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!

Tommy_A_Jones 25 Sep 10 at 3:27 p.m. GMT

When she went loopy at the end of the Adaptation I thought she was Brilliant.

emilytrefusis 25 Sep 10 at 9:24 a.m. GMT

Monica Dolan plays Mrs Gilchrist in the Suchet adaption, and she's fantastic!

antonia1990 16 Sep 10 at 7:07 p.m. GMT

I agree with ddale about the adaptation. In fact, it's one of my favorite adaptations and I watched it about three times, which is surprising since I don't normally do that.

About the murderer, I honestly couldn't figure it out. But when it was finally revealed I was like: "Why didn't I think of this possibility?" It was so clever.

ddale 15 Sep 10 at 9:56 p.m. GMT

Yunakitty, I completely agree with you that some of the books don't work well on screen when disguises are key to the plot - I guessed the plot in Hunters Lodge straight away.

But I thought that the recent adaptation of After the Funeral was very well done - definitely worth watching!

Lone_Wolf 23 Aug 10 at 8:30 p.m. GMT

I felt some sympathy for the murderer too. I do think that this was the effect AC strived for.

See my previous posts in the thread for the explanation.

xrysoula 23 Aug 10 at 7:31 p.m. GMT

Of course Miss Eylesbarrow, no need to ask about that! That 's what this site is all about, isn 't it? Exchanging opinions! I find it so interesting and exciting, and even more so because I 've never done it before!

I certainly don 't expect everyone to agree with me. Moreover, sometimes, what I 'm writing about a certain matter does not represent my personal belief, I 'm just trying to shed some light from a different aspect (although that is not the case in my reply above). 

Miss_Eylesbarrow 23 Aug 10 at 1:46 p.m. GMT

Spoiler warning************************

Sorry Xrysoula, I can't agree with you there.  I think the murderer is one crazy old biddy who deserves to be hanged.  I can't feel any sympathy for her at all.  To my mind she's a most unsymapthetic character all the way through the book.  I agree that she is a masterful creation by our beloved Dame, but as for wasted life and shattered dreams? Pah!  (hope we are still friends??).

xrysoula 20 Aug 10 at 11:49 a.m. GMT

The story is indeed a rather unbelievable one, but I too think that the insanity of the murderer offers an adequate explanation of all of her acts. It very much reminded me of Murder Is Easy, whereas I hadn 't liked that book as much as I liked  After The Funeral.

Although the murder that takes place in the latter is amongst the most brutal in AC 's novels, somehow you can 't help feeling some sort of compassion for the person who comitted it, for all her wasted life and her shuttered dreams, which after all were so simple, so humble...so human.And that 's just something only a unique, inimitable writer like Dame Agatha could accomplish.

MissQuin 10 Aug 10 at 11:30 a.m. GMT

spoiler warniing in the above post!!

MissQuin 10 Aug 10 at 10:21 a.m. GMT

 I can believe that a seeminglly harmless middle aged woman, can turn out to be a raving lunatic. There are people like that. I think the tea shop idea was a complete obsession that took over her life. Killing someone with an axe is a more violent method of murder thatn usual. The plan when plotted by someone who isn't sane, but is cunning seems logicale enough to me.

Miss_Eylesbarrow 10 Aug 10 at 9:27 a.m. GMT

Of course, without all the rigmarole we wouldn't have had the story, Yunakitty!  I feel that sometimes we just have to suspend our disbelief at some twist in the plot and go with it.  It is fiction after-all.  Oh and it does say at the end of the book that after the arrest the killer became completely unhinged so I think that he/she was already somewhat crazy, just hiding it well

Yunakitty 08 Aug 10 at 12:35 a.m. GMT

Ooh, thank you, that makes more sense.  I didn't really think about the insanity part.  And the revenge for treating her like a servant.  Thanks for pointing that out!

Lone_Wolf 06 Aug 10 at 10:14 a.m. GMT

To me, the motive had more to do with not only a desire for independence, abut also nostalgia and the desire to return to good ol' happy times.

GKCfan 06 Aug 10 at 9 a.m. GMT

I think there was more to the killer's motive than mere profit.

I think that the killer was embittered from going from being an independent woman with her own business to being a paid drudge.  I think she'd wanted to kill her employer for making her do all sorts of tasks that she felt were beneath her, so revenge (and madness, remember that she became totally unhinged) were also motives.

Yunakitty 06 Aug 10 at 8:36 a.m. GMT

If I had been her (well first off I wouldn't have killed anyone) I never would have attempted the fakery.  Maybe something with a telephone, calling different family members as her and expressing naively that she thought Richard was murdered, then dying quietly of an overdose.  Or man, just steal the freaking picture.  Cora was a dingbat, Miss Gilchrist could hide it and claim it had been stolen, then resign later and go sell it or something.  I don't often argue with the logic  in AC's stories, but this is one I have trouble swallowing.  Too much rigamorale (going into the wolf's den in disguise, violent murder, many many lies, self-poisoning, and attempted murder) for a very simple aim (to get a painting.)

Yunakitty 06 Aug 10 at 8:36 a.m. GMT

I haven't seen this in a TV adaptation yet, but I have a feeling it will be rather ridiculous, with "Cora" and Miss Gilchrist being played by the same actress.  There are some ideas that work so well in print but not with living breathing people, especially with a camera fixed on them as they talk.  In a play or real life you might not notice that two people are the same, but in a TV adaptation it leaps to the eye.  I was watching Poirot on PBS with my family last week, and there were two different episodes where this was clear - Affair at the Victory Ball and Hunter's Lodge.  My grandmother and I are both big AC fans so we watched quietly, but my aunt, who's never read a one, spotted it right away.  "Oh, that's the friend in the first guy's costume... his face is so much wider, you can see that even with the mask."  And then, "Why is his wife pretending to be the housekeeper?"  Even with great makeup and acting, it leapt to her eye.

Though, it *is* possible - when I went home to see my family, my father cried out as we walked into Walmart and went over to the check out aisle to happily greet someone named "Eddie".  I glanced over, didn't recognize the person, assumed it was some old friend of my dad's, and I went on with my shopping.  Then the next day at my great grandmother's house that man was there again... it was my great uncle Eddie who I hadn't seen in 14 years.  I did not recognize him at all even though I can spot him in old photographs in a second.  So I could see it being possible... just very very risky for Miss Gilchrist to do. 

...to be continued

Lone_Wolf 14 Feb 10 at 7:24 a.m. GMT

I liked the theme of nostalgia in that novel. Despite being less then 20 years old, I'm prone to nostalgic fits. That's why I actually found the murderer slightly sympathetic in a way.

Sahara 27 Jan 10 at 11:39 a.m. GMT

This is one of the best plots by Christie. Totally shocking at the end at the big reveal - one of those endings you would never guess till the very end. It somehow reminds me of Murder on the Orient Express... the way all the characters all appear suspicious after a little digging, a very enexpected ending that seems rather unrealistic, but fantastic all the same. Brilliant!

go_leafs_nation 14 Jan 10 at 1:17 p.m. GMT

This is, I believe, one of Dame Agatha's finest novels. One of its greatest levels of success is the sheer brutality of the crime, the character of the victim, and the melancholy. I'll discuss these briefly (as I have little time).

Aunt Cora was a simple-minded woman. She was a fool who liked to talk, and yet somehow often ended up disclosing embarassing secrets through her complete innocence, such as when she remarked that the maid had been getting very fat lately. It's a character that can amuse the reader, and certainly isn't a candidate for murder. Her remark on the day of the funeral may be greeted with a smile. The sheer brutality of the axe murder keeps the reader going on. This is a slow book, but because of the inoffensive person Cora was and the brutal way she was murdered, the reader really wants to see justice done, and have the killer carted off to the hung.

The melancholy, as England seems to decay in front of the reader... Huge estates that had been in the family for generations had to be auctioned off because they could no longer be afforded, for instance. The Victorian tradition of keeping the curtains drawn until after the funeral has left the house shows up- the butler, Lanscombe, who faithfully has served the family all his life thinks about his tenure there... These are very effective bits.

Rubyy321 10 Jan 10 at 9:20 p.m. GMT

This is indeed a great read, and sorry if i spoil but when Cora turned out not to be  the real Cora that suprised me a great deal! I do agree with Attica76's comment it does sound a little fishy...

Attica76 04 Jan 10 at 4:27 p.m. GMT

This is one of my favourites; I love the way the characters are fleshed out and how all the family members are made suspicious. Although I think it's a bit of a stretch to think nobody recognized her later, even if they didn't bother to look at "a mere domestic".   

GKCfan 22 Dec 09 at 12:02 a.m. GMT

There are a few more house/family murders.  After the Funeral is from 1953.  Others are:

•A Pocket Full of Rye (1953, Miss Marple)

•4:50 From Paddington (1957, Miss Marple)

•Ordeal by Innocence (1958, No recurring detective)

So yes, it's the last of the Poirot "family" novels before 1975's Curtain, which as you rightly pointed out was written during the 1940's.

MissQuin 21 Dec 09 at 8:36 p.m. GMT

Spoilers: The murderer has to be one of Christies maddest. I did guess there ws a connection with the paintings to the murders. But somehow I didnt guess who it was.  Isnt this one of the last house/family murders in the Poirot series? Apart from Curtian, which was I think, written earlier. The ones after are set in a youth hostel, garden fetes, boarding schools etc.

Tommy_A_Jones 11 Nov 09 at 4:31 p.m. GMT

I think it is a great alternative to Sci-fi, Sport or Reality Television or the remake of MOTOE or many of the GM adapts or DSs COTT

go_leafs_nation 09 Nov 09 at 12:54 p.m. GMT

The Margaret Rutherford film based on this amazing book was a huge disappointment as a mystery, but was an excellent comedy. I think this is one of Christie's best plots. There's so much to it, I wrote a series of journals on it for school, and got a rather high mark. I probably have them stashed away somewhere still...