Agatha Christie Lovers discussion
General
>
*spoiler alert* A "new" Poirot novel to publish this fall
I definitely WON'T. Poirot was AC's character and died in Curtain, and other writers should develop their own characters in my humble opinion.
The novelty will reel in a few desperate readers for sure, before it dies off. I think the book will be quite unreadable.
The novel is not written by an unknown hack. I'm not interested in reading the book, but let's not make the situation worse than it is.
If I have never heard of her before, she is an unknown hack.
Frank wrote: "If I have never heard of her before, she is an unknown hack."Just because you never heard of her does not make her a hack. Apparently you are not as informed as you think you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_H...
This is the first I've heard of this! A new author doing Poirot. I still remember the big fuss over
Scarlett
by Alexandra Ripley decades back. It seemed sacrilegious, and I hadn't even read
Gone With the Wind
! I plan to someday...have a copy waiting.I'm old enough to know that some things are better left with a line drawn under them. Sometimes an author and a creation are so indelibly mixed that when it ends...it ends.
Scarlett was kinda good.I might read new Pour it if I can for free
Mod
I think that's the reason in a nutshell Frank.
I was surprised that the estate, and especially Christie's grandson, approved this, since it is well known that Christie wrote Curtain specifically because she did NOT want this to happen.
I had thought about trying it but I did not know that Christie had ended Poirot. So knowing that now I may reconsider reading it.
Thank you for the Spoiler about Poirot and the Curtain , just love knowing the ending of book # 35 while I'm still reading the series...
Kasia wrote: "Thank you for the Spoiler about Poirot and the Curtain , just love knowing the ending of book # 35 while I'm still reading the series..."It was rather common knowledge so I do not think Erin & Denise were out to spoil your fun.
But dead is inevitable for any person.
Mark wrote: "Kasia wrote: "Thank you for the Spoiler about Poirot and the Curtain , just love knowing the ending of book # 35 while I'm still reading the series..."It was rather common knowledge so I do not t..."
I want to assume she was speaking to Eszter since that poster originally revealed the spoiler.
Well it was not much of a spoiler anyhow, and I believe that the new writer placed Poirots new tale before his timely dead.
It was meant for Eszter,obviously.. and damn right it's a spoiler. This is the most ridiculous group I have ever seen.. my cat's litter box has better content.Keep on spoiling things, Im outta here.
Mod
Kasia wrote: "It was meant for Eszter,obviously.. and damn right it's a spoiler. This is the most ridiculous group I have ever seen.. my cat's litter box has better content.Keep on spoiling things, Im outta here."
I'm very sorry that I spoiled it for you. It wasn't intentional. To be honest, I thought that after the whole WWW was full of Poirot's death earlier this year, when the series with David Suchet ended, it was common knowledge. Despite this fact, I repeat, I'm sorry for the mistake I made. Yes, I'm human, and make mistakes. If you hate me for this mistake, it's OK. However, I don't understand your aggression towards and hatred for the group.
Mod
Carolyn F. wrote: "I think her bad day at home bled off into our group. She's quit the group. If all of our discussions lacked content, maybe it was best that she found somewhere she enjoyed more."Maybe you're right. Thanks.
I know how Kasia feels, as someone else also spoiled the ending of Curtain on another thread for me a few years back. Even though I have been reading Christie's books for many years I had NO IDEA that my beloved Poirot dies; I think this is because until I joined this group I had no one to talk about Christie's books with (sad face!)
However, in my opinion, Kasia's reaction was a bit over the top as I don't think anyone goes around spoiling books just for fun... plus it does say SPOILER on the thread title... or was that an addition after Kasia's reaction?
Anyway, Eszter, don't feel bad about it.
Well, after all, Poirot's obituary was in the New York Times, the first time they did that for a fictional character. If that didn't let the cat out of the bag, I don't know what would.(of course, that comment was kind of tongue-in-cheek, as I realize that many people were not around and/or interested at the time, even though the obituary itself made the news on its own and was well-publicized)
Was the spoiler alert in the topic title added later? Probably a good idea.
Denise, I don't read the New York Times, also, I'm Spanish and probably couldn't even speak English back then... wait a minute,when was this? maybe I wasn't even born! :D I'm surprised the publishers allowed the obituary to be in the news(even though I think it's a really nice touch), as such a big spoiler may have put readers off (although even the title gives a bit of clue!) For me, since I found out that Poirot dies I have been dreading the moment I read the book, as I know I will be crying for a while.
I heard that Christie actually wrote this book years before it was published, when she was getting a bit tired of Poirot's popularity, do you guys know if that's true.
Deni, the obituary was published in 1975. Christie did write this and Sleeping Murder (Miss Marple's last novel) in the 1940's, and intended for both to be published after her death. However, near the end of her life she was having difficulty writing, and her publishers convinced her to have it published at that time.
Thanks Denise, I didn't know that; and as I though, I wasn't yet born when the obituary was published ;)
You all seem to have gotten off the original intent of this thread. We could all have a lively discussion about spoilers in this age of Facebook and binge watching. I can no longer discuss any of my favorite books, movies or TV shows at work or on the internet because people complain that ANY plot point spoils things for them. That's why I'm grateful for the discussion threads here so that I can discuss Christie's books with others who have read them. Meanwhile, back to Sophie Hannah's book. I totally understand folks having a strong negative reaction. Some were expressed quite insultingly, but then we all have a strong love for Christie and Poirot. I myself have complained about how some of the TV adaptations, particularly of the Miss Marple and non-detective stories, have grossly distorted the original plot, possibly with the foolish intent of drawing in "younger" audiences who theoretically crave more sex in their stories.
That said, I have purchased Miss Hannah's book and can't wait to read it! The author - a fine writer in her own right - is a lifelong Christie fan and has worked hard to honor Ms. Christie and Poirot in this work. And I - a lifelong Christie fan who has read every book over and over (well, not the last couple, which are unreadable) - get to read a NEW Poirot adventure, one with a mystery I have yet to solve! If it's good, Ms. Hannah might be commissioned to write another, and I will read that one, too.
I've been filling the coffers of the Christie estate for many years with every book, audio book and DVD I buy. Mathew Pritchard's grandmother has given me a lifetime of pleasure with her creation, and I'm excited that Ms. Hannah will be (hopefully) sending me some more.
Another classic detective, Sherlock Holmes, has been honored this way by dozens of authors. Some of these "new" tales have been just as good as the originals, while others haven't fared as well. This could very well be Poirot's fate in the next hundred years, and I say bravo to the literary world for recognizing the lasting appeal of this character and the desire by (some of) us to meet up with him again.
I have never heard of Sophie Hannah before but for me that's not the main issue with her writing a Poirot book, it's just that she is NOT Agatha Christie and it's just weird to have someone else writing "her" books.Having said that I haven't yet decided if I will read her book (which I believe comes out today) but, to be honest, I probably will... maybe she is as good a storyteller as Christie but can give the books a more contemporary feel (aka leave out of the story the casual racism and the love-at-first-sight affairs which I find quite annoying). Plus, you can't critize something if you don't know it, so maybe I'll give her a chance.
I just got this one for my birthday from my sister (along with another Christie) so I guess I'll read it eventually after I catch up on the last couple months reads that I missed. I'm not familiar with Sophie Hannah, but will try to keep my mind open when I read it and give it a fair chance.
I should be receiving my copy any day! I must admit I was alarmed when I started reading disgruntled pans on Amazon. But then I caught the Sunday Times review, which I copy here. Maybe this won't be the travesty some readers fear it must be. (And the review speaks to the concerns of Christie purists as to why this sort of thing had to happen in the first place!)http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/boo...
I'm looking forward to know what you think about it, Renee and Brad. Please, let us know!And thanks for the link, a very interesting article.
I will wait and see what Goodreads members (especially you, Brad!) think before I decide to put the book on my wish list.
Mod
Sometimes bad reviews work for the good because you start with such low expectations. This has happened a couple of times for me.
Deni and M., I am honored and flattered that you want to know what I think. Right now, I can tell you that I'm honestly very excited to be looking forward to a new Poirot adventure! Kind of like waiting for my "Christie for Christmas" in the olden days!!! And you're right, Carolyn, bad reviews can result in pleasant surprises. But reading the GOOD reviews made me really excited about the book to come! I'll let you all know......
Cue funeral music. I am back, having finally completed THE MONOGRAM MURDERS, Sophie Hannah's attempt to revive Poirot. I just posted a review on Amazon, and I thought I would copy the review here. But I will say in preface that I feel like I have been given the news that ten unpublished Christies have been discovered and will be printed immediately......and then I wake up and discover it was all a dream. :(Here's my review:
I began reading Agatha Christie's mysteries at the age of ten and devoured them through my teens and early 20's. I'm old enough to remember the thrill of the advertising ploy: "A new Christie for Christmas!" I've read, watched and listened to all of her stories, most of them many times. I consider myself a true fan, but one who has wished that new stories might have been uncovered. And so I have to admit to feeling some of that same old thrill when I read the announcement that Sophie Hannah, with the blessing of the Christie estate, would be writing a "new" Poirot adventure. I had read Hannah's first novel, LITTLE FACE, and while it shared none of the qualities of a Christie thriller, I had enjoyed it. I was willing to give Hannah the benefit of the doubt, considering her avowed adoration of Christie's work and my own opportunity to encounter Poirot again. I even defended the decision to revive Poirot to other Christie fans on a Goodreads forum with whom I have the pleasure of discussing the original works.
Well, be careful what you wish for and what you defend. While I still maintain that a GOOD new Poirot would be fun to uncover, even if it came from the fertile mind of another writer, this is not it. And while I am disappointed in Hannah for turning this out, I am angry at Mathew Prichard, Christie's grandson, who signed off on this and even provided a quote that this story would have met with his grandmother's approval. In John Curran's two volume assessment of Christie's notebooks (which were much more fun to read than this!), he shares many of the ideas Christie discarded, most of which were cleverer by half than this one. I guess this WAS all about money after all.
Christie's prose was deceptively straightforward. She wasted little time in descriptions of character or setting, preferring to focus on the fiendishly clever external workings of her plot and internal psychology of her characters. And yet, her works contain a brilliant portrait of the times in which she lived, to the point that as you get to the later works, you start missing the British class system she wrote so convincingly about: the hearty squires, neurotic artists and adenoidal maids that inhabited Christie's world, each with deadly secrets just waiting to be revealed. In what was perhaps Hannah's attempt to imbue this novel with her own psychology-heavy style, she forsakes all these types and instead peoples her books with an oddly dull, unpleasant group of characters, none of whom capture the sympathies of this reader.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the creation of an original Watson for Poirot, Inspector Catchpool. Many reviewers have spoken about how unpleasant this character was. I can only say that none of them were strident enough. By novel's end, even Poirot can barely disguise his contempt for Catchpool, who clearly made the worst career choice possible when he decided to become a policeman. I kept waiting for some extraordinary reveal to explain how this neurotic, pathetic, stupid man had been put in charge of such a case, but no explanations were forthcoming. His tics and habits are ridiculous, his cluelessness, coupled with his insistence that Poirot is not as clever as he thinks, all failed to convince and, worse, failed to entertain! How I missed Hastings, an amiable man, whose stupidity was balanced by his courage and his fierce loyalty to Poirot, and who inevitably would say in ignorance something to lead the Great Man to the truth.
The plot is more reminiscent of some of the short stories based in small villages that Christie wrote for Miss Marple and, occasionally, Poirot, but this is a village unlike any I have seen in Dame Agatha's work. Here again, Hannah seems to want to impose her love of psychology from her own work onto a Christie scenario, and the result is a nasty mess and, once more, not entertaining. It reveals nothing about the British character of the late 1920's but tries, with tiresome and not always logical results, to impose a modern psychological twist on Hannah's characters. As in several other, better, Christie novels (i.e. Five Little Pigs, Ordeal by Innocence), a past event leads to a seemingly complex series of murders in the "present." Except these murders aren't really complex or logical, and the lengthy explanation (covering over a quarter of the book) seems repetitive and stretches to endless pondering, unworthy of this slight tale.
I'm mightily disappointed, and perhaps I've learned that old, valuable lesson that "You can't go home again." If another author attempts to resuscitate Poirot, I will greet the next attempt with much more trepidation. Meanwhile, I invite any true Christie fans to join us on Goodreads where we have fun re-reading and analyzing Christie's work and enjoying the pleasure in the words of the readers who are just discovering her.
Great review, Brad. I was concerned that the influence of today's psychological thrillers would overwhelm or supplant the traditional puzzle that Christie would craft for her sleuths (and readers). It sounds like that was the case in this book.Thankfully I have, for one reason or another, rationed Christie's books over my lifetime and have only read half the canon. I choose one from my shelves now and then and savor it as I would a vintage wine saved for a special occasion.
I still believe that Agatha Christie would not have approved this. Curtain would seem to confirm that.
Great review! I've been waiting to read what you thought of it. I wasn't sure if to give this a go or not and now I think I'll give it a miss.
Curtain will be the end of the line (I haven't read it yet) and then I will just start all over again.
Thanks so much Brad for the honest review! I appreciate it.
Just finished the book for my book club and I totally agree Brad. This isn't a horrible book but it's not an Agatha Christie. In my humble opinion the author would have been better off to have written it using her own invented detective.
Alan, have you heard if this author is planning on writing more Poirot books?
Do you think there will be other Poirots or Miss Marples?
I can't believe there is any true Christie fan who would read these novels, violating her own wishes. She wrote 'Curtain' specifically so no one COULD write more Poirot books after her death ... but her family and publishers don't have enough money, so screw what she wanted. Just one opinion, but if you read these novels then you are no true Christie fan.
I wouldn't say that Donald. I think most people who read it are curious as to how Poirot will be portrayed by the new author and want to see if the mystery/story will be anything like a Christie book. I'll eventually read it because my sister got it for me for my birthday, but that doesn't mean I don't like Christie anymore. Brad up above, is probably the biggest Christie fan I know since he'll read and talk anything Christie, but saying he is not a true fan because he read the book is not right at all in my opinion.ETA: Why did you add it if you feel that way Doanld?
I am currently watching a French series called Les Petits Meurtres d'Agatha Christie. They take the original novels, set them in 1930's France, replace Poirot and Marple with a pair of VERY French police detectives, and play havoc with the original plots. (In THE ABC MURDERS, the killer turns out to be someone who isn't even in the books!) I am amused and appalled and fascinated that the French felt the need to tamper with Christie this way. That doesn't stop me from being a true Christie fan, Donald. Renee put it perfectly.(And thanks for the shoutout, Renee. I hang out here with the other fans like you...) But I'm not going to criticize you, Donald. I know your comment came from a sense of outrage that other sources might be belittling Christie with their efforts. I think they're just trying to keep her memory alive - and profitable!
I think all writers and their characters are fair game. Agatha Christie is known all over the world. Anyone really interested in her would seek out the weird interpretations of her works. It all adds to the mix. Were you aware that there is or was a Russian rock band called Agatha Christie? They are a very good band and very popular in Russia. My own liking is for Agatha Christie audio books. They make excellent audio books as the pacing is better I believe than when reading them. They bring the books to life.
I love the audiobooks too, Elijah. I've collected most of them, and it's my preferred method for rereading her books. I've also learned that on YouTube there is a Russian movie of Ten Little Indians that retains the book's original bleak ending! Can't wait to watch it!
I love the audiobooks too, Elijah. I've collected most of them, and it's my preferred method for rereading her books. I've also learned that on YouTube there is a Russian movie of Ten Little Indians that retains the book's original bleak ending! Can't wait to watch it!
Mod
Maybe the same thing with Miss Marple - when she was young. There was a glimpse of that in one of the TV shows about a failed romance. I'd like to see a show about a young Miss Marple.
They've done this with Sherlock Holmes and those aren't awful.
Are there Christie fans out there who will buy this drivel?