Elephants Can Remember by Agatha Christie

 

Elephants can remember by Agatha Christie

published 1972

 


[excerpt] A tall girl was standing on the mat outside. Just for a moment Mrs Oliver was startled looking at her. So this was Celia. The impression of vitality and life was really very strong. Mrs Oliver had the feeling which one does not often get. Here, she thought, was someone who meant something. Aggressive, perhaps, could be difficult, could be almost dangerous perhaps. One of those girls who had a mission in life, who was dedicated to violence, perhaps, who went in for causes. But interesting. Definitely interesting.


comments: Oh dear oh dear – yes there was a reason why some of Agatha Christie’s books have not heretofore featured on the blog.

I have read all of them (some many times, some a long time ago), and am aiming to have a post on every book, so am filling in the gaps. In a few cases I was surprised by their absence on the blog (Murder on the Orient Express), in others the book was better than I remembered (Peril at End House).

In this case: neither. This is a terrible book. Ariadne Oliver is asked to look into a past tragedy: two people found dead on a clifftop, probably double suicide, but did the husband kill the wife or the wife kill the husband? She invites Hercule Poirot to join her in the sleuthing, - and that’s quite a good setup (though the lack of fingerprint evidence seems unconvincing).

HP and AO go off talking to people, who, unlike elephants, don’t remember properly at all. Two massive clues are dropped into the story, such that any crime reader is saying ‘Oh well it can’t be just that – can it?’

JJ has a spirited defence of this book on his Invisible Event blog here #485: “What I say is, is it wise or necessary to rake up things?” – Memory as Evidence in Elephants Can Remember (1972) by Agatha Christie | The Invisible Event

  - and I strongly recommend reading his post, and the 6 million fascinating comments beneath it. But even he cannot change my mind.

I disagree with him – yes, people ramble on and are forgetful in real life. But NOT in the way this is portrayed. Was it her, was it the other one, was it the child, who killed the child, what about the other child, who had cancer, who had a mental health problem. I can’t quite be bothered to check, but is there a child who completely disappears from the story, a close connection but no indication of their fate?

Mind you this child could be any age from about 20 to about 60. The ages and the years, as everybody says, are completely wild, no-one has bothered to check for consistency. Molly was supposedly 35 when she died, which makes no sense whatsoever, while her husband was close on 60. None of the stories add up as a result of this. But that is the least of the problems.

There is no convincing reason why Mrs Burton Cox sets off the investigation – there might be a reason why she wants to discourage her son from marrying, but I don’t see why she cares who killed whom.

There is a character called Moira in this – she looked terrible as a  bridesmaid at the Llewellyn’s wedding. Apparently.


Not much in the way of clothes, but as we all know (from good Christies and bad Christies alike) it is terribly easy to disguise yourself or impersonate someone – good wigs and hats are all that is necessary. And Mrs Oliver always likes a hat.

It is seen as quite normal that Celia, who might have been 12 (or 14, or… fill in any number) at the time of her parents’ deaths, knows next to nothing about it. But also as much better left like that. The conversation about it would be more appropriate to a discussion of, say, a bad holiday or a  car or a dog they once owned. ‘yes, no-one really knows or remembers, but no point in discussing it now.’ These were her parents. They died. Even with different child-raising theories (being discussed recently on the blog) this seems rather casual. 

Final verdict is: Not a great book, and unlikely I will read it again.

I’m glad to have this one out of the way – there are still a few left for me to do that I know I will enjoy blogging on. Better Christie to come.

Comments

  1. Christie's attitude to the murdered children in Halloween Party did seem rather severe, though she adored Miranda. But then basically Miranda's mother let her out of the house and she entertained herself all day. That's the nice thing about being like a dryad or wood-sprite or Rima the bird girl or what have you.

    I didn't hate Elephants when I read it, but this was after Postern so honestly anything is going to look it. It wasn't a complete disaster but just not much of anything. It seemed much inferior even to Halloween Party and Nemesis, which were so close to it. And on the dates you'd have thought the publishers would have tried to "do the math." I suppose they felt it didn't matter and it apparently didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That really made me laugh about Halloween Party! A very unconvincing picture of children, and the children's party is unrecognizable, the age range wholly unconvincing.

      Yes, it is not as bad as Postern, I hard agree. I'm trying to think where I would put it with Passenger to Frankfurt, which I also hated. The league table at the bottom is awash, they are all jostling for those final places!

      Delete
  2. You are absolutely right, Moira. This one is very far from being Christie's best. In fact, it's one of the few that I've only read once. There are several things in the book that I don't find credible, although you're right that the setup isn't bad. And the characters (although of course I do love Ariadne Oliver) just didn't hold my attention the way some of hers have done. Nope, not one I'd put in the hands of a first-time Christie reader...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh indeed Margot, imagine if this was your first Christie - you'd never read another.
      Even her devoted fans, ie us, must say we've read it and now need never pick it up again.

      Delete
  3. Lucy Worsley discusses the disappointingly weak late novels in her Christie biography and shows how both editor and publisher tried to restrain/edit/stop her, but to no avail. Christie insisted on publication - and lo and behold, the books were all bestsellers, because by now people hardly cared what was in them, as long as they got their "Christie for Christmas".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is interesting, and rather depressing! But you can see how it happened. Reviews of the time (so far as I can see) pretended it all wasn't happening, just said 'AC's great new book...'

      Delete
  4. I read this just once, I believe, as soon as it came out in paperback. Pretty much the only thing I remember was the 35 year old woman married to a 60 year old man, without anyone remarking on how weird that was. In fact, it seems to me she was generally thought of as being just as old as he was. Something about them being "in their retirement years..." Well, if I'm misremembering, put it down to my age.... :^)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are absolutely right, and it is all over the place. It clearly says that those are the ages, but it also implies elsewhere that they were closer in age, and I think had been married for longer than would be possible with those ages. It is a sad comedown.

      Delete
  5. How would you test the possibility that two people could be one person (see Third Girl)? Blonde Dynel wig and Yardley makeup in the country, long black hair covering face, Cleopatra eyeliner and white makeup and lipstick in town... How did she disguise her hands?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can see this one coming a mile off can't you? And yet, if there's one thing I love, it's an author who can fool me on that one: a book where you realize at the end that A and B have never been in the same place, and are the same person.
      Dynel! Haven't seen that word in years.

      Delete
  6. I was much of your opinion when I read this, Moira. Never again ... Chrissie

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment