Hallowe'en Party - SPOILER Thread

[Judy]

This is our spoiler thread for Hallowe'en Party by Agatha Christie.

If you are still reading the book, please be aware that spoilers will be openly discussed here, so you might prefer to stick to the general thread until you have finished.

[Susan]

I wonder what everyone thought of making Joyce Reynolds, the victim, so essentially unsympathetic. There was this schoolgirl, killed violently at a child's party, and virtually nobody had a nice thing to say about her. Was Christie going for realism, do you think? Did she want us to forget the victim and concentrate on the crime?

[Judy]

Great question, Susan. I wasa bit startled / disturbed by how unsympathetic Joyce is made to appear, with only her mother really seeming to care that she has died.

I know it is common in mysteries for the victim to be unpopular, to help to lighten the mood, but this is quite disconcerting when the victim is a child - as also happens in the Nicholas Blake book a few of us read recently. In that one there aren't even any parents to shed a tear...

[Susan]

Yes, I thought it was quite callous. Even her own siblings don't seem overly concerned, poor kid.

[Mark Pghfan]

I expect that is true, Susan. If you have read it, you will note that Christie's previous child victim, in Dean Man's Folly, was also pretty unlikable.

[Susan]

Yes, Golden Age authors are often referred to as, 'cosy' but I think they are often very realistic and even a little hard at times. I find the same thing in P D James books, that she often makes the victim unlikeable. However, that is unusual with a child.

[Michelle]

The murderer(s) I thought was pretty obvious earlier on and the reason why. Maybe i have read too many and can work it out early on but this didn't seem as twisty or well plotted as others of hers. And as soon as the line ding dong bell pussy in the well was introduced it was extremely obvious where the body was!

I think Joyce did get hard done by, I think she needed to be to establish she was a liar but she wasn't particularly sympathetically drawn given she was a child. Perhaps a victim of the adage of the time of children being seen and not heard. I did find it quite surprising that no-one seems to mourn her, her mother a little, but her no-one else!

I've just finished Third Girl by Agatha Christie, similar sort of plot. Someone might have been murdered but there is no body or crime it seems and Poirot has to work out who has been murdered. So maybe reading that one recently had my mind working in a way to work this one out quickly.

[Susan]

I agree, Michelle. I definitely think Christie was not at the top of her powers in the Sixties. I also agree that poor Joyce was quite hard done by - no wonder she was an attention seeker, surrounded by so much negativity!

[Mark Pghfan]

Yes, I think the one clue clearly points out the murderer early on. Christie probably counted on people not thinking anything of it. But people who had read a lot of Christie would have noticed.

[Sandy]

Pghfan wrote: "Yes, I think the one clue clearly points out the murderer early on. Christie probably counted on people not thinking anything of it. But people who had read a lot of Christie would have noticed."

I certainly missed it! But I haven't read a lot of Christie though I love the TV versions.

I enjoy Poirot's as a character and his friend the author is an excellent foil. His problem with his patent leather shoes was an amusing aside that humanized his foibles: he was not about to let down his standards!

[Judy]

I loved the bit about the shoes, too, Sandy - the way he is so determined not to change his ways just because of things like fashion and his age is quite funny and poignant! I enjoyed all the bits with him and Ariadne talking and their thoughts about each other.

I did pick up on 'Pussy's in the well' but that wasn't enough to reveal the killer to me!

[Jill]

I had thought that I had read tis book before, but when I started it , I realised I hadn't. I do think the death of the child was treated rather coldly, but then thinking about it, so many people had lost people close to them during the war that they may have been harden to the fact. Was surprised her siblings didn't seem very upset though.
I found the shoe conversations were quite humorous, but I did feel that there was a lot of repetition of what I thought was the author's view of the justice system.
I did feel that this book was not up to the usual standard I expect from these books.

[Susan]

No, I think I said that in my review, Jill. Christie was older by then and she did use some books as a bit of a platform to have a moan and also became a little repetitive...

[Mark Pghfan]

Yes, and she seemed too proud of knowing the phrase "assisting the police in their inquiries" and used it too much.

[Susan]

If anyone hasn't read Poirot before, please don't judge him, or Christie, on this book. Try to read something written in the 1930's, when she was at the height of her powers, before deciding she is not for you.

[Michelle]

Susan wrote: "If anyone hasn't read Poirot before, please don't judge him, or Christie, on this book. Try to read something written in the 1930's, when she was at the height of her powers, before deciding she is..."

Yes I agree, Poirot and Christie is so much better than this, not the best intro to Poirot, this one so don't give up!

[Mark Pghfan]

I agree as well. I've read the entire Christie canon more times than I could count, and the really great, classic ones are mostly in the 30's and 40's (a few exceptions, but mostly!)

[Susan]

That is an interesting point though - do we think an author can go on too long? I am not necessarily talking Christie here, but actually reading a 'not very good' or 'not as good as' Poirot could turn you off...

[Judy]

Susan wrote: "No, I think I said that in my review, Jill. Christie was older by then and she did use some books as a bit of a platform to have a moan and also became a little repetitive..."

I also noticed the moaning in this one - occasionally it was quite funny, as with Ariadne Oliver's dismay over couples kissing at the party, and I found it interesting to see some of the contrasts drawn between the GA era and the 1960s. But at times it does get a bit repetitive, as you say!

[Judy]

Susan wrote: "That is an interesting point though - do we think an author can go on too long? "

Good question! I've been thinking this over and I don't really think so - there are always going to be good bits with a book by a favourite author, even if it isn't one of their best. Also, all the sequels and fan fiction show the continuing demand for so many Golden Age characters to live on.

[Mark Pghfan]

I think we'd probably like to read of our beloved characters for as long as we can, even if the quality goes down a bit.

[Susan]

How about if the series is continued by another author? I really disliked the Sophie Hannah Poirot sequel, but have heard the Peter Wimsey books are good. Do you think an author's estate should allow this?

[Mark Pghfan]

I just finished the second Poirot by Sophie Hannah. This is one continuation I don't think should have happened. It doesn't read in the least like Christie. She tries to get these intricate plots but with Christie, you always felt like you were hoodwinked, and the clues were there all along. With Hannah, it just seems like she was trying to make things complicated. I'm glad I got the book from the library and didn't have to buy it.

On the other hand, I do enjoy the Paton Walsh books. Not precisely like Sayer's writing, but she has a more obvious love for the characters and the style. And the characters grow and things happen. With the new Poirot's, we learn nothing about him (they are set in the middle of his career.)

[Susan]

I read the first Sophie Hannah and when Poirot went for a little 'fresh air' I knew I was in the wrong book!

[LovesMysteries]

Pghfan wrote: "I just finished the second Poirot by Sophie Hannah. This is one continuation I don't think should have happened. It doesn't read in the least like Christie. She tries to get these intricate plots b..."

I would much prefer an undiscovered Agatha Christie short story or a play rather than someone taking Poirot and making their own novels. Agatha Christie had a gift for the way she crafted her mysteries and not everyone has that. There is a difference between a intricate plot versus a complicated one.

By the way, I know I heard that user name 'Pghfan' from somewhere . . . . . I remember you on the A&E message forums when there was a Poirot message board there. You probably don't remember me but my name on that board at the time was 'LovesMysteries'. I used to host the book discussions.

[Susan]

The Poirot books are, in my opinion, a cynical money making exercise. Sophie Hannah virtually admitted she was not a fan and knew little about Poirot. With the Wimsey books (which I haven't read, but which have generally good reception) the author, Jill Paton Walsh, IS a fan and says she tries to write in keeping with the originals.

[Hilary (A Wytch's Book Review)]

Hmm the first Jill Paton Walsh ones I liked but as she went on they seemed to get worse - I haven't tried the new Poirot ones and by the sounds of it I maybe shouldn't!

[Mark Pghfan]

Lovesmysteries: I do remember you and that was indeed me on the old A&E boards! I'm happy to have found this group to discuss things. A few of us from the old days are also on a group here on Goodreads called "Parlor PIs", if you want to take a look.

[Michelle]

I didn't mind the Sophie Hannah ones so much, have read both, but they didn't measure up to Christie. I agree with Pfghan says and also the point Susan made about Poirot taking fresh air, that didn't ring true to me. But she isn't a bad writer and it's a decent enough story. Perhaps I like that better than P D James's Pemberley as I like Sophie Hannah's own books but not really got on with P D James although I only read a couple some years ago before I started properly enjoying mystery/thrillers so I may revisit.

I did like Jill Paton Walsh Wimsey books, I did feel they moved the characters on and I enjoyed them. Less so her own Imogen Quy mysteries, good but they felt a little old fashioned to me. Worth a read though.

[Christine PNW]

I think that Hallowe'en Party is one of the better books from Christie's late career books. Third Girl is, to me, frankly awful and at the absolute bottom of her novels, with one of the most preposterous solutions that Christie ever invented, along with Passenger to Frankfurt, which I read over the summer and which qualifies as one of the worst books I've read in my entire life. I've also heard that Postern of Fate is simply terrible.

Many of her books set in the sixties feel like she is just yelling at everyone to get off her lawn - she, like Poirot, did not do well with the changing social mores.

The treatment of Joyce reminds me a lot of the way that Christie treated poor Ruby Keene in The Body in the Library. She had a narrow path that women were supposed to tread, and characters who strayed from that path were treated very unsympathetically. Joyce was neither a pretty nor a charming child.

Back to the mystery, though, I will say that one of things that I do admire about Christie is that she is perfectly capable of making her female murderesses every bit as cold-hearted as her male characters.

I haven't read the Sophie Hannah books, so I'm interested to hear the perspective on them.

[LovesMysteries]

MoonLight Reader, Agatha Christie surely wasn't afraid to make her female murderesses cold-hearted.... and thank goodness she wasn't! Actually she wasn't afraid to take risks in her writing. She took certain risks that other mystery writers wouldn't dared to have tread. But I'm glad that she made her female murderesses just as cold-hearted and cold-blooded as the male characters. . . . sometimes they are even more cold-hearted.

Warning, the spoilers ahead are a reveal to another Agatha Christie book. . . .

(view spoiler)[In 'After The Funeral' the way that Cora Lansquenet died was very horrific and very cold-blooded, even though she was already drugged. To imagine a woman to commit a crime like that -- a bloody, messy crime at that is disturbing... (hide spoiler)]

[Susan]

Christie certainly did not cope well with the changing world as she got older, but I find Poirot's confusion about modern life quite endearing. I could not imagine him dressing comfortably :)

[LovesMysteries]

Susan wrote: "Christie certainly did not cope well with the changing world as she got older, but I find Poirot's confusion about modern life quite endearing. I could not imagine him dressing comfortably :)"

I think Christie came to grips and accepted the fact that England changed but not to the point that she refrained from speaking her mind and being brutally honest with some of the disapproval she had for it. She wasn't embracing the times with glee but she wasn't repudiating the status quo either. But she was willing to move forward. And she did.

[Suki]

I enjoyed Hallowe'en Party very much. It was disheartening at the callousness everyone seemed to feel towards poor Joyce, but the thing I found really shocking was towards the end of the book when Poirot calls Ariadne to bring Judith and Miranda to London, and Judith says she is considering leaving Miranda with the Reynolds. !!! This is a family who has just lost TWO of their children- a) Miranda could be in serious danger if she stays with them, and b) again!! these people have just lost two of their children!!- chances are, they are not especially interested in babysitting somebody else's kid right now!!! I thought that whole bit was really weird, and it made me really dislike Judith.

[Susan]

Well, I can see your point, Suki, but it was a different world then - even as late as the time this was set. I remember my mother telling me that, during the war, she was evacuated and then, like a lot of children in London, she returned to the city after the 'phoney war' and was around during the blitz. She was then sent, during a very bad period, to stay with a relative who had lost her own child during the bombing and who had room. That seems particularly insensitive now, but I really feel people were just practical then - above all else- and that they just didn't show their feelings. The English are particularly good at covering up their feelings! If a relative said, can my daughter please come and stay in your dead child's room - even if their instinct had been, well, no, I would rather they didn't, they probably would not have said it.... Besides, empty rooms were requisitioned by the government for whatever reason - in fact, I recall reading in a book about Bletchley that people were billeted in locals rooms, even if they objected. Perhaps a relative was the lesser evil of those who could have been given the room, even if it must have been hard to have another child stay there?

One of the things you have to accept as a reader when reading Golden Age mysteries is that we cannot impose our thoughts and reality on that era. They thought differently, they acted differently - not always better, by any means, with the casual racism and sexism that is openly expressed - but differently. One of the things that wealthy parents in England have always excelled in is getting other people to care for their children :)

[Suki]

Susan wrote: "Well, I can see your point, Suki, but it was a different world then - even as late as the time this was set. I remember my mother telling me that, during the war, she was evacuated and then, like a..."

Susan, I appreciate your point about Golden Age mysteries and times being different; however, this book was written and set in the late 1960s; maybe things were different in upper class Britain, but I still find the behavior towards the Reynolds family to be remarkably cold- no one even visited the mother to offer condolences! I was a young child at the time this book was set, and normal people did not behave this way. (Although there is always someone who can be counted on to dump their children on others!) :)

[Sandy]

Perhaps the coldness was a reflection of Christe's disinterest in children and motherhood?

[Susan]

Yes, I suppose I meant more Christie's attitudes than the time. It was obvious that she was not overly impressed with the Sixties, while Poirot is certainly still firmly in the 1930's. It is just that many GA novels seem to have these kind of attitudes firmly in place and Poirot was just her mouthpiece. She certainly was quite happy for her daughter to be in school while she went travelling, but I think most of us now want to share those kind of experiences with our children.