"Fixing" HALLOWE'EN PARTY
JRF
Ontario, Canada
Spoiler Alert! This discussion contains revealing detailing about Hallowe'en Party.
While I have read all of Agatha Christie books, there are a select number that I love to re-read. A Murder is Announced, Murder is Easy, Funerals are Fatal - these, among others, hold a special place in my affections. Perfect mysteries. Perfect characterizations. Perfect murders. Perfect motives. Perfect resolutions.
An anomaly among my list of favourites has always been Hallowe'en Party, a later Agatha Christie title that almost never figures as a fan favourite. And i can see why -- you have an out-of-left field resolution, repetitive dialogue, muddled characterizations, an over reliance on co-incidence and plot holes you could drive a truck through. Cases in point:
* A resolution that fingers two characters who don't have even one interaction in the story
* A never-ending barrage of characters sounding off about England deinstitutionalizing mental patients
* A lazy plot contrivance about a forged will, without any real sense as to why
* A murder in retrospective plot with lots of murder potentials (a school teacher, a legal clerk) but one that ignores the most obvious (man with polio struck by a car)
* A confusing timeline (did the aunt die before or after the man with polio was struck by a car?)
* A poor depiction of mothers (Joyce's and Miranda's)
Despite its flaws, I love Hallowe'en Party. I love the Hallowe'en theme. I love Ariadne Oliver in the book. I love the concept (boastful child says she has witnessed a murder and then is murdered herself). I love the garden. I love Hercule's description of Michael when he first meets him in the garden. I love Mrs. Llewellyn-Smythe (though she doesn't even appear in the book). I love half of the murder resolution (the one involving a vase).
It seems likely to me that as one of her later book, Ms. Christie tripped up in executing what I think could have been one of her best. In the hopes that I don't raise the wrath of her fans, part of me wishes that it could be possible to go in to "fix" some of the elements of the novel that make it less than perfect. This is what I would fix:
* the confusing time-line
* I would have the two murderers meet
* I would rejig the character of Miranda's mother and her relationship to Michael
Would others like to see a "fixed" Hallowe'en Party?
Comments
i. Why did Leopold want money ?he was only nine and we never know if he actually saw the murderer of Joyce or found Joyce dead.
ii. How did the young schoolteacher die ? Was she drowned ,or committed suicide ?
iii. Who killed Leslie Ferrier ? Michael or Mrs Drake ?
In the tv adaptation of Hallowe'en Party , they handled it quite well. Especially where they chose to show Miranda's mother and Michael interacting . That was never there in the book.
And Ariadne Oliver didn't have anything to do in this mystery except to fret and worry. I found the conversation between Poirot and the adolescent boys Nicholas & Desmond interesting , because they mentioned something very ancient but intriguing ,about Adam and Eve and apples , Snapdragon compared to hell fire, and baptism. Another scene involving these three would be necessary , because it is left to the readers to decipher that the boys were told to save Miranda.
- Mrs Reynolds is more of a histrionic woman than one who directly displays emotion. We may also infer from Joyce and Leopold's irritating habit of sniffing out secrets, that she may not have minded greatly about their deaths, preferring instead to focus her energies on Ann.
- That Miranda may not understand the full implications of death. We see from her friendship with Michael Garfield that he told her how wonderful death is, which may have made her feel that Joyce received more of an unjust reward than an early end.
Also, in respect to Mary Drower, I think that her great sadness and grief stemmed from the fact that Mrs Ascher was all the family she had left. Mrs Reynolds (at the point of Joyce's death) still had Ann and Leopold, and Miranda had her mother and Michael. I like to think, sometimes, that Mrs Reynolds may have been privately upset about the death, but chose to behave as normal in the interest of her children's upbringing.I also found it very interesting that Rowena Drake was more upset (or appeared to be more upset) than either Joyce's best friend, mother, siblings or schoolteacher.
Which, in a sense, is the cruelty of life - not all deaths are lamented...
1. Leopold heard from Joyce about the murder, so he blackmailed the murderers to get some money. Buy Joyce didn't know who the murderers are. How would Leopold know?
2. The murderers thought Joyce was the one who saw them. Then later somehow Leopold blackmailed them, so they thought Joyce must have told them. Now, when and how did they finally learned Miranda was the actual eye-witness?
Very puzzled.
1. Leopold is described as a snoop and a blackmailer, and also very smart. Perhaps he overheard Miranda telling Joyce about the murder, figured out who the murderers were and tried a spot of blackmail. (obviously Miranda didn't tell Joyce who the murderers were, because otherwise Joyce wouldn't have talked about seeing the murder in front of one of the murderers)
2. One possibility: Once Poirot starts investigating, what everybody tells him (and he accepts) is that Joyce is a liar. Obviously Joyce knew about the murder, and given that Miranda was her only friend and that Leopold somehow found out about the murder, it is a reasonable assumption that the real witness to the murder was Miranda who told Joyce.
Another possibility: Miranda, who felt guilty about Joyce's death, told Michael, whom she liked and trusted.