The Mysterious Affair at Styles - Chapters 5 - 8

[Ally]

This thread is to discuss chapters 5 - 8 of

The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie

[Charles]

This is far as I've gotten.
What I find most interesting is the appearance of Japp. Not only is Christie able to handle two detectives of equal standing in the story, but Japp proves to be probably the most human character in the whole canon. For me, the story suddenly takes on more interest when Japp appears. Hastings is still an annoying idiot, but the other characters have been plumped out. This is really much better than I remember.
NOTE: What I had written earlier on reflection was probably a spoiler. Oops. I hope nobody saw it before I erased it. I'll get the hang of this -- I often read books from both ends and I'm a little weak on the concept.

[Ally]

Don't worry too much about spoilers Charles - now that the discussions are broken up into sections no-one has to read a thread before they're ready to. I'd take it that if they're in this thread they'll have read what you've read or else they won't care too much about spoilers!

Ally

[Ally]

I wonder what it is about Hastings that is so annoying??? - I see him almost as a literary device used by Christie to throw the Character of Poirot into relief. He's the convenient foil. So far, I'm quite liking his 'bumbling Englishman' style...not sure I'd want to know him if he existed in real life though!

[Charles]

Ally wrote: "I wonder what it is about Hastings that is so annoying??? - I see him almost as a literary device used by Christie to throw the Character of Poirot into relief. He's the convenient foil. So far, I'..."

Of course it's illegitimate as criticism to confuse the literary device "Hastings" with a hypothetical real person, just as it is a mistake to confuse the author's persona with the author. But as you say, you wouldn't want to know him. He's as opinionated as I am, complacent, class-conscious, and stupid. Which does makes him a good foil, and the conditions of the narrative require a foil -- recall how many times Poirot keeps his thinking to himself, and once he refuses to tell Hastings because the naive fellow will blab it. The puzzle requirement of the English Classic must deny access to Poirot's mind, and Hastings is surely ideal for that.

[Charles]

More on Hastings: Christie must have found him inconvenient for her developing purposes because she pushes him out of the scene in later books, among other things marrying him off and sending him to Argentina to raise cattle (at which he fails). Japp serves as a better and much more likable sounding-board, though he does pull the forelock overmuch, but he is not a Chronicler. It took Christie a while to free herself from the influence of Watson. Challenge: name a detective before Christie's Roger Ackroyd story who is not given a Chronicler. Off the top I can't come up with one. Father Brown?

[Jan C]

How about Trent's Last Case by E.C. Bentley? It was originally published in 1913 so it does precede Ackroyd. I was going to say the Peter Wimsey stories but I'm not sure if they precede Ackroyd. I think the first one was in 1927 which would be a year after Ackroyd.

I haven't read TLC in a long time so I just downloaded it to kindle. Not free.

[Ivan]

"He's the convenient foil". Yes, I think that sums him up thus far. So quick to discount Poirot, but always proven wrong. It makes one wonder why Poirot considers him a "friend."

[Jan C]

I don't know - someone he can always feel superior to, without very much effort. He's probably a good companion, a good sounding wall.

[Ally]

Ivan wrote: ""He's the convenient foil". Yes, I think that sums him up thus far. So quick to discount Poirot, but always proven wrong. It makes one wonder why Poirot considers him a "friend.""

Maybe it's something like a mentor type relationship - Poirot seems indulgent towards Hastings almost drawing him along hoping to 'teach' or condition his mind towards thinking of the 'bigger picture' or at least being open to more than one possibility. Its through hastings' keeness to jump to conclusions that the reader is 'taught' about detective work too (maybe?!).

[Jan C]

Although, in Chapter 4, I believe, Poirot explains to him how to solve the case : by letting one fact to another and noticing when a link in the chain is missing.

[Ivan]

You would think that Poirot would choose a mentor with some common sense. This guy seems tragically stupid, to the point of being a ridiculous character. Not picking up on Poirot knocking over the bedside table - Mrs Cavendish couldn't have heard it if Hastings didn't hear it - dah, come on Hastings, catch up; but he doesn't. Mr. Inglethorp and Dr. Bauerstein have big black beards and yet NO ONE thinks it may have been Bauerstein who bought the poison and forged the other's name. I don't consider myself especially bright, but if that's where my mind goes immediately, at least one of these characters should have got their by now [I'm sure this is what Poirot is keeping to himself].

[Ivan]

Well, it's seems I was wrong about Bauerstein. Hmmmmm...

[Jan C]

I didn't want to say anything.

I first read this book when I was in college. There was an edition that came out with the first Poirot and the last Poirot. I was just beginning to read mysteries then, I think.

But I didn't even remember this character.

Maybe I just have selective amnesia.

I also don't usually remember who the killer is when I have previously read the book.