Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
20/100.
Primera novela de Agatha Christie que no me gusta, exceptuando el desarrollo de la relación entre Hastings y Poirot. Más bien no es que no me guste, sino que es mala a rabiar. No me gusta demasiado relacionar las circunstancias vitales de los autores en la explicación de una novela porque el texto siempre debe ser el punto de partida de un análisis, pero esta fue la primera que publicó después de su desaparición (Agatha Christie descubrió que su marido tenía una amante; pasó 11 días desaparecida en diciembre de 1926. Esta novela se publicó en enero de 1927). Así que prefiero asumir que el genio de Christie no tuvo un derrape, sino que sus circunstancias vitales fueron las artífices de 'Los cuatro grandes'. De hecho, tengo entendido que Agatha odiaba tanto esta novela como 'El misterio del tren azul' (publicada dos meses después de esta obra).
Hercules Poirot está decidido a acabar con la organización mundial de 'Los cuatro grandes', formada por una mente maquiavélica china, un billonario estadounidense, una misteriosa persona francesa y una persona casi cambiaformas, experta en el arte del disfraz. Esta novela detectivesca no se centra, como era habitual, en un espacio en concreto, sino que va viajando de un lugar a otro, de un país a otro sin descanso.
¿Por qué no me ha gustado? Hercules Poirot no se sentía Hercules Poirot. Se notaba que Christie no la había escrito muy a gusto. Echaba de menos su intelecto, sus deducciones, un desenlace interesante. ¿Los personajes secundarios? Demasiado numerosos e irrelevantes. Aparecen en cierta parte de la historia y, ale, nada.
Sin embargo, dentro del macrocosmos de 'Los cuatro grandes', hay casos interesantes que se resuelven de forma capitular. Quizás los problemas de la obra son que se publicaron en forma de 12 historias breves recopiladas en un libro posteriormente. No nos encontrábamos la cohesión que caracteriza las obras de Christie y, quizás, por eso resultó tan decepcionante.
Primera novela de Agatha Christie que no me gusta, exceptuando el desarrollo de la relación entre Hastings y Poirot. Más bien no es que no me guste, sino que es mala a rabiar. No me gusta demasiado relacionar las circunstancias vitales de los autores en la explicación de una novela porque el texto siempre debe ser el punto de partida de un análisis, pero esta fue la primera que publicó después de su desaparición (Agatha Christie descubrió que su marido tenía una amante; pasó 11 días desaparecida en diciembre de 1926. Esta novela se publicó en enero de 1927). Así que prefiero asumir que el genio de Christie no tuvo un derrape, sino que sus circunstancias vitales fueron las artífices de 'Los cuatro grandes'. De hecho, tengo entendido que Agatha odiaba tanto esta novela como 'El misterio del tren azul' (publicada dos meses después de esta obra).
Hercules Poirot está decidido a acabar con la organización mundial de 'Los cuatro grandes', formada por una mente maquiavélica china, un billonario estadounidense, una misteriosa persona francesa y una persona casi cambiaformas, experta en el arte del disfraz. Esta novela detectivesca no se centra, como era habitual, en un espacio en concreto, sino que va viajando de un lugar a otro, de un país a otro sin descanso.
¿Por qué no me ha gustado? Hercules Poirot no se sentía Hercules Poirot. Se notaba que Christie no la había escrito muy a gusto. Echaba de menos su intelecto, sus deducciones, un desenlace interesante. ¿Los personajes secundarios? Demasiado numerosos e irrelevantes. Aparecen en cierta parte de la historia y, ale, nada.
Sin embargo, dentro del macrocosmos de 'Los cuatro grandes', hay casos interesantes que se resuelven de forma capitular. Quizás los problemas de la obra son que se publicaron en forma de 12 historias breves recopiladas en un libro posteriormente. No nos encontrábamos la cohesión que caracteriza las obras de Christie y, quizás, por eso resultó tan decepcionante.
In Big Four, Christie drops Poirot in a James Bond-esque international spy story, and he takes on... the Illuminati?
This one was pretty rough. I'd say skip it
note: This one is essentially a collection of vignettes written/compiled during Christie's divorce. If you're interested in getting an idea of how her writing was impacted by the divorce, this will be insightful.
This one was pretty rough. I'd say skip it
note: This one is essentially a collection of vignettes written/compiled during Christie's divorce. If you're interested in getting an idea of how her writing was impacted by the divorce, this will be insightful.
Hastings shows up on Poirot's doorstep as the latter is about to leave the country on a big case. After a man stumbles in giving Poirot a clue about something he has suspected – 4 criminals working together to cause unrest in the world, aka the Big Four. Poirot fakes leaving England to research their existence.
Like super villains against a master sleuth. At times it seemed a bit cartoony.
Like super villains against a master sleuth. At times it seemed a bit cartoony.
This story is a bit ludicrous if you stop to think about it. I didn't know it was originally a group of short stories. That makes more sense with all the drugging of Hastings and Poirot that happens. It did feel like a few episodes of a tv show. All About Agatha compared it to the BBC Sherlock series and I see similar comparisons with the episodic nature of the chapters. I didn't really mind the ludicrous nature of the plot mechanics. It was messy but each of the little mini puzzles was ok, the Poirot Hastings dynamic was great. I do feel that the actual Big Four and their story line was a little weak. It did feel like they were always hinted at or had a brief clash but then faded into the background as Poirot and Hastings dashed from place to place or got drugged and captured and then escaped. All told, it was pretty good. I'm interested that in 2017 they republished it as a group of short stories, that little change might make it a lot better. Also I heard her brother in law might have had a hand in writing this or editing it. I need to finally read her Auto biography.
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I love Agatha Christie, but I hated this book.
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
got through it in a day- I think I’m losing my sanity I’ve read so much this week. it’s all gone bonkers
anyway the book was really good I enjoyed it. very Sherlock holmsey- VERY. but I liked that! felt like a really good collection of short stories with an excellent ultimate ending
anyway the book was really good I enjoyed it. very Sherlock holmsey- VERY. but I liked that! felt like a really good collection of short stories with an excellent ultimate ending
Rather 3.5 (but just because I am very partial to AC).
This is Agatha Christie's attempt to write a James Bond type thriller, Hercule Poirot being the "James Bond" character. If that sounds hilarious and silly, well... it IS kind of hilarious and silly indeed. But because Agatha Christie is a good writer, you are taken through the book quite smoothly and very, very quickly The speed is quite there so you don't have too much time to think about how preposterous and comical the story line is; it just occurs to you after you read the last words and close the book...
This is Agatha Christie's attempt to write a James Bond type thriller, Hercule Poirot being the "James Bond" character. If that sounds hilarious and silly, well... it IS kind of hilarious and silly indeed. But because Agatha Christie is a good writer, you are taken through the book quite smoothly and very, very quickly The speed is quite there so you don't have too much time to think about how preposterous and comical the story line is; it just occurs to you after you read the last words and close the book...
I've read many of Agatha Christie's books over the years, she's one of my favorites, and I felt like reading a Poirot mystery, well listening to one actually. I chose poorly with The Big Four. Poirot is his usual dapper self, eccentric and fastidious. He's as vain as always, but with faithful Hastings as the narrator, he doesn't become overly-egocentric. Hastings humanizes him some, makes fun of his quirks and appreciates his friendship.
But the mystery here let me down. It's too big, but not big enough. The audio version, read by Hugh Fraser, comes in at only 5 hours and 33 minutes. There's just not enough room for that kind of world domination conspiracy, and even if it were, it's just too cartoonish, with the stereotypical criminals, the matermind Chinese man, the multimillionaire American, the brilliant French scientist and, and their assassin, the elusive "Number Four," and their secret meetings. The "twists and turns" are silly, unbelievable or both. It's not the smooth mystery, where Poirot works through everything using his "little grey cells," and then has a denoument scene at the end where he spells out the solution. Instead, it's more a series of episodes, each having some connection to the Big Four.
It's not up to Christie's usual work.
But the mystery here let me down. It's too big, but not big enough. The audio version, read by Hugh Fraser, comes in at only 5 hours and 33 minutes. There's just not enough room for that kind of world domination conspiracy, and even if it were, it's just too cartoonish, with the stereotypical criminals, the matermind Chinese man, the multimillionaire American, the brilliant French scientist and, and their assassin, the elusive "Number Four," and their secret meetings. The "twists and turns" are silly, unbelievable or both. It's not the smooth mystery, where Poirot works through everything using his "little grey cells," and then has a denoument scene at the end where he spells out the solution. Instead, it's more a series of episodes, each having some connection to the Big Four.
It's not up to Christie's usual work.
Full disclosure: I "read" this as a book on CD. It is an excellent narration, which may have influenced my feelings about this book.
Does it feel cobbled together and disjointed?
Yes, but it is cobbled together from several serialized publications. Maybe the publishing company should have taken some editorial license.
Is it a bit far-fetched?
Yes, but everyone outruns bombs, aliens, monsters, and natural disasters in film... why not in fiction?
Is it Agatha Christie's best work?
No, but it beats some of the intellectual, navel-gazing, mastubatory, self-important, pointless drivel that I try to slog through. *cough*The Argonauts
Does it feel cobbled together and disjointed?
Yes, but it is cobbled together from several serialized publications. Maybe the publishing company should have taken some editorial license.
Is it a bit far-fetched?
Yes, but everyone outruns bombs, aliens, monsters, and natural disasters in film... why not in fiction?
Is it Agatha Christie's best work?
No, but it beats some of the intellectual, navel-gazing, mastubatory, self-important, pointless drivel that I try to slog through. *cough*The Argonauts
Definitely not my favorite Agatha Christie book. Poirot is so annoyingly omniscient, and the events often don't make sense--like why would one of the big four spend months posing as a servant just to kill a guy who was going to write a book that mentioned one of them and make it look like an accident? With the power and influence that these guys supposedly had they could have done something that didn't use that much of one of their main guy's time. And somehow they could manage all these complicated schemes, but couldn't manage to kill Poirot who was their #1 enemy. And it was all just too conspiracy-theory-esque for me.