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 Mysterious Affair at Styles

Moderator1 04 Nov 09 at 4:04 p.m. GMT

This is Agatha Christie’s first book and also the first Poirot novel.  Christie was drawing on her own experiences working in a dispensary during the first world war where she gained experience of working with poisons and seems to have presented a convincing tale here.  Many members of the family involved are not particularly endearing.  However, did she play fair with readers with Poirot's treatment of John Cavendish?   As Hastings says 'the colossal cheek of the little man!'.

A charge that has been laid at her door is that she just copied the Holmes/Watson partnership but is this a fair accusation?  It’s true that the best detectives need lesser beings to point up their finer points but is this being a bit unfair to Hastings?  As the narrator should he be pushing his talents rather more to the fore?

Could anyone have an inkling from this first offering of what was to come through the following decades?

Login or register to add posts and reply

26 replies

Reverse order

BrigidM 12 Feb 12 at 2:19 p.m. GMT

I like Hastings being added to the book because I think it is sometimes better because if you are reading a Poirot and you think of a possibility which Hastings thinks of, then you know it can be ruled out. I don't think Agatha Christie was copying the Holmes/Watson partnership because there are differences in their manner. It is slightly unfair to Hastings, but Hastings must have been created so he could be not very good at solving the crimes, so he serves his purpose. I don't think his talents could have been pushed more to the fore.

EMDN 01 Sep 11 at 5:48 p.m. GMT

This was the second Poirot novel I read, and I have to say that, although it isn't one of my favourites, I agree when it has been said here before that it set the bar really high for the next books. I also think that it includes one of the most unpredictible murderers in the novels I read so far.

About Hastings, now, the only Poirot book I read without him was "Murder on the Orient Express", and I missed the 1st person narrative. However, he actually isn't of much use, to be honest. I actually prefer him prortayed by Hugh Fraser than the original character in the books. In the series, we are presented to an english gentleman and from the books we don't get very well that impression (at least I didn't). I like when I read the stories in the first person, and I think it was very useful for us to learn about Poirot in Christie's first novels: if we see the way Poirot is from the eyes of a commonly-intelligent man (as it has already been said here before, his explanations throughout the novels weren't illogical, only wrong, so we can't consider Hastings "stupid"), we admire Poirot even more than we would if we read the books in 3rd person. Eventually, we reach a point where we already know very well how Poirot is and how extremelly intelligent he is, and we no longer need to read books narrated in the 1st person, by "the eyes of a commonly-intelligent man".

I like that Hastings doesn't appear in every single one of Poirot's novels, but I think that he's not as annoying as so much people see him. And as I prefer the Hastings in the series, I actually like that he appears in (almost) every episode.

Tommy_A_Jones 04 Apr 11 at 5:01 p.m. GMT

Yes Anita, I like Hastings in Styles too but there again I like Hastings in all the books he is in and have sometimes felt he could have been put easilyy in others and it would have made them more enjoyable but those books were in reality alright as they were.

Anita_Clue 17 Jan 11 at 6:59 p.m. GMT

Personally, I like Hastings.  In Styles, he acquaints the readers to Poirot and all of his little eccentic ways. 

GKCfan 14 Jan 11 at 7:16 a.m. GMT

Hastings is briefly mentioned about once every second or third Poirot novel after Dumb Witness, most in reference to the fact that Poirot misses him as well as the help he'd provide on a case.  The most notable things we learn are that the two are still in touch, and that Hastings was at one point in danger due to one of the many revolutions in Argentina.

Lone_Wolf 13 Jan 11 at 9 a.m. GMT

Well, he was back for the finale in Curtain. 

Bunch_Marple 13 Jan 11 at 5:26 a.m. GMT

Hastings is really our substitute in the early stories, and an interesting way to narrate. He was, Im afraid to say rather dense in some respects, especially in some of the adaptations!

Still he must have been excellent in the army, Im not sure we hear much more about him after his exit in Dumb Witness, am I wrong?

bugsbugs 13 Jan 11 at 4:44 a.m. GMT

Without Hastings, Poirot's ego would have suffered greatly. It was Hastings who showed us how great the detective was. Without him, I rather think that Poirot would not have got off the ground, so to speak

bugsbugs 13 Jan 11 at 3:51 a.m. GMT

Am I wrong, or was the Doctor arrested as a german spy later called as a witness concerning the workings of strychnine towards the end of the book? He certainly hadn't been set free.

murder_in_candlelight 01 Sep 10 at 6:09 p.m. GMT

I was first introduced to Agatha Christie through watching Miss Marple Mysteries and I was immediately hooked; I just couldn't imagine it could get any better than that. Then I met Poirot and i had to admit that i liked him just as much as Miss Marple.

The Mysrerious Affair at Styles was the first AC book I read and hope to read all of them. To say the truth I think Hastings seemed to act and react very naturally throughout the novel,-except when he proposed to Cynthia, what was that about, anyway? She seemed so strange that I thought she was the murderer- which did get very confusing by the way, and  it was very humorous to see him pity Poirot, I mean the thought... Still I can understand why he became so hopelessly frustrated, I would have been a lot worse than him. The ending was very satisfying all around, except it left Hastings feeling like he wished he had a happy ending of his own.

Pongo 30 Aug 10 at 1:20 a.m. GMT

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW

This book is not one of my favorites; in fact, I find it a dull read.  Apart from

I find the clueing to be oftentimes contrived and forced, though I admit to liking it always when Dame Agatha relies on her almost esoteric knowledge of poisons.  Here, the bromide bit was really clever. 

However, I always am struck by just how unimpressed I am with the solution.  I admit that, on paper, the identity of the killer and his master plan was very ingenious.  But, all in all, the caliber of the story felt more like it would have worked better as a short story or novella rather than a full-blown novel. 

Pongo 30 Aug 10 at 1:09 a.m. GMT

I am also in the pro-Hastings camp.  In fact, he is one of the few things I liked about this book.  

1. Hastings is earnest in everything that he does.  Whether it be falling in love, or being eager to commence a career as a detective, he never says or does anything without truly believing in it.

2. Hastings is a gentleman.  He would never betray a friend and would always remain loyal, and he would always defend the honor of a lady, even if his feelings are, in the end, misplaced. 

3. Hastings is obviously not brilliant, but he is not necessarily stupid either.  He is able to come up with some plausible and not illogical theories on this case (he just happens to be totally wrong!). 

4. Hastings is a way to keep Poirot more mysterious as a character.  We look at Poirot's actions through Hastings eyes, so we never know until the denouement what Poirot is really thinking.  This provides a nice element of suspense. 

MissQuin 28 Aug 10 at 9:35 a.m. GMT

I have to defend Hastings too! I love him in the books and the series.

HeiseiHolmes

Oh, I can't STAND Hastings! He just is there to ogle the ladies and doubt their criminality (Is that a word?) until I feel like crying.

I say Heisei! I don't think ogle is really the right word. It suggests a kind of lecherous glance!

Hastings is the perfect English gentleman. He's not stupid, he just see's things differently. He's so charming and trusting. There's only one books I didn't enjoy as much with Hastings and that was The Big Four. That wasn't because of Hastings, it's just that it was very unpoirotish.

Mr_Graves 28 Aug 10 at 3:54 a.m. GMT

I thought, considering this was AC's very first detective novel, it was rather good. Not quite as original or quirky as some of her other greats, but a good start. We have, after all, the baffling clues, the memorable characters, the great Hercule Poirot, and of course the surprise ending. While it was a bit stuffy in places, it set the bar very high for the rest of her work to come.

As for the apparent hate campaigns against poor Captain Hastings, I am shocked! Maybe it's because he was portrayed as so likable by Hugh Fraser in the television series, which started me off on my Agatha Christie obsession, but I find him so sweet and simple, with such an honest nature. I defend him fiercely!

anonymoose_au 05 Jun 10 at 9:04 a.m. GMT

I've been reading Agatha Christie books in order since the beginning of this year (prior to that I'd read The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and a few Miss Marples) and I've enjoyed all of them, but I've liked Styles the best.

I've read Agatha's autobiography as well where she mentions that she had trouble with the characters in the story (other than Poirot and Hastings who she came up with right away), but I thought they were all compelling. Plus I love the twist at the end! Nasty piece of work that Evelyn Howard.

Plus Hastings just amused me no end, alternatively swooning over either Cynthia or Mary Cavendish. When you consider that apparently the Cavendishes themselves are going to end up reading the book you have to wonder what they'll make of that!

Not to mention the revelation that Poirot decided to let John Cavendish go on trial so he (John) and Mary would get back together! I would have killed the guy!

But yes I found it an enjoyable read all around especially Poirot who all but jumped off the page.

Lone_Wolf 19 Mar 10 at 4:45 a.m. GMT

"Still, "Styles" is not a very good book in itself, but it's the start of Poirot, which inflates its reputation".

Oddly enough, "Styles" reminds me of AC's less involved later narratives.

HeiseiHolmes 11 Mar 10 at 3:18 p.m. GMT

Oh, I can't STAND Hastings! He just is there to ogle the ladies and doubt their criminality (Is that a word?) until I feel like crying.

Lone_Wolf 11 Mar 10 at 2:29 p.m. GMT

Quite a lot of people see Hastings' mannerisms as cute and humorous in a good way. I believe that on IMDB movie boards there was a person who constantly and loudy complained about the fact that in recent Poirot films they've stopped adding Hastings where he doesn't belong ("Bring back Hastings!!!!").

I'm not a total hater of Hastings in the books (I liked his presence in ABC murders, and this is one of my favourites), but I definitely think that it's a good thing that AC wasn't a fan of him herself and didn't write every Poirot novel with him in it!

ampman 11 Mar 10 at 2:18 p.m. GMT

I found that out Lone Wolf when I started reading the books but I first came to know Poirot from the TV series which had Hastings in practically every episode even if he wasn't in the book. But why ?

Lone_Wolf 10 Mar 10 at 12:22 p.m. GMT

ampman

One of the reasons that I prefer Miss Marple is that she doesn't need some gormless sidekick.

Well, Poirot does perfectly fine without Hastings in most of his stories, too.