Thursdays in January, I have decided — to get me through the start of year meh — are going to be books I loved before blogging and now want to revisit to get some thoughts on record. Which brings us to Peril at End House (1932) by Agatha Christie, which I picked as one of my 10 Favourite Mysteries of the 1930s before thinking ‘Hmmm, I should probably reread that to see if it stands up’. So, 20+ years later, here I am again. And, y’know what? While it has a few flaws that I would have been less awake to on first reading, I had a great time with this second visit: it’s fast, crammed with incident, and holds up in all the ways I remembered. Man, this project is off to a strong start.
Recuperating in Devon, Hercule Poirot and Captain Arthur Hastings make the acquaintance of young Nick Buckley, who seems to be undergoing a period of misfortune: a falling painting nearly killed her, the brakes on her car failed, a rock rolled into the sea when she was bathing an nearly crushed her. To Nick these are little more than interesting occurrences, while most of her circle seem determined to write them off as the inventions of a flighty young lady (“Such people will even do themselves grave bodily injury to sustain the fiction.”), but, since Poirot know that someone also took a shot at Nick, he sees something sinister behind them, and so takes it upon himself to investigate a potential victim that no-one has any motive to murder.
As Christie’s twelfth novel, and the seventh to feature Poirot, Peril at End House positively o’erflows with the youthful vigour Christie brought to this era of her writing. There’s no jadedness regarding her detective, her ideas are still crisp, her writing still laser-focussed and able to draw out important plot beats along with tiny character moments that really bring Nick’s circle to life: Frederica Rice looking like “the most tired person [Hastings] had ever met”, Hastings’s blank refusal to see Commander George Challenger as anything other than “a pukka sahib” (Poirot: “Happily, being a foreigner, I am free from these prejudices and can make investigations unhampered by them.”), and even the general air of unconcern that seems palpable in this most English of mysteries:
“[W]hatever one’s inward feelings are — it is no good making a fuss about them. That’s only uncomfortable for everyone else.”
Murder will, of course, enter the picture, but, being early Christie, falls on the wrong head and only throws matters into greater confusion. It’s fun seeing her, at a stage in her career in which creativity must have been threatening to burst its banks at times, consider and then dismiss two explanations for the murder which would become the exact raison d’être of two later books, and if she’s a little harsh in dismissing The Help (“[the] general mentality of the crime seems above her level.”) it’s at least done with the noble intention of playing fair and keeping the reader looking in the right direction.
It’s true that at times Poirot “leap[s] to conclusions in the most reckless manner”, seeing suspicious event hither and thither, but that’s part of the fun of early Christie, the sheer number of directions in which she has you looking — Charles Vyse wasn’t in his office when he claimed to be, after all — while keeping everyone and their movements clear and clean in the head. Not for her the jumbling of timelines to give an impression of plotting acumen: Christie has retained her popularity because of how she didn’t play those sorts of games at yet still managed to slide the essential trickery past so many readers time after time.
As I reread Christie, I find weaknesses in the reveal of her guilty parties — some of them are particularly damp, and this one is no exception — but, then, her focus seemed to be on pulling out magnificent bits of reversal that you’d never anticipated, and the who here is particularly ingenious. A positive slew of closing revelations pile up, most of which you’d have very little chance of anticipating…but, just as I was about to grumble that this wasn’t playing the game at all, she unveiled some very clever oversights of the first-time reader that had, in fact, shown more clearly what had been going on all the time. And, despite this being a revisit, I sailed past a few of them all over again. Of course I did.
Is this, then, the best Christie of the 1930s? It has a vivacity that makes up for those few flaws, and the murderer’s plot is, classically, so neatly and compactly explained that you wonder how someone managed to both come up with it and hide it so brilliantly for so long: it wouldn’t fill a short story these days. As an early entry in the decade that would see Jane Marple’s debut in novel form, a journey on the Orient Express, a trip down the Nile, one of the all-time great serial killer novels, and that inexplicably popular dull one with the card game — oh, plus those ten people on an island — Peril at End House has stiff competition. I can certainly see why I remembered it so fondly, and that’s enough for me not to rue its inclusion on my list. Plus, it ends with a genuinely superb laugh, which always helps. So I have no doubt that, in another twenty years, I’ll get to enjoy it all over again.
The Invisible Event 
I love this one. Such good misdirection — the classic instance of “silly reader, you were looking in the wrong place all along, even though I gave you all the clues.”
LikeLike
It was wonderful to experience it first time, when I was still an ingenue in the genre. No doubt it wouldn’t have the same impact if I read it now, but that’s part of the joy I feel for this: it came into my life at the exact right time.
Crazy the extent to which Christie is such a good primer for this genre. We really were so very lucky to have her.
LikeLike
I really enjoyed this review, having re-read it myself in the past year – it had never been one of my favourites in fact, and I liked it more than I expected. It is very clever and the setting is well-done – more detailed and visualize-able than in many of her books.
Very much looking forward to your other ‘pre-blogging favourites’ posts – what a good idea! I may well come up with the same idea quite separately (ie copy you)
LikeLike
I found myself picking up new books and unable to relax into them, so opting for something I was already pretty good seemed safe. And it’s worked out well — curling up under the warm glow of almost certain enjoyment does make these cold days pass a bit more enjoyably.
LikeLike
I am happy to say we are of a mind on this novel in that I do like it more than a lot of other people seem to, and certainly more than some of her… more inexplicably popular dull ones (of which there are more examples in your list than Cards on the Table in my opinion). But I do think the plot in this one is a bit obvious with a modern perspective, simply because even before Christie I’m fairly certain the gimmick here wasn’t particularly new (did Miss Silver not play the same trick a handful of years earlier? Google is free but I’m fresh off an overnight flight so forgive me my laziness) and it especially wasn’t new AFTER her, but it’s still very clever and fun and certainly at least the BEST interpretation of this particular idea.
This is a book I say is “a perfect book for someone who is in the infancy of their mystery reading and no later”, since I think it’s a wonderful primer to the concept of classical misdirection. I think it’s a more faithful introduction than some of her more well-known books, (Ackroyd, Orient), which I think are a bit too gimmicky to serve as proper introductions to what the genre actually likes to do, whereas Peril at the End House is just the perfect amount of traditional and prototypical. This is actually the first Christie I try to get people to read, not because it’s the best, but because I think it’s the best to read first.
My favorite Christie is actually, surprise surprise, the one immediately after this one. Lord Edgware Dies is understated among Christie’s other heralded classics, but in my opinion stands the test of time even better and is equally ambitious in its core gambit. Hope you enjoy revisiting it!
LikeLike
Yes, I agree. And Lord Edgware is also a title I remember very fondly: again, one that came into my GAD reading life at the right time and had the exact effect it was planned for.
There should be a ranking of the point in one’s reading that certain authors should be attempted: Carr can be put back a little, Sayers feels like she’s more for the specialist…Christie’s great for beginning the journey. Who else?
LikeLike
Coincidentally, this is one of The Fifteen Poirots- i.e., a title I’ve read several times but inexplicably forgot to review. Of course, I know you like it, but I’m going to resist reading this in detail until after I have reread the book and written my own review, for fear of being influenced! I do worry a little bit because people I respect, like you and Libby, think that Cards on the Table is dull (ridiculous!) More bothersome is that you described your young self as an ingenue. Now I have to walk into my last day of jury duty with an image of you in a stylish yellow dress and fetching cloche hat!! The defendant is doomed! Clothes in books indeed!!!
LikeLike
Hopefully you’ll come back to this and find we’re in wonderful agreement. And hopefully you’ll wake up with regards Cards on the Snoozeble, too 🙂
Hope jury duty went well — research, I presume.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re going into deliberations this afternoon. I expect we’ll find Mr. Vole not guilty.
LikeLike
Wow, do I have some exciting news for you…
LikeLike
I have great memories of this (but it’s probably been 20 years since I last read it …)
LikeLike
20-years-ago-this-was-great memories are the best kind of memories. Maybe cherish those, rather than replacing them with something newer and possibly less durable.
LikeLike
I reread this one last year and thought all of Christie’s ingenuity went into the why, not the who or how, which could explain why the murderer stands out (to some). When I first read it, I couldn’t tell you difference between a locked room and closed circle, but immediately became suspicious the moment the murderer appeared. But it was at least fun to return to it and see Christie’s plotting skills being applied to the whydunit.
Anyway, I look forward to your review of The Frightened Stiff! One of my all-time favorites and certainly the best comedic mystery ever written. I’m sure you’ll agree or back in the gibbet cage you go. 😀
LikeLike
It’s fair to say that this is still a (high-level) apprentice work given, yes, the lack of obfuscation as to “who”, but I maintain that it’s an excellent example of what makes the Golden Age so appealing in the early stages. That ending — nothing new now, of course — stayed with me very strongly over the last 2+ decades and reading it again I can see why it had such an impact.
It was, in fact, the opportunity of rereading The Frightened Stiff that got me thinking about this project in the first place. Going to start it tonight, really looking forward to it.
LikeLike
Thanks for the great review. That was the one that got me into Christie. A standout amid her early work. Enjoyed it many times over.
LikeLike
It’s always lovely to return to a favourite book and enjoy it afresh, so I’m pleased this has been such an evergreen for you. Long may that continue!
LikeLike
I read this book a few years ago, knowing the killer, and still missed the motive! It’s a very good book, almost underrated (partly because it came out when Christie was firing on all cylinders, so there’s a lot of competition). I only have two issues with it, and one isn’t really Christie’s fault:
Rot13: 1. Gur prageny vqrn unf orra hfrq fb znal gvzrf, cnegyl ol Puevfgvr urefrys, V guvax gung zber rkcrevraprq ernqref jvyy uvg ba vg. Abg ernyyl ure snhyg. (Naq vg qbrfa’g gnxr njnl sebz gur jbaqreshy yvar, “V srry nf vs V xvyyrq ure…” Puevfgvr zhfg unir orra pnpxyvat jura fur jebgr gung.)
2. Gurer ner jnl gbb znal hapbaarpgrq pevzvany cybgf gung nyy pbzr bhg arne gur raq. Gur Pebsgf ner gur jbefg nobhg guvf; gurve jvyy fpurzr unf nyzbfg abguvat gb qb jvgu nalguvat. Serqqvr’f qeht-nqqvpg uhfonaq fhqqrayl cbccvat hc gb trg fubg vf nyfb bhg bs abjurer, be ng yrnfg vg sryg gung jnl gb zr.
I got this book for my nephew for Christmas. He’s reading it slowly but said that he likes it so far, so we’ll see what comes of that.
LikeLike
Yes, your second point is what stops this being a 5 star books for me: it shows great enthusiasm on Christie’s part, but doesn’t quite tie into the nature of the genre.
Nevertheless, younger, Guileless Jim had a wonderful time with every single element of this, so I suppose it’s a caseof experience as readers, in the same way that Christie would have been growing in experience as an author. The only other book — to my faulty, no doubt incorrect memory — that has the same quantity of unrelated stuff like that was perhaps Death on the Nile five years later…and people friggin’ love Death on the Nile, so…make of that what you wil 🙂
LikeLike
A great plot in this one, only a shame that Christie would reuse the central idea a million times.
LikeLike
Well, it hardly seems fair to blame her for there being only, like, three detective plots 😛 That she found so many ways to do it is surely inspiring…
LikeLike
I remember that this was one of the only 2 or 3 Christies I solved when I first read it. Although, I only figured it out because of the table of contents.
LikeLike
Yes, the first time I bought a copy of this for someone I told them “Don’t read the contents page — it spoils it!”. They didn’t believe me.
LikeLike