Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This thread is to discuss the whole of

The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie

Ally wrote (in another thread): Does the old fashioned whodunit still hold sway and fascination in the world of modern crime techniques and almost 'foensi fiction - thats what I'm on a personal mission to discover here!

Oh yes! A modernized descendant of the English Classic is now the hegemonic mode. It's quite an interesting game for me to figure out how these clever variants work. The biggest changes have come from our demand that everyone's psychology be on the dissecting table, detective included, and our scoffing at the cosy society of the older stories. Personally, I find the society of contemporary stories frightened and insecure. The detective never fixes anything, only keeps it from getting worse. It occurs to me that works like sugar in pizza -- makes you want another, and buy more beer.

Ivan, you wrote in another thread that Christie's And Then There Were None was not so much to your taste as Styles. Could you say why? Setting aside Ackroyd, Christie's stories seem to me to be much of a muchness.

Charles wrote: "Ivan, you wrote in another thread that Christie's And Then There Were None was not so much to your taste as Styles. Could you say why? Setting aside Ackroyd, Christie's stories seem to me to be muc..."

This is one of the few non-series stories of hers that I have read. I like the movie so that probably drew me to the book. I liked the book, too, I think. It was quite a while ago. Maybe it is time for a new read of that one.

I just remember thinking that it took too long introducing all the characters - chapter after chapter - before actually getting into the meat of the story. I've seen the old Walter Huston/Barry Fitzgerald film (which I like very much), but I just wasn't able to stick to the book.

Perhaps I'll give it another try in future. I rarely blame the book when I can't get into it. Too often it's happened that I'll pick the book up later and read it straight through and wonder what my problem was. I'm a firm believer in the theory that you have to be in the correct frame of mind for the book your reading.

I haven't read this one (won't be joining in due to time, either), but I loved And Then There Were None. I liked how we met all the characters first and then got into the story. I haven't seen any movie though. Maybe it's because I liked Clue that I liked it so much? I like the video game, too, lol. I really like Orient Express too. Roger Ackroyd was really good too. I find I like Poirot or independent stories more, but I like watching Marple more.

Ivan wrote: "I just remember thinking that it took too long introducing all the characters - chapter after chapter - before actually getting into the meat of the story. I've seen the old Walter Huston/Barry Fi..."

Yes. It's like a triple concerto where the first theme has to be got through three times and then the second theme and then the development... very hard to make interesting.

I certainly enjoyed reading this, but felt some of the key plot elements were rather weak. The whole idea behind "the false beard" for instance; perhaps if seen from a distance, but up close - no. Unless these people were trained in the art of disguise a false beard would be as convincing as a funny nose and glasses....

Ivan wrote: "I certainly enjoyed reading this, but felt some of the key plot elements were rather weak. The whole idea behind "the false beard" for instance; perhaps if seen from a distance, but up close - no...."

This is the sort of thing which led Raymond Chandler to demand real murders by real people.

...or is it charming in a nostalgic way? the innocence of the plotlines reflecting a more innocent reading public? I suppose these detection methods may have been fairly 'new' at the time Christie was writing?

Ally wrote: "...or is it charming in a nostalgic way? the innocence of the plotlines reflecting a more innocent reading public? I suppose these detection methods may have been fairly 'new' at the time Christie ..."

Doyle and others experimented with them -- remember Holmes going in disguise many times. To speak for Ivan, the incredulous part is that these are amateur actors putting on theatricals, and even Christie has to explain the improbability by making the pharmacist new in town. As for charming nostalgia, these plots are not functionally different from, say, a Morse or a Lynley. I think the contemporary popularity of this neo-Classicism indicates a deeper modern nostalgia which I find disturbing. It's one thing to re-read Christie. That's fun, and it has been fun. It's another thing to re-create Christies almost to exclusivity. (I feel myself in danger of a rant here. Somebody sit on me.)

Somehow one imagines Holmes was a master of disguise. I've read the The Moving Toyshop and The Case of the Gilded Fly by Edmund Crispin(enjoyed them very much) and they too suffered from the incredible. Perhaps Ally is on to something regards the innocence of the times and the characters. I think I prefer Sherlock (loved the updated BBC version); although the way Christie leads you to the murderer, than away, then back again is great fun. I still think Hastings is a dope.

Ivan wrote: "Somehow one imagines Holmes was a master of disguise. I've read the The Moving Toyshop and The Case of the Gilded Fly by Edmund Crispin(enjoyed them ver..."

There's a good reason why Christie is the most published author of all time, isn't there? Even if Hastings is a dope. As for simpler times I wonder -- there's the trauma of the European War -- and something of that was a pretty widespread hedonism and a strong desire for the way things were e.g. simple. Yes, perhaps Ally is onto something.

One of this months non-fiction nominations Bright Young People: The Rise and Fall of a Generation 1918-1940 by D.J. Taylor explores the hedonism of this time period and the effect of the political situation etc - could be an interesting choice!

my oh my - I finished this last night.

I quite enjoyed it - although I'm not the type of reader who 'predicts' whodunit as I read - I just go with the story. But I have to say that I thought Christie's style was very clever - particularly to (and I'm assuming those who are reading this thread have finished the book so look away now if not!...) dismiss a major suspect early on and then re-instate them near the end!

I very much liked Hastings as the 'Buffoon' to whom Poirot had to explain everything - I liked that narrative technique - it meant that as a reader you didn't have to engage too quickly and spoil the momentum.

I'm still not sure that this is one of my favourite genres though! - despite the charmingness of Christie's style and the beautiful evocation of provincial English life I don't think I'd choose to read too many more of this style of murder mystery.

Ally

Ally

Ally wrote: "I very much liked Hastings as the 'Buffoon' to whom Poirot had to explain everything - I liked that narrative technique"

Yes, this is what the Chronicler is for, to filter the detective's work and misdirect our attention. If we had access to the detective's thoughts there would be no puzzle. If there is no Chronicler then the author-narrator has to do the work, a more difficult proposition. I too think a lot of Christies all at once are a bit tedious. The Martin Beck series in which the characters and the social climate develop, or Donna Leon's books, get around the cookie-cutter problem. For that matter the innovation of Gasoline Alley in the comics.

Ally wrote: "I'm still not sure that this is one of my favourite genres though! -"

Ally, we are going to have to find you a more seductive example of the detective genre. How about a Maigret, or Trent's Last Case, or a Raymond Chandler? How about a zen detective (Van de Wettering) or Inspector Barlach (Durrenmatt)? Margaret Doody, whose detective is Aristotle?

Or, how about a Dorothy Sayers - like Murder Must Advertise or something.

I realize I'm a bit late with this one. Only just started listening to it today.

I will, however, take the time to read what you folks have to say about it - as well as looking at the discussions on the individual chapters.

Normally, I don't read Agatha's novels - unless they're on the tube. This one is fun - the reader is really good and is adept at doing the parts.

Yes - I will finish this.

OK - finished - a good whodunit.

...this one was mentioned in another thread...feel free to continue the discussion...

Al.ly wrote I very much liked Hastings as the 'Buffoon' to whom Poirot had to explain everything - I liked that narrative technique - it meant that as a reader you didn't have to engage too quickly and spoil the momentum

Hastings wasn't much good as a sidekick. Christie bundled him off to Argentina after a couple of books, and invented the Scotland Yard detective Japp instead.

This is good. Thanks Ally, I hadn't seen this thread. To avoid any spoilers, I'll finish the book and be back.