Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our Feb 25 challenge read: The Murder at the Vicarage
The first book in the Miss Marple series was published in 1930.

Anyone who murdered Colonel Protheroe,’ declared the parson, brandishing a carving knife above a joint of roast beef, ‘would be doing the world at large a favour!’ It was a careless remark for a man of the cloth. And one which was to come back and haunt the clergyman just a few hours later – when the colonel was found shot dead in the clergyman’s study. But as Miss Marple soon discovers, the whole village seems to have had a motive to kill Colonel Protheroe.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

Miss Marple is definitely the brains of this investigation. Amusing standoff between the annoying inspector and the vicar over the clock. I sided with the vicar though he had to relent eventually.

That was amusing! I did wonder if the vicar could have insisted on telling Inspector Slack about the clock - but, having said that, it serves Slack right that he doesn't bother after being slapped down multiple times.

As happens quite frequently with Agatha Christie, I found the overall plot and final explanation ingenious and riveting, but felt that some small details were in danger of bringing the whole structure crashing down. I do also feel that there is a good case for overlooking questionable elements when they are very minor, and simply enjoying the thrill of a nail-biting mystery. That said, though, I was troubled by the issue of the time of death since it played such a major role in the elimination of the two main suspects in the early stages of the investigation.

Dr Haydock states quite definitely that Colonel Protheroe could not have been shot later than 6.30. Lawrence Redding has an unbreakable alibi for the crucial minutes following that time. Therefore, Lawrence Redding cannot be the murderer. However, Dr Haydock's certainty about the time of death is based on the body temperature of the victim. A dead body loses heat at an average rate of one to one point five degrees F. per hour, and is not detectable until one hour after death. Surrounding conditions influence this, of course, but on a warm summer day (French windows were left open) it would hardly be faster than average. Dr Haydock first examined the body and made his initial observation of its coldness almost exactly half an hour after death. My understanding of the physiology involved (gained entirely via Google) is that the good doctor could not have been anywhere near so certain as he appears to be in the book. Remove the requirement for the murder taking place before 6.30 and Lawrence Redding becomes a prime suspect.

Furthermore, the plot is organised so that Lawrence Redding himself must have anticipated the doctor's verdict as to the time of death because he (Lawrence) is so careful to provide himself with an alibi for the time after 6.30. It also explains the necessity for Mrs Protheroe to be seen arriving at the Vicarage without the possibility that she has a gun concealed anywhere about her.

All of this is a major element in the early stages of the plot and for me, at least, it detracts a little from the success of the mystery. I suspect that AC was aware of this weakness. I think that is why she creates so much confusion around the time with the vicar's clock, and whether it was altered at the time of the murder. Of course, it must have been because when that clock showed 6.22 the time would really have been 6.07 and Colonel Protheroe would not even have been in the Vicarage. Lawrence Redding confesses to moving the hands of the clock during his confession to the murder, but when he is asked why, Dr Haydock asks him another question before he can answer and the whole issue gets dropped. Later, when Lawrence is thought to be in the clear, it is assumed that another person changed the hands on the clock and Lawrence was just ad libbing when he realised that the police knew the clock had been changed. In fact, it was Lawrence who changed the clock time, and his only reason for doing so must have been that he was so sure that the doctor would rule that the time of death had to be before 6.30, something he could not possibly have known.

This post has grown long enough - unavoidable, when unravelling a complicated plot - so I won't go into any other points.

Mike, I don't see any reason you can't make multiple posts with as many points as you want to talk about. There is no downside: anyone who tires of the subject doesn't have to keep reading!

I started off reading confident that - for a change - I remembered who the murder was but I was remembering incorrectly.

So, as usual, I was mislead by Agatha Christie. Both Mrs Protheroe and Lawrence present as people I don't want to be guilty, and then I am astonished when they are.

I think Mike's point about the time of death is valid and that this first novel is unnecessarily complicated. It still works - very well, too - but later novels are a bit tighter with all the red herrings and obfuscations.

At least, as I recall! But all these are re-reads and my memory is not always accurate.

And it's not always memory - in my 6th decade I've come to realize when I think I am reading I am often skimming, instead, hurrying along to find out what happens. So in the last few years I have been attempting to slow down and pay attention.

This re-read was via audio book and that is another dimension. On the whole, I think it was a good thing but my narrator was a man and I wasn't distracted by hearing what should be Miss Marple's voice when it's from the vicar's POV.

I am just loving this challenge and look forward to the rest of the year!

Mike, thanks for the thoughtful comments on the whole question of time of death, which I'll admit I found quite confusing and I also wondered if it could be quite that exact.

I do think the whole double bluff idea is very clever though, and I believe it has been copied quite a lot since in TV shows, etc.

Jackie, I believe I saw somewhere the other day that Christie herself later commented on the novel being unnecessarily complicated - possibly this was in Secret Notebooks? I'll have a look and see if I can find the quote...

Just found the quote about Christie thinking there were too many sub-plots, which is from her Autobiography - I'm not sure where I saw this but it is quoted on lots of websites.

"Reading Murder at the Vicarage now, I am not so pleased with it as I was at the time. It has, I think, far too many characters, and too many sub-plots. But at any rate the main plot is sound. The village is as real to me as it could be –and indeed there are several villages remarkably like it, even in these days."

I think she may have a point about there being too many characters, but I'm not sure I'd want to lose any of them!

Judy wrote: "Just found the quote about Christie thinking there were too many sub-plots, which is from her Autobiography - I'm not sure where I saw this but it is quoted on lots of websites.

"Reading Murder at..."

I didn't feel that there were too many characters, but AC's desire to weave extraneous sub-plots round some of them is a weakness, I think. An example is the suggestion of an affair between Griselda and Lawrence Redding. One of the anonymous letters received by husband Len refers to Griselda being seen leaving Lawrence's cottage via the window. It had already been established that Griselda had not travelled on the much-delayed 6.50 train, and that she had been friendly with Lawrence years earlier. She admitted the former friendship to Len when challenged, though I find her previously feeling the need to keep the fact hidden from her husband unconvincing: it's out of keeping with her character, which is refreshingly open and natural, and out of keeping with the marital relationship. But the worse error, I think, is the detail about her climbing out through the back window of Lawrence's cottage. That is simply unnecessary and foolish. If nobody was watching, then she could have left by the door quite freely. And if somebody was watching, then it would appear far more suspicious to be seen leaving by the window. Furthermore, Lawrence was painting her portrait, providing an adequate reason for her visit, and a rebuff to local gossip.

Added on Feb 05: Oh my, I have made a bloomer! I was very surprised by the idea of Griselda climbing through a window when she left Lawrence's cottage, and I've just realised that AC meant a French window! So no climbing involved. The penny dropped as I was reading The Affair at Styles and came upon this sentence in Ch. 9: 'We entered the house by one of the windows.' 'We' means Hastings and Poirot. I was astonished. Poirot climbing through a window? Surely not. Of course, it refers to a French window. At that point I made the connection with The Murder at the Vicarage. I checked the text, and of course, the word 'climb' is not used, just that Griselda left, 'by the back window'. I imagined it as climbing. AC refers to French windows as just windows.

Good points, Mike.

Christie really threw herself into creating lots of suspects, didn't she?

I have added a new paragraph to my post of Feb 04, which I think may amuse everyone.

Mike wrote: "I have added a new paragraph to my post of Feb 04, which I think may amuse everyone."

Oops!

Haha, thanks, Mike! That's an interesting point about how language has changed - I definitely don't think 'leaving by the back window' now makes us envision French windows.

Mike wrote: "I have added a new paragraph to my post of Feb 04, which I think may amuse everyone."

You’re right though, French window or otherwise, I still felt the Lawrence/Griselda subplot, along with the phoney archeologist/burglar subplot, were clunky and unnecessary. After watching the streamlined plot of Joan Hickson film version on BritBox last weekend, I stand by the assertion (and sounds like Christie herself agreed), that there were too many subplots.

Susan, I was going to ask if people have been watching the TV adaptations. I saw the Joan Hickson version a few years ago and remember really enjoying it and liking Paul Eddington and Cheryl Campbell as the Clements.

This time around, I thought I'd try the more recent 'Marple' TV version with Geraldine McEwan. I must say it has a fantastic all-star cast, including Sir Derek Jacobi, Janet McTeer, Tim McInnerny, Jane Asher and, my personal favourite, Mark Gatiss as Hawes.

But I thought it made too many unnecessary changes to the plot, in particular introducing a Brief Encounter type romantic back story for Miss Marple with various station scenes. Then again, my railway-mad husband liked this as it meant we saw some steam trains!

Judy wrote: "Susan, I was going to ask if people have been watching the TV adaptations. I saw the Joan Hickson version a few years ago and remember really enjoying it and liking Paul Eddington and Cheryl Campbe..."

lol! I watched the McEwan versions years ago when they first aired in the USA and enjoyed them, but remember being vaguely confused by the plot changes and embellishments-I hadn’t read the mysteries in years, and was foggy on the plots, anyway, but the added bits seemed unnecessary. And sorry, but Geraldine will forever be Lucia to me…kept waiting for her to call for “Georgino Mio!”😉😂

I love the Joan Hickson versions, and have those and Poirot on BritBox, so plan to watch them as we read the books monthly. Always fun to compare what makes the screenplay cut while the book is fresh in my mind.

Oh, Mike, you had me laughing at the thought of Griselda climbing "through" the window.

Isn't Christie the one who came up with the 7 character theory? Or is it 7 suspects? She appears to have exceeded that amount with Vicarage. I believe the theory was that the average reader could only keep 7 characters in mind at a time.