A man returns from the dead, and the body of a mysterious stranger is found in his room…
A few weeks after marrying an attractive young widow, Gordon Cloade is tragically killed by a bomb blast in the London blitz. Overnight, the former Mrs Underhay finds herself in sole possession of the Cloade family fortune.
Shortly afterwards, Hercule Poirot receives a visit from the dead man’s sister-in-law who claims she has been warned by ‘spirits’ that Mrs Underhay’s first husband is still alive. Poirot has his suspicions when he is asked to find a missing person guided only by the spirit world. Yet what mystifies Poirot most is the woman’s true motive for approaching him…
Before I picked up this book, which just happens to be the 26th Hercule Poirot novel, written in 1948, I did no research, in fact, I went in completely blind. I didn’t watch the 2006 ITV adaptation or read the blurb. The book was part of 2024’s Agatha Christie read-along on Instagram, and I was sure that I was in for an interesting ride because it was Hercule Poirot.
The title is a quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar; “There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”. I can see how this may well relate to the plot of the book and the characters within. There is a fortune waiting for many of these characters, and they just need to fling their morals in a basket and forget about them in order to get it!
I have to be honest, I started off the book feeling a tiny bit of pity for Lynn and Adela Marchmont. For a woman living in the late 1940s without the benefit of a husband or adult sons, life can be difficult. A single woman is expected to marry, and a widow is expected to remarry or depend on the kindness and generosity of her children and their spouses. Adela doesn’t have this, she has relied upon her older brother Gordon and his fortune and is positive that it will continue to support her until her death.
Of course, every member of his family who depended upon his generosity, also knew that they relied greatly on his staying single. With no wife and children of his own to leave his fortune to, the money would continue to fill their coffers.
Unfortunately for all his greedy dependents, this does not stay the case, and the book begins with his family being disappointed that their benefactor died married to a much younger woman. Their behaviour when they all discover their access to finances they depended on has been severed shows a lot of negatives about their characters.
Of course, the questionable timing of Gordon Cloade’s death brings about another question and layers of suspicion about the bride his family had never met prior to his demise. Is she really the delicate flower she seems? And why is her brother protecting her from the family of the man she declared love for?
The appearance of a mystery man believed by many to be young Mrs Cloade’s first husband – a man who they have been told died in Africa – and his subsequent death in a hotel room in the town just opens up more paths of questioning. The primary one for me is ‘Where is Poirot, and why isn’t he showing any interest in this case?’.
Poirot is my favourite of Christie’s creations and until now I have found that every addition to his story has been one I have enjoyed. Sadly, Taken at the Flood was a rather weak contribution to my Poirot collection, it’s certainly not one I will be revisiting in a hurry. Though the core of the mystery was there, the elements that went into making it could be, at times, somewhat distasteful.
For some reason, there is a distinct lack of respect for women, which I have to be honest here, pains me to write. It felt as though Christie had a moment of bitterness when she was creating all the female characters in the novel and made them either weak, easily led, or just genuinely cruel. There is no sisterhood here, and the worst thing about this is that the female characters are the ones casting aspersions on the women who are victims of distasteful and horrific behaviour:
“I wish you’d tell me when you come in, Lynn. I’m always nervous when you’re out alone after dark.”
“Really, Mums, don’t you think I can look after myself?”
“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 – rather a twisted smile.
Yes, girls did ask for danger…who, after all, really wanted to be safe…?
Now, I’m not saying that every element of the book is like this, but for some reason, I can’t quite put my finger on, it feels as though there were many moments in this book where women were either being specifically targeted, or they were targeting other women.
Frances Cloade, who discovers that her husband has gambled away everything, determines that she is therefore entitled to blackmail David Hunter and his sister in order that she doesn’t lose her home. Katie tries to hire Poirot to discover that Rosaleen is guilty of bigamy, Adela takes advantage of a young, terrified woman and convinces her to give her money.
I know it can’t always be the man who is guilty of the crime, and Christie is pretty equal opportunity when it comes to creating her murderers, I just feel perhaps Christie went out of her way to highlight their cruelty in this one.
Another failing and the key one when it came to the story and its role in Poirot’s timeline was Poirot’s absence! I don’t necessarily want to see him on every single page, but as a novel where he is meant to be at the core, Taken at the Flood does things differently.
The novel is a brisk one, but I think that something was missing…and as for that epilogue, what on earth was that all about? The mystery itself is a well-thought-out one, with so many red herrings you could be forgiven for losing track. However, there is one massive twist which occurs at the end of the book that had me and many of the other readers banging their heads in frustration, and I am not surprised!
While Poirot’s absence for the majority of the book, and the way that the women are targets for most of the blame for events that occur throughout the story, the events that occur in the epilogue defy belief. The complex twists and turns that lead you to the end of the book make for a good tale, but the ending – for me at least – seemed to negate a lot of the entertainment you get from a Christie novel. The epilogue was a disappointment that I felt the story would be better without.
Have you read it? If so, what did you think? Let me know in the comments.
