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!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to disagree but keep it civil, please.