r/poirot

This makes no sense to me. There are full-cast audio dramatizations of nearly every every Poirot novel. Yet the one Poirot story that Christie actually wrote as a play is only available as audiobooks of the Charles Osborne novelization. What gives?

I've tried reading and listening to the novelization, but I find the adaptation very clunky. (Stage directions do not work as narration!) I suspect I would enjoy it more if actually performed. Given audiences' continued appetite for Poirot, I cannot understand why the estate hasn't ensured a proper modern adaptation for TV, film or audio drama.

This is something I've wanted to write for a while, the thoughts just kept rotating in my mind.

SPOILERS FOR THE FOLLOWING AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT EPISODES "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" AND "CURTAIN". If you haven't seen one/any of these, turn back now.

I would like to introduce this by saying that it is about justice, but not in a broad sense. On the contrary, it is about two different concepts of the term, present in two works by Agatha Christie. These two works are Murder on the Orient Express (book published in 1934; episode first aired in 2010) and Curtain (book published in 1975; episode first aired in 2013).

In the first one, 12 people come together to murder a man named Cassetti, who kidnapped and killed a young girl they all had a link to. They stabbed him, one by one. When the truth was discovered (and this is way more visible in the episode), some if not most of them spoke about God's justice — Cassetti had to die because of what he had done.

Poirot, however, as a Catholic, tells them that it was not God's justice, and that they did not have the power to make that decision; only God does. He lets the murderers go, and does not tell the authorities about them.

In Curtain, it's different. The stakes are higher. Poirot knows it will be his last case. He is dying, even if his situation is not as dire as it seems. He knows it will come to a final battle between him and X.

He, then, does the unthinkable. Or what seems unthinkable, at least. He kills X, and leaves Hastings the clues needed to find out the truth, before passing away after removing the medicine that could have saved him. He entrusts himself to his God's mercy, and hopes it may be swift.

Here, we have justice done by a man's own hand. This decision of life and death, that Poirot was so vehemently against in Murder on the Orient Express, is the one he now makes. Saving innocent lives is put forth as the reason for it.

Did it have to come to it? There was no evidence of X's involvement in any of the cases… and yet he was the mastermind, the thread-puller behind them. Would bringing him to justice have been possible, or would Poirot have to sacrifice his soul for justice, as he did?

As Poirot himself says in his last letter to Hastings, "No—I do not know. I do not believe that a man should take the law into his own hands... [...] I have saved other lives—innocent lives. But still I do not know... It is perhaps right that I should not know. I have always been so sure—too sure... But now I am very humble and I say like a little child ‘I do not know...’"

I was watching an episode last night, I forget the title. Two people die by poisoning at separate dinner party’s and a women nicknamed ”egg”. Any way I noticed that Poirot’s Mustaches were not curled up and twirled. They were straight out with a curl at the end. This is a later episode. So when did they change in the series Exactly?

>!Watching the series with David Suchet. Is the suggestion that Nick took the watch with the cocaine in it to end her life? Is this just a 90s television DARE style overblowing the effects of drugs? If she was an addict the amount in a tiny watch wouldn’t be a big deal lol so she just gets let away to do some blow and make another wild scheme!<

I just rewatched, for about the 10th time, The Double Clue with David Suchet. The story is not that good, but the affair of Poirot with the Countess is quite touching.. the ending really put me in a melancholy mood.. But it’s nice to know that Poirot wasn’t always alone.

An odd question but I don't know where else to ask it. In the past, I've read a lot about the history of divorce in England, but this surprised me.

(The book was published in 1935.) Poirot says that divorce is available in some situations, but never available when (1) one spouse is serving a life sentence in prison or (2) one spouse is "confined in a lunatic asylum."

Those seem like odd reasons to deny a divorce. Like, why force someone to remain married to someone serving a life sentence? And it was possible to divorce someone who was "incurably insane," but not if they might possibly get better?

Just wondering if anyone had thoughts. Thanks in advance.