What do you think?
Rate this book
Hercule Poirot #9
موت اللورد إدجوير
An Agatha Christie mystery story. Poirot had been present when Jane bragged of her plan to ‘get rid of’ her estranged husband. Now the monstrous man was dead. And yet the great Belgian detective couldn’t help feeling that he was being taken for a ride. After all, how could Jane have stabbed Lord Edgware to death in his library at exactly the same time she was seen dining with friends? And what could be her motive now that the aristocrat had finally granted her a divorce?
154 pages, Paperback
First published September 6, 1933
1796 people are currently reading
28024 people want to read
About the author
Agatha Christie
5,786 books74.9k 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 4,217 reviews
January 11, 2025
Which is a better title, in your opinion: Lord Edgware Dies or “Thirteen at Dinner”? It depends, you might say. When does Lord Edgware Die? Is it a spoiler? And what is the significance of the number thirteen, at dinner?
Well to have thirteen guests at dinner is, according to superstition, unlucky. The legend goes that if thirteen are present at a dinner, then bad luck will come to the person who first leaves the table. And, yes Lord Edgware does die, although not before the story starts, so that the entire novel is a “flashback”, but . Neither does he die at the end of the story: it is a true whodunnit, where the rule is that enough clues are provided as the story moves along, for the reader to be able to solve it.
(I did not by the way. As usual I was merrily carried away by the fact that I had spotted a detail near the beginning, which would explain the otherwise hidden identity of the murderer. But no. It was a red herring, carefully placed by Agatha Christie to entrap and misdirect innocent readers like me.)
In fact there is a lot of skilful misdirection in Lord Edgware Dies. It is well up to standard for a Poirot novel. And it also has a little welcome humour, such as this comment by one of the characters, where the author delightfully pokes fun at herself:
“And that very same evening – that very same evening – Lord Edgware dies. Good title that, by the way. Lord Edgware Dies. Look well on a book stall.”
So why the two titles? It came as a surprise to me, to learn that this novel by an English author was originally published in the USA. It was entitled “Thirteen for Dinner”, and serialised in six monthly parts, between March and August 1933, in “The American Magazine”. Just a month later, in September 1933, it was published in the UK as Lord Edgware Dies, and we know it better now under that later title. But I feel there should be a warning to Agatha Christie enthusiasts, who may believe that they have stumbled on a lesser known work by the Great Dame: they are the same novel. And interestingly, both titles do actually function as a kind of spoiler, although it is not really possible to tell until the conclusion is known.
And the dedication? Who were “Dr. and Mrs. Campbell Thompson”?
At the time of writing, the author and her second husband, Max Mallowan, the archaeologist, were friends with the Campbell Thompson couple. Agatha Christie and Max Mallowan had first met at the Ur site three years previously, in 1930, and married the same year. Reginald Campbell Thompson had employed Max to work on a dig at the ancient Assyrian city of Upper Mesopotamia, located on the outskirts of Mosul in modern-day northern Iraq.
Apparently Thompson was notoriously tight-fisted; so much so that he wanted Agatha Christie to use use orange boxes as a desk! Agatha Christie instead insisted on buying a solid table to place her typewriter on, in order to complete her next book. Thompson was aghast at the fact that she spent ten pounds of her own money on a table at a local bazaar, and apparently took two weeks to recover his temper over such an “extravagance”! The book in question was, of course, Lord Edgware Dies.
Despite these disagreements, Thompson often asked Agatha how the book was progressing. In fact the Thompson couple were uniquely honoured, because Agatha Christie read the manuscript of the book aloud to them, and this was something that she only ever usually did for her family. Agatha Christie and Reginald Campbell Thompson clearly regained their mutual respect, because not only did she dedicate the novel to the Thompson couple, but a skeleton found on the dig was named “Lord Edgware”!
There is little point in retelling the story here. There are plenty of places where one can read a synopsis of this convoluted tale. As you would expect, Agatha Christie’s ninth work featuring her great detective Hercule Poirot, shows her well into her stride. Satisfyingly, both Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings are present for the whole story, rather than one of them making a late appearance, as sometimes happens. Once again, Hastings’s wife, Dulcie Duveen, or “Cinderella”, first introduced to us in “Murder on the Links”, does not appear in the novel. Presumably she is back at home on their ranch in the Argentine. The single reference to this comes at the beginning of the last chapter, when:
“I was suddenly recalled to the Argentine”.
Chief Inspector Japp too, is also on the scene, as the officer in change of the murder case – or cases, I should say – as there will be three murders in total.
For much of the novel we watch the interaction between these three. The relationship between Poirot and Hastings is far better described than in the previous novel, “Peril at End House” in which the duo seemed to spend all their time carping at one another. The author Robert Barnard has noticed this too, calling the novel:
“clever and unusual, with the Hastings/Poirot relationship done less crudely than usual.”
The narrator is as ever, Captain Arthur Hastings, who describes what he thinks of as his friend’s limitations in an affectionate way:
“Oh! I know very well that you always have a little idea that I am conceited, but, indeed, I assure you, I am really a very humble person.”
I laughed.
“You – humble!”
“It is so. Except – I confess it – that I am a little proud of my moustaches.”
And Poirot kindly observes to Hastings:
“No human being should learn from another. Each individual should develop his own powers to the uttermost, not try to imitate those of someone else. I do not wish you to be a second and inferior Poirot. I wish you to be the supreme Hastings. And you are the supreme Hastings. In you, Hastings, I find the normal mind almost perfectly illustrated.”
Hastings is also quick to observe that Inspector Japp does not usually have Poirot’s powers of deduction and insight. Nevertheless he reports events faithfully. Here is an exchange between Poirot and the good Inspector:
“You have the confidence — always the confidence! You never stop and say to yourself — can it be so? You never doubt — or wonder. You never think: this is too easy!’
'You bet your life I don’t! And that's just where, if you’ll excuse me saying so, you go off the rails every time. Why shouldn’t a thing be easy? What’s the harm in a thing being easy?’”
The trio are a treat to read about, and their little peccadilloes only add to the enjoyment of this classic golden age mystery.
It is obvious from the title that the characters are going to be aristocrats and those in high society. We move in these circles throughout the novel, and also into the realms of the theatre. Lord Edgware’s wife is the actress, Jane Wilkinson, and we plunge straight into the nitty-gritty of the book when, at the end of chapter one, she announces:
“M. Poirot, somehow or other I’ve just got to get rid of my husband.”
We know the next bit of the plot, from the title, but who exactly might have done the deadly deed? Apart from his wife, there are other suspects within his family. There is his nephew, Captain Ronald Marsh, who is the heir to his title, and has money troubles. There is Geraldine Marsh, his daughter from his first marriage, whose life he makes a misery. There is the Duke of Merton, whom Lord Edgware’s wife wishes to be free to marry. And as ever, there are butlers, housekeepers and maids of the various households, all of whom could easily have a good motive to murder Lord Edgware.
Prominent in the story are Jane Wilkinson, who like many actresses depicted in fiction, seems completely self-obsessed, and described by her friends as having no conscience at all. But despite reports of having been seen in Lord Edgware’s house at the time of the murder, she has a perfect alibi, as she was also seen attending a dinner with a dozen other guests.
We also meet Carlotta Adams, an American impersonator, who is on tour in London and Paris. In a performance watched by Poirot and Hastings in chapter 1, she mimics Jane Wilkinson exceptionally well. Interestingly, this performance is viewed with pleasure by Jane Wilkinson herself, who is seated in the audience, just behind Poirot and Hastings.
Surely the inclusion of a talented impersonator, who is able to mimic one of the chief suspects, cannot be immaterial to the plot? Throughout much of the novel, we are trying to work out what exactly might have happened here. Carlotta Adams herself is an endearing character. She was based on the American dramatist Ruth Draper, and Agatha Christie was so impressed by her, that she became the inspiration behind the story. In Agatha Christie’s autobiography, she wrote:
“I thought how clever she was and how good her impersonations were; the wonderful way she could transform herself from a nagging wife to a peasant girl kneeling in a cathedral. Thinking about her led me to the book Lord Edgware Dies”
The characters in Lord Edgware Dies are slightly better filled out than in some of her other novels. Another feisty female is Genevieve or “Jenny” Driver, a friend of Carlotta Adams, who specialises in the creation of fashionable hats. Another strong character is Bryan Martin, a successful actor, who knows all three females well. Other actors and minor members of the aristocracy come and go.
To say the settings are so limited – various barely described locations in London – it remains an absorbing read. Much of the text consists of dialogue between the detectives and those involved in the case, and even more is between Poirot and Hastings, where Poirot explains his thoughts (or Hastings complains that he doesn’t!) We are privy to all Poirot’s mistaken theories, as he postulates first one solution, and then another. But none will suffice, as none cover all the questions Poirot has asked himself. This infuriates Japp, who merely looks for the obvious answer, and we gleefully watch the irritable conversations that ensue.
The structure of the story is also nicely done. Right at the end of the book is an account, a letter to Poirot . It is a satisfying way to end the novel. And the opposite end of the book, the conclusion to chapter one already quoted, sets a precedent for many of the other chapter endings to also end with a surprise — or on a cliffhanger —to ensure that we carry on reading.
Red herrings are placed randomly, some of which we pick up, certain that this time they will not be misdirection, but actual clues which we have cleverly spotted. (We are invariably wrong!) A person in a particular place at a particular time. An initial which is the correct one. A relationship which had been hidden hitherto, but is suddenly revealed. Surely these are pertinent?
Probably not. Things are never as they seem.
“Enemies! People these days don’t have enemies! Not English people!”
“Do you not know, my friend, that each one of us is a dark mystery, a maze of conflicting passions and desires and aptitudes? Mais oui, c’est vrai. One makes one’s little judgments — but nine times out of ten one is wrong.”
“One cannot be interested in crime without being interested in psychology. It is not the mere act of killing, it is what lies behind it that appeals to the expert.”
Well to have thirteen guests at dinner is, according to superstition, unlucky. The legend goes that if thirteen are present at a dinner, then bad luck will come to the person who first leaves the table. And, yes Lord Edgware does die, although not before the story starts, so that the entire novel is a “flashback”, but . Neither does he die at the end of the story: it is a true whodunnit, where the rule is that enough clues are provided as the story moves along, for the reader to be able to solve it.
(I did not by the way. As usual I was merrily carried away by the fact that I had spotted a detail near the beginning, which would explain the otherwise hidden identity of the murderer. But no. It was a red herring, carefully placed by Agatha Christie to entrap and misdirect innocent readers like me.)
In fact there is a lot of skilful misdirection in Lord Edgware Dies. It is well up to standard for a Poirot novel. And it also has a little welcome humour, such as this comment by one of the characters, where the author delightfully pokes fun at herself:
“And that very same evening – that very same evening – Lord Edgware dies. Good title that, by the way. Lord Edgware Dies. Look well on a book stall.”
So why the two titles? It came as a surprise to me, to learn that this novel by an English author was originally published in the USA. It was entitled “Thirteen for Dinner”, and serialised in six monthly parts, between March and August 1933, in “The American Magazine”. Just a month later, in September 1933, it was published in the UK as Lord Edgware Dies, and we know it better now under that later title. But I feel there should be a warning to Agatha Christie enthusiasts, who may believe that they have stumbled on a lesser known work by the Great Dame: they are the same novel. And interestingly, both titles do actually function as a kind of spoiler, although it is not really possible to tell until the conclusion is known.
And the dedication? Who were “Dr. and Mrs. Campbell Thompson”?
At the time of writing, the author and her second husband, Max Mallowan, the archaeologist, were friends with the Campbell Thompson couple. Agatha Christie and Max Mallowan had first met at the Ur site three years previously, in 1930, and married the same year. Reginald Campbell Thompson had employed Max to work on a dig at the ancient Assyrian city of Upper Mesopotamia, located on the outskirts of Mosul in modern-day northern Iraq.
Apparently Thompson was notoriously tight-fisted; so much so that he wanted Agatha Christie to use use orange boxes as a desk! Agatha Christie instead insisted on buying a solid table to place her typewriter on, in order to complete her next book. Thompson was aghast at the fact that she spent ten pounds of her own money on a table at a local bazaar, and apparently took two weeks to recover his temper over such an “extravagance”! The book in question was, of course, Lord Edgware Dies.
Despite these disagreements, Thompson often asked Agatha how the book was progressing. In fact the Thompson couple were uniquely honoured, because Agatha Christie read the manuscript of the book aloud to them, and this was something that she only ever usually did for her family. Agatha Christie and Reginald Campbell Thompson clearly regained their mutual respect, because not only did she dedicate the novel to the Thompson couple, but a skeleton found on the dig was named “Lord Edgware”!
There is little point in retelling the story here. There are plenty of places where one can read a synopsis of this convoluted tale. As you would expect, Agatha Christie’s ninth work featuring her great detective Hercule Poirot, shows her well into her stride. Satisfyingly, both Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings are present for the whole story, rather than one of them making a late appearance, as sometimes happens. Once again, Hastings’s wife, Dulcie Duveen, or “Cinderella”, first introduced to us in “Murder on the Links”, does not appear in the novel. Presumably she is back at home on their ranch in the Argentine. The single reference to this comes at the beginning of the last chapter, when:
“I was suddenly recalled to the Argentine”.
Chief Inspector Japp too, is also on the scene, as the officer in change of the murder case – or cases, I should say – as there will be three murders in total.
For much of the novel we watch the interaction between these three. The relationship between Poirot and Hastings is far better described than in the previous novel, “Peril at End House” in which the duo seemed to spend all their time carping at one another. The author Robert Barnard has noticed this too, calling the novel:
“clever and unusual, with the Hastings/Poirot relationship done less crudely than usual.”
The narrator is as ever, Captain Arthur Hastings, who describes what he thinks of as his friend’s limitations in an affectionate way:
“Oh! I know very well that you always have a little idea that I am conceited, but, indeed, I assure you, I am really a very humble person.”
I laughed.
“You – humble!”
“It is so. Except – I confess it – that I am a little proud of my moustaches.”
And Poirot kindly observes to Hastings:
“No human being should learn from another. Each individual should develop his own powers to the uttermost, not try to imitate those of someone else. I do not wish you to be a second and inferior Poirot. I wish you to be the supreme Hastings. And you are the supreme Hastings. In you, Hastings, I find the normal mind almost perfectly illustrated.”
Hastings is also quick to observe that Inspector Japp does not usually have Poirot’s powers of deduction and insight. Nevertheless he reports events faithfully. Here is an exchange between Poirot and the good Inspector:
“You have the confidence — always the confidence! You never stop and say to yourself — can it be so? You never doubt — or wonder. You never think: this is too easy!’
'You bet your life I don’t! And that's just where, if you’ll excuse me saying so, you go off the rails every time. Why shouldn’t a thing be easy? What’s the harm in a thing being easy?’”
The trio are a treat to read about, and their little peccadilloes only add to the enjoyment of this classic golden age mystery.
It is obvious from the title that the characters are going to be aristocrats and those in high society. We move in these circles throughout the novel, and also into the realms of the theatre. Lord Edgware’s wife is the actress, Jane Wilkinson, and we plunge straight into the nitty-gritty of the book when, at the end of chapter one, she announces:
“M. Poirot, somehow or other I’ve just got to get rid of my husband.”
We know the next bit of the plot, from the title, but who exactly might have done the deadly deed? Apart from his wife, there are other suspects within his family. There is his nephew, Captain Ronald Marsh, who is the heir to his title, and has money troubles. There is Geraldine Marsh, his daughter from his first marriage, whose life he makes a misery. There is the Duke of Merton, whom Lord Edgware’s wife wishes to be free to marry. And as ever, there are butlers, housekeepers and maids of the various households, all of whom could easily have a good motive to murder Lord Edgware.
Prominent in the story are Jane Wilkinson, who like many actresses depicted in fiction, seems completely self-obsessed, and described by her friends as having no conscience at all. But despite reports of having been seen in Lord Edgware’s house at the time of the murder, she has a perfect alibi, as she was also seen attending a dinner with a dozen other guests.
We also meet Carlotta Adams, an American impersonator, who is on tour in London and Paris. In a performance watched by Poirot and Hastings in chapter 1, she mimics Jane Wilkinson exceptionally well. Interestingly, this performance is viewed with pleasure by Jane Wilkinson herself, who is seated in the audience, just behind Poirot and Hastings.
Surely the inclusion of a talented impersonator, who is able to mimic one of the chief suspects, cannot be immaterial to the plot? Throughout much of the novel, we are trying to work out what exactly might have happened here. Carlotta Adams herself is an endearing character. She was based on the American dramatist Ruth Draper, and Agatha Christie was so impressed by her, that she became the inspiration behind the story. In Agatha Christie’s autobiography, she wrote:
“I thought how clever she was and how good her impersonations were; the wonderful way she could transform herself from a nagging wife to a peasant girl kneeling in a cathedral. Thinking about her led me to the book Lord Edgware Dies”
The characters in Lord Edgware Dies are slightly better filled out than in some of her other novels. Another feisty female is Genevieve or “Jenny” Driver, a friend of Carlotta Adams, who specialises in the creation of fashionable hats. Another strong character is Bryan Martin, a successful actor, who knows all three females well. Other actors and minor members of the aristocracy come and go.
To say the settings are so limited – various barely described locations in London – it remains an absorbing read. Much of the text consists of dialogue between the detectives and those involved in the case, and even more is between Poirot and Hastings, where Poirot explains his thoughts (or Hastings complains that he doesn’t!) We are privy to all Poirot’s mistaken theories, as he postulates first one solution, and then another. But none will suffice, as none cover all the questions Poirot has asked himself. This infuriates Japp, who merely looks for the obvious answer, and we gleefully watch the irritable conversations that ensue.
The structure of the story is also nicely done. Right at the end of the book is an account, a letter to Poirot . It is a satisfying way to end the novel. And the opposite end of the book, the conclusion to chapter one already quoted, sets a precedent for many of the other chapter endings to also end with a surprise — or on a cliffhanger —to ensure that we carry on reading.
Red herrings are placed randomly, some of which we pick up, certain that this time they will not be misdirection, but actual clues which we have cleverly spotted. (We are invariably wrong!) A person in a particular place at a particular time. An initial which is the correct one. A relationship which had been hidden hitherto, but is suddenly revealed. Surely these are pertinent?
Probably not. Things are never as they seem.
“Enemies! People these days don’t have enemies! Not English people!”
“Do you not know, my friend, that each one of us is a dark mystery, a maze of conflicting passions and desires and aptitudes? Mais oui, c’est vrai. One makes one’s little judgments — but nine times out of ten one is wrong.”
“One cannot be interested in crime without being interested in psychology. It is not the mere act of killing, it is what lies behind it that appeals to the expert.”
June 8, 2024
It's probably safe to say you already know Lord Edgware doesn't make it to the end of the book.
Who killed him is another matter entirely.
This one is a great example of Agatha Christie at her finest when it comes to moving things around on the page, and fooling everyone as to who did what when, and why.
There were also some great clues in this one that are a lot of fun to watch Poirot decode.
It starts with an obvious suspect, Edgware's estranged wife.
Actress Jane Wilkinson wants a divorce so that she can marry another man, and the doomed Lord has refused to give it to her. When she runs into Poirot and Hastings at a show, she begs him to visit Lord Edgware and convince him to let her go. Later during dinner, she laughingly and loudly announces that if that doesn't work, she'll just drive up to his front door, go inside, and kill him herself.
So when her husband ends up dead in exactly the way she described, and a woman who looked like her was the last person seen entering the house?
Naturally, Japp thinks it's all sewn up.
Unfortunately, the lady in question had attended a dinner party at the last minute, which has given her a rock-solid alibi.
So. If it wasn't Jane, who killed him? And why did they try to make it look like she did it?
This is one that I've personally read again and again, and I'd argue that most Christie fans would say this is a classic Poirot story. It's also a must-read for anyone who is interested in seeing why she's the Queen of Mystery.
Highly Recommended.
Who killed him is another matter entirely.
This one is a great example of Agatha Christie at her finest when it comes to moving things around on the page, and fooling everyone as to who did what when, and why.
There were also some great clues in this one that are a lot of fun to watch Poirot decode.
It starts with an obvious suspect, Edgware's estranged wife.
Actress Jane Wilkinson wants a divorce so that she can marry another man, and the doomed Lord has refused to give it to her. When she runs into Poirot and Hastings at a show, she begs him to visit Lord Edgware and convince him to let her go. Later during dinner, she laughingly and loudly announces that if that doesn't work, she'll just drive up to his front door, go inside, and kill him herself.
So when her husband ends up dead in exactly the way she described, and a woman who looked like her was the last person seen entering the house?
Naturally, Japp thinks it's all sewn up.
Unfortunately, the lady in question had attended a dinner party at the last minute, which has given her a rock-solid alibi.
So. If it wasn't Jane, who killed him? And why did they try to make it look like she did it?
This is one that I've personally read again and again, and I'd argue that most Christie fans would say this is a classic Poirot story. It's also a must-read for anyone who is interested in seeing why she's the Queen of Mystery.
Highly Recommended.
August 25, 2024
[5.0⭐] 𝙇𝙖 𝙢𝙪𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙚 𝙇���𝙧𝙙 𝙀𝙙𝙜𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 es una novela detectivesca escrita por Agatha Christie en 1933. La historia se centra en Hércules Poirot, el famoso detective belga, que se enfrenta a un caso bastante complejo: el asesinato de un noble británico. Todas las pistas parecen señalar a su esposa como la principal sospechosa, especialmente porque ella había mencionado en numerosas ocasiones su deseo de matarlo para poder divorciarse de él. Sin embargo, pronto se descubre que la mujer tiene una coartada irrefutable, lo que da pie a una extenuante investigación.
Este año he leído tantas obras de Christie que me estoy volviendo una conocedora de su trabajo, por lo que me siento con la autoridad suficiente para decir que esta es una de sus mejores novelas. No pensé que, después de leer 𝙀𝙡 𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙍𝙤𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝘼𝙘𝙠𝙧𝙤𝙮𝙙 y 𝘼𝙨𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙣 𝙚𝙡 𝙊𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙀𝙭𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨, aún pudiera sorprenderme, pero Christie lo ha logrado de nuevo. El final me dejó completamente asombrada; no me lo esperaba en absoluto.
Como he mencionado en otras reseñas, estoy siguiendo el orden de sus publicaciones, y siento que para escribir esta novela, Christie se inspiró en su obra anterior, 𝙋𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙧𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 . Percibí algunas similitudes, y el culpable es en cierto modo parecido, aunque aquí está mejor logrado.
Como siempre, Christie consigue crear un misterio exquisito y personajes realmente interesantes. La narrativa está llena de giros inesperados y pistas que desafían al lector a intentar resolver el crimen. Además, se nota su enfoque único en los detalles y en las descripciones, lo que mantiene la historia entretenida. Esta novela es muy rápida de leer gracias al estilo ágil de la autora; me tomó alrededor de tres horas terminarla.
Esta es también la primera novela en la que se percibe con mayor intensidad el cariño que Poirot le tiene a Hastings. A pesar de que sus comentarios puedan ocultar cierta malicia, es innegable lo mucho que lo aprecia: “Amigo mío, confío en ti mucho más de lo que te figuras. (...) Sí, puede que tú no te hayas dado cuenta, pero infinidad de veces me has indicado el camino que debo seguir. (...) Ningún hombre debe imitar a otro. Cada uno debe desarrollar su propia inteligencia hasta el grado máximo, sin tratar de imitar a nadie. Yo no quiero que seas un segundo Poirot, inferior a él…”. Me ha encantado ver su lado más sensible, aunque esté teñido de su habitual arrogancia.
Finalmente, debo decir que 𝙇𝙖 𝙢𝙪𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙚 𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙀𝙙𝙜𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 es una novela increíble e imprescindible para los amantes del género policial. Si ya han leído las obras más conocidas de Christie, considero que esta es otra de las mejores opciones que la autora tiene para ofrecer. La novela está perfectamente construida y cuenta con uno de los mejores giros que he leído.
Este año he leído tantas obras de Christie que me estoy volviendo una conocedora de su trabajo, por lo que me siento con la autoridad suficiente para decir que esta es una de sus mejores novelas. No pensé que, después de leer 𝙀𝙡 𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙍𝙤𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝘼𝙘𝙠𝙧𝙤𝙮𝙙 y 𝘼𝙨𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙣 𝙚𝙡 𝙊𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙀𝙭𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨, aún pudiera sorprenderme, pero Christie lo ha logrado de nuevo. El final me dejó completamente asombrada; no me lo esperaba en absoluto.
Como he mencionado en otras reseñas, estoy siguiendo el orden de sus publicaciones, y siento que para escribir esta novela, Christie se inspiró en su obra anterior, 𝙋𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙧𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 . Percibí algunas similitudes, y el culpable es en cierto modo parecido, aunque aquí está mejor logrado.
Como siempre, Christie consigue crear un misterio exquisito y personajes realmente interesantes. La narrativa está llena de giros inesperados y pistas que desafían al lector a intentar resolver el crimen. Además, se nota su enfoque único en los detalles y en las descripciones, lo que mantiene la historia entretenida. Esta novela es muy rápida de leer gracias al estilo ágil de la autora; me tomó alrededor de tres horas terminarla.
Esta es también la primera novela en la que se percibe con mayor intensidad el cariño que Poirot le tiene a Hastings. A pesar de que sus comentarios puedan ocultar cierta malicia, es innegable lo mucho que lo aprecia: “Amigo mío, confío en ti mucho más de lo que te figuras. (...) Sí, puede que tú no te hayas dado cuenta, pero infinidad de veces me has indicado el camino que debo seguir. (...) Ningún hombre debe imitar a otro. Cada uno debe desarrollar su propia inteligencia hasta el grado máximo, sin tratar de imitar a nadie. Yo no quiero que seas un segundo Poirot, inferior a él…”. Me ha encantado ver su lado más sensible, aunque esté teñido de su habitual arrogancia.
Finalmente, debo decir que 𝙇𝙖 𝙢𝙪𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙚 𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙀𝙙𝙜𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 es una novela increíble e imprescindible para los amantes del género policial. Si ya han leído las obras más conocidas de Christie, considero que esta es otra de las mejores opciones que la autora tiene para ofrecer. La novela está perfectamente construida y cuenta con uno de los mejores giros que he leído.
March 19, 2019
A book devoid of genius levels of narration but with the customary gusto of Agatha Christie is still a solid entry in the Hercule Poirot series.
What enhanced the reading experience was the system of chapter allocation. Christie varies her ways of indenting her story from book to book. But this time the chapters were short, with titles of their own. I liked that.
There was no stupefying twists present but the murderer...well I don't want to spoil the fun for you. Altogether the translators keep on changing but the quality remains there or thereabouts.
What enhanced the reading experience was the system of chapter allocation. Christie varies her ways of indenting her story from book to book. But this time the chapters were short, with titles of their own. I liked that.
There was no stupefying twists present but the murderer...well I don't want to spoil the fun for you. Altogether the translators keep on changing but the quality remains there or thereabouts.
June 27, 2024
Another fun and twisty Hercule Poirot mystery. As usual, I was as clueless as Arthur Hastings when it came to guessing the identity of the murderer and had no idea what was going on until Poirot's big reveal. As much as I love to read mystery novels, I'm pretty sure I'd make a terrible detective in real life.
I'm really not sure that I have a lot to say about this one. It was an entertaining read but a pretty standard Poirot novel. Someone is murdered (in this case I don't think I'd be spoiling anything to say it's Lord Edgware), Poirot investigates, Hastings bumbles, Japp struts around arrogantly, and then Poirot reveals everything. The recap of events from the murderer's point of view at the very end was a little repetitive considering Poirot had just finished his monologue moments prior, but it's a minor quibble overall.
I listened to this one on audiobook and the recording was fantastic. Hugh Fraser (who played Captain Hastings in the television series) always does a great job narrating these Poirot novels.
So, yeah. Lord Edgware Dies is another twisty-turny whodunit by Dame Agatha. If you've read previous Poirot novels, you have a good idea of what to expect. A solid four stars.
I'm really not sure that I have a lot to say about this one. It was an entertaining read but a pretty standard Poirot novel. Someone is murdered (in this case I don't think I'd be spoiling anything to say it's Lord Edgware), Poirot investigates, Hastings bumbles, Japp struts around arrogantly, and then Poirot reveals everything. The recap of events from the murderer's point of view at the very end was a little repetitive considering Poirot had just finished his monologue moments prior, but it's a minor quibble overall.
I listened to this one on audiobook and the recording was fantastic. Hugh Fraser (who played Captain Hastings in the television series) always does a great job narrating these Poirot novels.
So, yeah. Lord Edgware Dies is another twisty-turny whodunit by Dame Agatha. If you've read previous Poirot novels, you have a good idea of what to expect. A solid four stars.
July 1, 2023
Jane Wilkinson is a talented young American actress who is unhappily married to Lord Edgware. She asks Hercule Poirot to talk to Lord Edgware, to get him to agree to a divorce. Hercule Poirot obliges. Which seems like a good thing, as some people seem convinced that Jane Wilkinson would kill her husband if he doesn’t agree to a divorce. Poirot is shocked when he meets Lord Edgware. Because Lord Edgware not only immediately agrees to get a divorce, but because he’s also already sent a letter to his wife, telling her exactly that. But his wife never got that letter.
Then, as the title suggest, Lord Edgware dies. And all the evidence points to his wife, even the police are convinced that she’s done it. But she couldn’t have done it. She has an airtight alibi. She was at a dinner with twelve other people. And she didn’t have a motive anymore. Poirot had already told her that her husband agreed to get a divorce. So it’s up to Poirot to put all the puzzle pieces together and uncover the real truth.
Lord Edgware Dies is basically one big flashback, as the narrator captain Hastings starts the story by reminiscing about a very famous case where the titular Lord Edgware among others died. A case which Hercule Poirot solved but did not take credit for, because the famous detective considers it one of his failures. Which is such a fantastic way to grab us readers from the get go.
I absolutely appreciate that the friendship between captain Hastings and Hercule Poirot is very much on display here. And it’s much better done here than in their previous book together, Peril at End House. Because it’s so clear how much they respect and appreciate each other. For example, Hastings is feeling inferior to Poirot in terms of his sleuthing capabilities. And Poirot is quick to point out that Hastings does bring something important to the investigation as well. In Hastings, Poirot can see what the murderer wants Poirot to believe. That’s an important resource that Poirot can use to solve the murder. And Hastings can also occasionally stumble upon a brilliant thought simply by being himself, because he sees things in a different light than Poirot does. Poirot doesn’t want Hastings to learn from him and become an inferior Poirot. He wants Hastings to simply be the best Hastings he can be. And that’s honestly quite a nice compliment.
Overall, a gripping murder mystery that can be a bit predictable in the beginning. But through quite a few cool plot twists, it still manages to keep you guessing in the end.
Then, as the title suggest, Lord Edgware dies. And all the evidence points to his wife, even the police are convinced that she’s done it. But she couldn’t have done it. She has an airtight alibi. She was at a dinner with twelve other people. And she didn’t have a motive anymore. Poirot had already told her that her husband agreed to get a divorce. So it’s up to Poirot to put all the puzzle pieces together and uncover the real truth.
Lord Edgware Dies is basically one big flashback, as the narrator captain Hastings starts the story by reminiscing about a very famous case where the titular Lord Edgware among others died. A case which Hercule Poirot solved but did not take credit for, because the famous detective considers it one of his failures. Which is such a fantastic way to grab us readers from the get go.
I absolutely appreciate that the friendship between captain Hastings and Hercule Poirot is very much on display here. And it’s much better done here than in their previous book together, Peril at End House. Because it’s so clear how much they respect and appreciate each other. For example, Hastings is feeling inferior to Poirot in terms of his sleuthing capabilities. And Poirot is quick to point out that Hastings does bring something important to the investigation as well. In Hastings, Poirot can see what the murderer wants Poirot to believe. That’s an important resource that Poirot can use to solve the murder. And Hastings can also occasionally stumble upon a brilliant thought simply by being himself, because he sees things in a different light than Poirot does. Poirot doesn’t want Hastings to learn from him and become an inferior Poirot. He wants Hastings to simply be the best Hastings he can be. And that’s honestly quite a nice compliment.
Overall, a gripping murder mystery that can be a bit predictable in the beginning. But through quite a few cool plot twists, it still manages to keep you guessing in the end.
May 17, 2025
Lunchtime Listen May 2025
As ever a wonderful lunchtime listen thanks to Hugh Fraser. And even though we knew the story inside out, both my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed the twists and turns. Still 5 stars.
Poirot Series Read 2018
Review to follow tomorrow, but woo hoo, was that good or what ??
(Rhetorical English question 😬)
And yes it was good, a great story, fabulous characters and a real twist at the end as Poirot solves the crime(s).
I'm reading this as part of a read "all of the Poirots" challenge, and I must admit I am thoroughly enjoying it. Some of them I have read and remember, some of them I remember from David Suchet's excellent portrayal on TV, and in some ways the best are those that I just don't know. This falls into the latter category and so was enthralling and kept me riveted all the way to the denouement.
so I give it a solid 5 ⭐️
As ever a wonderful lunchtime listen thanks to Hugh Fraser. And even though we knew the story inside out, both my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed the twists and turns. Still 5 stars.
Poirot Series Read 2018
Review to follow tomorrow, but woo hoo, was that good or what ??
(Rhetorical English question 😬)
And yes it was good, a great story, fabulous characters and a real twist at the end as Poirot solves the crime(s).
I'm reading this as part of a read "all of the Poirots" challenge, and I must admit I am thoroughly enjoying it. Some of them I have read and remember, some of them I remember from David Suchet's excellent portrayal on TV, and in some ways the best are those that I just don't know. This falls into the latter category and so was enthralling and kept me riveted all the way to the denouement.
so I give it a solid 5 ⭐️
June 12, 2018
Take it from me, nothing is as "riveting" as Hercules Poirot hanging about letting the little grey cells percolate.
If you’re looking for the master detective to bitch slap a Duke or put the moves on some English babe or pull out a gat and plug a few holes in the snobbish butler, move on dear reader. Poirot thinks. A lot.
In this volume, he does lots and lots of contemplating and not much in the way of getting about and searching for clues. Let that pompous fool, Inspector Japp, do most of the leg work while Poirot takes a nap or eats le omelet. “Hastings, my dear friend, we haven’t gone over the clues in a page and a half, let us do so once again.”
Again, I don’t expect Poirot to chase a suspect, leaping across London rooftops in a single bound or beat a knife wielding thug into a bloody pulp or hang out at the hotel pool, drinking Boilermakers and ogling the honeys, but in this volume, our Belgian detective is more inert than usual.
Plus, this very regular mystery, doesn’t offer a lot of mental gymnastics for the reader looking for a brain workout. The answer is pretty much there after a quarter of the book, then Christie plays hide the suspect salami, diverting the reader away from the truth with feeble feints and jabs. The fun for these types of mysteries is having to re-adjust your thinking cap when different clues and suspects are brought to light – this book just brought on le brain cramps.
If you want better Christie or Poirot, check out The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Murder on the Orient Express or The A.B.C. Murders.
Oh, and the American title of this book makes very little sense in the grand scheme of things, I would have stuck with the original title, Lord Edgeware Dies. It’s what this perfunctory mystery deserves.
If you’re looking for the master detective to bitch slap a Duke or put the moves on some English babe or pull out a gat and plug a few holes in the snobbish butler, move on dear reader. Poirot thinks. A lot.
In this volume, he does lots and lots of contemplating and not much in the way of getting about and searching for clues. Let that pompous fool, Inspector Japp, do most of the leg work while Poirot takes a nap or eats le omelet. “Hastings, my dear friend, we haven’t gone over the clues in a page and a half, let us do so once again.”
Again, I don’t expect Poirot to chase a suspect, leaping across London rooftops in a single bound or beat a knife wielding thug into a bloody pulp or hang out at the hotel pool, drinking Boilermakers and ogling the honeys, but in this volume, our Belgian detective is more inert than usual.
Plus, this very regular mystery, doesn’t offer a lot of mental gymnastics for the reader looking for a brain workout. The answer is pretty much there after a quarter of the book, then Christie plays hide the suspect salami, diverting the reader away from the truth with feeble feints and jabs. The fun for these types of mysteries is having to re-adjust your thinking cap when different clues and suspects are brought to light – this book just brought on le brain cramps.
If you want better Christie or Poirot, check out The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Murder on the Orient Express or The A.B.C. Murders.
Oh, and the American title of this book makes very little sense in the grand scheme of things, I would have stuck with the original title, Lord Edgeware Dies. It’s what this perfunctory mystery deserves.
May 25, 2021
Lectura muy amena, como la gran mayoría de las historias de la gran Agatha Christie.
La resolución no es tan brillante como en otras ocasiones, pero el espíritu Poirot está presente.
Very enjoyable reading, like the vast majority of the stories by the great Agatha Christie.
The resolution is not as brilliant as on other occasions, but the Poirot spirit is present.
La resolución no es tan brillante como en otras ocasiones, pero el espíritu Poirot está presente.
Very enjoyable reading, like the vast majority of the stories by the great Agatha Christie.
The resolution is not as brilliant as on other occasions, but the Poirot spirit is present.
April 26, 2015
رواية من روايات أجاثا المحيرة، والمربكة جداً تدور بك في دوائر مغلقة كلما تمسك بخيط يقود إلى إكتشاف الجريمة يرجع بك الامر إلى نقطة الصفر ..
شخصيات كثيرة في الرواية وثلاث جرائم معقدة وغامضة ..رواية عبقرية مترابطة ومتماسكة جداً ولا أظن أن القارئ سيصل إلى القاتل سوى في الصفحة قبل الأخيرة .. إلا إذا كان من طراز هركيول بوارو..
شخصيات كثيرة في الرواية وثلاث جرائم معقدة وغامضة ..رواية عبقرية مترابطة ومتماسكة جداً ولا أظن أن القارئ سيصل إلى القاتل سوى في الصفحة قبل الأخيرة .. إلا إذا كان من طراز هركيول بوارو..
April 22, 2024
I never liked this the first time I read it. The second time around I appreciated it a lot more. Although "Hastings" is still as oblivious as ever
October 11, 2021
Rating: 4* of five
Perfectly wicked little jeu d'esprit; I absolutely can not imagine a corporeal Poirot putting up with such a rosbif as Arthur Hastings! I can hear Dame Ags gagging behind her typewriter every time he says something else dimwitted:
I know she created Hastings as a foil for the too-clever Poirot to explain himself to, but it's about this time we begin to see the poor chap sent off to the Argentine to be married more often. I don't recall which was his final appearance (before Curtain), but I get the feeling he was for the chop as he bumbles and mumbles his way through one of Poirot's more annoying-to-him puzzles. At every step, poor old Belgian, he is positive he knows who did what to whom. Then they die! He is up and down the ladder of clues. He was right, wasn't he, every step of his reasoning? And yes, it is really necessary to have Hastings to narrate. Anything else would be unbearably precious.
And precious is not the word for this story. Wickedly astute. Mordantly amusing. Casually anti-Semitic and deeply unimpressed by Americans. But never twee.
So when it suddenly popped into my Overdrive queue, I leapt upon it like the lion upon the chamois. Gorged my weary, twitching eyes on the feast of unrepentant bourgeois snobbery and ridiculous prejudice. Battened on the clearly experienced writer's unsparing judgment of actors, of opportunists and wheeler-dealers, of the mildly amusing ways they have of trying to drag Our Sort down with their vulgar dollars and scents. (That joke will be *gold* after you've read the book.)
And Lord Edgware? Good riddance to bad rubbish. I was almost, almost sorry the killer didn't get away with it; had it not involved the collateral damage it did, I'd've said, "let sleeping dogs lie," and gone about my day. Ma'at must be preserved, though. Dame Agatha knew best.
Agatha Christie's Poirot season 7, episode 2: Lord Edgware Dies
Rating: 4.5* of five
A fairly faithful adaptation of the story that, but for a late-act solution to a problem handled quite differently, runs along the amusing rails laid down in the novel. A few other things are different for some actually interesting reasons...the seriously dull Donald (!) is a playwright not an actor and it really improves that little thread, for example...but, in the main, we get the purpose and point quite well served.
Hastings, always in my mind the inimitable pro bumbler Hugh Fraser, still makes me want to pluck my own eyes out; Japp, as Philip Jackson plays him, is endearingly outclassed; Pauline Moran's Miss Lemon (absent from the novel; see hint about "late-act clue" above) is acerbically pointed as always.
No mention need be made of the One True Poirot.
I rate this version above the book because the more, erm, objectionable traits are eliminated. This is more comfortable for me as a consumer of entertainment and impacts the novel and its pleasures not at all. The story is unaltered by their alteration. So why were they there at all?
Perfectly wicked little jeu d'esprit; I absolutely can not imagine a corporeal Poirot putting up with such a rosbif as Arthur Hastings! I can hear Dame Ags gagging behind her typewriter every time he says something else dimwitted:
“Enemies! People these days don't have enemies! Not English people!”
–and–
“But she seemed like a thoroughly nice girl!” said of a suspect who is found dead of an overdose
I know she created Hastings as a foil for the too-clever Poirot to explain himself to, but it's about this time we begin to see the poor chap sent off to the Argentine to be married more often. I don't recall which was his final appearance (before Curtain), but I get the feeling he was for the chop as he bumbles and mumbles his way through one of Poirot's more annoying-to-him puzzles. At every step, poor old Belgian, he is positive he knows who did what to whom. Then they die! He is up and down the ladder of clues. He was right, wasn't he, every step of his reasoning? And yes, it is really necessary to have Hastings to narrate. Anything else would be unbearably precious.
And precious is not the word for this story. Wickedly astute. Mordantly amusing. Casually anti-Semitic and deeply unimpressed by Americans. But never twee.
So when it suddenly popped into my Overdrive queue, I leapt upon it like the lion upon the chamois. Gorged my weary, twitching eyes on the feast of unrepentant bourgeois snobbery and ridiculous prejudice. Battened on the clearly experienced writer's unsparing judgment of actors, of opportunists and wheeler-dealers, of the mildly amusing ways they have of trying to drag Our Sort down with their vulgar dollars and scents. (That joke will be *gold* after you've read the book.)
And Lord Edgware? Good riddance to bad rubbish. I was almost, almost sorry the killer didn't get away with it; had it not involved the collateral damage it did, I'd've said, "let sleeping dogs lie," and gone about my day. Ma'at must be preserved, though. Dame Agatha knew best.
Agatha Christie's Poirot season 7, episode 2: Lord Edgware Dies
Rating: 4.5* of five
A fairly faithful adaptation of the story that, but for a late-act solution to a problem handled quite differently, runs along the amusing rails laid down in the novel. A few other things are different for some actually interesting reasons...the seriously dull Donald (!) is a playwright not an actor and it really improves that little thread, for example...but, in the main, we get the purpose and point quite well served.
Hastings, always in my mind the inimitable pro bumbler Hugh Fraser, still makes me want to pluck my own eyes out; Japp, as Philip Jackson plays him, is endearingly outclassed; Pauline Moran's Miss Lemon (absent from the novel; see hint about "late-act clue" above) is acerbically pointed as always.
No mention need be made of the One True Poirot.
I rate this version above the book because the more, erm, objectionable traits are eliminated. This is more comfortable for me as a consumer of entertainment and impacts the novel and its pleasures not at all. The story is unaltered by their alteration. So why were they there at all?
January 24, 2024
3.5 stars rounded down due to the extremely jarring and very casual racism which took me out of the story (And yes, of course, I know things were different back then & I am quite aware of the original title of her most famous work). The killer here was a lot more lucky than clever - this one’s NOT Christies best by a long shot. This one was kinda "meh"...
April 5, 2021
En este nuevo caso tenemos a un Poirot algo paternalista, en demasía prejuicioso y lleno de estereotipos de género, solo para que al final la mente maestra detrás de los crímenes se cague en sus muertos (disculpen el vocabulario) con más inteligencia de la que él creía. Y sí, sin mentir eso fue lo que más me encantó. Este es el segundo libro que demuestra que Poirot no es un ser perfecto y que las cosas al principio no le saldrán como él siempre espera.
En cuanto a la identidad del asesin@ no pude deducirla ni mucho menos atiné a adivinarla. De hecho, fue la última persona que se me pasó por la mente, así que también caí en la trampa; me fui por otros rumbos y hasta creí que habían más implicados en el asunto. Tuve algunas hipótesis muy idas de la olla y otras no tantas, pero al final nada de nada. Otra vez fallé con mis células grises, cosa que sí comparto con el pobre Hastings; fiel compañero de Poirot.
En cuanto a la identidad del asesin@ no pude deducirla ni mucho menos atiné a adivinarla. De hecho, fue la última persona que se me pasó por la mente, así que también caí en la trampa; me fui por otros rumbos y hasta creí que habían más implicados en el asunto. Tuve algunas hipótesis muy idas de la olla y otras no tantas, pero al final nada de nada. Otra vez fallé con mis células grises, cosa que sí comparto con el pobre Hastings; fiel compañero de Poirot.
September 24, 2021
Maybe 4.5.I really thoroughly enjoyed this one – one of my favourites so far.
May 8, 2024
Pues muy bueno, me ha gustado bastante, me ha tenido dando tumbos de unos a otros, para al final como siempre, con una resolución sorprendente, poner todo en su sitio y dejarme patidifuso, en fin, muy bueno, cerquita de las 5 estrellas.
Valoración: 8.5/10.
Sinopsis: Poirot y Hastings asisten a un espectáculo en el que Carlotta Adams realiza una perfecta imitación de personajes célebres, entre los que se destaca la famosa actriz de cine Jane Wilkinson. Casualmente se encuentran todos después en una fiesta y la famosa actriz pida a Poirot que la ayude a obtener el divorcio de su marido, lord Edgware. La gestión resulta innecesaria porque, a los pocos días, lord Edgware aparece asesinado con un estilete clavado en la nuca. Nuevas muertes dificultan la investigación. Existen varios sospechosos..., pero todos tienen una coartada perfecta.
Valoración: 8.5/10.
Sinopsis: Poirot y Hastings asisten a un espectáculo en el que Carlotta Adams realiza una perfecta imitación de personajes célebres, entre los que se destaca la famosa actriz de cine Jane Wilkinson. Casualmente se encuentran todos después en una fiesta y la famosa actriz pida a Poirot que la ayude a obtener el divorcio de su marido, lord Edgware. La gestión resulta innecesaria porque, a los pocos días, lord Edgware aparece asesinado con un estilete clavado en la nuca. Nuevas muertes dificultan la investigación. Existen varios sospechosos..., pero todos tienen una coartada perfecta.
August 18, 2020
My recent Agatha Christie reads were not remarkable. However this book has made me realise why I used to like Agatha Christie's work so much. This is a Poirot mystery in which Poirot isn't overly arrogant and irritating and the plot is intriguing enough.
Jane Wilkinson a beautiful actress is married to Lord Edgware. One evening at a hotel, she walks over to Poirot and Hastings in the middle of dinner, to have a private conversation. She tells Poirot that she is in love with a Duke and wants to divorce her husband and if he doesn't oblige, she might have to kill him (half joking, I guess)! She wants Poirot to meet Lord Edgware and convince him to grant her divorce. Reluctantly Poirot complies to this strange request.
Upon meeting Lord Edgware, Poirot learns that he had already send a letter to Jane stating that he has no objection in granting her divorce. Poirot confronts Jane and she says she didn't receive any letter, but is happy that her wish is granted and yes, she needn't murder him! But as fate may have it, Lord Edgware is found murdered in his home and his butler and maid thinks it's Jane who has done the deed. Now it's upto Poirot and Hastings to figure out this mess.
I enjoyed this book a lot even though I could find a few plot holes in it which I will list in the spoilers section. Reccomend this book to all Agatha Christie mystery lovers.
**Spoilers**
Points which I found unconvincing:
1. The Duke falls in love with Jane knowing that she is a married woman. The only way he can marry her is if her husband is dead.
Since that is not a choice, he should have stopped pursuing this relationship. Since he doesn't, does that mean he is indirectly involved in the murder?
2. The whole story is a bit unusual. To find a voice actress who can imitate Jane is understandable. But a whole bunch of people at a party is unable to recognise her (she is a famous actress) is hard to believe! No matter how good Carlotta Adams is at impersonation, this is strange.
3. The book doesn't explain how Jane is there at the right moment to kill Ross, just before Poirot meets up with him.
Nevertheless it was a fun read.
Jane Wilkinson a beautiful actress is married to Lord Edgware. One evening at a hotel, she walks over to Poirot and Hastings in the middle of dinner, to have a private conversation. She tells Poirot that she is in love with a Duke and wants to divorce her husband and if he doesn't oblige, she might have to kill him (half joking, I guess)! She wants Poirot to meet Lord Edgware and convince him to grant her divorce. Reluctantly Poirot complies to this strange request.
Upon meeting Lord Edgware, Poirot learns that he had already send a letter to Jane stating that he has no objection in granting her divorce. Poirot confronts Jane and she says she didn't receive any letter, but is happy that her wish is granted and yes, she needn't murder him! But as fate may have it, Lord Edgware is found murdered in his home and his butler and maid thinks it's Jane who has done the deed. Now it's upto Poirot and Hastings to figure out this mess.
I enjoyed this book a lot even though I could find a few plot holes in it which I will list in the spoilers section. Reccomend this book to all Agatha Christie mystery lovers.
**Spoilers**
Points which I found unconvincing:
1. The Duke falls in love with Jane knowing that she is a married woman. The only way he can marry her is if her husband is dead.
Since that is not a choice, he should have stopped pursuing this relationship. Since he doesn't, does that mean he is indirectly involved in the murder?
2. The whole story is a bit unusual. To find a voice actress who can imitate Jane is understandable. But a whole bunch of people at a party is unable to recognise her (she is a famous actress) is hard to believe! No matter how good Carlotta Adams is at impersonation, this is strange.
3. The book doesn't explain how Jane is there at the right moment to kill Ross, just before Poirot meets up with him.
Nevertheless it was a fun read.
December 1, 2020
I've read Lord Edgware dies more than 10years ago and I only remembered that I really liked it and I had only a feeling about what happens in the end.
In every review about a book written by Agatha Christie I find another thing that I like about her books as for example that the number of the victims in every book isn't set as in a series I read some time ago and I knew beforehand how many victims there would be.
In this story Hercule Poirot is asked to help Lady Edgware in a problem she has with her husband and when he is found dead everybody thinks that she has done it but what happens when she has no motive for killing him and also an alibi?
Hercule Poirot with the help of his friend Hastings starts to investigate other people who might have had reasons to want Lord Edgware dead.
My only complained is that while following the unraveling of the mystery I grew fond of some characters and felt disappointed when in the end there was no information given as to their whereabouts.
Another great mystery written by Agatha Christie that I highly recommend!
In every review about a book written by Agatha Christie I find another thing that I like about her books as for example that the number of the victims in every book isn't set as in a series I read some time ago and I knew beforehand how many victims there would be.
In this story Hercule Poirot is asked to help Lady Edgware in a problem she has with her husband and when he is found dead everybody thinks that she has done it but what happens when she has no motive for killing him and also an alibi?
Hercule Poirot with the help of his friend Hastings starts to investigate other people who might have had reasons to want Lord Edgware dead.
My only complained is that while following the unraveling of the mystery I grew fond of some characters and felt disappointed when in the end there was no information given as to their whereabouts.
Another great mystery written by Agatha Christie that I highly recommend!
August 24, 2025
Fun as usual.
"If you will pardon me saying so your tie does not please me."
"It's a jolly good tie," I said.
"Possibly－once. It feels the old age as you have been kind enough to say I do. Change it, I beseech you, and also brush the right sleeve."
"Are we proposing to call on King George?" I inquired sarcastically.
"No. But I saw in the newspaper this morning that the Duke of Merton had returned to Merton House."
"If you will pardon me saying so your tie does not please me."
"It's a jolly good tie," I said.
"Possibly－once. It feels the old age as you have been kind enough to say I do. Change it, I beseech you, and also brush the right sleeve."
"Are we proposing to call on King George?" I inquired sarcastically.
"No. But I saw in the newspaper this morning that the Duke of Merton had returned to Merton House."
August 12, 2025
Twisty
This one was a true rollercoaster. I enjoyed how Poirot stumbled into several incorrect conclusions before uncovering the truth—it added a welcome touch of humanity to his usually flawless persona. Christie gave the characters more complexity this time, with layered backstories that made the mystery richer.
I especially appreciated how small, seemingly insignificant details—like a character’s manner of speaking—became the thread that unraveled the entire case. The subtle undertone of sycophancy woven into the plot was another clever touch, adding a faint but telling social critique.
Overall, this felt like a more nuanced and confident piece of writing from Christie, balancing misdirection, character depth, and sharp observation.
This one was a true rollercoaster. I enjoyed how Poirot stumbled into several incorrect conclusions before uncovering the truth—it added a welcome touch of humanity to his usually flawless persona. Christie gave the characters more complexity this time, with layered backstories that made the mystery richer.
I especially appreciated how small, seemingly insignificant details—like a character’s manner of speaking—became the thread that unraveled the entire case. The subtle undertone of sycophancy woven into the plot was another clever touch, adding a faint but telling social critique.
Overall, this felt like a more nuanced and confident piece of writing from Christie, balancing misdirection, character depth, and sharp observation.
October 18, 2024
As per the title, we know that Lord Edgware dies- murdered!! The most obvious suspect is his wife, Lady Edgware. She was seen by both the butler and the secretary entering the house. But she has an iron clad alibi- she was dining with friends. So if not her, whodunnit? Hercule Poirot’s “ little grey cells” have to work overtime to get to the bottom of this one. It is fascinating how Dame Christie’s mind works. I don’t know how she does it, but she always manages to weave an intriguing scenario- which is wholly believable!! Of course, my little grey cells are never up to the task. Stumped, again!
Another outstanding narration by Hugh Fraser.
Published: 1933
Another outstanding narration by Hugh Fraser.
Published: 1933
November 24, 2017
So, as the title says, Lord Edgeware dies. His wife tells everyone she’s going to kill him and how. But when he does get killed she has an air tight alibi, even though she was seen at the scene of the crime. It’s up to Poirot to find the true murderer. I don’t think I’ve read a Poirot book before where he says, “I was wrong!” so many times. This one stumped him for quite awhile.
April 25, 2019
I read this in Portuguese in just one sitting, as usual for me when the book is a suspense. I found this book spectacular. I suspected who was the killer from the beginning, since it was too obvious. So I discarded this person from the list of the killers.
September 24, 2018
3.5 stars. I actually changed my mind about this book right at the end, during Poirot’s gathering people together to reveal the murderer. I found I did not like the characters involved in the case, and this is the first time I’ve found Hastings genuinely tiresome. Poirot chastising Hastings for being so simple-minded throughout the book had me wholeheartedly agreeing.
Then, Poirot put one of the suspects through the wringer because the suspect had dared to tell Poirot a series of really dumb stories. That showed a side of Poirot I had not seen before, a rather frightening side I can well imagine he used to advantage when he worked in Belgium years before. And the reveal of the murderer and an explanation of the murderer’s devious plan, which I’d seen parts of and had even briefly suspected this person, was really smart. Well done, Mrs. Christie!
Then, Poirot put one of the suspects through the wringer because the suspect had dared to tell Poirot a series of really dumb stories. That showed a side of Poirot I had not seen before, a rather frightening side I can well imagine he used to advantage when he worked in Belgium years before. And the reveal of the murderer and an explanation of the murderer’s devious plan, which I’d seen parts of and had even briefly suspected this person, was really smart. Well done, Mrs. Christie!
October 19, 2018
American actress, Jane Wilkinson, Lady Edgware, approaches Poirot, asking him to help her obtain a divorce from her cold, estranged husband. However, when Poirot, and Hastings, go to see Lord Edgware, he seems to have no issue with divorcing her. It seems that Jane Wilkinson, after all, will have her freedom and then the probable becomes the definite, when Lord Edgware is found dead.
This is not my favourite Poirot novel, although it is always delightful to have Hastings and Japp both involved in a mystery. There are a good cast of suspects and twists in the tale, as Poirot uncovers who really killed Lord Edgware, and why. There are mercenary actresses, female impersonators, a downtrodden daughter, a ne’er do well nephew, alibis, and twists galore.
Hugh Fraser narrates this delightfully – I am a huge fan of his reading of Audible books. The next in the series is Murder on the Orient Express, and I intend to listen to David Suchet narrating one of my very favourite Poirot mysteries. Poirot remains my favourite, fictional detective and it is a delight to revisit the books.
This is not my favourite Poirot novel, although it is always delightful to have Hastings and Japp both involved in a mystery. There are a good cast of suspects and twists in the tale, as Poirot uncovers who really killed Lord Edgware, and why. There are mercenary actresses, female impersonators, a downtrodden daughter, a ne’er do well nephew, alibis, and twists galore.
Hugh Fraser narrates this delightfully – I am a huge fan of his reading of Audible books. The next in the series is Murder on the Orient Express, and I intend to listen to David Suchet narrating one of my very favourite Poirot mysteries. Poirot remains my favourite, fictional detective and it is a delight to revisit the books.
April 6, 2021
13 la cină sau Moartea Lordului Edgware este unul dintre cele mai dificile și complicate volume din seria Poirot de până acum. Însuși Poirot consideră că în acest caz a eșuat, căci soluția a descoperit-o aproape întâmplător. Recunosc, pe parcursul romanului am avut senzația că toți sunt vinovați, toți au prea multe secrete. Iar când Poirot dă soluția, trebuie să citești cu atenție, căci cazul este extrem de complicat, iar linia dintre victimă și criminal este destul de fină.
Acesta este un nou roman în care relația dintre Poirot și Hastings este una savuroasă, plină de replici amuzante. Nu știu exact ce percepție a avut în acea perioadă seria Hercule Poirot, dar cred că în zilele noastre ar stârni oarecare vâlvă prin prisma limbajului folosit de autoare și felului în care relatează direct prejudecățile vremii, descrie personajele și nu este câtuși de puțin „politically correct”.
Acesta este un nou roman în care relația dintre Poirot și Hastings este una savuroasă, plină de replici amuzante. Nu știu exact ce percepție a avut în acea perioadă seria Hercule Poirot, dar cred că în zilele noastre ar stârni oarecare vâlvă prin prisma limbajului folosit de autoare și felului în care relatează direct prejudecățile vremii, descrie personajele și nu este câtuși de puțin „politically correct”.
August 5, 2019
Solid Poirot story, but this time it really feels we have heard it all before - not a single new grip in this one. Poirot often berates himself “I have been blind/an imbecile/a moron” but in this he must set some record. 4-5 times during the investigation this is what he realises...
April 9, 2020
Sacré! It took me only 2 days to literally devour this book. I most certainly didn't saw that coming, I never could guessed who was the murderer, Agatha did good job!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 30, 2023
Lord Edgware Dies is another classic crime mystery novel by my all time favourite author, Dame Agatha Christie. This is the ninth novel from the Hercule Poirot series. It is a somewhat baffling case, even for the genius that is Hercule Poirot.
Narrated by Poirot's companion Captain Hastings, Lord Edgware Dies is a mystery that will keep readers turning the page. It may be easy for readers to figure out who the murderer is, but not for them to figure out the entire story behind the murder.
The characters invented by Christie were so alive that you can't help to hate Jane Wilkinson so much. At certain point, you'll feel like you want to smack Captain Marsh face due to his flamboyant manner and ego. On the other hand, you'll be touched by Charlotta Adam's letter to her dear sister, Lucie. And at times, you can't help to wonder if Miss Jenny Driver was really a kind character or there was more that what you read.
Who done it? I know, but do you? Find out for yourself. It truly is a wonderful book. Christie has an incredible talent for breathing personality into her characters. Don't miss this book!
Narrated by Poirot's companion Captain Hastings, Lord Edgware Dies is a mystery that will keep readers turning the page. It may be easy for readers to figure out who the murderer is, but not for them to figure out the entire story behind the murder.
The characters invented by Christie were so alive that you can't help to hate Jane Wilkinson so much. At certain point, you'll feel like you want to smack Captain Marsh face due to his flamboyant manner and ego. On the other hand, you'll be touched by Charlotta Adam's letter to her dear sister, Lucie. And at times, you can't help to wonder if Miss Jenny Driver was really a kind character or there was more that what you read.
Who done it? I know, but do you? Find out for yourself. It truly is a wonderful book. Christie has an incredible talent for breathing personality into her characters. Don't miss this book!
July 25, 2025
دوستان قراره درباره یکی از آثار ضعیف «آگاتا کریستی» به نام «لرد اجور میمیرد» نهمین قسمت از مجموعه «هرکول پوآرو» حرف بزنیم.
من همیشه موقع نگارش نقد برای یک ادبیات جنایی-پلیسی این جملهم رو میگم که «وقتی داری یه اثر جنایی-معمایی-پلیسی میسازی در واقع داری روی لبه تیغ راه میری بین آشغال شدن و شاهکار شدن.
در یک اثر معمایی-جنایی ما سه قاعده داریم که هرچقدر قوی تر باشه داستان قوی تر میشه :
1.معمای پیچیده (نه گنگ)
2.کارآگاه (یا پلیس) و جنایتکار باهوش. (نه بیش از حد نابغه)
3.تقابل هوش درست جنایتکار و کارآگاه پلیس. (نه دست انداختن همدیگه)
متاسفانه ما در این اثر تماما موارد داخل پرانتز رو میبینیم. نتیجه افراط در سه مورد فوق ، باعث خسته کردن مخاطب و متوجه نشدن مخاطب حتی هنگام برملا شدن راز اصلی ماجرا میشه.
در قسمت قبلی «خطر خانه آخر» تمام سه شرط رعایت شده بود و اثر خوشخوان تر از اثر فعلی در اومده بود.
گاهی برام جالبه که چطور یک نویسنده بدون نگاه کردن به اثر قبلیش مینویسه و کارش خوب در نمیاد.
درباره داستان و شخصیت ها نمیتونم حرف بزنم چون انقدر دایره خلاقیت در این اثر از منظر نویسنده وسیع ولی از منظر مخاطب کوچیک و تهی از معناست که فورا مخاطب تا آخر داستان براش اسپویل میشه.
در کل فقط میتونم بگم : اگر دارین سری آثار هرکول پوآرو رو میخونین خب خوانش این اثر هم خالی از لطف نیست. ولی اگر میخواین محض سرگرمی یک ادبیات جنایی هم فی مابین برنامه مطالعاتیتون داشته باشین ، بنظرم آثار بهتری از آگاتا هست.
من همیشه موقع نگارش نقد برای یک ادبیات جنایی-پلیسی این جملهم رو میگم که «وقتی داری یه اثر جنایی-معمایی-پلیسی میسازی در واقع داری روی لبه تیغ راه میری بین آشغال شدن و شاهکار شدن.
در یک اثر معمایی-جنایی ما سه قاعده داریم که هرچقدر قوی تر باشه داستان قوی تر میشه :
1.معمای پیچیده (نه گنگ)
2.کارآگاه (یا پلیس) و جنایتکار باهوش. (نه بیش از حد نابغه)
3.تقابل هوش درست جنایتکار و کارآگاه پلیس. (نه دست انداختن همدیگه)
متاسفانه ما در این اثر تماما موارد داخل پرانتز رو میبینیم. نتیجه افراط در سه مورد فوق ، باعث خسته کردن مخاطب و متوجه نشدن مخاطب حتی هنگام برملا شدن راز اصلی ماجرا میشه.
در قسمت قبلی «خطر خانه آخر» تمام سه شرط رعایت شده بود و اثر خوشخوان تر از اثر فعلی در اومده بود.
گاهی برام جالبه که چطور یک نویسنده بدون نگاه کردن به اثر قبلیش مینویسه و کارش خوب در نمیاد.
درباره داستان و شخصیت ها نمیتونم حرف بزنم چون انقدر دایره خلاقیت در این اثر از منظر نویسنده وسیع ولی از منظر مخاطب کوچیک و تهی از معناست که فورا مخاطب تا آخر داستان براش اسپویل میشه.
در کل فقط میتونم بگم : اگر دارین سری آثار هرکول پوآرو رو میخونین خب خوانش این اثر هم خالی از لطف نیست. ولی اگر میخواین محض سرگرمی یک ادبیات جنایی هم فی مابین برنامه مطالعاتیتون داشته باشین ، بنظرم آثار بهتری از آگاتا هست.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,217 reviews