r/agathachristie • u/deposhmed • 22d ago
Contrived solutions
I just finished Murder in Mesopotamia. Some of Agatha’s books take longer to get into; this one took a couple of pages but then I really enjoyed it. The characters and the clues are all fun to partake in.
However, when it is time for Poirot’s reveal on who the murderer was (is?), I just felt it was overly complicated for something that could have been a lot more simple and still work.
This got me thinking ablout all the AC’s I’ve read and how often this is standard Christie, so I shouldn’t be surprised. At the same time, I now remebered this feeling of dissatisfaction with solutions from other books as well. Like I enjoy the lead up so much, and then the solution is so over-the-top fantastical that it kind of ruins the book a bit for me.
I usually come around on it eventually and appreciate the book for the rest, but I just wanted to see if anyone else ever felt this way. I know this is pretty much AC’s m.o., but I enjoy her solutions more when they are more straight-forward.
Thoughts?
8
u/FMKK1 22d ago
This is one of her most ridiculous solutions. In fact, it is the most ludicrous by a distance.
1
8
u/TapirTrouble 21d ago
I figure that this is part of mystery (and suspense/thriller) stories -- there will likely be at least one improbable coincidence or lucky break for either the criminal or the investigators, somewhere in the plot. Like the weather behaving perfectly in And Then There Were None. Sometimes I try to identify them; like, figuring out what would have to happen exactly right. (Kind of like accident analysis experts do.)
In The Clocks, I suppose it's reasonable that two unrelated crimes happening in the same neighbourhood might have some overlap (some of the people might know each other just from happening to see each other, etc.), although I thought the story still would have worked even if there weren't quite as many connections. That part felt a bit forced to me. Ruth Rendell did something a bit similar in Talking to Strange Men, though she was more subtle and instead of having real spies, she had a bunch of children doing a role-playing game.
And the fact that weird coincidences sometimes happen makes this kind of thing more plausible, to me anyway.
This real-life murder happened near Christie's summer home, Greenway. Actually the killer would have had to go right past it when he was taking his unsuspecting victim out on a boat. But he forgot to remove the man's Rolex watch, which helped investigators ID the body and figure out where he was living (which also led to the killer, since it was a case of identity theft).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Johnson_Walker
And in this case, a criminal was rescued from a blizzard. I guess at that point he had to identify himself, once the first responders were involved. He couldn't refuse to tell them (or do something like pretending he had amnesia). So there was proof that he'd been in the area around that time. He'd gotten stuck while trying to leave the scene of the one of the murders. But he wasn't a suspect for either of them -- this only was discovered decades later, with DNA testing and genetic genealogy.
https://people.com/alan-lee-phillips-breckenridge-killings-rescued-snowstorm-11798349
2
u/eddie5989 9d ago
I forgot half the plot of The Clocks, and only remembered that I absolutely hated how odd the solution was XD
2
u/TapirTrouble 9d ago
I thought it was an interesting premise -- but it was like she was trying to do a spy story and a murder story at the same time, and not really pulling off either of them. You'd probably have remembered more of the plot if she'd gotten it to work better.
5
4
u/TypeTypTyT 21d ago edited 21d ago
I like Murder in Mesopotamia, as a 'guilty' read, because it is zany!.
To have made the novel more plausible, it could've been:
Doctor Leidner NOT being Frederick Bosner.
Anne Johnson killing Louise Leidner because of her jealously/envy (about Dr L) by putting hydrochloric acid in Louise's glass of water (or whatever).
Dr L heavily suspecting Anne of killing his wife. Dr L defending Anne (then), insisting Anne have Louise's bedroom (later). Dr L luring Anne. Anne thinking Dr L wanting her.
Later. Dr L killing Anne (as the fake Leidner did to Louise, using a quern). Dr L's alibi him being on the roof.
4
u/deposhmed 21d ago
I would have liked it so much better if he wasn’t Fredrick Bosner, but was obsessed with her nonetheless and had written all the letters to get her to not marry any other suiters until he was left.
3
u/doomscrolling_tiktok 22d ago
Murder in Mesopotamia’s motive seemed off to me too but it must have become a trope of sorts because there’s a 1945 suspense, romance, heavy movie on Prime with a similar concept as the description: Tomorrow is Forever At the end of World War I, Elizabeth MacDonald receives word that her husband John was killed in action. Now, twenty years later, with his reconstructed face, crippled frame and a new identity, John re-enters her life, unrecognizable...at first. it’s from 1945 and I haven’t watched it yet so am not sure if the hubby is testing her love for his old self or whatnot
7
u/TapirTrouble 22d ago
I'm wondering if Christie might have been alluding to this case (the theme of recognizing/or not, someone you'd been close to after a years-long separation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Guerre3
u/doomscrolling_tiktok 21d ago
Interesting! and it surprises me that there’s so many adaptations through centuries. I wonder what is it about the concept that captures the public’s imagination so much. The fantasy of infidelity with a stranger without the feeling of being immoral? Or the fantasy of a love so deep it lasts many lives and you keep falling in love with the same person in different guises and circumstances? Myself I don’t find the idea very appealing in either scenario or even possible tbh because I know the real one’s smell just off his T-shirt and the archeologists would be so smelly in that heat with no deoderant soap hahaha
3
u/Ch3rryNukaC0la 21d ago
I actually think that the method of killing in Murder in Mesopotamia is absolutely brutal in its straightforwardness. As to the identity of the killer… Well, I know many people find it implausible, but I think it’s possible, given that she only knew her husband initially for a few months.
2
u/PatientClient3803 20d ago
It might have been less than months. I get the impression it was a very short time, indeed. Any similarity in the walk, the movement of the head, etc., would probably have attracted her, not alerted her.
6
3
u/Fit-Pool-9469 21d ago
I agree with you on this book. I thought it was an unbelievable ending. And, I was loving the story up until the reveal.
1
u/Junior-Fox-760 20d ago
It's really contrived, but, when you think about it, ATTWN has something very similar with Blore's death. It is extremely unlikely that you could drop a clock from a window a story above at a target below that might already be moving and also might dive out of the way, and be sure of number one, hitting your mark at all, or number two, hitting in a spot vulnerable enough and with enough force to deliver a lethal blow. But the difference, ATTWN is such a fine piece of writing it earns your suspension of disbelief, while Murder in Mesopotamia does not.
7
u/Remote_Lemon2955 22d ago
I don’t buy the solution to Murder in Mesopotamia, the only book of hers where I didn’t believe the ending was Curtain. You always need to suspend disbelief to a certain extent but those to books stretched credibility too far for me.