Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.71 AVERAGE
3.71 AVERAGE
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
adventurous
mysterious
tense
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:
No
Another good one. Initially I was bothered that we don't even see Poirot til chapter 10 or so, but I did like this change in storytelling where we meet the cast and see all the different potential motives before the actual crime occurred. And even still I did not guess it. Lots of misdirection. She tricked me haha. Great fun.
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
i have read many agatha christie books before and i’ve been surprised at the ending of many but i’ve never been so FLOORED at who did it than with this book! i was lowkey bummed because i really liked knighton. oh well!! i felt the actual murder and jewel plot was quite convoluted and i had to really read and re-read to understand what was going on. i know it was the times but i didn’t love the little snippets of casual antisemitism. i adored katherine and lenox. i was frankly a little miffed that derek seemed to end up with katherine. she needs a nicer man but no accounting for taste i suppose. anyways another banger off the press for agatha.
Coming right off of The Big Four, generally considered a stinker (by me, certainly), it's The Blue Train, which … is generally considered a stinker. Agatha Christie hated it at least, although she was biased, having written it in a time of immense personal stress.
I agree that it's not great. As a mystery, the “clue” that put Poirot on the right scent is really no clue at all, and could have dozens of innocent explanations. Later, again, we're told that “there could be but one explanation” of something so completely innocent that no explanation at all is required. It's also one of those situations, admittedly common in the genre, where the murderer engages in ridiculous behavior for no clear reason. Why do any of the things they do? The text gestures vaguely at “alibis,” but the killer was never a suspect (spoiler if you've never read a mystery novel, I guess?) and never required or used the alibi they were allegedly manufacturing. For that matter,
Agatha Christie has not improved as a writer of romance since Murder on the Links. I understand that romance is one of those things that you inherently can't do realistically in a novel like this, because real romances take place over the course of months or years, but … how long have any of these people known each other? Christie provides no sense of time passing, and it feels as if people are asking for each other's hands in marriage within a week or so of having met.
Furthermore, the two aspects of the novel just discussed seem weirdly disconnected with each other. Only the victim's father seems to have really strong opinions about the murder, or to especially care if the murderer is caught. Otherwise, the crime spends a lot of time weirdly in the background; in fact, some stolen rubies get far more chapters dedicated to them than a murdered woman.
Other aspects of the novel are more successful, happily. Some of the side characters are pretty good; the victim's unfaithful husband is depicted surprisingly sympathetically, given that Christie was in the middle of an ugly divorce with her own adulterous spouse, and Lenox's cynicism is amusing. The depiction of a Jewish fence and his daughter is blessedly free some the bigotry you might expect in a 1928 mystery novel. Unfortunately, Katherine Grey, who plays the sort of deuteragonist role that Hastings sometimes plays, is less successful. She has very pretty eyes, which apparently explains why two men fall in love with her on sight, and that's about what we get.
I've rated novels two stars that are clearly far worse than this, so it might seem unfairly low, but if you're going to tell me that Agatha Christie is one of the greatest mystery writers who ever practiced the craft, then that's the standard she's going to be held to, and here, she doesn't even come close to justifying the praise she is showered with. Still, over thirty Poirot novels, and most of the really famous ones to come; time will tell if she grows into her reputation.
I agree that it's not great. As a mystery, the “clue” that put Poirot on the right scent is really no clue at all, and could have dozens of innocent explanations. Later, again, we're told that “there could be but one explanation” of something so completely innocent that no explanation at all is required. It's also one of those situations, admittedly common in the genre, where the murderer engages in ridiculous behavior for no clear reason. Why do any of the things they do? The text gestures vaguely at “alibis,” but the killer was never a suspect (spoiler if you've never read a mystery novel, I guess?) and never required or used the alibi they were allegedly manufacturing. For that matter,
Spoiler
there's no reason why a murder should have been committed at all, and Christie's declaration that it happened because “[they are] a killer by instinct” is a weak attempt to paper over a pretty obvious flaw.Agatha Christie has not improved as a writer of romance since Murder on the Links. I understand that romance is one of those things that you inherently can't do realistically in a novel like this, because real romances take place over the course of months or years, but … how long have any of these people known each other? Christie provides no sense of time passing, and it feels as if people are asking for each other's hands in marriage within a week or so of having met.
Furthermore, the two aspects of the novel just discussed seem weirdly disconnected with each other. Only the victim's father seems to have really strong opinions about the murder, or to especially care if the murderer is caught. Otherwise, the crime spends a lot of time weirdly in the background; in fact, some stolen rubies get far more chapters dedicated to them than a murdered woman.
Other aspects of the novel are more successful, happily. Some of the side characters are pretty good; the victim's unfaithful husband is depicted surprisingly sympathetically, given that Christie was in the middle of an ugly divorce with her own adulterous spouse, and Lenox's cynicism is amusing. The depiction of a Jewish fence and his daughter is blessedly free some the bigotry you might expect in a 1928 mystery novel. Unfortunately, Katherine Grey, who plays the sort of deuteragonist role that Hastings sometimes plays, is less successful. She has very pretty eyes, which apparently explains why two men fall in love with her on sight, and that's about what we get.
I've rated novels two stars that are clearly far worse than this, so it might seem unfairly low, but if you're going to tell me that Agatha Christie is one of the greatest mystery writers who ever practiced the craft, then that's the standard she's going to be held to, and here, she doesn't even come close to justifying the praise she is showered with. Still, over thirty Poirot novels, and most of the really famous ones to come; time will tell if she grows into her reputation.
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
dark
mysterious
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
lighthearted
mysterious
relaxing
medium-paced