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!

Murder in Mesopotamia

Moderator1 05 Nov 09 at 11:15 a.m. GMT

Amy Leatheran is a nurse employed to look after sickly Mrs Leidner, wife of the world famous archaeologist Dr Leidner.  When Louise's health goes from bad to worse, culminating in her death it is just as well Hercule Poirot is visiting the dig as this death is not by natural causes and his supreme detective powers are surely needed.

One of several Poirot novels in a row that Christie wrote, is this really more than a very thin premise for a story?  Can one person dominate another to the extent that they would be unrecognisable to that person?  What do you think of the whole idea?

Login or register to add posts and reply

15 replies

Reverse order

ZoltanBalogh 05 Nov 09 at 9:32 p.m. GMT

I have just finished reading this book and I can say I enjoyed it very much! Great story, exciting storyline...what else needed?

Puffinjill 06 Nov 09 at 8:33 a.m. GMT

I think the heart of the story is the character of Louise Leidner herself. I am aware that AC wrote this character after her time on a dig with Leonard and Katherine Woolley and used Katherine as her template for Louise. She found her a totally self-absorbed person around whom everyone danced attention - even herself. She didn't want to do this but found Mrs Woolley and her ways very hard to resist.

These are the same traits she gives to Louise Leidner. She sees only what she wants in this life and never considers how her actions will affect those around her. I don't think she would ever sufficiently be interested in another person to be able to know them and their personalities well enough. Even with the man she married, her main priority would be to feel adored, as she beleives she should be. His own past wouldn't really matter. She is not sympathetic and has no insight and would probably never have known her first husband well enough to be able to describe him after such a time.

Therefore, the point made about domination actually doesn't come into it. Louise would not have any others will imposed upon her in such a way. Knowing her so well, Leidner would have been aware of how to attract her and play to her vanity. I must admit, she is one character that I feel no sympathy for and actually didn't want anyone found to be responsible for her death, as selfish people who only see what they want in their lives can cause so much pain to others. My sympathy this time was completely with the man driven by his jealousy to finally destroy woman who dominated his life in a way he could never fill hers.

Attica76 03 Jan 10 at 3:29 p.m. GMT

Puffinjill, I've read AC's autobiography recently but I haven't thought about Mrs Woolley being the "prototype" for Louise, thanks for pointing this out. I didn't like Mrs Woolley at all (I kept asking myself, "Why are they putting up with her???") and I'm glad AC "took revenge" on her in such a way

I didn't like Louise either.  I didn't like the setting (I prefer the English countryside or London etc.), and it puzzles me why anyone would go there of their own free will and dig in the dust and dirt in such a heat but one thing I liked is the structure of the book, with Nurse Leatheran being the narrator and her reactions to Poirot and his ways.

The ending did seem somewhat contrived to me. I find it difficult to believe that a person could change so much as to be unrecognizable to his ex-wife (except if he had plastic surgery, but I don't think it was mentioned). But I don't feel any sympathy for him because he was weird in a way for coming up with such a complicated revenge plan. And she was also an unusual person in that she could make others do what she wanted them to. In other words, they deserved each other!

My sympathy was with the other, innocent members of the expedition: first, Louise created an unhealthy, tense atmosphere and then they found themselves being suspected of the crime (that reminds me of Appointment with Death).

MissQuin 12 Jan 10 at 3:54 p.m. GMT

Murder in Mesopotamia is in my top 10 of favourite Poirot books. I never, ever would have worked out how the murder was done! I know the solution is a improable one, but as a who dunnit it works out fine. The idea of people impersonating others is often used in AC books. If there are no photos,  someone drastically changes their apperance, has aged, speaks differently, then you may not recoginse them.

I find Louise a fasinating one, though she isnt likeable. I liked the narrator Nurse Leatheran, she was very down to earth and motherly. I wondered if she had some feelings towards Bill Coleman at the end? She said she grew fond of him, but being a nurse she wouldn't have been allowed to marry him.

aquaflute 31 Jan 10 at 10:27 p.m. GMT

I kind of figured out who the murderer was when the second victim was standing on the roof and saying she had this all figured out. I had the motive, the murderer all figured out too at that time. But I never would have expected that it was done that way! Definitely ingenious! A simple and plausible plan yet extremely devious and cunning. However unlike the few posts above me I actually felt bad for both the victim and the murderer. They may not be good persons, but they did not deserve this. The victim IMO did not deserve death while the murderer was clearly tortured inside extremely by both the living victim and dead victim. Everytime when a murderer confess to his or her crimes without and solid evidence pointing at them I would feel bad for them.

weekekkoon 25 Feb 10 at 10:11 a.m. GMT

I agree with one of the posts, that it's quite improbable that Louise Reidner didn't realize that her first and second husbands are the same person. The whole premise of Frederick Bosner taking on the persona of an existing Swedish archaeologist Dr Eric Leidner for 20 years is problematic in the first place. For the premise to work, one would have to assume that the real Dr Leidner who died in the train accident had no family, friends or colleagues who would see through Bosner's bluff!

Still, it was an enjoyable change of setting from the drawing room to an archaeological site and the way the murder was done is ingenious (though I'm not convinced by the motive). Amy Leatheran mentioned an aunt on the very last page whose neighbours' faults she knew 'backwards and forwards'. I'd like to think that was Miss Marple! 

go_leafs_nation 25 Feb 10 at 1:12 p.m. GMT

Improbable, yes, but not impossible, and AC is persuasive enough when writing the solution that I found myself swallowing the whole thing. And if he kept to himself for a few years, any friends may have decided that he simply changed over time- people do.

Pongo 16 Sep 10 at 10:38 a.m. GMT

SPOILERS

I have been dreading writing what I am about to write.  But, here goes...

As much as I dislike Hickory Dickory Dock (and please see the discussion there if you have time; MissQuin has been making some great comments there), I must say that I have never been as disappointed with any book as I was with Murder in Mesopotamia.   The book is near unsalvageable in my opinion. 

Yes, I will admit that Murder in Mesopotamia has some promise.  I think that, for example, Poirot has never been more eloquent in delivering denouements as he was here (using the notion of a "journey"). 

But, COME ON....!!!!

The real identity of the murderer: no matter what anyone may say, there is no way that this is at all believable.  AC stories do require suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader, but this particular revelation felt like AC was treating me like a dummy or something. 

Now, those who have conversed with me and disagreed with me here must at least acknowledge that I love AC to bits!  Moreover, I truly believe some of her work to be of significant literary merit. 

However, this must be the one and only time where I actually was ANGRY as a reader at AC for pulling what she did in this book. 

Of course, I respect anyone who believes otherwise, and I welcome any friendly discussion.   No hate, please!! 

Pongo 16 Sep 10 at 10:44 a.m. GMT

SPOILERS

In addition, let me say this.  The producers of the Poirot series have sometimes taken liberties with the stories.  However, the Murder in Mesopotamia adaptation was fairly faithful (but with the welcome addition of Hugh Frasier). 

I would have instead liked to have seen a faithful adaptation of, say, Appointment with Death, and a completely re-vamped version of Murder in Mesopotamia. 

This is just a roundabout way of saying that I think that, had the murderer's back story been more properly explained or given a more believable premise, the book would have been more successful in my opinion.  Upon consideration, I find the actualties of the crime itself (how it was committed, the mechanics of the murder, etc.) to be fairly intriguing.  Just remove the dreadful, awful, horrendous back story and you may have something....

MissQuin 16 Sep 10 at 5:35 p.m. GMT

Thank you Pongo regards my humble Hickory opnions.  Your views are always well argued and you give opnions as your own opinions, not statements of fact. I wouldn't have thought anyone would rage war on you for not likeing Murder in Mesopotamia. At least, I hope not!

 SPOILERS!!! I don't actually think it's one of the most popular books. Even one of AC's autobigoraphers picked the book to pieces. But still, I have a real fondness for it. I love the characters- Louise is an unusual and complex one. Nurse Leatheran tells the story in a warm, almost gossipy way that drew me in.

Richard Cary was a really tragic figure, even the monk (foregt his name) seemed like a likely supicous suspect. I had the end spoilt for me, so I never had a chance to work out whodunnit.

I find the idea of killing someone from the roof top just about believeable, stretching fine, but I can manage that. Marrying the same man twice not knowing so, mmm, maybe.. it's again, streching it a bit perhaps. But with no photos and years gone by, it's hard to say. But even so it didn't spoil my enjoyment of the book. Only if there was a real life case of someone marrying a person twice, unknowingly. Then that might change people's opinions. Is there such an case?!

I could never be angry with Chrisite. That could only happen if she'd left a book unfinnished then wrote "sorry folks, couldn't be bothered to think of an end. Work it out for yourselves!" But she didn't.

Pongo 17 Sep 10 at 1:01 p.m. GMT

No problem at all, MissQuin.  Your comments at Hickory are worthy of praise!  What is more, you are proving to be a great counsel for the defense here too with Murder in Mesopotamia.    Mine eyes dazzle, as it were!  

SPOILERS...!!

However, I am still unconvinced as to the real identity of Dr. Leidner.  I have never read or come across any theory or plausible explanation for this.  And this is the stumbling block for me   The fact that a woman would not recognize her first husband rings so false to me as to be almost maddening.  

But, if I may say, I was happy to see that Arthur "Good LORD!" Hastings made his appearance in the Suchet adaptation.  

MissQuin 17 Sep 10 at 1:12 p.m. GMT

Pongo

No problem at all, MissQuin.  Your comments at Hickory are worthy of praise!  What is more, you are proving to be a great counsel for the defense here too with Murder in Mesopotamia.    Mine eyes dazzle, as it were!  

I hope your not putting on rubber gloves as I type?!! (sleeping murder reference to those who wonder!!)

Anyway, it's odd how I can be slightly annoyed about changes, but not as much when Hastings was added. Probably because I love Hastings and Hugh Frazer is so excellent.

Well if Dr Leidner grew a beard, that would drastically alter his appearance, but still. I don't know about his voice. I can't explain that away. And you would think he'd have some distingusing marks somewhere, most people have birthmarks or a mole or something.. If Louise was short sighted, ok, but she wasn't. But still I find the Sittaford mystery a less satifisfying solution.

Tommy_A_Jones 08 Feb 11 at 3:57 p.m. GMT

I am half way through the Non de Plume so perhaps I shouldn't be writing yet but I haven't enjoyed the book at all, I saw the Adaptation before I read the book and wasn't a fan of it then, some times I have sewen Adaptations first and loved the book but not this time, I was irritated by Nurse Leatheren Dr Leidner and Mrs Mercado but liked Doctor Reilly Miss Johnson and as I am a Wodehouse Fan Mr Coleman, I admit I don't always find Books set abroad easy but this one I have had more trouble with, I liked Appointment With Death, Murder On The Orient Express, Destination Unknown and They Came To Baghdad but sadly not this one.

Tommy_A_Jones 09 Feb 11 at 3:12 p.m. GMT

I finished The Book this morning,

SPOILERS!!!

Poirot says the atmosphere was fine in Previousd years and that was due to Dr Leidner and when Mrs Leidner came and the Atmosphewre wasn't good that was due to Dr Leidner too so Mrs Leidner can't be blamed for the atmosphere can she and I can't see why Ann can't see that in the Final Chapter, is it a case that she can't let herself see that as then she would have to admit her Judgement is flawed?

ChristieFanBlogger 26 Apr 11 at 4 p.m. GMT

Here's my theory on why Louise Leidner didn't recongize her husband.  In so many Christie stories, we have a sweet damsel in distress swept off her feet and married days after knowing someone (Moving Finger, Third Girl, Ordeal by Innocence to name a few).  I am enjoying the realization that this is a case where that silly, unrealistic type of marriage didn't work out.  Louise barely knew her first husband, didn't really care about him as a wife/lover/partner.  I'm having fun now imagining those other girls tiring of their quickie marrianges and dispatching with those husbands too!