Book Club

Non-Series Novels & Stories

For those of you wanting to discuss Agatha Christie's standalone books, such as And Then There Were None. 

Beware spoilers and remember we'll be able to add the most insightful comments to the stories section. 

If you can't find your favourite one, don't worry, we'll be adding them in the coming weeks.

Warning: These discussions may contain spoilers!

Sparkling Cyanide

Moderator1 16 Nov 09 at 10:08 a.m. GMT

Rosemary Barton dies at her own birthday party when she drinks poisoned champagne and it is assumed that she has committed suicide.  However, there are several people who stand to benefit from Rosemary's death including her sister, Rosemary's lover and his wife, not to mention her friend Anthony whose dark secret she knew. When George is the next to die the police have a long list of suspects.

Developed from the short story, Yellow Iris, why do you think Christie omitted Poirot in this version and instead put in Colonel Race?  Which do you think is better - the short story or the novel?

Login or register to add posts and reply

34 replies

Reverse order

ErkutSoyer 16 Jul 11 at 7:21 p.m. GMT

Sparkling Cyanide is very dramatic book.I was affecet when I was reading.Because it is a love murder and book has a sad atmoshfere.Somebody says ''I don't like this book,it is very boring''.I don't agree.First book:Rosemary is boring a little.But book be excited when Race and Kemp interfere with work.Book's end is wonderful!

My advices:

1-Listen Race.It says true solutions

2-Everybody is suspicious

3-Dry ''rosemary'' in book before read

4-Read in autumn or June.And read in afternoon

Lone_Wolf 31 Dec 10 at 9 a.m. GMT

The most memorable feature of this book is its opening shifting character viewpoints gambit.

go_leafs_nation 06 Dec 10 at 1:52 p.m. GMT

I wouldn't count Sparkling Cyanide among Christie's best works. With AC's best novels, I can easily remember the characters, their personal clashes, rivalries, friendships, etc., and can remember the plot with ease. Well, with this book, I remember the general plot, and the murderer's role, but little else. The characters left no impression on me, I don't remember any of their names, and only vaguely remember the general archetype/role they fit in with. In addition, the solution itself is pretty farfetched, and requires a huge suspension of disbelief to hold any water whatsoever (one that I'm not really that willing to provide).

Lone_Wolf 05 Dec 10 at 6:58 a.m. GMT

POSTING IN ALL CAPS IS COOL.

originality_querido 04 Dec 10 at 3:27 p.m. GMT

SORRY FOR MY SPELLING, ACTUALLY I'M LEARNING ENGLISH. I TRULY DIDN'T LIKE THIS BOOK. I HAD TO REALLY STUGGLE TO FINISH IT, IT GETS REALLY SLOW AND THE END WASN'T THAT GREAT- I ALWAYS SUSPECTED OF THAT WOMAN. AND SHE TURNED OUT TO BE. SO, ALSO. THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD AT THE MIDDLE OF THE BOOK REVEALED EVERYTHING. I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF THE OTHER PAGES. AND I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

1. WAS LUCILLA DRAKE AWARE OF THE PLAN? WASN'T SHE GUILTY?

2. WHO TURNED OUT TO BE ANTONHY? AG NEVER EXPLAINED WHAT WAS HIS MISSION. I WAS LIKE OH WELL. HE'S ONE OF THEIRS. BUT: WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT, THE MISSION ABOUT 3 YEARS AGO? AND HOW THE HELL DID RACE RECOGNISED HIM?

TOO FAYRITAYLY

englishriviera 23 Nov 10 at 7:29 p.m. GMT

Agreed! Very charming couple!!

Tommy_A_Jones 02 Nov 10 at 4:42 p.m. GMT

The Pauline Collins and Oliver  Ford Davies Adaptation is Very Enjoyable and shows brilliantly but subtlely how todays Technoogy can be used in to adapt Agatha Christie Books in a Sympathetic way that I would hope doesn't offend Purists, I wish ITV had done some more with these Characters, I for one would be so pleased.

MissQuin 02 Nov 10 at 3:11 p.m. GMT

It's true that Agatha Chrisite bridges the gap between many generations. If the adapt inspired them to read Chrisite than that's a great thing!

englishriviera 01 Nov 10 at 4:41 p.m. GMT

I like very much the book and the short story as well.So I recently purchased the DVD Sparkling Cyanide with Pauline Collins and Oliver Ford Davies. The story is a little bit different and transported to the 21st century computer era.

But all the same it is interesting. My nephews, the young generation of the 21st century, loved it. The computer things appeal very much to them. So now they became interested in the books!! I think it is fantastic! Christie appeals to all generations.

Mr_Graves 25 Oct 10 at 8:52 p.m. GMT

I really enjoyed this book! I thought it was definitely one of Christie's best, and also such a neat idea. The structure I found so clever- as well as the crime itself! All the little, insignificant points turned out to be so important in solving the crime. I was worried that I would not be surprised by the denoument, since everybody was such suspicious people... Anthony's wonderful cleverness, and his test of the murder method, were genius...

Yunakitty 07 Aug 10 at 1:34 a.m. GMT

As to why George staged the second dinner party - he had suspicions, but it was explained at the end (and hinted at the beginning) that Ruth really did his thinking and planning for him even though he didn't realize at all.  So she cleverly, quietly suggested things to him to set the whole thing up.  We just aren't told that during the story.  She wanted there to be a second dinner party so that Iris could die, and Lucilla could inherit all, therefore Victor would essentially control all that money, and share it with her (maybe.)  I think Victor would have disposed of her, maybe not right away, but eventually. 

MissQuin 03 Aug 10 at 3:56 p.m. GMT

This has been bugging me for ages. I know I'd read the the opening before:

"What can I do to drive rememrances from mine eyes?".

It's Keats, but it didn't come up up on search becuase the quote say's "my eyes".

Ok that's all!

Miss_Eylesbarrow 30 Jul 10 at 9:23 a.m. GMT

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!More spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If my memory serves me correctly, in the book the handbag is dropped and picked up by a young waiter and placed on the table, but it's hazy as to how everyone gets to sit in the wrong place, probably because if the book spelled things out clearly it might be more obvious at this stage that the poison wasn't intended for George at all. 

The ploy is only made clear at the end when (gosh, who is it?) Anthony I think takes the other two into the cafe and demonstrates how it might have happened.  So therefore (and I'm being a bit long-winded about it) I think Christie's intention in the book is that the guests do actually sit at the wrong place at table rather than as the adept suggests that although they sat at the correct place, the presence of the bag at the wrong place make the poison go into the wrong glass.  One unique occasion when I think the adept is an improvement on the story - but only on this tiny point.  Changing time frames, leaving out characters, etc. etc. I think is unforgiveable - but I know that this is discussed elsewhere...

MissQuin 29 Jul 10 at 4:52 p.m. GMT

I just didn't like the adapt for many reasons, although I started a seperate topic under the TV section to talk about it. I did find the end rather silly, there was this overtly sad music playing when the solution was played.

Tommy_A_Jones 29 Jul 10 at 4:07 p.m. GMT

It was spelt out in the Anthony Andrews version, I can't remember about the Pauline Collins Version, I just remember thinking the use of Computors was Great and it reminded me of Matt Houston, I also remember thinking this Modernising isn't too harmful, I much prefer Adaptations to be set when the Author intended them but if we have to have Mordernizing I would rather this than other changes.

MissQuin 29 Jul 10 at 10:48 a.m. GMT

huge sparkling cyandide spoilers!!

I also think George didn't know who the killers were, but tried to find out. Was the handbag thing in the book? It was in the modern adapt though. I remember that scene, because it became clearer. But in the TV version Ruth did the posioning and Mark (Vicotor) wasn't there.

Miss_Eylesbarrow 29 Jul 10 at 10:43 a.m. GMT

*************HUGE SPOILER ALERT **********

I can't see how George could have suspected who the murderer/s were since he doesn't appear to treat Ruth any differently from the way he's always treated her and if he thought that Vicotr had anything to do with it, he'd have turned him in at once as George thought that Victor was a no-good waster anyway.  I think that George must have suspected someone else (one of the two men?) and set the dinner up to catch one of them out. 

One version of events I did see on TV (can't remember which one now) suggested that the young waiter picking up Iris' bag from the floor put it onto the wrong place at the table and when the 'waiter' came to fill the champagne glasses and add the poison, he'd been told to poison the glass next to the bag belonging to Iris.  So when they sat back down, they did actually sit in their correct places and Iris just moved her bag back to where is should be.  I know that's not spelt out in the book like that, but it seems so me a plausible explanation.  And as Christie says herself, she did occasionally make mistakes in her books which she only spotted years later...

MissQuin 28 Jul 10 at 5:05 p.m. GMT

Really? I didn't like the modern day adapt, I didn't watch it properly after a short time. I just had it on and was pottering around doing other stuff. I was so bored. I only sat down to watch the scenes with Mark (in the book Victor) who in the is my favourite character.

But I found all the book characters interesting. I liked finding more about Rosemary and the effect she had on people around her.

Tommy_A_Jones 28 Jul 10 at 4:52 p.m. GMT

I like the Adaptation you refer to, I like the Chemistry between between Race and his wife even though Race's Name was Changed (All Name Changes are Unnecessary) and I forgave the Sports Backdrop (I hate Sport), I didn't like the Anthony Andrews Adaptation which I did find boring but good to see the Guy from MASH I have decided to re-read Sparkling Cyanide one day as I think I am missing something even though I am sure it still will not be one of my Favourites just maybe better than I think it is Perhaps.

MissQuin 27 Jul 10 at 5:04 p.m. GMT

I'm not offended Tommy. I enjoyed it, it's not one of the very best, but I found it engaging. I like the chaarcters more than the actual murder method.

Mind you the adaptadtion set in 21 century, was very bad! Taking away the time period it was set took away the essence of Chrisite for me. Ive no idea why Colnel Race was then Reece. The whole think was bewildering and boring.