Agatha Christie must be spinning in her grave...

Worst news I have heard all morning, Jennifer Garner has been cast to play Miss Marple, one of Agatha Christie's most beloved characters, in a Disney film. Horrible, horrible, horrible idea is all I keep thinking. I have nothing against Jennifer Garner herself, but the fact that Disney is trying to take such an iconic character and "reboot" her to give her a "youthful and modern spin" is atrocious!

Image Source: Wikipedia

The success of Miss Marple's character is due to who she is, an elderly spinster from a small country village. She is able to get people to confide in her, to trust her, because they underestimate her and always believe that she is slightly off her rocker because of her age. She is an observant woman who knows a lot about a person's character and what makes them tick because of her age and experience. So and so reminds her of a housekeeper she knew twenty years ago. Or an incident will remind her of a specific event that happened in St. Mary Mead forty years ago. I'd like to see how they intend on Jennifer Garner pulling off a similar personality and skills, not to mention the fact that Garner isn't even British. 

Or as Wikipedia points out:

"Miss Marple is able to solve difficult crimes not only because of her shrewd intelligence, but because St. Mary Mead, over her lifetime, has given her seemingly infinite examples of the negative side of human nature. No crime can arise without reminding Miss Marple of some parallel incident in the history of her time. Miss Marple's acquaintances are sometimes bored by her frequent analogies to people and events from St. Mary Mead, but these analogies often lead Miss Marple to a deeper realization about the true nature of a crime. Although she looks like a sweet, frail old woman, Miss Marple is not afraid of dead bodies and is not easily intimidated. She also has a remarkable ability to latch onto a casual comment and connect it to the case at hand" (Source).

Anyone else think that this is one of the worst ideas Disney has ever had? Would you watch this movie? Who would you cast as Miss Marple?

Mission Accomplished!

My goal for January is already completed. A few days ago I finished Agatha Christie's autobiography, and I enjoyed it immensely.

Source

I have always been hesitant to read any biographies or autobiographies, and if I have read any, it was only because I had to for a class. (I honestly cannot remember if I have or not). I was worried about reading Agatha Christie's too, just because I was afraid that it would be a dry, monotonous, boring read. But then I realized, Hey. This is an autobiography, written by Christie herself, so if I enjoy her writing style in her novels and memoir, then I should have no problem with the story of her life. I was proved correct.

Reading Resolutions?

Wow. First of all, I can't believe that I haven't posted since November. I didn't realize that it had been that long.

Secondly, Happy New Year, everyone.... all 5 7* of you. :-) I'm hoping to make changes this year and am resolving to post more.

That's it.

That's my resolution. For this aspect of my life anyway. I have a million others in relation to myself, my family, and home life. But that's for a different blog.

Anyway. I'm going to try to set monthly goals for myself and for this blog. My goal for this month is to finish Agatha Christie's autobiography. I have already finished her novels and short stories (if you're wondering when this happened, it happened in November, which is probably why I didn't blog at all; too busy reading! I was going to write about it, and in fact started the post, but then something happened to distract me and I gave it up. Story of my life. But here it is in all of it's wonderous glory):


"I have officially finished ALL of Agatha Christie's novels and short stories!"

Yup. That's as far as I got. I am a woman of many words. 

I also finished reading her memoir Come, Tell Me How You Live in which she describes her adventures in the Middle East with her archaeologist husband, second husband, that is. In short, is was an enjoyable, and often humorous read, and I recommend it. (A post was started about this one too, but obviously never finished. Here is how it started):

"By the Pricking of My Thumbs..."

 "...Something wicked this way comes." William Shakespeare – Macbeth (Act IV, Scene 1)

I have been conducting a little "experiment" where I am leaving my computer off for the day to see how much I can get accomplished. If I turn it on at all, it is not until night time. I have accomplished so many things in the past three or four days of doing this. I won't bore you with everything that I have finished, but I have been able to finish TWO books, Endless Nights and By the Pricking of My Thumbs, both by Agatha Christie.

(Source)

This novel, published in 1968, features two of Christie's regular characters, Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. They are, by this time, quite older than in their spy-games days, as they are now grandparents. It's nice to see them resurface in a later novel. (They first appeared in their early twenties in The Secret Adversary, published in 1922).

(Source)

In By the Pricking of My Thumbs,while visiting an aunt in a nursing home, they encounter an elderly woman by the name of Mrs. Lancaster. She utters a bewildering comment to Tuppence about something behind the fireplace and a poor child. When Mrs. Lancaster suddenly disappears, and the Beresfords discover a painting of a house in connection with Mrs Lancaster, a house that Tuppence knows she has seen somewhere before, the wheels are in motion. Tuppence cannot fight the feeling of danger and is determined to find out what has happened to Mrs. Lancaster and how the painting, or the house are connected.

"Endless Night"

Guess what folks? I am this close to accomplishing my goal of reading all of Agatha Christie's stories. I have read 72 novels and 140+ short stories thus far! I am entering the 1970s, 1972 to be exact. But prior to that, I finished reading Endless Night which was published in 1967.

When I started reading this novel, I was surprised as it started reading like one of Christie's Mary Westmacott "romances". It is told in first person, the narrator being a young man, and begins with his thoughts and feelings about falling in love with both a place and a girl. It does not initially read like a typical Christie mystery to me.

The majority of this novel is a story about the young couple as they fall in love, marry, and begin their life together. They have built a dream home that they had been planning together since the day they met. Everything seems to be going well, and, in my opinion, it would have remained so if Christie had continued with this aspect of the story. However, like most of her stories, there is a pretty big twist at the end that changes the story from what the reader has expected. Brief rundown of the main conflict: they move into their house, but are soon threatened by a local gypsy who warns them that there is a curse on their land yadda, yadda, yadda. There is also some conflict between the couple and their various family members, but for the purpose of this post, I'm skipping over those details.

As I was thoroughly enjoying the "romance" story between the two main characters, I found myself to be very disappointed with the ending. While the first three-quarters of the novel seemed to occur at a comfortable pace, the ending seemed too rushed. Everything was happening too quickly, without any real details. All of a sudden, there have been three deaths, only one presented to the readers; the other two were revealed through correspondences. I also felt that there were too many loose ends that were left hanging, not tied up or concluded in any way. There were too many coincidences among the characters; they were connected in ways that were a little unbelievable, if not bewildering. It seemed as though Christie was throwing in as many little red herrings as she possibly could with this one.

But what I was most disappointed with was the twist at the end. And I suppose that's mainly because I prefer to see the good in people,and would like to believe that what we see, and what we are told can be trusted.

Not so with this novel.

I was surprised to learn that this novel was actually a favorite of both Christie and her husband. The reason being the exact one that I ended up disliking about it; the twist at the end. Without giving any details away, it basically involves a character who chooses "evil" over "good".

I think that this story would have been more successful (for my tastes) if Christie had chosen to go in a different direction with it. As it is, I would probably only recommend Endless Night to people who enjoy unexpected, unbelievable twists, who are thoroughly bored and desperate for a book to read, or who, like me, have set a personal goal of completing all of Agatha Christie's novels.




                            

Make an Appointment with Death

I just finished reading Appointment with Death by Agatha Christie (I know, big surprise there, huh?). I have to say that this story is one of my favorites top picks of her crime stories.

At the time of publication, this book received mixed reviews. Some critics cited it as being brilliant and among her best, whereas others claimed that it is lacking in plot, and too full of psychology. This last complaint is perhaps the reason why I ranked it among my top favorites, (excluding her Westmacott novels).

The story takes place in Petra, Jerusalem, which to me is neither here nor there, as the setting itself doesn't really play any essential role in the story. The first half of this book, Part I, focuses primarily on the Boynton family. It is essentially a psychological glimpse, or character sketch, of a family who is governed by a sadistic matriarch. The other members of the Boynton family, including three step-children, one daughter-in-law and one daughter, all ranging between ages 17-30, are entirely dependent on Mrs. Boynton, both financially and psychologically. They are all stuck at home under their mother's thumb; she limits their contact with the outside world and controls their every move as though she has them hypnotized. Christie's description of Mrs. Boynton as a domineering tyrant is haunting, and the torment that her children are put through is worthy of anyone's pity.

I enjoyed the first half of this book because of it's focus on the family and their influence on the people who are outside looking in, the unknown observers. The second half, however, was exactly what I would expect any of Christie's crime novels to be; it was both predictable and unexpected at the same time. Part II ran like a typical Hercule Poirot novel. The pattern, the tone, and the plot are characteristic of a Christie story. Poirot as a character is his usual egotistical, over-confident self. He pulls his clues and his solution seemingly out of nowhere, and sets up his dramatic reveal at the end as he always does. He gathers everyone in a room and goes through his process step-by-step until he finally reveals the murderer, who really has nothing to do with the speech and clues that he has just spent a hundred hours spewing out. 

After reading as many of her novels as I have, (over 40), some solutions are starting to become a little too obvious. I had a sneaking suspicion as to who the murderer would be revealed to be, but I doubted it because it seemed a little too obvious, as it was the character least likely to be the murderer. But as most of Christie's novels turn out, it often IS the least likely character.

I would recommend reading this novel only if you are bored with her regular crime stories, and enjoy the ones that delve into the psychology of the characters.

I ♥ Agatha Christie

When I find something that I really enjoy, or take an interest in, I have the (bad?) habit of becoming completely consumed by it, basically to the point of obsession. For example, when LOST first came on television, and the real mysteries of the island started to develop, I had to read EVERYTHING  about the characters, the featured books, the hidden references etc. that I could get my hands on. I was obsessed and drove my sister nuts with all of the "outside" information that I was trying to drag into our weekly conversations dissections of each episode. And like most of my obsessions, that one slowly fizzled out with each new season, and I stopped trying to read into everything and just let the show's mysteries unfold on their own, (which sometimes they did, and sometimes they didn't). But I digress.

My current obsession is Agatha Christie, and as far as my infatuations go, this one has probably lasted the longest (with the exception of the Anne Rice-phase I went through in high school and college, and my unwavering infatuation with my fourth-grade crush). I "discovered" Agatha Christie a little over a year ago when our local library ran out of books on my "Books to Read" list. (I realize that I could have ordered them through inter-library loan, but I never remembered to do so before my weekly visits, so I just picked up whatever I could find on the shelves). I needed something to read, so I decided to read And Then There Were None again, (the one Agatha Christie book that I had read while I was in high school). I really enjoyed this story; it reminded me of an adult version of The Westing Game by Ellen Raskin, which I LOVED when I was in sixth grade.

I decided to check out another "well-known" Agatha Christie book, (it was most likely Murder on the Orient Express, but I forget now exactly which one it was), and pretty soon I was hooked. I quickly worked through the selection at my own library, and started requesting them through inter-library loan. When I find an author I enjoy reading, I try to read all of his or her novels; I like to be thorough and complete with my obsessions. (Prior to this I made it through all of Jane Austen's works, minus one). That's when I discovered exactly how many pieces of work Agatha Christie has! Over 80 novels, short story collections and plays, which has not deterred me in the slightest. I have made a list of each piece of work, organized them by decade written and I am proud to say that I have made it past the halfway point! I have read at least 45 of her novels or short story collections. (Her website actually has a nifty list of her books in publication order to avoid any spoilers while reading, and of course I just discovered this ten minutes ago, AFTER I wrote up my own list months ago!)

 As a stay-at-home-mom, I need books that I can put down and pick back up two hours later without a second thought. I need to be able to continue reading a story right where I left off without having to go back and reread the whole chapter. Believe it or not, Charles Dickens does not fulfill this requirement, and I've tried several times. (I've been reading Our Mutual Friend-thanks to my obsession with LOST-for two years now). Agatha Christie, however, passes with flying colors. Although really well-written, her stories are pretty straightforward, an effortless read. All of her mysteries basically follow the same pattern, so once you have read a few, you can zip right through the rest. Despite their similarities, each story she tells sucks me right in; I have a hard time putting them down. Usually I think that I know how the story ends, that it's so obvious, but in most cases I have been wrong, with the exception of one book that I called the ending on halfway through. She must have been having an off year with that one. The surprise solutions to her mysteries oftentimes leads to a sense of disbelief, of skepticism, because they seemingly come out of nowhere. I, however, do not mind so much; the reason I'm reading her pieces is primarily for entertainment and to pass the time.

My favorite novels so far have actually been the ones written under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, especially Unfinished Portrait and Absent in the Spring. These six novels have been dubbed "romances", but are a far cry from what we think the typical romance is these days. They are more along the lines of character studies, or psychological profiles, bittersweet stories that get right to the heart of human nature. Christie has an impeccable grasp on the psyche that motivates people's behavior, which is one of the reasons I love her writing (that and the fact that they are "quintessentially English" and I am also obsessed with all things English since my grandmother's family hails from England).

Long story short, ("Too late!"), I ♥ Agatha Christie and I am currently obsessed with reading all of her 80+ stories. Wish me luck!

 

Multiple Personalities, Multiple Souls?

I was reading a collection of short stories by Agatha Christie (from The Hound of Death) and while reading The Fourth Man, I came across this passage that introduced a concept to me that I had never contemplated before:

"'Are you so sure," he said gravely," that there is only one occupant of this structure-for that is all it is, you know-this desirable residence to be let furnished-for seven, twenty-one, forty-one, seventy-one-whatever it may be!-years? And in the end the tenant moves his things out-little by little-and then goes out of the house altogether-and down comes the house, a mass of ruin and decay. You're the master of the house-we'll admit that, but aren't you ever conscious of the presence of others-soft-footed servants, hardly noticed, except for the work they do-work that you're not conscious of having done? Or friends-moods that take hold of you and make you, for the time being, a 'different man' as the saying goes? You're the kind of the castle, right enough, but be very sure the 'dirty rascal' is there too.'" (The Fourth Man by Agatha Christie)

Three gentlemen, a doctor, a lawyer, and a canon (priest) are in the middle of a discussion about a woman who apparently suffered from multiple personalities. The doctor brings up the possibility that our bodies are capable of housing not just multiple personalities, but more than one soul. 

I thought that Agatha Christie's body/house metaphor was brilliant, a description of multiple personalities that I had never considered before. From what I understand of MP, there is one "dominant" personality, much like the master of the house, and then at least one more "behind the scenes" personality, the "servants" who are only occasionally seen, but whose presences are always felt. 

I did a quick search online to see if anyone had actually discussed this concept before, and came across a book written by Matt Ruff. I was immediately drawn to it's close similarity to Agatha Christie's description, as it is titled Set This Hour in Order: A Romance of Souls. Without actually reading the book, what I get from the description is that it's basically about a man named Andy Gage and the hundreds of "souls", as Ruff calls them, that reside within his head. There's a lot more to it than that, but I am more concerned with how Ruff refers to the personalities as souls. 

When I read his FAQ section, I was interested to see that he is claiming that the use of "souls" in reference to multiple personalities was an original term of his own.

"In the novel, you use the word “souls” to refer to your protagonists’ various personalities. Is this a term you came up with yourself?

Yes. Standard psychiatric labels like “personality” and “fragment” reflect a belief that the different characters in a multiple system aren’t true individuals, but pieces or facets of a single self. It seemed intuitively obvious to me that multiples who rejected this way of looking at themselves (or their selves) would also reject the language. So I needed to come up with another word, and “souls” seemed right."

Obviously he is not familiar with Agatha Christie's The Fourth Man to realize that it was not as an original concept as he himself believes. Which is understandable, because I'm sure that not everyone is as obsessed with Agatha Christie as I am to make a point of reading every single one of her stories!

The author does offer the first four chapters of his book as a sample online, and I think that when I get the chance, I will sit down to read them. Maybe it will give me more to think about and more to add to this post.