Not sure why, but I really enjoy that silence between when you announce that we're leaving the spoiler-free part of the video and the moment you resume speaking (I also noticed it distinctly in your review of 'Third Girl'). It's such a perfect instance of a boundary-crossing act, while at the same time continuing the presentation.
It's so interesting that Christie treats crime differently across the different works and associates particular crimes with different moods, in relation to general expectations, and in relation to the victim's persona. It's also interesting how playing with those variations can result in a novel being perceived as darker or more irksome. Your reviews of Christie stand out especially because of your sustained engagement with her work, which means you can step back and forth between her body of work (or at least the Poirot novels, taken as a whole) and the particular work under discussion. I'm looking forward to hearing the upcoming ones in the coming days.
Yes definitely! There's a huge difference in the way readers perceive the death of an innocent victim in the wrong place at the wrong time, versus a horrible villain who basically had it coming, and Christie covers the whole spectrum of victims in her works. In this book it really should be more of the former type, but it ends up feeling like the latter in how characters react. It is satisfying to have read enough Christie to be able to step around through her body of work and draw relationships and contrasts. I'd like to be able to do that with more authors; so far there are only a few for whom I can really achieve that though.
Dead Man's Folly has one of the other instances of a murdered girl treated with a nauseating degree of contempt. It's really jarring, since it places them in the same company as the victims of Appointment with Death and The Mirror Crack'd. Yes, Elephants Can Remember...maybe they shouldn't.
Agree with you on the first two Branagh Poirot films. The Sachet versions were much better.Less Branagh and more of the other performers would have been much better and the idea that Poirot was a soldier in WW I was absurd. I had such low expectations for Halloween Party but since it has almost nothing to do with the book, I really enjoyed it. Go figure.😊
"A Haunting in Venice" is the absolute worst. It really bears no resemblance to the novel and is utterly unwatchable. The Suchet version is far better.
![Elephants Can Remember -- Agatha Christie [Book Review] [Spoilers Second Half]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PelfW_kX_4U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Elephants Can Remember -- Agatha Christie [Book Review] [Spoilers Second Half]](/img/tr.png)
![The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - William Shirer [Book Discussion and Deep Dive]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rJmpQVNfHpA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Third Girl -- Agatha Christie [Book Review] [Spoilers Second Half]](/img/n.gif)
Remember both Poirot and Mrs Oliver talked heartlessly about the girl victim in Dead Man’s Folly. Best Christie with child in it - Crooked House.
Very perceptive of you - about the change of social values in the 60s Christie chronicles.
Not sure why, but I really enjoy that silence between when you announce that we're leaving the spoiler-free part of the video and the moment you resume speaking (I also noticed it distinctly in your review of 'Third Girl'). It's such a perfect instance of a boundary-crossing act, while at the same time continuing the presentation.
It's so interesting that Christie treats crime differently across the different works and associates particular crimes with different moods, in relation to general expectations, and in relation to the victim's persona. It's also interesting how playing with those variations can result in a novel being perceived as darker or more irksome. Your reviews of Christie stand out especially because of your sustained engagement with her work, which means you can step back and forth between her body of work (or at least the Poirot novels, taken as a whole) and the particular work under discussion. I'm looking forward to hearing the upcoming ones in the coming days.
Yes definitely! There's a huge difference in the way readers perceive the death of an innocent victim in the wrong place at the wrong time, versus a horrible villain who basically had it coming, and Christie covers the whole spectrum of victims in her works. In this book it really should be more of the former type, but it ends up feeling like the latter in how characters react.
It is satisfying to have read enough Christie to be able to step around through her body of work and draw relationships and contrasts. I'd like to be able to do that with more authors; so far there are only a few for whom I can really achieve that though.
You haven’t reviewed the best Poirots have you? ABC, Orient Express, Peril at End House, Roger Ackroyd? Cards on the Table?
Dead Man's Folly has one of the other instances of a murdered girl treated with a nauseating degree of contempt. It's really jarring, since it places them in the same company as the victims of Appointment with Death and The Mirror Crack'd.
Yes, Elephants Can Remember...maybe they shouldn't.
Agree with you on the first two Branagh Poirot films. The Sachet versions were much better.Less Branagh and more of the other performers would have been much better and the idea that Poirot was a soldier in WW I was absurd. I had such low expectations for Halloween Party but since
it has almost nothing to do with the book, I really enjoyed it. Go figure.😊
"A Haunting in Venice" is the absolute worst. It really bears no resemblance to the novel and is utterly unwatchable. The Suchet version is far better.
Oh dear! I agree though that the Suchet version was quite good, and that one brought in more of a consistent Halloween theme.
Avoid the Branagh Poirots. Irredeemable bilge, waste of big budgets.
"A Haunting in Venice" was really bad.