My Man Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse (1919)

I’m a wealthy bird, so everything was fine.
(Bertie Wooster stating the fundamental premise of the stories.)

‘This is the first time I’ve been let out alone, and I mean to make the most of it. We’re only young once. Why interfere with life’s morning? Young man, rejoice in thy youth! Tra-la! What ho!’
Put like that, it did seem reasonable.

The Jeeves and Wooster stories began during the First World War. Jeeves and Bertie first appeared in ‘Extricating Young Gussie’, a short story published in the US in September 1915 and in the UK in 1916. In the story, Jeeves’s character is minor and Bertie’s surname appears to be Mannering-Phipps.

The first fully recognisable Jeeves and Wooster story was ‘Leave It to Jeeves’, published in early 1916. Most of the Jeeves stories were originally published as magazine pieces before being collected into books.

Altogether the Jeeves canon consists of 35 short stories and 11 novels. With minor exceptions, the short stories were written and published first (between 1915 and 1930), the novels later (between 1934 up to as late as 1974).

My Man, Jeeves

The first collection to include fully formed Jeeves and Wooster stories is ‘My Man Jeeves’, published in 1919 although, of the eight short stories in the volume, only four are about J&W, the other four concern a character called Reggie Pepper.

  1. Leave It to Jeeves* (February 1916)
  2. Jeeves and the Unbidden Guest* (December 1916)
  3. Jeeves and the Hard-boiled Egg* (March 1917)
  4. Absent Treatment
  5. Helping Freddie
  6. Rallying Round Old George
  7. Doing Clarence a Bit of Good
  8. The Aunt and the Sluggard* (April 1916)

Jeeves and Wooster works

All four ‘My Man Jeeves’ stories were subsequently reprinted, some substantially rewritten, in the 1925 collection ‘Carry On, Jeeves’.

But before that collections came the first book consisting entirely of Jeeves and Wooster stories, 1923’s ‘The Inimitable Jeeves’. In this book 11 short stories originally published in magazines were reworked and divided into 18 chapters to make the first collection devoted entirely to J&W.

After this rather shaky start, the Jeeves series runs like this:

  • The Inimitable Jeeves (1923) – semi-novel consisting of eighteen chapters, originally published as eleven short stories
  • Carry On, Jeeves (1925) – ten stories
  • Very Good, Jeeves (1930) – eleven stories
  • Thank You, Jeeves (1934) – the first full-length Jeeves novel
  • Right Ho, Jeeves (1934) – second Jeeves novel
  • The Code of the Woosters (1938) – third Jeeves novel
  • Joy in the Morning (1946) – fourth Jeeves novel
  • The Mating Season (1949) – fifth Jeeves novel

Plus six further novels, but let’s see if I can read this lot first.

Comic hyperbole

There is a whole comic approach where you exaggerate the ordinary and everyday to dizzy heights of absurdity. In the tradition of learnèd wit (Rabelais, Erasmus, Swift, Sterne) the exaggeration is designed to highlight the absurdity of scholarly learning. In E.F. Benson’s Mapp and Lucia books it is to bring out the exquisite small-town bitchiness of the characters. In comedy like Wodehouse’s, the aim is to emphasise the utter uselessness of his empty-headed posh boys. Thus the mock heroic exaggerations of the trivialest things, rendered in absurdly affected argot.

‘What are your immediate plans, Bertie?’
‘Well, I rather thought of tottering out for a bite of lunch later on, and then possibly staggering round to the club, and after that, if I felt strong enough, I might trickle off to Walton Heath for a round of golf.’
‘I am not interested in your totterings and tricklings.’

Slang

A massive part of the pleasure derives from the posh-boy slang or argot which the narrator (Bertie Wooster) employs, with specialised words or phrases in almost every sentence. The slang – and the insouciant attitude behind it – is the most obvious way in which the text takes you into Wodehouse-world. Here are some quotes from just the first few short stories.

I forget now how I got it, but it had the aspect of being the real, red-hot tabasco.
[the real thing]

I’m a bit short on brain myself; the old bean would appear to have been constructed more for ornament than for use, don’t you know.
[brain]

Now, a great many fellows think that having a rich uncle is a pretty soft snap.
[cushy position]

He has got a pippin of an idea.
[a cracker]

I don’t know why it is—one of these psychology sharps could explain it, I suppose… [psychologist]

Time, instead of working the healing wheeze, went and pulled the most awful bone and put the lid on it.
[pull a bone = made a mistake]

‘There are moments when I can almost see the headlines: “Promising Young Artist Beans Baby With Axe.”‘
[wallops, hits, strikes]

I patted his shoulder silently. My sympathy for the poor old scout was too deep for words.
[chap]

I as near as a toucher rebelled when he wouldn’t let me wear a pair of cloth-topped boots which I loved like a couple of brothers.

It will show you pretty well how pipped I was when I tell you that I near as a toucher put on a white tie with a dinner-jacket.

I didn’t want to have England barred to me for the rest of my natural.
[…days i.e. life]

I gave Motty the swift east-to-west.
[surveyed his appearance]

I was just starting to say that the shot wasn’t on the board at any price
[this plan was not on]

It was as if he were deliberately trying to give me the pip.
[irritate him]

Motty was under the surface.
[drunk]

He can always be counted on to extend himself on behalf of any pal of mine who happens to be to all appearances knee-deep in the bouillon.
[in trouble]

I began to see that, unless I made the thing a bit more plausible, the scheme might turn out a frost.
[failure]

Devilish efficient sort of chappie, and looked on in commercial circles as quite the nib!

Synonyms for ‘man’

  • blighter
  • old buster
  • chappie
  • cove
  • fellow
  • gent
  • Johnnie
  • lad
  • sport

The point is there is a comic exuberance in this plethora of words, there is a joy of language, an infections smile triggered by the sheer multitude of terms Wooster reels off.

Comic quotes

She fitted into my biggest arm-chair as if it had been built round her by someone who knew they were wearing arm-chairs tight about the hips that season.

I’m all for rational enjoyment and so forth, but I think a chappie makes himself conspicuous when he throws soft-boiled eggs at the electric fan.

He picked up his glass and drained it feverishly, overlooking the fact that it hadn’t anything in it.

Jeeves

The moment I saw the man standing there, registering respectful attention, a weight seemed to roll off my mind. I felt like a lost child who spots his father in the offing. There was something about him that gave me confidence.

Jeeves is a tallish man, with one of those dark, shrewd faces. His eye gleams with the light of pure intelligence.

Lady Malvern tried to freeze him with a look, but you can’t do that sort of thing to Jeeves. He is look-proof.


Related links

Related reviews

Jacob Epstein @ Tate Britain

‘My language is form, in all its variety and astonishing wealth, and that is my native language.’
(Jacob Epstein)

In the main hall of Tate Britain, officially known as the Duveen Gallery, they’ve dusted off 20 or so pieces by British sculptor and modernist pioneer Jacob Epstein to form a lovely display. Some of the large carved stone sculptures fit perfectly into the hall which is constructed of stone columns and panels, which complement Epstein’s bigger stone carvings.

There are (maybe) three aspects to Epstein’s work:

1. Heroic modernism

In the heroic age of modernism, the pioneering 1910s, Epstein’s radically angular vision climaxed in The Rock Drill from 1913, a science fiction vision of the machine age, or the angular and stylised sculpture for the tomb of Oscar Wilde in Paris (1913).

During this period he was a key figure in the ‘direct carving’ movement in Britain. This approach emphasised a ‘truth to materials’, in which sculptors worked directly with the stone, using its natural qualities rather than making wax or clay models first. He was influenced by the techniques and imagery used in ancient Egyptian, West African and Oceanic carvings, which he collected.

2. Stone carvings

Later, in the ’20s and ’30s, he made a series of monumental stone carvings with religious overtones, pagan gods or characters from the Bible, whose monumental blocky scale and composition influenced a younger generation of British sculptors.

3. Bronze busts

Throughout his career he made bronze portrait busts in a completely different style. By contrast with the large angular, slab-like carvings, the busts are more or less life-size, and fiddly, made of knobs and whorls and excrescences where you can almost feel the fingers and thumbs shaping the root material. Nonetheless they’re often good likenesses, and provided Epstein with a regular income from members of elite families and leading figures in the arts who paid for these commissions. The display includes busts of Albert Einstein, the Labour politician Nye Bevin, writer Somerset Maugham, actor Iris Beerbohm Tree and so on.

Gallery

The following text in italics is direct from the curators – why reinvent the wheel?

Rock Drill (1913)

Epstein began this sculpture in a period when artists in the Vorticist and Futurist movements were exploring the dynamic artistic potential of mechanisation. The original sculpture, first exhibited alongside works by Vorticist artists at the London Group exhibition of 1915, was a plaster figure mounted on top of a commercial rock drill.

He later described it as ‘a machine-like robot, visored, menacing, and carrying within itself its progeny… the armed sinister figure of today and tomorrow.’ After the machines of the First World War killed millions of people, Epstein removed the drill, cut the figure down at the waist and chopped off the left hand and right arm and cast it in bronze. This newly truncated figure now looks more vulnerable, a victim rather than a perpetrator of violence.

Torso in Metal from The Rock Drill (1913 to 1914) by Jacob Epstein. Tate © The Estate of Jacob Epstein (photo by the author)

This may be my favourite work of art of all time. It has the geometric angularity of early modernism, highly infused with a Vorticist, machine-age aesthetic, probably my favourite art movement. But more than that, its hard angularity anticipates the unforgiving cruelty and atrocity of the world to come, the world unleashed by the Great War, the great century of catastrophe. And its alien appearance makes it the godfather to almost all the really serious, minatory science fiction of the last century. It is spookily, tragically prophetic. And yet it gives off hard waves of psychic energy. It symbolises the science and technology which have simultaneously liberated us and threaten to annihilate us.

Here’s a photo of what it originally looked like, Epstein’s original conception atop an actual pneumatic drill, which transport it to a whole new level of alien apparition. 1913 when John Singer Sargent was still painting pictures of rich American ladies in their boudoirs!

Doves

A pair of doves, a traditional symbol of love. The two birds are mating, reflecting Epstein’s interest in exploring sexuality and procreation. He simplifies the forms into bold geometric shapes, influenced by the experimental work of sculptor Constantin Brancusi, whom he had met in Paris in 1912 when he was working on Oscar Wilde’s tomb. Epstein made three sculptures on this theme. This version, the third, is the most abstract of the three.

Doves by Jacob Epstein (1914-15) Tate © The Estate of Jacob Epstein (photo by the author)

Jacob and the Angel (1940-1)

Epstein depicts a passage from the Biblical Book of Genesis in alabaster.

In the Bible story Jacob wrestles through the night with an unknown attacker, who eventually overpowers him. In the morning, he realises he has been fighting God and his own conscience. Epstein shows Jacob exhausted, being held up by an angel. The interaction of the figures is ambiguous, both an intimate embrace and the aftermath of a struggle.

Epstein carved several monumental works on biblical subjects in alabaster in the 1930s and 1940s. They all caused controversy because of their use of simplified figural forms and sexual explicitness to depict religious subject matter. In each, Epstein allowed the shape of the stone block to define the figure. He wrote that his intention was to explore ‘the discipline of the simplification of forms, unity of design, and co-ordination of masses.’

Jacob and the Angel by Jacob Epstein (1940 to 1941) Tate © The Estate of Jacob Epstein (photo by the author)

Einstein

The physicist Albert Einstein fled Germany for Britain in July 1933. He was staying at a refugee camp in North Norfolk when Epstein made this portrait. Epstein wrote about his week of sittings with Einstein, which he enjoyed: ‘His glance contained a mixture of the humane, the humorous, and the profound. This was a combination that delighted me. He resembled the ageing Rembrandt.’

Epstein had to work quickly on the bust, which was not fully finished when the sittings ended, because in October Einstein left for the US to take up a post at Princeton University.

Einstein by Epstein (1933) at Tate © The Estate of Jacob Epstein (photo by the author)

Conclusion

If you’re going to see the fabulous Lee Miller exhibition which is just off the central atrium, factor in 15 or 20 extra minutes to take in this display. Most of the bronze busts did nothing for me, whereas the half dozen or so Modernist works are bracing and inspiring, the alabaster Jacob hugely impressive, and I spent 4 or 5 minutes just absorbing the energy, inspiration and horror of the amazing Rock Drill.


Related links

Related reviews

Unsilenced: Sexual Violence in Conflict @ the Imperial War Museum

This exhibition includes cases of rape, sexual humiliation, torture and child abuse in conflict. Imperial War Museum advises that this exhibition is only suitable for those aged 16 or over.

This is a really important exhibition on a very important subject. Most exhibitions stimulate or entertain me but this one significantly changed my understanding and attitude towards a horrific and ongoing crisis.

‘Unsilenced: Sexual Violence in Conflict’ is the UK’s first major exhibition dedicated to describing, analysing and understanding sexual violence in conflict. It includes 162 objects which illustrate all aspects of the issue, from wartime propaganda posters to testimonies from women victims from the First and Second World wars, as well as more recent conflicts such as Yugoslavia, Darfur and Congo, Gaza and Ukraine.

Expert views

The first and last galleries house no objects, just video screens which feature interviews with experts in the field. In the first room they introduce key facts and concepts around sexual violence in conflict, including the term itself and its definition, what it means, who perpetrates it, and who the victims are. In the final room, the same experts suggest ways to bring about change. These experts are:

  • Charu Lata Hogg – founder and Executive Director of All Survivors Project
  • Dr Zeynep Kaya – Lecturer in International Relations, University of Sheffield
  • Dr Paul Kirby – Queen Mary University
  • Christina Lamb – Sunday Times journalist and author of ‘Our Bodies, Their Battlefield: What War Does to Women’
  • Sarah Sands – journalist and former Chair of the G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council

Why sexual violence in conflict has gone unreported

According to the experts, sexual violence has accompanied conflict and war for as long as we have records.

Wherever conflict erupts, sexual violence is present.
(Sara Bowcutt, Women for Women International)

For most of history it has been repressed and unrecorded, for numerous reasons.

  • Until the advent of photography and, nowadays, smartphones and social media, it’s been difficult to document and record.
  • This has led to sexual violence being under-reported at the time and so all but ignored in official records and historical accounts.
  • Perpetrators and the bodies they serve in (armies, militias, informal groups), wanting to preserve their ‘honour’ and prestige, suppress information.
  • But victims, families of victims, their communities and wider societies sometimes cover it up because of the ‘shame’ and social stigma attached.

But there are other occasions when sexual violence is the opposite of hushed up, when it is used to terrorise and demoralise civilian populations, with a view to depriving fighting forces of support or bringing pressure on them to surrender and end the abuse of their civilian communities. This was practiced in Darfur and more recently by Russian forces in occupied areas of Ukraine. In these situations incidents of sexual violence are widely advertised – but the challenge remains the same: of identifying the exact perpetrators, and trying to establish who in the chain of command gave authorisation for it. This can be frustratingly difficult to achieve.

Why it’s important to discuss sexual violence in conflict

The stance of this exhibition is that the subject must be directly addressed, discussed and aired, for a number of reasons:

  • Allowing victims to speak allows the crimes to be documented and so evidence gathered for legal proceedings.
  • But it also allows for something equally important, which is for the victims’ voices to be heard, their ordeals to be recognised, and so some kind of closure to be achieved.
  • Legitimating speech on the subject also helps to overcome social taboos around shame and keeping silent, which obtain in many if not most societies.
  • So: speaking out both helps victims recover and contributes documentary evidence to investigations and trials.

As a survivor explains:

‘To leave a little bit of what I had behind, that affected me, you don’t forget it but you learn to live with it, and by talking you take off a weight, a stigma, so I leave relaxed, free and happy.’

Four charities

With these aims in mind in mind, the penultimate room focuses on the ongoing work of four NGOs working in the field of sexual violence in conflict, namely:

  • Women for Women International
  • All Survivors Project
  • Free Yezidi Foundation
  • Waging Peace

There’s a panel on each of these organisations, alongside photos of the work they do, and moving testimonials from victims who have benefited hugely from being listened to and validated. As one of them wrote:

‘We all want to mean something to someone, that we matter. That we’re important.’

These testimonies are accompanied by objects:

  • a traditional cloth toub titled ‘Peace by Piece’, created by Sudanese women affected by the war in collaboration with Waging Peace
  • a handmade animal toy created by women through Free Yezidi Foundation’s programme to empower women through training, job opportunities and income generation
  • policy and testimony from All Survivors Project, the only international NGO dedicated to addressing acts of sexual violence in conflict against men and boys

Installation view of Unsilenced: Sexual Violence in Conflict @ the Imperial War Museum showing panels explaining the work of three of the four featured NGOs, including written and spoken testimony (via the headphones) © Imperial War Museum

Why an exhibition like this is part of the solution

Having explained all these processes you can see why an exhibition like this fits into the process of solution, by 1) documenting and recording abuses 2) allowing victims’ voices to be heard 3) increasing public awareness and understanding 4) making it easier to discuss abuses and, potentially, identify and target the patterns of behaviour which underpin or lead to sexual violence: the underlying attitudes which have made it ‘acceptable’ or ignorable in the past.

I would say that two major threads or themes run through the exhibition, one about gender, the other about justice.

Gender norms

Charu Lata Hogg is the most feminist or deploys the most academic feminist point of view. All I mean by this is that in her interviews she talks liberally about toxic masculinity and the patriarchy, two phrases which don’t appear in any of the other interviewees.

Hogg claims that sexual violence in conflict does not take place in a vacuum. It follows logically from the gender stereotyping widespread in peacetime society and then promoted in much wartime propaganda. She sees sexual violence in conflict as arising directly from ‘toxic gender norms’ i.e. the widespread perception in so many societies which associates masculinity with strength, power, dominance and violence, and women with passivity, domesticity, secondariness and victimhood.

This is why the first room of the exhibition, immediately after the introductory videos, is devoted to an impressively large number of images, posters and propaganda leaflets etc, from the First and Second World wars but also other conflicts, which play up to these gender stereotypes. They shows women as sexy spies, seducers, security risks, with a whole fleet of striking leaflets designed to be dropped over enemy troops depicting their beloveds back home having sex with non-combatants while they’re living in misery and fear at the front.

Installation view of Unsilenced: Sexual Violence in Conflict @ the Imperial War Museum showing posters promoting gender stereotyping in wartime © Imperial War Museum

In other words, the exhibition argues that the widespread deployment of sexual and gender stereotyping in peacetime society feeds into the propaganda accompanying a conflict, and both lay the foundation for the sexual violence which then occurs in the conflict itself.

In the final room of videos which addresses possible solutions, Hogg returns to this theme and says the only way forward is to target the patriarchy, to target ‘toxic gender norms’ and target ‘the patriarchal seeds’ that establish these gender stereotypes at such an early age, and so ubiquitously, that when conflict arises, men act accordingly, i.e. abuse the exaggerated positions of power which conflict gives them in order to rape, enslave, terrorise, mutilate and murder the vulnerable i.e. mostly (but not only) women.

You can see that this approach has a number of weaknesses. 1) It’s problematic knowing exactly what you mean by ‘patriarchy’ and ‘patriarchal seeds’; in a general way probably everyone could agree with the idea that, despite half a century of feminism, it’s still ‘a man’s world’, but can you be more specific? 2) ‘Targeting the patriarchy’ sounds fine as a slogan but, like ‘levelling up’ or ‘Make America Great Again’, the challenge is in formulating concrete proposals to make this happen.

3) But surely the biggest problem is that if you tie sexual violence in conflict to every type of gender stereotyping across all of society, and claim that you won’t be able to end the violence until you’ve ended all gender stereotyping, this means you’re going to be waiting a very long time. It is, in other words, a utopian wish rather than a practical solution.

Justice

This is why I was more attracted by Christina Lamb’s contribution in the final video room which discusses the way forward. Lamb says the solution is simple: hold the perpetrators to account. Encourage and support victims to speak out (as per the work of the NGOs listed above). Document the crimes. Empower international bodies such as the United Nations’ International Court of Justice to set up courts of enquiry into specific conflicts. Gather evidence, name names, and bring individuals to justice.

Although this has proven dismayingly difficult in practice, it is at least a practical agenda, and it harmonises with work already going on i.e. it can be based on the speaking out supported by the NGOs and also helps to validate the accounts of victims, make them feel that they’re not being ignored.

In this practical area of justice progress has been made over the last 30 years or so, which the exhibition describes.

Timeline

1919 Commission of Responsibilities established with rape near the top of the list of 32 war crimes.

1946 but at the war crimes tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo not a single prosecution for sexual violence.

1949 Geneva Convention, Article 27:

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

1993 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY):

Men and women came forward to recount evils beyond imagining – women and girls locked up in schools and suffering repeated anal, oral and vaginal rape, people having their tongues cut off, or being burned alive as human torches as they ‘screamed like cats’ (p.160)

1994 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established in Arusha in Tanzania and for the first time recognises rape as an instrument of genocide to be prosecuted as a war crime.

1998 First conviction for rape as a war crime.

1998 The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, defined rape as a war crime.

2000 UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is the first formal and legal document from the Security Council that required parties in a conflict to prevent violations of women’s rights, to support women’s participation in peace negotiations and in post-conflict reconstruction, and to protect women and girls from wartime sexual violence.

2008 UN Security Council passed Resolution 2008 stating that ‘rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide’.

2009 Establishment of the office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict.

2019 First conviction by the International Criminal Court for rape in wartime.

2019 Report of the UN Special Representative listed 19 countries where women are being raped in war, by 12 armies and police forces and 41 non-state actors.

Reconciliation

The comfort women

But it’s not only justice in the sense of arresting and charging individuals. Only by acknowledging the existence of sexual violence can any progress be made towards broader reconciliation.

The most striking example, and also an example of how difficult this is in practice, is probably the case of the ‘comfort women’ of south-east Asia. Before and during the Second World War the Japanese Army forced hundreds of thousands of women and girls into sexual slavery. They came from many different nationalities but the large majority were from Korea.

The exhibition describes the Wednesday demonstration, more fully the ‘Wednesday Demonstration demanding that Japan redress the Comfort Women problems’, which began to assemble outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul at noon on Wednesdays in 1992. Japan claims to have made a formal apology for the scandal and to have offered reparations but the wrangle goes on about precise details.

Meanwhile, the Koreans have erected several statues in memory of the comfort women, one outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul, another in front of the Japanese consulate in the southern port city of Busan. Here’s a newspaper article about it. The exhibition includes a miniature reproduction of this statue with an explanation of its symbolism.

Installation view of Unsilenced: Sexual Violence in Conflict @ the Imperial War Museum showing a tiny replica of the Korean Sonyeosang or statue of peace, and the panel explaining its symbolism © Imperial War Museum

My overview

I asked at the museum Information desk but there is, regrettably, no catalogue for the exhibition, so I intend to provide a public service and give a fairly thorough breakdown of its content. It is in six rooms. The headings are the titles of each room, the bullet points are sub-sections within each room.

1. Prologue

Video clips of the experts addressing the following questions:

  • What is sexual violence in conflict?
  • Who is affected by sexual violence in conflict? Mostly women but some men and boys, particularly homosexuals
  • Who are the perpetrators? Armies, militias, military police, armed bands
  • Does sexual violence in conflict still happen today? Yes, widespread in current conflicts including Ukraine, Sudan
  • Why are we talking about this now? It is bad now but with the stresses and displacements of climate change is only likely to get worse

2. Structures and representations

  • Wartime presentations: sexist imagery and propaganda (see photo, above) including a couple of unintentionally hilarious films from the 1940s informing soldiers about the risks of sexually transmitted infections
  • Power and accountability:

3. Acts and manifestations

  • Mass incidents:
    • Red Army: the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army as it fought its way across Germany at the end of the Second World War; Stalin notoriously commenting that he could understand why battle-scarred soldiers would want to have some ‘fun’ with enemy women; over 2 million German women were abused, leading to death and serious injury, infections and suicide
    • ISIS: in 2014 Islamic State authorities organised the enslavement and mass sexual abuse of Yazidi women and girls: the exhibition includes the guidelines ISIS published for its soldiers on how to capture and treat sex slaves
  • Power imbalance: the little-known stories of sexual abuse of evacuees, particularly children, including in Britain during the Second World War
  • Sexual humiliation and torture:
    • Abu Ghraib: the show includes the New Yorker magazine article by Seymour Hersh detailing the shocking abuse of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003
    • les tondues: French women who, at the liberation of villages, towns and cities, were seized, displayed and had their hair shaven off as a form of punishment and social condemnation for alleged collaboration with the German occupiers – the show includes documentary photos of tondues taken by Lee Miller

Installation view of Unsilenced: Sexual Violence in Conflict @ the Imperial War Museum showing, on the wall on the right, the section about comfort women; on the wall in the middle evidence of the ISIS mass enslavement of Yazidi women; and in the glass cases letters and memoirs from child evacuees who were sexually abused © Imperial War Museum

4. Justice and reconciliation

  • Legal justice: history of attempts to set up courts and tribunals starting with the first arrest warrants for rape issued by the Yugoslavia tribunal in 1993; in 1998 the International Criminal Court recognised sexual violence in conflict as a crime against humanity
  • Children born of sexual violence in conflict: the work of TRIAL International and The Forgotten Children of War Association and how it took until 2022 for Bosnia and Herzegovina to acknowledge children born as a result of sexual violence during the Bosnian War 1992–1995 as civilian victims of war

5. Rebuilding

As described, a panel apiece on the four charities:

  • Women for Women International
  • All Survivors Project
  • Free Yezidi Foundation
  • Waging Peace

6. Final thoughts

Video room with the five experts listed above giving their thoughts on the following topics:

  • How are attitudes towards sexual violence in conflict changing?
  • Why is it important to listen to victims and survivors?
  • What does justice look like for victims and survivors?
  • How can we create change?

Installation view of Unsilenced: Sexual Violence in Conflict @ the Imperial War Museum showing the videos of expert opinion (photo by the author)

Niggles

On 2 November the exhibition ends and will be dismantled. Why? Surely an exhibition on such an important and universal subject as this should become a permanent display. Not least if it’s true, as the curators claim, that sexual conflict has always been a part of war and continues to be, right up to the present day. Well then, shouldn’t a key element of conflict be addressed in a permanent display in Britain’s leading museum of war and conflict?

In the same spirit, why is there no catalogue of the exhibition? I’ve been to hundreds of exhibitions, and even the most trashy or superficial have usually been accompanied by catalogues or brochures. Surely an important exhibition on such an important subject warrants a permanent documentary record.

Poster created by the Mansudae Art Studio, Pyongyang. The text, in Korean, can be translated as: ‘No! Rid the twenty-first century of sexual violence!’


Related links

Support

At the end of the exhibition, there’s a list of support groups. For public information, I include it here:

Related reviews

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

Sad Cypress by Agatha Christie (1940)

‘It looks, does it not, as though we return to our muttons?’
(Translation of a French phrase which means, ‘go back to the start’, part 2, chapter 2)

‘I’m not one to gossip!’
(In the pantomime world of Agatha Christie, this always the preliminary to someone launching into a massive gossip, in this case gabby Nurse O’Brien)

‘Just like the pictures, isn’t it?’
(Nurse O’Brien sums up the pop culture cheesiness of the plot)

‘Old sins have long shadows, as they say!’
(Pithy proverb from Nurse Nolan)

Mrs. Bishop’s bust heaved with a flash of jet.

Part 1. The murder of Mary Gerrard

The narrative is cast in three parts. Part one gives us the events leading up to The Murder.

Old Mrs Laura Welman is bed-ridden after a stroke. She is attended round the clock by two nurses, older, plump Nurse Jessie Hopkins and Nurse O’Brien, and periodically visited by the handsome, humorous local doctor, Dr Peter Lord.

Laura’s husband died years ago and she is the owner and sole inhabitant of the Hunterbury estate (well, along with the raft of servants). At the end of the drive is the village of Maidensford. When she dies it is expected that she will divide the estate between her niece, Elinor, and her late husband’s nephew, Roderick ‘Roddy’ Welman.

We are shown numerous scenes between Roddy and Elinor where it becomes clear that 1) they have been in love since they were boy and girl playing on the lovely Hunterbury estate; 2) neither of them have plans to get a job or career because their plans for their future entirely depend on inheriting Aunt Laura’s money; 3) Elinor is cold and calculating, deliberately restraining her love for Roddy, and wondering how long before Aunt Laura finally dies.

The fly in the ointment who queers the whole situation is Mary Gerrard. She is the same age as Elinor and Roddy but born into a different class. She’s the daughter of the grumpy old lodge keeper to the estate, angry old Ephraim Gerrard. But here’s the thing: when Mary was a girl, Laura Welman, with no child of her own, took a shine to her and paid for her to go to private school, have French and piano lessons and be sent abroad to finishing school. She is just back from two years in Germany. Thus she has been educated ‘above her station’.

Not only this, but here, right at the start of the narrative, Elinor receives a letter which is really a scrawled, illiterate note, warning her that someone is sucking up to the old lady in the hope of winning her fortune. This can only refer to Mary, but the question is: who wrote and sent Elinor this note? And why?

The scenes between Elinor and Roddy quite cleverly build up the picture of two immature and naive young people who think they’re in love because they’ve been such jolly good friends for so long, and who’ve put their lives on hold while they wait for the old lady to pass away, but whose love is not real. It is a kind of formality or type of politeness to each other. They way they continually ask each other whether they love each other indicates its superficiality and fragility.

All this is exposed by the simple event of Roddy walking by himself through the grounds wondering about the future and pondering his love for Elinor when out of the woods, illuminated by sunlight, walks Mary Gerrard like a vision of beauty. I’ll quote the entire little scene because it shows how clearly Christie writes, with a beautiful limpidity and simplicity. As Christie’s biographer Laura Thompson says (and maybe it’s an obvious enough remark) Christie’s popularity is less down to her plots or characters, than to her immense readability.

He went out of the walled garden by the gate at the far end. From there he wandered into the little wood where the daffodils were in spring. They were over now, of course. But the green light was very lovely where the sunlight came filtering through the trees.

Just for a moment an odd restlessness came to him – a rippling of his previous placidity. He felt: ‘There’s something – something I haven’t got – something I want – I want – I want….’

The golden green light, the softness in the air – with them came a quickened pulse, a stirring of the blood, a sudden impatience.

A girl came through the trees towards him – a girl with pale, gleaming hair and a rose-flushed skin. He thought, ‘How beautiful – how unutterably beautiful.’

Something gripped him; he stood quite still, as though frozen into immobility. The world, he felt, was spinning, was topsy-turvy, was suddenly and impossibly and gloriously crazy!

The girl stopped suddenly, then she came on. She came up to him where he stood, dumb and absurdly fishlike, his mouth open. She said with a little hesitation:

‘Don’t you remember me, Mr. Roderick? It’s a long time of course. I’m Mary Gerrard, from the lodge.’

Short sentences. Short paragraphs. Simple characters. Child-like psychology. Easily understood. Perfect undemanding holiday reading for generations of satisfied readers.

So Roddy not so much falls in love with as is transfixed by this vision of young beauty. And Elinor sees it. In every subsequent scene where Mary appears, Roddy stops in the middle of what he’s saying to follow her with his eyes, with the result that Elinor becomes a seething cauldron of hate and jealousy.

Roddy and Elinor are both based in London where they have their separate flats. They visit Aunt Laura one or two times more before they get a message that she’s had another stroke and is a bad way. They rush down to Hunterbury to comfort the poor woman who now can’t speak. But the nurses and the doctor, when he attends, can see that Laura is upset about something and between them work out that she is very concerned about her will. She appears to want to make provision for her beloved Mary in it. Elinor (witnessed by the two nurses) promises she’ll do this, and also call the family solicitor Mr Seddon to come and see her tomorrow.

But tomorrow never comes. Aunt Laura dies in the night intestate i.e. she never made a will. In these circumstances the entire estate, and her considerable fortune, go to her next of kin who is Laura, with nothing to Roddy and nothing to Mary. Says the family lawyer:

‘The death duties, I am afraid, will be somewhat heavy, but even after their payment, the fortune will still be a considerable one, and it is very well invested in sound gilt-edged securities.’

In the event Elinor does the decent thing: she gifts Mary £2,000 which everyone thinks is very generous. But when she tries to offer Roddy some of the money he says he doesn’t want her charity and they end up having a row. In other words, the money which was meant to bring them together and ensure they lived happily ever after, ends up diving them more bitterly. They have broken off their engagement. Elinor suggests that Roddy goes away, abroad, takes a long break, to decide whether it’s she (Elinor) or Mary that he loves, so off he goes.

More than once Elinor is shown thinking ‘If only Mary wasn’t here… But for Mary… If only Mary were gone…’ maybe things between her and Roddy would return to ‘normal’.

Worse is to come because, now that they are not going to get married, Elinor is left as the sole inhabitant of the big old house at Hunterbury and decides she can’t bear to live there amid the ruins of her dreams. So she decides to sell it. All its rooms and gardens which she fondly planned to share in her happy marriage to Roddy, all these taste of ashes because of that damn Mary Gerrard! And so the narrative amply conveys all the reasons Elinor has for hating Mary, and how Elinor’s character becomes increasingly cold, calculating and bitter.

(I should have mentioned that shortly before Aunt Laura’s second stroke, Nurse Hopkins had mentioned to Nurse O’Brien that she can’t find one of the tubes of morphine in her nurse’s bag (it’s for a different patient of theirs: Eliza Rykin with cancer). She either mislaid it or, while her bag was left open in the hall, someone must have stolen it… a thought which neither of them fully acknowledge and quickly stifle, because it would imply that someone is up to no good.)

To cut a long story short, Mary dies and is thought to have been murdered. The actual death takes place at an innocent sandwich lunch. Laura has put Hunterbury up for sale. She therefore has to clear out all the furniture and writes asking Mary to come and do the same for the lodge where she grew up. Mary asks Nurse Hopkins to help her. On this particular day we are shown Elinor going shopping in the village high street and, at the butcher’s, buying types of paste to make sandwiches with. She frivolously mentions the fact that some fish pastes have been reported as causing food poisoning which the butcher assures her are not true of his.

Anyway, come lunchtime, Elinor invites Mary and Nurse Nolan from the lodge (where they’re cleaning out) up to the big house. Here she offers them the fish paste sandwiches we saw her making from the fish paste we saw her buying. Nurse Hopkins makes a pot of tea. Mary has a cup but Elinor doesn’t. Then Elinor invites Nurse Hopkins upstairs to take a look at the clothes she plans to throw out: maybe some of them can be redistributed to the poor and elderly in the village.

They do this for some time and when they come downstairs find Mary slumped in her chair, unconscious and blue. Nurse Hopkins immediately diagnoses poisoning, speaks very harshly to Elinor (obviously suspecting her of foul play) and barks at her to phone Dr Lord.

Here, on this dramatic scene, ends Part 1 of the novel.

Red herrings

According to Wikipedia:

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.

The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling smoked fish to divert and distract hounds from chasing a rabbit.

Euthenasia? Anyway, there are several red herrings I haven’t got round to mentioning yet. One is that we are shown old Aunt Laura confiding in Dr Lord, a sympathetic man, that she doesn’t want to end up helpless and gaga, being washed and cared for like a vegetable.

‘She’d talked to me about it. Asked me more than once if I couldn’t ‘finish her off.’ She hated illness, the helplessness of it…’

She would much rather the doctor put her out of her misery, something he cheerfully refuses to do, saying he didn’t intend to be hanged for murder. But did he? Put her quietly to sleep, as per her wishes?

Talking of Lord, it becomes clear in part 2 that he (rather inexplicably) carries a torch for Elinor. Could the doctor conceivably, somehow have poisoned Mary to make Elinor’s life better? Wildly improbable, but I’ve read worse things in Christie.

Ted Bigland’s anger This is Mary’s boyfriend, from her own (working) class. He is ‘a fine sturdy specimen’ who grew up with Mary and they obviously had some kind of understanding. We are shown a couple of scenes in which Ted asks to go out with her but Mary refuses and we are shown Ted’s frustration and then anger that Mary now thinks she’s ‘too good’ for him etc. Could this anger be motive enough for ted to murder her?

Mary’s mysterious parentage Late in part 1, looking through paperwork in the Lodge, Nurse Hopkins comes across a marriage certificate for old Gerrard and his wife but the date of the marriage is a year after Mary (now 21) was born. Further enquiry reveals that Mary wasn’t old Gerrard’s daughter at all. He confirms this in person. Mary’s father was an unnamed ‘gentleman’ who impregnated a lady’s maid to old Mrs Welman. She subsequently married Gerrard after Mary was born. No wonder he resented Mary, and she said she often felt he didn’t behave like a father to her. The obvious question is who was the father and could it have any possible bearing on Mary’s murder?

Lewis Rycroft On one of her last nights, Mrs Welman called out ‘Lewis, Lewis, photograph’. She directed Nurse O’Brien to get an old photograph out of her (locked) tallboy, an old photo in a silver frame depicting a handsome young man. She held and admired it for a while and then ordered it be locked away again. Well, some time later, after Mrs Welman’s death, Nurse O’Brien moves to a new job with a new client, Lady Rattery, staying at a place called Laborough Court where, by the kind of fantastic coincidence beloved of Christie and romance authors in general, she sees on the grand piano the exact same photo, of a dashing young man. When she asks the butler, he tells her it’s a photo of Lady Rattery’s brother – Sir Lewis Rycroft. He lived locally and was killed in the War. She further finds out that Lewis was married but that his wife (Lady Rycroft) went into a lunatic asylum soon after the marriage, but remained living. In other words, according to the laws of the day, he was unable to divorce and remarry. Nurse O’Brien then speculates that this Sir Lewis and Mrs Welman must have had a love affair but couldn’t marry because of the mad wife problem. As she comments:

They must have been very fond of each other, he and Mrs W., and unable to marry because of the wife being in an asylum. Just like the pictures, isn’t it?

So I’m guessing this solves the mystery of Mary’s parentage. What if not only Mary’s father was Lewis Rycroft but somehow, he got Mrs Welman pregnant, and Mary was Mrs Welman’s natural daughter!!!

So that’s the state of play and information, as part 1 ends on the dramatic scene of Mary dying of poisoning in the sitting room at Hunterbury, as Elinor Welman looks on cold-eyed and Nurse Hopkins turns to accuse her, ‘her eyes hard with suspicion’.

Part 2. Enter Hercule Poirot

Part 2 opens with young Dr Lord visiting Poirot and begging him to help find the evidence to get Elinor off the charge of murder. She has been arrested and charged and the trial will take place soon. Poirot asks Dr Lord to give him a complete summary of all the characters and the events leading up to Mary Gerrard’s death – which is a very handy recap for the reader, too.

Poirot agrees to help and sets off on the usual round of interviews. A chapter apiece is devoted to his extended interviews of: Nurse Nolan; Mrs Bishop; Ted Bigland; Roderick Welman; Mr Seddon the family lawyer; Chief Inspector Marsden; Nurse O’Brien; then Elinor herself, in prison. Then he meets with Dr Lord and tramps about the scene of the crime, throughout the empty house, but also along the land running beside the house from which, they realise, anyone could have had a clear view through the kitchen window of Elinor making the sandwiches on the fatal morning.

Poirot returns alone to interview Nurse O’Brien and she confirms what I suspected about Mary being Mrs Welman’s illegitimate daughter. It’s spelled out in black and white in an old letter she found at the Lodge, written by Mary’s ostensible mother, the lady’s maid Eliza Riley, who took the baby as her own and married Ephraim Gerrard.

Part 3. In court

Christie was constantly experimenting with the format of her novels. More often than not someone is murdered and the narrative describes the process of finding the killer. This one plays a variation on the theme which is that it is the first novel in the Poirot series to feature significant part of the narrative in a courtroom.

The novel actually opens with a preliminary scene in court, with Elinor standing in the dock, being accused of the murder of Mary Gerrard and asked to enter a plea, before the scene shimmers and fades before our eyes and transports us back to the origins of the story (part 1) and Poirot’s investigations (part 2), which I have summarised above.

I say ‘experimentation’ but, of course, by 1940 this kind of brief opening in the present which quickly gives way to flashbacks explaining how we got to this point, had become commonplace in popular fiction and especially in the movies. And having a good deal of a murder mystery set in court as different witnesses present the evidence which slowly pieces together the truth, this device has obviously been used in tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of movies and TV crime series since.

But it was new in Christie’s oeuvre to include such a courtroom scene and to use it to reveal the truth. We’d gotten used to Poirot calling all the suspects together and doing one of his Big Explanations.

Cast

  • Aunt Laura Welman – owner of the Hunterbury estate, old lady, bed-ridden after a stroke
  • Henry Welman – her husband, died decades earlier after just five years of marriage
  • Sir Lewis Rycroft – who Laura was in love with decades earlier, during the Great War, in which he was killed
  • Miss Elinor Carlisle – young niece of Laura Welman, in love with Roddy – ‘I’ve always fancied that you had, perhaps, rather an intense nature—that kind of temperament runs in our family. It isn’t a very happy one for its possessor’ – says to herself, ‘ It’s that beastly brooding, possessive mind of yours’
  • Roddy Welman – Mrs Welman’s (dead) husband’s nephew, posh, nervous, attended Eton
  • Mary Gerrard – daughter of the lodge keeper of the Welman estate who Aunt Laura took a shine to and had educated, piano, French etc, beyond her station ‘At twenty-one, Mary Gerrard was a lovely creature with a kind of wild-rose unreality about her: a long delicate neck, pale golden hair lying close to her exquisitely shaped head in soft natural waves, and eyes of a deep vivid blue’ – Nurse Hopkins thinks ‘Mary was one of the most beautiful girls you’ve ever seen. Might have gone on the films any time’
  • Ephraim Gerrard – Mary’s father who has angrily rejected her since her posh education gave her hoity-toity ways: ‘an elderly man with a bent back was painfully hobbling down the two steps’; in the opinion of Horlicks the gardener, ‘always grumbling, and crusty as they make them’
  • Eliza Gerrard née Riley – lady’s maid to Mrs Welman, who had a baby and married Ephraim Gerrard
  • Ted Bigland – Mary’s boyfriend, from her original (working) class, works at Henderson’s garage – ‘a fine sturdy specimen’, a ‘good-looking, fair young giant’
  • Mrs Bishop – housekeeper at Hunterbury for 18 years, ‘a stately figure of ample proportions, handsomely dressed in black’
  • Nurse Jessie Hopkins – the District Nurse who came every morning to assist with the bed making and toilet of the heavy old lady, was a homely-looking middle-aged woman with a capable air and a brisk manner’ – ‘the biggest gossip in the village’ – according to Dr Lord, ‘the town crier’
  • Nurse O’Brien – ‘a tall red-haired woman of thirty with flashing white teeth, a freckled face and an engaging smile. Her cheerfulness and vitality made her a favourite with her patients’
  • Dr Peter Lord – ‘a young man of thirty-two. He had sandy hair, a pleasantly ugly freckled face and a remarkably square jaw. His eyes were a keen, piercing light blue’
  • Horlick the gardener – ‘a tall, good-looking young fellow wheeling a barrow’
  • Dr Ransom – Dr Lord’s predecessor, now retired
  • Mrs Slattery – Dr Ransom’s housekeeper
  • Mr. Seddon of Bloomsbury Square – Aunt Laura’s lawyer
  • Mr Abbot – the butcher
  • Chief Inspector Marsden – police officer in charge of the criminal investigation, an experienced, kindly looking man’

In court

  • Sir Samuel Attenbury – counsel for the prosecution – there’s a flicker of Christie’s casual antisemitism when she has Elinor describe him as ‘the horrible man with the Jewish nose’
  • Sir Edwin Bulmer, K.C. – leading barrister assigned to defend Elinor; he is described as ‘the forlorn hope man’ because he takes on hopeless cases – a specialist in ‘sob stuff – stressing the prisoner’s youth’ etc
  • Dr Alan Garcia – distinguished forensic analyst
  • Inspector Brill – police officer in charge
  • Alfred James Wargrave – rose grower from Emsworth, Berkshire
  • James Littledale – qualified chemist employed by the wholesale chemists, Jenkins & Hale
  • Amelia Sedley of Boonamba, Auckland, New Zealand
  • Edward of Auckland, New Zealand, now living in Deptford

Nurses

I’ve been reading Laura Thompson’s account of Christie’s time as a nurse working for a Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) at Torquay Hospital during the First World War. It’s a happy coincidence that this novel is the one which contains more nurses, and comment about the profession of nursing, than any others to this point.

Dr Lord numerous times emphasises the professionalism of the two nurses, but also how they’d be scared to death of lapsing in their duties. When interviewing Nurse Nolan, Poirot is a little patronising and she quickly corrects him in the tone of brisk practicality which is what the reader also picks up from Thompson’s account of Agatha’s own time as a nurse.

Poirot sighed. He said: ‘As you say, men fight shy of illness. It is the women who are the ministering angels. What should we do without them? Especially women of your profession – a truly noble calling.’
Nurse Hopkins, slightly red in the face, said: ‘It’s very kind of you to say that. I’ve never thought of it that way myself. Too much hard work in nursing to think about the noble side of it.’
(Part 2, chapter 3)

Bookishness

Hercule Poirot said: ‘One does not practise detection with a textbook! One uses one’s natural intelligence.’
Peter Lord said: ‘You might find a clue of some sort there.’
Poirot sighed: ‘You read too much detective fiction.’

‘Her mother had been a lady’s maid to old Mrs Welman. She married Gerrard after Mary was born.’
‘As you say, quite a romance – a mystery romance.’

Wordsworth

Suddenly, out of the blue, Poirot quotes a fragment of Wordsworth and tells us he is a fan.

‘Therefore, the next step logically would seem to be: Mary Gerrard was not killed! But that, alas, is not so. She was killed!’
He added, slightly melodramatically:

“But she is in her grave, and oh,
The difference to me!”

‘I beg your pardon,’ said Roddy.
Hercule Poirot explained:
‘Wordsworth. I read him much.’

Period vocabulary

Says Nurse Nolan:

‘She wasn’t one of these girls who are all S.A. and IT. She was a quiet girl!’

Where S.A. obviously stands for ‘sex appeal’, a phrase Nolan can’t even bring herself to utter, and IT refers to It Girl:

The expression ‘It Girl’ originated in British upper-class society around the turn of the 20th century. It gained further attention in 1927 with the popularity of the Paramount Studios film It, starring Clara Bow.

Summary

The two Agatha Christie novels I’ve enjoyed most have been The Secret of Chimneys and The Seven Dials Mystery because they are the funniest, most high spirited books, the silly far-fetched plots being part of the comedy.

But of Christie’s mid-period novels this may be the one I’ve enjoyed reading most. The final explanation is as preposterously contrived as all her other plots but there’s something perilously close to depth and real psychology in the characterisation of Elinor Welman. And the penultimate scene where Dr Lord drives her to a sanatorium where she can finally rest and be at peace, had, for a moment, a flicker of the depth and real emotion you look for in proper literature.

But then the final scene of the novel has Poirot conveniently tidying up any loose ends for the benefit of the holiday reader and it turns back into pantomime again.


Credit

‘Sad Cypress’ by Agatha Christie was published by the Collins Crime Club in March 1940.

Related links

Related reviews

Peril at End House by Agatha Christie (1932)

‘The little facts that are curious, I like to see them appear. They are significant. They point the way.’
‘The way where?’
‘You put your finger on the weak spot, my excellent Hastings. Where? Where indeed! Alas, we shall not know till we get there.’ (Chapter 4)

‘I cannot help feeling, Hastings, that there is something behind this – something that has not yet come to light.’ (Chapter 4)

‘Since this trouble with my back, I’ve read all the detective stories that ever were, I should think.
Nothing else seems to pass the time away so quick.’ (Mrs Croft laid up in bed, Chapter 5)

‘I am convinced that le bon Dieu created Hercule Poirot for the express purpose of interfering. It is my métier.’ (Poirot, Chapter 12)

Summary

This is the sixth Poirot novel and it’s not great. It’s certainly not as entertaining as its immediate predecessors, the non-Poirot stories The Murder at the Vicarage and The Sittaford Mystery. ‘Peril at End House’ suffers by comparison for at least two reasons:

  1. Poirot is not (heresy!) as entertaining a figure as Miss Marple, let alone the freelance female detectives in novels like The Secret of Chimneys or The Sittaford Mystery (Bundle Brent or Emily Trefusis, respectively).
  2. The story itself is thin and, instead of unfolding with impressive logic, felt to me contrived and propped up right up until the extraordinarily convoluted conclusion.

Poirot and Captain Hastings are staying at the most expensive hotel in the Cornish Riviera resort of St Loo. Here they meet a devil-may-care young woman, Magdala ‘Nick’ Buckley and her circle of friends. They’re based at the big old family house she owns perched out on the cliffs, the End House of the title. The house belonged to her dissolute grandfather, old Sir Nicholas. When her mother and father died, it was her grandfather who raised her, hence she is nicknamed after him, Nick.

The central premise of the book is that Poirot comes to believe someone is trying to kill Nick and sets out to protect her. He partly fails because at a party to watch the fireworks over the resort’s harbour, in the dark, someone mistakenly shoots dead Maggie Buckley, a cousin of Nick’s who had borrowed the latter’s distinctive shawl. At which point Poirot has Nick whisked off to a nursing home for her own protection. We are at page 100 of this 250-page book and the next 150 pages see Poirot puzzling out who would want to murder Nick and why.

What I found unsatisfactory was the way they first meet, when the young woman is poncing about on the terrace of the hotel and ducks her head when she thinks a wasp has buzzed by. Somehow Poirot mystically knows it is not a wasp but a bullet which she heard, and which also pierced the hat she was wearing. Poirot finds the bullet which pinged off the wall and landed at his feet, and then identifies the hole in the hat. This is a preposterous incident and a very weak premise to hang the rest of the book on. Why would anyone try to shoot the woman in a public place and when she’s just a few yards from the most famous detective in the world? For me the novel never recovers from this contrived and improbable beginning.

It’s in light of this failed assassination attempt that Nick and her friends mention three other recent ‘accidents’: when one night the big heavy framed painting hanging over her bed fell onto her pillow and it was only luck that she’d got up and was out of bed at that moment: the way her car ran away with her because the brakes had failed / been tampered with; on a walk along the cliffs a big boulder came bouncing down the path and only just missed her. So all this is what persuades Poirot that someone is trying to murder the flighty young woman, despite her own dismissal of all three ‘accidents’.

Next problem I had is that Nick makes it super-abundantly extra clear, especially after her friend is killed instead of her, that there is something Poirot, Hastings and all the others ‘don’t know’:

She only shook her head, reiterating: ‘You don’t know! You don’t know!’

And yet Poirot completely ignores her and bundles her off to the nursing home, wasting days devising lists of suspects and their possible motives when all along all he had to do was ask her. I was jumping up and down and yelling ‘ask her what she means’ but Poirot doesn’t get round to doing this till page 120, by which time I had already guessed from clues in the text what she was on about. In other words, Poirot was stupider and slower than me, a not particularly bright reader.

So 1) the book starts from a flawed or clumsy premise, and 2) in it Poirot is uncharacteristically dense and slow.

Next Poirot continually talks up and exaggerates the situation – someone is trying to assassinate a young woman – into a world historical crisis, claiming the would-be murderer is a fiend, an arch criminal, a devil etc etc rather than a would-be murderer. Similarly, he goes to pieces in his sympathy and compassion for Nick with every twist in the plot, in a way which seems ludicrously overblown.

Finally, I laughed in disbelief when, at the climax of the novel, Poirot suggests holding a séance to flush out the identity of the murderer. Altogether this felt like a contrived, stretched, implausible and tired effort, a big disappointment after the richly entertaining ‘The Murder at the Vicarage’ and ‘The Sittaford Mystery’.

Comedy

It starts promisingly enough, playing to the fundamental fact about the Poirot novels which is that they are comedies. Poirot’s preening pomposity and endless egotism are continually exaggerated for comic effect:

‘They say of me: “That is Hercule Poirot! – The great – the unique! – There was never any one like him, there never will be!” Eh bien – I am satisfied. I ask no more. I am modest.’ (Chapter 1)

‘Monsieur Poirot is – er – was – a great detective,’ I explained.
‘Ah! my friend,’ cried Poirot. ‘Is that all you can find to say? Mais dis donc. I say then to
Mademoiselle that I am a detective unique, unsurpassed, the greatest that ever lived!’
(Chapter 2)

So much so that when, later on, anyone remarks on his fame Christie doesn’t even have to describe Poirot’s smug preening.

‘You are a great detective, M. Poirot?’ said Mrs Buckley.
‘It has been said, Madame.’
(Chapter 16)

Just as exaggerated for comic effect are his sidekick Captain Hastings’s two key attributes which are 1) his obtuseness (continually not noticing evidence, facts, implications staring him in the face):

‘What I particularly missed was your vivid imagination, Hastings,’ he went on dreamily. ‘One needs a certain amount of light relief.’

‘Almost incredible, my poor Hastings, how you hardly ever do see ! It amazes me every time anew!’ (Chapter 1)

‘You have an extraordinary effect on me, Hastings. You have so strongly the flair in the wrong direction that I am almost tempted to go by it! You are that wholly admirable type of man, honest, credulous, honourable, who is invariably taken in by any scoundrel.’ (Chapter 4)

And 2) his weakness for a pretty face i.e. he is easily distracted by pretty women:

She looked rather lovely as she sat up in bed, her two hands clenched, and her cheeks burning.

and Poirot continually mocks him for both.

‘You would say that! It would appeal, I knew, to your romantic but slightly mediocre mind. Buried treasure – yes, you would enjoy that idea.’ (Chapter 9)

But somehow, somewhere along the way, all this stops being so funny and becomes a mannerism.

Self-referential bookishness

I can’t quite define exactly the effect but Christie repeatedly has her narrators or characters point out how much the plot they’re involved in resembles a cheap thriller, a detective story or movie, as if this self-awareness somehow elevates them above that level. Whereas it does the opposite and simply highlights how close to genre fiction, packed with the clichés and stereotypes of the genre, they actually are. Thus when someone tries to shoot the book’s lead female character, Miss Magdala ‘Nick’ Buckley.

‘And now we ask the question of the cinema, of the detective novel—Who profits by your death, Mademoiselle?’ (Chapter 3)

Or:

‘Well, this is all too, too marvellous. Do you think someone really wants to do away with me? It would be thrilling. But, of course, that sort of thing doesn’t really happen. Only in books.’ (Chapter 2)

Or when Christie has someone or other jokily compare Poirot and Hastings to Holmes and Watson:

‘One should not keep a dog and have to bark oneself,’ agreed Nick, with mock sympathy. ‘Who is the dog, by the way? Dr Watson, I presume.’
‘My name is Hastings,’ I said coldly.
(Chapter 2)

But again, Christie loses out by the comparison. Poirot may be well known but Sherlock Holmes is a global icon.

It was his constant dictum that all the world knew Hercule Poirot. Here was someone who did not.

So why does she do it numerous times in every novel? Was this knowing self-referentiality part of the genre itself? Do all detectives in all detective stories, at some point or another, compare themselves to Sherlock Holmes or suddenly realising that they’re behaving just like a character in a detective novel?

‘Since this trouble with my back, I’ve read all the detective stories that ever were, I should think. Nothing else seems to pass the time away so quick.’ (Mrs Croft laid up in bed, Chapter 5)

‘I have let myself go to the most absurd suppositions. I, Hercule Poirot, have descended to the most ignominious flights of fancy. I have adopted the mentality of the cheap thriller.’ (Chapter 9)

‘You have a tendency, Hastings, to prefer the least likely. That, no doubt, is from reading too many detective stories. In real life, nine times out of ten, it is the most likely and the most obvious person who commits the crime.’ (Chapter 9)

‘Oh dear, whoever would have thought of such a thing? Seems like an Edgar Wallace, doesn’t it?’ (nurse at the nursing home, Chapter 17)

(Richard Edgar Wallace, 1875 to 1932, wrote over 170 novels, many of them crime thrillers.)

Diable!’ said Poirot, as we walked away. ‘Is no one ever quite sure? In detective books – yes. But life – real life – is always full of muddle.’ (Chapter 17)

Retired

Also, I don’t understand why Christie had Poirot retire from working as a consulting detective in the second novel about him and then kept him in this state of supposed retirement for the next 40 years!

‘I am completely retired – but what will you? I have retired – I’m finished.’
‘You are not finished,’ I exclaimed, warmly.
Poirot patted my knee. ‘There speaks the good friend – the faithful dog. And you have reason, too. The grey cells, they still function – the order, the method – it is still there. But when I have retired, my friend, I have retired! It is finished! I am not a stage favourite who gives the world a dozen farewells. In all generosity I say, Let the young men have a chance.’

Except it’s the exact opposite which happens, in novel after novel: the young men don’t stand a chance; the world famous Hercule Poirot is always stepping in and solving everything for them. Poirot himself seems confused, or conflicted.

‘But surely I read that you had retired – that you’d taken a holiday for good and all.’
‘All ! Madame, you must not believe everything you read in the papers.’ (Chapter 5)

Symmetry OCD

Poirot was as jumpy as the proverbial cat. He walked about our sitting room all the afternoon, murmuring to himself and ceaselessly rearranging and straightening the ornaments.

He reached for his hat and carefully flicked an infinitesimal speck of dust from its surface. (Chapter 5)

With careful fingers he straightened the objects on the table in front of him. (Chapter 10)

See his thing with playing cards, below.

Cast

As usual, a fundamental part of Christie’s strategy is to create such a large cast of characters that just having Poirot discover all their basic backstories, and then uncover all the secrets they’re hiding, in such a way as to cast suspicion on most of them, actually makes up the text.

  • Poirot
  • Captain Hastings
  • Magdala ‘Nick’ Buckley – owner of the End House, ‘her small impudent dark head’, She is charming, Mademoiselle Nick, but she is a feather-head. Decidedly she is a feather-head.’
  • Commander George Challenger – would like to marry Nick
  • Frederica ‘Freddie’ Rice – Nick’s best friend, ‘Married to a beast—a man who drank and drugged and was altogether a queer of the worst description. She had to leave him a year or two ago.’ ‘She was an unusual type – weary Madonna describes it best. She had fair, almost colourless hair, parted in the middle and drawn straight down over her ears to a knot in the neck. Her face was dead white and emaciated – yet curiously attractive. Her eyes were very light grey with large pupils. She had a curious look of detachment… She impressed me, I think, as the most tired person I had ever met—tired in mind, not in body, as though she had found everything in the world to be empty and valueless.’ Turns out to be a drug addict.
  • Freddie’s husband aka ‘the mess’
  • Jim Lazarus – the art dealer in Bond Street, ‘He’s a Jew, of course, but a frightfully decent one’. ‘A tall, fair, rather exquisite young man, with a rather fleshy nose and over-emphasised good-looks, he had a supercilious manner and a tired drawl. There was a sleekness about him that I especially disliked.’
  • Charles Vyse – local solicitor, Nick’s cousin, stands to inherit End House if Nick dies
  • William Wilson – the gardener at End House, husband of…
  • Ellen Wilson – housemaid
  • their son, Alfred, who gleefully describes watching pigs being slaughtered
  • Bert and Mildred ‘Milly’ Croft – Australian couple who have rented the Lodge
    • Edith – their maid
  • Maggie Buckley – Nick’s sensible cousin: ‘It was, I think, her appearance of calm good sense that so attracted me. A quiet girl, pretty in the old-fashioned sense – certainly not smart. Her face was innocent of make-up and she wore a simple, rather shabby, black evening dress. She had frank blue eyes, and a pleasant slow voice.’
  • Dr Graham – the trusted local doctor, there’s always one
  • Colonel Weston – Chief Constable of Devon
  • The Reverend Giles Buckley – father of murdered Maggie Buckley, ‘a small man, grey-headed, with a diffident appealing manner’
  • Mrs Jean Buckley – ‘a woman of character, tall and fair and showing very plainly her northern ancestry’
  • Captain Michael Seton – dashing airman, engaged on a long-distance flight to Australia
  • Sir Matthew Seton – his gruff old uncle, ‘the second richest man in England’, who disapproved of his relationship with Nick Buckley (or any other woman, come to that)
  • Mr Whitfield – Captain Seton’s solicitor
  • matron of the nursing home where Nick is sent
  • Hood – orderly at the nursing home, ‘a stupid but honest-looking young fellow of about twenty-two’
  • nurse probationer at the nursing home

Conventions

1. Suspicion

Just like Miss Marple, Poirot is suspicious of everyone.

‘What a suspicious old devil you are!’
‘You are right, mon ami. I am suspicious of everyone – of everything.’

Compare Miss M:

‘Ah!’ said Miss Marple. ‘But I always find it prudent to suspect everybody just a little. What I say is, you really never know, do you?’ (The Murder at the Vicarage, Chapter 16)

2. More

And early on in any of these mysteries someone always utters the classic trope of the genre, that there’s more to this affair than meets the eye:

‘I cannot help feeling, Hastings, that there is something behind this—something that has not yet come to light.’ (Chapter 4)

Compare:

‘Do you know, Clement,’ [Colonel Melchett] said suddenly, ‘I’ve a feeling that this is going to turn out a much more intricate and difficult business than any of us think. Dash it all, there’s something behind it.’
(The Murder at the Vicarage, Chapter 12)

And:

‘I think,’ said Inspector Narracott deliberately, ‘that there’s a lot more in this case than meets the eye.’
(The Sittaford Mystery, Chapter 4)

The strain of modern life

More than once Christie has had characters refer to ‘the strain of modern life’. She does it again here.

‘What do you mean exactly by that. Mademoiselle ? On top of everything else?’
‘I don’t mean anything particular. What the newspapers call ‘ the strain of modem life,’ I suppose. Too many cocktails, too many cigarettes – all that sort of thing. It’s just that I’ve got into a ridiculous – sort of state.’ (Chapter 5)

This phrase also crops up in some of Noel Coward’s 1920s plays. It was obviously a received idea and cliché of the time.

Poirot’s method

Poirot’s insistence on Order and Method and Psychology, is explained in every novel and quickly became formulaic.

Order and method! That is the first stage. To arrange the facts with neatness and precision. The next stage—’
‘Yes.’
‘The next stage is that of the psychology. The correct employment of the little grey cells…’ (Chapter 9)

Less flatteringly, there’s simply nosing around.

Mon ami,’ said Poirot, ‘I like to inquire into everything. Hercule Poirot is a good dog. The good dog follows the scent, and if, regrettably, there is no scent to follow, he noses around – seeking always something that is not very nice. So also, does Hercule Poirot. And often – oh ! so often – does he find it!’ (Chapter 16)

Poirot the outsider

There are some obvious points about Poirot. An essay I read said that Christie developed him during the First World War when the established doyen of detectives was Sherlock Holmes and the new author of adventure stories on the block was John Buchan. Holmes is obviously tall, fit, a dab hand with a sword, a drug addict, with a weird ability at the violin, in many ways a freak. Buchan’s heroes do lots of running round and biffing baddies. Both are true blue, public school Englishmen. Poirot is obviously conceived to be the opposite of all these things. Poirot is:

Foreign and so completely outside the English class system, completely outside, for example, the way Captain Hastings responds to other public-school educated military men as ‘pukka sahibs’. Thus his cross riposte to Hastings:

‘Poirot,’ I cried, scandalised. ‘You really can’t do that. It isn’t playing the game.’
‘I am not playing a game, mon ami.’ His voice rang out suddenly harsh and stern. ‘I am hunting down a murderer.’ (Chapter 13)

Outsider So he is an outsider to almost all English customs, cuisine, politics, traditions and so on, not just an outsider but a critic (for example, of England’s notoriously disgusting food).

Ambivalence he speaks with a French accent and has a French-sounding name and yet he isn’t French. Maybe it started out as a joke to make him Belgian and have every character he encounters think he’s French, but it turns into something more allegorical. Even in Europe, he doesn’t fit in. Or: he doesn’t fit in even with people’s stereotypes of foreigners. A Frenchman would be easy to dismiss given the millennium-old antagonism between the English and French. But Poirot both is (name and speech) and isn’t (actual nationality) French. He is neither fish, flesh nor fowl.

So whenever Poirot corrects people’s misconception about his nationality, it always wrongfoots them. Holmes is what people expect, tall, commanding, authoritative. Poirot always unsettles and unnerves people.

Short not tall – compare the over-6-foot-tall Sherlock.

Unmanly – he is dapper and preening and fussy, not at all like the manly and indifferent-to-appearance heroes like Richard Hannay / Sandy Arbuthnot. In fact Christie chose to emphasise this very unEnglish, unheroic fussiness by giving him symmetric obsessive compulsive disorder:

Symmetry OCD is a subtype of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) characterized by an intense need for things to be perfectly aligned, balanced, or arranged in a symmetrical manner. Individuals with this condition experience significant distress and anxiety when objects or patterns appear asymmetrical or imperfect.

Hence, on a physical level, his fussiness about his personal appearance, and his fiddling with objects on the table or mantelpiece to position them just so. Which is an obvious physical manifestation of the similar mental compulsion to arrange all the facts into a neat pattern. Given vivid embodiment when Poirot unexpectedly asks Hastings to go and buy him a pack of playing cards.

‘If you would be the good friend – the good helpful friend…’
‘ Yes’ I said, eagerly.
‘Go out, I beg of you, and buy me some playing cards.’
I stared. ‘Very well,’ I said coldly. I could not but suspect that he was making a deliberate excuse to get rid of me. Here, however, I misjudged him. That night, when I came into the sitting-room about ten o’clock, I found Poirot carefully building card houses – and I remembered! It was an old trick of his – soothing his nerves. He smiled at me.
‘Yes – you remember. One needs the precision. One card on another – so – in exactly the right place and that supports the weight of the card on top and so on, up.’ (Chapter 17)

Woman haters and other stereotypes

Christie uses the phrase woman hater’ in this novel and its immediate predecessors. Here, Captain Seton’s uncle, Sir Matthew Seton, is described as one.

‘He [Michael] comes of rather a mad family,’ he [Lazarus] said. ‘His uncle. Sir Matthew Seton who died about a week ago – he was as mad as a hatter.’
‘He was the mad millionaire who ran bird sanctuaries, wasn’t he?’ asked Frederica.
‘Yes. Used to buy up islands. He was a great woman-hater. Some girl chucked him once, I believe, and he took to Natural History by way of consoling himself.’ (Chapter 7)

In The Sittaford Mystery, the murdered man, Captain Trevelyan, is described by several characters as a ‘woman hater’. Mrs Willett has no time for this description.

‘I’ve known dozens of men like it. They are called women haters and all sorts of silly things, and really all the time it’s only shyness. If I could have got at him,’ said Mrs Willett with determination, ‘I’d soon have got over all that nonsense. That sort of man only wants bringing out.’
(Chapter 14)

Either 1) there were a lot of these ‘woman haters’ about in the 1920s and ’30s, or 2) Christie was particularly intrigued by them, or 3) the most likely explanation, they were yet another handy stock type of the kind her stories are constructed from (the timid vicar, the solid doctor, the handsome young artist, the flighty young woman etc etc).

Because our own age is obsessed by gender and riddled with feminist ideology, this kind of stereotype leaps out at us (just as our other modern obsession with race and ethnicity means that Christie’s stereotypical references to Jews and to any other racial type or ethnicity also leap out at the modern reader, and are liable to cause offence).

But the entire books are made of stereotypical incidents and stock character types. Modern readers just alight on some of the stereotypes, the ones which press modern buttons, and find them offensive. But if there were any Cockneys left, they might find Christie’s clichéd depiction of the Londoner Inspector Japp, offensive:

‘Well, you mustn’t be depressed, old cock,’ said Japp. ‘Even if you can’t see your way clear – well you can’t go about at your time of life and expect to have the success you used to do. We all of us get stale as the years go by. Got to give the young ‘uns a chance, you know.’
‘And yet the old dog is the one who knows the tricks,’ murmured Poirot. ‘He is cunning. He does
not leave the scent.’..
‘You’re a caution, isn’t he, Captain Hastings ? Always was. Looks much the same – hair a bit thinner on top but the face fungus fuller than ever.’
‘Eh?’ said Poirot. ‘What is that?’
‘He’s congratulating you on your moustaches,’ I said, soothingly.

‘A caution’, ‘Old cock’, ‘face fungus’ – these locutions are as stereotypical as the stereotyped posh young chap who says, ‘What ho! old chap’, the stereotyped maid who says, ‘Lord, Miss, it’s not my place’, the stereotyped military man who says, ‘Dashed bad business, Poirot’. Some of the characters themselves comment on how stereotypical they are.

‘The late Sir Matthew was the second richest man in England,’ replied Mr. Whitfield, composedly.
‘He had somewhat peculiar views, had he not?’
Mr. Whitfield looked at him severely.
‘A millionaire, M. Poirot, is allowed to be eccentric. It is almost expected of him.’ (Chapter 16)

It is certainly expected of him in this kind of novel. All these novels offer not only the challenge of the central puzzle and the challenges of all the related puzzles and mysteries which spin off from it, the entertainment value of Poirot and his comedy sidekick – but all the pleasures of recognising a gallery of stock types and caricatures, as recognisable and deeply pleasurable as characters in a panto.


Credit

‘Peril at End House’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1932 by the Collins Crime Club.

Related links

Related reviews

The Seven Dials Mystery by Agatha Christie (1929)

‘I’m sorry, Bundle. Possibly the jolly old brain isn’t functioning as well as usual, but I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about.’
(One of the Bertie Wooster soundalike young chaps in ‘The Seven Dials Mystery’, page 159)

‘The Seven Dials Mystery’ is a murder mystery comedy, full of comically posh English characters, dastardly foreigners, an imperturbably solid English policeman and suavely reliable butlers, all fed into a preposterous plot about foreign powers trying to get their hands on the secrets of a new military invention. It is ludicrous from start to finish and very entertaining.

Also it’s a sequel. It’s in the same setting (a country house named Chimneys) and features many of the same characters (such as Superintendent Battle and Lady Eileen ‘Bundle’ Brent) as her 1925 novel The Secret of Chimneys.

For a start, the entire tone of the narrative and the dialogue sound like Christie lampooning or pastiching P.G. Wodehouse:

‘I say, oughtn’t we to have some lethal weapons? Chaps usually do when they’re going on this sort of stunt.’

‘What about me?’ she asked.
‘Nothing doing. You go to bed and sleep.’
‘Oh!’ said Bundle. ‘That’s not very exciting.’
‘You never know,’ said Jimmy kindly. ‘You may be murdered in your sleep.’

‘You ought to have told him what you thought of him.’
‘Unfortunately modern civilization rules that out,’ said Lord Caterham regretfully.

‘I know you’re the most frightful sport, Bundle, but—’
‘Cut out the compliments. Let’s make plans.’

‘I hope we shan’t go and shoot the wrong person,’ said Bill with some anxiety.
‘That would be unfortunate,’ said Mr Thesiger gravely.

The opening 30 pages or so of this book have more laughs in it than any of the Noel Coward plays I’ve just been reading, with a cast of posh young chaps entertaining doddering old aunties. Lady Coote’s interactions with the intimidating Scottish head gardener at Chimneys, in fact with all her staff, are priceless.

Lady Coote was… a lonely woman. The principal relaxation of her early married life had been talking to ‘the girl’—and even when ‘the girl’ had been multiplied by three, conversation with her domestic staff had still been the principal distraction of Lady Coote’s day. Now, with a pack of housemaids, a butler like an archbishop, several footmen of imposing proportions, a bevy of scuttling kitchen and scullery maids, a terrifying foreign chef with a ‘temperament’ and a housekeeper of immense proportions who alternately creaked and rustled when she moved, Lady Coote was as one marooned on a desert island.

As is caricature Lord Coote’s passion for that very 1920s game, golf:

Loraine had been at Chimneys for nearly a week, and had earned the high opinion of her host [Lord Coote] mainly because of the charming readiness she had shown to be instructed in the science of the mashie shot.

The dialogue of the bright young things staying at the country house, Chimneys, is humorously exaggerated.

‘And then, of course, the poor chap was dead. Which made the whole thing rather beastly.’

‘Thank the Heavens above I’m an educated man and know nothing whatever upon any subject at all.’

Everyone has posh nicknames – Pongo, Bundle, Codders, Socks.

The critics didn’t like ‘The Seven Dials Mystery’ and thought it was a lamentable lapse from the ‘serious’ tone required of a proper murder mystery. But I don’t read Christie for the whodunnit element, which I find ridiculously complicated and contrived – I mostly read her for what I’ve discovered is her broad comedy and so I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I have been really surprised reading Agatha Christie to discover 1) what pulpy trash she wrote early in her career (The Big Four) and 2) that she’s an essentially comic writer. Poirot is a comic creation and by and large we see him through the eyes of dim-witted Captain Hastings, who is an even more comic creation. They are a comedy duo – something which sets them apart from the superficially similar Holmes and Watson.

Bookish

Christie’s books are bookish but not in any intellectual sense, in the sense that she is very well aware that she is copying tropes and clichés from a zillion previous cheap thrillers and shilling shockers. The text is drenched in this ironic self-awareness, which is somehow meant to defuse the accusation that she was dealing in the most howling clichés.

‘A damned funny crowd,’ said Bundle, vigorously massaging her arms and legs. ‘As a matter of fact, they’re the sort of crowd I always imagined until tonight only existed in books.’

‘It’s impossible,’ said Jimmy, following out his own train of thought. ‘The beautiful foreign adventuress, the international gang, the mysterious No. 7, whose identity nobody knows – I’ve read it all a hundred times in books.’
‘Of course you have. So have I. But it’s no reason why it shouldn’t really happen.’

‘There’s the woman, of course,’ continued Jimmy. ‘She ought to be easier. But then, you’re not likely to run across her. She’s probably putting in the dirty work being taken out to dinner by amorous Cabinet Ministers and getting State secrets out of them when they’ve had a couple. At least, that’s how it’s done in books.’

‘An automatic, sir?’
‘That’s it,’ said Jimmy. ‘An automatic. And I should like it to be a blue-nosed one – if you and the shopman know what that is. In American stories, the hero always takes his blue-nosed automatic from his hip pocket.’

‘I say, Bundle,’ said Jimmy anxiously, ‘you haven’t been reading too much sensational literature, have you?’

‘What do you think it is?’ asked Bundle.
‘A white crystalline powder, that’s what it is,’ said Jimmy. ‘And to any reader of detective fiction those words are both familiar and suggestive.’

But having your characters (repeatedly) insist that this is the kind of thing that only happens in crime novels and thrillers doesn’t get you off the hook for copying the outlandish plots and melodramatic scenarios of previous crime novels and thrillers – it only emphasises the fact.

‘About this society, for instance – I know it’s common enough in books – a secret organization of criminals with a mysterious super-criminal at the head of it whom no one ever sees…

Maybe that’s why the whole thing is done in the frivolous style of Wodehouse, because it’s a way of defusing or deflecting criticism of its contrivance. Or maybe the constant harping on about how the plot is as wild as any silly thriller is part of the comedy.

Contemporary reviews

The reviewer in the Times Literary Supplement of 4 April 1929 put his finger on it: ‘It is a great pity that Mrs Christie should in this, as in a previous book, have deserted the methodical procedure of inquiry into a single and circumscribed crime for the romance of universal conspiracy and international rogues. These Gothic romances are not to be despised but they are so different in kind from the story of strict detection that it is unlikely for anyone to be adept in both.’

In her autobiography, Christie wrote that this book was what she called ‘the light-hearted thriller type’. She went on to say that they were always easy to write as they didn’t require too much plotting or planning, presumably in contrast to the very-tightly planned detective stories.

‘Light-hearted’. So that’s her own definition or genre.

Synopsis

Chimneys We are at an extended party at a posh country house, Chimneys, hosted by Sir Oswald and Lady Coote. Only a little into the book do we learn that Oswald is a self-made millionaire who made his fortune in steel, and who has rented Chimneys off its actual owner, Lord Caterham.

House guests The guests at the party are a bunch of posh young chaps – Gerry Wade, Jimmy Thesiger, Ronny Devereux, Bill Eversleigh, and Rupert ‘Pongo’ Bateman – along with some chapesses – Helen, Nancy and ‘Socks’.

The clock joke Wade has a habit of oversleeping so the others cook up a joke by motoring into the nearest town and buying eight alarm clocks which they place around his bedroom once he’s fast asleep.

Gerry dies The clocks go off, alright, everyone hears them, but no Gerry appears and next morning a footman finds Wade dead in his bed. There’s a bottle of chloral on his nightstand, so the more sensible guests, the police and then the coroner a few days later, conclude it was accidental overdose of this sleeping potion. But Thesiger notices that the alarm clocks they stashed around the room have all been neatly repositioned on the mantelpiece, and that one of them is missing. It is later found chucked out of the window into the hedge below. Why?

Lord Caterham returns A few days later the house party breaks up with most of the guests returning to London as the owner of the property, Lord Caterham and his daughter Lady Eileen ‘Bundle’ Brent, move back into Chimneys. In a comic Wodehousian way my Lord is disgruntled that someone had the bad manners to die in his house:

‘I don’t see why you’re so frightfully sensitive about it,’ said Bundle. ‘After all, people must die somewhere.’
‘They needn’t die in my house,’ said Lord Caterham.

The unfinished letter is a gung-ho type of chapess and she’s puzzled by aspects of Gerry’s death. She accidentally discovers a letter tucked away in the writing desk in the room where Wade was staying. It’s a draft of a letter he was writing to his half-sister, Loraine Wade, which contains the sinister sentence:

‘Look here, do forget what I said about that Seven Dials business. I thought it was going to be more or less of a joke, but it isn’t—anything but. I’m sorry I ever said anything about it—it’s not the kind of business kids like you ought to be mixed up in. So forget about it, see?’

What did he mean?

The young man who isn’t run over So Bundle decides to motor up to London to see Bill Eversleigh. She hasn’t got very far before a figure comes blundering out of the woods and, although she swerves, she thinks she’s run him over. Going back she realises she didn’t hit him but he is mortally wounded and expires anyway. Just before he dies he gasps out, ‘Seven Dials…’ and ‘Tell… Jimmy Thesiger’.

Bundle gets his body to a doctor who tells her that her car did not hit Devereux. He was shot.

George Lomax is having a party After handing the body over to the doctor, and answering some questions from the police, Bundle returns home. When she mentions ‘Seven Dials’ her father, Lord Caterham says that’s a funny coincidence. George Lomax, ‘His Majesty’s permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs’, had popped in, saying he was planning to have a political party at his home, Wyvern Abbey, the following week, but had received a ‘warning letter’, warning him off. What?

Bundle goes see Jimmy Thesiger So Bundle sets off a second time to drive up to London, to visit Jimmy Thesiger and discovers Loraine Wade also there waiting to see the tardy young man (who is woken and tended to by his excellent manservant Stevens, who bears a remarkable similarity to Jeeves). To cut a long story short, the three of them discuss the two mysterious deaths, the references to Seven Dials, and coalesce into a gang who agree to investigate the mystery, separate from the police.

Mafia joke When they ask Loraine what Gerry was writing to ask her to forget, she explains that she recently opened a letter addressed to him by mistake. It contained a list of names and numbers. Apparently, Gerry joked about there being an English version of the Mafia, except not as picturesque.

Hypothesis Jimmy summarises that the Seven Dials is a secret society which Gerry discovered, started off treating as a joke but learned was serious. He told Ronny Devereux about it and so, after they’d bumped off Gerry, the same people tracked down and bumped off Ronny. (All this is discussed in a jolly kind of way, just as Stevens arrives to announce that luncheon is served.)

Gerry was a spy When Bundle mentions that George Lomax is having a party but has received some kind of threat, Jimmy jumps to the conclusion that something is going to happen at this party (which it indeed does). He also shares the startling news that instead of being the dim, lazybones Gerry Wade came over as to his friends, he was in fact in the British Secret Service and spent most of the First World War in Germany as a spy.

‘Then the thing’s bigger than we thought. This Seven Dials business isn’t merely criminal—it’s international. One thing’s certain, somebody has got to be at this house-party of Lomax’s.’

Jimmy will go So Jimmy will attend this party at Wyvern Abbey, and he’ll get Bundle an invite but they both agree it’s too dangerous for Loraine to attend, which she meekly accepts (or appears to).

Superintendent Battle After lunch Bundle motors round to Scotland Yard where she meets up with Superintendent Battle, who appeared along with her in the book’s prequel. She shares everything she knows about the Gerry Wade case and asks to be let in on the facts. Battle tells her Bill Eversleigh will be able to help.

Date with Bill So she phones and makes a date to see Bill Eversleigh the following evening. First of all he tells her the guest list at George Lomax’s party. Then he tells her there’s a Seven Dials club. She insists he take her there, so off they go, arriving at 14 Hunstanton Street. They go in and dance and eat some fish and chips (!). Bundle notices that one of the staff was until recently a servant at Chimneys. That’s a bit of a coincidence.

Back at Chimneys Bundle goes back to Chimneys where she quizzes the staff and discovers the footman who left has been replaced by a new chap with the surname Bauer i.e. foreign. Hmm. Then she goes to see her redoubtable aunt, Marcia, Marchioness of Caterham, to get more information about the guests at Lomax’s forthcoming party.

Bullying Alfred Then she motors back up to London. Here she slips into disguise and goes along to the Seven Dials Club. Here she confronts the ex-footman with the accusation that he was somehow bribed to leave Chimneys. He simply says he was made a cash offer he couldn’t refuse by a Mr Mosgorovsky, the owner of the club.

The meeting room Bundle then persuades Aldred to show her the secret rooms upstairs, where illicit gambling goes on. He shows her the room but then reveals there is a secret latch into another room, the Meeting Room of the Seven Dials Society. Off to one side is a pair of cupboards. Bundle gets Alfred to squeeze her into one of them and then lock her into it, and promise to come back in the early hours to release her.

The Seven Dials society Why? Because there is a meeting of the Seven Dials committee planned and she plans to spy on it. Sure enough, a couple of hours later, the members of the secret society start to arrive.

From her hidden vantage point Bundle sees it all and it sounds exactly like the meeting of any other secret international organisation of conspirators. They call each other Number 1, Number 2 etc. There’s a Russian, an American, a Frenchman etc. They all complain that Number 7 never attends the meetings. And they are all wearing masks to conceal their identities, masks painted with the face of a clock, the dial. Seven dials!

She overhears them discussing the mysterious series of events in detail: discussing the murder of Gerry Wade, how they intend to manage the post-mortem on Ronnie Devereux, then they go through the guest list for the big party at George Lomax’s house. Clearly it is the next stage in the mystery for they explain how at this country house ‘party’ a German scientist called Eberhard will offer a secret formula for sale to the British Air Minister.

Far-fetched Then they all leave and Bundle has to put up with a few hours of exquisite discomfort locked in the closet before Alfred returns to unlock it and set here free, telling her the club is now empty. Her reporting of the meeting she’s just seen prompts the first of several jokey references to the far-fetched nature of the story.

‘A damned funny crowd,’ said Bundle, vigorously massaging her arms and legs. ‘As a matter of fact, they’re the sort of crowd I always imagined until tonight only existed in books.’

Briefing Jimmy After a few hours rest she rings up Jimmy to confer further. As she describes what she heard he echoes the absurd similarity between it all and the cheapest spy thriller:

‘It’s impossible,’ said Jimmy, following out his own train of thought. ‘The beautiful foreign adventuress, the international gang, the mysterious No. 7, whose identity nobody knows—I’ve read it all a hundred times in books.’
‘Of course you have. So have I. But it’s no reason why it shouldn’t really happen.’

Improved hypothesis Together they sketch out the plot. A man called Eberhard is attending the party at George Lomax’s. He is a German inventor and has developed a new technique for making super-strong steel. Implausibly, the German government turned it down so he’s brought it to the British government. Lomax has asked Sir Oswald the steel expert to assess it, while another guest is scheduled to be Sir Stanley Digby the Air Minister. So this ‘party’ is by way of being an unofficial conference on the viability of Eberhard’s invention and what Bundle overheard in the Seven Dials club is that the Seven Dials organisation intend to steal the formula.

A gun So Jimmy tells Bundle he is definitely attending this party and expects trouble. He asks his man, Stevens, to go and buy him a pistol. Again Christie jokily signals how much like a cheap spy thriller this is:

‘An automatic, sir?’
‘That’s it,’ said Jimmy. ‘An automatic. And I should like it to be a blue-nosed one – if you and the shopman know what that is. In American stories, the hero always takes his blue-nosed automatic from his hip pocket.’

The party at Wyvern Abbey So Jimmy drives down to Wyvern Abbey the next day, where he meets and introduces Bundle to everyone. There’s half a dozen or more new characters for us to meet, and a lot of polite conversation as they all size each other up. In this respect it moves close to the classic Christie scenario of 8 or so suspects gathered in a country house where a crime is committed.

Bang in the night Long story short, after lots of banter and chat over dinner, all the guests go to bed. But Jimmy hears a noise in the library and goes downstairs. While here someone comes in and they have a fierce fight, which ends with shots being fired, one of them hitting Jimmy in the arm. but unbeknown to him, Bundle had also climbed out of her bedroom window and down the ivy and heard someone suspiciously creeping about on the terrace, when she turned a corner and blundered into who else by Superintendent Battle, being large and English and reassuring. After they’ve established why they are both there, Battle politely but firmly tells Bundle to go back to her bedroom. She’s just climbed back up the ivy when she hears shots from the library and goes running downstairs.

Loraine’s adventure Meanwhile the third member of this little gang of investigators, Loraine Wade, had been told not to attend the party at all but she disobeyed. That evening she dressed up in night adventure clothes and motored round to Wyvern Abbey. She has barely broken into the grounds and snuck up to the terrace when something lands, plop, at her feet. She picks it up. it is an envelope and a man is climbing out of a window above her.

Battle and bangs Loraine runs round the corner of the terrace smack into the arms of Superintendent Battle. He’s just asking her what she’s doing there when they both hear the shots and go running back to the french windows into the library.

Scene in the library Here they discover Jimmy unconscious, shot in the arm but alive. They tourniquet his arm then open the (locked) library door to let in all the other guests. They make several discoveries: first of all the assistant to the Air Minister, Terence O’Rourke, is found to have been drugged and the papers, which were in his keeping, to have been stolen. Next Sir Oswald comes in. He claims to have been out walking in the night air and seen someone running away across the lawn and, retracing their steps, to have found a small gun, which he now presents for everyone to see. Third, Loraine is produced, explains how she snuck into the grounds (against Jimmy’s advice) and caught the bundle which was thrown down to her, before she ran round the corner and bumped into Battle. Fourth, after all this exposition has taken a while, they discover behind a screen the unconscious body of one of the grandest guests, the Countess Radzky.

Countess Radzky’s version She has to be revived (comically) with a cocktail and proceeds to tell her account of the events i.e. she’s an insomniac, was in the library looking for a book when she heard the door slowly undo and so hid. She saw Jimmy come in and check everywhere out, then turn the lights off and sit down to see if anything happened, which it did an hour later when someone else came into the library and Jimmy leapt up to apprehend him, which turned into a fight, which led to shots being fired, Jimmy collapsing shot and the countess fainting.

Whodunnit This part, the centrepiece of the novel, is certainly like the classic country house whodunnit, with a number of clues and a variety of first-person accounts which clash or overlap and raise all kinds of questions.

Questions Who drugged Tommy O’Rourke and stole the papers? The same man who was climbing out the window when Loraine appeared? And why did he throw the bundle down to her? And why did he throw away his gun just where Sir Oswald could find it? And what was Sir Oswald doing prowling round the grounds in the early hours?

Next morning Superintendent Battle, George Lomax, Sir Oswald Coote and Jimmy Thesiger are joined by Bundle after breakfast at Wyverne Abbey and work through a variety of scenarios and hypotheses and that – as the narrative has arrived at a more convention country house whodunnit – is where I shall end my synopsis. If you want to find out what happens next, whodunnit and whether they get away with it, the entire text is easily available online, see link below. But I can hint at a happy ending:

‘Don’t tell me that you’re suffering from galloping consumption or a weak heart or anything like that, because I simply don’t believe it.’
‘It’s not death, said Bundle. ‘It’s marriage.’
‘Very nearly as bad,’ said Lord Caterham.

The strain

‘Twelve o’clock,’ said Bundle. ‘Good. I shall be here, if I’m still alive.’
‘Have you any reason to anticipate not being alive?’
‘One never knows,’ said Bundle. ‘The strain of modern life – as the newspapers say.’

Lord Caterham stared at him. It occurred to him that what was so often referred to as ‘the strain of modern life’ had begun to tell upon George.

Waster

Always thought the word ‘waster’ was a slang phrase referring to druggies from my boyhood in the 1970s. Surprised to find it being widely used in the 1920s (p.146).


Credit

‘The Seven Dials Mystery’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1929 by William Collins and Son. References are to the 1970 Fontana paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie (1926)

‘You will find, M. le docteur, if you have much to do with cases of this kind, that they all resemble each other in one thing.’
‘What is that?’ I asked curiously.
‘Everyone concerned in them has something to hide.’
‘Have I?’ I asked, smiling.
Poirot looked at me attentively.
‘I think you have,’ he said quietly.
(The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Chapter 7)

‘Everything is simple, if you arrange the facts methodically.’
(Poirot wisdom, Chapter 7)

Poirot carefully straightened a china ornament on one of the bookcases.
(Poirot’s symmetry OCD, Chapter 8)

When everyone was assembled, Poirot rose and bowed. ‘Messieurs, mesdames, I have called you together for a certain purpose.’
(First instance of the calling together of all the suspects which was to become a cliché of the genre, Chapter 12)

‘I implored you to be frank with me. What one does not tell to Papa Poirot he finds out.’
(His rather creepy habit of calling himself Papa Poirot when talking to young women, Chapter 18)

‘Now, madame,’ he smiled at her, his head on one side, his forefinger wagging eloquently, ‘no questions. And do not torment yourself. Be of good courage, and place your faith in Hercule Poirot.’
(Poirot’s saviour complex, Chapter 22)

This is the third novel to feature Agatha Christie’s famous detective, Hercule Poirot, but unlike its predecessors and most of its sequels, it is not narrated by Poirot’s sidekick, Captain Arthur Hastings, but by a completely new character, a Dr James Sheppard.

In the quiet village of King’s Abbot, bluff old Roger Ackroyd is found dead, stabbed in the neck, in the study of his country house, Fernly Park. On the day of his death he had had a conversation with the narrator, Dr Sheppard, in which he had shared a terrible secret. Only the day before, a long-time inhabitant of the village, a Mrs Ferrars, had committed suicide with an overdose of the sleeping pill veronal. Only a year earlier her husband, Ashley Ferrars, had died, supposedly of acute gastritis brought on by heavy drinking, although the narrator’s sister, Caroline Sheppard, in her lurid gossipy way, always claimed his wife had murdered him.

In the year since her husband’s death, Mrs Ferrars had become very friendly with Roger Ackroyd, whose own wife had died leaving him to raise her son by a previous marriage i.e. his stepson, Captain Ralph Paton. They’d become close enough for Roger to have proposed marriage to her and she, on the second attempt, to accept.

Now, to his horror, Dr Sheppard hears Roger Ackroyd telling him that just the day before, Mrs Ferrars had confessed to him (Roger) that she did murder her husband, with poison, after years of drunken abuse. Not only that, but somebody found out about the murder and has been blackmailing her for a year.

Mrs Ferrars tells Roger all this but can’t bring herself to name the blackmailer. Then she kills herself. The next day Roger calls in the doctor and tells him everything but, even as they’re talking, the butler delivers the day’s mail which includes a letter from the suicided Mrs Ferrars. He opens the letter and starts to read it aloud to the doctor but when it gets to the bit which names the blackmailer he stops, then insists the doctor leaves.

A few hours later the doctor is home in bed when he gets a phone call telling him that Roger Ackroyd has been murdered and hurries over to Ackroyd’s house to find it is, indeed, true. So: who murdered Roger Ackroyd, and why, and who was blackmailing Mrs Ferrars? These are just the starting points of what develops into a story which some critics claim was Christie’s best and is regularly voted among the top crime novels ever written.

Where does Poirot come in?

The first quarter of the book is narrated by this Dr Sheppard with no mention or appearance of Poirot but mentions of a Mr Porrott who has moved into the house next to Sheppard’s, The Larches. Sheppard’s sister, Caroline, as the village gossip, claims to know about Porrott but in fact all that everyone knows is that he keeps himself to himself. We learn that he is literally cultivating his garden as, in one comic episode, he offers Dr Sheppard one of the huge marrows he has been cultivating.

It is only in Chapter 7, when the story is well underway, that one of the other characters (the murdered man’s niece, Flora) informs Sheppard of the true identity of his neighbour: that he is the world-famous private detective, that he moved to the village a year ago, that Roger knew about him but Poirot swore him to secrecy.

This raises several questions, the most obvious of which is: Why did Christie choose to have her famous detective character retire after just two novels? Specially seeing as he was destined to appear in over 30 further novels, two plays and over 50 short stories? Though she couldn’t have anticipated this at the time, she must have realised she had a makings of a recurring figure, so why retire him at virtually the start of his fictional career?

Anyway, once Poirot’s been introduced he quickly comes to dominate the narrative and the imaginative space of the novel, easily becoming the most intriguing and central figure, with his air of exaggerated self importance, his habit of referring to himself in the third person (as Napoleon notoriously did), and his complete domination of Dr Sheppard who is transformed from a reasonably capable and thoughtful local doctor into the kind of dim sidekick figure which Poirot appears to require.

Poirot’s self importance

‘See now, mademoiselle,’ he said very gently, ‘it is Papa Poirot who asks you this. The old Papa Poirot who has much knowledge and much experience. I would not seek to entrap you, mademoiselle. Will you not trust me?’ (Chapter 12)

He looked over his shoulder and raised one eyebrow quizzically. ‘An opened window,’ he said. ‘A locked door. A chair that apparently moved itself. To all three I say, ‘Why?’ and I find no answer.’ – He shook his head, puffed out his chest, and stood blinking at us. He looked ridiculously full of his own importance. It crossed my mind to wonder whether he was really any good as a detective. Had his big reputation been built up on a series of lucky chances? (Chapter 8)

‘Les femmes,’ generalized Poirot. ‘They are marvelous! They invent haphazard—and by miracle they are right. Not that it is that, really. Women observe subconsciously a thousand little details, without knowing that they are doing so. Their subconscious mind adds these little things together—and they call the result intuition. Me, I am very skilled in psychology. I know these things.’ He swelled his chest out importantly, looking so ridiculous, that I found it difficult not to burst out laughing. (Chapter 13)

‘It is useless to deny. Hercule Poirot knows.’ (Chapter 17)

‘A little idea of mine, that was all. Me, I am famous for my little ideas.’ (Chapter 18)

Where is Hastings?

Why is the novel being narrated by Dr Sheppard and not Captain Hastings? Because at the end of the previous novel in the series, The Murder on the Links’, with wild improbability, Hastings had gone off to live in South America with the woman he fell in love with during the novel, Dulcie Duveen.

For the first quarter of the novel Poirot doesn’t appear and everything is narrated by Dr Sheppard. Once Poirot has been introduced, Christie quickly has him assimilating Sheppard to the witness-and-sounding-board role vacated by Hastings.

‘You must have indeed been sent from the good God to replace my friend Hastings,’ he said, with a twinkle. ‘I observe that you do not quit my side.’ (Chapter 8)

‘Perhaps I’m intruding,” I said. ‘Not at all,’ cried Poirot heartily. ‘You and I, M. le docteur, we investigate this affair side by side. Without you I should be lost.’ (Chapter 10)

In other words, Poirot needs an idiot accomplice. Inside the fictional world of the novel, I suppose it may help Poirot to think and work things through, to have an imbecile constantly proposing completely erroneous theories. On a practical level, it also allows him to in effect be in two places at the same time whenever that’s required, sending Sheppard off to interview people while Poirot does something else, or wants to stay in the background.

Also, towards the end of the novel, Poirot pays Hastings a back-handed compliment and summary of his usefulness:

‘It is that there are moments when a great longing for my friend Hastings comes over me. That is the friend of whom I spoke to you—the one who resides now in the Argentine. Always, when I have had a big case, he has been by my side. And he has helped me—yes, often he has helped me. For he had a knack, that one, of stumbling over the truth unawares—without noticing it himself, bien entendu. At times he has said something particularly foolish, and behold that foolish remark has revealed the truth to me! And then, too, it was his practice to keep a written record of the cases that proved interesting.’ (Chapter 23)

But it may also be that Christie had grasped how much more entertaining the Hastings figure makes her books. He is a bit dim, a bit slow, and so acts as the reader’s entry into the fictional world of the novel, and into Poirot’s mind.

For all these reasons, as the novel progresses, Poirot consolidates Sheppard’s position as the Dr Watson-Captain Hastings substitute.

‘Do you really wish to aid me? To take part in this investigation?’
‘Yes, indeed,’ I said eagerly. ‘There’s nothing I should like better. You don’t know what a dull old fogey’s life I lead. Never anything out of the ordinary.’
‘Good, we will be colleagues then.’ (Chapter 10)

But as reassuringly slow-witted and dim as the original.

Call me dense if you like. I didn’t see. (Chapter 13)

The pleasure of familiarity

Fictional series featuring recurring figures are so enjoyable because it obviously feeds something deep in our psyches to meet the same characters again and again and get to learn their quirks and characteristics. All the world’s mythologies feature the same gods or heroes cropping up again and again, displaying the same trademark behaviour. Ancient drama featured stock characters who were given different names but always behaved in a reassuringly familiar and predictable manner (the young lovers, the disapproving father, the clever slave etc).

In a way, given the psychological reassurance they provide, it’s an oddity that so much of the literature in the interim between then and modern times didn’t feature recurring characters. On reflection, maybe it was a role taken by figures in the Christian mythology: most of the population from the Dark Ages to the late Victorian era were illiterate, and so their world of fictional characters was limited to an (admittedly quite large) roster of characters from the Old and New Testaments, along with stock characters from fairy tales and folk mythology.

All this changed (in Britain) with the increase in literacy triggered by the 1870 Education Act and the consequent explosion of genre literature from the 1880s and 1890s onwards, the creation of the sub-literary genres of adventure stories, horror, fantasy, science fiction and so on. And these provided fertile fields for the creation of thousands of characters which could be used in recurring adventures – first in the obvious detective stories, starting with Sherlock Holmes; then in a new, debased and industrialised form in comics – from the funnies of turn of the century American newspapers, through the invention of comic strip characters, DC (1934) and Marvel (1939) in the States, alongside comic strip characters in Europe such as Tintin in France/Belgium (1929).

All this was amplified in movies made with recurring characters (all those Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone), a device which was handed over to the new medium of television after the second war, across all possible genres – from comic to Westerns to science fiction. Recurring characters are easier for creators to work with, reassuring for audiences, and profitable.

Anyway, Poirot is one such protagonist, one such figure who went on to have a lengthy career in Christie’s hands, in an impressively long roster of novels and short stories, stretching from 1920 to 1972 – but after her death flourished in an apparently unstoppable stream of TV adaptations and movies, up to the current series of movies starring Kenneth Branagh.

So to come right back to this novel, it is part of the fun but also feeds something deep in us, is deeply reassuring, to feel we are in the presence of someone in control, in command of the situation, who can help us, who will always ensure that Right and Justice prevail.

Thus it is that Christie knew very well what she was doing, when she created his three or four salient characteristics, repeated them within the novels and across the novels, and hence the lovely reassuring entertainment-stroke-comfort that they provide.

The little man was leaning forward. His eyes shone with a queer green light. (Chapter 8)

Over the wall, to my left, there appeared a face. An egg-shaped head, partially covered with suspiciously black hair, two immense moustaches, and a pair of watchful eyes. It was our mysterious neighbour, Mr Porrott. (Chapter 3)

I looked at him inquiringly, but he began to fuss about a few microscopic drops of water on his coat sleeve. The man reminded me in some ways of a cat. His green eyes and his finicking habits. (Chapter 9)

Symmetry OCD

According to the internet:

Symmetry OCD is a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) characterized by a strong need for things to be perfectly aligned, arranged, or symmetrical. Individuals with symmetry OCD experience intense anxiety and distress when items are not correctly aligned, incomplete, or appear imperfect. This can lead to compulsions like repeatedly arranging objects, touching or tapping things, or even performing certain actions with both hands to achieve a sense of balance.

This is clearly what Poirot has:

I looked curiously at [Poirot]. He was rearranging a few objects on the table, setting them straight with precise fingers. His eyes were shining. (Chapter 13)

Poirot’s OCD is not so pronounced as to interfere with his everyday life, but Christie touches on it just frequently enough to keep us aware of it.

‘Now, I beg you, let us have everything of the most exact.’ (Poirot organising a reconstruction in Chapter 15)

And, importantly, his symmetry OCD is connected with Poirot’s desire for everything about a case to be arranged ‘just so’, for the facts and people’s statements to line up and make sense. Anything at all which doesn’t make sense, doesn’t fit the theory, jars with his putative narrative, troubles him.

‘But then it is possible after all—yes, certainly it is possible—but then—ah! I must rearrange my ideas. Method, order; never have I needed them more. Everything must fit in—in its appointed place—otherwise I am on the wrong tack.’

Again and again we see other people – Hastings, Giraud of the Sûreté, Japp of Scotland Yard (in other Poirot novels) and the local coppers – dismissing this or that detail as irrelevant, because it doesn’t fit with the theory they’ve devised and are imposing on the facts. But Poirot can’t allow this. This is why it’s the details that don’t make sense, don’t fit into an interpretive pattern, which trouble and interest him the most.

Thus a chair in the murdered man’s study had been moved sometime between the murder and the doctor and butler entering the room and discovering the body, an apparently small detail, but:

‘Raymond or Blunt must have pushed it back,’ I suggested. ‘Surely it isn’t important?’
‘It is completely unimportant,’ said Poirot. ‘That is why it is so interesting,’ he added softly.
(Chapter 7)

(I began to notice the importance of the word ‘seem’. Whenever the narrator says that Poirot ‘seems’ not to notice or not to care, or ‘seems’ to lose interest in a conversation with s suspect, or ‘seems’ to move on – that is almost infallibly a tell-tale sign that he has noticed something important.)

As to the importance of theory and interpretation in these novels, Poirot gives a handy quote:

‘Of facts, I keep nothing to myself. But to everyone his own interpretation of them.’ (Chapter 21)

Chimpanzees and gossip

Our village, King’s Abbot, is, I imagine, very much like any other village. Our big town is Cranchester, nine miles away. We have a large railway station, a small post office, and two rival general stores. Able-bodied men are apt to leave the place early in life, but we are rich in unmarried ladies and retired military officers. Our hobbies and recreations can be summed up in the one word, ‘gossip‘. (Chapter 2)

Gossip amounts to speculation about other people in a social group, or known in wider society. Gossip is:

casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true… idle talk or rumour, especially about the personal or private affairs of others…

My understanding of the hierarchies of ape groups, and especially chimpanzee society, is that they are incredibly complex, and that survival requires continual assessment of who is the alpha male, who his females and children are. Constant awareness of who’s on their way up, who’s on their way down, who’s mating with who, whose children are eligible or valid members of the in-group, and so on.

Everyone who writes about chimp social hierarches makes the obvious point that they are directly comparable to human social hierarchies, especially in what anthropologists know of our earliest hunter-gatherer societies.

Except that, unlike chimps, we can talk, and so can assess our own and everyone else’s place in the hierarchy at length and in mind-boggling detail. Human gossip can be seen as an extension of the same chimp-like faculty. Gossip is speculation about people’s activities and motives: ‘Are they having an affair? Why did they suddenly sell the house and move?’ etc.

To come back to the novel in hand, it isn’t difficult to see the genre of the detective story as a kind of intensification of the chimp strand in human nature or the human mind. Unlike chimps who live in the animal present, humans with their vastly bigger mental and symbolic and linguistic abilities, can range far and wide over the past, analyse the present, and speculate about the future. And when all this energy goes into speculating about the past, present and future of individuals – are they on the way up, or down? who stands to gain and who stands to lose? are the children – the next generation – overthrowing their parents, for power or money or love? who’s mating with who? – all this is gossip. And it is gossip which the narrator, in the first chapter of the book, goes out of his way to say is the chief recreation and pastime of everyone in his village.

All of which helps us to see, to understand, that what the narrator calls ‘gossip’, is in a sense, central to the whole genre of the detective story. Because what does a detective story consist of except endless speculation about people, their characters, qualities, and extravagant theories about their possible motivations and actions. The detective story is gossip on steroids. In the detective novel the common human urge to speculate about what people do and why goes into overdrive.

Which is one of the several psychological gratifications it offers (along with the reassuring comfort of meeting recurring, familiar and dependable characters, mentioned above).

The post-war era

Christie was born in 1890 and so was 28 when the Great War ended and 30 when her first detective novel was published. She was, in other words, from the pre-War generation and so these early novels record some of the startling social changes of the post-war era.

The 1920s woman

One of these was the striking new freedoms claimed by young women (presumably mostly middle class young women), the short haircuts, short skirts, lipstick and unabashed smoking in public.

The things young women read nowadays and profess to enjoy positively frighten me.
(Dr Sheppard, Chapter 4)

‘Flora is like all these young girls nowadays, with no veneration for their betters and thinking they know best on every subject under the sun.’
(Caroline Sheppard, Chapter 17)

Mahjong

Another was Christie’s keeping up with the new decade’s enthusiasm for games and activities. I commented on how the preceding novel, ‘The Murder on The Links’, drags in the game of golf which existed beforehand but underwent a great burst of popularity in the 1920s, with the spread of clubs and courses across the UK. (To be honest, the topic feels rather dragged into the book since the murder doesn’t actually take place on a golf course and isn’t carried out with a golf club or something colourful like that, but just with a common or garden dagger.)

And so she does something similar with the Chinese game of mahjong. This became a fad or craze in the West immediately after the First World War. The first Mahjong sets sold in the U.S. were sold by Abercrombie & Fitch starting in 1920, which was also the year that Joseph Park Babcock published his book ‘Rules of Mah-Jongg’, the earliest version of Mahjong known in America – and which was also, of course, the publication year of the first Poirot novel, ‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’. The game quickly spread across America and to Britain.

All of which explains why Christie was being very up-to-date when she devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 16) to a game of mah jong held at Dr Sheppard’s house, featuring himself, his sister Caroline, bluff Colonel Carter and local gossip Miss Ganett as the players.

The ostensible purpose of the chapter is for all four characters to air their ‘theories’ about the murder of Roger Ackroyd (because, as I’ve discussed at length, these kinds of detective stories are just as much or more about the elaboration and assessment of different theories about murders, as they are about the murders themselves) but it’s done against the backdrop of a game of mahjong which doesn’t exactly explain the rules, but gives enough detail about the names of the tiles, the different hands and strategy, to begin to give you a feel for the game.

It’s also a funny scene, as the theories about the murder are juxtaposed with the players’ increasingly bad-tempered playing of the game and criticising each other. Surely millions of readers before me have pointed this out, but Christie is a very enjoyable comic writer. It’s mainly for the comedy that I read her.

Freud

And then another fad which swept across the West in various forms of bastardisation and simplification, Freud’s invention of psychoanalysis, namechecked in this brief exchange between Poirot and the police inspector to indicate Poirot’s openness to new thinking and the police’s innate conservatism.

‘Then there is the psychology of a crime. One must study that.’
‘Ah!’ said the inspector, ‘you’ve been bitten with all this psycho-analysis stuff? Now, I’m a plain man——’ (Chapter 8)

But later Poirot speaks in such a way as to indicate that he accepts psychoanalysis’s fundamental premise: the notion that the human mind is divided into a conscious and an unconscious part and that the unconscious part is often working, creating ideas and suppositions which the conscious mind isn’t aware that it’s doing.

‘Les femmes,’ generalized Poirot. ‘They are marvellous! They invent haphazard—and by miracle they are right. Not that it is that, really. Women observe subconsciously a thousand little details, without knowing that they are doing so. Their subconscious mind adds these little things together—and they call the result intuition.’ . (Chapter 13)

‘I was watching your face and you were not—like Inspector Raglan—startled and incredulous.’ I thought for a minute or two. ‘Perhaps you are right,’ I said at last. ‘All along I’ve felt that Flora was keeping back something—so the truth, when it came, was subconsciously expected. (Chapter 20)

And most plainly of all:

‘It explains, too,’ said Poirot, ‘why Major Blunt thought it was you who were in the study. Such scraps as came to him were fragments of dictation, and so his subconscious mind deduced that you were with him. His conscious mind was occupied with something quite different…’ (Chapter 23)

Poor old Ackroyd. I’m always glad that I gave him a chance. I urged him to read that letter before it was too late. Or let me be honest—didn’t I subconsciously realize that with a pig-headed chap like him, it was my best chance of getting him not to read it? (Chapter 27)

Like lots of writers and artists, Christie realised that you don’t have to understand the full complexity of Freud’s theory, for its basic outline to be very useful in writing, in creating characters and analysing their psychology and motivation.

Cocaine and heroin

Golf, mahjong, psychoanalysis – and Christie adds a fourth to her suite of topical references, cocaine! Roger Ackroyd’s housemaid is a prim and proper woman, Miss Russell. It’s only half way through the book that we discover (in a typical digression designed to throw us off the scent) that she has an illegitimate son, Charles Kent, who’s gone completely off the rails and become a drug addict.

Poirot first suspects this when he discovers a ‘quill’, a goose quill i.e. the hollow stem of a goose feather, in Roger Ackroyd’s summer house where, it slowly emerges, the housekeeper had had a bad-tempered encounter with her ne’er-do-well son on the night of Ackroyd’s murder. Poirot knows that drug addicts in America use these quills to snort their drug.

In fact there’s a quibble or mild confusion about drugs because when Miss Russell goes to consult Dr Sheppard about drugs, she mentions cocaine because she’d seen a piece about it in that morning’s newspaper. She does this because she doesn’t in fact know or understand which drug her son is addicted to. But the goose quill gives Poirot the more specific evidence that it’s actually heroin or, as he says, using the latest slang, ‘snow’.

He held out to me the little quill. I looked at it curiously. Then a memory of something I had read stirred in me. Poirot, who had been watching my face, nodded.
‘Yes, heroin ‘snow.’ Drug-takers carry it like this, and sniff it up the nose.’
‘Diamorphine hydrochloride,’ I murmured mechanically.
‘This method of taking the drug is very common on the other side. Another proof, if we wanted one, that the man came from Canada or the States.’ (Chapter 13)

And later, when discussing the movements of an unnamed stranger who was seen entering Ackroyd’s grounds:

‘It was fairly certain that he did go to the summer-house because of the goose quill. That suggested at once to my mind a taker of drugs—and one who had acquired the habit on the other side of the Atlantic where sniffing ‘snow’ is more common than in this country. The man whom Dr Sheppard met had an American accent, which fitted in with that supposition…’ (Chapter 23)

Golf, mahjong, psychoanalysis and heroin, an impressive roster of up-to-the-minute topics for 1926.

Heightism

Ackroyd’s housekeeper – ‘a tall woman, handsome but forbidding in appearance.’

Ursula Bourne – ‘A tall girl, with a lot of brown hair rolled tightly away at the back of her neck, and very steady grey eyes.’

Mrs Folliott – ‘She was a tall woman, with untidy brown hair, and a very winning smile.’

Kent, the suspect – ‘He was a young fellow, I should say not more than twenty-two or three. Tall, thin, with slightly shaking hands, and the evidences of considerable physical strength somewhat run to seed.’

In this world of tall people, great emphasis is placed on Poirot’s shortness and smallness.

The strange little man seemed to read my thoughts… My little neighbour nodded… He seemed an understanding little man… The little man went on with an almost grandiloquent smirk… ‘To see that funny little man?’ exclaimed Caroline… ‘I accept,’ said the little man quietly… The little detective shook his head at me gravely… The little man was leaning forward. His eyes shone with a queer green light… ‘Admirable,’ declared the little man, rubbing his hands.

You get the picture. Maybe all the emphasis on Poirot’s littleness is to emphasise his reliance not on brute strength but on brains. The key word, ‘little’, being used both for Poirot’s stature, but also part of his favourite phrase to describe his key piece of equipment for solving crimes.

The secretary [Geoffrey Raymond] was debonair as ever. ‘What’s the great idea?’ he said, laughing. ‘Some scientific machine? Do we have bands round our wrists which register guilty heart-beats? There is such an invention, isn’t there?’
‘I have read of it, yes,’ admitted Poirot. ‘But me, I am old-fashioned. I use the old methods. I work only with the little grey cells.’ (Chapter 23)

Roger and Edmund

http://www.crazyoik.co.uk/workshop/edmund_wilson_on_crime_fiction.htm

ITV

ITV dramatised most of the Poirot novels and short stories in their TV series starring David Suchet. ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’ was dramatised as series 7, episode 1.


Credit

‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1926 by John Lane. References are to the 1966 Fontana paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Ithell Colquhoun @ Tate Britain

The Tate Colquhoun archive

A few years ago the National Trust handed over to Tate a large trove of work by the mystical Surrealist female artist Ithell Colquhoun (1906 to 1988) which significantly added to Tate’s existing archive. As far as I can tell, this exhibition is by way of showcasing the new expanded archive and sets out to demonstrate the impressive length, breadth and variety of Colquhoun’s career. As the Tate blurb puts it:

This landmark exhibition of over 140 artworks and archival materials traces Colquhoun’s evolution, from her early student work and engagement with the surrealist movement, to her fascination with the intertwining realms of art, sexual identity, ecology and occultism.

1. Variety of style

Thus the exhibition displays seven or eight completely different visual styles or approaches which Colquhoun developed over her long life, many of which are very attractive. In doing so the curators have to convey quite a lot of information – they have to explain to us the sheer range of Colquhoun’s purely artistic techniques or approaches to art-making, including the ones she copied or adapted from the European Surrealists during her Surrealist phase (1930s and 40s).

2. Esoteric knowledge

But the really striking and distinctive feature of the exhibition is the extraordinary range and depth of Colquhoun’s interests in esoteric wisdom. Almost every painting or drawing requires a hefty label explaining how it relates to ancient theories of magic and mysticism which she moulded and adapted to create a strikingly wide and diverse range of styles and pictures.

3. Eroticism

Then there’s the sex. Plenty of esoteric traditions attribute magical, mystical powers to our sexuality, assigning particular attributes to the male or female ‘principles’, discussing the union of male and female in sexual congress or in mystical figures where male and female actually become one, and so on.

Throughout her career Colquhoun was very interested in the many overlaps between esoteric traditions and sensual and sexual imagery. None of the paintings or sketches is pornographic, most of them are not even what you’d call particularly sensual, but a good number of them, maybe half, deal with sex as described in various mystical traditions.

This includes some of her best and most striking works, such as the lovely ‘Drawing of a red and yellow couple conjoined’, a small ink and watercolour work on delicate tracing paper, which I kept coming back to. Of its kind, perfect.

Drawing of a red and yellow couple conjoined by Ithell Colquhoun © Tate

Thoughts

I’ll give you my opinion now, before itemising some of the traditions and techniques in more detail. My opinion is that Colquhoun is a minor but very attractive figure. By minor I mean that she didn’t establish a school or have followers. If she innovated numerous techniques and approaches these have disappeared into art school practice i.e. are not particularly attributed to her.

Also she didn’t really produce any knock-down masterpieces, pictures which take your breath away. Maybe that’s another definition of a ‘major’ figure. There are only a handful of large, standout, finished pictures. The most striking one is ‘Scylla’, which is why it’s on the poster and all the promotional material.

Scylla (méditerranée) by Ithell Colquhoun (1938) Tate © Spire Healthcare © Noise Abatement Society © Samaritans

But instead of big knockout numbers, there are lots of smaller, not quite finished, not quite perfect, but still very attractive images, which become more appealing the more you read up about her mystical views and beliefs.

There are images to admire in every room and over time it took to wander round, immersing myself in her personality and interests and approaches, well, I came to like her and her work more and more. In particular to admire her restless drive to experiment. The sheer range of styles and approaches is as impressive as any of the actual works.

Artistic styles

  1. Narrative paintings / murals
  2. Art school William Blake
  3. Botanical paintings
  4. Cutout book
  5. de Chirico Surrealism
  6. Dali Surrealism and the double image
  7. Automatic painting
  8. Enamel drip (Taro)

1. Narrative paintings / murals

At the Slade she painted a number of large narrative paintings, especially of biblical subjects with fantastic architectural settings. There’s a death of the Virgin Mary in which the figures kneeling by her bedside are all in modern dress. Judith Showing the Head of Holofernes (1929). Judgement of Paris (1930), Aaron meeting Moses (1932). She remained a member of the Society of Mural Painters into the 1940s.

2. William Blake figures

These early works depict highly stylised human figures, positioned so as to fill the picture plane to overflowing, with a strong outline of the schematic and stylised figures, the exaggerated drawing in of the forehead, and the highly stylised eyes. All this reminded me of William Blake’s highly stylised, moulded and sculpted human figures, drawn with strong defining outlines, only amped up with 1920s modernism, with Art Deco features.

Song of Songs by Ithell Colquhoun (1933) © Tate

3. Botanical paintings

Completely different from these historical subjects, Colquhoun developed a different line, painting flowers and plants in a figurative style, inflected by 1920s modernism to produce what in the German art of the time was referred to as ‘magic realism’. At the same time, you can see how the stylisation of the flowers points towards her interest in surrealism, at the same times as the flowers are becoming symbols.

Water-Flower by Ithell Colquhoun (1938) Arts University Plymouth © Spire Healthcare © Noise Abatement Society © Samaritans

4. Cut-out book, Bonsoir, 1939

One entire wall is devoted to 40 or so small black and white photos and photomontages she created as the storyboard for an unmade surrealist film titled ‘Bonsoir’, which was never made.

The curators point out that the storyline appears to be a lesbian love story, moving from a woman in a cab with a man in a top hat, on towards scenes where two women are lying together in bed, scantily clad and kissing. On the wall opposite are sketches of a woman she apparently had a lesbian affair with, Andromaque Kazou, and the curators quote from ‘Lesbian Shore’, a lesbian text she wrote but which was never published. What I take from this is that Colquhoun was bisexual, or gender fluid, highly and sensual and completely unembarrassed about expressing it in her paintings.

Surrealism

Colquhoun had come across Surrealism in 1931 when she briefly lived in Paris. The 1936 London International Exhibition of Surrealism bowled her over and for some years she submitted entirely to the Surrealist influence, contributing to English Surrealist magazines, exhibiting with fellow British Surrealists. On the evidence here the influence can be divided into several distinct styles.

5. de Chirico surrealism

Next to the ‘Bonsoir’ cut-outs is a very finished and complete painting of a church, with no people in it and a few coloured ribbons or flows of some liquid leaking over the steps. This has the architectural precision but unpeopled ominousness of a de Chirico painting.

6. Dali surrealism

More common is the influence of Salvador Dalí. Colquhoun was very taken with Dalí’s concept of the ‘double image’, of the immaculately painted image of one thing which, on closer examination, can also be another. This is why the Scylla painting is so central to this period of her work. On the face of it, it is a depiction of two large rocks emerging from the sea, with the prow of a yacht coming round behind one of them. Look closer, and you realise it is also a portrait of the artist’s thighs rising out of the water of a bath, with the kelp or seaweed at the bottom representing her pubic hair. As the exhibition progresses there is to be quite a lot of pubic hair…

7. Automatic painting

The Surrealists rejected the world of reason and logic and business and politics which had led to the catastrophic First World War. Inspired by Freud’s theories of the human unconscious – i.e. that the unconscious mind is the large and determining part of our personalities – the Surrealists developed a range of techniques designed to access the unconscious or, alternatively, to startle the conscious mind out of its settled habits. Hence their new aesthetic ideas such as ‘convulsive beauty’ and so on.

Back in the early 1920s the founders of Surrealism, notably André Breton, had developed ‘automatic writing’ i.e. writing down the first random thoughts that came into your head then elaborating them. Later in the 1920s, as the movement became more art-based and visual, various members developed the notion of automatic painting. Colquhoun took this up with a passion. She developed different ways of making the picture creating process random.

She published an influential essay, ‘The Mantic Stain’, in 1949. This explored the spiritual possibilities of automatism and she compared the automatism to divination, the perception of future events or forces beyond our earthly senses.

The exhibition presents a group of paintings made using the decalcomania technique. This involved pressing together two surfaces covered with paint to create a mirror image produced without the intentional use of the artist’s hand i.e. a kind of automatism – to produce a messy gloopy shape (this is what she meant by ‘stain’ in the phrase ‘Mantic Stain’). Which she then worked up into a more elaborate and finished work.

So here’s an initial decalcomianac paint pressing, or what she called the ‘peel’.

Counterpart for Gorgon by Ithell Colquhoun (around 1946) © Tate

And here’s the finished, highly worked-over painting:

Gorgon by Ithell Colquhoun ( 1946) Private Collection © Spire Healthcare © Noise Abatement Society © Samaritans

Note the use of very Dalí-like eggs. But they are placed in a fantastical landscape which is not really like Dalí at all, more like the fantastical highly coloured worlds of Max Ernst or Yves Tanguy. But the gorgeous vibrant colour palette is very distinctive. Lots of her works are very attractively bright and colourful.

She also worked with:

  • écrémage – dipping paper into water with oily ink on the surface
  • fumage – the smoke from a candle or lamp on a surface like paper or canvas
  • parsemage – submerging paper in water sprinkled with powdered charcoal or chalk

Then, in each case, overpainting the random, automatic, ‘spiritual’ images which result.

8. Enamel drip (Taro)

A lot later, and on display in the final room, Colquhoun developed a technique for dripping vibrant paints onto enamel surfaces. She used this in her full set of Tarot cards, created in the 1970s. These are included in their entirety and cover a wall. I know and care nothing about the names and mystical significances of the cards, but I was struck by the abstract beauty of the patterns, almost always a multi-layered blot at the centre of the card but amazing how many variations on the same idea were possible.

The Lord of the Hosts of the Mighty from Taro: Major Arcana by Ithell Colquhoun (1977) Tate Archive TGA 201913. Photo © Tate Photography (Kathleen Arundell)

Esoteric knowledge

While still a student Colquhoun began to be interested in esoteric literature and occult sects and it became a lifelong interest which heavily influenced her art but it was in the early 1940s, sort of emerging from her initial enthusiasm for Surrealism, that she began to base paintings and drawings on esoteric knowledge. From this point onwards barely a wall label goes by without mentioning the influence of one or other of the classics of esoteric thought. These include:

  • alchemy
  • ancient Egyptian religion
  • the Divine Androgyne
  • animism
  • astrology
  • Buddhist Tantra
  • Christian mysticism
  • fertility cults
  • the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
  • Hindu Tantra
  • Jewish kabbala
  • magic
  • mysticism
  • the occult
  • the Philosopher’s Stone
  • shakti, the feminine force in Hindu mysticism which combines spiritual and earthly worlds
  • spiritualism
  • tantra
  • the Quest Society
  • theorhythm
  • theosophy
  • yoga

She had a particularly feminist or female take on all these belief systems, incorporating them into her own bisexual or gender-fluid values, producing numerous images reflecting on the interaction on male and female principles, exploring the idea of a divine feminine power. Take the idea, central to alchemy, that the male and female forms can be merged to create an androgynous whole.

The curators tell us Colquhoun produced work in sets or series which explored various aspects of these esoteric theories, often using particular techniques for particular ideas. As I’ve mentioned, I really liked some of the smaller, more intimate images created from watercolour and ink on delicate tracing paper. Take this attractively schematic watercolour from 1940, ‘The Thirteen Streams of Magnificent Oil’.

The Thirteen Streams of Magnificent Oil by by Ithell Colquhoun (1940) © Tate

The curators explain that in Jewish mysticism the Supreme Being has a beard divided into 13 strands from which flow streams of divine oil which illuminate the earthly world. Colquhoun explored how this substance might enter the human body via different openings, twelve into men’s twelve openings, but women have thirteen openings, can therefore receive all 13 flows, and are therefore superior beings.

But that’s not all. In the writing on the paper Colquhoun refers to the key text of Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky’s ‘The Secret Doctrine’ which makes a connection between the streams of oil and the Tree of Life. The numbers next to each stream indicates the Tree’s ten sephiroth or energy points.

That’s just one wall label. There are a hundred or so like this, quite densely packed with arcane and esoteric learning underpinning the great majority of Colquhoun’s works and series.

Colquhoun the author

Talking of texts, Colquhoun wrote and published a number of essays and books. She described and explained her approach to automatic painting in two important texts, ‘The Mantic Stain’ (1949) and Children of the Mantic Sun’ (1951).

Later, once she’d moved to Cornwall, she wrote a number of works about the mystical landscape including ‘The Living Stones: Cornwall’ (1957).

Cornwall

Colquhoun moved to Cornwall in the late 1940s, where her interest in automatism and the esoteric became combined. She was an acknowledged authority on the occult, and her writing ranged from contributions to such periodicals as Prediction, to Surrealist texts gathered together and published as ‘The Goose of Hermogenes’ (1961).

Colquhoun’s understanding of the world as a connected spiritual cosmos brought her to Cornwall from the early 1940s, where she was inspired by the region’s ancient landscape, Celtic mythologies, and neolithic monuments.

She bought a studio in Lamorna on the Penwith peninsula in 1949 before settling in the nearby village of Paul. She published extensively: essays, surrealist novels and atmospheric travelogues including ‘The Living Stones: Cornwall’ in 1957.

Colquhoun’s fascination with the psychic histories of Celtic lands is evident in visionary works of sacred sites and standing stones in Cornwall and Brittany. This part of the show features the exhibition’s largest works, enormous oil paintings such as such as ‘Landscape with Antiquities’ (1950), the enormous ‘La Cathédrale Engloutie‘ (1940) or ‘Dance of the Nine Opals’ (1942).

You can see how they combine a semi-figurative approach to landscape which is subsumed by a more schematic, diagrammatic imagination which is itself strongly influenced by the still very strong Surrealist influence.

Dance of the Nine Opals by Ithell Colquhoun (1942) The Sherwin Family Collection permanently housed at The Hepworth Wakefield (Wakefield, UK) © Spire Healthcare © Noise Abatement Society © Samaritans

Second conclusion

I liked many of the images here, from whichever period, in whichever style, using whichever technique, and exploring whichever of the many mystical teachings she immersed herself in. Lots of them are just very visually appealing.

Here’s one of the gorgeously rich and Symbolism-heavy paintings created using the decalcomania technique. The curators point out that it combines 1) an automatic origin, with 2) a Surrealist finish, in which 3) lingers the figurative idea of a magical cave, which is also – and very characteristically – 4) a sort of stylised depiction of female genitalia.

Alcove by Ithell Colquhoun (1946) Private Collection © Spire Healthcare © Noise Abatement Society © Samaritans

Compare and contrast that with one of the double images, not really in the full Dalí mode but nonetheless a recognisably human figure made entirely out of, well, what? Clouds? Bits of fabric? And what are those hands made out of? All wrapped up in esoteric symbolism of the crescent moon, at the bottom of the image.

Attributes of the Moon by Ithell Colquhoun ( 1947) Tate, presented by the National Trust 2016 © Tate. Photo © Tate (Matt Greenwood)

And in a different style again, here is another overtly erotic work from the extensive ‘Diagrams of Love’ sequence, 20 or so examples of which cover one wall, along with the short elliptical poems she wrote to accompany the series. I think you can see the rude elements without my commentary but what I enjoyed was the spangles scattered over the torso, and the delicate blue of the figure’s wings, tinged with pink and yellow.

Diagrams of Love: The Bird or the Egg? by Ithell Colquhoun (circa 1940) Tate Archive, TGA 929/4/17/3. Photo © Tate Photography (Lucy Green)

It’s full of images like this. The more I looked, the more I liked.


Related links

Related reviews

The Murder on The Links by Agatha Christie (1923)

‘I know you by name, M. Poirot,’ said Giraud. ‘You cut quite a figure in the old days, didn’t you? But methods are very different now.’
‘Crimes, though, are very much the same,’ remarked Poirot gently.
(The Murder on The Links, chapter 6)

‘You do not understand, but I will explain it all to you in good time.’
(Could be Poirot’s motto, chapter 13)

‘Think, my friend,’ said Poirot’s voice encouragingly. ‘Arrange your ideas. Be methodical. Be orderly. There is the secret of success.’
(Poirot’s method, Chapter 19)

I had learned, with Poirot, that the less dangerous he looked, the more dangerous he was.
(Some of Hastings’ obvious wisdom, Chapter 23)

‘Excite yourself not! Leave it to Papa Poirot.’
(Poirot’s reassuring – or patronising tone – depending on taste, Chapter 26)

This is Agatha Christie’s second murder mystery featuring the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. Like the first, and most, but not all, of the rest, it is narrated by Poirot’s friend and flat mate, retired military man Captain Arthur Hastings.

Plot overview

I’ll make it clear at the start that I’m not going to summarise the plot. This is for two reasons: 1) it is tortuously complicated; 2) at regular moments I lost track, my attention lapsed for a second and I realised I’d gotten completely lost amid the maze of theories, counter-theories, counter-counter theories, elaborate rebuttals and new theories.

Because although there is a real world in which two murders and 20 or so other important events take place, the real action is in the mind, in the proliferating theories and counter-theories proposed by the four leading characters, as well as those proposed by secondary characters, of what took place, and why.

To be a bit clearer: Poirot and his sidekick Captain Arthur Hastings, are called to the scene of a murder on the north French coast, at a small resort named Merlinville-sur-Mer. Paul Renauld, a millionaire with a mysterious past, has been killed.

Poirot arrives to find the French police already on the scene, represented by 1) the Commissary of Police Lucien Bex; 2) the investigating magistrate, Monsieur Hautet; 3) as well as a detective from the Sûreté, a Monsieur Giraud. They all interview the widow of the murdered man, Eloise Renauld, who claims that burglars broke in, tied and gagged her, then took away her husband, demanding something about ‘a secret’ only he knows, then, presumably frustrated by his lack of reply, stabbed him to death on the golf course adjoining the family home, the Villa Geneviève, where his body was found the next day.

So what happens for the rest of the book is not just that the usual secrets about the family are revealed:

  • just before his murder, the father had had a furious row with his grown-up son, Jack – what about?
  • two weeks before his murder, Paul had changed his will from dividing his fortune between wife and son, to handing it entirely over to his wife i.e. disinheriting his son – why?
  • on the day before his murder, his father had sent his estranged son a telegram telling him to go to South America (where the father comes from and where he made his fortune) – why?
  • the night of his murder the servants tell the detectives the father was visited by a mysterious woman and was heard telling her to go, now, urgently – who was she, and why did she have to go?
  • a review of Paul’s bank statements reveal that he has, in recent weeks, been paying huge sums to the woman who lives in the next villa along the coast, Madame Daubreuil – why? what hold does she have over the murdered man?

There’s plenty more details like that, carefully planted so they can be revealed chapter by chapter, giving the detectives and the reader an increasing amount of detail but also puzzlement.

But the point I’m trying to make is that the text exists on two planes: the plane of actual events in the ‘real world’ (of the fiction); and the far more important plane of theories about those events created by the characters. Because, as I’ve indicated, these facts are just the ingredients or grist which is then worked up into theories about what happened, who the murderer was, and what his or her motivation was. Various theories are cooked up by the professional police (Hautet and Bex), at various points by some of the players (the widow, the son etc). But the three main interpreters or hermeneuticists are: Poirot, Hastings and Giraud.

According to Google’s AI summary:

A hermeneutic approach is a way of understanding and interpreting texts, actions, or events by considering the context, meaning, and interaction between the interpreter and the subject being interpreted. Hermeneutics is a philosophical and methodological framework that emphasizes how individuals and groups understand and make sense of the world through their interpretive practices.

So a good deal of the book is made up of Giraud, Hastings and Poirot putting forward their theories or interpretations of the fact we know about, which clash and conflict with each other. And Christie deliberately confuses or extends or complicates things because in the ‘real world’ parts of the text she cleverly drops a succession of further revelations or bombshells, which complicate or disprove the theories the three main hermeneuticists have just spent ages explaining to each other.

So on a horizontal plane the three main hermeneuticists’ interpretations consistently clash i.e. they disagree about what happened and why. But on a vertical plane, Christie continually drops in new revelations which undermine all her characters’ interpretations, keeping them – and the reader – guessing right to the very end.

Well, the standard book blurb and magazine-level cliché is ‘keep the reader guessing’ but it’s much more complicated than that, isn’t it? The reader isn’t so much kept ‘guessing’ as struggling to keep up with the torrent of interpretations emanating from the three hermeneuticists. I suggest there are two kinds of readers for this kind of classic detective story:

1. The lazy, dim or in-a-rush reader (into which category I definitely fall) who is happy to passively follow each twist and turn in Christie’s planting of clues, and reads each new theory with no special surprise because we are too lazy, dim or tired to really follow all the details.

2. The true aficionado, the really committed detective story reader, who fully masters all the initial facts so completely as to generate their own theory of what happened, or (similar level of commitment) to assess the theories put forward by the three hermeneuticists, from a position of equality: has mastered the material sufficiently to critique the theories of Hastings, Giraud and Poirot. And who is therefore in a strong position to process each new revelation and adapt their theories accordingly, just as the three main interpreters do.

I can imagine such a detective story aficionado really getting into the guts and details of each story, enough to maybe point out errors and illogicalities made the author herself. I personally am in awe of such a level of commitment, so much spare hard drive capacity, and such an analytical approach. I’m more a coat-tails sort of reader, just about managing to stay abreast of with the ever-changing theories proposed by Poirot et al, continually forgetting ‘key’ facts, and barely keeping up.

A clash of worldviews

Scanning Google search results about hermeneutics throws up the concept of a worldview. Hermeneutics is defined as:

a philosophical and methodological framework that emphasizes how individuals and groups understand and make sense of the world.

How we interpret texts and, by extension, the world at large, is (pretty obviously) determined by our worldview and everyone has a potentially different one, based on their upbringing, experiences and so on.

So far so obvious. I’m raising it here because ‘The Murder on the Links’ dramatises this clash of worldviews in a number of ways. Front and foremost is the clash between Giraud of the Sûreté versus Poirot. Throughout the book they are presented as rivals, at first interacting with studied politeness, which gives way to sarcasm and irony as their interpretations of events increasingly diverge, and finally to anger as Poirot accuses Giraud of spouting nonsense and how only he, Poirot, knows the true secret behind events.

On the face of it this is a simple clash of personalities. But at several points Christie makes clear that their disagreements are based on something deeper, on a profound clash of worldviews. In a nutshell, Giraud is a representative of new, modern, scientific approaches to crime solving and thinks Poirot is hopelessly conservative and old-fashioned. Giraud thinks crime, like technology, is constantly changing, updating, moving with the times. He reflects the new tempo of scientific and social change which followed the First World War.

Poirot, by complete contrast, thinks technology and fashions may change – the telephone has come in along with short skirts and lipstick for young ladies – but that human nature, and the crimes people commit, remain the same as always. This is the meaning of the exchange in Chapter 6:

‘I know you by name, M. Poirot,’ said Giraud. ‘You cut quite a figure in the old days, didn’t you? But methods are very different now.’
‘Crimes, though, are very much the same,’ remarked Poirot gently.

This clash of worldviews is echoed again and again, whenever Poirot is critiquing Giraud’s theories to his sidekick, Hastings. Does human nature change, with changes in society, culture and technology? Or does it remain obstinately the same and, in Poirot’s view, the same old motives recur again and again?

So it’s more than a clash of temperaments, or of generations, but of worldviews and worldviews, as I’ve suggested, dictate or define a person’s hermeneutic practice. Thus Giraud takes a forensic approach to every crime scene, very showily getting down on his hands and knees to comb the ground and impress the ordinary French police by discovering spent matches or cigarette butts and so on, from which he spins elaborate theories.

Poirot, by complete and deliberate contrast, rarely gets down on his hands and knees, is generally attracted to more obvious and bigger clues, because what he spends most of his time doing is working out human psychology: in any given situation Giraud is on his hands and knees scouring the ground for physical clues while Poirot stands by and ponders why someone would murder need a big piece of pipe or dispose of the body in this way etc.

And in the end, of course, it is Poirot’s conservative point of view – which scorns modern sociology or forensic science, which instead relies on applying the oldest motives in the book (sexual jealousy, greed, blackmail etc) to the facts on the ground – which triumphs.

This conservative way of thinking about human nature really applies all the way down to his thinking about criminals and the criminal mentality. Here is Poirot’s theory of Unoriginality:

‘M. Giraud knows quite well that each criminal has his particular method, and that the police, when called in to investigate—say a case of burglary—can often make a shrewd guess at the offender, simply by the peculiar method he has employed. (Japp would tell you the same, Hastings.) Man is an unoriginal animal. Unoriginal within the law in his daily respectable life, equally unoriginal outside the law. If a man commits a crime, any other crime he commits will resemble it closely. The English murderer who disposed of his wives in succession by drowning them in their baths was a case in point. Had he varied his methods, he might have escaped detection to this day. But he obeyed the common dictates of human nature, arguing that what had once succeeded would succeed again, and he paid the penalty of his lack of originality.’ (Chapter 9)

Theories in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

The proliferation of the characters’ theories, and their continual reshuffling and updating by new evidence, is described more explicitly in the next Poirot novel, ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’. Here we find the word ‘theory’ used more explicitly. We hear about Caroline’s theory, ‘Davis’s theory that it was Parker’, Mrs Ackroyd’s theory, in fact at one point there are so many theories jostling that they have to be enumerated separately:

Out of the babel of excited suggestions and suppositions three theories were evolved:—

1. That of Colonel Carter: that Ralph was secretly married to Flora. The first or most simple solution.
2. That of Miss Ganett: that Roger Ackroyd had been secretly married to Mrs Ferrars.
3. That of my sister: that Roger Ackroyd had married his housekeeper, Miss Russell.

A fourth or super-theory was propounded by Caroline later as we went up to bed.
(The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Chapter 16)

And the metaphor of the rejigging of the evidence resembling a kaleidoscope is used not once but twice:

Such have been our preoccupations in King’s Abbot for the last few years. We have discussed Ackroyd and his affairs from every standpoint. Mrs Ferrars has fitted into her place in the scheme. Now there has been a rearrangement of the kaleidoscope.
(Chapter 2)

And even more explicitly:

‘You know,’ I said, throwing down the pincers I was holding, ‘it’s extraordinarily intriguing, the whole thing. Every new development that arises is like the shake you give to a kaleidoscope—the thing changes entirely in aspect.’
(The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Chapter 20)

So my theory about theories applies not just to this book.

Description of Poirot

In the case of recurring leading characters, it’s important to get their appearance and habits well fixed in the reader’s mind, as Conan Doyle did with Sherlock Holmes. Don’t fear repetition, repetition is the central aim. And so in chapter 2 Hastings recaps Poirot’s appearance in one convenient paragraph:

An extraordinary little man! Height, five feet four inches, egg-shaped head carried a little to one side, eyes that shone green when he was excited, stiff military moustache, air of dignity immense! He was neat and dandified in appearance. For neatness of any kind, he had an absolute passion. To see an ornament set crooked, or a speck of dust, or a slight disarray in one’s attire, was torture to the little man until he could ease his feelings by remedying the matter. ‘Order’ and ‘Method’ were his gods. He had a certain disdain for tangible evidence, such as footprints and cigarette ash, and would maintain that, taken by themselves, they would never enable a detective to solve a problem. Then he would tap his egg-shaped head with absurd complacency, and remark with great satisfaction: ‘The true work, it is done from within. The little grey cells—remember always the little grey cells, mon ami!’

Or, as the porter of the Hôtel du Phare describes him:

‘He was a small gentleman, well dressed, very neat, very spotless, the moustache very stiff, the head of a peculiar shape, and the eyes green.’ (Chapter 13)

À propos Poirot’s eyes, it’s worth mentioning another trope or habit which is the way they shine when he’s excited.

He paused, and then added softly, his eyes shining with that green light that always betokened inward excitement.. (Chapter 2)

Poirot examined it, then he studied the wound closely. When he looked up, his eyes were excited, and shone with the green light I knew so well. (Chapter 15)

Jack Renauld’s face went crimson. With an effort he controlled himself.
‘You have made a mistake. I was in Cherbourg, as I told the examining magistrate this morning.’
Poirot looked at him, his eyes narrowed, cat-like, until they only showed a gleam of green. (Chapter 17)

Captain Hastings’ stupidity

Hastings is his usual obtuse self, continually underestimating Poirot, convinced he’s missing the important points, impressed by the police and the other detective on the case, oblivious to all the important clues. With the result that he is continually being reprimanded by Papa Poirot.

‘My friend,’ said Poirot, ‘as usual, you see nothing at all.’ (Chapter 7)

“You speak as usual, without reflection, Hastings.’ (Chapter 15)

Only later, half-way through the book, does he start to appreciate that Poirot was on the right track and noticing the important details all along.

I mused, thinking over the new field of conjecture that Poirot’s deductions had opened up to me. I recalled my wonder at his cryptic allusions to the flower bed and the wrist watch. His remarks had seemed so meaningless at the moment and now, for the first time, I realized how remarkably, from a few slight incidents, he had unravelled much of the mystery that surrounded the case. I paid a belated homage to my friend. (Chapter 12)

The younger generation

Right at the very start of the novel Hastings is on a train heading through northern France towards Calais, where he’s going to take a ship to England, and strikes up a conversation with a young lady in his train compartment. Suddenly this young woman jumps up, looks out the window and shouts ‘Hell!’ at which Hastings reflects:

Now I am old-fashioned. A woman, I consider, should be womanly. I have no patience with the modern neurotic girl who jazzes from morning to night, smokes like a chimney, and uses language which would make a Billingsgate fishwoman blush!

I looked up now, frowning slightly, into a pretty, impudent face, surmounted by a rakish little red hat. A thick cluster of black curls hid each ear. I judged that she was little more than seventeen, but her face was covered with powder, and her lips were quite impossibly scarlet. (Chapter 1)

Several points. As anyone who’s read the book knows, this young lady – and her twin sister – will turn out to be central to the plot. What I’m pointing out is more a bit of social history. In her 1925 novel, Mrs Dalloway, Virginia Woolf has her character, Peter Walsh, returning from service in India, be amazed at the freedom of young women, who wear short hair, short skirts, smoke and not only wear make-up – something his generation of ladies never did – but apply it or smarten it up in public.

To Christie, born in 1890 and so 28 when the war ended, the younger generation of liberated young women must have struck her with the same shock and amazement. The young lady who Hastings encounters – very young, in fact worryingly young, at just 17 – is more than capable of handling herself, though, mocking Hasting’s shock, play acting her role, telling him he’s ‘a good boy’ and so on.

Improbably enough, he falls in love with her on the spot and when she reappears a lot later in the plot, one of the story’s many distractions and digressions is that this supposed ‘love’ leads Hastings to lie to Poirot about some key facts in order to protect her. Hastings ‘falling in love’ with this precocious child is yet another example of Hastings’ obtuseness and lack of judgement.

For me, though, it’s her youth and brazenness which stand out in a novel otherwise populated by much more formal and conventional middle-class ladies.

(As a matter of minuscule interest, the 17-year-old is not really a ‘flapper’ and the word flapper occurs nowhere in the novel. It was first publicised in a 1920 silent movie of the same name and hadn’t percolated through to Christie-world yet.)

Comedy

As I mentioned earlier, I am not an astute or really competent reader of detective fiction like this. I can easily imagine a more competent reader who masters all the bewildering details sufficiently to critique the theories of Poirot et al and maybe come up with their own, who can follow the ever-changing kaleidoscope of details in a way which, frankly, eludes me.

So why am I bothering to read Agatha Christie whodunnits? Mostly for the comedy of character. I read them almost like P.G. Wodehouse comedies. I know people get murdered in them but really, in 2025, after two world wars and all the other horrors we’ve seen, it is hard to care about the bumping off of one or two posh fictional characters. What still gives pleasure on page after page is Christie’s comic touch.

The comedy starts with the character of Captain Hastings, who is a self-important fool, who keeps up a continual stream of criticism of Poirot’s methods and theories, mostly in his mind (for he is the first-person narrator) but sometimes expressing it out loud to Poirot – but who, of course, is continually proven to be wildly wrong in everything he posits, as I’ve indicated above.

Then there’s the comedy of Poirot himself, the odd little man with the flashing green eyes, and his obsessive compulsive need for everything to be just so. I positively enjoy every mention of this, every time he has to rearrange the ornaments on a mantlepiece so as to make them symmetrical, or rearrange the rug which has gotten slightly out of whack etc. And his pompous self-important (‘I, Hercule Poirot, alone can solve this mystery’ etc).

And, as a result, the comic rivalry between the bumptious Belgian detective and the officious French Giraud. Their rivalry, the increasing sarcasm of their exchanges, leading up to Poirot’s outburst that the Frenchman is an idiot, all this is as obvious and enjoyable as an episode of the TV sitcom ‘Ello ‘Ello.

Poirot on golf

An example of how Poirot’s OCD colours his views on everything, is his comic opinion of golf.

‘No, M. Poirot, it is an affair of the golf course. It shows that there is here to be a ‘bunkair,’ as you call it.’
‘A bunkair?’ Poirot turned to me. ‘That is the irregular hole filled with sand and a bank at one side, is it not?’
I concurred.
‘You do not play the golf, M. Poirot?’ inquired Bex.
‘I? Never! What a game!’ He became excited. ‘Figure to yourself, each hole it is of a different length. The obstacles, they are not arranged mathematically. Even the greens are frequently up one side! There is only one pleasing thing—the how do you call them?—tee boxes! They, at least, are symmetrical.’
I could not refrain from a laugh at the way the game appeared to Poirot, and my little friend smiled at me affectionately, bearing no malice. (Chapter 6)

A note on golf

Golf originated in Scotland centuries ago. It spread through England in the 1890s and Edwardian era. But it was really the post-war period which saw an explosion in the game’s popularity, like a lot of other games in this very outdoorsy decade.

(The phrase ‘Anyone for tennis?’ was, apparently, first used in the 1920s and quickly came to denote the stereotype of shallow, leisured, upper-class toffs as tennis was, before the widespread advent of public courts in the later 20th century, seen as a posh game for the rich, with courts popular at country clubs and private estates.)

My point is simply that setting her second Poirot mystery on a golf course was very topical and Zeitgeisty of Christie, even down to the detail that the links in question was still being laid out and constructed. Very new and fashionable.

Heightism

Mademoiselle Daubreuil – ‘Very tall, with the proportions of a young goddess, her uncovered golden head gleaming in the sunlight…’

‘M. Hautet, the Juge d’Instruction, was a tall, gaunt man, with piercing dark eyes, and a neatly cut grey beard…’

Madame Renauld – ‘ a tall, striking-looking woman.’

M. Giraud – ‘He was very tall, perhaps about thirty years of age, with auburn hair and moustache, and a military carriage…’

Gabriel Stonor – ‘Very tall, with a well knit athletic frame, and a deeply bronzed face and neck, he dominated the assembly.’

Paul Renauld – ‘at that moment the door was thrown violently open, and a tall young man strode into the room.’

Maybe it’s significant, maybe it isn’t, that among all these looming tall suspects, Poirot is repeatedly referred to as small or short. Maybe it emphasises that he relies on intelligence rather than brute force or physical ability, designed to distinguish him from the cruder, more violent heroes of John Buchan or Bulldog Drummond (who made his first book-length appearance in the same year as Poirot, 1920). Cerebral and aloof.

ITV

ITV dramatised most of the Poirot novels and short stories in their TV series starring David Suchet. ‘The Murder on The Links’ was dramatised as series 6, episode 3.


Credit

‘The Murder on The Links’ by Agatha Christie was published by John Lane, the Bodley Head in 1923. Page references are to the 1970 Pan paperback edition, although the text is freely available online.

Related links

Related reviews