Ordeal by Innocence (Queen of Mystery)

Another great book by Agatha Christie! Two years after the murder of their adopted mother and subsequent imprisonment of one of her children, a witness steps forth to clear the man found guilty. Alas, it's too late for him, as he died 6 months into his sentence. That means, though, that someone else did it. A burglary gone wrong is out of the question, so it can only be one of them...but which one? As in several of her other books, Christie focuses on what suspicions can do to those that are innocent. Mrs. Argyle can't have children, and in the way that women do who have too much money (yes, Angelina and Madonna) do, she adopts several children. Most of these children had unfortunate starts, but she doesn't care about that. She will ensure they want for nothing. And while she never tried to make them feel they weren't her children, she did expect them to be grateful for everything they'd been given. And people don't like to be reminded constantly of how grateful they should be. I don't like being beholden to anyone for this very reason. Each of her children dislike her, and the "nature over nurture" controversy is squarely settled on the side of nature in this book. The ending is a little far fetched. I don't pretend to know how police worked in the 50's in England, but I find it hard to believe that they'd give a civilian details in an ongoing case, whether he's the witness and a doctor or not. It's a bit reminiscent of "Towards Zero" but overall, a great read.

Before this year I had only read one book by the famous Agatha Christie, a span of nearly six decades, but over the last twelve months I have read about fifteen of her books; and If that doesn't tell you that I have become a major, yet belated, fan I guess nothing will. The previous fifteen books all had the great character, Hercule Poirot, as the detective in charge. A repeating character unlike any character I have encountered by any previous author, simply amazing. "Ordeal by Innocence" does not have the famous detective in it, but have no fear I enjoyed this book as much as any of the other books. Ms. Christie is a master story teller and this book had me riveted to the story and characters as much as any of her works. Like I have been accustomed to saying, if one has any interest in writing mysteries, one could learn a lot just by becoming a student and avid reader of her works.

What can you say about a vastly successful writer ... what, 60, 70 books by the end? She had something for sure. But this one is lacking. It's sloooooow, burdened by psychological anguish (atypical of the author), and so repetitive (maybe why it's so slow). Again (and once again), there are a number of suspects in a secluded venue -- can you say Death of the Nile or Murder on the Orient Express -- and one of them MUST be the suspect., but everyone would LIKE it to be so-and-so. Once again there is a cold case murder. And you get the idea that the writer is slowing everything down just to reach the "mandated" novel length of whatever, 80k words or so. The protagonist meets with each of the suspects, and mulls and agonizes and questions and the suspects stonewall evasively ... and then he goes on to the next suspect and repeats the whole dang thing over again with the exact same questions and the same angst. And then (of course) there's a SECOND murder, --- ooooh, the murderer is getting nervous, so strikes again! -- so that drags things out even longer and over more chapters. I finally reached chapter 11, got fed up, went to the last, chapter 26, and didn't really miss a thing. at the denouement and "great reveal." Which itself was signaled a bit earlier but was quite contrived.Fans of Ms. Christie really can't fault her after so many successful novels. And her formula holds up nicely in many of her works. But here in this rather late work (1958) the feeling is she was trying to fit one of her typical formulas into a novel of psychological "richness," couldn't figure out how to string it along to novel length, and then invented an implausible "twist. It didn't work for me -- I'm no book critic -- but maybe it would for you.

“Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right.” – Rudyard KiplingThis was my first mystery I have read from Agatha Christie that did not feature either Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple at the helm of solving the case. In fact, I think there is quite a different approach to how the crime gets solved in Ordeal by Innocence.Christie sets the stage in the opening chapter for the mystery at hand. A certain Arthur Calgary visits the residence at Viper’s Point to make a quite startling confession: he was with the supposed and alleged murderer, Jacko Argyle, during the time of the killing of Mrs. Argyle. Calgary, believing he has done a good deed for the family by seemingly absolving Jacko of the murder (Jacko had died in prison), is shocked that this revelation seems to have the opposite effect on the Argyles and those who are close by. It not only has newly opened up a case that was seemingly shut, but it now also seems that the guilty may be among them.I think what makes Ordeal by Innocence tick and work effectively is the claustrophobic atmosphere created once the new revelation is revealed. Now many of the Argyle clan and those who knew the victim well know that suspicions all lie within the confines of the same household, and these avenues of suspicion begin to take hold of the members of the family as they begin to suspect one another. There is a feeling that no one at the property can be fully trusted for they could, in fact, be the murderer. As the novel unfolds, we begin to examine the deep, dark secrets contained within the confines of the household and family that get pushed to the surface. Family members must tread lightly and with caution, and they now harbor secret feelings that certain members are the guilty ones. It seems that everyone has some sort of motive.If there is one criticism, is that I felt like the ending could have been a tad more flushed out, as it seemed to end a bit abruptly.However, overall, another winner and enjoyable mystery from Christie.

‘THINGS WERE NEVER....THE WAY YOU IMAGINED THEM TO BE’ (PP. 69-70)‘ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE’(1958) stands out from most of the Agatha Christie collection, if only for the absence of Poirot, Marple or any other sleuth decorating the output of one of the most popular crime writers ever published; consequently, it has tended to be overlooked. This Review tries to focus on the underlying structure, differing from her other works. N.B. All Page Refs from HarperCollinsPublishers Paperback Edition, 2018Normally, the Reader starts with the crime-scenario producing sufficient characters to acquire ‘enough knowledge’ to identify, perhaps, the WHODUNIT before. the police / detectives by observing / interviewing the characters and inspecting the scenario to solve the case. For the Reader it’s a race to the line marking the denouement. This book is not like that.‘Ordeal by Innocence ‘ opens with a stranger unwillingly drawn by his conscience to a mission; the Reader is faced by what and why. The first real fact supplied is his name: CALGARY – reminding me of Calvary and crucifixion and so to the book’s title. He has to find the family of a man convicted of murdering his mother two years before. The Family Home is near Viper’s Point - an allusion to ‘How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!’ (Shakespeare: ‘King Lear I/4/288-89). The underlying theme for the book is balance between ‘generous devotion’ and ‘reasonable gratitude’. Life may distort these into ‘stifling devotion’ and ‘resentful gratitude’. King Lear gave away a kingdom and Rachel Argyle spent a fortune IN EXCESS so condemned recipients as ingrateful while the beneficiaries saw the relationship as ‘smothering ‘.Agatha Christie (as in other books) ensures the Reader appreciates the role of money in creating the imbalance.Only on P.09 would Reader and those under inspection realise the stranger’s mission is to provide the alibi missing when Jacko Argyle was convicted of murder, and dying in prison within months. After the assembled family receive a tortuous delivery of news which might have saved a life, Arthur Calgary (P. 25) pleads :’surely it means SOMETHING- to know that he didn’t do this awful thing – that his name – your name – will be cleared in the eyes of the world… ?’ In fact, he’s done the opposite and he is hustled away. As the Housekeeper, Kirsten Lindstrom (P. 26) says: ‘You cannot bring him back to life. So why bring it all back into their minds?’ On the doorstep,(P. 27) Hester Argyle states`;’ It’s not the guilty who matter It’s the innocent…. It’s WE who matter. Don’t you see what you’ve done to us all’And there you have the book. Only the guilty can sleep soundly.Calgary consults Andrew Marshall, Family lawyer & Defence for the late Jacko and, at last (P. 46) admits:’… instead of ENDING something I was STARTING something. Something already new.’ Then this IDEALISTIC (Christie created the character!) on P.27 makes this pledge, ’I’m responsible for bringing a new factor into various people’s lives. I CAN’T wash my hands of it…..In some curious way I have made things worse for people who have suffered. But I still don’t understand WHY.’ So a new amateur sleuth is born and Marshall supplies him (and the Reader) with a full background.An heiress, Rachel Konstam, acquired a husband, Leo Argyle, but was unable to produce a family. Obsessed with children she acquired a family adopting five children: Mary, Michael, Tina, Hester and Jacko. Some married: some did not, but all willing to contemn, dislike or hate their ‘mother’ because of her excessive interference in their lives.Another informant is Dr McMaster, a retired G.P. who’d come to know the adopted children.Perhaps his. ’answers never are what you think they will be ….there’s no thankfulness and not as much resentment as you think there ought to be,’ doesn’t appear of much use, that’s because it’s the long view. ‘Mrs Argyle was what you might call a wonderful mother.’ (P. 82), but as adults they feel more confident to make their OWN decisions.However, like Marshall, his information is garnished with his own interpretation. In a way, the doctor reveals the origins of the problems: while the lawyer deals with the fully-grown version. Different versions may come from Housekeeper Kirsten Lindstrom spanning both Family and the outside world. Note this attitude (P. 138) “Nobody really knew Jacko as SHE had known him......And she loved them all so much….so much. She knew more about them than anyone else. Far more than Mrs Argyle had ever known…. Blinded by her intense maternal possessiveness…. saw them always as belonging to her own.’ But was this spinster guilty of mis-deception as she was drawn to Leo Argyle. In fact, the doctor explained ‘how they all tried to escape. How they’d fought not to conform to the pattern that she’d arranged for them’ He finished with the real Bravo Case in which no solution was eternal ‘ordeal by innocence’ (PP.87-90).Is reappointing Superintendent Huish to solve the case a good idea as he is tormented by the past. He ploughs through the material of which ‘there really wasn’t any doubt AT THAT TIME’ (P. 58) .Will he be set on rebuilding his own reputation? As before, the police saw the above group as the key suspects in a ‘shut-down house’, the author has produced a pool from which they can get their catch.Firstly, there are comments by characters on characters – a rather dubious form of assessment. Nobody knew that Jacko had been married till after his death; but his widow, Maureen Clegg reported him saying his mother ‘couldn’t help running people… and he’d had enough of it’(P. 71) whereas Mr Argyle ‘was ever so kind....Sent me a regular allowance every week (P. 74). Tina Argyle, a librarian, encouraged Calgary’s enquiries.(P. 76)On P. 98 Agatha Christie embarks on a CLOSER approach with suspects’ conversation or thoughts. Leo Argyle had stepped aside as Rachel’s intentions were good even if her methods were flawed. Jacko had been the major failure. In his head (PP. 98 -107) Leo rehearsed the history of his marriage with Rachel and how, drifting apart, he’d turned to his secretary, Gwenda Vaughan, and they’d fallen in love. ‘But as long as Rachel lived, they could never marry. Leo sighed...’Donald Craig and Hester Argyle were planning to marry but now ‘she’s a victim of early insecurity’. (P. 111). So Donald, admits looking at ‘that household I don’t feel that any of them are likely to have done such a thing until I come to Hester and then - I’m not sure’(P.113)Mary Durrant supported Leo’s idea of outside intrusion but this ‘passionless creature without strong affections or dislikes’ (P.118) clearly adored her husband – and Philip Durrant had been no favourite of the victim In fact, Philip conducts them both into a united alibi, From there he is a leading patron of the murder by outsider; however he prides himself in having an analytical mind and searches for a murderer within the family. Micky is erratic (crazy?) and appears the opposite to the composed Tina, who actually feels some gratitude to the victim.This Review is perhaps already too long – but enough, I hope, to enable a sensible guess at the murderer. There is a second death and a narrow escape – more use for the brain cells. I leave a double clue to the murderer and, despite a Free Pardon. Jacko wasn’t ENTIRELY innocent.Clearly 5 stars for a brilliant plot.

The recent BBC series played fast and loose with Christie's plot, so - while the basic set-up is the same - the course of events is quite different. Unspoiler alert - it's not even the same killer! The book is standard, but perhaps not vintage, Christie. It's a bit stilted in places and some of the characters - particularly the police and the prime mover, Dr Calgary, struggle to be convincing. The action that begins the denouement is also a bit weak, just before Dr Calgary gathers them all in the library - yes, really - for the final reveal. Having said all that, many of the classic Christie twists and turns are there and fans of period detective fiction will find plenty to enjoy.

The Argyle family have been living for two years with the fact that Jacko murdered his mother Rachel. Jacko always swore he was innocent but died in prison after conviction. So when Dr Arthur Calgary appears and informs them that he is the man who picked Jacko up it stirs up the most terrible feeling. Calgary failed to come forward because of an accident and a trip to the North pole, he was determined to clear Jacko's name little realising the problem it would cause..If Jacko didn't do it.. who did..

Two years after Rachel Argyle’s murder, following the conviction of her adopted son for the crime and his subsequent death in jail, new evidence comes to light showing that he was in fact innocent and so the case is reopened. Someone in the closed circle of the family and its closest associates is naturally going to be less than delighted at this news...It’s a setup somewhere between Crooked House and Five Little Pigs, though this is a slightly more realistic offering from Agatha Christie and so is big on the psychology of the culprits – more in the line of The Hollow – and lacking the anfractuous delights of her most accomplished work. It is perhaps a bit too long, too, though it paints a very vivid picture of the damage caused by this purportedly good news and, until the frantic final couple of chapters (containing, nevertheless, a beautifully subtle clue), is content to simply play out the type of character interactions that seems to have become Christie’s purview in this later phase of her career.The reversal in the portrayal of the seemingly blamelessly altruistic victim aside, there’s little here that will interest anyone new to Christie: I was delighted to see her trying something new, building on the slow-burn structure of 4.50 from Paddington, but even I felt my attention flagging at times. Had this been an unfamiliar author, I doubtless would have skipped a few pages here and there. If your perception of Christie is all drawing rooms and afternoon tea, you may be interested at the lack of capriciousness on display here, but she has written better, more compelling books (even though she wasn’t always a fan of them herself...).Cautiously recommended.

Would recommend the book but not the product. The whole point of buying a hardback edition with a facsimile cover, is that the cover is as important as the book. I have ordered lots of facsimile Agatha Christie editions from Amazon recently and have had to return and exchange many of them as the facsimile covers have been ripped - this one was no exception.