u/Illustrious_Wear_850

Cards on the Table: 18 (out of 20)

A Poirot where a murder must be solved using psychology … and knowledge of the card game bridge.

Story (4.5) (out of 5) - >!A novel that grips you from the start with Shaitana’s promise of his collection of murderers and, soon after, his actual murder. Agatha Christie does a really good job of weaving in multiple cold cases into the narrative without things going off the rails. I felt the “cards” theme was done very well, both the references to the detectives placing their cards on the table (being transparent) as well as how the players’ bridge strategies figure into the solution of the murder. I also liked the touch that justice comes for all 3 of the actual murderers in some way or another. One flaw is that sometimes the plot has to be helped along by out-of-character decisions, such as 1) when Poirot notices Anne Meredith going up the steps to Mrs. Lorrimer’s house he decides to just go home rather than investigate or 2) Anne Meredith and Rhoda decide to get on a rickety boat even though neither of them know how to swim. Despite these puzzling decisions, the book’s logic is sound where it counts.!<

Setting (1.5) (out of 2) - >!Shaitana’s exotic and luxurious drawing room is an excellent closed room setting for a murder. The rest of the novel moves around a good bit, but we do get a good general sense of life in London, and particularly the culture of its bridge players.!<

Mood (2.5) (out of 3) - >!The early chapters have a strange and unsettling feeling to them, likely helped along by the mysterious Shaitana whose presence looms large even when dead. His gallery of rogues help bring about this unnerving feeling and there’s a fair bit of tension as Anne Meredith is gradually revealed to be a ruthless survivor who is increasingly concerned about the loose end that Rhoda Dawes represents.!<

Characters (5) (out of 5) - >!Shaitana is a good foil for Poirot even if he doesn’t last long (he’d make a great internet troll), though if you drink every time Christie describes him as Mephistophelian you’d be drunk by the time he was dead. The prospective murderers are fairly interesting, especially the two women. The scene they share getting tea is filled with pathos, the older woman seeing a bit of herself in the younger. The following passage is a subtly brilliant way to illustrate Mrs. Lorrimer coming to terms with her own fate:!<

>!There was that same curious appraising and yet sympathetic look on Mrs. Lorrimer’s face, as she asked: “How old are you, Anne Meredith?” “I—I?” the girl stammered. “I’m twenty-five.” “And I’m sixty-three,” said Mrs. Lorrimer. She went on slowly: “Most of your life is in front of you….” Anne shivered.!<

>!We also have quite a few recurring characters here. Poirot is as great as ever, Colonel Race is dull as ever but disposed of early enough, while Battle is the rare detective that Poirot can play against yet still respect. The brightest star, though, is Ariadne Oliver, who is clearly a stand-in for Agatha Christie herself. She’s funny (sometimes intentionally), awkward, and often cleverer than you’d expect. One (of several) hilarious instance I’ll note is when she gets defensive when Dr. Roberts makes fun of the untraceable poisons she used in her novels: “I could invent a better murder any day than anything real. I’m never at a loss for a plot. And the people who read my books like untraceable poisons!”!<

Mystery (4.5) (out of 5) - >!An unusual mystery in that the clues are primarily psychological in nature (which the Foreword of the book flat out tells you will be the case). When you actually view the mystery through that lens, the solution is the only one that makes sense. The core mystery is fairly simple and how Poirot unravels it is brilliant. He determines that the audacious murder could only be committed by 1) A reckless gambler whose previous murders showed a tendency to take risks … 2) … and whose bridge playing showed that same tendency 3) and who would prove to be very observant of the items in the room, but much less observant of what was happening during the bridge games. The various cold case murders are reasonably well constructed as well, though I’m not sure I buy Despard’s story about trying to shoot Mr. Luxmore in the leg to prevent him from wandering into the river and drowning (and I think Poirot bought it a bit too easily), so a half point is docked here.!<

Final Thoughts: >!Despite a few logical flaws elsewhere in the novel, the central murder itself is about as tightly constructed as you could want. The psychological deductions needed to solve the murder are very well thought out and makes this a unique Christie.!<

Murder in Mesopotamia: 9.5 (out of 20) (Scoring described here)

A Poirot set in the Middle East that gives a fascinating look into the world of archaeology, but asks the reader to suspend disbelief too much.

Story (3) (out of 5) - >!Amy Leatheran’s matter-of-fact narration style helps make this book an easy read. There’s a feeling of a stranger in a strange land that permeates the early passages of the book and helps sustain our interest. It drags quite a bit in the middle as many characters repeat things that we already know and it feels like we’re running in place. But you’ll find yourself mostly invested in the story and very intrigued by the world of archaeology. !<

Setting (2) (out of 2) - >!This is our first novel (fully) set in the Middle East and it’s a breath of fresh air. There’s clearly some enthusiasm about the location from Christie, though we learn a little less about the culture there than we might have otherwise as most of the novel is set at the Expedition House (which is a pretty good location for a closed circle mystery, with the only means of egress being the front gate). What we do learn quite a lot about, however, is the world of archaeology and we see it through the eyes of a curious amateur (which Christie herself likely was at the time). There are a ton of small details shared here: Paying workman the weight in gold of objects they find so they don’t steal them, washing away built up grime using hydrochloric acid, using acetone to clean the stickiness from your hands after mending pottery … these all help piece together a clear picture of what this world is like.!<

Mood (1.5) (out of 3) - >!My one quibble here is that the narration style makes the book feel a little too low stakes. There are some moments where the tension cuts though, and even delivers some good chills, like the scene where Mrs. Leidner is describing the letters she received (and particularly the final one saying simply “I have arrived”) or Mrs. Johnson’s gruesome death by hydrochloric acid.!<

Characters (2) (out of 5) - >!There’s a bit too much “tell” and not enough “show” with some of the characters here, especially with Louise Leidner. She certainly sounds fascinating the way Poirot sums her up at the end, but we don’t really see that spark in her while she’s around. The young male characters tend to blend together and are fairly uninteresting. Poirot is here for the final two-thirds of the book and he’s entertaining enough, but Amy Leatheran dominates this novel and what you think of her will dictate how much you enjoy it. Many folks are enamored with her and I definitely like that she feels like a real person. She’s no-nonsense, doesn’t put up with bullshit (certainly not from other women), has strong colonial attitudes that were indicative of the time, etc. While some of this was interesting to me, overall I found her a bit bland. I did get a chuckle out of this interaction she had with Father Lavigny: “You do not know women as I do,” he said. And that was a funny thing, I thought, for a monk to say.!<

Mystery (1) (out of 5) - >!Well. Let’s start with the good. The mystery is pretty compelling throughout. It feels impossible that anybody could have killed Louise Leidner and I was definitely invested in figuring out who did it. There’s a pretty good clue as to who with the fact that the threatening letters stopped coming during her courtship of Eric Leidner, suggesting the letter writer was OK with her marrying him, just not anybody else. But the solution itself asks the reader to suspend disbelief to a far greater extent than is reasonable. My two main issues are: 1) Louise Leidner remarried her own husband and didn’t recognize him because it was 15 years later? Seriously? 2) Eric Leidner basically killed his wife by dropping a big yo-yo on her head. … what was otherwise a compelling mystery is completely undone by its ridiculous solution.!<

Final Thoughts: >!I really disliked this novel on the first read, but the second time through it was a lot easier to appreciate the archaeological setting. The solution doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory bit of scrutiny, so it’s hard to look back on the novel fondly, but until you get to that solution it’s a mostly enjoyable read.!<