Saturday, August 28, 2021

FINALLY!!!!! Anthology (Edits and all!) FINISHED

 Yahoo!!!!  And a hearty Yabba Dabba Dooooo! 


     And it only took a four-month medical 'staycation'!  However it was done,  it got done!  The Execution of Agatha Christie ,  edits and all, are DONE! (Angelic choir breaks into song!)  

  I have only to wait for my work routine to set in for a few months, and then I can make a proper, bound, copy for the lady who encouraged me to complete Poirot's love story "Now and Forever".  From there, I wrote the rest of the stories which make up the anthology, including, of course, the title story of the anthology, itself;  "The EXECUTION OF AGATHA CHRISTIE. A personal favorite of mine. 

  During my convalescence, I worked on edits, griped about issues that came about because I didn't have internet access (too expensive) and yet, one way or another, got it all finished.  Then I created a special edit for Susana.  

   Tomorrow, I'll get a PDF copy made, for anyone else who wants to read.  Hopefully, one copy will make its way to agatha's darling, david suchet.  If so, here's a recommend....  Read Code Name: Aggie, Mr. Suchet.  Especially the chapter called WRITTEN IN BLOOD.  Your likeness and last name are prominently featured. YOU will love what you got to do. Agatha would ADORE you for what you did.  On the other hand, I loved the consequence of your double's actions. As it was called, in Dickens' day;  the drop. 

Sunday, July 5, 2020

The Final Word; A Letter to Agatha Christie and David Suchet




                                                                     ~The Final Word~

                             {An Open Letter to Agatha Christie and

David Suchet}

Agatha and her Parrot
Cover for the book Suchet SHOULD have written!

Well hello, Agatha!

      Yes, I’m well aware that you're dead and I 'm smiling to myself
 as I write this.  First, because this does seem an odd thing to do. Mainly, though, I’m
 writing this letter is the ultimate 'IN YOUR FACE'! You've had it coming for quite some time.

   Additionally, I’m also writing this antagonistic epistle to your most devoted ‘parrot’, David Suchet who, without a moment’s hesitation, (or even thought, for that matter!) recites your words as if they’re Biblical cannon.   I’m glad he’s alive and can read what I have to say to both of you.  If I had to be completely honest, I’d say I was writing this letter to Mr. Suchet, as I rail at  each of you ! Since Mr. Suchet shares your malevolent attitude about Poirot, then it’s only fitting that he be told off as well as you.  

    My fan-fiction project, 'The Execution of Agatha Christie' is in the final editing phase.  Of course, each story has its own title, but the main title will be a mystery to some, even as it antagonizes your devoted followers. Either way, it will get people's attention.   This is as it needs to be, because of what you started.  However, it may surprise you to learn that this is not necessarily as I wish.

   I TRUSTED  YOU, Mr. Suchet, as I wish I could have trusted Agatha. Tragically, it turns out, I can’t trust either of you. WHY should I (or ANY reader) waste the emotional investment of reading time (the money is almost secondary) on an author and actor who treated a character with such poisonous contempt? I don’t get it! I do NOT understand!   What DID Hercule Poirot do to you, Mr. Suchet, to deserve your disdain? Do you have a personal reason for your hatred of the Belgian detective or are you just parroting your beloved Agatha?  I fantasize about getting in-your-face and demanding to know why. Why didn’t you just listen to your brother and NOT bother with the character you and Agatha wished didn’t exist?  In truth, I agree with you and Agatha, albeit, NOT for your reasons, whatever they might be.  The pair of you used Poirot to up your career game and financial ends.  Passed that, neither of you could give a damn about Hercule Poirot   

    It’s for the above-mentioned reason, Mr. Suchet, that Belgian detective Hercule Poirot was better off NOT existing.  I went so far as to make that happen for Agatha in the title story.  Your part in Poirot’s end comes in the last story in this project.  I’ll let you read it for yourself.  By way of a hint, you will, no doubt, be delighted to learn that your villain collaborates with Agatha’s fictional self, (aka Ariadne Oliver)  to get the deed done.  


    As to the reasons for Christie’s loathing of Poirot, I have one main theory   

 which has a lot to do with how the foundational source material of Poirot (man and story structure).  Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. 

    In Appointment with Death (movie, 2008) a woman named Lady Boynton is shown to be abusing her four adopted kids, simply because they weren't hers.  Christie HATED Poirot for the same reason.  He wasn't truly hers and in her gut of guts, she knew it, whatever ARROGANT claims she made to the contrary.  I won’t ask why you despised the detective, Suchet. Whatever Christie’s hostilities were, against Poirot were, you seemed content to go along with them. 

   In addition, Poirot's key personality traits, such as his pride in his career achievements, as well as his penchant for order and method come from Holmes. Common Points between Holmes/Poirot  Christie wanted Holmes and took out her frustration for the unfulfilled wish on the re-designed Holmes, rather than simply appreciating that she was able to get away with such brassy plagiarism unpunished.  It's not every day a newbie (which is what Christie was at the time) can steal off an established author.  At the end of the day, though, Christie despised Poirot because he was a re-modelled Holmes but he wasn’t HOLMES. 

    Like Lady Boynton’s abused of children who weren’t hers, Poirot was maligned for NOT being the character she wanted.



        "Why, oh WHY did I Ever create that DETESTABLE, bombastic Creature?" Christie about Poirot. 

      As bad, as unspeakably VILE as Christie was, to make such a VICIOUS, uncalled-for statement, about a character, who was loved by readers, it was AS BAD, if not WORSE, to read that same vitriol in the book of the ACTOR, who Poirot fans trusted with that character!  To this Poirot fan, who'd ditched Christie novels in favor of the series, your WILLINGNESS to quote that damnable diatribe was nothing shy of a kick in the stomach and a spit in the face.

    Adding injury to insult, you also said, on a British daytime talk show, that you would be willing to play Poirot again, "ONLY if AGATHA wrote the story." KNOWING full well her ANIMOSITY for Poirot, David Suchet, you would have ZERO problem playing the disdained detective on the condition that Poirot's foremost enemy was at the helm!  

  Well, there are POIROT fans, and I count myself among them, who have written better stories for the character than Christie ever cared to create!  I can't speak for other fans' motivation, Mr. Suchet,  but I know what mine was. I gave Hercule  Poirot the love story Christie deprived him of.  I also let him have a family because .... well, why not? 

   For all the countless times I've repeated myself in these blog posts, the one thing I honest-to-God want to do is face you down! In betraying Poirot, you stabbed his fan base in the back.  Paying tribute to Christie meant slamming the character she hated. What puzzles me, Mr. Suchet, is your abject fawning over this ...arrogant, malevolent glory-whore for 'creating' a character both you and Agatha wish never existed. Again, I don't get it. If you hold the same disdain for Poirot that Christie had,  why praise her for creating him? 
  But, since we're on the subject of  'detestable creatures',  I know an actor who treated his villain character with much more appreciation than you have for Poirot. 


  In 1974, Paul Williams played a character named SWAN, in the movie Phantom of the Paradise.  It is relevant to note that the character in said movie was a record producer who thieves the life’s work off young composer, Winslow Leach.

    To the befuddled amazement of the entire cast of that film, Winnipeg Canada has embraced Phantom of the Paradise, which has gone on to inspire a documentary called Phantom of Winnipeg, 45 years after the movie was released.  For his part, Paul Williams appreciates Swan’s substantial contribution to his acting career.   For an established songwriter to play the guy who steals the music is an impressive acting debut. The point is, Mr. Williams thanks the character who gave him his start.  As a person, Swan was a total jerk!  (understatement!)  He was sadistic, warped and nasty when he was out to get what he wanted.  No songwriter wants to get within thieving distance of a guy like Swan.  On the other hand, as character roles go, he was gold and Paul Williams has always valued the part that little scuzz-wad had to play in  jump-starting his acting career.

    NOW, contrast Paul’s gratitude for Swan’s contribution to his career to your TOXIC ingratitude for Poirot. What makes the Belgian sleuth LESS entitled to respect than a despotic record producer who reduces an aspiring songwriter’s life to a living hell?!?!

    I eagerly await your explanation.


Oh, BROTHER! {Common Points between Sherlock Holmes and Poirot}

"Coincidence?  I think NOT!"

   Hercule Poirot was adapted (maybe even PLAGIARIZED from an original creation of Arthur Conan Doyle.
I've gotten a bit of support from Sherlock Holmes fans on the issue of christie's  potential plagiarism,  but christie loyalists are a hard sell.  I can't say that I blame them, either.
Having been stabbed in the back by christie,  by way of her slamming of Poirot,  I can understand how they would NOT want to admit that their literary idol betrayed them.  Took me a while.  I'm a reader and so I assumed (foolishly in this case)  that the author wrote for the pure enjoyment of telling stories. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sometimes, the so called 'author'  is more SELF involved.  Her motivation is not the love of telling stories but building HER reputation.  More to the point, in catering to her EGO in being able to share literary fame with an author of her liking.
With Sherlock Holmes being the biggest thing to happen to literature since the advent of movable type,  agatha knew that her only hope of competing with Doyle would be to,  in essence,  COPY his best known character. Tweaking  for apparent distinction, while keeping the facets of the character that made Holmes stand out, both the man and the stories.
Allow me to share seven (7) COMMON POINTS between Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot.  At the very least,  these points will  give christie fans second thoughts. Make them say "Hmmmm"  🤔🤔🤔 Her loyalists, on the other hand,  will stand by that woman,  come HELL or High Water!  So I'm not even going to try to persuade them.  That would be an exercise in futility.

Common Point #1  :   BOTH Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot were....less-than- modest when it came to declaring their skills and career accomplishments.  This is NOT a SLAM,  simply a point.   Then again,  it was this very trait, kept by christie for her version of Holmes, which she also BERATED Poirot about.

Common Point #2  The famed detectives were both  sticklers for detail and order in case stories.

Common Point
#3   Holmes and Poirot got antsy if there wasn't a case in a while.   The detectives needed the mental stimulation of a challenging case and the lack of that stimulation drove them to illness, moody moping,  drug use, or random violin playing.

Common Point #4 Holmes and Poirot each had a competitive working relationship with their respective Scotland Yard liasons;  Chief Inspectors Lastrade and Japp.  The C.I.'s  had issues with the detectives stealing their thunder; referring to the non-Scotland Yard sleuths as "amateurs' . Over time, however,  Lastrade and Japp learn to work with Holmes and Poirot;  doing their part, while the sleuths performed  their unique brand of deduction.

  Common Point # 5 BOTH Holmes and Poirot had been known to work,  even when they were ill.   This work-a-holism made it just about IMPOSSIBLE for Watson and Hastings to keep them away from a case,  even in convalescence.

Common Point #6  Neither Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot  had a longtime relationship / romance .  Now, from what I've read  in Sherlock Holmes stories,  the man had trust issues with women. The ONE exception being  Irene Adler,  whom Watson conveyed was the singular female Holmes had referred to, with much respect,  as THE woman.  Would there have been a romance?  Only fan-fiction writers know for sure.
Likewise, Poirot had no significant romance.  WAS this just because Holmes didn't have a romance?  Or because christie didn't believe the Belgian sleuth was entitled to love? 

  THANKFULLY, the series writers were kinder to Poirot than christie had been. (Not that THAT took much effort) .  In Double Clue,  (episode , NOT book)  Poirot develops a bit of a lopsided romance with jewel thief , Countess Vera Rosakoff.  At the end of the episode,  (as she's getting on a train) , he gives her...I think a cigarette case to remember him by and she kisses him on the very top of his forehead.  You wanna cry. The 'romance' of sorts, is rekinded in Labors of Hercules (MOVIE, NOT book!)  Sadly, that goes south when Poirot would NOT give the Countess's daughter,  Alice Cunningham a free pass. Jewell thievery is one thing, multiple murder is another.

   However,  THE episode , {where the screenwriters came perilously  CLOSE to violating christie's edict against giving Poirot a love story} was The Chocolate Box. In the episode, Poirot falls in love with a young woman (Virginie Mesnard)  who needs to know who killed her cousin,  Paul Deroulard.  When the court won't go any further,  she enlists Poirot's help to get to the truth of the matter, and romance is in bloom. 
   SADLY,  The screenwriters end up marrying Virginie off to another man.  Thankfully, I am  under no such edict and gave Poirot and Virginie their love story!
   In your FACE, AGATHA!!!  😝 🖕

Common Point #7
Also, like  Sherlock Holmes'  Watson,  Hastings is inexplicably widowed.  Why was Hastings bereft of his wife for no apparent reason?
A) JUST because John Watson was deprived of his own wife?
B) Because christie didn't give a rip?
C)  both of the above?
I'm going with C .  Considering the rancid disregard  agatha had for Poirot,  Hastings hardly merited a thought, as far as she was concerned. At the end of the day, I SERIOUSLY have to wonder if christie even realized that too many common points between the detectives and their stories would undo  her?  Alas,  no one from Arthur Conan Doyle's family said a peep, and theirs were the voices  that would have put the nail in agatha's casket of unmerited self- promotion.

Common Point #8 (which should be common point 1)  BOTH Study in Scarlet and Mysterious Affair At Styles (movie NOT book)  begin with a war.  Different wars, considering the time line but in both cases, it's Watson/Hastings who are re-introduced to old friends as they recuperate.   

    In the case of Watson, he is introduced to Holmes.  Watson needs new digs and  his friend thought a roomie would be helpful in paying the rent, etc.  In the case of Hastings,  he is re-acquainted with Poirot when he (Hastings) is invited to stay with a high school friend while he recovered from war injuries.  He'd met Poirot while doing some war time duty in Belgium. Either way,  it's a war that pairs up the iconic colleagues. 

Bottom line;  Any ONE of these points could be called a COINCIDENCE.  Perhaps even two. But all eight?  NO. Not possible. The two characters are essentially ONE.  Holmes;  remodeled and renamed.
Putting it in Real Estate  terms, { because somehow, that seems to work for me} , Agatha Christie took possession of a house that did NOT belong to her.  She did NOT design this 'house'  from cellar to attic.  She simply  remodeled an already-existing structure just enough to give the initial appearance that Poirot  had been created from  scratch.  However,  as was shown in the Common Points  between the two detectives,  christie kept the very trait of Holmes'  that she would come to loathe, and then blame Poirot for,  as if  the character could know he had been the  direct result of another character.
If you have yet to be convinced that agatha's self-declared "DETESTABLE"   detective began existence as SHERLOCK HOLMES, I offer you  the last story in the  Poirot canon;  Curtain:  Poirot's Last Case .
In the book version,  { which I read BEFORE finding out what a heartless,  thieving creature christie was} ,   HASTINGS acts as the narrator,  like Watson about Holmes.    ( Coincidence?  Not bloody likely! )   .
"Why oh WHY did I EVER create this DETESTABLE, bombastic creature?"
~agatha christie, Re: Poirot~
Detestable:  Deserving of INTENSE dislike/ HATE  Oxford Dictionary of Current English  © 2001
   So here's the deal.  Supposing  I turn out to be utterly wrong, and christie did create Poirot, from  attic to cellar . (just like I wrote the score from Jaws.)  Yuh!   That reality would make her shitting on Poirot that much  WORSE!   That would mean that she COMPLETELY WASTED  HER time,  her readers' time {while taking our money under false pretenses)    and Poirot's  life.
And - For - WHAT?!?!?
What was the reason for creating him at all?  What PURPOSE did it serve, apart from boosting christie's already-grandiose sense of SELF IMPORTANCE?  If she didn't give a damn about the character she 'created'  anymore than she cared  for the story she was telling ,    it was ALL  TOTALLY USELESS !!!!  And EVERY actor who ever played Poirot is owed an APOLOGY from christie's  relatives!


  In my story,  The Execution of Agatha Christie,  I got.... FAUSTIAN.  I took a scene from the movie Phantom of the Paradise, where the movie's villain makes a deal with the devil (literally) to get what he wanted; see also, eternal youth.   The consequences turn out to be a LOT more than that little egomaniac bargained for. (Oooh YEAH!) because Swan NEVER counted on being stalked  by a determined young songwriter,  who cared MORE for his music than he was intimidated by an evil hobbit in high places!
In the name of giving back what agatha dished out, (betraying readers)  I gave that bitch  the opportunity to live the dream;  a life where Hercule Poirot NEVER existed.  And all she had to do is burn the handwritten version of her first Poirot novel,  Mysterious Affair at Styles.   
   I have to tell you, it was one of the easiest stories to write. The last line, especially,  was a genuine thrill.  "Hercule Poirot's foremost enemy was dead."  It came to me,  out of the clear blue sky,  and I committed it to the page.  Whatever revisions and   edits I have to make,  that last line is staying!   Sorry, Stephen King, but I am NOT killing that darling.

   Let me ask you AGATHA devotees,  in all honesty,  IF christie had been given that opportunity, do you think she would have taken it?  Seriously!  Knowing her HATRED for Hercule Poirot,  would she have burned that first story ;  UN 'creating'  Poirot,  since she had other characters  making money for her?

   I'd like to think she would have.
Does this mean I HATE Poirot as much as christie did? NO. Never!   In fact, I don't think I've EVER felt more SYMPATHY or COMPASSION  for ANY  fictional character in books, movies or a television series,  as I feel for Poirot.
  No lie!  Hell, not even Archie Bunker could lay claim to the dubious distinction of being HATED by Norman Lear and/or Carroll O'Connor the way agatha maligned Poirot.  Let me make it clear; we are talking about two SERIES characters.   THINK about this, okay?   Archie Bunker vs Hercule Poirot.  And ARCHIE won!  At least so far as having the respect of author and actor.

Would you believe me if I told you....?????

I've watched any number of interviews with Norman Lear, Carroll O'Connor,  Sherman Hemsley,  Rob Reiner, et ensemble,  and NOT ONCE  did Mr. Lear or Mr. O'Connor refer to Archie as someone THEY hated!   They were mystified by him,  confused by him. They felt sorry for him.  But they NEVER HATED him!
Norman Lear said, "Archie was afraid of tomorrow" , and  Carroll O'Connor suggested that Archie felt like life was giving him the wrong  end of the stick. Neither author or actor ENDORSED Archie's more confrontational actions  or statements,  they simply permitted  him to be who he was and dealt with issues as they came up.
Had Mr. Lear, in particular,  felt  the same animosity for Archie that agatha had against Poirot,  we wouldn't remember All in the Family because that show wouldn't have survived the first season!   Both author and actor HAD to believe that Archie Bunker had redeeming qualities , or that would have been the end of it.
So how...HOW, in the name of Tommy Wiseau  is it,  that Archie Bunker,  with all  his  ISSUES  has been touted as "America's Lovable Biggot"  and yet Hercule Poirot (according to his ersatz  'author' ) was someone to be HATED?!  He didn't  even get a  long-term love story! HITLER had a girlfriend but Hercule Poirot wasn't entitled to romance!

    🤔🤦‍♀️🤷   W.T.F ?!?!?!?  🤔🤦‍♀️🤷

   If ANYONE can make sense of that bit of convoluted  'logic',  fill me in!  PLEASE!!!!!  🙇‍♀️🙏
When all is said and done, christie fans,  you are completely free to read or watch and believe whatever you like. That's TOTALLY your business.  Likewise,  I can try to warn you about the 'author'  you so highly esteem. Is she REALLY worthy of your respect/ worship?    If you want to spend time and money on someone, who only 'created' a  particular character in order to cater to her own expansive EGO, then have at it.  It's your time. It's your money.  But if christie is, even now, forty years plus DEAD , still entitled to respect,  then why aren't you, as a reader, entitled to the same respect?

  Oh, and speaking of EGO....just in case you require further evidence of christie's ARROGANCE,  I can make that case in two words;  Ariadne Oliver. Yes,  agatha's  fictional double.  Christie inflicted Mrs Oliver  into Poirot's life, so as to be able to snipe at her despised sleuth from a front row perspective.  At the same time, declaring herself as an author of a FINNISH detective she wished she'd never bothered with. Sound familiar!?
Oh goodie. Another agatha christie.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to gouge my eyes out with a dirty butcher knife.
Have a nice day.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

Writers and the NECESSITY for Social (MEDIA) Distancing

   Don't panic. DON'T PANIC!  This is nothing you need a mask for. Nor copious amounts of hand sanitizer.  You won't even need to stock up on toilet paper!  In fact, this post is for writers, specifically.  The general populace can take this for what it's worth. 

    Of course, since about mid-March MUCH has been said about SOCIAL DISTANCING.  It's become part of our wold wide vocabulary in the space of a month, if that.  And while we still have to practice that safety measure, while the world S-L-O-W-L-Y finds its way back to normal,  I'd like to introduce an idea that writers should have been practicing all along;   Social-Media Distancing.  While it won't save any lives, medically, it could save your sanity, and mine is on life-support as it is. 

    Social media has been a lifeline to many people, for whom self isolation and quarantine have been the equal to Solitary Confinement as a prison punishment.  I get that.  People need social interaction.  However, this bizarre period of world history gave  writers and aspiring scribblers an opportunity I hope many took advantage of.  Necessary DOWN TIME to do what you promised you would do if given the time.   The chance to either start the story or finish what you started a while back but couldn't seem to sit down with,  given one chore or another. 

    For myself, I started an experiment with Flash Fiction. There were a couple of mini-stories I wanted to try it on.  I got the first one finished, but I've been having a dandy time trying to get the second story down because of one PEST that is as much of a CREATIVE danger as this virus deal has been, medically.  SOCIAL MEDIA. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and whatever else is out there,  eating away at time and creativity.  If you are an author who is SERIOUS about getting stuff done, you need to put your foot down and use some self-discipline.  Practice some SOCIAL- MEDIA DISTANCING and keep yourself away from those sites if you want to make a dent in a novel or story project. 

    I guarantee,  making any excuses,  (Just an hour to catch up) and the day will be gone and you will have accomplished ZIP.  I do it, myself.  I did it yesterday. 

  After some light duties in the early afternoon, I ambled onto my Facebook page to unwind.  Next thing I knew...  *SNAP* !  The day was gone and NOTHING got accomplished, apart from jacking up my blood pressure. Finally,  I came to the conclusion that priorities have to be set in order to get anything substantial done.  SOCIAL {MEDIA } DISTANCING. 

    Make it a reward system if you like.  Do what needs to be done and then you can spend time online.  Kinda like when you were in high school and had to get your homework done before you could have t.v. time. Back when,  you were doing what you needed to do, to keep your parents and teachers off your case.  Also, if you had specific college goals, you had to keep your grades in check.  Likewise, if you have goals of finishing your novel, make THAT your priority.  Put in the time on the book (two hours or two chapters a day)  and then reward yourself. 
   I'm preaching to the choir here because I  VERY MUCH need  to practice what I'm preaching. This way, I paint my way into a corner and have no choice but to do what I recommend to others.

    Here's to hoping. 

     Okay..., I have a project (flash fiction)  I want to have finished by the end of the long weekend.  If it's NOT done by tomorrow night, say, 10 p.m.,  you'll know I said one thing and did another.  My bad! On the other hand, IF the story IS completed by tomorrow,  you'll see me on Facebook.  NOT before.  

Friday, January 31, 2020

Mission Accomplished! (Well, STARTED anyway)

Congratulate me, people!  I spent the entire day WRITING!!!! Okay, I took an hour to get a bit of other things done...eating, doing a bit of fix it work.  Passed that, though, I did a long-hand sketch of my story.  The Author's Note and then typed it up...on an ACTUAL TYPEWRITER!!!

Yup. I think I'm gonna do it that way. Write it, longhand, type it up and then take it to document page. THAT WAY, by the time it gets to the Doc page, it will be more fleshed out. That's my hope. And it doesn't hurt to hope.
The point is, I got it DONE. No youtube. I can listen to one story on YT before bed...  Secret Window by Stephen King....It's a weird one, but good.
I just wish the were more hours to the weekend. Like....a WEEK's worth.  Once upon a time, I had the entire weekend to laze (and do things). Now, my mother needs more of my time and other issues come up. Thankfully, my mother's biggest problem is that she just can't do as much as she used to, so that's where I come in.  And I feel like a selfish worm;  wanting that time to myself.
According to some sources,  C.S. Lewis was writing in stops and starts when he was staying with a friend's mother, after the war. He promised to help the friend's mom and lived up to his promise.  Wonder if he regretted those good intentions when it was all he could do to get a PARAGRAPH committed to paper before she needed this or that done.
Next week, I'm helping with church clean up, but that's early on Saturday, so, heaven willing, I'll have the rest of the weekend to get some writing done.
I live in amazement that ANYONE gets ANY Writing done, in this work-a-day world.  Is there an Island for writers?  If so, where's the next ship heading there and how much is it, ONE WAY?

💔Betrayal Of Trust: Author vs Character.📓✒Reader vs. Author.

As I write this,  I'm nearly finished chapter four of  Now and Forever;  a bit of Poirot-based fan fiction. By the time chapter four is finished,  Hercule Poirot and Virginie Mesnard will be husband and wife.

The love story that SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
On the surface of it,  that doesn't seem to be a big deal;  couples marry all the time, real and fictional.  The difference, here, is that this love story I'm writing SHOULD HAVE BEEN written for Poirot and Virgine in the first place.  And not by me.
Dommage!   So sad that Poirot's original author could NOT be bothered to give him a love story.  She didn't believe he was entitled to be happy.  He wasn't entitled to love.

I find it odd,  ( at least!)  that someone,  who'd been fortunate enough to earn her living as an author,  (what most wanna-be's would give their eye-teeth for)  could be so  deeply BITTER;  neither able or willing to give a decent lead character a measure of the good he'd done for her.

     "Why, oh WHY did I EVER create that DETESTABLE, bombastic creature?"    agatha christie on Hercule Poirot. 

DETESTABLE:  Deserving of INTENSE DISLIKE// HATE .  {Oxford Dictionary of Current English ©  2001  //  Roget's International Thesaurus © 2003  }

To that infamous  vitriolic rant, I have asked/ pleaded with  Christie LOYALISTS to answer one question. The same question I've asked  any number of times.  To date, I have yet to receive a reply. So I'll ask again;
WHAT DID HE  DO ?!?!?!?  What unholy atrocities could Hercule Poirot have  committed,  to deserve such rancorous loathing,  even to the extent of depriving him of love and a genuine romance?

To agatha christie, THIS BEAST was better than Hercule Poirot!

THINK about this;  Adolf Hitler,  one of history's most diabolical despots, had a romance.  Ava Braun was the lady.   Not sure if they were properly married or not, but when you're busy ordering the displacing and systematic murder of millions of  people, it's difficult to find time to plan a wedding.  In any case he DID have a romance.  A face of historic infamy found love,  and yet,  a fictional Belgian detective, who, I'm assuming,  did NOT commit mass murder,  apparently did something WORSE!  😱🤦 At least,  in the eyes of his foremost enemy; none other than  agatha christie.
   To agatha ,  Hercule Poirot was,  by no means, entitled to a romance. Love.  In fact, this decision would become a legal condition. Poirot was, contractually, NOT permitted a love story!

   Should anyone in the PRO-CHRISTIE camp want to explain away such HEARTLESSNESS,  I'd be interested in your rationale.  WHY NOT?  Were the atrocities of two world wars NOT sufficiently cruel that she needed to add to the wanton abuse. I seriously wonder here.... but then again, no.

   I was pondering;  if christie could have found a way of having Poirot fall into the hands of the Nazis, would she do it?  For her own purposes, I don't doubt, for a second, that she would do that very thing.  Just so long as her favorites (Miss Marple, Tommy and Tuppence) were able to keep her ladyship in the economic splendor to which she had become accustomed and she could be sure there would be no backlash from readers.

    Would there be? 🤷That's a good point. I mean, the die-hards stuck with her, even when they found out she loathed him. Would christie LOYALISTS stand by their literary god if she had collaborated, albeit fictionally, with England's enemy against her enemy?

   Then again, Poirot gave this literary legend (in her own mind) a place at the table with her  favorite author,  (A.C. Doyle)  Without whom Hercule Poirot might not exist, and nor would the foundation of her success.

  When all is said and done, you hardly have to be either Dr. Watson or Captain Hastings  to realize that Christie's reasons for 'creating'  the Belgian sleuth were entirely SELF-motivated.  It was all about boosting her own reputation. Upping her career game.  Poirot was a means to an end and that ALL  he was. 


A lovely memorial marker.

   But payback truly IS a BITCH, agatha, much like yourself!  Because I am going to give Monsieur Hercule Poirot the 'send off'  as Japp might phrase it, that he deserved.  Friends, family, tears and fond memories.
All of that will be accomplished BEFORE I give due come-uppance to agatha's fictional double.   Once I have put Ariadne Oliver's neck in a noose...either symbolically or literally (I might just have her gased!)  I will consider justice served and get on with the rest of my 'day'  as it were.
Bottom line;  I simply could not that vile woman (agatha christie)  get away with her betrayal of Poirot ( and , by extension, his readers)  without doing SOMETHING to balance the scales of literary justice.
   It's an interesting irony that,  if christie's  devotees felt about Poirot the way she did, the Belgian detective would have NO fan base. There wouldn't be the movies, past or present. No series. Hercule Poirot would simply NOT exist because readers wouldn't care. In that sense, christie would have gotten the implied wish she made in her documented rant.

   Then again, why do they tolerate her hatred of him, by reading her books?

   Again, I realize;  I am trying to make sense out of nonsense, which, unto itself, is senseless.   🤦‍♀️


P.S.  Rule #1  of Stephen King's rules of writing;   LOVE what you do.   Had christie followed that rule,  Poirot wouldn't exist.  Lucky him.

  "They say you're supposed to speak GOOD of the DEAD. She's DEAD?  GOOD!"   Bette Davis re: Joan Crawford. Johanna Oznowicz Re: Agatha Christie.

   Not sure if Bette really felt that way about Joan Crawford, but I most definitely hold those sentiments about agatha christie.

   Dead or not, agatha, you do NOT deserve the praises your most loyal following continues to sing to you.  You spat in our collective face by maligning a character we invested personal time in and found ourselves loving, in spite of his heartless cow of an 'author' .   So, christie, consider this post a spit back in your heartless, ungrateful face!

FINALLY!!!!! Anthology (Edits and all!) FINISHED

  Yahoo!!!!  And a hearty Yabba Dabba Dooooo!            And it only took a four-month medical 'staycation'!  However it was done, ...