"Murder at the GRand Alpine Hotel," Lucy Foley (Agatha Christie)

 

 

As I wrote when I introduced this series ten years ago, these essays about books are not critical reviews; they are simply short pieces of books I have enjoyed.

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

Murder at the Grand Alpine Hotel

Lucy Foley (Agatha Christie)

November 7, 2026

 

“It is ‘her rich understanding of character and psychology gained

from a lifetime of observing people that allows her to solve things.’”

                                                             Lucy Foley on Jane Marple, in an interview with Ellen Gamerman

                                                              The Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2026

 

Agatha Christie and William Shakespeare, according to Wikipedia, are tied for best-selling authors of all-time. Estimates are that each has sold somewhere between two and four billion books. In all, Ms. Christie wrote sixty-six mysteries, including twelve Jane Marple stories, the first being Murder at the Vicarage in 1930, and the last being Sleeping Murder, published after her death in 1976.

 

This novel represents the first full-length official Miss Marple-continuation-novel published in fifty years. The book was commissioned by James Pritchard, CEO of Agatha Christie Ltd. Agatha Christie died at age 85. Lucy Foley, 40, was born ten years after Ms. Christie’s death. 

 

Fans of Agatha Christie, and especially fans of her sleuth Jane Marple, will be delighted with this story. And if you have watched Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple series, which aired from 1984 to 1992 on British television (and available today on Amazon Prime) with Joan Hickson (1906-1998) as Miss Marple, you will have what I believe is the perfect image of Miss Marple. 

 

Ms. Foley had to follow certain ground rules. Ms. Marple could not be young. She could not have a boyfriend. And she could be neither the killer nor the victim. In the interview with Ms. Gamerman cited above, Ms. Foley said that she read all twelve Miss Marple novels “at least four times.” In my opinion, Ms. Foley has captured the elderly, proper, observant Miss Marple. For example, here she is speaking to her friend Mrs. Bantry: “The English upper classes, in my experience, employ similar tactics to the breeding of young women as to horses.”

 

The time is 1950 (World War II plays a role), the season is winter and the setting a luxury Swiss hotel high up in the Swiss alps near the Italian border, reached only by cog railway. The guests are an assortment of British, European and Americans, most on holiday; others not. The story is told through the voices of four guests – Diana Glass (“the help”), Sylvia Sinclair (“the star”), Bruno Crane (“the friend”)), and Catherine Narracott (“the wife”). Jane Marple –  “the perfect image of a little old lady” – is there, of course, with her friend the widowed Mrs. Bantry and Mrs. Bantry’s companion, Diana Glass.

 

The story opens with a murder; more will take place. A storm cuts off all travel to or from the hotel, giving Ms. Marple time, using her powers of deduction she solves the crime. This reader, provided the same clues, was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, he had a delightful time, and I suspect you will too.

"Frederick Douglass's American Founding," Dennis Rasmussen

 A quote often misattributed to Albert Einstein has applicability: “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” Too often, we are rigid in our beliefs, even as we despair of those with equal rigidity for opposing beliefs. In this book, the reader is witness to one of the most brilliant minds of the 19^thCentury undergo change.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

Frederick Douglass’s American Founding, Dennis Rasmussen

October 31, 2026

 

“Opinion shapers create the horizon within which politicians are able to act.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Dennis Rasmussen (1978-)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Frederick Douglass’s American Founding, 2026

 

Frederick Douglass, born a slave on Maryland’s Eastern Shore in 1818, was a forceful speaker, a brilliant writer, and an advocate for abolition and social reform from 1838 until his death in 1895. The author of this short (170 pages of text and 24 pages of notes) assumes the reader has some knowledge of Douglass. Dennis Rasmussen’s, a professor of history at Syracuse University, purpose is to examine Douglass’s change of opinion regarding the Constitution. This he does.

 

In 1840, Douglass, who had taught himself to read while a child and who had escaped slavery at age twenty, came under the influence of William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips in Boston. Both were abolitionists who believed the Constitution protected and promoted slavery. Douglass accepted their interpretation. In May he published his first book, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself. He then spent two years in Great Britain, speaking against slavery in the United States. He later wrote: “Whilst America asserted the doctrine that everyone was born equal, he would denounce her hypocrisy.”

 

He wrote and spoke of the four clauses he felt promoted slavery: the 3/5 Clause, the Slave Trade Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the Suppressing National Domestic Violence Clause. Abolitionists were divided regarding the Constitution. On one side were those who felt it was pro-slavery – men like Garrison and Phillips (who, ironically, were joined by southern slave owners who believed the Constitution justified their practice). On the other side were Abolitionists like William Goodell, Lysander Spooner and Gerit Smith who saw it as a document for liberty – that it should be read for its words, what it says, not for what it does not say. And there those like Lincoln, in the years before the Civil War, who believed that the Constitution was neither pro-slavery nor anti-slavery. 

 

Around 1850, Douglass came under the influence of Goodell, Spooner and Smith, and he began to read the Constitution more carefully. On July 5, 1852 he delivered one of his best-known speeches: “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” It was, as Rasmussen writes “a devastating critique of America, but it is not a critique of America’s founding. “Far from regarding the founding and the founders as the source of the problem, as he once had, Douglass now saw them as a resource that could be used to remedy the problem.” 

 

All the clauses that he had once said supported slavery he now read as explaining why the Constitution was the “very vehicle for abolition.” The Nation needed not new principles, but a more rigorous adherence to those laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. 

 

In their 1983 book Without Me You’re Nothing, authors Frank Herbert and Max Bernard wrote: “We define intelligence as the ability to adapt to change.” It is rare when we witness an individual with the intellectual abilities of Federick Douglass change his mind on so important a matter. Professor Rasmussen has done an admirable job.

"Trump Redux"

 The photo is from the October 12 edition of The Spectator World.

If Democrats and Republicans offered sensible alternatives, choices would be easier for those like me. But we live in the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Trump Redux”

October 30, 2026

 

“The unanswered riddle of Trump redux seems to be what combination of the belligerent and the

pacific in his political programme and personal make-up will find expression in his foreign policy.” 

                                                             John Harper

                                                            “American Isolationism and the Riddle of Trump Redux”

                                                             Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 07/02/2025

 

Two years into Mr. Trump’s second term, confusion and chaos reign where I had hopes clarity and order might rule. While tariffs have always existed, they have become more controversial, especially when applied to neighbors like Canada and Mexico. Iran has long threatened Israel, the United States and western nations, but the war against them lingers. Talking is almost always better than fighting, but if the President, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi meet at the APEC summit in Shenzhen, China next month, and they carve up the world, the United States will become an accessory to our enemies and even more of an unreliable ally to our friends in the Pacific and Europe.

 

Politics at home have become ugly. Mr. Trump is loose with his language, but the Socialist policies of Democrats on the far left – those that seem to be in ascendancy – would sink our economy and markets. Corruption permeates both parties. Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist (and politician since age 40) has an estimated net worth two and a half times that of the constituents he represents in Vermont. It is doubtful that he made any money in the private sector, as his jobs before he became the Mayor of Burlington in 1981 included carpentry, psychiatric aide and teacher. While President Trump, according to Forbes, lost about a billion dollars during his first term, he has more than made up for it in his second term. NPR (admittedly a biased source) puts his gain thus far at $2.7 billion. Contrast the accumulated wealth of Clinton and Obama to Truman.

 

With the exception of John McCain’s bid for the Presidency in 2008, I have been unhappy about our choices for President thus far in the 21^st century. I had hopes that Mr. Obama might heal persistent racial divisions, but instead he widened them. I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 but perfunctorily. I voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 against the spiteful Hillary Clinton but without enthusiasm. In 2020, President Trump, who I felt had done well (except for his initial handling of Covid), got my nod against a mentally diminished Mr. Biden. And in 2024, with President Biden’s failing mental faculties becoming more obvious and an unhinged Ms. Harris replacing him, I saw no choice but to pull the lever for Mr. Trump a third time, even though disturbed by his January 6, 2021 antics.

 

Now, here we are, less than a week away from mid-term elections. Elections in the “deep blue state” of Connecticut are a Sisyphean task for Republicans. Both U.S. Senators and all five Representatives are Democrats. Both gubernatorial candidates for governor of Connecticut are from Greenwich, which does not seem to be representative of the state. But Ned Lamont is seeking a third term, while I believe governors should be limited to two terms. 

 

I believe the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens natural rights; to uphold a Lockean Social Contract where citizens give up certain rights for safety and stability, while allowing them to pursue their self-interests; and to provide a public education and the infrastructure necessary for individuals and private businesses to flourish. I believe that people are equal before the law and in their rights, but I recognize we are not equal in abilities – physical or mental – or in wants. I believe society should strive for equal opportunity yet we should not be blind to the elusiveness of that goal. Government assistance should be reserved for those truly unable to care for themselves, because of age, illness, infirmities or poverty. 

 

The country drifted after the defeat of Soviet Communism in December 1991. The United States found itself the sole super power in a disharmonious world. Yet a false belief that world peace was possible prevailed. The percent of the U.S. federal budget spent of defense fell from almost 24% in 1990 to less than 13% in 2024. (It is expected to rise to 18% in fiscal 2027). But history did not end and enemies to democracy did not disappear, as 9/11 demonstrated, and as Israel has always known. Dictators did not surrender. The nexus of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Cuba represent a more powerful adversary than did the old Soviet Union. Cyber threats are more likely than nuclear annihilation.

 

From what I have seen and read, Mr. Trump has no ideological beliefs. He prides himself as a deal maker. I doubt he has read either Adam Smith or Karl Marx. He is a disruptor. His antics and ill-manners upset many of our European allies. Yet those allies have responded by increasing defense budgets. On the other hand, their destructive social welfare system, lagging demographics, restrictive regulations, open borders (made worse by a failure to assimilate a growing migrant population) have resulted in civil unrest and anemic economic growth. 

 

Mr. Trump’s unpredictability can be a strength when dealing with the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, but his lack of social graces and respect for his opponents are off-putting in a world where steadfastness regarding principles is necessary, and compromise is essential to both domestic and foreign policy. His biggest failure is his unbridled egotism; one consequence is that his approval rankings are among the lowest for any modern president. Will those statistics be reflected in next week’s election? Mr. Trump is expected to campaign (or has campaigned) across 35 locations in the three weeks prior to election. He is not trying to convert independents or undecided voters; he is trying to ensure his believers actually go out and vote. Personally, I never respond to polls and I am suspicious of their accuracy; by next Wednesday we will know. 

 

I find myself in agreement with the conclusion of an essay by Christopher Caldwell in the October 12, 2026 issue of The Spectator World: “In contrast to his first term, which was craftily undermined by his Washington adversaries, Trump’s second term has been carelessly destroyed by his own flawed character.” Need one say more.

 

...........................................................................

 

Ideally, we need a leader with character – one who leads by example, is honest with the people, is self-deprecating and takes responsibility when things go wrong. We want an individual who restrains government spending, yet keeps us safe from enemies, while promoting personal and economic liberty. Is there such an individual?