Appointment With Agatha discussion

Spoiler freely!

I've read this three times so I won't be joining you this time. But the book is most effective on the first reading. It's good on re-reading but the surprise at the end on first reading is a real zinger.

Rosemarie wrote: "I've read this three times so I won't be joining you this time. But the book is most effective on the first reading. It's good on re-reading but the surprise at the end on first reading is a real z..."

My daughter read this for one of her high school English classes and was blown away. It inspired a love of Agatha Christie that continues to today - she has read probably 1/3 of the mysteries at this point.

This is one of the few Christie mysteries where I remember the solution. Despite that, I will no doubt have forgotten some of the details of the action to get there, so this second reading should be fun.

This is intriguing. Haven't read it before but saw the tv adaptation. They can be different so I'm going into this with an open mind.

Fun! I’ll definitely want to read this again before I forget who done it, but after I’ve forgotten the specifics.

I was betting on someone who was somehow connected to all who’d died as a result of the actions or inactions of the characters.

This was published in 1939 according to our schedule of monthly reads - I’m curious to find out if the casual anti-Semitism will still be a part of books going forward.

C wrote: " I’m curious to find out if the casual anti-Semitism will still be a part of books going forward..."

It is definitely part of this one. I think we will continue to see it for a while. It won't go away overnight.

I enjoyed it. It wouldn't be a favourite but it certainly has a brilliant mystery.

That was the scariest of the books we've read so far. It felt like a horror book, with all the deaths and the knowledge that everyone would die since the nursery rhyme said so. I can't say I enjoyed it very much, but Agatha Christie's planning was marvellous. The psychology was fascinating too, with those people being forced to trust each other even though they knew that one of their midst was a murderer, against the backdrop of their guilty consciences.

I kept wanting to shout at them, read the poem and you'll know who's next!!!

I just woke up from a nightmare involving a mysterious murder, haha.

I suspected Wargrave for a few reasons – he was the only one who received a letter from Constance Culmington, he was rich enough to buy Soldier Island and intelligent enough to plan the murders, he led the proceedings throughout, he was the one who realised UN Owen was Unknown, and he prevented the others from getting the electricity started and suggested candles instead. But once he “died”, I was confused!

Also I felt AC tried so hard to fit the rhyme that some things were implausible. How would Wargrave have predicted that General Macarthur would say he wanted to stay on the island? And how could he have predicted that of the last three, one would return to the house alone to allow him to drop the clock on his head? Or that Vera and not Lombard or Blore would be the last one standing? Neither Lombard nor Blore would have hanged themselves. But I do recognise it was a difficult plot to write and keep watertight.

My first time reading it although had seen the movie. I couldn’t remember The Who other than knowing it was one of the dead who really wasn’t dead. One of her best

Maggie wrote: "And how could he have predicted that of the last three, one would return to the house alone to allow him to drop the clock on his head? Or that Vera and not Lombard or Blore would be the last one standing? ."

I was wondering that same thing as I was reading the ending. Still, I must have let it go because I just gave this book 5 stars. I couldn't put it down. Read it yesterday, all in one day. As far as an entertaining way to spend four or five hours, this book hits all the marks. I was never bored with it.

I am struck by how suspenseful this book is - Christie really infuses it with the terror of the victims as they await their fate. It's so effective.

I finished my reread last night. This is one Christie's best and scariest mysteries. As I said in my last post, I remain really impressed by how she managed to build and maintain that sense of dread and doom.

A few questions for the readers:

1. Justice Wargrave says in the epilogue that he murdered people in the order of their "culpability" and the egregiousness of their crime. Do you agree with his assessment? If not, why not?

2. I am personally extremely skeptical that Vera Claythorne would have committed suicide. Do you think that the book would have better or weaker if she had refused and Wargrave would have had to reveal himself to her in order to murder her?

3. How do you feel about the device of the epilogue to reveal all?

My thoughts:

1. I do agree that Vera Claythorne and Philip Lombard are probably the worst. I feel particularly hostile to Vera, because her "crime" involved the death of a child and was done for the most venal of reasons. I think it's interesting that Christie displayed such antipathy to Lombard, who was really embodying the colonial attitudes that many of Christie's characters possess (the pukka sahib Colonels, etc.) and whom she typically treats a lot more sympathetically.

I really loathe Eileen Brent, though - she is a type of character (and person) that I deeply dislike with her superior, holier-than-thou and judgmental attitudes.

I also think that Anthony Marston is a good deal more culpable than she makes him out to be. That may be a change in perspective fueled by the ubiquitous safety issues posed by reckless drivers in a time of mass automotive transportation. His callousness about the inconvenience (to himself) of losing his license for killing two children really pissed me off.

2. I don't think there is even the remotest chance that Vera Claythorne kills herself and Christie could have done a fabulous jump-scare if she had decided to allow Wargrave to reveal himself the murderer to her and have the two of them fight it out. In fact, if this book were published today, I would guess that would be the ending, and Vera would emerge victorious.

3. I usually hate plot devices that reveal major points in letters. I liked it all right, but it might also have been interesting for Christie to have left it without the epilogue for everyone to wonder what actually happened.

I'm reminded of another book that went that route - Picnic at Hanging Rock by Joan Lindsay. The author wrote an epilogue that was an explainer, but the publisher talked her into leaving it out. Once I finished the book, I found it on the internet and read it. I wish I hadn't, because the book was much more interesting left open ended.

Christine PNW wrote: "A few questions for the readers:

1. Justice Wargrave says in the epilogue that he murdered people in the order of their "culpability" and the egregiousness of their crime. Do you agree with his assessment? If not, why not?

2. I am personally extremely skeptical that Vera Claythorne would have committed suicide. Do you think that the book would have better or weaker if she had refused and Wargrave would have had to reveal himself to her in order to murder her?

3. How do you feel about the device of the epilogue to reveal all?
"

This is great. I was hoping for some more interaction on this book.

1. I agree with you that Anthony Marston was very much responsible for those deaths. But if he is not first to go, then who? Possibly Mrs. Rogers. And as much as Eileen Brent was a dislikable character, she was not directly responsible for the death of the girl. As far as I read, she did not tell the girl to go kill herself. She kicked her out of the house, true, but that does not make somebody guilty of murder. Of course, there is likely more to that story than what Brent admitted to.

2. Vera Claythorne would not have committed suicide. Any woman who is capable of murdering a child is a psychopath and would not be inclined to deal out self punishment.

3. I was not crazy about the epilogue, but, it was totally Christie. She loved to wrap her books up with a neat bow. If it had not been there, I think I would have felt a little lost.

Jessica wrote: "Christine PNW wrote: "But if he is not first to go, then who? Possibly Mrs. Rogers."

I'm not even sure that the Rogers actually did it. I listened to the first part of the book while I was at work, so I was a little distracted (even though this was a reread). How did they benefit? Did they receive a small legacy or something (it must not have been much, since they are still working as domestic servants)? I'm not entirely convinced that Wargrave was right when he dealt out his form of justice to the two of them.

Having said this, I think that Christie did such a good job of making such morally gray characters that it's hard to put them in order. There is an argument for any of them (except Vera, she's literally the worst) to be better than another, but then when you start to actually structure the argument, it's just UGH!

Like Dr. Armstrong, for example. One could argue that he's less culpable than Anthony Marston because Marston's recklessness killed two children but he only killed one sick woman. Neither of them intended to kill anyone. But then, I think about the fact that Dr. Armstrong had a duty to his patient that Marston didn't have to those children by virtue of his profession.

There is a lot of manslaughter happening in the book, but very little actual murder. Except for Vera Claythorne & the Colonel Macaulay. They both definitely intended that their victims would die, to remove them as an obstacle to their happiness.

Vera's suicide bothered me too. It jarred a little and didn't quite fit with my impression of her.

Christie did such a great job of building suspense and creating an atmosphere of terror and suspicion that I accepted Vera’s suicide. Within the context of her life before she arrives on the island, I agree: Vera would not have chosen suicide. But her choice, to me, feels organic, grown out of an amalgam of isolation, mistrust, dread, sleeplessness, and ultimately, the “set dressing”—noose, chair, seaweed. Christie’s artistic choice—compelling Vera to execute herself once the balance of her mind is disturbed—is a masterful way to emphasize the depravity of Vera’s crime.

Marie wrote: "Christie did such a great job of building suspense and creating an atmosphere of terror and suspicion that I accepted Vera’s suicide. Within the context of her life before she arrives on the island..."

Good points, Marie.

Marie wrote: "Christie did such a great job of building suspense and creating an atmosphere of terror and suspicion that I accepted Vera’s suicide. Within the context of her life before she arrives on the island..."

Thanks Marie, it makes so much more sense when you put it that way.

Though I didn't like Emily Brent, I felt she was the least culpable. Dismissing a maid for getting pregnant out of wedlock sounds like fairly common and expected behaviour, and the maid's suicide was probably a greater consequence of her own actions than Miss Brent's. Miss Brent's attitude does jar though.

I just finished rereading this last night. As many others have said, I remembered I loved the book but couldn’t quite remember who all the players were or what they had done.

I do believe that Vera might have hung herself. Christie was insinuating near the end that Vera was having some short breaks with reality and mentally suffering.

I do agree that Vera committed the worst crime, and Lombard was a very close second. I might even argue that because he killed the most people, he should’ve been the last to die. And he was the only one who said straight away that he did it.

And the doctor being drunk while operating made him culpable.

I loved the epilogue because I always like to know why things happen. And the epilogue gave me all the answers. So just a personal thing, but I love it.

What is funny is that my granddaughter, who is in college, is taking an ethics class. She brought one of their assignments to Thanksgiving. The question was which two people would you save out of the following 10. Then it gave 10 individual people and what they had done. Very much like this book, except with a modern twist.

I’m going to give her this book and see if she is interested in it.

Great conversations in this discussion!

Myra Chandler wrote: "I’m going to give her this book and see if she is interested in it..."

I hope she enjoys it - let us know! My own daughter read this one as part of her AP Lang class during her junior year in HS and it ignited a love for Agatha Christie that extends to today - a decade later. She hasn't read all of Christie's mysteries, but she's read close to half of them, and has read all of the best ones!

If your granddaughter does a lot of travelling, she might enjoy the audiobook which is narrated by Dan Stevens. It's well-done.

Isn’t it fun to have someone else in the family share your love of Agatha Christie? I have two daughters and three granddaughters and only one, my younger daughter, enjoys Christie. That’s a great idea about the audible book!

I finally got around to writing a (spoiler-free) review of this.

https://mikefinnsfiction.com/2023/01/...

Great review Mike and though I really liked the book I agree with you about the ending. It sort of jarred when reading it.

I liked this one as a stand-alone mystery. I liked the ending as I did not see it coming. Seems to me that her books are mainly dialogue between 6 or more characters. There is always a big character dump at the start of her novels. Normally this throws me and makes me want to take a few notes but with Christie I know to just keep reading.

It's not unusual for me to write on the inside of the front cover of a Christie novel, a list of character names with a brief description next to each so I can remember who the heck it is. In this book, I had all 12 names written down. But Chad is right, I didn't really need it.

I just finished this one and was surprised that my second read was less enjoyable than my first (which was superb).

Vera hanging herself was believable to me only because throughout the book her hysteria was highlighted as being unusual. So while her actions perhaps didn’t suit her character, they suited her behaviour for the circumstances.

Marston was my least favourite character but I wasn’t fond of Lombard either.

The inclusion of Emily Brent’s character I felt took away from the story ….. a token religious zealot. Yawn. It was rather cheap of Christie, especially because she tends to attempt to show the other side of the supernatural as at least somewhat normal in her books. Odd.

While I had expected that the murderer was one of the ten, the culprit was a surprise. I didn’t mind the confession in letter form but I agree with you, Christine, that the ending would have been much improved if Vera refused to hang herself and there was a confrontation. It was overall too easy for Justice Wargrave.

Great thoughts, everyone! I enjoyed reading them.

Cleo wrote: "The inclusion of Emily Brent’s character I felt took away from the story ….. a token religious zealot. Yawn. It was rather cheap of Christie, especially because she tends to attempt to show the other side of the supernatural as at least somewhat normal in her books. Odd..."

Yes I've seen this character type in other books by other authors as well. The older I get, the more I see things I've already seen. I guess that's one of the many joys of getting older!

Lol! How true, Jessica!