Welcome to women’s history month 2025. This year is going to look a little different. I still have a number of books by women authors that I hope to get through this year, but it is not going to be exclusively women authors. We live in an era where thankfully women no longer have to write under pseudonyms to get published although some still do. We also live in a time where women are educated and their level of writing is stronger than ever. Because I live where women can now freely express themselves by writing or other platforms, I do not feel the personal need to only read women this month. The women authors I do read I will highlight, and if it’s a nonfiction book I will highlight the subject’s achievements. I also have other projects in real life and in my reading life. I shouldn’t have to address them here, but one is the plethora of baseball books that get published in March and April in time for the new season. As a moderator of a baseball book club, I attempt to read as many of these as possible in order to pass the titles on as recommendations to the group. You guessed it: most of these titles are written by men. There are two titles written by women that are due to be published later this month, and I am excited about those. As a sports fan, it is something I accept in my lifelong quest to keep stats as close to a 50/50 women/men clip as possible, and sometimes this just isn’t always feasible.
Without further tangential thought and discussion, it wouldn’t be women’s history month without the Queen of Crime. She paved the way for many of the detective, mystery, and thriller writers that we read today, including my personal favorite Louise Penny. Last year I attempted the Read Christie challenge for the first time but used it as an impetus to read one book a month to fill in the gaps from her body of work that I haven’t read yet. I got to 11 out of 12 months and then ended the year strong with a memoir by Hercule Poirot himself, David Suchet, who acted in the role of Poirot on A&E for twenty five years. By the end of the year, I did not want to commit to another year of Read Christie, but Suchet whetted my appetite for more Poirot. Rather than commit to one book a month, I decided to continue filling in the full length Poirot cases that I hadn’t gotten to yet. This isn’t much of a commitment because the little Belgian sleuth has always been one of my favorite personas, and it allows me to relax on the couch with a mystery once a month. I call this a win-win situation. It is only the first weekend of March, and I have already completed my second case. Something tells me that I might read more than the six books that I previously committed to. He is Poirot after all.
Our case begins as Poirot visits the dentist. Hands up if it is not your favorite appointment of the year. Mine either, but that’s because I go four times a year due to my genetics that I will not delve into. Henry Morley is as known as a dentist as Poirot is as a detective. His patients include the top names in many fields throughout Britain including the Prime Minister, head of banking, and Poirot. In the waiting room, Poirot encounters a man who looks like he could commit murder. Poirot does not go looking for murder cases but somehow they always find him. Sure enough, a few hours later Inspector Japp telephones Poirot to tell him that Dr Morley has committed suicide. He does not seem the type, and before he arrives back at the office to assist Japp with the case, Poirot suspects murder. Japp would love for it to be a simple case of suicide because then Scotland Yard would not have another case on its hands. Poirot knows, and he is rarely wrong. The dentist was an even keeled person, and too many people were involved for this to be a simple black and white case. Poirot acknowledges that every person in the building - patients, employees, and house staff need to be interviewed. As he suspected, this is not a case that is as simple as black and white.
As with many cases, two additional people are murdered. Poirot warns people throughout his interviews that they may be in grave danger. This case takes place later in Christie’s career. In these post war years, a conservative government rules England along with an equally conservative bank. When England is governed along those lines, Poirot notes that all seems to be well. A younger group of people are not as convinced that all is well in England. The symbol of the old guard is the banking head Alistair Bunk who has shrewdly invested both his and the nation’s money. Young people would like a new party in place and stage attempts on Bunk’s life on more than one occasion. He is also a patient of the late Dr Morley and knows Poirot through the dentist, hiring him to unravel this case. The opposition is not too happy with this partnership and leave crumbs to try to trip up Poirot, who doesn’t take the bait. Christie also includes usual motifs such as actors in disguise, which come up in many of Poirot’s cases. He notes that none of these current actresses rate the same as the esteemed Vera Rossakoff, the one love of Poirot’s life, who has been noted that he would give up detecting for life with her. Many spies have a love like this, but Poirot has noted that he might be getting old or at least wistful, and, yet, after this case Christie wrote nineteen more featuring the Belgian sleuth. They were her money makers but even with her quality writing, even the best need to pause for thought.
As usual Poirot figured out everything before Insoector Japp, who is left scratching his head. Christie has Poirot reveal everything at the big finish, withholding key information until then so that the reader cannot possibly know whodunit until the end. The only cases where i know ahead of time are rereads, and that is after having reading more than half of Poirot’s cases for many years. This had all the elements of a classic Poirot case even though it came later in the series, including Dame Christie’s opinions on the current state of British affairs. The next time you read a mystery or thriller, whether it is authored by a man or woman, try to think of elements in the narrative that can be traced back to the Queen of Crime. I compare and contrast Inspector Gamache with Poirot all the time and am convinced that he is a descendent, or at least the perfect literary one. My women’s history month might be different this year but as much as things change, they also stay the same. One of them is reading the Queen of Crime on a weekend afternoon and spending time with my favorite Belgian sleuth. That will never get old mon amis.
4 stars