Today’s post is on “Five Little Pigs” by Agatha Christie also called Murder in Retrospect. It is the 24th Hercule Poirot novel, it is 240 pages long, and is published by Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. The cover has a hand with a paint brush in it and fades into a bright orange. The intended reader is someone who loves mysteries but this, like all Christie novels, is so well written that anyone who reads it will have a good time. There is no language, nothing illicit in this but there is talk of affair(s) by the murder victim and the murderer is very, very cold. There Be Spoilers Ahead.From the dust jacket- It was an open and shut case. All the evidence said Caroline Crale poisoned her philandering husband, a brilliant painter. She was quickly and easily convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Now, sixteen years later, in a posthumous letter, Mrs. Crale has assured her grown daughter that she was innocent. But instead of setting the young woman’s mind at ease, the letter only raises disquieting questions. Did Caroline indeed write the truth? And if she didn’t kill her husband, who did? To find out, the Crale’s daughter asks Hercule Poirot to reopen the case. His investigation takes him deep into the conflicting memories and motivations of the five other people who were with the Crales on that fatal day. With his keen understanding of human psychology, he manages to discover the surprising truth behind the artist’s death.Review- This is my favorite Poirot novel and one of the best by Christie; in my opinion. The mystery is being told to both Poirot and the reader backwards. Poirot is hired sixteen years after the murders, I say murders because Caroline Crale dies in jail because of the real murderer, and how it fits together is just chilling. When I read the final chapter and Poirot unveils the killer and their reasoning I got cold chills. One of the things that I love about Christie is that I do not have sympathy with her murderers and this one is no exception. The murderer is one of the most cold blooded killers I have ever read about. The writing is, of course, is superior to so many both in her time and in ours. The characters have layers upon layers that has the novel moves towards it conclusion they just become more and more complex. Everyone one of them has reasons for wanting Mr. Crale dead and Poirot is the only man who could uncover not only who but why he was murdered. Poirot himself does not have any character development but he is more like the reader than an active part of the cast in the story. Poirot is being told things and unless he has a question there is no interruption in the flow of the narrative. Only Agatha Christie could think of a story like this; much less write successfully. Pick this one up for a engrossing mystery and watch her do some of her best work.I give this one Five out of Five Stars. I get nothing for my review and I bought this book with my own money.
I'm an avid reader of Christie but I haven't heard of this book until I ran across the title in a few favorable reviews, Five Little Pigs ( primarily published under Dodd in the 40's under the name of " Murder in Retrospect") came up a lot so I had to try it and listened to the reviewers and they were right... This is was fun and engaging and piqued my interest throughout the whole sleuthing process, once I was done with it I had to read one more to keep me on that Christie high~ ha-ha...(my second read was "Sparkling Cyanide" another superb masterpiece from the queen of mystery and crime, which I am reviewing next).) The original title is also very nostalgic sounding - retrospect, it certainly takes me back, to my childhood and my discovery of art and reading, somehow it makes this book even more delicious. It reminds me of sitting on a train traveling through Poland, sitting with my back to the destination, seeing the tress and nature pass me buy, overtime familiar, now just a silk of a memory..in this case Poirot has to reach for whisps of the past to form a new future, someone is free and they are possibly a murderer, he must go back to see the future.The crème de la crème of the tale is all about the solving of the mystery, which is a bit different than what one might expect, the crime has occurred about sixteen years ago so there is no crime scene to visit- just the recollections of all the people involved in the last minutes of Amyas Crale's life. He is the painter who has finished his last masterpiece, a lovely woman for which he paid a heavy price. The trouble was that he was married and with a child, the woman he painted on that breezy summer day sixteen years ago was his newest muse, one who has possibly stolen his heart. An afternoon spent painting under the hot summer sun and salty breeze turned into a nightmare when a cold beer turned out to be more than a refresher, it was a murder weapon, years later the child comes back hungry for answers, she wants to know exactly what happened and who was really guilty, no one but Poirot can solve this enigma, and he does it well, I got chills and had the best time reading along. I felt like a lurker hiding in the dunes and pretending to take a swim just to hear what was going on, this was so engaging and hard to put down. This one of my more memorable Christie reads, and it made me love her work even more. My decision about the killer swung like a heavy pendulum and I absolutely loved the ending, it makes me want to re-read the whole thing in a few years, so I can enjoy it even more.- Kasia S.
What do You think about Five Little Pigs (1985)?
3.5 Stars. Not one of my favorite Christie mysteries starring Hercule Poirot, but still really good.(Note: I gather that some editions were published with the title "Five Little Pigs", but my copy is "Murder in Retrospect", which I think more accurately describes the story.)Poirot is intrigued to investigate a murder which occurred 16 years previously. Carla Lamarchant knows her mother did not kill her father, though she was tried and convicted of the crime. So who did? Poirot convinces the other five people involved to write down their remembrances of the tragedy, and with those, using his famous little grey cells, he pieces together the truth.My main fault with the book is that all anybody does in here is TALK. I mean, can't we have just a bit more description, or even - dare I say it - action? My other problem is it's too easy to remember the details afterwards. Once you know who really put the poison in the beer and why, you never forget. And it's no fun rereading a book when you know the outcome too well.Sideline: Christie discusses the thought "What if Juliet had not killed herself, had survived Romeo's death and moved on in life? What would she be like?"
—Robin
Agatha Christie does it again. Every time I read one of her books and think I know “who done it” I’m always wrong, without fail. She throws so many twists and turns along the way, and just when you think that without a doubt it must be person X, she reveals the truth and you look silly. I imagine Christie got a kick out of that.Murder in Retrospect, like all of Christie’s books, takes me back to a time when things were written so much differently. The dialogue is handled in a way you just don’t see anymore, the characters fleshed out more than I ever could think possible, and the plot masterfully done so as to confuse the reader until the big unveiling. Christie throws the reader off the trail again and again, dropping hints here, implications there, but so methodically so as to make it seem that every character could be guilty at some point in the book.My only complaint with Murder in Retrospect is that the latter half of the book does move a bit slowly, especially when the five suspects are retelling their stories in written form. The information they give in those is vital to be sure, but after already getting a personal account from each it does feel repetitious.However, the desire never wanes, at least not for me, to figure out with finality who the culprit is and why. Always the why, never forget the why. The who, the how, certainly important, but the why is what matters most. That is something that the main character, Poirot, repeats throughout, how humanity wants to know the why now. Perhaps at one point just the romanticized story of it all was enough, but no longer, the curiosity for knowing the purpose behind everything is what fuels the reader’s desire. This is still true.I enjoyed Murder in Retrospect quite a bit, most especially the ending reveal. The buildup was a little long, but it was certainly worth it. I still think Passenger to Frankfurt is my favorite Christie book thus far, but I’m quite happy to have read this one.Rating: 4/5
—Eric Townsend
3,5"Sapete, non è necessario usare solo i muscoli" spiegò tranquillamente Poirot. "Io non ho bisogno di chinarmi per prendere impronte, per raccogliere mozziconi di sigaretta e per esaminare l'erba calpestata. A me basta sdraiarmi in una poltrona e pensare. E' questa, signorina" e si diede un colpetto sulla testa a forma di uovo "è questa che funziona!"E direi che in questo caso, più di tutti, emerge l'importanza della psicologia delle persone e la capacità di usare le celluline grigie, come dice Poirot. Avviso che ci sono SPOILER nella recensione (di solito li evito, ma stavolta devo sfogarmi ahah)!Ammetto che, come la vittima (e considero la vittima Carolina e non quel pirla del marito), pensavo che la colpevole fosse Adrienne. Poi alla fine si viene a sapere che è tutta colpa (scusate il termine) della zoccola di turno. Elsa è un personaggio odioso, oltre che spietato e maligno. Ho odiato la sua faccia tosta quando gongolava e si vantava per il futuro che le si prospettava con Amyas, e tutto ciò a casa della moglie di lui. Un po' di classe, per favore!Comunque a parte la mia antipatia per lei, il romanzo mi è piaciuto molto e lo consiglio. Non ho dato quattro stelline piene perché avrei preferito che la colpevole marcisse in galera!
—Roberta
