You might find this difficult to believe, but until this weekend I'd never knowingly read an Agatha Christie novel.I was in a youth hostel, had finished the books I'd taken and had to pick from their shelves.Having chosen and then decided against several of the more likely options, I came across 'Lord Edgeware Dies'. On the inside of the cover, it reminded me that 'Agatha Christie' is known throughout the world as the Queen Of Crime'. That was the clincher. It also seemed thin enough for me to get through in a couple of days.'Lord Edgeware Dies' is a Poirot novel. He's that lovable Belgian sleuth, the one I've seen on the telly so many times and switched over from to avoid the prospect of an ITV interpretation of the early 20th Century. Thought I've never watched the programme, it still gave me a strong image of the man and it seemed to fit pretty well. Poirot and sidekick Hastings happen upon their latest mystery in the land of London theatre. Whilst taking supper at the Ritz later on, they come across a group of actors and it's not long until Jane Wilkinson (beauty, actress and the current Lady Edgeware) has persuaded the pair to join her upstairs at her private suite to discuss a few matters. Having earlier announced that she'd happily kill her husband, she asks Poirot to intervene with Lord Hastings and get him to divorce her so that she can marry even further up on the social ladder.Enter a group of theatre cronies that includes Carlotta Adams, actress of some talent and mimic of the stars, including Lady Edgeware. A brief sketch is given of all the characters and the ball is spinning.It turns out Lord Edgeware has already agreed to divorce. Poirot is perplexed. He's even more perplexed when his lordship is found murdered in his study, double so when Carlotta Adams is found poisoned.Lady Edgeware has been seen entering her husband's home on the night of the murder. Following her statements about being prepared to kill him she's the obvious suspect, only she has a cast-iron alibi.Oh who could it have been? Which socialite could have done the deed? And did I care?I actually did care rather a lot. Enough to sneak the book from the youth hostel at the end of our stay and to grab reads whenever I could.The ending was utterly satisfying, too.It got me wondering about the whodunnit format and about how Agatha had managed to keep me so engrossed.Many of the books I read have a whodinnit element. It's a great way for an author to create a page-turner if they can hook a reader in by making them care enough. I guess a lot of you will recognise that.So what was it that AC did for me in this book, one I'd ordinarily have poo-pooed?First off, the relationship between Poirot and Hastings is a pleasing one. On the one hand there is a need for evidence and a deep desire to understand the psychological elements involved (including the why?) and on the other, an almost naive sidekick who chips in with child-like observations every now and then to give Poirot other angles.Hastings has a more important role in terms of the structure. He's the voice. As such, he can give us all the information that Poirot is prepared to articulate without ever being able to reveal his deeper thoughts. It's a teasing process that works really well.Then there's the desire to be smarter than the author. It's as if we can outsmart the writer by working it all out before the end. Better still, right at the beginning. AC plays on this vanity perfectly. Everyone who turns up to see Poirot (and they usually do) is a suspect. They all have their motives, character flaws, loose mouths. We're given clues about them all. When they were dropped I collected them as if it were me on the trail - one for my pocket that I'll bring out later to prove I was right all along.Now that's where she's really good. She filled my pockets with clues. I had a net full of red-herrings, enough to feed the 5000. In turn, thought Poirot, she showed me that she knew exactly what I'd been thinking, known that I'd picked up on it and rubbed my nose gently in it. Great work.Perhaps it's her modus operandi - build up each individual as if they'd done the deed, and make them everything but. By the way, I racked up five or six suspects in the end; got the whole thing completely wrong.The setting, wealthy classes and glitzy settings is also really entertaining and far from the twee irritation I half-expected. It means the butler could always have done it because practically everyone has servants in some form or other.Telling the vast majority of the story through conversation also helped keep it lively and thrilling. That's difficult to explain. I work on the idea that too much exposition in dialogue is a bad thing. It leaves me wondering if it's exposition she's actually giving thought the dialogue or something else entirely. To answer that, I'll probably have to read more of her books and I fully expect to now that I've dipped in my toe. I even look forward it.All I need to do now is book another break in Arnside and slip the book back onto the shelf - wouldn't want any mustachioued smart-alec asking me where I was on the weekend of the 19th now, would I?
Thursday it rained all day, an unusual thing here in semi-arid Spokane, and it has turned colder here finally, with highs in the 50s. So the other day was perfect for the combination of hot tea, cats, a warm radiator, my gold chair, and an Agatha Christie mystery.The mystery was Thirteen at Dinner and it is one of the best Christie's I've read. As with many of the Hercule Poirot books, it is a slice of London life in the 1930s. If you were a gentleman or a lady, others of your kind would take you up and you would find yourself in a whirl of social activity. Even if you were originally a Belgian refugee and a wee bit peculiar. I find Poirot exceedingly charming so I shouldn't be surprised that many of the characters in the mysteries featuring his little grey cells feel the same.This is a seemingly complex mystery with lots of possible perpetrators. The original murder (it is not letting any cats out of any bags to let you know there will be more than the one murder) - the original murder is of Lord Edgeware, a particularly disagreeable man who is unhappily married to an American film star who takes the prize for self-centeredness. She wants to marry the deeply religious Anglo-Catholic Duke of Something or Other but Lord Edgeware won't give her a divorce. She engages Poirot to appeal to her husband to let her go.When he is found dead the butler reports that Lady Edgeware (the American actress) arrived at the house at 10 PM, the approximate time of the murder, and went into the library to talk to the victim. She soon came out of the library and left the house.Inspector Japp sees this as an open and shut case but for some reason he is dissatisfied and goes to talk to Poirot about it. Poirot finds a piece in the newspaper reporting that Lady Edgeware was at a dinner party from 9 to 11 that night and couldn't possibly have done the murder as she has 12 people who vouch for her alibi. Perplexing situation.Of course, Poirot figures it out, and I'm proud to say so did I, even with half a dozen red-herrings that complicate what turns out to have been, if not exactly open and shut, at least not that complex after all.This is a good Agatha Christie to start with if you haven't read one before. You could keep lists of characters and motives and set up a time line and plot alibis, but none of that is necessary if you just want to read along and enjoy. The photo above is of a book with the alternative title, Lord Edgeware Dies, as I couldn't find an image of the cover of the book I read.
What do You think about Lord Edgware Dies (1977)?
Čitao sam ovaj roman pre jedno dvadesetak godina. Dok sam ga reprizirao, setio sam se gotovo svih najvažnih delova zapleta i raspleta (uključujući i ko je ubica i kako u deli sproveo svoj zločin), ali sam uživao u detaljima i Agatinom stilu. Roman je, iz današnje perspektive, osvežavajuće politički nekorektan. Poaro zaključuje da je mlada dama za stolom pored njegovog Jevreka tako što je na njoj uočio "jedva primetne tragove njenih semitskih predaka", a zatim konstatuje da "takvu ženu ljubav prema novcu može da zavede s puta mudrosti i opreza" (str. 15-16). Zatim jedan momak u društvu, doduše pripit, izjavljuje kako "žutaći liče jedan na drugog", te da nije "vražji crnja". Nešto kasnije, Hejstings oseća "nagonsko nepovrenje" prema lepom ali feminiziranom batleru lorda Edžvera (str 40-41). Prva polovina romana je izvanredna, druga polovina je nešto slabija. Dvoumio sam se da li da mu dam 3 ili 4, ali sam se na kraju ipak odlučio za višu ocenu. Bez obzira na sve nategnutosti, koincidencije i konstrukcije, "Lord Edžver" je i dan danas veoma šarmantno štivo.
—Đorđe Bajić
Gem of a Christie! Begins with a very insightful description of human nature (when Jane Wilkinson is introduced). Goes on with witty rejoinders like "Why keep a dog and bark yourself?" (Poirot, of Japp). Proceeds through delicious observations like "And suppose he marries a girl who loves him passionately, is there such a great advantage in that?.." (page 229, do look!) and "We were passing a big cinema. People were streaming out of it discussing their own affairs, their servants, their friends of the opposite sex, and just occasionally, the picture they had just seen."Quite a full mystery, with an end packed with impact.
—Shivangi Tiwari
Absolutely classic Christie--this is the sort of novel that makes her reputation as Queen of Crime so richly deserved. I'd read it before and STILL got tangled in the red herrings and double, no triple, twists to the point that I questioned whether I had mis-remembered the solution. Poirot is at his best, and so is Hastings--we have to remember that Hastings, without meaning to be, is not a reliable narrator. He puts his own pedestrian spin on things: a suspect says something crucial, and Hastings immediately mentally "explains" it to us. He is wrong, but we probably absorb his interpretation, which sounds so obvious and reasonable at the time. Poirot himself warns us when he tells Hastings that he is the perfect "average" man whom the murderer wishes to deceive--Hastings' conclusions are not stupid; they are average. To solve the case, we must be above-average like Poirot and take NOTHING for granted.This is also a wonderfully 1930s novel, with a heroine/prime suspect who is a film star in the mode of Gloria Swanson, Grace Kelly, and other classic Hollywood beauties. I love seeing how pop culture informs Dame Agatha's plots.Although this is classic Christie, it is also unusual in one regard: she tackles the surprising subject of a character who is into S&M! She does it delicately and tastefully, but the meaning is plain. Lord Edgware is kinky! He reads de Sade and books on medival torture. He has a butler who looks like "a Greek god", which seems to be why he was hired since he's a lousy butler. Lord Edgware is threatened with blackmail over his "unusual" proclivities. Etc. I've no idea why Christie decided to throw this in; perhaps she had just lately encountered the idea or it was in the press at the time or something. Anyway, it's not crucial to the plot but it does provide a creative, different motive for blackmail--something more spicy than the usual infidelity.Overall, inventive, puzzling, and first-rate.
—Laurel Young
