Well this one was not as well done as Death on the Nile. I think it was because it was pretty obvious after one character's utterance who did the crime in this one.Unlike with some other Poirot novels, Hercule really doesn't step up to the plate until about half way through the book. The first half is spent with two fellow doctors/travelers looking upon the weirdness that is the Boynton family.Two of the characters, Sarah King and Dr. Gerad witness that the entire Boynton family, except for one member (Nadine, the daughter in law) seems to be in a high state of nerves to do the bidding of Mrs. Boynton. The family consists of an older son named Lennox, another brother named Raymond, and two girls named Carol and Ginevra. Mrs. Boynton is described in malevolent terms and seems to have an odd hold over her entire family. Sarah finds herself infatuated and frustrated with Raymond and not understanding how the entire family lets Mrs. Boynton hold them in power. She does her best to pry them away from the woman, but decides that nothing can be done and continues on with her travels. Eventually all parties meet up in Petra and Mrs. Boynton ends up murdered (as one does when you seemed to have taken lessons from the Marquis de Sade) and Hercule Poirot is brought in to discover who murdered the woman. I can honestly say I did not care at all about who murdered this woman. She sounded creepy and awful. Though we have Poirot and others saying it is not right for anyone to commit murder, one wonders how Poirot would have felt if he had ever met this woman while she was alive. And I liked how one of the characters called out Poirot for his hypocrisy on this case since apparently this person had heard about the events on the Murder on the Orient Express. Poirot had very little to do in this one, he interviews everyone and makes up a timeline. From the very beginning after he sets up his interview I was able to figure out who did it and a probable case of why they did it. The other characters in this book are not as richly drawn as those in Death on the Nile. Everyone was paper thin. I really didn't care for the character of Raymond or Sarah (who the heck falls in love after only speaking to each other for a few minutes) and Dr. Gerad sounded creepy as anything with his fixation on Ginerva Boynton.I was interested in the character of Nadine and thought that she sounded like a smart and capable woman. Other than that, I felt meh about everyone else.The writing was okay, but it got super repetitive after a while. Reading about Sarah and her feelings about Mrs. Boynton and Dr. Gerad's armchair diagnosis of everyone around him was quite boring. The flow was all over the place too. Sometimes the book moved quickly and then it slowed done to the most boring details.Having this take place in Jordan and at Petra was interesting for Ms. Christie to do. Ms. Christie had obviously been here on her travels and actually for once adds in some details about Petra and how it looks and how tourists traveled there and stayed. The epilogue left me feeling very dissatisfied and I think it was because at one point we are told one of the characters seemed to be going into a schizophrenic state, well guess what, a little time in a mental health facility and having the person go on to acting does not cure it. I was seriously baffled by that and that everyone was all honky dory in the end.
This is one of those Agatha Christie books where there's no way you'll figure out the murderer. I remember vividly who it was, that's why I didn't enjoy it as much as the first time, but I have to tip my hat at how very clever she was.The setting in Petra was freaking awesome and I liked how Mrs. Christie integrated the political situation of the time. This book was written in 1938, pre WWII, so there's mention of the League of Nations (a precursor of the United Nations) and there are rumblings of discontent from the Arab population against the Jews.The psychology of the murderer plays a big part in this book. Poirot is a big believer of that - look at the murder and I'll tell you what kind of person is the murderer - but besides him, we had two other psychologists as part of the secondary characters. Sometimes these went a bit too far with their "diagnosis" but it was interesting to see Dame Christie incorporating some of these ideas in a book.There are some great quotes in this book:They turned me out of one place today because I had on a sleeveless dress. Apparently, the Almighty doesn't like my arms, in spite of having made them!""A creed sounds well sometimes, a wise regimen, a beneficent government, but imposed by force, resting on a basis of cruelty and fear. They are opening the door, these apostles of violence, they are letting out the old savagery, the old delight in cruelty for its own sake."Hugh Fraser as usual rocked the narration. Looking forward to the next book!
What do You think about Appointment With Death (2015)?
Mmm, yeah. I didn't enjoy this nearly as much as I should have.Firstly: there was a weird degree of repeated words and one incidence of a repeated sentence later in the paragraph that made me wonder what manuscript this edition was taken from. Certainly wasn't up to Christie's usual impeccable standard of perfectly trimmed prose. Even the adjectives used were a little too untidy and amateurish, words that would have been excised in the editing stage. Made for slight unease on my part.Another thing: interesting structure, to be sure, to have Poirot absent for so long in the narrative and to have us witness scenes that he hadn't. I didn't entirely care for that. I much prefer to uncover the clues as Poirot does and assemble the information at the same time he does. So yeah, that damaged my enjoyment.And honestly, I was hoping for a slightly different solution. There was such a juicy red herring dropped that I badly wanted it to be the truth and not just what it was, a distraction.I did have a "D'uh, of course that's what she meant!" moment. I like to think Christie did that cleverly enough to give us that clue and then withhold the precise nature of what and who deliberately and because she is awesome.Most of all, I bloody adore that description of Petra as the colour of raw meat.But no, I wouldn't rate this as one of the better Christies. Especially not so soon after reading Murder On The Orient Express.
—Nisha-Anne
I enjoyed this novel as I have all of the Agatha Christie novels I've read - for the clever mystery, the interesting story and the author's ability to make sardonic references to human foibles and prejudices in a humorous and rather non-offensive and forgiving way. But Appointment with Death was particularly intersting to me, reading it as I did shortly after reading Murder on the Orient Express, because Christie revisits the choice Hercule Poirot made at the end of that story. Did she do so to point out the slippery slope such a choice puts one on or because she wanted to show that even the logical, methodical detective is a human being who can be inconsistent in his reasoning when swayed by emotion? For whatever reason she brought up the subject of Monsieur Poirot's choice in Murder on the Orient Express here (and did so in a powerful way), it certainly offers more food for thought to readers of that novel to reflect on how similar or different one considers the circumstances in Appointment with Death and on why the Belgian detective seems to so strongly contradict his own actions and beliefs in the former novel.
—Krisi Keley
Appointment with Death first takes place in Jerusalem but ends in Petra. We are introduced to the family of Boynton’s who are lead by their mother, Mrs. Boynton, a lady who thrives on controlling and dominating her family. At this time we are also introduced to two doctors: Dr. Gerard, famous French psychiatrist, and Ms. Sarah King, studying psychiatrist who has romantic interest in the youngest Boynton son. Lastly we are introduced to two new women, Lady Westholme, a famous politician and Ms. Pierce. When the death of elder Mrs. Boynton occurs we are able to see what everyone’s motive might be for killing her and with the help famous Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot, we eventually find the murderer.“Some people have a genius for interference-they do it well! Some people do it clumsily and had better leave it alone.” This quote was said by Dr. Gerard to Sarah King, when she asked whether she was interfering into the lives of the Boyntons too much. This quote develops conflict and intrigue because we later find out that a death occurs and we are later brought through chapters and chapters of who might have committed the murder. This quote sets us up for that. This quote also gives us insight into what Gerard’s philosophy is and what his character is like. This quote also reveals the theme of the book that tells us the truth will always come out whether or not you want it to.“I say to myself it is a voice I will know again. And what does it say, this voice? It says these words: ‘You do see, don’t you that she’s got to be killed?’” This quote was said by Hercule Poirot to the Colonel Carbury, an official on the case. This quote is said numerous times throughout the book but at this moment it is important because it introduces the first lead into the case. It also shows us how deeply aware Hercule Poirot is of everything and this eventually shows us how he solves his cases.
—Jani H
