Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our February 2021 challenge read of The Secret Adversary

Published in 1922 this was Christie's second published novel (the first, of course, being The Mysterious Affair at Styles and The Secret Adversary, which was published in 1920.

The book introduces the characters of Tommy and Tuppence who feature in three other Christie novels and one collection of short stories, which were published between 1922 and 1973.

In this first adventure, the Great War is over, and jobs are scarce. Childhood friends Tommy Beresford and Prudence "Tuppence" Cowley meet and agree to start their own business as The Young Adventurers.

Agatha Christie's first Tommy and Tuppence book is a thrill-packed novel of international intrigue and murder with all the Christie hallmarks of suspense and ingenuity. Their advertisement says they are 'willing to do anything, go anywhere'. But their first assignment, for the sinister Mr Whittington, plunges them into more danger than they ever imagined!

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

The political content of this book is extremely odd, to say the least, and I suspect not something Christie would have included in a later novel.

I don't really understand what the shocking document is or why it would "destroy England" - and it also seems utterly bizarre that a general strike can apparently be cancelled just like that and all the disaffected workers are suddenly happy again!

Also, I'd read this before so I knew who the villain is, but am I right in thinking it's fairly obvious?

I don't really see how Julius could be the villain in terms of the plot, despite all the clues trying to make readers think so! I quite enjoyed him as a character because of his humour, although he is such a stereotyped rich American.

Judy wrote: "Also, I'd read this before so I knew who the villain is, but am I right in thinking it's fairly obvious?

I don't really see how Julius could be the villain in terms of the plot, despite all the cl..."

True- so much of this seems stereotypical, from the obvious in plain sight-yet surprising villain, to the American rich guy and the misdirection, but when you step back and realize when she wrote this, you realize she invented a lot of it, and other writers since have imitated her!

Judy wrote: "The political content of this book is extremely odd, to say the least, and I suspect not something Christie would have included in a later novel.

I don't really understand what the shocking docume..."

I got the impression it was some document the government (previous government?), had agreed to in desperation during wartime, but if it came out now it would be perceived as a massive betrayal- I have no idea what that might mean!

As for general strikes, same - although I remember watching episodes of “Are you being served?” in which strikes would force the staff to spend the night at Grace Brothers, so I imagine they were quite disruptive for city dwellers especially!

Judy wrote: "I knew who the villain is, but am I right in thinking it's fairly obvious?"

Haha, I was completely wrong-footed - I though Julius was the arch-criminal and Sir James the red herring!

Although the two main characters have been through an active time in the war, they feel to me, that they have never grown up. Christie certainly includes a huge amount of mystery tropes, gangs, kidnapping, loss of memory, and many more.
I did think the criminal was obvious, but as Susan said, considering when this was written, maybe it was her who invented the tropes

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jane Finn was considered such an unusual name? It seemed a reasonable enough name to me.

I alternated between Julius and Sir James. I thought Julius was just much too rich and had something else going. How did he get a car that quickly?

Susan wrote: "Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jane Finn was considered such an unusual name? It seemed a reasonable enough name to me."

I thought the same! Surely Tuppence's nickname is far more unusual.

Susan in NC wrote: "As for general strikes, same - although I remember watching episodes of “Are you being served?” in which strikes would force the staff to spend the night at Grace Brothers, so I imagine they were quite disruptive for city dwellers especially!."

Not just city dwellers. I commuted into London in the 60s (in fact, up to to the new century!) and remember getting to Charing Cross in the evening to be greeted by the news that the train drivers had gone on strike in mid-afternoon, stranding thousands of people in London. My father went to stay with his sister, I found somewhere to stay with a friend. I don't know how all the other people coped.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Judy wrote: "I knew who the villain is, but am I right in thinking it's fairly obvious?"

Haha, I was completely wrong-footed - I though Julius was the arch-criminal and Sir James the red herring!"

Me, too - I was convinced it was either that, or vice versa - so half right, I guess!

Jill wrote: "Although the two main characters have been through an active time in the war, they feel to me, that they have never grown up. Christie certainly includes a huge amount of mystery tropes, gangs, kid..."

Yes, it definitely felt at times like a “throw it all at the wall, see what sticks” approach to plotting!

Rosina wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "As for general strikes, same - although I remember watching episodes of “Are you being served?” in which strikes would force the staff to spend the night at Grace Brothers, so I..."

Yikes, what a nightmare!

A general strike, of course, as in 1926, would be of far greater consequence as it wouldn't be just e.g. train drivers but a large portion of the labour force including transport workers, dockers, miners, factory workers, postal workers, firemen etc. and in 1926 went on for over a week. The army was called out to handle emergency services and the transportation of food and other essential supplies.

As Judy says upthread, it's hardly something that can be cancelled just like that and calm is immediately restored. Still, there is a reactionary fantasy element to Christie's plot, of course.

Susan wrote: "Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jane Finn was considered such an unusual name? It seemed a reasonable enough name to me."

I can only assume it’s because we’re such a nation of immigrants, especially back then (post WWI), many Americans would have “chunkier”, more memorable names - Jane Finn sounds almost fake, it’s so vanilla - like John Smith or Joe Blow. And a lot of Victorian parents, especially, might have given a child with such a monosyllabic last name a more majestic first name, like Victoria, Margaret or Euphemia! You know, give the kid a little zazz! ;)

I guessed who Mr. Brown is when Rita died. Julius was out for me because I was convinced it has to be a seasoned man. I couldn't however figure out what the important document was. Anyone figured that out

I generally enjoy Christie's characterizations, but her American portrayals so often feel plodding and obvious. Being half-American herself, one would have thought she would have understood the culture better.

Jill wrote: "Although the two main characters have been through an active time in the war, they feel to me, that they have never grown up. Christie certainly includes a huge amount of mystery tropes, gangs, kid..."
Their whining about having to earn a living annoyed me in the beginning. They seemed like spoiled children who were looking for someone to take care of them without exertion on their part. I know this was unfair of me since he had fought in the war, and marrying rich was an acceptable goal for women of the day, but it took me a while to get over my prejudice. They were sadly unprepared for hard reality that life had changed for them.

This said, I too enjoyed their bantering, developing relationship. The idea of two naive young people in over their heads in what started as a lark but coping anyway was engaging. All in all, I enjoyed the romp.

An entertaining caper, not particularly believable but good fun to read. I did manage to suspect the culprit, he seemed too good to be true.

Was it common for people to head off to Argentina at the time? Tommy could have lived next ranch along to Hastings!

I wondered if Jane Finn was a mix of Jane Doe/Mickey Finn. That thinking made me suspect she was either dead or drugged.

Tracey wrote: "I wondered if Jane Finn was a mix of Jane Doe/Mickey Finn. That thinking made me suspect she was either dead or drugged."

What a smart observation.

Judy wrote: "The political content of this book is extremely odd, to say the least, and I suspect not something Christie would have included in a later novel.

I don't really understand what the shocking docume..."

I am always fazed by Christie's political stances. In many cases she is clearly conservative , and against anything that seems like socialism, or heaven forbid, communism. However, in other plots she seems to be really anti fascist.

I wonder whether she really is pro establishment, and anxious about anything that reeks of overthrowing what are considered the political norms. So we have stories of small groups wanting to rule the world, such as in The big Four and They Came to Baghdad.

The document does not have to be anything other than an agreement that, in the circumstances in which it was devised, agreed and signed was a positive piece of work. As circumstances change, so do the ideas that promote a peaceful or satisfactory resolution. If a (now) misconceived piece of diplomacy can be destroyed rather than create tension in a post war world then that seems a good enough reason to try and retrieve it (in the case of Tommy and Tuppence etc) or publicise it ) inthe case of Mr Brown etc).

Tracey wrote: "I wondered if Jane Finn was a mix of Jane Doe/Mickey Finn. That thinking made me suspect she was either dead or drugged."

Oh, good thinking- I just thought such a bland name was suspicious, but you’re right - Jane Doe and Mickey Finn makes sense!

Robin wrote: "Judy wrote: "The political content of this book is extremely odd, to say the least, and I suspect not something Christie would have included in a later novel.

I don't really understand what the sh..."

Yes, I agree - that’s what I was trying to say, but you said it more clearly!

Robin wrote: "Judy wrote: "The political content of this book is extremely odd, to say the least, and I suspect not something Christie would have included in a later novel.

I don't really understand what the sh..."

Its really not that hard to see how someone can be both anti-Communist and anti-Fascist once you realize that both movements come from the same side of the political spectrum (they are incorrectly understood as being far left and far right ideologically). Both ideologies call for government control of institutions such as banking and healthcare, but one is based on a class structure, while the other is nationalistic in nature. Remember that Stalin and Hitler were allies until Hitler betrayed Stalin.

Robin, thanks for your thoughts on the document. Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

I find it hard to believe that in reality the existence or non-existence of such a document would make much difference to whether or not a general strike was held, but it works as a "McGuffin" in this novel!

I agree that Christie comes across as pro-Establishment in this book, although then again an apparently Establishment figure is the villain - undermining from within.

Just to add, while I can see the similarities between Communism and Fascism as both totalitarian societies, as you point out, Tara, in this novel Christie seems to be worried even by the Labour party as something that could be influenced by Communism/ criminal gangs.

Of course, though, this is a very early novel and her views probably changed over the years. Has anyone read any bios etc which go into more detail about her political views and how they developed?

Tracey wrote: "An entertaining caper, not particularly believable but good fun to read. I did manage to suspect the culprit, he seemed too good to be true.

Was it common for people to head off to Argentina at t..."

I also thought of Tommy getting to know, Hastings, Tracey! Plus we had our young hero in, Why Didn't They Ask, Evans? offered a job in South America, as I recall? Seems a bit of a coincidence, but perhaps Christie had heard of a younger son being shunted off to work abroad and it was in her mind?

Jill wrote: "Although the two main characters have been through an active time in the war, they feel to me, that they have never grown up. Christie certainly includes a huge amount of mystery tropes, gangs, kid..."

I agre with pretty much all of this. It felt almost like an Enid Blyton adventure. It was fun and I did enjoy it, but it's certainly not up there with her later works.

With both this and last month's Frankie and Bobbie adventure I adore the chirpy young protagonists but do get bored with all the rushing round getting biffed on the head stuff!

I seem to recall that Christie's politics were solidly middle-class and conservative, and here she throws in all the 1920s bogey-men who might disrupt 'life as we know it': Bolsheviks, union leaders, Irish republicans, a Labour government, and a master-criminal with a dastardly plan and the ability to disguise himself as anyone.

Susan in NC wrote: "Robin wrote: "Judy wrote: "The political content of this book is extremely odd, to say the least, and I suspect not something Christie would have included in a later novel.

I don't really understa..."

Thank you Judy. I'm writing about Christie's Sexism, Racism and Classism in my blog, and now realise I should look at the political content (as in facism and communism etc) as well.

Judy wrote: "Robin, thanks for your thoughts on the document. Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

I find it hard to believe that in reality the existence or non-existence of such a document would mak..."

You are so right about the establishment figure. I thought about that last night as I was reading, and wondered about the brash American being 'the good guy' (tempered, of course, by our worthy Tommy and Tuppence) and the British establishment Sir James Peel Edgerton being the culprit.

Judy wrote: "Robin, thanks for your thoughts on the document. Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

I find it hard to believe that in reality the existence or non-existence of such a document would mak..."

You are so right about the establishment figure. I thought about that last night as I was reading, and wondered about the brash American being 'the good guy' (tempered, of course, by our worthy Tommy and Tuppence) and the British establishment Sir James Peel Edgerton being the culprit.

We saw similar storylines in early Ngaio Marsh novels, didn't we? Going undercover at Bolshevik meetings and, indeed, with Christianna's Brand's buddy read. It does show how the 1930's was such a decade of political ferment, with that clash between real extremes.

I seem to recall reading factual books about the period, though, where there was concern about Labour party leaders being funded through Russia. Certainly, even later, there were questions raised about Michael Foot and Russia. Who can say politics is boring?! Certainly wasn't then and hasn't been recently, either.

I find it interesting that we can have this in depth discussion about the politics of a particular era as depicted in an Agatha Christie novel when she is so often accused of being simplistic and two-dimensional in her writing. I think this shows she's anything but.

On the subject of Communism and Fascism, I've always thought of them being on either end of something like a bracelet or piece of wire that you bend into a circle until the two ends almost touch.

Great image, Ruth! And it's so interesting how political ideas can mirror each other even when based on opposing premises. I used to live in a place that had many far-left people and a few far-right, and I always marveled how they took such different roads to reach the same conclusions.

Susan wrote: "We saw similar storylines in early Ngaio Marsh novels, didn't we? Going undercover at Bolshevik meetings and, indeed, with Christianna's Brand's buddy read. It does show how the 1930's was such a d..."

I agree re politics at the moment, Susan. Very interesting times everywhere - and indeed in the Agatha Christie novels which move away from the domestic environment. Although I agree that some are rather simplistic, I always enjoyed the intrigue, even in The Big Four, which Christie hated writing (I understand).

Abigail wrote: "Great image, Ruth! And it's so interesting how political ideas can mirror each other even when based on opposing premises. I used to live in a place that had many far-left people and a few far-righ..."

Is it that sometimes both groups are very judgmental and passionately believe that only they are right? We see this time and again in the views of people in Christie's 'spy' type of novels. One of the lovely scenes in They Came to Baghdad was the young woman's contemplation of a mixing bowl that had been lovingly reassembled after having been broken. It was the ordinary domestic life of the family who used the bowl that contrasted so comfortingly with the arrogance of the man she had followed to Baghdad.

Ruth wrote: "I find it interesting that we can have this in depth discussion about the politics of a particular era as depicted in an Agatha Christie novel when she is so often accused of being simplistic and t..."

I really like looking at seemingly simplistic novels from a different perspective - as you have suggested here. Are popular novels (and film and television) vehicles for complex ideas?

Tania wrote: "Jill wrote: "Although the two main characters have been through an active time in the war, they feel to me, that they have never grown up. Christie certainly includes a huge amount of mystery trope..."

Absolutely agree with you Tania, this did feel a bit like an Enid Blyton adventure, albeit with more serious undertones... I thoroughly enjoyed my first Tommy and Tuppence experience but have to say I prefer Christie's more conventional murder stories.

For some reason Christie´s remarks on marriage in this book kind of annoyed me a little bit. I understand that marrying someone for money might have been seen differently back then.... okay. But Julius first thinking about marrying his cousin for practical reasons, then proposing to Tuppence, THEN falling in love with his cousin after all... *eye-roll*
Romance clearly is not Christie`s forte.

Yes, Angie, I think Jane might need to keep an eye on Julius - and it might be an idea if she waits for a bit before walking down the aisle!

Angie wrote: "Tania wrote: "Jill wrote: "Although the two main characters have been through an active time in the war, they feel to me, that they have never grown up. Christie certainly includes a huge amount of..."

I think that Julius explained his proposal to Tuppence in terms that can be understood as practical rather than romantic. He says that he has realised that Jane will not be found, and Tuppence is an attractive woman. She has the independent spirit he feels is likely to make a marriage of almost convenience work. He is dispirited. This is similar to Jane's need for comfort after her ordeal. For her, Julius is home and therefore attractive. The plot required a note between Tuppence and Julius - I wonder what Christie could have used to introduce this, move the Tommy and Tuppence romance story along, make Julius someone that angers Tommy so that we feel his distrust? other than this romantic sub plot? Also, the humour when Tuppence claims that she has not answered Julius' question adds to the lighter elements of the story.

This is really rather late in the discussion. However, I think that Agatha Christie made a mistake early in this novel. why doesn't Mr Brown recognise Tuppence the second time he meets her as Rita Vandermyers maid? He was the clerk in Whittington's office and saw her then. He does warn Tuppence when he leaves, but this is nothing in comparison with Rita's hasty departure at Browns behest, slightly later on the novel. The timing can only be to make us suspicious of Julius as well as Peel Edgerton. But there is a problem I think.