I like Poirot best - I like his quirkiness. Miss Marple seems a bit more typical. But I really enjoy both of them. I like the fact Agatha Christie has written about so many different detectives, all different, all shining in their own way.
I do like Tommy & Tuppence best though. I love the comedy, the fact they have a youth about them even when they are in their seventies, and I also like that you really get to know them. I don't think you can get into Poirot and Miss Marple's heads in quite the same way and they really know each other very well, which gives you a different type of relationship. Even Poirot and Hastings have a certain distance, though I do love their relationship.
By Out of Question do you mean Off Topic? If You do you are Correct but I Think The Beresfords should have been added to the Question and so Tuppence's Post is
I think it's wasn't off topic !! Because tuppence shared her opinion first comparing between poirot and marple then she gave her opinion in general choosing between all the detectives telling us that she prefers the Beresford couple among them all
I absolutely hateDavid Suchet. It is a parody of Poirot - massively over-acted. Poirot is 90 percent detecting, 10 percent eccentricity. Suchet is the exact opposite. I cannot watch for more than 10 minutes without turning off. And of course the stories are outrageously butchered - why oh why?
Some of the short stories are padded out because they are too short to fit the time, I have no Idea why others were butchered, I hate that at times too especially Cards On The Table and Apppointment With Death but love it with Evil Under The Sun, I don't agree with you on your other comments which I don't think are factually Correct.
I find Poirots' books to be fast paced, more engaging, more adventurous and a little more "intelligent" than Marple's ones. Marple's books are cozy mysteries.
MM without a doubt. Poirot is an experienced detective who works with the police wheras MM is a little old lady who reads detective novels that has fine tuned her intellect about all things homicidal.
There are Fewer MM books so you end up wanting more (Well I do anyway) but you can get fed up with Poirot as because there are more of those there are more less enjoyable ones (Well there are for me anyway) although 2 I find boring are early Poirots Murder On The Links and Peril At End House and I think Murder In Mesopotamia is an early one isn't it, Don't like that one either.
I prefer reading Poirot if I have to choose between the two. In many of the novels, Poirot and Miss Marple aren't in the book enough in order to make much difference. I agree that Peril At End House is one of her weakest books.
I think The Clocks Suffers by having Poirot and The Moving Finger Suffers for the Introduction of Miss Marple.
I like The Moving Finger and Miss Marple, but I was disappointed at The Clocks. The beginning is very good and I thought it would be an excellent book, but the ending is below average when you take the whole book in consideration.
I see what you mean Tudes, The SPOILER ALERT!!! Although The Author who gives Poirot The Clue is mentioned there is no indication of the Code before the ending.
I see what you mean Tudes, The SPOILER ALERT!!! Although The Author who gives Poirot The Clue is mentioned there is no indication of the Code before the ending.
Are you talking about The Clocks? If so, do you mind explaining what you mean? I'm lost.
SPOILER ALERT!!! When Colin first goes to see Poirot, Poirot mentions the Authors whose Books he has been reading, knowing how the Christie Books are Readers should know the Mention of these Authors will be an indication that one will be mentioned in the denoumont but
There are Fewer MM books so you end up wanting more (Well I do anyway) but you can get fed up with Poirot as because there are more of those there are more less enjoyable ones (Well there are for me anyway) although 2 I find boring are early Poirots Murder On The Links and Peril At End House and I think Murder In Mesopotamia is an early one isn't it, Don't like that one either.
I am going to guess that perhaps there weren't more Marple stories because there wasn't much more you could do with Marple's character, but I could be wrong. I wish before Agatha had passed that she wrote a prequel type book, it would have been interesting to learn more about how Miss Marple developed her "powers." Also, like Curtain, I wish there was a Marple book with a definitive ending.
Also, I know some may not like the idea, but I wish there was at least one Marple/Poirot cross over book. They wouldn't have to have a lot of scenes together, but it would be great to see, for example, Poirot get really stuck in a case, and having to consult an "expert," who turns out to be Miss Marple.
I think I mentioned somewhere that AC was asked about a Poirot-Marple collaboration and vetoed it on the grounds that they were both "prima-donna"s in their way, and there wasn't space in one fictional book-world for both of them. Personally, they seem so different to me that I can't see them communicating - MM might, perhaps, understand HP, though she would not catch all his clues, but I doubt whether HP would understand MM - first of all, her fluffy, disconnected way of speaking would drive him mad, and secondly her understanding of human nature seems to me much more true (with Poirot, sometimes he says "I came to the conclusion" and I think: really? how?, while when MM explains her reasoning it always makes sense).
The Clocks is not at all satisfying. AC seems not to like the characters, nor to understand their world, and they never come to life. The setting, strangely, fails to come to life too. It is very typical of a number of AC themes. The idea of a rather dull-witted girl/servant/typist seeing or hearing something which doesn't fit is reminiscent of The Moving Finger. If Miss Marple was there we would have had that whole repetitive discourse about her seeing something but not knowing what she'd seen - or its significance. AC is very poor at international intrigue, politics, big business, spies, the supernatural. For latter, think The Pale Horse. She doesn't understand how people go about believing in such things. (Her grasp is almost childlike.) There is a nosy, sleuthing child - echoes the 4.15 to Paddington. Miss Pebmarsh is like the headteacher from Halloween. The central premise is, as usual, very good. The temptation to pretend the second wife was the first would be overwhelming. You would panic when a relative came. You'd have to do something. But ordinary people don't have to wherewithal to become callous killers and dispense with two people with a knife. However, the war was just a while before. Being trained to kill makes a side of your dark character come out. The idea of a blind person being duped is one of those clever notions which come to AC, like the opportunity for a dentist to murder his prone patient - One, Two, Buckle My Shoe. You can imagine her watching a blind person, and thinking, that would be a way to sort out evidence from a crime - hide it in a blind person's home. They'd never realise. We had a thread on red herrings, but goodness, this work is stuffed full with them. Nowhere other than Frankfurt, and Halloween do plots and sub-plots not tie up so badly.
The Clocks works well, and she handles the weaving plots without confusion, managing to tie up all the loose ends. I don't know that we could ask for much more in a crime novel. There are enough problems to sort out and deceive us, plus we are treated to a nice little lecture about other crime writers, which someone already mentioned. Readers are always looking for some metafiction in her work, it seems, but here we have an undisguised text. I find Agatha Christie to be as sharp as ever with The Clocks, and it's a good example of why she remained the best in her genre.
Griselda, I appreciate your comments, because I am often hearing that The Clocks is not very popular, yet I can never get a definite answer to the whys behind that. You have given me some insight. I am finding more and more that as readers pick their favorite Agatha Christie, that book somehow influences the likes and dislikes for many of the others.
Comments
I like Poirot best - I like his quirkiness. Miss Marple seems a bit more typical. But I really enjoy both of them. I like the fact Agatha Christie has written about so many different detectives, all different, all shining in their own way.
I do like Tommy & Tuppence best though. I love the comedy, the fact they have a youth about them even when they are in their seventies, and I also like that you really get to know them. I don't think you can get into Poirot and Miss Marple's heads in quite the same way and they really know each other very well, which gives you a different type of relationship. Even Poirot and Hastings have a certain distance, though I do love their relationship.
Marple's books are cozy mysteries.
There are Fewer MM books so you end up wanting more (Well I do anyway) but you can get fed up with Poirot as because there are more of those there are more less enjoyable ones (Well there are for me anyway) although 2 I find boring are early Poirots Murder On The Links and Peril At End House and I think Murder In Mesopotamia is an early one isn't it, Don't like that one either.
SPOILER ALERT!!! When Colin first goes to see Poirot, Poirot mentions the Authors whose Books he has been reading, knowing how the Christie Books are Readers should know the Mention of these Authors will be an indication that one will be mentioned in the denoumont but
Codes should have been mentionedGriselda, I appreciate your comments, because I am often hearing that The Clocks is not very popular, yet I can never get a definite answer to the whys behind that. You have given me some insight. I am finding more and more that as readers pick their favorite Agatha Christie, that book somehow influences the likes and dislikes for many of the others.