Have Your Say

Miscellaneous

Please use this area for any Topics you feel don't fit in with other areas of the forum.

Christie Goofs

treplag 26 Jan 12 at 6:25 p.m. GMT

This forum is devoted to mistakes you might have noticed in a Christie book or adaptation.  It might be a plot hole, an anachronism, a character inconsistency, or maybe a poor choice of words or a grammatical error.  It should not include typographical errors, which are the fault of the publisher, not the writer.

Login or register to add posts and reply

21 replies

Reverse order

NightRayDuck 12 May 12 at 6:50 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

...and the police is now free to pick their conclusion from amongst "She killed Rachel Argyle for whatever reason, and now kills again to eliminate someone who has figured out her guilt, and this time she's caught, so she attempts to drag Jacko in as a likely-looking suspect because of his previous bad reputation" or "She's personally acquainted with the real killer who was unknown to any other member of the family, and now she kills to prevent the real killer being caught, and since she herself is caught and she still wants to protect the real killer, she drags in Jacko instead" or "None of the Argyle household was involved in Rachel Argyle's murder; but now this person commits a murder for some reason yet to be discovered, and to hide that reason, represents this murder as the sequel to Rachel's murder, and to strengthen that impression, tries to put Jacko back into the picture" ~ And if nobody suspects the truth enough to cause the killer concern, Jacko can stir up talk and drop false hints that get the suspicion focused on the accomplice.

But as to Jacko's actions establishing the alibi, I agree, it is ridiculous. Even a very dumb criminal will try to do better if the criminal has the brains at all to think "I don't want to be caught, I want to establish an alibi".

Definitely the Marple version made him too conscientious; the Jacko in the book cared nothing about his adoptive mom or his pretty young wife or his accomplice, so he wouldn't care for his siblings either.

NightRayDuck 12 May 12 at 6:48 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

about Ordeal by Innocence - 

I think the suspect's actions after conviction are reasonable for a certain type of personality, the type that goes "aaah I just sit here and keep playing innocent and then surely something will turn up!" If we were to write an alternate version, say that Jacko hadn't died of whatwasit (pneumonia?) in prison when the "witness" came back with his memory and all... ok, then Jacko is alive, and *exonerated*, and the police start poking around for the killer. The accomplice, who did the actual killing, will mess up because she doesn't habitually think with a criminal bent. If she confesses and points to Jacko as the head plotter of the murder, Jacko has young wife to produce and show the accusation as "entirely produced by the killer's heated imagination", and the police can conclude that the killer had committed the murder for any other personal grudge. If the killer does not confess, attempts to keep herself out of trouble, suspects that some other member in the family has figured out the truth of her own involvement (regardless of what they might now think of Jacko's innocence), well now Jacko is back in her world, and can persuade her to kill the person who suspects her/them. He had persuaded her to kill for him once before, persuading her again will not be difficult. And after she's done the second murder, the evidence will be fresh and clearly against her, and there's still only her words against Jacko's words, 

Nofret 12 May 12 at 5:22 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Here's my own personal bugbear - Ordeal by Innocence.

Jacko's actions in establishing an alibi for the time of the murder are ridiculous. He waits by the side of the road hoping someone will give him a lift, and remember the exact date and time! Why rely on just one person's memory? He should have made a scene in a busy place such as a pub, or for a really cast-iron alibi, assault a policeman and be taken into custody at the exact time that his accomplice was committing the crime. Although we never "meet" Jacko, and he could merely have been incredibly stupid, his accomplice seemed to have her head screwed on!

Also, when convicted of the crime, a cornered rat, don't you think that he would have confessed the truth and taken his co-conspirator down with him? The Marple adaptation of O by I had Jacko repenting of his crimes and saying he deserved his fate, if so, surely he would have warned his siblings that there was a murderer in their midst!

Nofret 12 May 12 at 4:45 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Regarding They Came to Baghdad.

Edward certainly isn't the naive, jolly lad that takes Victoria's fancy! He is a ruthless agent, and as such would certainly have back-up. In fact the chance meeting in the park was almost certainly staged by Edward, who had arranged for Victoria to be followed when she left him. Having found out which employment agency she used, it was simple for him to arrange the job offer in Baghdad.

Of course, with Edward's experience, he knew exactly what line to take to arouse Victoria's interest!

notguilty 18 Mar 12 at 5:34 p.m. GMT

Thanks again GKCfan for clearing this matter.  Yes, it does sound reasonable now.  Sorry for being so obtuse.  I am certainly no M. Hercule Poirot.

GKCfan 15 Mar 12 at 3:13 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Christie did explain these points, but only in about one sentence apiece.  If you reread the opening chapter, you'll see that it's mentioned that the local newspaper reported that Poirot would be vacationing there.  Nick must have read it and knew who Poirot was– Poirot was a minor celebrity at that time.  But she lied about not knowing who he was.  At the end, Poirot insists on this point, saying that "everyone knows Hercule Poirot."

notguilty 14 Mar 12 at 6:01 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Thanks, that does explain quite a bit.  But, as usual the answer leads to more questions. 

       - How did Nick know she was going to meet M. Poirot and Capt Hastings?  The meeting was not pre-arranged.  Unless, of course, any witness or witnesses would do.  But the bullet was "quietly" dropped.

       - She claims to have not known M. Poirot by appearance or reputation.  She was clearly ignorant of his detecting prowess.  Unless, she lied about it. 

I think Dame Agatha left out some details she really should have presented.  Regardless, I did enjoy the book enormously.  Agan, thank you GKCfan for your explanations. 

GKCfan 13 Mar 12 at 7:10 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

The bullet through the hat is not explained in the book, but we had a lively discussion about this subject a year or so ago.  I believe that Nick fired a bullet through her hat brim before she went down to talk to Poirot and Hastings.  She then arranged her hat so the two men couldn't see the hole, and took the bullet with her when she spoke to Poirot and Hastings.  She then pretended there was a "wasp" as a cover, dropped the bullet, and deliberately left her hat behind when she left.

notguilty 13 Mar 12 at 5:34 p.m. GMT

My question, as I mentioned on a previous post in the "book club" section, concerns with "Peril at End House".  I cannot find anywhere in the book where Dame Agatha explains about the bullet hole in the hat and who shot it.  Any help?

john_c_hamilton 15 Feb 12 at 11:34 a.m. GMT

Regarding Claasics; It is a fact that Poirot being a member of the upper middle classes in Britain, that interacts with members of the upper class would at some point encounter Classics. All Public schools in England - usually meant to be attended by the upper class - have an excessive curriculum of Classics. In this summer though - which is usually my crime fiction reading time - I have been reading Anne Hart's biography of HP, and if memory serves, she mentions that at least he has studied Latin. Hence, by saying he has not studied the Greek antiquity, he is quite accurate, being unaware of the language, he must have only encountered all these characters mentioned in Latin literature. 

john_c_hamilton 15 Feb 12 at 11:26 a.m. GMT

Regarding the rubber; in the adaptation they show that the balloon was somewhat tube-shaped instead of round. As I assume we all remember from childhood, these balloons are inflated gradually, and if you don't fully inflate them, there is a thin tube of air at the very end. If you attach a string to this end, you will be able to draw the balloon out of the window, since by using the ballon and the string, you can form a knot. This is not the case with the other end, where the little piece of wood and the torn rubber cannot be permanently attached to the string. I know it sounds too complicated, but I will try and find a picture of such a balloon to clarify the whole thing.

LauraPoirot 30 Jan 12 at 4:38 a.m. GMT

Ok Night Ray thank you for that explanation! You see here in Germany one isn't very aware of all those things unless they Potter with it but if it's very much used in the English Language usage of course I've been wrong. It was just somewhat unimaginable that people who aren't exaggerating and showing of their knowledge would ever tell anything about classics ;-)

NightRayDuck 29 Jan 12 at 10:41 p.m. GMT

hello Bunch_Marple! how have you been?? :-)

Laura - I am afraid some of the characters from the classic Greek tales are just too widely used in the English culture. I mean, if Poirot once heard someone describe some other woman as "just like Circe", Poirot, who is always curious about everything, couldn't help asking what was meant by the remark, could he? :p

Seriously tho, I've always had problems with Christie's murder methods when ropes are used for climbing, or cords are used for strangling. Rope-burn (scraping off skin on hands) could be avoided with suitable gloves, but there were some stories where there was definitely no chance of the murderer getting some gloves on.. "Bird with a Broken Wing", for example.

Bunch_Marple 29 Jan 12 at 10:12 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

From Murder in Mesopotamia, I think it was terribly unrealistic that a woman should marry the same man twice and yet seemingly have no clue! Can a man really change and disguise himself to such a degree and never make a slip-up?

LauraPoirot 29 Jan 12 at 5 p.m. GMT

Whatever happened to the rubber... I think we shouldn't be to hard with that little (if it might be one) mistake. However I found a tiny detail worth writing it here (very funny how one begins to search for such things all of a sudden...) in the foreword of the labours if Hercules Poirot discusses with a old friend (I think some doctor Burton..) about the classics of the antique Greece and that Poirot has never studied them (but cultivated some Vegetable marrows...) but though he doesn't know them he was often able to refer to them in one or the other phrase... For example in evil under the sun what I'm just re reading he called  Arlena "Circe" what was very fitting btw. But If he had never studied the classics of Homer he wouldn't know who Circe was, would he?

GKCfan 28 Jan 12 at 6:33 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I don't think that there is any proof that the "Dying Pig" actually burst.  The "scrap of rubber" could just have been the entire deflated bladder.  In the Suchet TV version, the tiny ring at the opening of the balloon is torn off, so if just a bit of the opening to the Dying Pig was torn off, it would still have made the horrible noise it did.  In any case, the killer's identity being what it was, the killer could have easily palmed the remainder of the balloon when he was alone in the room searching it, and disposed of it later.

LauraPoirot 28 Jan 12 at 5:16 p.m. GMT

Oh really? I dont remember that part of Hercule Poirots Christmas that exactly soo... I'll believe in your knowing. Got to read it again... But you're right then. 

Take your time with the table turning thing. Maybe anyone else knows it too and it's not that important. It just made me curious. Mh I think some time ago I read a book and thought "what? Under that circumstances it isn't possible like that..." but I don't remember what it was... If It comes back to my mind  I'll tell you immedeatly ;-)

treplag 28 Jan 12 at 1:52 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Laura - Thank you for contributing to my forum.  It is clearly stated in the book that what Pilar picks up (and what Sugden shows to Poirot later) is a fragment of rubber.  However, that raises an interesting question and another possible goof.  If the "dying pig" balloon burst, it wouldn't have made the sound that everyone heard.  It would just have made a "pop".  If it didn't burst, there wouldn't have been a piece of it on the floor.  So one way or the other, Christie made a mistake.

I read your "table turning" comment in the Books section, and it sounded reasonable to me.  I have not had a chance to check up on the times question yet, but I will let you know when I do.

LauraPoirot 28 Jan 12 at 10:14 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

To the first goof... If you imagine the scene: the wooden thing was to was used to close the dying pig balloon up, was it not? Later on Sudgeon  Torn it out of the balloon through the window with a Cord so that the air can get out to make that strange sound which sounds like a scream. Well I have to admit that I never had such a dying pig thing in my own hands but from the discription in the book I think it's only that the cord is torn out and the ballon didn't burst what means there is only one big part of a limp pink rubber... Since pilar picked  this one up there is nothing more to find in the room.

But I found a goof myself lately and  I already wrote it in the book club part for the sittaford mystery: Major Burnaby has committed the murder and gave himself an alibi with the seance which told the guests at 5.25 that Trevelian is dead. But how could he know that they are going to have a table  table turning seance? It was Ronnie who suggested doing that. The next thing I've noticed is that they got the message at 5.20 as Rycroft checked with his watch but afterwards they are all talking about 5.25! That might be a typing mistake of my edition or... What about your version? Is that mistake there too? 

treplag 27 Jan 12 at 7:58 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

In THEY CAME TO BAGHDAD, Edward and Victoria meet by chance at Charing Cross after she has been fired.  We find out later that he is struck by her resemblance to Anna Scheele.  He goes so far as to take two pictures of her, with the idea that she may be able to impersonate Anna at some point.  After their meeting, Victoria realizes that she is in love with him and decides to follow him to Baghdad.  Here is the goof.  Edward has no way of knowing that Victoria has fallen in love with him, or about her decision to go to Baghdad.  And yet, even though she is to play a pivotal role in the plans of his organization, he makes no provision for it.  He might have suggested that she should look for work in Baghdad, or made up a story about how cheap housing is there, or in some other way entice her to go.  But when they part, he does none of these things.  To the best of his knowledge, he will never see her again.  He does arrange with the Clipps to pay her way to Baghdad, but that might not have happened.  What if she had gone to a different employment agency than the one she told him she was going to, or had decided to live with her aunt and not look for a job, after all?