In a Nutshell: Well, slightly mixed feelings about this much-anticipated read. This is not one of the more famous Poirot stories, and I can see why. However, it is a good start to the Poirot series as it’s the first book where the Belgian detective makes his appearance. To that extent, my purpose was met. The book provides a decent background into the little detective’s quirky personality and eccentric evaluations.

Story:

As a refugee of the First World War (or the Great War, as it was then called), Poirot has settled near Styles Court courtesy his benefactress Emily Inglethorp. When Emily dies under mysterious circumstances, Poirot uses his sleuthing capabilities to find out what happened. There are plentiful suspects, including Emily’s much younger husband, her two stepsons from her dead husband’s first marriage, the wife of the elder son, her long-time companion, the young daughter of a family friend who works as a nurse, and a specialist on poisons who is also a close friend of the daughter-in-law. Every single character stays in or around Styles Court, and each is keeping loads of secrets. It is up to Poirot and Hastings (Poirot’s friend who is also a friend of Emily’s elder stepson) to sieve through the chaff of lies.
The book is written in the first person perspective of Hastings.

It’s too early to make comparisons between the two most famous detectives in literature but I am still hazarding some.

Poirot vs Sherlock:
Both seem cunning and annoying and secretive and astute in equal measures as of now. Sherlock isn’t much of a firm favourite of mine because of the way he treats Watson, but I admire his brains. Let’s see how far Poirot can match up with him in the subsequent stories.

Hastings vs. Watson:
No competition between the two narrators of the detectives’ adventures. Watson wins this round hands down. I hated the first-person narration by Hastings in this book. I hope he isn’t a regular feature of the Poirot cases.

“The Mysterious Affair at Styles” (first published in 1920) vs. “A Study in Scarlet” (first published in 1887):
Again, the Sherlock book wins this round in terms of which detective had the better debut in the literary world. A Study in Scarlet provides a great background to the British detective and his moodiness and his methodology. The focus stays on him and the number of characters doesn’t go over the top to make the case seem convoluted. The Poirot debut creates quite mixed feelings as there’s hardly any detailing about his background bar a few paragraphs. He is already a proven detective, unlike Sherlock who is attempting to make his name in his debut novel. As a debut appearance, “A Study in Scarlet” provides a better stage for its lead sleuth.

Agatha Christie vs. Arthur Conan Doyle:
This one is really too early to tell. So I won’t make this comparison as it will be unfair. I liked ACD’s style, though not every Sherlock case was a favourite. My average rating for Sherlock’s stories (of which I have read every single one) must have been around 3.5.
Of the two AC books I’ve read, I found this one a bit dragged and needlessly twisted, though of course, guessing the actual culprit was almost impossible. It wasn’t Poirot but Hastings that brought the book down. Plus, there are way too many characters, and there is a lot of inconsistency in how they are referred to. This is more applicable to the female characters i.e. sometimes they are called only by their first name, sometimes last name, sometimes full name… The ending also seemed quite contrived. (The other AC book I had read, I had loved; coincidentally, it too was a Poirot story – Murder on the Orient Express. So I still have high hopes from this series, though I am not planning to read every single Poirot novel.)

3.25 stars for this one. Fingers crossed for the next.


***********************
Join me on the Facebook group, Readers Forever!, for more reviews, book-related discussions and fun. ( )

I found it interesting reading this book after having read some of the later Poirot books. I can see where those evolved from this one, but I'm glad I didn't start with book one. While this book was just as full of misdirections and withheld information as I was expecting, it lacked some of the charm that I found in later books. I don't know if I would have been as interested in continuing the series if I had started here.

CW: there is the misogyny and casual racism that can be expected from books of this era ( )

I started reading this because I’m a simp for the McElroy brothers, and two of them have now talked about how good Agatha Christie’s books are. I’ve always had the thought that I should read them, but that’s what finally pushed me through the door to actually start. This is my first, and I’m definitely planning to read more. I’ve already put Murder on the Orient Express on hold at the library. I really enjoyed the story, and it was such a short read I finished it in three hours. Hercule Poirot is a uniquely fascinating character, and I could see how he was the inspiration for several future characters.

The story had me hooked from the beginning, and I was just as confused as the narrator at times as to who the murderer was. That being said, there were some problematic parts, as there so often are with books from this era. The occasional casual racism and anti-semitism from characters weren’t fun, and a certain word starting with “n” was used once. There were also a few points when I felt very annoyed by the narrator and his obsession with some of the women in the book.

Despite those issues, it was a pretty good mystery. ( )

The first of the Poirot books and it sort of shows. This isn't as good as some of the later ones, I think in part because, while it is true, you have all the info you need to solve it yourself, it does require some specialized knowledge in pharmacy/chemistry that I, for one, do not have. But Poirot here is his full annoying self, and the supporting cast is reasonably fledged, although there isn't much to Japp yet. An interesting period piece. ( )

Agatha Christie's first novel and the first appearance of her famous detective Hercule Poirot. We have also Hastings, who plays the role of "Watson" in some Poirot novels. He is more gullible than Watson, though, who only seemed dim when contrasted with Holmes. Hastings is dim in his own right, and instead of being an alter e go for the reader, the reader is able to see farther than him (although never as far as the little Belgian detective).

You can see Christie's genius not in the setting, which is a country house, quite typical for these Golden Age of Detection novels, nor in the characterization, adequate but not outstanding, but in the fiendishly clever plotting. Christie plays fair, giving readers all the information, but her use of red herrings is masterful to misdirect the reader. When the solution is revealed, all the seemingly random events and Poirot's strange actions and questions suddenly fit together. An excellent read. ( )