What do you think?
Rate this book
Inocencia trágica
Jacko Argyle muere en la cárcel a causa de una neumonía, poco después de haber sido condenado a cadena perpetua por el asesinato de su madre. Dos años después, el doctor Calgary asegura tener pruebas de que Jacko era inocente. A partir de aquí, tres grandes incógnitas se abren: ¿por qué Calgary no declaró en el juicio?, ¿ha sido condenado un inocente?, y si es así ¿quién mató a la señora Argyle?
223 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 3, 1958
1221 people are currently reading
19861 people want to read
About the author
Agatha Christie
5,743 books76k followersAgatha Christie also wrote romance novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, and was occasionally published under the name Agatha Christie Mallowan.
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,866 reviews
January 22, 2013
You really have to admire 1950s for their marvelous plot devices. Amnesiacs, mistaken identities, and in this mystery by Agatha Christie, a man with a concussion fails to provide an alibi, and shortly after recovering, heads off to Antarctica for a research expedition. Barring that somewhat awkward premise, Ordeal was an interesting psychological mystery that kept me engaged.
Dr. Calgary, the Antarctic research scientist, discovers through old newspaper articles that he was the missing alibi for Jack Argyle, accused and convicted of killing his mother. Despite steadily maintaining his innocence, Jack was sent to prison, where he died of pneumonia after only six months. Troubled by guilt, Dr. Calgary consults with the lawyer of the Jack's family, determined to seek them out and assure them of Jack's innocence. He expects a mixed emotional reaction, perhaps to be thanked or perhaps to bear the brunt of their anger for his untimely appearance and information. Unfortunately, the facts of the case have failed to impress Dr. Calgary, and not even the warning from Jack's sister makes it clear: "it's not the guilty who matter. It's the innocent... It's we who matter. Don't you see what you've done to us all?"
One of her brothers visits Dr. Calgary at his hotel, examining his story and providing Calgary with the background on his family--and the reason they are so upset by his news. Calgary, shocked, finds himself back at the lawyer's seeking more information, and then proceeds to talk with some of the principles. "I thought that I was ending something, giving--shall we say--a different end to a chapter already written. But I was made to feel, I was made to see, that instead of ending something I was starting something. Something altogether new." Meanwhile, the police, while doubtful of their ultimate success, are determinedly re-opening the case, and eventually Dr. Calgary's goals dovetail with their own.
Technically, her writing is impressive. On re-read, I realized how streamlined and exacting her prose is, and all the clever ways she conveys dialogue without resorting to a simple "he said," "she said" format that plagues less experienced writers.
Characterization is also impeccably done, a few short sentences illuminating an entire personality:
"Arthur Calgary walked down the sloping ramp and got into the boat as the ferryman steadied it with a boathook. He was an old man and gave Calgary the fanciful impression that he and his boat belonged together, were one and indivisible."
"For a moment a feeling of poignant sadness came over him as he confronted the virile youth of the boy facing him."
"Superintendent Huish was a tall, sad-looking man. His air of melancholy was so profound that no one would have believed that he could be the life and soul of a children's party, cracking jokes and bringing pennies out of little boys' ears."
"It was a pretty, rather vapid little face, plastered with make-up, eyebrows plucked, hair hideous and stiff in a cheap perm."
Writing like this reminds me of the certain degree of sloppiness I see in current writers who are churning out book after book. Easy enough to do, if your last ten books bore any resemblance to Parker phoning in Bad Business or Evanovich and her umpteenth Plum fiasco. But Christie wrote for over 40 years and had 66 detective novels to her credit; while not all of them hit excellence, I'm not sure they fell quite to those depths. Grand Dame indeed.
To top it off, the mystery was decent and the solution a surprise. There were pieces Christie left in place, and while I picked up on a few, I was short of constructing the picture.
Note: Christie does show her upper class British upbringing in this one. One character is referred to a "half-caste" and a "dark horse." I assumed the dark-horse to refer to her status as a potential murderer, but it could be a racial remark. She ends up being quite a sympathetic character so it bothered me less than it could have.
At any rate, four stars for Christie's delicious period piece and managing to surprise me with a couple different twists.
Cross posted at http://clsiewert.wordpress.com/2013/0...
Dr. Calgary, the Antarctic research scientist, discovers through old newspaper articles that he was the missing alibi for Jack Argyle, accused and convicted of killing his mother. Despite steadily maintaining his innocence, Jack was sent to prison, where he died of pneumonia after only six months. Troubled by guilt, Dr. Calgary consults with the lawyer of the Jack's family, determined to seek them out and assure them of Jack's innocence. He expects a mixed emotional reaction, perhaps to be thanked or perhaps to bear the brunt of their anger for his untimely appearance and information. Unfortunately, the facts of the case have failed to impress Dr. Calgary, and not even the warning from Jack's sister makes it clear: "it's not the guilty who matter. It's the innocent... It's we who matter. Don't you see what you've done to us all?"
One of her brothers visits Dr. Calgary at his hotel, examining his story and providing Calgary with the background on his family--and the reason they are so upset by his news. Calgary, shocked, finds himself back at the lawyer's seeking more information, and then proceeds to talk with some of the principles. "I thought that I was ending something, giving--shall we say--a different end to a chapter already written. But I was made to feel, I was made to see, that instead of ending something I was starting something. Something altogether new." Meanwhile, the police, while doubtful of their ultimate success, are determinedly re-opening the case, and eventually Dr. Calgary's goals dovetail with their own.
Technically, her writing is impressive. On re-read, I realized how streamlined and exacting her prose is, and all the clever ways she conveys dialogue without resorting to a simple "he said," "she said" format that plagues less experienced writers.
Characterization is also impeccably done, a few short sentences illuminating an entire personality:
"Arthur Calgary walked down the sloping ramp and got into the boat as the ferryman steadied it with a boathook. He was an old man and gave Calgary the fanciful impression that he and his boat belonged together, were one and indivisible."
"For a moment a feeling of poignant sadness came over him as he confronted the virile youth of the boy facing him."
"Superintendent Huish was a tall, sad-looking man. His air of melancholy was so profound that no one would have believed that he could be the life and soul of a children's party, cracking jokes and bringing pennies out of little boys' ears."
"It was a pretty, rather vapid little face, plastered with make-up, eyebrows plucked, hair hideous and stiff in a cheap perm."
Writing like this reminds me of the certain degree of sloppiness I see in current writers who are churning out book after book. Easy enough to do, if your last ten books bore any resemblance to Parker phoning in Bad Business or Evanovich and her umpteenth Plum fiasco. But Christie wrote for over 40 years and had 66 detective novels to her credit; while not all of them hit excellence, I'm not sure they fell quite to those depths. Grand Dame indeed.
To top it off, the mystery was decent and the solution a surprise. There were pieces Christie left in place, and while I picked up on a few, I was short of constructing the picture.
Note: Christie does show her upper class British upbringing in this one. One character is referred to a "half-caste" and a "dark horse." I assumed the dark-horse to refer to her status as a potential murderer, but it could be a racial remark. She ends up being quite a sympathetic character so it bothered me less than it could have.
At any rate, four stars for Christie's delicious period piece and managing to surprise me with a couple different twists.
Cross posted at http://clsiewert.wordpress.com/2013/0...
November 1, 2023
PROVA D’INNOCENZA
Ho appreso che Agatha Christie ha più volte affermato che fra tutte le sue opere Ordeal By Innocence - Le due verità è quella che preferisce.
Io ho tutto meno che una passione per Agatha Christie: è forse l’autore più letto al mondo, ma io la trovo alquanto noiosa.
D’altra parte anche la bibbia è molto letta, probabilmente il libro più letto al mondo, il numero 1: ma io non ho nessun interesse e men che meno passione per la bibbia.
Come mai ho letto questo romanzo giallo di Agatha Christie è presto spiegato: perché esplorando i lavori degli ultimi anni di un attore che al contrario della bibbia e della Christie, mi suscita smisurato interesse e infinita passione, Bill Nighy, mi sono imbattuto nella miniserie della BBC.
Un classico racconto à la Christie dove tutti devono sembrare colpevoli - sia perché ciascuno ha un segreto da proteggere, sia perché la vittima è così odiosa da non ispirare la minima pena per la sua fine, e dallo spargere la sensazione che tutto sommato è possibile che il delitto sia stato compiuto in collettivo, visto che tutti i sospetti erano vittime della vittima, da lei vessati e umiliati a ritmo d’asfaltatrice.
Questa volta gli inglesi abbandonano il loro stile sobrio – che ben si adatterebbe alla Christie – per, così dire, fare gli americani: flashback frammentati coperti di musica, spezzettamento del racconto, rifiuto della linearità, effetti speciali... Il tutto condito con salsa sopra le righe, tinte fosche, e davvero scarso sense of humor (e almeno a quello la Christie mi avrebbe abituato).
Come se non bastasse, nonostante delle trame della Christie tutto si può dire meno che siano smilze, la miniserie si prende parecchie libertà e cambia le cose più di una volta.
Ho ritrovato un po’ di conoscenze, di volti noti: per esempio, Matthew Goode, Christian Cooke e Anna Chancellor curiosamente appena finiti di vedere in una serie di tutt’altro tipo (spaghetti western), Alice Eve, Luke Treadaway e altri. Tutti lasciati recitare un po’ sopra le righe, contraddicendo la classica “misura” del british style.
Per fortuna la performance di Bill Nighy, con la sua inimitabile classe, che può farne indifferentemente un lord inglese, un rocker, o un homeless.
Ho appreso che Agatha Christie ha più volte affermato che fra tutte le sue opere Ordeal By Innocence - Le due verità è quella che preferisce.
Io ho tutto meno che una passione per Agatha Christie: è forse l’autore più letto al mondo, ma io la trovo alquanto noiosa.
D’altra parte anche la bibbia è molto letta, probabilmente il libro più letto al mondo, il numero 1: ma io non ho nessun interesse e men che meno passione per la bibbia.
Come mai ho letto questo romanzo giallo di Agatha Christie è presto spiegato: perché esplorando i lavori degli ultimi anni di un attore che al contrario della bibbia e della Christie, mi suscita smisurato interesse e infinita passione, Bill Nighy, mi sono imbattuto nella miniserie della BBC.
Un classico racconto à la Christie dove tutti devono sembrare colpevoli - sia perché ciascuno ha un segreto da proteggere, sia perché la vittima è così odiosa da non ispirare la minima pena per la sua fine, e dallo spargere la sensazione che tutto sommato è possibile che il delitto sia stato compiuto in collettivo, visto che tutti i sospetti erano vittime della vittima, da lei vessati e umiliati a ritmo d’asfaltatrice.
Questa volta gli inglesi abbandonano il loro stile sobrio – che ben si adatterebbe alla Christie – per, così dire, fare gli americani: flashback frammentati coperti di musica, spezzettamento del racconto, rifiuto della linearità, effetti speciali... Il tutto condito con salsa sopra le righe, tinte fosche, e davvero scarso sense of humor (e almeno a quello la Christie mi avrebbe abituato).
Come se non bastasse, nonostante delle trame della Christie tutto si può dire meno che siano smilze, la miniserie si prende parecchie libertà e cambia le cose più di una volta.
Ho ritrovato un po’ di conoscenze, di volti noti: per esempio, Matthew Goode, Christian Cooke e Anna Chancellor curiosamente appena finiti di vedere in una serie di tutt’altro tipo (spaghetti western), Alice Eve, Luke Treadaway e altri. Tutti lasciati recitare un po’ sopra le righe, contraddicendo la classica “misura” del british style.
Per fortuna la performance di Bill Nighy, con la sua inimitabile classe, che può farne indifferentemente un lord inglese, un rocker, o un homeless.
July 14, 2022
A good Christie mystery.
But there are some weird and off-putting ideas about adoption in this one. Well, about raising children in general, to be honest.
But the moral of this story (according to Christie) is that you shouldn't be involved in your children's lives after they are out of diapers.
Rachel Argyle was rich as hell. The only thing she wanted was children, but for whatever reason, she couldn't have them. She had already adopted one little girl, and when the war hit, she opened a home for other displaced children. As the war came to a close, she also adopted 4 of those children who didn't have good homes to go back to.
Now, not all of them were grateful.
Especially, since Argyle was a terrible mother to them.
She gave them too many toys, was a bit of a helicopter parent when it came to their health when they were young, set up trust funds to allow them to live their lives without her input, bailed them out of bad situations, and thought of them as her real children.
DEAR GOD, SHE WAS A MONSTER.
So.
This isn't the first time that Agatha Christie has made of point of saying that adoptive parents aren't the real parents and that adopted children aren't the same thing as your real children.
Yeah. No.
The person who raises you, who loves you, who gets up in the middle of the night when you have a fever? That's a parent. And as much as I love the children that I pushed out of my body, if another one came along via adoption, it would own as much real estate in my heart as the other ones.
Your kid is your kid. You don't love them more or less because of heredity or a mystical blood bond.
I will say that by the end of the book, you see some personal growth from some of her children.
And a sweet little love story...
It all starts with the murder of Rachel Argyle. Her son, Jacko, is convicted of the crime because he was heard threatening her on the night she was killed.
He dies in prison of pneumonia a little while later. And that should be the end of it.
Until a man shows up out of the blue who can confirm the wonky alibi that he gave to the police.
What?
Where was this dude a few years ago?!
He got amnesia, and then he trekked off to the North Pole!
Or someplace remote like that.
Sounds legit.
The biggest problem with learning that Jacko (who was a bit of a psychopath) didn't murder their mother is that it means someone else killed her. And like any good family drama that ends with a dead parent, one of the members of the house must have done it.
I will say that I was surprised by the final reveal. I suppose there were a few clues, but I missed out on them completely.
Overall, I thought the mystery was good and the characters were interesting.
If you're looking for something outside of Poirot and Marple, give this a shot.
But there are some weird and off-putting ideas about adoption in this one. Well, about raising children in general, to be honest.
But the moral of this story (according to Christie) is that you shouldn't be involved in your children's lives after they are out of diapers.
Rachel Argyle was rich as hell. The only thing she wanted was children, but for whatever reason, she couldn't have them. She had already adopted one little girl, and when the war hit, she opened a home for other displaced children. As the war came to a close, she also adopted 4 of those children who didn't have good homes to go back to.
Now, not all of them were grateful.
Especially, since Argyle was a terrible mother to them.
She gave them too many toys, was a bit of a helicopter parent when it came to their health when they were young, set up trust funds to allow them to live their lives without her input, bailed them out of bad situations, and thought of them as her real children.
DEAR GOD, SHE WAS A MONSTER.
So.
This isn't the first time that Agatha Christie has made of point of saying that adoptive parents aren't the real parents and that adopted children aren't the same thing as your real children.
Yeah. No.
The person who raises you, who loves you, who gets up in the middle of the night when you have a fever? That's a parent. And as much as I love the children that I pushed out of my body, if another one came along via adoption, it would own as much real estate in my heart as the other ones.
Your kid is your kid. You don't love them more or less because of heredity or a mystical blood bond.
I will say that by the end of the book, you see some personal growth from some of her children.
And a sweet little love story...
It all starts with the murder of Rachel Argyle. Her son, Jacko, is convicted of the crime because he was heard threatening her on the night she was killed.
He dies in prison of pneumonia a little while later. And that should be the end of it.
Until a man shows up out of the blue who can confirm the wonky alibi that he gave to the police.
What?
Where was this dude a few years ago?!
He got amnesia, and then he trekked off to the North Pole!
Or someplace remote like that.
Sounds legit.
The biggest problem with learning that Jacko (who was a bit of a psychopath) didn't murder their mother is that it means someone else killed her. And like any good family drama that ends with a dead parent, one of the members of the house must have done it.
I will say that I was surprised by the final reveal. I suppose there were a few clues, but I missed out on them completely.
Overall, I thought the mystery was good and the characters were interesting.
If you're looking for something outside of Poirot and Marple, give this a shot.
July 9, 2021
Novela poco habitual en lo que he leído de Agatha Christie.
Hay mucha (demasiada) introspección psicológica de los personajes. Christie desmenuza cada personalidad a través del juego de la sospecha.
Genera una situación en la que el que todos creían culpable resulta que no lo era y a partir de aquí se desarrolla la trama de la desconfianza.
Un libro demasiado lento en el desarrollo y demasiado rápido en su epílogo.
Se hace pesado porqué vuelve una y otra vez sobre el mismo tema.
A mi no me apasionó, pero no es malo, aunque yo prefiero a la Christie de Poirot.
Unusual novel in what I have read by Agatha Christie.
There is much (too much) psychological introspection of the characters. Christie reveals each personality through the game of suspicion.
She generates a situation in which the one who everyone believed to be guilty turns out not to be guilty and from here develops the plot of distrust.
A book too slow in development and too fast in its epilogue.
It becomes annoying because it comes back again and again on the same subject.
I didn't like it, but it's not bad, although I prefer the Poirot's Christie.
Hay mucha (demasiada) introspección psicológica de los personajes. Christie desmenuza cada personalidad a través del juego de la sospecha.
Genera una situación en la que el que todos creían culpable resulta que no lo era y a partir de aquí se desarrolla la trama de la desconfianza.
Un libro demasiado lento en el desarrollo y demasiado rápido en su epílogo.
Se hace pesado porqué vuelve una y otra vez sobre el mismo tema.
A mi no me apasionó, pero no es malo, aunque yo prefiero a la Christie de Poirot.
Unusual novel in what I have read by Agatha Christie.
There is much (too much) psychological introspection of the characters. Christie reveals each personality through the game of suspicion.
She generates a situation in which the one who everyone believed to be guilty turns out not to be guilty and from here develops the plot of distrust.
A book too slow in development and too fast in its epilogue.
It becomes annoying because it comes back again and again on the same subject.
I didn't like it, but it's not bad, although I prefer the Poirot's Christie.
January 8, 2022
Agatha Christie Book Reading Challenge
BOOK 13 :- DEC 2019
4 STARS
BOOK 13 :- DEC 2019
4 STARS
June 19, 2020
This Review ✍️ Blog 📖 Twitter 🐦 Instagram 📷
It is no big secret that I am such a fan of Agatha Christie and I pick up one of her books whenever I am in the mood for a good mystery/ thriller from an author I trust. I have been reading much fantasy lately, I read exactly 20 consecutive fantasy books before I decided to take a break and read something different. I am glad I did because Agatha did not disappoint once again.
This is my 11th book by the author so I still have a long way to go with her books but it is also a good thing because I still have much to explore. I picked this one on a whim while browsing the mystery section at the local bookstore. I just read pneumonia and Doctor in the synopsis and was immediately sold. It was actually different from what I expected and it was not a medical story. The plot is basically that a guy who has died in prison from pneumonia is cleared by an alibi one year after his death. That means the case is opened again and all the family are suspected once again as they have motives.
Some authors write good characters but Agatha write real people, I don’t just read her books, I live in them!! I am also fascinated by the fact that they were written decades ago, this one was written 60 years ago and I am still astonished by the technology and stuff that were available back then. There is usually a formula to Christie’s novels and some people don’t like it but I actually love it.
The writing in this one was as good as I am used to. I just love how simple, straight to the point her novels are. This novel is less than 300 pages with all the elements for a good novel contained within. Another thing I like is that the language used is not as complicated as in classics but still different from the way we speak today. The dialogue and the way people act is actually not that different after one century from her first novels!! Agatha is also not the kind of author who will hold back from speaking her mind in her novels and I just adore that, she described men and women in such a fascinating way throughout this novel, once even comparing mothers to cats and their kittens!!
The plot was interesting and it is the kind of books I want to consume very fast just to know who done it. I love some family drama and the dynamics in this book were pretty fucked up as shown at the beginning of the story when Jacko’s innocence is announced and the family does not take the news happily. The funny thing is that Agatha managed to wrap every thing up and end the book on a comical way after all the dark things the family went through.
Summary: As good as Agatha’s other books, if you are a fan and haven’t read this one, then you probably should and if you haven’t tried her books then what are you doing in your life (Just kidding but check out her books, seriously). I plan to continue exploring everything she has written!
You can get more books from Book Depository
“Justice is, after all, in the hands of men and men are fallible.”
It is no big secret that I am such a fan of Agatha Christie and I pick up one of her books whenever I am in the mood for a good mystery/ thriller from an author I trust. I have been reading much fantasy lately, I read exactly 20 consecutive fantasy books before I decided to take a break and read something different. I am glad I did because Agatha did not disappoint once again.
This is my 11th book by the author so I still have a long way to go with her books but it is also a good thing because I still have much to explore. I picked this one on a whim while browsing the mystery section at the local bookstore. I just read pneumonia and Doctor in the synopsis and was immediately sold. It was actually different from what I expected and it was not a medical story. The plot is basically that a guy who has died in prison from pneumonia is cleared by an alibi one year after his death. That means the case is opened again and all the family are suspected once again as they have motives.
Some authors write good characters but Agatha write real people, I don’t just read her books, I live in them!! I am also fascinated by the fact that they were written decades ago, this one was written 60 years ago and I am still astonished by the technology and stuff that were available back then. There is usually a formula to Christie’s novels and some people don’t like it but I actually love it.
“How can I go on living here and suspecting everybody ?”
The writing in this one was as good as I am used to. I just love how simple, straight to the point her novels are. This novel is less than 300 pages with all the elements for a good novel contained within. Another thing I like is that the language used is not as complicated as in classics but still different from the way we speak today. The dialogue and the way people act is actually not that different after one century from her first novels!! Agatha is also not the kind of author who will hold back from speaking her mind in her novels and I just adore that, she described men and women in such a fascinating way throughout this novel, once even comparing mothers to cats and their kittens!!
“Men, they never think.”
“That’s what you might call the normal pattern of female life. I’ve seen many girls and women, with strong maternal instincts, keen on getting married but mainly, though they mayn’t quite know it themselves—because of their urge to motherhood. And the babies come; they’re happy and satisfied. Life goes back into proportion for them. They can take an interest in their husbands and in the local affairs and in the gossip that’s going round, and of course in their children. But it’s all in proportion. The maternal instinct, in a purely physical sense, is satisfied, you see.
The plot was interesting and it is the kind of books I want to consume very fast just to know who done it. I love some family drama and the dynamics in this book were pretty fucked up as shown at the beginning of the story when Jacko’s innocence is announced and the family does not take the news happily. The funny thing is that Agatha managed to wrap every thing up and end the book on a comical way after all the dark things the family went through.
Summary: As good as Agatha’s other books, if you are a fan and haven’t read this one, then you probably should and if you haven’t tried her books then what are you doing in your life (Just kidding but check out her books, seriously). I plan to continue exploring everything she has written!
You can get more books from Book Depository
March 8, 2017
“That was the trouble with people who had no legal sense of discretion. They insisted on saying things which were much better not said.”
Every time Christie makes her stories revolve around a big and extraordinarily dysfunctional family, I invariably find myself utterly spellbound. The same happened with Appointment With Death; but the mystery in the latter was certainly more satisfying, as I see it. I would have liked -and expected- a more imaginative solution, I think.
In brief, not one of Christie's best, but, in its own and unique way, interesting nonetheless.
Every time Christie makes her stories revolve around a big and extraordinarily dysfunctional family, I invariably find myself utterly spellbound. The same happened with Appointment With Death; but the mystery in the latter was certainly more satisfying, as I see it. I would have liked -and expected- a more imaginative solution, I think.
In brief, not one of Christie's best, but, in its own and unique way, interesting nonetheless.
April 6, 2021
And due to circumstances beyond my control, and a forgetful memory, i have just realised i didn't write a review, time to remedy that situation.
Hmm, an enjoyable book with a great plot. I have a vague memory of seeing a tv adaptation in the last few years with the wonderful Bill Nighy as the patriarch, but to be honest that didn't spoil my read as i couldn't remember who "dunnit".
so, the premise for this mystery is that a very wealthy, controlling and domineering mother of an adopted family is murdered. Clues and evidence quickly point to one of the adopted sons, who claims he was innocent, but the man who gave him a lift that night during the time his mother was murdered does not come forward. The son is convicted, sentenced to life but dies in hospital very shortly afterwards.
Life returns (sort of ) back to normal for the remainder of the family, with the father about to marry his long term secretary and assistant, when a Professor returning from a long stint on a scientific expedition comes forward as the mystery man who gave the accused son a lift.
When this is proven correct, the boy is posthumously pardoned, but the family all now realise that one of them (if the assistant and the housekeeper are included) must be the murderer.
The police return and everyone is on tenterhooks. feeling guilty for creating the problem the professor commences his on enquiries as does the disabled husband of one of the daughters. Sadly tragedy strikes and another death occurs. Is the murderer now getting worried ?
A good plot as I say and some fun characters, but I felt it was little rushed at the end, so only 4 stars , but yet another enjoyable, non "big name" Agatha Christie novel.
Hmm, an enjoyable book with a great plot. I have a vague memory of seeing a tv adaptation in the last few years with the wonderful Bill Nighy as the patriarch, but to be honest that didn't spoil my read as i couldn't remember who "dunnit".
so, the premise for this mystery is that a very wealthy, controlling and domineering mother of an adopted family is murdered. Clues and evidence quickly point to one of the adopted sons, who claims he was innocent, but the man who gave him a lift that night during the time his mother was murdered does not come forward. The son is convicted, sentenced to life but dies in hospital very shortly afterwards.
Life returns (sort of ) back to normal for the remainder of the family, with the father about to marry his long term secretary and assistant, when a Professor returning from a long stint on a scientific expedition comes forward as the mystery man who gave the accused son a lift.
When this is proven correct, the boy is posthumously pardoned, but the family all now realise that one of them (if the assistant and the housekeeper are included) must be the murderer.
The police return and everyone is on tenterhooks. feeling guilty for creating the problem the professor commences his on enquiries as does the disabled husband of one of the daughters. Sadly tragedy strikes and another death occurs. Is the murderer now getting worried ?
A good plot as I say and some fun characters, but I felt it was little rushed at the end, so only 4 stars , but yet another enjoyable, non "big name" Agatha Christie novel.
September 24, 2018
EXCERPT: Calgary came to the end of the nice new road with the nice new houses on either side of it, each with its eighth of an acre of garden; rock plants, chrysanthemums, roses, salvias, geraniums, each owner displaying his or her individual garden taste.
At the end of the road was a gate with SUNNY POINT in Gothic letters on it. He opened the gate, passed through, and went along a short drive. The house was there ahead of him, a well-built, characterless modern house, gabled and porched. It might have stood on any good class suburban site, or a new development anywhere. It was unworthy, in Calgary's opinion, of its view. For the view was magnificent. The river here curved sharply round the point almost turning back on itself. Wooded hills rose opposite; upstream to the left was a further bend in the river with meadows and orchards in the distance.
Calgary looked for a moment up and down the river. One should have built a castle here, he thought, an impossible, ridiculous fairy-tale castle! The sort of castle that might be made of gingerbread or frosted sugar. Instead there was good taste, restraint, moderation, plenty of money, and absolutely no imagination.
For that, naturally, one did not blame the Argyles. They had only bought the house, not built it. Still,they, or one of them (Mrs Argyle?), had chosen it. . .
He said to himself, 'You can't put it off any longer. . .' and pressed the electric bell beside the door.
ABOUT THIS BOOK: Recovering from amnesia, Dr. Arthur Calgary discovers that he alone could have provided an alibi in a scandalous murder trial. It ended in the conviction of Jacko Argyle. The victim was Jacko's own mother, and to make matters worse, he died in prison. But the young man's innocence means that someone else killed the Argyle matriarch, and would certainly kill again to remain in the shadows. Shaded in the moral ambiguity of murder, the provocative psychological puzzler of guilt, vengeance, and blood secrets is among Agatha Christie's personal favorites.
MY THOUGHTS: I was excited to discover, I thought, a Christie that I hadn't previously read. But once I got into it, I realized that I had previously read it, and had also seen the TV adaptation, and a very good one it was too. But not to worry, as I couldn't remember 'whodunit'.
So I got to read and enjoy this stand-alone mystery all over again. And to be wrong, all over again, about just who the murderer was. A delightful 😍😍😍😍 murder-mystery.
THE AUTHOR: Agatha Christie is the best-selling author of all time. She wrote eighty crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and several other books. Her books have sold roughly four billion copies and have been translated into 45 languages. She is the creator of the two most enduring figures in crime literature-Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple-and author of The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theatre.
Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller was born in Torquay, Devon, England, U.K., as the youngest of three. The Millers had two other children: Margaret Frary Miller (1879–1950), called Madge, who was eleven years Agatha's senior, and Louis Montant Miller (1880–1929), called Monty, ten years older than Agatha.
During the First World War, she worked at a hospital as a nurse; later working at a hospital pharmacy, a job that influenced her work, as many of the murders in her books are carried out with poison.
On Christmas Eve 1914 Agatha married Archibald Christie, an aviator in the Royal Flying Corps. The couple had one daughter, Rosalind Hicks. They divorced in 1928, two years after Christie discovered her husband was having an affair.
Her first novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, came out in 1920. During this marriage, Agatha published six novels, a collection of short stories, and a number of short stories in magazines.
In late 1926, Agatha's husband, Archie, revealed that he was in love with another woman, Nancy Neele, and wanted a divorce. On 8 December 1926 the couple quarreled, and Archie Christie left their house Styles in Sunningdale, Berkshire, to spend the weekend with his mistress at Godalming, Surrey. That same evening Agatha disappeared from her home, leaving behind a letter for her secretary saying that she was going to Yorkshire. Her disappearance caused an outcry from the public, many of whom were admirers of her novels. Despite a massive manhunt, she was not found for eleven days.
In 1930, Christie married archaeologist Max Mallowan (Sir Max from 1968) after joining him in an archaeological dig. Their marriage was especially happy in the early years and remained so until Christie's death in 1976. In 1977, Mallowan married his longtime associate, Barbara Parker.
Christie frequently used familiar settings for her stories. Christie's travels with Mallowan contributed background to several of her novels set in the Middle East. Other novels (such as And Then There Were None) were set in and around Torquay, where she was born. Christie's 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express was written in the Hotel Pera Palace in Istanbul, Turkey, the southern terminus of the railway. The hotel maintains Christie's room as a memorial to the author. The Greenway Estate in Devon, acquired by the couple as a summer residence in 1938, is now in the care of the National Trust.
Christie often stayed at Abney Hall in Cheshire, which was owned by her brother-in-law, James Watts. She based at least two of her stories on the hall: the short story The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding, which is in the story collection of the same name, and the novel After the Funeral. "Abney became Agatha's greatest inspiration for country-house life, with all the servants and grandeur which have been woven into her plots.
During the Second World War, Christie worked in the pharmacy at University College Hospital of University College, London, where she acquired a knowledge of poisons that she put to good use in her post-war crime novels.
To honour her many literary works, she was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the 1956 New Year Honours. The next year, she became the President of the Detection Club.
DISCLOSURE: I listened to Ordeal by Innocence by Agatha Christie, narrated by Hugh Fraser, published by HarperCollins Publishers Limited via OverDrive. All opinions expressed in this review are entirely my own personal opinions.
Please refer to my Goodreads.com profile page or the about page on sandysbookaday.wordpress.com for an explanation of my rating system.
This review and others are also published on my blog sandysbookaday.wordpress.com https://sandysbookaday.wordpress.com/...
At the end of the road was a gate with SUNNY POINT in Gothic letters on it. He opened the gate, passed through, and went along a short drive. The house was there ahead of him, a well-built, characterless modern house, gabled and porched. It might have stood on any good class suburban site, or a new development anywhere. It was unworthy, in Calgary's opinion, of its view. For the view was magnificent. The river here curved sharply round the point almost turning back on itself. Wooded hills rose opposite; upstream to the left was a further bend in the river with meadows and orchards in the distance.
Calgary looked for a moment up and down the river. One should have built a castle here, he thought, an impossible, ridiculous fairy-tale castle! The sort of castle that might be made of gingerbread or frosted sugar. Instead there was good taste, restraint, moderation, plenty of money, and absolutely no imagination.
For that, naturally, one did not blame the Argyles. They had only bought the house, not built it. Still,they, or one of them (Mrs Argyle?), had chosen it. . .
He said to himself, 'You can't put it off any longer. . .' and pressed the electric bell beside the door.
ABOUT THIS BOOK: Recovering from amnesia, Dr. Arthur Calgary discovers that he alone could have provided an alibi in a scandalous murder trial. It ended in the conviction of Jacko Argyle. The victim was Jacko's own mother, and to make matters worse, he died in prison. But the young man's innocence means that someone else killed the Argyle matriarch, and would certainly kill again to remain in the shadows. Shaded in the moral ambiguity of murder, the provocative psychological puzzler of guilt, vengeance, and blood secrets is among Agatha Christie's personal favorites.
MY THOUGHTS: I was excited to discover, I thought, a Christie that I hadn't previously read. But once I got into it, I realized that I had previously read it, and had also seen the TV adaptation, and a very good one it was too. But not to worry, as I couldn't remember 'whodunit'.
So I got to read and enjoy this stand-alone mystery all over again. And to be wrong, all over again, about just who the murderer was. A delightful 😍😍😍😍 murder-mystery.
THE AUTHOR: Agatha Christie is the best-selling author of all time. She wrote eighty crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and several other books. Her books have sold roughly four billion copies and have been translated into 45 languages. She is the creator of the two most enduring figures in crime literature-Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple-and author of The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theatre.
Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller was born in Torquay, Devon, England, U.K., as the youngest of three. The Millers had two other children: Margaret Frary Miller (1879–1950), called Madge, who was eleven years Agatha's senior, and Louis Montant Miller (1880–1929), called Monty, ten years older than Agatha.
During the First World War, she worked at a hospital as a nurse; later working at a hospital pharmacy, a job that influenced her work, as many of the murders in her books are carried out with poison.
On Christmas Eve 1914 Agatha married Archibald Christie, an aviator in the Royal Flying Corps. The couple had one daughter, Rosalind Hicks. They divorced in 1928, two years after Christie discovered her husband was having an affair.
Her first novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, came out in 1920. During this marriage, Agatha published six novels, a collection of short stories, and a number of short stories in magazines.
In late 1926, Agatha's husband, Archie, revealed that he was in love with another woman, Nancy Neele, and wanted a divorce. On 8 December 1926 the couple quarreled, and Archie Christie left their house Styles in Sunningdale, Berkshire, to spend the weekend with his mistress at Godalming, Surrey. That same evening Agatha disappeared from her home, leaving behind a letter for her secretary saying that she was going to Yorkshire. Her disappearance caused an outcry from the public, many of whom were admirers of her novels. Despite a massive manhunt, she was not found for eleven days.
In 1930, Christie married archaeologist Max Mallowan (Sir Max from 1968) after joining him in an archaeological dig. Their marriage was especially happy in the early years and remained so until Christie's death in 1976. In 1977, Mallowan married his longtime associate, Barbara Parker.
Christie frequently used familiar settings for her stories. Christie's travels with Mallowan contributed background to several of her novels set in the Middle East. Other novels (such as And Then There Were None) were set in and around Torquay, where she was born. Christie's 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express was written in the Hotel Pera Palace in Istanbul, Turkey, the southern terminus of the railway. The hotel maintains Christie's room as a memorial to the author. The Greenway Estate in Devon, acquired by the couple as a summer residence in 1938, is now in the care of the National Trust.
Christie often stayed at Abney Hall in Cheshire, which was owned by her brother-in-law, James Watts. She based at least two of her stories on the hall: the short story The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding, which is in the story collection of the same name, and the novel After the Funeral. "Abney became Agatha's greatest inspiration for country-house life, with all the servants and grandeur which have been woven into her plots.
During the Second World War, Christie worked in the pharmacy at University College Hospital of University College, London, where she acquired a knowledge of poisons that she put to good use in her post-war crime novels.
To honour her many literary works, she was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the 1956 New Year Honours. The next year, she became the President of the Detection Club.
DISCLOSURE: I listened to Ordeal by Innocence by Agatha Christie, narrated by Hugh Fraser, published by HarperCollins Publishers Limited via OverDrive. All opinions expressed in this review are entirely my own personal opinions.
Please refer to my Goodreads.com profile page or the about page on sandysbookaday.wordpress.com for an explanation of my rating system.
This review and others are also published on my blog sandysbookaday.wordpress.com https://sandysbookaday.wordpress.com/...
June 14, 2021
I'm just beginning to get tired of writing these negative reviews on mystery books. It looks like that is what I've been doing lately. Last year I had a series of disappointment with P.D. James's Adam Dalgliesh series, and now I'm so afraid that I might go through that same path with Agatha Christie.
Ordeal by Innocence is a mixture of a murder-mystery and psychological thriller, and in my view, inclining more towards the latter. I'm a mystery fan than that of a thriller because I do like the business of collecting and evaluating evidence (I think that comes from the lawyer within me :) ) Perhaps, that was the reason for my disappointment. The story was more or less run through the psychological analysis into the possible suspects rather than any evaluation of actual evidence. This is not a preferred style by me, I admit, and that may have heavily contributed to my lack of enjoyment.
In any case, I think this is one of the weakest books written by our dear queen of crimes. From the point of mystery, there was very little of it, for the criminal was pretty evident from the beginning. You just have only to work the simple logic, and voila, you'd have the culprit figured easily. The motive was, however, a little more complicated to figure, but my guess was quite near the mark. However, the biggest problem with the story is that it seriously suffered from the absence of a proper detective and lack of sufficient police procedure. Because of all these issues, reading it was one sluggish, boring and annoying journey. It is quite sad since I liked the premise and some of the characters of the story.
I have several Agatha Christie books under my belt for the year, and I sincerely hope that they'll work better for me. I don't want to tire you or me for that matter with all my negative tirades.
Ordeal by Innocence is a mixture of a murder-mystery and psychological thriller, and in my view, inclining more towards the latter. I'm a mystery fan than that of a thriller because I do like the business of collecting and evaluating evidence (I think that comes from the lawyer within me :) ) Perhaps, that was the reason for my disappointment. The story was more or less run through the psychological analysis into the possible suspects rather than any evaluation of actual evidence. This is not a preferred style by me, I admit, and that may have heavily contributed to my lack of enjoyment.
In any case, I think this is one of the weakest books written by our dear queen of crimes. From the point of mystery, there was very little of it, for the criminal was pretty evident from the beginning. You just have only to work the simple logic, and voila, you'd have the culprit figured easily. The motive was, however, a little more complicated to figure, but my guess was quite near the mark. However, the biggest problem with the story is that it seriously suffered from the absence of a proper detective and lack of sufficient police procedure. Because of all these issues, reading it was one sluggish, boring and annoying journey. It is quite sad since I liked the premise and some of the characters of the story.
I have several Agatha Christie books under my belt for the year, and I sincerely hope that they'll work better for me. I don't want to tire you or me for that matter with all my negative tirades.
March 20, 2019
“How can I go on living here and suspecting everybody ?”
I usually avoid comparing movies to books as in comparing apples to oranges....but since I graced my teeth on this Christie story first through Prime's version of the haunting tale, I can't help but constantly compare when reading and reviewing. I knew when watching the three-part series that Christie would not have been racy enough to put in the themes of child abuse, abortion and molestation in her book, and I was right when reading this to check it out. Some of the stuff may have almost been implied, and while Amazon took liberties when creating the film, I can see where they get a little of their source material.
Honestly the movie told a stronger story because it focused on characterization and dysfunction more so than its predecessor. One of the biggest changes was of the witness himself, who the movie version chose to make a weaker and mentally confused character versus the self-assured, professional character in this book. The ending is drastically different and less demented. Rating the book by itself, the plot is slower moving due to so many points of view detecting. We have chapters devoted to the police talking amongst themselves, the witness speaking to the police, the witness speaking to the family, and the family talking amongst themselves. The family is the heart of the story, so the scenes with them are the most interesting.
There aren't really many clues. It's more of a study with a weird family when the mother took in orphaned children and tried to force their love by giving them "good lives." Seeing the way the father felt ignored, the way the mother kept filling her house with children to try to get her heart fulfilled, and how the children went from scheming to resentful was fascinating. I don't remember her other books delving as deeply into the taboo of adoption and twisted mother control, but Dame Christie has a knack for digging deep into hidden dark heart of society with her books.
It's definitely worth a read for Christie fans, but the story does falter at times in the interest level because of the lack of direction on who the detective really is, and who is really in control of the narration for this book.
I usually avoid comparing movies to books as in comparing apples to oranges....but since I graced my teeth on this Christie story first through Prime's version of the haunting tale, I can't help but constantly compare when reading and reviewing. I knew when watching the three-part series that Christie would not have been racy enough to put in the themes of child abuse, abortion and molestation in her book, and I was right when reading this to check it out. Some of the stuff may have almost been implied, and while Amazon took liberties when creating the film, I can see where they get a little of their source material.
Honestly the movie told a stronger story because it focused on characterization and dysfunction more so than its predecessor. One of the biggest changes was of the witness himself, who the movie version chose to make a weaker and mentally confused character versus the self-assured, professional character in this book. The ending is drastically different and less demented. Rating the book by itself, the plot is slower moving due to so many points of view detecting. We have chapters devoted to the police talking amongst themselves, the witness speaking to the police, the witness speaking to the family, and the family talking amongst themselves. The family is the heart of the story, so the scenes with them are the most interesting.
There aren't really many clues. It's more of a study with a weird family when the mother took in orphaned children and tried to force their love by giving them "good lives." Seeing the way the father felt ignored, the way the mother kept filling her house with children to try to get her heart fulfilled, and how the children went from scheming to resentful was fascinating. I don't remember her other books delving as deeply into the taboo of adoption and twisted mother control, but Dame Christie has a knack for digging deep into hidden dark heart of society with her books.
It's definitely worth a read for Christie fans, but the story does falter at times in the interest level because of the lack of direction on who the detective really is, and who is really in control of the narration for this book.
February 12, 2022
MAGNIFICA ,GENIAL ME HA ENCANTADO.
Sinopsis: Al recuperarse de su amnesia, el doctor Arthur Calgary descubre que podría haber ofrecido una coartada para el escandaloso juicio en el que Jacko Argyle fue acusado de asesinar a su madre. Lo peor de todo es que éste murió en prisión. Pero si el joven Jacko era inocente, entonces otra persona asesinó a su madre, y seguramente volverá a hacerlo para permanecer oculto en las sombras...
Con estos mimbres comienza un thriller psicológico genial, las sospechas van cayendo por doquier de uno a otro personaje, nadie confía en nadie, todos sospechan de todos.
Me ha encantado como se ha resuelto todo, y tengo que volver a decir que he vuelto a fracasar con el/la culpable. Otra vez será
10/10 Una de mis favoritas de Agatha.
Sinopsis: Al recuperarse de su amnesia, el doctor Arthur Calgary descubre que podría haber ofrecido una coartada para el escandaloso juicio en el que Jacko Argyle fue acusado de asesinar a su madre. Lo peor de todo es que éste murió en prisión. Pero si el joven Jacko era inocente, entonces otra persona asesinó a su madre, y seguramente volverá a hacerlo para permanecer oculto en las sombras...
Con estos mimbres comienza un thriller psicológico genial, las sospechas van cayendo por doquier de uno a otro personaje, nadie confía en nadie, todos sospechan de todos.
Me ha encantado como se ha resuelto todo, y tengo que volver a decir que he vuelto a fracasar con el/la culpable. Otra vez será
10/10 Una de mis favoritas de Agatha.
April 5, 2017
This is one of those standalone mysteries written by Dame Agatha which features none of her favourite sleuths - and it's fantastic and insanely readable. Jacko Argyll, the black sheep of the Argyll family who has been convicted for the murder of his mother, dies in prison after protesting his innocence for two years: an alibi involving a hitched ride which he could not prove in court. However, it turns out that for once, Jacko had been telling the truth: Dr. Arthur Calgary who had given him a lift and later ran into a road accident resulting in a temporary loss of memory, arrives at the Argyll household to absolve him. However, instead of the welcome he had anticipated, Dr. Calgary gets a very cold reception - because now it means that the case is no longer comfortably closed. With a believable and convenient suspect absolved, it means that the real murderer is still at large...
...Therefore begins the ordeal - the ordeal of those who are innocent.
------------------------------------
This is a very tightly written story and entirely believable - again, one where excessive use of coincidence (a failure of Christie) is avoided. The narrative moves like a movie by Hitchcock, and when the surprisingly logical conclusion is revealed, we kick ourselves for not seeing it coming.
A dark little tale.
...Therefore begins the ordeal - the ordeal of those who are innocent.
------------------------------------
This is a very tightly written story and entirely believable - again, one where excessive use of coincidence (a failure of Christie) is avoided. The narrative moves like a movie by Hitchcock, and when the surprisingly logical conclusion is revealed, we kick ourselves for not seeing it coming.
A dark little tale.
November 30, 2018
Desisto. Es imposible pillar a esta mujer y adelantarte a sus pasos. Me he llevado todo el libro pensando que este me gustaría menos que los demás, porque creía saber la solución y me parecía muy obvia. Tenía la idea de que ya le había cogido el punto y había ido viendo donde ponía las pistas. Pero para nada. Como siempre me he vuelto a quedar impactado con el final y no tenía nada que ver con lo que yo creía. Y lo fuerte es que siempre deja pistas. No se las saca de la manga al final. Y nunca las veo. Esta mujer es increíble.
En cuanto a la novela, nos encontramos una nueva historia sin Poirot o Miss Marple en la que el investigación por el asesinato de un mujer, será reabierta cuando se descubra que su hijo, declarado culpable, no fue su asesino. Como siempre mucho misterio, muchos sospechosos y un final inesperado. Agatha siempre será la reina indiscutible. Nadie la desbancará.
En cuanto a la novela, nos encontramos una nueva historia sin Poirot o Miss Marple en la que el investigación por el asesinato de un mujer, será reabierta cuando se descubra que su hijo, declarado culpable, no fue su asesino. Como siempre mucho misterio, muchos sospechosos y un final inesperado. Agatha siempre será la reina indiscutible. Nadie la desbancará.
July 18, 2021
Έχω πιει σχεδόν ένα μπουκάλι κακής ποιότητας ροζέ στο πασχαλινό τραπέζι και θα είμαι αμείλικτος :
ΜΩΡΗ ΚΑΤΣΙΚΑ
ΝΑΙ ΜΩΡΗ ΑΓΚΑΘΑ ΣΕ ΣΕΝΑ ΜΙΛΑΩ
ΤΙ ΜΑΛΑΚΙΑΡΑ ΗΤΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ ΜΩΡΗ ΚΑΤΣΙΚΑ
Όπως πολλά άλλα βιβλία της ήταν ρατσιστικό,μισογυνιστικό, με μια έντονη απαξίωση στα άτομα της κατώτερης τάξης και στην υιοθεσία (!). Δεν περιμένω να είσαι politically correct το 1958 και να μη μου πετάς μέσα "μιγάδες", αλλά αλήθεια, όπως και στο "Οι Ελέφαντες Θυμούνται", τι πρόβλημα έχεις μωρή κατσίκα με την υιοθεσία ; "Δεν είναι πραγματικά παιδιά τους"; Μπασταρδεύονται τα γονίδια μωρή αριστοκράτισσα κατσίκα;
Έχω βαρεθεί να ακούω "Η Κρίστι ήταν προϊόν της εποχής της". Ε ΤΟΤΕ ΑΣ ΠΕΘΑΝΕΙ ΜΑΖΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΟΧΗ ΤΗΣ.
Και καλά η Κρίστι προσπάθησε να κάνει στροφή σε αυτό που θα λέγαμε σήμερα "ψυχολογικό θρίλερ", αυτές τις μαλακιάρες που επίσης γράφει ο Φίτζεκ. Είναι τόσο άσχετη η καημένη, που δεν μπορεί να αρθρώσει μια decent ψυχολογική θεωρία, μόνο ρατσιστικά και μισογυνιστικά mumbo jumbo. Προφανώς και θα έκανε το έγκλημα γυναίκα γιατί "οι γυναίκες είναι ανελέητες". Και αυτό το διαβάζουμε δις ! Ή θα το έκανε η οικονόμος του σπιτιού που είναι άσχημη και αγάμητη ! (Αυτό λέει στο περίπου, βαριέμαι να βρω the exact quote). Ή μπορεί να το έκανε το έγκλημα οποιοδήποτε από αυτά τα μπάσταρδα υιοθετημένα που προέρχονταν από κατώτερες οικονομικές τάξεις ; "Προφανώς ο δράστης είχε κάποια λασκαρισμένη βίδα, κάποιο πρόβλημα που θα μπορούσε να περιγραφεί με διάφορους όρους της ψυχολογίας. Δεν ήταν πραγματικός αδερφός της Μέρι. Ένα από εκείνα τα "υιοθετημένα παιδιά" με την κακή κληρονομικότητα, που τόσο συχνά παίρνουν τον κακό δρόμο". Να μη σχολιάσουμε τον καταδικασθέντα για το έγκλημα υιοθετημένο της γιο που λόγω κληρονομικότητας ήταν προδιεγεγραμμένο να εγκληματίσει ! Λαμπρόζο ζεις, εσύ μας οδηγείς !
Και καλά όλα αυτά. Όλοι εσείς που βάλατε 4αρια και 5αρια, "Η βασίλισσα του εγκλήματος" και τα-αρχίδια-μου-κουνιούνται, από ΑΠΟΨΗ ΠΛΟΚΗΣ είστε δηλαδή ευχαριστημένοι ; Αν εξαιρέσεις ένα καταπληκτικό ξεκίνημα (μόνο για αυτό σκέφτηκα αρχικά το 2αστερο, αλλά όχι δεν θα σου κάνω την χάρη μωρή κατσίκα Αγκάθα), οι διάλογοι είναι ηλίθιοι, έχουμε plot holes ολούθε, πάλι έχουμε jump to conclusion στο ηλίθιο happy end, και όπως επεσήμαναν και κάποιες ξένες κριτικές που διάβασα δεν έχουμε καν έναν σταθερό ντετέκτιβ : ασχολούνται με την υπόθεση ένας μάρτυρας, ένας Αρχιεπιθεωρητής και ένας ύποπτος για τον φόνο. Που πάει ο μάρτυρας της υπόθεσης στον Αρχιεπιθεωρητή να συζητήσουν την υπόθεση και ο τελευταίος είναι σε φάση "Παρακαλώ κύριε, καθίστε. Και φυσικά θα συζητήσω την υπόθεση που είναι σε εξέλιξη με τον μάρτυρα της υπόθεσης"
ΜΩΡΗ ΑΓΚΑΘΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΛΕΥΕΙΣ;
Επίσης, δεν έχω πιει και τόσο, αλλά η Αγκάθα δεν είναι ΙΔΙΑ η Ξένη Δημητρίου;
ΜΩΡΗ ΚΑΤΣΙΚΑ
ΝΑΙ ΜΩΡΗ ΑΓΚΑΘΑ ΣΕ ΣΕΝΑ ΜΙΛΑΩ
ΤΙ ΜΑΛΑΚΙΑΡΑ ΗΤΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ ΜΩΡΗ ΚΑΤΣΙΚΑ
Όπως πολλά άλλα βιβλία της ήταν ρατσιστικό,μισογυνιστικό, με μια έντονη απαξίωση στα άτομα της κατώτερης τάξης και στην υιοθεσία (!). Δεν περιμένω να είσαι politically correct το 1958 και να μη μου πετάς μέσα "μιγάδες", αλλά αλήθεια, όπως και στο "Οι Ελέφαντες Θυμούνται", τι πρόβλημα έχεις μωρή κατσίκα με την υιοθεσία ; "Δεν είναι πραγματικά παιδιά τους"; Μπασταρδεύονται τα γονίδια μωρή αριστοκράτισσα κατσίκα;
Έχω βαρεθεί να ακούω "Η Κρίστι ήταν προϊόν της εποχής της". Ε ΤΟΤΕ ΑΣ ΠΕΘΑΝΕΙ ΜΑΖΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΟΧΗ ΤΗΣ.
Και καλά η Κρίστι προσπάθησε να κάνει στροφή σε αυτό που θα λέγαμε σήμερα "ψυχολογικό θρίλερ", αυτές τις μαλακιάρες που επίσης γράφει ο Φίτζεκ. Είναι τόσο άσχετη η καημένη, που δεν μπορεί να αρθρώσει μια decent ψυχολογική θεωρία, μόνο ρατσιστικά και μισογυνιστικά mumbo jumbo. Προφανώς και θα έκανε το έγκλημα γυναίκα γιατί "οι γυναίκες είναι ανελέητες". Και αυτό το διαβάζουμε δις ! Ή θα το έκανε η οικονόμος του σπιτιού που είναι άσχημη και αγάμητη ! (Αυτό λέει στο περίπου, βαριέμαι να βρω the exact quote). Ή μπορεί να το έκανε το έγκλημα οποιοδήποτε από αυτά τα μπάσταρδα υιοθετημένα που προέρχονταν από κατώτερες οικονομικές τάξεις ; "Προφανώς ο δράστης είχε κάποια λασκαρισμένη βίδα, κάποιο πρόβλημα που θα μπορούσε να περιγραφεί με διάφορους όρους της ψυχολογίας. Δεν ήταν πραγματικός αδερφός της Μέρι. Ένα από εκείνα τα "υιοθετημένα παιδιά" με την κακή κληρονομικότητα, που τόσο συχνά παίρνουν τον κακό δρόμο". Να μη σχολιάσουμε τον καταδικασθέντα για το έγκλημα υιοθετημένο της γιο που λόγω κληρονομικότητας ήταν προδιεγεγραμμένο να εγκληματίσει ! Λαμπρόζο ζεις, εσύ μας οδηγείς !
Και καλά όλα αυτά. Όλοι εσείς που βάλατε 4αρια και 5αρια, "Η βασίλισσα του εγκλήματος" και τα-αρχίδια-μου-κουνιούνται, από ΑΠΟΨΗ ΠΛΟΚΗΣ είστε δηλαδή ευχαριστημένοι ; Αν εξαιρέσεις ένα καταπληκτικό ξεκίνημα (μόνο για αυτό σκέφτηκα αρχικά το 2αστερο, αλλά όχι δεν θα σου κάνω την χάρη μωρή κατσίκα Αγκάθα), οι διάλογοι είναι ηλίθιοι, έχουμε plot holes ολούθε, πάλι έχουμε jump to conclusion στο ηλίθιο happy end, και όπως επεσήμαναν και κάποιες ξένες κριτικές που διάβασα δεν έχουμε καν έναν σταθερό ντετέκτιβ : ασχολούνται με την υπόθεση ένας μάρτυρας, ένας Αρχιεπιθεωρητής και ένας ύποπτος για τον φόνο. Που πάει ο μάρτυρας της υπόθεσης στον Αρχιεπιθεωρητή να συζητήσουν την υπόθεση και ο τελευταίος είναι σε φάση "Παρακαλώ κύριε, καθίστε. Και φυσικά θα συζητήσω την υπόθεση που είναι σε εξέλιξη με τον μάρτυρα της υπόθεσης"
ΜΩΡΗ ΑΓΚΑΘΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΛΕΥΕΙΣ;
Επίσης, δεν έχω πιει και τόσο, αλλά η Αγκάθα δεν είναι ΙΔΙΑ η Ξένη Δημητρίου;
June 16, 2021
“Ocurre a menudo: nos imaginamos la escena con anticipación, se trate de lo que se trate: una consulta con un colega, una proposición matrimonial, una conversación con un hijo, y cuando llega el momento, nunca resulta como se esperaba. Uno estudia con meticulosidad las cosas que va a decir y, generalmente, creemos saber cuales serán las respuestas. Y, claro, eso es lo que desconcierta.”
Esta es la segunda novela de Agatha Christie que leo y debo reconocer que me ha vuelto a dejar fascinado. Es increíble el talento de esta autora para crear tramas tan peculiares y, sobre todo, dar unos giros de guión brutales que no te ves venir, por lo menos en esta novela. La trama es muy original, y aunque no avanza de manera frenética (como pasa en “Diez negritos”), la prosa del autora y los personajes tan característicos te mantienen enganchado y no quieres dejar de leer.
Lo que mas me ha gustado, sin duda, es la cantidad de pistas falsas que ha dejado durante toda la novela, y que literalmente pasan inadvertidas hasta que llegas al final y te das cuenta de que ahí estaban.
El final, increíble, no lo vi venir por ningún lado, me dejó a cuadros y me confirmó una vez más el por qué Agatha Christie es la dama del crimen.
A rasgos generales, es una novela muy entretenida, fácil de leer, y adictiva. Aunque la trama avance algo lenta no aburre en absoluto, te mantiene con intriga y curiosidad. Esto último sumado a unos personajes muy carismáticos y singulares, hacen de esta novela una lectura imprescindible para los amantes del género.
Valoración: 4.7/5.
Esta es la segunda novela de Agatha Christie que leo y debo reconocer que me ha vuelto a dejar fascinado. Es increíble el talento de esta autora para crear tramas tan peculiares y, sobre todo, dar unos giros de guión brutales que no te ves venir, por lo menos en esta novela. La trama es muy original, y aunque no avanza de manera frenética (como pasa en “Diez negritos”), la prosa del autora y los personajes tan característicos te mantienen enganchado y no quieres dejar de leer.
Lo que mas me ha gustado, sin duda, es la cantidad de pistas falsas que ha dejado durante toda la novela, y que literalmente pasan inadvertidas hasta que llegas al final y te das cuenta de que ahí estaban.
El final, increíble, no lo vi venir por ningún lado, me dejó a cuadros y me confirmó una vez más el por qué Agatha Christie es la dama del crimen.
A rasgos generales, es una novela muy entretenida, fácil de leer, y adictiva. Aunque la trama avance algo lenta no aburre en absoluto, te mantiene con intriga y curiosidad. Esto último sumado a unos personajes muy carismáticos y singulares, hacen de esta novela una lectura imprescindible para los amantes del género.
Valoración: 4.7/5.
October 8, 2012
Ick. Not one of Christie's best. Not even close. It's the standard detective story set-up: a murder, a finite set of would-be-murderers, no one has a motive/everyone has equal motive. The twist here is that a man has been convicted, and has died in prison before his alibi turns up.
As far as mysteries go, it's a fairly decent book. But several other things bugged me:
1. Arthur Calgary, the hero. This is the alibi, the scientist who turns up two years too late to provide evidence that the convicted murderer didn't actually commit the crime. He's too earnest and too naïve to think that the victim's family would be unequivocally happy when he turns up with the evidence. Is it too much of a stretch for him to realize that now they'll turn their thoughts to who actually did it? That they would look at each other and wonder? Apparently, this thought is the last in his head. It needs to be spelled out at least three times before it takes root in head, which brings me to point #2.
2. Everything is spelled out too many times. See point 1. We get several descriptions of all the characters involved, from multiple perspectives (supposedly). The fun part is that everyone comes to the same conclusions, no one adds anything new. It's just adding to the page count, and my sour temper, nothing else. It's not just thoughts that are repetitive, it's also physical traits. Everyone who meets Tina calls her a black cat. Everyone who meets Micky says he's bitter, but about what? And then go on to speculate about the reason. Everyone who sees Hester calls her dramatic. And so on and so forth. Annoying to say the least.
3. Christie makes a really horrid case for adoption in this book. Several times we're told that the children (adopted all) were given everything they wanted, and they still turned out to be ungrateful, unloving and downright criminal. You see, that's the thing that's apparently their genes. Several times she says that Rachel devoted all her time to her kids because her maternal instincts were unsatisfied - she hadn't borne any children. This got on my nerves - I didn't think Christie had any books were she got on a soapbox.
4. Several times she says - women are ruthless. Women can do anything, can plot anything. Seriously? That seems irresponsible to the core, for a mystery writer, to insinuate such broad freaky statements.
All really bugging points. Add to that the lack of a solid detective, and you've got Ordeal by Innocence. Let's hope this was a phase that soon stopped.
As far as mysteries go, it's a fairly decent book. But several other things bugged me:
1. Arthur Calgary, the hero. This is the alibi, the scientist who turns up two years too late to provide evidence that the convicted murderer didn't actually commit the crime. He's too earnest and too naïve to think that the victim's family would be unequivocally happy when he turns up with the evidence. Is it too much of a stretch for him to realize that now they'll turn their thoughts to who actually did it? That they would look at each other and wonder? Apparently, this thought is the last in his head. It needs to be spelled out at least three times before it takes root in head, which brings me to point #2.
2. Everything is spelled out too many times. See point 1. We get several descriptions of all the characters involved, from multiple perspectives (supposedly). The fun part is that everyone comes to the same conclusions, no one adds anything new. It's just adding to the page count, and my sour temper, nothing else. It's not just thoughts that are repetitive, it's also physical traits. Everyone who meets Tina calls her a black cat. Everyone who meets Micky says he's bitter, but about what? And then go on to speculate about the reason. Everyone who sees Hester calls her dramatic. And so on and so forth. Annoying to say the least.
3. Christie makes a really horrid case for adoption in this book. Several times we're told that the children (adopted all) were given everything they wanted, and they still turned out to be ungrateful, unloving and downright criminal. You see, that's the thing that's apparently their genes. Several times she says that Rachel devoted all her time to her kids because her maternal instincts were unsatisfied - she hadn't borne any children. This got on my nerves - I didn't think Christie had any books were she got on a soapbox.
4. Several times she says - women are ruthless. Women can do anything, can plot anything. Seriously? That seems irresponsible to the core, for a mystery writer, to insinuate such broad freaky statements.
All really bugging points. Add to that the lack of a solid detective, and you've got Ordeal by Innocence. Let's hope this was a phase that soon stopped.
September 26, 2016
‘All right. It’s your say so–and you’re sticking to it. Jacko didn’t kill her. Very well then–who did kill her? You haven’t thought about that one, have you? Think about it now. Think about it–and then you’ll begin to see what you’re doing to us all…’
I've been reading away on my Agatha Christie project for a while, and although the books tend to, with exceptions, follow a formula, there are other issues or themes that Christie discusses in the different books. This could be anything from discussing morality and justice (as she does in Orient Express and And Then There Were None) to superstitions (as she does in Endless Night).
She's not always successful with this in the sense that she makes a valid argument or finds common ground with the sensibilities of her readers - tho, maybe she was more successful with the latter in her own time - but she does pick up topics for discussion that have nothing to do with the murder plot itself.
In Ordeal by Innocence, Christie dedicates her "side discussion" to the topic of adoption.
‘All tragic histories in a way,’ said Philip. ‘All poor unwanted little devils.’
‘Yes,’ said Leo. ‘That’s what made Rachel feel so passionately about them all. She was determined to make them feel wanted, to give them a real home, be a real mother to them.’
‘It was a fine thing to do,’ said Philip.
‘Only–only it can never work out exactly as she hoped it might,’ said Leo. ‘It was an article of faith with her that the blood tie didn’t matter. But the blood tie does matter, you know. There is usually something in one’s own children, some kink of temperament, some way of feeling that you recognize and can understand without having to put into words. You haven’t got that tie with children you adopt. One has no instinctive knowledge of what goes on in their minds. You judge them, of course, by yourself, by your own thoughts and feelings, but it’s wise to recognize that those thoughts and feelings may be very widely divergent from theirs.’
‘You understood that, I suppose, all along,’ said Philip.
‘I warned Rachel about it,’ said Leo, ‘but of course she didn’t believe it. Didn’t want to believe it. She wanted them to be her own children.’
Having read her points, it seems Christie argues that adoptive parents can never have the same bond with "their" children as natural parents and that all adopted children will carry a chip of rejection on their shoulder. I am not going to argue for nor against this thesis, but I do acknowledge that there is a lot of controversy in Christie's statements on the subject of adoption in this book. There is no indication of what made Christie bring this up other than to have a side discussion in the book, but to me these side issues - however controversial or even offensive they may be - are an aspect of what I enjoy about the books.
I guess, Christie's use of the uncertainty about familial trust as the major drivers of plot in this particular mystery makes it quite similar to Appointment with Death, but family set up is completely different in this story. It has been fun to watch the mystery unravel, knowing that the similarity with her other books is just one of the red herrings that Christie is so famous for.
Who is it who said: “Nothing is ever settled until–”’ ‘“Until it is settled right,”’ Miss Vaughan finished for him. ‘Kipling.’
I've been reading away on my Agatha Christie project for a while, and although the books tend to, with exceptions, follow a formula, there are other issues or themes that Christie discusses in the different books. This could be anything from discussing morality and justice (as she does in Orient Express and And Then There Were None) to superstitions (as she does in Endless Night).
She's not always successful with this in the sense that she makes a valid argument or finds common ground with the sensibilities of her readers - tho, maybe she was more successful with the latter in her own time - but she does pick up topics for discussion that have nothing to do with the murder plot itself.
In Ordeal by Innocence, Christie dedicates her "side discussion" to the topic of adoption.
‘All tragic histories in a way,’ said Philip. ‘All poor unwanted little devils.’
‘Yes,’ said Leo. ‘That’s what made Rachel feel so passionately about them all. She was determined to make them feel wanted, to give them a real home, be a real mother to them.’
‘It was a fine thing to do,’ said Philip.
‘Only–only it can never work out exactly as she hoped it might,’ said Leo. ‘It was an article of faith with her that the blood tie didn’t matter. But the blood tie does matter, you know. There is usually something in one’s own children, some kink of temperament, some way of feeling that you recognize and can understand without having to put into words. You haven’t got that tie with children you adopt. One has no instinctive knowledge of what goes on in their minds. You judge them, of course, by yourself, by your own thoughts and feelings, but it’s wise to recognize that those thoughts and feelings may be very widely divergent from theirs.’
‘You understood that, I suppose, all along,’ said Philip.
‘I warned Rachel about it,’ said Leo, ‘but of course she didn’t believe it. Didn’t want to believe it. She wanted them to be her own children.’
Having read her points, it seems Christie argues that adoptive parents can never have the same bond with "their" children as natural parents and that all adopted children will carry a chip of rejection on their shoulder. I am not going to argue for nor against this thesis, but I do acknowledge that there is a lot of controversy in Christie's statements on the subject of adoption in this book. There is no indication of what made Christie bring this up other than to have a side discussion in the book, but to me these side issues - however controversial or even offensive they may be - are an aspect of what I enjoy about the books.
I guess, Christie's use of the uncertainty about familial trust as the major drivers of plot in this particular mystery makes it quite similar to Appointment with Death, but family set up is completely different in this story. It has been fun to watch the mystery unravel, knowing that the similarity with her other books is just one of the red herrings that Christie is so famous for.
Who is it who said: “Nothing is ever settled until–”’ ‘“Until it is settled right,”’ Miss Vaughan finished for him. ‘Kipling.’
February 13, 2022
Muy entretenida. El comienzo es de los más atrapantes que ha hecho Agatha Christie, lo que te deja en vilo durante toda la historia. Una resolución de las más ingeniosas de la autora.
Me ha gustado mucho!
Me ha gustado mucho!
September 7, 2020
FEITO DE PALHAÇO COM SUCESSO!!!! HAHAHA
Eu cheguei na página 200 gritando "JÁ SEI QUEM É O CULPADO! AGATHA CHRISTIE, VOCÊ NÃO ME ENGANA!!!!"
... Obviamente eu não cheguei nem perto.
Ameeeeeei a experiência de leitura! Não é meu gênero favorito, mas acredito que possa se tornar um divertimento divertido. Passar o dia fazendo teorias foi muito gostoso.
Que fiquem registrados também meus elogios à nova edição da HarperCollins Brasil. A arte de capa é belíssima, a qualidade do livro é perfeita, a tradução da Luisa Geisler é deliciosa de ler, e as notas finais são um bom complemento. Amei!
Eu cheguei na página 200 gritando "JÁ SEI QUEM É O CULPADO! AGATHA CHRISTIE, VOCÊ NÃO ME ENGANA!!!!"
... Obviamente eu não cheguei nem perto.
Ameeeeeei a experiência de leitura! Não é meu gênero favorito, mas acredito que possa se tornar um divertimento divertido. Passar o dia fazendo teorias foi muito gostoso.
Que fiquem registrados também meus elogios à nova edição da HarperCollins Brasil. A arte de capa é belíssima, a qualidade do livro é perfeita, a tradução da Luisa Geisler é deliciosa de ler, e as notas finais são um bom complemento. Amei!
June 3, 2020
“justice is, after all, in the hands of men and men are fallible.”
two years ago, the argyle family matriarch was murdered, and the youngest son was found guilty for the crime. the argyles have put the whole tragedy behind them, and are trying to move forward -- until dr. calgary shows up and tells them that the youngest son had an alibi all along.
pandemonium ensues as the police reopens the two-year-old case, and the family members start suspecting each other. could it be the father who’s finally decided to marry his trusty secretary and assistant, who was also in the family home during the murder? or is one of the kids holding a grudge against their mother?
as the story unfolds, we switch POVs between various family members: this book has no central investigator like poirot or miss marple. this set-up is rather effective at the start, since you really get to dive into the complicated feelings (and possible motives) these characters have about the deceased mrs. argyle, who is not as perfect as she seems.
however, once the clues start piling up, the narrative starts lacking focus: the investigation is split between the police, an agitated dr. calgary who feels guilty for causing the argyles so much grief, and philip, who’s married to the argyle’s eldest, mary.
the police fear they might not even find enough clues two years after the murder, and come across as rather sullen and morose. calgary is mostly focused on his own guilt until he starts getting the hots for one of the family’s daughters. and philip is, pardon my language, a huge asshole.
utterly bored with life thanks to an overbearing wife and an accident that put him in a wheelchair, he’s constantly needling all family members into ‘confessing’ something simply for his own entertainment. he doesn’t even want to help the police; he just wants to know who killed the old bird. he instigates for the fun of it, and is also fond of spouting racist and sexist bull.
such as one of the argyle daughters being a suspicious outsider because of “the half of her that isn’t white”. or telling his mentally unstable sister-in-law that people commit suicide for silly reasons, kissing her without consent, and playing it off as a silly joke to his wife.
yeah, that’s a yikes from me.
and that brings me to another issue: all the argyle children are adopted. a very fine line is walked when exploring issues around adoption: sometimes, it’s very thoughtful,
and other times, it’s just not thoughtful at all.
such as implying that the bond between blood relatives is always stronger than that between an adoptee and their parent. or this whole idea that women will always be unfulfilled whenever they adopt over physically bearing children. so that was a bit of a bummer.
i’ll say that the actual mystery is quite good, and though i was looking in the right direction i still didn’t catch the final twist. the argyle family is fascinating to watch; almost as suspiciously crafted and possibly-murderous as the one in crooked house. i greatly enjoyed the first half because of that, in which we get to meet all the characters in detail.
i confess that it’s often my favorite part of a murder mystery anyway: the slow beginning and set-up of all the people involved. and christie always excels at that with her clean prose and on-point characterization.
unfortunately, the somewhat gimmicky premise, lack of focus, and weirdly constructed ideas were a bit too distracting for me to enjoy this one in full. as were the repercussions of the twist that just… weren’t addressed.
✎ 2.5 stars.
September 1, 2016
Choose Your Own Adventure!
Did you kill the Argyle matriarch? ‘Tis true, she was an awful sort. A control freak: dramatically highly-strung and passionately venomous, her grasping hands ever eager to twist and to bind, to bind you and others to her. She is played by Faye Dunaway in tiny flashback sequences and that is certainly apropos casting. Mama Argyle was ever so unfair to you. She never let you do what you wanted, it was always her, Her, HER! She deserved to die, damn it! The world is a better place without her! The world should congratulate you! At the very least, they can give you some small bit of understanding for the good deed you've performed.
If you decide that the best defense is a good offense, choose this path.
If you feel you need to see a real ordeal by innocence, choose this path.
Did you kill the Argyle matriarch? ‘Tis true, she was an awful sort. A control freak: dramatically highly-strung and passionately venomous, her grasping hands ever eager to twist and to bind, to bind you and others to her. She is played by Faye Dunaway in tiny flashback sequences and that is certainly apropos casting. Mama Argyle was ever so unfair to you. She never let you do what you wanted, it was always her, Her, HER! She deserved to die, damn it! The world is a better place without her! The world should congratulate you! At the very least, they can give you some small bit of understanding for the good deed you've performed.
If you decide that the best defense is a good offense, choose this path.
If you feel you need to see a real ordeal by innocence, choose this path.
February 6, 2017
رائعة أجاثا كريستي
دليل البراءة يظهر بعد عامين وبعد موت المتهم في السجن والذي اتهم بقتل أمه
وصف رائع للنفس البشرية بعد ان كانو يعيشون في أمان مزيف
على العائلة ان تواجه محنتها من جديد
استمتعت بها
دليل البراءة يظهر بعد عامين وبعد موت المتهم في السجن والذي اتهم بقتل أمه
وصف رائع للنفس البشرية بعد ان كانو يعيشون في أمان مزيف
على العائلة ان تواجه محنتها من جديد
استمتعت بها
February 18, 2021
Published in 1958, this is a stand-alone mystery by Agatha Christie. It involves the murder of Rachel Argyle, the mother of five adopted children. One of these, Jacko, was accused of the murder and died in prison. He had always claimed that he had an alibi; having hitched a lift at the time of the crime. However, his alibi could not be established and so he was found guilty.
Now, two years after these events, geophysicist, Arthur Calgary, returns home to discover that he was, in fact, Jacko’s alibi. After a series of events which saw Calgary in hospital and unaware of Jacko’s arrest, and then leaving for a scientific expedition, he feels immense guilt that he could not give evidence and goes to visit the Argyle family, in order to make amends. Of course, what he does not see is that, by proving Jacko’s innocence, it means that someone must be guilty…
With Calgary’s evidence creating renewed interest in the crime, the family come under scrutiny. There is her widowed husband, Leo, who was about to announce his engagement to secretary, Gwenda. Plus, the adopted children, now adults. Mary and her husband, Philip, who needs a wheelchair. Car salesman, Mickey, who greatly resented being ‘taken away,’ from his real mother. Hester, whose fiancé is now also unwilling to marry with the investigation going on. Plus librarian Tina, who is the only one who seemed not to resent Rachel’s controlling behaviour.
This is not my favourite Christie, but it is still an enjoyable novel. Calgary is less successful as an investigator, although Philip’s desire to discover the truth is an interesting side story and Christie has fun with the family dynamics and supicions. I would give this something between 3.5 and 4, but enjoyed listening to this on Audible and Hugh Fraser’s impeccable narration.
Now, two years after these events, geophysicist, Arthur Calgary, returns home to discover that he was, in fact, Jacko’s alibi. After a series of events which saw Calgary in hospital and unaware of Jacko’s arrest, and then leaving for a scientific expedition, he feels immense guilt that he could not give evidence and goes to visit the Argyle family, in order to make amends. Of course, what he does not see is that, by proving Jacko’s innocence, it means that someone must be guilty…
With Calgary’s evidence creating renewed interest in the crime, the family come under scrutiny. There is her widowed husband, Leo, who was about to announce his engagement to secretary, Gwenda. Plus, the adopted children, now adults. Mary and her husband, Philip, who needs a wheelchair. Car salesman, Mickey, who greatly resented being ‘taken away,’ from his real mother. Hester, whose fiancé is now also unwilling to marry with the investigation going on. Plus librarian Tina, who is the only one who seemed not to resent Rachel’s controlling behaviour.
This is not my favourite Christie, but it is still an enjoyable novel. Calgary is less successful as an investigator, although Philip’s desire to discover the truth is an interesting side story and Christie has fun with the family dynamics and supicions. I would give this something between 3.5 and 4, but enjoyed listening to this on Audible and Hugh Fraser’s impeccable narration.
August 22, 2024
Vacation is over. Tomorrow is back to work for me and in a week or so it’s back to school for my kids. It’s always bittersweet for me when summer comes to an end. It is my favorite time of the year, the rest I merely tolerate. For my last vacation I brought a Pulitzer winner and read zero pages. This time I learned my lesson that there are different books for different purposes, so I selected a sports micro-history and a mystery. Those are the genres I can relax with the best and isn’t that what vacation is all about. For this year I have taken part in a Read Christie challenge. I have read Agatha Christie since my adolescent years but not a variety of her body of work. This has been a chance for me to fill in the gap with those books that I neglected. I have read some of the challenge selections, so I replaced those with ones that I hadn’t gotten to yet. So far I am eight for eight and hope to finish the challenge strong in the last third of the year. One aspect of Christie’s work that I hadn’t read before is her stand alone novels. It happens that Ordeal by Innocence is a book selected by the challenge and a new to be title. I used my vacation to catch up with the Queen of Crime.
Sunny Point is home to Leo and Rachel Argyle. Rachel comes from old money and fell for Leo as a young woman. All Rachel ever desired was to be a mother but early in her marriage she discovered that she was unable to bear children. Her diagnosis took place prior to World War II, decades before artificial means of fertility were possible. The only way for a woman like Rachel Argyle to become a mother would be through adoption. On a trip to New York, she found a young girl named Mary who had been neglected and pleaded with Leo to bring her home. He would defer to her, as he would throughout their marriage. During the war, Rachel started Sunny Point, a country estate home that would rescue children from the bombing in London. Rachel lavished on these children as though they were her own, and after the war used her monetary influence to adopt the four war orphans from the worst background. Although Leo was skeptical, he allowed his wife to live out her dream of being a mother. The five children- Mary, Jack, Micky, Hester, and Tina- became Argyles, a ready made family. They received the best that money could buy, but Rachel did not factor in their genetics. One day these children might want to know of their origins or at the very least to leave home. In order to escape from Sunny Point, these grown Argyles would have to get rid of their mother. Eventually one of them did, or did they.
By the time of publication, Christie had been writing mysteries for decades. Perhaps she needed a break from her go to sleuths Poirot and Miss Marple. In 1960, readers discovered that two years prior Jack Argyle had been charged with murdering his mother and eventually died in jail. The family, or at least Leo, mourned his wife, and the siblings were ok with what happened because Jack or Jack-o had a mean streak to him. If he had murdered mother, so be it. One evening Donald Calgary turns up at Sunny Point and provides Jack with an alibi. The time of death occurred within a half hour’s time so it had to have been someone in the house, a family member or employee. This case reminds me of a Poirot case when someone in the family murdered the patriarch because he was a detestable person, and all heirs stood to gain financially by his death. In this case, Rachel Argyle also provided to her children in trusts, but she doted on all her children as though they were her own. Don Calgary believed that because he did not come forward two years prior with information, that he owed it to the family to deduce whodunnit. Not all the Argyles were happy with this new revelation, but Calgary as well as police detective Huish desired to bring the murderer to justice.
Don Calgary is hardly Hercule Poirot. He is charming and even from this first case appears to be a lady’s man. After the murder he participated on the Hayes Bentley expedition to the South Pole, so he is also a man of the world. One thing that sets Poirot apart is his use of little gray cells. He knew whodunnit long before the reader and only needed clues in order to piece together a timeline. After reading more than half of the Poirot cases I still have not solved a case before the Belgian sleuth. In this case I deduced the criminal from the get go and I have an inkling that Calgary did as well. He kept detective to be sure who the guilty party was but also because he quickly developed feelings for Hester Argyle. The whole case became far fetched too quickly for my liking and I only kept reading to see if my premonitions were correct and also so I could check this book off of my challenge. Perhaps, Dame Christie needed a break from her intellectually savvy Poirot cases, or perhaps she wanted to write something different. In many of her postwar cases she appeared ahead of her time from a social aspect when she discussed how the world changed. In one book she noted that women returning from war could not find jobs. Here, she addressed adoption and whether parents and children still loved each other as though they were flesh and blood. Today this was commonplace but in that era, or at least in this case, these things were not discussed until the children were much older. All these factors contributed to a case that became a break from Christie’s norm, pointing to her depth as a writer.
With work starting tomorrow I still hope to have plenty of reading time. I enjoyed my vacations and the depth and breadth of reading that I partook in. One highlight of my year has been rediscovering the Queen of Crime. I have read enough of Poirot and Miss Marple to know how they operate on a case. What makes Dame Christie stand out is her knowledge or poisons and utilizing the experiences of her life to create a diverse body of work. Some of her stand alone novels work as spy thrillers or spooky mysteries and some are silly. Ordeal by Innocence falls somewhat in the middle in that aspects of the case still spoke to Christie’s skills as a writers, but other aspects of the case seemed out of place. What resulted was a fast paced whodunnit with the backdrop of passion. I still have four books left in the Read Christie challenge and hope to read a variety of books. Dame Christie was the queen of crime for her wide range of situations that could occur in a mystery. I hope the next case I read is a touch more realistic.
3.5 stars
Sunny Point is home to Leo and Rachel Argyle. Rachel comes from old money and fell for Leo as a young woman. All Rachel ever desired was to be a mother but early in her marriage she discovered that she was unable to bear children. Her diagnosis took place prior to World War II, decades before artificial means of fertility were possible. The only way for a woman like Rachel Argyle to become a mother would be through adoption. On a trip to New York, she found a young girl named Mary who had been neglected and pleaded with Leo to bring her home. He would defer to her, as he would throughout their marriage. During the war, Rachel started Sunny Point, a country estate home that would rescue children from the bombing in London. Rachel lavished on these children as though they were her own, and after the war used her monetary influence to adopt the four war orphans from the worst background. Although Leo was skeptical, he allowed his wife to live out her dream of being a mother. The five children- Mary, Jack, Micky, Hester, and Tina- became Argyles, a ready made family. They received the best that money could buy, but Rachel did not factor in their genetics. One day these children might want to know of their origins or at the very least to leave home. In order to escape from Sunny Point, these grown Argyles would have to get rid of their mother. Eventually one of them did, or did they.
By the time of publication, Christie had been writing mysteries for decades. Perhaps she needed a break from her go to sleuths Poirot and Miss Marple. In 1960, readers discovered that two years prior Jack Argyle had been charged with murdering his mother and eventually died in jail. The family, or at least Leo, mourned his wife, and the siblings were ok with what happened because Jack or Jack-o had a mean streak to him. If he had murdered mother, so be it. One evening Donald Calgary turns up at Sunny Point and provides Jack with an alibi. The time of death occurred within a half hour’s time so it had to have been someone in the house, a family member or employee. This case reminds me of a Poirot case when someone in the family murdered the patriarch because he was a detestable person, and all heirs stood to gain financially by his death. In this case, Rachel Argyle also provided to her children in trusts, but she doted on all her children as though they were her own. Don Calgary believed that because he did not come forward two years prior with information, that he owed it to the family to deduce whodunnit. Not all the Argyles were happy with this new revelation, but Calgary as well as police detective Huish desired to bring the murderer to justice.
Don Calgary is hardly Hercule Poirot. He is charming and even from this first case appears to be a lady’s man. After the murder he participated on the Hayes Bentley expedition to the South Pole, so he is also a man of the world. One thing that sets Poirot apart is his use of little gray cells. He knew whodunnit long before the reader and only needed clues in order to piece together a timeline. After reading more than half of the Poirot cases I still have not solved a case before the Belgian sleuth. In this case I deduced the criminal from the get go and I have an inkling that Calgary did as well. He kept detective to be sure who the guilty party was but also because he quickly developed feelings for Hester Argyle. The whole case became far fetched too quickly for my liking and I only kept reading to see if my premonitions were correct and also so I could check this book off of my challenge. Perhaps, Dame Christie needed a break from her intellectually savvy Poirot cases, or perhaps she wanted to write something different. In many of her postwar cases she appeared ahead of her time from a social aspect when she discussed how the world changed. In one book she noted that women returning from war could not find jobs. Here, she addressed adoption and whether parents and children still loved each other as though they were flesh and blood. Today this was commonplace but in that era, or at least in this case, these things were not discussed until the children were much older. All these factors contributed to a case that became a break from Christie’s norm, pointing to her depth as a writer.
With work starting tomorrow I still hope to have plenty of reading time. I enjoyed my vacations and the depth and breadth of reading that I partook in. One highlight of my year has been rediscovering the Queen of Crime. I have read enough of Poirot and Miss Marple to know how they operate on a case. What makes Dame Christie stand out is her knowledge or poisons and utilizing the experiences of her life to create a diverse body of work. Some of her stand alone novels work as spy thrillers or spooky mysteries and some are silly. Ordeal by Innocence falls somewhat in the middle in that aspects of the case still spoke to Christie’s skills as a writers, but other aspects of the case seemed out of place. What resulted was a fast paced whodunnit with the backdrop of passion. I still have four books left in the Read Christie challenge and hope to read a variety of books. Dame Christie was the queen of crime for her wide range of situations that could occur in a mystery. I hope the next case I read is a touch more realistic.
3.5 stars
June 19, 2021
Dr Calgary's visit to the home of the Argyles at Viper's Point culminates in an exposition that clears one person of murder whilst throwing suspicion on everyone else in this dysfunctional family of misfits. As is Christie's way, virtually everyone could have 'dunnit' although for once, I guessed correctly after around one quarter of the book.
None of the characters are particularly likeable and there is an absence of a 'head sleuth' to solve the case on this occasion. I think for both these reasons, the book is enjoyable without ranking amongst AC's best works.
None of the characters are particularly likeable and there is an absence of a 'head sleuth' to solve the case on this occasion. I think for both these reasons, the book is enjoyable without ranking amongst AC's best works.
April 19, 2017
I am not sure how to rate this. On one hand, it had all the elements I love in a murder mystery - murder within the family, a large number of suspects, family drama, and some humour. But Ordeal by Innocence also bashes you on the head with Christie's private views about adoption and heredity, which are basically utter nonsense. Every chapter contained a polemic, expressed by different people, against adoption and how a mother can never be a mother unless she gives birth. It's annoying to read, especially since it's repeated far too many times.
Rachel Argyle gets married and couldn't have kids. So she chooses to adopt children. But according to everyone else in the book, she could never be a proper mother since the children were not really hers, even though she did everything possible for them that a mother would. And all the children hated her because she was always right. Really? Anyway, someone in the family finishes her off. Now, who could that be? Well, of course, Jacko, the delinquent son, who could never be one of her own children *eyeroll*. Months later, evidence comes out that Jacko was actually innocent. So the murderer is still free.
I loved the setting and the mystery itself, but I didn't like the premise of the book. The entire story revolved around two basic assumptions: (1) adopted children cannot really belong to their adoptive families, and (2) middle aged women are dumb and cannot take care of themselves from predator men. Usually, I can just put the author's perspectives away and enjoy the mystery, but in this case, Christie was quite heavy handed and wouldn't let me forget her crazy views. So, I'm knocking off two stars.
Rachel Argyle gets married and couldn't have kids. So she chooses to adopt children. But according to everyone else in the book, she could never be a proper mother since the children were not really hers, even though she did everything possible for them that a mother would. And all the children hated her because she was always right. Really? Anyway, someone in the family finishes her off. Now, who could that be? Well, of course, Jacko, the delinquent son, who could never be one of her own children *eyeroll*. Months later, evidence comes out that Jacko was actually innocent. So the murderer is still free.
I loved the setting and the mystery itself, but I didn't like the premise of the book. The entire story revolved around two basic assumptions: (1) adopted children cannot really belong to their adoptive families, and (2) middle aged women are dumb and cannot take care of themselves from predator men. Usually, I can just put the author's perspectives away and enjoy the mystery, but in this case, Christie was quite heavy handed and wouldn't let me forget her crazy views. So, I'm knocking off two stars.
August 1, 2018
Για τη δολοφονία της κυρίας Αργκάυλ δεν υπήρξε κανένα μυστήριο. Ο θετός της γιος Τζακ συνελήφθη αφού έγινε γνωστό ότι της ζήτησε χρήματα που δεν του έδωσε και στη συνέχεια την απείλησε. Τα χρήματα που της είχε πάρει βρέθηκαν επάνω του και κανείς δεν ξαφνιάστηκε μια και ο νεαρός Τζακ ήταν, κατά κοινή ομολογία, "κακός σπόρος". Όλα όμως ανατρέπονται όταν δύο χρόνια μετά τη δολοφονία και αφού ο Τζακ έχει πεθάνει εμφανίζεται ένα ακλόνητο άλλοθι για τον συλληφθέντα. Τότε η αλήθεια, που τόσο βολικά έχει θαφτεί για όλους, πρέπει να έρθει ξανά στην επιφάνεια. Η οικογένεια βυθίζεται στην καχυποψία και την δυστυχια, μια και κανεις δεν μπορεί να είναι απόλυτα σίγουρος για τον άλλον. Οι σχέσεις διαρρηγνυονται και η αθωότητα δοκιμάζεται.
Όπως πάντα, με μια Αγκαθα Κρίστι κάνεις τις καλύτερες διακοπές. Μυστήριο, αγωνία, λεπτή ψυχογραφία και συνεχείς εικασίες που ανατρέπονται. Αγαπάμε θεία Άγκαθα (και) το καλοκαίρι!
Όπως πάντα, με μια Αγκαθα Κρίστι κάνεις τις καλύτερες διακοπές. Μυστήριο, αγωνία, λεπτή ψυχογραφία και συνεχείς εικασίες που ανατρέπονται. Αγαπάμε θεία Άγκαθα (και) το καλοκαίρι!
August 5, 2019
One of Christie’s must read thrillers. Written in her true who-dun-it fashion the plot has an interesting beginning. True a murder has been committed and innocent person is jailed where he later dies. The stage is set and there is usual bunch of suspects. It is not the police but an amateur sleuth who finally solves the case. Great read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,866 reviews