Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our July 21 Challenge Read of Sparkling Cyanide aka Remembered Death first published in 1944. This is the third book featuring Colonel Race, following The Man in the Brown Suit (1924) and Death on the Nile (1937).

A beautiful heiress is fatally poisoned in a West End restaurant. Six people sit down to dinner at a table laid for seven. In front of the empty place is a sprig of rosemary – in solemn memory of Rosemary Barton who died at the same table exactly one year previously. No one present on that fateful night would ever forget the woman’s face, contorted beyond recognition – or what they remembered about her astonishing life.

According to the Agatha Christie website, the novel was published in February 1945 under the title Remembered Death in the US. It was an extended version of the short story Yellow Iris, which had Hercule Poirot leading the investigation, whereas here he is replaced by Colonel Johnny Race. The novel changed the identity of the culprits as well, a common feature of Agatha Christie’s rewritten works.

In 1983 the story was adapted as a TV film for CBS, set in the modern day and starring Anthony Andrews (although the character of Colonel Race was omitted). 2003 saw it again adapted as a TV film, this time in the UK by Laura Lamson. Again in a modern setting, it was only loosely based on the original story. BBC Radio 4 broadcast a three-part dramatisation of the story in 2012.

Please do not post spoilers in this thread. Thank you.

July is here so let's get this discussion started - thank you to Susan for the great introductions to this month's books. Who is reading this one? I really enjoyed it.

Want to read it, but probably later in the month. Trying to get an audiobook.

I should finish it off today.

...and done. A thumbs up overall. I rather liked it and although it was a reread, albeit one that involved a huge gap, I recalled nothing about it. Perhaps it was a little padded in places but it all comes together fine in the end.

I listened to this on Audible - Hugh Fraser wonderful as always. I don't think I have read this one or, if I did, it was a long while ago. Glad that I got around to it at last and enjoyed it.

I'll be done in a bit; honestly remember so little of this though I have read it before; am not trying to guess whodunit either.

I liked this quote about twitters/ing--considered in a current day context, it makes it more interesting

Because there some there who twitters--twitters like a little bird...A little bird told me--was a saying in my youth. It's very true Kemp--these twitterers can tell one a lot if one just lets them--twitter.

First, I loved the character studies, esp the Stephen-Sandra love story, and George Barton.

A very clever book, I thought. Right at the start, Iris reflects on the fact that we don't know what those closest to us are really like, and that seems to be a theme throughout. The characters are so often surprised by their own thoughts and feelings!

I wonder if the title also alludes to this? We prefer just to see the agreeable, and even sparkling, outside, and overlook any less palatable content.

Susan wrote: "I listened to this on Audible - Hugh Fraser wonderful as always. I don't think I have read this one or, if I did, it was a long while ago. Glad that I got around to it at last and enjoyed it."

Same here, I listened to the audiobook mostly and read some - if I’ve read this before I didn’t remember, but it seemed vaguely familiar. The group helped me out with the info that it was a short story with Poirot, later expanded to this novel length without him. I enjoyed it, found it timeless in the sense that everyone feels they should not speak ill of the dead, but often secrets (affairs, old squabbles, hurt feelings) come to light after someone dies. Those left behind must come to grips with adjusting the feelings they had for the deceased, in light of these revelations.

Lady Clementina wrote: "I'll be done in a bit; honestly remember so little of this though I have read it before; am not trying to guess whodunit either.

I liked this quote about twitters/ing--considered in a current day ..."

So true - my husband has always found this essential with discovering and discussing a client’s real needs and concerns- the self-discipline to shut up, allow the silence to grow, which encourages them to speak honestly. I’ve been in meetings with him, seen it myself, I think it’s a key to his success - you get information that way, but also, clients feel heard. So often, human nature makes “experts” want to babble on, show and share their knowledge - rather than listen deeply, gather information.

charcoal wrote: "First, I loved the character studies, esp the Stephen-Sandra love story, and George Barton.

A very clever book, I thought. Right at the start, Iris reflects on the fact that we don't know what tho..."

Me, too, I found it fascinating, how differently characters saw the deceased- some found her beautiful, sweet, thought “everyone loved her”, but surprise! Not at all the case…

The different characters' reflections on Rosemary and their possible motives to do away with her actually had me thinking of the similar set of chapters in Ordeal by Innocence.

I found the division of this book into three sections each with a different approach quite interesting as well

Sadly listening seems a lost art these days

I did enjoy this read, and found the mystery very difficult to solve, as is usual for Christie, there was a lot of misleading information.

To be honest, I found the means employed by the killer while satisfyingly deceptive was easy enough to spot once a certain character presented their evidence. I'd better say no more here though for fear of spoilers.

I wasn't aware this was an expansion of an idea from a short story, but that feeling I had that some of it was padded makes sense under the circumstances. It's a clever piece of work and enjoyable but it seems a little stretched out.

I listened to the audiobook narrated by Hugh Fraser too. It is always a treat to listen to him. :). I enjoyed this one very much. To me, it is the best of the Colonel Race series.

*Susan wrote: "I listened to this on Audible - Hugh Fraser wonderful as always"*

He's absolutely peerless, isn't he? I read this one rather than listening, but he really does *perform* the books, and brings out all of Mrs Christie's humour. And he has Suchet's Poirot down to a tee!

I agree - Fraser is brilliant reading Christie.

Yes, I find I enjoy Hugh Fraser narrating Christie even more then the times I’ve listened to Suchet narrating!

Susan in NC wrote: "Yes, I find I enjoy Hugh Fraser narrating Christie even more then the times I’ve listened to Suchet narrating!"

I prefer Fraser's Poirot to Suchet's (in narration, not in the TV series)

charcoal wrote: "First, I loved the character studies, esp the Stephen-Sandra love story, and George Barton.

A very clever book, I thought. Right at the start, Iris reflects on the fact that we don't know what tho..."

I really like your speculation on the title and what it means in relation to the characters. I also like to dig a little into novels that are superficially simple, but might have other things to say to some readers.

Rosina wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Yes, I find I enjoy Hugh Fraser narrating Christie even more then the times I’ve listened to Suchet narrating!"

I prefer Fraser's Poirot to Suchet's (in narration, not in the T..."

Same here - sometimes, when narrating, Suchet becomes so invested in the accent, he becomes almost unintelligible for me!

Susan in NC wrote: "charcoal wrote: "First, I loved the character studies, esp the Stephen-Sandra love story, and George Barton.

A very clever book, I thought. Right at the start, Iris reflects on the fact that we do..."

I wonder about the way in which Rosemary was depicted. She was so easily dismissed, and her intelligence questioned. The way in which Anthony talked to her to try and gain her silence about his name- how could anyone with any brains really think this approach would be effective? She was such a victim - of lovers who drifted away, an adulterous and manipulative man (look at how he won Alexandra) who uses her, then leaves. And seems to escape entirely with the resumption of his happy marriage. Rosemary's beauty and foolishness seems to be used to allow others shortcomings to be forgotten.

I reckon Rosemary was written as pretty manipulative herself. She's a classic murder story victim in many ways, undeniably attractive but gradually revealed as essentially a spoiled wastrel.

Very typical of an Agatha Christie victim, wasn't she, Colin?

Yes indeed. Christie was very artful in the way she presented her victims. You can see why someone, or a whole slew of someones, would want to do away with them but it's generally equally clear how they have the requisite magnetism to draw others to them in life. We tend to feel for them at first and then slowly see that empathy eroded to an extent as the characteristics which led to their doom become more apparent.

I think Rosemary could also be seen as being similar to (view spoiler)[Arlena from Evil Under The Sun or Linnet from Death On The Nile (hide spoiler)]. At the surface beauties who get everything they want, but in reality, they are victims to their own fragile egos.

Tara wrote: "I think Rosemary could also be seen as being similar to [spoilers removed]. At the surface beauties who get everything they want, but in reality, they are victims to their own fragile egos."

You are so right. I wonder if such a beauty thinks that is enough, she doesn't have to make any effort. Other people need to adopt some strategies to get on with others, achieve what they want etc. But the Rosemary type does none of this, very obtuse, doesn't look for clues from those around her, then becomes a natural victim. Of course, all Iris had to do to make Anthony fall in love with her at first sight is to walk down the stairs!!!!

It is certainly a unique take on beautiful women. Often envied by those who do not share their physical assets, it can be difficult to envision they suffer difficulties (and most attractive people make out better in the world than less attractive ones). I also admire Christie's ability to use the same tropes and character types from one novel to the other, but by either switching things around or subverting expectations, you are fooled time and time again.

I'm not sure if we are veering into spoiler territory here, but please can we be careful as some members won't have read Lord Edgware Dies yet - thanks everyone and sorry if I am being over-cautious.

Judy wrote: "I'm not sure if we are veering into spoiler territory here, but please can we be careful as some members won't have read Lord Edgware Dies yet - thanks everyone and sorry if I am being over-cautious."

We'll avoid discussing it Judy; it's just like in all AC's other books, one only notices on rereads or realises in retrospect.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Robin wrote: "Tara wrote: "It is certainly a unique take on beautiful women. Often envied by those who do not share their physical assets, it can be difficult to envision they suffer difficulties (..."

The comment has been deleted.

Thank you, Lady C and Robin.

Tara wrote: "I think Rosemary could also be seen as being similar to [spoilers removed]. At the surface beauties who get everything they want, but in reality, they are victims to their own fragile egos."

Great comparison, I can definitely see that.