The Agatha Christie Reading Group discussion

I enjoyed this much more than I thought I would do. I have read it 2 or 3 times before and consider it one of her weaker books, but compared with other books being published at the time it stands up well. I still think it is too complicated and the body doesn't appear soon enough for me, and the book could be shorter, but the means and motive work well, the clues make sense and it is very readable. Pleased I've given it another look. (... I still think the tv adaptation is boring!)

I think I enjoyed this about the same or less than the first time I read it. I don't like the way HP leads Hastings around without sharing; it came off as he was just going with whomever was being arrested or focused on by the police! (And a know it all)
I enjoyed the understated humor throughout.
I had trouble connecting with any of the characters.
I really liked the atmosphere of a country house during the war.
Most of the clues were good; however there were a few that I thought no one would be able to figure that out, but apparently the great HP could! Lol

I agree with all of that, Candace!

I liked reading the Mysterious Affair at styles regardless of the negative reviews. I particularly liked how from one moment to the next I did not know who committed the crime. (view spoiler)[ In the beginning I suspected the husband but later on he had an alibi, Then suspected the son did it and then the doctor did it. And then when Poirot actually proved who did commit the crime and why he tried so hard to get himself arrested I thought it was genius to make use of the fact you can't be tried for the same crime twice is something that would never had occurred to me and the fact that Evelyn Howard was Alfred's cousin I did not see coming, she hated him so much or so you were led to believe. (hide spoiler)] I am so looking forward to reading more of Poirots adventures and Miss Marple who I have never read.

@Lauren I also like her writing. One would never know she was writing in the 20s.
@Richard After the book came out the reviews were positive, only a few negative (that can never be avoided!). Do you refer to modern day negative reviews or the comments I had. I gave it 3 stars which is not bad.

I found that the book didn't have any good red herrings. The person I suspected from the very beginning turned out to be the actual murderer. That almost never happens to me with AC works.

About this identifying the murderer .... it's not enough to get the right name, you need to work out how and why they did it. That is one way where MAS wins, i think, because very few of us could have worked out what happened. I agree with Alberto, there were so many false clues that the red herrings were not very big ones. But as I said in my earlier post, we need to compare it with other mysteries being written in the very early 20s, and it holds up well.

(Ignore this if you don't want to hear my legal jargon -the discussion of the lack of red herrings has brought this problematic issue to the forefront of my mind. I apologize ahead of time.) This plot did not work well with red herrings because of the murderer's belief that once acquitted he could not be retried. So red herrings would have worked against him. Hmmm- However this belief of his, in the United States ,called double jeopardy, only stops the defendant from being tried from the exact same crime in the same jurisdiction. So for example, if one were found innocent of first degree murder, he could then later be charged with second degree murder, endangerment, assault, felony murder, accomplice to a murder, etc.,etc (I'm certainly NOT giving Mr. Inglethorpe legal advice as my last first degree murder trial was over five years ago :) AND the person can be charged in a different jurisdiction for that SAME crime if there is a legal basis to do so. (For example, a past client received an innocent verdict in my county, however the Federal Government wanted this guy so bad, they found a reason to bring it as a federal charge which is allowed here under double jeopardy) so there were a lot of qualms I had with this part of Inglethorpe's plan, but I tried not to give it more emphasis than I should because
1. I don't know how things work legally where they are
2. The defendant is a murderer/scam artist and not a lawyer, therefore working on a legal theory that he doesn't understand - but he was supposedly so smart with the rest of the plan that it doesn't fit his character's profile to not know the one piece of law they are working from. So back to 1.
I thought I had successfully repressed my little issues with this until now. Lol

(This is why I stay away from courtroom mysteries or TV shows. They would drive me crazy.)

I'm really enjoying everyone's discussion! It really adds to my reading of the book.

I had read this book a couple of years back but had forgotten the plot. I was very surprised at who the murderer turned out to be.

This isn't even in my top 10 favorite AC books. Maybe I should reconsider now

Candace wrote: "(Ignore this if you don't want to hear my legal jargon -the discussion of the lack of red herrings has brought this problematic issue to the forefront of my mind. I apologize ahead of time.) This p..."
Just a couple of points, in England at the time you couldn't be retried either on a lesser charge or, at the time, if new evidence came to light. That last aspect was changed very recently. A more interesting issue that in the Styles case, he was wanting to engineer a premature trial. Certainly the lady would have got a heavy sentence for perverting the course of justice ..... but none of this really matters, does it?

Wow, thank you Malcolm, I find those differences very interesting. And you're right, if H.P would let John go through a trial (preliminary or otherwise, don't remember) just to save his marriage then we know the logic is fully sound and all is well.

Warning: spoilers!

I just re-read and am better able to quantify my dislike. This book (like several others of Christie's) is based on a cheat. Understanding the sequence of events Tuesday night requires knowing that the torn green cloth came from Mrs Cavendish's clothes, but the reader is never given enough information to determine this. We also have no way to know that Lawrence Cavendish saw that the door unbolted.

If the solution is going to be a cheat, then the murderer at least needs to be a big surprise.

I guess it is late enough to not have to say spoilers but... just in case.




---------
Spoilers!

I just finished the book. I agree with Candace. I was frustrated that Poirot wasn't letting Mr. Hastings in on anything he was discovering but it seems he had a good reason to in the end. I didn't however like that the story pretty much makes you assume it was Alfred pretty early on and when they reveal it so dramatically I thought it had the opposite effect.

But yes, I did try to assume it was Mary and even Lawrence. On a side note I somehow knew that Cynthia was drugged and it was why she was in such a deep sleep in the goings on and the murder. I don't know. Just felt like saying that. (I wouldn't be surprised if I was not the only one who predicted that one).

Spoiler

This book was just ok for me although i loved the settings and i guess one of the murderers(mainly because it is always the spouse. but was shocked about the other person. I believe because the clues given never really add up to her involvement. And of course i didnt guess their relationship. I really thought he was having an affair with the neighbor and thus decided to kill the wife and runaway with his mistress and the money

I've read all of Christie's book years ago and I do have my favorites (almost every one of them). My goal is to re-read them again. So I just finished The Mysterious Affair at Styles a couple of weeks ago. I remembered who the murderer was, but I still enjoyed the book.

The way that Hastings gets angry over being left out of HP's thought process irritated me. That might be why I prefer the HP books where Hastings isn't it or Miss Marple's books.

The mystery of Styles was okay as a detective, I did know who the killer was way too soon but the extras were something I did not see coming at all, and I did read "death on the Nile" were she pulled a similar stunt.

I mostly liked the mood in the book as the tale was set during the Great War. Mrs Christie knew how to create characters besides the detectives Poirot & Miss Marples.

I finished reading the mystery of Styles yesterday. I`ve never read the book before and although I enjoyed it it`s not one of my favourites. I did not work out who the murderer was ( but then again I never do lol ) and think it would be almost impossible for the reader to work out exactly what happened on their own before the reveal. However, I did enjoy the book. I like the relationship between Poirot and Hastings, and the books setting.

I first read this book when I was pretty young, like 12 or 14. Therefore, the murderer and the twists were a wonderful shock and surprise to me. Maybe because of that nostalgia, I still love this book and had both of my kids, whom I homeschooled, read it as part of their literature courses. If I had first read it as an adult, my reaction might have been different but it's amazing how and when you read a book changes your perception of it.

Hello Everyone.
Well I finished my first book read in this group, which of course I started with the very first Christie book. I enjoyed it a lot so decided to plunge straight into "And Then There Were None". Although I do not believe it is Poirot or Miss Marple, it is on hand and I've heard good things about it. But should I have been reading "The Murder on the Links"? I have already read "Murder at the Vicarage".
Stew.

I love "The Mysterious Affair at Styles". I've read it countless times & will read it countless times more. I can happily and truthfully say that I guessed the killer, and as always, it's amazing seeing the world, and Poirot, through the eyes of his beloved associate Captain Arthur Hastings.

I think it's sort of a writing strategy to abstract the readers' mind away from the real murderer whose motive could be so obvious. So is the existence of Hastings. It may not be a top Agatha book, but I do enjoy the read.

Lauren wrote: "Glad you enjoyed it, Zheng! I always enjoy the books with Hastings in it! :)"
Thank you, Lauren! :3

Hi, I'm fairly new to goodreads, I love Agatha Christie and I'm so glad to be a part of a group with fellow Christie lovers!

Possible Spoiler-
I was eager to read The Mysterious Affair At Styles as it was Christie's very first book and I wanted to see what her writing was like at the very beginning of her career as a novelist. I'm glad to say that it did not disappoint. I love murder mysteries set in old fashioned country houses- always a great setting for me. So I was pretty much hooked!! However, like always- I didn't guess the murderer! I had my suspicions of Hastings of all people, although, I read this book shortly after The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd- if anyone's read that book they'll understand why I thought Hastings did it!!!

I have so far read three Poirot books, All the Miss Marple series, as well as And Then There Were None (my personal favourite at the minute!) I'm currently on Crooked House!!
My aim this year is to read all the Poirot novels, but I'm not reading them in order, just whichever takes my fancy!

Hannah wrote: "Hi, I'm fairly new to goodreads, I love Agatha Christie and I'm so glad to be a part of a group with fellow Christie lovers!

Possible Spoiler-
I was eager to read The Mysterious Affair At Styles a..."

Good plans. Good reads. ;-)