Agatha Christie Lovers discussion

Originally published in 1923. On a French golf course, a millionaire is found stabbed in the back... An urgent cry for help brings Poirot to France. But he arrives too late to save his client, whose brutally stabbed body now lies face downwards in a shallow grave on a golf course. But why is the dead man wearing his son's overcoat? And who was the impassioned love-letter in the pocket for? Before Poirot can answer these questions, the case is turned upside down by the discovery of a second, identically murdered corpse...

We previously read this book in November of 2010. Here is a link to that thread. https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I like this one, it's great fun. Very fond of Cinderella, would have liked to see her appear again in a poirot story.

Just finished. I liked this one very much.. it’s hard to believe it’s just the 2nd Poirot novel. He’s so fully baked as a character. He’s all there, connecting the dots and working behind the scenes of the showy detective. I thought it was interesting that 100 years before CSI, there was such a focus on forensic evidence. Honestly I thought that was a new thing.

I loved Poirot’s/Christie’s insistence that it’s better to look at human nature for the clues of the crime than to look for carpet fibers. I think that’s true today. This is a solid installment.. not as tightly written as others but the characters are all fun. As always, I’m looking forward to the next one!

This story more than Styles captures Poirot's approach to solving mysteries. He sees what others miss and is able to make connections by understanding people. Whether it is the psychology of criminals or friends, the working through little pieces that don't fit like the pipe, the open door, or the lack of footprints, Poirot truly uses his little grey cells.
Hastings is a stereotype who can be counted on to always be wrong. Even Watson didn't get it wrong as much as Hastings does. Is Watson the original mis-seeing sidekick? I don't remember what happens with Hastings and the girl by the next episode. I remember he goes off to Argentina, but I don't remember when.
I'll find out as I keep reading the Christies in order

I read this one about 3 decades ago but all remember is Mme Renauld fainting and why.
I am enjoying the reread and love Poirot's little pokes at the 'foxhound'.
More seriously Poirot's insistence that human interactions are more important than forensic clues makes you think about our present obsession with CSI-type series and the quantity of people wrongly convicted due to faulty finger-print evidence.

I had never read this one and really enjoyed it. I somehow seem to have missed most of the Hastings Poirot novels, and I'm really entertained by their interactions and Hastings blindness. I also really liked, as some have mentioned above, the contrast between the obsession with clues and understanding human psychology. I wonder, if Christie is even poking a bit of fun at the great Holmes himself - certainly Sherlock uses psychology but his shtick does focus on observing "little clues" and making wild (but unerringly accurate...) deductions based on them. :D

I just finished this one for the first time. I really enjoyed watching Poirot find the clues no one else was interested in. Hasting as usually made my go really like he just doesn't get it. I had seen the PBS version of this book and was interesting to see how the two related but still was surprised in the ending because I didn't remember the ending. I agree that it was nice to see the Poirot was so developed in his second book.

Finished last week and thought it an okay read, though some of the plot twists were really convoluted.

I’ve read this one through a couple of times. I remember liking it following the first read but was less impressed the second time through. Hastings is typical Hastings, and Poirot is on point as usual. However, I found the others characters to not be as well developed. Too many personalities and too many additional storylines cluttered the plot. It was a good book but likely won’t be one of my favorites.

I read this one years ago, and I remember thinking it was very confusing and complex. I thought that not only Christie was determined to confuse me but also Poirot himself. The book is dynamic and thrilling. I didn't like Hastings - I thought he was an idiot - but I liked the rivalry between Poirot and Giraud.
However, I have to say that I couldn't understood how the crime toke place.

Carla wrote: "I read this one years ago, and I remember thinking it was very confusing and complex. I thought that not only Christie was determined to confuse me but also Poirot himself. The book is dynamic and ..."

Hastings is maddening in this book. Normally I don't mind his cluelessness, but he is particularly dense this time around.

Tara wrote: "Carla wrote: "I read this one years ago, and I remember thinking it was very confusing and complex. I thought that not only Christie was determined to confuse me but also Poirot himself. The book i..."

Exactly what I thought! He makes so many mistakes! I got annoyed while readling the book.

Tara wrote: "Carla wrote: "I read this one years ago, and I remember thinking it was very confusing and complex. I thought that not only Christie was determined to confuse me but also Poirot himself. The book i..."

Agreed. Being one of Christie's earliest books this one has that issue as well as others. It's more complicated than it needs to be and there are certain narrative flow issues. Styles was a great book but she had the time from around 1916 to 1919 to revise and improve upon it. She was still finding her way with novels throughout most of the 20's.

I find most of her novels from the 1920s are not quite up to what came out of her from around 1930 onwards.