Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Simppu12 t1_j1qwhcp wrote

I love Poirot novels, but one thing that gets predictable and frustrating after a few of them is that there is rarely an actual way for the reader to guess what happened. Usually Poirot does some incredible deduction off the pages, and then presents his findings to both the suspects and the reader.

51

drosodoc t1_j1rbpiv wrote

I disagree. I think Christie is one mystery author who rarely cheats by withholding clues. It’s all there on the page. It may be subtle and require great deductions, but you can do it. I estimate my own success rate at around 50/50 or slightly higher. The ones I miss I can almost always remember back and kick myself for missing it.

Arthur Conan Doyle, on the other hand, withheld information from basically all of his Sherlock Holmes stories. There’s a reason he titled so many of them “The Adventure of…” You’re supposed to marvel at Holmes, not solve a mystery.

64

_byaugust t1_j1rd7mk wrote

I actually don't recall this ever happening. Can you give some examples of Poirot novels where the clue is withheld? I remember being mind blown at each one when I was younger because it really felt like she had given you everything, would be interesting to go back and take a look.

21

ascagnel____ t1_j1s5er6 wrote

The Murder of Roger Akroyd definitely has this issue.

Of course, it’s somewhat more acceptable in that novel specifically because >!(a) the narrator is the murderer and (b) it’s the only time she plays that particular card.!<

8

Hartastic t1_j1to3xz wrote

I can think of one more (b) in Christie but it's not a Poirot.

2

FifthWill t1_j1toajl wrote

>!She pulled thar card in at least one more story. But I cannot tell you which one here, because that would be a massive spoiler...!< Keep on reading.

2

TuxedoSlave t1_j1rq2rs wrote

Hickory Dickory Dock might have been a bit clearer in its time but to me it totally went off the rails. I don’t know how to mark spoilers but even after the explanation it was still confusing.

2

CrazyCatLady108 t1_j1swctq wrote

Place >! !< around the text you wish to hide. You will need to do this for each new paragraph. Like this:

&gt;!The Wolf ate Grandma!&lt;

Click to reveal spoiler.

>!The Wolf ate Grandma!<

3

TuxedoSlave t1_j1swnw3 wrote

>!All of a sudden there was smuggling involved! Like I guess based on Enid Blyton maybe smuggling was a big thing back then? But to me going from “he was in the back shed and bought a backpack” to “he was part of a large international smuggling ring” was not an obvious jump.!<

1

Simppu12 t1_j1re2ak wrote

It's been a while since I've read them, but Cards on the Table annoyed me the most with it as >!Poirot hires an actor at the end to bait the killer or something!<, but I feel like it happens in most Poirot novels. In Orient Express, for example, there is the part where it's noted that >!a bag wasn't actually covering a lock!<, which is fair enough, but it's hardly enough to deduce who the killer is.

−1

My_Poor_Nerves t1_j1rix8b wrote

I think Poirot's tricks to out the killer were usually moreso to get an admission of guilt in front of an audience than to actually figure out who done it

10

Froakiebloke t1_j1rh478 wrote

One good trick for Christies is that she loves to have simple motives at the end of the day; a husband wants his wife out his way so he can remarry, a simple trick to come into some money. Often a character will be suspicious since they obviously benefit from the crime, but due to the particular mechanics or circumstances it seems like it can’t be them. The core to the solution then ends up being the explanation of how it was physically possible for them to do it.

Another good trick- >!never trust people who apparently hate each other! Christie loves to reveal that a pair of perfect enemies are in fact putting up a front, disguising the fact that they’re co-conspirators!<

12

anonykitten29 t1_j1rw38a wrote

Yes! She went to the perfect-alibi well rather a lot. Only took me like 20 years of reading her to catch the pattern, lol.

4

Below_the_Fold t1_j1r1ta8 wrote

This is what frustrated me the most about those books. No matter how much attention you were paying, you were never able to solve the crime yourself because she always left out vital information.

8

samiam221b t1_j1ra898 wrote

While I also agree they are impossible to solve, Christie herself actually made sure in her books to provide the reader with all the clues the detective had. There is no hidden information. Can I make the same leaps as the detective does? God no. But all the puzzle pieces are given to you!

30

alienfreaks04 t1_j1r3pfu wrote

I hate last second information that is given to seem like it's a twist

6

zmast t1_j1uvvcw wrote

I agree.

Unfortunately, after reading all books and watching all TV episodes, my memories are sparse. So, I'm not 100% sure if this happens on both book and TV or books are "fair". But I believe these are examples:

>!Poirot had telegraphed her secretary trough her discovered that 2 people got married, only reveals it at the end.!<

>!Poirot knew the exact train timetable and was able to make deductions based on that.!<

>!In at least a couple of stories, events were related to an accident happened years before that was not fully presented. (Murder on the Orient Express)!<

>!In Curtains... well, you know what Poirot did.!<

Then, there are obstacles like very specific knowledge that a reader is unlikely to have. For instance, knowing how a poison works or the currency used in a foreign country.

All in all, I believe Christie's stories are usually not solvable while reading the book. But they're always enjoyable. I like the richness in details and I find the characters more relatable. I have not enjoyed much Conan Doyle stories, to the point I feel the most famous detective should be Poirot instead of Sherlock Holmes.

Apologies for my vague examples, I'm happy to edit and add references if someone can remember which book they happen on.

3