Publication date: 1959
Summary: Not one but three murders, all in the sports pavilion of Meadowbank Girl's School, threaten the stability of the institution. But something's hidden at the school. Some jewels secreted from the country of Ramat are concealed somewhere on campus. Does student Princess Shaista know where they are? What about Jennifer Sutcliffe who was with her mother in Ramat just before the revolution and who's tennis racket hasn't been right since coming to school? What about Julia Upjohn, the clever student who can't understand why everyone wants Jennifer's racquet? Maybe Miss Springer knows, or Mrs. Vansittart or even Mademoiselle Blanche - if they did, they aren't speaking. Adam, the young, too-good looking gardener may know a thing or two. One thing is certain, Poirot will know all by the end of the novel. Not a bad feat for coming in in the last third. One hates to call Poirot incidental in this espionage thriller, but one wonders why he is in this novel.
The characterization in this novel isn't bad for a later Christie. I may like it better because I am a teacher, but there you have it. The idea that time marches on and things change, should change, is an interesting one in this novel. I also enjoy watching Miss Bulstrode, the headmistress, try and remember what Julia Upjohn's mother (a former intelligence worker during the war) said to her the day the students came to school. The idea of knowing you know something important but not knowing what it is is a great motif of Christie's.
Body count: Three teachers are killed in the sports pavilion on different occasions and a princess is kidnapped.
Detective/Sleuth: Hercule Poirot
Rating: 3.25 tennis racquets out of 5
Commentary:
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling that what you say is true, that we might enjoy this one more because we are teachers. I'm listening to it again, and really the plot is awfully silly! Part of the problem is that, although Christie really loved all that espionage stuff, she didn't have the slightest clue how to present it realistically. So it all goes down is a fluffy sort of way. But there's something truly charming about this book, especially in the way it features mostly female characters and their jumbled thoughts. The tricks she uses are fun: all the letters and confidences that would indicate a person's innocence...yet you have to look at everything the right way round to realize that much of what we see has a double meaning. I love Miss Chadwick and Miss Rich. And I love the girls! It's like watching a mystery version of "The Trouble With Angels" or "The World of Henry Orient," two of my favorite movies about mischievous girls!!
It was interesting to talk the other day about Gaudy Night. This sure deals with an educational institution in a much lighter and less emotional way. Oh, and your point about the old giving way to the new reminds me that you HAVE to see the amazingly poignant final episode of Foyle's War, The Hide. Sam's subplot deals with this very thing, but it shows the dark side of postwar England trying to modernize and brings up a lot of stuff about the importance of traditions!
There's more to say, but my time is up!
Brad
Brad:
ReplyDeleteYou're right the plot is really silly. Although I found it a bit more plausible than, say, a group of spies who are lead by an unknown mastermind (Mr. Brown) who always blends in but whose identity is never revealed (even though the butler or the office boy is named Brown). Or the implausibility of a secret group of seven people wearing hoods with clock faces. I think Christie's simplistic understanding of spies and espionage may have worked better in the 20s and 30s when one could get away with being more fanciful, but it just doesn't seem to work at all in her later novels. But hey! Kudos to her for trying. I was just trying to think about how I would write an espionage novel, and came to the conclusion that I wouldn't be very good at it myself.
However, what I'm wondering is, do we value similar things differently depending on the messenger and the medium. If you think about it, Hitchcock's films that have to do with spies and international intrigue aren't all that informed either. I guess it is a bit different because they are McGuffins that simply give a reason for Cary Grant to be running across the US and ending up in Rapid City! Yet, he's generally exploring themes of obsession, guilt, or the difficulty of love (take Notorious for example).
I want to think that Christie explores other ideas in her novels and I think to a degree she does. With CAtP, it's a bit less clear.
I have to say that Julia Upjohn is a favorite of mine in this novel. She's a smart kid.
I was talking with my folks and they told me the same thing about that last episode of Foyle's War. I can't wait to see them all. My mom said Foyle mentioned going to America (which made them wonder if he's going to pursue that American from an earlier season who had stolen the invention of his Oxford classmate and then years later killed him to silence him. That would be a good story for them to develop further seeing as the murderer got away!
Thanks again for your great comments!
Matt
Well, the whole point of the McGuffin, of course, is that it doesn't matter anyway WHAT they're seeking, it's the search (and its emotional effect on the pursuers/pursued) that is important. And Christie never had such a notion as a McGuffin. Everything seems to matter to her. I guess Victoria Jones becomes a little smarter by the end of her adventures to Baghdad: she learns not to trust gorgeous young men (as Agatha learned with Archie years before, and as millions of women and men continue to learn to this day!!!) and ends up with some uglier but kinder guy. But nobody learns anything in CATP; it's just a good, fun, senseless romp. For me, the pleasures are in the ladies and students at the school rather than the plot. Watching poor Miss Chadwick fuss about, worried about Bulstrode leaving and who would replace her, or Eileen Rich pontificating feverishly on the joys of teaching, or Julia Upjohn (who should have been the detective in this book rather than Poirot!) figure things out....
ReplyDeleteOn the way to work today, I was listening to the conversation Miss B. has with Miss Rich about teaching, and it really struck home to me. Teaching IS like fishing, and you live for those rare moments when you reel in an intelligent response or a moment of real enlightenment or - the gold standard - a new idea!!!! It's as you said: we like this book because it's about SCHOOL!!
New Marples on TV starting this weekend. Mirror Cracked, followed by Marple being inserted to Secret of Chimneys (ack!) and an expansion of the short story The Blue Geranium...
Brad
Yes, I have to agree with you about the setting being so much of it's allure. I still am a bit anti the New Marple Series, but maybe I should give it a try with the new actress. I usually like Geraldine McEwan, but I could never see her as Marple (and I found her wilted lettuce, home perm hair annoying and out of place).
ReplyDeleteBlue Geranium might be interesting. I like that story.
I just thought the book was basically boring. No characters of real interest or individuality, all "types", and even Poirot seems bored.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I understand you there. Although I have to say I still really liked Julia Upjohn. She to me was interesting.
ReplyDelete