"‘George,’ he called, ‘please take my heavy tweed suit and my dinner jacket and trousers to the cleaners. I must have them back by Friday, as I am going to the Country for the Weekend.’ He made it sound like the Steppes of Central Asia and for a lifetime."Tweed? No, I cannot....no to Poirot in tweeds.I am all in favour of fan fiction, especially when it is done well. Unfortunately, Black Coffee fell flat on so many counts.What is, in my opinion, even worse is that the book was authorised, even commissioned, by Christie's estate. Subsequently it was published as part of the official Agatha Christie catalogue. This is just plain wrong. Christie did write the play Black Coffee in 1929 to experiment with play-writing herself after stage adaptations of her previous books failed to impress her. However, I guess she must have had her reasons for not developing this particular story into a full novel - although many, many elements in the story do appear in later stories.Or maybe Charles Osborne would just regurgitate the tricks and techniques of Dame Agatha's better known works to cover his lack of imagination? After all, he did write the book some 20 years after Christie's death.My dismay at Agatha Christie Ltd and the publishers for allowing this book to be published as part of the official series is not, however, solely because it is so obvious that it was a financial decision to milk the franchise.I'm disliking that this book should be the best available work of fan fiction and should be worthy of publication - especially when readers may pick this up and actually think it was written by Christie. The obvious lack in sincerity in Osborne's portrayal of the characters is downright upsetting. So, not only does he make Poirot wear tweeds, but he also turns him into something that he is not. For all of Poirot's eccentricities, the Poirot Christie had created may have had high standards but he has always had some empathy with other people."An inveterate snob, he was already predisposed in Sir Claud’s favour by virtue of his title. If he were to be found in Who’s Who, a volume in which the details of Poirot’s own career could also be discovered, then perhaps this Sir Claud was someone with a valid claim on his, Hercule Poirot’s, time and attention." No. Just, no.
First off, I would just like to say that this novel is a little bit different from Christie's other novels. It was written as a play and then Charles Osborne made it into a novel so there were some differences.I was getting the play vibe from this novel. The setting was pretty much in one room in the house so as I was reading "Black Coffee", I was picturing a stage with the room and where all of the characters would come off and on. Because Osborne adapted this as a novel, his interpretations of the characters come through more then Christie's. Poirot was a little less snobbish in this novel (with his ego turned down about 10 notches too) and I can't remember Japp being that talkative. To me it seems like he prattled on and on. Hastings didn't really have the Watson vibe, either. Hastings never really looked completely stupid in this novel, but he didn't really look smart either. In fact, I found that having Hastings in this novel/play wasn't necessary because he didn't do anything. I can see Poirot fitting into this novel, but not Hastings. The ending really lack-lustre. I had this "that was it" moment after it all. I mean, I wanted this twisty ending and I didn't really get it. In fact, knowing the ending and now looking back on the novel, I'm kind of mad. I read that book wanting something more then what was provided for me. Although, I must admit it; there was a Scooby Doo moment at the end. I was waiting for the line "I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids"!All in all, I did enjoy "Black Coffee". I am still made about the ending, though. The thing about this novel is that you can't expect Christie's writing. Even though she contributed to the novel and had the storyline going, it was a play. That means that it was really Osborne's job to fill in the spaces between. This means that you really get his interpretation of Christie's characters and what he thinks is important in the details. While he didn't give her character the complete justice they deserve, he didn't do a bad job.
Do You like book Black Coffee (1999)?
“The first Poirot novel in twenty years” says the blurb. Except it isn’t twenty years, since Christie’s contribution was done in 1930; and it isn’t a novel, it’s a novelisation. And it’s a novelisation done by someone without the courage (and perhaps the talent) to make changes to the play. When Christie turned The Hollow into a play she kicked Poirot out of it altogether because it made a better play. I’m not suggesting that Osborne should have removed Poirot, but he should have managed somehow to tweak things so as not to give away the solution before page 60. But he felt that stage directions needed to go unchanged into the book. So something we might well have been distracted from on stage by the movements and dialogue of other characters has now been put in in plain sentences: “Look At This: This Is The Clue.” I might have given the play four or five stars, but this book rates only two.
—John Carter
Don't get me wrong, I love Agatha Christie novels. I enjoy Hercule Poirot books especially.THIS BOOK WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A NOVEL.It was written as a play, and reads more like a play than a classical Christie novel. The dialogue is lacking and description is less rich- obviously the actors are supposed to bring life to the emotions rather than having a clear picture in our minds as most of Agatha Christie's novels inspire one to imagine. This book was published after Christie's death with an editor driving the process and adapting from play to book.I think it is obvious that this was not intended to be a novel, and was disappointed in the purchase.
—Kelsey
Ehm. Okay. First things first: skip the first chapter. This is a novelization of Christie's play, and the first chapter is the only thing that is completely the novelization's author's creation. And boy, does it show! It doesn't match Christie's writing at all. Poirot says something as thoroughly British as: "I do beg your pardon, my dear George." It also refers to Poirot as a snob who is predisposed to like people who have lofty titles, when he always approaches people as people first, treating maids with respect etc. After one has skipped the first chapter, the play itself starts. The dialogue now starts to sound more like Christie. The author basically just writes the stage directions into novel format, which is painfully obvious when he just tells us who the murderer is by spelling out his actions. Actions, which on a stage might go unnoticed. I would've much rather just read Christie's original screenplay, if we're going to be told the murderer either way. My favorite blunder of all was when the author clearly described the TV Inspector Japp, not the book one. I mean, ouch. That's a painful mistake!Added the second star for touches of real Christie. Might still reconsider and remove it. (Also, at the back of the book this claims to be book number 7. I'm reading the Poirot books in order, so this was relevant information for me. However, this book references Lord Edgware Dies, which is book number 9.)
—Maija
