ŷ������

Feel free to enjoy all your plot observations here.

Well I was a tiny bit correct in my guess after meeting all the characters: Caroline was covering for her sister. But I thought Angela added the poison as a joke thinking it was perfume as Caroline stored it in her perfume bottle.

My complaint: Poirot artistic impression that the portrait was of a murderer watching her victim die. I doubt that is likely and most of the painting was completed before the murder.

I was certain almost until almost up the end that Angela was being covered up for by Caroline , until the fetching of the cardigan was mentioned a couple of times. Also Elsa hurriedly,rushing up the meet Meredith before he got too close to the window, set me thinking. I did think Poirot's summarisation of the painting at the end was a bit over the top.

Jill, we are correct that Caroline was covering up for her sister and I consider that a win. Just very sad that it wasn't necessary.

I've seen a TV adaptation a few times, so I know who the killer is. : )
Interesting to see what others who don't know that much about it, what their conclusions were.

I had read this before and soon remembered whodunnit, but was still able to enjoy seeing the story unfold.

I think this is one of Agatha Christie’s best realisations of what she wanted to do with her detective novels. This is because she succeeds in combining the psychological “truth�� with her typical sleights of hand; we are always told that Poirot is really interested in the psychology of his cases (and Marple recognised psychological types from her experiences in St Mary Mead). For example, the ambiguity of Caroline Crale’s ‘It’s too cruel ...��; If the reader has the correct (within the framework of Christie’s fiction) psychological understanding, he or she will appreciate this ambiguity in a way that provides a key clue to what really happened.

Although Christie’s novels are regarded as classic whodunnits, her ideal (given Poirot’s predilection and Marple psychological pattern recognition) was clearly that they would simultaneously be whydunnits. I think that in this novel she succeeds, albeit within the limited psychological framework of her fiction.

Like Ngaio Marsh, Christie tends to give the “superior�� characters in her novels, such as her detectives, an appreciation of good art. (Part of showing that certain characters are Immature/crude is through their lack of such a sensibility.) Hence Poirot’s comments about the power of Crale’s painting of Elsa.

Thanks for posting your great comments, Nick - lots to think about there. I find it very interesting that she combines psychological truth with her sleight of hand here.

I have now also finished this book and really enjoyed it - I would say it is probably the best of the Poirot novels I've read so far (I haven't managed to read all of them). I've been a bit disappointed with some of the others because of unbelievable plot twists, but here I thought the plotting was brilliant and the characterisation was very good too. A real pleasure to read and very hard to put down.

I clicked on the spoiler thread by mistake before finishing, glimpsed a mention of the pullover and thought that Angela was the killer - a nice surprise to get to the end and discover that I hadn't spoiled the book for myself after all. :)

Nick wrote: Like Ngaio Marsh, Christie tends to give the “superior�� characters in her novels, such as her detectives, an appreciation of good art. (Part of showing that certain characters are Immature/crude is through their lack of such a sensibility.) Hence Poirot’s comments about the power of Crale’s painting of Elsa.

Good point, and by contrast Miss Williams, though a very good governess, was an "inferior" sort who felt it was bad art as it didn't follow the rules of drawing.

Sandy wrote: "Well I was a tiny bit correct in my guess after meeting all the characters: Caroline was covering for her sister. But I thought Angela added the poison as a joke thinking it was perfume as Caroline..."

That was my guess too!

What struck me throughout was the sense that, If Caroline was going to kill someone in a jealous rage, it would be Elsa Greer, who frankly I would have wanted to kill for her horrible behaviour to her hostess.

I did start to realize that perhaps Amyas was more interested in Elsa as a subject for his painting than as a future wife, but thought he wouldn't have told her until his painting was finished-I missed the open window!

I found the middle section of the five narratives a bit tedious and would rather just have had the usual questioning of the suspects, but overall really enjoyed this one.

Oh, how interesting that you thought Angela might have used a perfume bottle to mess with Amyas' beer!

I was pretty sure that Elsa was the murderer from page one, but couldn't work out how until Poirot showed me how Elsa could have watched Caroline taking the poison from over Meredith's shoulder. I thought the point Poirot was making earlier, in the 5 questions part, would be that Elsa somehow returned later or that Meredith had such a sweet spot for Elsa that he purposefully misremembered the order of leaving.

I loved the section with the 5 questions! Haha also how Poirot had to search for something to ask Angela for symmetry reasons

I wondered whether I, if I were one of the 5, would have written up a detailed account for Poirot and then also show up for the meeting. Especially Elsa must have felt very sure of herself.

All in all a great Poirot to start this year off with. And how nice that these books can still so pleasantly surprise us!

As a Dutchie I am not familiar with the Five Little Pigs nursery rhyme. For those who did know it, did you find it brought some extra clues or atmosphere to the story?

I could see how Christie had tailored each of them to the rhyme, but I didn't find it to e a clue really.

Jessica wrote: "As a Dutchie I am not familiar with the Five Little Pigs nursery rhyme. For those who did know it, did you find it brought some extra clues or atmosphere to the story?"

The version I learned as a child:

This little piggy went to market,
This little piggy stayed home,
This little piggy had roast beef,
This little piggy had none.
And this little piggy went wee wee wee wee all the way home.

This would be a game one would play with a small child. You would start with the big toe and wiggle it while saying the first line, then move through the five toes, wiggling each in turn until when you came to the last line you would wiggle the baby toe and on the wee wee wee wee part tickle them all the way up the body and finish by tickling them under the chin for "all the way home". I would often play this with my children when young in the bath while washing their feet, and they loved it. The anticipation of the tickling to come was the best, and then they would lift up the other foot for washing/playing. (I'm Canadian and learned this from my English/Scottish mother).

So no I don't think it added much to the story, except that it was tied in a bit with the characters.

Christie does seem to enjoy nursery rhymes. As we recently read One, Two, Buckle My Shoe in this challenge.

I too thought it was Caroline covering for Angela. I enjoyed the unusual layout of the book.

Poirot at one point asks Angela if she had read The Moon and Sixpence. Has anyone read this?

I haven't but I see it's by Somerset Maugham and just under 200 pages... so that situation might be remedied shortly ;-) After our monthly group read Ashenden by W. Somerset Maugham I am interested in reading more from this author, as I guess Ashenden isn't the best example of his work.

I had a quick look at the blurb of this book when it was mentioned. A banker who becomes an artist. I did wonder if it was in reference to Phillip and /or Amyes.

I alternated between suspecting Angela and Elsa, so while I thought Elsa might have done it, Christie was quite effective in pointing the finger at Angela. I thought it was masterful how all the clues were provided in just the specific way people said things. While the character (and the reader) are meant to interpret it one way, an astute reader thinks about what the alternatives might be. I also found the repetitive nature of each suspect's story being told twice to slow down the pace a bit, but there were subtle differences in what they told that were key to the narrative.

A bit late to the party, but I really liked this one. I thought it was Angela, I think I may have vaguely remembered this from watching the TV adaptation, so I was surprised by the answer. I did realise it was Elsa when Poirot was drawing attention to the overheard conversation that was supposed to be about sending Angela to school.
Tracey, I have read The Moon And Sixpence, which I really enjoyed. It is loosely based on the life of Gauguin. It is in the public domain and available on Project Gutenberg UK.

Just getting to the David Suchet adaptation of this book, and one point that really sticks out at me is how very miscast the part of Elsa is. She looks a bit like an ostrich (and not in a flattering way). Given how the story rests on the point that Elsie is so breathtaking and vibrant (not just to Amyas, but to everyone that meets her), it is vital for this element to come through visually. I am also not a huge fan of the "darker" Poirots, that seem a consistent theme in the later seasons/series.

Ouch! : )

I didn't think she was miscast. The actress is pretty! I saw that version some years ago before I read the book recently.

Was it just Elsa's looks that grabbed Amyas or her personality? A lot of the characters in the book are not likeable, but are people with a personality, something memorable about them, I think.

Isn't she described as a 'marvellous girl', and 'different' by Amyas according to Philip Blake?

Elsa describes herself as not being pretty and how Amyas looked at her, how he had begun to see her, as if properly. Some people look attractive, but is there anything else? Elsa comes across as an active woman. Very assertive, sure of herself and is used to getting what she wants. She has money, status. The character has a way of persuading people to give her what she wants. You don't have to be physically stunning to do that. Just assertive and charming...

Roisin wrote: "Ouch! : )

I didn't think she was miscast. The actress is pretty! I saw that version some years ago before I read the book recently.

Was it just Elsa's looks that grabbed Amyas or her personality?..."

I agree, you don't have to look like a stunner to attract someone else's eye. It can be the way you present yourself that catches attention. I have to read the book again to see if Elsa is described as this absolutely beautiful woman, but I think the character works even better if Elsa doesn't have such appealing looks. No, I don't think Elsa is an ugly or unattractive woman, but I don't think she's this conventionally attractive woman. Her attitude works in her favor and that's what Christie is trying get across in the pages. I don't think the actress that portrayed her was miscast either. Though she may not be a conventionally beautiful woman, she has the look that I would perceive Elsa of the book to look like. And the actress conveys the attitude of the character PERFECTLY, to a tee, right down to the tragic side of herself.

Spot on! Julie Cox plays her very well.

LovesMysteries wrote: "Roisin wrote: "Ouch! : )

I didn't think she was miscast. The actress is pretty! I saw that version some years ago before I read the book recently.

Was it just Elsa's looks that grabbed Amyas or h..."

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree on this point, but that is why beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm glad that others enjoyed the adaptation more than I did :)

No need to agree! We all see things from a different perspective and good and challenging to hear something different.

Ask people to report what they saw in regards to an event and they will be different. I even got the colour of a car involved in an accident with a cyclist wrong once. I said the colour of the car that was in front of me, not the one involved in the accident. Classic!