Don’t underestimate the planning. "I put everything down on paper. I make copious pages and pages of notes until I am ready to write and by the time I do sit down at my desk, I have a sort of a map of where I'm going and everything is going to work." Horowitz says. Make sure, though, that you leave a little room to surprise yourself when you get to the page: “If I can't surprise myself, how can I surprise my reader?”
Start with a simple formula. Not sure how that plan should begin? There’s a Horowitz Hack for that: “Start with a simple formula,” he advises. “A plus B equals C. A equals one person, B is another person, C is the reason why A murders B. That's your bullseye. If that's original and interesting and surprising enough, then you can tell us who A and B are, and and that's your next ring. Once you’ve got the basics,” he explains, “you can build out into the worlds your characters occupy, who knows them and how they know each other.”
People should be able to guess the twist. Want to know the secret of a killer plot twist? It should be obvious enough for people to potentially guess it – but surprising enough that they rarely actually do. One of the major influences on Horowitz’s work was Agatha Christie, an author who he says always surprises him but “you always feel you could have guessed because all the information has been down there in front of you. When I’m writing my book, I’m very influenced by that. When my publisher or my agent or anybody else reads one of my books, the first question I ask is not ‘Did you enjoy it?’ but, ‘Did you guess it?’ Because that, to me, is the crux of the matter. If they do guess it, I feel a sense of disappointment but at the same time, if they can't get it, then I haven't played fair. What I prefer to do is for them to say, 'No, I didn't get it, but I should have.' That's what I'm aiming for.”
Live inside your book. “There’s one piece of advice I would give to writers: don't stand on the edge of the book, looking over the edge of the chasm. Live inside the book looking around you,” Horowitz says. “What my characters see, I see. What they feel – the wind or the sunshine – I feel. If I'm inside the book, I'm not thinking about it as being something that you or anybody else will read. I am merely inside the world of the book – all that comes later.”
The only rule is originality. “If you ask me what are the do’s and don’ts in writing a whodunnit or a murder mystery? Quite simply, there aren’t any. Never constrain yourself. It is by doing the don'ts and not doing the do’s that you will write the completely original book for you – and find success.”
Alex is never given a gun by MI6. This was agreed before the first book was even written and it’s something I've often played with. Alex always wants a gun and slightly resents being sent into danger without one. He does get a gun in his hands in Point Blanc, but it jams. Then, in Eagle Strike, he steals Yassen’s Grach MP-443 and although he never intentionally fires it, he begins to understand the real horror of inflicting a bullet wound on a human being as Yassen taunts him: "… you will live with what you have done for the rest of your life." And in Scorpia, he actually takes a shot at Mrs Jones, although he deliberately misses. I hate to say it, but my publishers are probably right. Getting shot is brutal and images of kids with guns bring to mind unpleasant images of high school killings in America. I want these books to be fun. So it’s best to give gun violence a miss.
Anthony Horowitz, 2010 (from the afterword in the 2014 edition of Scorpia)
Today I offer you a little messy sketchy screenshot redraw of Alex Rider. ❤️ This scene in S1 was CRAAAZYYY, definitely one of my favorite moments in the season, maybe even the whole show. (It’s one of the first times Alex gets to show off how intelligent he is!!! I’m so proud of him!!)
Reference photo and a little blabbing underneath!
This poor guy. 😭 He was going through it. But man, I love the aesthetically pleasing blood splatter and how dark Alex’s expression is here. I love the trope of young characters that have a dark layer underneath that doesn’t show up very often but when it does, when that layer gets peeled back for just a moment, other characters are taken aback and are like “um, so, that kid is incredible and a little terrifying and maybe a bit crazy.” Idk, I love seeing interesting and complex characters like Alex. We need more complex characters!
Anyways, I’m just yapping at this point. I love Alex Rider, I love both the character and show so much. ❤️
I just found a WEIRD Sherlock Holmes adaptation trilogy! It’s only available on Storytel/Audible as an audiobook.
Becoming Sherlock takes place in 2065 dystopian London. the story starts with Watson finding a beaten man in the streets who has no memory of who he is, but other than that he’s clearly a genius. John Watson and Missy Hudson save his life and then they all become roommates on Baker Street. But theres obviously something weird about Sherlock, since the only ties he has to anything is the shady biochemical facility. (Im honestly thinking he is a literal laboratory experiment! 👀)
It’s fun and interesting and I like the angst, but it’s also giving me some nasty BBC Sherlock flashbacks… (it’s painfully heteronormative). so I don’t know what to make of it yet😂
A list for those who have run out of Holmes stories to read
Pastiche (Noun):
A literary, artistic, musical, or architectural work that imitates the style of previous work.
Lyndsay Faye- Writes both novels and short stories. Excellent at portraying canon Holmes accurately while also portraying emotional moments well; puts an excellently written focus on the friendship between Sherlock and Watson, has a book set from the point of view of minor characters in the canon that matches the books very well.
Bonnie MacBird- A pastiche novelist. Another writer that does well at inserting more intensely emotional moments into the story and writes more into the daily life of being a flatmate with Sherlock Holmes into her books.
Nicholas Meyer- Sherlock Holmes novelist responsible for some of the most famous pastiches of the modern era including “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution”, a deeper non-canonical look into Sherlock’s psyche featuring Sigmund Freud. Willing to put Watson and Holmes through the wringer physically and emotionally; excellent at writing more suspenseful and stirring stories. He also brings non-canonical depth and insight to the time surrounding Watson’s second marriage, creating a what-if scenario that some may enjoy.
more authors under the cut
James Lovegrove- Novelist. I enjoy how he references other genres and historical events in his stories, such as Sherlock facing off against a superpowered take on Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine. His stories are entirely original while written close to the canon’s vibes.
Sam Siciliano- Novelist currently writing under the “Further adventures of Sherlock Holmes” series, while one could argue his stories are a series in their own right. Rather than being stuck writing in Watson’s perspective- which can be a challenge to prevent alienating certain readers, since imitating a set narrator’s writing style while attempting an original take can be a challenge- he writes from the point of view of an original character- Sherlock’s cousin, Henry Vernier- allowing him to create an original feel to the narrative without it feeling unlike a Sherlock Holmes story
Anthony Horowitz- A veteran author in his own right, he has the unusual honor of having a novel of his endorsed by the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Despite only having two novels set in the Holmes universe, his experience in writing mystery and suspense stories shines through his works in a previously invented world.
So. After I wrote my scathing book/show comparison/critique of Murder on the Links, I was talking to some friends, and we were wondering what other episodes Anthony Horowitz (the guy who adapted the script for Murder on the Links) adapted for the Agatha Christie's Poirot series and whether this can tell us anything about his involvement in the show... And then I realised that I actually have the research skills to run some stats and find this out!
So I spent yesterday doing my best Modern-Day Miss Lemon impression and creating an excel spreadsheet that lists all of the episodes in the series by their airdates, who produced them, who wrote them, and who directed them so I could run some comparisons. I also coded the dataset for appearances of recurring characters in each episode, and whether or not the episode counted as a Core Four episode (meaning an episode that stars David Suchet, Hugh Fraser, Pauline Moran, AND Philip Jackson)
I had great fun making this spreadsheet. Because I am. apparently. insane about this show!! I'm thinking of possibly making this spreadsheet accessible to others, so I may end up putting it on github at some point, but I kind of doubt anyone else is as insane as I am about the stats nonsense for this series, so I may not LMAO. (That said, if you're interested in running your own numbers, or if you have a question you'd like me to try to answer using the data on my excel sheet, definitely let me know!)
Anyways! In the process of making this spreadsheet, I have discovered some... VERY interesting patterns.
Since this is a stats analysis of the Horowitz episodes specifically, I'll start here with a list of all of the episodes Anthony Horowitz adapted for the series, a list of some of the interesting patterns I noticed when I was making the spreadsheet, and a list of some of the to be fair: subjective conclusions I've reached based on this information.
Next, I discuss in detail some of the implications this shared authorship has for Poirot's and Hastings' (respectively) romance plots in the series on the basis of three episodes: The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies, with an acknowledgement of the collaborative nature of what ends up being produced for a TV series.
Finally, I'll dedicate a moment to a short discussion of some interesting things I noticed when I took a closer look at the people behind Murder in Mesopotamia and. I'll end with A Realisation^TM I've had. that has implications for my own fannish interactions with this show.
So! Without further ado (here is my 12pg, 6000+ word discussion on the subject):
THE HOROWITZ EPISODES (In order of release date)
3.3 The Million Dollar Bond Robbery (1991)
3.7 The Double Clue (1991)
3.8 Mystery of the Spanish Chest (1991)
3.9 Theft of the Royal Ruby (1991 - Co-written by Clive Exton)
5.3 Yellow Iris (1993)
5.7 Dead Man's Mirror (1993)
5.8 Jewel Robbery at the Grand Metropolitan (1993)
6.2 Hickory Dickory Dock (1995)
6.3 Murder on the Links (1996)
7.2 Lord Edgeware Dies (2000)
8.1 Evil Under the Sun (2001) Can't find a place to stream it, sorry guys :'(
Some interesting things to note here are:
Horowitz adapted 11 episodes out of the total 70 that ended up comprising the Suchet!Poirot series, which aired between 1991 and 2001 (he is credited with adapting the second most episodes in the series)
The most consecutive episodes he wrote (4) were at the start of his association with the show in 1991
However, these four episodes aired in January and February of 1991, which means they may have been written in or around the end of 1990. (Which is interesting to ME because that's the same year Margaret Thatcher stopped being Prime Minister of the UK. Hmm. HMMM. This Might Just have some Implications about the political climate in the UK at the time he was writing them. But anyway, I won't get into that here because the post is already too long.)
Five of the 11 episodes Horowitz adapted star the Core Four: i.e., Poirot, Hastings, Miss Lemon, and Japp (Accounting for five of the total 28 episodes starring the Core Four)
All of the episodes Horowitz adapted were produced principally by Brian Eastman, although there were a smattering of co-producers
Of note here is that Hickory Dickory Dock and Murder on the Links were co-produced by a woman named Sarah Wilson (who, interestingly, seems to leave the production team after helping produce Murder on the Links and Dumb Witness - Now. I don't have enough info about this to draw a conclusion here, but uh. Huh! That Sure Is Interesting! I wish I could find out why!!)
Horowitz is almost solely responsible for adapting the scripts of the stories that were supposedly romances for Poirot and for Hastings:
The Double Clue (although, if you read my analysis of that episode here, you'll see I don't think there was really all that much romance in it at all)
Murder on the Links (Well. We all know what I thought of THAT one)
and Lord Edgeware Dies (A bit more on what I think of THAT here...)
Finally, and perhaps what I think is most interesting about all of this: The man who co-wrote Theft of the Royal Ruby with Horowitz is called Mr. Clive Exton, who adapted the deliciously devastating script for The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, upon which (at least according to David Suchet!) Horowitz built some of the plot for Lord Edgeware Dies.
Of note here is that Clive Exton is the screenwriter who adapted the most episodes out of anyone else for the entire series (He's credited as being the main writer of 20 episodes, all airing b/w 1989 and 2001, and as co-writer of 1 episode, airing in 1991. So he had a hand in 21 of the episodes) Interestingly, Clive Exton also adapted 12 of the 28 Core Four episodes and six out of my eighteen favourite episodes, including Murder in Mesopotamia (Which was Clive's last title with the series - more about this under the cut below!)
Some conclusions I've reached based on these stats:
Horowitz adapted a lot of episodes for the show—he was the adaptor of the second most episodes for the series, after Clive Exton—but his tenure with the show was... kind of short-lived.
Although there are some episodes adapted by Horowitz that I personally sort of like (Yellow Iris, Jewel Robbery at the Grand Metropolitan, Hickory Dickory Dock), and this means that Horowitz may write some okay stuff sometimes, it's quite possible that these particular stories are the ones that don't deviate too much from Christie's original storylines (I'll still have to read these stories before I can say this for sure though)
However, we KNOW that Anthony Horowitz LOVES to change things & add all sorts of shit to the episodes that wasn't in the original stories, so, that being his modus opporandi means... it's also possible that the stories of his I like are nothing like the original stories, and I might start disliking them a bit if I read them...which is. a scary thought.
I have... mixed feelings about his version of Lord Edgeware Dies now that I've read the original, but. Horowitz clearly added a lot of shit to the plot of this one, too, so... I'm not actually too hopeful about liking his takes on the ones I haven't read yet.
I Can't Believe That Anthony Horowitz adapted my two least favourite episodes in the entire series actually, this explains SO much, The Double Clue and Murder on the Links.
Which. Incidentally. Are the two episodes that establish the show!canon for the main romance-driven plots involving Poirot and Hastings (respectively).
Horowitz is also responsible for adding all the extra romance bullshit for Poirot into the plot of Lord Edgeware Dies, which tells me that Anthony Horowitz absolutely CANNOT be trusted with romance plots. We can see how BADLY he fumbles them each time!
(Which... I recognise that the producers, the directors, and the actors also have some sway in how the episodes turn out, but... I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that the crappy way the romance turned out in Horowitz's scripts might just be due to some Bad Ol' Fashioned Misogyny and how Horowitz seemed to Trip All Over Himself in these three scripts trying to No-Homo Everything... just sayin'...)
Implications for Poirot's & Hastings' romantic lives
NOW. Since Horowitz is the one who had considerable creative control over ALL of the major ""romance"" plots involving Poirot and Hastings (respectively) in the show, this means that Horowitz was almost single-handedly responsible for establishing the show's canon regarding all of the (hetero!) romances involving Poirot & Hastings.
And again: yes, the producers might have wanted to see specific scenes, too, so they must have given some input into Horowitz's scripts. There was probably an editing process. And the directors and the actors themselves absolutely had a hand in helping to establish this canon, with their shot design, direction, and the characters' actions. But! keep in mind that Horowitz is STILL the one who ultimately wrote the scripts! Most of the additional scenes and most of the lines said by the characters were thus presumably contributed by him! So, if this show is even half as gay as it appears, Anthony Horowitz played a HUGE ROLE in making it that way, intentionally or not!
Now, returning to the fact that the romance plots came specifically from screenplays that Horowitz adapted—The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies—We can see that these three episodes carry within them a sort of continuity of storyline that doesn't seem to be followed by most the other screenwriters who adapted for this show (except... for Clive Exton... Hmm.... More on that in a moment).
One thing I do like about the continuity of these three episodes is that they can ALL be interpreted as SUPER GAY (which is obviously what I, as something of a gay man myself, am interpreting them as). What I don't really like is... having analysed these three episodes very intensely, I don't think that the gay interpretation is what Horowitz intended to portray. I do think that his intentions terribly backfired on him: in fact, I think that he was trying SO HARD to No-Homo everything... that the plots of these three episodes wrapped all the way back round to being SUPER GAY.
HOKAI. SO. Starting with Horowitz's adaptation of the Double Clue—which, at least on their first viewing, most people I've talked to tend to interpret as a romance between Poirot and the Countess Rossakova (And YES her surname is supposed to end in -a, guys. Уж я-то знаю о чём я говорю)—Poirot is positioned as a man who does not allow people to get close to him and would rather push them away than entertain the possibility of a relationship. While this is technically true to the character that Agatha Christie wrote, this implication was not in the original short story The Double Clue (possibly because there was no room for such an implication in a short story), meaning Horowitz added it in.
Lads. Let's have a look at all the other things that got added in: Horowitz added in the admittedly, pretty gay scene about Hastings and Poirot seeing a bride, prompting Hastings to ask Poirot if he'd ever considered marriage.
Horowitz added in the scene where Hastings gets shot at.
Horowitz added the scene where Hastings is getting his wounds tended to by Miss Lemon while Poirot stands by with his hand on Hastings' shoulder. Horowitz wrote Hastings' little pouty line about 'where are you [Poirot] taking her [the countess]?'
LIKE. HOLY SHITBALLS, YOU GUYS. HOROWITZ IS RESPONSIBLE. FOR ADDING IN THE MAIN SCENES THAT MADE THIS EPISODE SO GAY. And the awful part is, this probably happened because he was trying really hard to force the story to be hetero, but he just couldn't resist adding in Hastings asking Poirot about marriage AND a literal HONEST TO GOD Hastings Whump Scene^TM, complete with him being touched and doted upon by both Miss Lemon AND Poirot.
(Okay, Mr. "I'm not gay myself, but"... I'm sure that NONE of your personal experiences with that First Boss of yours contributed in Any Way Whatsoever to the way you wrote Hastings and Poirot's dynamic, or the things you write in your self-insert books /MAJOR sarcasm)
Next, let's consider Murder on the Links. I go into detail about Horowitz's additions to the plot of this story here, and I've already talked extensively about my interpretation of this episode in previous posts, but to sum things up: This episode. Is BAD. It's disrespectful to the characters and it ignores what Agatha Christie wrote in favour of... what could possibly be some unknown point he was trying to make.
The way Horowitz writes this episode, Hastings is positioned as a man who is more concerned with aesthetics than he is with honesty when it comes to his romantic partners (which... doesn't seem to fit the Hastings Agatha Christie actually wrote, nor does it seem in keeping with the sharp, honest-to-a-fault Hastings that Clive Exton wrote in the Cornish Mystery). Horowitz further positions Hastings as someone who needs another man's interference to actually get married—implying that Hastings is so stupid & useless that he needs somebody to do everything for him. OUCH.
In Horowitz's godawful adaptation of Murder on the Links, Hastings falls for Isabelle—a woman whose only onscreen actions position her as being a Manipulative Liar (who is NOTHING like the love interest character Agatha Christie originally wrote for Hastings)—and ends up super sad at the end of the episode because he's apparently hung up on this horrible woman. Who basically THREW HIM IN THE GARBAGE. But who cares, right? At least she's ""hot""! That's all that matters, right? "Oh but you're so hot! Oh please throw me in the garbage again, ma'am!" Is that what you wanted, Mr. Horowitz? Is this your idea of romance??? I cannot believe this script actually made it through production.
And THEN at the end of the episode, Horowitz adds a scene where Poirot practically forces this lying, manipulative woman to go marry Hastings, presumably so that Hastings will stop being So Sad^TM
(but it also looks for all the world like Poirot thought doing this would solve both Hastings' loneliness problem AND his OWN problem of having feelings for Hastings at the same time...
And then he immediately looks like he REGRETS IT).
Like. Lads. DAMN. Essentially, from where I'm standing at least, the way Horowitz writes this episode, Poirot is made to LOOK, for all the world, like a repressed gay man who's basically throwing a woman at his crush, regardless of what her actions say about the kind of person she is, for the sole purpose of marrying Hastings off and thus ceremonially placing Hastings out of his own reach.
LET ME SAY THAT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY: Horowitz basically sets up the story of Murder on the Links so that, in Poirot's haste to try to simultaneously solve his own problem of having a crush on Hastings/make Hastings happy in the moment, Poirot is literally guaranteeing that Hastings is going to later be hurt even more than he already has been by the woman he marries...and that Poirot himself will later be hurt, too, when hastings starts going on about what a Great Person she is. Like. Oooough. DAMN. OUCH.
But. I guess you could argue. That this episode does set the scene for some nice albeit wildly off-book doomed yaoi narratives later in the show I guess??
Now. As the ICING ON THE KINDA TONE-DEAF LAYERED CAKE that Mr. Horowitz has been baking for us with the previous two ""romance"" plots here, let's consider what happens in Anthony Horowitz's version of Lord Edgeware Dies. What is Horowitz responsible for adding to the plot of THIS one? WELL! The answer is: A WHOLE DAMN LOT.
Again! we have to keep in mind that, in his book, Poirot & Me (which I haven't read all the way through, mind you, I just stumbled on this Google Books sample when I was researching for my spreadsheet) David Suchet himself attributes the added scenes in Lord Edgeware Dies to Anthony Horowitz, saying that he was building off of a previous theme established by Clive Exton in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd:
So! Looking JUST at additions to the spoken lines in the script for Lord Edgeware Dies which are presumably attributable to the screenwriter, especially if the main star of the show is also attributing these things to him, we can deduce that:
Horowitz added the subplot about Hastings making a terrible financial decision and then LEAVING ISABELLE BEHIND IN ARGENTINA (You know, Isabelle? the Lying, Manipulative Cocktail Bar Singer Lady from Murder on the Links that Horowitz makes Poirot sorta force Hastings to marry? YEAH. HER) to SELL THEIR RANCH while Hastings himself looks for a place for them to live in London even though he's like. BROKE broke. So much for the Happily Ever After Hastings seems to get in the books!
Horowitz then writes Hastings as Swearing Up & Down that Isabelle is such a Wonderful, Understanding Wife even though NONE of her actions in Murder on the Links would lead us to believe this, and that he's TOTALLY A NEW MAN thanks to her.
Which he does Right in Front of Poirot's Salad.
Except Horowitz himself has previously established! That Poirot is the one who basically forced Hastings and his wife together! So the way this shakes out? Horowitz basically made it so that Poirot brought all of the pain and discomfort he's feeling in this moment onto himself. OUch. That's actually terribly RUDE to Poirot's character!!
Horowitz went FURTHER and added the honestly ridiculous subplot about Poirot seeming to be sort of interested in Jane Wilkinson, whilst vehemently denying it. And Poirot actually does a pretty good job of convincing me that he isn't interested in her and that he's ACTUALLY interested in HASTINGS... which some of the other scenes added in by Horowitz actually reinforce.
Like the little bit where. Poirot. LITERALLY DECLINES. LITTLE MISS HOT LADY JANE WILKINSON'S INVITATION OUT TO DINNER. IN FAVOUR OF INVITING HASTINGS OVER TO HIS OWN HOUSE FOR DINNER. AND TELLING HIM NOT TO BE LATE.
OR THE PART. WHERE. AT SAID DINNER. MISS LEMON ASKS POIROT IF HE'S EVER CONSIDERED MARRIAGE (Hey! Does that sound familiar? YEAH!! BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME THING!! THAT HOROWITZ MADE HASTINGS ASK POIROT!! WHEN THEY SAW THAT BRIDE BACK IN DOUBLE CLUE!! THIS MIGHT JUST BE A BIG HINT! THAT THE SAME WRITER!! WROTE BOTH OF THESE SCENES!!)
AND THEN POIROT RESPONDS. THAT HE'S BEEN TEMPTED IN THE PAST. THEN SAYS, BUT NOW ALAS *LOOKS DIRECTLY AT HASTINGS* I FEAR THAT IT IS TOO LATE. AND WHY IS IT TOO LATE, POIROT??? IS IT BECAUSE HOROWITZ MADE YOU LITERALLY THROW A WOMAN AT HASTINGS SO THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO FACE YOUR FEELINGS FOR HIM???????
BUT THAT is CERTAINLY NOT ALL!
Horowitz also presumably added Hastings' little lines about if you just ignore your suspicions and convictions.. you know, like I did in Murder on the Links.. and go out with the hot lady who was giving you the time of day earlier, you might just be able to Get Married and Be Happy^TM like me, Poirot!
And he also presumably added the scene where Hastings thinks he has it all figured out and basically tells Poirot that he Knows (read: incorrectly assumes) that Poirot is Hung Up on Jane Wilkinson and gives him a speech about how There Comes A Point In your Life When You think Romance Has Passed You By But When It Does Finally Hit You, It Can Really Bowl You Over... (which is RICH coming from the Mr. Arthur "My Boss Best Friend Chose My Wife For Me" Hastings that Horowitz so """"KINDLY""""" gifted to us)
And Hastings says all this... because... Poirot is... sitting there quietly and thinking... ???? (i.e., exhibiting... behaviour that is VERY NORMAL FOR HIM? To which Horowitz makes MISS LEMON say, "I've never seen him like this" BullSHIT, yes you HAVE!! Since when do you NOT know that Hercule Poirot is ALMOST ALWAYS sitting in silence and employing his little grey cells?? An EXTREMELY Careless Scripting Addition that Ignores Poirot's Disposition, which.... considering some of the things that happen in Murder on the Links... seems to be very much in the Horowitz style!!)
I do have to say. That Horowitz did add something which I actually find to be very sweet: When Poirot gifts Hastings some reward money (which I definitely don't remember being in the book) so that Hastings can start rebuilding his life after making that Terrible Financial Decision (Y'know. The one that Horowitz himself presumably added. Hmm. This is cute, but it feels suspiciously like putting a bandaid on an awful plot point... another thing that feels very in keeping with the Horowitz Style^TM).
Now. I do love how character-driven (misguided as it was) the plot of this episode was. But... Given all of the EXTRA crap like this that got added to Lord Edgeware Dies, the murder investigation almost seemed to be the subplot of this episode rather than the main event?? Which is? If I understand correctly? Usually what's supposed to happen with murder mystery shows? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG tho LMAO
Something I find to be... interesting... is that, Lord Edgeware Dies is not the final episode that Horowitz adapted for the series (he went on to adapt Evil Under The Sun. Which is ALSO interesting, but I won't talk about that here. This post is already entirely too long), but this episode directly drew from lines of continuity that he established in Double Clue and Murder on the Links, and it almost feels like this episode, along with some of the things he added to Evil Under the Sun, were supposed to be the culmination of the story he was trying to tell us about these men's romantic lives...
...and from where I'm standing? The story Horowitz ended up telling us is that Hastings is Useless and Stupid and has to have everything done for him, and Poirot loves him in spite of all this, but that Poirot is the kind of man who pushes people away if they get too close, will deny his true feelings (even though... the truth is what motivates him the most??), so he throws a woman at his crush to try to Make It All Better^TM and ends up regretting it for the rest of his life.
Which. technically. And likely unintentionally. DOES make for a pretty good Doomed Yaoi plot. You're right! I do gotta hand that to him. FINE. I guess he can keep his unintentionally cute little reward-money-bandaid-scene that looks suspiciously like the bandaid scene in Murder on the Links where Hastings is Sad^TM so he gives Hastings *checks notes* AN ENTIRE WOMAN.
But I ask you: did Horowitz have to be so disrespectful to the characters to tell this story? Clive Exton, for example, was doing an excellent job telling a more respectful story of Hastings' and Poirot's devotion to one another!
A GROUP EFFORT
Now, I realise I am attributing a lot of this additional stuff to Horowitz, which may not be entirely fair, since the producers, the directors, and the actors do have somewhat of a say in what happens in the show; for example, we can't forget that Hugh Fraser and David Suchet's brilliant on-screen chemistry and acting choices actively helped this show be as gay as it was!
However ☝️ I will point out that, when it comes to the continuity of the ""romance"" storylines in The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies, the actors wouldn't have had the lines they were supposed to say without the screenwriter, Anthony Horowitz.
And, in my defence, in David Suchet's book, Poirot & Me, David Suchet himself also seems to attribute a lot of the plot additions and/or changes in Horowitz's screenplays to Horowitz specifically.
But what about the producers and the directors, you might say? The producers pay for what they want to see and the directors build on that vision and add their own spins on it, right?
Technically true! So, let's have a look at some of the other players here:
The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies:
Each have different directors (Andrew Piddington, Andrew Grieve, and Brian Farnham, respectively), so—although these directors could have shared a similar vision—this particular line of continuity regarding the main characters' romances in the show can't be explained by a single director's vision.
HOWEVER. These episodes were all produced by Brian Eastman (with the help of a few other executive and associate producers, but Brian Eastman is the only producer that had his hand in all three of these episodes), so he could definitely have had a hand in how gay the episodes ended up being! (Especially since he produced 49 of the 70 episodes, and brought us gems like Murder in the Mews, The Third Floor Flat, The Incredible Theft, The Veiled Lady, The Lost Mine, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, Affair at the Victory Ball, The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb, Dumb Witness, and Murder in Mesopotamia, six of which are also Clive Exton episodes, interestingly enough!! 👀)
So. All of this to say that, this may well have been a group effort. BUT. at least concerning the line of continuity regarding the main characters' romances established in The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies, Screenwriter Anthony Horowitz and producer Brian Eastman seem to be the lowest common denominators here. If Horowitz wrote it? Eastman paid him to put it there. And I'll point out: The directors and the actors obviously rolled with it, or I wouldn't have had any textual evidence whatsoever to inspire me to write this post!
What about Murder in Mesopotamia?
Now! An extra note about Murder in Mesopotamia, since I went the extra mile and found out who adapted this one, and since, interestingly, this is the only episode I have seen that's not written by Horowitz, but still directly follows lines of continuity in the """romance""" plots that were established by both The Double Clue and Murder on the Links.
Specifically, Murder in Mesopotamia directly refers to the ""romance"" line of continuity established in Double Clue, because the Countess (even though she does not appear in the episode) is referenced multiple times and is shown as repeatedly letting Poirot down and STICKING HIM WITH THE BILL later, which is much closer to being the Countess character that Agatha Christie actually wrote, and seems to run directly counter to the Countess character that Horowitz established in The Double Clue, who was apparently so enamoured with Poirot that she basically almost gives herself up multiple times. Oh! 👀 Are... we perhaps... witnessing some narrative infighting amongst the screenwriters?
Murder in Mesopotamia also directly, but very subtly, refers to the ""romance"" line of continuity established in Murder on the Links, because it contains a little tiny blink-and-you'd-miss-it, almost throwaway line uttered by Poirot about Hastings' wife (who also does not appear in the episode) about sending him out of the continent because she 'needed a break'.
Not just the city. Not just the country. OUT OF THE CONTINENT.
It seemed to be a throwaway line that took less than a second to say. I doubt many people even caught it. But. I. am insane about this show. So I definitely paid attention to that tiny little line. In fact, the first time I heard it, it echoed VERY LOUDLY in my ears and I was lucky enough to be able to go replay it a few dozen times so I could see if I actually heard what I thought I heard. And it turns out I did hear it right.
LADS. I don't know what the screenwriter's intention behind this line was. (If I can figure out a way to reach Mr. Exton for comment, I'll ask him, but... he was born in 1939, so...my window to ask may be closing fast.) We may not ever know.
But (and this is entirely my interpretation of this line) it almost sounds to me like this subtle little line was a bit of a shot across Horowitz's bow; a line that said "Uh-huh, you THOUGHT you were telling a romantic story, but you were wrong. You don't understand the characters like I do. That woman you made Hastings marry is literally the kind of person who would tell him she "needed a break" and would SEND HIS ASS AWAY SO THAT HE WASN'T EVEN ON THE SAME CONTINENT AS SHE WAS And To Do What exactly? This is just my impression based on the storylines that Horowitz established, but maybe Isabelle found somebody else she likes better than Hastings, just like she did to Jack in Murder on the Links, and now that she's Married to Hastings and therefore kind of Stuck With Him she has to... what? Send him out of the continent because she doesn't want him to catch her fucking CHEATING ON HIM, but she knows, based on what Horowitz established, that he'll basically take her lies and half-truths at face value and not suspect a thing??????? Idk! Again, this is just the impression I get of the situation! and... it's a pretty damn strong one!! Especially since!!! A main theme in the episode!!! Is The Murderer. Kinda. Yannow. Psychologically Torturing a Woman That He Considers as having Cheated on Him!!! JUST SAYIN'.
Murder in Mesopotamia also happens to be one of the most respectful and Yearning-est of episodes that Poirot and Hastings are in together.
There's Poirot playfully teasing and subtly flirting with Hastings.
There's Longing Gazes.
There's hand touching and gentle smiles.
There's Hastings showing his devotion to Poirot, and lingering in Poirot's presence, for little reason other than just to be with him.
OUghh LADS. THIS is MUCH truer to the Poirot and Hastings that Agatha Christie actually wrote. And this episode was such a salve to my soul after the shitstorm that comprised the lines of continuity in The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies.
Interestingly, Murder in Mesopotamia was the final episode that Clive Exton wrote for the series. That was truly the end of an era for such a wonderful screen writer, and I am truly grateful for his humble contributions to writing believable episodes that were true to Agatha Christie's characters and absolutely helped make the show as gay as it was 🫡
The interactions between Hastings and Poirot in this episode are some of the most heart-rending, sad-to-be-doomed-by-the-narrative scenes during Producer Brian Eastman's and Clive Exton's tenures with the show, both of which incidentally ended with the release of Murder in Mesopotamia in July of 2001. You know who else's tenure with the show ended earlier, in April of 2001? Anthony. Bleepin'. Horowitz's.
Lads. What I'm trying to imply here? Is that it looks to me like Brian Eastman specifically (with Clive Exton's help) seemed to intentionally (but in a subtle subtextual sort of way) want to make the show as gay as it was, and even despite all of Anthony Horowitz's No-Homo-ing and bending over backwards into Oh-Yeah-Anthony-That's-TOTALLY-super-Hetero-behaviour-we-Promise-Good-Job territory, they succeeded... but ultimately... that era came to an end with the release of Murder in Mesopotamia. Well. At least it sure went out with a bang.
And now I understand why I'm struggling to get as into the later episodes as I am into the earlier ones. Because, at least in my case, what I found so compelling about the earlier episodes in the show were the other characters' dynamics with Poirot, and without them there, Poirot becomes a terribly lonely old man, and that kinda crushes me in ways I struggle to describe. And it seems that the Driving Force of the Gay behind my main ship for this show seems to have ended with the Brian Easton & Clive Exton et al. Era in 2001. I truly mourn the loss of their creative vision for this show.
In Conclusion...
Now... as a final note. Writing out this discussion. Has brought me to the startling realisation. That ALL of the fics I have written for this fandom (including the three I started in 2024 and have never posted publicly). INCLUDING MY McFUCKENING WEBCOMIC.
Are tied. To trying to do what I watched Clive Exton seem to do in Murder in Mseopotamia, which is: to fix, correct, or otherwise refute some of the bullshit that Anthony McFreakening Horowitz implied about Agatha Christie's characters.
Lads. What the FUCK. I'm So Mad. Ough. I have allowed the curiosity to guide me into the depths, seeking the dark and forbidden knowledge!! AND NOW!! I KNOW TOO MUCH!!! I KNOW THINGS THAT I CANNOT UNKNOW!!!!!
I mean. I've got to hand it to him. Horowitz likely unintentionally gave us some pretty funny lines and some Okay VERY GAY Moments. And he definitely inspired me to try to advocate better for these characters than he ever did.
But HOO BOY, lads. HOLY FUCK. I can't believe the inciting incident that finally got me shipping Hastings and Poirot was likely that stupid dinner scene written by Anthony McFuckening Horowitz.
I can't believe I set out to prove that Hastings is NOT useless and CAN be smart and that Poirot wouldn't do Hastings like that, actshually because of Some Bullshit^TM that Anthony Horowitz decided to add to Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies.
Lads. I'm reeling. If it weren't for that dinner scene, or for Anthony Horowitz's frankly terribly disrespectful treatment of my favourite characters? I MAY NOT HAVE FINISHED AN ENTIRE 57 PAGES OF A WEBCOMIC. What. WHAT.
Now. All that being said. It wouldn't actually be fair to attribute all of my fic inspiration to Horowitz. Yes, Horowitz may have written the scenes that made me want to take the characters away from him and do right by them, but it is a direct result of the brilliant works of Clive Exton and some of the other people involved in the show who actually understood the characters (like Directors Edward Bennett and Renny Rye, and screenwriters Michael Baker and Andrew Marshall, to name a few) that I came to know and love these characters.
I was already Gleefully Noticing the Signs of Gay^TM way back in the very first episode I watched, The Adventure of the Clapham Cook (Which! Incidentally! Happens to be a VERY NUTRITIOUS AND DELICIOUS Clive Exton episode! Thank you for my favouritest Poirot Lines That He Ever uttered, Mr. Exton!!!). The Signs of Gay^TM were built up in a LOT in the episodes that aired between 1989 and 2001. Many of the stories contributed by Mr. Exton et al. (and the compelling fondness and devotion they show between Hastings and Poirot) continue to help me through The Horrors that are Currently My Life. And not to be Dramatique^TM, but they even absolutely SAVED my life.
And when I started reading Christie's original works (I read The Mysterious Affair at Styles first, and yes, I read her stories in Russian, but they're still ultimately her works), I became extremely compelled by the dynamic that Agatha Christie herself built between Poirot and Hastings: specifically that Hastings seems to have his own thoughts and feelings and his own agency, but he's STILL, somehow, MADE to be Poirot's best friend, confidant, and helper. Hastings' character literally frames Poirot's, lends Poirot the necessary reverence and respect that allows the audience to Get To Know Who Poirot Is, and helps him to understand what conclusions The Average Englishman would reach, and although Hastings sometimes annoys him, Poirot can't help loving him for it.
And I just happen to believe that such a dynamic is very compelling and also can be interpreted as SUPER GAY.
So. Yes. It's hard to ignore that a lot of my fannish inspiration in the Poirot fandom... stems from me watching Double Clue, Murder on the Links, Lord Edgeware Dies, and finding myself in a place of Holy Shit, Hastings and Poirot are REALLY ACTUALLY LITERALLY LEGITLY Gay for each other, Marcus! I gotta prove that asshole wrong about them!
BUT! This all just goes to show:
Once you put your work out there into the world, you have NO control over how people (who may or may not think much more deeply about who the established characters in the source material actually are and the psychological implications of certain actions than you yourself might permit yourself to, Mr. Horowitz) might interpret it!!
More power to us fans who actually think about character dynamics, write the stories we want to hear that are still respectful to the characters, and ship what we want to ship!!!!
Hi there! These analysis episodes take a lot of time and effort so, if you were entertained by this post and you like what I do, please consider dropping a little pocket change into my tip jar on ko-fi! Thanks very much!
