The Seven Dials Mystery (1929)

This is one of a short trilogy the first and second of which taking place of a famous country estate called Chimneys. They feature Superintendent Battle and a coterie of 'bright young things' ei. young English men and women in their twenties from the wealthier classes who work desultorily at their jobs in the city or at the Foreign office and who call all the friends by nicknames they picked up in their youth like Socks or Pongo. These are usually headed by Bundle Brett who is the daughter of the earl who owns Chimneys.

The story takes place in the twenties and and the main action begins at a weekend house party during which someone is inevitable killed so that there is as always a large cast of suspects. Naturally the amateur detectives are sure they can out do the police.

The action is swift and the plot is nor too deep, just cryptic as in should be in the era of spies, secret clubs as well as secret criminal organizations. This not the best of Christie but it is fun. In this case I did not feel that it could be a fair play mystery because the reader was really lead astray in some cases. Still, the characters are all likable and Christie pokes fun at this class of people, both the nouveau riche and the landed aristocracy. ( )

An entertaining read, especially with Ms. Fox performance. The mystery seemed convoluted but was fun to listen to. And I'm going to Hell, Damn and Ass more in every day conversation. ( )

1929, 2nd of 2 Bundle Brent, rural Chimneys manor house, and London; wonderfully trippy 1920s frothy semi-spy thriller, nicely calibrated and atmospheric, still fun; one of my all-time favorite AC novels.

A pack of Bright Young Things is visiting Chimneys, a gloriously huge and old manor house in rural England, in the late 1920s. Most of them decide to play a joke on one of their lot, a terminally late sleeper whose lateness in the mornings has annoyed not a few people. Unfortunately, the joke goes sour when the young man is found to be, um, "terminal" - dying from supposedly having taken too much of a sleeping draught!

We are slowly drawn into the plot by nicely dropped clues left for several protagonists, and get to follow them around the countryside and London as they attempt to unravel what the young man was really up to in his supposedly indolent life, and find many odd things just under the surface. This leads to the banding together of four of them, who work sometimes together (and sometimes in opposition) to come to the correct conclusions.

It's a thrilling ride, but stagey in many spots, plus the solution is laid out at the end with only explication, not showing the actual capture of the final culprit (the film does show this, and it's a great scene). And, unfortunately, Christie here succumbs to a 1920s trope - withholding important information from the reader - while her cluing is mostly fair, she saves one big twist as a final shocker at the end that she doesn't telegraph anywhere in the novel. But if you can overlook those (to me) small things, this is a fun read, entertaining and totally unbelievable, in true 1920s thriller fashion. Good stuff, although not quite as good as the earlier THE SECRET ADVERSARY.

DIALS lacks any true fear for the protagonists - everything is so light-hearted you just never believe any of them are truly in danger; the murder at the beginning is accomplished before we come to know the victim at all and thus doesn't feel that important; a second murder is only slightly less so, and very obviously needed to move the plot along and so somewhat acceptable to the reader's sensibilities. The main folks seem invulnerable despite many narrow escapes.

But that's what a 20s thriller is supposed to be, and if, like I do, you enjoy That Sort Of Thing very much, then this is a book for you.

(what follows isn't actually a spoiler, it's the story of how I came to first read Christie:
Indirectly, this story was the one that opened up my appreciation for Agatha Christie, when a filmed version of it was shown in the USA in the very early 1980s or possibly late 1970s. I fell in love with the setting and the characters and, not least, with the humor and wickedly sly sensibilities of the show. (Superb acting, btw, as well, especially by Cheryl Campbell and James Warwick). I was, however, afraid that all the things I loved about it were due to the filmed version and not the story.

You see, Christie was my Mum's favorite writer and so, being a contradictory child (grin) I disliked her work intensely for most of my teens and young adulthood. I, like many, thought her stories were old-fashioned and dry, dull things. Well, yes, they are old-fashioned, but most of her work has a sharp sensibility to it that lies just below the surface - all things in the lovely gardens of her stories are not necessarily pretty and sunny! She can be rather subtle emotionally sometimes, and I like that very much. After viewing the film I got a copy of the novel and read it, and... well, suffice it to say that I now own a complete HC set of her books... and am currently engaged in reading all her works in published sequence! (again! smile) )

( )

1929, 2nd of 2 Bundle Brent, rural Chimneys manor house, and London; wonderfully trippy 1920s frothy semi-spy thriller, nicely calibrated and atmospheric, still fun; one of my all-time favorite AC novels.

A pack of Bright Young Things is visiting Chimneys, a gloriously huge and old manor house in rural England, in the late 1920s. Most of them decide to play a joke on one of their lot, a terminally late sleeper whose lateness in the mornings has annoyed not a few people. Unfortunately, the joke goes sour when the young man is found to be, um, "terminal" - dying from supposedly having taken too much of a sleeping draught!

We are slowly drawn into the plot by nicely dropped clues left for several protagonists, and get to follow them around the countryside and London as they attempt to unravel what the young man was really up to in his supposedly indolent life, and find many odd things just under the surface. This leads to the banding together of four of them, who work sometimes together (and sometimes in opposition) to come to the correct conclusions.

It's a thrilling ride, but stagey in many spots, plus the solution is laid out at the end with only explication, not showing the actual capture of the final culprit (the film does show this, and it's a great scene). And, unfortunately, Christie here succumbs to a 1920s trope - withholding important information from the reader - while her cluing is mostly fair, she saves one big twist as a final shocker at the end that she doesn't telegraph anywhere in the novel. But if you can overlook those (to me) small things, this is a fun read, entertaining and totally unbelievable, in true 1920s thriller fashion. Good stuff, although not quite as good as the earlier THE SECRET ADVERSARY.

DIALS lacks any true fear for the protagonists - everything is so light-hearted you just never believe any of them are truly in danger; the murder at the beginning is accomplished before we come to know the victim at all and thus doesn't feel that important; a second murder is only slightly less so, and very obviously needed to move the plot along and so somewhat acceptable to the reader's sensibilities. The main folks seem invulnerable despite many narrow escapes.

But that's what a 20s thriller is supposed to be, and if, like I do, you enjoy That Sort Of Thing very much, then this is a book for you.

(what follows isn't actually a spoiler, it's the story of how I came to first read Christie:
Indirectly, this story was the one that opened up my appreciation for Agatha Christie, when a filmed version of it was shown in the USA in the very early 1980s or possibly late 1970s. I fell in love with the setting and the characters and, not least, with the humor and wickedly sly sensibilities of the show. (Superb acting, btw, as well, especially by Cheryl Campbell and James Warwick). I was, however, afraid that all the things I loved about it were due to the filmed version and not the story.

You see, Christie was my Mum's favorite writer and so, being a contradictory child (grin) I disliked her work intensely for most of my teens and young adulthood. I, like many, thought her stories were old-fashioned and dry, dull things. Well, yes, they are old-fashioned, but most of her work has a sharp sensibility to it that lies just below the surface - all things in the lovely gardens of her stories are not necessarily pretty and sunny! She can be rather subtle emotionally sometimes, and I like that very much. After viewing the film I got a copy of the novel and read it, and... well, suffice it to say that I now own a complete HC set of her books... and am currently engaged in reading all her works in published sequence! (again! smile) )

( )

Scandalous though this may be, I think I prefer the Christie's without Poirot - the 'amateur detective' stories are barrels of fun and this was no different. ( )