Reading the Detectives discussion

Enjoy your spoilers here!

Overall I liked this book (its a pretty high bar for a Poirot to really disappoint me as he is my first love when it comes to fictional detectives). Good characters, the loveable Japp, and lots of twists. Christie seems fond of the "Poirot is the only one who believes there has been a murder" storyline, when many others assume suicide, accident, or natural causes. Readers should all know by now that Poirot is always right!

The low point for me was the ending. Having watched the TV version a few times prior to reading the book, its tough to say whether or not I would have been able to solve the crime on my own (although my generally passive reading style often means I don't figure out the killer unless its very obvious). But putting all that aside, when the detective has to spend 20 minutes explaining when and how things were done, it really makes you believe only Poirot could figure it out. I do admire Christie for often choosing the least obvious/suspected person to be the guilty party though.

Tara wrote: "Overall I liked this book (its a pretty high bar for a Poirot to really disappoint me as he is my first love when it comes to fictional detectives). Good characters, the loveable Japp, and lots of ..."

I agree - I am a fairly passive reader as well, just going along with the flow, enjoying looking over Poirot’s shoulder! But Christie always gets me with a plot twist (or two) at the very end - I love that about her books.

Plenty of suspects, though I'd never have guessed the murderers. I tried and tried to work out what the buckle /stockings could indicate, but my little grey cells were not working!

I thought that this was going to be a bore with all the talk of spies and international finance, but Christie fooled me completely. This was a reminder of the joy of reading a new Christie.

Bicky wrote: "I thought that this was going to be a bore with all the talk of spies and international finance, but Christie fooled me completely. This was a reminder of the joy of reading a new Christie."

Very true, you summed it up perfectly!

I was disappointed in this book, especially after Sad Cypress. I felt that Christies had to explain the resolution so completely because it didn't fall naturally from the rest of the story. The murder means seemed contrived, unnecessarily complex and unlikely to have gone so smoothly. It involved a lot of closely timed dental appointments when I have trouble finding one at a convenient time.

On the plus side, Poirot's joy on leaving the office showed his human side and his interactions with Japp was a treat.

I enjoyed this one, but miss the little summaries of characters the old paperbacks used to have-if I have to read a couple of chapters at a time it is often hard to get the characters sorted and i keep having to flip back.

I like the use of multiple hidden identities-both the dentist and Miss Sainsbury Stale-and the little clues around the shoes and stockings and buckles. I also like the idea of more or less worthy humans (particularly when Poirot has the internal debate of just letting Frank Carter put a noose around his own neck) and the discussion at the end to this effect

Yes, I thought that was an interesting point - the idea of more or less worthy people.

@sandy, I feel that way too. A lot could have gone wrong.

Even up until the very end I wasn't sure what had happened.

Also, there seen to be some loose ends, I can't work out, were Raikes and Barnes both in on it too?

I agree with all the above! I tried to sleuth along with Poirot but doubt I actually had all the information to solve it myself. I was convinced the shoe buckle meant swapped identities, never once did I think oh right the one pair was new...and the other one old...

I think neither Raikes nor Carter had actually anything to do with it at all.

I loved the scenes with Barnes and him walking away chuckling to himself that he was sure he hadn't had a wife. Do you think Poirot had already figured iut he was the infamous Chapman?

This is the first “Reading the Detectives” book I’ve read that I had previously read, and it prompted me to ask what people think of re-reading detective novels? It is said that one can enjoy reading Jane Austen’s “Emma” at least twice: The first time one reads it with the same perspective as Emma; unaware of what’s going on behind the scenes and pleasantly surprised, with Emma, at the end. The second time one can enjoy reading the novel with the same perspective as those who are acting behind the scenes making arrangements that are ultimately pertinent to Emma, who thinks SHE’s the great arranger! There’s something similar with detective novels in cases where the plot is still remembered by the reader the second time round, and the reader is able to enjoy observing the various relevant clues and red herrings flow by. Then there’s re-reading detective novels for which one has a vague memory of some aspects, but not enough to remember the correct solution until some way through the book; thus one can enjoy rediscovering the solution.
Quite a few of Christie’s detective novels have such a big plot device that the solution is unforgettable, e.g. “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd” and “Murder on the Orient Express”. Those are typically my favourite first reads. However their memorable nature means that I will never be able to enjoy rediscovering the solution.
In the case of “One, Two, Buckle my Shoe”, it was a long time since I had read it and all I had was a vague memory that Poirot’s encounter with a lady’s buckled shoe early on in the book had significance. On that basis I thought I would rediscover the solution before the end of the book, but that was not to be the case! On the one hand I had the pleasure of only properly finding out the solution when it was revealed by Poirot at the end. On the other hand, I agree with the general view regarding the complex nature of the double-twists etc.; such that I was fooled all over again!

Nick wrote: "This is the first “Reading the Detectives” book I’ve read that I had previously read, and it prompted me to ask what people think of re-reading detective novels? It is said that one can enjoy readi..."

I think if a mystery has a good enough plot and character development, it can be enjoyed over multiple readings. But that may depend on whether or not you are a passive reader, just going along for the ride, or a more active one who is intent on solving the crime. If you are the latter, I could see how a re-read wouldn't hold the same enjoyment as that first discovery. And Then There Were None is another title that has a memorable, unusual ending, but it so taut and suspenseful, that it can hold your attention again and again.

Nick wrote: "This is the first “Reading the Detectives” book I’ve read that I had previously read, and it prompted me to ask what people think of re-reading detective novels? It is said that one can enjoy readi..."

I re-read books from all genres - if they are well written, there will be a lot that can be gleaned from a second (or even a tenth) re-reading. I think that started when I was young, and would gallop through a new book so quickly concentrating on the plot and the eventual resolution that only on a slower second read could I appreciate the language, the characters, even the humour.

I do have a good memory for plots and even for individual scenes, but that doesn't stop me enjoying a re-read, just as I would listen to a piece of music more than once, or watch the same film again.

Tara & Rosina. Thanks for your comments. I’m somewhere between active and passive when it comes to attempting to solve the mystery myself; pondering it a bit without letting that aspect completely dominate. I do think that the potential for solving a fair-clued detective novel oneself makes such novels distinct from other novels, music etc. for those who read the novel actively in that sense. Nevertheless I completely agree with you both that one can enjoy re-reading a well written detective novel again, such as one can do so with music, gaining an extra appreciation of things missed the first time around, etc.. I particularly find that to be true of great classical music, but one can also appreciate the finer points of “composition” of the best detective novels.

A further thought on appreciating the “composition” of a detective novel: The sonata form in classical music varies in detail but typically involves a first subject (tune) in one key followed by a second subject in a second keys. Both subjects are developed in various ways such variations and key changes until they’re brought together at the end. Often comedies have a similar structure (the Yes Minister/Prime Minister sitcoms were almost always in this form). But detective novels often have separate threads that develop and then come together at the end.

One more thought then I promise to desist: In most classic fiction we already know how it’s going to end. Whether it’s a Shakespearean comedy or “The Importance of Being Ernest” we know the right romantic pairings will end up together. Likewise we know that a tragedy is going to end up in tears. Nevertheless dramatic tension arises because we are in a state of anticipation until everything is resolved. Likewise even when we know “whodunnit” in a detective novel we are are still in a state of anticipation until they are finally revealed. Of course Agatha Christie and others would sometimes play with our sense of romantic anticipation as a plot device ....!

How did the Blunts know Amberiotis would visit the dentist that day and how were both of them able to have advance bookings for that day?

Like many of us, I have reread Christie multiple times but only after a gap of some years. Of course, I have never reread Roger Ackroyd or Orient Express.

On the other hand, I have reread some fantasy books immediately.

Bicky - I may be wrong but I don’t think the answer to your question is ever spelt out. However, one can speculate in line with what we have been told: We know that Alistair Blunt had had an appointment with Morley shortly before because we’re told that his filling had been prepared at a previous appointment. It’s possible that when booking the subsequent filling he coincidently saw that Amberiotis had an appointment at twelve and took his opportunity, booking his filling for 11:30 and getting Gerda to subsequently book an emergency appointment in the name of Miss Sainsbury Seale, saying she had pain, to be fitted in between His and Amberiotis’ appointments. Obviously the whole plot relies upon the critical coincidence that blackmailer and blackmailed share the same dentist and blackmailed has the first of two operations a convenient time ahead of blackmailer!

For great pieces of art, whether it be film, music, or books, the journey is just as, if not more important than the destination. Even if I know the outcome of a story, somehow I still hold my breath hoping this time it will end the way I want. I think what makes Christie so special is that while the solving of the puzzle mystery is at the core of her stories, it isn't the only element. If she lacked the ability to tell a good story in general, she wouldn't be the most widely read author in the planet.
There is also something to be said about the joys of a second, third or hundredth re-read of a great book. The Lord of the Rings is one of those books you could probably read a thousand times, and get something new out it every time. In terms of mysteries, I enjoy the experience of the re-read once I know the outcome so that I can re-discover the clues that were laid out. In some ways you appreciate the art of how the puzzle was crafted even more so in this context than when it is all fresh and unknown.

Nick wrote: "Bicky - I may be wrong but I don’t think the answer to your question is ever spelt out. However, one can speculate in line with what we have been told: We know that Alistair Blunt had had an appoin..."

Was it the real or fake MSS who recommended the dentist to Amberiotis? I know it was the real one who originally gave the tip-off to him that led to the blackmail scheme, but I am blanking on how long the fake was parading around as her. Either way, it makes much more sense if it was the fake MSS, as that would allow for the set-up more easily than a coincidence does, and I would think the appointment was made within a short period of time as the pain was acute.

Hi Tara - I agree that the fake MSS recommending Mr. Morley to Amberiotis would avoid the coincidence I suggest above. However, I’m not sure how this could come about naturally. It would be natural for the real MSS to recommend Morley while they dined together at the Savoy and real MSS perhaps noticed Amberiotis picking tenderly at his teeth; hence my suggestion. Fake MSS subsequently contacting (not meeting for fear of giving herself away) Amberiotis to recommend a dentist (with no reason to know that Amberiotis had a teeth problem) would seem unnatural. Perhaps between us we’ve noticed an imperfection in a plot by the great Agatha Christie!
In various places it’s made clear that real MSS went to visit “Mrs. Chapman” about a month before the day Amberiotis and Morley died, and never left; i.e. real MSS died about a month before Amberiotis and Morley. Mrs. Chapman promptly leaves 45 King Leopald Mansions with real MSS left dead in the box, removing her clothes etc. from the last hotel that real MSS actually stayed in. Fake MSS subsequently turns up at the Glengowrie Court Hotel a little over a week before the day Amberiotis and Morley die, leaving Glengowrie that evening after being interviewed by Poirot & Japp.

P.S. Tara - I agree about re-reading and appreciating the art. I, also, have found that to be the case with The Lord of the Rings, for example. And I’ve generally found that I appreciate Christie’s supreme art as a teller of fair-clued detective novels on re-reading. In this case I’ve generally appreciated the art on a re-read. One idea about what makes great art is when significant complexity is revealed to have an underlying unity and that’s definitely a feature of Christie’s plots. In this case Christie is a little more complex than she can be and the solution does have unity; however, we appear t9 have identified a loose end that she doesn’t explicitly clear up.

Sandy wrote: "I was disappointed in this book, especially after Sad Cypress. I felt that Christies had to explain the resolution so completely because it didn't fall naturally from the rest of the story. The mur..."

I agree, Sandy, I was disappointed too - the plot seemed rather weak and over-complicated with all that explanation at the end, and to be honest I found the solution a bit boring. I also think Christie is too fond of fake identities.

I also thought there were too many characters to keep track of. I did enjoy Poirot's character in this book, though.

Nick wrote: "P.S. Tara - I agree about re-reading and appreciating the art. I, also, have found that to be the case with The Lord of the Rings, for example. And I’ve generally found that I appreciate Christie’s..."

The fact that we are trying to explain a crucial plot point is not typical for Christie. One or two sentences in the book would have been sufficient with a few minor changes.