Miss Marple, Spinster Sleuth Transcript

Caroline: Welcome to Shedunnit. I’m Caroline Crampton.

I want to take you back in time today, to November 2018, when the very first episode of Shedunnit was published. My subject for that one was the so-called “Surplus Women” — the women it was believed had been “left over”, as single women, after a vast swathe of men of marriageable age had been killed in the first world war. In it I explored the connection that this perceived demographic trend, or even crisis according to some, had to the figure of the spinster sleuth that became a cornerstone of the golden age of detective fiction in the interwar period. Think Miss Marple, Miss Silver, Miss Climpson, Miss Lemon and plenty of others.

I’ve covered plenty of other subjects since then, in over a hundred episodes, but I remain very intrigued by the figure of the spinster in mystery fiction. And so, as you can imagine, I was delighted to learn that my production assistant Leandra Griffith was writing her masters thesis on a closely related subject, looking at the first Miss Marple novel, The Murder at the Vicarage, from a feminist perspective. Now that she has successfully presented her work and received her degree, I wanted to invite her on the show to talk about it — and so that’s what you’re going to hear today, our conversation about Miss Marple, spinster sleuths, and feminist narratology. Enjoy.

Caroline: I think a good place to start would be quite early on. You mentioned in your thesis Leandra that feminist scholarship has misrepresented Miss Marple over the years. Could you explain a bit what you mean by that and how they might have misrepresented her?

Leandra: Yeah, I’d love to. I believe that sometimes Miss Marple is viewed in a negative light where she’s actually quite criticized by feminist scholars, especially those who are looking at her from the lens of modern feminism when we’re thinking of female or women detectives today and then looking at Miss Marple and thinking, oh, she actually is the limits. She is very limited in regards to detective fiction, in regards to what women should have been doing as detectives, especially in comparison to a few other women detectives that were existing during the same time as Miss Marple. Meanwhile, Miss Marple is often described as a traditionalist. She’s conservative, she’s upholding this ideal of separating certain people in society, keeping women in the home, men being quite masculine, men being the breadwinners, and just keeping certain proprieties, keeping the status quo in check. When in reality, when we’re really thinking about her, she is actually finding ways to utilize certain feminine qualities that women are expected of to her advantage to actually utilize certain men, certain women to her betterment so that she can gain certain information that she wants. But there certainly is a stigma against Miss Marple at times, saying that she’s quite anti-feminist. And, don’t get me wrong, there are certain scenes, certain ideas, in the Miss Marple cannon that actually suggest that she’s anti-feminist.

I always bring up Nemesis because I believe that that’s a later Miss Marple that reflects a few ideas that actually Agatha Christie probably had in her time and that she was projecting through Miss Marple. But when we’re looking at, especially the earlier novels with this character, she’s actually quite feminist, but it’s a subtle quiet feminism where she’s taking what she can get, but she’s certainly not being greedy about it. So I do think that we need to reevaluate Jane Marple as a character who isn’t necessarily completely against women being who they are and finding strengths where they can.

Caroline: And what do you think it is about her character that leads people to make those assumptions about her? What characteristics does she have that point in that direction?

There’s a lot of stereotypes. That follow her throughout her entire career as an amateur sleuth, the fact that she’s an elderly woman. There’s a really fascinating depiction of her actually in “The Tuesday Night Club”, in the early publication of it. The Royal Magazine had it, I believe it was in December 1927.

They actually included illustrations. So we received the first depiction of her physically, and I think a lot of people’s expectations of her, or they view her as a bit underwhelming, is because we base a lot of our images of her from this earlier depiction. She is this very wrinkly old woman. The first picture is her sitting in a rocking chair knitting away.

She is watching you from the page with this very watchful, judgmental eye. She’s got the powdery poof of hair. And a lot of those things bring to mind, again, conservatism, this idea of her probably not being the nicest old woman. She has the stereotype of being a gossip, of being a nasty cat, an old pussy, which again follows her throughout her entire career within this canon.

And so people often view her as being a bit stuffy, I think, not as relatable as the action packed, say, Poirot or Tommy and Tuppence, these characters that are a bit more physically mobile and they have more access to the various, I guess, spaces you would find in a different mystery, whereas Miss Marple is quite confined.

She’s confined to domestic and domestic adjacent spaces, and so she’s not mobile. She’s very much more… actually, she’s probably closer to the armchair detective compared to other masculine or younger women who are running about, who have these extensive social lives, who have this disposable income. She doesn’t have these things, and so I believe that people kind of give her the short end of the stick, not finding her as exciting, but that’s mainly what it is.

I think we see her as this elderly spinster woman who’s not as exciting. We don’t really want to see her as much as we might want see someone who’s globe trotting, because that’s just not necessarily what Marple does.

Caroline: Exactly. Yes. And I think there’s a question of agency there as well. She doesn’t seem to have the agency to go out, see the world and solve crimes, and there’s something there isn’t there about, I think you call it the heroic tradition and how the classic puzzle mystery has these inherently masculine qualities or qualities that then would’ve been associated with masculinity.

So how does Miss Marple write against that, as it were, as a more feminine character?

Leandra: Yeah. I first have to definitely give credit to Desiree Prideaux because she’s the feminist theorist who actually discusses this idea of the heroic tradition in comparison to Miss Marple. So heroic tradition involves men of action, men who are the central characters within a story.

We are following them. We as readers are interacting with them, having this implied dialogue with them the most. That’s the character we want to follow, and they are willing to basically put anything on the line for justice, and they’re intellectual, I suppose, their intellectual prowess that we love the most.

And so that’s kind of this idea of the hero tradition. And so Miss Marple, however, she’s actually been described as the antithesis of the heroic tradition, which I suppose in some cases is true, in some cases isn’t. It just depends on which qualities you want to focus on, but I believe that Miss Marple is a heroine who, she actually has a quiet intelligence.

She is opposing men detectives in the fact that men are the ones who are, again, they’re active, they are pursuing, they’re actually pretty much what Inspector Slack is trying to be. If we really want to think about him in Murder at the Vicarage. He’s this man who pretty much moves first, doesn’t really ask as many questions.

He is more willing to ignore people, trying to give him information, so he can move about. And that’s actually why, for instance, the Vicar, Leonard Clement, he’s trying to tell him about the clock. And Inspector Slack, he’s all about movement, so he’s not even willing to listen, and then he actually blames Clement later on for not telling him this very vital information.

Whereas Miss Marple, she puts action on the back burner, not necessarily as a choice. It’s partially a choice, but also partially because again, she’s a bit confined to the spaces that she’s allowed as an elderly woman. So instead she has to rely on listening. She has to rely on patience, on observation.

And, you know, we would think that goes hand in hand with heroic tradition. A lot of our favorite detectives are known as observationalists. They’re experts in deductive reasoning, they see everything. But, again, that’s a bit overshadowed by the fact that they are moving about in these various spaces where Miss Marple, she is more often than not trying to keep quiet when she can. Almost become slightly invisible or be a little less noticed and gaining information from others who are far more willing to speak. And we kind of overlook that when we’re thinking about intellectual deduction, that listening is just as important as putting yourself in the right place in the right time.

Caroline: I think it’s so interesting to think about where the world in general was at this time when it comes to things like psychology, that it was still very much a growing new field. The whole idea that you could listen and talk as a means of investigation is just emerging and novelists like Anthony Berkeley are getting really interested in trying to put that element into detective fiction.

Whereas I think today we might be very used to the idea that, well, of course a detective is a close observer of people. They’re a listener. They take in information, then they draw conclusions. But that was not the mode of the moment when Miss Marple emerges. And so all of that behavior that we think of as being stereotypically feminine, the interest in gossip, the interest in background, the drawing of parallels between ordinary occurrences and what turns out to be a crime, making that connection on a continuum, that’s all quietly radical, don’t you think?

Leandra: It certainly is, and you can see when people don’t fully understand the skill in observation, the skill in psychological awareness. Because it’s misdiagnosed. It’s depicted as intuition, as coincidence, or chance, as assumptions without facts, and Marple is a character who is often mislabeled as someone who bases her deductions on intuition, when in reality it is on observation, and she’s viewed as this imaginative old woman when it’s no, actually, she is able to base it off of her understanding of what she calls ‘human nature’, which I think nowadays is far more sophisticated in how we would describe it in psychology, but back in the day it was observing humans, observing their patterns, which was a bit of a new thing. With that said, I know that Sherlock Holmes was also oftentimes labeled as someone who is basing his observations on intuition, and he had to correct people saying, no, it’s not actually intuition. It’s just that I have dedicated myself so long to studying other people that now it’s second nature. It takes me a lot less time to complete a task because I have done it so many times. I can connect the dots immediately, and Miss Marple does that as well. But again, she’s far more quiet in her explanations of that. There are times where she does correct people, but I think that it’s just as strategic as everything else that she does.

She isn’t going to waste her time every time she corrects someone about her observations and when someone mislabeled her as a gossip, because she kind of also is a gossip. She doesn’t disagree with them because she’s very much not embarrassed by it. She doesn’t regret being a gossip, but I think that’s because she understands that there are far more interesting qualities to gossiping.

It’s far more enriching and vital than people think. We think it’s this malicious thing that has no importance at all. When in reality, it’s information gathering. She’s actually taking advantage of the situation. She’s passing along information, she’s learning about people. But we are viewing it as these silly old women who, especially because it always is old women, isn’t it?

It’s always the old women who are gossiping, whereas if it’s a group of men who are chatting about something, they wouldn’t be described as gossipers. They would be described as men in conversation, men in discussion. And so it’s kind interesting to compare that and I like that Miss Marple doesn’t really shy away from it.

She says, yeah, that’s exactly what I am, and I’m here for tea and scandal anytime.

Caroline: Yes, I agree. And I also think the comparison with Sherlock Holmes is really interesting when you’re thinking about the masculine domain versus the feminine one, because Sherlock Holmes’ observations and his apparent intuition, a lot of it is to do with the external world. It’s, I see this person on the street and they’re wearing this kind of hat, and they’ve got this kind of mud on their shoe, and therefore I deduced that they are a fishmonger from Grimsby or whatever.

Whereas Miss Marple is going, Hmm, well this woman always wears her brown shoes to church, and yet this Sunday she’s wearing black shoes. I wonder what that means. It’s all about people’s interior choices, I think, and how breaking their patterns can lead her to understand them.

Let’s move on to talk a little bit about her first appearance in a full-length novel in The Murder at the Vicarage. In your thesis, you talk about how she’s actually a secondary character in this novel.

Can you elaborate a bit more on that?

Leandra: I remember that this wasn’t the first novel that I read following Marple. The first book I actually read was The Body in the Library, and I remember coming from that being quite surprised that she isn’t on the page as much as I thought she would be in that novel, especially because the characters that I was more familiar with in Christie’s canon before that were Poirot, Tommy and Tuppence, and even Parker Pyne, and I felt like all of those characters are typically more at the forefront and they’re a bit more active in their investigations. Meanwhile, with The Body in the Library, at least, we got different characters’ perspectives.

There were multiple scenes where she wasn’t even there. And so I thought I would continue to read her canon and see if I could figure out if that was just a one-off. And then when I read Murder at the Vicarage, I found that she’s even less on the page, and I didn’t understand what was going on! And so what I mean by secondary character, it has multiple meanings.

The first one is, quite physically on the page. She’s not on the page very often at all. If I recall, there’s about 32 chapters. She’s in 13 of them physically, and some people might not necessarily notice her physical absence as much because she’s referred to a lot. People are discussing her. The narrator is thinking about her a lot, so I believe she’s referred to when she’s not there at least 30 plus times. So it can be a bit befuddling to realize that she’s discussed more than she’s actually there. What does this mean? It’s less than a third of the book that she’s physically there. And so I believe that, to that standard, we could call her a secondary character when it comes to narratology or narrative framework, but she’s also a secondary character in society.

In St. Mary Mead, she is what some scholars would call an ‘outsider within’. There has been, again, a few mislabelings in history following Marple where she’s actually viewed as the insider. A lot of times people like to compare her with Poirot. Of course that makes sense, but Poirot is described as an outsider, and if he’s an outsider, then Miss Marple must be an insider because she’s a gossip. She’s surrounded in this community. She knows the nooks and crannies of everyone’s lives, whether they like it or not, but that’s just not the case. I think that it’s actually a discredit to her to call her an insider, especially because she is on the outskirts.

She is not openly welcome in certain circles, specifically in St. Mary Mead. She is often viewed as an obligation, people kind of view her as bothersome. She’s a nuisance. That’s also why we connect spinsters with cats a lot because they’re viewed as nuisances in society that we just have to endure for various reasons.

And I think that that’s what makes her a secondary character, just in general. Whereas, for instance, obviously Leonard Clement, he is a main character. He is a protagonist in this mystery, but also in society. He is this pivotal person in many people’s lives. He’s got this place of power, this place of influence.

People willingly come to him for advice. That’s not necessarily the case with Miss Marple. And so in comparison to other characters in the novel and just in the society, she’s an outsider within for sure.

And we’ll be right back with more on how Miss Marple takes charge of The Murder of the Vicarage, despite the vicar’s best efforts to control the narrative, after the break.

Ad break

Caroline: I think it’s very interesting when you’ve been very immersed in Miss Marple for a long time, and maybe you haven’t read the books in a while because you’ve already read them a long time ago and you’ve watched all the TV series and the films and whatever.

To actually go back to this first novel, it is very striking, as you say, how physically absent she is and also how, because the book is narrated by, as you say, Leonard Clement the Vicar, you see everything filtered through his perspective, so all of our knowledge about what she looks like and how she walks and all of that is actually the vicar’s ideas about that.

There is no, as the perhaps is in later books, there is no sort of Christie omniscient description of her. This is all just the vicar’s idea of Miss Marple. Which I think does also have some impact, doesn’t it, on that sort of feminine element that she brings to the book because we are essentially seeing it through a man’s eyes.

Leandra: Yeah. This is definitely where feminist narratology comes in, and some people are probably wondering, what is that? What is feminist narratology compared to just regular narratology? And it’s basically analyzing narratives. So that can be character development, it can be plotting, it can be really anything to do with the story, but just with a gender conscious approach.

And I just think that we have to do that with this novel, especially because as you said, Leonard Clement is in control of this narrative and the fact that he’s in control of it, when it’s a story of Miss Marple, of an elderly woman. It’s a bit interesting to compare to the first novel that follows Poirot.

We have to see him through the eyes of Hastings, but it’s not the same thing because they’re two men versus a man observing a woman’s perspective. And if we also think about it, we don’t know Leonard Clement’s motivations. What are his motivations for telling the story? Because if I remember correctly, we just were thrown in.

He says, I’m trying to remember or think of where to start, so I’m just gonna start here. He gives no explanation for why he feels motivated to do this, whereas we have seen in other secondary sidekick characters where they usually explain saying, oh, the newspapers have been talking about it. People have been asking me for this story, so I’m going to give my side, whatever the case is.

Whereas again, Clement remains quite mysterious in his choices for doing that and, I think, in my opinion, that it could be analysed in two different ways. One, if someone’s being quite optimistic and quite kind to him, they might think, oh, he’s doing the right thing. Especially because Miss Marple in the end doesn’t necessarily get the credit socially or publicly that she deserves for solving this crime. So maybe he’s turning a wrong into a right. He’s being a good person. Of course, he’s a vicar. He should be a good person. But also there’s the perspective of he’s among the various group of men who have all been outsmarted by this elderly woman who’s been, again, viewed as this bothersome person that no one’s been taking seriously.

But she keeps being right about various things. And then she’s actually the main reason why someone else wasn’t mistakenly found guilty for this crime. She actually ends up saving someone’s life, and there’s just all this going on. And so at the end, the vicar, Inspector Slack, Colonel Melchett, Dr Haydock, all of these men who are in a place of power and respect in society, and who are far closer to the crime because they all actually had access to the crime scene. Miss Marple never sees it if we really stop and think about it. That can be embarrassing. It can be extremely embarrassing, especially when the vicar himself knows for a fact that this woman ended up beating them all out and doing this, and so there could be a suggestion that he’s taking back as a little bit more control because now he’s in control of her story.

He has provided this power of graciously giving her the stage that she never asked him to give her. It’s just kind of interesting to think about. I think narration in detective fiction across various stories can be the most fascinating thing to consider because it is this wonderment of why is someone telling us this thing? What is their part and how does it influence the detective? Especially if the detective asked them to do it, or if they didn’t.

I think that plays a really important role, and also I think that Murder at the Vicarage is the only novel that follows the story by a first-person perspective of a man, of this vicar. I think he’s the only, the only novel where he does that, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but more often than not with Miss Marple, it’s multiple perspectives, a third-person or maybe something to that effect, but he’s the sole person that we’re getting to follow this one mystery, which is just kind of interesting.

Caroline: Mm, yes. I think you’re right in the Marple novels that it stands alone in that regard. And we know though that Christie was interested in narrative and perspective because just a few years before this book comes out, she’d done The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. As you say, she started off with the classic Watson situation with Hastings, writing the first Poirot novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, in the first-person. She moves away from that as she does more Poirot novels. She ends up, I think, quite disliking Hastings and sending him off to South America to get rid of him. So I think we can certainly conclude that it’s not an accident or a chance that she’s presented this book in this way.

She is interested in these things and she is making very deliberate choices about it, but given that we’ve got that framework, how do we see Miss Marple operating within it? What kind of behavior does she take on in order to still get the job done as it were, even though she is not in control of what’s happening?

Leandra: I think that she actually has a lot of fun making fun of the other characters, especially the men that are trying to prove their prowess. And they’re trying to treat her kindly, saying, oh, we, we don’t want to startle her. We don’t want her to go into hysterics, you know, when she is being involved in this mystery.

And I think Miss Marple is very aware of gender performance, which is another quality that we like to analyse in feminist theory. This idea that especially women know what is expected of them. They know the certain feminine qualities they’re meant to present, so they’re experts in identifying when someone’s being false, when someone’s being true to who they are.

And Miss Marple is, again, this skillful actress. She knows when to pretend to be this frail old woman, but she also knows when to turn the investigation on its head and find ways where she can be a bit more proactive and assertive. A great example of this, of just her awareness of how society works and how she has to manipulate or maneuver throughout it to the best of her ability when it’s best for her to do so, is this first scene, tea and scandal. It’s the first scene that we meet her in. These women, of course, they’re, they’re all gossiping. They’re all talking about this scandal that is involving Dr Stone and he’s this older man who has this younger woman secretary, and many of the women in the group are trying to figure out what Miss Cram’s motivations are. Is she pursuing this man? Why is she getting this job with him out in the country? And it’s Miss Marple who says, well, let’s actually pause and remind ourselves that men perform and have their own motivations just as much as women do. Dr. Stone, he’s this single man, but he also has power in their dynamic. Just as in past situations. She brings up, again, this historical knowledge that she has in regards to the society that she’s been living in. She has this great, amazing memory for various situations, various scandals that have happened, and she certainly applies them whenever something seems to match the pattern that’s happened before. And so she brings up how even married men are those who we might not necessarily guarantee to trust, that they actually could also be unfaithful. And I think she just does a really great job of trying to rebalance the gender expectations because there is this tendency to alienate women, women talking about women, and Miss Marple is a bit more careful in that sense. Again, not in every novel that she’s in, but at least in Murder at the Vicarage, this is a great example where she’s just very observant and I think she also tends to give women credit where they deserve. I think she gives Lettice a lot of credit where she deserves because she’s also performing.

She’s pretending to be a bit of a flighty woman. She’s this young woman, naive, seems to be forgetful all the time, and I believe it’s actually multiple women in the story, not just Miss Marple, who are aware that Lettice is performing. And the men have no clue. And it’s just, it’s a really fascinating perspective to have when you’re looking at the women and they’re in discussion and they’re very aware of what each other is doing and to what purpose.

Another great example is when Colonel Melchett and the vicar actually go and interview Miss Marple. They are asking her questions about what she saw because she’s at this point, an eyewitness. Again, she’s not being viewed as useful in any other sense. They’re not looking for her advice, but they’re looking to see if she can just corroborate a story.

And there’s not very much high expectations. The vicar himself warns Melchett that she has a great observational eye -he gives her that credit- but then he also says that she draws certain conclusions that are imaginative, so don’t trust her to actually have the intellect to put two and two together is basically what he’s saying.

And so during this interview, Melchett is asking her questions and she’s answering them, and she’s remaining passive. She’s speaking in polite language, hedging language, and then at one point she divulges information that she already knew. And this surprises the men, and she immediately goes on what I would describe as the offensive.

She sees this weak point that they’re beginning to feel less confident in themselves. They’re embarrassed that she already deduced certain things that is baffling them. And so then she actually turns the interview and she becomes the interviewer. She is no longer the one who’s being interviewed. She’s asking them questions, direct questions.

She’s speaking directly. Full, complete statements without any type of lilting question marks at the end of what she’s saying. And so now she’s suddenly this masculine character, which again, people might not necessarily notice because stereotypes are just very much affecting every part of our reading experience.

We enter with our own types of ideas and societal influences, so we might not notice it, but I do highly recommend people reread this novel and keep an eye on Miss Marple because she does fluctuate between feminine and masculine behaviors, and she does go on the offensive various times, but it, it progresses as the novel goes.

She remains quite frail, and again, behind the scenes at the beginning, but with every scene we see her, she’s taking more chances, she’s being a bit more assertive. And what I love about it is that the men never question this. They never notice that she’s actually becoming more and more assertive and more masculine.

They’re not even asking why she’s in the room, which I love, especially by the end when she’s actually left her domestic space. This is the one time she’s actually taken the chance to just arrive somewhere and they’re all just baffled by what she’s saying, but no one’s questioning why she’s in the room in the first place.

She’s already infiltrated them and they’ve just accepted it. And yeah, I just, I think she’s really brilliant, actually.

Caroline: One of the reasons why I was really keen to read your thesis and then to discuss it was because way back, the very, very first episode of Shedunnit I ever did was about the so-called surplus women of the 1920s and the spinster sleuths that sort of came out of that demographic inequality.

And I do think that that guise of spinster, that role that she plays, and not just spinster, but also impoverished, gentle women who is respectable enough in class terms, but actually in terms of useful power. You know, she has very little money. She has very little property, she has very little to command a room.

So yes, that journey that she goes on through the book, from being on the fringe of the social circle and as you say, an obligation, oh, we remember her father. He was a good man. Therefore, we, we allow her in, perhaps. We imagine that might be why she’s there to, oh no, we’re actually just all listening to her now, I think is fascinating.

The last thing I wanted to ask you about this is, you know, we’ve talked in terms of feminist theory and feminist narratology here, but I think we can be quite sure in saying that Agatha Christie would not have recognized these terms, nor would she have probably used them if she did. Do you think Christie intends this?

Or is this all happening on a instinctive level for her?

Leandra: I don’t think Agatha Christie expected her stories to ever be analysed in the way that they have been as of late in higher academia. With that said, I don’t think any mystery writers, specifically in the Golden Age of detective fiction, would have anticipated that higher academia would be interested in their stories in this way.

Analysing feminist theory, narratology, queer theory, and all of the other theories that I could have listed in regards to just literature in itself. Mainly because these stories were written for the public first, they were written for the avid reader, for the common person. And so to expect Agatha Christie to anticipate any of my own arguments about her work is a bit silly, but that doesn’t change how enriching they can be.

I think it actually makes our investigations into detective fiction on the theorist level a bit more genuine, a bit more organic and authentic because we know for a fact that these writers weren’t necessarily writing to one day be discussed to this degree. So that’s just, it’s really enjoyable. It’s really enriching.

And even if Agatha Christie didn’t necessarily intend the various things that I’ve found in Murder at the Vicarage, that doesn’t take away from how interesting and fascinating it is to find these elements in her work.

Caroline: Yes, I think that’s fair. And when you do go through what we have of Agatha Christie’s working documents, which has all been published in a great book edited by John Curran, the Complete Secret Notebooks, you can see that she is very intentional and calculating when it comes to her plots. You know, you can see the different iterations she goes through with her character lists and how she lays out different elements. So I think we are fine in attributing agency and intention to her. She might not have known the language that you are using specifically, but she certainly wasn’t just throwing words at the page and seeing what stuck she was really, it was an intellectual exercise for her, even if she probably wouldn’t have described it that way.

Well, I think that’s all we’ve got time for on this today, but thank you very much for sharing that with us, Leandra.

Leandra: Yeah, thank you. I had a really good time.


This episode of Shedunnit was hosted by me, Caroline Crampton. You can find links to all the books mentioned and ways to find more of Leandra’s work at shedunnitshow.com/missmarplespinstersleuth. I publish transcripts of every episode including this one; find them all at shedunnitshow.com/transcripts.

If you enjoyed this episode and you’d like to hear more from me and Leandra, the best way to do that is the join the Shedunnit Book Club — we regularly make bonus episodes together discussing aspects of our work on Shedunnit and what we’re reading. Find out more and sign up now at shedunnitbookclub.com/join.

Shedunnit is edited by Euan McAleece. Production assistance from Leandra Griffith. Member support for the Shedunnit Book Club from Connor McLoughlin.

Thanks for listening.


Sorry, comments are closed for this post.