why do you think AC ended Poirot's life in her novel at the end?

maryamalbulushi

why do you think AC ended Poirot's life in her novel at the end?

for me there is two reasons :

1- maybe she didn't want anyone to steal his character

2- she wanted to tell us that everyone gonna die and your works only will be memorable  

what do you think?

Tommy_A_Jones

Agatha Christie didn't want ANYONE else to Write \Poirot Novels which is why this new book is such a Travesty.

Frank

Agatha Christie wrote Curtain during World War II fearing for her own survival and wanting to have a fitting end to Poirot series of novels.She had the novel locked in a bank vault for over thirty years before authorising its publication. It was the last of her books to be published during her lifetime and I am sure she meant it to be the last Poirot ever.

Nathan Robert Michael Rees

I felt it was because Agatha Christie hated Poirot so much that she was thinking something alone these lines: "Right this detective has tortured me for decades, now the tables will turn and I will torture Poirot and make him die a sufferable, slow, painfule death " that's why I think she killed him off as she hated him, whereas she liked all her other detectives so she allowed them to live.

mike1410

In many of the Poirot novels, there has often occurred the comment (either from Poirot himself or by other characters) that were Poirot to commit a murder, it would be the perfect murder and no one would ever know it was a murder. I think that when Christie decided to write Curtain she wanted to put this theory to the test and that is what gave her the idea for the plot.

I agree with Frank (above) about the timing of the writing of the novel (ie during WW2) and the subsequent delay in publication, it being written as a security measure should she not survive the war and it's publication delayed until she herself could write no more Poirot stories. If Agatha had not feared for her own survival, I wonder if she would still have killed him off?  However, I also think that as a devout catholic Poirot could never do what he did in Curtain and not expect his actions to go unpunished, either by his peers or his god, and so having completed the perfect crime Poirot chose to die as atonement for his sin.

We know from his own words that Hercule Poirot did not approve of murder, regardless of who the murderer was. Although strangely, in Murder On The Orient Express, Poirot seems willing to allow several murderers to go unpunished where it is suggested that the law had failed to punish a guilty person and so the actions of the murderers were morally justified. But that's a whole other kettle of fish!

Tommy_A_Jones

If Poirot hadn't been Killed off either The Canon would have ended with a weak book or Curtain would have ended differently I would hope she regretted not going back To Curtain and changing it differently, Finding Evidence which wold convict The Murderer and coming out of Court Saying To Hastings, " I am an old man, I will now retire, I tried Growing Vegetable Marrows and now will Try Courgettes" or Parsnips or try to create The Perfect "Create The Perfect Crossowrd "Which will be left as my Legacy to Baffle People for Ever So Long Hastings" 

Dean

I do know that she didn't like Poirot,so maybe she just decided to make him die in Curtain. I just bought the entire collection of Agatha Christie's Poirot with David Suchet and the thing is are they going to make another adaptation of Poirot for the Monogram Murders on TV. :-?

youngmrquin

As many of you have suggested, I think that it was really because a) she was really frightened for her life and b) she didn't want, in the a) scenario, that somebody else stole her character.

Nevertheless, the situation @mike1410 points out about this actions and his catholic devotion really comes off a bit out of character, even in the context of the type of murder it was being dealt with. We read many times over the years that he didn't aprove murder no matter the reason, and the fact that he chooses to do this seems to contradict what we have known.

However, it could make sense if we take his personality as a whole: I always thought he view himself a superior to other humans, so maybe his actions here needed, for him, to be understand in another context also. Not because he could have seen himself as a god, but as a kind of martyr who was gifted by grey cells and now has the responsability to use them to commit an act that nobody else could have. Some kind of Spiderman philosophy, "great power brings great responsability", and somehow doing what he did was for him also a great sacrifice.

S_Sigerson

She did it, at least for the most part, because it was clever and great marketing. In one story the narrator is the murder, in another story all the suspects are murderers, yet in another story it appears no one could've possibly committed the murder. So why not have the detective commit the murder. A logically evolution in her writing to come up with a plot that is worthy of all the other ingenious plots she came up with over the years. And in the process she could do away with the irritating pompous little Belgian whom she had grown to dislike. I'm sure Christie got a little thrill doing away with Poirot. 

These theories that she killed off Poirot to stop anyone else from continuing with the character are nothing but poppycock. They are not founded on any evidence whatsoever. If she wanted future writers not to write about her characters surely she would have killed off Tommy and Tuppence Beresford and she most definitely would have killed off her favorite character Miss. Marple. Christie herself said what a joy it was to write about Miss. Marple. In addition, she could easily have written it in her will that she does not wish future writers to continue with her characters. However, she left her family unconditionally the rights to her literary estate. 

Christie knew Curtain would be a hit. Soon after writing it she made over a deed of gift for the book to her daughter. She wanted to provide financial security for her daughter in the event Christie should die in one of the bombings of London during the Second World War. The book was put into a bank vault. Christie was told it was heavily insured against destruction. Was Christie right about it being a hit? Yes. The mystery itself is pretty standard. The plot - nothing special. Why this book stands out is what she has Poirot do that is in many ways quite shocking. She was a first-rate storyteller, entertainer and I might add an astute businesswoman.   

Tommy_A_Jones

I can't quite see that to say Agatha Christie didn't want other people to write Poirot Stories is Poppycock (Great Word by the way), I have heard a few people say before that she didn't want others to write with him as a Character so much so that it must be right, she didn't think anybody would do Justice in Plays which is why she took Poirot out when writing the Play versions, the reason she killed off Poirot was along those lines, and the reason she didn't kill The Beresfords off or Miss Marple was so that it wasn't repetitious and with some books they start the same - Perhaps two books start with  Poiriot getting Letters and then go off in different directions so if she had killed off Miss Marple or the Beresfords they would have had to of died from  a disease like Pneumonia or cancer and that might have been distressing for the Readers or she would have had to give Tommy or Tuppence or Miss Marple  Alziemers which would also be distressing, I think she started the idea that people who commit crimes should die in an earlier book and just finished the idea in Curtain. 

S_Sigerson

As far as leaving Poirot out of the stage adaptations. One of the reasons is she thought his presence/personality would not work well on the stage. Poirot would be too overwhelming which is why she took him out in a number of stage productions. In another case, Christie thought that not only would Poirot ruin the play, but his inclusion in the book had ruined the book. In her autobiography she said that she regretted including Poirot in the book, The Hollow. An excerpt from her autobiography, "It was, of course, in some ways rather more of a novel than a detective story. The Hollow was a book I always thought I ruined by the introduction of Poirot. I had got used to having Poirot in my books, and so naturally he had come into this one, but he was all wrong there. He did his stuff all right, but how much better, I kept thinking, would the book have been without him. So when I came to sketch out the play, out went Poirot." 

In her autobiography Christie said, "Alibi, the first play to be produced from one of my books - The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was adapted by Michael Morton. He was a practiced hand at adapting plays. I much disliked his first suggestion, which was to take about twenty years off Poirot's age, call him Beau Poirot [they were probably thinking of the dapper Beau Brummell no doubt] and have lots of girls in love with him. I was by this time so stuck with Poirot that I realised I was going to have him with me for life. I strongly objected to having his personality completely changed. In the end, with Gerald Du Maurier, who was producing, backing me up, we settled on removing that excellent character Caroline, the doctor's sister, and replacing her with a young and attractive girl. As I have said, I resented the removal if Caroline a good deal: I liked the part she played in village life: and I liked the idea of village life reflected through the life of the doctor and his masterful sister."  She also said, "...a pretty girl who could supply Poirot with a Romantic love interest." She most definitely objected to giving Poirot a love interest. Then in the 1930s there were a series of films with the matinee idol Austin Trevor as Hercule Poirot. As it happens Trevor was only 34 years old when he made the first film, Alibi in 1931. He was quite dashing and good looking. Far from the description of Poirot in the books. These type of changes is what Christie objected to. And probably the primary reason why she decided to adapt her books to plays herself, instead of allowing others to adapt them. Despite her feelings about Poirot on the stage and the fact she did remove him in some of the stage adaptations of her books, she did include Poirot in the play Black Coffee written in 1929. And although the actor Francis L. Sullivan (who was cast in Black Coffee) being over 6 feet tall Christie still liked his performance as her Poirot. She eventually became very good friends with Sullivan and his wife. She used their swimming pool (the murder takes place here) in the novel, The Hollow. At the front of the book she apologizes for using their pool for a scene of a murder.    

Had Christie felt so strongly about future writers using her characters I don't think she would have cared whether or not it was repetitive to kill off Miss. Marple and Tommy and Tuppence.  This is the point I'm trying to bring across. It doesn't make sense for her to kill off Poirot simply to stop people from using the character. Especially taking into account she disliked the character so much.  And to let Mss. Marple live, thus enabling future writers to carry on writing Miss. Marple stories. There were other reasons, which I have stated, why Christie wrote Curtain. It had nothing to do with stopping future writers from using Poirot. And come to think of it, killing off detectives doesn't necessarily stop people from writing about them in the future. Conan Doyle is a good example. Before Holmes's miraculous resurrection from the dead, Conan Doyle wrote The Hounds of the Baskervilles. This adventure/story takes place years before Holmes's plunge over the Reichenbach Falls.      

Tommy_A_Jones

I had never heard before that Agatha Christie kept Poirot out of plays because she thought he would be a too overwhelming presence, I had heard that she thought she should not have had Poirot in The Hollow, I can only assume she thinks she should have had the one in the PLay as I don't think the one in the Book would have given the book enough Body. Perhaps she thought no-one would want to write other books with Miss Marple or the Beresfords so had no qualms about not killing them off, and up to now the idea of having another writer write with one of her Characters as a Character has not happened so when it comes to Miss Marple and the Beresforsds so far she is right isn't she?

I am interested to know why you think Killing off a Character Doesn't and shouldn't stop people writing with them as Characters in the future, after all no-one has done that before, people have written books with other peoples characters yes but those Characters were never eventually killed off by the Creator, Did Fleming kill of Bond? Did Wodehouse Killl off Berie Wooster? Conan Doyle did kill off Holmes but then brought him back to Life without Killing him off again and he had a perfect right to bring him back to life as he was Holmes's Creator.

S_Sigerson

Yes, I read it somewhere. Might have been in her autobiography or some other credible publication. But the reason why Poirot is not in the plays is she thought his personality was to strong and would overwhelm/dominate the production. 

Colin Dexter killed off Inspector Morse in the novel Remorseful Day. Subsequently Morse dies in the television series. Yet, Morse has been brought back to live circa the 1960s in the television series Endeavor created by Russell Lewis based on the character developed by Colin Dexter. Although Colin Dexter gave his permission to use the character, he does not write the screenplays for Endeavor. Now whether or not Christie would feel the same is debatable. However, Christie's grandson in the BBC Radio Interview he did last fall with Sophie Hannah gave some very good reasons why his grandmother would approve of the the new Poirot mystery. He knew his grandmother for a long time. He was her only grandson so they probably had a pretty close relationship. In which case, I trust what he says when it comes to his grandmother. And even if he wasn't Christie's grandson I would still agree with what he said because it makes sense. 

As far as rights are concerned. Whoever owns the copyright to a fictional character, like any other piece of property whether it is physically or in this case intellectual has every right to do whatever they choose with the character. Period. There is no debate here.   

Tommy_A_Jones

Yes Morse has been brought back to life with Endeavour but that is with The Creator's consent and blessing, which I think is important when bringing back a Character who was killed off, Matthew Pritchard is not Agatha Christie he is her Grandson and to me That is not enough, You say That he gave good reasons why Poirot has been Brought back by Sophie Hannah, We will have to disagree on this point because I don't think they were good reasons, saying whoever has the Copyright can do whatever theu like with the Character is a Legal Point, not a Moral one and as a Legal Point is in my view Totally Irrelevent.

S_Sigerson

Morality concerns the principles of human behavior - right and wrong/goodness and badness. Matthew Pritchard is not stealing something that does not already belong to him. Nor is he committing any act that can even remotely be deemed wrong or bad. 

If Colin Dexter would not have been alive, and instead his literary estate were the ones who would gave their consent to Endeavor, it would not have made any difference. Once again this has nothing to do with ethics or morality. It simply has to do with someone exercising their rights over something they own.     

Tommy_A_Jones

I agree, Matthew Pritchard is not stealing anything or Hurting anyone, It is just an Odd thing to do, when a Character who wasn't killed off could have been used.

Colin Dexter as ut it into his Will no other Actor can play Morse On Television in Adaptations of the books, which I think is a ity, every Generation should have a Poirot, Miss Marple, Tommy and Tuppence, Sherlock Holmes, Whimsey and Morse IMHO

S_Sigerson

Given the popularity of the Poirot it isn't odd. People like the character. And there is no harm in continuing the adventures of Poirot. If anything readers are benefiting from this new book since they will now have another mystery to solve with Hercule Poirot.

  

Colin Dexter feels strongly about not having another actor trying to compete with the excellent performance of John Thaw. John Thaw's relatively early death from cancer might also have had an effect on Dexter's decision. Inspector Morse is in many ways not only a legacy to the character, but to John Thaw himself. The superb television series and brilliant performance of Thaw brought Inspector Morse to the attention of people who might not have otherwise known about the good Chief Inspector. Without the series how many people would not have  even thought about picking up one of the books. Dexter knows this. The series made him and Inspector Morse household names, so is it only appropriate to acknowledge and thank John Thaw in this way. Is it a pity? Of course. It would have been nice to see another actor step into the shoes of Inspector Morse, but as the owner/holder of the copyright for Inspector Morse you have to respect Dexter's wishes which he has made quite clear by adding the codicil to his will.  

Agathasmykid

S_Sigerson said:

Given the popularity of the Poirot it isn't odd. People like the character. And there is no harm in continuing the adventures of Poirot. If anything readers are benefiting from this new book since they will now have another mystery to solve with Hercule Poirot.

  

Colin Dexter feels strongly about not having another actor trying to compete with the excellent performance of John Thaw. John Thaw's relatively early death from cancer might also have had an effect on Dexter's decision. Inspector Morse is in many ways not only a legacy to the character, but to John Thaw himself. The superb television series and brilliant performance of Thaw brought Inspector Morse to the attention of people who might not have otherwise known about the good Chief Inspector. Without the series how many people would not have  even thought about picking up one of the books. Dexter knows this. The series made him and Inspector Morse household names, so is it only appropriate to acknowledge and thank John Thaw in this way. Is it a pity? Of course. It would have been nice to see another actor step into the shoes of Inspector Morse, but as the owner/holder of the copyright for Inspector Morse you have to respect Dexter's wishes which he has made quite clear by adding the codicil to his will.   

-you are taking some things for granted though - sure it may lead new readers to Christie, however if the new book isn't that good then it could work the other way in that it may tarnish some of the Christie legacy

-aslo, have you seen the cover of the new book?  It has Agatha Christie in really really big letters....it seems to me that they are using her name to sell the book, even though she didn't write a single word of that.  I am not sure how comfortable I feel about that.

S_Sigerson

Christie’s legacy is based on the books she wrote during her lifetime. Nothing will ever change that.  

maryamalbulushi

Yeah I agree about using agatha's name to sell the book because in our side of the world some of christie's fan buy any book her name is written on even if she didn't write it..but also I agree with you @S_Sigerson‌ that christie's legacy is based on what she wrote when she was alive

Tommy_A_Jones

Using Poirot and not one of the other Characters makes it look as if they are less interested in Protecting Agatha Christie's name and more interested in using the Character as a Cash Cow, If they were interested in Protecting her name they would do what the BBC are doing and use a less well-known Character because even though Tommy and Tuppence are known they are less well-known than Poirot, Agathasmykid is right, If The Book is not very good It could do more harm than good.