Scan barcode
A review by ginaparrish
Taken at the Flood by Agatha Christie
2.0
I have been reading through all of Christie’s books chronologically and unfortunately found this one to be a dud. The mystery is fairly good and unexpected, but it’s hard to like when the masochistic ingenue, Lynn Marchmont, keeps making horrible remarks.
There is only one other of Christie’s novels that I’ve come across with a character as bad as her—Anne Beddingfield in The Man With the Brown Suit. Both only fall for the kind of men that hit them and are abrasive and cruel. This is probably why Christie was (and is) accused of being sexist...
Here is some damning evidence:
“‘Well, there have been dreadful things in the papers lately. All these discharged soldiers—they attack girls.’
‘I expect the girls ask for it.’
She smiled. ” (Ch 14)
And let’s not leave out the happy ending...
“I fell for David because he was dangerous and attractive—and, to be honest, because he knows women much too well. But none of that was real. When you caught hold of me by the throat and said if I wasn’t for you, no one should have me—well—I knew then that I was your woman!” (Ch 17)
I have sometimes made concessions for Christie when a character says something unbelievably racist or for words that are no longer politically correct because of the era in which she wrote. Even in this book she refers to Irish eyes as “smeared on with a smutty finger” on multiple occasions. None of that is okay, but I understand it in the context of the time and culture in which it was written. I find it hard to believe that abuse towards women was encouraged as attractive even then.
There is only one other of Christie’s novels that I’ve come across with a character as bad as her—Anne Beddingfield in The Man With the Brown Suit. Both only fall for the kind of men that hit them and are abrasive and cruel. This is probably why Christie was (and is) accused of being sexist...
Here is some damning evidence:
“‘Well, there have been dreadful things in the papers lately. All these discharged soldiers—they attack girls.’
‘I expect the girls ask for it.’
She smiled. ” (Ch 14)
And let’s not leave out the happy ending...
“I fell for David because he was dangerous and attractive—and, to be honest, because he knows women much too well. But none of that was real. When you caught hold of me by the throat and said if I wasn’t for you, no one should have me—well—I knew then that I was your woman!” (Ch 17)
I have sometimes made concessions for Christie when a character says something unbelievably racist or for words that are no longer politically correct because of the era in which she wrote. Even in this book she refers to Irish eyes as “smeared on with a smutty finger” on multiple occasions. None of that is okay, but I understand it in the context of the time and culture in which it was written. I find it hard to believe that abuse towards women was encouraged as attractive even then.