Reading the Detectives discussion
This topic is about
Death in the Clouds
Archive: Poirot Buddy Reads
>
Poirot Buddy Read 14: SPOILER thread: Death in the Clouds
date
newest »
newest »
I really enjoyed this one for reasons other than the plot, comparing the configuration of the plane to a modern one, for example. I'm about to re-read it, although I can recall the perpetrator and reasons for the murders (unlike several other of Christie's novels). I don't know whether my recall means this was a more simplistic and obvious plot or characterisation of a murder, but shall enjoy trying to work that out, if not Christie's novel. I really like this challenge as it encourages re-reading, there is a spoiler thread that works well, and some good debate.
oooohhhh my! Did I completely miss that maid, how did that happen to me? I felt like I was doing such a good job keeping track of things. I was so proud to be ahead of Fournier with my spotting of the 4 ways to blow a dart at someone, super red herring of course... I was correct in my suspicion of the murderer, but wrong in method and motivation... sigh ;-)
Did anyone else think that, at heart, this is similar to the last book, Three Act Tragedy? Again we have the two lovers as semi-detectives, and the murderer in disguise as a 'working man' whom no-one notices, plus the secret wife...
To Christie's credit, she misdirects us so cleverly that if I hadn't read these two books back-to-back, I'd never have spotted the likenesses.
Oh, and did anyone else wonder at the end how he'd managed to take the white coat into the toilet without anyone noticing?
Roman Clodia wrote: "Did anyone else think that, at heart, this is similar to the last book, Three Act Tragedy? Again we have the two lovers as semi-detectives, and the murderer in disguise as a 'working man' whom no..."
Yes, I did spot the likeness between these two books. I also thought that if I hadn't read both so close together, I would probably not have noticed. But that's what I like about reading them all in order, you spot so many more things.
I did wonder about the white coat and about the stuffing he put in his mouth, also... where did he leave things afterwards? Wasn't the toilet searched?
I couldn't figure out why no one - not one person - said the maid came into the cabin. Not that I got the connection.
Jessica wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "Did anyone else think that, at heart, this is similar to the last book, Three Act Tragedy? Again we have the two lovers as semi-detectives, and the murderer in disguise as a ..."
So true! I read this one long ago, remembered the blowpipe and poisoned dart, but not the murderer, I was just cruising along, enjoying the ride. But, you’re both right - about the similarities AND what did he do with the white coat and mouth padding- I got so caught up in Poirot’s performance, I didn’t pay attention!
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I couldn't figure out why no one - not one person - said the maid came into the cabin. Not that I got the connection."Oh, yeah, what the heck? Ok, next time, I have to up my game and pay attention like you guys - I’m just reading (or listening) along, imagining David Suchet and Hugh Fraser and Japp, not focusing. I am not using my little grey cells at all!
Susan in NC wrote: " I’m just reading (or listening) along"Yes, reading and listening are different activities.
The presence of the maid and the Countess not mentioning her caused me to suspect the Countess. But then no one mentioned the maid, and that didn't make sense. Even the steward said no one from the front compartment had come back and I didn't see how that could be right when he had gone and gotten her.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: " I’m just reading (or listening) along"Yes, reading and listening are different activities."
Yeah, but sad thing is I was doing both on this read and didn’t question the things you all noticed!
Blame it on Hastings - he always got it wrong.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "The presence of the maid and the Countess not mentioning her caused me to suspect the Countess. But then no one mentioned the maid, and that didn't make sense. Even the steward said no one from the..."True - but could it be the attitude that servants don’t matter? Seems strange in this day and age, but I’ve read plenty of historical fiction and mysteries where aristocrats or wealthy people treat servants like they’re invisible...of course, the stewards might have at least noticed the maid - as you say, the one steward was actually sent for the maid.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Blame it on Hastings - he always got it wrong."Lol! True, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
Susan in NC wrote: "the one steward was actually sent for the maid. "And he was asked directly if anyone came from the front to the back. I have to admit this omission about the maid bothered me the entire time and I still missed the significance.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "the one steward was actually sent for the maid. "And he was asked directly if anyone came from the front to the back. I have to admit this omission about the maid bothered me ..."
You’re right, good point!
I didn't understand why, if the thorn was thrust directly into her neck, he didn't just pocket it and flush it down the toilet when he went back to change. Then it would never have been discovered and everyone would assume it was the wasp, at least until the autopsy.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I couldn't figure out why no one - not one person - said the maid came into the cabin. Not that I got the connection."I agree with Susan-I think people just don't notice servants/wait staff and so the idea of disguising yourself as someone in those roles has often been a way to pass unnoticed.
Frances wrote: "I didn't understand why, if the thorn was thrust directly into her neck, he didn't just pocket it and flush it down the toilet when he went back to change. Then it would never have been discovered ..."Very good point! If he had to go back in to take off the dentist’s jacket (steward disguise), he could’ve flushed the thorn - no evidence in that case! And you know, that chief steward seemed conscientious and experienced- and planes aren’t that large - that was taking a risk that the other stewards wouldn’t notice a third guy in a white coat, even if passengers would be likely to overlook him.
Frances wrote: "I agree with Susan-I think people just don't notice servants/wait staff and so the idea of disguising yourself as someone in those roles has often been a way to pass unnoticed. "Well, this wasn't a disguise, and further, someone actually *did* go into the compartment. What difference does it make in what capacity. After all, they all noticed the stewards, and they weren't even passengers.
I quite like this one, though it's not one of my favourites. I particularly like the two archaeologists. But it's like a few other Christies where the murder takes place in an enclosed place, and I wonder why he didn't pick somewhere more open, where there would be less chance of tracking down suspects etc. I mean, a plane seems to me the very worst place to commit a murder, especially in those days when there would be far fewer passengers.
I like this book partly because of the sections in Jane's narrative, which are lively and fun. But it frustrates me how many AC mysteries have bigamy as the solution, especially where the first marriage is unsportingly kept from the reader. Along with 3 Act Tragedy mentioned above there are others I won't mention here as I can't remember what order they were written in.
Jane was certainly the star of this book, especially when she became Poirot's secretary.I've only just discovered that the 'flapjacks' mentioned in the women's belongings on the plane refer to make up compact mirrors, rather than oatie snacks. I did think it was a little odd that all the women carried an oat bar!
Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.