You really have to admire 1950s for their marvelous plot devices. Amnesiacs, mistaken identities, and in this mystery by Agatha Christie, a man with a concussion fails to provide an alibi, and shortly after recovering, heads off to Antarctica for a research expedition. Barring that somewhat awkward premise, Ordeal was an interesting psychological mystery that kept me engaged.

Dr. Calgary, the Antarctic research scientist, discovers through old newspaper articles that he was the missing alibi for Jack Argyle, accused and convicted of killing his mother. Despite steadily maintaining his innocence, Jack was sent to prison, where he died of pneumonia after only six months. Troubled by guilt, Dr. Calgary consults with the lawyer of the Jack's family, determined to seek them out and assure them of Jack's innocence. He expects a mixed emotional reaction, perhaps to be thanked or perhaps to bear the brunt of their anger for his untimely appearance and information. Unfortunately, the facts of the case have failed to impress Dr. Calgary, and not even the warning from Jack's sister makes it clear: "it's not the guilty who matter. It's the innocent... It's we who matter. Don't you see what you've done to us all?"

One of her brothers visits Dr. Calgary at his hotel, examining his story and providing Calgary with the background on his family--and the reason they are so upset by his news. Calgary, shocked, finds himself back at the lawyer's seeking more information, and then proceeds to talk with some of the principles. "I thought that I was ending something, giving--shall we say--a different end to a chapter already written. But I was made to feel, I was made to see, that instead of ending something I was starting something. Something altogether new." Meanwhile, the police, while doubtful of their ultimate success, are determinedly re-opening the case, and eventually Dr. Calgary's goals dovetail with their own.

Technically, her writing is impressive. On re-read, I realized how streamlined and exacting her prose is, and all the clever ways she conveys dialogue without resorting to a simple "he said," "she said" format that plagues less experienced writers.

Characterization is also impeccably done, a few short sentences illuminating an entire personality:

"Arthur Calgary walked down the sloping ramp and got into the boat as the ferryman steadied it with a boathook. He was an old man and gave Calgary the fanciful impression that he and his boat belonged together, were one and indivisible."

"For a moment a feeling of poignant sadness came over him as he confronted the virile youth of the boy facing him."

"Superintendent Huish was a tall, sad-looking man. His air of melancholy was so profound that no one would have believed that he could be the life and soul of a children's party, cracking jokes and bringing pennies out of little boys' ears."

"It was a pretty, rather vapid little face, plastered with make-up, eyebrows plucked, hair hideous and stiff in a cheap perm."

Writing like this reminds me of the certain degree of sloppiness I see in current writers who are churning out book after book. Easy enough to do, if your last ten books bore any resemblance to Parker phoning in [b:Bad Business|632946|Bad Business (Spenser, #31)|Robert B. Parker|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1309287291s/632946.jpg|3173270] or Evanovich and her umpteenth Plum fiasco. But Christie wrote for over 40 years and had 66 detective novels to her credit; while not all of them hit excellence, I'm not sure they fell quite to those depths. Grand Dame indeed.

To top it off, the mystery was decent and the solution a surprise. There were pieces Christie left in place, and while I picked up on a few, I was short of constructing the picture. It was also a pleasure when all ended well, if rather sweetly.

Note: Christie does show her upper class British upbringing in this one. One character is referred to a "half-caste" and a "dark horse." I assumed the dark-horse to refer to her status as a potential murderer, but it could be a racial remark. She ends up being quite a sympathetic character so it bothered me less than it could have.

At any rate, four stars for Christie's delicious period piece and managing to surprise me with a couple different twists.

Cross posted at http://clsiewert.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/ordeal-by-innocence-by-agatha-christie... ( )

“How can I go on living here and suspecting everybody ?”

Another fun mystery from Agatha Christie. I appreciated the detective in this one, Mr. Calgary - who thinks he is doing a great thing and letting a family know that their convicted son did not commit the murder he died in prison over....however, he's surprised when they are less than thrilled.

I also loved that Philip was an additional set of eyes that was trying to solve the mystery of who killed their adoptive mother. I have to admit, I had the wrong person for.....most of the book. I love being fooled and shocked by who the killer was.
I can't wait to watch this one! ( )

Dolly says it's one of the better...

Only borroed it after seeing the movie with its amazing ending to see if the book matched. Endings don’t match.

A difficult book to rate. It's Agatha Christie so instantly it's a solid 4 or 5 star. I enjoyed the process and the unveiling of each character, so still a solid 4 or 5 star. I worked out the solution but in a way that I was still satisfied and just felt supremely intelligent, still a solid 4 or 5 star.

But. The three romantic relationships at the end made me crinnggeee so boop there goes one star. ( )

I can cross Christie off my list of classic authors to try. I’ve read 3 books of hers and only 1 was good. Although it’s got the worst name so I’m not even proud of that.

No thank you. Moving on. ( )

The nature versus nurture debate is at the heart of this standalone psychological mystery. Jacko Argyle died in prison after he was convicted of murdering his mother by hitting her over the head with a poker. A couple of years after the trial, a new witness appears with exculpatory evidence that proves Jacko was not in the house when his mother was murdered. But if Jacko was innocent, then someone else must be guilty. The rest of the family and the household employees will live under a cloud of suspicion until the real murderer is discovered. The witness, Dr. Calgary, feels responsible for stirring up the cloud of suspicion, and he believes he has a moral obligation to solve the crime and free the innocent from suspicion.

This novel is very similar to many of Poirot’s cases, and I think it would have worked better as a Poirot mystery. It suffers from lack of an easily identifiable protagonist/detective. Sometimes Arthur Calgary works on the puzzle. Sometimes the local police superintendent works on it. Sometimes Philip Durant, the murder victim’s disabled son-in-law, fancies he can solve the mystery. Christie excelled at revealing character through conversation, and her dialogue carries her best novels. This novel focuses more on what various characters are thinking to themselves, and there isn’t a lot of dialogue. I think that’s why the pace seems to drag. ( )

Tedious to get through, all the yakking, the two-bit psychologizing, blah blah. BUT: the ending took me by surprise. I've read it before, but still didn't know whodunnit! How can Agatha be so good at that, over and over? ( )

Good read, well constructed. Some good old anachronistic sexism & racism. Was mostly reading to compare with the BBC series. This was much more cleverly constructed — I didn't guess the murderer, but had to take my hat off to Ms Christie for having laid all the clues there (though there were a couple of incidents which really stretch credulity). All that said, I think as written it would have been a slightly dull tv show. Soooo... let's call that one a draw. ( )

Ordeal by Innocence does not follow the standard Agatha Christie format. This novel presents the psychology of the suspects in a murder of a domineering woman. Rachel Argyle, a wealthy and generous woman falls victim to death by a poker. Her adopted son, Jacko, falls prey to a conviction for her murder and dies in prison from pneumonia. He had claimed his innocence by stating a man gave him a ride. The man, Dr. Calgary, meets with obstacles and does not confirm Jacko’s plea until two years later. Dr. Calgary goes to the Argyle family to explain the situation that only opens old wounds. Each of the adopted children, the husband, the husband’s secretary, and a nurse explore their relationship with Rachel. A wonderful approach to murder and how each individual involved might be the killer. The story reminds me of the novels of Elizabeth George and her Inspector Lynley series. Too often, the why tends to be omitted. ( )

Two years ago a man was found guilty of killing his mother, sent to prison, then died while incarcerated. Now a man has come forward with solid evidence to clear the son’s name, but he doesn’t at all get the reaction from the family that he expected. Because now, of course, the case is once again wide open, and any of them could be the murderer…

I think this is likely my least favorite of Christie’s novels I’ve read so far. It’s an interesting premise, and by the end I was interested to see who’d dunnit, but the beginning and middle seemed really to drag along at a snail’s pace, and then when the killer was revealed, I was disappointed that the answer wasn’t more clever. *shrug* ( )

Two years after Jacko was convicted of the murder of his adopted mother and has died in jail, his alibi steps forward. Dr Calgary had been out of the country during the trial and only heard news of it upon his return. Certain that Jacko was innocent, Dr Calgary takes it upon himself to investigate the past.

A psychological endeavour on Agatha Christie’s part, this story signifies a shift in style from some of her earlier, light works, and focuses largely on conversation, memory and perception, as each sibling suspects each other of the murder of their somewhat eccentric foster mother. The book was dedicated “To Billy Collins with affection and gratitude”. It was he who had convinced Christie to leave her one-sided deal with the Bodley Head, the publishers of her first six books, and to switch to William Collins Sons & Co in 1926. Now known as HarperCollins, they are Agatha Christie's UK and US publishers to this day.

It was first published in 1958 and it was in 1984 that the story was first adapted for film. It starred Donald Sutherland, Faye Dunaway and Christopher Plummer, and featured an interesting soundtrack that is often thought to conflict with the atmosphere of the film. In 2007, the story featured Miss Marple as part of the ITV television series, played by Geraldine McEwan.

In 2018 new TV adaptation of Ordeal by Innocence was broadcast with an all-star cast, including Bill Nighy, Eleanor Tomlinson and Anna Chancellor.

It is 10 years since I last read this and I am re-reading it for my Agatha Christie reading group.
It was chosen for our discussion because it is a stand alone, so we will be following our discussion with the viewing of the 2018 TV adaptation.

We are told in reviews that the book was one of Agatha Christie's own favourite novels, and featured a interpretation of her holiday home, Greenway House. Also that the reason this was not a "Poirot" was that when she wrote this book Christie was free to do whatever she wanted as she was not in any financial need that period and wanted to write something that would be enjoyable for her.
We spend a lot of time (along with the characters) thinking about who the murderer is, and also about the fact that the innocent are suffering too. We are presented with each of the family in turn for assessment. Did you finally guess who it was?

I haven't actually created a list of questions this time, so it will be interesting to see how the discussion goes.
Some suggestion of themes

Guilt vs Innocence
Why is no-one pleased by Dr. Calgary's assertion of the alibi?
Nurture vs Nature - in particular why didn't Rachel Argyle's great "experiment" work?
Did Calgary do the right thing? Or should life have gone on with the case unsolved?
Remember that Calgary's revelations eventually led to Mary's husband Philip becoming fixated on solving the murder and so there was in fact another murder and an attempted murder. ( )

This was a little slow to get going, but kept me guessing throughout - I suspected each character in turn - no doubt exactly as Christie intended me to. I found lots of the characters' attitudes and sweeping statements hard to stomach (on women in general, menopausal women, mothers, women unable to have children etc - always women, you note) and I suppose I should think of this as a 'historical' novel now. I am getting old...

MILD SPOILER

I'm glad Hester ditched the appalling Don, but she should really spend some time growing up rather than marrying the next older man she comes across. ( )

CRÍTICA: http://www.planocritico.com/critica-punicao-para-a-inocencia-de-agatha-christie/ ( )

This book doesn't have the quirkiness of Marple or Poirot. It has a lot of quite intense characters. And it has a lot of tension, but what it doesn't have is a lot of plot movement--that is, until the last couple of chapters. And then things go off with a bang. Not one of Christie's most memorable, but readable as always. ( )

Pretty great by Christie standards. Not so much focus on who did it and in the end that was very clear and not at all mysterious. this one is much more about the characters, the many adopted children and their various complaints, fears and failures in life. I was happy in the end when 2 likable characters rather randomly choose to get married. The end. ( )

I wanted to read Ordeal of Innocence because the premise was both intriguing and ridiculous. First, the fascinating part: New information comes to light that shows that Jacko Argyle, although convicted of the crime, could not possibly have killed his mother, but somehow the news of Jacko’s innocence doesn’t seem to make anyone in his family seem pleased or relieved. In fact, other than a vague sadness that their adopted brother died in prison, the rest of the family almost seems like they want Jacko to be guilty.

Now, the ridiculous part. The alibi comes because Jacko was picked up as a hitchhiker during the time the crime was committed, but the driver never gave the alibi because he was… wait for it…. hit on the head almost immediately after dropping Jacko off, in a totally unrelated random accident, got an amnesiac concussion, and then set off for Antarctica. As one does.

I kind of love this kind of device in mystery fiction, there’s something so bold about a tossing a ridiculous event into a carefully plotted mystery. I enjoyed a similar device a great deal in At Bertram’s Hotel, too.

Besides this hook, the rest of the novel is twisty and spare. The Argyle family has never really questioned that Jacko was the murderer, since he’d been in and out of trouble since childhood, and was known to need money to get out of yet another shady situation. Without the family wrong ‘un taking the blame, though, the rest of the family begins to look suspiciously at each other, and it’s already a family full of secrets and odd relationships. Ordeal by Innocence not at all a locked-room mystery, but the scenes of the family and domestic staff eying each other suspiciously has a similar feel and tension.

Unfortunately, this mystery includes some pretty cringy attitudes of the day, mostly around adoption. There’s an unpleasant armchair psych analysis of a woman who is infertile and decides to have her family through adoption. A lot of this is based on the social assumption that all women must want children, and without children, a woman’s natural instincts are thwarted. Many characters also believe that adopted children are all well and good, but blood and breeding will tell eventually. It’s a bit cringy now to hear about educated people who really believe that being born into poverty or being born illegitimate is a stain upon one’s personality and capacity for ever. But, again, an accepted belief of that time.

Overall, recommended as a surprising standalone mystery, with a note that some of the ideas about class and psychology are very dated, and not in a charming way.

Aww Calgary got his happy ending. Normally would have been a bit annoyed with how it ended but it was just so sweet. And the mystery made a lot of sense. Rounded up from 4.5 stars because of some weird ideas about adoption but that was the time period I guess. ( )

Well bummer.

I was all thrilled to start another AC story and then, as I started, it seemed familiar. It's one that the BBC adapted for their Marple or Poirot series(don't remember which). Still good. But the thrill was gone.

4 stars because it probably would have been good if I hadn't already known how it was going to end. ( )

She said, only just breathing the words: "Why did you come? Oh, why ever did you come?"
He looked at her helplessly. "I don't understand you.
Don't you want your brother's name cleared? Don't you want justice?"
"Oh, justice!" She threw the word at him.
He repeated: "I don't understand..."
"Going on about justice! What does it matter to Jacko now? He's dead. It's not Jacko who matters. It's us!"

Book on CD read by Robin Bailey

From the book jacket: According to the courts, Jacko Argyle bludgeoned his mother to death with a poker. The sentence was life imprisonment. But when Dr Arthur Calgary arrives with the proof that confirms Jacko’s innocence, it is too late – Jacko died behind bars following a bout of pneumonia. Worse still, the doctor’s revelations reopen old wounds in the family, increasing the likelihood that the real murderer will strike again.

My reactions:
I really enjoy Agatha Christie’s mysteries; there’s a good reason she’s often called “the Queen of Crime.” But this one didn’t really capture my attention. Of course, I was listening to the audio and the many characters were sometimes hard to differentiate. It also seemed somewhat melodramatic and “overacted” … but perhaps that is the fault of the narrator and not Christie’s writing.

The mystery itself is satisfyingly complex, with many suspects, just as many (or more) motives, and a determined amateur sleuth in Dr Calgary. Other reviewers give it high marks, so it may just not have been the right book at the right time for me.

Robin Bailey sets a good pace on the audiobook and his diction is clear. ( )

Having seen many AC adaptations to television and film the plot was somewhat predictable. Christie's use of language is still admirable. ( )

This is a great story by a great writer. It dwells as much on the tensions and secrets within the family as much as on the mystery itself.

This was a case of watching the BBC series before reading the book and many of the details/the ending was entirely different. Threw me for a loop. This was very good, not a favorite though. ( )

Ordeal by Innocence - Christie
Audio performance by Hugh Fraser
3.5 stars

One of Agatha Christie’s ‘stand alone’ mysteries. I missed Poirot. Apparently, Christie did not, as she supposedly said this was one of her favorite books. It was a typically twisty plot with more than the usual number of red herrings.The bereaved family is unusual. All of the adult children, who are also prime suspects in the death of their mother, had been adopted as children. Most of them had been slum children, evacuated during the war. Christie is very clear in her opinion that nurture cannot overcome an inferior genetic nature. I don’t usually worry about the attitudes that crop up in vintage writing, but this time it got on my nerves. ( )