Agatha Christie

MichaelHW

Active member
If you look at the statistics, Agatha Christie is the best-selling novelist of all time. Her novels have been sold in billions of copies, and some of the movie-versions have won academy awards. That Christie was a genius, I think is undisputed. The numbers speak for themselves. But I think the nature of her genius has been misrepresented. If you look at her characters, they are not very original. Some say: “Well you cannot show me the exact source in which Christie says that she was inspired by others?” But that is besides the point. Even if she was not, the characters are still not original.

In 1920, Christie published The Mysterious Affair at Styles, her first novel and her first Poirot story. Poirot was a Belgian first world war refugee detective with a Watson-like side-kick, Captain Hastings. In 1910, however, a major writer at the time, A.E.W. Mason(1865-1948), a man whom everybody knew, published the novel At the Villa Rose, a novel featuring the French immigrant detective, Inspector Hannaud. There are huge similarties between the two, but also some differences. In addition to this, another famous female writer at the time, Marie Belloc Lowndes (1868 – 1947), created the detective inspector Popeau and Frank Howell Evans(1867–1931), a minor Welsh writer, created Monsieur Jules Poiret (yes, you read correctly). All of these detectives were french speaking refugee detectives, some even with similar names as Poirot.

Let us now move on to Miss Marple, Agatha Christie’s second iconic character. In the US they have a now forgotten crime fiction queen, Anna Katharine Green (1846-1935). In 1878, a decade before Christie was born, she published the novel The Leavenworth Case in which she introduced her spinster detective Miss Amelia Butterworth. She was then featured in several novels and stories, and Green was a best-selling writer in her own day, writing 40 novels and many short stories (only few with Amelia Butterworth) Like Christie she was a great plotter.

I could mention similar precursors to Tommy & Tuppence. But why is Agatha Christie then not exposed as a plagiarist? It is because her talent is undisputed, and lay elsewhere. She composed stories brilliantly. And it is actually the composition of the stories that make them so great. Her characters were sometimes a little flat. It is the puzzle and the way it is presented throughout the story that captivates the reader, not her analyses of motives. The motives for crimes are in fact bizarre sometimes, even contrived. Psychological complexity was almost sacrificed at the alter of these other elements. When you read an Agatha Christie crime story, you are rarely left with any feelings of disillusionment or misgivings about the world. Even if it is a piece of crime fiction.

So, can any writer who just took elements from his or her contemporary age and molded them into best-selling novels be a genius? Yes. Just look at the other name at the top of the list of the best-selling writers of all time: William Shakespeare. In fact, almost every writer does this to some extent.
 
Last edited:

Liam

Administrator
Thank you for a well-written short "take" on Agatha Christie. Personally, I think it's not what you do, it's HOW you do it, that goes down in literary history. After all, many of the techniques perfected by Marcel Proust were first pioneered by the lesser known French writer Édouard Dujardin. But it is not enough to pioneer something: the important thing is to see it through and to be the best at what you do. And Agatha Christie was (at the time) the best in her chosen genre. I don't think it's merely an accident or a case of good fortune that today her name is better know than that of Anna Katherine Green, whom you mention (for which: thank you! I will be sure to look her up!)
 

MichaelHW

Active member
Thank you for a well-written short "take" on Agatha Christie. Personally, I think it's not what you do, it's HOW you do it, that goes down in literary history. After all, many of the techniques perfected by Marcel Proust were first pioneered by the lesser known French writer Édouard Dujardin. But it is not enough to pioneer something: the important thing is to see it through and to be the best at what you do. And Agatha Christie was (at the time) the best in her chosen genre. I don't think it's merely an accident or a case of good fortune that today her name is better know than that of Anna Katherine Green, whom you mention (for which: thank you! I will be sure to look her up!)
Some people with gigantic IQs do nothing but argue and drink beer. Others work from morning to evening, and get tremendous results. This is what Woody Allen (yes, I am quoting him) meant when he said "80% of work is showing up". Anna Katharine Green, however, does actually deserve a little more attention, in my view. She is not bad at all. Mason has other books that he is more famous for, The Four Feathers etc. Belloc Lowndes also, The Lodger, a Jack the Ripper novel that was made into a movie by Hitchcock.
 

MichaelHW

Active member
If you can recommend a couple of titles that are a good place to start, I'd appreciate it, :)
Start with the short story "A Memorable Night". Librivox has a very good audiobook of it. The ending is very surprising. At least it was to me. All her books are PD and free online.
 

JCamilo

Reader
Originality is a cliché, dimissing it is another.

Anyways, her strength is not in the plot of her novels. It is in the characters. Look, how you mention both of her more famous detectives (Poirot and Marple). They have enduring quality, while her stories are often frozen in time and a social english landscape. Her imagination is often used to create a perfect crime scene, to the point she sometimes exagerated (I recall a book, with a typical closed room mystery that included a balloon that sounded like a pig screamming to add some complexity. She did it as a form of humor, but still, too much is too much). Sometimes this exageration found ballance, like Murder in the Orient Express, where she managed to make the answer be who did not it, instead of who do it. The thing is, she knew how to use the character (that is the secret, not if it is flat or round, as E.M.Foster would define). Look at Poirot. What is his essential difference from Sherlock or Dupin? He added the psychological profile to his investigations. It was an after Freud, Jung, etc character.

To be honest, the best of fictional detectives around her time was Chesterton Father Brown. What he lost with the character, he gained with Chesteron humor and descriptive skill. Whodunnit cannot take themselves too seriously, not because it is low literature, no, but because the whole artifitiality of the genre. It is some sort of hyperfiction where everything must be exactly how imagined by the detective. Christie had humor, we can see it some of her other stories like And then there was none.
 

MichaelHW

Active member
Originality is a cliché, dimissing it is another.

Anyways, her strength is not in the plot of her novels. It is in the characters. Look, how you mention both of her more famous detectives (Poirot and Marple). They have enduring quality, while her stories are often frozen in time and a social english landscape. Her imagination is often used to create a perfect crime scene, to the point she sometimes exagerated (I recall a book, with a typical closed room mystery that included a balloon that sounded like a pig screamming to add some complexity. She did it as a form of humor, but still, too much is too much). Sometimes this exageration found ballance, like Murder in the Orient Express, where she managed to make the answer be who did not it, instead of who do it. The thing is, she knew how to use the character (that is the secret, not if it is flat or round, as E.M.Foster would define). Look at Poirot. What is his essential difference from Sherlock or Dupin? He added the psychological profile to his investigations. It was an after Freud, Jung, etc character.

To be honest, the best of fictional detectives around her time was Chesterton Father Brown. What he lost with the character, he gained with Chesteron humor and descriptive skill. Whodunnit cannot take themselves too seriously, not because it is low literature, no, but because the whole artifitiality of the genre. It is some sort of hyperfiction where everything must be exactly how imagined by the detective. Christie had humor, we can see it some of her other stories like And then there was none.

I understand the argument in bold. But I have interviewed many Christie historians, and they refuse to talk about the sources i mention. So, this is my reply to what I assume must be a general attitude. They want to stuff Christie into a "4-billion sold books ivory tower". I also made searches trying to find articles and biographies that applied the perspectives I am calling for. There are very few. But there are many such books and articles about Shakespeare. So, I have empirical evidence, or at least very sufficient cause, for my theory that Christie is being regarded in this way. It is not a figment of my imagination.
 
I have not read deeply into Christie, although I hope to read more. But I can say this: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a thrilling PERFORMANCE, and not just as a “crime novel”, but as fiction, period.
 

Ben Jackson

Well-known member
In as much as I'm not a fan of crime fiction, I hope to read Murder on the Orient Express and Murder of Roger Ackroyd sometime.
 

Papageno

Well-known member
It is so wonderful to find this thread. As a child, I would pick and read a different book by her from the library every week - and even now, as a rule, I read one Christie every August when I am on vacation. Last summer it was Why didn't they ask Evans? which is a truly thrilling adventure-mystery (turned this year into a somewhat underwhelming TV series, although with good actors) with a simply great final twist. My other favorite by her is Death on the Nile - incredible amount of action, mystery and riddle is packed within 24 hours on a boat in the alluring atmosphere of Egypt. Reading that book was one of the rare times when I managed to plough through 300 pages within a single day.

Among her lesser known works, I would particularly recommend Third Girl (a girl comes to Hercule Poirot to confess she may have committed a murder), Sparkling Cyanide (another phenomenal twist), 4.50 from Paddington (a woman travelling by train sees a murder happening in a train passing in the other direction - just another great "train-based plot" to be compared with such Hitchcock classics as The Lady Vanishes, but also The Rear Window).

Her works for theatre are also notable - apart from the record-setting
Mousetrap, I particularly liked The Spider's Web, which is not a typical mystery, and is actually quite funny! In general, apart from characterization and sharp psychological sensitivity, I find that humour is also one of the most appealing aspects of her work. Why didn't they ask Evans? is, for instance, at moments simply hilarious.
 

alik-vit

Reader
It is so wonderful to find this thread. As a child, I would pick and read a different book by her from the library every week - and even now, as a rule, I read one Christie every August when I am on vacation. Last summer it was Why didn't they ask Evans? which is a truly thrilling adventure-mystery (turned this year into a somewhat underwhelming TV series, although with good actors) with a simply great final twist. My other favorite by her is Death on the Nile - incredible amount of action, mystery and riddle is packed within 24 hours on a boat in the alluring atmosphere of Egypt. Reading that book was one of the rare times when I managed to plough through 300 pages within a single day.

Among her lesser known works, I would particularly recommend Third Girl (a girl comes to Hercule Poirot to confess she may have committed a murder), Sparkling Cyanide (another phenomenal twist), 4.50 from Paddington (a woman travelling by train sees a murder happening in a train passing in the other direction - just another great "train-based plot" to be compared with such Hitchcock classics as The Lady Vanishes, but also The Rear Window).

Her works for theatre are also notable - apart from the record-setting
Mousetrap, I particularly liked The Spider's Web, which is not a typical mystery, and is actually quite funny! In general, apart from characterization and sharp psychological sensitivity, I find that humour is also one of the most appealing aspects of her work. Why didn't they ask Evans? is, for instance, at moments simply hilarious.
Thanks for info on TV series "Why didn't they ask Evans?", will watch it!
 

Papageno

Well-known member
Thanks for info on TV series "Why didn't they ask Evans?", will watch it!
There are actually as many as four adaptations of that novel!

The earliest one (1980) seems to have been one of the oldest adaptations of a Christie novel ever, and it is very faithful to the book. Almost every scene from the novel is transferred on screen. The mini-series featured an all-star cast, headlined by Francesca Annis as lady Frances Derwent, one of the protagonists. This version actually used to be available on youtube!

Then there is the second version (2011) in which they somehow implicated Mrs Marple, who does not make an appearance in the novel. I didn't watch this, my mother did and says it is very lame, which is what I'd expect given that such an unnecessary change in the casting must have unbalanced the whole story.

Apparently, there is also a third version (2013), which is in French, and which I know nothing about.

The final version (2022) takes very many liberties with the plot, usually making it less logical and less tense. However, the cast is very handsome and likable, especially for the characters of Bobby (Will Poulter) and lady Frances-Frankie (Lucy Boynton), so they manage to save the day, to a certain degree at least, by their charm.
 

alik-vit

Reader
There are actually as many as four adaptations of that novel!

The earliest one (1980) seems to have been one of the oldest adaptations of a Christie novel ever, and it is very faithful to the book. Almost every scene from the novel is transferred on screen. The mini-series featured an all-star cast, headlined by Francesca Annis as lady Frances Derwent, one of the protagonists. This version actually used to be available on youtube!

Then there is the second version (2011) in which they somehow implicated Mrs Marple, who does not make an appearance in the novel. I didn't watch this, my mother did and says it is very lame, which is what I'd expect given that such an unnecessary change in the casting must have unbalanced the whole story.

Apparently, there is also a third version (2013), which is in French, and which I know nothing about.

The final version (2022) takes very many liberties with the plot, usually making it less logical and less tense. However, the cast is very handsome and likable, especially for the characters of Bobby (Will Poulter) and lady Frances-Frankie (Lucy Boynton), so they manage to save the day, to a certain degree at least, by their charm.
The adaptations of Christie's books is my soft spot. One of my earliest experiences as spectator was "Miss Marple" with Joan Hickson. It was the end of 1980s and such great moment! This spring I rewatched all series and it's great as it was. And after it there was "Poirot" with David Suchet.... marvelous....
 

wordeater

Well-known member
Between my 13th and my 33rd or so I have read all her crime novels and short stories. Just the numbers are amazing by themselves:

*66 crime novels, including 33 with Poirot, 12 with Marple and 21 with neither.
*About 150 short stories, depending on what counts as a finished story.
*Plays, including The Mousetrap and Witness for the Prosecution.
*6 romantic novels under a nom de plume.
*Autobiography and some smaller works for children etc.

She perfected the already existing genre of the whodunit. While constructing a plot she sometimes drafted four different versions with four different murderers. Then she combined those lines for a story with red herrings and misleading clues. I had a lot of fun making lists of suspects with their motives and alibis. The true pointers are usually not in the interrogations, but in some seemingly unimportant remark in between. Typical devices are the seemingly perfect alibi and the double bluff - when the most obvious suspect did do it. She attached importance to the psychological side. The method of the crime and the risk involved had to suit the character. She has borrowed things from other crime writers, but they all borrowed from each other.

Her novels also paint a picture of old England, with its country houses, military men from the colonies, aging nobility, young adventurers, fishy butlers and pale servant girls. She had a humorous, fluent style, avoiding cheap sentiment and unnecessary digressions. There was no violence for its own sake, only as a hook to build a mystery. She regretted making Poirot a retired Belgian, because she didn't know much about Belgium and because he was too old to remain active for decades. She wanted to drop him, but he was so popular that her publisher didn't allow her to. In later novels he only shows up halfway. She even killed him in Curtain, but that was only published posthumously.

Today I regret that the adaptations are more popular than the books. They often mess up the plot, add or omit characters, and change time and location. The best adaptations are the two films with Peter Ustinov. David Suchet played the role well, but those TV versions aren't faithful to the books. I also regret that crime literature in general is often seen as inferior to "serious literature". To me Agatha Christie and A. C. Doyle are two of the greatest British authors.

Here's my top 20 of Agatha Christie novels:
  1. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (P)
  2. And Then There Were None
  3. Murder on the Orient Express (P)
  4. Death on the Nile (P)
  5. The Murder at the Vicarage (M)
  6. The A.B.C. Murders (P)
  7. Curtain (P)
  8. 4.50 from Paddington (M)
  9. Cards on the Table (P)
  10. The Mysterious Affair at Styles (P)
  11. Crooked House
  12. The Body in the Library (M)
  13. Five Little Pigs (P)
  14. Death Comes As the End
  15. Evil Under the Sun (P)
  16. The Seven Dials Mystery
  17. Three Act Tragedy (P)
  18. Peril at End House (P)
  19. After the Funeral (P)
  20. The Sittaford Mystery
P = Poirot
M = Marple
 
Last edited:

MichaelHW

Active member
Between my 13th and my 33rd or so I have read all her crime novels and short stories. Just the numbers are amazing by themselves:

*66 crime novels, including 33 with Poirot, 12 with Marple and 21 with neither.
*About 150 short stories, depending on what counts as a finished story.
*Plays, including The Mousetrap and Witness for the Prosecution.
*6 romantic novels under a nom de plume.
*Autobiography and some smaller works for children etc.

She perfected the already existing genre of the whodunit. While constructing a plot she sometimes drafted four different versions with four different murderers. Then she combined those lines for a story with red herrings and misleading clues. I had a lot of fun making lists of suspects with their motives and alibis. The true pointers are usually not in the interrogations, but in some seemingly unimportant remark in between. Typical devices are the seemingly perfect alibi and the double bluff - when the most obvious suspect did do it. She attached importance to the psychological side. The method of the crime and the risk involved had to suit the character. She has borrowed things from other crime writers, but they all borrowed from each other.

Her novels also paint a picture of old England, with its country houses, military men from the colonies, aging nobility, young adventurers, fishy butlers and pale servant girls. She had a humorous, fluent style, avoiding cheap sentiment and unnecessary digressions. There was no violence for its own sake, only as a hook to build a mystery. She regretted making Poirot a retired Belgian, because she didn't know much about Belgium and because he was too old to remain active for decades. She wanted to drop him, but he was so popular that her publisher didn't allow her to. In later novels he only shows up halfway. She even killed him in Curtain, but that was only published posthumously.

Today I regret that the adaptations are more popular than the books. They often mess up the plot, add or omit characters, and change time and location. The best adaptations are the two films with Peter Ustinov. David Suchet played the role well, but those TV versions aren't faithful to the books. I also regret that crime literature in general is often seen as inferior to "serious literature". To me Agatha Christie and A. C. Doyle are two of the greatest British authors.

Here's my top 20 of Agatha Christie novels:
  1. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (P)
  2. And Then There Were None
  3. Murder on the Orient Express (P)
  4. Death on the Nile (P)
  5. The Murder at the Vicarage (M)
  6. The A.B.C. Murders (P)
  7. Curtain (P)
  8. 4.50 from Paddington (M)
  9. Cards on the Table (P)
  10. The Mysterious Affair at Styles (P)
  11. Crooked House
  12. The Body in the Library (M)
  13. Five Little Pigs (P)
  14. Death Comes As the End
  15. Evil Under the Sun (P)
  16. The Seven Dials Mystery
  17. Three Act Tragedy (P)
  18. Peril at End House (P)
  19. After the Funeral (P)
  20. The Sittaford Mystery
P = Poirot
M = Marple
Agatha Christie was great, but she has become a victim of her own success. Just like the Beatles. We all know the stories. Tommy & Tuppence have not been that worn out yet, though. I think there are more unexplored sides to Doyle. He was stuck with Sherlock Holmes, but he was able to write a great variety of genres, including scientific romances and reports from Congo or the western front during wwI. He wrote historical fiction from ancient rome !!
 
Top