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

25 replies

Reverse order

wildechilde76 20 Nov 09 at 12:52 p.m. GMT

Black shows up white, and so Hastings shows up Poirot, n'est-ce pas?  Without Hastings' endearing naivete, we would not appreciate the dazzling genius of Poirot.  If not for this rather gullible partner-in-crime, we would probably have to read through copious, mind-numbing paragraphs of passport-type descriptions and stereotypical characterisation, which Christie avoids beautifully.  Instead, everything Poirot is and thinks comes through with ease in his conversations with Hastings.  The asides and insights he shares with his companion divulge his humanity and subtlety of character, and aren't near as patronising as they would be if Poirot was possessed of a mean spirit.  Instead, like a man who is conscious of his superior intellect, without undue pride or rudeness, Poirot treats his friend gently, humorously.  If anything it is Hastings who is often shown to bear grudges and repeatedly doubts Poirot's little grey cells (oh, ye of little faith).  After all, how many times must a man prove he trully is the greatest detective in the world?!

And yet it is this trait, perhaps, that differentiates the partnership most strongly from that of Holmes and Watson.  For where Watson is an obedient, admiring servant, Hastings is given a more independent constitution, which allows Christie to disclose and conceal, clarify and baffle at leisure.  In this, Hastings becomes a representative of the common man, who rarely follows blindly where he is led, but instead deliberates, hesitates, doubts and falls prey to human weakness (ah, those auburn locks).  Indeed, in this respect Hastings faithfully mirrors us, the readers, who, if dropped between the pages of a book, would surely behave in the same fashion.  That is, of course, unless we had the mind of Poirot!

madhusudancs 08 Mar 10 at 9:25 p.m. GMT

This is the first and the only Agatha Christie novel I have read, but I have made up my mind to read at least a bunch of them and have bought another already. From my point of view it is a bit unfair how Hastings is projected by Christie here. Although as suggested above it was required to represent us the ordinary readers, except those genius' who are Poirot's as said above.

Also Hastings does help Poirot in many places too with Poirot requesting him to help and without him requesting too, especially wrt to making sure the last link is not lost :P

monkeyjess1999 08 Mar 10 at 9:39 p.m. GMT

i think this book is great because the murderer was suspected then cleared but he was still the murderer the murderers were eveyln and the husband

Lone_Wolf 09 Mar 10 at 4:15 a.m. GMT

"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?"

Well, most of AC's best Poirot books (and most of all Poirot books - he appears in 8 of 33 Poirot novels) were quite great without Hastings, with the narration being done in third person. AC herself was no fan of Hastings anyway.

And Hastings himself is a bit of a flanderized (see TvTropes) Watson, so there's certainly some truth in the accusation. 

(Talking about sidekicks, even though the only book with Mrs. Oliver I like is the only book with her in which Poirot doesn't appear (Pale Horse), she makes for a far more original sidekick per se).

I don't really share the infatuation some people have with Hastings, with all that wanting him to appear in every Poirot book and movie. He's an annoyingly naive and sappy character - OK in small doses, but unbearable in large ones.

That's one of the reasons I dislike Curtain - with Poirot being paralyzed, the focus is entirely on Hastings, who acts even more melodramatic and stupid then he usually is.

Still, there are books where I do think his presence enriched the story - namely, ABC Murders and Peril at End House.

go_leafs_nation 09 Mar 10 at 1:12 p.m. GMT

Hastings is no worse a creation than others at the time. Copying the Holmes/Watson relationship was really quite common, since Conan Doyle's stories enjoyed such popular success. Thus, Poirot had his Hastings, Dr. Fell had his Tad Rampole, and so forth.

I enjoy Hastings, but I quite agree- he is not needed in every single adaptation. His presence, in fact, has ruined episodes in the past (Exhibit A: Dumb Witness), with forced attempts at humour throughout.

But his comraderie with Poirot is fascinating. Note how the detective referse to him often even when he's not there, with phrases such as "If only mon cher Hastings was here!"

Still, Styles is not a very good book in itself, but it's the start of Poirot, which inflates its reputation. AC had not yet fully developed, and focused on the puzzle elements, while cardboard characters populated the novel, making it a rather dull read- I didn't really care much whether X was found innocent or not. The puzzle is technically brilliant, however, and the twist was a good one. Styles is rather like Star Wars in a way: the original film is nothing particularly amazing, but its popularity led to the incredible second film.

ampman 10 Mar 10 at 7:42 a.m. GMT

In my humble opinion Hastings is a drip and I don't know why Poirot bothered with him. He is just a caricature of an Englishman.

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

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.

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 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!

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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

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?