Gli elefanti hanno buona memoria

Hercule Poirot #42

by Agatha Christie

Hercule Poirot is determined to solve an old husband and wife double murder that is still an open verdict... Hercule Poirot stood on the cliff-top. Here, many years earlier, there had been a tragic accident. This was followed by the grisly discovery of two more bodies - a husband and wife - shot dead. But who had killed whom? Was it a suicide pact? A crime of passion? Or cold-blooded murder? Poirot delves back into the past and discovers that 'old sin leave long shadows'.

Genres: Mystery, Agatha Christie, Fiction, Crime, Classics, Detective, Mystery Thriller

189 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1972

About the author

Agatha Christie also wrote romance novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, and was occasionally published under the name Agatha Christie Mallowan.

Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.

This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.

Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)

Reviews

[Dr. Laurel Young · Rating 2 out of 5]

Elephants Can Remember made me sad...because I solved it. You see, the reason I hold Dame Agatha Christie in such high regard is that she always outfoxes me, even though I've been studying the detective genre and teaching courses on it for years. No other author can do it; fond as I am of Dame Agatha's Golden Age contemporaries--Dorothy Sayers, Patricia Wentworth, Josephine Tey, Ngaio Marsh, et. al.--they seldom baffle me unless they haven't played fair and given me enough to go on. But Dame Agatha...I rarely figure her out before the end. This novel, though, seemed transparent to me, and that's a shame. I don't believe for one moment that Dame Agatha declined in talent with age--she wrote excellent novels throughout her 56-year career, and a few of my favorites were written late in her life. I just think, for whatever reason, this wasn't one of her best.

Dame Agatha has many excellent "cold case" novels; they were one of her specialties--Murder in Retrospect, Dumb Witness, Nemesis, Sleeping Murder, and many others. Perhaps she did finally run out of variations on this specific theme. Perhaps it should have been a Miss Marple case instead of a Poirot, since Miss Marple does such a wonderful job of playing the gossipy old lady in situations like this. I don't know. I just know that for once the obvious twist was the correct one, and I'd rather never speak of that again!

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Elephants.
Amazing creatures as long as they stay out of rooms.



When a rude woman asks a highly impertinent question about the death of Ariadne Oliver's goddaughter's parents, it piques her interest in what was originally thought to be a murder-suicide.
And if anyone can help her get to the bottom of things, it's her old friend Hercule Poirot.



Ok. So this was one of Christie's last books. She died of old age in 1976 and this was published in 1972. Taking all of that into consideration, this book is something that I think most fans of Christie will love. Is it the best? Eh.
The twist in the murder story is actually pretty good.
Three women who loved the same man! Mental illness! A string of dead children! Twins! An odd assortment of wigs! The unbreakable bond of love between sisters! And finally...a dog.



But there's a lot of rambling along the way, and if you don't appreciate hearing old people talk about the past (I actually do like this), then you might not find as much to enjoy about it as I did.
However, I think fans will find a lot of intelligence left in an author who was nearing the end of her life. What I'd suggest is that this one is for the dyed-in-the-wool Christie addicts who want insight into their favorite author's last few years.
Recommended for fans of Agatha Christie and Poirot.

[Baba · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hercule Poirot book No. 40 starts with Ariadne Oliver bringing Poirot a very cold and old double suicide case that Poirot has to investigate decades after it occurred… hence the title. 5 out of 12. Two Stars.

2014

[Victor Almeida · Rating 4 out of 5]

*4.5

[Adrian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lunchtime Listen December 2024

Read by the inimitable Hugh Fraser !

I have to say this was a really enjoyable lunchtime listen, that only lasted a few days as we just wanted to keep listening. The story is excellent, the narration is just superb.

In fact I am wondering whether to ramp it up to 5 stars as it was such a fun listen.

Group Series Read of all Poirot novels 2019-2021

It is now over 4 years that I, along with other members of the Reading The Detectives Group, have been reading Agatha Christie's detective novels. We started with a year of the redoubtable Miss Marple and we are coming to a conclusion after 3 (and a bit ) years of the inimitable Hercule Poirot, I shall miss them both. (Luckily we have started a group read of non Marple/Poirot Christies.)

So, I was meant to be reading this book in December last year I think, but a (rare) reading slump, saw me fall 3 books behind schedule in this reading challenge. That said it has only taken me 2 days to read it, as I seem to be on a bit of a roll.

This is the first book I have read of Poirot's that references directly some of his previous cases (well the first I remember ), and reading some of the posted reviews, other people feel that it mirrors/borrows the plot from some previous books.
Personally I didn't find that many similarities with previous novels, yes it involved an incident in the distant past that Poirot has to investigate, and whilst he has done it once before, how many times has investigated a current crime ?
This book features the wonderful Ariadne Oliver and a brief appearance from the slightly creepy Mr Goby, who stares at the fireplace. For those who have never read this book , it is based around a young woman who's prospective mother-in-law is worried that she has inherited murderous tendencies after her mother and father supposedly ended their lives in a suicide pact.
Poirot gets involved as the young woman happens to be the god daughter of his close friend the wonderful Ariadne Oliver (I will always see Zoe Wanamaker). Having watched all the David Suchet Poirot's a few months ago I remembered this story, but still enjoyed this a lot. Hercule and Ariadne investigate all the way through this novel, and bring it to a conclusion really well (I do not see it as wishy-washy and vague as some reviews have mentioned)
Yes I have given it 4 stars, but to be honest, to me it was around a 4.4 stars so was almost a 5 star detective read for me.

[Brina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Long summer days and nights are perfect for reading whodunits. With hours to spare hundreds of pages can feel like nothing as one is intrigued by a crime and whodunit. For this last year I have been enamored with Louise Penny’s Armand Gamache. I have noted on more than one occasion that if one were to place Hercule Poirot in 21st century Quebec, Gamache would be the result. As I have been reading through that series, it has been awhile since I read a mystery featuring the actual Hercule Poirot. The Belgian sleuth famous for his bald head, mustaches, and use of gray cells always has me on the edge of my seat. I decided to reacquaint myself with the esteemed Belgian sleuth.

Hercule Poirot is long retired, although crimes find him, and those who know him as being a famous detective are now residing in graveyards. Ariadne Oliver, the crime writer turned amateur detective, is in need of Poirot’s assistance after her a detestable woman enquired after the death of Oliver’s g-daughter’s parents. I have found Oliver irksome in the past but, perhaps, as this book is from later in Dame Christie’s life, she has reformed her characters and made them wistful and people friendly. Or it could be that this Mrs Burton-Cox is absolutely disgusting and makes Oliver charming in the process. Ariadne Oliver thinks up crimes in her head; she does not solve them, so she turns to the one person she know can solve any crime: Hercule Poirot. The crime at hand is twelve years old and was closed as a murder-suicide, yet something is off. Poirot implores Oliver to chase elephants: people who remembered the victims, when he tracks down his old contacts at the police force. One of these “elephants” has to remember a key clue to bring the closed case to justice.

Poirot’s gray cells work faster than those of the average person’s. In the past he chose to work along even though he had “assistance” from Captain Hastings or another equally unqualified assistant. Much of the detecting this time around requires a woman’s intuition, and for that Poirot needs Oliver to chase elephants. The key clues they have are four wigs and that one of the victims was a twin. For once I thought I had figured out the case before it closed, something I have been determined to do for years. It also intrigued me how Christie had the accomplished Poirot working in concert with Oliver and seeing what both brought to the table, sensing that in Christie’s old age she wanted to show how men and women think differently and offer much to society from distinct vantage points. Even though Oliver is not an adept detective, her sleuthing provides Poirot with key clues that allow him to solve the case. He could not have questioned witnesses in the same manner as a woman, which I found as an extra layer of intrigue to this case.

Generations of crime writers have Agatha Christie to thank for their careers. She is Dame Christie, the queen of crime for a reason. As per usual, Poirot uses his little gray cells to solve a closed case. His former colleagues are shocked because they would have never thought of the outcome from the same angle. That is why Hercule Poirot is the best detective there is. I might have actually figured out whodunit this time around, or at least thought of a key plot point before it was introduced. There are still other Poirot cases for me to read, so, perhaps, eventually I will figure the entire case out before the end. That is my goal anyway. While I continue with modern mysteries, I am glad to be reminded that it is always a pleasure to read a Hercule Poirot mystery. He was once the best detective in the world, and it is always mind stimulating to read Dame Christie’s books with Poirot front and center.

[Melindam · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I first read this novel, I did not realise that it was among the late ones, published in 1972 (and AC died in 1976).
Now it was a more conscious read and bearing the publishing date in mind, it really felt a little ... hmm... maybe "tired" is the appropriate word.

The mystery in itself was quite intriguing, but the way it was presented, was not. Hercule Poirot and Mrs Oliver both lacked energy and the solution was also just an eye-witness eventually confirming & telling what happened.

Not a bad book altogether, but not engaging either.

[BrokenTune · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Elephants can remember, but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget.”

My first Christie of 2017. It took me a few attempts to get into the story, not because it was difficult to find a way to engage with the plot but purely because I enjoyed re-reading the opening of the story where Ariadne Oliver, Dame Agatha's alter ego in this series, considers the different ways to wear a hat and which hat is appropriate for which occasion.

I love Ariadne. She's the scatty, sassy, creative, liberal counterpart to Poirot. Not as brilliant in applying logic, but just as brilliant by her exuberance and love of life.

As for the story itself, this was quite different from previous works of Christie. Although there are some similarities with A Murder is Announced (one of my favourites), Elephants Can Remember is not a locked room mystery and puts much more emphasis on the different mental states and attitudes of the characters, who all seem to be entities who interact with each other, but who seem to act somewhat isolated from other characters.

Despite the occasional comic relief through Ariadne's antics, there is little that is cozy or twee about this story and in a way it struck me as if Christie tried her hand at a dark, psychological thriller, rather than at another Poirot mystery. I very much admired the attempt. Many of the Christie novels I love best are quite dark - just look at Endless Night! - even though she is of course best known for mysteries that are more akin to puzzles than gritty crime novels.

Maybe my appreciation for Elephants Can Remember has been influenced by my recent foray into the writing of Patricia Highsmith, whose work was contemporary to Christie's later work (including Elephants), but I did wonder whether Christie was influenced by the change in direction that crime fiction in the 1960s and 1970s seemed to have undergone.

[Sophia · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was my least favorite of all the Poirot novels. On the surface it was a Poirot novel, possessing all the necessary elements: the complicated mystery, the little clues that don't seem at first relevant, the humor that comes out mainly through the side kick full of fanciful ideas, the love story between two young people, and of course, Poirot himself. But despite all these elements, the entire book read, not like an Agatha Christie, but like someone attempting to write in the style of Agatha Christie. Overall, it was too heavy in dialogue, and structured somehow more like a drama than a novel. The voice, particularly in the characterization of Poirot, was all wrong. And the mystery itself....Though I didn't have every detail worked out, primarily because I was over complicating things and building in coincidences that turned out to be untrue, I still managed to figure the whole thing out well before Poirot. And I think that's the first time I've ever done that.

[Veronique · Rating 4 out of 5]

“She was a lucky woman who had established a happy knack of writing what quite a lot of people wanted to read. Wonderful luck that was, Mrs. Oliver thought to herself.

I actually really enjoyed this novel although it was very different to the usual Agatha Christie murder mysteries. Elephants Can Remember deals with a cold case, one devoid of threat or danger, where Poirot tries to put together events that happened 12 years prior. This could sound drab but for the brilliance of Ariadne Oliver. She has a central role here. Not only does the case land on her lap but she actively goes in search of elephant people with long memories to great humour. Even Poirot behaves, encouraging and helping her in this endeavour.

The mystery can be solved by the reader rather easily but it is the manner in which it is written that I liked. That and the fact that Ariadne embodies Agatha for me. Her comments about the literary gathering, experience with fans, etc., all sounded like things Christie had experienced.

[Julie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A convoluted mystery which left most of the participants stumped. I usually enjoy stories which include the character Ariadne Oliver, but in this story she seemed dim and annoying.

Topics include: twins, mental illness, and exploring family history.

Favorite quotes:

"Love can turn to hate very easily. It is easier to hate where you have loved than it is to be indifferent where you have loved."

"Elephants can remember," said Mrs. Oliver, "but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget."

"Old sins have long shadows."

[Cititor Necunoscut · Rating 5 out of 5]

În lipsa lui Hastings, pe care nici măcar nu mai sper că îl voi revedea într-unul din puținele romane rămase în serie, Ariadne Oliver este o parteneră care dă culoare intrigii. Aceasta este o scriitoare de romane polițiste, excentrică, cu idei multe și trăsnite, care ghidată de Hercule Poirot încearcă să rezolve misterul unei crime/sinucideri care s-a petrecut cu mult timp în urmă. Și doar niște memorii demne de niște elefanți ar putea face lumină într-un caz atât de vechi. Acesta este și leitmotivul care o va ghida pe tot parcursul anchetei „elefanții nu uită niciodată”. Rolul lui Hercule Poirot nu este unul proeminent, dar dinamica dintre cei doi este una amuzantă.

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 3 out of 5]

“She was a lucky woman who had established a happy knack of writing what quite a lot of people wanted to read. Wonderful luck that was, Mrs. Oliver thought to herself.”--Ariadne Oliver

One more to go! I have read all the Christie Poirot books in order, the last couple years or so, and this is the last one she wrote, published in 1972, when she was 81, though she wrote the last intended one in the series, Curtain, in the forties, to be released at the conclusion of the series. The first, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, she wrote in 1920. She died at 85.

Elephant is just okay, compared to the great ones of the forties. When I review Curtain I will name my favorites. This one is amusing in that for humans at 81, memory is a struggle, a kind of focus in literature and life. One is not interested in memory at 20 in the same way. People forget, sure, though they sometimes remember things for many years. So? This story involves solving a murder that took place many years ago, which had been deemed a double suicide. The solution involves twins, wigs, the detective writer Ariadne Oliver again helping Poirot solve the crime. The elephant-never-forgets theme is way over done, and pretty boring; people are seen as elephants if they remember. The epithet “nosy parker” is repeated possibly five times; had she just heard it and couldn’t get it out of her head?

For what she may have known was one of the last Poirot books, she surprisingly spends very little time reflecting on Poirot’s career, though there are some footnotes about books where Poirot has gone back and solved a cold case, something like this book. Maybe she was thinking she had Curtain in the bag to do that for her? She repeats a proverb she had just used in the last book: “Old sins have long shadows.” Did she forget she had just used it? Is she then not an elephant?

The best thing about this book is Ariadne Oliver, of whom Christie clearly wishes she had written more, but was stuck with the Belgian guy for her whole life that she was sick of by this point. Gee, I wonder what will happen to the old boy, who was retired already in 1920 when she first wrote about him. 52 years later, you do the math, is he 117?!

“Elephants can remember, but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget”—This is kind of how I feel about this book, after reading it. Forgive and forget. It’s not terrible, I guess, but I am by now ready to be done with her and Poirot, sorry to say, as it has been a largely fruitful and fun journey. And oh, I've forgotten the plot of the book altogether! And now who is Poirot? Agatha who?

(I apologize to all readers who see my conclusion as insensitive to families impacted by dementia. But I have two sibs who suffer from this, and who no longer know me, so laughter is sometimes the best medicine. But I am getting older by the minute, too, so my memory is already shaky. . . now what was I saying?)

[Janete on hiatus due health issues · Rating 2 out of 5]

Before the middle of the book, I already knew the solution to the crimes. Moreover, the explanation for the crimes was too melodramatic. And I love Poirot, but he appears little in this story, as Ariadne Oliver does too many investigations. Well, I read it in my native language and I got it from the public library where I work, but I have this book in the original in my home. Now, I don't know when I will read this story again to improve my English.

[Mai · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tedious

My God, this book was written in the dullest way possible. I was already in a reader’s slump, and this somehow made it ten times worse. Instead of an actual investigation or a deep dive into a murder case, the story is nothing but never-ending conversations between a bunch of people.

I felt absolutely nothing while reading — except boredom, silliness, and a strong desire to just get it over with.

And then comes the so-called twist: a ridiculous, overly melodramatic plot that makes no sense whatsoever. It felt like the kind of cheap drama you’d expect from a low-quality movie, not a mystery novel. Seriously — her sister tries to harm her child and attempts to kill her, yet when she’s bleeding and hovering between life and death, she’s begging her husband to protect and save that same sister?

You cannot be serious. No sane human being would react in such a naïve and illogical way. It’s absurd, unrealistic, and honestly borderline disrespectful to the reader.

That said, I did find Lady Oliver oddly interesting. She feels like a mirror of Agatha Christie herself — the way she goes into full detail about her likes, dislikes, and insecurities seems to reflect the author’s own personality. I might be wrong, but that’s how it came across to me.

What still genuinely bothered me, though, was Agatha Christie’s outdated mentality. Whenever young women or men do something even slightly out of the ordinary, there’s this undertone of judgment and shaming. I understand that it was a different era, but the mindset feels extremely closed-minded and uncomfortable for my liking.

Overall, this was a frustrating, messy read that left me disappointed and irritated rather than intrigued.

[Julian Worker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was very well written, however it does make the police who investigated the original deaths, look rather stupid and willing to accept one particular explanation rather than investigating what happened. If Poirot and Ariadne Oliver can find out the answers a decade after the original deaths then it doesn't say much for Inspector Garroway and his detectives who investigated the original crime. There are enough clues along the way for the reader to work out who did what.

[Piyangie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Elephants Can Remember is one of the very poorly written murder-mysteries of the Poirot series. There was nothing original about the story, only a mixture of borrowed elements from the preceding novels thrown together.

Here, Poirot is brought in to investigate a past crime at the request of both Ariadne Oliver and the daughter of the victims. Poirot is assisted by Ariadne Oliver to probe into the past to collect information/evidence towards unearthing the truth.

The story was muddled with no proper flow. The investigation was haphazardly done and much was relied on conjecture. There was not much in the mystery; it was too simple and was easily figured out. The dual identity and the disguising which we've seen in some of her other stories were employed here with poor effect. Also, very little attempt is made at engaging the reader's attention and interest.

Personally, I think this was the most disappointing in the Poirot series. Perhaps, being almost at the end of the series, Agatha Christie may have gotten tired with hunting for new ideas.

[mark monday · Rating 3 out of 5]

Choose Your Own Adventure!

The elephant brain is denser than the human’s, and the temporal lobes, associated with memory, are more developed than in humans. Elephant lobes also have more folding, so that they can store more information. That’s why elephants have excellent memory. But why? Elephants can recognize over 200 different individuals. This is essential, as females depend on one another for raising the young, more than in the case of other mammals. A mother can remember who is trustful and complex bonds are the bricks of elephant society, while the memory is the cement. When two elephants approach one another, they emit a “contact appeal”: if the other recognizes the appeal, it responds and approaches; if not, it starts to agitate and adopts a defensive position. This capacity of recognition lasts a very long time, even after one individual is dead: even the recording of a dead animal attracts the attention of its relatives and descendants.

If you are an enemy of elephants, choose http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

If you love elephants because of their long memories (better to remember all those grudges) and because of their big feet (all the better to stomp your enemies into paste), choose http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

[Catherine Vamianaki · Rating 5 out of 5]

ωραία τα βιβλία της.

[Berengaria · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 stars

short review for busy readers:
A pleasant, unhurried late Christie, which is more the story of an eccentric, flighty crime novelist irritating Hercule Poirot with her behaviour and case she's been pulled into than a thorny brain teaser. Cutesy ending, but a lovely, lovely cover.

in detail:
It's well known that Christie did not like Poirot, but felt compelled to continue writing the character due to his popularity with readers at the time.

I read this novel as an interaction between Christie herself -- disguised as crime novelist Ariadne Oliver -- impishly annoying, barking at, upbraiding and generally causing disturbance to an ageing Poirot. She chides him for being smug, liking his fussy fruit liqueurs too much, and not really getting up off his derrière to do much actual investigating, while she runs all over hell and back attempting to rouse "elephants" who might remember pertinent facts of a decade old double suicide.

This is Christie having fun kicking her own creation, watching him wince...and then shrug Gallicly, because what else can he do but play along with his author's every whim? 🙄😂

Must have been immensely satisfying!

[Wanda Pedersen · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Almost done reading all of Dame Agatha's novels. Only three remain now. This one was pleasurable in that it featured one of my favourite characters, Ariadne Oliver, who is being her usual scatty, bewildered self. Against her better judgment, Mrs. Oliver attends a literary luncheon. After the meal, she gets cornered by one of the bossy, pushy women that she loathes, Mrs. Buxton-Cox. This person proceeds to question Mrs. Oliver about the family history of one of her god-daughters, Celia. Apparently Celia's parents were found shot in a likely murder-suicide and Mrs. B-C wants to know who killed who, as her son is planning to marry Celia.

After escaping this harrowing situation, Ariadne goes directly to her good friend Hercule Poirot. Can the two of them determine the circumstances of Celia's parents deaths? Ariadne goes in search of people who have memories of that period of time and the principals involved—she refers to these folk as “elephants,” those who don't forget. I loved her metaphor of going elephant hunting.

I enjoyed the novel despite the fact that I easily divined the solution to the mystery. This is highly unusual, as Dame Agatha bamboozles me regularly. I will be interested to see what the final novels are like.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good story.

Celia Ravenscroft and Desmond Burton-Cox want to marry. Desmond’s mother by adoption, Mrs Burton-Cox am odious woman opposes the marriage. At a literary luncheon she approaches Ariadne Oliver, who is Celia’s godmother to help her scupper the happy couples marriage plans. Celia’s parents died years ago in what the police determined to be a suicide pact. Mrs Burton-Cox wants to know who was the instigator as Molly the wife had a twin sister, Dolly that was mentally unstable. If she can prove this Desmond may hesitate to marry Celia if lunacy runs in the family.

Oliver and Poirot team up to investigate and find out the motive behind the deaths. The character development is very good but not enough red herrings and not difficult to work out the motive. The four wigs, a dog that bites and the past accidents associated around Dolly with children lead us to the motive.

A pleasant read and Oliver has Agatha Christie’s alto ego gives us a little insight into her eccentricity.

[Feli · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5⭐

“Hay un proverbio que mi abuela solía repetir: Los pecados viejos tienen largas sombras.”

Este libro se me hizo una lectura ligera y entretenida.

Lo que más me gustó fue como se desarrolla la trama hasta descubrir la verdad. Aclaro esto porque lo que me gustó de otros libros de Agatha Christie es el final, pero en este libro me gustó absolutamente todo.

[Alisha · Rating 2 out of 5]

It makes me a little sad to read all the reviews on this book — people saying, for instance, that it reads like someone else trying to write an Agatha Christie. Because that's very true, but I think it's important to be aware of some context that might explain why. It doesn't change the fact that it's not a good book, but at least one can read it with compassion instead of expectation. So here goes.

A study done by the University of Toronto in 2009 analyzed the text of Christie's books, and concluded that her final works show evidence that she may have been suffering from dementia. There's a huge decrease in vocabulary, and at the same time a huge increase in repetitive phrases and indefinite words.

I was aware of this theory, but I didn't expect to notice the problems so intensely once I was "boots on the ground" reading the book. It's true, though. Gone are the crisp narration and sharp sentences we love. They're replaced by rambling, repetitive passages — which seem especially incongruous coming from the mouth of Poirot. But he's not alone, as virtually every character suffers from The Ramble. The story itself feels like it's blindly groping along, and there is no twist. Or, at least, not one that will surprise.

Interestingly, the story is ABSOLUTELY obsessed with memory, and what everyone remembers, or forgets, or thinks they remember, or struggles to remember.

Snippets from childhood — the sort of thing that does make it safely into the long-term memory — are dwelt on insistently, regardless of whether they serve the plot or not.

The word "remember" is used a staggering number of times. Here is a small sampling:

No, she couldn’t really remember anything about her. But she seemed to have heard the name.

There were times, she had to admit as the years were growing upon her, when she couldn’t remember them all.

I’m sure you’ll remember, you must remember.

Extraordinary, one couldn’t remember these things. She couldn’t even remember whether she herself had been Molly’s bridesmaid. She thought she had. Rather a smart wedding at the Guards Chapel or something like that. But one did forget so.

But they’d been like one of those photographs that one takes and looks at. One knows the people vaguely who are in it but it’s so faded that you really can’t recognize them or remember who they were.

“I’m really afraid,” said Mrs. Oliver, speaking firmly, “that I must say that I don’t know anything about it. I do remember, now you mention it, that there was such a case, and I remember the names and that I knew the people, but I never knew what happened or anything at all about it. And I really don’t think I have the least idea. . .

“Yes,” said Mrs. Oliver, “but where I’ve got to go now is—I think it’s Whitefriars Mansions. I can’t quite remember the name of it, but I know where it is.”

Oh, I don’t know. I can never remember what years are, what dates are. You know, I get mixed up.

I can’t remember if it was in Cornwall or in Corsica. Something like that.

Then they bought this house somewhere—I think it was abroad but I can’t remember.

I seem to remember vaguely—oh, some case like this one, or it might not have been the same one.

He added, “Would anybody remember?”
“Well, that’s where I think they might,” said Mrs. Oliver.
“You surprise me,” said Poirot, looking at her with a somewhat puzzled face. “Do people remember?”

There are some people who do remember. In fact, one does remember queer things, I mean there are a lot of things that I remember very well. They happened—I remember a birthday party I had when I was five, and a pink cake—a lovely pink cake. It had a sugar bird on it. And I remember the day my canary flew away and I cried. And I remember another day when I went into a field and there was a bull there and somebody said it would gore me, and I was terrified and wanted to run out of the field. Well, I remember that quite well.

No. I wasn’t there at the time. I mean, I wasn’t in the house at the time. I can’t remember now quite where I was.

“Oh yes,” said Mrs. Oliver. “At least I can’t quite remember, but I think I do.”

“I don’t really remember now,” said Mrs. Oliver.
“I know. One forgets things."

But of course the others didn’t believe in it and then this came about and I gather they think it must have been whatever her name was—I can’t remember it now.

I couldn’t quite remember when and how.

The trouble is, when you remember things you don’t always remember them right, do you?

I’m not sure that it had anything to do with the Ravenscrofts, it might have been to do with some other people out there because she doesn’t remember surnames and things very well.

“And you say that woman—this Mrs.—”
“Yes. I’ve forgotten her name now."

"Do you think they’ll remember anything about it?”
“Elephants remember,” said Hercule Poirot.

"Perhaps now you hardly remember them.”
“Oh yes, one does not forget, you know, things that happen when you were young."

“People told me things,” said Mrs. Oliver, “people whom I thought might remember things. Some of them did remember things. Some of them remembered them right and some of them remembered them wrong. That was confusing."

You see what I mean? The problem of memory completely permeates and suffocates the story. Reading this book, I'm heavily inclined to believe the dementia theory. Although, I do marvel at the fact that the book was even written and that it... sort of... hangs together. It does go to show that Agatha's crime-solving, storytelling mind was still operating as best it could.

With all that in mind, I would say if you are a completionist and decide to read this book, just be aware of what was possibly going on with Agatha's health and age. And salute her for the novelist she once was, and for the novelist she still tried to be.

[Fanny Reads ♡ · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Los elefantes pueden recordar".
Dos amigos, Hercules Poirot, famoso detective, y Ariadne Oliver, famosa escritora de novelas policíacas, investigan una tragedia ocurrida hace muchos años: un doble suicidio.
Ambos, cada uno a su manera, empieza con la caza de "elefantes", y poco a poco, gracias a los recuerdos de estos, logran armar el rompecabezas del caso y descubrir lo que realmente ocurrió.

Realmente creí que era yo quién sentía super lento este libro hasta que vi más reseñas donde precisamente todos comentaban lo mismo, es extraño siento un libro de Poirot pero el no está como protagonista si no otra mujer, no me terminó de convencer y aja, fue bastante lento. No hay que atrapar al asesino, que es de las cosas más emocionantes en las novelas de Agatha Christie, la trama es entretenida pero no da el ancho a sus hermanitos.
Lo más interesante solo pasa en las últimas páginas pero medio enredado que nisiquiera estoy segura si le entendí del todo.

[Noella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Weer een verhaal waarin Poirot samenwerkt met Mrs. Oliver, wat fijn om te lezen is. Beiden hebben zo hun eigenaardigheden, en samen vormen ze een fantastisch team. Deze keer gaat het om de peetdochter van Mrs. Oliver, Celia. Haar aanstaande huwelijk staat op hel spel, als gevolg van een onverkwikkelijke gebeurtenis in het verleden. Het is aan Poirot en Mrs. Oliver om uit te pluizen wat er zoveel jaar voordien écht gebeurd is.
Vlot leesbaar, en een intrigerend verhaal.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reviewing an audio book is difficult because you have to separate out the different aspects: story, narrator and how well the story works in this media.
First, the story feels a bit typical and mundane with no real excitement or cause pushing the storyline along. It really comes down to a bunch of old people gossiping over a murder-suicide. The whole justification for this matter being brought to light just doesn't compel one to care all that much.
The narrator did a superb job differentiating the characters and giving them the appropriate feeling. With so much dialogue, he really had his work cut out for him and he saved this from being a 2 star rating.
This book would have been better suited, in my opinion, as an actual book. Focusing on the dialogue and following along was troublesome, at times. Some books translate rather well to an audio version, but this was not one of them.
Foul language and gore is absent. This book does bring up issues of murder, suicide and even sexual impropriety (though nothing vulgar or graphic) so that I would not recommend it to young readers. I'd put this in the category of older teens, but one could really find much better works that showcase the author's talent. I suggest going there first and leaving this one behind.

[Karen ⊰✿ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Poirot is still my favourite of AC's detectives. And every time I read one, I picture David Suchet in my mind. :)
Ariadne Oliver returns in this book and she is such a fantastic character. Apparently she is slightly auto-biographical and if that is the case than Ms Christie must have been a ton of fun to be around.

As usual, there are loads of clues and potential plot lines, and although I mostly got there, I still didn't quite solve everything. Great fun!

[Ken · Rating 3 out of 5]

This Poriot mystery is mainly remembered for being the last novel that Christie wrote in which features the famous Belgian detective.

It's been an epic journey working my way through the series (though I've still got Curtain left to read...) and this story that tackles memories as part of a plot did feel very much like the end of Christie's career as a writer.

There's some nice references to earlier cases, so reading in order added to the experience while seeing Poriot team up with Ariadne Oliver is always fun.

The hook was quite enticing as an unsolved murder of a husband and wife is reassessed.
With both bodies having been shot and the revolver featuring both sets of prints, the question arises of the potential of a double suicide or if one of them murdered the other first.

The difference between Poriot speaking to the police who covered the initial case and Oliver meeting elderly witnesses adds a nice different approach by the pair too.

The novels main problem is that these side characters didn't feel as striking enough compared to other novels and sadly showed a decline in Christie's writing ability due to her age.

[Eilonwy · Rating 2 out of 5]

An annoying woman approaches Ariadne Oliver at an author luncheon. Her son wants to marry (one of) Mrs. Oliver’s (many) goddaughter(s), who was orphaned in a terrible event: the murder-suicide of her parents. The mother demands to know: which parent was the murderer?

An intrigued Mrs. Oliver and her friend Hercule Poirot set off to solve a decade-plus-old mystery, with some help from the memories of elephants, who never forget.

Whoa, this is one of the last Agatha Christie novels, and it read to me like a mystery written by someone who had used up every last bit of enthusiasm she ever had, and was running on fumes. I didn’t realize she could be this utterly boring. And obvious. Even though I didn’t even care who dunnit, I still figured out the general bones of the story long before the Big Reveal.

Everything about this was boring. Characters, setting, dialogue, backstory — dull, dull, dull.

And when it wasn’t dull, it made me angry. Misogyny, outright or whiffed, accompanied nearly every female character. The attitudes towards adoption presented in this book — that adopted relatives are not and never will be “real” relatives — did not sit well with me at all, speaking as someone with two adopted siblings and an adopted cousin.

In addition, I’m not convinced that the math in the book — the characters’ ages and the amount of time that was supposed to have passed — worked out, but I couldn’t be bothered to go back through the book and track it a second time.

This really isn’t worth any more words, but I will end with one question: How does a person end up with so many godchildren that they can’t keep track of them all? This seems more like some kind of honorary godparenting than a serious endeavor. But perhaps that was standard for famous authors in the UK in the mid-20th century.