Talk:The Mysterious Affair at Styles

Plot summary
Then it would be nice if you got someone who's actually READ the novel to summarize it; when a fairly important character is omitted, that's just sloppy and careless. When two characters' relationship is misrepresented, that is equally careless.
 * "...if you got..."? Methinks you misunderstand wikipedia, oh anonymous one; there are no assignment editors in this free-for-all. - DavidWBrooks 22:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Having said that, and removed your obnoxiously worded notes, you're right that it's a crummy article. - DavidWBrooks 22:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand Wikipedia's mission - I don't particularly believe in it, but that's another discussion. I notice that you didn't add Dr. Bauerstein, and that you kept Cynthia as someone's niece - even though no uncle or aunt of hers appears in the book. She is NOT related to Emily or Evelyn. John Cavendish, when he and Hastings are first driving to Styles, describes her as "a protegee of my mother's, the daughter of an old schoolfellow of hers".

Therefore, my acerbic commentary will be reposted.
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.

LibriVox Recording link
Just an FYI, I've removed the link to the LibriVox recording of Mysterious Affair at Styles due to there being a possible copyright conflict. LibriVox is working to resolve this and will repost the link if resolved. thistlechick 03:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I do not know how to check for copyright so I am not going to post a link in the main article. I found the audio book at . I have yet to play it as it is downloading as I type this. If the copyright has expired, feel free to use the link provided in the main article.

James thirteen (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken "mistake" removed
The description of the TV version said "A slight mistake is, however, that it is left unexplained how the door of the late Mrs. Inglethorp's room (that had been broken in at her death) is fixed in the early morning before Poirot's arrival (which could prevent the other residents from altering the traces)."

I've checked that this is incorrect.

The door that is "broken in" is the connecting door to Mr. Inglethorpe's room, but it's clearly only the lock that's broken: the door itself doesn't appear to be damaged. When they leave the room it's explicitly stated that both rooms are locked. Also, at this time the third door, to Cynthia's room, is bolted on Mrs. Inglethorpe's side. Next morning, Poirot enters the room via the door from the corridor, not the door that was broken in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiajelly (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Poirot, Hastings, The Will and Inheritance
I couldn't find any support for any review calling Poirot "a darling little man", so I deleted it, and put a few of the actual "little man" descriptions in the Lede. Neither Hastings' first name or rank are given in this novel : he's called either "Hastings" or "Mr. Hastings". Various changes to reflect this. Made a few changes to reflect the significance of the will (as motive). Alanf777 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed flag for lead too long
I shortened the lead, the text before the Plot summary, by moving text to other sections. A sentence of the plot of this story is added. The lead (or is it lede?) looks normal length to me now, so I removed the flag.

The Plot summary was not in present tense, but is mostly that now. Redundant sentences were deleted. It is shorter now, but probably can be shortened further.

Some descriptions of Poirot were moved to the Character list.

A new section called Dedication is added, gathering all comments on the dedication of Agatha Christie's first published novel. In the Literary analysis section, a subheading on the Golden Age of Detective fiction is added, with text taken from the overly long lead. A citation beyond the Wikipedia article link is still needed -- is anyone able to find a suitable citation? --Prairieplant (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I realized that the overly long summary was done in Sept 2013 by NYResident. That has been reverted now, fresh start with much shorter summary and normal Wikipedia format for Plot summary. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed flag for citations needed, and multiple issues
The text in Publication history that conflicted with intro paragraph as to the date of the first UK book publication has been removed. The latter had no citation other than a vague reference to the English Catalogue of books, an annual publication, and a vague hint of dispute on the date. The 21 January 1921 date has a reference. That is the only place marked citation needed in the article, so I removed the flag.

I do not see what the multiple issues are that remain in the article, so I removed that as well. This talk section does not identify current issues. If there are more issues, can someone be specific about them? --Prairieplant (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Characters
I think this character introduction is rather unfortunate:


 * Emily Inglethorp - The victim of the case. A wealthy old woman, who is mistress of Styles Court.
 * Alfred Inglethorp - The killer of the case. Emily's second husband and a much younger man than her. Considered by her family to be a spoiled fortune-hunter.

It is certainly fine to say who is the murder and who is the victim, but using this as the introduction goes a bit overboard, I believe. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Would it read better to you if those opening phrases were the final sentence in each character's description, ? If so, change it, or post here and I will change it. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Did it. My opinion is that the info such as who is the murderer, who is the victim, who lies about what and so on belongs in the plot summary section, and it is already there. There is no need to duplicate it, and this way we can spare the reader with the random spoilers without any warning. If each character ever gets a decent description, say a couple paragraphs long, then it would be fine to include there all the mystery-revealing details, but hopefully not in the first sentence. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There has already been discussion on this topic of what belongs in the character list here and that spoilers are irrelevant in Wikipedia WP:SPOILERS. I will add those aspects of the identity but at the end of each description. And a PS, in British style English, there are no periods after the abbreviations of titles like Mr, Mrs, Dr or in initials, even if those periods are present in the original text. Rules of style. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. I just voiced my opinion, that is all. Thanks for pointing my mistake out! Does Wikipedia follow British English specifically? Or is it because the subject (the book in this case) is British? Just curious, always thought all major English language conventions were acceptable. Sindar (Синдар) (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles follow the style of English appropriate to the subject - in this case, British English. Within any given article, just one style is followed for consistency's sake.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If the chosen variation of English is not immediately obvious, there will be a template at the top of the Edit page indicating the English variation. A list of the possibilities (American, British, British Oxford, Canadian and so on) is shown on this page Template:Use British English. So many things to learn on Wikipedia!  --Prairieplant (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to find any rule stating that "Articles follow the style of English appropriate to the subject". Does such a rule actually exist (requiring, for example, that articles about Labrador Retrievers, Irish Setters, Alaskan Malamutes, and Scottish Terriers be written in different styles)? Or did DavidWBrooks just make this rule up?
 * It's not made up. See WP:COFAQ. The official policy is to use British spelling when writing about British topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. Kidburla (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Redundant Details in Characters List
Having just inadvertently discovered the identity killer is when looking at the character list, I propose that the sentence "The killer of the case." be removed from the Characters section altogether. I believe this change to be consistent with WP:SPOILERS as the identity of the killer is amply covered in the Plot Summary section and repeating it in the Characters section does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. —SamHathaway (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. It is, as you point out, covered in the article itself. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as spoilers in Wikipedia, . The entire novel is presented and discussed, in the Plot summary, in the character list in other sections that may be included in the article about a novel. Wikipedia articles are not advertising blurbs or teasers. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am aware of WP:SPOILERS and I believe that my proposed edit is in alignment with the policy. Naming the killer in the Characters list, when it has already been amply covered in the Plot Summary, is repetitious and does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. MOS:CHARACTERS calls for a "brief character sketch" only and states that "most articles do not need this section." I do not think a Characters section is required to contain spoilers. ;-) —SamHathaway (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ending changed?
The Agatha Christie article states:

"The Mysterious Affair at Styles ... was rejected by such publishing companies as Hodder and Stoughton and Methuen. After keeping the submission for several months, John Lane at The Bodley Head offered to accept it, provided that Christie change the ending. She did so, and signed a contract which she later felt was exploitative. (Cited source: Janet P. Morgan, Agatha Christie: A Biography (London: HarperCollins, 1984, ), pp. 79, 81–82.)"

Does anyone know what the original ending was? And whether the ending was the only thing changed? It seems to me that it would be difficult to change the solution to a mystery while leaving all the clues unchanged!

Also, the Agatha Christie article states that the house that she and her first husband lived in was called "Styles". Was it named after her novel, or was the novel named after her home?

These facts should appear in the current article. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 08:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well,, be bold, get a copy of that biography of Agatha Christie and learn in what way the ending was changed. I found the text in this article to be the story of how much it took for her to find a publisher, the author whose books would ultimately be worldwide best sellers, rather than the history of the text, so I do not really see why "these facts should appear in the current article". You think otherwise. The first marriage, and the home where they lived, came after she wrote that first novel, so my guess is the house was named after the novel, just a guess, but that is a matter for the article on Agatha Christie, in my view, not so interesting in this article about the novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Per the life story of Agatha Christie on the official website A Difficult Start 1925-1925, Agatha and Archie named their house Styles. In the 'Poirot is born' section on that same web page, it says the couple started out in a rented flat in London. When they moved to their home, I do not know, but it seems after they had more money and after England settled down a bit from WWI. That they named their house Styles is now in the article about Agatha Christie in the section called Disappearance. One question answered.


 * Reading further at the 'Poirot is born' section of that web page, it says this: "John Lane insisted on a couple of changes to her manuscript including a reworked final chapter – instead of a courtroom climax, Lane proposed the now familiar denouement in the library." Those are the changes in the ending, where it is set, not who was the guilty person. Do you want to add that to this article? --Prairieplant (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks for locating these sources. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Country of origin
Apparently because a US publisher brought the book out a bit before a British publisher, the infobox had United States as country of origin - which is ludicrous. I have changed it back. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not treated consistently in the articles about novels by Agatha Christie, the ones that were first published in the US, which I believe includes 20 titles, which are marked with a plus sign at the J S Marcum website, An American Tribute to Agatha Christie, cited in every article in the first paragraph of the lead. The US cover belongs in the infobox in that situation, as it is the true first edition. That is generally done correctly, with the UK cover, if it is different, included in the Publication history section of the article. However, the country of origin parameter in the infobox is sometimes given as United States, presumably to match the first edition cover. Other articles, United Kingdom is entered there. I am not clear which is correct, as to infobox rules. The ISBN if one was issued at first publication (1970 and later), the number of pages and the publisher should all match the true first edition. My point is that now the articles about Christie's novels are inconsistent on Country of Origin but consistent on True First Edition cover when first publication was in the US.


 * I have not examined if anyone else removed the category for British novels at the ends of the articles, which is silly to do on all counts. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I just now went through all the articles, and the novels first published in the US are in the category of British novels published in that year, as they ought to be. The short story collections have a category that does not indicate a nation, just a year. Some are also in the category of Agatha Christie short story collections, but I did not notice that one at first, and cannot say if all her short story collections are also in that category. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is why I've never been a fan of loading up infoboxes with overly detailed tidbits: context gets lost. Does "country of origin" mean the author? publishing house? the edition of the cover shown above it? It's not clear. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Adaptations need to be trimmed
The "adaptations" section has gotten ridiculous with endless details on how TV shows differ from the book. TV shows always differ from the book - we don't need such minutia. I would like to trim them waaaaaaay back - any thought? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, there are far too many of those details in that section and many of them should be removed. Miles26 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I'm the one who added most of the detail to those sections recently. I was not sure what to include and what not to include. I was trying to be consistent with other articles such as Appointment with Death. Previously, the French and Latvian sections specifically had almost no information, while the British adaptation took up a lot more space, which seemed wrong as it appeared biased towards English language versions. I tried to make them roughly the same length as each other. I also tried to avoid trivial differences (for example, in the French version the disguise used when buying the poison is a pair of glasses, but in the novel it's a fake beard, I thought this was not worth mentioning so left it out). On the other hand, I was wary of making statements like "it was generally faithful to the novel" vs "it was a very loose adaptation of the novel" without giving specific examples to back this up. Is there any guideline on what should and shouldn't be present? Kidburla (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No specific guidelines that I know of - this is clearly a case where editorial judgement is at play. Frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't stick to the level of "it was a very loose adaptation of the novel" - it doesn't seem important to the reader what choices a TV producer made to fit their budget or time slot. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * the reason I was wary of saying things like "it was a very loose adaptation of the novel" is because this is subject to dispute and not verifiable (unless reliable sources specifically call it out as such). By sticking to specific facts, it's something that can't be disputed, e.g. no one can say they disagree that the character of Dr Bauerstein was omitted from an adaptation, but someone can say they disagree that it was a largely faithful adaptation. Kidburla (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think a phrase like "the adaptation was generally faithful to the novel" (which is currently in the British TV adaptation section) is fine, but if you think it's disputable and needs to be backed up with many examples, then it could instead be changed to something else like "there were some differences between the adaptation and the novel, such as [a few examples]". A long list of examples isn't necessary, and can be misleading about the degree to which the adaptation differs from the novel or about how much coverage there is in sources about those specific differences. Miles26 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In general I agree with you. I am just struggling how to succinctly list the examples, without giving cause for dispute. For example if I put "for example several main characters were omitted", people will want to ask which characters were omitted. They may even add a "citation needed" or "clarification needed" tag to this text. That is why I tried to list the differences in a way that was specific and unambiguous. However, I do agree that it may give a misleading impression about the degree to which the adaptation differs from the novel. Happy to take suggestions. Kidburla (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * and, I've tried making the list for the British adaptation shorter in my sandbox. I tried to succinctly mention the differences that I thought were most significant and examples of smaller differences, while avoiding being too vague. Please take a look at my sandbox and let me know what you think. Miles26 (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the effort. Personally I think that's still too much detail. I think you can leave it at something along the lines of: "There are some differences between the adaptation and the novel, including the removal of some minor characters and some plot points as well as the creation of new background material not present in any books, such as how Poirot and Hastings met." That gives readers a sense of the scope of the changes, which is all this article requires. If the adaptation isn't important enough for its own article then I don't think details are really needed. That's one editor's opinion, of course! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with that the list can be much shorter. Either do it as he outlined in his post above, or use just the first three of the points you made. The television series forces all the novels with Poirot into the 1930s even if the novels were set 30 years later. Hastings is always present, where he is eliminated in the novels as soon as Agatha Christie could see the way to eliminate him. This is her first published novel, where she found his character of use -- but that is a comment about the novel, not about the television shows. The television shows always delete clues; having lots of real clues and misleading clues is a hallmark of the novels. It seems rare for reviewers to analyze each television show in the way her novels were analyzed in detail by reviewers at the time of publication. That is, these commentaries are by editors, not sourced to a reviewer, making brevity a virtue, along with accuracy.  --Prairieplant (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

and, I think you both make good points. I also think made a good point about being unambiguous. With that in mind, I've tried to shorten what I wrote in my sandbox further. I also made it a short paragraph instead of a bulleted list. How does it look now? Miles26 (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

that reads well. Concise, with a focus on the important differences. - - Prairieplant (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice. Thanks for all the effort! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Great. Thank you both for all your feedback. I've tried to similarly condense the plot differences mentioned in the French adaptation section, and added what I came up with to my sandbox, so please take a look. Also, I think that the character list in that section may be too detailed. Miles26 (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You reversed the focus of what the previous editor wrote. The French adaptation has the core of the plot, who is murdered and by whom, but the setting is not a country manor in Essex. I do not think the French adaptation differences text needs changing, being terse and clear. I would like to see all those bullet points on the English adaptation removed and replaced with your shorter version. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , are you taking into account the bulleted list of plot differences in the French adaptation section? I was trying to reflect what the previous editor wrote overall, including the short paragraph and the relatively longer bulleted list. In any case, what I wrote is merely an idea and it's fine with me if you want to keep wording that's already in the article instead. I agree with you about the English adaptation section. Miles26 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I did not look with enough care. That is a lot if detail below the box for the actors and character names in the French adaptation. It is odd to have text before and after that box for the actors. Let the two match in length, I think. - - Prairieplant (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are we listing virtually every actor in adaptations? That is pointless trivia, especially for actors who have no wikipedia article. I would remove all of them except for Poirot and possibly one or two other major roles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , that change would be fine with me. I'd suggest we also keep the actors who played Hastings, and mention that the same actor played Japp in both the British television and radio adaptations. Miles26 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, what the heck, we've been talking about this too long so I've gone and slashed the British adaptation - boy, it went on and on. What do people think? I won't be offended if it's undone. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks for your work. I followed your example and shortened the parts in the article about the other adaptations. How does it look now? I also won't mind if my change is undone. Miles26 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, sorry I had to duck out of this conversation for a few days, I had stuff going on in real life. Just want to say that I am really happy with the result you guys got to. It looks great and is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. My only concern is - why does the British adaptation get 2 paragraphs and the others only get one paragraph? Shouldn't we try to structure them all in the same way? Just curious if there was some kind of logic to it, that wasn't immediately obvious to me. Kidburla (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wouldn't worry about that difference in length, as it's not significant, but if you want you could tighten the British example slightly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Understood, thanks! I've tightened it to 1 paragraph for consistency. Kidburla (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)