Reading the Detectives discussion

Enjoy all the spoilery reflections here

I really enjoyed this, probably largely due to the prominent role Ariadne Oliver took in the story. I figured out quite early that Norma's "father" was an imposter. Too much attention was drawn to the fact that he looked exactly like his portrait, and it was odd that it had been moved to London (likely meant to be a reinforcement of his identity). However, I did not get the Mary/Frances angle, so that was a complete surprise.

I found I cared very little about the plot. I also suspected the father was an imposter as we have seen that twist in a few of the GA mysteries. But I lost track the daughter and the roommates, perhaps as I was listening on audio and my mind wanders.

However I loved Poirot's quirks and all the regular side characters.

I had an experience similar to Tara. Moreover, I missed the Mary/Frances angle despite focusing on trying to figure out the significance of the title!

Tara wrote: "I really enjoyed this, probably largely due to the prominent role Ariadne Oliver took in the story. I figured out quite early that Norma's "father" was an imposter. Too much attention was drawn to ..."

Me, too, Ariadne is very entertaining- especially as played by Hugh Fraser in the audiobook!

Well, I enjoyed the fact that there was more Poirot in this than in a number of Christie’s later Poirots!

Armed with some vague ideas from having read this novel some decades ago, along with familiar whodunnit/Christie tropes, I figured that an imposter was playing the part of Andrew Restarick; I saw the connection between David Baker and the portrait, and the return of the long lost relative always commands attention regarding identity! I also noticed the 67 v 76 thing (similar to another number mix up in a previous Poirot!) and made the Louise connection before Poirot. Despite all this I didn’t spot the point about the wig and so identify that Frances Cary was Orwell’s partner in crime - once more satisfyingly defeated!

I have requested a print version from the library as I think I missed too much listening to the audio. Sometimes I just don't pay enough attention, so will give the book a second chance.

I found the Poirot-Oliver combination very entertaining. This is one of the very few books that we see Ariadne Oliver in her force! :) And I agree with Susan that Hugh Fraser does an admirable job in voicing Mrs. Oliver.

I also liked Poirot's role as the detective and the human being in helping Norma's cause.

Does anyone have thoughts around the doctor/patient romance Poirot facilitates? While I'm happy that Norma can find someone that truly loves her, emotions in that type of dynamic can be quite complicated and I am not sure it is entirely above board.

Tara wrote: "Does anyone have thoughts around the doctor/patient romance Poirot facilitates? While I'm happy that Norma can find someone that truly loves her, emotions in that type of dynamic can be quite compl..."

I cringe whenever I read things like this, clear boundary violations and would get him struck off today, particularly in Psychiatry. Not to mention he's taken a very vulnerable young woman who's recently been in love with someone else and now wants to take her away from everything she knows. Another one of those times when Christie's problematic ideas re love and relationships mars an otherwise fun read.

In retrospect, all those instances of Ariadne dropping bits of hair and the comment about her changing her appearance with a new hairdo should have tipped us off about one of the women not being who they seemed, but I didn't figure it out either!

Fun isn’t it? How we all keep getting side tracked. I was certain about the portraits, especially after the weird gallery question line that seemed to come out of the blue. Also, understood the significance of Mary’s wig but... Frances? Nope... overlooked entirely.

I loved the big part Ariadne Oliver played here. Her improvisation on the phone somewhere in the beginning of the story with Poirot in the room... haha a work of comedic art! 😂

Tara wrote: "Does anyone have thoughts around the doctor/patient romance Poirot facilitates? While I'm happy that Norma can find someone that truly loves her, emotions in that type of dynamic can be quite compl..."

You make a really good point. I wonder if Christie lost sight of the fact that it is a doctor /patient relationship in pursuing her theme of the innocent/unworldly/supposedly mentally deficient character and her saviour? This is the same line as she takes in another novel -The Moving Finger. I'm not keen on the idea particularly, but at least in the latter there is another character who puts a reasonable spin on the relationship as one that is codependent. There is nothing of that in Third Girl, together with the almost kidnapping idea. .

Frances wrote: "Tara wrote: "Does anyone have thoughts around the doctor/patient romance Poirot facilitates? While I'm happy that Norma can find someone that truly loves her, emotions in that type of dynamic can b..."

How I agree with your comment about the relationship. I've elaborated in my reply to Tara. I have two interests in reading Christie - I really enjoy the comments here that stick to the crime angle. However, for my blog I am reading Christie with an eye to some of the problems raised by you and Tara. Its refreshing to find some comments on this sort of theme here, as well as the solve the crime angle.

Apart from my criticisms of the doctor/patient relationship, I am really interested in the positive comments. I'm reading the novel with those in mind, as I recall being so aggravated by the dithering Ariande. Now I wonder if Christie was expressing her dissatisfaction with her own ageing and the way it affects thought processes and behaviour? Thinking of the relationship between Ariande and Poirot from that kinder perspective I see that the characterisation is actually rather smart. They work well with and off each other, and achieve the aim of the investigation - its solution.

After reading comments about the title, I now realise how clever it is.

So, its great to read other people's perspective and adapt my own.

If we are gonna question the young doctor’s ethics...
How about kidnapping her in the first place?

Jessica wrote: "If we are gonna question the young doctor’s ethics...
How about kidnapping her in the first place?"

Christie made a particular point about how Norma would actually be wearing the pants in the relationship, which seemed to be a way to try to assuage these types of concerns. But again, its a very complicated situation.

That's true, and I don't mind in the story context. Just better not to project it to our real world.

Tara and Jessica, great points. I'm writing about Christie novels for my blog, and am about to write about her novels in which questionable ideas are promoted. This is one that deserves consideration, as well as her racism and sexism. The idea of the innocent woman and worldly man is also taken up in The Moving Finger, but in this instance, the man's sister makes it clear that the relationship is codependent.

I didn't think she was kidnapped-I thought it was made very clear to her that it would be somewhere she could go for a rest and that she would be free to leave-which in fact she did at the end.

Tara wrote: "Does anyone have thoughts around the doctor/patient romance Poirot facilitates? While I'm happy that Norma can find someone that truly loves her, emotions in that type of dynamic can be quite compl..."

I did wonder about that, ethically, seems quite sketchy! Maybe back then, it wasn’t as much an issue, but I would think any health professional getting involved with a patient would be frowned upon.

Frances wrote: "I didn't think she was kidnapped-I thought it was made very clear to her that it would be somewhere she could go for a rest and that she would be free to leave-which in fact she did at the end."

And I also think I remember the doctor said she needed to get clean, as she had been drugged, so this would protect her, and get her detoxed. Am I remembering right?

I remember that as well.

That's my impression as well: seclusion to be away from the drugs but somewhere she could leave if she wanted.

I also thought the doctor / patient relationship distasteful at the very least.

Hm I considered the taking the unconscious body to his home after the car accident as moment of kidnapping. Yes of course then afterwards she was free to go but still weird choice.

But the criticism aside I actually loved that scene. Because we just left Ariadne in the alley and she was struck to the head.... flash to someone (identity undisclosed) on a chair somewhere waking up, her kidnapper?/ attacker saying here drink this you'll feel better. For a moment I thought Ariadne was back in the attic again, strapped to a chair in propper kidnap style!

Jessica wrote: "Hm I considered the taking the unconscious body to his home after the car accident as moment of kidnapping. Yes of course then afterwards she was free to go but still weird choice.

But the critic..."

Me, too! I thought, how’s she going to get out of this? Not like Poirot can break down the door and rescue her- if he could even find her...

I was under the impression it had all been set up by Poirot, as it happened straight after she had left him.

Frances wrote: "I didn't think she was kidnapped-I thought it was made very clear to her that it would be somewhere she could go for a rest and that she would be free to leave-which in fact she did at the end."

You are right if the term kidnapped is taken literally - she was not abducted and held against her will, you are right. however, she was a very vulnerable person (drugs/dependence on unsatisfactory adults around her) and the tone of the situation left me uncomfortable. But perhaps that is just me, and I take your point.