Monday, 4 June 2018

And where, MS CHRISTIE, are YOUR DEFENDERS?!?!?


   
Is Poirot GOOD?  Or is he as EVIL
as his malignant author?? 
I do this at the risk of getting the very response I've been waiting for.    So be it.
    Thing is, I'm confused.  For the last ...year or so...maybe a bit less,  I've been on an ANTI-AGATHA CHRISTIE tangent.  Ragging on the woman whenever the mood hit me.  See,  I have a hard time respecting an author whose only reason for creating a character is to (hopefully) ride on the popularity of a super-popular author and character  of the same genre and then treating that character with HATRED  for NO apparent reason.  And so, I've upped the ante and write with contempt for that woman at every turn.  She deserves it.
Agatha Christie 
   Only today, I read a quote by Poirot, as written by that HEARTLESS, MALEVOLENT  BITCH, where Poirot snitted about Hastings in such a way that would make me, ( if I were Hastings)  tell him to SOD OFF and then walk off,  had I learned of this uppity attitude.  Then again, Christie's HATRED was like a cancer that spread through the body of the 'work'  so many praise her for.   So help me, I wish I could understand why!

      And therein lies the reason for this post. 
     As I may have done, in other posts,  I'm asking....  ๐Ÿ™BEGGING,  in fact,  to hear from LOYALISTS of this woman's poisonous writings.  PLEADING them  to step forward and defend her, if she can be defended at all.  My God, I read one blurb and I'm sick!  If the scope of her novels are like this,  you people are ingesting literary Strychnine ! HOW either Poirot or that BITCH even has a fan-base is a MYSTERY to make the origins of the universe come off as easy as basic math!   And how the writers of the series  ( "Poirot"  )  turned this hateful creature into someone who is loved is MIRACLE of BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS!  (Cue Handel's HALLELUJAH chorus!)  Mind you, in "Being Poirot"  an award winning crime author (from Belgium) insisted that it was to DAVID SUCHET'S credit that Poirot became so well loved.   It would have to be,  because it sure as HELL wasn't to christie's!

   I'm SOOO NOT getting this!!!!   Nor, unfortunately, am I getting any help in figuring it out!

   Madame Christie, where ARE your DEFENDERS?!?!?  Those who sing your praises,  (for a character you wished you'd never created)  and devour this creative sewage like it's a steak dinner!  The ONLY way an agatha christie novel will EVER get into my home is if ;   A) it's owned by someone I invite over or ; B)  the manufacturers of TOILET PAPER go on strike!
     I speak as a  STRIDENT Christie DETRACTOR who LOATHES this DETESTABLE female with every fiber of my being and am NOT afraid to admit it.    Never did I imagine hating a DEAD person as much as I UTTERLY DESPISE AGATHA CHRISTIE!๐Ÿคฎ
   So, WHY,  AGATHA LOYALISTS do you NOT DEFEND this author whom you hail and herald,  in spite of  her vile treatment of a character who, in all honesty, would have been better off kept to a longhand draft and then forgotten.  Just as the children of irresponsible women may well have been better off in the medical containment units of an abortion clinic.
This child was created and killed by a thoughtless woman. 





Thanks to Kevin Elyot,
a wrong was made made right




        In the words of Stephen King's Pet Semetary, "Sometimes DEAD is BETTER"   Especially when the alternative is life with someone who couldn't give a damn about you. 

Sunday, 15 April 2018

Curtain: A Study in Conflict

  A while back ago, while meandering over my Pinterest site , I happened upon a picture of Poirot, in the last scene of Curtain. He's sitting at a desk in his room, writing the letter Hastings would receive from Poirot's lawyer . 
   The caption, however, was what floored me.  It was part of an article or critique of the film, Curtain;  Poirot's Last Case,  where ,Poirot is said to have committed suicide after turning murderer.


Poirot's Confession


     And I'm like,  WHAT?!?  What movie was this person watching?!

     Maybe it was just my frame of mood at the time I read it, but it seemed like the writer was royally p.o.'d at Poirot for not using his famous  'little grey cells'  to find a way around dealing with Styles'  Sociopath . A few fans were ticked off, in fact, but I'm not sure why.   Had they taken the time to consider the matter carefully, how COULD Poirot have dealt with the situation any differently? 

   Well, okay, he could have said,  "Forget this! I'm going to Clairage's!"   And why not?   For the sake of making the point, Poirot wasn't commissioned to find a killer that no one even knew was in their midst. He was in his late 70's and dying of a heart condition on top of everything else!   He didn't need the aggravation of trying to work out a case when he was at less than his best.

   Thing, though, was that Poirot had been investigating some very bizarre deaths and  needed to get to the bottom of the situation. Call it  'force of habit'  or a sense of justice that would not permit the retired and ailing detective to rest without dealing with it.  To that end, Poirot wrote to his longtime friend and colleague, Arthur Hastings, to be, for Poirot, 'the eyes and ears'  .

   But it was no easy task. All the harder in fact!  Since Poirot could not (or so we were lead to believe)  do many of the things he was so used to doing, in investigating a case, he was extra testy with Hastings'  inability to separate the victims from the killer. 

     It was during the   'dinner party from Hell' , as I call it,  where Poirot discovered who the killer was.  Nervy as you please, he sat across from Judith Hastings; baiting her to put up or shut up, concerning her views on Mercy Killing. Safest wager puts money on the killer's HOPING Judith  would put  a 'merciful'  end to Poirot's 'suffering'  and get him out of the killer's way at the same time!  You don't exactly have to be gifted with too many 'little grey cells to come to that conclusion.

    I mentioned Poirot's snippiness with Hastings'  and his seeming inability to separate the victims from the killer.  The other reason, more obvious, was Poirot's fear that he would die before he could bring down the killer.


~~~~~~~~
    To those who insist that Poirot was a MURDERER, let me ask you;  WHAT WOULD YOU  HAVE DONE IN HIS PLACE?
~~~~~~~~


   The true killer, for all his sociopathic evil was good at what he did!  I mean  GOOD, on a level equal with Poirot, himself, which Poirot as much as admitted, to the monster, himself.  This killer was just about made of Teflon! NOTHING legal would stick on him because he didn't actually touch anyone! His Modus Operandi  was to let people take him into their confidence;  tell him their problems, and then use that knowledge to provoke his new acquaintances to act on their truest desires.

  •      He provoked the co-owner of Styles court to shoot his busy-body wife for not letting him open a bottle of Port for himself and his friends. 
  • He provoked Hastings to killing a philandering creep who was after his daughter.  Had it not been for Poirot's sneaking sleeping medication into a hot chocolate that he persuaded his longtime friend to drink,  Hastings would have hanged for killing an innocent man. 
 
  In addition to the murders Poirot was already aware of,  (in clippings he showed killer in their first confrontation)  the new murders, and the scene he witnessed between Hastings' daughter and the killer, himself, there could be no doubt as to HOW the killer went about committing his crimes. Again, the police...the LAW couldn't touch this man.  And yet, unless he was dealt with, effectively , he would continue on in his merry little scheme;  reveling in the power of being able to do as he wanted  and the euphoria that the law was impotent to stop him.

   All of that said, I ask  once more, to those who accuse Poirot of just losing it, committing murder without just cause.  Wasn't there JUST CAUSE? You tell me. As Poirot would do, gather the evidence, look over what I've shared and tell me how you would have handled the case, in Poirot's stead.

 After all, when someone is in fear of their life, protecting yourself with the killing of your attempted killer is called, legally, JUSTIFIABLE Homicide.  And what if you know that this individual was planning on killing others?  Calling the police is generally the way to proceed. However, as it's been pointed out, the killer in this movie was an evil GENIUS.  He majored in NOT getting caught, while killing two people at a time;  The one who would end up dead,  and the person, who would hang for the killing. Always, the actual killer's hands remained clean. The one who persuaded the first killer to act on his or her impulse.

   As to Poirot's suicide,  in his letter to Hastings, Poirot reiterated a view he'd always held;  "I do NOT condone murder" .  He didn't WANT to kill the sociopathic nutter. If he could have called Scotland Yard and had the nutcase carted off, he could have died in peace, instead of being in fear that God would not forgive him for what he felt he had no choice in doing! 

   Aye, but that is a HUGE point, which proves  Poirot is NOT a serial killer ;possessing no conscience. Recalling the scene  when Poirot put the gun to to wanton murderer's forehead, the killer opened his eyes and smiled. Not so much as a HINT of remorse for the lives he took.  Compare that smirking show of contempt to   Poirot's fear that he would die un-forgiven! 

   If you believe in divine judgement, then you know that Poirot didn't avoid taking his heart medication in order to escape judgement, but in order to face it. Having already asked /pleaded for forgiveness, he would find it.
 
    If you believe that Poirot was WITHOUT EXCUSE in his actions, I VERY MUCH look forward to hearing what YOU would have done in his place!  

Saturday, 3 March 2018

Dear Agatha LOYALISTS; You've been DUPED!

Thanks for NOTHIN', BITCH! 

And so you have!

   THINK about it, okay?  If you are a christie loyalist specifically because of Poirot, then you've been Royally CHEATED;   Singing the praises of a woman who deeply regretted creating the character she's still being lauded for.  How's that for a whole lot of wasted time!?
    Come on! You know the rant.  I've recited it often enough! How does an author spew animosity like that at a character and still have an audience for him?! Or an audience at ALL?!

   Did Arrogant Agatha submit any articles to British Newspapers, about the Blitzgrieg on London?  Did she have anything comparably unkind to say about the Hitler, who'd ordered his military air force to bomb London into rubble?  How about the other world dictators, who marched across the world stage, in the two major wars she'd lived through? Or did the atrocities, carried out by the third Reich, et al, pale into insignificance when weighed against the eccentricities of a very tidy Belgian detective with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?๐Ÿค”

   Oh Yes, I'm sure many a Jewish family worried themselves sick at nights; wondering how Agatha coped with her burden of dealing with someone so utterly irredeemable as Hercule Poirot!  Next to him, Hitler was a pretty stand-up guy!  At least he wasn't re-arranging people's mantle-piece ornaments! He was merely ordering the murder of millions of civilians by various barbaric methods. No biggie!

Beloved character
 or
waste of time and money? 
    Sorry, but  Stupidity brings out my sarcastic side!

   At the end of the day, I'll just ask  an obvious question, for which hard-core CHRISTIE LOYALISTS can't bring themselves to answer;
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    WHY waste good time and money on a character his own author couldn't stand?   


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Come on, huh?!  If Agatha was so wonderful, surely you can think of SOMETHING to say in her defense! Your silence has been deafening!  If she's right then why did she even bother frittering away her time and YOURS on this vile waste of creative effort?  Of course money was a factor.  Arrogant Agatha wanted the money readers were willing to shell out for Poirot novels, and so she  humored the people who were putting a roof over her head,  and spent time with someone she would have preferred solitary confinement over;  given the choice.

   Mind you , (at least for me) , NO amount of money is worth doing something you despise (a job you don't want but NEED) . Even WORSE;  being with someone you can barely tolerate spending a meal time with! And YET, for reasons I'll never comprehend, christie afflicted herself with this undesirable individual for years. Even more bizarre, she CREATED  (for sake of making the point) the undesirable person she shackled herself to, for years, in the name of fame and royalty checks.

   HER fault,  NOT Poirot's!  Once again, it should be pointed out;  if you take christie's side, then Poirot is not to be bothered with. In fact, this point  goes to the very heart of my animosity against the woman.  Attempting  to make a hero out of a character who was so despised by his own author is an exercise is cognitive dissonance. See also:  Orwellian Double-Think ;  Holding two opposing views at the same time and maintaining that each of the opposing views is equally true.

   IF Poirot is every bit as DETESTABLE as Christie's diatribes against him assert, then the question needs to be asked, once again;  WHY  does Poirot have a fan base at all?  Why do his novels continue to have a readership?  Why was the series so successful?  WHY is this 'DETESTABLE''Conceited creep'  still getting press and movies where Agatha's favorite fictional daughter,  Jane Marple isn't?  Least ways, not since the series finished filming (2013) ???  I don't get it!


   On the other hand, what if St. AGATHA  (all hail HER BITCHNESS!)  was WRONG and Poirot did NOT deserve the revulsion she showed to him?  What would that do to your view of the woman who maligned that character and yet expected readers to fork over money to read stories of a character she wished she'd never created/ remodeled/plagiarized.  That is a betrayal of her readers! 

   Answer up,  Agatha LOYALISTS!  And remember, if an author can't be held responsible for  what a character says, (per: Truman Capote)   then a character cannot be held responsible for what his author does

   No child  is responsible for bringing themselves into the world. That goes for characters!  If the author does not think carefully about the sort of character she can properly tolerate and even enjoy for for the sojourn of that character's life, then the character cannot be held responsible.

Sorry Agatha, but I like him.
{Actually, I'm NOT sorry I like him!}


Wednesday, 21 February 2018

ATTENTION AUTHORS: THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE!


    Okay!  So I've written hateful posts ABOUT Bitch Christie and I've even written a letter TO this vile woman. But now want to concentrate on (HOPEFULLY ) making a difference where a difference can be made.  That is,  wanna-be novelists.

    I speak mainly to those who have it in their minds that they'd like to create series novels.  If you are reading this and aspiring to write a novel series, then the first thing you need to do is RE-THINK your aspirations.  I'm not telling you NOT to write these stories, but SERIOUSLY CONSIDER the potential consequences of your plan.

  Remember, if your story clicks, you are going to be rooming with these characters for any number of stories, so KNOW, before going in, that you are willing to spend time with the group of people that you plan to bring to life.  Consider, also, that fans will be investing time, both by the clock and emotionally, as well as their hard earned money, to buy your books or e-books or audiobooks. No one likes to have their time and money wasted.   SO... If you get to a certain point in your series and decide you don't like...whoever, for whatever reason,  tough!  Look for ways to make the character enjoyable again OR.... create other characters. Maybe, in the fullness of time,  your less endearing character will grow on you or become less important as new characters begin to take over. However you do it, YOU made the choice.

    When you are writing a series, it is VITALLY important
to create an ensemble cast. That way,  if there is a particular character that seems to have a central role, he or she won't be the ONLY go-to. There will be others you can work with.  Thus avoiding the Christie bitch-fest.   The Left Behind series as well and Harry Potter were also excellent examples of ensemble casting, in the books as well as the movies.  As the stories grew, more characters were added. While Harry, Hermoine and Ron were still central there were other 'go-to's ' J.K. Rowling could look to.

    In the Left Behind series, a world-wide catastrophe is seen through the eyes of a pilot who is about to cheat on his wife when he's told, by the flight attendant he's thinking of having said affair with, that fifty people on the plane have vanished,  with only clothes, eye glasses, dentures remaining as evidence they were there.  By the end of the first novel, there are four major characters left to deal with the consequences of this monumental occurrence and what the future would hold. 

However,within even the next book, even that changes.  As world events unfold, more people are added to the fold,  and others go. We learn more about the series'  villain and see his core group of supporters. For myself, I found that I didn't like the daughter of the airline pilot. She was such a know-it-all that I'm surprised it didn't take GOD, quite literally showing up, to convince this chick that her college education didn't mean she knew everything about EVERYTHING.  While I'm in the minority in my opinion, it's good that characters could be so individualized that readers were allowed to have conflicting views.  Other characters would come and go, who would invest the readers in their lives, to greater or lesser degrees. Most importantly, the AUTHORS were invested!  They even managed to make the bad guys interesting. Sometimes even funny. 

    It's in creating worlds  like that which prevent authors from feeling boxed in with their small world of characters. On the other hand, some stories are meant to be 'small town', such as the Anne of Green Gables series.  Not every story can be or even has to be big.   The Anne of Green Gables series has stood the test of time. It's been at or over a hundred years since the first novel was published, and series'  are still popular on t.v. Who would have thought it?

 As for the author, by the time the final Anne story was finished, and Anne and Gilbert began their lives together as husband and wife,  L.M Montgomery wanted to move on to other stories and characters.

This is COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE!   Totally! 

 But there is a vast difference between saying something like ; "Bye, Anne! It's been a slice! But I'm going to leave you and Gilbert to get on with your life while I get on with mine"  versus   spewing verbal poison at a character, for no reason!  I've looked for such insults that might have been leveled at Anne Shirley by Ms. Montgomery and have yet to find any.  Either I'm not asking the right questions on my search engine  or Ms. Montgomery had more sense than to vent hatred against a character that she chose to create.

    And there's the key.  It's YOUR CHOICE.  For NOW.  If you are as sure as you can be, that you want to create a novel series, at LEAST take the time to write a profile bible of your characters. Looks, mannerisms, quirks. All the little things that go into making characters memorable.  Think of it like looking for a roomie. What sort of traits, habits, etc.  can you put up with, in a person?  What can you TOLERATE, and what drives you batty?  Keep the 'batty' points to a bare minimum. You have to be willing to deal with this person on a daily basis.
 
christie HATED Poirot.
How did he feel about her? 
    A point Bitch Christie SHOULD have taken into consideration. Instead she gives him the eccentricity of being fastidiously organized (My God, NO!)  and nearly obsessed with symmetry.  These points will NOT land Poirot in the WHO'S WHO of HISTORY'S WORST VILLAINS.  As far as christie was concerned, however,    she might as well have been writing a comedy about the holocaust, as much as she loathed what she was doing and who she was working with. 

    And just whose fault was that?  The character does not create him/herself.  At the beginning of the creative collaboration, anyway, the writer has the first say.  And in those early days, CRUCIAL CHOICES MUST  be made or you may well end up putting some poor character through hell through no fault of their own.  Is this world so bereft of misery and animosity that you want to create a  hostile working environment between yourself and your characters(s) ?!  A root canal minus anesthetic would accomplish the same outcome. 

     At the end of the day, if the author doesn't care for their character, then why should the reader?  Don't ask us to invest the time and emotional connection to a character or cast of characters  and then drop the bomb that you WOULD have preferred that root canal, sans anesthetic to writing another story about the very people who gave you your current fan-base. You could lose that fandom in a hurry.  Mind you, there is a passel of christie fans who continue to read Poirot novels, KNOWING her disdain for the man! Even more perplexing is that they insist they love him, even when Almighty ST. Agatha would have scrunched her nose and shrugged at their odd taste. 

   You would do well NOT to risk  that benign indifference on the part of your readership.  While some fans may stick with you, because they REALLY like the characters and stories, others will jump ship and refuse to ever read another of your novels.  Unfortunately, in the case of christie, I can't spit her betrayal back in her face, so I do the next best thing and rag on her the same way she maligned Poirot. Every chance I get!

   Taking that scenario a step further, I'd like to imagine being an ex-fan of  christie's fictional double, Ariadne Oliver; envisioning would I'd do if I'd found out that she hated Finnish detective Sven Hjerson.

     Going tit for tat, this betrayed reader would PUBLICLY humiliate the woman who betrayed her readership,  by slamming  a box of her books in front of her, and declaring, for all present to hear;

      "Here you are, you back-stabbing BITCH!  Every last one of the Sven Hjerson novels I paid for and read a few times over. Now I find out that all of that time is wasted!?  Well you know what you can do with these books, Mrs. Oliver! And take your sweet time at it, too, since you've effectively flushed your career down the commode! Have fun starving, lady! Because I wouldn't buy another one of your novels unless they stopped making TOILET PAPER!"
   

    And with that, I'd storm off, leaving this vile woman to consider the full implications of her actions. Oh, she would fret about what this would mean to her career, but would she give thought one to what her caustic statement did to her readers?  

   Whatever you do, as a writer, do NOT go there!  If you're having issues with a character, you can write it in a journal with the note (DO NOT PUBLISH THIS!!) Sadly, relatives of famous writers will publish anything of their famous relative, in the hopes of more $$$!  who gives a rip that they're stealing the joy a reader once derived from reading the stories of a particular character or cast of characters. 

  On the other hand, if you don't want to run into the snag of getting fed up with a character you've been writing about for years, then I reiterate my earlier plea;  THINK  BEFORE you WRITE.


  

Monday, 29 January 2018

CATHARSIS ; My Letter to Agatha Christie

Author's Note:  
   Yeah, okay, I know!                         
  Agatha's dead. Been dead for about forty years now, give or take, But this speech is burning a hole in my head and I NEED to get it out.  That woman needs to be told what damage she's done!
   Perhaps I'm the only one Bitch Christie's anti-Poirot vitriol affected. Then again, maybe there are others.  I hope so, if only for the knowledge that I'm not the only reader who feels betrayed by this detestable woman.
    If you are also a Poirot fan who loves the SERIES but can't bring yourself to pick up a christie novel, for fear of the snipes you're liable to find against the good man,  get back to me. I'd love to hear from you.
    Anywho, this letter is going to be written as if she could read it. WHAT IF is the mother's milk of fiction, but also hope.  It would have been nice if I could have told her, back when, what kind of evil woman she was, but I wasn't reading mysteries back in the day.  Even if I was, I doubt anyone would have read her the letter I'm about to write.  If I was as angry then as I am now...no.

   I am still working on Code Name; Aggie where christie's fictional twin is going to wear some of the payback, but what I'm about to say just HAS to be vented; BETRAYED READER  to BACK-STABBING Novelist.  So, here it goes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      "They say you're supposed to speak GOOD of the DEAD. She's Dead GOOD!"   ~Bette Davis on Joan Crawford  and me concerning Agatha Christie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

January 28th, 2018

    Ms. Christie;
       
No arrogance in your family, Agatha.
You had it ALL
     I'm tempted to chuckle as I write this, because I NEVER imagined, in my WILDEST dreams, being ANGRY, so deeply ANGRY with someone who' s been dead  for forty years, let alone wanting to write a letter to said person.  But , here I am. Angry and writing to a dead person.
     Maybe theoretically. I'm not sure what the dead can do.  I do believe they're conscious in one or two places. Where you are, I won't even guess at.  Wherever you are, I sincerely hope you can see this, or you'll be allowed to see it. I'm writing under the assumption that you will be able to see it.

       You'll notice I did not open the letter with the perfunctory 'dear' .  That would be hypocrisy. I feel absolutely ZERO affection for you.  Oh, I started to, when I first began listening to Poirot dramatic audiobooks with John Moffatt as Poirot.  I liked the character and the books, and I assumed Poirot's  books would begin a long and pleasant readership.

   Oh, how WRONG I would turn out to be.  In fact, if you want the IN YOUR FACE truth,  Agatha, I wish to God I'd never started!  I only began listening to the Poirot dramatic audio books so I could focus on something besides the housecleaning I didn't want to do but knew I had to get done.  Looking back, I could have...SHOULD have just listened to CBS Radio Mystery Theater, Inner Sanctum mysteries or Lux Radio Theater. Or even my cds. Any of which would have spared me the betrayed ANGER /ABHORRENCE  I now feel for you and the sympathy I have for the poor Belgian detective you treated like crap, through no fault on his part.


~~~~~~~   
     "Why oh WHY did I ever create this DETESTABLE, Bombastic little creature?"   ~Agatha Christie about Poirot
                                      ~~~~~~

    I can tell you why.  Because, in your ARROGANCE, Agatha, you wanted to compete with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes. Well, competing is one thing, sweetie, PLAGIARIZING him is another.  Oh what a shame the grown children of A.C. Doyle didn't sic lawyers after you with CEASE AND DESIST orders. You would have been forced to let him die. Fade.  Wonder how you would have felt about that?  Happy, no doubt, except for the lack of revenue. That, you WOULD have missed.

   Anyway, as I was saying, You lift Sherlock Holmes, remodel him and then say you 'created' Poirot. A tad on the dishonest side, don't you think?  That's like someone who adds on a new room to a house and then claims they built the whole house!   Then you proceed to berate your Sherlock Holmes; calling him a 'conceited creep'. Considering you're just shy of an official thief, Ms. Christie, I wouldn't go chucking stones in that  glass house, if I were you!  I mean, you remake Sherlock Holmes but didn't bother paying attention to the aspects of his personality you didn't want to keep! How is that Poirot's fault?

    But back to a previous point. See, I don't think I'd be in such a lather about this if I hadn't graduated from listening to the dramatic audio series to the series and movies, in which David Suchet portrayed the character you treat with such disdain.
        Funny how he got to love Poirot. Even going so far as becoming an associate producer on the series to make sure Poirot was treated faithfully, as per the novels. How ironic is that!?  You sure as hell couldn't care less!  For some reason, that I will NEVER understand, your daughter, upon choosing David for the role, insisted that Poirot be treated with RESPECT! HA!  Again, how IRONIC is that?!?!  She was insisting Poirot's actor give him something he NEVER got from you!

   And then, adding to the hilarity,  your grandson was supposed to have said, on rap day of the last Poirot story filmed (Dead Man's Folly)  that you would have LOVED David's interpretation of Poirot.  So much ROSE-COLORED Sentiment I may die of Hay fever just WRITING this!  Because you would NOT have cared, agatha, whether it was David SUCHET, David Cassidy or David Letterman. Kenneth Brannaugh, Kenneth Mars or Kenneth Copeland!  Peter Ustinov, Peter Boyle or Peter Rabbit!  Albert Finney, Albert Schweitzer or Fat Albert.  How Poirot was portrayed mattered NOUGHT to you because you didn't give a damn about HIM! 

   On that same point let me add;  if the BIGGEST aggravation in your life, Ms. Christie, was a fastidiously tidy Belgian detective.... lady, I WANT your problems!
 
    And I know I'm gonna get called on the carpet for this but so what?  If it can be believed, you have LOYALISTS. I don't mean fans, I mean LOYALISTS.  People who know the hatred you had for Poirot and yet consider themselves Poirot fans at the same time they find you utterly faultless.  It's a head game.  Gotta be.

   I was acquainted with a Christie LOYALIST who painted THE most BEAUTIFUL pictures of David Suchet's Poirot, and yet, she remains LOYAL to you;  the author who treated that man with the loathing one would have for Hitler, Stalin, Manson and/or the monsters who rammed the World Trade Center.

   On a stack of Bibles, Agatha, I honestly wish you had never bothered.  I wish you had taken the first Poirot outline you got out of your head and onto paper and chucked it into the fire. It would have been a mercy to the character, had he not seen the light of day, in book or movie form, rather than being treated like crap from the person who should have been his first supporter.

     The very idea that there are readers who sing your praises, for 'creating'  Poirot,  is on a par with patting Lady Boynton (Appointment with Death) on the back for adopting the four kids she physically, emotionally and Psychologically abused.

   Now I know why your journals weren't released until after you bought the farm. If fans had been able to read the vitriol you spewed about one of your own characters, while you were still alive, your career would have gone down faster than the Hindenberg! 

 You see, Agatha, readers don't like to have their time, money or emotional investment wasted. They don't like having that trust betrayed. I know I don't. Thankfully, I only bought two of your books, both of which have long-since been tossed in the recycling box.  I have the Poirot dvd set,  and in all but the dvd's themselves, your name has been blotted out with black marker.  As far as I'm concerned, dearie, since you didn't want him, I've done all I can to remove you from his life. God knows you couldn't wait to kill him off, even while David wanted to end the series with the beloved Belgian still alive. ๐Ÿคท
 
  I'm writing a new story for Poirot's end, just so's you know.  He will die at the hand of a so-called  'friend'.  Oh, Stephen Norton was good, as Sociopathic nutters go. For this betrayed reader, however, vengeance HAS to be personal.  I'm going to take it to you on behalf of the character you maligned, and used, just for the money he brought you. And I'm going to verbally slap you across the arrogant face for the readers who may well feel the same way do. I might even let Miss Lemon take a swing at you/Ariadne Oliver.  You weren't too kind to her, either, if descriptions are anything to go by.

   And there's another thing... you railed against Poirot because of YOUR lack of vision. Since you basically lifted Sir Arthur's work ; giving the characters different names,  you made his self-same mistakes.

   You didn't add to the the world of your  central character.  Had you opened up Poirot's world and fleshed out the characters the way the series writers did, you might have been a little less of a cow to Poirot because you'd have more people to 'play' with, leaving yourself with more options for stories. Wouldn't that have made more sense, Agatha?

  How about a love story?  Maybe if Poirot been allowed a  tragic love story, as part of  his back story, you might have had an ounce of compassion for him.  Then again, if you had an ounce of compassion for the man, you would have given him a love story. 

  What WAS so bad about Hercule Poirot, Ms. Christie that he didn't deserve an ounce of kindness from you?  You didn't like his habit of symmetrically arranging things?  That was your doing, madame, not his!
 
    If you'd been paying attention to what you were writing (or lifting from someone else's writings) you might have removed that aspect from your literary remodeling job.
  Anyway, considering you'd lived through two world wars, one would assume you'd have something more worthy to snipe about than someone's odd habits. Would you have preferred the Luftwaffe drop a bomb on your house rather than having to contend with the eccentric (yet utterly HARMLESS) habit of over-organization. Irritating, fine. On the other hand,  hardly worthy of being compared, by definition (DETESTABLE)  to murderers, child molesters and/or political despots!

    Whatever Hercule Poirot did, he didn't deserve to be HATED for it.  One of your loyalists insisted I should be thankful to you for 'creating'  Poirot.  NO .  As I said before, it would have been better, for him, if your outline for the first novel ended up in the fire, than he should be treated like the child who would do his best, only to have his efforts be shrugged off, laughed at or ignored by the person who should have wished for (and helped ) him to succeed. Meanwhile, little Jane (Marple) could do no wrong.
"So let it be WRITTEN.
So let it be DONE"
     Is it possible that Poirot got his bent for perfectionism from wanting to please the one who he couldn't get a kind word from;  try though he might. Just askin'.

   I would have been kind to him, Agatha. I'm going to be.  I'm not confined, as the writers of the series were, to keep Poirot alone.  Thing is, I would have loved to have been part of his life, or had him as part of mine. So I'll do what I can to keep David Suchet's indelible  depiction of that meticulous odd duck in-tact while giving the dear Belgian detective the family YOU denied him.  At the same time, let your fictional double suffer for the disdain of her own character.

   Ya know, Agatha, There ARE WORSE people in the world than those who are perhaps overly tidy and meticulous about the order of things.
    As you well know,  you lived through TWO world wars! Am I to understand that, in those world-wide crisis situations, you could NOT name even ONE despot, marching or goose-stepping his way across the globe, to compete with Poirot in terms of the comparable damage and harm done?!

     Poirot deserved better , Ms. christie . So did your readers.  Whether you vented your poisonous mind aloud or wrote it, or both,  you stole the enjoyment of a new adventure from so many!  For others, like myself, you force us to take sides;  You or Him? And even that doesn't work, because while we do love Poirot, we wonder why you LOATHED him and that second-guessing robs us.   You are ABHORRENT to me, , AGATHA CHRISTIE!!!! A thousand times more than you DETESTED Poirot, considerable as that was!  And I will write as unkindly about you as you did against Poirot.

   Payback's a bitch, ain't it?  But then, Agatha,  so were you! An ARROGANT, ABHORRENT , HEARTLESS BITCH!

   
      VERY SINCERELY,
         Johanna Oznowicz

Whoever the lady is, she doesn't see
Poirot as 'deserving INTENSE dislike'. 


                                       ~~~~~~~

     
   "If you are going to spend YEARS with these people, you had BETTER feel for them!" ~Judy Blume~ Masterclass



 





                                ~~~~~~~~~~

 
 
 

Sunday, 29 October 2017

A 'DETESTABLE' Hero? { Who is Poirot to christie vs. fans}

                                                                                                     ๐Ÿ–ณ This will HOPEFULLY be a brief post as I can't imagine being able to tell you anything you haven't already read before. Then again, who knows what might come to me in the process of committing my thoughts to this page.

   For starters, I'm going to get down to actually defining, word for word, what agatha christie  really said in her anti-Poirot rant.  *SIGH*   Alas, I can only WISH that she had uttered that vitriol in front of a room full of people.  Had that happened, I wouldn't be writing this, as her career as a mystery writer would have gone down the toilet in a huge hurry.  Especially if she'd been nervy enough to spew her hate at an event like a writer's conference or a Meet and Greet.  I'm still debating writing that story.  I've got the basic idea. Gotta work out a few kinks.

  In the meantime, let's get down to dealing with the full implication of what the woman said,  and if there was any justification for it.  Because if there was,  I really have to wonder HOW  Poirot has a fan base at all, in books or series.  ๐Ÿค”  And since Poirot obviously does have a fan base, WHY couldn't Agatha see what fans, screenwriters (for series)  and David Suchet were able to find? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why oh Why did I ever create 
such a DETESTABLE, Bombastic little 
creature?" 
~agatha christie on Hercule Poirot~

Is this man deserving of his
author's hatred?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   * DETESTABLE: According to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English (© 2001)  the word is defined as ' Deserving INTENSE dislike' .   And I wondered,  "could  'intense dislike'  be a synonym for HATE?"   So, I checked my Roget's International Thesaurus (© 2003)  and, sure enough, the word DETESTABLE is actually listed under "HATE" ,   as is 'dislike' . So I'm guessing INTENSE dislike would automatically qualify. 

    * Intense:  Great strength or degree. Deeply emotional.  (Collins Pocket Reference English Dictionary ©1998)  

  
 * BOMBASTICUsing  *Pompous  language. {Collins
Pocket Reference Dictionary © 1998} 

    *Pompous :  Foolishly serious and grand. Self important. (same source).


* CONCEITED (creep): Too high an opinion of oneself.          { Collins Pocket Reference English Dictionary©  1998 }


~~~~~~

     ~Hercule Poirot:  Hero or Villain?~ 

     Based on the definitions of Agatha's rant,  I reiterate... HOW did the books even have a fan-base?  If christie fans were to take idol's word as gospel, the irony is, Poirot wouldn't exist today.  His books likely wouldn't have made it passed short stories and definitely wouldn't have gotten anywhere near Murder on the Orient Express and certainly NOT Curtain . The unsolvable mystery remains that they have. The books sold well then and continue to. 
   From there, however, it gets to be even more of an intellectual tangle as some of Poirot's biggest fans are also christie LOYALISTS.  The group for whom this woman could do no wrong.  And SHE said she abhorred the very character they have taken to their hearts. So how DOES this WORK ? How can agatha LOYALISTS love her and yet also become so attached to someone she held in contempt and sniped at, with every literary opportunity?  

   Can a person be a good guy  ๐Ÿ‘ผAND a  baddie๐Ÿ‘ฟsimultaneously? NO. They can play at being one or the other for a while. In the course of time, however, the true colors would come through.  There'd be a slip up. 

     ~Enemy of my Enemy~

    Based on the ancient proverb, of two opposing sides banding together to defeat a more dangerous enemy. Russia and the U.S. joined forces in an uneasy alliance in World War 2 to defeat Hitler.  Question is, how would that old proverb be rephrased in a situation like this?  To me, agatha is an enemy of my friend, which, in turn, makes agatha my enemy. Dead or alive. I can't trust her and so I refuse to invest a second's time or a dime of my hard earned money to someone I find contemptible.

   Christie Loyalists, on the other hand,  are in a bit a bind because they love her for creating a character she wanted nothing to do with, after a while, apart from the financial benefit. Financial pleasantries aside, she would have dumped Poirot in a blink. Or would she have written him as the very villain she eventually believed him to be?  I mean, who's ever heard of a HERO who should be HATED? This is a puzzle to make lining up the colors of a Rubix Cube come off as simple as drawing a straight line with a ruler. 
       
   

     ~Stuck in the Middle with WHO?~ 

       I guess if you're a christie Loyalist, you have more options, even if you come to feel about Poirot as christie did.  You can go with Miss Marple or Tommy and Tuppence.  For those of us who love Poirot but loathe christie's mistreatment of him, we're...stuck. That is to say, how ARE Poirot fans supposed to feel about a character who's disparaged by his own creator?  Do we love him in spite of her or toss him off? " Christie hated him and she must have had her reasons. So I hate him too!"  It's a question I'd love to put to both Matthew Prichard  (christie's grandson) and David Suchet, who is deferential to that woman to a fault. Going so far as to DIPLOMATICALLY reply to a person, who questioned christie's disdain for Poirot with the reply, "I don't bite the hand that feeds me." 

I'm Agatha.
I eat Belgian detectives for breakfast.
  That's all well and good, Mr. Suchet, but what about the hand that fed HER ?  Christie didn't merely bite Poirot's HAND off, she took off his hand, from the fingertips,  clear to the body; ripping out Poirot's chest; heart and all!  
     For all of his research efforts,  that infamous quote should have been something Mr. Suchet got cleared up in his own mind before even agreeing to play a character so despised by his author, even if he was loved by so many others.  
    Near to the beginning of this post, I wrote that I was playing with an idea of a character like christie, who does rant against her own character in front of an audience.  I finally figured out where to put said idea.  The finale will result in a loss but also some long over-due justice. 

   I'm looking forward to getting to that scene. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to respectful perspectives on this literary tug of war. AM I making too much of an author's disdain for a character? As I've repeatedly pointed out, in various other posts as well as this one,  DETESTABLE is a strong word. One doesn't use it lightly.  The very definition suggests as much;  "deserving of INTENSE dislike."That's not, "I can take him or leave him"  or  "Nice guy though a pain in the butt on occasion".  
    The word DETESTABLE speaks vehemently against its subject, whether it's a habit or lifestyle choice.  In the context of her infamous written tirade,  christie didn't point out irksome habits, she referred to the man, himself ;  asking herself why she ever created him?
    Apart from her ARROGANCE in wanting to compete with Sir A.C. Doyle, I have NO idea. Taking it a step further, I wish she hadn't. Sure, we wouldn't have Poirot, but then again, Poirot wouldn't have to be connected to someone who was so hot to kill him that she didn't care who found him dead, just so long as he was found, DEAD
Hastings' sad discovery. 

     So I'll end by asking one last time,  IS Hercule Poirot deserving of hate, as christie's diatribe claims?  Should Poirot have been written out as a villain, with Chief Inspector James Japp FINALLY besting the enemy he once mistook for a friend, or is (GASP!) christie wrong? ๐Ÿ˜ฑWas Poirot entitled to the very respect he got from the series producers screenwriters and David Suchet?

  What say you?  
   Anyone up for writing that story (Japp besting  competitor/friend/enemy) . If you do, I'd love to read it!

Thursday, 26 October 2017

Betrayed! //The Plot to Kill Agatha Christie

  I've said it before and I will say it again;  I LOVE fan fiction!
  And in the case of the most creative writing effort, I've finally figured out how to confront Hercule Poirot's most formidable enemy;  Code Name: Aggie

   I'm currently working on the notes for Now and Forever                 ( Poirot and Virginie's love story)  Now and Forever  ; based on the  Poirot episode,  The Chocolate Box In this drama , I will give to Poirot the love story Agatha denied him.  My only concern is how to write the wedding night scene. How much  of  the ...intimate details to include.  Do I have the bedroom door close behind them and then have them awakened from wedding night intimacy by the sound of a thunderstorm, OR...do I go into some detail, if only in poetic language?

Future husband & wife
        I  don't want to write a tawdry sex scene.  Sex is physical.  'Mechanical' .  Making love, on the other hand,  is spiritual. Emotional.  I wanted to give Poirot and Virgine their wedding night and their story;  with all the joy and tragedy that was part of the human experience.  It's odd to want  'tragedy'  for someone, and I don't want that tragedy anymore than other fans would. It's just the way life seems to go, for couples who love each other so much.  Besides which,  much of what I have in mind for their love story  will  (in my way of seeing it)  have a huge impact on the way we see Poirot now. Tragedy shapes people in different ways.  Sometimes, the control people feel the need to possess, in various aspects of their lives,  comes from the lack of control they had (or didn't have) in a vital point in their lives. 

   The point is, Poirot and Virgine WILL have their  love story.  The estate of agatha christie may have forbidden the series writers from permitting Poirot a measure of happiness, but I'm not obligated to that estate. 

    Describing  my issues with Agatha Christie in a single word, I would have to say that I feel utterly BETRAYED as a reader.  Where I started off listening to John Moffatt's Poirot on dramatic audio stories, now I can't even listen to those simply because I don't trust her and I HATE that I can't trust an author where the treatment of her own character is concerned. Pretty damn sad, it you ask me!

   
   And that's when it dawned on me....in addition to being nasty to Poirot,  Agatha was also hypocritical with her readership.   She expected fans to shell out money to read stories of a character she wouldn't have paid to read, if she had to, because she didn't like the character.  

   

That said, we come to the reason I wanted to write this post in the first place.  (I knew I'd get to the point eventually.)   
   Even in the midst of the constant griping, sniping and whining, I've been doing, I've also been exploring ways of facing off against Agatha. 


Remind you of anyone? 


Question; HOW do I go about it?  

    When I began toying with the idea, I was playing with Kevin Elyot's red herring in Curtain ; where Judith Hastings could possibly be X or an accomplice with him.  Enticing Judith with a temptation that catered to her views and convictions , Norton would convince her to kill Poirot by drugging his hot chocolate with an OD of Veronol.  Hastings (accidentally) hands the finger-printed cup to the police and Judith swings for the death of her  adopted 'uncle'.

   WHY Judith, you ask?  ๐Ÿคท  At the time, she was the closest connection to Agatha. She was talking about bumping off the old and the ill and Poirot fit the bill both times. He was seventy or so and suffering from Angina.   And the fact that agatha hated Poirot connected them (Agatha and Judith).   For the time being, that was the nearest I came to 'killing'  Poirot's most formidable enemy.

   At first I liked the idea, but then I found out about Ariadne Oliver's connection to Christie, and, by and by,  I decided that I didn't want to mess with Kevin Elyot's efforts.  Yes, I wanted to give Poirot a decent funeral, just not at the expense of an already-good story (See also;  screenplay/movie)   With that,  I shelved the idea of the  *Curtain*   fan fiction adaptation and pondered how to bring Poirot and his supposed friend/mystery writer to the point of a confrontation.

    I found it. AGGIE .  Read what I've written so far. I assure you, more is coming.  The 'moral' connective between Ariadne Oliver and Aggie is unfortunate because, for a while, I liked Ariadne.  However, the more thought I gave that venomous tirade of Christie's, the more Ariadne's snipes at Poirot bothered me.  


  At the end of  The Third Girl,  Ariadne snits  about how Poirot made the discovery of Norma Resterick's real tormentors, and  I swear, I wanted to pitch the bitch off that balcony soooo bad!!!  And yet, scenes like this show Poirot fans  the REAL Agatha Christie; and it is anything BUT a pretty picture.  For all her griping about Poirot's conceit   ,  Ariadne Oliver is  Agatha's  ARROGANCE , on full display!  Authors who live in glass publishing houses, Agatha, should NOT throw stones! 

   Like her real life accomplice, Ariadne is a mystery writer, whose Finnish detective gets little respect from Mrs. Oliver.  Sound familiar?!?! Yup.  As well,  Poirot respects Ariadne and would never think her capable of anything underhanded, let alone what she ends up doing!    

   Without doubt, the revelation will anger Agatha Loyalists as well as Ariadne Oliver fans. "NO! She would NEVER do THAT!"  they would exclaim.   Yes, she would.  Given the proper incentive,  Mrs. Oliver would find her  'Inner Agatha'  and sacrifice her 'friendship'  with Poirot to get it;  letting loose Agatha's infamous diatribe in the process.  Thus, Poirot will die,  with that hatred against him branded on his memory.  

   Thankfully,  justice will have its day, and creative vengeance will be mine!  While I can't tell Agatha Christie off, personally,  I can do the next best thing and take it to her fictional double. 

   In a movie called, 'Murder by the Book' ,  Peggy Ashcroft, as Agatha Christie says, "Jane (meaning MARPLEnever gave me this trouble."  

   If this is the way Agatha  treated her characters, (favoring one against the other)  it is this blogger's deepest HOPE that she only had one child, because I shudder to think what heartache the unwanted son would endure. ๐Ÿ’”๐Ÿ˜ข  That Poirot dies, (in my story) recalling the hateful words of a trusted 'friend'  is a harsh reality, but it is, in fact, reality.  
   
   Agatha loyalists balk at my wanting Poirot and Virginie to have a love story;  insisting  that life doesn't always come with a happy ending,  even in fiction.  Do they prefer the reality of having a character die with the knowledge that his writer wished she'd never created him?  Remembering who Ariadne Oliver represents, that's  next door to what she told Poirot.  It is for THAT reason that I cannot WAIT to HANG Ariadne Oliver!   




Sunday, 17 September 2017

Clearing the Decks {Making difficult decisions} // Treading old Ground

  After spending months in a literary and emotional quagmire,  I've come to some difficult decisions and already acted on the first; tossing a couple of pro-agatha publications into the recycling box.  

    I continue to puzzle over how people can take two diametrically opposing sides at the same time, but I'm seeing it in people who insist that, in affect, you can be in favor of the abused child and yet take the side of the abuser simultaneously.  ๐Ÿ˜ข๐Ÿคท  Readers sing a.c's praises like she wrote the Bible and YET claim they are also Poirot fans;  in a word; IMPOSSIBLE.  As I said, it's like taking sides with the child who is (verbally and emotionally)  abused while also defending one doing the insulting and maligning of said child.
๐Ÿ˜• HOW DOES THIS WORK!?! ๐Ÿคฆ

 I spent nearly a year with a character I've grown very attached to, and half that time, sadly, was spent trying to extricate him from the clutches of a cruel 'creator' . I may well continue that, by way of posting my fan-fiction, because too many writers say, FINISH  IT, even if it feels like you're, to quote Stephen King,  "Shoveling shit from a sitting position"  ,  and I don't think I'm doing that.  I just hate that I've wasted half a year , give or take, trying to save a good guy character from a woman who so many think was sinless, while she made the poor man feel like something she scraped off the bottom of her shoes.  
Poirot:  ๐Ÿ‘ผgood
or
Evil ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ??

  The series, and movies have done a lot to help undo Bitch Christie's damage.  On the other hand, while she has any hold on the poor Belgian, even from beyond the grave,  the respect paid to Poirot, by Brian Eastman, Michelle Buck, Damien Timmer, a host of  talented writers and directors, and, of course, David Suchet, is almost contradicted, every time that woman's name appears above his,  in a possessive sense.  Tragic irony, lost on these poor deluded souls, was that she didn't want him. ๐Ÿ˜ญ .  Poirot was a CASH COW to the apathetic novelist, and no more.  If Poirot was a singer, I'd say that Agatha treated him the way Ethel Gumm treated her famous daughter, Judy Garland; even going so far as to get her an illegal abortion because having a baby would get in the way of Judy's career, which would take a bite out of Ethel's income.  Margaret Hamilton (Wicked Witch of the West) was kinder to Judy than her own mother was!  How's that for bitter irony?
    Likewise, I hope my  fan fiction works some magic,  to give Hercule Poirot  a decent life...complete with the facets that he was deprived of, by a woman who should have stuck to her 'day job' in nursing and left writing to authors who might actually care and cry when their characters come to the end of their natural story span/life.   

    Then again, I wonder why I'm bothering.   And then I realize why.  For me.  

   See, writing is a bit selfish.  When you tell stories, the first person you hope to entertain, encourages, enlighten, etc, is yourself.  Which makes a.c.'s writing Poirot stories make even LESS sense.  First, she didn't care for him. Not the way ....nowhere NEAR in fact,  the way David Suchet and the creative team of the series cared for the dear fussy fella. Second,  as was mentioned, writers write, first,  for themselves. When writing becomes drudgery; something you'd do anything to avoid, because you don't care for the person you're working with, then it's time to find yourself another job.   Because writing should be something you WANT to do.  Telling yourself stories; taking yourself to places you want to be. 
King Aslan cared for
C.S. and vice versa.
   C.S. Lewis loved Narnia because he got to meet new people as well as meet up with old friends.  Also, like the Pevensy kids, Diggery, Polly and Jill, and Eustace,  he likely missed Aslan when he had to leave, too. 
    Imagine what it would have been like if C.S. (or 'Jack' as he liked to be called)  had felt about the four Pevensy kids (Peter, Susan, Edmond and Lucy) or even Eustace, the way agatha treated Poirot.  He would have had Aslan just chuck the kid back in the ocean and told him, "Find your own way home, ya whiney brat!"   Thankfully, though'Jack' cared, because he knew Aslan cared and even loved Eustace.  Because of that love and patience, shown to him by Edmond, Lucy and most of all, the noble mouse, Reepeecheep, (and the lesson of having become a dragon) Eustace faced himself,  realized what a pest he had been, and became a help to Caspian and the crew. 

   As a READER, it's no contest. If I had to choose whether to read the chronicles of Narnia or the murdering hostility of 'dame agatha'  , CS Lewis would be the easy winner by a planet's distance and back again.  However, since I've met Poirot through the series,  I feel compelled, as would anyone who'd seen someone abused,  to try to help them.  I honestly WANT to save Poirot from the evil that was done to him by Bitch Christie. 
While much good has been done by the writers of the series,  the two facets of Poirot's life were scarred by her apathy;  his never having a love story, and his last days.  

     For his part, Kevin Elyot did what good he could do, and I love him for it.  I hope to be able to add to the good he did.  That is, if I don't talk myself out of writing and chuck the whole project.  Then again, that's a lot of story notes. Five books full at least.  So, I'll spend the rest of the day working on chapter two of  "Now and Forever" .  It's stopped raining and I need the fresh air.  
Attention: agatha loyalists;
Answer the question in this photo-post
IF YOU DARE. 

    In the meantime,  if you
are reading this post an an
agatha fan/loyalist, would
you be willing to read the quote and question and
answer it for me.  Seems
agatha christie loyalists are as close-mouthed on their literary 'god's abuse of her own creation as Jehovah's Witnesses are, on the issue of child sex abuse within their ranks.
   Well, EX-JW's are speaking up at least. Any chance agatha followers will 'wake up' to the sins committed by their leader against one of her own?