![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Christie Again
Agatha Christie's Elephants Do Remember edges forward in long, looping, repetitive stretches of dialogue. It occurs to me that this is- God help us- an experimental novel. It makes me think of Pinter, Robbe Grillet, even Beckett.
Christie wrote it in her early 80s. How many novelists- popular or otherwise- have still been putting it out at that age?
Am I fooling myself or is Christie what she seems to be- a daring stylist, a risk-taker, an innovator, a quintessential modernist?
How liberating to be a famous writer of detective fiction. So long as you deliver the essentials- a much loved detective, carefully hidden clues, a surprising twist at the end- you can do whatever else you like. You can experiment to your heart's content and your readers will hardly notice.
I Google Christie. It's all about plots and cover art and actors who have played Poirot. She draws very little serious, critical attention. But she's such a tight, essential writer that you can hardly discuss her craft without spoilers.
Take characterization. I've read that her people are all stereotypes. But that's not true at all. They may be presented as stereotypes, but then she presdigitates away and shows you who they really- surprisingly- are. I'd like to discuss examples, but if I did I'd be revealing who is or isn't the murderer.
The word is that she's just a middlebrow entertainer. Yeah, sure, but if so, she's in a class of her own. Middlebrow entertainers peak and fall and are forgotten as the world moves on. But Christie is still as popular as she ever was. All her stuff is in print. All of it. That's something like 100 titles. Books she wrote over 80 years ago are still as bright and fresh and readable as they ever were. And, more than that, she's the world's number one best-selling novelist. She tops the charts everywhere, even in France. The only two things that have outsold her- and they've had a big head start- are the Bible and Shakespeare.
I'm not saying popularity equals literary greatness, but popularity on this scale- abiding popularity- is something you can't just shrug off. She's a massive cultural phenomenon. Unparallelled. Unprecedented.
And what I'm saying is it's not some bizarre fluke, it's because she was an artist.
Christie wrote it in her early 80s. How many novelists- popular or otherwise- have still been putting it out at that age?
Am I fooling myself or is Christie what she seems to be- a daring stylist, a risk-taker, an innovator, a quintessential modernist?
How liberating to be a famous writer of detective fiction. So long as you deliver the essentials- a much loved detective, carefully hidden clues, a surprising twist at the end- you can do whatever else you like. You can experiment to your heart's content and your readers will hardly notice.
I Google Christie. It's all about plots and cover art and actors who have played Poirot. She draws very little serious, critical attention. But she's such a tight, essential writer that you can hardly discuss her craft without spoilers.
Take characterization. I've read that her people are all stereotypes. But that's not true at all. They may be presented as stereotypes, but then she presdigitates away and shows you who they really- surprisingly- are. I'd like to discuss examples, but if I did I'd be revealing who is or isn't the murderer.
The word is that she's just a middlebrow entertainer. Yeah, sure, but if so, she's in a class of her own. Middlebrow entertainers peak and fall and are forgotten as the world moves on. But Christie is still as popular as she ever was. All her stuff is in print. All of it. That's something like 100 titles. Books she wrote over 80 years ago are still as bright and fresh and readable as they ever were. And, more than that, she's the world's number one best-selling novelist. She tops the charts everywhere, even in France. The only two things that have outsold her- and they've had a big head start- are the Bible and Shakespeare.
I'm not saying popularity equals literary greatness, but popularity on this scale- abiding popularity- is something you can't just shrug off. She's a massive cultural phenomenon. Unparallelled. Unprecedented.
And what I'm saying is it's not some bizarre fluke, it's because she was an artist.
Detective fiction
But that's not Christie, who I don't think goes into the private lives of her detective heroes.
Re: Detective fiction
The problem with too many detective writers is they want to transform the genre and raise it to the heights of literachur. P.D. James is a prime offender- following in the footsteps of Dorothy L. Sayers. My experience is that the more literary a detective novel becomes the more insufferable it is.
Christie is never literary in the way James and Sayers aspire to be, but she's a finer artist than either of them. She accepts the limitations of the genre and plays with them like the virtuoso she is.
Poirot first appears- as a middle-aged man- in 1916 and is still chipper in 1973, by which stage he must be about 100. His death- in a novel written out of sequence and published in 1975- seems to have occured around 1946.
Re: Detective fiction
Morse died.
Re: Detective fiction
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
An early favourite of mine was John Dickson Carr- master of the locked room mystery. He seems to be all but forgotten now.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I do think I had to grow into her, also. My dad would often get her books from the library and I´d pick up one or another now and then and think "boring". In later years I began seeing what a mistress of precision she was with words when I started working with them myself.
no subject
no subject
I agree! Suchet truly is a fine Poirot, though.
no subject
no subject
no subject
:)
no subject
no subject
no subject
The problem for any novelist- especially a popular one- is that you get into a rut. Experiment would be a way of keeping the work- and your own interest in it- alive.
no subject
This seems like a nice site...
Re: This seems like a nice site...