When Reverend Stephen Babbington dies after consuming a cocktail, the final analysis is that he died of a fit, ruling out murder. That is until a second death takes place in a manner almost identical. Three amateur detectives take the stage: Sir Charles Cartwright, a former actor, his friend Mr. Satterthwaite, and a young woman known as Egg, whom Sir Charles is not so secretly in love with. The trio begins to inspect the guests at each party, but struggle to find how the two murders are connected. Will world-famous detective Hercule Poirot manage to help them find the murderer, before someone else ends up dead?Murder in Three Acts is a different type of Hercule Poirot case simply because Hercule Poirot is not the protagonist here. In fact, he doesn’t play a major role until over half-way through the novel. The benefit of this is it does set the book apart from novels where he plays a more prominent role. Seeing as Christie ended up writing thirty-three Hercule Poirot novels (and even more short stories), it makes sense that she would want to break up the formula a bit. The main drawback to this is, despite Poirot’s secrecy, he does, with his manner of drawing attention to important details, guide the reader through the mystery and help them try to solve it on their own. Where he plays a smaller role in this volume, it’s more difficult for the reader to play along with the detective. This did end up diminishing my enjoyment somewhat.Despite the drawback, Murder in Three Acts is a cleverly put together mystery. Although I managed to find out who the killer was this time, the method and motive where hidden from me and I was purely surprised when Poirot revealed it at the end. The characters that we are introduced to this volume are a lot of fun as well. I particularly liked Sir Charles, who, after being an actor on stage for so long, has a habit of sliding into roles subconsciously. His friendship with the more grounded Mr. Satterthwaite and almost-romance with the lively Egg were also enjoyable to read about. Although I would not recommend this to a first time Agatha Christie reader, established fans will sure to enjoy this mystery.
Nothing ever happens in a quaint little town of Loomouth, not until the local vicar dies at a dinner party at Sir Charles Cartwright's mansion. The police attribute his death to natural causes and the matter is forgotten until Sir Charles' friend, a renown doctor of psychiatry dies in a chillingly identical fashion. Luckily for them Ercule Poirot is there to untangle the mystery and identify the murderer. The more I read Agatha Christie's mysteries the more I like them. It seems like with every new volume there's an extra something that makes them more than just an engaging riddle. Either I'm reading the books with a more pronounced human element or I'm just noticing it more and somehow I'm inclined to think that it is the latter. I really liked Mr. Satterthwaite, the intelligent little man with an absolutely unpronounceable name and a way with people. The Lytton Gore ladies were my "human element" here introducing the subject of being able to see people for who they really are and not in the way Poirot does it. They made mistakes sometimes, sure, but their perceptions felt warm and uncalculating. I liked these characters more than the rest particularly because we learned more about them as people than we did about any of the others and that is really my only gripe - the rest of the cast are barely fleshed out and I wish we knew a little more about them.Of course I didn't figure out who the culprit was even though I suspected everyone. It almost detracted from the story, this constant watchfulness, attentiveness to every word and trying to see in what way it could be a clue, whether it could be a clue. I really need to turn off that part of my brain next time and just enjoy the story. Learn from my mistakes, my friends!
What do You think about Three Act Tragedy (2005)?
I freely admit to my own bias: the reason I recently gave Peril at End House only 3 stars is the same reason I am giving Three Act Tragedy five--I solved End House with embarrassing speed (for reasons outlined in my review), whereas Three Act Tragedy blindsided me. I was absolutely convinced that the murderer was Miss Milray, and that she had dressed in drag as the butler. I think Christie predicted that the careful reader would think so, hence her playing with us in the scene at the end when Mi
—Laurel Young
I had an inkling of who the true culprit was throughout the novel, because it resembles a previous Poirot story in some ways. However, I can't think of the name of that other mystery at this time, and I'm afraid that if I were to look it up and name it, it would give away the ending of this one.This specific mystery is different from most of the other Poirot stories before it, because Poirot doesn't come into the story line until later on. Or, at least, he doesn't play the role of detective until about the third act (it is split into three separate acts). However, Cartwright, who is one of the main characters, plays a character similar to Poirot, so Poirot himself isn't really missed. Of course, he does his usual and comes in, thinks with his 'gray cells' and solves the mystery as expected.Not my favorite, but by no means do I dislike this one. As with her other mysteries, Christie does show the faults of her time period by making some dated and now unacceptable remarks, but there are not as many in this one as I have noticed in others.Still working my way towards reading every single one of Christie's books, and I'm still enjoying it!
—Naomi
I first saw this a couple of years ago as a TV adaptation, and I have to say that the novel is much better than that interpretation. That given, it wasn't one of Christie's novels that reached out and grabbed me from the start. The mystery is straightforward enough - two murders which appear to have no motive or bearing on each other, but the solution lies in the novel's title. The plot and the romance in it did lag in the middle which is why I've knocked the stars off. I did enjoy the book being set out in the three acts of the title though, with the added note at the beginning stating that 'illumination' in the tragedy is provided by Hercule Poirot - a sly nod to the detective in it.
—Tali
