Must be a group member before inviting friends
Reading the Detectives discussion
This topic is about
Three Act Tragedy
Archive: Poirot Buddy Reads
>
Poirot Buddy Read 13 SPOILER THREAD: Three Act Tragedy
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jessica-sim
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 01, 2019 02:57AM
Indulge in discussing all spoilers and interesting plots twists here!
reply
|
flag
I'm pretty sure that this was a new one for me-I don't remember it all all. I was pretty sure that Egg was the murderer once her mother had discussed her father who'd had a "kink" (which in this case meant her was naturally evil, I think) and once again (as always) was completely surprised by the solution.I also rather thought that Satterthwaite might be "courting" Egg's mother, although perhaps Christie is going along with the prevailing idea in the story that any woman over 35 is completely out of the running for romance. I was rather disheartened by the number of either apparently over-the-hill or hopelessly unattractive women there were (I think everyone but Egg seemed out of the running for any possibility of romance). Thank heavens she at least had an age-appropriate lover for Egg waiting in the wings!
Frances wrote: "(I think everyone but Egg seemed out of the running for any possibility of romance). Thank heavens she at least had an age-appropriate lover for Egg waiting in the wings!"Yes, this is something I've noticed recently in re-reading a number of Ngaio Marsh's crime novels, that there are a number of big age-gap relationships. It's interesting that Christie sets up this one as inappropriate (which it is, even if you discount the homicide).
I do like Oliver and am hopeful that he and Egg worked things out afterwards.
It was notable that Poirot seemed much more sidelined in this one-most of the "detecting" was done by the threesome. I'm enjoying the sequential read to see how Christie has him evolve or change.That was also an interesting final section where Poirot touches on the more comical aspect of his persona-that he is in fact putting on the accent and acting the "bumbling foreigner" role to put suspects off their guard. A bit of an indictment of the English/upper classes sense of superiority!
Well, is that the most weird and yet strangely logical motive for a murder ever?! I'm referring to the first one, of course. I thought Christie did an excellent job of setting the scene for it by making so much of Sir Charles as an actor - yet misdirecting us at the same time. Also she threads through his obsession with Egg so that when all is revealed, it's easy to buy into the plot.
I did also get the sense that she's got a crush on him but will recover and end up with Oliver.
Even though Poirot didn't play a large part in the book, it was still compulsive reading. Although retired, we see a side of Poirot where he realises he is just not enjoying retirement as he thought he would.Christie did all she could to divert us and suspect one person as being the murderer, and even though you knew you were being led that way, there were still times where you doubted yourself.
Mod
Sandy wrote: "Regarding Poirot not enjoying retirement, the scene with the bored children on the beach was excellently done. It got the point across amusingly."Yes I thought that was very well done.
Egg's detective work was great to read. The Dacres sounded like an awful pair. I had a real fondness for Egg.A real 'kick yourself' solution, obvious in hindsight, but I didn't suspect Charles at all.
Tracey wrote: "Egg's detective work was great to read. The Dacres sounded like an awful pair. I had a real fondness for Egg.A real 'kick yourself' solution, obvious in hindsight, but I didn't suspect Charles at..."
Neither did I-I suspected Egg!
This reminded me of some of the Miss Marple stories we read a few years back where the detective seems barely involved and almost could have been cleverly woven in after the fact. But there were some interesting Poirot tidbits about his background and personality that I enjoyed. I do wonder how honest he was being about "faking" his boasts, when it seems like he did that a lot in the presence of Hastings, whom I think it is safe to assume he is not trying to fool.I also found the motive to be rather thin--would it really be necessary to murder 3 people (and 2 of them not even involved) just to marry someone? Couldn't he just have bribed the doctor or somehow convinced him to hush it up?
Tara wrote: "I also found the motive to be rather thin--would it really be necessary to murder 3 people (and 2 of them not even involved) just to marry someone? Couldn't he just have bribed the doctor or somehow convinced him to hush it up?..."I thought this was a really good motive, actually. Maybe if the doctor hadn't been a personal friend, Sir Charles might have attempted the bribery, but I honestly don't see how Strange could have allowed Charles to marry Egg knowing that his friend was still married. Presumably Charles had had lovers before, which Strange thought reasonable under the circumstances, but marriage, and with a young woman (because that's what Egg is, despite her efforts to be seen as mature), would be the most awful sort of dishonesty.
I thought that three Act tragedy was so very well plotted and honest with the reader. Sir Charles' background and need for a dress rehearsal because of this, was a strong enough reason for the first murder. Not a worthy reason, if ever there is one, but understandable. It also provided and insight into Sir Charles - he really was so ego centric - another clue to him as the murderer. Strange's personality was also well depicted. He certainly could not overlook bigamy, however supportive he was of Sir Charles. Again, his sympathy would have been with the innocent Egg, rather than his friend. Egg was also well depicted - head strong, arrogant in some ways (she knew best) and utterly romantic. Marriage rather than an affair, fed into both characters' romantic notions about the other and their place in the world. Egg was prepared to do anything, or at least so she said, but Sir Charles wanted everything: Egg, romance, a new start in the right way. He would have felt that no price was too high to pay - and, from his perspective, what value were other human lives in comparison with what he wanted?
I did find it hard to see Sir Charles distilling nicotine poison in his home-made lab - playing a scientist in a play, yes - doing chemistry for real was a bit of a stretch!
Roman Clodia wrote: "I did find it hard to see Sir Charles distilling nicotine poison in his home-made lab - playing a scientist in a play, yes - doing chemistry for real was a bit of a stretch!"Yes Roman Clodia, I also was raining my eyebrows when the secretary goes on a train journey, takes out a rusty key, climbs a cliff in the dark to open the door to a dusty shed and tadaaa chemistry lab... all is explained.
I must admit that before the find of the lab, Charles had not become a sure suspect in my mind. He was before though when Poirot asked him to stay behind in preparation of the sherry party. But then when he was only asked to play a role... I took the clue the exact opposite way that Poirot did.
Poor Egg!
I loved the detailed attention that this book breaths. Agatha Christie even took the trouble to explain the origins of the nickname "Egg".
I definitely thought that Satterthwaite would be "courting" Egg's mother. They shared a lovely scene.
I think that Christie prepared us for the distillation of poison by Sir Charles. She is explicit about his taking his roles into his own behaviour - the seafaring walk, for example. It is possible that Sir Charles enjoyed the image of himself as a scientist rather than a gardener buying arsenic (I think that is what is in sprays sometimes used for poisoning people). Or is it strychnine? This is part of the allure of his murders - himself as actor.
Mod
I was also surprised to see yet another box of poisoned chocolates turning up - this definitely happens in too many GA mysteries, though I'm not sure which authors used this method first! (I know it did also happen in one or two celebrated real-life cases.)
I'm not sure if Oliver will be right for Egg, after Lady Mary was talking about him being somehow "cold" inside - unless that is just the way he is covering up his heartbreak?
I definitely didn't love this one. I know this is a favorite for many people but it just did not do much for me at all. My review below:
Three Act Tragedy by Agatha ChristieMy rating: 2 of 5 stars
For an Agatha Christie novel, I found this one quite excruciatingly boring. It was very bitsy and messy in plot. The cast was overpopulated by would be sleuths. Having easily identified 'whodunnit' and 'howhedunnit' in chapter one, I spent the rest of the novel trying to get the rest over with. The characters were unloveable and underdeveloped. I did not enjoy having the narrative styles of the Mr Satterthwaite and Poirot mixed here. Poirot seemed pointless and one dimensional, missing his usual charm. The only thing that rescued this book from my one star oneder list was the cleverness of the first murder's motive. Such a shame the rest of the novel did not gel with it. It felt like a book written by a bored, unengaged author with a very poor editor. It would have made an amazing short story, but strung out to novel size, it lost all of its charm. Agatha uninspired.
View all my reviews
I quite like this one, though it's not a favourite. love Mr Satterthwaite though, and the final exchange between him and Poriot is very good.
This definitely isn't a favourite of mine as the characters are so under-developed. It's amazing what a huge range of quality there is in her books - or perhaps not over such a long career.The Agatha Christie's Notebooks book said the US version of Three Act Tragedy implies at the end that Charles is insane. I was so intrigued that I managed to get hold of an old copy on EBay and it's true.
Really?? That is intriguing! What's the difference between the versions? Extra paragraph?
Tara wrote: "I also found the motive to be rather thin--would it really be necessary to murder 3 people (and 2 of them not even involved) just to marry someone? Couldn't he just have bribed the doctor or somehow convinced him to hush it up?."I agree — Not that I'm endorsing this, but surely it's easier to pull the (overused) poisoned chocolate trick or 'play the doctor' at the asylum and poison the first wife? She's someone he clearly has no feelings towards (unlike his life long friend Strange) and with her passing Strange would have no objection to Charles marrying Egg after an appropriate period of time....
