I'm reading Poirot in order as well and my next book is a reread of Evil Under The Sun. It seems I have a lot to look forward to:) A saving grace in this book is Ariadne Oliver. I've always enjoyed her character.
Full disclosure: I don't know how objective I can be with this one. My story is very similar to yours: it was also my first Agatha Christie, and I have such nostalgia and good memories of discovering her through this particular novel. I definitely agree with all the criticisms of this book at the same time, it's just that the nostalgia is strong with this one. And I actually really like the idea behind it, despite it not being carried through totally satisfactorily, and the atmosphere is quite dark and unsettling when she gets it right. For me, I would read this before any of the other 60s Poirots. It has a lot of promise. Slight tangent: this book is very much of its time. From the late 60s through the 70s, lots of the entertainment coming out of the UK dealt with themes of paganism, the paranormal, rural settings, witchcraft... This novel really has that 70s atmosphere to me which also brings back that nostalgia because while I am a bit younger than that decade, I'm from a place that was rather behind the times and we were exposed to a lot of 1970s British media as children. The other week I reread the opening two chapters and I really understood what reviewers have meant when they call the later novels very "talky". Like, Joyce's bragging - an important plot point - is surrounded by Mrs Oliver's thoughts on society, children, pumpkins (!), while an amorphous set of characters float in and out. It's like Christie is just getting carried away with ranting on modern life 😜. I feel that in an earlier work, she would've included more defined characters at the party whose conversations would've shown more of their characteristics and advanced the plot. Here Mrs Oliver herself has trouble distinguishing a lot of the characters and therefore so do we. I should also say I really like the way Christie writes children. She allows them to be unlikeable if they need to be, and I think a big theme of hers is how teenagers are so eager to come across as more mature than they are. You see this in Nicholas and Desmond with the part you quoted or their speculation that Miss Whittaker is a lesbian, or Joyce with her statement: "I was quite young at the time". I thought this was some nice observation. Plus there's a scene early on where Mrs Oliver and two teenagers have similar thoughts about each others' generation being the selfish one which was a bit more "fair" I guess, compared to other "kids these days" statements. I have too much to say about this novel and it's really just rambling. 😂 TL;DR - everyone is correct when it comes to the failings of this book, but due to reasons, I still think fondly of it 😀.
I very much understand the affection for this one! I definitely still feel it, too... as I was rereading, it was hard for me to separate out my instinctual love for this book as my first Christie vs. my actual reading experience today. I kept ping-ponging back and forth of "oof, that was bad" and "but it's so charming!" and "that makes no sense- stop talking!" and "but ARIADNE!" :) These later books are definitely very very chatty... that's a consistent critique in the literature about them, and once someone points it out, it's hard to unsee. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, but it makes the books feel tonal quite distinct from her earlier work And I agree 100% about how she writes children! I really appreciate that she's not afraid to make them nasty or flawed. She basically treats them as very unsophisticated adults (and to be fair, she's got a good number of actual adults she treats this way), and that makes for more rounded character than we often get with kids in books. I think she has a growing disdain for the particular foibles of the upcoming generation, but she doesn't stop seeing them as people, so points to her there.
I've made a mistake by watching an adaptation of it with Suchet instead of reading the book first. If the book is as good as the adaptation, then it's my favourite. Murder at the orient express and Death on the nile were pretty easy to solve for me, this book on the other hand was way more difficult
"...even a bad Agatha Christie is _very_ enjoyable." Yes girl, YES!! I read this one a few years ago and (according to Goodreads), gave it 4 stars. Go figure. I actually don't remember much about it, except that I thought there were too many characters to try to keep up with, haha. Anyway...fun review, as always!
It really is still a fun read in the scheme of things! I have a ton of nostalgia for this one, so it was really hard to separate out my instinctual enjoyment of it from my actual reading experience
The young men's discussion fits with the notion of the eccentric Englishman who only needs a nudge to push him over the edge. I find it in keeping with her background and the times.
I’m so happy I found this video! I just read Hallowe’en Party, and having read a lot of Agatha Christie (also a big fan) I was quite shocked with how ‘bad’ it was - from the unclear and numerous characters that never really turned into a definitive list of suspects, through to the completely melodramatic ending Thank you for making this video!
WOW.. (Comment from 6 years after the video). I've been reading Agatha Christie's mystery novels chronologically. There is that general feeling that this is an overly complex work dotted with her frustration with how the youth should be perceived. I am discouraged, frustrated, and perhaps a bit surprised that Christie makes this harder to take than it needs to be. Anyway... thanks again for a solid review.
One of the oddest things with Christie is that, when she writes children, she just writes them as adults. This one stuck with me but more because of how shocking and unusual for Christie some aspects were. I agree the conclusion is "absurd and melodramatic," but I kinda enjoyed it. 12:00 i get the impression that Christie is mocking those psychological explanations for murder given she puts it in the mouth of teens and given her obsession with 'in the blood'
just finished listening to the audiobook with hugh fraser. i'm forgetful, nowadays, so i had a hard time keeping track of all the people and i might listen again, just to get things straight. but i enjoyed the book, a good deal: i find, with christie, that suspension of disbelief (on full power) is necessary and goes a long way! i never try to solve the puzzle, so i'm always pleasantly surprised, no matter whodunnit. and the sooner i forget, the sooner i can go back and reread and enjoy the story! :-)
I saw this was your first one from your where to start video haha. I haven't read it yet though so I'm not watching the full review. I know your videos are spoiler free but I guess I also want to arrive at my own opinion too, you know? I remember Hannah Tay doing a review of this one a little while back, might be worth checking out!
Very fair... I understand not wanting someone to influence your experience! I'll have to check out Hannah's video... I have a lot of lingering affection for this one, because it was my first, and from the comments, I think a lot of other people do too :)
Wrt the boys in the passage you read I laughed when he compared them to golden retrievers (or something). I just finished reading this and it's my first Agatha Christie... And I'm glad it's not the best on offer because yeesh. It's not bad but... it's not all that good either. I wasn't sure how I was meant to feel about all the judgmental comments in the text... For instance, she's fat, she's a bit dim etc. The constant hate on for foreigners (which is ironic considering Poirot). Was it meant to be comedic or sartorial? Or is it a reflection of her own thinking? The most I know about Agatha Christie was that she met the Doctor once. :p
Because it's Hallowe'en,I've just re-read this. Only my second read;and as the previous read was way back in around 1980,I could remember very little of it (certainly not who did it). The only thing I recalled was the twist of Joyce NOT telling the truth - but relating someone else's story instead. Not that it helped me identify the culprit/s. I enjoyed learning who did it (I wasn't even close to figuring it out);but the motive was absolutely bonkers;the climax,far too overdone;there was one stupendously unbelievable coincidence involving paternity;and it really was rather too convoluted. Unusually,it was a story that contained no red herrings. Instead,it was a bunch of seemingly unrelated incidents which SEEMED to be red herrings - but which were all tied together in extremely complicated ways. Great moments,though (the first two chapters;the vase of flowers;Ariadne Oliver);and readable - but not one I would recommend to those new to Christie.
I have to say I agree with you this book is not her at her best. But it does have some good bits and of course it is Agatha. Have you every read any of the cat who series? Just wondering if they are worth a go.
I read a lot of Cat Whos when I was growing up... that was my first mystery series. I really enjoy the early ones still, though I can't tell you if that's truly reflective of quality or my nostalgia :)
Are you ready for the Kenneth Branagh adaptation of "Hallowe'en Party" that comes out in 2023? It's called "A Haunting in Venice". They changed the setting to post-World War II. The screenwriter has admitted that it won't be a faithful adaptation but inspired by the novel.
Is she being critical of the mothers or just offering social commentary on the changes over time which she has observed? I think her comments are fair and observant rather than critical.
I remember enjoying this one but I agree that all Christie books are enjoyable but the quality of the later ones are not as good as her 30's 40's output.
Yeah, it's still a very charming book in the scheme of things, but just not as great as her masterpieces. I'd still be pleased to have produced this, though, tbh :)
"It's not that in the scheme of things this is terrible [...] the thing is it's just bad." Agreed! Very near the bottom for me too. But, great analysis as always.
This is the first book I read of her. Didn’t like it that much. There is no way you could guess the plot. Also, I hoped it was very fall/halloween like because of the name. But it wasn’t. Just the party and nothing else.
A HAUNTING in VENICE was FABULOUS! I always like the over-blown BIG SCREEN treatments!! And I get tired to the simpering, fuss-budget, repressed-queen David SUchet interpretation. Kenneth Branagh and his ridiculous moustache is it for me! Altho I did prefere Zoe Wanamaker to Tina Fey who gets on my nerves!!
This novel had a lot of potential but it didn't deliver. At all. It gets too boring after a while because Poirot keeps asking questions to lots and lots of characters but doesn't really discover anything. The characters are not interesting, the pacing is really slow and the ending was very confusing and over the top to me. I liked Joyce, the beginning, the atmosphere and all the past murders that were mentioned while Poirot was investigating, too bad they were forgotten by the end just like a few details of the main case were. Plot holes. I also liked bits of the ending but not the way they were handled by the author, which is exactly why I didn't like this book in general. I've read Elephants Can Remember years ago but I do remember it was bad. Even worse than this one. Good luck. Haha
It is an excessive chatty book- they are just constantly talking, and about nothing, for the most part! These last few books are rough going... can't say I'll be too sad when the project is over :). Though I try to remember that I do still love the series overall, the last few books are tough to get through in comparison to the earlier ones.
I thought the story was just ok, but then Christie tacked on the unnecessary paternity plot detail at the end. Like what? The mystery worked without it and in fact would have worked better. Also she talks so much about sociopaths and psychopaths and how murders are nowadays more senseless, she almost seems bitter about it, like murders can no longer be motive based. Also I felt she set up that the murder that was witnessed was going to be Mr. Drake, that he was run over on purpose and the missing foreign girl was the read herring. I was overall disappointed
me gusta como explicas todo y me enemoré con tu movimiento de manos cuando dijiste land scape
I'm reading Poirot in order as well and my next book is a reread of Evil Under The Sun. It seems I have a lot to look forward to:)
A saving grace in this book is Ariadne Oliver. I've always enjoyed her character.
Ariadne really is a champ!! 😊
I simply love project poirot. I am currently reading Halloween party.
Yay! I hope you are enjoying it- it certainly has its charms
I watched the David Suchet version and it’s definitely one of my favourites ❤❤❤
Full disclosure: I don't know how objective I can be with this one. My story is very similar to yours: it was also my first Agatha Christie, and I have such nostalgia and good memories of discovering her through this particular novel. I definitely agree with all the criticisms of this book at the same time, it's just that the nostalgia is strong with this one. And I actually really like the idea behind it, despite it not being carried through totally satisfactorily, and the atmosphere is quite dark and unsettling when she gets it right. For me, I would read this before any of the other 60s Poirots. It has a lot of promise.
Slight tangent: this book is very much of its time. From the late 60s through the 70s, lots of the entertainment coming out of the UK dealt with themes of paganism, the paranormal, rural settings, witchcraft... This novel really has that 70s atmosphere to me which also brings back that nostalgia because while I am a bit younger than that decade, I'm from a place that was rather behind the times and we were exposed to a lot of 1970s British media as children.
The other week I reread the opening two chapters and I really understood what reviewers have meant when they call the later novels very "talky". Like, Joyce's bragging - an important plot point - is surrounded by Mrs Oliver's thoughts on society, children, pumpkins (!), while an amorphous set of characters float in and out. It's like Christie is just getting carried away with ranting on modern life 😜. I feel that in an earlier work, she would've included more defined characters at the party whose conversations would've shown more of their characteristics and advanced the plot. Here Mrs Oliver herself has trouble distinguishing a lot of the characters and therefore so do we.
I should also say I really like the way Christie writes children. She allows them to be unlikeable if they need to be, and I think a big theme of hers is how teenagers are so eager to come across as more mature than they are. You see this in Nicholas and Desmond with the part you quoted or their speculation that Miss Whittaker is a lesbian, or Joyce with her statement: "I was quite young at the time". I thought this was some nice observation. Plus there's a scene early on where Mrs Oliver and two teenagers have similar thoughts about each others' generation being the selfish one which was a bit more "fair" I guess, compared to other "kids these days" statements.
I have too much to say about this novel and it's really just rambling. 😂 TL;DR - everyone is correct when it comes to the failings of this book, but due to reasons, I still think fondly of it 😀.
I very much understand the affection for this one! I definitely still feel it, too... as I was rereading, it was hard for me to separate out my instinctual love for this book as my first Christie vs. my actual reading experience today. I kept ping-ponging back and forth of "oof, that was bad" and "but it's so charming!" and "that makes no sense- stop talking!" and "but ARIADNE!" :)
These later books are definitely very very chatty... that's a consistent critique in the literature about them, and once someone points it out, it's hard to unsee. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, but it makes the books feel tonal quite distinct from her earlier work
And I agree 100% about how she writes children! I really appreciate that she's not afraid to make them nasty or flawed. She basically treats them as very unsophisticated adults (and to be fair, she's got a good number of actual adults she treats this way), and that makes for more rounded character than we often get with kids in books. I think she has a growing disdain for the particular foibles of the upcoming generation, but she doesn't stop seeing them as people, so points to her there.
I've made a mistake by watching an adaptation of it with Suchet instead of reading the book first. If the book is as good as the adaptation, then it's my favourite. Murder at the orient express and Death on the nile were pretty easy to solve for me, this book on the other hand was way more difficult
"...even a bad Agatha Christie is _very_ enjoyable." Yes girl, YES!! I read this one a few years ago and (according to Goodreads), gave it 4 stars. Go figure. I actually don't remember much about it, except that I thought there were too many characters to try to keep up with, haha. Anyway...fun review, as always!
It really is still a fun read in the scheme of things! I have a ton of nostalgia for this one, so it was really hard to separate out my instinctual enjoyment of it from my actual reading experience
The young men's discussion fits with the notion of the eccentric Englishman who only needs a nudge to push him over the edge. I find it in keeping with her background and the times.
I’m so happy I found this video! I just read Hallowe’en Party, and having read a lot of Agatha Christie (also a big fan) I was quite shocked with how ‘bad’ it was - from the unclear and numerous characters that never really turned into a definitive list of suspects, through to the completely melodramatic ending
Thank you for making this video!
WOW.. (Comment from 6 years after the video). I've been reading Agatha Christie's mystery novels chronologically. There is that general feeling that this is an overly complex work dotted with her frustration with how the youth should be perceived. I am discouraged, frustrated, and perhaps a bit surprised that Christie makes this harder to take than it needs to be. Anyway... thanks again for a solid review.
One of the oddest things with Christie is that, when she writes children, she just writes them as adults.
This one stuck with me but more because of how shocking and unusual for Christie some aspects were. I agree the conclusion is "absurd and melodramatic," but I kinda enjoyed it.
12:00 i get the impression that Christie is mocking those psychological explanations for murder given she puts it in the mouth of teens and given her obsession with 'in the blood'
just finished listening to the audiobook with hugh fraser. i'm forgetful, nowadays, so i had a hard time keeping track of all the people and i might listen again, just to get things straight. but i enjoyed the book, a good deal: i find, with christie, that suspension of disbelief (on full power) is necessary and goes a long way! i never try to solve the puzzle, so i'm always pleasantly surprised, no matter whodunnit. and the sooner i forget, the sooner i can go back and reread and enjoy the story! :-)
I saw this was your first one from your where to start video haha. I haven't read it yet though so I'm not watching the full review. I know your videos are spoiler free but I guess I also want to arrive at my own opinion too, you know? I remember Hannah Tay doing a review of this one a little while back, might be worth checking out!
Very fair... I understand not wanting someone to influence your experience! I'll have to check out Hannah's video... I have a lot of lingering affection for this one, because it was my first, and from the comments, I think a lot of other people do too :)
Wrt the boys in the passage you read I laughed when he compared them to golden retrievers (or something). I just finished reading this and it's my first Agatha Christie... And I'm glad it's not the best on offer because yeesh. It's not bad but... it's not all that good either.
I wasn't sure how I was meant to feel about all the judgmental comments in the text... For instance, she's fat, she's a bit dim etc. The constant hate on for foreigners (which is ironic considering Poirot). Was it meant to be comedic or sartorial? Or is it a reflection of her own thinking? The most I know about Agatha Christie was that she met the Doctor once. :p
Because it's Hallowe'en,I've just re-read this. Only my second read;and as the previous read was way back in around 1980,I could remember very little of it (certainly not who did it). The only thing I recalled was the twist of Joyce NOT telling the truth - but relating someone else's story instead. Not that it helped me identify the culprit/s.
I enjoyed learning who did it (I wasn't even close to figuring it out);but the motive was absolutely bonkers;the climax,far too overdone;there was one stupendously unbelievable coincidence involving paternity;and it really was rather too convoluted. Unusually,it was a story that contained no red herrings. Instead,it was a bunch of seemingly unrelated incidents which SEEMED to be red herrings - but which were all tied together in extremely complicated ways. Great moments,though (the first two chapters;the vase of flowers;Ariadne Oliver);and readable - but not one I would recommend to those new to Christie.
While her later works are generally not as good I like Halloween Party
I have to say I agree with you this book is not her at her best. But it does have some good bits and of course it is Agatha. Have you every read any of the cat who series? Just wondering if they are worth a go.
I read a lot of Cat Whos when I was growing up... that was my first mystery series. I really enjoy the early ones still, though I can't tell you if that's truly reflective of quality or my nostalgia :)
Are you ready for the Kenneth Branagh adaptation of "Hallowe'en Party" that comes out in 2023? It's called "A Haunting in Venice". They changed the setting to post-World War II. The screenwriter has admitted that it won't be a faithful adaptation but inspired by the novel.
I've not read the book, but I thought the movie was pretty good.
Is she being critical of the mothers or just offering social commentary on the changes over time which she has observed? I think her comments are fair and observant rather than critical.
I remember enjoying this one but I agree that all Christie books are enjoyable but the quality of the later ones are not as good as her 30's 40's output.
Yeah, it's still a very charming book in the scheme of things, but just not as great as her masterpieces. I'd still be pleased to have produced this, though, tbh :)
"It's not that in the scheme of things this is terrible [...] the thing is it's just bad." Agreed! Very near the bottom for me too. But, great analysis as always.
Totally disagree. It is not a bad book at all!
This is the first book I read of her. Didn’t like it that much. There is no way you could guess the plot. Also, I hoped it was very fall/halloween like because of the name. But it wasn’t. Just the party and nothing else.
A HAUNTING in VENICE was FABULOUS! I always like the over-blown BIG SCREEN treatments!! And I get tired to the simpering, fuss-budget, repressed-queen David SUchet interpretation. Kenneth Branagh and his ridiculous moustache is it for me! Altho I did prefere Zoe Wanamaker to Tina Fey who gets on my nerves!!
This novel had a lot of potential but it didn't deliver. At all. It gets too boring after a while because Poirot keeps asking questions to lots and lots of characters but doesn't really discover anything. The characters are not interesting, the pacing is really slow and the ending was very confusing and over the top to me. I liked Joyce, the beginning, the atmosphere and all the past murders that were mentioned while Poirot was investigating, too bad they were forgotten by the end just like a few details of the main case were. Plot holes.
I also liked bits of the ending but not the way they were handled by the author, which is exactly why I didn't like this book in general. I've read Elephants Can Remember years ago but I do remember it was bad. Even worse than this one. Good luck. Haha
It is an excessive chatty book- they are just constantly talking, and about nothing, for the most part! These last few books are rough going... can't say I'll be too sad when the project is over :). Though I try to remember that I do still love the series overall, the last few books are tough to get through in comparison to the earlier ones.
I thought the story was just ok, but then Christie tacked on the unnecessary paternity plot detail at the end. Like what? The mystery worked without it and in fact would have worked better. Also she talks so much about sociopaths and psychopaths and how murders are nowadays more senseless, she almost seems bitter about it, like murders can no longer be motive based. Also I felt she set up that the murder that was witnessed was going to be Mr. Drake, that he was run over on purpose and the missing foreign girl was the read herring. I was overall disappointed
Who killed the girl and her brother and why can you say
Mrs Drake and Micheal Garfield killed them.