Bryan or Cedric or Dermot

Page numbers from my copy of 4.50 From Paddington by Agatha Christie
(ISBN 0-00-615762-9)

There is a long-running mystery in the 4.50 From Paddington and it is nothing to do with strangled women on trains, or any kind of crime.

The final lines of this classic Christie whodunit read as follows:

'What about Lucy Eyelesbarrow? Wedding bells there too?'

'Perhaps,' said Miss Marple, 'I shouldn't wonder.'

'Which of 'em is she going to choose?' said Dermot Craddock.

'Don't you know?' said Miss Marple.

'No, I don't,' said Craddock. 'Do you?'

'Oh yes, I think so,' said Miss Marple.

And she twinkled at him.

Unfortunately, what seemed so plain to dear Miss Marple has been vexing readers for 65 years!

It is perhaps the final line - she twinkled AT him - that pulls Detective Inspector Dermot Craddock of New Scotland Yard into the running for the role of the future Mr Eyelesbarrow. The 2004 Geraldine McEwan version threw me for a loop as I had never considered him to be 'on the menu' so to speak.

Apparently a later book has Craddock as telling someone he is still unmarried but I don't know as that signifies. Christie is not above continuity errors. There's also the possibility that they began a relationship but it didn't work out. Another possibility is that Craddock is lying - people hide their marital status for all kinds of reasons and it's not so very unreasonable that a senior policeman might want to protect his family by not telling people they exist.

So first I shall consider the wild card entry - Dermot Craddock. Certainly as an intelligent, successful police officer he would be a splendid catch but would he suit the redoubtable Lucy?

I don't think so. Lucy Eyelesbarrow is a force to be reckoned with, immensely intelligent and easily bored. She would not be able to assist Craddock in his investigations and, as his wife, would be constrained in her options. Perhaps she might satisfy herself with motherhood and then the academic career she'd previously rejected but I doubt it.

Lets progress to the two intended prime suspects:

Approaching the end of the novel (p. 208) Miss Marple addresses Lucy's unacknowledged dilemma...

'I know, dear, it's very difficult for you because you are quite strongly attracted to both of them, aren't you, in very different ways.'

'What do you mean?' said Lucy. Her Tone was sharp.

'I was talking about the two sons of the house,' said Miss Marple. 'Or rather the son and the son-in-law'

The son, or rather the sole surviving son (Edmund having died in the war; Harold and Alfred having been poisoned in preceding pages) is Cedric Crackenthorpe. He is unmarried and has been enjoying it. The son-in-law is Bryan Eastley, a WWII Squadron Leader at a loose end in civvy street. Five years have passed since his wife Edie, the former Edith Crackenthorpe, died and he is lonely. Bryan has a rather adorable son, named Alexander, of whom Lucy is very fond.

As a ne'er-do-well artist living in Ibiza Cedric certainly held quite an attraction for Lucy and apparently this solution is the one Dame Agatha had in mind. However, Agatha's romance novels (as Mary Westmacott) are a bit rubbish, as was her own love life. Agatha's first husband, Archibald Christie, ran off with another woman and, although her second marriage, to archaeologist Max Mallowan, seemed happy enough he remarried rather quickly to a woman he had known for years. I'll bow to Christie's genius for detective fiction but I'll form my own opinions on love.

Lucy's interest in Cedric is clearest in terms of pigsties (e.g. "for some reason or other, pigsties came into her mind" p.163) which is in reference to an encounter with Cedric in chapter eleven although there's a possibility, hinted at on p. 143, that they've perhaps continued to meet there:

'Why the pigsty, dear?' asked Miss Marple with interest. 'Do they keep pigs?

'Oh no, not nowadays. It's just - I go there sometimes.'

For some reason Lucy blushed.'

In my opinion, while Lucy might be attracted to Cedric, he is unlikely to be a good match for her. As an artist in Ibiza, perhaps. The island wasn't in those days the clubbing hotspot it is now but the burgeoning package tourism industry would have fitted with her "taste for people, all sorts of people - and not the same people the whole time" (p. 28). She might well have applied herself to getting her husband's art recognised and / or sold. Of course, she had no idea what his art was like - it may have been truly dire!

'He makes me fighting mad sometimes,' said Lucy.

'Yes,' said Miss Marple, 'and you enjoy that, don't you? You're a girl with a lot of spirit and you enjoy a battle.' (p. 208)

But would she have enjoyed that in the longer term? I am unconvinced. Life with Cedric might be exciting but it may well not be pleasant. That particular exchange moves into Lucy noting that Cedric is completely unmoved by his brothers' murders and is making indecently gleeful plans for when he inherits Rutherford Hall - it is perhaps natural to think ahead but two brothers have been killed and he's practically wishing his (admittedly disagreeable) dad dead. The callous attitude and the greed seem to be distinct turn-offs for Lucy.

No, I can't see it being Cedric Crackenthorpe.

Which leaves us with two options: Bryan Eastley or remaining single. There's certainly an argument for remaining single. Lucy doesn't need a husband and doesn't seem to have been hankering after one.

The 1987 Joan Hickson adaptation is decidedly pro- Bryan Eastley and, of course, Joan Hickson is *my* Miss Marple - the ones I grew up on. so I am well aware I am biased from that version. John Hallam's Cedric was kind of smarmy, sleazy and David Beames' Bryan was far more appealing. I am trying to lay that aside and judge from the text.

I don't think the following can be understated in its significance:

She took up once more her restless, almost aimless prowl round the room. Miss Marple sat watching her. This was a very different Lucy Eyelesbarrow from the one she knew. p. 205

'Yes, go on,' said Miss Marple. 'Tell me. Something has upset you very badly, hasn't it?' p. 206

What has upset Lucy is the possibility of Bryan being the murderer. She has been well aware the killer could be Cedric - he after all stands to gain directly whereas Bryan only benefits as Alexander's father. 

There is an argument to be made that Lucy is more concerned for Bryan because he is somewhat immature - that living under a cloud of suspicion will harm him more than the tough Cedric.

It's not the done thing here in 2022 to think about what a woman can do for a man but considering 4.50 is copyright 1957 and that Lucy, with her First in Mathematics from Oxford (p. 28), became a specialist in the field of domestic service because she likes helping people it is, I feel, relevant. Cedric doesn't need Lucy, she might be pro-active in getting recognition for / revenue from his art career but she could be really useful to Bryan:

'He's always full of schemes of one kind or another, isn't he?'

'Yes, I think he is. They all sound rather wonderful - but I've got an uneasy feeling that they'd never really work. I mean, they're not practical. the idea sounds alright - but I don't think he ever considers the actual working difficulties.'

'They are up in the air, so to speak?'

'Yes, in more ways than one. I mean they are usually quite literally up in the air. They are all air schemes. Perhaps a really good fighter pilot never does quite come down to earth again...' p. 209

A sharp mind like Lucy's could, I feel sure, help Bryan make something of one of his schemes; he has ideas and ambition and courage (and a certain specialist skill set) - none of which applies particularly to Cedric, I might add - he may have no head for the practicalities but if Lucy is anything she's immensely practical. I definitely believe they'd complement each other that way.

Yes, I actually do think that one of Bryan's main things he has going for him is that he's a bit hopeless. Remember, 1957... a married woman had next to no autonomy. A wife needed her husband's CONSENT to buy a kitchen appliance (I know this cos in the late 60s my mum was refused the sale of a washing machine for this very reason). It's my belief that an amiable chap like Bryan would be willing to defer to his intelligent, capable wife; he wouldn't be threatened by her, he'd be proud of her. 

Perhaps I am being unfair to Cedric but if he did inherit Rutherford Hall and a large amount of money (increased but the deaths of his brothers) I think he would (a) consider it 'his' not 'ours' and (b) I think he would lose all motivation to make anything of himself. Lucy admits she likes money (p. 28) but enough to settle for living on a husband's inherited wealth? 

Bryan in contrast is a 'doer' which I feel fits Lucy's character better. Cedric seems the sort to throw his weight about a bit - not to say he'd be controlling but I think it would make for a more unequal partnership whereas Bryan would give her more freedom, more control.

So that's my verdict. Team Bryan all the way. He's a bit of a fixer-upper but he's got less attitude than Cedric and would, I strongly believe, be the more agreeable partner in the long term. And he's got a nice kid. If you're gonna date / marry a parent liking their crotch goblins is a really key thing but also it tells you something about the parent: Bryan has been raising Alexander by himself for quite some time and the boy is kind, polite, etc. Definitely a good sign.

EDIT

Blinkin' typical, I stared at it so long I forgot the most important bit!

On p. 214 Miss Marple does her traditional party piece and finds a village parallel for Bryan:

'Ronnie Wells, the solicitor's son. Couldn't seem to settle somehow when he went into his father's business. He went out to East Africa and started a series of cargo boats on the lake out there. Victoria Nyanza, or is it Albert, I mean? Anyway, I'm sorry to say that it wasn't a success, and he lost all his capital.'

Assuming what I read about Christie being Team Cedric was correct this is the big red flag to Lucy that Bryan is a bad bet, and is warning her off; but Miss Marple isn't quite done...

'He was engaged to a very nice girl,' said Miss Marple. 'Very sensible. She tried to disuade him, but he wouldn't listen to her. He was wrong of course. Women have a lot of sense, you know, when it comes to money matters.'

That is a cautionary tale for both of them. It's implied Ronnie Wells lost his girl as well as his capital (engaged only you notice) because he didn't listen. If Bryan listens to Lucy, if he will take advice and allow himself to trust her judgement he might not suffer the same fate.

I suspect if Bryan and Lucy had gone off to Africa or Australia he could have started an air courier business or flown an air taxi, something of that sort it would most likely have been a success... so long at Bryan stuck to the flying and Lucy kept the books!

Earlier, on p. 116 of my copy, Miss Marple had done the same thing on Cedric:

'Do you know who you remind me of? Young Thomas Eade, our bank manager's son. Always out to shock people. It didn't do in banking circles, of course, so he went to the West Indies... He came home when his father died and inherited quite a lot of money. So nice for him. He was always better at spending money than making it.'

And, in my humble opinion that's game, set, and match to Eastley.

In Defence of Peter Quint (The Haunting of Bly Manor)

I dunno, maybe this defence / rant isn't necessary on any level but having just finished watching 'The Haunting of Bly Manor' (the non-sequel to 'The Haunting of Hill House') on Netflix with my elder beastie I feel like viewers will probably see the character Peter Quint as a villain... and imho that's a tad unfair. 

WARNING: THIS WILL NOT BE A SPOILER FREE ZONE 

First up is the inevitable context argument. In 1980s Britain domestic violence was barely acknowledged. A man could LEGALLY rape his wife (that was true until Regina v. R (1991)) and date rape wasn't taken seriously either. Workplace sexism and sexual harassment was normalised. Sure, Peter Quint is a bit of a problematic git by modern standards but he's hardly even a blip for his era.
I'm still not even 100% sure if he'd stolen all the money he was accused of - Henry Wingrave was so far out of his gourd who's to say he didn't lose the funds or give Quint the necessary permissions?!

See also: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a34348004/haunting-of-bly-manor-oliver-jackson-cohen-interview/

Instead I would argue that Viola Willoughby is the absolute villain of the piece. Not to deny she had a rough go of it but she was a damned nasty piece of work well before she morphed into the monster of the piece:

• Viola sweeps Arthur, the man her sister Perdita is interested in, off his feet; Perdita is then dependent on her brother-in-law and has no other marriage prospects.
• Viola has a child, Isabel, who supplants Perdita in her affections.
• Viola gets sick with (presumably) tuberculosis. She does not respect the enforced separation from her daughter - she's so selfish that she literally doesn't care if Isabel catches her disease.
• Perdita nurses her faithfully but Viola lashes out viciously - fuelled by anger, jealousy, and resentment. Perdita begs Viola to accept her fate, even if only so Isabel may have better memories of her mother. Viola doesn't care.
• Perdita, having borne all these things with good grace, eventually suffocates Viola - she tries to think of it as a mercy but (according to the narrator) she has 'had enough'. Like that isn't valid. Enough of Viola's suffering (having now far outlived all expectations) and enough of her cruelty. Everyone has a limit and that was Perdita's.

By the time Viola finally dies and Arthur marries Perdita it is seemingly too late for Perdita to have children of her own. Isabel resents her for usurping her mother, Arthur has lost the family wealth and treats his wife as something of a consolation prize, so Perdita still has nothing.

This article posits that Viola isn't a real villain but just as trapped as the other spirits:
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a34225149/haunting-of-bly-manor-lady-in-the-lake/
I disagree. She may not have trapped herself intentionally and she couldn't have foreseen the consequences her refusal to accept her fate would have but there's no denying she caused the whole damn mess through sheer bloody-mindedness! If she had been a kinder person, if she had put her daughter's needs first, if she had considered her sister AT ALL, none of it would have happened.

But this is supposed to be a rant in defence of Peter Quint, right? So let's bring it back to him.

The really unconscionable thing Quint does is kill his lover, Rebecca 'Bex' Jessel. But being me I have a counterpoint to that too.

Okay, I lied about being back to Quint. ANOTHER tangent: when Hannah Grose is coming to terms with the fact she's dead she's working through her emotions by projecting the object of her affections - Owen Sharma - so when he asks her to warn him of the danger it's her own mind telling her to save the man she loves.
So we judge Peter Quint for taking the life of his lover instead of saving her. But Hannah and Peter being very different people doesn't make Quint an  inherently bad guy, just not as good as Hannah. People are varied, not just good and bad. As it is, when the danger is pressing upon them Hannah tells Owen only "they need you at the lake" sending him straight into harm's way with no warning of what lay ahead!

The fact Peter reveals himself as a ghost to Bex should warn her - but somehow it doesn't. Her own reaction is, in my humble opinion, 'off': she should surely want to discover Quint's body and have his name cleared when everyone believes him an absconding thief? Instead she falls in with his plans to find a way for them to stay together forever... for a wannabe barrister she's exceptionally slow on the uptake of what that must inevitably entail. Nor does she seem to be over-burdened with guilt for the 'help' they demand of Miles and Flora, the children she was responsible for.
Yeah, Peter's not a 'good' guy but then Bex wasn't so sweet and innocent... she was totally using the kids as a way to get to Henry Wingrave, using the kids to see Peter - even AFTER he killed her. And lets not forget that she STILL didn't tell him 'no' when she pretended to go along with possessing Flora permanently: Bex was complicit in Peter's attempt to eradicate Miles even as she tried to 'save' Flora.

So let's address THAT. Peter loves Bex. Hannah loves Owen. Hannah wants Owen SAVED. Peter wants Bex dead? Is it really so simple or cruel? I'm not so sure. Peter wanted to be WITH Bex and the only way he could see that happening was if she died too. It's almost the exact same thing as Viola trying to fetch Isabel every night in her madness... and I wonder if that's where he got it from? He's not so far gone as Viola but her loss, her madness infects all the spirits she traps at Bly. The other ghosts aren't hell-bent on dragging their loved ones off to a watery grave because (so it seems) none of them was possessed by that destructive, possessive kind of love in life. Or at least not with the object of that 'affection' within the boundaries.
Perhaps if Perdita's ghost had risen at her death (rather than waiting for Viola's chest to rot down in the lake) she'd have harmed Arthur or Isabel... but I think not. Life had not been kind to Perdita but she was fundamentally an unselfish person: she had stood back to allow Arthur to be happy with Viola; even before her post-death insanity Viola wouldn't step back even for the sake of Isabel's life.
As Viola kept selfishly trying to bring Isabel to her so too did Peter try to keep Bex with him. Perhaps Viola is excused because she was too far gone to realise what she was doing? But I'm still of the mind that he thought Bex realised what the goal was - he didn't tell her the plan and tucked her away in a memory to cause her less fear and suffering, not as a deliberate deception.
But my theory is that, given time, Hannah might have tried to induce Owen - by whatever means she could - to stay at Bly with her. Whether that would be from a normal human fear of loneliness or the warped influence of Viola who could tell? Maybe Hannah loved Owen enough to let him go... but as it turned out he didn't let her go - he took her memory with him. If he'd had the chance I fear he'd have jumped at the chance to stay with her at Bly forever.

As you may know I have been alone just this side of forever. I refer to finding my fictional future spouse as finding a willing victim. Y'all think I'd let a little thing like death get in my way if I finally met the right someone?! "Till death us do part" is kinda short term... So yeah, I'm not gonna condemn Peter Quint for 'keeping' Bex, especially if he thought she was willing.
He was afraid. Lonely, afraid, and desperate. The memory he kept slipping back to, unlike Bex and Hannah's happy moments, was being manipulated by his abusive mother. A damaged man, human enough to make some terrible mistakes, and yet still capable of love.

Did Peter Quint redeem himself? It's a tough one. I believed his apology to Miles was heartfelt but it is it enough to say "I'm sorry I tried to kill you kid"? I'm not sure. But hey, Miles lived and completely forgot his childhood trauma. What kind of 'peace' Quint went to when Viola's spell was broken is, like everything about the hereafter, unknowable.
Did Rebecca Jessel redeem herself? Also kind of tough. She was willing to sacrifice Miles to save Flora. She was willing to suffer Flora's drowning so the child didn't have to. It's not because she's a woman that I find her more problematic than Quint - Quint made a decision to permanently possess the children, a terrible thing to do indeed... but an open and 'honest' decision. Bex, for a grown and supposedly highly educated woman, shows herself to be horribly suggestible at best. It's like she's supposed to be the victim of a manipulative boyfriend and sure, even smart women do stupid shit for men but I'm not buying it.
If she'd CHOSEN to hurt those kids for her own ends I'd understand it more than this... stupidity. I've often said that if I kill someone I want it to be because I MEANT TO. Killing someone by accident or ignorance or neglect or stupidity is, to me somehow worse than deliberate murder because you just didn't care if someone got hurt. If someone kills me I want it to be because they wanted me dead, not because I was convenient, or there.

Viola definitely didn't redeem herself and I'm still baffled by the conclusion... why did she bide her time within Dani? Why did she re-assert herself after such a long time? Is it supposed to be a metaphor for things like HIV that once contracted will get you in the end???
Although Perdita killed Viola she's the one I feel for. She bore her misfortunes with grace and suffered a great deal, getting a raw deal from Arthur, Isabel and Viola. I also felt her ghost was of little significance in the haunting. Rather a sad afterlife.

Dean & Daphne

Apparently there's a Supernatural / Scooby Doo crossover coming up and people are losing their shit cos Dean has a crush on Daphne.

The Dean Is Gay Argument

Dean is bisexual, OKAY?! You can ship him however you like but the evidence shows he likes men and women. Yes, bisexuality is a thing. I don't know why Americans especially are so dead against it. On Buffy The Vampire Slayer Willow Rosenberg had a long-standing thing for her (male) friend Xander Harris, she had a good relationship with (male) werewolf Oz but as soon as she met Tara it was

Bi erasure much??? You can be in opposite sex relationships only, same sex relationships only and still be bisexual okay?! Yes, of course you can change how you self identify and maybe Willow did feel that she was actually gay rather than bi but honestly...

And ranting of self identification Dean Winchester self identifies as straight. Yes, OBVIOUSLY he's not but no one, Cas and Crowley included, has the right to drag him out of the closet until he's damn well ready. Which could be never; he's allowed to live however he chooses.

The Daphne Is Sixteen Argument

1) She is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. There is no potential here for child abuse, grooming or statutory rape here.

2) She is a CARTOON CHARACTER...do cartoons even have legal rights???

3) Daphne Blake has been 16 since 1969. Do the maths.

4) Daphne has been portrayed as adult several times; and despite the fact the Scoobies are supposed to be high school juniors are they EVER in school?! Be more concerned about their truancy!

5) Sixteen is legal in a lot of US states - 31 out of 50 if I counted right

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States) and in the military...there's also an exemption for those MARRIED to people aged 12-15.

6) You're okay shipping Dean with a thousands of years old non-human wearing a dead man's meat suit but y'all have a bitch fit over a supposedly underage cartoon girl??? Americans are nuts.