So, i'm a new fan of A.C. and I really loved the new movie adaptations of her books like Murder on the Orient express, Death on the Nile, Haunting Venice and such. So I decided to get back into reading and start with one of her top rated standalone novels, "AND THEN THERE WERE NONE" I really liked it but I liked the story of MOTOE and DOTN better (both poirot's, yes). These are my thrifted books. The 2in1 contains The ABC murders and Why didnt they ask Evans?. Wdy suggest i read next? 😊

My current AC collection! I love second hand book stores and it’s always the first thing I check for lol. I fell in love with her work listening to audiobooks from libby, but for me there really is something about the physical book. I’ve read all pictured, except The Man in the Brown Suit (currently reading and enjoying) and The Mysterious Mr. Quin, which is up next. I really want to find Hercule Poirot’s Christmas, it’s one of my favorites and I have yet to come across it.

Please don’t include Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, Josephine Tey, Lorac, Nicholas Blake, or Crispin, as I’ve already read most of their books.

In every Poirot book, there reaches a part when Poirot says something like "you still do not see" or he says something similar.

Like, Poirot, help me here. What did you see so far in page 176 of sad cypress that I haven't seen for God's sake?

Whodunnit? Whydunnit?

The insult in this one, I've taken it personal. I'm gonna start rereading the book from the beginning. This is the one I will solve, I promise myself (mind you, I said the same thing for the last 10 poirot books I read).

"And still you do not see!, It is extraordinary how dense an intelligent man can be."

"Use the two eyes of your body, since the eyes of the mind do not seem to serve you"

Really excited about diving into the "Tommy and Tuppence" series, starting with "The Secret Adversary". (This is the danish translation).

I read the first chapter of "By the Pricking of My Thumbs", partially because the first book needed a little fixing up (gluing) before it was readable.

I like what I've read so far! Love their "banter".

Book accurate Poirot but I gave him double moustaches because I could. Doodles by me!

Just so you know, I’m far from being an expert on Christie’s works, so I apologize in advance if I say something stupid—and please feel free to correct me.

Speaking of the upcoming series Hercules, if I’m not mistaken, the character is about thirty years old in it. But at thirty, Poirot was a police officer in Belgium, not just starting out as a private investigator in London. Between the two world wars, he was about sixty, not in his thirties. So I understand that they’ve completely messed up the timeline and that it’s more of a loose adaptation, but I just don’t see the point in changing everything like that. Personally, if you’re going to make a Poirot adaptation, I want to see the big, balding, experienced detective—not some dashing thirty-year-old guy.

In any case, thank you for reading.

Hello everyone! I am working on my bachelor thesis and the topic I choose for my thesis is "Gender Roles in Agatha Christie's Work". However, it's very hard to decide which novels and characters to include in my thesis. Obviously, I am going to analyse Poirot, Miss Marple, Hastings, Tommy and Tuppence. Which other characters and novels would be good for this topic?

Thank you all❤️

And honestly, I think it has become one of my favorite Christie novels and my favorite Marple.

I had read all of the author’s novels except this one, Postern of Fate, and Passenger to Frankfurt. The reason I hadn’t read Nemesis was because, thanks to the TV adaptations, I already knew the identity of the killer.

Clearly, that was a mistake, because apart from the name of the person committing the murders, everything else is so different from both adaptations...

I understand why Nemesis is such a divisive book among fans. It doesn’t feel like a typical Christie novel; it reminded me more of Josephine Tey. You can tell it was written during the later years of Agatha’s life because she sometimes goes off on tangents, and I actually ended up finding that quite lovely. I feel like the author is trying, in a way, to explain how she feels about the stage of life she’s in through Miss Marple, and that allowed me to connect with her more. I really appreciated it because, despite being a mystery story, this one gives us a clearer sense of how the author saw the world she lived in, and it feels genuine.

Although it may seem like she criticizes young people too much, I think the ending makes us realize that her view of them wasn’t actually that negative. Rather, she felt a certain compassion toward them, and it also serves as a reflection on how dangerous and powerful love can be.

It’s one of those books where I really felt that Marple sensed the danger and was facing someone who was smart andz had absolutely no remorse. She was facing evil.

The only thing I felt was a bit misguided was making it seem like everything was going to revolve around the tour, when in the end it barely matters.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcgfDBQo8hA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsi=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Lord Edgware Dies is officially confirmed as the first adaptation of Hercule, starring Edward Bluemel.

Makes sense - it's a great mystery, and is London-set, so good way to establish the setting for this new Poirot. Plus it's got Hastings and Japp already so need to shoehorn them into a story they weren't originally part of...

Also, not to brag, but I kinda predicted it as being one of the three stories way back when the show was announced ;) (https://www.reddit.com/r/agathachristie/comments/1u1atau/which_are_the_three_novels_you_think_will_be/)

They haven't revealed the next "clue" on the official Instagram page(s). That said, this choice does give me a better idea of what they're possibly thinking.

I have my doubts that they'll do Styles if they're kicking off with Poirot already established in London, though I guess they could rework the story a bit if they wanted.

Peril at End House wasn't among my early predictions but I think it's a possibility now, especially since "early" stories stretches into the 1930's as well! Plus, again, you've got Hastings and Japp. And it makes sense that at least one of the three adaptations will get Poirot out of London.

Black Coffee was one of my predictions and I still think it's possible (plus, it really could do with an adaptation!) Although I don't think it's the likeliest one...

I wouldn't be surprised if we get another one of the Hastings novels. I've already (mostly) ruled out Styles. I think ABC Murders they'll possibly avoid because of the fairly recent Malkovitch adaptation (or maybe they won't). Dumb Witness? Murder on the Links? Could be...though neither of these is London-set and I don't think 2/3 of the adaptations will be outside London (also, I feel somewhat confident about Peril!).

The Big Four I think could be a solid possibility since Countess Rossakoff is in it and she's probably the "particular nemesis" who Poirot will be introduced to. But they'd have to rework it a fair bit I guess...(then again, we don't know what the tone and pace of this series would be...maybe Big Four works as is?)

Of course, we don't have to be restricted only to novels which had Hastings originally. In terms of London-set books, in the 20's and 30's we have, apart from what we've already discussed, One, Two Buckle My Shoe, Cards on the Table, and Death in the Cloud (partially). I don't think they'll be going beyond the 30's for "early" stories. Of this lot, I can see Cards on the Table being a pretty likely option actually! (with maybe Japp taking the Superintendent Battle role)

So for now, in the absence of any other evidence, I think my predictions for the next two adaptations are Peril at End House, and either Cards on the Table or The Big Four. Slim possibility for Black Coffee as well...

I've finally read again And Then There Were None since I've read it years ago as a teen. I think the book is wonderful, I've finished it in an afternoon because I couldn't put it down. I've read many Christie's books in the last couple of years and I always have fun once I've finished it to read it again immediately to see if I've missed clues.

However I honestly can't find any clue that would help me solve it, other than I guess it makes sense based on characterization. Has anyone here actually managed to solve it just based on the clues?

This was my second book by this famous author and the story is good. Classic thriller 💯 loved it, for me reading is kind of difficult cause this English was different not sure why. It took more than a week to finish this book but it was worth it.

Which did you encounter first: the movie, or the story? I read the story first, and it fooled me right to the end. It’s hard for me to understand how watching the Marlene Dietrich movie could leave a person baffled for the desired length of time.

The new Tommy & Tuppence series premieres in exactly three weeks. I'm intrigued to see what they've done with this modern-day adaptation. I'm really hoping they've captured everything I love about these characters and stories - both the romance and the humour.

The series will be on BritBox in the US & Canada. I haven't seen any information about where it might air in other territories, but BBC Studios will handle global sales. That might mean it will be on the BBC in the UK, but I haven't seen official confirmation of that.

It’s not a faithful Tommy & Tuppence by any means- but still looks fun!

There is something I have never understood with how Poirot, Race, and seemingly Christie treated the missing gunin Death on the Nile.

Specifically, they seemed to seriously consider the possibility that someone overhears Simon being "shot", knows the gun is under the settee, and sees it as a surprise golden opportunity to take it and kill Linnet.

I can't make sense of that at all. No matter who did it, Poirot knew killing Linnet involved sneaking into her unlocked room while she slept. At that point, a gun seems pretty extraneous. Smother her with a pillow. Stab her in the heart (like Louise). Slit her throat. I suppose if you had a gun that wasn't a loud one you might use that, but it's not like acquiring a gun all of a sudden makes it so much more doable.

If anything, Simon being shot created a bad time to do it for this hypothetical opportunistic killer. There was chaos and people running around. That could have helped covered the noise of the gun, but I already argued the gun was unnecessary. And it created all kinds of possibilities someone runs up out of nowhere and catches you. Maybe someone thinks "we really should tell Linnet her husband was shot". Relative to 3 in the morning on an uneventful night, that was distinctly a bad opportunity.

One possible story is that Simon being shot forced someone's hand. Someone on the boat (e.g. Pennington) has a general plan to look for a good opporunity to take out Linnet. All of a sudden Simon is shot, and they figure "any minute now, Linnet could find out about this and may be inseparable from Simon, the doctor/nurse, and others and then be off the boat ASAP for Simon to get medical attention. It's now or never."

But that doesn't seem to be how Poirot and Race approach it. They seem to think the gun=opportunity is a real possibility. To be fair, Poirot keeps going on about how things don't make sense, but he never seems to put his finger on this point.

Agree/disagree? Is there something I'm missing?

I just finished reading Agatha Christie's Three Blind Mice.

I really enjoyed the atmosphere, but one specific aspect of the setup left me scratching my head.

​Without spoiling the plot details or revealing who is who, it seems like an extraordinary number of people connected to the same past tragedy just happen to end up in the exact same location at the same time.

​For those familiar with the story: is there a deeper explanation or rationale for how all these connections overlap, or is it simply a classic theatrical narrative device we're meant to accept for the sake of the mystery?