I didn't like this book at all. And I have never felt this way, to the best of my knowledge, for any of Christie's books. It's not because Poirot dies in the end. It was pretty evident that he will when I started reading because the title clearly mentions that this is Poirot's last case. Since he isn't the type to idly sit twiddling his thumbs it stands to reason that it is his last case simply because he is dead after it is solved.
No, I didn't like this one because the plot seemed simply unbelievable, fantastic even. 5 people get killed (in 5 different incidents) because a person who takes pleasure in other peoples' miseries drives someone close to the victim to commit murder in each case. There isn't anything common between the cases except for the malignant presence of this Mr. X, as Poirot refers to him. We aren't told how Poirot was able to figure out the hand of this Mr. X in each of the tragedies, especially when he wasn't part of any of the investigations. But he knows Mr. X's identity. Why then does he wait for so long to kill Mr. X? Simply because he is against taking a human life? But then he also knows that it would be very difficult to lay the blame at X's doorstep should there be a murder at Styles. So letting the law take its due course to serve justice was out of the question. If murder was the only way to stop Mr. X Poirot's action does not make any sense. I also felt that Christie did a grave injustice to Arthur Hastings by showing him incapable of figuring out who could possibly have been X's intended victims, when it would be plain even for the laziest of armchair readers that Mrs. Luttrell and Mrs. Franklin fit the bill.
And I couldn't help but laugh out aloud when Poirot advises Hastings to get in touch with Elizabeth Cole. Hindi movies end this way when every single human being gets locked in holy matrimony. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if Ms. Marple had suggested it. But Poirot? Speaking of Ms. Marple, I realized just now that the last three books that I read all featured Poirot. It's time I paid Ms. Marple a visit. I admire Poirot but somehow find her dearer than him.
No, I didn't like this one because the plot seemed simply unbelievable, fantastic even. 5 people get killed (in 5 different incidents) because a person who takes pleasure in other peoples' miseries drives someone close to the victim to commit murder in each case. There isn't anything common between the cases except for the malignant presence of this Mr. X, as Poirot refers to him. We aren't told how Poirot was able to figure out the hand of this Mr. X in each of the tragedies, especially when he wasn't part of any of the investigations. But he knows Mr. X's identity. Why then does he wait for so long to kill Mr. X? Simply because he is against taking a human life? But then he also knows that it would be very difficult to lay the blame at X's doorstep should there be a murder at Styles. So letting the law take its due course to serve justice was out of the question. If murder was the only way to stop Mr. X Poirot's action does not make any sense. I also felt that Christie did a grave injustice to Arthur Hastings by showing him incapable of figuring out who could possibly have been X's intended victims, when it would be plain even for the laziest of armchair readers that Mrs. Luttrell and Mrs. Franklin fit the bill.
And I couldn't help but laugh out aloud when Poirot advises Hastings to get in touch with Elizabeth Cole. Hindi movies end this way when every single human being gets locked in holy matrimony. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if Ms. Marple had suggested it. But Poirot? Speaking of Ms. Marple, I realized just now that the last three books that I read all featured Poirot. It's time I paid Ms. Marple a visit. I admire Poirot but somehow find her dearer than him.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment