Reading the Detectives discussion
This topic is about
Sparkling Cyanide
Group Challenges
>
July 2021 - Sparkling Cyanide (1944) - SPOILER Thread
Ruthless - ing!!With hindsight, plenty of clues about both Ruth and Victor Drake -- such as his having been an actor and a waiter -- were there but I still didn't guess whodunit. I got distracted by the idea that Tony must somehow be Victor, and that's why he avoided the Barton house. After that, my suspicions careened around like a billiard ball.
The solution reminded me of Poirot's saying that you have to look at it the other way round. It's hard not to see Ruth through dear old George's eyes. But if Ruth really has gone rogue, then nothing she says about Victor, such as his whereabouts, can be trusted.
I had my initial suspicions on Victor, then somehow it got transferred to Ruth. I never thought of Ruth as an accomplice to Victor. And most of all, the second victim business took me by surprise. After all the Agatha Christie's I've read, I was still fooled here :)
charcoal wrote: "Ruthless - ing!!With hindsight, plenty of clues about both Ruth and Victor Drake -- such as his having been an actor and a waiter -- were there but I still didn't guess whodunit. I got distracted..."
Exactly! That’s what I love so much about Agatha Christie‘s writing, in hindsight it all looks perfectly clear, but as I’m reading it’s almost as if I’m lulled into complacency, not really suspecting anyone – or my suspicions are jumping all over the place!
All the time, you know that Christie is misleading you, and you try to bear this in mind, but still she manages it. That is what makes her my favourite mystery author
Piyangie wrote: "I had my initial suspicions on Victor, then somehow it got transferred to Ruth... After all the Agatha Christies I've read, I was still fooled here :)"Christie often has ne'er-do-well relatives turn up when they're supposed to be abroad. Also, taken-for-granted females who suddenly flip and turn murderess or accomplice. But I still didn't work it out!
Jill wrote: "All the time, you know that Christie is misleading you, and you try to bear this in mind, but still she manages it. That is what makes her my favourite mystery author"Yes! I am always entertained, whether reading, listening to her books on audiobook, or watching a dramatization on tv ( haven’t seen the recent Kenneth Branagh versions I’m thinking the older Joan Hickson as Marple/Suchet as Poirot versions).
Susan in NC wrote: " ... but as I’m reading it’s almost as if I’m lulled into complacency,..."I think that's really well-described. I wonder if it's because she writes such convincing characters, especially their dialogue? In this book, I couldn't help going along with everything George said and believed about Ruth, because he was such a genuine type of man. It never entered my mind that she'd be party to bogus telegrams, pretend to phone Buenos Aires, etc, any more than it would enter his.
charcoal wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: " ... but as I’m reading it’s almost as if I’m lulled into complacency,..."I think that's really well-described. I wonder if it's because she writes such convincing characters,..."
Yes, that’s what I was feeling- everyone described her as totally devoted, professional, cool, calm, collected - at worst, I felt she was in love with George, felt his wife wasn’t worthy of him - but I didn’t think she’d be a calculating co-conspirator! Christie did a great job in this mystery playing hide-and-seek with all the suspects’ real emotions and motivations - so many layers to sift through. I really enjoyed it.
Susan in NC wrote: "... totally devoted, professional, cool, calm, collected..."I was drawn into seeing Ruth through George's eyes, because HE was such a congenial and believable character who worked with her every day -- and, strangely, this overrode the parts where we were actually privy to HER thoughts.
Yes, I agree -- at worst a crush on the boss, not trying to gas his young sister-in-law!
Thanks for the reminder on what a decent character George was, thus encouraging us to accept his beliefs and opinions about Ruth. Christie is wily in her plotting and character development!
Despite having read this one before, I didn't remember at any point right until the denouement the solution to this one. I had my suspicions of Ruth but the impression of her having been in love with George was so strong that I didn't think the second murder fit.
For a moment I even considered Mrs Drake--perhaps manipulated by Victor.
I remembered this quite well and having loved it the first time, was a little disappointed this time: the characters are ones we've met before (the super-efficient secretary, the stuffy politician with the cool but passionate wife, the handsome adventurer, the garrulous aunt, the dull husband) and it's weird that we don't even meet Victor.I think the murder method is really clever so kudos to Agatha for that - but in reality I just don't see how it could work.
Roman Clodia wrote: "the characters are ones we've met before (the super-efficient secretary, the stuffy politician with the cool but passionate wife, the handsome adventurer, the garrulous aunt, the dull husband) ..."Loved this summing up of characters. :)
Mod
I'm with you RC on the murder method. I think at a table for six, and even more so at a table for three, I would remember my seat and be suspicious of a moved pipe or bag.
If Iris had been poisoned as planned, then suspicion would point to the waiter who served them before the toast, i.e. Victor.
Roman Clodia wrote: "I remembered this quite well and having loved it the first time, was a little disappointed this time: the characters are ones we've met before (the super-efficient secretary, the stuffy politician ..."Very true - same “types” we’ve seen before from Christie, and you spot them right off. What I find fascinating about Christie is how she choreographs their interactions, like an intricate dance or puzzle. A slight shift or move here or there, and suddenly the ultra-efficient, cool secretary melts into the background, never reappears to fall in love here, or stir up trouble there, but instead the ex-wife or sister-in-law reappears and takes a house in the village, and seems conveniently on the scene to be a suspect…I’m never quite sure where Christie is going until all is revealed! Not saying the murder method is always clear-cut, mind you, or even feasible, but boy she keeps all those plates spinning masterfully.
Susan in NC wrote: "What I find fascinating about Christie is how she choreographs their interactions, like an intricate dance or puzzle. A slight shift or move here or there, and suddenly the ultra-efficient, cool secretary melts into the background ... instead the ex-wife or sister-in-law reappears..."Didn't Christie try out alternative versions with different culprits? This would fit with what you describe. And her choreography leaves large portions of the text compatible with one or more of the "red herring characters" having done it.
"boy she keeps all those plates spinning masterfully"
Never a truer word!
charcoal wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "What I find fascinating about Christie is how she choreographs their interactions, like an intricate dance or puzzle. A slight shift or move here or there, and suddenly the ultr..."I don’t know about trying out alternative endings with different culprits, but that sounds like a useful exercise for a mystery writer! I saw a program recently, I think called “Agatha and the Truth About Murder”, where they invented a story for what Agatha might have done during her disappearance. She’s got writer’s block, and sits at her desk with index cards, I assume with plot points on them, and shuffles them about, as if she is trying out different ideas. I thought that looked like a good system, reminded me of the way our English teachers in high school taught us to research and write papers, using note cards to take notes from sources. Then you could shuffle your cards about to construct your argument!
Mod
Mod
She was my prime suspect, though I also wondered about Iris! Looks as if a lot of us were suspicious of Victor manipulating one of the characters, but I certainly failed to realise he was manipulating Ruth.
Susan wrote: "If we did pick an alternative murderer, who would it be?..."It would be Iris for me, although I wouldn't know where to look when I learn that she was the intended second victim! :)
Judy wrote: "Looks as if a lot of us were suspicious of Victor manipulating one of the characters"Not me, I have to admit - I was suitably flummoxed the first time I read this, so hats off to Christie! I think I was misdirected by the fact that, cleverly, we don't meet Victor directly. Rereading it now, I could see how smartly Christie deals with that scene where Ruth meets him. She really is the mistress of the sleight of hand :)
Susan wrote: "If we did pick an alternative murderer, who would it be? Anthony Browne was too obvious and it is rarely the husband in Christie novels. I thought it might be Iris at first, just because of the odd..."True; I considered Iris but then didn't stick with her for too long since she was quite young at the time (although I know that isn't enough reason); then when Race pointed to her again, I did wonder.
I would go for Lady Alexandra - I think that is in line with other Christie murders.
Mod
I may see if I can find a copy quickly ...
Susan wrote: "If we did pick an alternative murderer, who would it be? Anthony Browne was too obvious and it is rarely the husband in Christie novels. I thought it might be Iris at first, just because of the odd..."True! Makes you wonder if there was a class back then in law school, “Real Property, Wills & Estates - how to write a murder-inspiring document”! ;)
I did toy with the husband as murderer, everyone saying he had been different since the death - guilt or grief? I thought what if instead of being the accommodating, sweet-natured, adoring older spouse, he was deep down, aware of his wife’s flirting, empty-headed nature, terribly jealous, and vengeful? Found out about her affair with “Leopard” and snapped? Or, terribly jealous, but also fed up with her, and wanted her out of the way so he could have the adoring Ruth?
Piyangie wrote: "Susan wrote: "If we did pick an alternative murderer, who would it be?..."It would be Iris for me, although I wouldn't know where to look when I learn that she was the intended second victim! :)"
Good point, I thought of Iris as another, less obvious killer, acting like adoring younger sister, “everyone loved her”! Because of the money situation- pretty tempting, but also because she seemed so innocent and clueless. But yes, once I realized she was meant to be victim #2, I was at a loss!
Roman Clodia wrote: "Judy wrote: "Looks as if a lot of us were suspicious of Victor manipulating one of the characters"Not me, I have to admit - I was suitably flummoxed the first time I read this, so hats off to Chr..."
Yes! Just enough information, fairly and openly given, to mislead, but when you look back, you realize it could be read differently!
Sandy wrote: "I'm with you RC on the murder method. I think at a table for six, and even more so at a table for three, I would remember my seat and be suspicious of a moved pipe or bag."One problem with listening to an audio book is that it is very difficult to go back and check on a point - especially as Sparkling Cyanide drifts around between now, and then, and even further back ... So I may have remembered it wrongly, but my impression of the second dinner, when George died, was that all the guests had returned to the table when George drank the poisoned champagne. But am I wrong? Had only Iris and George gone back to the table?
Because I cannot see why the other women did not return to the seats where they had left their handbags, which would correct the mis-seating problem. And the glasses with lipstick on them, and the way they left their napkins - they would at least be aware that everyone had moved round one place.
Mod
One probl..."
Very interesting point. I don't remember and my copy is back at the library.
Rosina wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I'm with you RC on the murder method. I think at a table for six, and even more so at a table for three, I would remember my seat and be suspicious of a moved pipe or bag."One probl..."
I agree, I think it would be noticed too, if a waiter was shifting pipes, handbages, etc, around. Picking up one dropped bag and returning it to another place is one thing, shifting everyone else’s things would be a bit obvious! Head waiters watch their crew like hawks, I think it would be questioned. Same here, audiobook listener, so can’t go back and check - but I thought that was how it was explained…
I thought it was the whole table turned slightly
This is the explanation:'After the cabaret, when you all went to dance, you dropped your bag. A waiter picked it up [...] and placed it by a plate - actually by the plate one place to the left of where you had been sitting. You and George came back first and you went without a thought straight to the place marked by your bag [...] George sat down in what he thought would be his place, on your right. And when he proposed his toast in memory of Rosemary, he drank from what he thought was his glass but was in reality your glass.'
You're right, I hadn't though about all the bags and paraphernalia of the other guests at the table!
Jill wrote: "I thought it was the whole table turned slightly"But how? Iris sat in 'the wrong chair' because that was where her bag was (although it would then have been next to another woman's place - where was her bag?) George sat next to her, where she had previously been sitting, and drank from her glass into which Victor had put the poison. It works if they are the only two there, and rather distracted, but not if everyone is trying to get into the right seat.
So in the cafe when two of the men ran out , the third moved all the cups around?
Mod
Sandy wrote: "No, he moved the pipe belonging to one of the men to a different place and the pipe smoker sat in the new place when he returned."Thanks.
I can see the altered table working just fine. A number of revelers return to a table, probably softly lit, after dancing and drinking. The first one sits at the place she believes is hers because of the placement of her bag. The others seat themselves according to her position, with their minds likely on other stuff, and then only have a very brief time to actually sit before the host makes a toast, croaks and the resultant fuss takes over.
I agree with Colin - in that setting with those circumstances, I think it’s feasible. And George making the toast, everyone would want to join in immediately, as I’m sure the previous death was in their minds and they’d want to be supportive and polite.
What about women's lipstck on their glasses? Wouldn't that be a clue to where people had been seated?
Robin wrote: "What about women's lipstck on their glasses? Wouldn't that be a clue to where people had been seated?"Perhaps they were taking advantage of the lighting (the dark I mean)?
The shifting isn't part of the 'plot' though - it's the chance event that saves the intended victim's life (and confuses the issue of motive and opportunity). If it had been planned, as a way to kill George, it would surely have failed, or been spotted by someone. I assume Ruth might have realised what happened, but she wouldn't say anything that might turn the spotlight back onto the intended murder of Iris.
Rosina wrote: "The shifting isn't part of the 'plot' though - it's the chance event that saves the intended victim's life (and confuses the issue of motive and opportunity). If it had been planned, as a way to ki..."That's true Rosina, the shift was what saved the victim; and in the rushed circumstances when they got back to their table and George began to make the toast, they may not have noticed the finer details--lipstick marks or even the fact the other ladies' bags were elsewhere?
I know I started this red herring, but everyone's comments have made me realise that while it would have been incredibly risky as a key intended element of the murder method, where it would take one person commenting on their misplaced handbag or cigarette case for it all to become obvious, it does work as a confusion of the evidence, where chance and the shock of George's death means that no one actually does pick up on the shift.
Mod
I agree completely. I got to tied up in the ways that wouldn't work and overlooked the fact it was NOT part of the plan. An excellent Christie twist.
Sandy wrote: "Rosina wrote: "I know I started this red herring, but everyone's comments have made me realise that while it would have been incredibly risky as a key intended element of the murder method, where i..."Very true! Easy to forget, I’m so busy playing armchair detective! ;)
I suspected George for most of the novel, until of course he ended up as victim #2. While I am disappointed that I never figure out the murderer (although it seems obvious after the fact), I don't think I would enjoy her books as much if I did.
Tara wrote: "I suspected George for most of the novel, until of course he ended up as victim #2. While I am disappointed that I never figure out the murderer (although it seems obvious after the fact), I don't ..."Sometimes I can't figure out the culprit even on a second reading. I get so drawn in to the red herrings and possibilities!
Robin wrote: "Tara wrote: "I suspected George for most of the novel, until of course he ended up as victim #2. While I am disappointed that I never figure out the murderer (although it seems obvious after the fa..."Happens with me too; though in some, it is on rereads alone (and in ones where one remembers whodunit) that one begins to notice the clues she left us more.
Lady Clementina wrote: "Robin wrote: "Tara wrote: "I suspected George for most of the novel, until of course he ended up as victim #2. While I am disappointed that I never figure out the murderer (although it seems obviou..."Rereads can be enjoyable to observe the laying out of the clues, even if the surprise factor is gone. But like you, unless its a well known book, or I have read it multiple times, I can often forget the culprit, so its like a brand new story.
Reading the Detectives
Books mentioned in this topic
Sparkling Cyanide (other topics)The Man in the Brown Suit (other topics)
Death on the Nile (other topics)
A beautiful heiress is fatally poisoned in a West End restaurant. Six people sit down to dinner at a table laid for seven. In front of the empty place is a sprig of rosemary – in solemn memory of Rosemary Barton who died at the same table exactly one year previously. No one present on that fateful night would ever forget the woman’s face, contorted beyond recognition – or what they remembered about her astonishing life.
According to the Agatha Christie website, the novel was published in February 1945 under the title Remembered Death in the US. It was an extended version of the short story Yellow Iris, which had Hercule Poirot leading the investigation, whereas here he is replaced by Colonel Johnny Race. The novel changed the identity of the culprits as well, a common feature of Agatha Christie’s rewritten works.
In 1983 the story was adapted as a TV film for CBS, set in the modern day and starring Anthony Andrews (although the character of Colonel Race was omitted). 2003 saw it again adapted as a TV film, this time in the UK by Laura Lamson. Again in a modern setting, it was only loosely based on the original story. BBC Radio 4 broadcast a three-part dramatisation of the story in 2012.
Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.