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. ( )

My first Agatha Christie book. . . I don't know why I haven't read her books sooner.

I am a big sucker for classic who done it. I enjoy mystery TV shows with a nice big story, and I am not able to call the killer in the first 5 minutes. Because if I do the story and all the characters just fall apart.

I recently discovered Agatha Christie's Poirot TV series on britbox, and it became my latest obsession. So, naturally, I had to read the books.

This lived up to my expectations, plot well plotted out with so many suspects one couldn't deduce quickly. What I enjoyed was the sort of house plans to show where everybody's rooms were in the house, including staff entrance. So if I wanted to, I could have taken a piece of paper and started making decductions on who was where and what everybody said, like a classic game of cluedo.

Hercule Poirot is a self-absorbing detective who knows he is smarter than anyone else and wishes everyone to use their little grey cells. To come to the same conclusions as he did.

I was a bit disappointed that the novel was told from Mr Hastings' point of view, but I understood why it was done so. (Like Dr. Watson for Sherlock)

To me, Hastings was really slow at catching on about what happened or how everything was deduced. He is quite a boring, dry character.

Nevertheless, this is a comfortable mystery read that had me laughing and rolling my eyes a few times.

I can't wait to continue my Agatha Christie obsession. ( )

First Hercule Poirot novel. A wealthy woman is killed. Who did it? How and why?

I enjoyed seeing Poirot before he was her most famous sleuth. He sits back to let things happen. He investigates in his own way. He does not come out and declare who is the murderer. He has his theories and I like how he waits to test his theories before letting Hastings know what he thinks. He leads Hastings along the path of his investigation. I liked how Hastings got angry with Poirot for not sharing his thoughts. At least half the people involved with the woman are suspects. When Poirot explains who and how the murder was committed, I was surprised (more by the how then the who.)

I could see how she starts setting out Poirot's little quirks here. She also shows how Poirot and Hastings work together. Hastings is more emotional than Poirot.

I love Agatha Christie's books. I am always surprised at how good she is when I come back to read her again. ( )