Hercule Poirot Thread

File: image.jpg (38KB, 236x384px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 236x384px

>>8611220
Bump

the one where it's revealed that he's actually the one behind most if not all of the murders forget what it's called

>>8611796
Wasn't that Curtain?

>>8611220
Bump for interest

>>8611796
>>8611812
...are you memeing me?

Anyway, The Big Four is really good. Hastings books are more fun, even if he is a blatant Dr. Watson ripoff.

>>8612632
Hastings books are still Poirot books just from a different POV.

>>8612673
That's what I mean - the ones like Dumb Witness where he's on his own just seem flat somehow.

The Murder of Roger A. > The Curtain >>> Styles > The Works of Hercules > The Big Four >>> The Rest

>>8612632
He's talking about Poirot confessing the murder of the birdwatcher villain (that "murdered" without properly murdering), one of te reasons for his suicide, aside from his ego.

>>8612757
Is Murder of Roger A. just objectively the best Poirot? It feels like the only other Christie book that comes close in terms of critical acclaim and actual craft is 10 Little Niggers.

>>8611220
Murder on the Orient Express or Murder of Roger Ackroyd
>>8612895
It has the best twist.

File: Christie_1939_ten_little_niggers_collins_1939.jpg (32KB, 300x465px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x465px

>>8611220

>>8612757
Should I just read these 4 books and then watch the rest pf the episodes in the TV show?

>>8611220

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Not just because of the plot, but because of the craft that goes into creating a particular impression and expectation of a central character.

>>8613334

No. Pretty much every adaptation of Christie plays fast and loose, and generally does so in ways that make the plot less tight and logical. And the novels are general short, quick, easy reads anyway. When I was in HS, they were for a time my standard light lesiure reading, offering a break both from set books and from the English classics that I read by choice, and I could generally manage one in a day or two, sometimes an afternoon if I was especially focussed.

>>8614891
Then I'll read that one. There's no order to the series, right?

>>8614891
Then I'll read that one. There's no order to the series, right?

>>8616159
>>8616160

The novels can be read in any order. There are occasionally references to earlier cases in the books (and in one case, the Marple novels The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side [1963] and The Body in the Library [1942], the site of the later case is the same house where an earlier case occurred), but nothing that prevents one reading them in any sequence one chooses.

The one thing I would say, without venturing into spoilers, is that some of the cleverness of Ackroyd is more apparent if one is familiar with the prior Poirot novels; however, the novel stands on its own.

>>8616432
>The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side [1963]

1962 - slip of the keyboard.