I'm wondering what the main factors are for not liking a story? For me implausibility isn't a factor. For me characters behaving in a way different to usual is a problem, such as in the Big Four. Or a very long drawn out plot like in Elephants Can Remember. Or a plot that's too easy to work out can lead to a disappointing ending. Again that happened with Elephants.
There have been a few Hercule Poirot novels that it took me a while to get through, but The Clocks is easily the worst in my opinion. A good premise, but an awful payoff.
I have what looks like a first ed of Halloween party. Hard back - one date 1969 on the inside cover etc. However despite extensive searching I can't find a copy of the jacket cover that is on the book. It is a green jacket with a large pumpkin in a 1960s style. Any ideas where I can research my book and find a similar looking version? Thankyou!
my least favorite was pale horse. i found it very boring and off track. i did not even feel like completing it.
Um, Pale Horse is not a Poirot novel....
I personaly find Cat Among Pigeons hard to read. I don't know why, I always stop in the middle of the book. I haven't try it again. There are some of the stories that really give the same feeling, too, the same trick, so it makes the other novel a bit boring.
Well, everyone seems to agree that The Big Four is unPoirot, and for me, too, it's Poirot being there that ruin the story completely. But even without Poirot it is still rotten, we could kind of expect the ending, the big bad are revealed too fast and not surprising, we are just waiting for how exactly the organization will be ruined. And The Big Four actually made from short-story compilations, for those who are unaware of it. There are like 5 or 6 Poirot short stories that are combined to be made into this novel.
I am not keen on The Big Four because as Agatha Christie made it in a Novel for Financial Reasons it doesn't really feel like a Novel apart from the fact that Poirot and Hastings are sent on an Adventure which is concluded at the end, apart from the beginning and the end, It is a book of short stories, for me the worst Poirot Novel is Murder In Mesopotamia which IMHO has nothing to say in its favour where as The Big Four does have good bits but is also on my list of least favourites.
There have been a few Hercule Poirot novels that it took me a while to get through, but The Clocks is easily the worst in my opinion. A good premise, but an awful payoff.
I agree...I have tried and tried to like this book....I just cannot get thru it.....
How Odd, I love it and it is in my top 3 of Poirot books, I love he fact Ariadne is mentioned, I love if you go with the theory as I do that Battle is Colin's Father that he is mentioned and it does seem to have that Battle Feel, I love the Premise and I do think the Execution is wonderful., It is like a Huge Caper to me, I am sorry you didn't like it glalonzo
Third Girl I rather like, the Big Four I've never read, Clocks I like - as @Tommy_A_Jones says, it's a caper and some good characters there. Murder in Mesopotamia - I realize that AC was frightfully keen on travel and digs - and of course her second husband was an archeologist... But to be honest, I didn't like the setting. I prefer a Western setting or a real touristy-travel one (the Nile, a gorgeous island...). And I found that I just couldn't care enough about any of the characters. It's a catchy title, but I found it a disappointing read.
I think I have to go with One Two, Buckle My Shoe. I don't think Agatha Christie played fair with the reader. There was really no evidence of the motive for murder. There was really no evidence the reader could have cited to know that the murderer was a b_ _ _ _ _ _ _. It's almost as though Poirot knows, but there is no way the reader can know until he reveals it. Without knowing that, there is no way the reader could know who the killer was.
I agree with you Captain Hastings, I also didn't like the Title and I didn't really understand how the Rhyme Fitted, what I did like though was the fact it had Japp without Hastings but of the 2 with Japp without Hastings this is the weakest and less enjoyable
Thank you, Tommy_A_Jones. I'm happy to get your confirmation of my sense that One Two, Buckle My Shoe was not quite playing fair. I recently finished listening to The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and I have to say, I have very mixed feeling s about this one. On the one hand, it was Christie's first Poirot and her first novel, period. So before I label it as the "Worst Poirot," in fairness, this was her very first book. Overall, I thought she did an excellent job introducing the character of Hercule Poirot. The eccentricities we love (and hate) were all in evidence and she did not deviate from this personality she dreamed up in the many subsequent Poirot novels she wrote clear up through the 1970's! The dynamic between Poirot and Hastings was also explored and, again, it was interesting to see Poirot's use of poor Captain Hastings as the reverse barometer from the get-go.
However, Dame Christie simply did not play fair with the reader in this first novel. I am glad to note that this did not become a habit. But ... SPOILERS ...
Was there any mention of a spill vase in the first place? How would a reader have thought that there would be an incriminating letter there. I note that this piece of evidence was the only proof of the Alfred Inglethorp's guilt. All of a sudden, viola, Poirot produces the letter reassembled from the spill vase. He lied to Hastings and, by extrapolation, Christie, deceived the reader with this whole, "I owe it to Mrs. Inglethorp to save her Alfred." I think he even says that he is "innocent." There is no way the reader should suspect him once Poirot cleared him to Hastings, and by no one but Poirot knowing about that secret letter, the reader had no way of knowing that Alfred Inglethorp could possibly be the murderer.
Thank you, Tommy_A_Jones. I'm happy to get your confirmation of my sense that One Two, Buckle My Shoe was not quite playing fair. I recently finished listening to The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and I have to say, I have very mixed feeling s about this one. On the one hand, it was Christie's first Poirot and her first novel, period. So before I label it as the "Worst Poirot," in fairness, this was her very first book. Overall, I thought she did an excellent job introducing the character of Hercule Poirot. The eccentricities we love (and hate) were all in evidence and she did not deviate from this personality she dreamed up in the many subsequent Poirot novels she wrote clear up through the 1970's! The dynamic between Poirot and Hastings was also explored and, again, it was interesting to see Poirot's use of poor Captain Hastings as the reverse barometer from the get-go.
However, Dame Christie simply did not play fair with the reader in this first novel. I am glad to note that this did not become a habit. But ... SPOILERS ...
Was there any mention of a spill vase in the first place? How would a reader have thought that there would be an incriminating letter there. I note that this piece of evidence was the only proof of the Alfred Inglethorp's guilt. All of a sudden, viola, Poirot produces the letter reassembled from the spill vase. He lied to Hastings and, by extrapolation, Christie, deceived the reader with this whole, "I owe it to Mrs. Inglethorp to save her Alfred." I think he even says that he is "innocent." There is no way the reader should suspect him once Poirot cleared him to Hastings, and by no one but Poirot knowing about that secret letter, the reader had no way of knowing that Alfred Inglethorp could possibly be the murderer.
No, that's not, what Poirot said at all. He said, that because of dear Mrs Inglethorp, he didn't want Alfred to be put on trial now. I don't know, how the narrator of your Audio book pronounced it, but in the book, the "now" was even printed in italics. That was a very big hint.
Good point, Christopher Wren. I would hate to think David Suchet made a mistake in emphasis. He was the narrator of my Mysterious Affair at Styles CD. He's usually so fastidious in his accents and of course, I agree with most posters when I count him as the consummate Poirot. I trust Suchet's voice more than I trust my memory. He probably read it the correct way; I just missed the implication.
I have to say I read 'Dead Man's Folly' and just didn't get into it felt the whole thing slow, i wasn't that keen on the adaptation of it except Christie's house, the location was magic!
Roby Poirot is a marginal Character in others which are much worse than Appointment With Death, My least favourite is The Mystery Of The Blue Train, I just found it so boring.
Taken At The Flood is uninspiring. There is a good story in there with a crass red herring which doesn't seem to ring true. The relationship between the murderer and another character is exceptionally well -disguised and, at the same time, simultaneously revealed. I really ought to have spotted what was going on but failed despite having suspicions SPOILER ALERT that she wasn't how her character should be.
Taken At The Flood is like Ordeal By Innocence and Crooked House in that it has a Strong Message and not necessarily written to be enjoyed, not an easy or comfortable read but not boring like a small minority of them
Taken At The Flood is like Ordeal By Innocence and Crooked House in that it has a Strong Message and not necessarily written to be enjoyed, not an easy or comfortable read but not boring like a small minority of them
I agree. I like it, not as much as Crooked House. But it's a great book. It's the type of book that shows that the culprit can be or can have unexpected motivations.
Hi Tudes. I'm interested that you enjoyed Taken At The Flood. I very much enjoyed the fascinating insight into the British way of life immediately following WWII. Interesting too to be made aware that in the days before extensive state pensions, family money was everything, and the outcome of the will really was the making or breaking of a person's future security and comfort.
Don't you think what happened to the man who was staying in The Stag ludicrously unbelievable, given the character of the perpetrator? I can't get over it: it is such a weak piece of storyline for me.
Comments
I personaly find Cat Among Pigeons hard to read. I don't know why, I always stop in the middle of the book. I haven't try it again.
There are some of the stories that really give the same feeling, too, the same trick, so it makes the other novel a bit boring.
Well, everyone seems to agree that The Big Four is unPoirot, and for me, too, it's Poirot being there that ruin the story completely. But even without Poirot it is still rotten, we could kind of expect the ending, the big bad are revealed too fast and not surprising, we are just waiting for how exactly the organization will be ruined.
And The Big Four actually made from short-story compilations, for those who are unaware of it. There are like 5 or 6 Poirot short stories that are combined to be made into this novel.
My least favourite is The Hollow.
I can't stand John and was glad he was killed. My sympathy was firmly with the murderer.
.
Murder in Mesopotamia - I realize that AC was frightfully keen on travel and digs - and of course her second husband was an archeologist... But to be honest, I didn't like the setting. I prefer a Western setting or a real touristy-travel one (the Nile, a gorgeous island...). And I found that I just couldn't care enough about any of the characters. It's a catchy title, but I found it a disappointing read.
However, Dame Christie simply did not play fair with the reader in this first novel. I am glad to note that this did not become a habit. But ... SPOILERS ...
Was there any mention of a spill vase in the first place? How would a reader have thought that there would be an incriminating letter there. I note that this piece of evidence was the only proof of the Alfred Inglethorp's guilt. All of a sudden, viola, Poirot produces the letter reassembled from the spill vase. He lied to Hastings and, by extrapolation, Christie, deceived the reader with this whole, "I owe it to Mrs. Inglethorp to save her Alfred." I think he even says that he is "innocent." There is no way the reader should suspect him once Poirot cleared him to Hastings, and by no one but Poirot knowing about that secret letter, the reader had no way of knowing that Alfred Inglethorp could possibly be the murderer.