Blog at HPC

"Appointment with Death" TV review

2010-07-26T08:00:00Z

This adaptation couldn't be any more different than the novel. Having said that, I actually enjoyed this "adaptation"! I need to start by saying that one could read the novel and it would still feel "fresh" Enjoyment from reading the story would not be ruined, even if one watched this David Suchet episode first.

I loved the music (as always), the "awesomeness" of the dig and its environs (beautiful landscape!), and the costuming (again!). One can really appreciate the production that goes into every one of the Poirot episodes for television. It was great to see great actors of high caliber (for myself); many were names familiar to me. They were Tim Curry, John Hannah, Elizabeth McGovern, Mark Gatiss ("Doctor Who"!), and Paul Freeman (Belloq from Raiders of the Lost Ark!).

An absolute waste was Tim Curry, however. As much as I appreciate his acting, his role of Lord Boynton was unimportant to the story. His acting was superb and he brought great emotion to the role given him. In the book, there was no Mr. Boynton! The odious (and murdered) Mrs. Boynton was a widow in the book. Why the change? I can't figure that out, because all Lord Boynton do was take Poirot on a tour of the dig and later show genuine sorrow for his wife's death. Paul Freeman's role as Colonel Carbury (as the law enforcement in the story) was limited. He, too, providing solid acting alongside Mr. Suchet. I loved Cheryl Campbell's limited role as the evil matriarch Mrs. Boynton--she fit my idea of Boynton from the novel right on. (Campbell is no stranger to Agatha Christie productions, by the way.)

Now, the negatives...

Spoilers related to the novel follow: The thing missing the most from the TV story was the character of Mrs. Boynton, and the psychology of the crime (as Poirot said it in the novel). Boynton wasn't also known as Miss Pierce in the novel; Miss Pierce was a fellow passenger to Petra along with Lady Westholme and the Boyntons. As Miss Pierce, she was a wealthy woman who adopted children and tortured them, simply because "we were someone else's" as Carol Boynton points out. What Boynton was in the novel was a prison wardress--and that's important to the novel's story. It's vital because it: 1) describes the strong personality of Boynton and 2) explains why she gets murdered. Dr. Gerard says in the book that Boynton "became a wardress because she loved tyranny." Westholme was the murderer in the novel, too; her motive was completely different than that of the TV story. She was a criminal that met Lord Westholme on a boat and they fell in love. She kept her former life a secret and became a very powerful politician herself. Boynton threatened Westholme (yes, Boynton was a blackmailer, too) and Westholme became frightened. She was afraid that her identity would be revealed and her political life would be destroyed by this twisted and tyrannical woman. That was the motive for killing Boynton. There was nothing in the novel of Wesholme giving her baby away to the Boyntons! She also acted alone in the novel; in the TV story, Dr. Gerard was revealed to be the accomplice and father of the baby?! (Which happens coincidentally to be Jinny, the youngest of the Boyntons.) Nothing will ruin a Poirot or Marple TV story than changing the plot (and adding a different murderer/accomplice).

Poirot points out something vital psychologically in the novel. Boynton always requests her children to be around her. They serve every whim and demand. However, while at Petra, she sends them away and tells them she wishes to be left alone. Poirot points out that that is not in the character of the horrible woman. So, why would Mrs. Boynton contradict herself and desire to be alone (finally, for the first time in her life!). Why? Because she had planned to comfront Lady Westholme. There's nothing better than torturing and harrassing someone, eh? That again, is why Westholme murders Boynton. None of what I just explained was in the televised story! Even the method of murder--stabbing? how boring--in the TV episode is different! Include Jefferson Cope's true identity and his secret relationship to the Boynton family. Nothing like the novel! There are more differences between the novel and the TV episode, but we'll stick with these.

I think it's funny that the story ends with the murderers killing themselves. That's too much like another Poirot story. Sure, Lady Westholme does kill herself in the novel--with a revolver instead. The funny thing is, the two villains kill themselves with digitalis in a syringe. That's the very thing that kills Mrs. Boynton in the novel!

Back to what I liked:

What else did I like from this production? Poirot choosing to return to the dig and gathering all the suspects around and the change of the plot. Huh? Did I just complain about changing the plot and now I said I liked it? Well, for completely changing the plot of the novel, they did a fairly good job. The new plot and motive for the murder actually felt like an Agatha Christie plot this time. That I guess would even include the subplot of the bad bad Catholic nun involved in a slave ring. If you're gonna change the plot, do it with style. Opposite of this would be the "Marple" TV story "The Secret of Chimneys", which is one of the WORST ever done.

"Third Girl" TV review

2010-07-19T08:00:00Z

There are things that changed in this adaptation from the novel. I can understand why--they make sense. I liked/disliked the episode for just a few reasons. There are spoilers here though, ruining both the David Suchet episode and the novel of the same name.

I liked: the music (the theme song is back! Yes!); the acting (again, superb!); the actress and actor portraying Frances Cary and Sir Roderick, respectively; the inclusion of Mrs. Oliver and Poirot's valet George, and the settings/locations. The casting of the actors for both Frances and Sir Roderick were perfect for me. Little times do the actors match what I imagined them to be whilst reading a novel. It happened to me this time! I don't know why Roderick was blind, but his portrayal was great. The 'look' of Frances was great, even though "Third Girl" is set in the 1960s in the novel--the filmmakers made her look great on TV. She looked like the bohemian she was supposed to be. (The same goes with David Baker, but more on that later.)

I was disappointed with: the omission of the reason why Andrew Restarick's painting was removed from Crosshedges, the writing of the check from Andrew to David--the blackmailing; the change of the character of the murdered woman Seagram/Louise Carpenter; the switching of the numbers of the girls' flat; all the confusion of the stupid teacher A.J. Battersby; the missing Doctor Stillingfleet and the drugging of Norma by Frances Cary.

I can understand why three things were omitted from the TV episode: the important papers Sir Roderick lost, the dual identity of Frances Cary/Mary Restarick (as the 2nd wife of Andrew in the novel); and the leaving out of Dr. Stillingfleet. There is always too much in any novel, and I suppose that could go the same for Agatha Christie.

I guess the filmmakers thought the subplot with Roderick's missing secret government papers and the true motive of Sonia was too much for a televised story. I will admit that this detracts from the central action within the novel. It was disappointing to not include Dr. Stillinglfeet (a friend of Poirot's who appears in the short story "The Dream"), because in the novel he saves Norma's life, gets her off the drugs Frances administered to her, and eventually he marries Norma. I think for the sake of the pace of the episode, he was written off: he appears in just a few chapters and either talks to Norma or reports to Poirot over the phone about her condition. It was much simpler having Norma in Poirot's flat and doing away with Stillingfleet. Now because he was out of the picture, the screenwriter was able to pair Norma and David together.

The very curious change to the story, the MAJOR one, was Frances Cary. In the novel, she also poses as Andrew's wife Mary Restarick (he's not married in the TV story) and she's a painter. She travels back and forth wearing the golden wig as Mrs. Restarick and poses (as Frances) as an artist who puts on art shows. Here on television, she's the half-sister of Norma!? That doesn't even come out right on TV. Too confusing and dramatic, really. Oh, the shock! They should've at least made it that she was a rotten thief that joins Andrew (really bad man Robert Orwell from South Africa) in the scheme for the money, all like in the book. For TV, do away with Mary Restarick the wife, but still keep Frances Cary as the murderer and thief and co-conspirator. In the end, the TV story is screwed up and botched all because of Frances Cary. The worst part of the episode!

The surprise (good) of this Suchet story was the survival of David Baker the artist. I actually liked him in the novel, and was devastated that he was killed. I felt that he should've lived and made a life with Norma instead of the boring Stillingfleet. I'm glad that the screenwriter felt the same way I did. The story was written and set in the 1960s, and they made the episode look right set instead in the 30s. So, David doesn't have the long hair and the vest--but he looked great and Bohemian nevertheless on TV (and is still described by Ariadne Oliver as the "Peacock"). Something very lacking in the televised adaptation was his making the painting of the fake Andrew Restarick. It was essential, to convince people that Orwell was Andrew. The artist's blackmailing the fake Andrew of course led to David Baker's demise, and wasn't included so that David could survive through the story and 'get the girl' (Norma).

Overall, I was satisfied with the adaptation. Poirot threw in plenty of French in this one, Zoe Wanamaker's portrayal of Ariadne Oliver is awesome (she still gets coshed on the head like in the novel!), the music was dramatic and familiar, and the production is always of a very high caliber. Oh, and Poirot still has cards up his sleeve and gathers everyone in the room to provide the solution, just like old times!

"Murder on the Orient Express" TV review

2010-07-12T08:00:00Z

If you haven't read or watched the David Suchet adaptation of "Murder on the Orient Express", then I'd skip this blog entry, if I were you. (I discuss the minor differences between the novel and this televised episode.) Spoilers continue:

Let's start about the ending of the episode: Oh! The drama! Please...we had some 12 minutes of Poirot ranting and screaming at the passengers of the train, locking them up, him praying, then meeting with the police and looking like he was about to cry. Sheesh...the drama! This does not coincide with Poirot's idea of justice from earlier in the episode (more on that below).

I was looking at the clock, and said to myself: we've already had the two solutions proposed by Poirot? What's going to happen now? Filmmakers want to make their productions so dramatic. Now, I will admit that the novel--in my opinion--ends abruptly. But the filmmakers could've added more to the story that's in the book instead of the--cough cough-- lengthy ending. Things were missing.

What was omitted from the book? Four things come to mind: the scarlet kimono, Mr. Hardman's absence, finding the pipe cleaner in Cassetti's cabin, and Hubbard's sponge bag not covering the door bolt. We could dismiss the pipe cleaner, really. That was just more confusion added in Cassetti's cabin. Leaving out the kimono was a disappointment: it was to be an important red herring for Poirot, and later for him to find it in his own luggage is hilarious. Poirot is dumbfounded and responds to this saying: "It is like that. A defiances. Very welll. I take it up." The clue with the sponge bag covering the door bolt was important because it pointed to Poirot that Mrs. Hubbard wasn't being truthful about the strange man in her cabin. She didn't take into account that the bag didn't cover the bolt of the connecting door to Cassetti's cabin--the bolt changes places from an even cabin number to an odd one. The most strange omission from the TV episode was Mr. Hardman--the police officer part of the investigation of the Daisy Armstrong kidnapping case. It was he who was in love with Pierre Michel's daughter (the nurse-maid), not Foscarelli, the Italian chauffeur. He was counted among the passengers who stabbed Cassetti (along with Count Andrenyi, as substitution for his wife).

The biggest change (other than Hardman missing) was the character of Dr. Constantine. He's not Greek, he sounds American in the episode. Not only that, but was acting like the detective. So, I thought: he's in so OUT OF PLACE, he's got to be in on the plot with the rest of the passengers. I was right! He was the obstetrician involved with the Armstrong family. I really thought something was funny when Bouc said to Poirot, "Oh! We got a doctor right here. Um, well, actually just an obstetrician!" Now I know why he was acting like a detective--he was trying to lead Poirot astray. Tricky tricky! So, Constantine was already in the Calais coach on the train? It wasn't made clear, that point. With Constantine being an accomplice, he takes the place of both the Andrenyi couple and Mr. Hardman.

I have two more complaints and I'm done. 1): I thought it was silly of Hubbard--or Dragomiroff--sitting next to Cassetti almost as if reading him a bedtime story while one by one the passengers came in and gave him a stab. It's like: "Next! Hurry up, we don't have all night. [stabbing sounds] OK, were was I? Oh, yes. Well, you're being punished for your crimes against the Armstrongs [blood squishing with knife] and we wanted you to feel the pain. OK, Masterman--it's your turn. Hurry it up. Next!"

2) I thought a great opportunity of doing some flashbacks was sorely missed. I loved the way the Albert Finney film introduces you to the Daisy Armstrong kidnapping right at the beginning, complete with the music and all. In the Suchet adaptation, we get few glances of newspaper headlines of the crime, all in red. One could barely read or see anything with the deep red! Extremely disappointing, especially when the Poirot episodes do a fantastic job of recreating the scene of the crime for us viewers.

There is some contradiction in the character of Poirot--this philosophical mumbo-jumbo of justice greatly bothers me. We see an earlier scene where he and Mary Debenham witness a stoning of a woman who is accused of adultery and Mary says that's "wrong and savage". Poirot's response is "well, she deserves it. She knew the consequences, and justice is being served." But, Poirot does a huge turnaround at the end saying to the passengers that--although Cassetti was an evil man--they had no right to murder him and that they're the savages. "Time to lock you up, for the animals that you are!" He gets all high and mighty and religious on them. This scene/dialogue was I think inappropriate. The producers are rewriting the character of Poirot. Yes, we know he's Catholic--that's been mentioned in the books before. He doesn't have to be pious and in your face; he's quoted in the short story "Problem at Sea" saying: " I do not approve of murder." I think we should leave it at that. Huge spoiler here! This has to do with an entirely different Poirot novel, so you best skip this! How do you explain Poirot's plan with "X" in the final novel "Curtain"? He murders a man--yes, the villain of the story who deserves it. Is what he did in that novel "right"? Having seen "Orient Express" now, I'd think that Poirot is a hypocrite. He says "you--savages for killing a man", and yet he does it in another story. Then, according to the producers, Poirot has a very strange sense of justice. I don't think so. In the ending of the "Orient Express" novel, he has pity for the passengers and sees that justice has been served--and doesn't criticize. As Colonel Arbuthnot says, "Trial by jury is a sound system", but Cassetti didn't get that. Poirot understands that justice was served, and he leaves it like that.

Like the computer game by The Adventure Game (of the same name), the new adaptation was presenting a story that's so famous that they had to make it fresh and a little different. I will admit, it's difficult. There's already the radio play, the wonderful Albert Finney film, and the bad Alfred Molina TV movie. The music here was very very good. This was a really worthy effort--excellent acting and the production value is extremely high.

Review: "Agatha Christie at Home"

2009-09-15T17:00:00Z

What a great way to celebrate Agatha's birthday today! I received an advance copy of a new book recently, Agatha Christie at Home, and I'd like to give you my review. Publish date is October 8 by Frances Lincoln, although it's available now from amazon.com.

It has been a great pleasure to read Agatha Christie at Home by Hilary Macaskill. Many books focus on Agatha�s writings, but very few that tell us how she lived. Ms. Macaskill gives us a different Agatha Clarissa Miller than we�re used to. We see Agatha not as an author, but the lover of homes, comfort, her country, and her family. Ms. Macaskill accomplishes this with great success! Ms. Macaskill received invaluable assistance from Agatha�s grandson, Mathew Prichard, and she interviewed others who knew Agatha and her family.

The book is organized in a logical manner, first starting with an overview of Agatha�s life and career. Ms. Macaskill�s research is thorough and she presents us new information. She reveals such facts as Agatha making her own mayonnaise and how she planned her next book�s plot. However, this is not a biography�it is a tour of Agatha�s homes and of the country that she loved so much.

The author takes us on a journey through Agatha�s various residences and their influence on her. We visit twelve homes (before WWII, she owned eight of them!), plus a few more whilst she lived in the Middle East. With careful detail, we learn about her love of houses�from her doll houses of her childhood to her favorite�Greenway on the River Dart in Devon. Agatha had always loved houses we learn; says she: �I have gone over innumerable houses, furnished houses, decorated houses, made structural alterations to houses. Houses! God bless houses!�

The main focus of the book, however, is how her homes and the home county of Devon affected her as a person as well as a mystery writer. There is a direct tie between her homes and the settings of her books. Her home Greenway has featured in a few of her books and the various locales in Devon transform themselves into great fictional towns. Much emphasis is on the �well-appointed family mansion� that is Greenway. The photographs of its gardens, boathouse, and interiors are in stunning color. Britain�s National Trust restored the home to the way it was when Agatha lived in it; this past spring 2009, Greenway was opened to the public. This book does not miss the opportunity to give you a personal tour by the National Trust volunteers and Agatha�s only grandchild, Mathew Prichard.

The highlights of this book are many. The color photographs are spectacular, whether of the beautiful Greenway, Agatha�s hometown of Torquay, or the various towns in her home county. Many photographs come courtesy of Mr. Prichard himself�some of which have never been seen before. I love the little insights of Agatha�s domestic life. Ms. Macaskill talked about how Agatha loved to entertain her guests by reading aloud her own stories and playing the piano for her guests. I loved the inclusion of the book�s final chapter, in which Ms. Macaskill discusses Agatha�s legacy. She describes the events held in Torquay to celebrate Agatha Christie, the Torquay Museum and its exhibit on Agatha, and the various film/television adaptations of her writings. The only complaint I have on Agatha Christie at Home is the lack of detail of Agatha�s living arrangements in the Middle East. However, the book�s focus is on her native land.

This is the perfect book for anyone who wants to follow Agatha�s footsteps. For anyone who might not travel to Devonshire, this book is invaluable. How I wish I can make the trip to Devon, but I now can with this book. Hilary Macaskill has done an excellent job in giving us a tour of southern England and a look into Dame Agatha Christie�s domestic life. In his forward, Mr. Prichard describes Devon as magical. The wonderful photographs (over 100!) show the magic Agatha felt. You will also when you look through this book.

Five stars out of five!

Harper's Island: Another "And Then There Were None"?

2009-09-13T20:00:00Z

Last week the DVD set of the CBS television show "Harper's Island" came out. I caught the first three episodes only; the show ran for 13 episodes/weeks from April through July of 2009. The show intrigued me because it's much like And Then There Were None.

I know the viewership declined pretty much after every week. My reason for having only seen the first three episodes were simple, I guess. It reminded me of daytime soap operas and (to me) it was really gory. There was plenty of blood splashed around. The "horror" element was a big turn off for me; I was never one to go for the violence. Actor Christopher Gorham says in a CBS video that the characters die "in ways you've never seen before." Meaning: gory and very creative (Gorham describes it as "sick"). What the reasons were why the show kept losing viewers I don't know. Same as my reasons?

So, you ask yourself. Why did I see the show?

Having seen the TV commercials 2 weeks prior intrigued me. Around 26 people on an island for a wedding, each of them being killed off? I said immediately, "Please! It sounds like Agatha Christie. It's And Then There Were None!" It interested me just enough for me to find the show's official site to check it out. I recall a video interview with one of the producers in which he described the show as Scream meets And Then There Were None. I knew it! Of course they used Agatha Christie as inspiration. It reminds me of the movie Identity with John Cusack and Alfred Molina. That movie had ten strangers in a Nevada motel, each of them being killed off, too. Anyway, "Harper's Island" is a whodunit. Don't get me wrong--I think it works out fine. (I've seen later episodes on CBS' site.) But, back to my problem: it was more horror than thriller. Gorham even says they had it at 10 p.m. for a reason: they filmed the episodes as borderline "R-rated" for a reason.

I'll leave it up to anyone interested in checking it out on DVD or on the web.

Ah ... Another reason why I only saw the first three episodes was because on the fourth episode CBS moved the show from Thursdays to Saturdays. Dumb move. Much less TV viewers. CBS killed their own show.

HPC Stays On!

2009-05-03T20:00:00Z

I'm pleased to say that Hercule Poirot Central remains on the Web! I want to thank any supporters who donated to HPC; with their help, this site still has a presence on the Web. These folks are from all around: Australia, Canada, and the United States.

It is wonderful that there are Agatha Christie/Hercule Poirot fans on the Web. All of you are stellar people! Thanks to those of you who provided kind and encouraging words of support. I'm happy that the site is around to provide continued enjoyment.

Thanks again!

HPC Will Close

2009-03-02T18:10:00Z

Unfortunately, it is possible Hercule Poirot Central will close. "Close", meaning the site will leave the Web community. This decision is related to the current recession and bad economy. Does it sadden me? Absolutely. I acknowledge the fact that this economic condition has affected everyone. It's hard for me to give it up--something I've worked on for many years.

The last possible day for Hercule Poirot Central is April 4, 2009. Without the support in donations, the site will be shut down. If you'd like to contribute, please visit the "Support" page on the site, found right here.

When this website first started in 2000, there weren't many Agatha Christie websites written in English. This site had already 2 years of planning prior to its appearance. I was amazed that there was little amount of information of Agatha Christie on the Web back then. That inspired me to come up with Hercule Poirot Central. I simply myself couldn't find out anything about her or her books. Very very little was devoted to Hercule Poirot the detective, too. The site first appeared on Yahoo! Geocities, and it was a fine start. I hated the advertisements and popup windows that always appeared there. I decided that Hercule Poirot Central should have its own domain. Since then, I have been able to do much more than before. And here is the site, in its latest incarnation.

What makes Hercule Poirot Central unique on the Web?

-- Agatha Christie crossword puzzles

-- Detailed description of David Suchet's preparations, portrayal, and costume of Hercule Poirot

-- In-depth look at Agatha Christie's writing style
-- Discussion of literary influences and inspirations for Agatha

-- Listing of her books' dedications, and the significance behind them
-- Complete map of Miss Marple's village of St. Mary Mead and her neighbors

-- Commercial Free!

If this site has been great for you, show your support of simply $2 or $3. Your help says that what you find here is special--to you personally.

Agatha's Greenway

2009-02-25T20:01:00Z

I'm sure I echo many fans when I say that it's wonderful that her Greenway House has been restored to its state when Agatha inhabited it. I saw the news yesterday at Yahoo! about the restoration. It was such wonderful news that we can tour the villa, right at the River Dart, when it was impossible before (it was still lived-in by Agatha's daughter Rosalind and her husband). The rooms and landscaping have been lovingly taken care of with (especially to the interiors) special attention to detail.

We will be able to view such rooms like the bedrooms, dining area, drawing room, morning room, and the library. Touched up was the fresco that was painted in the library by a one Lt. Marshall Lee, a U.S. Coast Guard war artist. The home was requested by Great Britain's Admiralty during World War II to house the United States' Navy (a certain flotilla) in preparations for D-Day. The work that was altered included removing the pantry and larder, removing the linoleum, additional 14 toilets, adding stoves to the kitchen, and the painted fresco in the library (Greenway was to accomodate the American officers--other personnel stayed at a nearby home called Maypool--and was to feed around 40 people).

Agatha says this about the library in her autobiography, "In the library, which was their mess-room, an artist has done a fresco round the top of the walls. It depicts all the places where that [United States] flotilla went, starting at Key West, Bermuda, Nassau, Morrocco, and so on, finally ending with a slightly glorified exaggeration of the woods of Greenway and the white house showing through the trees." When the Admiralty decided to derequisition Greenway, she received a letter asking her if she wanted the fresco removed from her library. She hastened a reply saying she'd like to keep it as a historic war memorial. She admitted in her An Autobiography that she didn't know the name of the artist.

Another article on the Web about Greenway's restoration and tour for the public can be found at the Times Online.

Oh, I wish I were able to travel to England and visit Torquay and the AC Museum, see the play The Mousetrap in London, and now visit this white home that is Greenway. And in case you didn't know ... it has been inspiration for a few novels, too--Five Little Pigs, Towards Zero, and Dead Man's Folly (which included Greenway's own boathouse). More on that another time.

And Then There Were None

2009-02-22T20:01:00Z

I've been thinking about Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None recently. It goes back to my discussion with Jonathan last week at work. I was asked why it was a fantastic novel. I think the answer I gave was because of its plot. Critics sometimes scoffed at the plots of Agatha Christie--they're either ludicrous, farfetched, or too simple. If critics thought the plot was too complicated, they resorted to the word "farfetched." Perhaps in another blog we'll discuss that.

The plot: 10 people guilty of murder (but have never been put on trial) are invited as houseguests on Indian Island, off the coast of Devon. There, systematically one by one, they die: they must pay for the murders they've committed in the past! The murderer is one of the ten, clearly. These other nine individuals must be punished, so thinks our murderer. It's carried out by much planning, thought, and manipulation to get everyone on the island. We later find out how all that is managed. Through bogus invitations and deceipt, one by one the guests arrive to meet strangers there. Then, after a hearty meal, retribution and justice begin.

The first death shocks the guests at the island. Why would Marston--the god-like young man--kill himself? Poison in his glass. Senseless, the other guests agree. Then comes the death of Mrs. Rogers, the hired housekeeper. Dies in her sleep. Serious? Hmmm... There's a problem facing the guests also. A horrendous storm arrives and they are cut off from the coast. They have to survive, keep their wits about them. The men decide to search the entire house and the island. But do they seriously think they'll discover a hiding place for the murderer? Of course not, since the murderer is already among them!

However, there is a problem for the reader of this genius of a novel. There are no more suspects--all ten of the houseguests are dead. The murderer leaves a note behind for the local police. In it, this is written:

"When the sea goes down, there will come from the mainland boats and men. And they will find ten dead bodies and an unsolved problem on Indian Island."

I love that ending! What fascinates me is the plot. Christie must have spent weeks on the idea! She says this about the novel in her autobiography: "I had written the book . . . because it was so difficult to do that the idea had fascinated me. Ten people had to die without it becoming ridiculous or the murderer being obvious. I wrote the book after a tremendous amount of planning, and I was pleased with what I had made of it. It was clear, straightforward, baffling, and yet had a perfectly reasonable explanation."

The novel scares me, because they don't realize the murderer is a guest also. As the novel progresses, thoughts of each of the ten are revealed to the reader. Agatha Christie tells the reader each of their past histories and their secrets. In facts, their deaths and secrets haunted me and stayed with me. I do believe that Christie "plays fair" with the reader and lays out all clues to point to the guilty party. There are, of course, the hidden motives of each of the characters and a few red herrings (misleading clues).

The detectives investigating the island and its house after the storm are baffled. They have two or three solutions, but are dissatisfied with them. One detective states, "There must have been some one else on the island. Someone who tidied up when the whole business was over? But where was he all the time--and where did he go? The Sticklehaven people are absolutely certain that no one could have left the island before the rescue boat got there. But in that case--"

And responds his colleague, "But in that case, who killed them?"

For an excellent analysis, check out Matt Christensen's video blog of And Then There Were None on YouTube (as part of his "Christie in a Year" project):

For Your Consideration

2009-02-16T20:01:00Z

I've really recently finished all of Agatha Christie's mystery novels. I'm proud of that accomplishment. It was a 19-year process. 19 years?, you say. Yep. Of course, in those years I returned to some old favorites. Old classics. The epitome of the best of Agatha's work. It's always great to return to something comfy and familiar.

Anyway, let's get back to my having read all of AC's mystery novels. I told this news to two of my coworkers. Jonathan Slaughter and Mark Dearing were pleased for me, I think. And yes, I admitted that during the long journey I wanted to reread some great stories. Jonathan asked me which of her novels would I recommend to someone new to Agatha Christie.

And Then There Were None, of course, is what I suggested. Of course, there are classics (Hercule Poirot stories) such as Death on the Nile, The ABC Murders, and Murder on the Orient Express. I told him that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was excellent, too. I change my mind on that; I'd recommend Ackroyd to someone who has already read a few Poirot stories.

Let me discuss and defend these novels as some of AC's best (and Poirot's).

Death on the Nile finds our Belgian detective Hercule Poirot in Egypt with the good adventurer Colonel Race. Together, they ferret out a ruthless killer aboard a boat on the River Nile. Great choice of book, for Race is a great friend for Poirot to team up with, and it's great for the exotic location Poirot is in. Several murders make it a great novel, but it also features several separate tragic storyies among some of the characters. There are plenty of red herrings to mislead the reader. Oh, and yes--a twist ending at the end!

If you'd like the villain match his wits with Poirot's, take a look at The ABC Murders. A series of murders--all random and throughout England--baffle Scotland Yard. More baffling is that the murderer actually writes Poirot to warn him about each murder--ahead of time! At each scene of the crime, the murderer leaves behind a copy of the ABC Guide--a railway guide listing all times and stations. The serial killer starts at the beginning of the alphabet--will death continue to X, Y, Z? With Poirot are Captain Hastings the narrator of this story, and Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard.

Murder on the Orient Express is truly a tour de force for Agatha. This novel is famous for its surprise ending and a wonderfully done film based on it. It tells the story of Poirot riding on the Orient Express train, heading back to England. He his offered a "job" by a loathsome man named Mr. Ratchett, who fears for his life and asks Poirot to be his bodyguard. Poirot turns Ratchett down, telling him, "I do not like your face." Later that night, Ratchett is murdered by multiple stabbings! Poirot really relies on his gray cells of his brain, for their are many contradictions of time and among the passengers' testimonies. What will surprise you is the identity of the murderer, and even how Poirot handles the situation.

I finish my first thoughts of this new blog with a word or two about The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. This novel is a must-read simply because it is controversial now as it was then (1926). Certainly it broke the rules of detective fiction. A few lessons are taught by Agatha here. 1) Not every "clue" has the same value of importance; 2) Read carefully to what everyone says and does; 3) No one should be above suspicion; and 4) Everybody in every Christie mystery lies (see above, Murder on the Orient Express). This classic contains the main ingredients of an "older" Christie: the rich murdered man, the large estate, the mysterious stranger at night, the big game hunter, the estranged son, the nosy butler, and the issue of blackmail. What makes this novel unique is Christie's choice of murderer and what Poirot does about it.

Next time, we'll discuss the ultimate Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None, the world's best-selling mystery novel.