Closed Casket Review and Thoughts.
CrookedQuin
California, United States
@ChristieFanForLife , @Dr.Sheppard and a few others wanted me to compare this with other Agatha Christie novels, and someone suggested a review so here it is:
The Agatha Christie writing style is being mimicked here, although not as stale as its predecessor. Instead of using key words to describe characters, the appearance is associated with the personality as with most of the aforementioned's novels. There seems to be more realism here in the plot, and the motive is not as poor. This feels like it would be an Agatha Christie novel, with the quirky characters (who unfortunately in this story fall into extremism and just outright unrelatable). The denouement's twist was all fair here. It's not some mind blowing surprise and red herrings are lacking. The clues are sparse, and there is another overwhelming backstory involving murder with a not believable reason. There are continuity errors, where sequences and ideas are altered to fit plot devices. There is an extremely lengthy explanation for a quite simple crime, around thirty five pages when everything revealed there was mostly drastic confessions that could've been revealed in the story. And for the sake of the stretching out of the story, characters refuse indignantly to reveal anything to Poirot, which is quite annoying, especially when they say "I'll tell you after the inquest,". Poirot, instead of admiring people's different talents while being conceited himself, this one is like the one in Elephants Can Remember, barely doing anything and randomly finds out the whole thing without having any connection to any of the "clues" whatsoever and acts quite like a bully and is judge mental of other characters. Now, to the suspects: the majority of the suspects were pointless, ruled out, and were there for the sake of the reader to believe they had some part in the plot as they were not doing anything, and they did not. The most fleshed out character was the victim, actually, and the rest of them were subject to simple emotions: Lady Playford is adamant, Claudia is not empathetic and does not care about anything , Dorro is insecurely stubborn, Randall Kimpton is basically as he says himself, "A male version of Claudia,", Harry is like a sloth, Orville Rolfe is just there, and Michael Gathercole does whatever Lady Playford wants him to do.
Theending was a little underwhelming, there was much to be desired and I already thought of an amazing twist in my head regarding a question
posed in the novel with a different murderer and would've given the novel a much different solution and tone. I felt the basic synopsis of everything occurring in the novel could've been by Christie along with the descriptions, but all the details, the mruderer, plot points and flaws are different and much like The Monigram Murders problems, just less so and I enjoyed this one more.
Rating: 6.75/10
The Agatha Christie writing style is being mimicked here, although not as stale as its predecessor. Instead of using key words to describe characters, the appearance is associated with the personality as with most of the aforementioned's novels. There seems to be more realism here in the plot, and the motive is not as poor. This feels like it would be an Agatha Christie novel, with the quirky characters (who unfortunately in this story fall into extremism and just outright unrelatable). The denouement's twist was all fair here. It's not some mind blowing surprise and red herrings are lacking. The clues are sparse, and there is another overwhelming backstory involving murder with a not believable reason. There are continuity errors, where sequences and ideas are altered to fit plot devices. There is an extremely lengthy explanation for a quite simple crime, around thirty five pages when everything revealed there was mostly drastic confessions that could've been revealed in the story. And for the sake of the stretching out of the story, characters refuse indignantly to reveal anything to Poirot, which is quite annoying, especially when they say "I'll tell you after the inquest,". Poirot, instead of admiring people's different talents while being conceited himself, this one is like the one in Elephants Can Remember, barely doing anything and randomly finds out the whole thing without having any connection to any of the "clues" whatsoever and acts quite like a bully and is judge mental of other characters. Now, to the suspects: the majority of the suspects were pointless, ruled out, and were there for the sake of the reader to believe they had some part in the plot as they were not doing anything, and they did not. The most fleshed out character was the victim, actually, and the rest of them were subject to simple emotions: Lady Playford is adamant, Claudia is not empathetic and does not care about anything , Dorro is insecurely stubborn, Randall Kimpton is basically as he says himself, "A male version of Claudia,", Harry is like a sloth, Orville Rolfe is just there, and Michael Gathercole does whatever Lady Playford wants him to do.
Theending was a little underwhelming, there was much to be desired and I already thought of an amazing twist in my head regarding a question
posed in the novel with a different murderer and would've given the novel a much different solution and tone. I felt the basic synopsis of everything occurring in the novel could've been by Christie along with the descriptions, but all the details, the mruderer, plot points and flaws are different and much like The Monigram Murders problems, just less so and I enjoyed this one more.
Rating: 6.75/10
Comments
If you agree with all the points CrookedQuin makes, you are not seriously going to say to Sophie Hannah, are you, that you think the motive is not as poor as in her earlier attempt, and that the writing style is not as stale as before. Give the poor girl a break.
What is hard about doing an Agatha Christie, is that she is practically unique among writers in her ability to cast a plot and to sow the clues. It is just not going to be possible to do this so well. I was going to say 'this side of things' but, basically, the way she sows and develops the story plot is everything. I'm trying to think of a parallel: being Houdini? Being Marilyn Monroe? You are almost bound to fail if being judged as a fellow writer: and it is a very good writer who has been asked to accomplish this labour of love in the interests of giving the public what they crave, in the form of more Poirot. I enjoy Bootleg Beatles performances at my local pub. The amateur musicians put on basin-cut wigs, and we enjoy hearing the hits: but not so much is expected, and the audience is inclined to suspend disbelief and get into the spirit of the evening. To me the relationship between what they are offering and the original is like the relationship between the Christie novels and the adaptations for television. But if the band said that they were going to be writing more Beatles songs, and carrying on where Lennon and McCartney left off, I wouldn't 'buy' the idea. Putting Agatha Christie's name on the cover of the novels alongside Sophie Hannah's is incongruous to me, as if you are saying that Agatha Christie lives on . Perhaps the next continuation could be presented differently, as the writer's take on the character of Poirot, and don't refer to Christie.
I would almost have been easier to get fans to write a Christie, and then we would all enjoy reading their amateur efforts and deciding if they had captured Poirot, and enjoy the hommage/enthusiasm thing. But as a serious literary endeavour, it is up against a very big difficulty in that Christie is such a good - nay, sublime - plotter, and nobody quite knows how she does it. It is almost uncanny, and defies expectation of what the normal human brain can do. It is not something anyone is going to be able to do. Most of CrookedQuin's criticisms are about the tie up - the clues and the unravelling of the plot; the characters and how they advance the plot; the fairness or relevance of the clues. And, indeed, the presentation of Poirot is bound up in the very storytelling because Christie is so economical, characters are presented through their part in the tableaux of players. So it is hard to do Poirot without the plot, and if nobody could possibly do the Christie plot thing, then we are in a fix. Nobody has probably analysed, precisely, the nature of Christie's art. She is presenting characters not just as themselves, but as how we might be required to also see them in order that we be thrown of the track for a little while, before the twist of the denouement brings us back on the home straight to seeing who did it and who everybody really is.
I think that it might be easier to do Lord Peter Wimsey, and Jane Austen's Darcy with a new story, because those writers didn't do such a clever thing with the form.( And, in my view, anyone could do Father Brown stories as plot-rich as the originals.) I suppose I'm getting at what was the expectation when these continuation novels were commissioned? Because we have just read a review byCrookedQuin who gives it 6.5 out of 10 and says it is poor in aspects compared with Christie's writing, but he still mostly enjoyed it. Are we saying that we are going to be disappointed if these continuations don't make us feel the way Christie does, or are we are saying we are going to expect that nobody can really do the Christie plot thing - because that would be impossible - and, therefore, 4 out of 10 will be a pretty good score? What, actually, is going to be enough to entertain us? Because really, a Christie story is like a very complicated dance. You can't expect anyone to do it at all well. From what I've read of Facebook reviews, the people who have enjoyed The Monnogram Murders enjoyed them because they are a good read in terms of waiting to hear who did it. The less you think of Christie's Poirot's the better you get on, it seems to me.
Personally, I am more interested in the character analysis of Christie than her technical brilliance with the story, but I accept that the ingenious plotting is the most spectacular thing she does. I don't want to read the continuations because I'm interested in communing with Christie's mind on some level, and knowing how she sees the world. I would just feel sad to read something which was like her, but not her.
It might be fun to get other writers to do Poirots, and to admire and discuss their different takes on the great man. To give them a free rein, and say don't worry about doing that plot thing which she does. I think we have, anyway, reached that stage in the discussion of the continuation stories when it is being said that they are Ms Hannah's take on the detective, they are not aimed at emulating and copying Christie's style and approach - nor creating the same effect on the reader. I think that as readers start to see these as Catchpole stories with Poirot in them, we will all enjoy a reading experience which is different but ok.
So, the questions on Closed Casket might be phrased as: 1. The motive of the murderer was fascinating and you captured it well, holding back on the reveal until almost the end, what gave you the idea to develop such a motive for this character. 2. It was evident from reading the novel that Edward Catchpool has matured as a character and much more believable as a detective, was that a conscious effort on your part to present him in this way?
When I spoke to David Brawn (HarperCollins) about Closed Casket, he explained that Sophie had listened to her critics on The Monogram Murders and developed the character of Edward Catchpool taking some of the points onboard - and it is evident in the novel.
It could be that readers will say that they like the Catchpole action the best, and she will develop these works into Catchpole stories, with Poirot there as a background figure. To do this would be interesting because Sophie could develop the sense of how ordinary detectives in the police force view Poirot and his methods, and how they find they resonate or contrast with standard approaches to detection. Perhaps this affair is just another example of the nature of the times in which we live. Democracy is in the ascendancy, whether in terms of forcing Referendum outcomes or people power shaping the form of a new series of novels!
It is a bit ironic, though, when, because Christie is such a hard act to emulate, reviewers find themselves saying that imitators are producing wan reflections of the great work, but that they still quite like the efforts: e.g., they sound negative and positive at the same time. As I said, it is probably going to be better not to have Agatha Christie's name in big letters on the front of the book as if what is suggested is that these are continuing the Christies.
It is unavoidable that some fans are not going to like The Closed Casket, since the very fact that it is purporting to be a Christie on one level, is going to put some of them off. It is annoying to have something you love figured in your head, and to be served something you don't like as much, as you feel disappointed and think it is a bit impertinent to try to be emulating the original. It is a bit like having your garden done and finding that they have put down fake grass instead of real grass, and are trying to tell you why it is just like grass. It might be like being served a chocolate cake made with fake chocolate and synthetic cream. It seems to me an interesting discussion could be had about what these continuation novels, whether Lord Peter Wimsey, Sherlock Holmes, Poirot or anyone else, are actually purporting to be. Are they supposed to be fakes which are aiming to do Christie - like a fake Gucci handbag, or are they meant to be a wholly original vehicle with only the key character being the same as before? Are they modern versions of old master style paintings - technically brilliant, but obviously not reflecting the sensibilities and outlook of the earlier artists, or are they expected to hold artistic integrity? Or is it the case that the notion of what these continuation novels ought to be is not really fixed, as yet, but is actually evolving in response to feedback? It now seems that Sophie Hannah is saying that she has not been setting out to write in Christie's style (if I have got this right). I would love to be a fly on the wall and learn what David Brawn, the Harpers and Collins publisher actually said to Ms Hannah about what he wanted her to do.
I have seen some very favourable reviews of The Closed Casket on websites which allow readers to preview new publications.
I think, as I said once before, that it would be easier to air new stories if these were being sent straight to screenplay. If David Suchet had been given permission to ad lib his own lines somewhat when acting a completely new story written by a dramatist, then this would have been, perhaps, more satisfactory, as it would have been less of a leap in the first place since any screen adaptation will be, to begin with, one step removed from what Christie wrote.