Have Your Say

Discuss Poirot

Talk about everything Poirot related!

Three Act Tragedy

(Contains spoilers!)

TheMole 17 Aug 09 at 7:35 p.m. GMT

This contains spoiler information. Show

I just finished reading this and it was one of the fastest I have ever read an AC book.

Overall I would give the book an 8 out of 10. I found that it had a gripping storyline, and very interesting characters (except the boring Mr. Sattherwaite ) .

In another thread called 'How to Read Detective Stories', I expressed who I believed the culprit was, and I chose Sir Charles Cartwright, and I guessed correctly. While some of my theories about why he did it and how were way off the mark, I was correct in 4 aspects 1. Sir Charles was pretending to Mr. Sattherwaite that he was in love w/ Miss Gore 2. That he deliberately went to Monte Carlo ( where Mr. Sattherwaite was at the time) to  throw suspicion off of himself. 3. That he had Oliver Manders fake that accident near his "friend's" Tollie estate. 4. (Though I wavered w/ this one) that for some reason he was trying to get back at someone else for an injustice done to him.

I did think, however, that Sir Charles secretary, Miss Millary, was the butler at Tollie's party (instead of Sir Charles as the butler). I can admit all my other blunders, but I think that AC kind of made it seem as if Miss Millary was the butler because in the beginning of the book she said that SC regarded her as looking like a man, and it kind of seemed like Tollie's maid, Doris, regarded the butler, Eliss, as very efficient and respectable, which is the same way as Miss Millary was described. I'm pretty sure this wasn't a red herring because Poirot never brought it up during the reveal. So it was a tad deceptive....

But I think I know why it is not a general favorite, the idea of Sir Charles being an egocentric lunatic was a little odd because in many cases AC revealed his inner thoughts and he didn't seem queer. Although it was clear that he had an ego it didn't seem like it was so bad that he would be considered unhinged.  I mean, if there had been an instance in the book where he perhaps had a nervous twitch when someone didn't notice him then it would be more justifiable.

However -- if you think about it --while there were really no psychological issues that would be considered as clues to his insanity -- there were regular clues: like the fact that Sir Charles revealed that he had had a "tad" nervous breakdown, and the fact that Dr. Bartholomew's (Tollie) specialty was in nervous conditions were clues, and  that Mr. Dacres talked to Miss Gore about just taking someone away to a 'loony bin' w/o their consent. 

What I'd like to know is, who guessed correctly, or if not who did you guess and why, and overall what did you think of the book?

Login or register to add posts and reply

9 replies

Reverse order

GKCfan 18 Aug 09 at 2:42 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

The motive for murder was changed in the US edition- why, I don't know.  In the original British version, Sir Charles is perfectly sane, but his is MARRIED to an insane wife, who currently resides in an asylum.  Under British law, he can't divorce her, but he wants to marry Egg.  I don't know why he doesn't just kill his wife, but instead he kills his friend the Doctor (the only person who knows about the first wife) and two innocent people.  It would've made more sense if Mrs. de Rushbringer turned out to be his wife, but she isn't.  

Frndorfoe 18 Aug 09 at 7:49 a.m. GMT

Oh my goodness! I was totally mystified reading your post Mole! What on earth are you talking about, I thought! Then I read GKCfan's reply and I finally was enlightened. I read the British edition and you have read the US one. Why was the motive for murder changed in the US edition? I don't get it. In fact if one changes that the whole story changes, every action and the motivations behind them changes.

TheMole 18 Aug 09 at 1:23 p.m. GMT

GKCfan

The motive for murder was changed in the US edition- why, I don't know.  In the original British version, Sir Charles is perfectly sane, but his is MARRIED to an insane wife, who currently resides in an asylum.  Under British law, he can't divorce her, but he wants to marry Egg.  I don't know why he doesn't just kill his wife, but instead he kills his friend the Doctor (the only person who knows about the first wife) and two innocent people.  It would've made more sense if Mrs. de Rushbringer turned out to be his wife, but she isn't.

That is very strange indeed. The fact that Sir Charles doesn't just bump off his wife, I mean what on earth was he expecting to do after he killed the rector and the Doctor? Get her out of the asylum?! I think I like the US version better, it makes a lot more sense. If I had read the original one my rating would probably have to be a 6 out of 10.

But I wonder if everyone else on here knows about the two different motives? Because I didn't. And are there any other books that have been changed from the original ending??

Now I'm thinking that I should read the British edition too, or is it NOT that dramatically different from the first one (besides the ending, of course), GKC and Frndorfoe?

GKCfan 18 Aug 09 at 3:58 p.m. GMT

I haven't read the British version, I learned about the two different motives on this website about two years ago, but I gather that only the conclusion and a few pertinent clues were changed.   

A bigger transatlantic alteration is The Moving Finger, where the US version is substantially abridged from the original UK edition.

AndThenThereWereToon 18 Aug 09 at 10:04 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I guessed the murderer in TAT from the dramatis personae page right at the front, where Christie says the crime's been "directed by"...  How strange, I thought, she's telling me whodunnit before I've even started reading it.  Couldn't take the book seriously after that.

Guessed at once that the vanishing butler was Sir Charles.  What I didn't guess was the motive, but I usually can't work that out.

TheMole 19 Aug 09 at 2:07 p.m. GMT

So for the McEwan adapt of The Movinh Finger, was the British plot used or the US plot? (And thanks for answering all my questions, GKC)

Thinking about it more I change my rating from a 8/10 to a 7/10.

GKCfan 19 Aug 09 at 5:11 p.m. GMT

You're welcome!  I don't know, since I don't know if America got the full version of the story by the time I first read the book in the mid-1990's (Robert Barnard claimed the U.S. still hadn't gotten the full story as of the mid-1980's), or if the U.S. is still shortchanged.  To the best of my knowledge and belief, the basic plot was the same for both the US and UK versions, with a few dropped subplots and scenes that added to character development and motivation.  The McEwan adaptation stayed fairly close to the original novel, although the suicide of the military man at the very beginning (as well as the military man's secret) were the invention of the screenwriter, I believe, and not in the original book.

Bundle_ 20 Sep 09 at 12:35 a.m. GMT

I found the cast list so far, on wikipedia, for the Three Act Tragedy adapt :

David Suchet as, of course, Poirot :0)

Martin Shaw as Sir Charles Cartwright

Art Malik as Sir Bartholomew Strange

Kimberly Nixon as Egg Lynton Gore

Tom Wisdom as Oliver Manders

Ashley Pearce - director ( has also done Appointment with Death and Mrs. McGinty's Dead)

I had to look up most of these actors and I have to say for the most part I am pretty pleased w/ the cast. This is a good example of the physical appearances of AC's characters staying in tact.

Tommy_A_Jones 20 Sep 09 at 2:44 p.m. GMT

When you were reading Three-Act Tragedy did you keep thinking of Columbo? perhaps It is because I knew who the Murderer was btw I feel I have said it before perhaps i meant to post it but didn't but it is a shame PU isn't still alive, I think he would be great as Charles Cartwright