Reading the Detectives discussion

Enjoy all the spoilery secrets here after reading the book.

I liked this one alot. I whittled it down to two suspects, but just couldn't make up my mind which it was. I picked up on the cousin George saying that Susan was easily distinguishable from the back, and for some reason I didn't want to dismiss that, thinking that Miss Gilchrist(?) was too obvious. I do so love it when Christie manages to outwit me.

Jill wrote: "I liked this one alot. I whittled it down to two suspects, but just couldn't make up my mind which it was. I picked up on the cousin George saying that Susan was easily distinguishable from the bac..."

She usually outwits me, but I sure enjoy the ride! I’m trying to do better, on these group rereads, and pick up on clues, try and form a theory - but I sometimes wonder, am I just remembering a previous read or watching the Suchet dramatizations, or did I truly figure it out! Either way, I always look forward to my monthly Christie fix. I missed the group rereads of the early Poirot mysteries, I want to reread those as well.

I, of course, didn't come anywhere near to solving this one and have just learned to sit back and enjoy the unfolding without trying to figure it out. What I found surprising is that such a large family, in a small enough part of the country in which everyone seemed able to drive to Cora's house and back in the course of the day, would not have seen each other for so many years. (I realize that this is necessary for the plot, but still...) Particularly with a big mansion at the heart of the family, would there not have been Christmas gatherings, or weddings, or funerals (surely for Mortimer!) in which Cora would have seen everyone? If there had been a falling out or ill-will, perhaps, but this just seemed benign neglect.

What could Susan possibly have seen in Gregory Banks? Do we ever learn anything attractive about him?

Frances wrote: "I, of course, didn't come anywhere near to solving this one and have just learned to sit back and enjoy the unfolding without trying to figure it out. What I found surprising is that such a large f..."

Very good point, that was odd - about them never seeing each other. And I wondered if Susan was one of those motherly types, who wanted a husband she thought needed caring for, but then she seemed almost ferocious about him! So maybe she wanted a weaker partner she could control? I really couldn’t get a handle on those two.

I am interested that Christie told a blatant untruth in this novel - I wonder if it is the first time? In the family tree the members of the family at the funeral are shown in capital letters. Amongst these is Cora. We now know that Cora was not there at all, she was drugged in her bed in her cottage. To me, a fascinating feature o fthis novel.

Robin wrote: "I am interested that Christie told a blatant untruth in this novel - I wonder if it is the first time? In the family tree the members of the family at the funeral are shown in capital letters. Amon..."

Ooh, well-spotted!

Did anyone else wonder that Maude hadn't completely lost patience with Timothy? Maternal instincts could explain looking after an actual invalid, But Timothy was so clearly a hypochondriac I can't believe a capable woman like Maude could continue to love and be so pushed around like him.

Robin wrote: "I am interested that Christie told a blatant untruth in this novel - I wonder if it is the first time? In the family tree the members of the family at the funeral are shown in capital letters. Amon..."

Good one, I totally missed that - misdirection, I guess we could call it?!

Frances wrote: "Robin wrote: "I am interested that Christie told a blatant untruth in this novel - I wonder if it is the first time? In the family tree the members of the family at the funeral are shown in capital..."

I wondered about that, as well! She was clearly a competent, handy, tireless household manager and caregiver, why did she put up with him? That would make a good mystery, as well, when she finally snaps and does Timothy in - I think she’d plan it meticulously.

Susan in NC wrote: "Robin wrote: "I am interested that Christie told a blatant untruth in this novel - I wonder if it is the first time? In the family tree the members of the family at the funeral are shown in capital..."

Misdirection is probably a better way of putting it. But, I think that we could see a lot of misdirection that gives the wrong impression, without being untrue? I'm going to keep this in mind when reading her other novels.

Of course one should abhor the murderer, and Poirot usually does so. But I can sympathise with her in this novel. Miss Gilchrist is one of those women with expertise who, because of lack of education and poverty is bound to a foolish woman, who has had it all: a wealthy childhood, a marriage she saw as romantic, a joyous widowhood revelling in having been an artist's wife. She pontificates about art, about which she knows very little, and Miss Gilchrist has to endure this, despite her superior knowledge. What a terrible life she must have lived. But no, Poirot is admonishing me, so I had better hastily conform and agree murder is really uncalled for.

I enjoyed this one a lot and never guessed the murderer. I never think role playing would work in real life but this time is more believable as they hadn't seen each other for 30ish years. I just knew those wax flowers were important as they were mentioned often but never caught on to why.

My favorite scene was Poirot's agent filling him in on the suspects comings and goings, where he addresses all his comments to various items in the room. He gets as close to meeting his eyes as Poirot's shoes. So amusingly written!

I thought the solution to be so totally unrealistic as to be unbelievable. Maybe not everyone would recognize Cora, but at least one or two would do more than a double take.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I thought the solution to be so totally unrealistic as to be unbelievable. Maybe not everyone would recognize Cora, but at least one or two would do more than a double take."

I think the only people that had seen her beyond infancy were the two sisters-in-law.

The unrealistic part for me was Miss Gilchrest using a hatchet.

I agree. The hatchet and Gilchrest just didn't go together

I think that Christie was telling us about the way in which society looks at older women, as well as providing us with a good murder mystery. As social commentary on society's dismissal of differences between older women, this novel is a real gem. I am ready to critise Christie for her sexism on other occasions, so felt ready to defend her on this one.

How old is older? I thought these were very much middle-aged women. I pictured Cora as no more than very early 40s.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "How old is older? I thought these were very much middle-aged women. I pictured Cora as no more than very early 40s."

Cora was the youngest sibling and the oldest had just died at 68. I think it was mentioned that no one had seen her since she had married 30 years ago. So I would guess she had to be somewhere in her fifties.

But don't I remember that she was more than 20 years younger than the others?

Anyway, as a definitely older woman, I'm having a hard time picturing her as an older that Christie would have felt the need to defend.

You could well be right. My copy is returned to the library so I have no way to check.

Women did seem to be considered old at a much younger age in these GA books.

Sandy wrote: "Women did seem to be considered old at a much younger age in these GA books."

I think you're right about that, and in society in general that long ago. Still, Christie herself was 63 when this was first published. Just her continuing to write and publish was a refutation of the way society should have been looking at women aging.

Sandy wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "How old is older? I thought these were very much middle-aged women. I pictured Cora as no more than very early 40s."

Cora was the youngest sibling and the oldest had jus..."

She is 49, as mentioned in the text. My reference to 'older' is not meant to say Cora is elderly, just older as in not young as in 'the younger generation' as referred to by 'old' Lanscombe. I think your point about age being seen rather differently in this period is so right. If one considers the descriptions of the women Cora is referred to as cushion like and plump - a far cry from her gawky younger appearance. I always look for the social commentary in a novel as I think it is important. In this novel, as in several others, Christie takes up the idea of the invisibility of companions and servants in relation to Miss Gilchrist. This is said directly by Christie through Miss Gilchrist's comments. I just thought that here was a less direct idea in relation to women past their youth. I am wondering whether she has said that more directly in another novel. And, yes, Sandy, certainly she was a great example of being able to defy conventional attitudes towards older women (as perhaps is her Ariande as a novelist?)

I've just remembered Christie described there probably being women in their fifties with indeterminate faces all over Britain. This comment was made in relation to Miss Gilchrist when she was talking about her tea shop.

By the way, I think that she would have chosen a hatchet for two reasons. It is, as people here have said, and unlikely weapon for her to have chosen. Wouldn't this be part of her plan to make the murder seem like something totally unassociated with her? Also, the violence would have obliterated some of her features so she was less recognisable as the woman who was impersonated at the funeral.

I like both your reasons for using a hatchet. I hadn't considered the second.

Thank you, Sandy. A nice friendly comment to go off to sleep on(I'm in Australia).

I think that is the reason we like this author. We should never expect characters to conform to our ideas.

Yes, we always have a mix of characters, so often seemingly conventional, but then a surprise. Helen fulfils that idea in this novel, so conventional and admired for her fitting into a particular mould... but a story of a live affair conducted secretly after being widowed.

Did anyone pick up the comment about Edith Thompson? Her story is told in an excellent novel by F. Tennyson Jesse , A Pin to see the Peepshow. Even though that is a fictionalised account, other commentary on Edith is very much at odds with Christies description of her having' lived in a world of violent reality' . This is so far from the truth to be quite an insight into Christie's mind which probably reflected the feelings at the time, about women who had affairs. She was seen as responsible for her husband's death when her lover stabbed him - against her wishes. She was a romantic, whose affair with a much younger man, 'ideas above her station' appear to have resulted in her hanging. Other murders are reflected upon by Mr Entwhistle at the same time , a very good device for showing that a murderer can come in many forms.

I've just reread the chapters in which Susan talks to Miss Gilchrist at the cottage. I think that they really stand out as chapters in which so much information is given to the reader, in such a subtle fashion. A marvellous reread.

And now I shall rewade (my word, I think it expresses my feelings about this novel) through Hickory , Dickory , Dock for July's reading.

Regarding the use of the hatchet as the murder weapon, I recall more than one mystery where the question is asked if the blows could have been given by a woman or not. Perhaps the fact that this question is never asked is a clue in and of itself.

Christie is quite good at injecting humor into her stories in a way that does not seem inappropriate or out of place. Poirot acting as the UN representative for refugees (while playing down his grasp of English and playing up his foreignness) made me chuckle. Normally we would expect him to bemoan the fact that he wasn't instantly recognized and adored, but here, he uses it to his advantage.

Great point re hatchet. I think that this particular Christie is full of clues and marvellous misdirection.

And, yes, the humour in Poirot's role as a representative for refugees. I enjoy the humour, but also the role that it gives Rosamund. She is being built up within the narrative as someone who may reflect some of Cora's characteristics, but is so much smarter perhaps. She is going to control her possibly less than perfect marriage, and perhaps Cora did so as well. So, we have almost parallel characteristics in two different generations, which undermine our assumptions.

Robin wrote: "Great point re hatchet. I think that this particular Christie is full of clues and marvellous misdirection.

And, yes, the humour in Poirot's role as a representative for refugees. I enjoy the hum..."

I also think that both Rosamund and Miss Gilchrist serve as examples of people who you are wise not to underestimate. Poirot even reflects on someone from Lord Edgware Dies, and how more so than "clever" killers, that its the simplistic ones to watch out for.

Yes, Lord Edgeware Dies is a perfect example.

Robin wrote: "Of course one should abhor the murderer, and Poirot usually does so. But I can sympathise with her in this novel. Miss Gilchrist is one of those women with expertise who, because of lack of educati..."

She would have been all right if her tea shop hadn’t gone bust. But she could have just stolen the painting rather than murdering for it.