Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Those Golden Age Ladies Weren't so Hot!

 RHYS BOWEN:

I read an article recently by Sophie Hannah (who is continuing to write Agatha Christie books) in which she called Agatha Christie a genius.  She said:

Anyone who suggests that Agatha Christie’s actual writing or prose style or novelistic ability is anything other than top-notch is a crazy fool! Not only is she a brilliant plotter and entertainer; she is also a writer of unparalleled excellence! No, not just a great storyteller—actually a great writer in a literary sense! Like Virginia Woolf! Like Charles Dickens! Like Shakespeare!’

I think some of you may be laughing by now or shaking your heads. And I think I have to agree with you. She was no Pat Conroy or even Dennis Lehane, or even Reginald Hill whose novels still haunt me. She told a good tale. She kept me guessing until the end. But that was about it. Great books to read on a plane or a beach.


So where does she really stack up against great writers?

1.         Her characters are usually one dimensional. Poirot is vain, boastful. We never know what makes him tick, whether he has ever been in love, wept, mourned. Miss Marple is more complicated and I think Christie’s most interesting character. But the others can be summed up in two words: nosy spinster, bad son, domineering father. We know that the son is bad because he forged checks and therefore is a suspect in a murder, but we never know what he turned out that way. Was he sent off to boarding school at seven, rejected by his mother, kept short of cash by a controlling father? There are some exceptions. I recently re-read The Hollow which is a completely character-driven plot.

2.         The stories are always whodunnit and never whydunit. The crime writing field has moved into richer, more multilayered stories in which we are involved in the private lives and histories of the sleuth and the characters and their relationships.

3.         She doesn’t always play fair. Roger Ackroyd is considered a clever, innovative novel but there is an inherent unfairness to it. The narrator only tells you what he wants to and can withhold what he wants to.  In some books her sleuth knows something we don’t. Poirot says “I happen to have found out she was once a wardress in a prison.” 

Not fair!

4.         We have little sense of place in her books. The village. The market town. The big country house. But that is about it. We rarely know what plants are blooming, what birds are in the garden, what the air smells like, whether the scenery is wild and remote or soft and gentle.  People don’t stop to notice their surroundings unless there is a clue to be had. The old boathouse had its door open. The rooks were cawing suddenly.

5.         The books do not touch our emotions. Nobody weeps for the body in the library. Nobody is sad when the tormented murderer is apprehended. We remain detached observers to a crime and its solution.

I think the same is true to a certain extent with the other ladies of the Golden Age. Ngaio Marsh, Marjorie Allingham… Peter Wimsey is rather one dimensional but Harriet Vane is more interesting. Josephine Tey becomes more in a couple of novels.  It seems that these ladies  allow chinks of their own character and humanity when they create female characters but don’t have much clue about the complexities of a male sleuth. Do you agree?

And yet there must be something. Agatha has sold more books than any other writer ever. I own every book she wrote. If I am stressed or overworked I take one of her books off the shelf to read. Comfort reading --because I know what I’m going to get. It is not going to touch my emotions, leave me tense and upset.

I suppose one of the reasons for her initial success is that there were not many other crime novels published when she started.  Mystery was not established as a genre. Publishers probably only put out a dozen books a year. Then we had a very different crime writing wave in the US—the hardboiled guys, Chandler, Spillane and again spare telling of tales with little depth of characterization.

People who don’t read in our genre think of mystery novels as trite and slight because they only know of these initial writers. I have been asked if I ever intend to write a real book. But oh, how we have evolved. The best crime writing today can be called great literature. Complex characters, multiple timelines, incredible sense of place, nuanced feelings of right and wrong. What’s more, we have plots and climaxes and we don’t end our books walking down a beach in Maine wondering about the meaning of life.

So I’d be interested to know what you feel. We all love Agatha Christie but does she count among the great writers? For that matter what makes a great writer?  What makes an enduring book?

58 comments:

  1. Everyone probably has a different reason for considering an author “great” or a book “enduring” . . . both the writers and the books we love are going to be the ones who have touched us in some way, who have resonated with us. And I think it’s okay if we all have different lists of great writer and enduring books as long as we’re all still reading and reading and reading . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  2. When a book touches the essence and soul of your heart, then that author resonated with you and will always be remembered as a great author and/or an enduring book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's how I judge a book, Dru--did it move me. Does it stay with me. I think of Reginald Hill's On Beulah Height. Brilliant writing.

      Delete
  3. Great points, Rhys. Last night I finished reading Catriona McPherson's Gingerbread House A Gingerbread House. It hits all your points: "Complex characters, multiple timelines, incredible sense of place, nuanced feelings of right and wrong." A remarkable story that, as Joan and Dru have said, touched me.

    I can't believe someone asked you if you were going to write a real book!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've only read one Agatha Christie novel and while I finished it, I wasn't really all that grabbed by it either. So I don't have a large enough sampling to say where she ranks (or doesn't) in terms of being a great writer. I tend to like the movies that have been made from her books but they haven't made me want to seek out the actual books they are based upon.

    As for what makes a great writer or an enduring book, for me it is simply the matter of being entertained by the story I'm reading. If I like a book, for me it is a "great book". As for whether the book is enduring, that boils down to whether I would want to read the book again or spend more time with the characters in another story. If so, that's the endurance factor I look for.

    Besides, thanks to school required reading, I had to read an awful lot of books that are considered classic because they are centuries old. Yet I found the stories painfully boring and argued that just because a story is "old", that doesn't confer "classic" status upon it for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put, Jay! I too struggled through so many unnecessarily wordy books in school. Did we need all those pages on the sewers in Les Miserables?

      Delete
  5. I'm like Jay, haven't read enough of Christie's books for a decent sample. But to me there's no doubt that the crime writers of today go so much further, especially with character. There are so many books being written and published that all writers have to raise their games. I think that's a good thing for readers!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Loving literature, stories, plays, even movies, it's all so personal. I love cozies. Irwin doesn't read them. We both love Louise Penny. Irwin and I both love Deb's books. I read romances. He doesn't. I love your books, Her Royal Spyness series being my favorite of yours. Some books that critics extol have disappointed me.

    Funny story, one holiday, surrounded by cousins and family, all readers, we were discussing literature and Hemingway was mentioned. My son set the whole table laughing with his mocking of the literary genius, whose books I'd loved. "I'm sad, I'm bored, let's go to Paris. I'm sad, I'm bored, let's go to Spain." Won't ever think of him again without remembering that critique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your son was right, but he left out all the day drinking they do!

      Delete
    2. Actually Karen, I think that was mentioned, too. We were laughing so hard at that point...

      Delete
  7. I've read all of Agatha Christie and loved each one. Sometimes I want depth, character development, all that and a bag of chips. And sometimes I want a puzzle to solve, joyfully finding the red herrings, blissfully guessing whodunit, and never having to look up a single word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too. Especially when I'm stressed. A book that will be predictable

      Delete
  8. What a thoughtful essay. I now know why I never warmed up to Hercule (nor, apparently, did Ms. Christie, by her own admission) but always enjoyed Miss Marple -- she may not have revealed much about her own life, but she was a keen observer of other's. But, yes, not great literature, though enormous fun. I thought Dorothy Sayers' later books had increasing depth -- Lord Peter often sank into real depression after sending a murderer to the gallows, and Harriet Vane refused to love a man (Lord Peter himself) simply out of gratitude for keeping her from those gallows.

    Anyway, thanks for the great read!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Christie also obtained depth as she wrote. Curtain, Poirot's last case, is certainly poignant, where as most of them do not touch any emotional nerve at all.

      Delete
  9. One thing I liked about Miss Marple, or at least always remembered about her was how certain people reminded her of other people she had known and then she attributed the characteristics of one to another, which I suppose was rather unfair. However, I find myself doing the same thing! But only about physical things not their personalities.

    Since I first read Christie when I was very young I wasn't aware of any other mystery books. I must have enjoyed them mostly for the puzzle, but as Rhys has pointed out she didn't always play fair with her readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same with me, Judi. Christie was on my mother's bookshelf and in the library so I read them and thought they were wonderful.

      Delete
  10. I think it was Hallie I was talking to about this, who said she thought we are experiencing a second Golden Age of mystery writing in this era. There are so many excellent crime writers, including the Reds, and several Reds-adjacent authors. We are spoiled for choice, aren't we?

    Josephine Tey's Brat Farrar, which I read recently, is pretty deep, and very character driven. Nothing I've read of Agatha Christie's ever came close to the psychological aspect of Tey's book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Karen. It's my favorite of Tey's books, and possibly my favorite of the Golden Age mysteries.

      Delete
  11. Christie's books are puzzle books in comparison to Sayers (Gaudy Night, in particular) and Tey (Daughter of Time). I read for character more than plot and write the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! I find that character draws me into the plot, because I care about what happens in this person's life. If the character is one dimensional, I don't really care. Puzzles don't interest me that much anymore.

      Delete
  12. I don't know if Christie's books are great literature. I do know that I love them, and that's all that matters.

    I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "A classic is a book everyone thinks you should have read, but no one wants to read himself." Or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dame Agatha's contribution was to be a trailblazer more than a writer of great novels. She served as a transition point between the serial and the series. I'm not sure that readers wanted character development in those days. They wanted more of the story. Very different to today's writers who deliver the entire package. Like you, Rhys, I read Agatha (almost always Miss Marple) when I need a predictable comfort read.

    What makes a great writer? Purely subjective here - someone who makes me linger on the story after I've finished the book and keeps me longing for more.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A hot dog with all the fixings--oh bliss! Nouveau Swiss cuisine beautifully plated with the perfect pairing of wine--divine! They each have their place and time--I wouldn't judge either by the other. Same with books. Christie has endured because her genius was in telling a whooping good story, in my opinion. (And yes, Miss Marple is my favorite). During the times in which she wrote--after the Great War, leading up to WWII--she provided a puzzle to engage her readers, provided a familiar setting, likable if not fully realized characters. It would be interesting to examine post-WWII mystery writers--those of the late 50s, 60s, 70s, and compare to modern writers--those whose careers have flourished in the last 2-3 decades. Those writers who can handle complex characters, whose settings can't be cut from the books they write without mutilating the story being told, who weave in thought-provoking ideas and themes--these are the writers I return to over and over. And hopefully I'll be around a few more decades to follow where the mystery genre goes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. RHYS,

    Interesting take on Agatha Christie. I can think of a few whydunits like MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS. It is clear why the villain was killed. I remember that line by Poirot "I do not like your face".

    Recently, I have seen many types of mysteries - hardboiled, thriller, suspense, psychological thriller, paranormal mystery and cozy mystery.

    Personally, I like mystery novels that I can escape into. I cannot read novels with graphic violence. U've been asked by publishers to review novels with graphic violence and I have politely responded to them saying that I cannot read novels with graphic violence.

    It is always a joy to read Agatha Christie. I was in the 7th grade the first time I read Agatha Christie and it was a challenge to read because there were NO pictures in the book. LOL. I read Nancy Drew, which had illustrations amongst the pages.

    What makes an enduring book? I am the last person to ask because I have liked many novels that were discontinued like the Connor Westphal mysteries by Penny Warner, the Dutchman mysteries by Maan Meyer, the Alex Plumtree mysteries by Julie Kaewert, and many others.

    For me, these books are the type that I can read again and again. It is always a joy to read the Constable Evans mysteries and Lady Georgie mysteries again. I always reread the Maisie Dobbs mysteries by Jacqueline Winspear.

    Surprised that I am not as interested in the Nancy Drew mystery series anymore. I remember loving the novels in the 5th grade.

    Diana

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. p.s. As far as I know the Constable Evans mysteries were discontinued. I own all of the books in the series and I am so glad that I kept the novels when I moved because I donated most of my books when I moved.

      Delete
  16. Yes, I stopped writing Constable Evans after the publisher discontinued some of the books. It made no sense to write new ones. Now they are all available as e and audio books so I may look into at least a novella.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rhys, thanks for the update. I am so glad that I kept my copies.

      Diana

      Delete
  17. I love the Christie mysteries, as so many people do, but I think you put your finger on it, Rhys, when you wrote, "It is not going to touch my emotions, leave me tense and upset." They're an intellectual pleasure, and nowadays, also allow us to travel back in time.

    But her stories, her plots are SO good. Have you ever noticed how so many TV and movie adaptations are enthusiastically embraced by her readers (as opposed to, say, Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher...) It's because good directors and actors can give us the backstories and the emotional resonance the novels lack. Think of the climax of the wonderful 1972 DEATH ON THE NILE - Simon MacCorkindale and Mia Farrow wrench your heart with their pathos and bitterness.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's hard to dismiss someone who is the best selling novelist as all time. Yes, it is fair to critique them, but to dismiss them outright? You do that at your peril. There has to be something that keeps drawing people back to her books, right? Greatest author of all time? Probably not. But someone to analyze to see why people still read her and know her works like they do? Absolutely. I mean, people who don't read mysteries all the time like we do still know who Agatha Christie is.

    And, to be honest, I find some of the character development done now to be very cliche. I finished a book yesterday on audio, and when we got to a big reveal about a character's backstory, I rolled my eyes. There was nothing surprising about it. It was completely predictable. The book would have been just as interesting and good without it.

    This is coming from someone who hasn't read that much Christie. (I know, I know.) But I sometimes feel like it is more popular to point out the flaws in her books (and she certainly has her flaws - every writer does) than to look at why her books have endured more than the other female writers of her time. I think it's safe to say only Sherlock Holmes is as well knows as her books are from that time period outside of the mystery community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, Mark. You can not like a writer all you want, but when it’s someone who has sold millions of books (Christie, Patterson, etc.), you can’t dismiss them because they must be doing SOMETHING right.

      Delete
  19. It has been too long since I read any Christie books to comment on her style. I think post-WW1, people enjoyed quick reads that took them away from their lives but did not draw them in emotionally. As for what makes a good book, certainly plot but I have to care about those characters. I have to worry about them and root for them or they have to be so flawed that I wish triple karma on them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't think there can ever be a "greatest writer of all time" moniker. Literature is too subjective. I'm an eclectic reader and I've picked up books that have been raved about and felt nothing more than "meh" and I've adored books and have had other readers think they were so-so. I also think readers bring their own life experience to what they read, which is why the response to a story is so different among readers. Maybe the genius of Christie is that she writes with an accessibility that engages more readers than it repels?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one does it much better than Christie does, Jenn. We all who write mysteries on the more traditional (or cozy) side owe her a great debt. She helped make mysteries hugely popular, and there were hundreds published each year during the Golden Age. Not only in the US and the UK, but elsewhere as well.

      Delete
  21. That's very wise, Jenn! And this is such a fascinating topic. And I guess I love them because they are good stories..yes, to us now they are predictable, and yet, that's part of the fun. I re-read Orient Express recently, and what shocked that the vision in my brain was the movie, which is very different from the book. Her openings often take a long time, which is part of the old-fashioned feel. Funnily, I also re-read Ackroyd (AFTER I wrote a certain book of mine) to see how she did it. Is it fair? Well, yeah, I thought it was fair, because it was a person telling a story the way they wanted to tell it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As a child in the US I read a chapter book of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and several Nancy Drew books and that was it - have loved mysteries ever since! As for Agatha Christie, when we moved from the US to South America I discovered Agatha Christie books because this is what my grandfather would read to relax (he was a medical doctor). He read them in Spanish and since I was slowly (struggling) to read Spanish, I began reading his mysteries (Christie and others, some authors you no longer read about like Victor Canning) with the dictionary by my side. I was about nine years old when I started, and eventually found the two English bookshops in town, and would buy and read her mysteries in both languages. I eventually had all of Christie's books except for the last one that I borrowed from an English Language Institute's lending library. I just loved the puzzle!! I knew there were red herrings in the text and loved the challenge. I eventually sold most of the books in English (all paperbacks) to a German lady who ran a successful secondhand bookshop in her home. But I have since those years, four decades or so ago, read her books again and delight in the story, even when I remember who is guilty, and with the intent to study how she crafted it, I get wrapped up in the story once again. There are two or three of her later, or last novels that I found too reflective, not the crisp puzzle of the earlier books, though as always a good story. I love Hercule Poirot, and Mr. Quinn, a bit more than Miss Marple and the Beresfords! And I've seen most of the movies, loved Murder on the Orient Express with Albert Finney with all those great actors, and Murder on the Nile with Peter Ustinov. One mystery I remember and would like to read again was Murder in Mesopotamia. A favorite is They Came to Baghdad with the main character, Victoria, the temping secretary! I read other mysteries too, Her Royal Spyness series by Ms. Bowen is a favorite and have all the books but the last two! Georgie makes me laugh because I'm a little clumsy too (and my Mom was amazingly elegant!)

    ReplyDelete
  23. So many of us started our serious love of mystery/crime fiction with Agatha Christie. I will forever be indebted to her for giving me a genre of reading that gives me pleasure every single day. Miss Marple was the first character whom I ever felt devoted to. So, Agatha Christie holds a pedestal worthy place in my love of reading. Of course, I've since realized that the characters are one-dimensional and the core of my emotions and soul are touched by them, but they are damn good stories that I go back to again and again for a comfort read. And, I don't know if the rest of you credit her with something I do. My vocabulary got an enormous boot from reading these books in my twenties. Dame Agatha was a master of the apposite word, and I grew in my ability to write and speak because of her.

    The Golden Age. It's a time in mystery/crime fiction that I have found myself more interested in lately. And, not just the Golden Age, but I'm gravitating towards lots of the classic writers and stories in this genre. Just last week I posted my review on Last Seen Wearing by Hillary Waugh, the first acclaimed police procedural, published in 1952. One of the aspects of it I talk about are the undeveloped characters, but, oddly enough, because I love complex characters, I really enjoyed the book. I'm planning on posting more reviews and pieces about the classics, and yesterday I ran a piece with guest Aubrey Hamilton on my blog talking about Golden Age author Patricia Wentworth. I have a post coming up on classic noir, too. Here's the link for my review on Last Seen Wearing. https://www.readingroom-readmore.com/2021/08/last-seen-wearing-by-hillary-waugh.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. I've read almost all of Agatha Christie's stories, including the plays and the Mary Westmacott ones. I remember liking most all of them but it has been years since I read any so I don't know how much I would like them now. However, characters like Poirot and Miss Marple are like Sherlock Holmes, and some Shakespeare characters, most people know of them. I also hated most every classic I had to read in school. Agatha and the others were of their time. Think what people in the future will think of mystery writers now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Heretics! but you make a point. Improvements have been made by those who stand upon the shoulders of the writers of earlier ages, and that bold new writing owes much to those who came before, opening the way. (Mixed metaphors . . . and I really wanted to fit a foundation in there, too). I have found Christie's books slow, and haven't felt that pull to read another and another as I do with my favorite authors. Modern readers expect more action, more connection, more daring plots, but I have found some of her short stories have appeal even to high school students, so read some at least, as tribute and background.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One of the reasons I married my husband is because of his last name - Christie.
    He's of the Norwegian Christies, not Scottish. I thought Pamela Christie sounded rather elegant. No, I've never read any of Agatha's books but when I'm asked the spelling of my last name, I say "Christie, as in Agatha". ��

    ReplyDelete
  27. Huh. I agree with you on every point. And yet, I kind of think of her like the first guy to run a four minute mile. Many have done better since (a LOT better, including you!) but she put crime fiction on the map as a serious genre.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The puzzle is always key in traditional mysteries. In some series I enjoy seeing the main character evolve over time. I never wanted Miss Marple to change! I think she’s perfect the way she is and I always enjoy spending time with her. She’s as comforting as a soft blanket and a hot cup of tea!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Great essay! I always loved Miss Marple and Poirotl and I think that’s because I filled in the blanks with my own imagination in terms of their character. But I read those books in my youth and now I’m a very different reader drawn to series primarily, series with characters who grow and change and face new challenges in their personal as well as professional lives over the course of the series. When I read for comfort these days, I turn to Craig Johnson, Elly Griffiths, Ann Cleeves, Louise Penny, Julia Spencer-Fleming, Deborah Crombie, you and ALL the JUNGLE REDS!

    ReplyDelete
  30. We used to summer in Spain when I was growing up, and Agatha Christie paperbacks were the only books in English one could buy. I still remember them on circular wire racks outside the little shops. We would conjecture which of the hotel guests were capable of murder and why. Great literature, maybe not, but Miss Marple rarely left St. Mary Mead and yet had an astute understanding of human psychology. “ ‘Well, my dear,’ said Miss Marple, ‘human nature is much the same everywhere, and, of course, one has opportunities of observing it at closer quarters in a village.’”

    ReplyDelete
  31. I disagree with you completely about Christie, Rhys. There's much more to her than meets the eye if you read carefully enough. She's very funny, for one thing, in the way she sends up certain kinds of people. But each to their own. I would like to correct you on one thing: Margery, not Marjorie, Allingham.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh, shreik, Rhys!!! For one thing just on prose it's hard to beat Marsh, Allingham, Wentworth or Tey. Agatha is revered because she makes what she does look so easy. To me it's hard to beat Murder at the Vicarage. A perfect novel. And in Busmans Honeymoon Sayers lets the reader see the aftermath of crime. There's a reason these are read (and re read) today.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Viewing books written nearly a century ago inevitably means that view is skewed. At the time Christie et al. wrote, plot was valued and characters were secondary. How was far more important than why. The current emphasis on psychology is relatively recent. The mysteries of the 1970s and 1980s show that. I am an unabashed fan of the Golden Age because of that focus on plot.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I feel compelled to point out Christie was not the only mystery writer of her time. Coachwhip, Dean Street, British Crime Classics are reprinting lost mysteries as fast as they can. The limitations of publishing at the time meant that books were printed and then lost by the hundreds.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sorry but I would never in a million years think of laughing at Agatha Christie's brilliance. I remain, to this day, in awe of her plotting, her precise sense of the world she was writing for and about. She was not a 'great' writer I suppose if you're judging by modern day critical standards - which, by the way, I often do laugh at - but she was BRILLIANT at what she did. Though of course there were other mystery writers published at that time, to my mind, Christie practically invented the plausible whodunit. And she created a world in which these whodunits made sense. Yet even when that world changed, she adapted her later books to include those changes - not that those are my favorite books by the way. I began reading Christie when I was about 12 or so and never stopped. I'm almost 80 now and I still reread my Christie favorites. Christie was the reason I later took a much anticipated trip Great Britain, because she'd made me so enamored of the settings of her books. No sense of place? Are you kidding, the first few sentences into a Christie book and you know where you are. She doesn't go into great detail BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO. No sense of characterization? Are you kidding? Some of her two or three line pinpoint descriptions tell us all we need know about a character. I knew enough about Poirot when I was a kid to have developed a crush on the man, not to mention, I adored Hastings. I related to Miss Marple's canny brainpower even though she was - even at the beginning - a very old lady. I admired her intuitive genius. I was a little Puerto Rican girl growing up on the lower east side of Manhattan in the 1950's and I GOT Agatha Christie. I admired her and the world she created. Yeah, I know it wasn't my world, but I still couldn't wait to get the next Christie at the library. I read other writers of the period, of course, but rarely are they attacked in print as often as Christie. And by the way, if what she created was so lacking in talent and wit and genius, why is it so damn hard for ANYONE today to write the so-called 'cozy' mystery? There's not a single writer of cozy working today who can match Christie - I pick up one of their books now and then, read a couple of pages, roll my eyes and groan. What Chrisite did required talent and brains, she wasn't a copycat. As for the so-called 'realistic' mystery/thriller writers of today - Dennis Lehane? Oh please. Don't even get me started. I mostly detest psychological thrillers (I know I'm in the minority) because I really REALLY do NOT care what the bad guy or guys or gals are thinking.I don't look for world problems to be solved in my mysteries. I detest angst gone overboard. I do read some modern day writers, obviously, and some I like. But it's a different world today for the mystery. Not a better world, just different. Thank goodness I can still go back.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am the proud owner/reader of every work written by Christie. Not only is she largely responsible for my love of mysteries, but for all things British. I inherited a massive collection of UK/US authors from Allingham through to Wentworth, from Chandler to Woolrich, and Christie holds the top seat. As opposed to authors today who think they need 10 pages of description, Christie needed by a sentence. She didn't need pages of backstory. She didn't blather on, or have alternative voices, or use devices such as time skipping. Agatha Christie told clever, stories with flowing dialogue, interesting characters, twisted plots, unusual motives, and killers that often surprised us. I never viewed her books as "cozy," not when you consider the number of bodies left strewn about in the end. They are traditional mysteries in the best sense of the word. Yes, I love many of our contemporary authors, particularly their early books before they decided bigger was better; Lehane, Winslow, McBain, Block, O'Connell, Leon, Harrod-Eagles, Penny--although her books are more about characters then mysteries and have become overblown lately--Rozan, and others. But show me another author beside Shakespeare, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Agatha Christie, whose characters/plots have been the basis of countless retellings and reimaginings.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Agatha Christie was a phenomenal writer, especially for her time. She didn't have a computer, so she wasn't able to revise easily. Despite your criticisms of her, I will continue to regard her as my favorite author in my favorite genre. She was very clever, and many of her plots were ingenious. I don't see people picking apart Arthur Conan Doyle for his protagonists, who also didn't go through modern-day character arcs in every book. Please, let's support women writers, whether they are alive or deceased.

    ReplyDelete