They Do it with Mirrors by Agatha Christie

They Do it with Mirrors by Agatha Christie

published 1952






Inspector Curry, observing her scarlet shirt and dark green slacks, said drily: “I see you’re not wearing mourning Mrs Hudd?”

“I haven’t got any,” said Gina. “I know everyone is supposed to have a little black number and wear it with pearls. But I don’t. I hate black. I think it’s hideous, and only receptionists and housekeepers and people like that outght to wear it. Anyway, Christian Gulbrandsen wasn’t really a relation. He’s my grandmother’s stepson.”

 

comments: One of her books that promised so well – it has an excellent setup – but somehow never delivers. I’m always surprised by its date, as it has the weaknesses of her later books, while actually being written between MrsMcGinty’s Dead and After the Funeral. Both much better. And a couple of years after the wonderful Murder is Announced with Miss Marple visiting another troubled community and (objectively) ridiculous way of planning a  murder – but Murder is Announced is thrilling and enthralling, and this one, isn’t.

Miss M was once friends with two American sisters – long long ago. Now one wealthy sister, Ruth, asks Miss M to visit the other, Carrie Louise, to find out what is going on in her house. She senses that there is something wrong, and she wants the Marple eye.

There is the usual very complex family there, as the quote above demonstrates – everyone has been married several times, and there are children and stepchildren and an adopted child. It is not worth really keeping track of who is half-sibling to whom, and we will rush on past everyone’s relative ages, to which – well, shall we say that Agatha paid exactly as much attention as she usually did?

The family live in a rundown but enormous house, and share the premises with a home for criminal young men. This was a philanthropic project started by a previous husband of Carrie Louise, and now run by her current husband. All clear? But obviously – once a visiting trustee is murdered, none of the young criminals is going to be guilty (we scarcely know the names of more than one or two): this is Agatha Christie after all. So it’s hard to see the point of all this: the young offenders add nothing, nothing is made of them.

But the main problem with the plot, I would suggest, is this: Carrie Louise is the epitome of goodness, and people want to dismiss what she says, but Miss Marple (of course) says no no, we should trust her, she is not unworldly, she sees the truth of everything. Everyone is shown up as patronising, do you see? But what we actually see, when all is revealed, is that Carrie Louise was completely unaware of what was going on under her nose, in a way that really defies belief, in two different matters. She was a bit of a nothing character anyway, and this just finishes her off. In my view.

The other rich American sister, Ruth, is my goto for my theory of the democratisation of legs post-war: ‘Her shapely legs were encased in fine nylon stockings’ – the point being that her best stockings would be the same as the maid’s best stockings (in eg Pocketful of Rye, 1953). There is mention of Dior skirt lengths.

Clothes descriptions are minimal, though (as ever with AC) good when they do turn up.  I liked this from a dreary family dinner - the author is completely summing up the years after the Second World War when no-one knew quite how formal dinner would be, or quite how they should dress, of if they care: 

A variety of costumes were worn. Miss Bellever  wore a high black dress, Mildred Strete wore evening dress and a woollen cardigan over it. Carrie Louise had on a short dress of grey wool - Gina was resplendent in a kind of peasant get up.



There is an unexpected moment where Walter is analyzing the claims of a troubled young man, Edgar, who makes wild claims about his parentage: “Says his father’s really Lord Montgomery. Doesn’t sound likely to me? Not Monty! Not from all I’ve heard about him.” Very surprising from AC I would suggest.

And then a half-baked romance strand – young Gina, above, is married to a dour American, but is flirting with two brothers (who are her step-uncles I believe). This almost gets interesting  - Gina says to one of the young men

“It doesn’t last very long, you know. Women have a much worse time of it in the world than men do. They’re more vulnerable. They have children, and they mind – terribly – about their children. As soon as they lose their looks, the men they love don’t love them any more…. I don’t blame men. I’d be the same myself….You say I’m cruel? It’s a cruel world! Sooner or later it will be cruel to me! But now I’m young and I’m nice-looking and people find me attractive. Yes, I enjoy it…”

But nothing more is made of this, and her romance is resolved firmly off-page, we don’t even find out how.  (one of the film versions of this book – the 1991 Joan Hickson – brings an unlikely animal into play, which should be ludicrous, but actually worked really well)

50s clothes from the Clover tumbler.

Peasant get up – Clover again.

 

Comments

  1. It is interesting when this book was written, Moira, because as you say, it's definitely not one of her best. For me anyway, there are a few threads of the story that aren't followed up and that don't get resolved (or answered is perhaps the better word). That said though, for the most part, Christie's weakest is better than some people's best, at least in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes exactly - I think we feel the same about that, even though I didn't stress it in the blogpost. Why else would I be reading the book for the n-th time 70 years after it was written? 😊

      Delete
  2. Isn't it the flakey Edgar who observes that Carrie-Louise's dinner dress is darned under the arms? The delinquent youths are there to show up the futility of trying to "save" such young people. Gina points out that they're quite simple - they stole to get money. Resident psychiatrists come out with fashionable platitudes about the subconscious or what have you. I like the cat-doodling policeman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You wouldn't really be going to Christie for anything helpful or revelatory about social issues of that kind. My eyes skim over those bits. But she did have an understanding of human nature.

      Delete
    2. And she spotted the folk who had grand plans for reforming people with Utopian schemes.

      Delete
    3. I am always wary of people who say 'it's just common sense', meaning 'I'm right and you're wrong but I dont have to prove it', and AC did sometimes go in that direction. Ha ha, let's laugh at the silly people who think differently, or think the world can be improved. But she had a good heart!

      Delete
  3. Yes, it's a pity, because it gets off to a good start. I love the contrast between the much-married Ruth and Miss Marple, still friends in spite of their very different lives. And as you say, even in a lesser Christie like this, there are things to enjoy. Chrissie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and the idea of the lifelong friendship based on something quite short when they were young together. It's a pity but I don't think Carrie Louise comes to life - Ruth (who is hardly in it) is much more real. She would have been a good addition to the scenes at the house.

      Delete
  4. Isn't there a mention of Churchill in this one as well? Or is it one of her other works? I did find it striking, her pre-WW2 works don't mention real people like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There might be, can't pin it down. It is very rare for her ever to mention real people, it's quite noticeable. Now I'll have to start noticing whether she mentions them more in later life!
      I remember that in the Labours of Hercules (published as a book 1947, but written up to 10 years earlier) she mentions a picture as being by William Orpen, which was very unlike her. I had a great time finding a real Orpen I felt was suitable. He's a great favourite artist of mine, so I was delighted. https://clothesinbooks.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-labours-of-hercules-by-agatha.html

      Delete
    2. I seem to remember that she mentions the name of an actor in Miss Marple's Last Case - which is all the more surprising, since that was written relatively early and then put away to be published much later. (I think she planned for it to be published posthumously but then released it not very long before her death.) I just can't quite remember what actor - was it Laurence Olivier?

      Delete
    3. Well-remembered! Yes - Gwenda in Sleeping Murder goes to see John Gielgud act. Right now Gielgud is featured in a play on the West End stage (ie JG himself is dead, but his directing of Richard Burton in Hamlet is represented in the play The Motive and the the Cue). She picked the right one - presumably there were other well-known actors of the day who would now be completely forgotten.
      Not a real person, but: I was very impressed that Gladys Mitchell in a book of the early 60s mentions Dr Who. Surely nobody back then thought that the character would still be so very popular and well-known in 2024.

      Delete
    4. One of Edgar's delusions was that he was Churchill's son.

      Delete
    5. Ah, Gielgud - yes, now I remember. And of course it's not actually called Miss Marple's Last Case, but Sleeping Murder. It's a book I like - in particular the set-up with Gwenda's feelings about the house. I'm something of a "house detective" myself, always trying to figure out whether a particular wall or door or window is original or has been added later. I remember many years ago being with a friend on a guided tour of the Red House, Gomersal (the childhood home of Charlotte Brontë's friend Mary Taylor) and feeling very strongly that there was something not right about the ground floor layout. Finally I hissed to my friend: "I think this house must have been turned around. I am sure that the front entrance was originally at what is now the back of the house. That's the only way this place can make sense." A moment later the guide started to tell us exactly that. My friend remains impressed to this day, thinking that I must be a clairvoyant. I once lived in an old house where I kept forgetting that there were only two windows on the south wall of the upstairs drawing room. Whenever I was not actually in the room I thought of that wall as having three windows, and every time I came into the room I was mildly surprised to see that there were only two - with rather a big section of blank wall between them. Finally we decided to build a balcony on that wall and put the balcony door in that blank space. The job turned out to be much easier than we had feared, because - yes, you are guessing it - there had been a balcony there before with the door exactly where I kept thinking there should be a window. So you can imagine my frisson when Gwenda has a similar experience.

      Delete
  5. Thanks Marty - I'd forgotten that one amid the other delusions!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Birgitta: that's amazing, what an impressive talent to have. But it makes sense to me - your neural pathways work that way!
      I'm a big fan of Sleeping Murder too, there's a lot to enjoy. I think it contrasts with Curtain, also written in the war to be released later. Sleeping Murder is full of details of life around Gwenda, whereas Curtain is designed, I think, not to be keyed to any particular time. So for me Sleeping Murder is much more enjoyable.

      Delete
    2. To be honest, I don't think that it is a talent exactly, just a deep interest in houses and architecture; and as always when you are really interested in something, you take notice. I also believe that there is a kind of intrinsic logic in good architecture, which means that it makes sense to the human mind. That wall in my upstairs drawing room with its two windows separated by a blank space, for instance - it just didn't make sense. No architect worth his salt would have placed two windows like that, and I felt that without consciously knowing it.

      Funny, I just remember that Agatha Christie has Miss Marple explain intuition in exactly this way: that it is the sum of all the little things that we know, which forms a knowledge that we have acquired without actually having formally learned it - and which makes it possible for us to say things like "That can't be right" or "She must be lying". (But obviously I can't remember which book it is in.)

      Delete
    3. Well - I think it ties up: it's listening to and trusting your inutuition, and to me that is a talent (maybe that's not the right word!). And yes, Christie says it overtly somewhere, but it's also intrinsic in following clues sometimes. I notice certain types of thing and at various times have made (sometimes unwelcome) comments, including saying someone was a secret drinker, and to someone else about the parentage of a baby! (I am not as heedless as this makes me sound). In both cases I was right, but it was noticing attitudes, behaviour - crime story clues - not being psychic....

      Delete
  6. I must have liked this at the time I read it (based on my review). When I look back on it, it seems too complex, and I don't remember much about it. But also, I do not analyze books so much when I read them, and I really liked the beginning of this one so was predisposed to continue liking it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what you mean, and I like the beginning: the setup is great, Miss Marple sent on her mission by her old friend. It gets a bit muddle in the middle, but I did enjoy it.

      Delete

Post a Comment