TANSY:

To me, this book is the first one that feels like an Agatha Christie to me – or at least, what I think of as an Agatha Christie. It’s also one of a handful of her books where I knew going into it what the gimmick/trick to it was – as with The Orient Express, the solution to the murder is a matter of general pop culture knowledge.

[DID I MENTION SPOILERS??]

But I was impressed at how fun and interesting the novel was to read, even knowing the trick to it. I think Christie is quite devastatingly clever with this one (a dreadful precedent to have to live up to for her whole career) because the book seems designed to be reread with care, or read with the knowledge of the solution. It was far from a ‘spoiler’ – I knew that the narrator was the murderer, and yet I couldn’t see for a good chunk of the novel how he had managed to do it, and unravelling the howdunnit was great fun.

I also really enjoyed the clever phrasing in which our unreliable narrator was concealing his acts – I could often spot where it was being done, but didn’t always know what was being concealed.

One of the great misdirects of this novel is that Poirot treates Dr Sheppard (our narrator) as if he is a replacement figure for Hastings, who previously narrated his stories – indeed, he often tells us (by telling Sheppard) how similar the two men are, which encourages us to think of Sheppard as being both trustworthy and slightly dim. Though in fact, if you’re reading (as I was) with a suspicious mind, it becomes fairly obvious that the two men aren’t the least bit alike, and Poirot is messing with everyone’s heads.

While I liked Hastings, I have to admit that the Poirot of this novel is my favourite so far – his intelligence and subtlety comes across much better than in the earlier books where he’s really only smarter than Hastings (not hard). Here you see him really enjoying himself and stretching his intellect – and maybe this is the first time he’s had a seriously worthy adversary?

I also enjoyed the cast of characters as a whole – Sheppard’s relationship with his dizzy gossip of a sister Caroline, and all the social details that come across, and the many revelations that are unravelled in the course of the story. I can see why this one is so well known – while I have enjoyed reading her early books and the bizarre fluffy spyish romps, this is the first book where I get the sense that Christie has really got a handle on what she is doing.

NICK:

I was also quite surprised at how readable Roger Ackroyd was, even when you know the twist. I originally read this when I was very young, but have always avoided a retread, because I assumed the novel would survive a spoiled ending – but that’s certainly not the case.

Even when you know the twist, and you’re looking for a way to trip up the narrator and “solve” the crime early, Roger Ackroyd is still a very engaging novel.

What mostly fascinates me with this book, though, is how much of a risk Christie was prepared to take with Poirot. Published in 1926, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, is only her sixth novel – and only the third including Poirot (there was also a collection of short Poirot stories, Poirot Investigates).

The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and Murder on the Links were both narrated by Captain Alfred Hastings, in very much the tradition of Sherlock Holmes – with the “narrator as stooge” trope to the fore. Hastings often plays a role in the solution of the crimes in earlier works, but is almost never correct. The central character, though described through Hastings, is still Poirot.

Poirot was barely a character in Roger Ackroyd – he was described only partially by the narrator, who (for obvious reasons) didn’t give the full insight into his character and actions that the earlier books, narrated by Captain Hastings, did.

Reading it again, it’s clear how big a shift it was for Christie. To take what was becoming her defining character and relegate him to the sidelines, and to depart so radically from the earlier “narrator as stooge” theme was an extraordinarily bold step.

The flaws are the usual Christie ones – in particular, the side characters are little more than cardboard cutouts etc.

The wikipedia description pretty much sums them up, sadly

“The suspects include Mrs. Cecil Ackroyd, Roger’s neurotic hypochondriac sister-in-law who has accumulated personal debts through extravagant spending; her daughter Flora; Major Blunt, a big-game hunter; Geoffrey Raymond, Ackroyd’s personal secretary; Ralph Paton, Ackroyd’s stepson and another person with heavy debts; Parker, a snooping butler; and Ursula Bourne, a parlourmaid with an uncertain history who resigned her post the afternoon of the murder.

The initial suspect is Ralph, who is engaged to Flora and stands to inherit his stepfather’s fortune. Several critical pieces of evidence seem to point to Ralph. Poirot, who has just moved to the town, begins to investigate at Flora’s behest.”

None of them really move beyond those fairly shallow descriptions. I had some hopes for James Sheppard’s sister, Caroline, the village gossip – but she largely disappears from the narrative by the end.

It’s still a very readable book, though, well worth reading again.

KATHRYN:

Roger Ackroyd is one of the quintessential Christie novels. The setup is entirely traditional – there’s a big house in the English countryside, an excellent assortment of hangers on and poor relations for suspects, and a lovely, changeable timeline of alibis and non-alibis. And right in the middle of this, Christie swings out perhaps the biggest twists in who-dunnit-storytelling of its time (apparently there were complaint letters to The Times upon publication!). I’ve read Ackroyd several times over the years so rereading it for review now was interesting because, not only did I know who the murderer was, I’m sufficiently familiar with the book to remember when Dr Sheppard (and Christie) is diddling us. I did wonder if this would make the experience anticlimactic, and to be honest I do feel some regret that I can’t have the revelation that I presume I felt on my first reading because, unfortunately, I have no recollection of my first time. However, I still think this is Christie’s strongest work to date, so it was still a pleasure to work through the book and watch what she did.

Probably my biggest surprise for this work is that it’s only Christie’s 3rd Poirot novel, and only her 7th book overall (including one collection of shorts). In my mind Ackroyd sits much later in oeuvre – probably partly because it is one of her classics, but also because Poirot is described as being so old! He’s come to King’s Abbot to retire, Hastings has run off to Argentina (presumably with Cinderella). It feels like things are winding down for Poirot, yet Christie will be writing about him for another 50-odd years.

Regardless of the twist, I found the novel itself is very entertaining and funny. Some of my favorite scenes are when Dr Sheppard is describing the behaviour and opinions of his sister, Caroline. The evening game of mahjong in particular hugely entertaining, while the running joke of Poirot being a retired hairdresser is also very fun. I think Christie does an excellent job with Dr Sheppard. When he’s not murdering people, he has a gently snarky humor and he’s a lot cleverer than Hastings (poor Hastings!) Combine that, with his relatively awful sister, and Dr Sheppard is a very sympathetic character – which is another way Christie has pulled the wool over the reader’s eyes. Having said that, I’ve always been particularly concerned how Caroline took the news that her brother was a murderer (and – perhaps worse – a blackmailer). I’ve always been afraid that she would have been completely undone by the revelation, which is of course ridiculous because she is Not Real!!

COMING NEXT:
The Big Four (1927)
[Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp]
The Mystery of the Blue Train (1928)
[Hercule Poirot]
The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)
[Eileen “Bundle” Brent, Superintendent Battle]
Partners in Crime (1929)
[apparently the main character is a mystery!]

Tags: agatha christis, agathon

Agathon #6: The Secret of Chimneys [1925]
Anthony Cade, Superintendent Battle, Eileen “Bundle” Brent

TANSY SAYS:

Here we go again! This is another Agatha Christie novel that doesn’t fit my apparently-narrow previous idea about what an Agatha Christie novel was. Instead it’s another of these early – what do we call them? Not quite spy novels, more intrigue romps. Definitely not a murder mystery, though there is murder and mystery aplenty.

Having said that, the plot of this one is even more bonkers than I have come to expect from Christie’s early work, and the various threads of lost European royalty, con men, posh people with titles and dead bodies frankly bemused and befuddled me. Having said that, my heart was won very early on by the gorgeous and banterrific Virginia Revel – I paid attention pretty much for her, and everything that came out of her mouth.

Christie writes marvellous young women! I tend to find all her younger male characters quite bland, with only the older and more character-laden men being worth paying attention to (with the possible exception of Hastings) and in this book I did enjoy the gruff and intelligent Superintendent Battle. But the absolute stars of The Secret of Chimneys for me were Virginia and, to a slightly lesser degree, Eileen “Bundle” Brent (whom I see from our spreadsheet is going to make a comeback, hooray!)

Virginia feels very much like a British version of the kind of characters Katherine Hepburn used to play in the 30’s: she’s witty, beautiful, flirtatious, and utterly in touch with her own frivolity. She’s also very sexually confident, and enjoys half her male acquaintance being in love with her. I liked that she was originally brought into the conspiracy because the aristocratic blokes trying to deal with – all that complicated plot business which I won’t pretend I understand or remember – admired her charm and intelligence. Then of course, while they tried desperately to patronise her, she ran rings around them constantly. In another era, she would totally be alongside Patrick McNee in the Avengers. Is it too much to hope there was a movie version of this novel made in the 60’s starring Diana Rigg?

Bundle on the other hand is a quieter sort of female, more docile and domestic, and yet she is every bit the wit that Virginia is – snarkier and more understated in her remarks. I enjoyed their double act and would have liked to see many more scenes with them together.

[SPOILERS]

The reveal at the end about our con man protagonist (sort of) Anthony Cade being a secret prince and heir to the throne of Whereverslovakia was hilarious and awful in its bizarreness, even if it made a terrible kind of sense. And it was totally worth it for the scene in which he tells Virginia exactly who it is she married.

“How perfectly screaming!”

KATHRYN SAYS:

This installment felt a bit soulless to me. My major trouble is with hero of the story, Anthony Cade. He’s FAR too perfect, and even when you think he’s down and out, you find out later he’s not (cos he’s perfect). And Christie keeps mentioning his bronzed face and lean body, which to be honest is a little unsettling! Perhaps what I found missing from this installment is a bit of grit and grime (which seems a little odd to say when there’s murder, and leaving-of-bodies-beside-the-road, but there you go), but everything seemed to sort itself put far too neatly. Also, this novel was quite uncomfortable to read from a race point of view – it starts off with a few derogatory remarks about Africans, and then moves on to some less than flattering mentions of Jews, and ‘dagos’ (which in this case seemed to mostly be referencing citizen of the fictitious European country Herzoslovakia). ‘The Secret of Chimneys’ was published in 1925. Obviously it’s a book of its time, but does that make it ok? Does this represent Christie’s own views or is she just writing what she sees?

The main positives of the book are Christie’s female characters. Virginia Revel is the kind of women I’d want to be in 1925 (most specifically independently wealthy and quite able to run her own life). I probably have a bigger a soft spot for Bundle, though, – so earnest and pragmatic and one of those young ladies of a certain age who gets lumped with an unusual nickname. I’d love to know if this was common at the time, or if it’s just a ‘Christie’ thing. I can think of several young ladies of Christie’s invention who have suffered an unusual nickname (Lettuce is one that comes to mind), indeed Bundle’s younger sisters have already given the monikers of Guggle and Winkle at 10 and 12! Also, I have to admit that the book does have some fairly charming chapter titles: Anthony Disposes of a Body, Mainly Political and Financial, Anthony Signs on for a New Job.

So in summary, some good lady characters (though I’m not sure it passes the Bechdel test), a motley assortment of uninspiring men, and a far too neat resolution. Not awful, but not great either.

TANSY COMES BACK TO SAY:

I know we don’t normally do right of reply, but I wanted to agree with your point about the casual racism in the book, something that’s very much of its time but also not going to become LESS of an issue with Agatha Christie as we go on.

I’m pretty sure that it does pass the Bechdel Test (we should check in with this for each book!) because of the bit where Virginia calls up Bundle and says she’s coming to Chimneys, nothing would keep her away, what ho, old girl.

The chapter where Anthony disposes of the body is pretty great, and the ramifications of this demonstrate that Christie’s sense of humour was pointed sharply inwards – she’s poking fun at the same genre conventions that her novels rely upon.

COMING NEXT:
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926)
[Hercule Poirot]
The Big Four (1927)
[Hercule Poirot, Arthur Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp]
The Mystery of the Blue Train (1928)
[Hercule Poirot]
The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)
[Eileen “Bundle” Brent, Superintendent Battle]

Tags: agatha christie, agathon

Mop Snow
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

I'm not sure *why* I put the mop and bucket outside, but in the process it was snowed upon. I like to think at the *very* least it meant I had been cleaning!

BBQ Snow
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

The date stamp on this photos says March 30 2005, but I have trouble believing it was snowing like this at that time. More likely I'd set the date incorrectly on the camera (it happened...) I got this BBQ free from another Aussie in London who ended up living in a flat with no outside areas. We had a couple of good BBQs on it, but overall it was woefully underutilised... (Kinda like the BBQ I bought from Bunnings on my return to Aus!! I think I've only used it for my housewarmings!)

Backyard Snow
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

In honour of the 39 degree day we're apparently going to have here in Perth, here is snow in the backyard of my house in the UK. We got snow about once a year in London when I was living there, usually around late Jan/ early Feb and it was never very heavy - EXCEPT for the year I needed to travel by train to Oxford for a job interview! (which I did get to)

Magpies
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

This is a fair representation of what my parent's kitchen window looked like on Xmas Day (and most days!). In other news, I finished my course of antibiotics yesterday and my body is quite thankful ( and a bit flu-ey :-P). Foot is improving daily, though I'm still *waaaay* on crutches

Soda stream
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

My main Christmas present in action. Bubbly!

My Bauble
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

My year 2 teacher made every student a Christmas bauble. That was (counting...) back in 1983. It's hung on the family tree every year. At some point I'll take ownership of it and we'll hang it on our tree (but I have to get a tree first!!).

I hope everyone is having a lovely day, whatever they're doing (and if you're working today, thanks for keeping society running!!)

Ho Ho Holmium
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

The most awesome Christmas card ever!! (for a chemist).

Cephalexin
Originally uploaded by kathrynlinge

Yesterday I reached the half-way point in my 10-day antibiotic course (yay!). I got two packets of cephalexin from the hospital pharmacy, one of which had a big 'Reserve Supply' sticker on it. I do hope they've reordered.