They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. But if you are imitating the writing style of an author like Agatha Christie who is widely revered across the globe and you compound it by 'purloining' Hercule Poirot, her adorable hero, to tell your story, then imitation is more scary and intimidating than a mere flattery.
In case of flattery you have only one person as your audience. When you imitate Agatha Christie, and write her name boldly in the cover of your book, it is an open season out there.
In case of flattery you have only one person as your audience. When you imitate Agatha Christie, and write her name boldly in the cover of your book, it is an open season out there.
In writing the book Closed Casket, Hannah stayed very close to Christie style. The typical play of words is there, the neat deflections are there, even the cast is Christiesque, set in an isolated country house, few suspects each having a motive and opportunity to commit the crime, a mysteriously appearing Hercule Poirot and a murder. It is classic Agatha Christie.
Hannah has not just followed Christie to the 'TIE', she has introduced her inventiveness as well into
the story. The lead character is modelled after Carolyne Keene, author of Nancy Drew series of stories. In fact I felt that she is modelled more likely as Enid Blyton, the grande dame of children's mystery story writing in English language and a true blue English woman to boot.
the story. The lead character is modelled after Carolyne Keene, author of Nancy Drew series of stories. In fact I felt that she is modelled more likely as Enid Blyton, the grande dame of children's mystery story writing in English language and a true blue English woman to boot.
It is difficult to review a detective story because the reviewer cannot give a synopsis of the story. He is forced to tread on the sidelines and review the embellishments and the ambience as it were. Still one tries.
The story starts off with Lady Athelinda Playford inviting guests, including the famous Hercule Poirot to a house party in her mansion in Clonakilty, County Cork in Ireland. The guests include, along with Poirot, Lady Playford's lawyer Michael Gathercole, her daughter Claudia and her son Harry, Harry's wife Dorothy aka Dorro, Claudia's fiancee Randall Kimpton, Inspector Edward Catchpool of London Scotland Yard and Orville Rolfe who is the Michael's partner in the law firm Gathercole and Rolfe. In addition to Lady Playford, the residents of the mansion include Lady Playford's secretary Joseph Scotcher, his nurse Sophie Bourlet, Hatton the butler, Brigid the cook and Phyllis the maid.
During the dinner, Lady Playford announces that she has decided to modify her will. She has decided to cut her children Claudia and Harry from the will and has decided to leave everything she possess to her secretary Joseph Scotcher, who is suffering from advanced kidney disease with just a few weeks to live. If Scotcher dies due to illness as expected, the original will will be reverted to. As expected, commotion ensues at the dinner table after the announcement, strong words are exchanged and from the perspective of the author, the situation generates a set of suspects who has the motive for murder.
Predictably, in the next two hours (Hannah doesn't waste time), Scotcher is found murdered with his head smashed. Nurse Sophie witnesses Claudia bashing Scotcher and thus Claudia becomes the prime suspect. She has the motive and the opportunity.
But it is never that easy, is it? Especially with Poirot around.
The key loophole in the argument of Claudia being the perpetrator is that she is engaged to be married to Randall Kimpton, who is a very rich man. Why should she commit a murder and that too for money?
So the question is, is money the motive? The murder happening after a major announcement will make it appear so. In fact, the will, in one shot, has disinherited the children. Who can blame them if they indulge in a murder or two?
But the fact that murder happened immediately after the major announcement could also mean someone wanted to fish in troubled waters. Someone used the commotion created and the motives that serendipitously presented themselves to commit the murder.
Did Lady Playford anticipate this murder? Was that the reason why Poirot and Catchpool were invited in the first place to prevent the possible crime? Recently the duo had become famous for solving a case which the press titled as 'The Monogram Murders'. Lady Playford might have had an inkling that something of this nature will be afoot and that is why she invited them to the party.
Finally, after 32 chapters, Poirot reveals the motive and the opportunity and the identity of the murderer.
And the murderer is.... (I had you there)
'Undulating' is the word that comes to mind when I look at the narrative. The first chapter is brilliant. It hooks you to wanting to read more. Hannah's love for the language clearly comes out through sentences such as 'Lady Playford had a talent for extracting as much amusement from the inconsequential as from the controversial', 'as if her eyes had picked him up, turned him around and put him down', 'she never looked out....if there was human being to inspect, she did not wast time on nature', 'constant meticulous scrutiny of every person that crossed here path meant that she paid little attention to anything that could not speak' etc
From a brilliant first chapter, the story meanders into 'average' before picking up steam in the middle. I guess that is a characteristic of Agatha Christie novels. She deliberately make the early part less interesting so as to hides important clues.
I wish the characterization could have been sharper. There are some characters who are in the book so that they can say just one or two sentences and then never return. 'Cameo' is the word that comes to mind. In fact the lead character has nothing much to do after making a big announcement in the first chapter and she remains incommunicado for the next 16 or 17 chapters.
In the Christie novels that I remember reading, every character has a place, is a suspect and has the opportunity to commit the crime. An average reader like me cannot say who committed the crime until Hercule Poirot majestically points out what was obvious in front of us all along. However, some characters in this book eliminate themselves and reader would be enormously surprised if they turn out to have committed the crime. Even the eventual murder has a convoluted motive (just to show that I can also use italics) for doing what they did.
There are some gaps in the narration as well. For example, early on, there is a reference to two people talking behind the bushes in the garden. There is no satisfactory explanation given later of who they were and what they were talking and even how they were in that place at that time. For a person like me who 'visualizes' what he reads, such gaps stick out.
The book scores high on sticking very closely to the Christie script. All those 'Little Gray Cells', 'Mon Amis', 'Egg shaped head', references are kept in tact. Even the locales are the same, large country house and a house party and people with names like Gathercole and Catchpool. You even see the Poirot as you have always known him, small man with an oval shaped head who walks briskly and shares his ideas and opinions tantalisingly freely.
When you read a Christie novel, that is what you are looking for, aren't you? In a world of rapid technology changes, a world where crime detection has become more scientific and prosaic and mechanical (Darn those DNA Tests. what is next? Reviewing CCTV footage? Social Media profiling? where will it end?) Poirot and his 'psychology' based and logical crime detection are your cherished links to the past.
I can see Agatha Christie agreeing with me. I can see her reading this book with approval. She will definitely nod in agreement at Hannah's words, spoken through Lady Playford (I quote) 'I am afraid I don't write for dimwits and nor will I, ever. I write for those capable of rising to an intellectual challenge'.
Those dimwits? They can take a hike.
The story starts off with Lady Athelinda Playford inviting guests, including the famous Hercule Poirot to a house party in her mansion in Clonakilty, County Cork in Ireland. The guests include, along with Poirot, Lady Playford's lawyer Michael Gathercole, her daughter Claudia and her son Harry, Harry's wife Dorothy aka Dorro, Claudia's fiancee Randall Kimpton, Inspector Edward Catchpool of London Scotland Yard and Orville Rolfe who is the Michael's partner in the law firm Gathercole and Rolfe. In addition to Lady Playford, the residents of the mansion include Lady Playford's secretary Joseph Scotcher, his nurse Sophie Bourlet, Hatton the butler, Brigid the cook and Phyllis the maid.
During the dinner, Lady Playford announces that she has decided to modify her will. She has decided to cut her children Claudia and Harry from the will and has decided to leave everything she possess to her secretary Joseph Scotcher, who is suffering from advanced kidney disease with just a few weeks to live. If Scotcher dies due to illness as expected, the original will will be reverted to. As expected, commotion ensues at the dinner table after the announcement, strong words are exchanged and from the perspective of the author, the situation generates a set of suspects who has the motive for murder.
Predictably, in the next two hours (Hannah doesn't waste time), Scotcher is found murdered with his head smashed. Nurse Sophie witnesses Claudia bashing Scotcher and thus Claudia becomes the prime suspect. She has the motive and the opportunity.
But it is never that easy, is it? Especially with Poirot around.
The key loophole in the argument of Claudia being the perpetrator is that she is engaged to be married to Randall Kimpton, who is a very rich man. Why should she commit a murder and that too for money?
So the question is, is money the motive? The murder happening after a major announcement will make it appear so. In fact, the will, in one shot, has disinherited the children. Who can blame them if they indulge in a murder or two?
But the fact that murder happened immediately after the major announcement could also mean someone wanted to fish in troubled waters. Someone used the commotion created and the motives that serendipitously presented themselves to commit the murder.
Did Lady Playford anticipate this murder? Was that the reason why Poirot and Catchpool were invited in the first place to prevent the possible crime? Recently the duo had become famous for solving a case which the press titled as 'The Monogram Murders'. Lady Playford might have had an inkling that something of this nature will be afoot and that is why she invited them to the party.
Finally, after 32 chapters, Poirot reveals the motive and the opportunity and the identity of the murderer.
And the murderer is.... (I had you there)
'Undulating' is the word that comes to mind when I look at the narrative. The first chapter is brilliant. It hooks you to wanting to read more. Hannah's love for the language clearly comes out through sentences such as 'Lady Playford had a talent for extracting as much amusement from the inconsequential as from the controversial', 'as if her eyes had picked him up, turned him around and put him down', 'she never looked out....if there was human being to inspect, she did not wast time on nature', 'constant meticulous scrutiny of every person that crossed here path meant that she paid little attention to anything that could not speak' etc
From a brilliant first chapter, the story meanders into 'average' before picking up steam in the middle. I guess that is a characteristic of Agatha Christie novels. She deliberately make the early part less interesting so as to hides important clues.
I wish the characterization could have been sharper. There are some characters who are in the book so that they can say just one or two sentences and then never return. 'Cameo' is the word that comes to mind. In fact the lead character has nothing much to do after making a big announcement in the first chapter and she remains incommunicado for the next 16 or 17 chapters.
In the Christie novels that I remember reading, every character has a place, is a suspect and has the opportunity to commit the crime. An average reader like me cannot say who committed the crime until Hercule Poirot majestically points out what was obvious in front of us all along. However, some characters in this book eliminate themselves and reader would be enormously surprised if they turn out to have committed the crime. Even the eventual murder has a convoluted motive (just to show that I can also use italics) for doing what they did.
There are some gaps in the narration as well. For example, early on, there is a reference to two people talking behind the bushes in the garden. There is no satisfactory explanation given later of who they were and what they were talking and even how they were in that place at that time. For a person like me who 'visualizes' what he reads, such gaps stick out.
The book scores high on sticking very closely to the Christie script. All those 'Little Gray Cells', 'Mon Amis', 'Egg shaped head', references are kept in tact. Even the locales are the same, large country house and a house party and people with names like Gathercole and Catchpool. You even see the Poirot as you have always known him, small man with an oval shaped head who walks briskly and shares his ideas and opinions tantalisingly freely.
When you read a Christie novel, that is what you are looking for, aren't you? In a world of rapid technology changes, a world where crime detection has become more scientific and prosaic and mechanical (Darn those DNA Tests. what is next? Reviewing CCTV footage? Social Media profiling? where will it end?) Poirot and his 'psychology' based and logical crime detection are your cherished links to the past.
I can see Agatha Christie agreeing with me. I can see her reading this book with approval. She will definitely nod in agreement at Hannah's words, spoken through Lady Playford (I quote) 'I am afraid I don't write for dimwits and nor will I, ever. I write for those capable of rising to an intellectual challenge'.
Those dimwits? They can take a hike.
No comments:
Post a Comment