Reading the Detectives discussion

A spoiler thread for our latest Poirot buddy read.

I was convinced I had read this before, but I was wrong. By quite early on I really thought I had worked it all out, however Christie did beat me on this one. Some of the clues I picked up on were right, but then there were other happenings that I did not foresee. I think a weak point in it was the fact that Poirot took up the case because of something he had heard some time before this case was brought to him, made him bother with it. As was stated within the book, the whole of the Cloade family were a bunch of scroungers and thought life for them should have been easy, making them an awful family. Even Lynn made sure she gets herself an easy life at the end, which left me very disappointed with her.

I am realising how few of the Christies I read when I was young, unlike Ngaio Marsh or Allinghams, where I seem to have read every book. It might be because I have forgotten them over the past 50 odd years, but I have clear memories of the various children's books I read.

I agree that the Cloades aren't an attractive family - although they aren't portrayed as such, and being dependent on their rich relative seems to have allowed some of them to go to the dogs.

I disagree with Jill though that Lynn has opted for the easy life: she has chosen a narrow-minded violent partner, apparently with Poirot's beaming approval! We have commented in the past that in GA crime novels independent women choose to submit to controlling husbands - the dress designers in both Evil Under the Sun, and in Allingham's The Fashion in Shrouds both gave up their own businesses, at which they were very talented, to appease a less successful suitor. But this is one of the nastier examples.

I don't remember any history of Rowley being violent other than he lashed out at the blackmailer. (unless you consider all farmers as violent sending calves to market) And as a polite cough from Poirot was enough to stop him in his attack on Lynn, I don't consider him a violent man. Lynn had known him all her life, and thought of him as being secure if staid. Never ( as far I can remember) had she mentioned him being violent. I was disappointed with her as she had decided to not leave the security of the family and I wanted more independence from her.

Jill wrote: "I don't remember any history of Rowley being violent other than he lashed out at the blackmailer. (unless you consider all farmers as violent sending calves to market) And as a polite cough from Po..."

No, I consider trying to strangle Lynn, and only stopping when he knew there was a witness as a 'history of violence'. Do you really not see that as violent, and a danger signal?

Rosina wrote: "Jill wrote: "I don't remember any history of Rowley being violent other than he lashed out at the blackmailer. (unless you consider all farmers as violent sending calves to market) And as a polite ..."

But we don't know if he would have stopped anyway. To me if a slight cough was enough to make him realise what he was doing he had not lost all sense

Spousal violence is usually hidden from witnesses. It was the presence of Poirot, not his polite cough, that brought an end to the assault. But if you are happy with a man who attacks the woman he loves, because she favoured another man, then that is clearly the attitude Christie is advocating. In these days, with domestic violence frowned on, it leaves an unpleasant after-taste from the book.

I haven't reread this but also remember being disturbed by that scene, admittedly through twentieth century eyes. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Lynn was secretly thrilled by the violence since it spoke of 'passion' to her beneath the safe and secure surface. A rather worrying demonstration...

Jill wrote: "I was convinced I had read this before, but I was wrong. By quite early on I really thought I had worked it all out, however Christie did beat me on this one. Some of the clues I picked up on were ..."

Yes! I’m not too sure I’d bet on Lynn and Rowley’s future happiness...

Roman Clodia wrote: "I haven't reread this but also remember being disturbed by that scene, admittedly through twentieth century eyes. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Lynn was secretly thrilled by the violenc..."

Agreed - it does kind of bring to mind the outdated bodice-ripper mentality, doesn’t it? “This must mean he lurvs me!” Yikes!

Haha, you've captured it exactly, Susan - yikes, indeed!

Yes . Thinking about it she did enjoy Hunter rushing out of the woods and kissing her. Maybe it is spontaneity she craves

Jill wrote: "Yes . Thinking about it she did enjoy Hunter rushing out of the woods and kissing her. Maybe it is spontaneity she craves"

I think you’re right - it makes me think settling back into the respectable, day-to-day routine of life must have been tough for many women, especially those who served overseas in WWII!

I was bothered some by Lynn & Rowley also but I wonder if that eruption into violence was due in part to those years and years of staying slow & calm. Still I was a bit surprised by Poirot's approval after he had made that comment about not changing was the problem, not changing. I had taken that to mean disapproval of Rowley.

I wonder if all this was due to Christie herself not knowing any instances of domestic abuse personally. Clearly she knew of its existence but from a distance. She had written Lynn as being attracted to the dangerous quality in Hunter and so maybe she wrote that strangling scene to give her a reason to look upon Rowley as dangerous and therefore not such a bad catch after all. It reads almost as if Christie wanted to have a happy romantic ending and didn't quite know how to create it.

A bit off topic here, but earlier this year I read a great book that dealt with domestic violence which made me understand a little better why wives stay so long with abusive husbands -- Big Little Lies by Lianne Moriarty.

Leslie wrote: "I was bothered some by Lynn & Rowley also but I wonder if that eruption into violence was due in part to those years and years of staying slow & calm. Still I was a bit surprised by Poirot's approv..."

I agree - it did seem that she was reaching for the usual “young lovers’ happy ending” Poirot often oversees/encourages, but this really didn’t work for me!

Rosina wrote: "I am realising how few of the Christies I read when I was young, unlike Ngaio Marsh or Allinghams, where I seem to have read every book. It might be because I have forgotten them over the past 50 o..."

Rosina - fantastic, you, too recognise that the 'wonderful' Rowley is indeed violent. There is no excuse, although it seems that Christie accepts his behaviour as part of a romance. I enjoy reading Agatha Christies but, oh, some of the values are woeful.

Leslie wrote: "A bit off topic here, but earlier this year I read a great book that dealt with domestic violence which made me understand a little better why wives stay so long with abusive husbands -- [book:Big ..."
I really enjoyed Big Little Lies, too. A very good depiction of a domestic violence situation. I also saw the 6 part series, set in America instead of Australia which was a pity. However, although I'd rather have had a Sydney beaches backdrop, the series was also excellent.

I was also really troubled by the violence from Rowley-I also suspect that this was something of an aberration from Christie-her way of showing that Rowley did indeed love Lynn and had some spontaneity and passion in him. Unfortunately in real life it would be unlikely not to lead to violence in the relationship later on.

On a lighter note, I didn't figure this one out at all! I twigged that, as Jeremy had overheard the story of the first husband, there was some sort of play by the family to annul the marriage, and assumed the murder was an extension to try to pin the crime on David.

On a social note, the idea of people living off family money was likely much more accepted then (and obviously still is in most places today-wealth is passed on and children of wealth have tremendous advantages growing up). A generation or two earlier, lots of young men would assume their family money entitled them to not work at all. The Cloades all seemed to have some sort of occupation, just assumed they could live better lives-bigger houses, better schools, better positions-than their incomes would allow. Lynn was right to call David out on his mockery of them for sponging off a wealthy relative-for he was doing exactly the same thing!

I had thought that the romantic wrap-up would see Lynn ending up with David (I assumed his dangerous persona was a red herring) and Rowley with Rosaleen, who seemed so at home and happy on the farm. Christie's ingenious plot twist-the substituted wife-was brilliant!

True - I didn’t see the substituted wife thing at all, and thought, like you, the lovers would pair off like that!

I would not end up with Rowley! Rosaleen was the widow - and I would really have preferred that ending, although not sure who the killer would have been.

I commented in the other thread that I found the 'she is not of our class' a trifle overdone, but it is one of the clues. David, for all his faults, does seem to be a gentleman - he was an officer in the War, and he is not a suitable suitor for Lynn because he is dangerous, not because he is underbred. But his 'sister' is just a housemaid, so common, which all the Cloades recognise.

I think the problem for Christie here is that after having established David as "dangerous and exciting", how was she to make Rowley and his "home on the farm" life not seem like a letdown. For what it's worth, though, I never got the impression that Lynn was likely to take any attempt at spousal abuse lying down -- that she was far more likely to give as good as she got.

Frances wrote: "I had thought that the romantic wrap-up would see Lynn ending up with David (I assumed his dangerous persona was a red herring) and Rowley with Rosina, who seemed so at home and happy on the farm...."

That is what I thought as well.

Rosina wrote: "I would not end up with Rowley! Rosaleen was the widow - and I would really have preferred that ending, although not sure who the killer would have been."

Sorry about that! I've gone back and corrected my post (for those who don't know what I'm talking about, I said Rosina rather than Rosaleen in message 19-now corrected!)-I guess I subconsciously picked up on your name and used it (lovely name, by the way!).

Thank you! A middle name, but my own (and my mother's and grandmother's)

I am so very angry with the epilog that it rather ruined the book for me. Lynn is going to be bored and she recognized that earlier. The theory that your husband turning violent would add welcome excitement to your life is ridiculous. I wonder if Christie felt pressure to encourage the returning WRENs to marry their former sweethearts? Do you think there was a social problem with the women returning and wanting more out of life? Not everyone was happy with the modern woman (reference the elderly lady in the inn).

I have a problem with David killing Rosaleen / Elaine. I think he would have been more likely to just fold up his losing hand; i.e. tell Elaine to confess while he disappears. I doubt the Cloudes would have pressed charges, having got the money. They might even have helped Elaine get home (or she could have married Rowley). He wasn't going to get the money once she died.

I don't blame the Cloudes for being so dependent on their brother. He very strongly encouraged it and helped them in meaningful ways: keeping up the house, setting up the farm, doing medical research. I wouldn't refuse such an offer.

Sandy wrote: "I am so very angry with the epilog that it rather ruined the book for me. Lynn is going to be bored and she recognized that earlier. The theory that your husband turning violent would add welcome e..."

Yes, yes, yes! There was a move everywhere to get middle class women out of the paid workforce and 'back to where they belonged'. I say middle class as the adage did not apply to women who had always had to make their own way financially. I think that Christie was basically conservative, with some forays into supporting some different points of view ( I cant think of examples at the moment, but recall defending her along these lines at times). Her own marital problems might have encouraged her to take this stance also. She was determined to be happy and remain married to her second husband, and as we know, was devastated by her first husband's perfidy. I should go and look at the dates and see where she was in her private life really, but having a chat rather than a proper investigation, so forgive.

I would never condone Rowley’s violence, but perhaps the following explains, without condoning it: A key part of Poirot’s/Christie’s “thesis” is that the Cloade’s are immature in their development because of Gordon’s protection; This protection/lack of testing means that they do not know, themselves, how they will react when that protection is removed, and haven’t learnt how to handle themselves in this regard. As a result, Rowley’s slowness has become the kind of brooding nature that builds a pressure in him that he has never learnt to deal with. As Poirot says “To most of us the test comes early in life ... But the Cloades had no opportunity of knowing their own weaknesses until ... forced, quite unprepared to face difficulty”. Rowley’s violence was in the context of rage, against the deceitful plan of Frances & Charles, and as the jealous lover with regard to Lynn. It appears that Lynn, Cathy-like, likes a bit of Heathcliff, which she thought she had found in David; In fact, under test Rowley has been revealed to be her true Heathcliff, while David’s apparent romantic nature has been revealed to be deceit. However superficial, the psychological aspect is usually an important component in Christie’s Poirot and Marple books, along with playing with the romantic notions of her readers.

Another Christie where “everything is wrong” is a key to the solution of the puzzle. Along with Rowley, rather than Lynn, being her true “Heathcliff”, Enoch Arden does not behave like the real Underhay, the motives for the two murders are inverted, etc.

Nick wrote: "I would never condone Rowley’s violence, but perhaps the following explains, without condoning it: A key part of Poirot’s/Christie’s “thesis” is that the Cloade’s are immature in their development ..."

I think that’s very feasible- especially the Cathy/Heathcliff part, I think Lynn is very much a Cathy, whether by personal inclination, or as a result other service abroad. She is afraid of becoming bored with a staid, rural existence - and I think she is very bothered by the whole “let Uncle Gordon handle it” ethos of the family...

I have always liked this story because of Christie's ability to bring characters to life even with only a handful of details. Minor subplots such as the nature of Frances and Jeremy Cloade's marriage add extra entertainment value along the way.

I must admit that as a romantic teenager I was always rooting for Lynn and David and loathed Rowley, so I was hugely disappointed by the ending. It is cleverly worked out though. Now, I just enjoy Lynn as a very spirited and adventurous heroine - although it's disappointing that she seems headed towards domestic dullness at the end of the story. (Similarly disappointing to the dress designer in EOTS, as someone mentioned above.)

I also find the coincidence of Poirot overhearing something significant in his club annoying. Christie always had a bold way with coincidences in her plots but it generally irritates me.

I picked up on the fact that whenever Rosaleen was asked about identifying her husband, her answers were evasive, which led me to suspect something was off there. I was somewhat disappointed that she ended up being a fake, as I had liked the idea she was a sweet, kind person. Too often you see the shallow gold digger type, so it was a refreshing change (although there was some speculation she had been altered by the bombing, who knows to what degree that was supposed). I had hoped for a Rowley/Rosaleen ending, but of course that was before we learned he only thought of her like cattle.
I tend to agree with Poirot's assessment of Lynn that she is the type that would be restless no matter where she landed. I found David totally disagreeable, but perhaps that explains to some degree why she ended up with Rowley after he tried to kill her. Clearly she has no sense in that area.

Has anyone seen the Suchet adaptation for this book? Thoughts? (view spoiler)[ I did not see the point of making David such an evil guy (compared to being more of an opportunist in the book), especially forcing Rosaleen to get an abortion so that he could control her totally. I did like that Lynn went away to South Africa in the end, that felt more fitting for her character. Casting was pretty good, although Rowley looked like a stocky oaf rather than the good looking man he was described as. (hide spoiler)]

This is the only Christie novel I have read where I reallly wanted the murderer to be someone else, I liked David, and really did not want him to be the murderer. And I thought Rowley was horrible, the ending of the book really shocked me. Wanting to marry someone who tried to strangle you is going too far for me. And Poirot not thinking it mattered that he had killed someone, that was really bizarre.

Tara wrote: "Has anyone seen the Suchet adaptation for this book? Thoughts? [spoilers removed]"

Yes, I didn’t care for it much, trying to place it in the 30s when it has such a postwar atmosphere doesn’t really work I think. And they really overdid David’s villainous. I suppose I would say in its favour that at least Lynn doesn’t end up with someone who tried to strangle her.

Louise, you are so right to be so strong on the issue of Rowley and his behaviour. No excuses for him - none. I think that fiction has an important role in social commentary, and wrote something about this for the Women's History Network blog years ago on this issue. However, lets not censor (although censure is good) and reflect upon the way in which this issue has engendered discussion here. I also think that publicising novels that show alternative perceptions of behaviour is another way of dealing with issues such as these.

Robin wrote: "Louise, you are so right to be so strong on the issue of Rowley and his behaviour. No excuses for him - none. I think that fiction has an important role in social commentary, and wrote something ab..."

I think it's always good to step back and consider that this isn't actually someone's (Rowley's) behaviour, but rather our Author's view of what would be acceptable and manly behaviour and attractive to an apparently independent woman (Lynn) with a taste for adventure. So what societal/cultural attitudes would lead an apparently strong and independent woman like Christie to write this sort of character? In her world view this behaviour could be a one-off demonstrating his love, but many of us know that in real life this would be a huge red flag for some ongoing violence. So not only an interesting read, but a window into what society of the time would have considered acceptable and appropriate behaviour, and a chance for us to address this in our own lives and advocate for changes in attitudes/behaviour in our peers and children.

Another reason to love reading fiction!

A really good point, Frances. However, I think that Agatha Christie was quite a mixture of characteristics. Not just 'strong and independent' . I was horrified at her attitude to sexual assault in Nemesis, where the police officer talks of women tempting men, then accusing them when assaulted. The character was a positive character, so Christie was not putting such ideas into the mouth of someone we knew to question. On the other hand, I also am tempted to write something applauding Christie's work and undermining the way in which she has been portrayed as racist and conservative. That is, for example, so many of the racist comments are undermined because of the character who utters them, and Poirot's responses. I can't find the same argument in favour of her apparent support of Rowley's behaviour and Lynne's acceptance of it, or the reference I made above to Nemesis.

I suspect that Christie never really made any judgements about the traits she gave her characters; that is, that just because a character fills a positive role, doesn't mean that character is going to espouse 100% positive values even by Christie's own standards. Perhaps Christie thought that this gave her character depth; or perhaps she was just reflecting what she observed of the people around her without thinking about what their attitudes meant.

So, if a heroic character in one book demands that his fiancee give up her successful business before he'll marry her, I'm not sure that necessarily means that Christie advocated that sort of thing -- after all, she never gave up writing despite her marriages. Likewise, I don't think Christie's saying that Rowley's behaviour is right or attractive -- just that it happens to work here. (view spoiler)["Appointment With Death" (hide spoiler)] matches an independent, professional woman with a man who seems utterly incapable of standing up to her, much less raising a hand against her, and that's framed as a happy relationship as well.