Skip to main content

the ontological pleasures of Agatha Christie

I recently revisited Agatha Christie, rereading A Murder is Announced and reading, for the first time, Death on the Nile and Five Little Pigs. Coming back to Christie made me think about the particular pleasure of her novels (and probably other whodunnits).



One quality that bubbled up was how the "forward" plots in the novels modify what we have just experienced. New information forces us to go backwards and layer that knowledge on what we've already read. The experience of the story, therefore, goes in multiple directions: forward, as we turn the pages; but also backwards, to modify what we know to have happened; and even upwards or downwards, as the import makes me completely change the framing of the story. Is this ultimately a story about - greed? About love?

Death on the Nile and Five Little Pigs struck me as distillations of this form - as Poirot accrues information and airs hypotheses, we continually modify our answer to the question of "what is this story about:" an amoral greed that leads to murder, reckless youth, or - love? (Without too much spoilers, it turns out that both of those two novels were ultimately about "love;" Christie was something of a sop, it seems.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

February, March, April reading

Crystallography , Christian Bok Glass, Irony, and God , Anne Carson The Dolphin  and Day by Day  (selections), Robert Lowell Dolls , Claire Millikin Burying the Mountain , Shangyang Fang In the Language of My Captor , Shane McCrae frank: sonnets , Diane Seuss All the Flowers Kneeling , Paul Tran Border-Crosser with a Lamborghini Dream , Juan Felipe Herrera Ajax , Sophocles Trojan Women , Euripides The Bacchae , Euripides (from 2021; listed now) Iphigenia in Aulis , Euripides (from 2021; listed now) Orestes , Euripides Alceste , Euripides Macbeth , Shakespeare Coriolanus , Shakespeare (from 2021; listed now) Pericles , Shakespeare (from 2021; listed now)

greatness

The NY Times has run an excellent article on greatness in poetry. It's always interesting to read NY Times on poetry -- there was a fascinating one about Jorie Graham's entrance to Harvard (Valhalla?) -- because NY Times believes in poetry, but is egoistic enough to be upset when it's confronted with something it doesn't understand. That's a very useful quality, because it respectfully/hesitantly calls a pear a pear, instead of some helium-filled blather. Maybe because of it, the article anointed only one great post-Eliot poet: Elizabeth Bishop. I'm pleased and agree. (There was some noise about Ashbery, but we'll see what happens 20 years after he's dead, which means in roughly 10 years. I mean, 21.) The criterion that article settled on for greatness is: “demonstrating the qualities that make poetry seem interesting and worthwhile to such a degree that subsequent practitioners of the art form have found her work a more useful resource than the work