Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.02 AVERAGE
4.02 AVERAGE
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Violence, Stalking, Murder
Moderate: Alcoholism, Toxic relationship, Injury/Injury detail
Minor: Racial slurs, Classism
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Agatha Christie impresses again! I’ve made it my new goal to read every Hercule Poirot novel—I’m obsessed! They’re so good, and though I don’t comprehend how Poirot’s mind works, it’s interesting nonetheless. The characters felt so real and I find it so fascinating how Agatha can give all characters such complicated morals, histories, and motives in just 300 pages.
A fun read, chock-full of different characters. Been a while since I've read an Agatha Christie book, and this was a good one to get back into. I'd probably say it's around a 3.5 for me, so I rounded up to 4
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
While the performance is well balanced and overall enjoyable, some of the voice acting choices David Suchet made with regards to the portrayal of Egyptian characters – and other side characters - were frankly questionable: racism is already embedded in the story itself, and these choices only served to amplify it.
I am in the minority on this, but Death on the Nile is not one of my favorite Christie mysteries. It's actually my least favorite of all the ones I've read so far. There were a number of things that didn't work well for me.
1) Poirot was especially smart-alecky. I know, I know, the little gray cells are part of his shtick, but at least 3 times he assured his sidekick Colonel Race (I missed Hastings big time too) that he had figured it all out and was just piecing the puzzle together, and that of course Race would know who it was if he just thought about it! Poirot's ego overly seeps through these pages.
2) When I think about Agatha Christie, I think about mysteries that I cannot solve. To me, that's part of what makes her novels so great. All the clues are there, and I am always surprised to learn who the culprit is (or culprits). Unfortunately, I had most of this one figured out solely based on how odd the characters behaved. Their behavior made no sense. I'm not going to spoil anything, like I spoiled the ending of the novel for myself by simply using my "little gray cells".
3) It was a good deal longer than most of the other Christie mysteries I've read, which is in and of itself not bad; however, there was a lot of filler. I think having so many characters is really confusing. They were interviewed multiple times, and it was too challenging to keep everything straight.
1) Poirot was especially smart-alecky. I know, I know, the little gray cells are part of his shtick, but at least 3 times he assured his sidekick Colonel Race (I missed Hastings big time too) that he had figured it all out and was just piecing the puzzle together, and that of course Race would know who it was if he just thought about it! Poirot's ego overly seeps through these pages.
2) When I think about Agatha Christie, I think about mysteries that I cannot solve. To me, that's part of what makes her novels so great. All the clues are there, and I am always surprised to learn who the culprit is (or culprits). Unfortunately, I had most of this one figured out solely based on how odd the characters behaved. Their behavior made no sense. I'm not going to spoil anything, like I spoiled the ending of the novel for myself by simply using my "little gray cells".
3) It was a good deal longer than most of the other Christie mysteries I've read, which is in and of itself not bad; however, there was a lot of filler. I think having so many characters is really confusing. They were interviewed multiple times, and it was too challenging to keep everything straight.
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No