Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
I'm not sure entirely what I was hoping for while listening to this audiobook, yet somehow I feel disappointed. I will say that while Hugh Fraser's reading of this was very soothing to listen to, it's not enough to save the book itself.
There are a few other reviews on this book stating the sentiment that Charles Osborne's adaptation of the original play into novel form doesn't do it justice and that his interpretation of Christie's characters feels flat and very one-note. I can agree to this to an extent, but my bigger issue with the way the book is written is just how repetitive and dry the actual writing is. I should have kept track of the number of times the phrase "there was a pause/he paused/she paused" popped up, because I feel like I couldn't go two minutes without hearing it. I also feel like it's rather telling that this was adapted from a play, because the descriptions of everything occurring, of the characters, and the repetitive way in which their actions and expressions were described was incredibly lazy and literal. Nothing about the way in which he wrote this adaptation really drew me in or made me care about anyone or anything that was happening. The fact that the information on here [pulled from the Wikipedia pages] states that he was the only writer that the Agatha Christie Estate allowed to publish any works under her name feels like a bit of a joke, because he does not write well.
That being said however, I'm not sure how salvageable this play would have been to begin with. The plot feels very half-baked, like it's trying to be incredibly complex and clever but it ultimately isn't. The plot twist in the last 5 minutes of the book feels shoehorned in, and has a touch of M. Night Shyamalan to it. (Maybe M. Night has read Agatha Christie and gets some of his plot twist ideas from things like this story, who knows.) I think the biggest irritation I have is the way a certain character is handled; use of the word "retarded" is thrown out there to initially describe him, and while that's absolutely a product of the time in which The Unexpected Guest was initially made, the subsequent way the character is handled after that just bothers me. I feel like it's trying to send a certain message but it's so ham-fisted and easy to misinterpret that it just comes across as ableist and harmful.
I'm not sure if I'll ever revisit this in the future. I listened to it in the first place because someone had uploaded the entire audiobook onto YouTube and it was less than 4 hours long, and I've mentioned before wanting to give more Agatha Christie novels a chance. If I do revisit, it'll be to analyze and tear apart the treatment of the neuroatypical character.
There are a few other reviews on this book stating the sentiment that Charles Osborne's adaptation of the original play into novel form doesn't do it justice and that his interpretation of Christie's characters feels flat and very one-note. I can agree to this to an extent, but my bigger issue with the way the book is written is just how repetitive and dry the actual writing is. I should have kept track of the number of times the phrase "there was a pause/he paused/she paused" popped up, because I feel like I couldn't go two minutes without hearing it. I also feel like it's rather telling that this was adapted from a play, because the descriptions of everything occurring, of the characters, and the repetitive way in which their actions and expressions were described was incredibly lazy and literal. Nothing about the way in which he wrote this adaptation really drew me in or made me care about anyone or anything that was happening. The fact that the information on here [pulled from the Wikipedia pages] states that he was the only writer that the Agatha Christie Estate allowed to publish any works under her name feels like a bit of a joke, because he does not write well.
That being said however, I'm not sure how salvageable this play would have been to begin with. The plot feels very half-baked, like it's trying to be incredibly complex and clever but it ultimately isn't. The plot twist in the last 5 minutes of the book feels shoehorned in, and has a touch of M. Night Shyamalan to it. (Maybe M. Night has read Agatha Christie and gets some of his plot twist ideas from things like this story, who knows.) I think the biggest irritation I have is the way a certain character is handled; use of the word "retarded" is thrown out there to initially describe him, and while that's absolutely a product of the time in which The Unexpected Guest was initially made, the subsequent way the character is handled after that just bothers me. I feel like it's trying to send a certain message but it's so ham-fisted and easy to misinterpret that it just comes across as ableist and harmful.
I'm not sure if I'll ever revisit this in the future. I listened to it in the first place because someone had uploaded the entire audiobook onto YouTube and it was less than 4 hours long, and I've mentioned before wanting to give more Agatha Christie novels a chance. If I do revisit, it'll be to analyze and tear apart the treatment of the neuroatypical character.
Great, short mystery. Had me guessing until the end.
I was excited to read this book after I heard Agatha Christie praised as the queen of mystery. But, knowing it was adapted for a play, the let down of the story made sense. I felt that the characters were terribly flat through the whole story, but I feel like this is something that would have more successfully come through had I seen it in the format of the play.
Through the story, each chapter led you to believe that at one point, each character was guilty. But unfortunately, with the characters feeling so flat, it made it really difficult to decide who you did or didn't believe. My original prediction of who did it was heavily confirmed close to the end, but then that was stripped away last minute.
I will say that there was a great plot twist at the end that made me want to give this book a 4, but I wasn't sure 3 good pages of writing warranted a bump up. As a novel, I think it would have gotten me there with a bit of an epilogue, but understand why that didn't happen with it being a play.
Through the story, each chapter led you to believe that at one point, each character was guilty. But unfortunately, with the characters feeling so flat, it made it really difficult to decide who you did or didn't believe. My original prediction of who did it was heavily confirmed close to the end, but then that was stripped away last minute.
I will say that there was a great plot twist at the end that made me want to give this book a 4, but I wasn't sure 3 good pages of writing warranted a bump up. As a novel, I think it would have gotten me there with a bit of an epilogue, but understand why that didn't happen with it being a play.
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
3 🌟 the whole book was kinda boring but the ending was... Unexpected
After reading a somewhat disappointing book it’s nice to turn to a sure fire thing. This is one of Christie’s plays which has been novelised (very well) although I will admit to reading this and imagining the actors on stage. For instance it is unlikely that you will find a novel where the entire thing takes place in 1 room. But what I love about Christie’s stories is that you have twist after twist after twist, until you think you know what is happening before it suddenly twists again. This is only 170 pages So if you want a really quick whodunnit then plug into this.
Great fun, and would love to see in play form as it was originally intended. Looking forward to reading more Christie!
mysterious
fast-paced