Agatha Christie's ABC of Murder

[Cikomyr]

Ok. So i read this book when I was younger. I havent reread it since, so maybe I remember wrong (but my sentiment was felt at the time of the reading, so its not a case of logical deduction long after the facts).

It was an overall fun book. Solid mystery. The ABC case overall, with all its tendrils and tentacles was a very fair mystery. But there is.one thing that annoys me...

Spoiler

Show

At the end, Poirot uses evidence that was not presented to the reader (a cane?) Beforehand to resolve the mystery.

I always felt cheated by that solution. I felt all evidence should be presented to the reader at the same time as the Detective learns of them, which wasnt the case here.

Thing is, i dont see that criticism anywhere else. Am i remembering wrong?

[The Glyphstone]

That's sort of a running theme in Poirot stories, isn't it? he'll go over and look at something, or stop to think about something, then brush off Hastings/the narrator with a 'no matter it will all be clear in time' sort of comment. Then at the denouement he's all "and when I noticed this, I clearly realized that such and such..."

[Cikomyr]

That's sort of a running theme in Poirot stories, isn't it? he'll go over and look at something, or stop to think about something, then brush off Hastings/the narrator with a 'no matter it will all be clear in time' sort of comment. Then at the denouement he's all "and when I noticed this, I clearly realized that such and such..."

That is true. And i dont mind *that*

But the way I remember.. it was basically totally out of context clues that Poirot produced offscreen.

[The Glyphstone]

Possibly so. I'm currently reading through a giant anthology of Poirot stories for the first time, and if the ABC Murders is in the book I haven't gotten to it yet.

[Cikomyr]

Possibly so. I'm currently reading through a giant anthology of Poirot stories for the first time, and if the ABC Murders is in the book I haven't gotten to it yet.

Dont get me wrong. The book is *good*, i just felt cheated about this little element.

Lemme know if i got it wrong :)

[Pex]

In the parody movie "Murder By Death" the villain complains about the same thing and uses it as justification exclaiming every reader is getting their revenge.

[Saph]

It's been a while since I read the ABC Murders, but wasn't the really critical clue

Spoiler

Show

the wrongly addressed letter? Which Hastings suggests might have been wrongly addressed on purpose. As soon as you think about that, everything else falls into place. I don't remember the cane being important at all.

[tomandtish]

It's been a while since I read the ABC Murders, but wasn't the really critical clue

Spoiler

Show

the wrongly addressed letter? Which Hastings suggests might have been wrongly addressed on purpose. As soon as you think about that, everything else falls into place. I don't remember the cane being important at all.

Correct.

Spoiler: Spoiler if you haven't read the book, and Castle season 1 spoiler

Show

The third letter is misspelled because Franklin wants to make sure that murder is not interrupted. It's the same basic plot as the very first episode of Castle (and Castle writers acknowledged it). Hide your real victim among a bunch of others, so the police are looking for a serial killer/nut, and not someone with motive.

[Rogar Demonblud]

That also happened in first season Elementary. Probably some other procedurals as well.

[Cikomyr]

Wasnt that also the plot of the first Jack Reacher movie?

[Fri]

I believe Christie "invented" or at least popularized some of the now well known mystery "plots" that are popular right now in some of her more prominent novels. I mean, she wrote dozens of books or something, and some kinda mix together in my mind, but things like ABC Murder, Murder of Roger Ackroyds, And Then There Were None, Murder in Orient Express, and maybe some other that I ironically can't remmeber from the top of my head right now, are really distinctive/interesting that they got referenced (advertently or inadvertently) even years later.

I now wonder though, if you have to pick a list of the definite Christie novel, which would you pick? I actually have some favourite that I don't know if I'd put there, because they're just my personal favourite but I'm not sure if they're distinctive enough.

[Saph]

I now wonder though, if you have to pick a list of the definite Christie novel, which would you pick? I actually have some favourite that I don't know if I'd put there, because they're just my personal favourite but I'm not sure if they're distinctive enough.

Well, if I was making recommendations:

• The Murder of Roger Ackcroyd, Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile: These are all famous high-profile ones that are a good showcase for her style of mystery.

• The Moving Finger, Crooked House, Five Little Pigs: These are less well-known ones that I personally think are some of her best. They tend to be smaller-scale/more intimate and more focused on characters.

• And Then There Were None, Endless Night: For if you like psychological horror (as opposed to shock/gore). The most atmospheric of her books. Warning: don't expect happy endings.

[Fri]

somewhat unrelated to the topic, but just something I randomly remember. I believe I have read literally every single Agatha Christie's mystery novels because for some reason my high school library have a complete collection of it. I think some alumni might have dumped his whole complete collection of it there or something in that line. I have really fond memory of spending time in the library when I'm supposed to be in class and reading them.

[Cikomyr]

By the way. Something i noticed earlier. Here is a quote from Star Trek Deep Space 9:

GARAK: Happy birthday. I know it's a few days off, but I wanted to give you your present early. It's a Cardassian holosuite programme. An adaptation of one of Shoggoth's enigma tales.
BASHIR: Is it? I see.
GARAK: You sound disappointed. I thought you enjoyed mystery novels.
BASHIR: I do. Human mystery novels. The problem with Cardassian enigma tales is that they all end the same way. All the suspects are always guilty.
GARAK: Yes, but the challenge is determining exactly who is guilty of what.

So... Ten Little Indians was a Cardassian Mystery Novel?

[Pex]

Is there an Agatha Christie novel about bees? It was referenced she wrote one in a Doctor Who episode, and I was curious if such a story really exists or it was only a joke. It was Amy Pond who inspired Van Gogh to paint the sunflowers so you never know.

[The Glyphstone]

there is a short story featuring wasps in a secondary role. No idea about bees.

[Pex]

Ok.

Wasps.

Same difference.

[Olinser]

Dont get me wrong. The book is *good*, i just felt cheated about this little element.

Lemme know if i got it wrong :)

Honestly I'm not sure why. Poirot was basically a modern Sherlock Holmes - and I'd estimate that probably 90% of original Holmes stories were the same way, where the narrator (Watson), almost never actually provided enough information to solve it yourself. He'd mention Holmes looking at something or checking something but never actually gave you the critical clues to solve the case.

I'd say the bulk of Christie's novels aren't really solveable with the information provided to the reader before the climax. But that's fine - the whole point is to enjoy the story, not try to solve the case yourself in the first few chapters.