- Agatha Christie
Be warned, I will be talking about the end of the book.
I like to think that I am an observant person. In fact, I am really just waiting in anonymity until I am plucked from my life of obscurity by MI5 or any special spy force to become their chief of Observations. I would be useless as a normal spy though, because I am not ruthless enough. I can't even invade a country when playing Civilization on the computer because the little computer generated screaming voices rack me with guilt. So I am definitely not cut out to be a "By any means!" person, but sit me down in a crowed area and I could notice and remember a lot of interesting things that are happening and also many very mundane things.
It frustrates me on TV shows when the police are questioning witnesses of a crime and the witnesses are so vague with their answers.
"Oh yeah," they say, "he was man all right, or actually, perhaps, a tall girl. Yeah, he or she robbed the bank right in front of me, but all I can tell you is that they may have had a hoodie on, maybe. Can't remember anything else about them though."
Come on. Really?
In the book Sparkling Cyanide by Agatha Christie the murder is finally solved after it is proved that the majority of characters are clod-polls and useless when it comes to anything to do with observation.
I love Agatha Christie's novels, I think I have read all of them and many of them many times over. I think what keeps on drawing me back to Sparkling Cyanide is the fact that I think I could have solved the mystery on the spot, surely it would have been obvious?
In the novel the real confusion arises when the murderers rely on the characters ability to be observant. Silly murderers. My advice to them, never rely on people to act logical when you want them to most.
The scenario in brief: There are seven party goers sitting having tea at a circular table in a restaurant. The murderers plan to knock off Iris who is seated next to innocent George. While all the party goers are dancing, one of the murderers slip cyanide into Iris's glass, so far, so good. The jolly dancers return to the table and innocent George quaffs down his drink. He then clutches at his throat and falls down dead. George has in fact died from the cyanide that was placed in Iris's glass. Everyone, including the murderers are shocked. This occurs because a flighty waiter accidentally places Iris's bag one seat further along then where she was originally seated. Iris just makes a bee line for her bag when she returns from dancing thus causing the entire table to move one seat further round then before and George sits down to cyanide surprise while Iris has the "brew that is true".
My problem with this scenario is this; surely, I mean surely, even if your bag was positioned at a different seat you would be still aware that you are facing in a different direction. You would be able to see tables that you hadn't before, people from different angles your whole point of view would have been affected. I can say I certainly would have realised I was in a different place. Is it just me? or are you all nodding your heads and saying "Here, here!"
I love Agatha Christie and I enjoy this book. However, I can't believe that in a group of seven people, no one would notice they had moved places.
