feels like a far more honest and thematically unrestrained version of the original. Herbert’s ideas are more polemic but I think that’s to the novel’sfeels like a far more honest and thematically unrestrained version of the original. Herbert’s ideas are more polemic but I think that’s to the novel’s credit.
Still some weird narrative and mechanical choices that make parts of the book feel like a rough draft, but I was much more entertained and emotionally moved by this one compared to the original....more
**spoiler alert** This is undoubtedly a “better� book than Tey’s first Grant novel “The Man in the Queue.� However, I found it a slightly disappointin**spoiler alert** This is undoubtedly a “better� book than Tey’s first Grant novel “The Man in the Queue.� However, I found it a slightly disappointing follow up to the first novel which, in my mind set itself apart from other Golden Age detective stories through its gentler, more empathetic detective, and critical eye towards the role of investigative police as sole arbiters of justice.
The first disappointing aspect of this novel, to me, is that it really holds very little suspense, as it follows a near identical structure to the first novel, with less intensity and brooding intrigue. Though the ending provides an entertaining, if unremarkable conclusion.
You have a suspect caught in a precarious position, a determined Grant sent to arrest him, a daring escape, a conspirator in the escape, the original suspect being proven innocent, and a last minute twist reveal.
It feels rather ho hum as a second chapter for Grant, who makes every identical mistake he made in the first novel, and has seemingly forgotten the incident entirely.
Also straining credibility is Grant’s awful track record of failing to apprehend suspects he can plan amply for. Grant legitimately hasn’t even sniffed the concept of calling for backup or scoping out exits beforehand.
Over the course of two novels, Alan Grant is bested literally every single time he attempts to apprehend a criminal, this happens at least 6-7 times and it becomes genuinely humorous by the end of this one. If it happens again in a later novel I can only assume it’s the development of a running gag.
But honestly, Grant is a bit disappointing here. He’s more brazen and acerbic towards those he encounters in this one in comparison to the first novel. The long, ponderous and self reflective passages from Grant that probably made the first novel a snooze to many have been significantly reduced, in favor of a more decisive and “toe the line� attitude from him, which feels like a negative character progression from his experience in “Man in the Queue�
I greatly disliked Grants change in attitude about approaching matters delicately in this novel, and he often scoffs at the idea of providing warrants or giving his suspects anything resembling due process, it’s not an attractive change to the character from the first novel.
That being said, he still retains core essence of the character we see in “Man in the Queue� even if that version of Grant feels like an older, gentler version of the one here in a weird way. Grant still drives himself mad with his devotion and guilt in a sympathetic way. I really missed the rather long anecdotes about wanting to go fishing and things like that from the first novel.
The biggest dismay for me, however, comes in the fact that this one skews more to the cynical and misanthropic tone of Christie, Sayers, and P.D James. I found the first novel refreshing in its empathetic expression of humanity and softer painting of ancillary characters.
Here that is gone, the murderer is a starlet, the suspect a spoiled ruffian, and significant time is spent on the dehumanization of the victim in the eyes of the media and the disgust that Grant and others feel about this. This sort of “it’s rotten all the way down� attitude is heavily prevalent in Christie and Sayers and was missing from Tey in the first novel.
Luckily Tey still manages to inject genuine humanity and loveliness throughout in a way that Christie and Sayers never would and this leaves me hopeful for further Grant novels. The murder victim is genuinely sympathetic and lovely, where she could have been presented as a flighty bitty as would be the style. There are enough sympathetic and warm characters to leave Tey’s unique voice intact but it feels a bit under attack or unsure in comparison to “Man in the Queue�
As an example I’ll provide the moment that the novel went from being genuinely impressive to merely “good/great� for me. There’s a scene about 2/3 of the way through where Grant is infiltrating an order of monks in order to pursue a suspect that he believes to be a dastardly sociopathic creature of the most evil character.
When they eventually track this shady character down to this secretive monastery there’s the briefest consideration given to the fact that this suspect might NOT be faking his ascetic lifestyle, he may be genuinely attempting a fresh start after an entire lifetime cruelly spent. I even thought that the narrative might explore how this individual had come to realize the inherent wickedness of his character and his inability to resist acting on it, and had fled to a rigid, minimalist life style to prevent his ability to act on these impulses
I was thrilling for this. For one thing, these golden age detective novels completely disregard the very notion of redemptive behavior or reformation of one’s lifestyle. Characters are either a bad lot or a good lot, and the chances of someone feeling genuine remorse that goes beyond a gentlemen-like expression of apathetic acceptance are basically nil.
I really hoped that Tey might subvert this by having this character whom no one would believe genuinely be trying to turn over a new leaf. Instead, he really is just a total Cad and the whole thing just ends of being some, boring, completely characteristic plot to take over the Monastery and embezzle their funds, and the narrative chugs along with little incident from there.
This really deflated me and I sort of geared up for the last third of the novel to play out with the emotional beats exactly as they were “supposed� to, which of course they did.
I know she can do more!
She did do more with the confidently absurd finale of “Man in the Queue!�
Instead, this one holds its punches to create a more readable, but a far more unexciting affair than the first in my opinion.
That being said, mechanically the book itself is better written, the plot tighter, the mystery more satisfying than the first novel. People who care most about books being smooth experiences and paced well (totally fine) will think I’m totally off mark in liking this one less.
In fact if the release order of these books were actually swapped, with this one coming first, many of my complaints with this novel would be significantly alleviated.
As it is, it’s really difficult for me to not view the novel as a marked step backwards.
Special note goes to the few imaginatively striking scenes in this novel that really stand out and briefly lend a sort of surrealist, David Lynchian air to the proceedings. I still think the adventure to Scotland from the first novel trumps anything in this book though.
The midnight journey to a shadowy organization of cloistered monks is one such occurrence. There’s also my favorite section of the entire novel where an impish news reporter bemusedly watches as an astrologist causes mass panic in a lecture hall by declaring a violent murderer present through second sight.
This scene felt incredibly modern and bizarre like something out of a Dario Argento film I.E Profundo Rosso.
I only hope that the theming of the novels after this one return to the rich depth that her first novel shot for, I know that Tey is capable of much more.
I’m excited to see that realized moving forward....more
I quite enjoy when Agatha Christie is forced to “play by the rules� a bit and when the murders have clearly defined boundaries I really like this one.
I quite enjoy when Agatha Christie is forced to “play by the rules� a bit and when the murders have clearly defined boundaries that don’t involve mistaken identity and disguises.
In this case, the defining feature is the lack of hard evidence, which requires Poirot to lean more on the psychology of crime, and integrates a fun amount of game theory in the bridge game that he uses to infer things about his four suspects.
I really wish that more Christie novels carried the spirit of this one more than her more cartoonishly convoluted affairs....more
I really feel I should have liked this one more than I did. For starters Miss Marple is very present in the novel and quiet spunky which is a great siI really feel I should have liked this one more than I did. For starters Miss Marple is very present in the novel and quiet spunky which is a great sign initially.
It starts off very promising and “high concept.� A murder is literally “announced� in the paper at a local house and everyone goes to see what the deal with that is. This is quickly shelved to the whole thing feeling very bog standard about a third way through. Yup there are the mysterious heirs to a fortune soon to be inherited. Been there done that.
Structurally there’s also an annoying issue with nearly a hundred pages of the novel being devoted to trying to establish motive for the “attempted murder� when it isn’t really a mystery at all and is cleared up in a few lines of dialogue at an arbitrarily “correct� point for pacing purposes.
I would have liked if the narrative sustained the spontaneous mystery of the beginning, but as it is the “mystery� of the murder announcement is more or less shelved for the traditional accumulation of clues, and ho-humming of the local detectives about motives and identities.
I do appreciate that this novel feels grounded in real, post war paranoia that existed at the time, but I can’t help but feel like this could have been one of her true greats if she had worked a little bit harder to set it apart.
An interesting cozy mystery in which the community takes the driver seat to the plot.
Let me first start by saying I think Lilian Jackson Braun would bAn interesting cozy mystery in which the community takes the driver seat to the plot.
Let me first start by saying I think Lilian Jackson Braun would be an amazing DM in Dungeons and Dragons. Her strength as a writer definitely lies in her ability to effortlessly fill out her world of Moose County with a level of detail that is fairly astonishing.
The world of this novel is a “small town� yet its bristling with more life than most authors could hope to imbue in a bustling metropolis.
Braun is a functional, yet witty author and her narrative voice is strong if unimpressive. I admit I expected this novel to be fluffier than it ended up being based on the title and description. While it IS ostensibly a novel about a pair of cats who solve mysteries there are “T� themes in here about the interplay of gentrification of rural communities in the name of cultural/economic development and the resentment this may cause. This subtext lends itself to some of the more intriguing red herrings in the case.
If I had any complaints about this novel it’s that a number of subplots and characters seem to enter and exit the novel with their stories half told, and I hated to seem them go. This is my first book of hers so it’s entirely possible that multi-book character plot lines are a thing that she employs throughout the series, which would be a pleasant surprise.
This book makes me want to go back and start with book 1 in the series so I can better appreciate some of the finer context of the series as a whole and update my review then. ...more
I really like Alan Grant as a contrast to other golden age detectives. He’s more sensitive, grounded, A great first effort, somewhat clunky in places.
I really like Alan Grant as a contrast to other golden age detectives. He’s more sensitive, grounded, and thoughtful than your Lord Peter Wimsey, or Hercule Poroit.
The plot is subversive and thematically rich. It’s clear that Tey had thoughts about the role of police in the society, and how even someone well meaning and “honest� like Grant can come across as a manipulative sociopath in the course of their work.
The novel touches on the fact that, many times the police are put in the position of being the first, and most important, jury in a criminal case by how they interpret evidence, and whether they feel the inclination and need to view things from outside the easiest frame of reference.
For such an old book, it handles these challenging themes rather excellently, many modern, progressive novels, attempting to convey a similar idea would frame their detective protagonist as an unrepentant and lazy bully. Tey brilliantly subverts this by making her detective a thoughtful, and even a rather tortured detective, one who is constantly second guessing himself, holding himself to task, and unsure of where evidence my lead. Grant is undoubtedly “One of the good ones� a police officer who is fully aware of the enormity and weight of his job, and who takes it very seriously.
This decision grants the novel an even handed, and persuasive tone, as even Grant, one who really does seem to try, but for the literal grace of god, would have been led astray.
I’ve seen people comment on the evident racism and datedness of the novel, and I want to push back slightly in that I think this is more of a (dated) attempt at social commentary than the author being an out of control bigot.
We see that Grant is a thoughtful, intellectual person who even says straight out that he believes that mixed race people are a good thing, yet even he allows prejudice to constantly slip into his mental thinking throughout the investigation.
I also consider the constant refrains that Grant is “unbiased� and “objective� when he clearly isn’t as clear moments of commentary rather than facts of the novel. After all the story is told from his point of view.
I think the reader is supposed to think of Grant as a well meaning investigator, but ultimately one who is constrained by the culture of his profession to an extent and that limits his investigative ability. I Tey is certainly less bigoted and racist than Christie or Sayers were and Tey’s ideas seem more progressive and future proof in my opinion.
The rather abrupt, strange ending with the solution coming out of nowhere to be the thesis statement on these perhaps, too subtle commentaries. There is no parlor room scene where Grant brilliantly demonstrates his superhuman intellectual faculties. Instead Grant works his hardest as an intelligent, if fallible, human being, and is ultimately spared the ruination of his career and his entire sense of self through a rather random and fortuitous occurance.
Is this Narratively satisfying? It depends on what narrative you’re interested in here.
Overall it’s an interesting novel that points to, I hope, more refined and consistently entertaining efforts moving forward. It’s a novel that artistically shoots far higher than the puzzle box affairs of Christie and the satirically twee and morbidly smug Whimsey novels I’ve read so far. I could see Tey standing above them in my estimation if she continues this trajectory.
This is my first novel I’ve read by Tey but I’m excited to read more....more
A heavily flawed classic. I enjoyed the different tone and subject of this one. An old dog learning new tricks to various levels of success.
Christie rA heavily flawed classic. I enjoyed the different tone and subject of this one. An old dog learning new tricks to various levels of success.
Christie really tried to evolve thematically and emotionally here, but the mechanics of the book are just very sloppy.
It succumbs to a few of my least favorite Christie Tropes, the worst of all being the meaninglessly large cast and half baked number of competing red herrings that anyone familiar with Christie knows they can ignore with little consequence.
It’s an edgier, more disturbing Christie book than most she wrote that finally explores a more complex motive , that of perverted compulsion, which is completely different than her average fare. For that I recommend it to those trying to see the complete spectrum of her writing....more
I really enjoyed the idea of reconstructing the murder after the fact the way this one does. It leaves itself to a more contained mystery that requireI really enjoyed the idea of reconstructing the murder after the fact the way this one does. It leaves itself to a more contained mystery that requires deliberate plotting reminiscent of her better efforts.
It also has more deeply fleshed out characters and a more emotionally compelling story than many of Poirot’s other cases, and the “non murderer� and “non victim characters� feel like they are meaningful outside of their narrative use as red herrings.
There is also distinct homosexual subtext in this novel that is rather interesting. ...more
**spoiler alert** This one might get a bit spoilery
This one got away from her. It’s one of those “Fake� Christie novels that feels like an attempt at **spoiler alert** This one might get a bit spoilery
This one got away from her. It’s one of those “Fake� Christie novels that feels like an attempt at self parody or her attempt at seeing just how “Christie� she can make a book and get away with it
I can’t stand Christie’s “no one will recognize me!� Plots and this is the absolute nadir of her reliance on such a thing.
This narrative device has marred so, so many of Christie’s short stories and novels and I find myself audibly groaning when it happens again and again like someone who always does the exact same gag to end a scene at the local improv comedy club.
Invariably, like the ticking of a clock, a well constructed plot will hinge on someone passing themselves off as someone else, and invariably they will never come close to being recognized until they are by someone after the fact and that person is murdered, which ultimately gives the murderer away.
The “I’m really someone else� plot is so groan worthy, not only because it relies on the murderer planning on something as out of their control as the memory of countless people towards their identity in the construction of the plot, it also is necessarily something that MUST be hidden from the reader and can always be revealed later as a surprise without any setup.
Any indication that
Sure the reader can always “guess� that someone is really someone else but that’s not really satisfying as most people aren’t going to want to rely on a clue they can’t possibly see and end their thinking with that.
In the instance of this book, the mistaken identity is such a stretch that no one would guess it because it’s just too absurd to guess.
this is the most extreme example of that idea she’s ever done.
It’s also one of those “here’s a group of ten people and they’re all loathsome or criminal but none of it will matter to the murder� books and it’s one of those where she doesn’t really attempt at breathing life into the characters outside of their narrative function.
Poirot (unlike Marple) is all about the mystery puzzle, and when that breaks down the book becomes hardly worth reading. This different focus is why some Poirot books are completely skippable in contrast to Marple, which may not have the heights of Poirot but is consistently more worthwhile.
I am frustrated by the inconsistency of Christy, some of her books function as genuine works of art. A few of her novels can be considered capital “L� literature in my opinion.
Yet others, like this one, are comic books. Characters are created to serve the function of the plot, the setting is there for the plot. The entire thing is a construction meant to dupe the reader and keep them guessing, I know she’s capable of more, it’s just inconsistently applied....more
**spoiler alert** Need to go into spoilers to discuss the merits on this one.
I’m of two minds.
On the one hand it represents the absolute Zenith of the**spoiler alert** Need to go into spoilers to discuss the merits on this one.
I’m of two minds.
On the one hand it represents the absolute Zenith of the “Christie� style of closed world, unguessable murder puzzle.
For pros.
It’s definitely a “Real� Christie novel, one that she cared about and put the effort forward for.
The setting is classic and great. There’s no wonder it’s as iconic and emulated as it is. An exotic location, yet it’s a closed world. The setup of this novel is pure ingenuity.
On a thematic level it’s also interesting, in that It represents a foil to Poirot’s character. A surprising moment where his unwavering condemnation of murder as a solution is directly challenged.
Poirot novels often deal with victims of murder who are loathsome or may have “deserved� it in some way, yet the question of the moral “guilt� of the murder is almost never a question that is difficult to answer for Poirot. Normally the murderer will murder again, and this time the person is a true innocent, or the murderer will be an even more unscrupulous and unsavory person than the original victim.
Here there is no such luck for Poirot. The victim is completely reprehensible, he has escaped genuine attempts at justice and is wholly unrepentant. The murderers are decent, ordinary people pushed to their limit.
Ultimately Poirot’s ideology is forced to face defeat and he lets this one go, which is genuinely a great change for the character and sets the novel apart. I believe this ending contributes to its place as one of the more legendary Poirot cases.
On the other hand these same characteristics that set Christie apart from everyone else also grate my sensibilities when they are taken to such extremes as they are here.
The cast is too large. While this serves the function and theme of the novel, as all of these people have been impacted by the murder victim, it’s impossible to convince a reader that all of these named characters should matter, or do matter.
Really all of them don’t, other than the fact that they are all in on it
Then we get into the mechanics of the murder and outside the great theming and setting it falls apart for me.
I hate to get nitpicky about plot, but Christie inherently lends itself to such things.
Once again, and as is my eternal frustration with Christie and media written with a similar style, it is clear that we are working backwards from the premise of the murder being something that should be unguessable, shocking, and intricate to the detriment of the entire thing as a coherent story.
To start with, the victim is so monstrously evil, it’s absurd. This is likely to justify the fact that all of the murderers could be justified, and that such a large group of people would be involved.
The actual compelling incident, the ransom and murder of an innocent child, is so far beyond Christie’s ordinary fair that it just feels like overkill, it plunges the book into a melodramatic, maudlin territory that she ordinarily avoids.
If you’ve seen the recent adaptation of this novel you know what I mean. Here, the plot of the novel is treated as a somber, heart wrenching story completely devoid of the ordinary whit and black humor she normally has in spades.
This also means that Poirot can’t really be Poirot, and is forced into a more mellow, somber role than is fitting.
Another side effect of the “they all did it� rug pull is that Poirot is distrusted and distrusts everyone in this book. He is unable to form the empathetic and compelling relationships with the characters he ordinarily can with suspects in other novels once he is convinced they are not guilty.
Here, EVERYONE is under suspicion and is hiding their complicity to the very end, which necessarily means that everyone views poirot the exact same way, a meddling threat to their goals.
The various absurd levels of misdirection employed to hide the murder are comical, require an insane amount of mental acuity to properly visualize, and are ultimately proven meaningless.
Christie could have made every one of these “clues� inconsistent with themselves and make no sense and it would have served the same ultimate narrative function.
This all leads me to the thing about this that is so frustrating (and also my main problem with “And then there were None) which is, in order for a story to mean something outside of its shocking twist, it is important to consider what the twist does to the story retroactively.
In the case of “Murder of Roger Ackryoid� not only is the twist very guessable, it actually elevates the novel considerably.
The twist here makes the entire thing pointless, Poirot’s role in the novel is pointless, the “investigation� that takes place is equally pointless, the dialogue is pointless, everything about the story is implicated in the shock of the twist.
In a good mystery, we are lead from point to point, hopefully piecing things together and Poirot leads us to the solution where we struggle with the final answer.
That effect is a complete sham in this case, as the reveal involves every piece of evidence being falsified and proven misleading at the same time. Every character is revealed the same way at virtually the same time. It becomes a “gotcha� rather than an “aha� and that makes it ultimately lesser as a final narrative story
Unfortunately this book is just too absurd for me to truly consider a masterpiece of the genre....more
Loading...
