Tara ’s Comments (group member since Jul 12, 2017)

Tara ’s comments from the Reading the Detectives group.

Judy wrote: "I'm halfway through and finding it a reasonably enjoyable but not very gripping read, doubtless because I already know the outcome from seeing the films (and sadly it had already been 'spoiled' for..."

Its an interesting idea in concept, but foolish I think to have that many people involved. There are no guarantees that one or more of them with weaker constitutions, or perhaps just guilty consciences, wouldn't tell others what they had done.
While watching the Finney film yesterday (I still think his portrayal is ridiculous, but the ensemble cast is great), I started thinking about the blood splatter. There is no way that they all would have escaped without getting blood all over their clothing, and partnered with the fact they were stuck on a snowbound train, they would have had no way of disposing of the evidence. Quite a major oversight on that point.

I must have read this book ages ago (my omnibus collection has yellowed with time), but it wasn't until this challenge started that I went back to re-read (or read for the first time) these wonderful Poirot stories.
I also enjoy reading with appropriately themed music in the background, it adds something to the experience.
I'm watching the Suchet version after having finished the book, and it is certainly much darker and ominous in tone and pacing. As with the majority of adaptations, the book is far superior.

I think to understand what comes across as Poirot's ease with allowing the murderers to go free, a key passage is Poirot's impression of Rachett early in the book, and how underneath his veneer of civility lurked a face of evil. That, coupled with a heinous and despicable crime against a child (and which destroyed an entire family), it is understandable how people wouldn't be in a hurry to see people punished for allowing him to meet his maker.
The slow unraveling of the connection of various passengers to the Armstrong family certainly lends credence to the multiple murderer idea, although I do not think it is necessarily obvious that they were ALL involved. I don't remember guessing the outcome on my first reading. Definitely a classic!

Dan wrote: "I really like this book compared to the first in the series. Although, you probably shouldn't attempt a murder in front of a crowd of people, including a detective that you know is there! 😄 This wa..."

I did enjoy the use of slang in the early books in the series, even if I didn't know what she was talking about half the time ;)

Sandy wrote: "I'm listening to Why Didn't They Ask Evans? while baking cookies. Christie is a good length for audio books; a couple of days is usually sufficient and I have more baking today.

[b..."
Depending on the subject matter, I actually prefer longer books on audio, as with some concentrated effort you can get through it in a few weeks, compared to a few months reading the book.

The slow build actually quickened my reading pace, to get to the actual murder, as well as the final denouement. Some of her earlier books dragged when Alleyn took an eternity to interview each suspect (sometimes more than once), and hammer out the minute details of everyone's movements. I enjoyed Mandrake as the narrator, and I felt as though he was a respectable stand-in for Nigel.

Thanks for the link to the Boomps-a-Daisy, so neat to see it acted out. For some reason I had pictured it at a much quicker pace, similar to the jitterbug.

With regard to the treatment of the war, I imagine she either felt compelled (or the publishers insisted), that she include references to it, but she did so in a rather broad, vague kind of way. Since it only pops up as a passing comment or side note, it does not bother me as much as it would if it were a main feature of the story.

I had also guessed that Nicholas was the culprit early in the going, as Dr. Hart was never a convincing suspect, and his close-calls and near misses seemed too convenient. I am similarly suspicious of one-sided conversations, so that was a dead giveaway in my opinion. But rather than being a let-down, I tend to enjoy stories I can figure out more so than ones for which I have no clue what has happened. I even stayed up late reading to confirm whether or not I was right. I felt sorry for William, and I thought that Nicholas and Madame Lisse deserved each other. Hopefully she will get tried as an accomplice.

In my quest to read all of her books in order, I am now plunging into O is for Outlaw by Sue Grafton. I enjoy that time moves so slowly from book to book, you are almost in a static time warp throughout the series. The audio book narrator has also changed to someone with a less monotone voice, and more lively personality, which makes for interesting listening.

Has anyone seen the David Suchet episode for this story? Personally I was not a big fan, and I felt as though the actresses didn't look at all like each other. The Faye Dunaway version was much closer to the text in my opinion, and better portrayed Jane's frivolity and self-centeredness.

I am listening to Andersonville by MacKinlay Kantor for another book club, and thus far I find it pedantic and cringe-worthy. I have no idea how this book won the Pulitzer, and I doubt I will make it through all 37 hours without great effort.

Judy wrote: "Thinking this over a bit more, the disguise doesn't really work, does it, unless I'm missing something?

Carlotta can make herself *sound* like Jane, but a blonde wig etc wouldn't make her *look* ..."

The idea seemed to be that Carlotta was able to adapt her persona and mannerisms to the subject she was portraying, and otherwise had an unremarkable, forgettable face. I also recall Poirot saying at one point that the dining room where the dinner took place was lighted only by candles, and therefore, it would have been hard to see the people's faces very clearly. For such a clever actress though, Carlotta didn't seem to think through her impersonation if she's expounding on mythological figures (something Jane Wilkinson would hardly know much about).

I also assumed that Lord Edgware was cruel/sadistic, and the butler was a con man who used his looks as part of his scam. I didn't pick up any hints there was more to their relationship. Did everyone else's book have a facsimile of Carlotta's letter to her sister? It looked obvious that the word was meant to be 'she', not 'he', so I'm surprised it took Poirot so long to figure that out. Perhaps it was an assumption that the murderer was a man, which was his early running theory.

I have an omnibus book with this story in it, and it does carry the 'Thirteen at Dinner' title. Its a very intriguing plot with a great build-up of suspense. My one hang-up with it though is the almost constant reference to Jews and their avariciousness. I wonder if this was a flaw of Christie's I didn't pick up on in my earlier reads, or something that we're just more conscious of now. Aside from that aspect though, I thought it was a great mystery.

Jan C wrote: "I was with Kurlansky until the oyster book. I think I probably disliked that because I can no longer have oysters. Thanks to gout! I miss them."

The Oyster book was depressing when you think about how we destroyed the once pristine New York Harbor, but still interesting stuff. His salt book is one of my all time favorites.

Annabel wrote: "Tara wrote: "I just started Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. I saw the movie based on the book a few months ago, not knowing much about the story, but its definitely tragic ..."

I have that one either in paperback somewhere on my shelves, or on my TBR list. I enjoy adventure/survival stories, if only to live vicariously through people braver than me.

I just started 2 new random books that have been on my TBR for a while. I'm reading Birdseye: The Adventures of a Curious Man by Mark Kurlansky on Kindle (I loved his books on Salt, Cod, and Oysters), and I'm listening to Dead Wake: The Last Crossing of the Lusitania by Erik Larson on audiobook. I'm enjoying both.

I just started Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. I saw the movie based on the book a few months ago, not knowing much about the story, but its definitely tragic and frustrating to hear about this young man's too short life.

Sandy wrote: "I am reading The Masterpiece. Quite interesting as it bounces back and forth the between two stories. One is set in 1929 involving a woman artist and an art school within New York's..."

This sounds really interesting Sandy. I love reading about NYC history and architecture, so a book set in Grand Central Station sounds perfect.

Judy wrote: "The fawning from Robin/Roberta (is this a common nickname convention?) ..."

Robin was originally a nickname for Robert, so I suppose it wasn't a huge stretch to use it for Roberta - I haven't come..."

Interesting Judy, I hadn't heard that before, so it was a little confusing.

I think a lot of Robin's fascination with the family was a holdover from her impressions of them as a child (and the intervening years where she was able to remember the best bits about them, and put them on a pedestal), but you could see there were moments where she was uneasy about their behavior.

I also think there should have been some real consequences for all of the lying and obfuscating they were guilty of during the investigation. Despite a gruesome death occurring to a close family member, they treated it like a fun parlor game.

My favorite Marsh so far, although like others I found the Lampreys to be overprivileged and very tiresome. They surely need a real dose of reality, It was nice to see Nigel back again, although he added absolutely nothing to the story, so I'm curious why she decided to throw him in there. The only half-way redeemable Lamprey was Henry, hopefully Robin can straighten him out.