Frances’s Comments (group member since Aug 21, 2017)

Frances’s comments from the Reading the Detectives group.

I don't think he would have considered Helen incompetent, but as she is not a blood relative she would only get the spouse's portion, the bulk of the money would stay in the family. Same with Cora-although there seemed to be a family belief that she was incompetent she had clearly lived independently for many years-I assume it was to keep her from leaving the money to a charity for cats or some such thing!

I'm in-I've really been enjoying the Poirot read so was hoping there would be something to replace it next year! (or complement it if we haven't finished by then!)

Robin wrote: "I am interested that Christie told a blatant untruth in this novel - I wonder if it is the first time? In the family tree the members of the family at the funeral are shown in capital letters. Amon..."

Ooh, well-spotted!

Did anyone else wonder that Maude hadn't completely lost patience with Timothy? Maternal instincts could explain looking after an actual invalid, But Timothy was so clearly a hypochondriac I can't believe a capable woman like Maude could continue to love and be so pushed around like him.

Yes, Christie manages to pack a lot of information in without making it feel plodding or forced (although I certainly do a fair bit of referring back to earlier chapters as I go-why I definitely prefer a book book to a tablet for Christie).

I, of course, didn't come anywhere near to solving this one and have just learned to sit back and enjoy the unfolding without trying to figure it out. What I found surprising is that such a large family, in a small enough part of the country in which everyone seemed able to drive to Cora's house and back in the course of the day, would not have seen each other for so many years. (I realize that this is necessary for the plot, but still...) Particularly with a big mansion at the heart of the family, would there not have been Christmas gatherings, or weddings, or funerals (surely for Mortimer!) in which Cora would have seen everyone? If there had been a falling out or ill-will, perhaps, but this just seemed benign neglect.

What could Susan possibly have seen in Gregory Banks? Do we ever learn anything attractive about him?

Susan in NC wrote: "Yes, they are! But this one was fun, I felt like a satisfying mystery reaching into the past of this family. And Christie continues with the impression that Poirot is as sharp as ever, but still ag..."

Poirot is introduced in ch. 7 when Mr Entwistle call on him, they delay discussing "business" until after their excellent meal (described and discussed) and Poirot comments At my age the chief pleasure, almost the only pleasure that still remains, is the pleasure of the table. Mercifully I have an excellent stomach.

So yes Christie humanizes him in an amusing way but you're right, he is still formidable, either in arranging his meals or in solving cases!

I enjoyed this one very much, but was grateful for the family tree printed at the beginning!

Interesting thread-reminds me of how publishers felt they had to "translate" the Harry Potter books into "American" English-Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for the American market, things like bin had to be translated to trash and jumper to sweater.

One of the joys for me as a Canadian child in the 60's was reading books from England and realizing that there were differences in our English, which represented that there were differences in our culture as well. I think North American children would have been every bit as capable today of figuring out these differences and that would have been a little bit of extra magic for them.

Abigail wrote: "Both Lugg and Campion seem like changed men, and considering their war experiences that's not surprising. To me, the changes seem logical based on their previous natures. Lugg always had a streak o..."

Nicely put, Abigail, I hadn't appreciated those changes until you pointed them out, but they're definitely there.

I agree-this was a great combination of interesting characters and further a look at how people interact with each other and how little tight-knit communities can be a wonderful thing OR they can turn on each other in the worst way.

I did think that Carados' mother was going to be heavily involved in some way, like the aristocrats who supported Hitler in WW2, but I guess not!

I've finished it as well-this series continues to improve and I like the development of characters as we go.

Miss Marple, Albert Campion, and Inspector Grant.

Alternatively, Jackson Brodie but no one else gets invited!

Annabel wrote: "I love the descriptions of Poirot having to rough it at the guest-house and it's interesting that the village and its residents are less 'cosy' and idyllic than in some of Christie's other books. It almost feels as though it was written by a different author, and makes me wonder if she was in a darker mood than usual when she wrote it. "

Yes, the slovenliness was quite over the top, particularly to say all those things about bulging tins and mouldy preserves in front of the paying guest. Perhaps she'd just come back from a holiday at a particularly bad guest house in a particularly unpleasant village!

This is something I love about goodreads. I learn so much “side” stuff from other members-thanks.

Rosina wrote: "From his name, I assume that Hjerson is part of the 5% Swedish speaking minority in Finland. Finns, as we know from F1 and other motor sports, have names with lots of kks and other strange combinat..."

Or perhaps this just confirms Mrs Oliver's assertions that she knows nothing about Finland, so she picked a Swedish name by mistake...

I also didn't know that, so thanks!

I also had trouble remembering the four different crimes-this was one of those books that would have benefitted from a list of characters at the beginning, including those historical characters.

This is one of the first times that I DID figure it out,-or at least I realized that Robin could have done it in the couple of trips back to settle his mother while Mrs Oliver waited in the car, and I did notice the adopted comment re Robin at the party I didn't figure out the "whydunnit" part so still enjoyed the big reveal that Poirot always stages at the end.

I'm about half way through and enjoying it so far, including Ariadne Oliver. At one point she says about her detective, the vegetarian Finn

"How do I know why I ever thought of the revolting man? I must have been mad! Why a Finn when I know nothing about Finland? Why a vegetarian? Why all the idiotic mannerisms he's got? These things just happen. You try something-and people seem to like it-and then you go on-and before you know where you are, you've got someone like that maddening Sven Hjerson tied to you for life. And people even write and say how fond you must be of him. Fond of him? If I met this bony, gangling vegetable-eating Finn in real life, I'd do a better murder than any I've ever invented."

Is Christie sharing her true feelings about Poirot with her readers?

Robin wrote: "Louise, you are so right to be so strong on the issue of Rowley and his behaviour. No excuses for him - none. I think that fiction has an important role in social commentary, and wrote something ab..."

I think it's always good to step back and consider that this isn't actually someone's (Rowley's) behaviour, but rather our Author's view of what would be acceptable and manly behaviour and attractive to an apparently independent woman (Lynn) with a taste for adventure. So what societal/cultural attitudes would lead an apparently strong and independent woman like Christie to write this sort of character? In her world view this behaviour could be a one-off demonstrating his love, but many of us know that in real life this would be a huge red flag for some ongoing violence. So not only an interesting read, but a window into what society of the time would have considered acceptable and appropriate behaviour, and a chance for us to address this in our own lives and advocate for changes in attitudes/behaviour in our peers and children.

Another reason to love reading fiction!

Sue wrote: "Thanks Frances. I'm curious about what's included in the annotations, if either of you remember anything about that.

I read a lot of non-fiction books which have annotations. Those are very factu..."

The annotations are quite detailed-some are definitions of more obscure words, there are mini-biographies of people we should know and historical details, some discussions about the manuscript and changes or possible missprints/misspellings-in one volume (His Last Bow) there are 70 pages of explanatory notes for 167 pages of actual text plus an introduction (30 pages) a chronology of ACD and an appendix of 3 unsigned pieces by P.G. Wodehouse. Quite a lovely little set.

I purchased The Oxford Sherlock Holmes Series published in the 1990's (one example here) which was I believe a 9-volume series. The annotations are all at the back so don't need to interrupt the flow. The ones I had were hardcover but were also small books (12x19 cm/5x8 ") so quite pleasant to read.

Rosina wrote: "When I was a child, and wanted sweets when we were out (a chocolate cream mouse from the sweetshop!) Mum would often refuse saying she'd forgotten her ration book. That carried on rather longer tha..."

That is so funny-all those maternal "reasons" we come up with for not being able to get our children what they want so we're not the ones who look bad, it's the missing ration book that is at fault. You had a clever Mum!