Reading the Detectives discussion

This is the spoiler thread (although this is not fiction, it is probably best for those of us who have read the entire book) for Agatha Christie and the Eleven Missing Days

One of the things this book made me wonder about was how much Agatha was prepared to put up with in her second marriage, in order to avoid another issue like that with Archie.

Her second marriage to Max was initially happy, but he was also unfaithful to her and kept a mistress in a flat which she paid for. I was SO outraged on her behalf I can't tell you!

If this hadn't happened, I wonder whether she would have been more likely to fight back against events, rather than try to hide them?

That is such discouraging news about Max. I had so enjoyed my illusion of a happy archaeological partnership. Facts are annoying.

I think this was later in the marriage, but I just wanted a Happy Ever After too....

I agree - I had this idea that her marriage to Max was a very happy one. I was so surprised to find out that he had a mistress for years.

I know some of her family questioned whether he wanted to marry her for her money (although she always had money worries). I am not sure that is strictly true - I hope not.

What did you think of Archie?

I wondered if Agatha was fairly resigned to the situation with the mistress, Barbara, as it sounds as if the two of them were eventually quite friendly.

I think there is a brief mention somewhere in the book that Agatha suggested she would be happy for Max to have other relationships as long as he was discreet? Doesn't sound as if he was very discreet with Barbara, however.

I think she was resigned to it. I think she liked Barbara initially, until she realised what was going on...

I wasn't sure how much I should go into the ins and outs of the disappearance over in the general thread? I think the author convincingly establishes that Agatha did not really lose her memory and that was a story invented later to spare her embarrassment. I also think he seems to establish that the accident was staged.

However, I *don't* agree with his comments about how she was fine and enjoying herself at the hotel (which some of his account contradicts anyway). Just because she didn't have amnesia it doesn't mean she was perfectly ok.

The whole fact that she ran off, staged the accident and used a false name surely shows that she was under strain or maybe having some kind of breakdown? So I don't think seeing the psychiatrist later was all a cover-up as Cade seems to suggest.

There are many incidents where people who aren't famous disappear and are later found "safe and well" staying in another area, and they are usually under a lot of emotional strain of one type or another when this happens.

Judy wrote: "I wasn't sure how much I should go into the ins and outs of the disappearance over in the general thread? I think the author convincingly establishes that Agatha did not really lose her memory and ..."

When I first heard about this "amnesia" theory, I didn't believe it one bit. Agatha Christie was going through a lot in her life at this point with the death of her mother and I think she was also working on a book that she didn't enjoy writing (Poirot--The Mystery of the Blue Train), and on top of that her husband was having an affair with Nancy Neele. So it would make sense that she made a run for it due to the crack in her marriage. Sometimes when we are under emotional strain and under great trial and hardship we want to run away. For Christie, that's what she did.

Yes, I think a breakdown sounds all too plausible. Using Neele's name was very telling.

Susan wrote: "Yes, I think a breakdown sounds all too plausible. Using Neele's name was very telling."

The amnesia theory doesn't hold up because if it did why would she use the Neele name. Unless it was selective memory but that sounds fishy to me. Still doesn't hold up. A breakdown, emotional strain, and not knowing what to do with her emotions at the time sounds like what really happen. There's so many theories, as usual when controversial things like this happen, but why can't it just be accepted that a breakdown happen?

The press also met the question of amnesia with incredulity. Apparently, according to this book you cannot have amnesia and secondary personality disorder at the same time, which really backs up your point, LovesMysteries.

After finishing this book my sympathy was, I must admit, all with Agatha? How did you feel about her after reading this?

Without reading the book, I start with sympathy for Christie wanting to escape. But I would have liked to see her find a way out before it reached such a fever pitch. I suppose it got harder every day the search continued. I'll be interested to hear how the author presented her.

I felt sympathy with both Agatha and Archie - I sympathised with her because of her heartbreak and the way she was so exposed in public. The author of this book also set my hackles rising by criticising her for spending too much time writing rather than concentrating on her husband - how was she supposed to write her mysteries?!

But I also sympathised with Archie - yes, he was unfaithful, but we can never really know what happens in someone else's marriage. And however badly he had behaved, he must have gone through hell when she disappeared and on top of being worried about her and their daughter he was also suspected or murder.

I also really felt for their daughter, Rosalind. There was bad feeling between her parents after all this, and she could hardly ever see her father and never even met her half-brother until he was grown up. And on top of all that her husband was killed in the war - a lot of sadness in her life.

I don't think Agatha and Rosalind ever re-built that bond, if it ever existed. Possibly Agatha longed for the bond she had with her own mother, but you just can't replicate these things. Her mother had everything she had planned for herself - a perfect marriage, being very close to her daughter, but it sadly did not work out in quite the same way for her.

It was nice to see though that Rosalind insisted on the TV Miss Marple and Poirot adaptations staying close to the books - sounds as if we partly have her to thank for the wonderful Joan Hickson versions. :)

Strange that she was so adverse to her mother having stage plays though; disliking the 'first nights' and publicity, perhaps?

Judy wrote: "It was nice to see though that Rosalind insisted on the TV Miss Marple and Poirot adaptations staying close to the books - sounds as if we partly have her to thank for the wonderful Joan Hickson ve..."

Without her daughter, we wouldn't have had such respectful adaptations of Agatha Christie's work. It's when Rosalind died, that we have received adaptations that strays far away from the books. I think the age of faithful adaptations are over.

Yes, and allowing Sophie Hannah to continue the books. Is it her grandson now who is in control of her legacy?

Susan wrote: "Yes, and allowing Sophie Hannah to continue the books. Is it her grandson now who is in control of her legacy?"

Yes, her grandson Mathew Prichard. I believe that he has a son by the name of James Pritchard so I'm guessing he'll run the estate when his father passes.

If you are interested in making money, and don't have any natural sympathy with the legacy, then I suppose you are looking to keep the estate in the public eye. I can see arguments for doing things, like the sequels, but surely there was an author more in Christie's style who could have been chosen?