Murder in the Mews by Agatha Christie (1937)

‘Charles wouldn’t kill anybody. He’s a very careful man.’
‘All the same, Mademoiselle, it is the careful men who commit the cleverest murders.’
(Murder in the Mews, chapter 6)

‘You are hopeful of success, M. Poirot?’ Lord Mayfield sounded a trifle incredulous.
The little man shrugged his shoulders. ‘Why not? One has only to reason – to reflect.’
(Poirot emphasising the importance of thinking, reflecting and pondering, The Incredible Theft, chapter 4)

‘This affair,’ he said, ‘is more complicated than it appears.’
(The classic statement which someone makes about the murder mystery in every Christie story, The Incredible Theft, chapter 4)

‘Leave it to Hercule Poirot. The lies I invent are always most delicate and most convincing.’
(Poirot’s immense self confidence, The Incredible Theft, chapter 4)

‘Good-morning, mademoiselle. Yes, it is as you say. You now behold a detective – a great detective, I may say – in the act of detecting!’
(Poirot gently mocking himself in Dead Man’s Mirror, Chapter 11)

‘Oh la la!’ cried Poirot. ‘I have been a fool, but a fool!’ The other stared at him.
‘I beg your pardon, M. Poirot?’
‘It is that a portion of the puzzle has become clear to me. Something I did not see before. But it all fits in. Yes, it fits in with beautiful precision.’
(The Eureka moment that occurs in every Poirot story, The Incredible Theft, chapter 5)

‘After breakfast,’ he said, ‘I will explain. I should like everyone to assemble in Sir Gervase’s study at ten o’clock.’
(The classic ‘you’re probably all wondering why I called you all together here this evening…’ moment, Dead Man’s Mirror, Chapter 12)

‘Murder in the Mews’ is a volume of four long short stories, some of them worked up from short stories previously published in magazines into 80-page novellas, long enough to require chapters.

  1. Murder in the Mews
  2. The Incredible Theft
  3. Dead Man’s Mirror
  4. Triangle at Rhodes

Murder in the Mews

It is Fireworks Night as Poirot and Inspector Japp are walking back to Poirot’s house. They take a short cut through a mews (Bardsley Garden Mews) and Japp jokes that it’s a good night for a murder because nobody would hear a shot.

Not to the reader’s complete surprise, next morning Poirot receives a phone call telling him that, guess what, there was a shot in that very same mews the night before, only it appears to have been a suicide.

So Poirot meets Japp at the murder scene and they start their investigation. 14 Bardsley Garden mews was shared by two young women, a Miss Jane Plenderleith and a youngish widow, Mrs Allen. Miss Plenderleith got home after being out of town for a few days (weekend with the Bentincks in Essex), knocked at her housemate’s door, discovered it was locked, called the police who came round, broke down the door and discovered Mrs Allen’s body on the floor, with a fatal gunshot wound to the head and the gun in her hand.

Except that the gun wasn’t really gripped, it had more the appearance of being placed in her hand. And, more tellingly, the shot is to her left temple whereas the gun was placed in her right hand. I.e. it’s an anatomically impossibility.

So Poirot and Japp set out to work in tandem but with their different approaches, interviewing the flatmate, Mrs Allen’s MP fiancé, various neighbours in other houses along the mews etc. The story is by way of being a nice comparison of the styles of the two men (something we have, of course, seen in quite a few of the novels) and so contains a number of familiar tropes e.g. Japp thinking Poirot is going soft / too old, when he dwells on apparent trivia.

‘Eh bien,’ said Poirot. ‘I shall complete my search for the unimportant. There is still the dustbin.’ He skipped nimbly out of the room. Japp looked after him with an air of disgust.
‘Potty,’ he said. ‘Absolutely potty.’
Inspector Jameson preserved a respectful silence. His face said with British superiority: ‘Foreigners!’
Aloud he said: ‘So that’s Mr Hercule Poirot! I’ve heard of him.’
‘Old friend of mine,’ explained Japp. ‘Not half as balmy as he looks, mind you. All the same, he’s getting on now.’
‘Gone a bit gaga as they say, sir,’ suggested Inspector Jameson. ‘Ah well, age will tell…’ (Chapter 4)

Poirot’s foreignness

Note how Japp’s slur on Poirot’s age is combined with Jameson’s smug contempt for Poirot’s foreignness, his outsiderness. But this ‘foreignness’ is very flexible; it has multiple purposes.

Poirot mocks the British A foreignness which comes into play a bit later when Christie has Poirot gently mock the English class system, as he does in quite a few of the novels, especially round ideas of being pukka or playing cricket, the right sort etc. Here’s Poirot interviewing Miss Plenderleith, who tells him that:

‘Charles has got a very good nose for anybody who isn’t well, quite – quite – ‘
‘And Major Eustace was not what you call quite – quite – ?’ asked Poirot.
The girl said dryly: ‘No, he wasn’t. Bit hairy at the heel. Definitely not out of the top drawer.’
‘Alas, I do not know those two expressions. You mean to say he was not the pukka sahib?’
A fleeting smile passed across Jane Plenderleith’s face, but she replied gravely, ‘No.’ (Chapter 6)

Poirot deploys his foreignness strategically, playing it up when he sees that it might be a way of getting round an interviewee, buttering them up or making them lower their defences. Here is Japp introducing Poirot to the MP:

‘By the way, let me introduce M. Hercule Poirot. You may have heard of him.’
Mr Laverton-West fastened himself interestedly on the little Belgian.
‘Yes-yes-I have heard the name.’
‘Monsieur,’ said Poirot, his manner suddenly very foreign. ‘Believe me, my heart bleeds for you. Such a loss ! Such agony as you must be enduring! Ah, but I will say no more. How magnificently the English hide their emotions.’ He whipped out his cigarette case. ‘Permit me – Ah, it is empty, Japp?’ (Chapter 7)

The point of this little bit of play-acting is to lull Laverton-West into tendering one of his cigarettes because the brand of cigarette stubs found in the murdered woman’s bedroom turn out to be an important clue.

Xenophobes hate Poirot’s foreignness And in moments of anger, Brits can use his foreignness against Poirot, as when their interviewing makes Major Eustace lose his temper.

‘Who are you, I’d like to know?’ Eustace turned and spat the words at him. ‘Some kind of damned dago! What are you butting in for?’ (Chapter 8)

Plot

It’s a sort of chamber piece because all the clues are at the scene, in the bedroom where the body was found, and the solution is relatively straightfoward, concerning a troublesome man, Major Eustace, who had been calling to see Mrs Allen over the past year or so…

Cast

  • Hercule Poirot
  • George – Poirot’s immaculate man-servant
  • Inspector Japp
  • Inspector Jameson – assisting Japp
  • Dr Brett – police doctor, time of death etc
  • Miss Jane Plenderleith – a dark, efficient-looking young woman of twenty-seven or eight’; drives an Austin Seven; plays golf
  • Mrs Barbara Allen – the dead woman, married young (17) in India; husband, then baby daughter both died; came to England; years later was engaged to be married to…
  • Charles Laverton-West MP – ‘a man of medium height with a very definite personality. He was clean-shaven, with the mobile mouth of an actor, and the slightly prominent eyes that so often go with the gift of oratory. He was good-looking in a quiet, well-bred way’
  • Mrs Hogg – ‘I’m not one to gossip’ style working class neighbour
  • Fred Hogg – small boy and eye witness to a late-night visitor to the house
  • Major Eustace – someone Mrs Allen met in India, ‘ a man of forty-five, military bearing, toothbrush moustache, smartly dressed and driving a Standard Swallow saloon car’; ‘ a tall man, good-looking in a somewhat coarse fashion. There was a puffiness round the eyes small, crafty eyes that belied the good-humoured geniality of his manner’

Poirot’s obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)

Poirot explains why he makes such efforts to solve the mystery of the missing attaché case:

‘My friend, an affair must be rounded off properly. Everything must be explained.’

The police just need enough evidence to secure a conviction; Poirot, driven by his OCD / personal predilections, needs to understand every ramification of a case, and tie off every lose end, as Japp mocks:

‘Though what this attaché-case business has to do with the crime I can’t imagine. I can’t see that it’s got anything at all to do with it.’
‘Precisely, my friend, I agree with you – it has nothing to do with it.’
‘Then why… No, don’t tell me! Order and method and everything nicely rounded off! Oh, well, it’s a fine day.’ (Chapter 9)

Bookish references

‘How long has she been dead?’
‘She was killed at eleven thirty-three yesterday evening,’ said Brett promptly. Then he grinned as he saw Japp’s surprised face.
‘Sorry, old boy,’ he said. ‘Had to do the super doctor of fiction!’ (Chapter 2)

Sherlock Holmes reference

As I’ve pointed out in my reviews of all the novels, Christie felt compelled to make at least one jokey reference to Sherlock Holmes in every one of her stories. Here there are two:

‘Damnation!’ Japp said. ‘I knew there was something. But what the devil is it? I searched that case pretty thoroughly.’
‘My poor Japp – but it is – how do you say, obvious, my dear Watson‘?’ (Chapter 9)

At the climax:

‘It was odd, very odd, that the room should smell – as it did, perfectly fresh.’
‘So that’s what you were getting at!’ Japp sighed. ‘Always have to get at things in such a tortuous way.’
‘Your Sherlock Holmes did the same. He drew attention, remember, to the curious incident of the dog in the night-time – and the answer to that was there was no curious incident. The dog did nothing in the night-time.’ (Chapter 10)

Cars

Major Eustace drives a Standard Swallow saloon car, Miss Plenderleith drives a Baby Austin Seven.

Baba and sirrop and chocolate

Poirot’s favourite dessert is a Baba au Rhum i.e. rum baba.

His favourite drink is the non-alcoholic sirop de cassis, ‘syrup of the blackcurrants’ or blackcurrant cordial, not unlike the English cordial, ‘Ribena’.

Poirot always drank chocolate for breakfast – a revolting habit.
(Captain Hastings telling us in ‘Dumb Witness’)

Payoff

‘Not murder disguised as suicide, but suicide made to look like murder!’
‘Yes, and very cleverly done, too. Nothing over-emphasised.’

2. The Incredible Theft

We are among the posh, the ‘top drawer’ of society, at a dinner party given by Lord Mayfield with half a dozen posh guests. The dinner has two purposes. In attendance is Air Marshal Sir George Carrington and he has come to discuss with Lord M ‘a discovery that will probably revolutionise the whole problem of air defence’ which was, of course, of burning importance in the troubled mid-1930s as the shades of war deepened. That’s how it’s described initially, but then this morphs into repeated references to ‘the new bomber’, its design and specification.

The second aspect of the evening is the presence of Mrs Vanderlyn. She is a very attractive mature lady who has had no fewer than three husbands, rather comically one each from each of Britain’s possible enemies, Italy, Germany and Russia, is reputed to have ‘contacts’ in each of those countries, and lives a luxury life far beyond her apparent income. In other words, as Lord Mayfield explains to Sir George, she is probably a spy. The thing is no-one’s been able to pin anything on her. And so this dinner is not only the pretext for a chat about the new bomber between the two chaps, but by way of being bait to persuade Mrs V to take a risk, to come out into the open, and to be caught. At which point she can be arrested, interrogated and neutralised.

But all this is hidden behind the gentle manners of a posh dinner party and so, after dinner, the ladies retire, the chaps drink port and smoke cigars, then reconvene in the drawing room to play some hands of bridge. By then it’s late and most of the party retire to bed, while Sir George and Lord M go for a stroll on the terrace outside his office (which has french windows opening onto it).

It’s while during this stroll that they see a shadowy figure nip out of his study and into the night. Moments later they re-enter the study where Lord M’s secretary, Mr Carlile has gathered the technical specifications of the new bomber for the men to discuss.

Except it isn’t there! When Lord M leafs through the papers, he asks where the spec has gone, Carlile insists he just put it there but then himself can’t find it. When quizzed, he says 5 minutes earlier he heard a woman’s scream, and ran into the hall to find Mrs Vanderlyn’s maid standing on the stairs claiming she’d seen a ghost. It took a few minutes to calm here down and send her backstairs to bed, at which point Carlile returned to the study and Lord M and Sir George entered it.

It must have been during those few minutes of his absence that someone darted into the study, stole the specifications, and this was the figure the old chaps saw nipping off into the darkness. Someone has stolen the ‘discovery that will probably revolutionise the whole problem of air defence’!!

So guess who Sir George advises Lord Mayfield to call in to solve the mystery and get the plans back? Clue: his name begins with P and ends in oirot.

Cast

  • Lord Mayfield – ‘a big man, square-shouldered, with thick silvery hair, a big straight nose and a slightly prominent chin. It was a face that lent itself easily to caricature’
  • Lady Julia Carrington – ‘a woman of forty, tall, dark and vivacious. She was very thin, but still beautiful. Her hands and feet in particular were exquisite. Her manner was abrupt and restless, that of a woman who lived on her nerves’
  • Air Marshal Sir George Carrington – Lady Julia’s husband, ‘still retained the bluff breeziness of the ex-Naval man’
  • Mrs Vanderlyn – ‘an extremely good-looking blonde. Her voice held a soupçon of American accent, just enough to be pleasant without undue exaggeration’
  • Mrs Macatta MP – ‘a great authority on Housing and Infant Welfare. She barked out short sentences rather than spoke them, and was generally of somewhat alarming aspect’; a feminist
  • Reggie Carrington – 21 and completely uninterested in Housing, Infant Welfare and indeed any political subject – ‘ the weak mouth camouflaged by the rather charming smile, the indecisive chin, the eyes set far apart, the rather narrow head’
  • Mr Carlile – Lord Mayfield’s private secretary, ‘a pale young man with pince-nez and an air of intelligent reserve’, been with his lordship for nine years
  • Mademoiselle Leonie – Mrs Vanderlyn’s attractive young French maid

Foreignness

Once again Poirot’s foreignness is brought up:

Lord Mayfield said slowly: ‘Why drag in a wretched foreigner we know nothing about?’
But I happen to know a lot about him. The man’s a marvel.’

And:

‘By the Lord, George, I thought you were too much of an old John Bull to put your trust in a Frenchman, however clever.’
‘He’s not even a Frenchman, he’s a Belgian,’ said Sir George in a rather shamefaced manner. (Chapter 3)

And:

‘To send for a queer foreigner like this seems very odd to me,’ said Reggie. ‘What has been taken, Father?’

Christie’s comic feminists

The book before this, ‘Cards on the Table’, is notable for the advent of a kind of avatar of Christie, an alter ego, the fictional female author of detective stories Mrs Ariadne Oliver who also happens to be a passionate and outspoken feminist. Well, there’s an echo of her here in the character Mrs Macatta, who is an MP, an ardent advocate of social reform, and a feminist. At least she’s quick to criticise men:

‘Lord Mayfield has brains,’ allowed Mrs Macatta. ‘And he has carved his career out entirely for himself. He owes nothing to hereditary influence. He has a certain lack of vision, perhaps. In that I find all men sadly alike. They lack the breadth of a woman’s imagination. Woman, M. Poirot, is going to be the great force in government in ten years’ time.’ (Chapter 6)

Nearly as critical of men as she is of women who don’t agree with her:

Poirot invited Mrs Macatta’s opinion of Mrs Vanderlyn – and got it.
‘One of those absolutely useless women, M. Poirot. Women that make one despair of one’s own sex! A parasite, first and last a parasite.’
‘Men admired her?’
‘Men!’ Mrs Macatta spoke the word with contempt. ‘Men are always taken in by those very obvious good looks.’

So she despises all men, and all women who don’t share her beliefs, and it all leads up to a call for the entire nation to be subjected to sweeping moral reform:

‘The evils of gambling, M. Poirot, are only slightly less than the evils caused by drink. If I had my way this country should be purified.’
Poirot was forced to listen to a somewhat lengthy discussion on the purification of England’s morals.

Tempting to say that feminists haven’t changed that much in the past 90 years, still the same unquestioning self-confidence, the dismissal of anyone who disagrees as morally deficient, still the same ambition to bring about a sweeping moral transformation, ban porn, overthrow the patriarchy, abolish the male gaze, end domestic abuse – no doubt all eminently worthy aims, and just as achievable as Mrs Macatta’s goals of ending drunkenness and immorality.

That’s my contentious view. What isn’t contentious is that Christie deliberately made her feminist characters figures of fun. She found full-on feminist views good material for humour.

Interviews

For sure there are physical clues to be found and assessed but the core of the stories is Poirot’s lengthy interviews with the other characters / suspects. There’s a deep connection between the way he interrogates the characters and the art of the author herself. In a non-genre novel we get to understand the characters via their interactions in different settings. Whereas the Christie-style detective story, the characters are lined up as in a queue, sometimes literally in a queue, waiting to go one by one into the room where they will be interviewed by the moderator figure. This happens in Murder on the Orient Express, Death in the Clouds and again, here, where, the day after the robbery, Poirot makes his base in the study and then interviews each of the other characters one by one. This, not their interactions with each other, is how we find out about them.

It is very schematic, isn’t it? It’s almost like a diagram of a novel rather than a full, proper novel. In works like this and ‘Orient’ you see the narrative process reduced to its bare bones:

  • mysterious event (murder or theft) occurs
  • all the suspects are interviewed one by one at length
  • the solution and explanation are revealed

Maybe it’s because the essence of the narrative is so samey that Christie was able to knock out such an impressive number of stories. Obviously the settings, characters and details change in every one. And yet, on the deepest level, they’re all the same.

Poirot’s symmetry OCD

Poirot went back to the fireplace and carefully rearranged the ornaments on the mantelpiece. (Chapter 7)

3. Dead Man’s Mirror

This is the longest of the three stories at 108 pages. On the face of it another murder mystery, it is also an extended satire on the foibles and eccentricities of the poshest of the English aristocracy.

Eccentric old Gervase Chevenix-Gore, last male descendant of a family which dates back to the Norman Conquest. The setup is simple. At his flat in London Poirot receives a letter from Gervase asking him to come and see him at the grand family home, as he suspects he is the victim of a fraud but must manage the matter with discretion. But when Poirot (having taken the train from London) arrives at the house, arriving just as the gong for dinner has been sounded to the dozen or so members of family and house guests all assembled there – Gervase doesn’t show up and when they break down the locked door of his study, they find him slumped at his desk, gun in hand, shot through the head, an obvious case of suicide. His desk faced a mirror and the bullet had gone through his skull and shattered this mirror.

However, only Poirot (and the reader) know that Gervase sent the letter inviting him down and so had no reason to commit suicide; the opposite, we would have expected him to be waiting to engage Poirot and explain what he wanted him to do.

So, in the time-honoured style, Poirot and Major Riddle set about interviewing all the family and guests, an entertaining assemblage of florid characters. Who had a motive? Who had the opportunity etc? As you would expect, the more the pair dig, the more cross-currents and motivations they discover, not least in the terms of the dead man’s will, often the first place to start in the murder of a rich old man. As Poirot puts it:

‘Do you not agree, my friend, that the more we learn, the less and less motive we find for suicide? But for murder, we begin to have a surprising collection of motives.’ (Chapter 8)

Surprising to Poirot maybe. Not to anyone who’s read an Agatha Christie story.

The mirror as metaphor

There’s generally very little symbolism in a Christie story. So I was struck when the mirror is used as a metaphor for the complexity of the situation which Poirot and Riddle (inevitably) uncover:

‘What the devil –’ began Major Riddle, and ended rather hopelessly: ‘It gets more and more difficult to keep track of this business.’
Poirot nodded. He had picked up the little piece of earth that had fallen from Ruth’s shoe and was holding it thoughtfully in his hand.
‘It is like the mirror smashed on the wall,’ he said. ‘The dead man’s mirror. Every new fact we come across shows us some different angle of the dead man. He is reflected from every conceivable point of view. We shall have soon a complete picture…’ (Chapter 10)

Cast

Preliminary

  • Hercule Poirot
  • Mr Satterthwaite – expert on the aristocracy, who we’ve met in ‘Three Act Tragedy’

At the house

  • Gervase Chevenix-Gore
  • Vanda Chevenix Gore – his wife, ‘an Arbuthnot, very handsome girl. She’s still quite a handsome
    woman. Frightfully vague, though. Devoted to Gervase. She’s got a leaning towards the occult, I believe. Wears amulets and scarabs and gives out that she’s the reincarnation of an Egyptian Queen’ – thinks she’s a reincarnation of Hatshepsut and before that, was a priestess in Atlantis’
  • Ruth Chevenix-Gore – adopted daughter: ‘they’ve no children of their own. Very attractive girl in the modern style’ – ‘a well-chiselled nose, slightly aquiline, and a clear, sharp line of jaw. Her black hair swept back from her face into a mass of little tight curls. Her colouring was of carnation clearness and brilliance, and owed little to make-up. She was, so Hercule Poirot thought, one of the loveliest girls he had seen’ – ‘a devilishly attractive girl. Has played havoc with most of the young fellows round here’
  • Hugo Trent – Gervase’s nephew – ‘Pamela Chevenix-Gore married Reggie Trent and Hugo was their only child’ – in ‘the Blues’ i.e. The Royal Regiment of Horse Guards – ‘ a moustache and an air of modest arrogance’
  • Susan Cardwell – house guest, ‘rather a good-looking girl with red hair’
  • Colonel Bury – an old friend of the family’, ‘almost a tame cat about the house. Kind of A.D.C. to Lady Chevenix-Gore’, ‘follows her about like a dog’
  • Mr Forbes – an old friend and the family lawyer, both devoted to Vanda back in the day – very proper and formal, ‘I never guess’ – wears a pince-nez
  • Godfrey Burrows – Gervase’s secretary, ‘ good-looking, and knows it. Not quite out of the top drawer’ – turns out he thinks Gervase’s attitude was feudal and ridiculous
  • Miss Lingard – ‘little, middle-aged prim woman’, research assistant for the history of his family which Gervase has been writing for the last six months
  • Captain Lake – Sir Gervase’s agent for the estate, ‘a tall, fair-haired man in a lounge suit’
  • Snell – the butler

The investigation

  • Major Riddle – Chief Constable of the fictional county of Westshire, ‘a tall, spruce-looking man’
  • the police surgeon – ‘a lank elderly man with grizzled hair’
  • police inspector – ‘a tall impassive-faced man in plain clothes’
  • Mr Forbes – family lawyer

Bookish references

‘It’s all very well, Poirot. But the evidence is clear enough. Door locked, key in his own pocket. Window closed and fastened. I know these things happen in books – but I’ve never come across them in real life.’ (Chief Constable Riddle, Chapter 5)

Or the movies:

‘You’re getting a bit too sensational, I think, Poirot.’
‘You think what I suggest is too like the pictures? But life, Major Riddle, is often amazingly like the pictures.’ (Chapter 8)

The tribulations of being rich

Christie’s stories testify, now and then, to the impact of the 1930s Depression, pointing out that all wealthy people have taken a hit. The Chevenix-Gore family lawyer in this story, says the family fortune has been impacted. More impactful, though, was some bad investment advice given him by his friend Colonel Bury. When they interview him, Bury justifies himself against his friend’s reproaches:

‘Didn’t seem to realise that the whole world was going through a period of crisis. All stocks and shares bound to be affected.’ (Chapter 8)

While the lawyer draws a general, and amusing, conclusion:

Mr Forbes sighed. ‘Retired soldiers are the worst sufferers when they engage in financial operations. I have found that their credulity far exceeds that of widows and that is saying a good deal.’ (Chapter 6)

Poirot is old

We (well I) are hoodwinked into thinking Poirot is a reasonably agile, late-middle-aged man by the image of sprightly dapper David Suchet in the extensive ITV adaptations. And yet the texts themselves often tell a different story, emphasising that Poirot is, quite simply, ‘a small, elderly man’.

The revelation

You can’t help smiling when, at the conclusion of his investigations, Poirot asks the household to convene in the study for his big explanation which he kicks off with the classic phrase:

‘I have asked you all to come here so that you may hear the true facts of Sir Gervase’s suicide.’ (Chapter 12)

It’s as enjoyably, reassuringly formulaic as panto.

4. Triangle at Rhodes

‘Human nature is simply fascinating. Don’t you think so, M. Poirot?’
(posh Miss Lyall accidentally puts her finger on Poirot’s central axiom, Chapter 1)

Improbably, Poirot is on holiday on the Greek island. He is of the old school which believes in completely covering your body in the sun. Beside him sits:

Miss Pamela Lyall, who sat beside him and talked ceaselessly, represented the modern school of thought in that she was wearing the barest minimum of clothing on her sun-browned person.

There’s another nugget of social history, when one of the characters laments that Rhodes is such a long way to travel from England. Yes but just imagine, says, Miss Sarah Blake, if it was easier to get to:

‘Yes, but then it would be awful. Rows and rows of people laid out like fish on a slab. Bodies everywhere!’ (Chapter 1)

Which is exactly what started to happen in the 1970s with the advent of package holidays and has been happening ever since. Fifty years of over-tourism.

Anyway, this Miss Lyall thinks that people watching is the most fascinating hobby. Surprisingly, maybe, Poirot observes that people in the end fall into very obvious types or categories and rarely act out of character. In a downbeat way, he says it becomes, in the end, quite boring. The sea is more varied and interesting.

So Poirot was advised to come to Rhodes in October, out of season, when the hotels would be empty. Instead he is distressed to discover seven or eight English guests and among them two squabbling couples.

Valentine Chantry has been a world famous model for 16 years or so, with a succession of flashy husbands and now proceeds to drive the latest one, a brutish naval commander, Tony, wild with jealousy, by flirting outrageously with gullible young Douglas Gold, much to the disgust of Gold’s wife, Marjorie.

So the two men fancy the same honeypot woman (Valentine) making up one of the oldest relationship stereotypes in the world, the Eternal triangle.

Poirot unhappily observes all this happening but it delights another hotel guest, the catty, humorous Miss Pamela Lyell, the one with no attachments who loves watching people. In conversation with Poirot, she even humorously teases out of him that he fears there might be a murder!

So then the murder actually takes place. The male characters are sitting round. Gold has bought the first round of drinks, including a pink gin for the commander. In come the women who have been off on an outing. Tony Chantry chivalrously offers to buy drinks. When his wife asks for a pink gin, he pushes the one in front of him over to her and goes up to the bar. She drains the glass to the dregs then comes over funny, turns blue and dies. As she cries out the commander comes running back and shouts at Douglas that that drink was intended for him, Tony. When the police are called they indeed find the rest of the poison (‘A form of stropanthin. A heart poison’) in Gold’s jacket pocket.

So it looks like an open and shut case. Gold, twisted any way she wanted him by Valentine, wanted to poison Tony Chantry to get him out of the way so he could marry Valentine, but his plan went disastrously wrong when Tony unexpectedly handed over his (poisoned) drink to Valentine.

Except that that’s not what happened at all. And in the short seven-page final chapter, Poirot explains to an amazed Miss Lyall a completely different and true explanation of what really happened and why.

Cast

  • Hercule Poirot
  • Miss Pamela Lyall – ‘whose principal interests in life were the observation of people round her and the sound of her own voice’
  • Miss Sarah Blake – her friend
  • Valentine Chantry – now 39, famous model since she was 16, staggeringly beautiful, had 5 husbands etc
  • Commander Tony Chantry – ‘a commander in the navy… silent, dark, with a pugnacious jaw and a sullen manner. A touch of the primeval ape about him’
  • Mr Douglas Gold – 31, ‘extremely good-looking, in an almost theatrical manner. Very fair, crisply curling hair, blue eyes, broad shoulders, narrow hips. He looked more like a young man on the stage than a young man in real life, but the moment he opened his mouth that impression faded. He was quite natural and unaffected, even, perhaps, a little stupid’
  • Mrs Marjorie Gold – 35, ‘ a small woman-rather like a mouse. She was not bad-looking, indeed her features were regular and her complexion good, but she had a certain air of diffidence and dowdiness that made her liable to be overlooked’
  • old General Barnes – ‘a veteran who was usually in the company of the young’

Bookishness

The General chuckled. ‘She’s finding him a little bit difficult! One of the strong, silent men you hear about in books.’ (Chapter 2)

Poirot’s egotism and modesty

And though Hercule Poirot was a conceited little man where his profession was concerned, he was quite modest in his estimate of his personal attractions. (Chapter 2)

‘Every woman adores a fascist’

[Mr Gold] said to Poirot, ‘That man’s a brute!’ And he nodded his head in the direction of the retreating figure of Commander Chantry.
‘It is possible,’ said Poirot. ‘Yes, it is quite possible. But les femmes, they like brutes, remember that!’
Douglas muttered: ‘I shouldn’t be surprised if he ill-treats her!’
‘She probably likes that too.’ (Chapter 2)

5. Language

Poirotisms

I’ve mentioned how Poirot’s foreignness is raised a number of times. It can also be used for pure comic purposes, as when Christie has Poirot mangle an English proverb or common phrase, as he does at least once in every story:

‘For the same reason, when she sets out the following day to get rid of the golf clubs, she continues to use the attaché-case as a – what is it – kippered herring?’
‘Red herring,’ Japp said.
(Murder in the Mews, Chapter 10)

Poirot held up a hand. ‘I do what you call explore all the avenues.’
(The Incredible Theft, Chapter 4)

‘Ah, yes, it is what you call the old gasp – no, pardon, the old wheeze, that – to come back for a book. It is often useful!’
(The Incredible Theft, Chapter 4)

‘One has, sometimes, a feeling. Faintly, I seem to smell the fish.’
(Dead Man’s Mirror, Chapter 1)

1930s slang

  • bad hat – bad man
  • gasper – basic cheap make of cigarette
  • old cock! – Japp’s Cockney / vulgar term of affection, cruder version of ‘old chap’
  • pukka sahib – literally ‘genuine master’, metaphorically ‘good chap’, approved by the British upper middle-class value system
  • legal wallah – wallah is a Hindi term meaning ‘in charge’ so in British India came to be used in association with a profession or action e.g. ‘rickshaw-wallah’; Major Riddle is asserting his membership of the ruling class of the Empire by consciously using imperial slang, in this case referring to the family lawyer, Mr Forbes

Posh diction

According to Christie, posh people like Lord Maybury use contemporary slang but emphasise their superiority to it by using quotation marks:

  • ‘She’s an American subject. I know that she’s had three husbands, one Italian, one German and one Russian, and that in consequence she has made useful what I think are called “contacts”.’
  • ‘I know,’ Lord Mayfield continued, ‘that in addition to having a seductive type of beauty, Mrs Vanderlyn is also a very good listener, and that she can display a fascinating interest in what we call “shop”.’
  • ‘You see, George, to use the language of the movies, we’ve nothing actually “on” the woman. And we want something!’

Related is:

‘Do you yourself approve of Mr Burrows?’ The colonel delivered himself of the opinion that Godfrey Burrows was slightly hairy at the heel, a pronouncement which baffled Poirot completely, but made Major Riddle smile into his moustache.
(Dead Man’s Mirror, Chapter 8)

The same phrase as was used in ‘Murder in the Mews’. Maybe Christie had heard it somewhere and it amused her enough to slip it into the speech of several posh chaps.

Changing definitions of age

In ‘Cards on the Table’ Mrs Lorrimer is considered an old woman at 63.

‘But I am 56, my boy. In another four years I shall probably be a nasty old man continually haunting the society of unwilling debutantes.’
(Lord Mayfield in The Incredible Theft)

Charity

There are lots of reasons for Christie’s runaway bestselling status:

  • the narratives are written with beautiful clarity and zip along at speed
  • the large casts of posh characters appeal to the same audiences who love Downton Abbey and other early 20th century costume dramas i.e. a kind of vicarious snobbery
  • the books (much more than the often clumsy TV and movie adaptations) are always beamingly good humoured, and sometimes very funny
  • although one or two people are ‘murdered’, these alleged murders are totally unlike the sickening, disgusting murders of real life – they are accepted by one and all as ‘tokens’ in an entertainment, conventionalised events designed to deliver all the other psychological / reading pleasures I’ve listed – only very rarely does a murder really upset the story’s characters and cut through to the reader, the most obvious example being the teagirl, Betty Barnard, killed in The ABC  Murders which devastates her poor family

Lastly, there is an air of charity and forgiveness about them. There are lots of other things about it but, in the end, the most notable thing about ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ is that Poirot, understanding their motives, lets all the murderers off, lying to the police so that they can get away.

Same in ‘Dead Man’s Mirror’. When the murderer is revealed, so is her sad story and the nobility of her motivation. When she piteously begs Poirot not to reveal the truth of her identity, he charitably agrees.

Despite the ostensible subject matter of murder, the tone of the narratives, and the attitude of most of the characters and, above all, of the master character, Poirot, is one of understanding, compassion and forgiveness. I think it’s this quality which makes them somehow such comforting and reassuring reads.


Credit

‘Murder in the Mews’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1937 by the Collins Crime Club.

Related links

Related reviews

  • 1930s 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