Well I now have a Hercule Poirot book I liked less than The Big Four and Mystery of the Blue Train. The beginning of the book was actually very good. Agatha Christie sets the stage by allowing readers into the home of Emily Arundell. Miss Arundell has never married. She has three relations left in the world, two nieces (Theresa and Bella), and one nephew (Charles). Though Emily is fond of her family (in her way) she has no intention of helping any of them out when their finances are in dire straits.Her family comes to visit, and while there, Miss Arundell has a fall down the stairs. Everyone believes it was Miss Emily's dog's ball that tripped her up. This is after her nephew also had almost fallen down the stairs because of it.The incident leaves Miss Arundell disturbed. She writes to Poirot asking for his assistance. Unfortunately the letter is not delivered to Poirot for some months, and in the meantime Miss Emily has died. Many believe she finally passed away from a chronic liver condition. Poirot investigates with the usual Hastings assist. There are some interesting red herrings in the case. However, right away for once I actually figured out who dun it. I think it was because I was pretty much disgusted throughout this entire book.The usual unflappable Hastings acted like an ass throughout this book. He was at turn, rude and hostile towards Poirot, and rude and hostile to women like Miss Arundell's former companion, merely because he didn't care for her. I know that Hastings is supposed to be the audience's stand-in. However, even he was too stupid for words throughout this entire book.Poirot is not his usual brilliant self. One reason why I adore him and Miss Marple is because they see what other people do not. Or in Miss Marple's case. She knows of someone somewhere who did a similar thing and this causes her eyes to be open by how other human beings will sometimes act. Poirot did not seem to catch onto things as quickly as before. One key piece of evidence I completely figured out before Poirot and Hastings figured it out.I can say that I honestly did not figure out a second incident, but I would argue that since I don't have sufficient medical knowledge, there was no way for me to puzzle that one through.The other characters I would say are well drawn. I was more interested in them then in the nasty back and forth between Hastings and Poirot. However, including the character of the dog (his name is Bob) and his "comments" was just ridiculous. It took me out of the story each and every time. Frankly I am still wondering who the "Dumb Witness" in this book is referring to. The dog didn't see anything. I will say that I know that Ms. Christie was born and raised in a different time and place. However, the constant put downs towards people who are not British (one woman married a Greek man--the shame) and the nasty little saying about black people, I was well and fully sick of this book before I got to the end. The flow was all over the place too. I think it was the constant back and forth of the interviews between people. I don't want to call this book filler, but a good 1/3 of it could have been cut and it would not have suffered. The setting of Little Green House was very well done. However, I wish that Poirot and Hastings had spent more time there. If anything, they just seemed to go around and interview people. The ending made me roll my eyes. I think readers are supposed to feel satisfied with the ending. I for one was not. Maybe because I like to see justice done. Poirot's idea of justice frequently does not mesh with mine. Maybe this is why I was always such a Miss Marple fan. No matter what, she was about making sure that justice was done for those that were murdered.
Bu yorumu Kitap Esintisi adresinde bulabilirsiniz. Kitabı bitirmeye yakın, yani Poirot insanları etrafına toplayıp neler olduğunu anlatırken "yuh, bunu nasıl düşünemedim" dedim. Aslında bütün herkesi tek tek katil olarak ele aldım ama asıl katilin yaptığı o büyük oyunu hiç anlayamadım. Her zaman Agatha kitaplarından sonra acaba ben mi dikkatsiz okudum, yoksa okurken bunun anlaşılması mümkün değil miydi diye düşünürüm. Sanki okurken o ipuçlarını yakalamam gerektiğini hissederim. Bunda da yakaladığım birkaç şey oldu, mesela bu cinayetin Theresa ya da Charles üzerine yıkılmaya çalıştığını anladım ve bundan sonra ikisinin de öldürmediğinden emin oldum. Eğer bir Agatha romanı okumadıysanız size hemen bir ipucu vereyim: Asla olmasını düşündüğünüz, barizce belli olan insanlar katil çıkmaz.Ama şu tip insanlar genelde çıkar: Aslında katil olmayacağını düşünürsünüz, yine de aslında olabilir gibi gelir bu kişiler, zaten Agatha kitaplarında herkesten şüphelenirsiniz çünkü kurgu bunu gerektirir. Katil genelde yapmayacak gibi görünüp, müthiş rol yapan birileri çıkar. "Hadi be" diye bir tepkiyle de katili öğrenirsiniz.Bu kitapta da açıkçası katilin yardımcısı olduğundan şüphelendim ama sadece az önce yazdıklarım yüzünden. Çünkü ileri derecede aptal bir karakterdi ve bana sanki bu kadında bir bit yeniği varmış gibi gelmişti. Aslında varmış da, bunu doğru tahmin ettim ama katil o değildi.Burada katili söylemeyeceğim, olur da bir gün okursanız ve de yanlışlıkla katile gözünüz kaysa kitaptan hiçbir zevk alamazsınız. Çünkü bu kitapların en güzel yönü katilin kim olabileceğini defalarca düşünmek, tercihinizi değiştirmek ve sonucu görünce şok olmak. O kadar kitabını okudum - tam sayı vermek gerekirse bununla 42 - hala sonunda şaşırmadığım bir Agatha romanı olmadı. Katili tahmin ettiklerim de oldu ama nedeni bulmak çok daha zor, bulduğunuzu zannetseniz bile onun olma olasılığı çok düşüktür.Bu yorumdan anlaşılacağı gibi ben Agatha'ya her zaman bayılmışımdır. O kadar romanı içinde beni sıkan sadece tek bir romanı vardır, onda da cinayet ve de Hercule Poirot yoktu hatırlarım. Anlaşıldığı gibi Hercule Poirot favori dedektifimdir, Sherlock yanına yaklaşamaz. Yaşlı nine Miss Marple bile beni daha çok çeker, sanırım ilk göz ağrılarım oldukları için.Ama yardımcılara bakarsak Arthur Hastings kesinlikle bir Dr. Watson değil. Onun biraz saf olduğunu hatırlıyordum da bu kadar saf ve de aptal olduğunu bilmiyormuşum sanırım. Kitabın çoğu yerinde "amma da aptalsın hastings" demekten kendimi alamadım. Kitabı bir kelime ile özetleyecek olursam: Alın okuyun. Tanışmadıysanız da geç kalmayın.
I feel like I've reviewed so many Agatha Christie books by now that I'm starting to sound like a broken record. There are only so many different ways I can say brilliant and well worth reading. Even her weaker books, which this is not one of, deserves to be read by even the most picky reader. I have yet to read one of her books, even The Big Four or Murder on the Links, that doesn't rise above most of the cozy mysteries being churned out today. So I hope you get the point, that I enjoyed this one as well.The one item I did want to mention is the way the book ends. I'm going to have to spoil the ending, or at least what happens to one particular person, so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading now. At first I thought this was a trend I was mainly seeing from male authors, but upon further reading, I've came to realize it's more about the sex of the detective in the book. In an alarming amount of books, when the killer is a female, instead of apprehending her, the male detective lets her know that he knows it's her, and then allows her to eliminate herself. So many of these female killers are allowed to kill themselves at the end of the book, as opposed to facing charges and possible hanging. This isn't even the first time Hercule Poirot has allowed a woman to take herself out in this manner.I'm not even sure how I feel about the whole thing. I'm not sure what it is about the times, that authors were okay with the idea of allowing a woman to kill herself, rather than face justice. I'm not sure if it's the way society looked at woman during those years, or if it's something else. Did they just assume that women weren't strong enough to face the consequences of their actions, or was it more about not wanting to shame her publicly. Most of the cases I've seen, when the woman does kill herself, it keeps the truth of the crimes from getting out to the public.I'm not sure it's a plot device that would be either used or sit well with most audiences anymore. It feels sexist to me, a little degrading to women. I could be completely off base. I could be the only one who feels this way. Or I could simply be rambling right now, and nobody who reads this will have a clue of what I'm talking about.
—Ryan G
Dumb Witness – Agatha Christie Also published as Poirot Loses a Client and as Silent Witness,Audio version performed by Hugh Fraser 4 starsPoirot receives a letter from a distressed, elderly lady. She has reason to be afraid for her life. Unfortunately, she had forgotten to mail the letter. When Poirot seeks to investigate, he finds that the lady has been dead for some time. Although it appears to have been a natural death, Poirot is not convinced. Every member of the victim’s family is a potential suspect. I thought I had this one figured out. I was sure I knew the name of the murderer, but I must not have sufficient little gray cells. Agatha Christie stumped me again. There were a great many unlikable, unpleasant characters in this book. I didn’t find myself caring about any of them. The best part of the story was the dog, Bob. Bob has a major role and even some dialog as Christie wrote a verbal interpretation of his barks. Captain Hastings was able to be truly useful as a ball throwing playmate for the dog.
—Jgrace
Diverting and enjoyable. This was probably the most straightforward of the Christie books I've read, and it worked very nicely for most of the way through. And the solution wasn't ridiculously stupid, like with Murder on the Orient Express, or And Then There Were None. Basically, the setup is that a woman has an accident where she falls down the stairs. She suspects the accident was more than an accident and does what anyone would do under the circumstances: she disinherits her whole family and writes a long, incoherent letter to Herule Poirot. Unfortunately, the letter is delayed by almost two months, and by that time, the woman has died, apparently of natural causes.As with all her mysteries, the range of suspects is well defined. Here they are about equally despicable, with varying degrees of charm, and they all have a good motive, and the same motive, for wanting to kill the woman. Christie did a pretty good job at manipulating my suspicions throughout, so that I can safely say that, no matter how the book had come out, I would probably have guessed that solution at one point or another. And that's not a bad thing. Then, at one point, she gives away the ending, and I didn't believe it, because I didn't trust her to be that straightforward, and I tried to add complexity to what was actually pretty simple.Then, at the very end, she blows it. Poirot explains the solution because the attempted murder at the start of the book was done in a "womanly" way. I don't object to the sexism per se, though it is pretty bad. Rather, its the terrible psychology. I just refuse to believe that there's a woman's way of committing a murder and a man's way. And I find it impossible to believe that an experienced detective, who prides himself on his sheer intellect, would rely on such a facile and likely false distinction. Otherwise, I rather enjoyed this book.
—Duffy Pratt
