Stop the Christie Murder: The Mysterious Affair at Styles

The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde allows characters to enter novels and experience life alongside the characters. 

I suggest that all writers play with the idea of "virtual" literature, simply because we love books and reading so much. 

One idea that I've played with for awhile is a series where "prevention" detectives enter Christie novels to stop the murder. 

They have to stop the murder in keeping with the novel's actions--that is, they can't rewrite the murderer's intentions or the sequence of events. They have to work organically to prevent the death. I allow them to know ahead of time what they are trying to stop, but in truth, the idea would likely work better if they were in the dark and only knew the victim's identity or perhaps the method.

The question, of course, is whether the murder is preventable. Is it a matter of propinquity? Character? Is it inevitable?

So here is the first novel: The Mysterious Affair of Styles, which introduced Poirot. 

*Spoilers! I give away the murderer's identity!*

The novel is classic Christie with supposedly unbreakable alibis, overheard conversations, clues hidden in plain sight, and a very clever use of a medicine's residue. Agatha Christie was working in a pharmacy when she wrote the book (during World War I) and used her knowledge to bring about the murder. 

Hastings and Poirot proving the alibi.

It is also one of those murders that depends on everybody being cleverer than people actually are. The husband of the victim, Alfred Inglethorp, at the contrivance of his lover, Evelyn Howard, wants to be arrested for murder;  his alibi (for when he supposedly bought the poison) will get him off and he can't be tried again. 

Christie isn't the only crime writer to use this trope and I don't buy it. It is waaaay too risky. The police don't like making mistakes, and many detectives agree with "it's always the husband" Lieutenant Provenza, which means that the police would focus on discrediting the alibi rather than saying, "Oops, we made a mistake." The D.A. or equivalent just might follow suit. And whoops, Inglethorp ends up in prison anyway.

After all, it turns out that Inglethorp and Howard are guilty. The alibi is irrelevant since the poison was taken, unsuspectingly, while everyone was absent. 

But my writing problem here is not to warn Inglethorp, "Hey, don't be an idiot!" but to prevent the murder. 

Depending on how much they know, my prevention detectives wouldn't have to do much more than substitute the medicine with the potential lethal dose with a new bottle.

However, if they only know the victim's identity, they will have a more difficult time. Emily Inglethorp is a proud woman who would object to the possibility of anyone trying to murder her. With some people, identity really is everything. See Law & Order UK "Denial." In fact, in the novel, she is aware that her husband has betrayed her, yet she stays in the same house with him. 

Her staying may sound a little too much like suspense novels where the ingenue REMAINS in the haunted house. But her behavior is in keeping with her personality. Even in that first novel, Christie explored how the personality of the victim might inform the character of the murder itself.

My prevention detectives could always kidnap Emily and haul her to safety, but that's not exactly an organic solution. 

And they could always stand guard. However, the method of killing is ingenious enough--kudos, Christie!--they might miss it, at least the first time.

Since books can be read more than once, my prevention detectives would get things right the second time. However, there's no guarantee Alfred and Evie wouldn't try again or that my protagonists would be able to convince Emily that she is in danger. She may end up murdered no matter what. 

And there are other books to get to!

More to come...