Book Club

Poirot Stories

Poirot is Agatha Christie's most famous and popular detective.  No doubt he would agree that he deserves that accolade!

Here is the place to discuss all of his stories in detail with other fans.  The most insightful comments will be added to the Stories pages.  But remember to beware spoilers!

If you can't find your favourite Poirot story here, don't worry - we'll be adding them all soon.

Warning: These discussions may contain spoilers!

The ABC Murders

Jemma 05 Aug 09 at 2:58 p.m. GMT

A superb example of Christie drawing on real life events for her inspiration. Inspired by the horror of the true life serial killer Jack the Ripper, Christie sought to reduce the violence in The ABC Murders. She was more interested in mystery than horror. Was she wrong to do this? Would the book be better if the truly savage crimes of a serial killer were described in more detail?

An ever changing society is depicted through the use of the railways. Most people were travelling by train and the golden age of steam was at it's height. If Christie drew on contemporary society in this way, then why ignore the effects of the depression? Whilst the depression is hinted at with Hasting's return from Argentina, Christie does not explore its effects on England. Was her depiction of genteel tea rooms and girls in service out of date?

Login or register to add posts and reply

34 replies

Reverse order

Puffinjill 16 Oct 09 at 8:05 a.m. GMT

No, I don't think she was wrong to down play the violence at all. After all, that had never been part of what she wrote. She was primarily concerned with the who and why of any story, rather than gruesome detail of any of the murders. I think she saw her works as entertainment and didn't want to alienate any readers. Plus we all have imaginations and can supply the detail for ourselves.

I suppose there is a lack of reference to the depression of the 1930's. Again, she was providing entertainment and escapism for the masses. She was never interested in becoming a social commentator (although she had a little more to say about the world in a few later books), others could do this with much more insight. She wrote what she knew.

go_leafs_nation 16 Oct 09 at 11:24 a.m. GMT

The depcition of tea rooms, etc, is infused with a hint of nostalgia. Certainly, there was a Depression, and AC certainly didn't comment on it. Did she have to? "Realistic" fiction that kept reminding people they were dull as death and deathly dull probably wouldn't have been very appreciated then. On the other hand, AC was able to transport the reader into England in its splendour; this was a method for 'escaping' from everyday life.

At any rate, AC certainly made the right choice by downplaying the violence. This book literally invented the "serial killer" genre. Most modern examples could learn a thing or two from it. Gore and sex is often emphasized, with less suspense possible than if you had tried to make it unsuspenseful. As it is, "The A.B.C. Murders" is a cleverly crafted thriller, while remaining a fair play mystery. Now that's a combination you rarely see!

Puffinjill 16 Oct 09 at 2:18 p.m. GMT

Absolutely! And AC credited her audience with the intelligence and the imagination to understand the horror of these crimes without her having to go into every graphic detail. Most modern authors of this genre don't seem to have enough cofidence in their ability or their plot to do this, or in their readers to see for themselves.

Having a book such as this allows me to paint in my own vision and intepretation of what is happening and this means the experience is a much more personal one. Reading AC is a two way thing - reader and text combining together rather than the reader simply being spoon feed every detail and the authors own version being imposed on them.

MissQuin 17 Feb 10 at 8:37 p.m. GMT

I'm in complete agreement with you both Goleafs and Puffinjill.

I found out the murderer to this before I read it. But I don't know if I would have worked it out. If crime stories nowdays were set around trains, they would be very unglamourous and dull! But Murder on the Orient express, ABC, 4.50 from Paddington (which I alway think of as Murder on a Train) The blue train etc.. have a different feel. Maybe AC's love of them adding to the atmosphere, or perhaps steam trains were more exciting to a fresh 20th century mind.

Puffinjill 18 Feb 10 at 2:41 p.m. GMT

I think the railways, and steam trains in particular, meant different things to different social classes but had great appeal to all. Trains such as the Blue Train and the Orient Express offered those who could afford it a luxurious way of travel  but the everyday steam trains that connected amost every town and village offered the masses a cheap and regular way of travel for the first time. This had to have been a really significant social revolution and would have captured the imagination of everyone. We take travel for granted these days but, until the introduction of the railways, this would only really have been something available to the upper classes and the rich.

No wonder Ac's books featuring trains of any kind captured the imagination of her audience since publication. Then, readers would have identified with them as railways were their link with the wider world and now we love them for that golden nostalgic feeling the create in us.

MissQuin 18 Feb 10 at 3:57 p.m. GMT

You summed it up so well Puffinjill.

 It must have been astounding for the people who first saw trains. Nowday we do take transport for granted. The only surprise I'd get when seeing a train is if it arrived on time.  

Steam trains are more enchanting than modern ones.

Puffinjill 19 Feb 10 at 6:56 a.m. GMT

Aren't they? A couple of years ago I was lucky enough to take the steam train from Paignton to Dartmouth, which is the route that goes through Churston Ferrers (as mentioned in The ABC Murders). I sat back in my seat, gazed at the glorious Devon scenery through the window and tried to imagine I was back at the time when AC wrote the book. Lovely day, I'd love to do it again sometime.

I think that AC's readers felt this book touched very close to home and that is why it has always been so effective. Railways were part of everyones life and, suddenly, here was a killer, travelling amongst them, coolly killing people to satisfy (or so it seemed) an alphabetical obsession. Perhaps those who read it would glance a little nervously at their fellow passengers the next time they took a trip.....

MissQuin 01 Mar 10 at 4:55 p.m. GMT

Puffinjill

 Perhaps those who read it would glance a little nervously at their fellow passengers the next time they took a trip.....

Yes, I'd glance nervously at my fellow passagengers.. Even more so if they had a long overcoat and a hat pulled right down over their face! I think I read when Alfred Hitchcok's The Birds came out, people were glancing nervously at rows of innocent starlings!

Puffinjill 02 Mar 10 at 6:40 a.m. GMT

Having seen the film, I can understand that, MissQuin!!

MissQuin 02 Mar 10 at 7:51 p.m. GMT

I would like to see the film. I read the book, which was eerie but \i was frustrated by the end. Daphne Du Maurier never explained what happened..

Lone_Wolf 15 Mar 10 at 4:39 p.m. GMT

A masterfully written, still fresh story. The murderer's plan is a bit convoluted, but since some things didn't actually went the way he wanted (Cust having an iron alibi, Cust not being noticed by anyone for so long), it's not that jarring.

During the last chapter, when Poirot encourages Cust to put his status as a famous man to good use, I felt a warm glow inside. Christie really managed to make Cust a sympathetic character here. The little touch of the "And Catch a Fox" rhyme makes you slightly chilly in retrospect.

I like that the murderer is a little bit of a British bigot. Poirot's remark about Franklin really not being up to British standarts with the nature of his crime is one of the best Poirot tell-offs.

I actually don't understand all the talk of Christie downplaying the violence regarding to that book - it's one of her less "cosy" novels. Relative to her other works, the gory stuff is definitely not downplayed here.

Also contains one of Christie's maids (Mary Drower), that are reasonably intelligent and sympathetic, not the "ohh, ma'am, I don't think that's so important and I was afraid to go to the police, because you know what they are, but I saw the doctor smashing the poor vicar's head with a hammer" type. (Though she doesn't actually function as a maid in the novel).

BTW, was I the only one who disliked the Suchet adaption? It seems to be universally liked here.

sjoerdbol 16 Mar 10 at 7:17 a.m. GMT

I think you probably are, I like it except for the part of the brother of Carmichael Clarke, Poirot says that the murderer had to make the click with Betty Barnard in Bexhill. But he is played by an old man, so in that point of view I think they could have done better. So I think it is good, but the murderers part should be played well, as it is one of the most important characters.

Lone_Wolf 16 Mar 10 at 7:46 a.m. GMT

True, the way the adaption's Franklin looks and acts kinda pathetic and wornout, instead of being a superficially attractive man with slightly boyish temperament and a touch of English partiality, is one of my biggest beefs with it. I also disliked him trying to run away at the end instead of trying to commit suicide. The latter action seems to suit his bold character more. (One of Clive Exton's flaws was constantly inserting chases). Also, Thora Grey wasn't charming enough. 

I liked the way the adaption done the scenes with Cust, but that's the only thing I liked about it.

Also, didn't Poirot in the adaption gave away a large part of the solution away in the Doncaster scenes, saying something like "The murderer is a monster who kills to draw attention from one of the murders!" or did the Russian translators screw something up here (ABC was the only adaption I watched at the local TV instead of buying a DVD)?

sjoerdbol 16 Mar 10 at 9:23 p.m. GMT

yes that is true, he says to Hastings ' where can you hide a murder best, between other murders. ' And the brother of Carmichael Clarke is the only character who profits from one of the deaths. Carmichael Clarke is the only rich fictim. The scenes with Cust are brilliant I think.

MissQuin 06 May 10 at 3:08 p.m. GMT

I love the Suchet adapt of The ABC Murders, I actually saw the TV version before I read the book. The viwer sees how Cust is feeling tha his sanity is slipping away from him and everyone he sees is blurred and distorted. It's very eerie and cleverly done.

As I young female, I can say that the one playing Franklin Clarke, completely lacks what Chrisite's characters call SA (sex appeal!) It's the only think about this adapt, that I dislike.

Mr_Graves 16 Jun 10 at 9:52 a.m. GMT

A shock to me- not being very well aquainted with 1930s literature, but the violence! I thought that was very Christie...

As for the plot, well... Unfortunately for Dame Agatha I have seen a couple of Charlie's Angels in my time, as well as as similar sort of thing for my own little play- a series of serial killings to disguise one man's motives, so in that respect I wasn't altogether baffled. However, for some reason i thought that they were all in on it- I thought maybe they had all previously met- Miss. Downer, Megan, and the other guy, what was his name? Carmichael Clarke's brother, anyway, I thought maybe they had all met (Megan's return from wherever she was seemed suspicious) previously, and worked out a way for them to all get what they wanted.

The real solution was very ingenious. I think AC did a terrific job writing from several viewpoints, as was a constant experimentation with her, and also the mind of AB Cust, an excellent portrayal of a man who doesn't know what the hell he's doing. There were perhaps too many characters thrown in- I have a thing about that, like with Dan Brown's, but all in all, I tip my hat to you, Agatha Christie! You've done it again. Another entirely original and exciting mystery. Bravo!

Lone_Wolf 16 Jun 10 at 12:16 p.m. GMT

Mr_Graves

However, for some reason i thought that they were all in on it- I thought maybe they had all previously met- Miss. Downer, Megan, and the other guy, what was his name? Carmichael Clarke's brother, anyway, I thought maybe they had all met (Megan's return from wherever she was seemed suspicious) previously, and worked out a way for them to all get what they wanted.

Sounds like Оrient Ехpress 2.0. It was one of my first Christies, when I was still unaquianted with her tricks, so I fell for the Cust herring completely, thinking that AC decided to write a "howcatchthem" novel for a change.

From what I know about the way seasoned Christie veterans perceive the misdirection, the common tendency among them is to consider Cust innocent for one of the murders...

Gilles 15 Jul 10 at 12:51 a.m. GMT

The ABC Murders may have been inspired by Jack the Ripper (i.e. a serial killer) but I think Mrs. Christie had a much more modern way of telling a story than just creating a gothic atmosphère, as Poirot would say. As for gory details, that's not what I look for... the daily news show us enough of that. What strikes me is the discussion Poirot has with Hastings in Chapter 17: in trying to circumscribe the psychological nature of the killer, one could say that Agatha Christie gives the reader an example of the so-called "Offender Profiling" invented (in modern times) by Dr. Walter C. Langer around 1945. i don't think this has been noted often in essays about Agatha Christie.

Yunakitty 08 Aug 10 at 3:03 a.m. GMT

I felt really sorry for Cust (the scenes of him being hungry and pitied by his landlady) so I was happy that he got a good ending.

xrysoula 18 Aug 10 at 11:01 p.m. GMT

I read this one very recently and just once. I can 't say I was thrilled, I was tricked  again though-I too thought that AC decided to change compeletely her style for once.

My main problem with the ABC Murders is the exact same as in some of the other novels- the main plot is way too far-fetched for me.I know it 's fiction, yet I honestly can 't imagine anyone, however crazy he may be, managing to set this whole story up and actually killing three more people, just to cover up the one murder he profitted from!

I spotted some other,rather outstanding, flaws too.Lily calls Cust to warn him-why?Just out of the goodness of her heart?How could she possibly know he wasn 't guilty, after all?

Then, in the final scene, when Poirot reveals the truth about the murder in Downcaster,inside the cinema,he tells Franklin something utterly ridiculous: that this time he didn 't bother to choose a victim whose name started with a D, because someone with such a name would certainly be sitting nearby, so everyone would presume that the murderer made a mistake!Please! 

Being an AC fan, it really pisses me off to have her underestimate my intelligence.Unfortunately, I can 't help feeling she does that sometimes.