Agatha Christie (was: 24 hrs, was: Beedle the Bard)

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Kneasy wrote in
> << As for the TV thingy, sounds as if she really is following in the
> footsteps of that old fraud Aggie Christie: Bugger the clues, they're
> only there as framing for this totally fascinating main character I've
> invented. >>
> 
> Did Agatha Christie say that? Did Agatha Christie think that? I am
> amazed and shocked because Christie was totally nothing at inventing
> characters... I'll make an exception for Miss Marple, but all the
> others, detectives, villains, victims, witnesses, red herrings, etc,
> were something between cardboard and a wisp of smoke. The characters
> in Barbara Cartland and Harlequin romance novels have more inner being
> and more personality!
> 

Er.. no. That was me, the result of serial bouts of rage at AC's cavalier 
approach to the convention of playing fair with clues to those of her readers
more interested in puzzle-solving than in marvelling at the omniscience of
that oily little creep, Poirot.

Her stuff was very much of its time (1930s/40s) and her readership was 
much less critical than the whodunnit afficianados of today's authors, IMO. 
But it's almost traditional to refer to her as the doyenne of whodunnits, 
can't think why. Much prefer Rex Stout and Nero Wolf, myself. Now there's a
fascinating central character: idiosyncratic, prejudiced, selfish and a
fully paid-up member of the awkward squad.

Cartland's books I can't comment on, never read her, though as a person
she came across as more than slightly batty. Still, takes all sorts.

> I suppose I should complete the revelation of what trash I read in my
> teens and twenties by adding that quite a few characters in Marvel
> Comics were realer than Christie characters.
> 

Oh, so true.
Though when I were nowt but a sprog wi' ringworm and rickets (a slight
exaggeration, but you get the idea) Marvel comics were almost impossible
to get hold of -  this was the early 50s - so it was Dan Dare in the Eagle
and the Incredible Wilson and Roy of the Rovers in the Wizard and Hotspur.
Everybody needs to read some trash, as you call it. How else can they come
to discriminate between what's good and what isn't? And I still indulge
in 'trashy' books occasionally - it's the literary equivalent of bingeing on
junk food. Most enjoyable as a change, to be indulged in now and again.


> Speaking of my teens and twenties, now I've been 50 for two months (as
> of Monday) and it *still* doesn't feel any different from being 49.
>

Ha!
Speaking as someone about to hit 64, I can tell you that doesn't change
much, the mind and attitudes remain much the same - though eventually,
as someone once commented, comes the realisation that 'inside every old 
person there's a young person who wonders what the hell happened'.
Some of us react by becoming grumpy old buggers.
That can be fun, too.

Kneasy