Scan barcode
kloughlin's review against another edition
mysterious
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicide and Murder
Moderate: Child death and Mental illness
Minor: Infidelity, Abandonment, and Cancer
market_not_pennymarket's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
congressbaby143's review against another edition
3.0
3.5/5 Here for Ariadne and Poirot’s friendship.
thenovelbook's review against another edition
2.0
It makes me a little sad to read all the reviews on this book — people saying, for instance, that it reads like someone else trying to write an Agatha Christie. Because that's very true, but I think it's important to be aware of some context that might explain why. It doesn't change the fact that it's not a good book, but at least one can read it with compassion instead of expectation. So here goes.
A study done by the University of Toronto in 2009 analyzed the text of Christie's books, and concluded that her final works show evidence that she may have been suffering from dementia. There's a huge decrease in vocabulary, and at the same time a huge increase in repetitive phrases and indefinite words.
I was aware of this theory, but I didn't expect to notice the problems so intensely once I was "boots on the ground" reading the book. It's true, though. Gone are the crisp narration and sharp sentences we love. They're replaced by rambling, repetitive passages — which seem especially incongruous coming from the mouth of Poirot. But he's not alone, as virtually every character suffers from The Ramble. The story itself feels like it's blindly groping along, and there is no twist. Or, at least, not one that will surprise.
Interestingly, the story is ABSOLUTELY obsessed with memory, and what everyone remembers, or forgets, or thinks they remember, or struggles to remember.
Snippets from childhood — the sort of thing that does make it safely into the long-term memory — are dwelt on insistently, regardless of whether they serve the plot or not.
The word "remember" is used a staggering number of times. Here is a small sampling:
No, she couldn’t really remember anything about her. But she seemed to have heard the name.
There were times, she had to admit as the years were growing upon her, when she couldn’t remember them all.
I’m sure you’ll remember, you must remember.
Extraordinary, one couldn’t remember these things. She couldn’t even remember whether she herself had been Molly’s bridesmaid. She thought she had. Rather a smart wedding at the Guards Chapel or something like that. But one did forget so.
But they’d been like one of those photographs that one takes and looks at. One knows the people vaguely who are in it but it’s so faded that you really can’t recognize them or remember who they were.
“I’m really afraid,” said Mrs. Oliver, speaking firmly, “that I must say that I don’t know anything about it. I do remember, now you mention it, that there was such a case, and I remember the names and that I knew the people, but I never knew what happened or anything at all about it. And I really don’t think I have the least idea. . .
“Yes,” said Mrs. Oliver, “but where I’ve got to go now is—I think it’s Whitefriars Mansions. I can’t quite remember the name of it, but I know where it is.”
Oh, I don’t know. I can never remember what years are, what dates are. You know, I get mixed up.
I can’t remember if it was in Cornwall or in Corsica. Something like that.
Then they bought this house somewhere—I think it was abroad but I can’t remember.
I seem to remember vaguely—oh, some case like this one, or it might not have been the same one.
He added, “Would anybody remember?”
“Well, that’s where I think they might,” said Mrs. Oliver.
“You surprise me,” said Poirot, looking at her with a somewhat puzzled face. “Do people remember?”
There are some people who do remember. In fact, one does remember queer things, I mean there are a lot of things that I remember very well. They happened—I remember a birthday party I had when I was five, and a pink cake—a lovely pink cake. It had a sugar bird on it. And I remember the day my canary flew away and I cried. And I remember another day when I went into a field and there was a bull there and somebody said it would gore me, and I was terrified and wanted to run out of the field. Well, I remember that quite well.
No. I wasn’t there at the time. I mean, I wasn’t in the house at the time. I can’t remember now quite where I was.
“Oh yes,” said Mrs. Oliver. “At least I can’t quite remember, but I think I do.”
“I don’t really remember now,” said Mrs. Oliver.
“I know. One forgets things."
But of course the others didn’t believe in it and then this came about and I gather they think it must have been whatever her name was—I can’t remember it now.
I couldn’t quite remember when and how.
The trouble is, when you remember things you don’t always remember them right, do you?
I’m not sure that it had anything to do with the Ravenscrofts, it might have been to do with some other people out there because she doesn’t remember surnames and things very well.
“And you say that woman—this Mrs.—”
“Yes. I’ve forgotten her name now."
"Do you think they’ll remember anything about it?”
“Elephants remember,” said Hercule Poirot.
"Perhaps now you hardly remember them.”
“Oh yes, one does not forget, you know, things that happen when you were young."
“People told me things,” said Mrs. Oliver, “people whom I thought might remember things. Some of them did remember things. Some of them remembered them right and some of them remembered them wrong. That was confusing."
You see what I mean? The problem of memory completely permeates and suffocates the story. Reading this book, I'm heavily inclined to believe the dementia theory. Although, I do marvel at the fact that the book was even written and that it... sort of... hangs together. It does go to show that Agatha's crime-solving, storytelling mind was still operating as best it could.
With all that in mind, I would say if you are a completionist and decide to read this book, just be aware of what was possibly going on with Agatha's health and age. And salute her for the novelist she once was, and for the novelist she still tried to be.
A study done by the University of Toronto in 2009 analyzed the text of Christie's books, and concluded that her final works show evidence that she may have been suffering from dementia. There's a huge decrease in vocabulary, and at the same time a huge increase in repetitive phrases and indefinite words.
I was aware of this theory, but I didn't expect to notice the problems so intensely once I was "boots on the ground" reading the book. It's true, though. Gone are the crisp narration and sharp sentences we love. They're replaced by rambling, repetitive passages — which seem especially incongruous coming from the mouth of Poirot. But he's not alone, as virtually every character suffers from The Ramble. The story itself feels like it's blindly groping along, and there is no twist. Or, at least, not one that will surprise.
Interestingly, the story is ABSOLUTELY obsessed with memory, and what everyone remembers, or forgets, or thinks they remember, or struggles to remember.
Snippets from childhood — the sort of thing that does make it safely into the long-term memory — are dwelt on insistently, regardless of whether they serve the plot or not.
The word "remember" is used a staggering number of times. Here is a small sampling:
No, she couldn’t really remember anything about her. But she seemed to have heard the name.
There were times, she had to admit as the years were growing upon her, when she couldn’t remember them all.
I’m sure you’ll remember, you must remember.
Extraordinary, one couldn’t remember these things. She couldn’t even remember whether she herself had been Molly’s bridesmaid. She thought she had. Rather a smart wedding at the Guards Chapel or something like that. But one did forget so.
But they’d been like one of those photographs that one takes and looks at. One knows the people vaguely who are in it but it’s so faded that you really can’t recognize them or remember who they were.
“I’m really afraid,” said Mrs. Oliver, speaking firmly, “that I must say that I don’t know anything about it. I do remember, now you mention it, that there was such a case, and I remember the names and that I knew the people, but I never knew what happened or anything at all about it. And I really don’t think I have the least idea. . .
“Yes,” said Mrs. Oliver, “but where I’ve got to go now is—I think it’s Whitefriars Mansions. I can’t quite remember the name of it, but I know where it is.”
Oh, I don’t know. I can never remember what years are, what dates are. You know, I get mixed up.
I can’t remember if it was in Cornwall or in Corsica. Something like that.
Then they bought this house somewhere—I think it was abroad but I can’t remember.
I seem to remember vaguely—oh, some case like this one, or it might not have been the same one.
He added, “Would anybody remember?”
“Well, that’s where I think they might,” said Mrs. Oliver.
“You surprise me,” said Poirot, looking at her with a somewhat puzzled face. “Do people remember?”
There are some people who do remember. In fact, one does remember queer things, I mean there are a lot of things that I remember very well. They happened—I remember a birthday party I had when I was five, and a pink cake—a lovely pink cake. It had a sugar bird on it. And I remember the day my canary flew away and I cried. And I remember another day when I went into a field and there was a bull there and somebody said it would gore me, and I was terrified and wanted to run out of the field. Well, I remember that quite well.
No. I wasn’t there at the time. I mean, I wasn’t in the house at the time. I can’t remember now quite where I was.
“Oh yes,” said Mrs. Oliver. “At least I can’t quite remember, but I think I do.”
“I don’t really remember now,” said Mrs. Oliver.
“I know. One forgets things."
But of course the others didn’t believe in it and then this came about and I gather they think it must have been whatever her name was—I can’t remember it now.
I couldn’t quite remember when and how.
The trouble is, when you remember things you don’t always remember them right, do you?
I’m not sure that it had anything to do with the Ravenscrofts, it might have been to do with some other people out there because she doesn’t remember surnames and things very well.
“And you say that woman—this Mrs.—”
“Yes. I’ve forgotten her name now."
"Do you think they’ll remember anything about it?”
“Elephants remember,” said Hercule Poirot.
"Perhaps now you hardly remember them.”
“Oh yes, one does not forget, you know, things that happen when you were young."
“People told me things,” said Mrs. Oliver, “people whom I thought might remember things. Some of them did remember things. Some of them remembered them right and some of them remembered them wrong. That was confusing."
You see what I mean? The problem of memory completely permeates and suffocates the story. Reading this book, I'm heavily inclined to believe the dementia theory. Although, I do marvel at the fact that the book was even written and that it... sort of... hangs together. It does go to show that Agatha's crime-solving, storytelling mind was still operating as best it could.
With all that in mind, I would say if you are a completionist and decide to read this book, just be aware of what was possibly going on with Agatha's health and age. And salute her for the novelist she once was, and for the novelist she still tried to be.
maridhz's review against another edition
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
eat_6's review against another edition
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
gmcuriousgeorge's review against another edition
4.0
4.25/5
Español:
Una historia bastante interesante, donde el misterio toma su tiempo en ser resuelto. Y no me refiero únicamente a los 12+ años que tardo en ser retomado. El libro va bastante lento, con las entrevistas a los “elefantes” que dicen recordar lo que ocurrió.
Fue interesante que el interés en el caso haya sido despertado en mistress Oliver por una mujer “desagradable y entrometida” que conoció en una comida a la que no muy quería ir.
Todo el proceso de indagación introdujo diálogos captivantes entre los personajes, que a la vez proporcionaban grandes cargas de información sobre el caso.
INICIAN SPOILERS
Al final estaba el característico discurso de Poirot en donde explica lo que ocurrió y como llegó a esa conclusión, contando también aportes mayores de ‘Zélie,’ quien estuvo presente cuando ocurrió la tragedia. Los motivos de todo eran al final muy personales y la decisión final del general de asesinar a Dolly y luego suicidarse a sí mismo es cuestionable.
FINALIZAN SPOILERS
English:
A very interesting story, where the mystery does take some time to be solved. And I’m talking about the pacing, not only the 12+ years it spent as practically a cold case.
One of the most interesting aspects is that Mrs. Oliver gets interested in the case after a not-so-nice woman approaches her at an event to ask her “if the mother killed the father or was it him who killed her?”
This gets Mrs. Oliver involved in an investigation, along with her friend Hercule Poirot, to find out “who done it?” She interviews people who remember what happened, and she starts calling them her “elephants,” alluding to their great memories.
Start spoilers
After a lot of interviews and thinking, Poirot explains. He gives his usual explanation at the end, but this time “Zélie” joins in to the explanation. She witnessed a lot of what happened first-hand, due to her being with the Ravencrofts at the time. The motives for the tragedy were very personal indeed, and what happened is very complex. General Ravencroft’s final decision is morally questionable, but everyone seems to agree it’s justified. But I honestly think it’s not, but modern treatments for mental illnesses are probably more effective and I believe that, in modern times, Dolly could have gotten better. Or ar least lived as normally as possible while in a mental hospital.
END SPOILERS
Español:
Una historia bastante interesante, donde el misterio toma su tiempo en ser resuelto. Y no me refiero únicamente a los 12+ años que tardo en ser retomado. El libro va bastante lento, con las entrevistas a los “elefantes” que dicen recordar lo que ocurrió.
Fue interesante que el interés en el caso haya sido despertado en mistress Oliver por una mujer “desagradable y entrometida” que conoció en una comida a la que no muy quería ir.
Todo el proceso de indagación introdujo diálogos captivantes entre los personajes, que a la vez proporcionaban grandes cargas de información sobre el caso.
INICIAN SPOILERS
Al final estaba el característico discurso de Poirot en donde explica lo que ocurrió y como llegó a esa conclusión, contando también aportes mayores de ‘Zélie,’ quien estuvo presente cuando ocurrió la tragedia. Los motivos de todo eran al final muy personales y la decisión final del general de asesinar a Dolly y luego suicidarse a sí mismo es cuestionable.
FINALIZAN SPOILERS
English:
A very interesting story, where the mystery does take some time to be solved. And I’m talking about the pacing, not only the 12+ years it spent as practically a cold case.
One of the most interesting aspects is that Mrs. Oliver gets interested in the case after a not-so-nice woman approaches her at an event to ask her “if the mother killed the father or was it him who killed her?”
This gets Mrs. Oliver involved in an investigation, along with her friend Hercule Poirot, to find out “who done it?” She interviews people who remember what happened, and she starts calling them her “elephants,” alluding to their great memories.
Start spoilers
After a lot of interviews and thinking, Poirot explains. He gives his usual explanation at the end, but this time “Zélie” joins in to the explanation. She witnessed a lot of what happened first-hand, due to her being with the Ravencrofts at the time. The motives for the tragedy were very personal indeed, and what happened is very complex. General Ravencroft’s final decision is morally questionable, but everyone seems to agree it’s justified. But I honestly think it’s not, but modern treatments for mental illnesses are probably more effective and I believe that, in modern times, Dolly could have gotten better. Or ar least lived as normally as possible while in a mental hospital.
END SPOILERS
sonjah's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25