I've been rereading Agatha Christie before going to sleep, each night. Helps settle my brain a bit. I've finished 13 at Dinner and The Murder on the Orient Express, and something I have to say is, she sucks as a writer. She's brilliant at plotting and fantastic at setting up the mystery, but her writing is so mechanical and basic (and her grammar somewhat questionable) that the books are nearly boring...which may be why they help me go to sleep...
Of course, part of that might also be I already knew who the killers were in these two. I read them while I was still in high school and have seen movie adaptations of both. But I don't think that would make a real difference. I'll test it out with The ABC Murders; I doubt I've read that one...at least, I don't recall reading any of hers that involved serial killers playing with Poirot. A modern idea written in 1936...can't say she wasn't forward-thinking.
But an example of the sort of thing that bugged me throughout both books was this sort of exchange, from Murder... --
He paused, then said:
"Did you know that M. Ratchett had applied for help to me?" (it's Poirot speaking.)
"To you?" (it's Hector MacQueen speaking.)
MacQueen's astonished tone told Poirot quite certainly that the young man had known nothing of it. He nodded.
"Yes. He was alarmed. Tell me, how did he act when he received the first letter?"
MacQueen hesitated.
To me, it's not instantly clear Poirot is the one speaking after the narrative bit about MacQueen. It's not an easy transition and interrupts the flow of the story. It's not a killer, but it does irritate and is something I work hard to avoid, in my own writing.
I already have read And Then There Were None more than once; it was my favorite Christie book because it didn't involve brilliant detectives doing their supercool thing; it was ten people being killed off, one by one, while trapped on an island off the English coast. Despite Christie's drab style and emotional reticence, it still built up a nice bit of hysteria, thanks to the situation. I didn't like any of the film adaptations (including a ludicrous one set in the Persian desert, in 1974) until the Acorn version from 2 years back. I may need to reread it and see if I still feel her prose is problematic.
What made me surprisingly happy was...the typos I'm finding in this collection. Quotation marks where they shouldn't be. A couple of words misspelled. Seems you can't get away from the pesky little things, no matter how hard you try.
Nice to know a fairly major publisher has that problem, too.
Of course, part of that might also be I already knew who the killers were in these two. I read them while I was still in high school and have seen movie adaptations of both. But I don't think that would make a real difference. I'll test it out with The ABC Murders; I doubt I've read that one...at least, I don't recall reading any of hers that involved serial killers playing with Poirot. A modern idea written in 1936...can't say she wasn't forward-thinking.
But an example of the sort of thing that bugged me throughout both books was this sort of exchange, from Murder... --
He paused, then said:
"Did you know that M. Ratchett had applied for help to me?" (it's Poirot speaking.)
"To you?" (it's Hector MacQueen speaking.)
MacQueen's astonished tone told Poirot quite certainly that the young man had known nothing of it. He nodded.
"Yes. He was alarmed. Tell me, how did he act when he received the first letter?"
MacQueen hesitated.
To me, it's not instantly clear Poirot is the one speaking after the narrative bit about MacQueen. It's not an easy transition and interrupts the flow of the story. It's not a killer, but it does irritate and is something I work hard to avoid, in my own writing.
I already have read And Then There Were None more than once; it was my favorite Christie book because it didn't involve brilliant detectives doing their supercool thing; it was ten people being killed off, one by one, while trapped on an island off the English coast. Despite Christie's drab style and emotional reticence, it still built up a nice bit of hysteria, thanks to the situation. I didn't like any of the film adaptations (including a ludicrous one set in the Persian desert, in 1974) until the Acorn version from 2 years back. I may need to reread it and see if I still feel her prose is problematic.
What made me surprisingly happy was...the typos I'm finding in this collection. Quotation marks where they shouldn't be. A couple of words misspelled. Seems you can't get away from the pesky little things, no matter how hard you try.
Nice to know a fairly major publisher has that problem, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment