Jessica-sim’s Comments (group member since Jan 01, 2016)

Jessica-sim’s comments from the Reading the Detectives group.

Feel free to use this thread to discuss any spoilery topics.

For June 2019 we have short stories scheduled, which is actually perfect for me as I am cramming for an upcoming exam and find I have very limited brain capacity left for any other focused activities (well besides working full time which I of course also still need to do pff). If I will still get lost from the discussions... no worries I'll be back after the 12th of June. In the mean time, please enjoy yourself!

Well be reading:
Yellow Iris (short story) 1937
AND Murder in the Mews (four novellas) 1937

The four novellas included in Murder in the Mews are:
- Murder in the Mews
- The Incredible Theft
- Dead Man's Mirror
- Triangle at Rhodes

I found all the stories can be purchased as standalone ebooks on the (dutch) Kobo store. I didn't check international sites for availability.

Bicky wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Bicky wrote: "Come on, answer me this. Why did Shaitana (coincidentally or not SHAITAN is the the name of the devil) put the 4 murderers together. Makes no sense."

I thinks he ..."

At the very least place yourself in a chair in the room with the detectives during the game

Did you accept the use of the fictional Window Cleaner to get a confession? At first I was very annoyed that no window cleaner ever was mentioned... how unfair, how can we solve these puzzles with secrets being kept from us... good thing it wasn't a real one! (Of course I was also betting on the wrong suspect till almost the very end)

Well, this was something else! I really like reading all these Poirots in order. I think it brings a whole new level of appreciation, I love how the narrator changed and the overall vibes of this case is so different from the last book. Also, indoors in England playing bridge vs sand roads and archaeological digs in Mesopotamia.

But we do still get a style of Egypt and the Orient, in trinkets and as travel destination but also in the flamboyant persona of our host or victim, mr Shaitana.

What do you think his motive for organising this party was? A game of studying the interactions between murderers and sleuths? Showing off to Poirot? He clearly was enjoying his party sat alsone in his chair observing his collection of criminals.
I do not really get why he wasn't playing bridge, why he divided the groups into different rooms and mostly, why he sat himself in the room with the 4 suspects. Hubris?

Interesting! Thank you Louise

What do you guys think about the repeated 'Despard' s a white man' business in chapter 19. Colonel Race keeps repeating this. Is it supposed to convey innocence or does he mean it discriminatory like 'proper English man with uncolored skin so naturally all above board', if so why mention it so often in the span of 3 pages?

I couldn't help myself and already started it! Right of the bat a completely different pace and scenery from the last book. I'm very much enjoying Poirot being in the thick of things from the very beginning.

Also appreciated the foreword. If this wasn't one of Hastings' favourites we're probably in for some exercise for the grey cells more than live action!

I never came across the expression at the end of chapter two before:

"Is it twenty-to or twenty past? An angel passing . . . . My feet aren't crossed—it must be a black angel!"

Must be referring to the awkward silence.

Go ahead and discuss all the intricacies of the plot here.

A new month a new Poirot

Over on the other thread, the books that Poirot lists as explanatory for Mrs Leidner's personality were mentioned.
- Linda Condon
- Crewe Train
- Back to Methuselah

As these books don't ring any bells for me, I just accepted Poirot's explanations. (Linda Crondon --> She must have innate desires to be an independent woman and very much in love with herself. Crewe train --> Further proof of her being a narcissist. Back to Methuselah --> she favors intellect over emotion).

It is interesting to think that Agatha's contemporaries probably would know these books and perhaps be more swayed by the argument Poirot's making.

Anyone here read any of these books?

Emma wrote: "Annabel wrote: "Christie wrote this one when she knew archaeological digs very well from her life with Max Mallowan..."

Yes, and isn't Louise Leidner meant to be a sort of portrait (or at least, '..."

That's interesting indeed! I did the book references to be real works.

Tara wrote: "Unless Mrs. Leidner was so self absorbed that she barely paid attention to either husband, who would believe that after 2 years of marriage, she wouldn't have picked up on similarities between them..."

I do feel that Poirot was trying to make a case that Mrs. Leidner indeed could have been so self-absorbed, but I also don't buy it.

I also don't really understand why at some point Mr, Leidner didn't own up to being the same person. Certainly, it must have been some kind of "true" love as she only ever allowed herself to marry twice and it turns out to have been to the same man!

The drug use was interesting and I did like Poirot's ruse there haha surely there must have been a more delicate way to get a man working in the burning sun to roll up his sleeves...

Adrian wrote: "Jessica wrote: "90 pages in, enjoying the scenery tremendously and suddenly realizing someone is missing... Oh oh surely Poirot is due to arrive on the scene soon... This can't bode well ;-)"

Oh d..."

I meant it couldn't bode well for the still alive members of the digging party (that cannot be a spoiler, it's an Agatha Christie book).

I finished the book now and I enjoyed it but not so much as I expected I would. I used to love any books set in the Middle East during these times and the romantic idea of archaeological digs with tents and sand storms and marvellous finds. I think my growing awareness of the state of politics in that region is dampening that feeling of excitement.

How is that for you?

90 pages in, enjoying the scenery tremendously and suddenly realizing someone is missing... Oh oh surely Poirot is due to arrive on the scene soon... This can't bode well ;-)

Oh, don't worry at all Susan! I think everyone is free to read at their own pace. We have a whole month per book, there's no rush. Also, with people finishing at different times the discussions keep being visited throughout and there always new replies.

I am very happy that so many are enthusiastically reading these books, personally I start reading after I open the threads only. Almost all Poirot's are a first read for me too, so I'm fresh into every discussion (i.e. Not an early responder usually).

I hope the rest agrees with the freedom. If not, let me know too!

For those of you who have already finished this one: go ahead and enjoy the spoilers here.
The rest of us will join you soon!

This month we are off to an archaeological dig in Iraq!

The Daily Mirror (9 July 1936) wrote: "Don't start reading this if you've got something to do or want a book just for a quarter of an hour or so. Because you simply won't put it down til you've reached the last sentence."

So... we are forewarned!

Well, I liked it but I'm not really satisfied.

What are your thoughts about Poirot's questions near the end? Why did he ask Franklin about the hats at Ascot?

And what about Poirot's observations throughout the book that the murderer was conscientious too because he took care that no innocent people would get accused. I'd say that was just lucky, for Franklin didn't seem bothered about his victims backgrounds at all.

I did like Poirot's objections about the murderers strategy of picking towns and victims not being orderly enough to be convincing!

Yes, it's probably "just" that one that Hastings is referring to. What was resonating in my mind more is A Three Act Tragedy where Poirot certainly said words to this effect a couple of time, but there was no Hastings there. Poirot could even have said the same in Death in the Clouds, I sense a theme...

I am enjoying the book! And I am very surprised that I have actually no idea who the murderer actually was or why... even though I have seen the episode several times and before starting the book I would have sworn I knew the complete plot! Haha

Foreword, Hastings writes: "Poirot once taught me in a very dramatic manner that romance can be a byproduct of crime".

Which instance do you think he is referring to?