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

Key facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Childhood

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

Frederick and Mary Boehmer

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

Nathaniel and Margaret Miller

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

Foster Clara

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

Frederick Miller

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

Frederick Miller marries Clara Boehmer

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

Madge and Monty

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

Fred and Clara buy Ashfield

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

Home schooling

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

Fred Miller dies

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

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

The matriarchy

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

Nice old ladies

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

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

Laura Thompson on Agatha’s childhood

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

Music

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

Paris

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

Conventional

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

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

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

The Mary Westmacott novels

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

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

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

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

Marrying off Agatha

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

1907 to 1908: Trip to Egypt

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

First story

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

1909: first novel

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

Conventional

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

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

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

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

1912: Archie Christie

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

Archie proposes

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

Anti-feminism

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

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

Satirising feminist characters

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

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

Agatha’s anti-feminist attitudes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romantic love

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

1914: VAD

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

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

Doctors

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

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

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

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

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

1916: The dispensary

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

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

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

Unintellectual

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

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

Readability

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

The invention of Poirot

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

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

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

1919: Parenthood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or this from Dumb Witness:

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

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

Writing for money

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

1922: tour of the white Empire

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

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

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

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

1924: Brown and money

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

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

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

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

1925: Chimneys

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

1926: Ackroyd

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

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

Agatha’s qualities

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

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

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

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

Archie and Agatha grow apart

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

Clara dies

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

Agatha disappears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure and divorce

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

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

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

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

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

The relevance of Agatha’s disappearance for her books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Westmacott

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

Travels and Max

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buying houses

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

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

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

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

Second World War

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

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

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

Peripatetic

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

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

Agatha’s prolific war years

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

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

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

Five Little Pigs

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

Stephen Glanville

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

Shakespeare

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

Hospital volunteering

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

Rosalind comes of age and marries

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

Fat as a psychological defence

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

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

And even more so after the war:

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

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

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

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

Tax troubles

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

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

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

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

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

The impact of war

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

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

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

The post-war

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

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

Two paradoxes about this:

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

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

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

And theatrical adaptations of:

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

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

Goodbye

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


Credit

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

Related reviews

The Hollow by Agatha Christie (1946)

‘Do any of us know what anyone else is like?’
(Edward Angkatell expressing one of the shallow truisms which litter Christie stories, helping to give them a spurious sense of depth)

Je suis un peu snob,’ he murmured to himself.
(Poirot commenting on his fondness for invitations from English aristocrats – but in this he surely reflects the snobbery of his creator and her fondness for upper class and aristocratic settings)

It was, he thought, an interesting pattern… Yes, that was how he saw it: a pattern. A design of intermingled emotions and the clash of personalities. A strange involved design, with dark threads of hate and desire running through it.
(Poirot ponders, p.199)

‘It’s bad enough for children to have a father who’s been murdered – but it will make it infinitely worse for them to have their mother hanged for it. Sometimes I don’t think you policemen think of these things.’
(Lady Lucy Angkatell’s amusingly eccentric take on the situation which develops, p.219)

The Hollow is a country house in Surrey belonging to the posh Angkatell family, so it is a variation on ‘the country house murder mystery’. (I say Surrey, but half way through the book we learn Christie has set it in the fictional country of ‘Wealdshire’, though God knows why she bothered as the descriptions of Gerda’s and Henrietta’s drives there both make it clear the house is located in Surrey, p.131.)

The lady of the house – eccentric, whimsical Lady Lucy Angkatell – has invited a group of friends down for a lovely autumn weekend of walks and meals and fine company. And so in a stately, leisurely way Christie introduces us to the key characters in their homes and workplaces before they pack up to travel down to the lovely country house.

They can maybe be grouped into three sets:

1. The Christows

John Christow, 39, a classy Harley Street doctor, is the central figure. He has a lucrative private practice reassuring worried but essentially healthy rich ladies. He is meant to be doing laborious research into (the fictional illness) ‘Ridgeway’s disease’, which resembles multiple sclerosis in that it involves degeneration of the cortex.

But despite all this success he is, in fact, tired and frustrated. In moments of reverie he remembers his affair with the beautiful actress Veronica Cray who got the offer of a part in Hollywood and refused to turn it down in order to remain in London with him. That was 15 years ago.

Angry and upset, on the rebound he married Veronica’s opposite, the plain, sheep-like, slow, stupid and nervous Gerda. After years of marriage and the arrival of two young children, Christow is liable to fly into towering rages at the drop of a hat and so Gerda goes in absolute terror of him. For the past year or so John has been having an affair with tall, beautiful, clever, creative sculptress, Henrietta Savernake.

Gerda is slow and stupid and she knows it. In everyday life, every single household decision she takes seems to drive her husband mad with frustration and irritation. When socialising she is cripplingly aware that she is the stupidest person in the room, always the last to get a joke, missing clever intellectual references and so on. She is crippled by an inferiority complex, which means going to stay with the oh-so-clever, well-connected, intellectually playful Angkatell family is her idea of hell.

2. Henrietta Savernake

Tall, clever, quick, independent, an impressive artist and shown to be ruthless at getting what she wants. For example, she offered to do a life bust of Gerda, which cheered the poor woman up, but next time he visits her, John realises she only offered to knock off the realistic bust because what she really wanted was to capture the pathetic posture, the kneeling, keening pitiful upwards look of a whipped dog, which Gerda embodies so well – in order to use it as the basis for a completely different, more modernist sculpture, which she titles ‘The Worshipper’.

John Christow is having an affair with her but she retains her independence and is perfectly capable of standing up to him in arguments and simply saying no.

The contrast between smooth Henrietta and hapless Gerda is epitomised by their respective ways of driving and handling a car: Gerda is all fingers and thumbs, grinding the gears and stalling in the middle of traffic lights; whereas Henrietta gets an almost sexual enjoyment from handling her sports car’s wheels and sticks with the confidence of a champion jockey riding a thoroughbred horse.

She shot away down the Mews, savouring the unfailing pleasure she always felt when setting off in the car alone. She much preferred to be alone when driving. In that way she could realize to the full the intimate personal enjoyment that driving a car brought to her. (p.61)

Henrietta is Lucy Angkatell’s cousin.

3. The Angkatells

Lady Lucy Angkatell, 60, is wispy, etiolated, eccentric, flits from one subject to another with ‘that curious elfin elusiveness of hers’ (p.76).

Her husband, Lord Henry Angkatell, was in the diplomatic service, a former high commissioner, and knows to keep in the background and say ‘yes dear’ to her various plans.

Then there’s a bit of family tree complexity. Tall bookish diffident Edward Angkatell is a distant cousin of Henry’s but somehow was the entailee of the family’s beloved house, Ainswick. In other words, Lucy was brought up at this lovely estate, Ainswick, Henry (her distant cousin) was often there, and Midge remembers visiting and playing their as a child, and they were all very happy there.

But when Lucy’s father, old Geoffrey Angkatell (a great ‘character’ in the county) passed away, his wealth went to Lucy but the terms of the entail dictated that the house and the estate could not go to a female, and so it was left to the nearest male relative, who was Edward Angkatell.

He [Edward] was of a bookish turn of mind, collected first editions and occasionally wrote rather hesitating, ironical little articles for obscure reviews. He had asked his second cousin Henrietta Savernake, three times to marry him.

And three times she turned him down. Anyway, so not having inherited Ainswick, Henry and Lucy moved into their family home, The Hollow, which is to be the setting of the story.

Then there is Midge Hardcastle, a less affluent relative of the Angkatells, who has been staying at the house for a while before the weekend commences. She is an old friend of the family and remembers visiting them as children when they all lived happily at Ainswick.

Midge is in love with Edward (‘She had loved Edward ever since she could remember…’), and who wouldn’t be:

The afternoon sun lighted up the gold of John’s hair and the blue of his eyes. So might a Viking look who had just come ashore on a conquering mission. His voice, warm and resonant, charmed the ear, and the magnetism of his whole personality took charge of the scene. who, however, only has eyes for Henrietta, who keeps politely but firmly turning down his proposals, and is happy enough having an affair with John Christow for the time being. (p.76)

And lastly, David Angkatell, a young man, up at Oxford, cocky and opinionated and left-wing, very anti-British Empire, very aggrieved on behalf of the working classes etc – ‘a tall, sulky young man with an Adam’s apple.’

Poirot

In addition, early on in the text we learn that Lady Angkatell has also invited a new neighbour, a man who’s moved into a nearby cottage, for lunch on Sunday. She refers to him in her eccentric airy way as ‘the crime man’ but when she goes on to say he has an egg-shaped head and she met him in Baghdad solving a case when her husband, Henry, was high commissioner there – we realise she must be referring to Hercule Poirot!

I’ve been reading Agatha Christie’s novels in chronological order and had noticed how we hadn’t heard of Poirot for some time. On investigation, it turns out that he ‘The Hollow’ was the first of her novels in four years to feature him, one of the longest gaps in the series of Poirot novels.

In the event Poirot doesn’t arrive on the scene until page 100 of this 300-page novel and when he does, it feels as if Christie is letting her dislike of her own creation seep through a bit. She describes how he dislikes the country, dislikes trees, dislikes the country cottage his friends have persuaded him to buy, and dislikes the way Englishmen are meant to dress for ‘a weekend in the country’. In everything he remains an urban dandy.

Incidentally, in the same conversation that Lady Lucy tells people she’s invited ‘the crime man’ to Sunday lunch, she adds the detail that he’s renting one of the cottages which adjoins their estate, while the other cottage (‘Dovecotes’) has been taken by some actress or other. This will be significant…

Shame about the murders

In these later Christie novels I’ve felt it a shame that anyone has to get murdered. In ‘Towards Zero’ I really liked the characters of old Mr Treves and haughty Lady Tressilian and was dismayed when they both got bumped off. Some of the scenes between the characters in that book had a depth and impact previously absent from her novels.

It’s no coincidence that it was in the 1940s that Christie wrote her two best ‘straight’ non-murder novels, published under the pseudonym of Mary Westmacott, Absent in the Spring (1944) and The Rose and the Yew Tree (1948). She wanted to escape from the straitjacket of crime fiction in order to explore character and relationships.

You feel the same here. I was enjoying the characters of angry John Christow, his pathetically abject wife Gerda, and springy confident Henrietta – it feels like another, more interesting novel could have been written if only Christie didn’t have to bend her talent and distort her characters in order to accommodate the inevitable murder. It had to happen but in some ways it feels like a let-down. ‘Here we go again’, the reader sighs…

Preparing the way for the murder

The way is prepared not only for the murder but for as many people as possible to be suspects, in her usual manner, by having numerous characters either threatening murder or describing other characters as being perfectly capable of carrying out a murder.

Thus gentle Edward Angkatell gets cross when Henrietta explains why John Christow won’t do the decent thing i.e. divorce Gerda and marry her, in effect permanently keeping Henrietta beyond his grasp, leading him to say:

‘If there were no John Christow in the world you would marry me.’
Henrietta said harshly, ‘I can’t imagine a world in which there was no John Christow! That’s what you’ve got to understand.’
‘If it’s like that, why on earth doesn’t the fellow get a divorce from his wife and then you could marry?’
‘John doesn’t want to get a divorce from his wife. And I don’t know that I should want to marry John if he did. It isn’t – it isn’t in the least like you think.’
Edward said in a thoughtful, considering way: ‘John Christow… There are too many John Christows in this world…’

Later, Lord Henry remarks of his wife Lucy:

‘She’s always been the same from a girl – only sometimes I feel it’s growing on her… I mean that she doesn’t realize that there are limits. Why, I really believe, Midge,’ he said, amused, ‘that Lucy would feel she could get away with murder!’

And the atmosphere is ramped up when, once the guests have all arrived, Lord Henry decides to give Christow a little go with his impressive gun collection. They take pot shots at target cards, the others come up and they all have a go themselves. Henrietta is a poor shot, Gerda is, predictably, worse, Midge is no good… but everyone is surprised when Lady Lucy comes marching up:

took the revolver from Midge as her husband greeted David Angkatell, reloaded it and without a word put three holes close to the centre of the target.
‘Well done, Lucy,’ exclaimed Midge. ‘I didn’t know shooting was one of your accomplishments.’
Lucy,’ said Sir Henry gravely, ‘always kills her man!’ (p.79)

Why do I have the feeling that this scene, and these words, will come back to haunt us…

The revenant

And then, just as the family and guests are embarking on their after-dinner games of bridge, the french windows are thrown open and who should stand there picturesquely framed against the night, but John Christow’s old flame and original love, Veronica Cray! So she is the actress who Lucy mentioned had taken the other cottage.

Anyway, her reappearance cycles very quickly through a number of stages. Astonishment, as everyone takes in her dazzling appearance, all platinum blonde hair and fox fur. Then politeness, as she says she’s popped over to ask for matches to light the fire, and Lady Angkatell recovers her manners and gets the butler to fetch not one but six packs.

Then pretend surprise, as Veronica catches sight of John Christow and affects astonishment at bumping into her old flame after all these years. Then simpering apologies as she asks the assembled guests if it’s alright to ask John to accompany her back to her cottage to see her safely home, and with that she and John exit the french windows to everyone’s astonishment.

Cut to hours later, to 3am in the morning, to find John making his way quietly through the grounds back to The Hollow. Two important things have happened. Number one, Christie hints, as strongly as she can in a book published in 1946, that the pair have had sex. One last fling.

But far more importantly, John has been exorcised. For fifteen long years he now realises he has been pining for Veronica, wondering what might have been, living a double life, not fully committing to his wife or children. Now, one night with Veronica, rather than reawakening the past, has laid the ghost. He feels cleansed and renewed. he has shaken off her haunting shadow. He will never see her again.

John is understandably tense as he approaches the house. Was that the sound of a door closing? Did someone twitch their curtain, observing his return? Was it the curtain of Henrietta’s room? And then, tiptoeing through the french windows, up the stairs and into his bedroom. Will Gerda be awake and furiously waiting for him? No, she’s fast asleep and only half wakes up as he slips into bed beside her. Phew! He’s got away with it.

Except that next morning, after a late breakfast, he is handed a note, that has been delivered by one of Veronica’s servants demanding to see him. So, dutifully enough, he walks in full daylight back to her cottage where they have a flaming row. After last night (i.e. sex) Veronica thinks John is in love with her and so now demands that he divorces his wife and comes away with him.

But John, as we’ve seen, is in the exact opposite state of mind. Having laid the ghost that haunted him, he now sees Veronica in the cold light of day, as hard and egotistical and manipulative. Once again she ridicules his work as a doctor, says anyone can be a doctor whereas hardly anybody makes it to the top of the acting procession as she intends to do. When he claims he is now committed to his wife and children, she laughs in his face.

Suddenly the penny drops and Veronica realises it’s not Gerda John wants to remain loyal to, it’s his mistress, Henrietta. With a woman’s intuition, she knows Gerda is nothing, but realises that the tall elegant woman standing at the fireplace when she made her dramatic entrance the night before, she’s the stumbling block which is preventing John’s return.

Which makes her erupt with anger:

‘You turned me down fifteen years ago… You’ve turned me down again today. I’ll make you sorry for this.’
John got up and went to the door.
‘I’m sorry, Veronica, if I’ve hurt you. You’re very lovely, my dear, and I once loved you very much. Can’t we leave it at that?’
‘Good-bye, John. We’re not leaving it at that. You’ll find that out all right. I think – I think I hate you more than I believed I could hate anyone.’

The swimming pool scene

So John leaves her seething and walks back through the woods towards The Hollow. He feels a wonderful sense of release, into a new life. he will be a new man. He will be kinder to poor Gerda in future. He will stop rowing with Henrietta. He can’t wait to tell Henrietta that rather than going off with veronica, as she probably suspects, the opposite has happened and he has at last liberated his mind from her thrall.

On his way back through the grounds John arrives at the swimming pool and suddenly has an uncanny sense of being watched. He looks around at the thick border of chestnut trees which surround it and hears a metallic click. Suddenly he is aware of danger, sees a figure (‘His eyes widened in surprise’) but has no time to move or shout when there is a shot, and he falls on the edge of the swimming pool, his blood dripping into the blue water…

Poirot arrives

Moments later, by sheer coincidence, Poirot arrives at the pool having been brought by the Angkatell’s butler with a view to arriving at the pavilion where the family often have cocktails or pre-luncheon drinks. Instead the butler and Poirot are both astonished at the scene which confronts them: there is John Christow lying on the verge of the pool, bleeding to death; over him stands his wife, Gerda, holding a revolver; and at just that moment also arrive at the pool, from different paths which converge on it through the woods, the other family members and guests, namely: Edward and Midge, Henrietta, and Lady Lucy.

Often Poirot only hears about a murder weeks or months after it has occurred. In this story he is right at the scene of the crime within moments of it having been committed.

What strikes him more than anything is how much it all looks like a scene, from a movie or stage play. In fact, comically enough, his first impression is that the entire thing has been staged for his benefit, in some obscure expression of the notorious English ‘sense of humour’. He thinks these toffs are playing a silly game of murder mystery. It’s only after a minute or two, as he bends over the dying man, that he realises, with a great shock, that this is the real thing.

The really startling aspects of the scene are that 1) it is Gerda who is standing over John’s body holding the revolver. In subsequent hours and days she will insist to everyone that she came across his body and the gun lying beside him and without thinking picked it up… But it makes her the number one suspect from the first.

2) Second thing is that, as Poirot kneels to the dying man, John Christow says one word, ‘Henrietta’, loud enough for them all to hear and then expires. Well, quite obviously, did this mean his last thoughts were of Henrietta? Or more simply, that it was Henrietta who shot him?

Suspects and motives

So: it is a classic country house and closed circle mystery – country house because of the setting, and closed circle because only a handful of suspects we have been lengthily introduced to, can have dunnit, namely:

  • Gerda – found holding the murder weapon, motive: jealousy that her husband had revived his old love affair with Veronica
  • Henrietta – same as above, she mistakenly thinks John is going to dump her and run off with the Hollywood actress
  • Veronica – who, as we saw, was driven to insensate rage by John’s calm rejection of her offer to run off with him, especially if I’m right in thinking they slept together
  • Edward Angkatell – who thought the only thing standing between him and happy marriage to Henrietta is charismatic John Christow, so has a motive for wanting him out of the way
  • Lady Lucy – remember how good a shot she was, and her husband saying she always kills her man? Well, earlier on she was given several scenes where she implied that it would be best for poor Henrietta and Edward if John Christow could be got out of the way; if Christow disappeared, Edward and Henrietta would marry, as they always intended to, and then they will have babies and Ainswick, the estate she really loves, will be saved for the family – if not, no marriage, no heirs, and the Angkatell line will end with ineffectual Edward
  • David Angkatell – more remotely, might it have been young David, the firebrand socialist who despised John Christow and his Harley Street practice pandering to spoiled fat posh women?

Whodunnit? Well the local cops are called in, in the shape of sturdy, lugubrious Inspector Grange, and the last two-thirds of the novel (the shooting occurs on page 105 of this 308-page-long book) are spent very enjoyably watching all the characters react to the murder, adjust their lives to the new matrix of relationships, while Grange goes about his work, and Poirot interviews all the suspects in his usual way, casual conversations, and much sitting on a bench in the woods pondering, pondering…

As usual I won’t carry my summary on any further, as Christie’s denouements are always tangled and convoluted, and also, not to give it away. The full text is freely available online (see link, below).

Cast

  • Lady Lucy Angkatell – mistress of The Hollow – 60s, eccentric, talks in non-sequiturs and ‘swift inconsequences’ – distant cousin of her husband…
  • Lord Henry Angkatell – husband, former diplomatic service, discreet and wise – married his distant cousin, Lucy Angkatell. they keep an impressive number of servants, several characters comment on it:
    • Miss Simmons – the housemaid
    • Gudgeon – the butler
    • Mrs Medway – the cook
    • Doris Emmott – kitchenmaid
    • Mears – the gardener
    • Mrs Mears – his wife
  • Midge Hardcastle – ‘from the North country grimness of a manufacturing town’ – works in a posh clothes shop run by a Madame Alfrege – ‘Midge pushed thick, wiry black hair back from her square forehead with a sturdy brown arm. Nothing unsubstantial or fairylike about her’ – she is in love with Edward, who’s in love with Henrietta
  • Edward Angkatell – very tall and thin – inherited the Ainswick estate and lives there alone, diffident, sensitive, bookish – has asked Henrietta to marry him three times and been rejected
    • Tremlet the head gardener at Ainswick
  • David Angkatell – just down from Oxford, clever, intellectual, very left-wing and bitter against the world
  • Henrietta Savernake – sculptor, clever, passionate, quick – John Christow is in love with her and she’s enjoying their affair but is maybe not as committed
    • Doris Saunders – her model
  • John Christow – posh Harley Street doctor, meant to be doing laborious research into ‘Ridgeway’s disease’, in fact is tired and frustrated; takes it out on his dog-like wife in bouts of furious rage, and is having an affair with Henrietta
    • Beryl Collins, ‘Collie’ – his plain efficient secretary
    • Mrs Crabtree – the patient at St Christopher’s Hospital who John is experimenting on to find a cure for Ridgeway’s Disease
  • Gerda Christow – his dutiful wife – stupid, slow, dim, anxious, drives John mad with frustration
    • Terence – their detached, brainy 12-year-old son
    • Zena – their 9-year-old daughter
    • Collins – servant
    • Lewis – servant
    • Cook – servant
  • Mrs Elsie Patterson – Gerda’s sister
  • Hercule Poirot – has rented the country cottage, Resthaven, where he is attended by:
    • Victor – his Belgian gardener
    • Françoise – Victor’s wife and cook
  • Inspector Grange – local police – ‘a large heavily built man with a down-drooping pessimistic moustache’
  • Sergeant Clark – Grange explains: ‘He’s been working on the servants – the friendly touch. He’s a nice-looking chap, got a way with women’

Poirot’s method

Loads of times in earlier novels, Christie has made it abundantly clear that Poirot is not the kind of detective who gets down on his hands and knees to find cigar ash and distinctive footprints. Instead he sits back in his chair and ponders the human relationships among the suspects, the kind of person the murder victim was, and the kind of person all this implies the murderer is. In other words, he reflects on the psychology of the situation.

Poirot said, ‘That is one of Inspector Grange’s men. He seems to be looking for something.’
‘Clues, I suppose. Don’t policemen look for clues? Cigarette ash, footprints, burnt matches?’
Her voice held a kind of bitter mockery. Poirot answered seriously:
‘Yes, they look for these things – and sometimes they find them. But the real clues, Miss Savernake, in a case like this, usually lie in the personal relationships of the people concerned.’ (p.194)

Poirot murders are never simple

They are contrived, like the contrived plots of murder mystery novels.

‘It has seemed to me from the beginning that either this crime was very simple – so simple that it was difficult to believe its simplicity (and simplicity, Mademoiselle, can be strangely baffling) or else it was extremely complex – that is to say, we were contending against a mind capable of intricate and ingenious inventions, so that every time we seemed to be heading for the truth, we were actually being led on a trail that twisted away from the truth and led us to a point which ended in nothingness. This apparent futility, this continual barrenness, is not real – it is artificial, it is planned. A very subtle and ingenious mind is plotting against us the whole time – and succeeding.’ (p.260)

Poirot can’t get rid of the nagging feeling that the whole thing has been somehow staged for his benefit. But in a sense what he’s perceiving is the way the entire novel has been staged for the reader’s entertainment. There are at least two levels of stageyness, of artifice, at work.

Poirot

I assume that from the start Christie had a checklist of Poirot characteristics or qualities which had to be dropped into each story. A recurring one is his foreignness, which keeps him outside all the social circles involved in the murder, at an angle from the events and the society they occur in, from English traditions and turns of phrase, an askewness which gives him countless small advantages and, in the end, the one Big Advantage, of seeing the sequence of events in a way nobody else can. So it signifies more than just he comes from abroad.

VERONICA: ‘I didn’t know who my next door neighbour was – otherwise I should have. I just thought he was some little foreigner and I thought, you know, he might become a bore – living so near.’

He [Sergeant Clark] came in a little breathlessly. He was clearly pleased with himself, though subduing the fact under a respectful official manner. ‘Thought I’d better come and report, sir, since I knew where you’d gone.’ He hesitated, shooting a doubtful glance at Poirot, whose exotic foreign appearance did not commend itself to his sense of official reticence.

‘[I was] hoping Mrs. Medway would make a really rich Mud Pie –’
‘Mud pie?’ Inspector Grange had to break in.
‘Chocolate, you know, and eggs – and then covered with whipped cream. Just the sort of sweet a foreigner would like for lunch.’

Grange came into Resthaven to drink a cup of tea with Hercule Poirot. The tea was exactly what he had had apprehensions it might be – extremely weak and China tea at that. ‘These foreigners,’ thought Grange, ‘don’t know how to make tea – you can’t teach ’em.’ (p.263)

An outsiderness which Poirot turns to all kinds of advantage, sometimes in just being able to say what the tightly-wrapped, buttoned-up English can’t say to each other.

Poirot put his hand gently on her shoulder. He said: ‘But you are of those who can live with a sword in their hearts – who can go on and smile -‘
Henrietta looked up at him. Her lips twisted into a bitter smile. ‘That’s a little melodramatic, isn’t it?’
‘It is because I am a foreigner and I like to use fine words.’

Feminist

To demonstrate how Christie was using the word ‘feminist’ in 1946.

In the consulting room Inspector Grange faced the cool, belligerent glance of Beryl Collier. It was belligerent, he noted that. Well, perhaps that was only natural. Plain bit of goods, he thought. Nothing between her and the doctor, I shouldn’t think. She may have been sweet on him, though. It works that way sometimes.
But not this time, he came to the conclusion, when he leaned back in his chair a quarter of an hour later. Beryl Collier’s answers to his questions had been models of clearness. She replied promptly, and obviously had every detail of the doctor’s practice at her fingertips. He shifted his ground and began to probe gently into the relations existing between John Christow and his wife.
They had been, Beryl said, on excellent terms.
‘I suppose they quarrelled every now and then like most married couples?’ The Inspector sounded easy and confidential.
‘I do not remember any quarrels. Mrs. Christow was quite devoted to her husband – really quite slavishly so.’
There was a faint edge of contempt in her voice. Inspector Grange heard it.
Bit of a feminist, this girl, he thought. (p.170)

Self-referentiality

Right from the start Christie’s books have had characters saying that all the events, or characters, or mystery itself, all feel like they come from a murder mystery novel. One of the effects of this is to lower your sense of critical realism, and accept the fact that the whole thing is a silly entertainment, welcome you into the world of fandom. Another is, maybe, to head off and defuse criticism of its use of clichés. But maybe describing how a text reminds its characters of the clichés of crime fiction, is itself, one of the clichés of crime fiction. Maybe it was already a convention when she start in 1920, which she just continued…

‘Yes. Don’t they usually leave one standing in the hall? Or perhaps he’s watching the front door from the shrubbery outside.’
‘Why should he watch the front door?’
‘I don’t know, I’m sure. They do in books. And then somebody else is murdered in the night.’ (p.135)

‘You know, I’d never thought about murder before.’
‘Why should you? It isn’t a thing one thinks about. It’s a six-letter word in a crossword, or a pleasant entertainment between the covers of a book. But the real thing -‘ (p.236)

Oh, no, thought Midge, it can’t be true. It’s a dream I’ve been having. John Christow, murdered, shot – lying there by the pool. Blood and blue water – like the jacket of a detective story… Fantastic, unreal… The sort of thing that doesn’t happen to oneself… (p.144)

‘I was analyzing my reactions to murder.’
‘It is certainly odd,’ said Midge, ‘to be in one.’
David sighed and said:
‘Wearisome…’ That was quite the best attitude. ‘All the clichés that one thought existed only in the pages of detective fiction!’ (p.155)

‘She mightn’t know about our being able to identify the gun used from the marks on the rifling.’
‘How many people do know that, I wonder?’
‘I put the point to Sir Henry. He said he thought quite a lot of people would know – on account of all the detective stories that are written. Quoted a new one, ‘The Clue of the Dripping Fountain’, which he said John Christow himself had been reading on Saturday and which emphasized that particular point.’ (p.210)

In fact in books about murder, in detective stories, more often than not the murderers get their ideas or insights from reading other detective stories. In this sense, it’s an incredibly incestuous, self-referential genre. Thus Gerda got some of her ideas about how to behave in a detective story from reading a detective story.

‘But then I’m not really as stupid as people think! If you’re very slow and just stare, people think you don’t take things in – and sometimes, underneath, you’re laughing at them! I knew I could kill John and nobody would know because I’d read in that detective story about the police being able to tell which gun a bullet has been fired from.’

If you read the accounts of actual real-life murders, most of which relate to arguments among drug addicts and dealers, or horrible ‘domestics’, nobody gets their ideas from detective stories. The whole idea is as remote from reality as ‘Lord of the Rings’.

A moral objection

Criticism of literature for centuries, maybe for millennia (back to the Greeks and Romans) attributes literature a moral purpose. Being very literal-minded, I’ve always struggled with how reading about murder can be classed as any sort of entertainment. Surely it only works, in moral terms, if you discount the murder, if you accept from the start that it has little or no psychological meaning, is little more than a counter on a board of a game of Cluedo.

There is hardly anywhere in any of Christie’s novels, any real sense of how devastating it would be, traumatic and wrecking, to have someone you know and love, be murdered. No hint at all. Instead here, as in all the other novels, the guy is killed and everyone else accepts it pretty quickly and, by the next day at the latest, have gotten back to their chatty, gossipy lives.

‘Cheer up, Midge,’ said Henrietta. ‘You mustn’t let murder get you down. Shall we go out later and have a spot of dinner together?’ (p.242)

Same in ‘Towards Zero’ where I found the killing of nice old Mr Treves dismaying, but the horrible brutal murder of old Lady Tressilian genuinely upsetting. I couldn’t concentrate on the increasingly ludicrous revelations at the end of that book because I was transfixed by the horror of her gruesome death, and a little disgusted at a genre which brutally, horribly butchers people for our ‘pleasant entertainment’.

For all the effort that goes into lovingly supplying the plausible character profiles and the wealth of social detail, from a really grown-up psychological point of view, I find the entire genre – which treats murdering human beings as a charming game – weird, almost bizarre.

C’est formidable!’ Poirot murmured. ‘You are one of the best antagonists, Mademoiselle, that I have ever had.’ (p.299)

As if killing people is much like a jolly game of tennis or a pleasant round of bridge.

Antisemitism

For no reason at all Christie makes Midge’s employer at the clothes boutique ‘a Whitechapel Jewess with dyed hair and a voice like a corncrake’.

Madame Alfrege was not a very easy person to explain things to at any time.
Midge set her chin resolutely and picked up the receiver.
It was all just as unpleasant as she had imagined it would be. The raucous voice of the vitriolic little Jewess came angrily over the wires.
‘What ith that, Mith Hardcathtle? A death? A funeral? Do you not know very well I am short-handed. Do you think I am going to stand for these excutheth? Oh, yeth, you are having a good time, I darethay!’
Midge interrupted, speaking sharply and distinctly.
‘The poleeth? The poleeth, you thay?’ It was almost a scream. ‘You are mixed up with the poleeth?’
Setting her teeth, Midge continued to explain. Strange how sordid that woman at the other end made the whole thing seem. (p.148)

Why? I thought by now, after everything the Jews had lived though in Nazi Germany and the revelation of the death camps, Christie would have abandoned the anti-Jewish sentiment which crops up in so many of her novels. But no…


Credit

‘The Hollow’ by Agatha Christie was published by the Collins Crime Club in November 1946. Page references are to the HarperCollins 2017 paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Sparkling Cyanide by Agatha Christie (1945)

I admire Christie’s restless experimentalism, each new novel playing with the format of detective story or crime novel. This one rotates around a murder, of course, but in a clever way which manages to feel just original enough to be entertaining. Certainly her characters are stock types and stereotypes but it’s this, along with the simplicity of her psychology, with her nostalgically posh upper-middle-class characters, and the immense readability of her artfully simple prose, which makes her so addictive. It’s certainly not the plots – even the ones which start out plausibly enough, end in a welter of improbabilities and absurdity, and then the incongruously happy endings (generally at least one couple involved in all the mayhem get engaged or actually marry).

The death of Rosemary Barton

The idea is that the pretty socialite Rosemary Marle married the much older and boring George Barton. A year into her marriage, she died suddenly at her own birthday party, a dinner held at the posh Luxembourg hotel. She went blue in the face and fell forward onto the table, frothing at the mouth. The cops and the coroner said it was suicide by poison brought on by depression after a bout of flu. But since the title of the book is ‘Sparkling Cyanide’ and it’s an Agatha Christie novel, the reader doesn’t believe this for a second.

Indeed it comes as no surprise to learn that, about a year later, Rosemary’s widower, George Barton, receives several anonymous letters claiming Rosemary didn’t commit suicide, she was murdered! Well, who’d have thought it!

George wanders about looking distraught for months but then breaks down and shows these anonymous letters to Rosemary’s younger, unmarried sister, Iris, who went to live with Rosemary and George in their big posh London house after the Marle sisters’ mother (Viola) died a few years earlier. There she joins a household which includes George’s efficient secretary, Ruth Lessing, and a chaperon brought in for her, Aunt Lucilla, each of these characters enjoyably fleshed out, as are the key figures from Rosemary’s past, namely a likely lad, young Anthony Browne, who liked hanging round with her, and an up-and-coming politician, Stephen Farraday, with his posh wife, Lady Alexandra.

Now at the ill-fated birthday dinner there were seven people at the table and George and Iris realise with horror that, if the letters are correct and Rosemary was murdered, then one of the guests must have murdered Rosemary. (Why? why couldn’t the poison have been administered before the meal, or slipped into her drink by a waiter working for someone else entirely? Don’t ask inconvenient questions.)

No, the pleasure doesn’t come from the supposed puzzle at the heart of this murder mystery but from the speed and skill with which Christie summons up her characteristically large cast, and quickly, skilfully paints in all the characters, their murky backstories and their convoluted relations with each other.

Thus part 1 of the book is ‘cleverly’ divided into six sections or chapters, each one devoted to one of the key players and their thoughts and memories of Rosemary. One by one we learn that each of them had powerful motives for murdering pretty, empty-headed Rosemary. This is, of course, par for the course, part of the convention, an absolutely standard aspect of this kind of novel, in which everyone is carefully provided with an elaborate set of motives for wanting to bump off the murdered person and the challenge for the reader who can be bothered is to try and figure out whodunnit before everything is revealed in the last ten pages.

The suspects

1. Her sister, Iris Marle, claims to have loved Rosemary, though the age difference (six years) meant they led very different lives. Only casually does the fact slip out that, when Rosemary died, Iris inherited her sizeable fortune (itself a legacy from an ‘Uncle Paul’ who left it to their mother). The first question the police ask is, Who stands to benefit from a murder, and in this case it is definitely Iris.

2. George Barton’s secretary, Ruth Lessing, hated Rosemary because she was so casually glamorous and successful and didn’t give a damn about her (Ruth):

In that moment Ruth Lessing knew that she hated Rosemary Barton. Hated her for being rich and beautiful and careless and brainless. (p.46)

3. Playboy Anthony Browne threatened Rosemary when she reveals she knows that this is not his real name, that he’s really called Tony Morelli and spent some time in prison. The conversation in which she playfully reveals this turns nasty and he threatens her not to tell anyone.

His voice grew stern. ‘Look here, Rosemary, this is dangerous. You don’t want your lovely face carved up, do you? There are people who don’t stick at a little thing like ruining a girl’s beauty. And there’s such a thing as being bumped off. It doesn’t only happen in books and films. It happens in real life, too.’
‘Are you threatening me, Tony?’
‘Warning you.’ (p.52)

4. We then discover that up-and-coming politician Stephen Farraday had a passionate affair with Rosemary but eventually tired of her and then began to think of her as a liability, panicking that she will reveal the affair to their respective spouses and ruin his career.

‘It’s a pity,’ he thought grimly, ‘that we don’t live in the days of the Borgias…’ A glass of poisoned champagne was about the only thing that would keep Rosemary quiet. Yes, he had actually thought that. Cyanide of potassium in her champagne glass… (p.76)

Pretty damning, eh?

5. Farraday naively thinks he hid the affair from his wife, posh Lady Alexandra Hayle, third daughter of the rich, famous and influential Earl of Kidderminster, but she knew all about it from day one, knew her husband was sleeping with Rosemary, and hated her for it:

She hated Rosemary Barton. If thoughts could kill, she would have killed her. But thoughts do not kill – Thoughts are not enough… (p.82)

6. Lastly, Rosemary’s husband, boring reliable George Barton, he too came to realise she was having an affair and was incandescent with rage:

He’d like to choke the life out of her! He’d like to murder the fellow in cold blood… (p.86)

So there you have it. The first 90 or so pages consist of a chapter apiece to each of these characters, sketching out all too clearly why each of the six had compelling motives to do the deed. The remaining 170 pages, divided into two more distinct parts, take us on an entertaining journey as we delve deeper and deeper into the suspects’ backstories, plus scenes in which they meet and talk among themselves, eyeing each other like dogs sniffing each other’s bottoms.

Enter Colonel Race

Obviously there are scores of minor events which shed new light on this or that person’s suspectability or are designed to thicken the plot – events such as George deciding he wants to buy a property in the country (Little Priors) which just happens to border on the Farradays’ lovely country estate. Or Anthony Brown telling Iris he loves her and wants to marry her.

But the really big thing that happens in part two is the advent of Colonel Race. Race is one of Christie’s recurring characters, a tall, pukka British Secret Service agent who travels the world tracking down international criminals. We learn that he once controlled Britain’s Counter-Espionage Department (p.155), and he cuts an impressive figure.

  • Race was over sixty, a tall, erect, military figure, with sunburnt face, closely cropped iron-grey hair, and shrewd dark eyes. (p.116)
  • a tall soldierly man with a lined bronze face and iron-grey hair… (p.235)

This is the fourth and final Christie novel Race appears in, the previous ones being: ‘The Man in the Brown Suit’ (1924) and two Poirot novels, Cards on the Table (1936) and Death on the Nile (1937) in both of which he is a key helper and collaborator with the Belgian detective.

All Souls’ Day

In this book, Race knew Rosemary and was invited to attend the fateful birthday dinner but was called away on business at the last minute so wasn’t present. But when, a year later, the distressed widower George Barton decides to restage the fateful dinner at the same restaurant, the Luxembourg, he invites Race to join them. (Conveniently for the story it turns out that Race and Barton have known each other for years.)

Barton explains to Race that he has some cockamamie plan to re-enact the fateful dinner and lure the murderer out into the open. Race strongly advises against it, in fact tells Barton to go to the police who are the professionals, Barton obstinately persists with his scheme, so Race refuses to attend. In fact, later on we discover that Race does go to the re-enactment, but doesn’t tell anyone and sits at a distant table so as not to be spotted.

George dresses up the re-enactment as a party to celebrate Iris’s 18th birthday, but re-enactment it will (eerily) be. But, in the event, things do not at all turn out as George expected, and part two ends with a genuinely surprising bombshell.

The final third of the novel follows Inspector Kemp of Scotland Yard and Colonel Race as they do the usual murder mystery thing of interviewing all the suspects, turning up all manner of red herrings, building cases against all the suspects in turn, before there is a final flurry of panicky activity and the baddie is revealed. As with all my other Christie reviews, I’ll stop my summary there so as not to give away the plot but will just say that the mystery turns out to be relatively straightforward, certainly not as ludicrously contrived as the outcome of Towards Zero which is one of the most preposterous things I’ve ever read.

Cast

  • Rosemary Barton née Marle – committed suicide nearly a year ago, in November, on the night of her birthday, apparently because an unknown lover, nicknamed Leopard, had jilted her – Stephen falls for ‘Her lovely laughing face, the rich chestnut of her hair, her swaying voluptuous figure’ – Colonel Race thought her ‘a singularly lovely nit-wit’
  • Iris Marle – her younger sister, 6 years younger – ‘very straight and slim, with her pale face and black hair and grey eyes. Iris with much less than Rosemary’s beauty and with all the character that Rosemary would never have’ – in Anthony’s eyes: ‘rich chestnut hair, laughing blue eyes and a red passionate mouth…’
  • George Barton – the boring worthy older man who Rosemary married, ‘fifteen years older than herself, kindly, pleasant, but definitely dull’, in Stephen’s view ‘ the kind of husband who was born to be betrayed’
    • Mrs Pound – their cook, according to Lucilla Drake although ‘slightly deaf, was an excellent woman. Her pastry sometimes a little heavy and a tendency to over-pepper the soup’
    • Betty Archdale – parlour-maid
  • Ruth Lessing – 29 – George’s capable secretary – ‘Ruth was an institution – practically one of the family. Good looking in a severe black-and-white kind of way, she was the essence of efficiency combined with tact’ – ‘the neat shining dark head, the smart tailor-mades and the crisp shirts, the small pearls in her well-shaped ears, the pale discreetly powdered face and the faint restrained rose shade of her lipstick’ – ‘She was a good-looking girl, he [Colonel Race] decided, with her sleek dark head and her firm mouth and chin’
  • Paul Bennett – Uncle Paul, in love with their mother, Viola Marle, who, nonetheless, married another man – Paul stood godfather to Rosemary; when he died, left her his fortune, she being aged only 13
  • Hector Marle – Rosemary and Iris’s father, died when Iris was five
  • Viola Marle – Rosemary and Iris’s mother, died when Iris was 17 – ‘always been a somewhat remote mother, preoccupied mainly with her own health, relegating her children to nurses, governesses, schools, but invariably charming to them in those brief moments when she came across them’ – and she went to live with Rosemary and George at their house in Elvaston Square
  • Aunt Lucilla Drake – Iris’s father’s sister, Mrs Drake, who was in impoverished circumstances owing to the financial claims of a son, Victor (the black sheep of the Marle family) – so she comes to live with George and chaperones young Iris in society – ‘an amiable elderly sheep with little will of her own’, latest in a long line of Christie’s gabby garrulous women
  • Victor Drake – black sheep and ne’er-do-well son of Aunt Lucilla – ‘He had a lean brown face and there was a suggestion about him of a Toreador – romantic conception! He was attractive to women and knew it!’
  • Stephen Farraday – a stiff pompous young man in politics, a possible future Prime Minister
  • Lady Alexandra ‘Sandra’ Farraday – ‘a very reserved woman. Looks cold as ice. But they say she’s crazy about Farraday’
  • Lord William Kidderminster – her suave, diplomatic, influential father
  • Lady Victoria Kidderminster – Sandra’s ‘arrogant’ mother
  • Anthony Browne – dark good-looking, devoted to Rosemary, travels a lot – Rosemary finds out (from Victor Drake) that he was in prison and his real name is Tony Morelli
  • Alexander Ogilvie – Barton’s agent in Buenos Aires, ‘a sober, hard-headed Scotsman’
  • Charles – head waiter at the Luxembourg
  • Giuseppe Bolsano – waiter at the Luxembourg
  • Mr Goldstein – owner of the Luxembourg
  • Mary Rees-Talbot – old friend of Colonel Race’s from India who hires a parlour-maid fired by George Barton – ‘a lively near-brunette of forty-nine’
  • Miss Chloe West – ‘about twenty-five, tall, brown-haired and very pretty’ – actress who George Barton paid to impersonate Rosemary at the reunion dinner, but someone else rang up and cancelled her at the last minute – but who?

The cops

  • Chief Inspector Kemp – ‘slightly reminiscent of that grand old veteran, Battle, in type. Indeed, since he had worked under Battle for many years, he had perhaps unconsciously copied a good many of the older man’s mannerisms. He bore about him the same suggestion of being carved all in one piece – but whereas Battle had suggested some wood such as teak or oak. Chief Inspector Kemp suggested a somewhat more showy wood – mahogany, say, or good old-fashioned rose-wood’
  • Sergeant Pollock

Types and stereotypes

Christie always dealt in stereotypes and clichés, manipulating the ones she inherited in the genre and inventing some new ones. But one of the reasons for her books’ success is you feel as if you half-know the characters as they’re introduced and this is because so many of them are, indeed, stock types. For the lolz I searched this novel for the keyword ‘type’ and was surprised to see how many times the characters themselves dismiss each other as ‘types’

‘He [Victor Drake, a wrong ‘un] started by forging a cheque at Oxford – they got that hushed up and since then he’s been shipped about the world – never making good anywhere.’ Ruth listened without much interest. She was familiar with the type. They grew oranges, started chicken farms, went as jackaroos to Australian stations, got jobs with meat-freezing concerns in New Zealand.

Of Victor, again, here’s George discussing him with Ruth:

‘I see you understand.’
‘It’s not an uncommon case,’ she said indifferently.
‘No, plenty of that type about.’

And after Ruth has seen Victor off on a boat to South America, she reports back to George on his brashness:

‘Cheek!’ said George. He asked curiously, ‘What did you think of him, Ruth?’
Her voice was deliberately colourless as she replied: ‘Oh – much as I expected. A weak type.’

Of Stephen Farraday:

He was small for his age, quiet, with a tendency to stammer. Namby-pamby his father called him. A well-behaved child, little trouble in the house. His father would have preferred a more rumbunctious type.

Here is Stephen’s early life in politics:

The Labour Party did not satisfy Stephen. He found it less open to new ideas, more hidebound by tradition than its great and powerful rival. The Conservatives, on the other hand, were on the look-out for promising young talent. They approved of Stephen Farraday – he was just the type they wanted.

When he falls in love with Rosemary, it hits Stephen like a bolt from the blue:

He had always assumed that he was not a passionate type of man. One or two ephemeral affairs, a mild flirtation – that, so far as he knew, was all that ‘love’ meant to him.

At the end of their affair, Stephen’s wife sees how distressed he is and guesses that Rosemary wants him to run away with her:

Rosemary wanted him to go away with her… He was making up his mind to take the step – to break with everything he cared about most. Folly! Madness! He was the type of man with whom his work would always come first – a very English type.

Later, when Colonel Race meets up again with George he reflects on their different temperaments:

He was thinking at this moment that he had really no idea what ‘young George’ was like. On the brief occasions when they had met in later years, they had found little in common. Race was an out-door man, essentially of the Empire-builder type – most of his life had been spent abroad. George was emphatically the city gentleman. Their interests were dissimilar…

As George tells him about Rosemary, Race reflects:

‘Rosemary,’ said George Barton, ‘loved life.’ Race nodded. He had only met George’s wife once. He had thought her a singularly lovely nit-wit – but certainly not a melancholic type.

So the characters themselves think in terms of ‘types’ of human being and personality in a way which is specially possible in a novel. I don’t think we do this much in the real world, do we? When you meet a new person or get to know someone, do you reflect that they’re a this, that or the other type of personality? Do you dismiss people as one of those types? Maybe other people do, but I don’t think I do. But then I find people puzzling and often unreadable, so I may not be very representative.

I was going to suggest that the quickness and efficiency with which fictional characters can assess and sum each other up is one of the appeals of fiction; in books, everything is simpler. People are easy to read. Even if characters wildly misinterpret someone else, in novels like this, everything eventually comes out at the end, and in a sense everyone is understood. Whereas, in my own life, I know there are people, most people, who I’m going to go the grave not really understanding or ever having a handle on.

Fiction simplifies life. This may be its biggest attraction.

N.B. There are even more results when you search for the word ‘sort’ used in the same sense:

  • Sort of woman who might resent his having a friendship with another woman’
  • She saw her partner, a blushing immature young man whose collar seemed too big for him, peering about for her. The sort of partner, she thought scornfully, that debs have to put up with.
  • The sort of girl who would expect you to tell her every morning at the breakfast table that you loved her passionately!
  • Thank goodness she wasn’t the sort of woman who asked questions about a man’s correspondence.

Or kind:

  • You’re the kind of girl who ends up by marrying the boss.
  • It would be the kind of scandal that he would not be able to live down, even though public opinion was broader-minded than it used to be.
  • George had been the kind of husband who was born to be betrayed.
  • He loved her, and he was the kind of man who was humble about his own powers of holding a wife’s interest.

Or other ways of making points about types and sorts of people:

  • ‘Rosemary laughed at Sandra. Said she was one of those stuffed political women like a rocking horse.’
  • ‘It was a wonder her husband hadn’t got wise to things. One of those foolish unsuspecting chaps – years older than she was…’
  • Race nodded. He had met Lady Alexandra Farraday several times. One of those quiet women of unassailable position whom it seems fantastic to associate with sensational publicity.

Maybe one of the many reassuring, comfortable things about Christie’s stories is the way they flatter the reader into thinking that we, too, have the worldly wisdom and savoir faire to airily define all these different types; it flatters us into thinking that we, too, are oh-so-familiar with this sort of girl and that sort of chap, we’re all men of the world here etc. It’s pleasant to be so worldly wise and experienced assumed to know this kind of thing. Who wouldn’t be flattered?

In addition, I suppose all this talk of types bleeds into Christie’s fondness for generalisations, for having her characters make sweeping generalisations – most often about the opposite sex (‘men this’, ‘women that’) sometimes about foreigners (especially notable in the Poirot novels) and on other subjects, too.

I suppose these are all manifestations of the world of conventions and clichés and conformist thinking which Christie’s novels radiate, deeply conservative, describing an essentially timeless upper middle-class world.

Fallings off

Christie’s early novels were deliberately comic. The Poirot and Marple novels from the 1930s contain many comic touches and Hercule Poirot himself is essentially a comic creation.

Maybe it was the war which affected her but the novels from the end of the 1930s and the 1940s feel dried out. They are as structurally innovative, clever, entertaining as ever but they completely lack the sparkle and humour of her earlier works.

The high good humour of the earlier novels helped to mask the ridiculousness of the plots. Without the permanent smile at the corner of Poirot’s mouth or the comedy of the 1920s stories, the absurdity of the plots becomes more obvious.

It’s a funny combination of good and bad because the novel before this one, ‘Towards Zero’, had moments of something resembling psychological depths, in its depiction of the tortured love triangle between Nevile Strange, the first wife he divorced and his bitterly jealous second wife. Some of the exchanges between these couples have a real poignancy. But then the denouement, the revelation of who did the murder and how and why is one of the most preposterously ludicrous things I’ve ever read – and Christie goes on to outdo herself by having the divorced wife suddenly, after just one or two meetings, fall head over heels in love with the complete stranger who helped save her life, and the novel ends with a ridiculous Mills and Boon declaration of mutual adoration and the promise to get married. Hard to credit that the author of the earlier, almost believable moments, made the free choice to end her novel with such a farrago.

So these novels from the 1940s maybe, at moments, betray a bit more psychological depth than previously – but the almost total removal of the high good humour of hear earlier novels somehow makes her prone to more melodrama and/or bodice-ripping, breast-heaving passion. Makes the stories feel cheap and silly.

Bookishness

As you know I have rather doggedly copied out all the references characters make in Christie novels to appearing in a detective novel, how the situation they find themselves in seems to come right out of a book, and so on.

Colonel Race was not good at small talk and might indeed have posed as the model of a strong silent man so beloved by an earlier generation of novelists. (p.117)

Race leant forward. His voice was suddenly sharp. ‘I don’t like it, George. These melodramatic ideas out of books don’t work. Go to the police…’ (p.129)

‘What about cyanide? Was there any container found?’
Yes. A small white paper packet under the table. Traces of cyanide crystals inside. No fingerprints on it. In a detective story, of course, it would be some special kind of paper or folded in some special way. I’d like to give these detective story writers a course of routine work. They’d soon learn how most things are untraceable and nobody ever notices anything anywhere! (p.157)

Or films:

They spoke in spasmodic jerks, for the taxi-driver was taking their directions literally and was hurtling round corners and cutting through traffic with immense enthusiasm. Turning with a final spurt into Elvaston Square, he drew up with a terrific jerk in front of the house. Elvaston Square had never looked more peaceful. Anthony, with an effort regaining his usual cool manner, murmured: ‘Quite like the movies.’

But films or books, characters are aware of the type of story they’re appearing in:

‘Come on,’ he said, ‘let’s have it.’
‘I don’t think I want to tell you, Anthony.’
‘Now then, funny, don’t be like the heroines of third-rate thrillers who start in the very first chapter by having something they can’t possibly tell for no real reason except to gum up the hero and make the book spin itself out for another fifty thousand words.’
She gave a faint pale smile.

Christie writes first-rate thrillers. But she’s very conscious that she’s swimming in the same waters as the third-rate writers, using many of the same tropes and tricks, one of which is to include in the text characters referring to the fact that they feel like they’re in a third-rate thriller.

Sandra Farraday laughed as she said: ‘You’re something to do with armaments, aren’t you, Mr Browne? An armament king is always the villain of the piece nowadays.’ (p.143)

At some level, Christie’s characters know they’re appearing in a panto.


Credit

‘Sparkling Cyanide’ by Agatha Christie was published by the Collins Crime Club in December 1945. Page references are to the HarperCollins 2017 paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Towards Zero by Agatha Christie (1944)

‘I’m an old woman,’ she said. ‘Nothing makes sense any more.’
(Lady Tressilian expressing what many of us feel)

At the end of half an hour Lady Tressilian gave a deep sigh of satisfaction. ‘Ah,’ she said, ‘I’ve enjoyed myself! There’s nothing like exchanging gossip and remembering old scandals.’
‘A little malice,’ agreed Mr Treves, ‘adds a certain savour to life.’
(Two oldsters having fun)

‘You’d be surprised if you knew how many of the people who have committed crimes are walking about the country free and unmolested.’
(Deep truths from Mr Treves)

Nevile said desperately: ‘It’s like some awful dream. There’s nothing I can say or do. It’s like – like being in a trap and you can’t get out.’
(The chief suspect, Nevile Strange, bewailing his lot, p.169)

‘I want to ask you something, Superintendent. Surely you don’t, you can’t still think that this – this awful crime was done by one of us? It must have been someone from outside! Some maniac!’
‘You may not be far wrong there. Miss Aldin. Maniac is a word that describes this criminal very well, if I’m not mistaken.’
(In Christie, the murderer is always described as a maniac, a lunatic, a fiend – it helps to ramp up the tension; p.193)

Introduction

I admire the way Christie continually tinkered and experimented with the genre of the murder mystery novel. ‘Towards Zero’ was something like her 34th novel and is another playful experiment with the form, interesting and quite gripping for most of its length, until it completely blows it in the laughably preposterous conclusion.

The narrative starts with an entertainingly novel premise. The Prologue introduces an after-dinner chat by a group of lawyers and posh chaps at a London club, discussing a case which has recently come to trial and reached a verdict (‘the Lamorne case’).

The oldest lawyer there, nearly-80-year-old solicitor Mr Treves, is struck by the thought that, for every incident of this type, every murder, you can delve back into the past and observe the way a whole load of random factors, actions and events, bring initially unconnected people together – often without their knowing it – to create the circumstances which are propitious for the crime.

‘I like a good detective story,’ he said. ‘But, you know, they begin in the wrong place! They begin with the murder. But the murder is the end. The story begins long before that – years before, sometimes – with all the causes and events that bring certain people to a certain place at a certain time on a certain day.’

Treves develops his thought into a kind of spooky insight, second sight, almost a premonition.

He nodded his head gently: ‘All converging towards a given spot… And then, when the time comes – over the top! Zero Hour. Yes, all of them converging towards zero…’ He repeated. ‘Towards zero…’ Then gave a quick little shudder.

Well, there you have the title of the novel and its premise. Instead of starting with the murder, Christie is going to write a murder mystery which beings months, almost a year earlier, to show all the players in the murder, even the tiny walk-on actors, slowly going about their unconnected lives and slowly, steadily converging towards the moment when, by accident, unwittingly and unwillingly, they will all be suddenly linked by the crime – and then, it turns out, become key pieces in the complex investigation which solves it.

So the readerly interest comes from starting with a number of disparate characters, widely dispersed, completely unknown to each other, and watching them, over a period of some months, pursuing their own ends, all unconscious of the fate that awaits them, namely to be entwined in the events surrounding a complicated and premeditated murder.

It’s a clever idea, and it’s cleverly done, until we get to the actual murder which, we discover in the last 30 or so pages, is just part of a larger plan, which is preposterously complicated and unlikely, and then to the solution of the murder, which is just ridiculous.

For most of the narrative this is a gripping and entertaining story until it explodes in wild improbabilities and leaves you feeling embarrassed at wasting your time on such nonsense.

The text is divided into half a dozen big parts, each of which are sub-divided into sections. The first section is titled:

‘Open the Door and Here Are the People’

Presumably that’s taken from the nursery rhyme:

Here’s the church – here’s the steeple.
Open the door and here’s all the people.

As all her readers noticed, Christie based half a dozen or more of her novels on nursery rhymes. I don’t think this particular rhyme has any more resonance or significance than being a handy tag to introduce the people who are going to feature in the story.

Given the dominating idea that the incidents of the murder, the mystery, and its solution are built up to over a period of time, it’s appropriate that each little section is dated, to create a sense of suspense and anticipation. Here are the main sub-sections:

  • 11 January: a miserable man, Angus MacWhirter, has tried to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff but his fall was broken by a tree sticking out of it, then passersby noticed and called the emergency services, which is why he is lying in bed with a broken shoulder feeling sorry for himself
  • 14 February: an unnamed person – male or female – sits in a room scribbling on a piece of paper a plan for the perfect murder: they set the date for the coming September
  • 8 March: Superintendent Battle, known to us for his appearances in previous Christie novels – The Secret of Chimneys (1925), The Seven Dials Mystery (1929), Cards on the Table (1936), and Murder is Easy (1939) – is introduced, fretting about his 16-year-old daughter, Sylvia, who’s gotten into trouble at her boarding school, admitting to a theft which she didn’t, in fact, commit: Battle visits the school to sort it out and take her away
  • 19 April: Nevile Strange, champion tennis player, golfer and mountain climber, argues with his new wife Kay about how he treated his ex-wife, Audrey, who he divorced in order to marry Kay
  • 30 April: introducing old Lady Tressilian, nearly 70 and confined to her bed, and her 36-year-old companion, Mary Aldin: Nevile was raised in her house, Gull’s Point (on a promontory overlooking the sea on the south coast, this will turn out to be important) by her and her now-dead husband, Sir Matthew; Nevile has said he plans to come and stay in September and Lady Tressilian and Mary discuss it: Nevile knows September is when Audrey comes to stay at the house, too, so it will have the effect of placing Nevile, his ex-wife and current wife under one roof
  • 5 May: Audrey, Nevile’s ex-wife, visits Lady Tressilian and insists that Nevile and Kay coming to stay at the same time as her is fine, in fact she welcomes it
  • 29 May: introducing Thomas Royde, a planter in distant Malaya; he was brought up in the same household as Audrey and has always loved her but, ‘a man singularly economical of words’, was too bluff and tongue-tied to ever declare it; now that Audrey’s single, he is packing to leave Malaya and return to England for the first time in 8 years, with a view to arranging a meeting with her and trying his luck again
  • 29 May: old Treves grumbling that the seaside hotel he’s been going to for years, the Marine at Leahead, has been pulled down. Young Rufus Lord suggests he goes to the Balmoral Hotel at nearby Saltcreek, just spitting distance from nice Lady Tressilian’s
  • 28 July: Kay and her pal from pre-marriage days, Ted Latimer, watch Nevile lose a competitive tennis match and conclude that he’s too good a loser
  • 10 August: Lord Cornelly interviews the failed suicide, Angus MacWhirter, and gives him a job in South America

Superintendent Battle is tasked with acting on a case down on the south coast and so heads off for a hotel there. Another skein or filament in the matrix which will draw all these people together…

The next section is titled:

Rose Red and Snow White

All the guests have arrived at Gull’s Point (Nevile, Kay and Audrey) or at hotels nearby (Ted Latimer and Mr Treves) and start interacting in interesting and juicy ways. ‘Rose red and Snow White’ is Thomas Royde’s comparison of passionate red Kay and white, moth-like Audrey.

Among numerous complex interactions between the characters, Mr Treves is invited to dinner (he is an old friend of the family) and tells the story of an old case in which a child killed another with a bow and arrow. This tragic event was agreed to have been an accident, until a local man reported seeing the child practising with a bow and arrow.

Instead the child was given a new name and a fresh start in life. Mr Treves remembers the case, and the child, because they possessed a distinctive physical feature but, having freaked everyone at the dinner table out, he does not go on to disclose it.

Instead the meal ends and the menfolk, Ted Latimer and Thomas Royde walk Treves back to his hotel. Now it had been mentioned quite a few times that Treves has a heart condition and expressly wanted to be given a room on the ground floor so as not to strain his heart by walking up stairs. So he was irritated when the hotel gave him a room on the third floor but insisted they had a functioning life which he could use.

But on this particular evening, when they get to the hotel, they find the life has an Out of Order note hanging on it. Treves grumbles about this but resolves to climb up the stairs, albeit slowly.

Next day all the guests at Gull’s Point learn that he passed away that night, in his room, of heart failure. The authorities attribute it to natural causes but Thomas and Ted discover that the lift was not out of order – so someone who knew about his condition pinned the notice there with malicious intent. But who? Nevile? Kay? Audrey? Did one of them have a quick chance to hang it up?

This and other events create a web of suspicion about all the guests at Gull’s Point.

A Fine Italian Hand…

Treves’s death is upsetting for Miss Tressilian but worse is to come. That evening Nevile has a standup row with her and next morning she is found murdered in her bed, her head stove in by a heavy blunt object. By the bed is discovered a golf club whose head has a horrible mess of blood, flesh and hair attached. Looks like it was the murder weapon and, when the cops arrive and take fingerprints, it is covered with Nevile’s.

Big argument – mutual bitterness – stands to inherit Lady Tressilian’s fortune (when her solicitor reveals the terms of her will): looks like Nevile is the obvious culprit.

It’s now that Superintendent Battle is called in by the local cops who knew he was in the area, on holiday. He takes charge of the investigation and is immediately struck by a number of relevant aspects: chief among these is that the case against Nevile is too easy, as if he’s been set up as the patsy by someone else, someone playing a deeper, cunning game.

This section gets its name from a comment by Inspector Battle to Major Robert Mitchell, the county Chief Constable:

‘There’s a phrase I read somewhere that tickled my fancy. Something about a fine Italian hand. That’s what I seem to see in this business. Ostensibly it’s a blunt, brutal, straightforward crime, but it seems to me I catch glimpses of something else – of a fine Italian hand at work behind the scenes…’ (p.153)

I’ll stop my summary about here. Quite a few more circumstantial details and bits of evidence crop up, release by Christie with skill and amusement in order to draw suspicion away from the too-obvious Nevile. Battle finds himself building convincing cases against pretty much everyone else (Kay, Audrey, Latimer, even solid dependable Thomas Royde).

In addition to being very enjoyable, some of the scenes between Nevile and Kay, or Nevile and his first wife, have a bite and depth usually missing in Christie. We remember that Christie, herself, was involved in a bitter divorce and was badly hurt when her first husband had an affair and left her. You can feel real anguish in some of these scenes.

In the event, the crucial part is played by Angus MacWhirter, a man who has no direct link with any other character in the story. He’s just a random passerby pursuing his own destiny but gets involved in several key elements – the wrong suit is delivered to him by the dry cleaners and in investigation he begins to realise that it might be the crucial clue to Miss Tressilian’s murder which has been widely reported in the local papers. And he just happens to be up on the cliffs looking at where he jumped off a year previously when he encounters Audrey for the first time, who is in a similarly suicidal mood.

Saving her, talking her out of killing herself, wins him to her side, and the clue of the Wrong Suit is his entry into the complex of motives and suspects surrounding the case, unexpectedly turning him into the central figure in solving it.

I won’t say any more except to say that it’s about here, with MacWhirter’s increasing involvement, that the plot spins wildly beyond all probability or believability. Which is a shame, because some of the earlier scenes between Nevile and his hurt women had genuine depth and for a while promised to make this a worthwhile read. But the ending is one of the worst, most ridiculously melodramatic – and then soppily sentimental finales in all Christie.

Cast

One of the chief pleasures of each Agatha Christie novel is the large cast of stock characters. In each book they’re new and yet, somehow, it feels like we’ve met them all before. There’s something immensely reassuring and comforting about the stereotypical characters and the reassuringly predictable views they express.

  • Mr Treves – the solicitor who expresses the novel’s premise, then comes down to stay at a hotel near Lady Tressilian’s – ‘his little wise nut-cracker face’
  • Angus MacWhirter – tried to commit hospital; instead rescued and confined to hospital with a broken shoulder; interviewed and given a job by Lord Cornelly he visits south coast resort just across from Gull’s Point and so, unintentionally, ends up playing a key role in events
  • Miss Amphrey – Sylvia Battle’s headmistress of Meadway school
  • Nevil Strange – ‘a first-class tennis player and all-round sportsman. Though he had never reached the finals at Wimbledon, he had lasted several of the opening rounds and in the mixed doubles had twice reached the semi-finals. He was, perhaps, too much of an all-round athlete to be a champion tennis player. He was scratch at golf, a fine swimmer and had done some good climbs in the Alps. He was thirty-three, had magnificent health, good looks, plenty of money, an extremely beautiful wife whom he had recently married and, to all appearances, no cares or worries’
  • Kay Strange née Mortimer – his new young wife – ‘twenty-three and unusually beautiful. She had a slender but subtly voluptuous figure, dark red hair, such a perfect skin that she used only the slightest make-up to enhance it, and those dark eyes and brows which so seldom go with red hair and which are so devastating when they do’
  • Audrey Strange – Nevil’s first wife, of eight years, who he divorced to marry Kay – ‘She was of
    medium height with very small hands and feet. Her hair was ash blonde and there was very little colour in her face. Her eyes were set wide apart and were a clear pale grey. Her features were small and regular, a straight little nose set in a small, oval, pale face. With such colouring, with a face that was pretty but not beautiful, she had nevertheless a quality about her that could not be denied nor ignored and that drew your eyes to her again and again. She was a little like a ghost, but you felt at the same time that a ghost might be possessed of more reality than a live human being… She had a singularly lovely voice; soft and clear like a small silver bell’
  • Edward ‘Ted’ Latimer – friend of Kay’s from her Riviera days – ‘good-looking in a gigolo kind of way’ according to Mary Aldwin – ‘twenty-five and extremely good-looking… He was dark and beautifully sunburnt and a wonderful dancer’ – ‘His dark eyes could be very eloquent, and he managed his voice with the assurance of an actor. Kay had known him since she was fifteen.
    They had oiled and sunned themselves at Juan les Pins, had danced together and played tennis together. They had been not only friends but allies’
  • Lady Camilla Tressilian – 70, widow of Sir Matthew Tressilian – lives in a grand house – Gull’s Point – at Saltcreek, presumably in Devon – ‘had a striking-looking profile with a slender bridged nose, down which, when so inclined, she could look with telling effect. Though now over seventy and in frail health, her native vigour of mind as in no way impaired’ – snobbishly disapproves of Kay as a marriage-busting gold-digger
  • Mary Aldin – ‘thirty-six, but had one of those smooth ageless faces that change little with passing years. She might have been thirty or forty-five. She had a good figure, an air of breeding, and dark hair to which one lock of white across the front gave a touch of individuality’
    • Barrett – Lady Tressilian’s elderly and devoted maid
    • Hurstall – her the aged butler
    • Mrs Spicer – the cook
    • Alice Bentham – the gooseberry-eyed housemaid
    • Emma Wales – housemaid
  • Thomas Royde – plantation owner in Malaya – brought up in a household alongside Audrey who was an orphaned cousin and he’s always loved her: had a brother Adrian, who died in a car crash – seven years since he’s seen Audrey – ‘A rather thickset figure, with a straight, solemn face and observant, thoughtful eyes. He walked a little sideways, crab-like. This, the result of being jammed in a door during an earthquake, had contributed towards his nickname of the Hermit Crab. It had left his right arm and shoulder partially helpless, which, added to an artificial stiffness of gait’
  • Allen Drake – Royde’s partner in Malaya
  • Lord Cornelly – an insignificant and rotund little man, gives a job to McWhirter
  • Mrs Rogers – proprietress of the Balmoral Hotel
  • Barnes brothers, Will and George – operate the Saltcreek ferry i.e. a rowing boat
  • Mrs Beddoes – guest at the hotel who provides Ted Latimer with an alibi
  • Mr Trelawny – Lady Tressilian’s lawyer – ‘a tall, distinguished-looking man with a keen, dark eye’

The cops

  • Inspector Battle – who’s already appeared in previous Christie novels – The Secret of Chimneys (1925), The Seven Dials Mystery (1929), Cards on the Table (1936), and Murder is Easy (1939) –
  • Mrs Battle – his wife, crying after their daughter got into trouble at school
  • Sylvia Battle – his 16-year-old daughter
  • Inspector James Leach – Battle’s nephew who he stays with in Devon
  • Major Robert Mitchell – the Chief Constable
  • Sir Edgar Cotton – Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard
  • Dr Lazenby – local doctor and police surgeon for the district
  • Detective Sergeant Jones

Generalisations

As I’ve explained in other Christie reviews, her characters are prone to expressing sweeping generalisations, generally about the opposite sex, which, on closer examination, all turn out to be meaningless. The more of them you read, the more empty and rhetorical they become. All they do is indicate the personality of the person who expresses them, as much as their clothes or their behaviour – they have no factual content.

Thus Lady Tressilian is very prone to lofty dismissive generalisations about men which suit her lofty aristocratic character:

‘When I was a girl, these things simply did not happen. Men had their affairs, naturally, but they were not allowed to break up married life.’

Or as here, criticising push young Kay Strange, who she dislikes:

‘The girl pursued him everywhere, and you know what men are!’

But it works the other way. Here’s Nevile talking to Mary:

‘What matchmakers you women always are! Can’t you let Audrey enjoy her freedom for a bit?’

Clearly this generalisation only exists to add force to what is an opinion or wish, which is that Mary would stop interfering. It exists to pad out the wish, not for any truth value.

In a different register, here is a sententious claim by old Mr Treves, delivered in characteristically orotund and long-winded style.

‘It has been my experience,’ said Mr Treves, ‘that women possess little or no pride where love affairs are concerned. Pride is a quality often on their lips, but not apparent in their actions.’

This is meaningless, isn’t it? Empty words, but helping to give the novel a spurious sense of depth or wisdom. Just like Lady Tresillian’s:

‘Nevile, like most men, is usually anxious to avoid any kind of embarrassment or possible unpleasantness.’

Or:

Said Lady Tressilian. ‘Nevile, like all men, believes what he wants to believe!’

This bears no relationship to ‘men’, but is just an indicator of Lady Tressilian’s aloof, dismissive personality. It is the kind of disdainful attitude expected from an aristocratic old widow. In fact this kind of thing is just part of Christie’s method of working through stereotypes and stock characters.

Or take this this claim by Mary Aldin:

‘Lady Tressilian, you know, was fond of discussion. She often sounded acrimonious when she was really nothing of the kind. Also, she was inclined to be autocratic and to domineer over people – and a man doesn’t take that kind of thing as easily as a woman does.’ (p.173)

Does it mean anything to us today, or does it only have meaning in the context of the plot and the argument Nevile has when Lady Tressilian rubbishes his plan to divorce Kay?

The one place where these kinds of sweeping generalisations might have some actual meaning is when the police, who do have an actual broad range of experience and data to work on, make generalisations about what they know. As here, where the two inspectors distinguish between ‘male crimes’ and ‘female crimes’.

Leach shook his head. ‘No, not a woman. Those prints on the club were a man’s. Too big for a woman’s. Besides, this isn’t a woman’s crime.’
‘No,’ agreed Battle. ‘Quite a man’s crime. Brutal, masculine, rather athletic and slightly stupid.’
(p.140)

But even this sounds improbable. I mean, concocted to appeal to the prejudices and values of its day, to reinforce contemporary values, as all her novels do.

Bookish

Of course the entire thing is a very bookish conceit. In real life murders are mostly committed by men on their partners, a lot of random attacks, and some gangland killings. Next to no murders are the result of long-meditated and exquisitely cunning calculations like this one.

It is bookish in the sense that such a preposterous plot could only exist within the confines of an archly self-conscious murder mystery. This self-consciousness is obvious from the start when Mr Treves, after defining the premise of the book, takes a cab back to his comfy London town house, snuggles up in front of a big fire and thinks:

He sat down in front of the fire and drew his letters towards him. His mind was still dwelling on the fancy he had outlined at the Club.

‘Even now,’ thought Mr Treves to himself, ‘some drama – some murder to be – is in course of preparation. If I were writing one of these amusing stories of blood and crime, I should begin now with an elderly gentleman sitting in front of the fire opening his letters – going – unbeknownst to himself – “towards zero…”‘

1940s slang

Cat

MARY: ‘What a cat I am!’

Said Mary, ‘That’s probably plain cat! The girl is what one would call glamorous – and that probably rouses the feline instincts of middle-aged spinsters.’

‘Unless they’re very careful,’ said Kay, ‘I shall kill someone! Either Nevile or that whey-faced cat out there!’ (p.65)

He [Royde] stood and looked at the door that she had slammed so vigorously. Something of a tiger cat, the new Mrs Strange. (p.65)

KAY: ‘Now I suppose you want to go back to that whey-faced, mewling, double-crossing little cat –’ (p.126)

KAY: ‘You fell in love with me and married me and I’m not going to let you go back to that sly little cat who’s got her hooks into you again.’ (p.127)

White

White was sometimes used as an adjective meaning solid, pukka, the right stuff. I don’t think I’ve come across it anywhere else in Christie, except once, here.

Said Nevile slowly. ‘One never does know what Audrey is feeling.’ He paused and then added, ‘But Audrey is one hundred per cent thoroughbred. She’s white all through.’ (p.124)


Credit

‘Towards Zero’ by Agatha Christie was published by the Collins Crime Club in July 1944. Page references are to the 2025 HarperCollins paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews