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!

Hallowe'en Party

Moderator1 09 Nov 09 at 3:49 p.m. GMT

Unusual things happen at Hallowe'en but Ariadne Oliver could certainly not have imagined it would be the murder of a 13 year-old girl.  She was a liar and not very well liked so when she said she'd witnessed a murder some years before no-one believed her - or did they?  Ariadne calls for Poirot's help and he, together with retired Superintendent Spence, start to investigate past murders.

Should Ariadne Oliver have been given more of her own stories?  She only appeared in one without Poirot, The Pale Horse, but did she have sufficient detective powers to function as a sleuth without Poirot's input?

Login or register to add posts and reply

34 replies

Reverse order

Puffinjill 09 Nov 09 at 7:13 p.m. GMT

The character of Ariadne Oliver is written in a more serious light in Hallowe'en Party. She is very distraught after being present at a party where a young girl has been murdered and becomes concerned that the girl's boasting to her may have led to her demise. Usually, Mrs Oliver, although shocked at any murder, has thoroughly enjoyed herself and thought highly of her womanly detective instincts. This, however, is a sobering experience and a less frivoulous side is revealled. Through this, we see more to her than just the rather eccentric writer tangled in her own plots, and she becomes much more real.

I would have loved AC to write more about her but as a central figure (without Poirot) I'm not convinced she could carry a complete book. I know she is without him in The Pale Horse and her rememberances give Mark Easterbrook the one clue that ties the plot together, but she plays a small part in the rest of the book. Yes, she makes wild, suprisingly accurate, stabs at the solution of a mystery but her thought processes would be very muddly throughtout an entire text! Having said all this, I have a soft spot for her rambling and eccentric arguements and feel AC's work would be poorer without her.

Katherine 12 Nov 09 at 12:35 p.m. GMT

It's a promising set-up: the idea of a girl being drowned in an apple-bobbing bucket is a very strong and ghoulish image, but unfortunately the rest of the book just doesn't live up to the opening ideas.

Unfortunately it's late Christie, full of padding and rambling about the degeneracy of youth, and lacking any strong characterisation.

There are lots of plot holes. (If Mrs Llewellyn-Smythe's will was never posted and has remained hidden on a book shelf for a couple of years, why did the killers need to fake the forged codicil in the first place?)

And the final revelation about the affair between Michael and Rowena comes completely out of nowhere as the two characters don't even meet in the book.

The ending is nicely thrilling and suspenseful, but it doesn't make up for the book's glaring flaws.

Puffinjill 13 Nov 09 at 7:58 a.m. GMT

I know the holes in the plot are rather large and obvious and so, again, are the coincidences. In fiction, how is it characters with a shared history they would rather forget always seem to find themselves living in the same town/village? If that was me (not that I have anything in my past that I am runnung away from. Honest.), I would immediately up sticks and move again rather than wait and see if the past catches up with me. But Miranda and her Mother stay put when Michael arrives on the scene. As if the world isn't a big enough place not to keep constantly rubbing up against those you would rather forget!Mind you, this happens in a few Christies and is used to good effect. (Look at Murder on the Links. Not as if M. Renauld couldn't have affordee another Villa elsewhere!)  

But I find the atmosphere created in Hallowe'en Party sufficiently disturbing and mitigates all the other problems I can see in the book. I know they are all there but I still end up each time I read it drawn in by all that I like about it and can enjoy it, faults and all.

GKCfan 13 Nov 09 at 5:43 p.m. GMT

Well, in "Links" the person Renauld wanted to forget deliberately tracked him down in order to live near him, and his attempts to get away were the catalyst for the plot.  Christie does explain some of the reasons for the forgery- it's a backup plan in case the estate is tied up in legal issues, plus they need to discredit the maid.  And the Michael/Miranda's mother meeting again may not be a coincidence... at the end of the book she expresses doubts.  It's possible that Michael tracked her down because he wanted to meet his daughter.  Anyway, Miranda had a lot of roots in that town, and Miranda probably didn't want to move, and her mother didn't want to force her.  In any case, she probably figured Michael would move away once the landscaping job was done.  Finally, there are hints that Rowena had an affair in the flashback scenes, and there are a lot of subtle hints as to who her paramour might have been.  I think a line she mentions about beauty is meant to reflect the time she spent with Michael. The two never meet in the book because they want to be discreet.   Frankly, I think that a lot of the so-called plot holes are explained, but they're filled up in throwaway lines and implications, so they're hard to catch.

Puffinjill 13 Nov 09 at 6:54 p.m. GMT

In Murder on the Links, Madame Daubreuill had lived in that town for years befor M. Renauld made his home there. She soon cottoned on to him and was quick to turn this to her monetary advantage but I don't think she spent years trying to find George Conneau. I think that was an unhappy coincidence for all the Renaulds. In Hallowe'en Party, I thought Michael was unaware of having a child until he came to Woodleigh Common. i will have to read it again to be sure.

MissQuin 15 Feb 10 at 3:37 p.m. GMT

This isnt a bad book, out of the later Poirot's its good but doesnt have that sparkle the earlier ones had. Very little stands out in my mind about the book, apart from, if I'm correct? Mrs O stopped eating apples, as she was put off for life! She moved on to figs? There a small glimmer of humour here, which I think the book needed.

I was getting rather impatient towards the end. I wasn't really too pleased with the murderers. The connection between them was vague. I wanted to know more about them.

The little girl is supposed to clever, but she's rather unreal. She gladly go off in a killers car? But I didn't want her to be killed, I was glad she wasnt.

skulduggery32 24 Jun 10 at 6:02 p.m. GMT

i loved this book. it was really gripping and i though the story line was great. one of my favourite AC novels

ninjapenguin 06 Aug 10 at 3:56 p.m. GMT

While I enjoyed the book, one of the things that stretched my credulity was that the murderers would wait two years in order to throw off suspicion before moving away.  I know they would have had to wait a bit for probate anyway, but that seems an awfully long time to stick around.  After all, the longer they stayed in the same village, the greater the chance that someone might stumble upon their affair.

GKCfan 06 Aug 10 at 8:16 p.m. GMT

There was a very good reason for the long wait.  Remember, the female killer was married, and they had to wait for the husband to die (or possibly they poisoned him- Poirot suspects this, but he doesn't have the evidence at the time of the summation.)

ninjapenguin 12 Aug 10 at 2:54 p.m. GMT

No, they killed the husband right before the aunt died, so all of the deaths (up until the book started) had been around two years ago.  I would only have waited around six months, personally.

Pongo 25 Aug 10 at 4:16 a.m. GMT

SPOILERS

I am happy to see some love shown for Hallowe'en Party!!!  

For any of you out there who are fans of Alfred Hitchcock films: whenever I think of this novel, I am immediately reminded of Hitchcock's film Frenzy.   Of course, in terms of actual plot, there are really no similarities at all.  But, in terms of darkness in tone and grim world view, there are some similarities.

Both works came during the twilight of each person's respective careers.  Frenzy was made in the early 70s, and was the Master's second-to-last feature before his death.  HP is late Christie, published in 1969/1970. 

Both works are noted for the darkness in tone.  Frenzy involves the brutal rape/murder of women, and HP involves the killings and attempted killings of children. 

Both works offer a grim world view.  Frenzy does this by offering a hero who is a loser and with whom it is hard to sympathize. In HP, people talk of rape and sexual abuse as though it were to be expected.  Also, the world is one where even children are not innocent.  Leopold as a ten-year-old who engages in blackmail.  (Of course, Christie has in the past written stories involving wicked children.)

Finally, both works have a baddie whose motivation for muder is purely psychotic.  Granted, there have been Christie villains who have twisted motives for muder, but, to me, Michael Garfield is the most psychotic Christie villain out there (he wanted his own island to make his landscaping masterpiece???). 

This is all just a way of saying that Dame Agatha is at her most ruthless here, which is not necessarily a bad thing for the reader. 

Pongo 03 Sep 10 at 2:18 a.m. GMT

SPOILERS...!

I have two questions regarding this book

There was the scene where Poirot visits Miss Emylin, and he writes down four words on a piece of paper and shows it to her.  Do we ever find out what those words were?

Also, who exactly was Mrs. Leaman?  Was her true identity ever confirmed or revealed? 

Or are these just more of the Christie plot threads that remain unexplained? 

Puffinjill 03 Sep 10 at 8:02 a.m. GMT

As far as I'm aware, Pongo, Harriet Leaman was Mrs Llewellyn-Smythe's maid and there was no mystery about her. I've always thought it strange that Poirot didn't talk to the woman and confirm the story she told Mrs Oliver but, with AC's later works, I've come to accept that there are some of these tantalising stray ends that never get tied up satisfactorily.

As for the word on the paper, they remain a mystery (as far as my memory tells me) because Poirot never says what they were. We can all make guesses but will never know exactly what AC had in mind when she alluded to them.

And, Pongo, you will always get some love for Hallowe'en Party shown by me. It may be flawed but, hey, aren't we all?!

Pongo 03 Sep 10 at 10:30 a.m. GMT

SPOILERS ON HALLOWE'EN PARTY

Puffinjill,

Much appreciated!  Thank you very much!  My confusion about Harriet Leaman came because, when Mrs. Oliver reports to Poirot about her conversation with Mrs. Leaman and how she was supposed to have witnessed the signing of the codicil, Poirot replies that the codicil admitted to probate was witnessed by Mary Doherty and one other, and not Mrs. Leaman. 

So, the point is that Mrs. Leaman apparently witnessed a "forged codicil", is that right?  And there is no question that Mrs. Leaman is who she says she is, right? 

Forgive me, but I am a bit slow on the uptake when it comes to these kinds of details. 

Puffinjill, you seem to know everything about AC!!  You are now my go-to person for any question I have on Hallowe'en Party and anything Dame Agatha! 

Puffinjill 04 Sep 10 at 7:24 a.m. GMT

Blimey!! I wouldn't go that far, Pongo, but thank you for the compliment! The pleasure is all mine, I assure you. I love all things Christie so discussing the great lady and all her wonderful books with like-minded people is a complete joy to me.

SPOILERS!!!!

In answer to your question about Harriet Leaman and the codicil - I think (and I may well be wrong!) that she signed a genuine codicil written by Mrs Llewelyn-Smythe but this was possibly found and destroyed by Mrs Drake or Michael after her death so the original will would stand. Leslie Ferrier and Olga, knowing that this codicil DID exist, may have then forged another in order that Mrs Llewelyn-Smythe's last wishes might be known. Any of that make sense? I must read it again soon and clarify these points in my own mind!

GKCfan 04 Sep 10 at 10:44 p.m. GMT

Here are my thoughts on your Hallowe'en Party questions, Pongo.

The four words Poirot writes were probably the names of the two killers: Rowena Drake/Michael Garfield.  Miss Emylin suspected the first person (the one who drowned Joyce) because she was clever enough to suspect that person due to the water clue.  However, she never dreamed of linking the murderer to the murderess, so the third and fourth words, which was the name of the murderer, caught her by surprise at first, but on second thought she believed it was a possibility.

Here's what happened with the codicil.  The rich aunt realized that Rowena and Michael were having an affair, so she cut Rowena out of the will and left all her money to Olga Seminoff.  This was unacceptable to Rowena and Michael, so they hired a young forger to draw up a fake will, but they cleverly had him draw up a forged will in Olga's favor, since they weren't sure if the witnesses had actually read the will they signed.  They replaced the real will with the forged one.  Then around the time the aunt died (she may have been poisoned- it's not clear) they stabbed the forger and made it look like an anonymous bar fight, and stabbed Olga and threw her down the well and made it look like she ran off.  They contested the will, which was proven to be a forgery, so it was thrown out and the biological next of kin inherited.

Pongo 06 Sep 10 at 4:59 a.m. GMT

SPOILERS

GKCfan, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and easy-to-follow explanation.  So, just to be clear, Harriet Leaman was a witness for the fake will (the one that the murderers INTENDED to be disproven at probate).  is that correct?

GKCfan 06 Sep 10 at 5:28 a.m. GMT

SPOILERS FOLLOW!

Pongo, I am not 100% sure on this point, but since the fake will that was intended to be disproven at probate was a total forgery, Harriet Leaman didn't sign it.  Ms. Leaman signed the REAL codicil to the will, which was later found by the killers and destroyed.   I don't know for sure if the killers forged Ms. Leaman's name to the fake will, or if they just guessed who the probably witnesses would be.

DMBENOLIEL 06 Sep 10 at 2:41 p.m. GMT

Dear Friends, This is not an answer, but I do not know where to ask a question. There is in "Halloween party" a quotation by Poirot of what could be an old French song : Regarde Narcisse, regarde dans l'eau, regarde Narcisse comme tu es beau, Il n'y a au monde que la beauté Et la jeunesse. Hélas ! Et la jeunesse. In spite of all I tried I was not abel to find the origin of these verses, and I should like to use "Hélas ! Et la jeunesse" as a title for a novel I am writing. Does anybody know its origin and communicate it to me in these columns or through my Email "dmben.livre@free.fr" Kindest thanks to all and any, D.M. BENOLIEL

Mr_Graves 14 Sep 10 at 8:10 a.m. GMT

Well! What can you say about "Hallowe'en Party?" I found it a very original and intriguing Christie novel, but I did express exasperation at Poirot's strange ramblings and observations. Seriously? There were like two pages describing the Quarry Garden. ???. But anyway, I felt that the presence of Mrs. Oliver and the added humour was much appreciated.

Also, I found the setting of this book interesting. All of the other AC books I've read have been pre- 1950s, so to hear her describing all sorts of 60s things like how people were dressed and also her bold mention of lesbianism, was something rather extraordinary for me.

Overall, not a very neat and tidy book, but good ideas and originalities and everything that makes it a Christie in there as well.