Sun 29 Nov 2015
AGATHA CHRISTIE – Sad Cypress. Dell #529, paperback, mapback edition, 1951. First published in the UK by Collins, hardcover, 1940; 1st published in the US by Dodd Mead, hardcover, 1940. Reprinted many times since.
Agatha Christie tries her hand at romance in this one, more than usual, I believe, and while it’s still a detective story that sucks the reader right in, I don’t think that it’s one of her better ones.
Accused of killing the young girl who stole her fiancé away from her, unknowingly so, Elinor Carlisle in the story’s prologue is on trial for her murder. The girl was poisoned, and even Hercule Poirot concedes that on the face of the evidence, there is no one else who could have done it.
Act One of the story is a flashback to a time well before the murder. Other than a cameo appearance in the prologue, Poirot does not show up until the book is half over. Although the local doctor who engages his services only wishes to prove Elinor innocent, Poirot demurs, saying he must only go where the facts take him.
The second half of the book is then split into two parts. First, the eccentric Belgian detective questions everyone who has any connection with case. Then follows Elinor Carlisle’s trial, and then and only then, when the defense has its turn, are the Poirot’s deductions that revealed.
Wills (or in one case, the lack thereof) are important in this tale, and of course there is the matter of the poison that is used, one of Christie’s favorite devices for removing certain people from her stories. It is easy to spot some of the red herrings for what they are, while the matter of parentage comes also into play, and at the end Poirot explains how he knew that everyone involved in the case told at least one lie to him.
While the explanation at the end almost holds up, I think the solution has more than one loose end to it. How could the killer get away with it, you ask (or least I did), and why didn’t Poirot trust the police to catch that killer before he/she makes his/her escape, instead leaving the the defense to provide the evidence in court. The trial is a charade, in other words, designed by the author only for its dramatic effect, which as in all of Agatha Christie’s novels, is considerable.
Christie is as readable as always in Sad Cypress (the title coming from a passage in Shakespeare), but the story is just a little too complicated this time, and for me, not satisfactorily so.
November 29th, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Christie wrote romance novels as Mary Westmacott, but I never felt she had her heart in it. You can look at her books after the famous disappearance and divorce from her first husband and notice the killers frequently turn out to be couples in love, and even the romances tend to be along the lines of Tommy and Tuppence, friendly banter.
This one always felt like lesser Christie, largely because Poirot is offstage so long. Actually the teleplay for the Suchet series was superior to the original in this case.
November 29th, 2015 at 8:25 pm
I just looked this book up on Goodreads. A lot of readers chose the romantic subplots as what they liked most about the book. I’d have to agree, in the sense that the story wouldn’t have worked without it. Others found the same flaws in the puzzle plot as I did.
Luckily that website has a feature where spoiler elements can be included in readers’ comment, but hidden unless you deliberately click on the offending lines.
November 29th, 2015 at 9:45 pm
As a Poirot and puzzle fan it disappointed me, but I can see those elements might not be what everyone is looking for in a book.