I’ve never read much Agatha Christie; I’m not sure how I’ve missed her. I can definitely see how she helped shape the genre. The story was good, and I love her writing, but I’m not sure I’m much of a Poirot fan.
In this book, retired inspector Hercule Poirot is consulting with the police to stave off boredom. His friend Captain Hastings tells us the story, and most everything is from his point of view. Poirot shows him a letter from someone calling him/herself ABC, threatening to commit a crime in a few days. The police think it’s a hoax and pay no attention, until Mrs. Ascher is found murdered in Andover. After a second letter and a second body (Betty Barnard in Bexhill), all London is aflurry and worried about the next murder. Poirot matches wits, collects clues, all the usual steps, while Hastings follows along and is flabbergasted by his brilliance.
I always thought that the purpose of the slightly-dimmer detective’s assistant/partner was as an audience stand-in/exposition fairy. But if the detective is too obvious about looking down on his sidekick, that’s a bit insulting to the audience too, yes? Poirot is always telling Hastings mildly condescending things, remarking on his astounding capacity to notice the obvious, etc., and Hastings never seems to get it. Maybe that’s just their dynamic and I haven’t read enough of these to know, but it definitely didn’t endear Poirot to me much.
It’s weird to read something and be annoyed by the genre tropes, knowing that Christie helped create some of these tropes. I’ve never understood the whole “I know who did it and why, for I am the genius detective, but I shan’t tell you yet because…reasons.” This optimistic killer plans to murder 26 people, Poirot! Perhaps you should spit it out!
Love the writing style, but not my favorite story. I’ll try one of her mega-classics later.