Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our November 21 Challenge read of Destination Unknown published in 1954.

A young woman with nothing to live for is persuaded to embark on a suicide mission to find a missing scientist. When a number of leading scientists disappear without trace, concern grows within the international intelligence community. Are they being kidnapped? Blackmailed? Brainwashed? One woman appears to have the key to the mystery. Unfortunately, Olive Betteron now lies in a hospital bed, dying from injuries sustained in a Moroccan plane crash. Meanwhile, in a Casablanca hotel room, Hilary Craven prepares to take her own life. But her suicide attempt is about to be interrupted by a man who will offer her an altogether more thrilling way to die.

Christie based this book partly on the activities of two famous physicists of the early 1950s: Bruno Ponecorvo, who defected to Russia, and Emil Fuchs, who spied for the Russians. It is another of Christie’s light-hearted thriller novels featuring a daring and fearless heroine

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

I enjoyed it - but I think that the 'rich man trying to corner the market in scientists' didn't work well, either as a plan or as a plot device. There are just too many high grade scientists, most of whom are going to need a sizeable support staff, for them all to be gathered up and rented out! Especially as they seem to have been collecting some non-genius types like Peters.

That was the bit that really reminded me of Bond - The old, rich villain in his lair claiming to be a philanthropist!

Rosina wrote: "I enjoyed it - but I think that the 'rich man trying to corner the market in scientists' didn't work well, either as a plan or as a plot device. There are just too many high grade scientists, most ..."

Good point, and I agree, Judy, serious Bond vibes - especially the part of the secret lair built into the mountain, where the scientists could be hidden behind bulkheads if needed!

I said in my review it felt similar to “They Came to Baghdad”, but much darker. I enjoyed it, couldn’t help wondering if the despair of the female lead was drawn from Christie’s own experience. I thought she did a good job with that part, but was also prescient (or channeling the postwar horror of what Hitler had done to Germany), by showing how a ruthless, narcissistic, powerful leader can exploit the abilities of people by appealing to their ideals, whether for world peace, or world domination.

I agree with Rosina that the motive behind the whole thing was absurd. Yet, I found the story pretty exciting. I was led on by such curiosity to know the end result. And as Susan mentioned, I too was reminded of "They Came to Baghdad", only that this was much better. I also liked both Hilary and Peters and enjoyed their subtle romance. :)

I agree this did put me in mind of James Bond (Ian Flemming) and seems they were published at around the same time. Personally, I would prefer to read this than James Bond. I did enjoy this book, and did find the twists at the end were surprising even though I expected them to be there, and I was pleased with the ending.

Did anyone else wonder at first if Tom was a spy and might turn out to be the love interest for Hilary? I did originally when he whispered to her to play along on their first meeting.

It's also not unlike the plan of the villains in The Daffodil Affair, although there they were assembling (view spoiler)[psychics and supernatural phenomena (hide spoiler)], rather than scientists, and their lair was on an island in the Amazon, not the desert (with added alligators).

Judy wrote: "Did anyone else wonder at first if Tom was a spy and might turn out to be the love interest for Hilary? I did originally when he whispered to her to play along on their first meeting."

I thought so too, Judy. Then when Peters was pushed to the center, I was surprised. But when the whole story came to light in the end, Hilary's and Peter's connection made sense. However, I didn't expect Tom to be a villain.

Piyangie, at first I thought maybe he wasn't really Tom and they were both playing a part. I didn't expect him to be a villain either!

I definitely suspected Andrew Peters as being not what he was supposed to be, and knew that Mrs Baker was the woman who she turned out to be but not really thinking that quiet woman with her (can't remember her name) was a British agent. I just thought Tom was disillusioned with the whole set up he found himself in.

Piyangie wrote: "Judy wrote: "Did anyone else wonder at first if Tom was a spy and might turn out to be the love interest for Hilary? I did originally when he whispered to her to play along on their first meeting."..."

Me, either, that surprised me - I admit I was impressed, she always manages to keep something close to the vest to surprise at the end!

I didn't like this book much, though I might have liked it better on my first read when I gave it two stars. I found the twists unrealistic and felt Tom was only made a murderer so Christie could explain why Peters (aka Boris) was on the scene. I was amused by Mrs. Baker but she had no background and thus no reason to belong to the organization. I did like Hilary / Olive and thought she was well developed and changed realistically during the story.

I would like to know more of Mrs. Baker - I bet she had an interesting past!

The final twist gave a new light to the whole story and explained certain things that were puzzling. Peters' errand was sort of a non-developed subplot which is only understood when everything is explained at the end. It was like two stories running parallelly even though you don't see it till the end.

Piyangie wrote: "The final twist gave a new light to the whole story and explained certain things that were puzzling. Peters' errand was sort of a non-developed subplot which is only understood when everything is explained at the end..."

Very true! I was really surprised up to that point that this seemed to be a Christie thriller with no murder - at first I thought the real Olive would turn out to have been murdered, but no. But then we suddenly learn there has been a murder right at the end.

I also really liked the twist that Tom's first wife was a brilliant scientist and he stole her work - after we've heard so much in this book about 'geniuses' being male, suddenly a female genius turns up right at the end.

So, I thought this was... middling.
It starts well, exploring some rather dark themes and jogs along agreeably enough for a time. However, when we hit Aristides' mountain lair I thought everything slowed down too much, with far too much mooning around and navel-gazing. It just killed the pace stone dead for me.
The ending sees it pick up again but it feels rushed, as though Christie had grown bored by it all and wanted to tie everything up as fast as possible. The rapid-fire peeling away of false identity after false identity felt overdone.

Overall, OK as Christie thrillers go. Sure it's kooky and contrived and only ever a heartbeat away from plunging into the implausible but that's kind of par for the course with thrillers of any hue and to kick it for that would be pointless, in my opinion.

Judy wrote: "I also really liked the twist that Tom's first wife was a brilliant scientist and he stole her work - after we've heard so much in this book about 'geniuses' being male, suddenly a female genius turns up right at the end.
."

This was the one bit I did figure out fairly early on-when it says that Tom had married Mannheim's daughter and then suddenly did brilliant things and then after she died he was "so broken up" he couldn't do brilliant work ever again, I suspected he had used his wife's work and claimed credit-I never suspected him of murdering her.

What about the real Olive Betterton? Clearly she had been invited to join her husband by the organization, but why-since Tom didn't seem particularly upset by her death, why do you think he had asked them to bring her to him?

Again, while I really enjoyed this as a read, I always find there are some holes in the thrillers.

Frances wrote: "This was the one bit I did figure out fairly early on-when it says that Tom had married Mannheim's daughter and then suddenly did brilliant things and then after she died he was "so broken up" he couldn't do brilliant work ever again, I suspected he had used his wife's work and claimed credit-I never suspected him of murdering her..."

Good detective work - this never occurred to me at all. Good question about why Tom wanted the real Olive to travel to him, and I also wonder why she wanted to go, since it seems to be suggested early on that she may be less concerned than she appears to be.

No fan of Christie thrillers, but this one was rather good or at least it seemed so in the beginning. It also reminded me of Bond stories with a touch of implausibility, but the murder detection in the end was unnecessary. Of course the girl also found the man of her dreams. ;)

Frances wrote: "Judy wrote: "I also really liked the twist that Tom's first wife was a brilliant scientist and he stole her work - after we've heard so much in this book about 'geniuses' being male, suddenly a fem..."

Great point, Frances, I missed this totally- I found his reaction to the news of her death pretty odd, though!

That was a good idea, as the other female scientist, the German one, is portrayed negatively, as a fascist.

Frances wrote: "Judy wrote: "I also really liked the twist that Tom's first wife was a brilliant scientist and he stole her work - after we've heard so much in this book about 'geniuses' being male, suddenly a fem..."

I too wondered about Olive and her motivation. Was she willing to defect or was she a naive, trusting wife? Tom's reaction to her death showed him to be a cold-hearted jerk, but I never saw the first wife's murder and the true source of his "genius"coming. I thought at first when he backed Hilary up,that he might be an uncover agent trying to rescue kidnapped scientists. Fun escapism.

Judy wrote: "Frances wrote: "This was the one bit I did figure out fairly early on-when it says that Tom had married Mannheim's daughter and then suddenly did brilliant things and then after she died he was "so..."

I never thought of that at all either. In fact I almost fell for his excuse that being in a claustrophobic environment was preventing him from doing his best. But the fact that he wished to get away that badly did make one suspicious.

I see everyone thought of Bond and Bond bad guys--for some reason, the term brains trust had me thinking of the William book/story William and the Brains Trust. I haven't read it yet, but having been published around the same roughish time period (end of the war), I wondered about the idea appearing in the two books.

ChrisGA wrote: "Frances wrote: "Judy wrote: "I also really liked the twist that Tom's first wife was a brilliant scientist and he stole her work - after we've heard so much in this book about 'geniuses' being male..."

My impression was naïve, trusting wife. But there was a little suspicion as well in the warning she sent Tom regarding Glyder/ did that mean she knew what Tom had done? Perhaps as his wife, she had managed to figure out?

Sandy wrote: "I didn't like this book much, though I might have liked it better on my first read when I gave it two stars. I found the twists unrealistic and felt Tom was only made a murderer so Christie could e..."

Re Mrs Baker, she was probably in it because she was paid well, I assume.

Good guess. Money is great motivation.

I think they mentioned it as well

Yes, Mrs. B. struck me as purely transactional, no high-flown idealism there!