Agatha Christie - The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd - Episode 1 - Meet The Author That Made The Whodunit What It Is Today!

Agatha Christie - The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd - Episode 1 - Meet The Author That Made The Whodunit What It Is Today!

I’m Christy Shriver, and we’re here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us. 

And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  For the next two episodes, we are going to discuss an author who for me flies under the radar when we think of literary icons.  When you look at the lists of the world’s greatest writers and/or novels, she’s never on then.  Yet, she has sold more books than any other novelist in the world- bar none.  Her books collectively in terms of sales rank only after The Holy Bible and the works of William Shakespeare, totally over 2.3 billion copies sold.  Those kinds of numbers we only talk about when we’re talking about Amazon, Google or the National Debt of entire countries.   

HA! So true. 

She is also the author of the single longest running play ever to play in London’s West End.  The name of that play, The Mousetrap,  opened in London's West End in 1952 and ran continuously until 16 March 2020, when all stage performances were discontinued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Performances of The Mousetrap restarted on March 17, 2021, as soon as state restrictions were lifted.  In case, you haven’t figured out who we’re talking about yet, today we’re discussing the Queen of Crime, Dame Agatha Christie. 

It really and truly is impressive how enormous of a body of work that Mrs. Christie has AND how influential her work has become.  For clarification, why do we say Dame Agatha Christie.  

Of course, Dame is the feminine equivalent of Sir, it’s a honorific title, in her case, she received an Order of Dame Commander of the British Empire in 1971 from Queen Elizabeth II. 

 Oh wow, that sounds very impressive however, at the same time, people, far less successful- non-recipients of Commander titles from Queen Elizabeth I might add, scoff at her and her work.  Many claim she’s not to be taken seriously, her work isn’t sophisticated, it’s clichéd, yada-yada-yada…They say this in spite of all the big numbers.  Garry, beyond the big 2.3 billion in sales, quantify for us in other ways what the data reveals about Dame Christie.  

Sure, first there’s the amount of works she produced.  She famously wrote 66 detective novels, 14 collections of short stories (that’s 150 short stories) as well as over 30 plays.  The most famous, we already mentioned, The Mousetrap.  But there are other numbers to consider, beyond just how much she produced.  Because of the long running status of The Mousetrap, her name has been in the newspapers of the West End every day without fail with the exception of 2020 since 1952 (btw, just in case you are doing the math on the performances, that number is over 25,000 of the Mousetrap- and that is just in London’s West End). .  

She tried to retire at the age of 75, but her books were selling so well, she said she’d give it five more years.  She actually wrote until one year before her death at age 86.   Less famously she wrote six semi-autobiographical, bitter-sweet novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott.   Interestingly enough, it took 20 years for the world to uncover the identity of Mary Westmacott as being the detective icon Agatha Christie.   

That is a funny fact to me, I guess she thought it would ruin her reputation to write sappy books?.  I haven’t read them, but her daughter Rosalind Hicks had this to say about her mother’s romantic books. "They are not ‘love stories’ in the general sense of the term, and they certainly have no happy endings. They are, I believe, about love in some of its most powerful and destructive forms."  They were moderately successful in their own right , even without her name of the cover, and Christie was said to be proud of that accomplishment, but obviously romance wasn’t her forte.  

Beyond just the quantity of work she produced, the amount of it we’ve consumed as a planet is also incredible.  Today her books are translated in over 100 languages, 48 million, at least have watched her movies, including I might add the one that is out right now, Death on the Nile Here's a. numbers fun-fact, in 1948 she became. the first crime writer to have 100,000 copies of ten of her titles published by Penguin on the same day in what is called - A Penguin Million  

Oh wow- I guess that’s like going platinum of something in the music industry.  

I’d say that’s a platinum in a day- usually the term going platinum refers to selling a million over the course of a life time- a single day is crazy..  In terms of dollars, I tried to find a good figure, but I don’t really know.  At the time of her death, it’s estimated she was worth $600 million, but she had incorporated her work in a business, of course, which of course lives on chaired and managed by Agatha Christie's great grandson James Prichard. 

To me, it’s an amazing resume, and I’m not a literary person, so obviously I’m looking at this differently, but I don’t see how anyone could realistically contest that she’s a good writer.  It sounds laughable in the face of so much success- if that’s not good writing, how could we possibly measure it? 

HA!  It shows how much you know- you’d make a perfectly horrible literary snob.  Everyone who’s anyone knows, you can’t go by the views of the lowly general population aka, the box-office!!!   

Oh, well there is that.  But, just for those of us, who don’t know, in all seriousness how can you explain her success away? 

Well, no one is going to do that.  Obviously, but it does boil down to how you define your fiction.  In one sense, we can divide fiction into two broad categories- there’s literary fiction and commercial fiction.  Obviously, commercial fiction is written to be sold.  It’s the reason there are more Marvel movies than I can count on both my hands and toes.  They sell well and are enjoyable to consue.  It’s why there are multiple versions of basically the same Spiderman movie, or double-digit sequels to Star Wars.  Now, there is nothing wrong with any of that that- we love it.  Every bit of that is fun and defines the culture of the world in some sense.   But there is a sense, and this is the English teacher nerd, that some of us find those pieces unsatisfying over the long term- and not worth teaching as a work of art in school.  There are many books we just don’t care to read more than once.  There are many movies and songs we feel the same way about.  They are good but not considered of literary merit because there is no enduring quality to them.  On the flip side, there are other books that speak to man’s condition., that expresses universal truths, that reflect something about the world that resonates inside of us- which is why we can read, watch or listen to them over and over again and still love it.  I would suggest that The Scarlet Letter or Hamlet are examples of that.  When we read them agin, we find something else that perhaps we didn’t see before, of even if we did see it beflre, it satisfies something eternal inside of us to hear it once again.  The knock on Agatha Christie is that they say she’s full-on commercial fiction and there is just nothing universally true about what she has to say.  The critique is that her characters are flat and underdeveloped, even the main ones.   The main character in our book is Hercule Poirot but her other main reoccurring character is a woman named Miss Marple – both are sort of shallow, honestly, featureless except for maybe being kind of annoying.  Christie investigates crime, but she doesn’t really seem all that interested in any of the existential or moral questions surrounding crime-  like what social causes lead people to these actions.  She doesn’t explore any social, psychological or moral issues of any kind in any real obvious way?  

And do you agree with that? 

Well, honestly, a little.  You can’t deny that the characters are flat, and, it’s absolutely true, she doesn’t get into any deep discussions about the nature of man.  But having acknowledged that, I cannot discount the numbers, and so I feel compelled to think about it more deeply.  

Well, and just to add to the confusion, we’ve been poking fun at the hoi polloi here, but from what I read, Christie is popular primarily with higher educated audiences.  She is a preferred writer of the world’s academic elites.   

I know, and she has been since she started writing a far more accomplished litearary critic than myself was a ardent fan of Agatha Christie, the Nobel Prize winner, TS Eliot.  Eliot actually loved all crime fiction, especially Agatha Christie.  He even wrote about it from a critical standpoint.  For TS Eliot, good crime fiction had to follow five basic rules.  Let me read these to you: 

(1) The story must not rely upon elaborate and incredible disguises. 

(2) The character and motives of the criminal should be normal. In the ideal detective story we should feel that we have a sporting chance to solve the mystery ourselves; if the criminal is highly abnormal an irrational element is introduced which offends us. 

(3) The story must not rely either upon occult phenomena, or, what comes to the same thing, upon mysterious and preposterous discoveries made by lonely scientists. 

(4) Elaborate and bizarre machinery is an irrelevance. 

(5) The detective should be highly intelligent but not superhuman. We should be able to follow his inferences and almost, but not quite, make them with him. 

I think I must agree with the Nobel- prize winner.  We do intuitively feel that way about a good crime novel.  So, taking Elliot’s list as the standard or rubric for crime novels, should that have different standards than other books or rather- No insight to life or theme necessary? 

Oh, I don’t know about that.  I think anything that lasts 100 years, as does the book we’re going to discuss- The Murder of Roger Ackroyd,  it turns 100 in June of 2026, - anything people are reading for that long-  must be saying something.  So the mystery the mystery novel is what resonates with our souls in these works? 

HA!  A little irony.  

Yes, but before we get into the nitty, gritty about what makes this book great, oh and make no mistake, it IS considered great. The 2013  The Crime Writers Association claimed The Murder of Roger Ackroyd to be the greatest crime novel of all times- so there you go for a shout out- I haven’t read enough crime novels to contest them.- but before we talk about this particular book- let’s talk about Christie’ life, for just a bit, and bring us up to speed on how this book came about.  She has a bit of a mystery embedded in her life story as well. 

Indeed- but I will say, one thing I do enjoy about the books is that, at least the ones I’ve read, are often set in this very English very Victorian setting.  There’s some fun in that. 

True, you can’t say that Christie didn’t write about what she knew.  She was born in Torquay in 1890..  Torquay is a seaside town on the Southeastern side of the UIK.  I saw one article that called it the. English Riviera.  It’s a resort town, and once even Elizabeth Barrett Browning was sent there to help recover her health.  Her family was an upper-middle class family,  In other words, they were financially well-enough but not limitlessly wealthy.  One interesting to note is that that family did not approve of her learning and didn’t want her to read until she was eight.  It seems the general attitude of the time is that smart girls had trouble finding reliable husbands that wanted them (I’m not going to speak to that thought). 

Oh dear, I would like to say that I find smart women immeasurably attractive.   

Well, thank you, darling.  In her case, there was no holding even little Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller (that’s her maiden name), back.  Apparently, she just picked it up on her own, and eventually her nurse had to confess that Agatha had taught herself to read. 

HA!  Oh my, there’s a rebel.  Well, did they relinquish ahd let her go to school at that point. 

Well, it depends on what you mean by school.  When she turned 15, they sent her to Paris to attend finishing school.  I probably could have used that kind of support myself, honestly.  At Mrs. Dryden’s finishing school she studied singing and piano playing.  This is what Christie herself said about it years later, “I am hazy now as to how long I remained at Miss Dryden’s – a year, perhaps eighteen months, I do not think as long as two years.” 

So, not reading Voltaire or Flaubert.  

Well, maybe she did, but not because she was forced to.  But, reading was not her only rebellious streak.  In 1914, Agatha met, fell in love with and became engaged  on Christmas Eve to the man of her dreams,  A very handsome war pilot named Archie Christie.  Unfortunately, this was not the match her mother had in mind for her.   

What was wrong with him? 

Well, not his looks or personality,  He seemed to have that covered.  His problem was that He had no money.  But they married and a few months later Rosalind, her only daughter was born.  During WW1 Archie went off to war.  Agatha stayed home, trained and worked as a nurse at the local Red Cross hospital in Torquay- and let me add here, this is where she got her start learning so much about drugs- something she became very knowledgeable of and used successfully during her entire career.  In 56 of her novels there are over 200 references to specific, individual drugs.   

So, can we expect that a large number of her characters will get poisoned? 

No, not necessarily,although that IS a thing.  The most commonly dispensed drugs by Mrs. Christie were sedatives.  As you might expect, if someone is always being murdered, you may need to have a supply on hand to calm down or even put to sleep your cast of suspects.  But there are pain relievers, stimulants, blood pressure medicines, barbituates and even antidotes to other poisons.  

 Of course, our book, The Murder of Roger Ackrod has three drugs: liniment for a knee problem, tonic as a stimulant and of course, veronal which is the cause of a lethal overdose early in the story.   

Yes, so after the war,  In 1920, after six rejections, her first real novel finally got published for $25 (pounds),- not a big risk on the part of the publisher. The title of that book was The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and it introduced the world to a 5’4 Belgian refugee who would charm and annoy readers for over 100 years, Hercule Poirot.  It did well, but her breakthrough novel would be her third novel.  It came out in the summer of 1926.  It became a best seller and launched her into a stardom from which she would never return, which is remarkable, but honestly, it’s not the most interesting to happen to her that year.  

I’m not sure how you top becoming a best seller. 

I know, right, but it can be bested!  So, the story goes that the year 1926, in general, starts out a little rough.  Agatha’s mother, who was very dependent on her daughter, died in April- and this was devastating for Agatha.  But, while she was at her mother’s estate with their seven year old daughter, Rosalind, Archie revealed that he had fallen in love with another woman by the name of Nancy Neele, and he wanted a divorce.  Agatha said no.  She was deeply in love with him, and she wasn’t willing to give him up.  Well on December 3 of that same year, Archie informed Agatha that he did not want to be married to her and he wasn’t going to be married to her.  To somewhat reinforce this idea, he told her he was going off for the weekend with Ms. Neele.- which he did.  Apparently, Agatha did not receive this news well..and this is where the mystery begins…..and it does sound quite a bit like a story she would write.  So at 9:45pm, we know that Agatha left the house in her car after having written three letters- one to her secretary Charlotte Fisher, one to Archie and one to Archie’s brother Campbell.  

So far, I feel like I listening to an explanation by Piorot.   

Exactly, and here is where it gets very strange.  Agatha does not return home.  In fact, she will be missing for 11 days.  The next day they find her car crashed in a tree above a local quarry with the head lights still on.  Her fur coat was in the car as well as  a small suitcase and an expired driver’s license.  There was no blood anywhere in the car.   There were no skid marks on the road like you might have expected if she had been driving too fast and there had been an accident.  Finally the gearshift was in neutral, the way it would be if you had been pushing the car and not driving it.   It makes no sense, but Agatha was gone.    Well, the world went nuts.  Numbers very but possibly up to a 1000 police officers were dispatched on four countinents looking for her.  15,000 volunteers, fans, amateur detectives and so forth, joined the hunt. They used airplanes and diving equipment.  Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle joined in- remember that’s Sherlock Holmes.  He took Christie’s glove to his medium for a consultation to see if she could find her. 

I’m guessing no. 

No.  She wasn’t in the afterlife. Everyone around the world was looking for this mystery writer.  When Archie got back from his weekend activity- which quite likely was an engagement party a friend threw for him and Nancy, he found a very different world- than just the unpleasantness of fighting again with Agatha; , now he was a potential murder suspect.  He also found his letter, which curiously he and burned immediately- to this day,  no one has any idea what she wrote in that letter.  His brother, Campbell, got his later, and strangely again, his letter was postmarked on Saturday AFTER Agatha went missing, 

This does sound like Hercule Poirot and I’m starting to need to employ my little gray cells just to keep up.   

Exactly, what secret did Campbell carry that also caused him to dispose of his letter as well.  Everything seemed to indicate that Archie had murdered her.  The police dragged the ponds, searched everywhere, it was in every newspaper on earth… until on December 14th, two musicians report seeing Mrs. Christie at a luxury spa called the Harrogate Hydro.  She had checked into the hotel days before under the name, get this- Mrs. Theresa Neele (Archie’s girlfriend’s last name). 

This honestly sounds exactly like something she would right.  Was she play-acting?. 

We will never know, this mystery, I’m sorry to say, is unsolved.  Christie had told the people at the spa that she had arrived from South Africa. She played pool, she danced, she read mystery novels in the hotel library.  She seemed undisturbed.  And here’s an even stranger turn of events, Archie covered for his wife afer she was busted.  She was immediately accused of abusing an entire country’s police resources over a publicity stunt, but Archie helped dispel this criticism.   He called in two doctors, they interview Agatha, and arrived at the conclusion that Agatha Christie suffered an episode of temporary amnesia.  She stress of her mother’s death, the success of new book and the divorce from her husband led to a nervous breakdown.  The only thing she ever admitted to was havin been in a car crash, but even that is suspect since although she said she bruised her head, no one ever saw any bruises. 

Well, after the bitterness of paying all those police overtime, can we say, all’s well that ends well.? 

For Agatha, yes, but not Archie.  The scandal sold gobs of books, and basically cemented her celebrity, but it also portrayed Archie as a terrible person.  How terrible for a man to do such a thing to his wife and cause the Queen of Crime to have a nervous breakdown.  He got to be the world’s biggest schmuck.  Nancy Neele’s family were so embarrassed they sent her on an around the world trip for ten months trying to get her away from Archie.  It didn’t work though.  Archie and Nancy did get married two years later.  But so did, Agatha.  And her second marriage was to a man who adored her.  They were amazingly compatible and had a wonderful marriage.  He was an archeologist, and they spent time all over the world- hence the setting of several of her books including Murder on the Orient Express.   

So, do you buy Agatha had amnesia. 

Personally, not at all.  I think she got angry, ran off and then things got crazy.  I did read that she was shocked at how the story blew up.  She never imagined that that many police would come looking for her. Do you think it was legit? 

It does seem a little far-fetched.  And to be the world’s most famous detective novelist- I’d say, there’s room to doubt.  But I’m keeping an open-mind- isn’t that what Hercule Poirot would tell us to do.  The question I have is what were in those letters she left Archie and Campbell. 

We need Hercule Poirot, as he would remind us, nothing is ever concealed to him..  He would have gotten to the bottom of it..   

Oh, no doubt- so are we ready to meet Hercule Poirot and open the Murder of Roger Ackroyd?.  

I think so, so let me make an important disclaimer- we are NOT going to spoil the book this episode by telling you who the murderer is, but we will next episode.  So, if you are starting the book now and are listening to this in real time, you have one week…. But you do have a week.  This week we are going to look at the book from the perspective of understanding how Christie was adhering very cleverly to the conventions of what we call a “formal detective. Novel” - otherwise known as the “whodunit”.  Edgar Alan Poe is credited of creating the detective story,  but of course most of us think of Sir Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes and his side-kick Watson as being kind of the iconic example of what this looks like. Agatha Christie basically follows their pattern but takes it from the short story to the longer novel form.  As we might expert per the conventions of the trade, we are going to open up our story in an English country house- think of every clue like movie you have ever seen.   But in this case, there has already been a murder, but not the one from the title.  Let’s read the opening couple of paragraphs. 

Page 1 

We also meet the narrator who is going to walk us through the story, Dr. James Shepperd and his meddling sister Caroline (Caroline, by the way is going to by the prototype for Mrs. Marple, Christie’s other detective.). But since the opening murder isn’t the murder from the title of the book, so we know this isn’t the right murder. 

I want to say that another characteristic of these formal detective stories is that we don’t have emotional connections to any of the characters of the story.  We are not made to feel upset in the least that there has been a murder.  At no point in the story at all are we to feel sad about anything- not when victims die,or get falsely accused or anything.  We don’t feel angry either, in fact, there are no negative emotions at all.  We aren’t even led to find the perpetrator necessarily an evil person.   

You know, I think that may be one of the appeals.  We feel enough anger, guilt or sadness in real life. These books may be relaxing  BECAUSE we don’t have to be emotionally stressed out about anything.  We can just enjoy the process of the puzzle..  We know the murder will get solved, and all will be set aright in the world.  So, it’s just a matter of watching everything unfold. 

True, and although there is fun in trying to guess who did it and following the clues, but I’ll be honest, I didn’t figure out who the murderer was, and I basically never do when I read these thing. I barely even try.  And I don’t think most people do either, or even care to try.   

I know, kind of like when someone tells you a riddle, you’re likely to give it about 30 seconds, then you want them to tell you what the riddle is. 

Exactly.   

Funny, by chapter 2, we meet the man who will be murdered, Roger Ackroyd. King’s Abbot, which is the name of this village, apparently has several very wealthy people- one of which is already dead, Mrs. Ferrars; the other is getting ready to die, Roger Ackroyd- and the crime scene will be Mr. Ackroyd’s house, Fernly Park, of course.  For me, one of the hardest parts of this book is keeping straight in. my mind all of the characters that will necessarily become the suspects. 

That IS the hard part, but that’s one of the most important elements of the entire game.  We have to know who each of these suspects will be, so we can focus not only on whether they have opportunity and means, but if they also have motive.   

And we meet the cast of suspects here at the beginning.  There’s Mrs. Russell, the housekeeper.  There’s the two female relatives, a sister-in-law and her beautiful daughter, Mrs. Cecil Ackroyd and Flora.  We don’t meet but we find out about Ralph Paton, Mr. Ackroyd’s adopted son who seems to have a reputation for being irresponsible with money and women but who will be the heir to the fortune.  When our narrator, Dr. Shepperd, meets Roger Ackroyd on the road, Ackroyd is extremely upset.   

Let’s read that encounter. 

Page 11 

And that is an example of Christie’s writing style that I find so charming.  The narrator takes us into his confidences and these little aside comments to us, as readers, are charming and endearing.  We find ourselves as we read the story trusting Dr. Shepperd’s understanding of the murder, for one reason precisely because he takes us into his confidence  

True, although I will say, another reason we trust him is because the detective Hercule Poirot takes him so often into his confidence.  Dr. Shepperd goes everywhere and helps with the investigation from start to finish.  He’s kind of like Watson to Sherlock Holmes.   

True, and we see that this cast of characters looks remarkably like a lot of them from this Golden Age and in fact, they are the stock characters from many a Clue game.  We will have the damsel in distress, (who we have already met with Flora).  We’ll have the house staff who are always keeping secrets thus making them suspicious. Besides Miss Russell, who we’ve met there’s also Geofrey Raymond, who is Roger Ackroyd’s secretary, Ursula Bourne who is a house maid, and John Parker, the Butler. 

Of course- the Butler in the library with the Candle-sticks.  HA!! To which we say, is that your guess.  For those of you who don’t know, that’s how you play the game of Clue. 

So true.  And so when we get to chapter five and Dr. Shepperd gets the call to come over to the house go inspect the body because there has been a murder, we already have all of suspects lined up and ready to go. 

Well, and although this next feature isn’t in a game of Clue, We can’t overlook the buffoon policemen who will be foils to our eccentric but brilliant detective.  Inspector Davis who comes over initially and then later on Inspector Raglan our of members of the law enforcement community..   

Oh, and let’s not fail to mention the silent almost brooding Major Hector Blunt- our visiting military man, who although never is a suspect in this particular murder, has an important role in the story, none the less, because he’s secretly in love with Flora, and this would not be a classic detective story without a romantic interest somewhere. 

You know, it’s almost like we’re not reading a drama at all.  In some ways these books feel like sit-coms.   

That is it exactly.  And I want to make this point, a formal detective novel of this tradition, is not a tragedy at all, but in fact, meets the criteria of what we would call a comedy.  If you remember from our series on Romeo and Juliet, we talked about the difference between a comedy and a tragedy. A comedy ends in marriage and a tragedy in death.  From a literary stand point, an Agatha Christie novel, and those that are modeled after hers, are popular precisely because they are comedies of manners cloaked as tragedies (it’s a trick).  The characters serve comedic purposes- not thematic ones.  That’s why it’s okay that they are pretty much the same stock characters in every story.  The story would be totally different and if fact would be a completely different genre, if we did not have every assurance, life would end well.  Let me explain what I mean,  Recently, Lizzy and I watched together the Netflix movie, The Woman in the. Window.  Lizzy had just finished reading the book  by AJ Finn and had really liked it.  It’s also a murder mystery, but totally different in purpose and genre.  In The Woman in the Window,, the characters are serious, They struggle with anxiety and depression.  The characters themselves are meant to be deeply analyzed- that’s the entire point of it.  Finn is commenting on issues regarding mental health.  That is not Christie’s purpose at all.   It would take away from the fun really if she went that direction.  In comedies, only the unlikeable characters ever really suffer anything terrible.  And Roger Ackroyd,, although we don’t get to know him very well, is not a likeable person.  He’s selfish, stingy and is forcing his son Ralph and Flora to get married against their wills (in fact, we find out towards the end, that Ralph is actually already secretly married to the parlormaid) and this makes Ackroyd lose his mind.  In chapter six, Dr. Shepperd describes Ackroyd of having a “choleric temper”- and although it’s never good to murder people because they are disagreeable, it’s worth pointing out that Christie doesn’t go to any trouble to make Ackroyd likeable in any way.  The point being, we don’t really care that Ackroyd’s been murdered really.  There’s nothing tragic about it.   

And so the fun of every chapter is following Hercule Poirot around, interviewing all the witnesses and seeing if we can figure out before he does who the murderer is.  Who has the most compelling reason to do it, and it will turn out that almost everyone stands to gain something from his death. 

Exactly, except we don’t figure it out- and if Christie’s success is any indication I don’t think almost anyone in the last 100 years figured it out before Poirot.  During my second reading of the book, the one where I read it after already knowing who killed Roger Ackrod, I realized that Poirot had the murder solved well before- well, at least before chapter 17.   

I want to revisit that, but before we do, let’s flesh out a little our heroic detective.  This isn’t the first book where she introduces Poirot, but I was surprised to see that he was retired.  I didn’t expect that precisely because I knew she wrote 66 novels, and I had heard of this funny little man, as he is described.   

And he IS a funny little man- obnoxious and ridiculous.  And the way Christie introduces him is funny too.  Hercule moves into the house next door to Dr. Shepperd and his sister Caroline live.  They are both unmarried.  James is a doctor, and Caroline’s main occupation is local purveyor of gossip- something she seems to conduct through a very sophisticated network of servants and friends.  Dr. Shepperd acts annoyed by it, but he also seems very impressed with her mad-dog skills.  Before we meet Poirot, we are led to believe by Dr. Shepperd that the mysterious neighbor next door must a hairdresser as evidenced by his perfectly groomed mustache.   

That mustache is what he is most famous for- that and his egg-shaped head- whatever that is.  According to Christie, he was inspired by a Belgian refugee she saw coming off of a bus after the first World War.  Of course, all of the inspiration was external, and she never met the gentleman personally, but she took that inspiration and created a short man, with a distinguished mustache, a solid head of black hair and an egg-shaped head.  She wanted him to have as she called it a “grandiloquent name”- hence Hercule and she wanted him to be very orderly, brilliant but vain.  After a while, she says she came to be resentful that she was stuck with him since she didn’t like him very much. 

Well, and funny enough, at one point in her career, she killed him off, but her publishers didn’t let her publish that book. 

What, she killed Hercule? Did it ever get published? 

Oh, it eventually did, of course, we’ll save that story for next week.   

Oh okay, something to look forward to, but back to our book, if you are a Christie fan, you’ll know immediately that the mysterious hairdresser is none other than our sleuth.  If this is your first Christie book, you may not but it doesn’t matter.  By chapter 8, he’s in the mix having been hired by Flora to figure out who killed her uncle.  

By chapter 6, we’ve also introduced a rogue stranger with a mysterious accent, who we know from years of experience with other detective novels and movies, cannot possibly be the murderer- he’s too much of a ruffian.  We all know that our criminal, although technically a criminal by virtue of having murdered someonw, will have no actual noticeable criminal behaviors.  In fact, he likely will have impeccable manners, just like everyone else in the story.We won’t experience any bloody murder scenes; there will no harsh language, the investigation will be polite and the world “unpleasantness” will be the euphemism of choice to describe anything from the dagger in the neck to the awkward questioning  

Well, speaking of the daggar to the neck, I’m assuming that a spectacular weapon of choice is also a characteristic of the formal detective story. 

OH, it absolutely is. 

And ours, does not disappoint- we have a Tunisian one of a kind dagger.  Let’s read about it.  

Page 64-65 

And of course, the details are the glorious part.  In fact, that’s one reason I never even attempt to solve these murders.  It tires me out to weed through all of the details.  There is a diagram of the study, the specifics of when Dr. Shepperd left, when he was called back, when Flora last heard from her uncle, where everyone was at exactly the time of the murder, the phone call, the foot print, the in and out of the garden house over and over again- all of it laid out before us with consummate British precision.  The pieces of the puzzle are completely spread on the table ready to be ordered again.  The universe that Christie creates, some have called claustrophobic because it’s small and contained, but that’s what’s great about it.  It’s knowable, ordered, and most importantly benevolent.  These people are good- likely even the murderer.  Of course, they are trying to get away with little lies and deceptions because Victorian society is very demanding, but even the murderer is not going to want to leave willingly.  He or she will only leave as a final resort.  This world is rational and sensible and one where even we as readers find comfort.   

Well, from a historical perspective, I find that extremely important.  If you recall, England or rather Europe in general was nothing ljke what you described.  It was not predictable or benevolent.  People were being exiled; wars were raging, governments were in upheaval; poverty was rampant- what a wonderful escape and promise of possibility- a well ordered upper class environment where the rules apply and if you break them- you get exiled.  I would say the rigid formality came across as comforting and peaceful- not boring and predictable.   

I guess you’re right.  The book is really best read twice, if you want my opinion.  At least it was for me.    It’s a very carefully crafted puzzle, so when you read it the first time, you can enjoy it as a it’s a straightforward whodunnit- but when you read it the second time knowing who the murderer is, it’s even more interesting to watch how she deceived you.  Nothing is every hidden, but her duplicitous way of writing deceives us from start to finish, and it’s delightful to watch her do it.   

So, Christy, getting us back to the difference between commercial fiction versus literary fiction, you said you think there is a theme in her work?  Without giving away the murderer can we speak to it this episode? 

Yeah, I think we can- there are several, but one I think does speak to this idea of finding value in a well-ordered world.   One of the most memorable scenes in the entire book is chapter 16.  When I read it the first time, I had no idea why it was included.  For most of the book, we’re following Poirot around, looking at clues, interrogating witnesses, but chapter 16 is different. Also, it’s pretty much the center physically of the book.  Sheppard and his sister Caroline and spend an evening playing Mah jong with local friends (a retired Army officer, Colonel Carter and a Mrs. Gannett)- neither of which have anything to do with anything, at least as far as I can tell.  They enjoy coffee, cake, sandwiches and tea and then sit down to play. The main purpose of the evening really is to collect gossip, but sitting around and doing that would be vulgar.  And no one in King’s Abbot is vulgar, so an exotic game from the Far East is a wonderful excuse.  As they go through the hand, we realize in some ways playing this game is a lot like living life.  They talk about how each person expresses something about themselves by how they play.  They can express weakness or strength, an ability to perceive, an ability to make decisions.  Sometimes the hand you are giving is a wreck; sometimes you get a winning hand effortlessly.  At one point, Caroline very astutely yet unconsciously comments that Miss Gannett isn’t playing like she thinks she should.   “   Garry, do you know how to play mah jong? 

NO, I really don’t.  It looks fascinating and of course I’ve seen it featured in several movies, just from looking at the external features it appears to be a little bit like rummy except with tiles. 

I don’t know either.  But at this point in the game, Caroline points out that Miss Gannett’s hand wasn’t worth going mah Jong over.  Miss. Gannett responds to Caroline’s criticism by saying, “Yes, dear, I know what you mean, but it rather depends on what kind of hand you have to start with, doesn’t it? Caroline replies, “You’ll never get the big hands if you don’t go for them.”  To which Miss Gannet replies, “Well, we must all play our own way, mustn’t we? After all, I’m up so far.”  

This goes on and on for an entire chapter- the women gossiping, attention going in and out.  Let’s read the part where the finally get to the end of the game and someone wins.  

The situation became more strained. It was annoyance at Miss Gannett’s going Mah Jong for the third time running which prompted Caroline to say to me as we built a fresh wall: ‘You are too tiresome, James. You sit there like a deadhead, and say nothing at all!’ ‘But, my dear,’ I protested, ‘I have really nothing to say that is, of the kind you mean.’ ‘Nonsense,’ said Caroline, as she sorted her hand. ‘You must know something interesting.’ I did not answer for a moment. I was overwhelmed and intoxicated. I had read of there being such a thing as The Perfect Winning – going Mah Jong on one’s original hand. I had never hoped to hold the hand myself. With suppressed triumph I laid my hand face upwards on the table. ‘As they say in the Shanghai Club,’ I remarked – Tin-ho – the Perfect Winning!’ The colonel’s eyes nearly bulged out of his head. 

And so there you have it, Dr. Shepperd has been tight-lipped the entire book which for us as his partners sometimes can get frustrating.  He always knows more than he says, but he’s a medical man and feels compelled to keep people’s confidences until this night.  Right after his big win, he is so exhilarated, he blurts out to everyone everything Poirot had told him the previous day about the ring- a specific ring Poirot had kept entirely out of the sight but had revealed only to Dr. Sheppherd now Dr. Shepperd is getting the world’s biggest gossips and the news will for sure spread all over town.   

And so, where’s the theme?  I don’t see it.   

Well, I’m not English, so I’m going to make a disclaimer that this could be a very American interpretation, but it seems to me that Christie is making a commentary on how society functions best- Mah Jong is a communal game with strict rules- but it is indeed about community- very much like the society she has built for us her readers.  Although Shepperd claims all they do in King’s Abbot is gossip, we see through every chapter that that is not true.  There is a very active local pub that everyone goes to.  They garden; they visit.  They have true community.  And yet there are indeed winners and losers, Miss Gannett isn’t good at mah jong because she’s too independent or impulsive. Shepperd has a bit of good luck, but he also lets  it get to his head and blurts things out at the end that he probably shouldn’t have.  At least he regrets it at the beginning of the next chapter.   I don’t know, I just think she may be advocating to the rest of us who may find rules stifling, the traditional ways boring, or the conventions cumbersome, that there just might be something of value in the vintage- something comforting and enjoyable in a well-ordered and fair universe.  

But like I said, that’s just one thought.  And it is most definitely arguable.  

Okay- thanks for listening…

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.