Reading the Detectives discussion

Please be sure the keep the other thread free of spoilers but go all out here!

I have just started this, but I'm thinking if someone has to die, I hope it is the obnoxious character I have just read about.

This is one of my absolute favourite Christies. The characterisation is SO far above what's generally required of detective stories. In fact, you could eliminate the murders altogether and still have a fascinating novel. (Although oddly enough, I've never liked Christie's non-crime Mary Westmacott novels.)

I could lose hours musing about the different personalities and hence fates of Lucy Angkatell, Henrietta Savernake, Midge, Edward, Gerda, John and the rest. And although the actual motivation for the murder and the subsequent actions for some of the other characters don't quite make sense to me, I enjoy the ride so much that I don't mind.

This was so enjoyable! I read on Wikipedia that Agatha felt she ruined a perfectly good book by introducing Poirot. I can sort of see that, not that I think it was ruined by Poirot of course! But it also didn't really need Poirot to succeed as a mystery. What do you think?

And, Jill, please tell us which obnoxious character you were talking about!

Dr John Christow

Really, you found him obnoxious from the start? hm I just accepted him as a hard-working, yes okay philandering man, the typical doctor in my eyes haha
and Gerda to be too obnoxious for words with her 20 pages long (I know heavy exaggeration) mental debate over whether or not to reheat their dinner.

But I also was quite convinced that it was John who was going to be the murder victim.

I thought she had been made that way by his superior attitude and finding fault with everything.

I also found Dr Christow really annoying, and I'm disappointed that Christie continues to trot out women who are completely subservient to their men, even the strong, smart and capable ones like Henrietta. Perhaps it was a reflection of how Christie herself felt in her relationships, despite her incredible talent and her obvious literary and financial success.

It was also an eye opener when Edward muses on what it must be like for Midge as a working girl, not able to pop out to see the latest art exhibit or drive into the country whenever she liked, but tied to a job to which she was obliged to show up, day in and day out. For some reason that sort of freedom of time for a considerable segment of society had never quite impressed itself on me, despite reading oodles of books set among the moneyed classes. It makes me wonder how people spent their day to day lives, and also to marvel at just how liberating money can be-not just to be able to have things but to be able to have so much time.

Frances wrote: "It was also an eye opener when Edward muses on what it must be like for Midge as a working girl, not able to pop out to see the latest art exhibit or drive into the country whenever she liked, but tied to a job to which she was obliged to show up, day in and day out. For some reason that sort of freedom of time for a considerable segment of society had never quite impressed itself on me, despite reading oodles of books set among the moneyed classes. It makes me wonder how people spent their day to day lives, and also to marvel at just how liberating money can be-not just to be able to have things but to be able to have so much time."

Very interesting topic you bring up. I wouldn't want to have so much leisure time on my hands. Sure visiting the latest art exhibit or a drive to the country or even reading a myriad of books are fun and pleasurable but too much of a good thing will only lead to boredom. I wouldn't mind have a job that I love doing, not struggling financially, and at the same time being able to fulfill the hobbies and activities that I wanted to do -- just enough free time, not limited but not so spaced out either. Just an even balance. I don't envy Midge's work but I do love the fact that she's willing to work and get ahead on her own -- such an independent spirit! -- and not depend on her family's money that's being overly offered to her

Annabel wrote: "This is one of my absolute favourite Christies. The characterisation is SO far above what's generally required of detective stories. In fact, you could eliminate the murders altogether and still ha..."

What I like about the characterization, particularly with John Christow, Christie makes him a complex individual revealing good, noble qualities about him -- mainly with his profession as a doctor, coming up with a treatment to cure a rare disease -- but also a bad side with his philandering and his treatment with his wife Gerda. Christie could've easily created a character that was disgusting and notorious to the core but she creates a three-dimensional flesh and blood figure, not one that leans on a type -- good guy, bad guy.

LovesMysteries wrote: "I wouldn't want to have so much leisure time on my hands. Sure visiting the latest art exhibit or a drive to the country or even reading a myriad of books are fun and pleasurable but too much of a good thing will only lead to boredom. ."

I wonder if that was part of Edward's problem-having a house and an income and not needing to find a purpose made him seem pale in comparison to Christow. It would be interesting to see what effect Midge had on him in their future.

Frances wrote: "LovesMysteries wrote: "I wouldn't want to have so much leisure time on my hands. Sure visiting the latest art exhibit or a drive to the country or even reading a myriad of books are fun and pleasur..."

Well, when Edward proposes the idea of Midge coming over to Ainswick with him, he says :

"I'm a dull dog, I know that, and not much good at anything - I just read books and potter around. But although I'm not a very exciting person, we've known each other a long time and I think that Ainswick itself would - well, would compensate. I think you'd be happy at Ainswick, Midge. Will you come?"

His life doesn't seem full of excitement though he has a lot more leisure time than Midge does. It's almost as if with Midge by his side, there will be some added excitement to Edward's life, especially with her independent streak.

Jill wrote: "I thought she had been made that way by his superior attitude and finding fault with everything."

I agree - Gerda was exasperating because of her total debasement of herself to John, and he was yes, a driven, probably brilliant doctor, but also unfortunately had a God complex (common with doctors, I guess), so not a recipe for a happy marriage! Totally saw John as the victim - I was so afraid Lucy might be the killer, with her bizarre mindset! Poor husband of hers, I got the impression he loved “darling Lucy”, but she had aged him prematurely...

All of the internal monologues and insights were unusual for a Christie, and not what I expect in a Poirot, so I was happier once he arrived on the scene. I guess it’s rather childish, but these Poirot rereads are so much fun because I feel like I know exactly what I’m going to get, and enjoy the ride!

Frances wrote: "I also found Dr Christow really annoying, and I'm disappointed that Christie continues to trot out women who are completely subservient to their men, even the strong, smart and capable ones like He..."

Very true, I was intrigued by this story line as well, and like you, despite all the books I’ve read set among this class, hadn’t realized how cushioned from reality they were by having money and status!

LovesMysteries wrote: "Frances wrote: "It was also an eye opener when Edward muses on what it must be like for Midge as a working girl, not able to pop out to see the latest art exhibit or drive into the country whenever..."

True, leads to boredom and the downfall of many idle aristocratic characters in books, “ennui”!

Yes, I think you describe the perfect blend of obligation and free time, made possible by the freedom of financial burdens. Midge was the only character I really liked!

LovesMysteries wrote: "Annabel wrote: "This is one of my absolute favourite Christies. The characterisation is SO far above what's generally required of detective stories. In fact, you could eliminate the murders altoget..."

True, I’m probably not being fair to John, but the fact that he had Gerda’s worshiping attention, and still wanted to control Henrietta- ugh!

Frances wrote: "LovesMysteries wrote: "I wouldn't want to have so much leisure time on my hands. Sure visiting the latest art exhibit or a drive to the country or even reading a myriad of books are fun and pleasur..."

I did wonder about their future- I was sad when she broke off the engagement, I really wanted midge, at least, to have a happy ending! But I admired her honesty; Edward was such a sad character, his actions were rather melodramatic, but sad, you know? I felt for him, but I think he needs Midge very much - if he and the family home will be enough for her in future, I don’t know.

Maybe they’ll end up on Midsomer Murders, him as one of those dithery old aristocrats knocked off by his long-suffering wife (Midge), with a bow and arrow or something...

This book was a great character study. I really detested John for his treatment of both wife and lover, but the scene at the end with his favorite patient illustrated his finer points and I was sorry he died. I liked Henrietta less for loving him but at least she treated Gerda well in other respects.

Poirot was like a fish out of water (in my opinion). Whatever was he thinking, living in the country! Certainly a nice, balanced, square cottage is not reason enough. It did lead to amusing scenes: his long walk to the front door, only to find the party was outside, with more walking, and not in a pleasant drawing room with a fire and plush chairs.

I guess Midge and Edward will be okay but that suicide attempt worries me.

What about the tea 'party' at the end when Gerda dies? It seemed tacked on to me with Poirot popping up out of the blue to save the day.

Sandy wrote: "What about the tea 'party' at the end when Gerda dies? It seemed tacked on to me with Poirot popping up out of the blue to save the day."

I wondered at this myself Sandy, especially given that Henrietta knew she was being followed, purposely avoided her tail, but somehow missed Poirot's car? Unless she was only watching for the specific car she had seen before, this doesn't seem to make much sense.

I also did not understand what the big fuss about John was all about. You can respect him as a doctor and a professional, but that is a far cry from being in love with (or more accurately obsessed with) him. He might have been a great doctor, but he was a horrible person to those who loved him. I think this is most evident in his relationship with Veronica Cray. He was tormented by her for years, but the moment that she expresses her love and desire for him, somehow that frees him from her grip, and he can toss her aside like so much garbage (but only after sleeping with her of course)!

I did enjoy the romance between Edward and Midge. It appeared early on that it was a bit of settling on both their parts, and it made sense they broke it off. But the fact that Edward was so despairing after Midge's rejection, but somehow carried on after 4 refusals from Henrietta, the sole woman he was supposedly capable of loving, shows his true feelings. And despite Midge being described as plain and solid, she is just want Edward needs to really live.

Jessica wrote: "This was so enjoyable! I read on Wikipedia that Agatha felt she ruined a perfectly good book by introducing Poirot. I can sort of see that, not that I think it was ruined by Poirot of course! But i..."

I had heard this as well Jessica, but I just don't see how this story would have worked without him. While I can't see him living in a cottage in the country (he has decried the failings of nature far too often), it works for me in all other respects. I would agree with this viewpoint in the context that the murder itself is not needed to make this story work.

For me the key to solving this mystery is the staged nature of the murder. This implies a plan. It would be an overly chancy plan for anyone but Gerda to make: It’s clearly part of the plan that the wrong revolver is left at the scene of the crime. What value can this serve except to protect the one who picks it up? And how can protecting the person who picks it up be accomplished without that person knowing that he/she is meant to pick it up, unless it is that person who has made and then carried out that plan.

After reading The Hollow, there are still a few points I do not quite understand. I would feel very grateful if anyone can help me answer the following questions:

1. Did Agatha write any hint at the early stage of this book that foreshadows that John wanted Henrietta to protect Gerda? Or Henrietta literally immediately understood that John wanted her to protect Gerda from the police by saying Henrietta's name at the moment of his death? This latter explanation sounds unbelievable to me!
2. How was Poirot able to find the revolver? Henrietta said that she hid the revolver inside the clay model, which in general police won't destroy an artist's masterpiece. This makes sense to me. But Poirot said, "The fact that you chose to model a horse. The horse of Troy was the unconscious association in your mind." Did Poirot went to Henrietta's studio and immediately realized that the revolver should be inside the horse model once he saw the model? How was Poirot able to recognize that immediately?
3. I still don't understand why near the end of the book, Gerda must (at least tried to) murder Henrietta? (Same concern as Sandy and Tara, in their previous comments)