Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

_byaugust t1_j1rd7mk wrote

Reply to comment by Simppu12 in The simple greatness of Agatha Christie by -something_something

I actually don't recall this ever happening. Can you give some examples of Poirot novels where the clue is withheld? I remember being mind blown at each one when I was younger because it really felt like she had given you everything, would be interesting to go back and take a look.

21

ascagnel____ t1_j1s5er6 wrote

The Murder of Roger Akroyd definitely has this issue.

Of course, it’s somewhat more acceptable in that novel specifically because >!(a) the narrator is the murderer and (b) it’s the only time she plays that particular card.!<

8

Hartastic t1_j1to3xz wrote

I can think of one more (b) in Christie but it's not a Poirot.

2

FifthWill t1_j1toajl wrote

>!She pulled thar card in at least one more story. But I cannot tell you which one here, because that would be a massive spoiler...!< Keep on reading.

2

TuxedoSlave t1_j1rq2rs wrote

Hickory Dickory Dock might have been a bit clearer in its time but to me it totally went off the rails. I don’t know how to mark spoilers but even after the explanation it was still confusing.

2

CrazyCatLady108 t1_j1swctq wrote

Place >! !< around the text you wish to hide. You will need to do this for each new paragraph. Like this:

&gt;!The Wolf ate Grandma!&lt;

Click to reveal spoiler.

>!The Wolf ate Grandma!<

3

TuxedoSlave t1_j1swnw3 wrote

>!All of a sudden there was smuggling involved! Like I guess based on Enid Blyton maybe smuggling was a big thing back then? But to me going from “he was in the back shed and bought a backpack” to “he was part of a large international smuggling ring” was not an obvious jump.!<

1

Simppu12 t1_j1re2ak wrote

It's been a while since I've read them, but Cards on the Table annoyed me the most with it as >!Poirot hires an actor at the end to bait the killer or something!<, but I feel like it happens in most Poirot novels. In Orient Express, for example, there is the part where it's noted that >!a bag wasn't actually covering a lock!<, which is fair enough, but it's hardly enough to deduce who the killer is.

−1

My_Poor_Nerves t1_j1rix8b wrote

I think Poirot's tricks to out the killer were usually moreso to get an admission of guilt in front of an audience than to actually figure out who done it

10