Deceptions: Christie'sTaken At The Flood

 

Agatha Christie. Taken at the Flood (1948) In postwar England, the Cloade clan dislikes the widow of their rich relative Gordon, whose death in the Blitz deprives them of the money they had come to expect. A stranger appears with news of Robert Underhay, the widow’s first husband, supposedly still alive after all. Which would make her marriage to Gordon invalid, and so relieve the Cloades of their financial difficulties. The stranger turns up dead with a nasty bash to the back of the head. Poirot’s involved because Mrs Philip Cloade had asked him to find Underhay a week or so prior to the murder. 

     The usual complications ensue, and we are treated to nicely done puzzle but an uncharacteristically muddled narrative. The novel I think began as a romance about a returning WREN and her stodgy suitor, etc. The murder puzzle had to be solved somehow, the Inspector charged with the inquiry could have done it all, but I suppose Christie knew that inserting Poirot would satisfy her fans. So that’s what she did. Or so it seems to me. 

     The 2006 TV adaptation with David Suchet as Poirot offers a more coherent and nuanced tale. A couple of major differences reshape the plot so that it flows more naturally from the characters’ passions and flaws. Poirot is presented as the godparent of a major player. A couple of major plot points are completely changed, for the better I think. At any rate, I reread the book after watching the show, which paid more attention to the widening stain of evil, and how fate is the name we give to accident and coincidence. ** for the book, *** for the video.

     The book cover above will make sense only if you read the book.

Sam Elliot, bashful cowboy: Conagher (1991)

 

 Conagher (1991) [D: Reynaldo Villalobos. Sam Elliot, Katherine Ross, Barry Corbin.] Based on the novel by Louis L’Amour. Rustlers, a cattle baron, a homesteader who dies in an accident on his way to town, a bashful lonesome cowboy, a lonesome widow and her two lonesome kids, questions of loyalty and integrity, a stage line establishing its route through the district, and of course the laconic dialogue that marks the Western as a man’s man type of movie. But this is really High Romance. Elliot plays the knight in tarnished armour, Ross is the Lady in need of rescue, and it all plays out with a minimum of gore and a maximum of historical realism. Good movie. Available on YouTube. ***

Email notifications of new posts will end.

 

 

If you follow this blog by email, please note that this service will end in July. The service is provided by a third party. They have notified Google that they will no longer provide automatic notification of new posts on Google's blogs.

 If you wish to continue to follow this blog,bookmark it, and leave the tab open when you shut down your browser. 

 

Thanks for you interest.

 

And please comment on any blog.

Flatmates, lies, and murder: Christie's Third Girl

 

Agatha Christie. Third Girl. (1966) A girl shows up at Poirot’s flat asking for help. She believes she has committed a murder. But she rejects his help when she sees him, exclaiming that he’s too old. Thus begins an extremely tangled web of deceit, misinformation, misremembrances, disguises, dead ends, and a dysfunctional family’s history. A couple of lucky discoveries enable Poirot to fit the pieces together into a pattern that makes sense, and all’s well that ends well. The girl even gets a very suitable young man. The plot almost slips away from Christie this time, but she manages to pull off a convincing denouement. Her skill at writing dialogue has improved enormously compared to her first books, in which it is often difficult to keep track of the speakers.
     This novel was made into a video in 2008 (season 11 of the Poirot TV series). The movie is much simplified, with fewer characters and a less tangled plot. The essential deceptions still operate, and the girl also gets a most suitable young man. But having reread the novel, I think it’s a more satisfying mystery than the video. Not to say that the video is a failure. The video will no doubt please those who know Poirot with David Suchet playing the role as only he can. It pleased me, for taken on its own terms, it’s an average Poirot movie, which means it’s pretty good.
     Book ***, video **½

Two By Robinson: Serial killings and a cold case.

 

Peter Robinson. Aftermath (2001) Banks is leading a joint task force trying to find a serial killer. It wears him out. The case is solved, but its effects spread like a stain through the community, among the police, among the families and neighbours of the victims, in the community at large. But the killings had their origin in horrific abuse within two related families many years earlier. The title is thematic.
     The backstory proceeds: Sandra is pregnant with her lover’s child and wants Banks to finally get on with the divorce. Annie Cabot decides that their affair should stop, but wants a continued collegial connection. Banks needs a holiday: that’s where The Summer that Never Was begins.
     Another good read by Robinson, but I felt somewhat detached from the story, perhaps because the plot was too obviously constructed to demonstrate the unknowns about serial killing. There was also a touch too much gore. **½

 The Summer that Never Was (2003) Banks is on leave enjoying a holiday in Greece after his leadership of a serial killer case left him exhausted. Reading the week-old English morning paper, he notices a story that revives a cold case: one of his childhood friends disappeared twenty-some years ago, and now his body has been discovered. Banks decides to offer what he recalls of that time, but also (of course) hangs around the investigation’s periphery, and uncovers not only evidence that he didn’t really know the boy, but also of corrupt social and political leaders and bent cops.
     Another well-done police procedural. Robinson is good at creating the ambience of long stretches of more or less futile lines of inquiry that eventually sift the essential information from the confusing detritus. Banks is left with the satisfaction of a case solved, and the loss of misleading memories of childhood innocence. The writing is merely workmanlike for too much of the book, but Banks and the other characters stick with you. ***

If you don't have space for a model railroad, read this book.

 

 Mat Chibbaro. Model Railroading in Small Spaces. (1998) The perfect book for someone living in a modern condo or apartment. Chibbaro covers everything. His Christmas Tree layout can be stored in a closet and taken out for occasional play with one’s children. A couple of N-scale layouts can be built into tables or bartops, under glass. The top of a row of storage cabinets is space for a switching layout. And so on.
     Chibbaro provides step by step instructions, beginning with the Christmas layout. Every project builds on skills learned in the previous one. He’s built every layout he describes, so we learn from his mistakes as well. The illustrations are good enough that an experienced builder hardly needs the text.
     Out of print, but worth a few dollars if you can find a copy. ***

Burgess Writes about Writing (mostly)

 

Anthony Burgess. But Do Blondes Prefer Gentlemen (1986) A collection of “other writings”, mostly book reviews, with occasional travel pieces and general interest essays. Loosely organised by topic, eg, there are several essays about James Joyce all in a row.
     Burgess has a lively, well-stocked mind, and knows his opinions well. His pieces are a pleasure to read, especially when you have some knowledge of his subject, and even when you disagree with him. I don’t think Finnegan’s Wake and Ulysses are the greatest novels of the 20th century, but Burgess almost convinces me to take another read at them.
     He doesn’t like Orwell’s writing, but can’t help admiring his honesty, and his attempts to say things as truthfully as possible. I wonder what he would now make of Orwell’s insight into how surveillance generates paranoia, which kills empathy.
     He doesn’t think science fiction is really literature, because its focus on ideas prevents its being literary art. Literature as art is finally what attracts Burgess. Using language as the medium for creating – what, exactly? He’s right that what separates entertainment from art is style (for want of a better word), and that writers can use language to help or make us imagine what we could or would not imagine otherwise, which is the function of art in any medium. But I think he undervalues craft. There’s an irony in that. He’s is a superb craftsman. His essays are learned without being pedantic, entertaining without being superficial, and satisfying for both their ideas and the skilful exposition.
     The pieces are undated, and there is no index, both serious lacks. Nevertheless, recommended, if you can find a copy. I’ll probably keep this one for the occasional re-read. ***