Well said. We've all been through this argument many times, I'm
sure, but either one values the plotting or one does not. If one
does, one need not feel defensive about enjoying Christie. Christie
had a rare literary gift (and it is literary): A talent to deceive,
as Robert Barnard put it.
> What Christie did was play absolutely fair with the reader, so
there was no
> "well, when I was investigating I discovered X and Y and Z which
> dunnit." We know pretty much what the detective knows, but
> genius was to hide the clues in plain sight.
> One of the pleasures of reading Christie is to re-read her, going
> back through the book to see where she told us everything we
needed to know
> but forced us to overlook it.
> She doesn't always have realistic characters; they are all too
> stereotypes or cardboard. On the other hand, she doesn't pretend
> writing a literary novel. Her field is that of the detection
> when it comes to plotting, I don't think I've ever read another
> quite as clever at it.