The article is absolutely spot on. Those adaptations of Christie miss the point entirely. Especially the latest spooky versions that take all sorts of liberties with the plot so there is nothing left of the author's tone and spirit. It takes a master to direct her novels properly, because her brevity doesn't invite elaboration.
In Towards Zero, the idea of an innocent shouldering the blame, is replayed by Battle's daughter, all there in plain sight from the start. How brilliant is that! In praise of bold simplicity and complex emotions that need no spooky, explicit manual to be understood!
“In that respect, Ruth Rendell was right to have noted an absence of pain and passion. Yet this is part of what I love so much about Agatha Christie, the way she draws no attention to these things, which nonetheless remain oddly vivid as they churn around the imagination. For Agatha, the mysteries of character are a given; and she assumes that we, too, know the ways of the world. Indeed, like Miss Marple, she is a true sophisticate.”
Amen! Christie does not assume that her readers are stupid. She does not tell you everything each character wonders about themselves in order to advance the plot; and she certainly doesn’t need to go into gory detail about every last sin as though her readers had never met another fallen human person.
The recent adaptations have been so disappointing, not only with their wildly unnecessary additions or changes, but also in that they lean heavily on “telling” rather than “showing”. Sometimes I wonder if the producers are just looking for ways to produce an essay on the latest woke virtue in a way that all of us who enjoy a bit of period drama and suspense will have to imbibe.
Thank you! So agree about telling v showing, I absolutely love the sophisticated respect that Agatha shows her readers in that regard. If only modern screen audiences could get the same.... she has indeed. as you suggest, become a convenient conduit for wokery.
What a brilliant piece. TZ is my favourite Christie, precisely for the reasons you say. I love that you don’t write about her ‘in defence of’ as it were. Just a cool pointing out of how so many miss her- very sharp - points. Thank you.
I've never heard of this one, will get a copy. I do find Rendell too creepy to read sometimes, she is definitely the other end of the scale from Christie. PD James bang in the middle?
Thanks so much for reading Sarah... Yes that sounds about right. PDJ could be pretty graphic but not quite in that probing RR way. But I do love them both!
Agatha is something else of course.... that sublime simplicity. Hope you enjoy T Zero., I just re-read it for the 100th time and I just love the SPEED with which she does things.
I loved this so much. I often run into people who treat her novels like they're nothing more than literary palate cleansers, when she's really a profound thinker! I'm sending this to the friend who first got me into Agatha Christie's novels.
I never read more than one Ruth Rendell — way too dark for me — and read lots of Christie, in my mystery-years (teens and 20s) precisely because I mostly didn't find her overwhelmingly dark. I think that I read all of them back then, but can't be sure. This is giving a whole new insight into them.
Just to add — was especially fascinated by the discussion of other writers' takes on her writing, and your response to them. Lots to think about there.
Thanks so much for reading it. Yes... what I find so interesting about Christie is that one needn't see/feel the darkness, the facade is so strong, and I dislike the way adaptations seek to remove it - as if that's achieving something that she didn't dare to do!
I will need to return to this essay. You manage to condense so many important questions here. Is it impatience or desire for clear declarations that makes us bad readers, unappreciative of subtlety and elusiveness in another writer's work?
"The plot is quite alarmingly contingent, solved by a series of guesses and coincidences and with the help of a random visit to a dry cleaner. Neither Poirot nor Marple feature, although Miss Marple was crowbarred into a (bad) 2008 television adaptation. Implausibility abounds. And yet: Agatha sweeps the reader along, in her most grandly casual manner, because what is really being solved is the human dynamic, which grips like a fist." This essay makes a compelling case for reading Agatha Christie, not despite the issues about the plotting, but almost because of what her" contingent" plotting allows her to do.
The article is absolutely spot on. Those adaptations of Christie miss the point entirely. Especially the latest spooky versions that take all sorts of liberties with the plot so there is nothing left of the author's tone and spirit. It takes a master to direct her novels properly, because her brevity doesn't invite elaboration.
In Towards Zero, the idea of an innocent shouldering the blame, is replayed by Battle's daughter, all there in plain sight from the start. How brilliant is that! In praise of bold simplicity and complex emotions that need no spooky, explicit manual to be understood!
Exactly so. Character in action. Thank you Maria!
“In that respect, Ruth Rendell was right to have noted an absence of pain and passion. Yet this is part of what I love so much about Agatha Christie, the way she draws no attention to these things, which nonetheless remain oddly vivid as they churn around the imagination. For Agatha, the mysteries of character are a given; and she assumes that we, too, know the ways of the world. Indeed, like Miss Marple, she is a true sophisticate.”
Amen! Christie does not assume that her readers are stupid. She does not tell you everything each character wonders about themselves in order to advance the plot; and she certainly doesn’t need to go into gory detail about every last sin as though her readers had never met another fallen human person.
The recent adaptations have been so disappointing, not only with their wildly unnecessary additions or changes, but also in that they lean heavily on “telling” rather than “showing”. Sometimes I wonder if the producers are just looking for ways to produce an essay on the latest woke virtue in a way that all of us who enjoy a bit of period drama and suspense will have to imbibe.
Thank you! So agree about telling v showing, I absolutely love the sophisticated respect that Agatha shows her readers in that regard. If only modern screen audiences could get the same.... she has indeed. as you suggest, become a convenient conduit for wokery.
What a brilliant piece. TZ is my favourite Christie, precisely for the reasons you say. I love that you don’t write about her ‘in defence of’ as it were. Just a cool pointing out of how so many miss her- very sharp - points. Thank you.
Oh June thank YOU!!!! It seemed a good opportunity to jazz this piece up a bit and get it back out, you have made it worth my while.
Interesting that it's your favourite. Definitely in my top 5.
It kind of alternates with Nemesis. I think they are two of Christie’s darkest - plus Endless Night of course, as you say.
Yes. Nemesis is very underrated.
I've never heard of this one, will get a copy. I do find Rendell too creepy to read sometimes, she is definitely the other end of the scale from Christie. PD James bang in the middle?
Thanks so much for reading Sarah... Yes that sounds about right. PDJ could be pretty graphic but not quite in that probing RR way. But I do love them both!
Agatha is something else of course.... that sublime simplicity. Hope you enjoy T Zero., I just re-read it for the 100th time and I just love the SPEED with which she does things.
I loved this so much. I often run into people who treat her novels like they're nothing more than literary palate cleansers, when she's really a profound thinker! I'm sending this to the friend who first got me into Agatha Christie's novels.
What a wonderful comment - thank you!! Really thrilled and hope your friend enjoys....
Fascinating!
I never read more than one Ruth Rendell — way too dark for me — and read lots of Christie, in my mystery-years (teens and 20s) precisely because I mostly didn't find her overwhelmingly dark. I think that I read all of them back then, but can't be sure. This is giving a whole new insight into them.
Just to add — was especially fascinated by the discussion of other writers' takes on her writing, and your response to them. Lots to think about there.
Thanks so much for reading it. Yes... what I find so interesting about Christie is that one needn't see/feel the darkness, the facade is so strong, and I dislike the way adaptations seek to remove it - as if that's achieving something that she didn't dare to do!
I will need to return to this essay. You manage to condense so many important questions here. Is it impatience or desire for clear declarations that makes us bad readers, unappreciative of subtlety and elusiveness in another writer's work?
Thank you! I know exactly what you mean about reading...
Really appreciate the compliment that you pay to this piece.
I just devoured Towards Zero in a couple of hours...what a great story! Thank you for reminding me how dark Christie could be.
Oh great, so glad you enjoyed Sarah! I do think it's her darkest... although fascinated to hear of other possible candidates.
"The plot is quite alarmingly contingent, solved by a series of guesses and coincidences and with the help of a random visit to a dry cleaner. Neither Poirot nor Marple feature, although Miss Marple was crowbarred into a (bad) 2008 television adaptation. Implausibility abounds. And yet: Agatha sweeps the reader along, in her most grandly casual manner, because what is really being solved is the human dynamic, which grips like a fist." This essay makes a compelling case for reading Agatha Christie, not despite the issues about the plotting, but almost because of what her" contingent" plotting allows her to do.