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!

After the Funeral

Moderator1 09 Nov 09 at 11:34 a.m. GMT

Cora has been murdered and it just might have something to do with the fact that she blurted out at her brother's funeral the previous day, "But he was murdered, wasn't he?"  The family's lawyer, out of his depth, asks Poirot to infiltrate the family and see if he can spot which one of them could be a very nasty killer. 

Is this one of Christie's most clever plots?  Is it still relevant in today's forensic age?  Could only a truly mad person, as the murderer turns out to be, wait for such a long time for the right moment to strike?

Login or register to add posts and reply

45 replies

Reverse order

jakat 28 Nov 11 at 5:12 a.m. GMT

i read it 20 days ago and i watched after the fueral starring david suttchet 15 days ago 

jakat 28 Nov 11 at 5:09 a.m. GMT

i like this book

Lone_Wolf 28 Jun 11 at 4:54 p.m. GMT

Occasionally, I see the suggestion that the novel doesn't play fairly, because in the beginning, the third person narrator refers to Miss Gilchrist posing as Cora as "Cora", thus lying to the reader. I don't really agree, though that's more of a discussion on the nature of names. I can say that if she presented herself as Cora, and everybody around her saw her as Cora, she was, in a way, "Cora".

stylestocurtain 11 Apr 11 at 3:43 p.m. GMT

I agree. I do feel sorry for Miss Gilchrist - she was a very intelligent woman who knew a lot about Art and had ambitions in life, and she got stuck with Cora who nice as she was must've been very annoying, especially since she held all the purse strings.

Isn't it awful that even sat with the family Miss Gilchrist at dinner gets motioned to make a cup of cocoa ... it's a very touching scene for her and Poirot who kindly and gently rebuffs her offer to make him some. "The path in life can be lonely for those of us that travel alone, Madame".

What is funny about this novel is that the Abernethies are a "disconnected bunch, not close...". I think that's very unusual for an AC novel, where the families or friends are nearly always a close bunch of people. How strange, that a family as large as that where they all grew up together in that big old house, should grow so much apart.

The Abernethies remind me of my extended family in that sense. Cousins, aunts and uncles see each other rarely, and there is cordial affection when we do, but it's only the ties of being family that bind us. Then we go our separate ways and don't see each other sometimes for years or even decades at a time.

MissQuin 11 Apr 11 at 3:08 p.m. GMT

SPOILERS FOR AFTER THE FUNERAL!! I can't believe he put a knife near a Rembrandt! Maybe it was a duplicate one, I know Poirot is theatrical but it seems so unreal.

I think that Cora would be annoying to work for. It sounds like she spent alot of time talking about her family, her husband and her childhood. These may have been sore subjects for Gilchrist- childhood remains unknown, but her bankcrupt teashop past was a bad memory!

I think companion was the wrong term. It suggest an equal, but Cora seems to have only have seen Miss G as someone to talk at, rather than a friendship.

stylestocurtain 08 Apr 11 at 7:14 p.m. GMT

***spoiler warning ***

ah yes, wasn't it someone who said at the end of ATF that "I never imagined a ladylike murderer ..."!

I think she must've been unhinged to kill someone with a hatchet. But I do feel sad that her old teashop went of business in the first place and she was forced to become a drudge. She must have been very frustrated, knowing a lot about Art and having to just be a companion to a lady.

There is a small discrepancy with the film adaptation - in that Poirot unmasks the oil painting of Polflexan Harbour revealing the Rembrandt, with a knife, cutting away the canvas.

However ... if he'd already had the painting valued, surely this would have already been done and the Rembrandt already revealed??!

MissQuin 08 Apr 11 at 3:44 p.m. GMT

SPOILERS!!! I think that yes, she probably was rather unhinged. I don't remember what happened to her failed teashop. But maybe she had some breakdown so she couldn't run the business? Maybe she acted odd there and so her customers dwindled.

I can't say I feel entirely sorry for Miss G. She'll be thinking of lace doiles and cute teapots in her prison cell. It became her obsession.

I love the way AC juxtaposes quaint tea shops with a brutal axe murder.  AC can take something quite cosy- a pretty English village or a teashop, or even a church going old lady and turn them into something very sinister.

stylestocurtain 08 Apr 11 at 12:32 a.m. GMT

***spoiler warning ***

I wonder if Miss Gilchrist was a bit loony before she became a drudge to Cora, or if it was being a drudge that sent her round the bend ...

It is sad she never got her tea-shop. But she didn't have to resort to murder to try and get it!

Skizo 31 Mar 11 at 12:21 a.m. GMT

For me it's one of the best Chrisitie's. It was my first AC story and the first Mystery/Murder story. 

InspectorGrant 13 Oct 10 at 4:35 a.m. GMT

Interesting discussion, Hangingjudge and Mr Graves - it shows how Agatha Christie herself possibly got ideas for new plots when she was working on her novels - just jiggle the plot around and she would have had an entirely different story, or the same plot told from a different perspective (as in Death on the Nile and Endless Night) just to cite one example.

I also enjoyed the TV adaptation of After the Funeral - I thought it was excellent with the usual high standard of acting which we have come to expect, especially from Monica Dolan as Miss Gilchrist.   

Mr_Graves 12 Oct 10 at 10:30 p.m. GMT

I look forward to hearing your comments- another conspiracy afoot, I hope!

1hangingjudge 12 Oct 10 at 8:30 p.m. GMT

True, true! I'm not sure about England -- but we have a 5-year statute of limitations in the States...haha! Good debating with you, Graves. I'm currently on 'HALLOWE'N PARTY.' Perhaps I'll write in about that, too.

Mr_Graves 12 Oct 10 at 7:19 p.m. GMT

Yes, there is certainly some doubt as to Susan's innocence. Perhaps... and this is just an idea, but perhaps there is a tinge of "The ABC Murders" here, in that the murderer is using somebody else. Except here, Susan, whom Miss Gilchrist hasn't met, is using Miss Gilchrist's guilt to her own ends. 

But then, if Susan was to visit Aunt Cora at any time, Gilchrist would most definitely have seen her. Maybe she was a nun?

In any event, this novel does stir up some questions... A little too late to prove guilt, though, 57 years later!

1hangingjudge 12 Oct 10 at 4:27 p.m. GMT

Well, I was still thinking the Vermeer painting was a large part of the plot. In my "theory," Susan would have known of the painting as well (making a much stronger motive for murder than receiving Cora's couch and a few chairs for the chemist shop...haha!). But you're absolutely correct -- BOTH major scenes involving Susan and Gilchrist in the first half of the novel happen when they are alone, therefore eliminating the need for them to play-act their acquaintanceship. I kind of feel like Poirot himself -- Hastings, I feel so stupid for not recognizing what was in front of me all along...

I STILL feel, however, that maybe Susan caught onto Gilchrist's plot (even if she did nothing to physically take a hand in it). Poirot definitely feels doubtful by novel's end about 'something.' Perhaps Susan is not so much an innocent bystander after all.

Mr_Graves 11 Oct 10 at 8:41 p.m. GMT

You make a very good point, there... The ending of this novel certainly did require a little tweaking, but I'm not sure if such an idea of yours could be applied to this novel. After all, the first meeting between Susan and Miss Gilchrist is private, so would there be any point in pretending not to know each other without an audience? And what would Susan want with Cora Lansquenet's furniture? Just for her chemist's shop? So Susan bribes Miss Gilchrist by making her masquerade as Cora, and then goes to Lytchett St Mary herself to kill the real Cora. Then she gets a few pieces of furniture, and is happy to have succeeded in her evil plan. Who else was in the room when Miss Gilchrist picked up the wedding cake? Because if it was just Susan again, the whole idea is hopeless. An interesting idea, Hanging Judge, but I'm afraid it simply wouldn't work. I admire you, however, for exercising such creativity !

1hangingjudge 11 Oct 10 at 7:43 p.m. GMT

CONT. from other post......

Another point -- the petrol station attendant recognized Susan right away to begin with, presumably after only seeing her toying about Cora's cottage ONCE? Could Susan not have possibly struck up a repoire with her Aunt Cora and Gilchrist a long time before Richard's death? Gilchrist says to Poirot that she has been stationed with Cora for 3-1/2 years, but who knows if that is actually true? Would anyone in the village even notice the difference between, say, 1 year or 3-1/2 when neither woman actually got out much to the village itself? Or would they just accept on hearsay that -- oh, yes, Miss Gilchrist said last time she picked up some milk that she had been with Miss Cora nearly 2 years, 3 years, etc...

Another point, and I realize that Poirot tends to bring this up rather frequently in novels, but: He HAS been wrong before, twice, and seems to doubt himself by novel's end. His mind goes right back to Susan Banks, even though Entwhistle continues talking about Miss Gilchrist. What if Susan is Aunt Cora's 'Lizzie Borden'?

Thoughts??? (Mind you -- I've never felt this way; I'm not usually a "conspiracy theorist," but this ending bugged me)!

1hangingjudge 11 Oct 10 at 7:42 p.m. GMT

SPOILER ALERT!!!

This may sound a bit zany, but........

anyone else think Miss Gilchrist is NOT the actual murderer -- Susan Banks is!?

I just finished reading 'AFTER THE FUNERAL' (literally, about 45 minutes ago) and the ending stuck-out in my mind: "Poirot gave a little shiver. 'I am thinking...of some words that Susan Banks said - that she had never imagined a ladylike murderer'...They were silent - and Poirot thought of murderers he had known..."

Plus, she was the one who became (flustered?) shall we say, when Mr. Entwhistle began reciting the Lizzie Borden rhyme and shot down the 'notion' of his (of a female relative killing her kin) because "Cora hadn't got any relations living with her..." Also, she met Greg soon after his stay at a mental institution and Miss Gilchrist, in retrospect, is rather 'unbalanced.' Susan's little subplot of driving down to Lytchett-St.-Mary and her car being observed was also quickly dissolved and not fully explained.

What if Susan had plotted the whole thing and used Gilchrist (whom she also met at the institute, like Greg) as bait, controlling her via her mental deficiencies? There is such strong emphasis in the latter half of the novel that Greg longs to be rid of Susan's grasp -- he even falsely admits to Richard Abernethie's murder to, in Poirot's opinion, try and get away from his wife. What if Gilchrist is just doing the same thing? (Playing her part via a 'deal' or 'understanding' with Susan in hopes to confortably be returned to her cushy mental home).  CONT......

Mr_Graves 11 Oct 10 at 5:46 a.m. GMT

I thought this was a magnificent example of Agatha Christie's talent. The red herrings were probably the finest I have encountered, and of course, the plot device of disguise worked to a new and unique height.

I have seen the 2006 David Suchet adaptation of this, and I must admire Monica Dolan for her excellent portrayal of Miss Gilchrist. I find it difficult, also, Inspector Grant, to feel sorry for a savage murderer, and at the same time, I feel so sad for the pathetic woman, making endless plans for cafes. I think this is the most engaging Christie I have read, simply because it has torn me between sentiment and logic. 10 out of 10 for the make up on the adaptation, though! I love disguises...

InspectorGrant 26 Sep 10 at 4:21 p.m. GMT

emilytrefusis

Yes, it's amazing how difficult it can be to recognize someone when she wears a wig, make-up and a different style of clothes. People who haven't read the novel willalmost certainly be fooled!

Yes, I looked at 'Witness for the Prosecutíon' with Marlene Dietrich the other night, and her disguise was really very good indeed, so I think that it is quite possible to fool people in Agatha Christie adaptations.

I realise that the murderer in 'After the Funeral' was quite batty, but really I do find it hard to feel sorry for somebody who had kept the real Cora sedated while she went off to impersonate her, and then returned and killed her with an axe.  I find this quite blood chilling and definitely one of Dame Agatha's most brutal murders!!

emilytrefusis 26 Sep 10 at 10:37 a.m. GMT

Yes, it's amazing how difficult it can be to recognize someone when she wears a wig, make-up and a different style of clothes. People who haven't read the novel willalmost certainly be fooled!