Reading the Detectives discussion

A new month, a new Poirot! Though we, finally, get to read a proper novel again. This story was first released as a six series instalment in The American Magazine in 1933, under the title "13 For Dinner." Apparently, some American editions still care that ominous title, because of the superstition that sitting down thirteen to dinner means bad luck to the person who first leaves the table.

Enjoy all your spoilers here.

Great to have Hastings back for this one. I enjoyed the beginning, and Jane Wilkinson's bold announcement that she wanted to get rid of her husband. I am sure Poirot suspected her from the start.

This is one that I thoroughly enjoyed. Apart from the novel itself, I recently went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and particularly enjoyed seeing The Judgement of Paris and recalling this as part of a conversation in Lord Edgeware Dies that is the beginning of the end for the perpetrator. The juxtaposition of the 'dumb' woman and the well educated one was an interesting feature of this novel. I like that , although she was caught out in the end, a certain intelligence and knowledge of human nature gave Jane a 'head start'. Although I am a bit of an academic, I enjoy being 'put back in my box' . This is what the portrayal of Jane did in this novel. After all, the brilliant one didn't have a clue, did she?

Whew, this one was pretty tough to follow-I think Mrs Christie outdid herself on plot twists and plots within plots.

I have a loose end... Was Lord Edgware's butler related to Bryan Martin? Or was it just the fact he was a good looking man like the film star? Are we meant to think that butler in a relationship with Edgware, hence the potential scandel causing him to change his mind on divorce?

I think that this was classic Christie introducing characters of similar appearance so as to lay false clues.

It worked-for a while I was convinced the Butler was Bryan Martin in disguise!

I had hoped we’d find out what happened with Geraldine-did the Duke marry her in the end, or not?

I just thought Lord Edgware didn't care about keeping his wife as he had found a handsome young man to take her place.

Interesting theory-perhaps we should use the non-spoiler threads in future to post all our wild theories as we go!

I am not sure a wild theory counts as a spoiler - unless, of course, you hit on the truth ;)

Jill wrote: "I just thought Lord Edgware didn't care about keeping his wife as he had found a handsome young man to take her place."

I have heard the theory that possibly Lord Edgware was in a relationship to his butler. But where is this in the text?

LovesMysteries wrote: "Jill wrote: "I just thought Lord Edgware didn't care about keeping his wife as he had found a handsome young man to take her place."

I have heard the theory that possibly Lord Edgware was in a rel..."

I think it was implication only: his current wife mentions behavior that his first wife put up with, but she (second wife) wouldn't and went to the States instead. And then the so very handsome butler is referred to in effeminate terms by Japp and Hastings; his soft voice is one I remember.

LovesMysteries wrote: "Jill wrote: "I just thought Lord Edgware didn't care about keeping his wife as he had found a handsome young man to take her place."

I have heard the theory that possibly Lord Edgware was in a rel..."

What Sandy said above. Also I believe , the wife also said he wasn't like usual men. So in was just the inference I took.

Jill wrote: LovesMysteries wrote: "Jill wrote: "I just thought Lord Edgware didn't care about keeping his wife as he had found a handsome young man to take her place."

I have heard the theory that possibly Lord Edgware was in a rel..."

What Sandy said above. Also I believe , the wife also said he wasn't like usual men. So in was just the inference I took

I took that to mean Lord Edgware was cruel/sadistic in some way.

Frances wrote: "I took that to mean Lord Edgware was cruel/sadistic in some way. "

I did too. But looking further at the collection of books that Lord Edgware owned such as the works of "Casanova", you can imply that Lord Edgware not only had an interested in Marquis de Sade but probably had more of a libertine sexuality just as de Sade did.

Agatha Christie is most likely, in my view, to be suggesting that Lord Edgeware was cruel and sadistic as Frances suggests. Even a libertine might have been seen as cruel by some women, and it is the wife's point of view that is being considered, I think. He was unlikely to want to keep her, regardless of any young man, after all, she wasn't very intellectually bright, was she? The listing of the books indicates he was widely read; it is abundantly clear her interests were in fashion and the lighter things of life!

I also understood Lord Edgware to be a sadist - I was intrigued, given their vast differences, how he and Jane ever came to be married at all... ok, she wanted money and the title but surely he could see how ill-suited they were beyond her surface beauty?

I was also a bit disappointed that it was sheer luck that Poirot got the Paris clue. I love that the solution turns on classical myth - but how funny that Jane so nearly defeated Poirot!

I also assumed that Lord Edgware was cruel/sadistic, and the butler was a con man who used his looks as part of his scam. I didn't pick up any hints there was more to their relationship. Did everyone else's book have a facsimile of Carlotta's letter to her sister? It looked obvious that the word was meant to be 'she', not 'he', so I'm surprised it took Poirot so long to figure that out. Perhaps it was an assumption that the murderer was a man, which was his early running theory.

I've finished this one now and really enjoyed it - it certainly kept me guessing! I thought the killer was Bryan Martin and that he and the butler somehow changed places sometimes, because there was a mention of Bryan looking older at one point and then younger again - but I suppose that would have been rather a lot of disguises in one book!

Interesting that Poirot hears a woman coming out of a cinema saying, "If they’d just had the sense to ask Ellis right away" - I've just looked up, and Why Didn't They Ask Evans? was published the following year, so maybe Christie gave herself the idea for the title with this phrase?

Tara wrote: "Did everyone else's book have a facsimile of Carlotta's letter to her sister? It looked obvious that the word was meant to be 'she', not 'he' ..."

I had a facsimile of the letter on Kindle but to be honest I couldn't read the handwriting at all, not sure if it reproduced badly!

Thinking this over a bit more, the disguise doesn't really work, does it, unless I'm missing something?

Carlotta can make herself *sound* like Jane, but a blonde wig etc wouldn't make her *look* identical, so surely the impersonation would only work if nobody at the party had ever seen her before?

Even then, there would be a risk of somebody from the party running into Jane in the future and spotting that she isn't the same woman, even without the "Paris" giveaway!

Judy wrote: "I've finished this one now and really enjoyed it - it certainly kept me guessing! I thought the killer was Bryan Martin and that he and the butler somehow changed places sometimes, because there wa..."

I did too-I wonder if that was an intentional plant, to keep saying they looked alike.

Judy wrote: "Thinking this over a bit more, the disguise doesn't really work, does it, unless I'm missing something?

Carlotta can make herself *sound* like Jane, but a blonde wig etc wouldn't make her *look* ..."

The idea seemed to be that Carlotta was able to adapt her persona and mannerisms to the subject she was portraying, and otherwise had an unremarkable, forgettable face. I also recall Poirot saying at one point that the dining room where the dinner took place was lighted only by candles, and therefore, it would have been hard to see the people's faces very clearly. For such a clever actress though, Carlotta didn't seem to think through her impersonation if she's expounding on mythological figures (something Jane Wilkinson would hardly know much about).

Tara wrote: "The idea seemed to be that Carlotta was able to adapt her persona and mannerisms to the subject she was portraying, and otherwise had an unremarkable, forgettable face..."

Thanks, Tara, I do find it hard to swallow though, as Jane is supposed to be such a stunning beauty, that people wouldn't notice the difference.

This is something I've noticed in other Christie books, that she uses too many disguises for my taste and sometimes, as here, I just can't believe they would work!

In relation to Christie's use of disguise etc, I wonder if there is a subtext about the way in which we - readers and the characters who are taken in by the subterfuge - observe ? There is certainly a lesson about stereotypes in many of her novels. So, to me, we have a rather interesting writer who is sexist and racist at times, but also challenges our preconceptions. I think it is possible that even simple accessible novels fulfill more than the writers' need to produce fiction. Perhaps they are also talking about the way the world works in a more sophisticated and subtle way as well. We can read at both levels if we wish.

Has anyone seen the David Suchet episode for this story? Personally I was not a big fan, and I felt as though the actresses didn't look at all like each other. The Faye Dunaway version was much closer to the text in my opinion, and better portrayed Jane's frivolity and self-centeredness.

Tara wrote: "Has anyone seen the David Suchet episode for this story? Personally I was not a big fan, and I felt as though the actresses didn't look at all like each other. The Faye Dunaway version was much clo..."

I like the David Suchet adaptation but the one thing I didn't like about it was the ridiculous chase scene in the middle portion. I found it unnecessary and it certainly wasn't in the book. I noticed around this time in the Poirot series, there were a lot of ridiculous chase scenes (for one, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd). I did find Faye Dunaway a lot more closer to the Jane Wilkinson of the book and I agree with you, she certainly portrayed the selfish aspect of her character better. Faye Dunaway sounds like the Lady Edgware who would write the letter that was in the book moreso than Helen Grace in the Suchet film. I didn't care much for the actress who portrayed Carlotta Adams in the Suchet film either.