Whodunit?
I've been tearing through the library lately, reading all kinds of things. A little while back, and friend recommended Agatha Christie, and I wondered to myself if I'd ever actually READ any of her books. Sure, I'd seen adaptations of her work on television. I'd read plays based on her books. But had I read any of them for myself? Sorry to admit it, but no.
So, I picked up two novels - The Murder at the Vicarage and Thirteen at Dinner - at the library last week. What you notice right away when reading Christie is that the experience is probably closer than anything to actually trying to solve a crime. Christie provides you with alot of information - ALOT. And you have to decide what pieces of information are pertinent to the crime and which are coincidental. (It's not like watching CSI, where huge, lighted arrows blinkingly point to clues or red herrings. Every fact is part of a general soup of events, with no one thing seemingly more emphasized by the author than another.)
She also provides information in bits and starts. You don't learn everything all at once. Witnesses give their statements, then a bunch of other stuff happens (and more information is introduced), and then those same witnesses recall an extra tidbit here or there that they think might be worth considering. This slow reveal of facts makes it even more difficult to piece together all of the events leading to the crime. Information that you might otherwise have connected, had it been provided all at once, seems disjointed and harder to analyze when given out of sequence.
Also, all information is filtered to you through a character, General Hastings, say, or the Vicar himself. The attitudes, feelings, and mental processes of these characters also influence the conclusions you begin to draw about the crimes and perpetrators. Add to that all the interesting little people Christie populates her world with, and you can see why she has had such staying power.
Clearly, Christie had an amazingly analytical mind. My only criticism, in fact, would be that all the careful disclosures of "clues" can become tiresome as your brain gets turned around once AGAIN due to more information. One is tempted to keep a small notebook handy while reading so as to jot down pertinent facts, timelines of events, suspects/motives, etc.
With so many balls in the air (preponderance of facts, slow reveal of information, interesting narrator, etc.), these two stories were very satisfying reads. Highly recommended.
So, I picked up two novels - The Murder at the Vicarage and Thirteen at Dinner - at the library last week. What you notice right away when reading Christie is that the experience is probably closer than anything to actually trying to solve a crime. Christie provides you with alot of information - ALOT. And you have to decide what pieces of information are pertinent to the crime and which are coincidental. (It's not like watching CSI, where huge, lighted arrows blinkingly point to clues or red herrings. Every fact is part of a general soup of events, with no one thing seemingly more emphasized by the author than another.)
She also provides information in bits and starts. You don't learn everything all at once. Witnesses give their statements, then a bunch of other stuff happens (and more information is introduced), and then those same witnesses recall an extra tidbit here or there that they think might be worth considering. This slow reveal of facts makes it even more difficult to piece together all of the events leading to the crime. Information that you might otherwise have connected, had it been provided all at once, seems disjointed and harder to analyze when given out of sequence.
Also, all information is filtered to you through a character, General Hastings, say, or the Vicar himself. The attitudes, feelings, and mental processes of these characters also influence the conclusions you begin to draw about the crimes and perpetrators. Add to that all the interesting little people Christie populates her world with, and you can see why she has had such staying power.
Clearly, Christie had an amazingly analytical mind. My only criticism, in fact, would be that all the careful disclosures of "clues" can become tiresome as your brain gets turned around once AGAIN due to more information. One is tempted to keep a small notebook handy while reading so as to jot down pertinent facts, timelines of events, suspects/motives, etc.
With so many balls in the air (preponderance of facts, slow reveal of information, interesting narrator, etc.), these two stories were very satisfying reads. Highly recommended.
Comments
Also, love love LOVE the poetry project! "Jenny Kissed Me" has long been one of my favorites (no surprise) and the second (whose title I'm blanking on right now) I'll have to memorize as we have a "Margaret" of our own now... and the clumsy poem--really nice. Thanks for thse bits of poetry in my day.
On the poetry front: I recommend Billy Collins. He has recently been the poet laureate of the U.S> and has some nice quirky poems that are pleasant to read.
Have a great day!
Jenny
Thanks for the rec on Billy Collins AND "Sleeping Murder." I will try that one. Also, I went to the library this week, and I realized that I had already read The Thirteenth Tale! (Don't know why I blanked on the title when you recommended!) I'm going back to Joyce Carol Oates for a while now, so I'll probably be reviewing some of her stuff soon.
Poetry project - once I can figure it out, I may read some poems aloud and post .wav files. I think so many poems sound better when spoken than when read. Stay tuned for Pablo Neruda, Robert Pinsky (remember when he came to speak at Millsaps?), and a couple of other faves.
Smiles,
Nicole