After Poirot Who?

SiddharthaS

Lt. Columbo was as sloppy as Monsieur Poirot was meticulous about his own appearance.  In terms of appearance, Columbo was different from Christie's sleuth in every way.  Even the TV episodes were different in style.  Unlike an Agatha Christie mystery where you had to wait till the final chapter for Poirot's surprise and masterly denouement, Columbo would right away zero-in on the cocky and often rich and powerful culprit, the detective's interest triggered by some minor act of commission or omission that did not fit into a natural pattern of behaviour.   

In a way, Columbo was the triumph of the ordinary man over super achievers - like Bill gates was the Revenge of the Nerds.  

In a Columbo episode, you would know up front who the killer was.  You saw him do his foul deed within the first ten minutes. Whereas Poirot was an ideal to be achieved in rationality and logical thinking, Columbo personified empathy and humane considerations for all and sundry, including the most ruthless of murderers he ran into professionally.  For precisely these qualities, even the defeated murderers would find it hard to despise this policeman as he had their Miranda rights read to them.  

Yet in terms of the emphasis they put on insights into human behavior, Columbo and Poirot were similar to each other.  Their attitudes were similar in their disapproval of the act of murder, no matter how "compelling" the reason for murder seemed.  Poirot's exception was the Murder on the Orient Express.  But it would have been practically impossible to pursue the case legally to a conviction any way.  In "An old fashioned murder", the murderer seeks Columbo's understanding and wants to be allowed to remain incognito, but Columbo refuses saying they both are professionals in their fields and so he must choose to remain loyal to his profession.  

Let me stop here.  This forum is for Dame Agatha's work.  

shana

@SiddhartaS the title of your new discussion suggested you would post about maybe a new sleuth for Sophie Hannah to write about or something like that. Instead you compared Columbo and Poirot. So what would you like us to discuss on, actually?

SiddharthaS

@Shana - thank you for your comment.  I am not sure that I meant to suggest anything specific to Ms. Hannah.  But let us take your thought a bit further.  

Any ambitious author trying to create a new sleuth wants to make sure that the character is long lasting, and can survive changes in readers' taste over time, and across geographies and cultures.  

The homework necessary to create such a sleuth includes studying examples of earlier famous sleuths and analyzing what made them so popular and long lasing.  Yet, you don't want to repeat any major or obvious personality traits, for a copy can never be as good as the original.  So you need to make the new sleuth's persona visibly distinct from say a Poirot, or a Jane Marple.  Other variables like the quality of the plot, the cleverness in planting clues, the believable aspects of characters of course are non-negotiable, and one assumes those ingredients are already present in the aspiring author.  

Christie, when she conceived Poirot, had Sherlock Holmes to reckon with.  His stories had become popular, but most of them were more of an adventure than a mystery or a puzzle to tease the reader's brain with.  The clues were clues only to Mr. Holmes, not to the ordinary reader.  The plots were not meant as mysteries but at best an exercise in dull police work.  Christie saw these as weaknesses, superbly improved on them, and created Poirot and his set of mysteries.  

The character of Columbo was the result was some such "home work"; his persona distinctly different from Poirot, except for the quality of the grey cells.  The plots were somewhat more non-every-day types made believable by the credible nature of the characters.  The character of another TV detective, Adrian Monk, was similarly conceived as an antithesis of Columbo, but the quality of the plots put his episodes more in line with Ellery Queen mysteries which were more synthetic than organic or believable, and so less enjoyable.  The ploy used to sustain viewer interest  in the eight Monk seasons was to weave an unsolved mystery in the life of Monk himself, which gets solved only in the final two episodes.

   

Yet many of the qualities that make a sleuth brilliant have to be the same and they too cannot be compromised.  My original posting hints at this process.  Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate.  

Anubis

Um, actually, Columbo was based Porfiry Petrovich, the magistrate who pursued Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, written in 1866, well before AC was even born, let alone came up with the Poirot character.

SiddharthaS

@Anubis - I can see where you observe some similarity between Columbo and Porfiry Petrovich. But to say that the former was based on the latter seems like a stretch.  

Petrovich, by virtue of his profession, is interested in the concept of Justice (with a capital "J") and his acts of commission and omission are driven by a larger paradigm of values.  

Columbo has no such pretensions - he recognizes that his job is simply to identify the perpetrator of a crime and submit him to the justice system for "further processing".  He does not judge the criminal for what he or she did in legal, ethical, or other value perspectives. Perhaps that is why Columbo can treat the criminal with the same courtesy as he would offer to any other individual he runs into.  (Poirot, on the other hand often bombastically announces that he does not "approve of murder", which however is appropriate given his high opinion of himself).  

IMO that basic willingness to look at the criminal as an individual who did a specific wrong  rather than to brand his entire personality in a negative manner is the modern, liberal trait that the two characters Columbo and Petrovich share.  But I'd not go as far as saying that the creators of Columbo based him on the Crime and Punishment character.    

Also note that such an approach to Crime - acts of criminals - was a novelty in the times when C&P was written.  "Justice" was delivered on the eye-for-an-eye basis.  Reform as a compelling concept worth considering was perhaps introduced to the society by C&P, and that may be one of the many reasons that gave it a classical dimension.  

Columbo, on the other hand was written purely for entertainment in the early 1970's, when the authors already had a liberal paradigm in which to establish his personality and character. There was no intent to educate society.  My two cents.    

shana

@Siddhart now it's clear what your point is. I referred to Hannah because she is the writer appointed by The Estate of AC to write Christie-like novels. And the question you have posed is one worth considering if you go by the reactions some ardent readers of Christie have given on Hannah writing another Poirot-novel.

I just thought of a relevant situation in which your question could arise.A situation in which Poirot being killed off by Christie herself needed to be substituted with another sleuth. I don't know much about Columbo. I vaguely remember the t.v. series. I'm wondering why you compared Columbo and Poirot.? 

Other authors have thought up a lot of different types of detectives (the forensic type, psychological  etc) already. What matters is that the readers must want to read about this new sleuth, even if he/she turns out to be an A.I. (P).I. operating on the internet. 

So it's a caseof the writer's imagination resonating with the readers's fancy.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

SiddharthaS

@Shana - My favorite sleuth was Poirot, and having read all his mysteries several times over, there was a big vacuum to be filled.  

Columbo was for me the next best.  But even that series ended in the early 1990's.  I was hoping someone would point me in the right direction.  

I haven't read any of Ms. Hannah's work, and my loyalty to Poirot demands that I read her work, after all, if AC's heirs chose her for the task, she must be someone special. 

Yet in the heart of my hearts, I seriously doubt that anybody other than Dame Agatha would be able to do justice to the incomparable Poirot.  To devotees like me, such an attempt would amount to sacrilege, even blasphemy!  I have read a few such attempts and was disappointed. I am afraid I can't be anything but possessive and emotional where Agatha Christie's Poirot is concerned.  .  

Anubis

It was William Link himself, the creator of the Columbo character, who explicitly stated that Columbo was inspired by Porfiry Pretovich, so you'll have to argue with Mr Link as to whether it is a stretch. 

But I won't gainsay the possibility of additional influences. 

Another similarity between Poirot and Columbo is that they both "make up" references to family members in order to lull the suspects. For instance, does Columbo even really have a wife? Peter Falk apparently thought that he did not.

There is another strand on this chat site: "what other books or authors do you read?" that offers suggestions of authors you might enjoy.

SiddharthaS

@Anubis - Thank you - it would be interesting to understand the context and manner in which William Link may have said so.  Normally there is a team of writers that develops TV episodes for a series, and I do not recall reading this name in the credit titles, which I think mentioned a few different names.  

My comments were more as a consumer than a researcher.  It will save me time if there is a ready reference, but if not Google will have to help.  As a recent entrant to this community, I still have to explore a lot that has been published here, but I will certainly look up the portions you recommended. Thanks again.  

BTW there are two Columbo episodes around Kate (Mrs. Columbo).  In one she solves a murder, and in the other, she and her charming little daughter are threatened by an unknown murderer.  In both episodes, Lt. Columbo is not seen, but can be heard over a telephone conversation with Mrs. Columbo. Personality wise, Kate is visually opposite and distinct from her husband  (you may even call it complimentary - someone has to run the household efficiently on a police lieutenant's salary).  She is witty, crisp, frugally well dressed, and spontaneous as Columbo is not.  And yet she is as observant, empathetic and capable as her husband.  The actress had been seen earlier in sci-fi episodes.      

OTOH I do not seem to recall Poirot's references to any family.  The Russian countess appears in one or two short stories and there is a hint that Poirot was in some ways attracted to her.  In a TV episode, Hastings seems to tease Poirot about his female interest.  But family references?  Can you bring me up on that, please?  

Anubis

Richard Levinson and William Link were the producers and creators of many TV shows, including Columbo, Ellery Queen, and Murder, She Wrote. Their names appear at the beginning of each episode of these programs. I'm sure you can find out more about them on Google.

I know there was a spin-off series called "Mrs Columbo," starring Kate Mulgrew, who appeared later in Star Trek: Voyager, but this was an independent thing, and I didn't know the character had appeared in the Columbo series proper, so thank you for correcting me on that.

Poirot makes many references to family members who may or not exist, such as Achilles in the Big Four, and his nephew in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

SiddharthaS

@Anubis - I looked up Google to look at William Link and Columbo. There is an interview in which Mr. Link says he wrote exactly one (the first) episode of Columbo. The remaining were created by teams of authors as I thought. Also, I could not find any reference where Mr. Link says that character of Lt. Columbo was based on (or influenced by) Porfiry Pretovich.  But that is not to say that Google searches are perfectly comprehensive.  It will be nice if you could help me find it.   

Griselda

We must remember that although, we, the audience, know who committed murder, Lt. Columbo does not. His methods of turning a blank slate into a completed clue jigsaw are similar to those deployed by Poirot. I've commented before that the interview is a key structural feature of the Christie novel.Particularly in the less complex works, much of the plot is progressed via a succession of interview which enable the reader,and Poirot, to examine the character of the witnesses.The interview technique, and letting the suspect chatter and give themselves away is a key technique used by both Columbo and Poirot. As Poirot (and incidentallly the detective in Mrs McGinty's Dead) observes, killers are vain and have a desire to talk about their crime. This fact gives them away. Another point in common, like Poirot, Columbo often looked close to home. Someone who knows the victim well, if not  best of all, is indicated as the killer. I can't think of a Christie in which the killer had little connection with the victim unless those victims were killed in order to decoys and divert suspicion away from the killer's true motive. Columbo and Poirot both rest their judgement on what human beings habitually do. The dog lover who leaves home without leaving food for the dog cannot have left home as it appears she did (Columbo - the funeral parlour one).The professional dancer would not have bitten finger nails (The Body in the Library - Christie).

SiddharthaS

@Griselda - That cockiness and vanity aspect on part of the murderer has been discussed rather well in "Crooked House" when the story teller tries to tap his father's brain in defining a generic profile of murderers. 

The father in question is a former (?) commissioner of the Scotland Yard, and so his expertise becomes important.  The reader knows that the chapter in which this interaction occurs is going to provide the key to solving the mystery in "Crooked House" - just as Christie herself tantalizingly hints at a specific chapter containing the solution to "Funerals Are Fatal". 

Yet, Like Dr. Watson, most readers "see but observe", and so are unable to zero-in on the murderer. There is only one person who readily fits into that profile in "Crooked House" , yet we readers cannot overcome our inner prejudices about who can and cannot be a killer!  I wonder if many readers felt outraged upon reading "Crooked House", as after reading the Murder of Roger Ackroyd. 

Yet cockiness and vanity is likely to be present only so long as the killer is convinced that he won't be found out.  Once that conviction is shaken, the murderer's vanity must give way to anxiety and fear. 

Lt.  Columbo's standard ploy is to drop hints through his series of "just one more question" that he may eventually go on to suspect the subject, provoking the latter either to talk too much, or to carry out some incriminating act. 

From your comment, I take it that you too don't mind considering Lt. Columbo to be a worthy successor to Christie's Poirot. 

Oh, and there is an exception to prove that rule about vanity.  The killer in "Funerals Are Fatal" can hardly be described as vain or cocky, in fact quite the opposite. 

Griselda

Hi SiddharthaS

'Funerals Are Fatal' I don't know. Is there an alternative title for this work - perhaps 'After the Funeral?. Yes, Colmbo could be a worthy successor to Poirot. He has extra ordinary powers, which Morse, say, has not. The style and sense of time and place in Columbo is suggestive of what other posters have commented upon re Agatha Christie. In both Christie and Columbo mysteries we, the reader, can often sense a certain decadence extant in the pampered world of the comfortably off, and perhaps a hubris, a sense that this lot are ripe for a downfall. Poirot probably has a hunch about who is the killer and then works backwards from his intuition. Miss Marple does this too. Columbo does, also, I am sure.

taliavishay-arbel

Interestingly, Morse has been mentioned disparagingly more than once in this discussion as not having the intuition and insight of Poirot (and of Colombo). I think around the 80's there was a shift from brilliant detectives to more run-of-the-mill, plodding characters - that is true of both Morse and of Barnaby in Midsommer Murders, and to a great extent also Dorothy Simpson and Elizabeth Lemarchand's detectives. 

SiddharthaS

@Griselda - yes both "Funerals" are the same book. 

That the decadence of the "pampered world of the comfortably off" that you eloquently refer to should be such a regular feature of Columbo episodes created by writers/producers of a capitalist democracy may seem surprising.  Could that because of the supposed guilty conscience of our rich liberals that Hollywood represents?  I do not think that there is any such theme at work in the Columbo series. 

The rich and mighty evil doers in those episodes merely provide an amusing contrast to Columbo's middle-class hard-working persona.  They also provide ordinary viewers glamorous glimpses of rich and famous life styles in grand settings; make viewers chuckle in comfortable delight when the brilliant but sloppy policeman raises snobbish eyebrows and eventually humbles the rich villain's cocky vanity through his perseverance, hard work, and intelligence.  That is why the series is so popular even today, and that is why Lt. Columbo so likeable. 

As I said in the beginning of the thread, "Columbo was the triumph of the ordinary man over super achievers - like Bill gates was the Revenge of the Nerds". 

 

On a lighter note: my son wrote school paper on Lt. Columbo while in the fifth or sixth grade.  His complaint was that despite solving so many baffling crimes over so many years, Columbo remains a police lieutenant and is never promoted!  Some of his classmates repeated a cliché often used by school teachers to pacify offended self-righteous kids - "Nobody said it's a fair world!"   Here was one more favorite grievance of the ordinary viewer being recognized, highlighting one more reason for the empathy with which Lt. Columbo is viewed by fans!   

Christie on the other hand grew up in a society that was democratic and prided itself in its sense of right and wrong, of its belief in the concept of Justice for all.  But it was a colonialist society with all related implications; it was also deeply feudal and its liberalism did not automatically extend to offering equal opportunities to all its citizens, much less to its remote subjects. 

Such contradictions tend to breed hypocrisy and pompous behaviors whose reflections you can find in a few tongue-in-cheek portrayals in Christie's books, Poirot being the most loveable amongst them.  But she does not forget that the literary genre she has chosen is the serious business of murder; and so she leaves serious humor to authors like PG Wodehouse, while recognizing their sterling contribution to the wealth of English literature.  I believe there is one book which Christie dedicated to PG Wodehouse. 

Can some one remember the title?   

Anubis

SiddarthaS: Certainly. I am always glad to support my statements, even though it has been some years since I have been required to do so. It's relatively easy to find. If you go to http://www.columbo-site.freeuk.com/created.htm, you will find an interview with Mr Link explaining the development of the character. In one paragraph, he states, "Whatever our complaints about (Falk), there was no denying that he seemed born to play the role. When we created Columbo, we were influenced by the bureaucratic Petrovitch in Crime and Punishment and by G.K. Chesterton's marvelous little cleric, Father Brown. But Falk added a childlike wonder all his own. He also added the raincoat. We had given Columbo a wrinkled top coat in our play, but during the filming of "Prescription: Murder," Falk dug out one of his old raincoats from the back of a closet and never took it off. He wore the same suit, shirt, tie, and shoes for the entire 10 year run of the series, giving "Columbo" the somewhat dubious distinction of having the lowest budget for male wardrobe in the history of the medium, with the possible exception of Big Bird." So, admittedly, Columbo was inspired by several sources, but one of them was definitely Petrovich. It is also clear from the interview that as the executive producers of the show Messers Link and Levinson played a significant role in the development of the character, the series, and the episodes, even if they only wrote one.

A few more comments: Apparently, the Columbo character was quite happy to stay in his job, and likely refused promotion in order to stay in it.

Serious humour is an interesting oxymoron. I've frequently found that the best humour comes from serious statement. ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!") AC's stories contain many humorous incidents. In any case, she dedicated Hallowe'en Party to P.G. Wodehouse, "whose books and stories have brightened my life for many years. Also to show my pleasure in his having been kind enough to tell me that he enjoys my books." (italics in the quote)

SiddharthaS

@Anubis - thank you. Don't know why Google did not point me to that link. I will go over the link with interest and any other links it leads me to.  Your quote of course was immediately useful to quench my curiosity. The request was sincere, I assure you. 

About Columbo remaining a lieutenant, he often avoided fulfilling the departmental requirements like shooting at the target range once every six months.  He even missed renewing his driving license in one episode.  While he always used the need to complete his report to visit his suspects, it could well be that he was tardy if at all he submitted them routinely.  The only time I recall him actually submitting a report is when the Deputy Commissioner takes over investigation in "A friend in Deed".  Yet, in "Diplomatic Immunity", he is introduced by his superior to a foreign dignitary in rather glowing terms. 

 

And thanks again for digging up that dedication to PGW, who is my favorite after Agatha Christie. I liked the example you quoted about the war room.  At the very beginning of "Secret of Chimneys" Anthony Cade, the handsome Tourist Guide, keeps his band of women tourists in good humor with his light hearted but smooth flirting that would not offend their sense of propriety.  I recall that piece as one of the earliest "under played" examples of Christie's deployment of humor that I came across.     

*** Just finished reading the article you sent.  What a fabulous Diwali Gift it turned out to be!  So rich in intimate details about the pangs of giving birth to a TV phenomenon!!!

Anubis

Happy Diwali!

shana

@SiddhartaS, hope you nd your family had a Shubh Divali. I will add this: in a discussion thread started by @Pankaj Ghoyal some time ago it was announced that the next Poirot will be situated in India. So it seems there is no need for a new sleuth after all.

SiddharthaS

Thank you Anubis and Shana. In a way it was an error on my part to mention Diwali, the festival celebrating peace and goodwill, on a forum where we celebrate murder and deceit.  Fortunately it is all fictional, so we can escape being labeled sociopaths! 

I have always wondered why Christie never made India as a setting for one of her mysteries.  Many of her characters do talk about their association with and experiences in that part of the world.  But not even a short story?!  

Tommy_A_Jones

I have also wondered why India wasn't a setting for one of the novels and Australia and Scotland, I think it decidedly odd that Scotland wasn't a setting as some of her Characters said they were going to Scotland and never did and the fact that Wales was a setting so why not Scotland?

Anubis

Well, good wishes have been expressed to participants in the forum who are members of other religions and cultures, so we are continuing a precedent. 

I expect AC did not set one of her stories in India because she had little knowledge of the country. I know she circumnavigated the world, but even so, I expect she had much more interest and knowledge in Mesopotamia and England. After all, she did not set any stories in Canada or the U.S. either.