‘I’ve had false ideas about the world,’ I said…

And:

Everybody who is not actually in the shadow of a Bladesover is as it were perpetually seeking after lost orientations. We have never broken with our tradition, never even symbolically hewed it to pieces, as the French did in quivering fact in the Terror. But all the organizing ideas have slackened, the old habitual bonds have relaxed or altogether come undone… (p.13)

This realisation is demonstrated by the whole story of Tono-Bungay, which is only a kind of glorified cough medicine but becomes a worldwide bestseller due to his uncle’s genius for publicity and advertising. Uncle Edward comes up with amazingly catchy jingles, places hoardings with his striking logo all round towns and cities, branches out into a huge range of other household products and objects (Tono-Bungay Lozenges and Tono-Bungay Chocolate, Tono-Bungay Mouthwash). He is, you realise at some stage, a kind of epitome of American can-do commercialism plonked down into stuffy late-Victorian society (as far as I can make out, the key events all happen during the 1890s).

And as young George watches at first hand his uncle create a commercial and financial giant from what is, in essence, a set of advertising jingles and slogans, it’s then that he realises that, if the city and lawyers and the wealthy, if entire provincial cities and towns can be taken by storm by this patently fraudulent product, then maybe nobody knows what’s going on and nobody’s in charge. Maybe all of society with its pomp and circumstance and Jubilee celebrations is a hollow sham.

He goes from thinking the world is planned and organised with someone somewhere supervising its moral nature, to realising it’s chaos. Thus when his uncle manages to raise a huge sum in the City on the strength of his fraudulent products:

£150,000 – think of it! – for the goodwill in a string of lies and a trade in bottles of mitigated water! Do you realise the madness of the world that sanctions such a thing? (p.129)

And:

At the climax of his Boom, my uncle at the most sparing estimate must have possessed in substance and credit about two million pounds’-worth of property to set off against his vague colossal liabilities, and from first to last he must have had a controlling influence in the direction of nearly thirty millions. This irrational muddle of a community in which we live gave him that, paid him at that rate for sitting in a room and scheming and telling it lies. For he created nothing, he invented nothing, he economised nothing. I cannot claim that a single one of the great businesses we organised added any real value to human life at all. Several like Tono-Bungay were unmitigated frauds by any honest standard, the giving of nothing coated in advertisements for money. (p.184)

And:

Civilisation is possible only through confidence, so that we can bank our money and go unarmed about the streets. The bank reserve or a policeman keeping order in a jostling multitude of people, are only slightly less impudent bluffs than my uncle’s prospectuses. They couldn’t for a moment ‘make good’ if the quarter of what they guarantee was demanded of them. The whole of this modern mercantile investing civilisation is indeed such stuff as dreams are made of. A mass of people swelters and toils, great railway systems grow, cities arise to the skies and spread wide and far, mines are opened, factories hum, foundries roar, ships plough the seas, countries are settled; about this busy striving world the rich owners go, controlling all, enjoying all, confident and creating the confidence that draws us all together into a reluctant, nearly unconscious brotherhood…

The flags flutter, the crowds cheer, the legislatures meet. Yet it seems to me indeed at times that all this present commercial civilisation is no more than my poor uncle’s career writ large, a swelling, thinning bubble of assurances; that its arithmetic is just as unsound, its dividends as ill-advised, its ultimate aim as vague and forgotten; that it all drifts on perhaps to some tremendous parallel to Uncle Edward’s individual disaster… (p.186)

So George goes from thinking the world is a hugely amplified model of the structured, ordered, supervised society of one grand country house, to realising it is an enormous sham, populated by chancers and frauds, with no bedrock or anchor at all, except everyone blindly trusting in the old forms and traditions.

The power of advertising

Thus the book isn’t so much ‘about’ the fake product as the tremendous power of ‘modern’ advertising and the passages Wells writes describing the coming of age of mass advertising in the 1890s are fascinating social history.

I was particularly struck when he writes that modern advertising isn’t so much about just promoting and selling stuff – it’s about creating new ideas and possibilities which people can buy into. When the book’s resident cynic, Bob Ewart, visits Uncle Edward’s bottling operation, he makes the profound point that advertising doesn’t flog this or that product, it offers its consumers the dream of a better life.

‘It’s the poetry of the customer too. Poet answering to poet – soul to soul. Health, Strength and Beauty – in a bottle – the magic philtre! Like a fairy tale….Think of the people to whom your bottles of footle go…Think of the little clerks and jaded women and overworked people. People overstrained with wanting to do, people overstrained with wanting to be…. People, in fact, overstrained…. The real trouble of life, Ponderevo, isn’t that we exist – that’s a vulgar error; the real trouble is that we don’t really exist and we want to. That’s what this – in the highest sense – just stands for! The hunger to be – for once – really alive – to the finger tips!

‘Nobody wants to do and be the things people are – nobody. YOU don’t want to preside over this – this bottling; I don’t want to wear these beastly clothes and be led about by you; nobody wants to keep on sticking labels on silly bottles at so many farthings a gross. That isn’t existing! That’s – substratum. None of us want to be what we are, or to do what we do. Except as a sort of basis. What do we want? You know. I know. Nobody confesses. What we all want to be is something perpetually young and beautiful – young Joves – young Joves, Ponderevo, pursuing coy half-willing nymphs through everlasting forests… (p.130)

And again:

‘Advertisement has revolutionised trade and industry; it is going to revolutionise the world. The old merchant used to tote about commodities; the new one creates values. Doesn’t need to tote. He takes something that isn’t worth anything – or something that isn’t particularly worth anything – and he makes it worth something. He takes mustard that is just like anybody else’s mustard, and he goes about saying, shouting, singing, chalking on walls, writing inside people’s books, putting it everywhere, ‘Smith’s Mustard is the Best.’ And behold it is the best!’

And plans to control and manipulate the media:

He had some amazing perceptions of just how modern thought and the supply of fact to the general mind may be controlled by money. Among other things that my uncle offered for, he tried very hard to buy the British Medical Journal and the Lancet, and run them on what he called modern lines [i.e. to promote his fraudulent products] (p.192)

Plenty of literary critics have written about Wells. I wonder if there’s an essay somewhere by someone who works in advertising and assesses just how spot-on Wells’s analysis was, and whether much has changed in the 130 years since the book’s setting in the 1890s.

Socialism, or not…

George doesn’t become a full-on socialist and socialism is represented in the novel by his boyhood friend, Ewart, who grows up to be a middling to poor sculptor, just about scraping a living, so hardly a shining beacon. Ewart represents total cynicism; he thinks all of society and its values are a sham and so he lives outside them. This is represented by his simple decision to live in sin with one of his models, who herself calmly accepts the fact that he periodically goes on big debauches, getting epically drunk and/or sleeping with prostitutes. Ewart can do this with no hesitation because he has seen through ‘society’ and realised all its values are shams simply designed to keep the proles in line.

But you can see how Wells came to his political opinions and why they aren’t, in fact, socialist; you can see why he joined, but then fell out with, the Fabians. A dictionary definition of socialism is: ‘a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole’ i.e. public ownership not private ownership.

But where Wells’s heart really lies is in the notion that the old raddled fraudulent society needs to be torn down and rebuilt on the basis of Reason and Science. It is Science which becomes young George’s god and he imagines it is leagues of rational, educated, detached and objective scientists who Wells will run the rational society of the future. As George’s flying assistant, Cothope, puts it:

‘We scientific people, we’ll have to take things over and stop all this financing and advertisement and that.’ (p.293)

Uncle Edward

But Lord! they’ve no capacity for ideas, they don’t catch on; no Jump about the place, no Life. Live!—they trickle, and what one has to do here is to trickle too—Zzzz.”
“Ah!” said my mother.
“It doesn’t suit me,” said my uncle. “I’m the cascading sort.” (p.46)

Interesting to learn that even down the social scale, in the 1890s a provincial chemist is aware that America is more vibrant exciting and go-ahead than sleepy England:

I’d like to let a dozen young Americans loose into it,” said my uncle. “Then we’d see.”

America! I wish to Heaven, George, I’d been born American—where things hum.

Uncle goes bust on speculation, sells the pharmacy, takes a job in London. George continues studying. Aged 19 he makes his first visit to London (p.69). His uncle invites him to join him in the Tono-Bungay venture. It is the early 1890s.

Marion

Like Mr Lewisham, George gets a scholarship to study Science in London and, just like Mr Lewisham, allows himself to fall in love with an unsuitable woman, in George’s case uneducated, banal, lower class Marion, neglects his studies for her and fails his exams.

The long chapter about Marion is quite harrowing because it is a very powerful description of a sensual intelligent but completely inexperienced young man projecting onto a shallow silly woman all his longing for romance, intellectual companionship and pure lust – while she is a familiar type of sluggish, conventional narrow-minded, reluctant, delaying, ‘not where people can see’ type of prude.

She was young and extraordinarily conventional – she seemed never to have an idea of her own but always the idea of her class – and I was young and sceptical, enterprising and passionate; the two links that held us together were the intense appeal her physical beauty had for me, and her appreciation of her importance in my thoughts. There can be no doubt of my passion for her. In her I had discovered woman desired. The nights I have lain awake on account of her, writhing, biting my wrists in a fever of longing!

Well, after an agonising courtship in which Marion reveals herself as narrow and unimaginative and petty-minded, they get married, George hoping all the time that, once they’re married, Marion will blossom into the adventurous, cosmopolitan, erudite and wildly sexual personality which he has projected onto her but, of course, she doesn’t. She stays the frigid lump she was all through their courtship and on their wedding night, when he tries to have sex, she cries, unable to cope with the dirty, horrid thing he’s doing to her and which her mother and all her friends have warned her against all her life – which, of course, brings all George’s fantasies crashing down.

Driven by forces I did not understand, diverted altogether from the science, the curiosities and work to which I had once given myself, I fought my way through a tangle of traditions, customs, obstacles and absurdities, enraged myself, limited myself, gave myself to occupations I saw with the clearest vision were dishonourable and vain, and at last achieved the end of purblind Nature, the relentless immediacy of her desire, and held, far short of happiness, Marion weeping and reluctant in my arms. (p.151)

Having taken time to describe their agonising courtship, Wells briskly deals with their sad, humiliating married life:

Each time I returned to Ealing, life there seemed more alien, narrow, and unattractive—and Marion less beautiful and more limited and difficult—until at last she was robbed of every particle of her magic. She gave me always a cooler welcome, I think, until she seemed entirely apathetic. (p.155)

And quickly summarises what happened next, which is he has a fling with a woman who works in the typing pool and he becomes aware of following him with her eyes, Effie Rink.

She looked up at me without a word, with her face flushed and her eyes alight, and I bent down and kissed her lips. She leant back to put an arm about me, drew my face to her and kissed me again and again. I lifted her and held her in my arms. She gave a little smothered cry to feel herself so held. Never before had I known the quality of passionate kisses. (p.157)

Startlingly for an Edwardian novel, he says that after they’ve exchanged glances on numerous occasions, he finally summons up the courage to speak to her and then, abruptly, kisses her and…it’s what she wanted and she returns the kiss! And so they quickly have a passionate affair, running off for a week of sensual delight at Cromer. And with a certain inevitability, as soon as he gets home, Marion confronts him with his infidelity (one of her relatives spotted him in Cromer) and he confesses and so, with surprising calm, they discuss and arrange a divorce, and after a few more pages tying up loose ends, she passes out of his life and the story.

The point is, this is what happened – as a very young man Wells rushed, in 1891, into a marriage with his cousin, Isabel Mary Wells who turned out to be utterly unsuitable for an effervescently intellectual super-ambitious writer. After only a few years he fell in love with a much more suitable candidate, one of his students, Amy Catherine Robbins, so that he divorced Isabel in 1894 and married Amy in 1895.

So it’s hard not to feel that the Marion chapter (Part Two, Chapter 4) is a deeply-felt and only thinly-veiled record of his miserable courtship and failed marriage and it has a lot of force and power. I read it in one go and felt quite unnerved and depressed by it.

Boyhood vividness

It’s a while since I mentioned how autobiographical the book is but I intended, back in the Bladesover section, to make an important point which is, the boyhood scenes are best. The other scenes have interest – Ewart’s analysis of advertising is shrewd and the long chapter about his marriage to Marion pierces the heart, the account of Uncle Edward’s rise to nouveau riche status – but the first fifty or so pages about being a boy at Bladesover are, arguably, the most fresh and vivid and memorable.

The boy’s-view of the old spinsters who own the place and the petty snobberies of the staff, and his description of his boyhood crush on a little girl he was allowed to play with, Beatrice, and once got to kiss amid the ferns in the house grounds – all have the freshness and power of a good children’s story. Some of it is very funny in a way none of the subsequent scenes, humorous though they may intend to be, are actually funny. (I learn from the introduction that critics routinely describe these scenes to the boyhood scenes in Dickens’s David Copperfield and, I’d add, Great Expectations.)

And the same was true of Kipps. The best part of Kipps is the descriptions of him being a small boy running wild over Romney Marshes with a best friend his own age, pretending at playing cowboys and Indians on the beach, around old shipwrecks or ruined towers, it sounds paradisiacal.

Simple point: the most vivid bits of these two autobiographical novels are the scenes of boyhood.

Victim of life

This is all the more poignant because the adult George paints himself throughout the book as a victim, as a pawn of life, in thrall to forces he completely fails to understand.

I wondered if my case was the case of many men, whether in former ages, too, men had been so guideless, so uncharted, so haphazard in their journey into life.

At times my life appeared before me in bleak, relentless light, a series of ignorances, crude blunderings, degradation and cruelty. I had what the old theologians call a ‘conviction of sin’.

With the dismaying result that:

There were moments when I thought of suicide.

Many passages in the ‘adult’ section of the book are like this and serve to highlight the comedy and freshness of the boyhood scenes. And it’s against his hopeless failures in his private life that he turns to a belief in Science as something hard and objective which can save him.

In the end of this particular crisis of which I tell so badly, I idealised Science. I decided that in power and knowledge lay the salvation of my life, the secret that would fill my need; that to these things I would give myself. (p.168)

Science, with her order, her inhuman distance, yet steely certainties, saved me from despair. (p.169)

And so it is to the science of Aeronautics that George comes to devote his time and researches (pages 181, 218, 230 and Part 3 Chapter 3).

Scientific truth is the remotest of mistresses; she hides in strange places, she is attained by tortuous and laborious roads, but she is always there! Win to her and she will not fail you; she is yours and mankind’s for ever. She is reality, the one reality I have found in this strange disorder of existence. She will not sulk with you nor misunderstand you nor cheat you of your reward upon some petty doubt. You cannot change her by advertisement or clamour, nor stifle her in vulgarities. Things grow under your hands when you serve her, things that are permanent as nothing else is permanent in the whole life of man. That, I think, is the peculiar satisfaction of science and its enduring reward… (p.233)

One wonders how much Wells’s own promotion of the Creed of Science and Technology was based, like George Ponderevo’s, on personal failure and despair and a search for personal certitude, the same kind of disillusionment with traditional society and search for a grand transnational Order to properly run the world which, of course, fuelled the rise of totalitarianism between the wars…

Topics

The book is stuffed with long passages about society and other topics which make for sort-of interesting reading, but, at the same time, you can feel the prolixity which was to make his later novels feel more and more garrulous. Wells knew it and has his narrator try to excuse it right at the start:

I warn you this book is going to be something of an agglomeration. I want to trace my social trajectory (and my uncle’s) as the main line of my story, but as this is my first novel and almost certainly my last, I want to get in, too, all sorts of things that struck me, things that amused me and impressions I got – even although they don’t minister directly to my narrative at all… I want to get in all sorts of things. My ideas of a novel all through are comprehensive rather than austere….

Just the fact that these passages have to be quoted at such length indicates the sense of Wells unbelting himself, letting himself go, the pithy brevity of the early sci fi stories giving way to middle-aged spread.

England as one vast landed estate run for the benefit of the landed aristocracy

It is this idea of escaping parts from the seventeenth century system of Bladesover, of proliferating and overgrowing elements from the Estates, that to this day seems to me the best explanation, not simply of London, but of all England. England is a country of great Renascence landed gentlefolk who have been unconsciously outgrown and overgrown. The proper shops for Bladesover custom were still to be found in Regent Street and Bond Street in my early London days in those days they had been but lightly touched by the American’s profaning hand—and in Piccadilly. I found the doctor’s house of the country village or country town up and down Harley Street, multiplied but not otherwise different, and the family solicitor (by the hundred) further eastward in the abandoned houses of a previous generation of gentlepeople, and down in Westminster, behind Palladian fronts, the public offices sheltered in large Bladesoverish rooms and looked out on St. James’s Park. The Parliament Houses of lords and gentlemen, the parliament house that was horrified when merchants and brewers came thrusting into it a hundred years ago, stood out upon its terrace gathering the whole system together into a head.

London as the Bladesover template gone cancerous

I said at the outset of my first book that I find in Bladesover the clue to all England. Well, I certainly imagine it is the clue to the structure of London…I am most reminded of Bladesover and Eastry by all those regions round about the West End parks; for example, estate parks, each more or less in relation to a palace or group of great houses. The roads and back ways of Mayfair and all about St. James’s again, albeit perhaps of a later growth in point of time, were of the very spirit and architectural texture of the Bladesover passages and yards; they had the same smells, the space, the large cleanest and always going to and fro where one met unmistakable Olympians and even more unmistakable valets, butlers, footmen in mufti. There were moments when I seemed to glimpse down areas the white panelling, the very chintz of my mother’s room again.

I could trace out now on a map what I would call the Great-House region; passing south-westward into Belgravia, becoming diffused and sporadic westward, finding its last systematic outbreak round and about Regent’s Park. The Duke of Devonshire’s place in Piccadilly, in all its insolent ugliness, pleases me particularly; it is the quintessence of the thing; Apsley House is all in the manner of my theory, Park Lane has its quite typical mansions, and they run along the border of the Green Park and St. James’s. And I struck out a truth one day in Cromwell Road quite suddenly, as I looked over the Natural History Museum. ‘By Jove,’ said I, ‘But this is the little assemblage of cases of stuffed birds and animals upon the Bladesover staircase grown enormous, and yonder as the corresponding thing to the Bladesover curios and porcelain is the Art Museum and there in the little observatories in Exhibition Road is old Sir Cuthbert’s Gregorian telescope that I hunted out in the storeroom and put together.’

And:

And the more I have paralleled these things with my Bladesover-Eastry model, the more evident it has become to me that the balance is not the same, and the more evident is the presence of great new forces, blind forces of invasion, of growth. The railway termini on the north side of London have been kept as remote as Eastry had kept the railway-station from Wimblehurst, they stop on the very outskirts of the estates, but from the south, the South Eastern railway had butted its great stupid rusty iron head of Charing Cross station, that great head that came smashing down in 1905—clean across the river, between Somerset House and Whitehall. The south side had no protecting estate. Factory chimneys smoke right over against Westminster with an air of carelessly not having permission, and the whole effect of industrial London and of all London east of Temple Bar and of the huge dingy immensity of London port is to me of something disproportionately large, something morbidly expanded, without plan or intention, dark and sinister toward the clean clear social assurance of the West End. And south of this central London, south-east, south-west, far west, north-west, all round the northern hills, are similar disproportionate growths, endless streets of undistinguished houses, undistinguished industries, shabby families, second-rate shops, inexplicable people who in a once fashionable phrase do not ‘exist.’ All these aspects have suggested to my mind at times, do suggest to this day, the unorganised, abundant substance of some tumorous growth-process, a process which indeed bursts all the outlines of the affected carcass and protrudes such masses as ignoble comfortable Croydon, as tragic impoverished West Ham. To this day I ask myself will those masses ever become structural, will they indeed shape into anything new whatever, or is that cancerous image their true and ultimate diagnosis? (p.82)

A city of Bladesovers, the capital of a kingdom of Bladesovers, all much shaken and many altogether in decay, parasitically occupied, insidiously replaced by alien, unsympathetic and irresponsible elements; and with a ruling an adventitious and miscellaneous empire of a quarter of this daedal earth complex laws, intricate social necessities, disturbing insatiable suggestions, followed from this. Such was the world into which I had come, into which I had in some way to thrust myself and fit my problem, my temptations, my efforts, my patriotic instinct, all my moral instincts, my physical appetites, my dreams and my sanity. (p.83)

(At exactly the same time, in Howards End, E.M. Forster describes London as a cancerous growth and I came across the contemporary Tory leader Lord Rosebery doing the same, in Roy Hattersley’s history of The Edwardians, page 350: ‘a tumour, an elephantitis, sucking into its gorged system half the life and blood and the bone of rural districts.’)

The nouveaux riches

I don’t know whether it is due simply to my changed circumstances, but it seems to me there have been immensely disproportionate developments of the hotel-frequenting and restaurant-using population during the last twenty years. It is not only, I think, that there are crowds of people who, like we were, are in the economically ascendant phase, but whole masses of the prosperous section of the population must be altering its habits, giving up high-tea for dinner and taking to evening dress, using the week-end hotels as a practise-ground for these new social arts. A swift and systematic conversion to gentility has been going on, I am convinced, throughout the whole commercial upper-middle class since I was twenty-one.

So it was we recognised our new needs as fresh invaders of the upper levels of the social system, and set ourselves quite consciously to the acquisition of Style and Savoir Faire. We became part of what is nowadays quite an important element in the confusion of our world, that multitude of economically ascendant people who are learning how to spend money. It is made up of financial people, the owners of the businesses that are eating up their competitors, inventors of new sources of wealth, such as ourselves; it includes nearly all America as one sees it on the European stage. It is a various multitude having only this in common: they are all moving, and particularly their womankind are moving, from conditions in which means were insistently finite, things were few, and customs simple, towards a limitless expenditure and the sphere of attraction of Bond Street, Fifth Avenue, and Paris. Their general effect is one of progressive revolution, of limitless rope.

They discover suddenly indulgences their moral code never foresaw and has no provision for, elaborations, ornaments, possessions beyond their wildest dreams. With an immense astonished zest they begin shopping, begin a systematic adaptation to a new life crowded and brilliant with things shopped, with jewels, maids, butlers, coachmen, electric broughams, hired town and country houses. They plunge into it as one plunges into a career; as a class, they talk, think, and dream possessions. Their literature, their Press, turns all on that; immense illustrated weeklies of unsurpassed magnificence guide them in domestic architecture, in the art of owning a garden, in the achievement of the sumptuous in motor-cars, in an elaborate sporting equipment, in the purchase and control of their estates, in travel and stupendous hotels. Once they begin to move they go far and fast. Acquisition becomes the substance of their lives. They find a world organised to gratify that passion. In a brief year or so they are connoisseurs. They join in the plunder of the eighteenth century, buy rare old books, fine old pictures, good old furniture. Their first crude conception of dazzling suites of the newly perfect is replaced almost from the outset by a jackdaw dream of accumulating costly discrepant old things.

This made me think of The Times newspaper which aims, in our day, to be the Bible of this class, overflowing with supplements titled ‘Class’ and ‘Style’ and ‘Travel’, guides for the rich on how to spend their money with ‘class’ and ‘style’. Nothing whatsoever has changed.

The affluent society

The American economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the phrase The Affluent Society in the title of a book he published in 1958, but Wells was describing its existence in the 1890s:

In these plethoric times when there is too much coarse stuff for everybody and the struggle for life takes the form of competitive advertisement and the effort to fill your neighbour’s eye, when there is no urgent demand either for personal courage, sound nerves or stark beauty, we find ourselves by accident. Always before these times the bulk of the people did not over-eat themselves, because they couldn’t, whether they wanted to do so or not, and all but a very few were kept “fit” by unavoidable exercise and personal danger. Now, if only he pitch his standard low enough and keep free from pride, almost any one can achieve a sort of excess. You can go through contemporary life fudging and evading, indulging and slacking, never really hungry nor frightened nor passionately stirred, your highest moment a mere sentimental orgasm, and your first real contact with primary and elemental necessities, the sweat of your death-bed. (p.234)

Here, as in Galbraith, it strikes me as a comfortably middle class concern

The imperial class

I had a near view of the machinery by which an astounding Empire is run, rubbed shoulders and exchanged experiences with bishops and statesmen, political women and women who were not political, physicians and soldiers, artists and authors, the directors of great journals, philanthropists and all sorts of eminent, significant people. I saw the statesmen without their orders and the bishops with but a little purple silk left over from their canonicals, inhaling, not incense but cigar smoke. I could look at them all the better because, for the most part, they were not looking at me but at my uncle, and calculating consciously or unconsciously how they might use him and assimilate him to their system, the most unpremeditated, subtle, successful and aimless plutocracy that ever encumbered the destinies of mankind.

John Buchan wouldn’t have agreed.

The absurdity

Regarding the vast unfinished palace Uncle Edward was having built for him on Crest Hill, George is stricken with the futility, not only of the individual life, but of the entire system whereby people slave their lives away to provide the improvident rich with their heedless luxuries.

For this the armies drilled, for this the Law was administered and the prisons did their duty, for this the millions toiled and perished in suffering, in order that a few of us should build palaces we never finished, make billiard-rooms under ponds, run imbecile walls round irrational estates, scorch about the world in motor-cars, devise flying-machines, play golf and a dozen such foolish games of ball, crowd into chattering dinner parties, gamble and make our lives one vast, dismal spectacle of witless waste! So it struck me then, and for a time I could think of no other interpretation. This was Life! It came to me like a revelation, a revelation at once incredible and indisputable of the abysmal folly of our being. (p.294)

Turns of phrase

As I’ve often said, I prefer reading older literature because of the unexpected turns of phrase and thought you come across. Wells is usually dismissed as a literary writer because he was slapdash and too often propagandist in intent, but pound for pound his texts include a surprising amount of unexpected and delightful turns of phrase.

I remember these women as immense. No doubt they were of negotiable size, but I was only a very little chap and they have assumed nightmare proportions in my mind. They loomed, they bulged, they impended.

He exfoliated and wagged about novel and incredible ideas. (p.53)

accident in a butter tub p.144

My uncle was my best man, and looked like a banker—a little banker—in flower.

He was an aquarium-faced, long, blond sort of chap (p.177)

He smoked and was fragmentary for a time, fending off my questions… (p.188)

[The polite ladies of Beckenham] all sat about in the summer-house and in garden-chairs, and were very hatty and ruffley and sunshady. (p.198)

Plus ca change…

Another interesting thing about older books is repeatedly being surprised by how little issues and attitudes have changed in the past 130 years. I was struck that George sends Effie a message reading ‘How goes it?’, a phrase I’d have thought was much more modern and slangy (p.170).

I was amused when, after he’s broken up with sensual free spirit Effie, she, in her Bohemian way, falls for a poet:

She married a year or so ago a boy half her age – a wretch of a poet, a wretched poet, and given to drugs, a thing with lank fair hair always getting into his blue eyes, and limp legs.

I was struck how the image of the outsider poet, the poète maudit, coming down to our times in the image of the leather-clad rock’n’roll rebel, drug addict etc – far from being a modern invention has remained so consistent over such a long period.

The radioactive interlude

So most of the novel is extremely homely, set in a country house, a sleepy Sussex town, slovenly Chatham, hotels and apartments around London and then…as the novel reaches its climax, as the wolves start to close in on the fraudster Ponderevo and his business empire starts to crumble, something really weird happens.

Uncle Edward and George agree that the latter must take ship in a dirty old brig, the Maud Mary, and sail, with the shifty captain and surly crew, to an island off the West coast of Africa, here to take aboard as much radioactive ‘quap’ as they can carry. What? The explanation is that Uncle Edward’s London office has been besieged for years by all sorts of people trying to interest him in their get-rich-quick schemes and one that always stood out was a poor explorer, Gordon-Nasmyth, who said he’d come across deposits of radioactive sludge piled up around a lagoon on an island, Mordet Island, off the African coast. Our guys do a scientific analysis of the sample Gordon-Nasmyth brought along and find in it several rare metals. The project hangs fire until Uncle Edward’s fortunes begin to slide and the plan to get the ‘quap’ is a desperate last throw of the dice – if George can return with enough of it, they can extract it, sell it and cover all their debts.

Originally, the plan had been for Gordon-Nasmyth to go but at the last minute he manages to be badly injured in an accident and so our boys decide that George himself should go. The ship is rotten, the captain is a secretive Romanian Jew, George is locked up in a small sweaty cabin with him and the monosyllabic first mate for 50 days, madly seasick.

And when they do find the ‘quap’ is really is radioactive, having scorched the lagoon and surrounding area and burning the hands of the crew who reluctantly set about wheelbarrowing it up plans and dumping it in the ship’s hold.

This whole episode is really bizarre and departs madly from the homely and broadly comic tone of the rest of the book. It feels like a science fiction short story Wells didn’t know what to do with and so inserted here, regardless of its incongruity and strangeness.

As he describes the heat of the tropics, the smell of rotting vegetation, and the occasional black faces they see peeping out of the foliage, I wondered if it was some kind of pastiche of Joseph Conrad, especially his most famous novella, Heart of Darkness. I wondered why on earth Wells made the captain of this knackered old cargo ship a Romanian Jew, which seems a bizarre choice in itself, but when he went into detail about the man’s heavy foreign accent and Continental habit of accompanying his talk with face and hand gestures, I wondered if this was meant to be a satirical portrait of Conrad, who Wells knew, and notorious for his heavy Polish accent.

As if this mad trip to Africa to collect radioactive sludge wasn’t bizarre and random enough already, Wells piles on an even more random and inexplicable event. The boat is anchored for weeks as the loading takes place and so George gets into the habit of wandering beyond the zone blasted by the waste, into the jungle, for an increasing amount of time each day, eventually taking some food and making a day of it.

It was during one of these little explores that he comes across a black man standing stick still in a clearing staring at him. There’s a moment as they both stare at each other then the native turns and starts to run. On impulse, to prevent him alerting his tribe and bringing others and maybe attacking his little European crew, George puts his rifle to his shoulder, fires and hits the black man square in the back. Running over, he sees he’s killed him with one shot.

What? Why? Why on earth has George the sceptical engineer, the man whose confused feelings we are encouraged to sympathise with throughout the book, suddenly transmogrified into a racist murderer? It’s true that throughout the book we’ve had continual satirical analysis of the rotten state of England which has two or three times expanded into jokey comments about the ramshackle adventitious British Empire…is this…is this entire African adventure meant as some kind of extended satire on the folly of Empire, very much like ‘Heart of Darkness’?

George buries the body in quicksand but that night is haunted by guilt at what he’s done and returns to the spot the next day only to find it’s been dug up and half eaten by some jungle animal, so he buries it again. Another night of guilt and when he goes back to the spot next day he finds the body has been dug up again but this time by human hands and entirely removed. This puts the Fear into him and when the ship’s crew rebel at the work they’re doing, effectively going on strike and demanding they leave, George is quick to agree.

In the event this is a wise decision because only a few hours after weighing anchor and starting to steam north they encounter a gunship from another European power (it is never explained which European nation claims ownership of this territory, only that removing the ‘quap’ as they do, is illegal and risky).

Anyway, they manage to throw off the other ship in a storm and fog but then the episode reaches a kind of quintessence of futility. For the ship starts to leak, in George’s opinion because its powerful radioactive cargo slowly disintegrates the wooden staves of the hull. They have to man the bilge pumps continually for seasick storm-ridden days until everyone is sick to death and exhausted and only too happy to agree when the captain says they must abandon ship.

After a day in open rowing boats they are picked up by another European ship, the Union Castle liner, Portland Castle, where they are fed and watered and given new clothes and George reads in the newspapers that his Uncle Edward has finally been declared bankrupt.

At which point the narrative returns to England and the rather sleepy provincial English tone of the novel but leaving this reader completely bewildered at this thick slice of exotica, at this bizarre sci fi-and-murder episode I’ve just experienced. It’s weird.

The flight to France

But it’s followed by something almost equally bizarre, namely George and Edward’s aerial flight to France. In the later part of the novel George tells us less and less about Uncle Edward’s complicated business empire and more and more about his use of the money he acquires to set up extensive workshops, hangars and engineering facilities where he, along with trusty assistant Cothope, work on projects for manned flight.

These passages include an extended description of the sensation of lying in an early design of glider and it swoops over the Surrey countryside. And George was working on a new, expanded version of a dirigible of his own design, including his own lightweight motor. So this is a zeppelin-type balloon with a small space for a couple of passengers to lie in and a motor-driven propeller at the back to move it and steer with.

So, long story short, when he gets back to England, and travels down to Surrey to meet with Uncle Edward the latter is, for the first time in his life, broken and speechless. A sustained campaign by his rivals, in particular a certain press baron named ‘Lord Boom’ (modelled on Lord Northcliffe?) have exposed the rickety basis of Edward’s empire and it’s all collapsing. Not only that but he sheepishly admits to George that he’s lied under oath and in signed affadavits – in other words, he could be arrested and gaoled for fraud.

So this is all the rational or logical pretext for what happens next, which is bonkers. And this is that George bundles Edward and some supplies into his prototype dirigible and flies him to France. In the event this fraught trip is described in rather too much detail for the prevailing winds blow them down rather than across the Channel and it’s only by extreme effort that George manages not to get blown out into the Atlantic and instead manages to crash land them on the coast near Bordeaux. But that isn’t the end of this section, far from it.

They are looked after by kindly French peasants and then make their way across country to a small village which I got the impression was close to the Spanish border (‘There is a background of the Pyrenees, of blue hills and sunlit houses, of the old castle of Luzon and a noisy cascading river..’).

Here they find accommodation in a peasant inn and Uncle Edward, worn down by his worries and the exertions of the journey, sickens and dies. But even this simple plot development is really stretched out, taking many days and involving a bizarre coterie of characters, including the local doctor, a Catholic nun, and an English Anglican vicar who spends some of his time catering to English tourists abroad.

Why? Why this ridiculous science fiction, Heath Robinson contrivance of an escape? And why flee as far as the Pyrenees? And why subject us to an extended description of the argy-bargy this all causes among the people tending dying Edward?

A set of whys to add to all the questions about the entire African ‘quap’ episode, which also feels as if it’s been parachuted in from a different genre altogether. It is a weird exotic conclusion to the life story of someone who had, up until that moment, been a kind of quintessence of little Englander provincialism and, as such, feels wildly inappropriate.

And it would never have been a proper ‘escape’ as the authorities get wind of a dying foreigner and about the time Uncle Edward expires they turn up to arrest George.

Losing Beatrice

But that’s not all. Third in this trilogy of weirdness is the very final section which describes the frustratingly unsatisfactory end of George’s love affair with Beatrice. You might recall that right back at the start of the novel (which feels like years ago) George, as a little boy growing up in Bladesover House, had a crush on a little girl from the ruling class who he was allowed to play with, Beatrice, and this led up to a stolen kiss in the bracken. In fact it triggers the next stage in the plot because Beatrice is often accompanied by a slightly bigger boy, her cousin Archie, and one day jealous banter escalates into fighting. George is getting the best of it when the house’s owner, old Lady Drew, and her companion come round the corner, are appalled, all sides agree that George started the fight because he is an ill-mannered oik, and this is what triggers him being banished from Bladesover and sent to stay with his awful cousin Frapp in miserable Chatham (from where he eventually runs away).

Anyway, towards the end of the entire book, this Beatrice re-enters, on horseback, accompanied by the son (Lord Carnaby) of the posh local landowner (Lady Osprey). Long story short, George and Beatrice reconnect, and she swears, repeatedly, that she loves him, she has always loved him etc etc, but she cannot be his. This all happens over the few months leading up to George’s ill-fated expedition to Africa so that when he leaves there’s much kissy-kissy and declarations of love.

The thing is she refuses to marry him, constantly putting him off, telling him she’ll explain why and so on when the time is right, one day, not now, but darling we have this evening etc.

What, I think, eventually emerges is that she has been corrupted by society: she was brought up in a grand house, enjoying all the freedoms and privilege, and she now, I think, if I have deduced form her frustratingly oblique explanations, become the mistress of Lord Carnaby (I don’t understand why she hasn’t just married him). The point being that her role of Carnaby’s mistress keeps her in fine clothes and big rooms and horses to ride. If she ran away from Carnaby to be with George, well, George has just lost his fortune and is facing possibly legal proceedings… So she’d be throwing away all the advantages of a wealthy lifestyle to live with poor engineer George and… well… she thinks she’d change, she wouldn’t be the same, she would come to hate him for ruining her life.

So I think the entire point of the Beatrice storyline is to ram home Wells’s point about the corrupting and strangling effect of wealth and social convention on Pure Love.

Last point: destroyers

At the very very end of the novel we clearly discover what has been hinted at a few times earlier that, having lost the fortune which allowed him to experiment with powered flight, George has moved into a job designing destroyers i.e. warships. And not for the British, who scorned his homemade solutions, but for whoever pays the highest fee. The novel ends with an extended description of George taking the first of this new breed of destroyer, the X2, on its maiden voyage down the Thames to the North Sea.

This, also, can be given a satirical, political interpretation: namely that a man who has vaunted his fine feelings and delicate sensibilities and shared the inner truth of his love affairs and been such a shrewd critic of English society and its snobberies and pretensions and ramshackle empire, who came to London with such earnest hopes to contribute something positive to society, who had earnest conversations about socialism and a new world – that this idealist ends up working not for the betterment of mankind but building weapons of destruction (itself to be seen in the context of the arms race between Britain and Germany).

So society is based on a confidence trick; the worlds of finance and business are a sham; the whole show is only kept on the road by only empty snobbery and showy ceremonies; true love is always strangled and frustrated; and even the most idealistic of men ends up designing weapons of war and death in order to survive. These are just some of the more obvious themes which emerge from this ramshackle pot-pourri of a novel.

Conclusion

It’s a powerful book, full of all sorts of treats such as the many topics which I’ve quoted at length – but you can’t help being bewildered by its wild swings of tone and subject matter, especially in the final sections, which I’ve just summarised.

It’s a big absorbing novel full of interesting ideas, the vivid scenes of childhood, the upsettingly powerful description of a failed marriage but – what is the Joseph Conrad-style Africa section doing in it? Or the science fiction dirigible escape? And the final section about his frustrated love for Beatrice felt like it dragged on forever leaving me, by the end, exhausted and relieved that this long rambling, all-over-the-place narrative had, at last, finally, ended.


Credit

Tono-Bungay by H.G. Wells was published in 1909. References are to the 1982 Pan Classics paperback edition.

Related links

H.G. Wells reviews