Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.9 AVERAGE
3.9 AVERAGE
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I can excuse the subpar dialogues that were littered here and there. I can also excuse the inelegant conclusions to minor subjects (e.g., Alexander Bonaparte Cust's headaches; Donald Fraser dreams). I can excuse that, among other things, because Agatha Christie wrote such a thrilling page-turner in The ABC Murders.
In a way, the who of the killings didn't matter as much on the way to the end, because I saw it miles away. (Kidding, I saw it probably only halfway through the lengthy penultimate chapter). What matters most to me was that Christie created this exciting cat-and-mouse chase with a horrifying serial killer. The letters, the clues, the taunts, and the red herrings. All these were brilliantly constructed and thought of. And the cherry on the top of it was Hastings, such an unforgettable narrator.
Ah, Agatha Christie, your ingenuity continues to impress me so much.
In a way, the who of the killings didn't matter as much on the way to the end, because I saw it miles away. (Kidding, I saw it probably only halfway through the lengthy penultimate chapter). What matters most to me was that Christie created this exciting cat-and-mouse chase with a horrifying serial killer. The letters, the clues, the taunts, and the red herrings. All these were brilliantly constructed and thought of. And the cherry on the top of it was Hastings, such an unforgettable narrator.
Ah, Agatha Christie, your ingenuity continues to impress me so much.
Kept me interested while listening the whole time. Wasn’t expecting the ending.
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
hopeful
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
It’s good but also there’s not enough Hercule Poirot? The last two Poirot books I’ve read have had less Poirot than previous ones and I want all Poirot all the time.
At the end of every Agatha Christie I'm hoping for a very specific experience: a reveal I initially assume can't possibly be true, which upon rereading will feel like the only logical conclusion to the events. If we have to skew away from one of those conditions, I'd rather the crime be too solvable than the reveal unbelievable (in part because I would love to actually get one right for once).
I didn't find the answer here unsatisfying, but I'm not convinced it would seem the only available answer if I reread. I think that is partially because we're unconfined - there are a few too many characters and motives and opportunities that are naturally limited by the locked room, the train, the boat, and a short timeline. Those tight confines drive the pre-reveal madness and post-reveal obviousness in a way I thought this lacked.
It was still a fun story. Poirot is an awesome character, and the audio narrator elevates his entertainment, which is worth all the clues I missed during lapses. I love that the one thing I was certain to be true (that a legitimate madman had killed at least one victim) wasn't, and defensibly so.
I didn't find the answer here unsatisfying, but I'm not convinced it would seem the only available answer if I reread. I think that is partially because we're unconfined - there are a few too many characters and motives and opportunities that are naturally limited by the locked room, the train, the boat, and a short timeline. Those tight confines drive the pre-reveal madness and post-reveal obviousness in a way I thought this lacked.
It was still a fun story. Poirot is an awesome character, and the audio narrator elevates his entertainment, which is worth all the clues I missed during lapses. I love that the one thing I was certain to be true (that a legitimate madman had killed at least one victim) wasn't, and defensibly so.
Typical Christie- Efficient and endlessly clever, with a bit of meta-commentary on the genre she practically invented.