Book review: A is for Arsenic

[mightymads]

A is for Arsenic: The Poisons of Agatha Christie is a handy little book if you write a casefic and need a clear, informative reference about poisons. According to her official website, Dr. Kathryn Harkup is “a science communicator, chemist and vampirologist. She completed a doctorate on her favourite chemicals, phosphines, and went on to further postdoctoral research before realising that talking, writing and demonstrating science appealed a bit more than hours slaving over a hot fume-hood. She writes and gives regular public talks on the disgusting and dangerous side of science.”

In this book Dr. Harkup discusses poisons which Agatha Christie used in her plots, accuracy of her writing, real-life cases which might have inspired Christie or even might have been inspired by her novels, and the way those poisons work inside the body. To be honest, sometimes I had to skip the scientific parts of the book to keep on reading, but the history of poisons and real-life cases were fascinating.

There are a couple of notable quotes characterising Agatha Christie as a writer, especially if compared with Arthur Conan Doyle:

“Christie always considered herself a ‘popular’ writer, and acknowledged that she did not produce great works of literature or deep insights into the human condition.”

and

“Christie also corresponded with experts to check her facts. For example, in 1967 she wrote to a specialist asking about the impact of putting thalidomide in birthday-cake icing – how long would it take to make an impact? How many grains would be needed? However, this idea was never used in any of her stories.”

So Christie didn’t entertain an ambition to become a writer of “serious” books, but she respected her audience and strived to excel in her chosen niche. She checked her facts, even though she didn’t consider her writing to be a “respectable” branch of literature. What a stark contrast, isn’t it? Doyle could obsess over the correctness of uniforms in his Brigadier Gerard stories but never bothered to find out basic facts about snakes for a Holmes instalment. I often wonder whether it was a blessing in disguise. Would Holmes stories have been that good had Doyle taken them seriously? I couldn’t bring myself to read any of his historical novels except Rodney Stone which was rather mediocre.

Comments

[smallhobbit]

I'm currently listening to a series of podcasts from shedunnit.com which concentrate on the Golden Age of crime, but also quite often make mention of Holmes. This book has been mentioned a couple of times.

[mightymads]

I came across a mention of this book in a tumblr post and found it intriguing. Definitely will go back to it if I write a fic featuring a poisoning.

[language_escapes]

(Shedunnit is sooooo good!)

[smallhobbit]

I'm currently listening to an episode nearly every day - I think I've heard about 2/3 of them so far.

[mightymads]

Sounds very interesting! Would either of you consider posting a review of these podcasts here if it’s not too much trouble? I think 1940s can be considered Holmes’s time too (Mr. Holmes), and that decade stands out especially, with its glamour and tragic history.

[smallhobbit]

I've had a word with language_escapes and we'll produce something (once I've reduced my urgent To Do list!)

[mightymads]

Thanks so much! That would be great! I've started listening and I'm hooked. Very glad you mentioned this podcast.

[mightymads]

This is just to say that I've listened it all in a matter of days, and that's a great podcast! Certainly down my alley as I'm interested in 1920s as historical period. The range of topics was very educational and interesting. I wonder if there's such a Holmes-related podcast out there.

[smallhobbit]

Given that you've listened to it all, and I've only listened to about two-thirds, maybe you should write a post on it. I'd be happy to comment with my own thoughts, so far as I've got.

[mightymads]

Okay :) I still should listen to the extras—interviews and such—which were posted in the Book Club. As soon as I do that I’ll write a review.

[earthspirits]

I've never enjoyed any of Doyle's so-called "serious" work. The Holmes stories and his supernatural tales remain my favorites of his work.

Although, after having read the book speculating that it was actually his *wives* who wrote the Holmes tales, it does give one pause.

[mightymads]

Well, to be honest, I’m not partial to the wives theory. Although Doyle happened to produce mediocre stuff, he was a brilliant writer. His supernatural and medical stories prove that. There are a lot of fans of The Lost World series. It would be a bit of a stretch to suppose those were written by someone else as well? Besides, he wrote stories which were clearly predecessors of Holmes and Watson—with similar attempts at mystery and even characters with similar dynamics—long before he married. He also solved real-life cases at least twice when there was a miscarriage of justice. Anyway, that’s just my opinion, and I’d rather stay away from arguments.

[earthspirits]

The "speculation" angle of that book was at first intriguing enough to get me to read it and wonder a bit (at least at first), but having read the entire book, I find it's all just that - speculation. The author didn't present anything solid to back his theory, and some of what he presents as "fact" are really just more of his own pet theories, and are quite a stretch at that.

He's also linking his speculative book to a detective fiction series he's writing that focuses on Louisa Doyle as a sleuth. So he has his own reasons for promoting the "wives" theory.

Doyle was a very prolific and hardworking writer, and I agree, quite brilliant. I've read a lot of his work (the Holmes series, his supernatural tales, The Lost World series and several of what he considered his more serious work). To me, his writing style across his various genres is consistently the same "voice". There's also so much of his own life experiences, especially in the Holmes stories, including his medical background and interest in the justice system, people he knew in the medical world, his "style" of characters (as you say, with clear predecessors of H&W), etc.

He was a man of his era, and so not without faults, but he has always been one of my favorite Victorian writers.

*Edited to add: Thank you for the info on Agatha Christie's approach to researching the crime "details" for her books. Most interesting!

[mightymads]

Thank you for sharing your impressions of that book! I was interested but not enough to go and read it. What you said about it confirms the suspicions I had.

Agree about the consistency of Doyle’s voice throughout his works—it’s quite distinct everywhere.

Re: Agatha Christie, there’s more about it in the book by Dr. Harkup. Christie tried to be as accurate as it was possible during the era she was writing, and the accuracy of her books was actually praised by specialists. I have so much respect to Christie for that!

[duskpeterson]

That cover! The cover artist deserves compliments.

[mightymads]

Other books by this author have covers in a similar style, very pretty :)

[duskpeterson]

Oo, yes, quite handsome.

[mightymads]

It’s a good book :) A while ago smallhobbit mentioned a podcast called Shedunnit which is dedicated to the Golden Age detective fiction, and this book is referenced there several times. There’s even an interview with the author. I’ll post a review of the podcast later.

About Doyle, I keep wondering too. The flow of his writing in Holmes stories is so easy and effortless. He wrote them so fast, clearly in a burst of inspiration. Maybe if he worked on them meticulously, it would have ruined the charm? We’ll never know.