Talk:Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels

message: Most of the things listed here are not in fact plot devices; they are recurring plot elements (possibly rising to the level of plot cliche) but a plot device is something whose entire purpose is to advance the plot. A 'twist ending' for example is not a plot device, it is a plot element. Can we rename this article? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot device

message: This entire article smacks of a how-to, ie: how to read Agatha Christie.  Also, the anonymous editor's comment above is a very good point.  It should probably be deleted.  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this article?

message: In the subsection 'False Corpses and Subsequent Murder', there's a bit of an error. It says that the murderer tells a maid that the sleeping victim is dead, then kills him -- but that's not what happens in the book. In the book, the murderer takes advantage of an exciting hand of bridge (from which nobody's attention would be distracted), and takes a risk that the man would wake up -- stabbing him in his sleep.
Luckily for the murderer, the poor victim doesn't wake up upon being stabbed. But there was no maid involved -- instead, another guest (a young woman) later on, when it's her turn to be dummy, notices the knife embedded in the man, but rather than alert people and arouse suspicions she says nothing about it, leaving the novel's main protagonist, Hercule Poirot, to discover it. This really should be changed. 72.234.50.130 (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cards on the Table, False Corpses and Subsequent Murder, WHOOPS! 

message: I've just read The Thirteen Problems, but none of them has a second chambermaid entering a hotel suite in full view without being noticed.  I do recall this plot from many years ago, but it must be somewhere else. Occultations (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second chambermaid in ''[[The Thirteen Problems]]''? 

message: I find the author's use of the word contentious confusing.  It appears three times, used in a way that is not at clear as to why the word contentious is appropriate or meaningful.
Under heading "Invisible Staff:"
This is a somewhat contentious trope on Christie’s part, ...
And twice under heading "Secret Identities & Impersonation:"
Another contentious trope used repeatedly in Christie’s work is the concealment of identity.
and
... Cora Lansquenet makes a contentious remark about her brother's death, ... 
If contentious ordinarily means "promoting argument or quarrelling," then how may a plot element or plot device be contentious?  Who is supposed to be quarrelling because of the "contentious trope?"  How can a trope promote quarrelling, unless, perhaps, it's among novelists or literary critics?  And, if the latter is meant, which novelists? Which critics?  And why would they find the contentious trope to promote a quarrel?
The third use of the word contentious may tell us that a character's remark in the context of the novel proves to promote a quarrel.  I don't remember, not having read that novel in decades.  
Still, the appearance of the word "contentious" three times in an article so brief makes the word to stand out as if it had significance that -- after all -- is not at all clear to the reader.
Rhooop (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this or that "contentious?"

message: The idea that this article is sourced in Christie's work is ridiculous. Who decided that these 'tropes' - better called cliches - are in fact tropes? And Wikipedia article is not original research - it should cite and summarize published research. 
There are cases cited once. How is one usage a cliche? And why no examples of other writers reusing Christie's 'tropes?' This is not a proper Wikipedia article - it's pure OR. Without reference to published work discussing Christie's work, the article should be dumped. 
MarkinBoston (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire article unsourced 

message: I've stubified this article. The entire article lacks references to cited sources (the one reference appears to be from a fan site). I tried to take a gander at the JSTOR source provided at the most recent AFD, but hit the paywall; didn't take a look at the other source. Regardless: the content remains in the article history, but after several years of general stagnation and marginal improvement after two AFDs, it just doesn't seem appropriate to let this largely unencyclopedic content to remain here. Anyone inclined to restore, please be mindful of WP:BURDEN. --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the content. You can't remove content because you don't want to go the trouble of going to the library to look at an article.   DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BURDEN? I'm removing the article from my watchlist out of general apathy, but I'm kind of surprised by your decision. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained in a little more detail at your talk p.  I intend to work on it further.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubifying 

message: The famous fictional example Mrs Christie must have been aware of, as no doubt many of her first readers were, was the 1861 novel East Lynne.
Hors-la-loi 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Failure to recognise former spouse