Reading the Detectives discussion

A wealthy man dies at home. His relatives gather after his funeral for the reading of his will, during which his sister states that he was murdered. The next day, she herself is found murdered. Poirot is called in to solve the mystery.

ooh sounds like this will be a good one! (though aren't they all?)

Yes, they are! But this one was fun, I felt like a satisfying mystery reaching into the past of this family. And Christie continues with the impression that Poirot is as sharp as ever, but still aging and finding some humor in that (keeps him from being a figure of pathos, and still a formidable seeker of justice!)

Not that it matters overall, but I found it interesting that it was originally published as Funerals Are Fatal.

There was an introduction in my edition that said people like to read Christie because she is so astonishing. I did settle in to this, but I think astonishing is an exaggeration. Far-fetched, maybe.

Susan in NC wrote: "And Christie continues with the impression that Poirot is as sharp as ever, but still aging and finding some humor in that (keeps him from being a figure of pathos, and still a formidable seeker of justice!)"

I think in the hands of many contemporary mystery writers, they would have made Poirot a figure of pathos, plumbing the depths of his emotions on the fact that he's getting older whereas Christie wisely doesn't focus her attention on that, or else the book would've been a colossal tome similar to those from author Elizabeth George. Christie directs her attention to the mystery, misdirection, and beautifully weaving in the clues and again, wisely so.

This is an interesting read and Poirot once again proves how well he solves the mystery by using the clues he finds at the crime scene. I have plans to read it for the second time and recommend it for all those who are Christie fans!

Vijay wrote: "This is an interesting read and Poirot once again proves how well he solves the mystery by using the clues he finds at the crime scene. I have plans to read it for the second time and recommend it ..."

Not sure if I will have time to get to it, but you make it sound tempting! For anyone who wants to discuss the ending, please go over to the spoiler thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

LovesMysteries wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "And Christie continues with the impression that Poirot is as sharp as ever, but still aging and finding some humor in that (keeps him from being a figure of pathos, and still a ..."

Sorry, just saw this comment- excellent point, I agree, it’s more enjoyable the way Christie handles this point, focus on the puzzle, skip the pathos!

May I join this series of buddy reads? I enjoy discussing Agatha Christie's work, and if I am too late for this one, I'd appreciate being able to join the discussion of the next book.

You are very welcome to join in with all the group's discussions, Robin!

I'm sure there will be a lot more discussion of this one as it is still early in the month - and the threads all stay open anyway, for anyone who wants to catch up with a book later (as I am hoping to do with some of them!)

Looking at Jessica's master list of Poirot books, I see the next one after this will be Hickory Dickory Dock.

Judy wrote: "You are very welcome to join in with all the group's discussions, Robin!

I'm sure there will be a lot more discussion of this one as it is still early in the month - and the threads all stay open..."

Thank you, Judy. I've just pulled my hardback copy of After the Funeral off my shelf . It was published in 1954 and has fairly small print, but I recall a lot of it. Do other editions have a graphic of the Abernathy family, with the members who attended the funeral in capital letters? I think that this is a nice feature.

This is one of the best in the Poirot series. It was for me. :) I read it a month or so back and it took me quite by surprise. I hope those who are reading will enjoy it. I can well recommend it.

Piyangie wrote: "This is one of the best in the Poirot series. It was for me. :) I read it a month or so back and it took me quite by surprise. I hope those who are reading will enjoy it. I can well recommend it."

I really enjoyed it, too - more than I expected! Sometimes, with such prolific writers, some of the later ones can be stinkers, but I’ve enjoyed the last couple books, if I read them years ago, I didn’t remember enough to spoil the puzzle for me, and I appreciated the way Christie handled Poirot’s aging, becoming less of a celebrity. But still a formidable detective! I thought I’d miss Hastings more - he’s a fun sidekick, but I enjoy the audiobooks with Hugh Fraser narrating - it’s like getting Hastings along for the ride!

Susan in NC wrote: "Yes, they are! But this one was fun, I felt like a satisfying mystery reaching into the past of this family. And Christie continues with the impression that Poirot is as sharp as ever, but still ag..."

Poirot is introduced in ch. 7 when Mr Entwistle call on him, they delay discussing "business" until after their excellent meal (described and discussed) and Poirot comments At my age the chief pleasure, almost the only pleasure that still remains, is the pleasure of the table. Mercifully I have an excellent stomach.

So yes Christie humanizes him in an amusing way but you're right, he is still formidable, either in arranging his meals or in solving cases!

I enjoyed this one very much, but was grateful for the family tree printed at the beginning!

I have just reread the first chapter. The amount of information conveyed by the two elderly men is amazing, and reflects Christie's facility with words and plot. Although 'Old Landscombe' is depicted as slowly moving around the house, forgetful and with poor eyesight what a wealth of information is conveyed about the house, the wealth of the family, their shortcomings and good features, past deaths and the new regime of servants and their attitudes. Then we have the lawyer, adding to the characterisation of the family members and past deaths. What a wonderful set up chapter this is. We feel we know so much. And, added to this is the family tree. We are so knowledgeable about the family marriages and deaths. We are so informed about the type of funeral, and that Richard has been cremated. We even have information about the family members attending the funeral (through the family tree capitalisation of those present .

Yes, Christie manages to pack a lot of information in without making it feel plodding or forced (although I certainly do a fair bit of referring back to earlier chapters as I go-why I definitely prefer a book book to a tablet for Christie).

Question: Why did Richard write his will so that Timothy, George, Rosamund, and Susan received their shares outright, but Cora and Helen received only the interest, with the principal reverting to the other heirs after their deaths? I can kind of understand it in Helen's case, since she's "only* a sister-in-law, but what about Cora.

It doesn't seem to have a bearing on anything else in the story, so I can't understand why it's there.

I think that it is demonstrating that he felt both were incompetent. I know that Helen was not, she is certainly portrayed as a very able woman in her own right. However, in matters of money she is, as you suggest, Doris, Richard's sister in law, not sister. In this role she comes under her husband's wing , even if he is dead. Cora, would be seen as clearly incompetent, partly because of her marriage to a seriously unworthy (in Richard's eyes) man. However, in her case, she had always been seen by the family as needing to be cared for, and this way of allocating her money would continue this.

Neither of them has children. They cannot will the money outside the family.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Neither of them has children. They cannot will the money outside the family."

A really good point, Elizabeth. I didn't spot that one. A patriarchal way of thinking, but more straight forward than the one I offered above .

Robin wrote: "A patriarchal way of thinking, but more straight forward than the one I offered above ."

I'm not sure you are off in your thinking. It was the way I first saw it, and I think Christie allows us freedom of thought on this point.

I don't think he would have considered Helen incompetent, but as she is not a blood relative she would only get the spouse's portion, the bulk of the money would stay in the family. Same with Cora-although there seemed to be a family belief that she was incompetent she had clearly lived independently for many years-I assume it was to keep her from leaving the money to a charity for cats or some such thing!

Frances wrote: "I don't think he would have considered Helen incompetent, but as she is not a blood relative she would only get the spouse's portion, the bulk of the money would stay in the family. Same with Cora-..."

No problem with the portion, just the way it is allocated: in trust. Even the young, unsatisfactory family members received their portion unencumbered. Why the competent woman married t o Richard's dead brother, and the sister considered incompetent? An interesting, but side, topic. Perhaps really there to provide the flavour of the family and ramifications of their place, as Richard saw it. Family blood is the decider of how matters are considered.

My favorite passage from the book was when Mr. Entwhistle was questioning Lanscombe. In the usual tradition of the faithful old butler, he is rather circumspect. But Entwhistle appeals to him not as a servant, but as a man, which frees him up to share his mind. So often servants were viewed almost anonymously, that this human touch, playing off of both of their affection for his deceased master, gives dignity that is almost never afforded to the servant class.

Tara wrote: "My favorite passage from the book was when Mr. Entwhistle was questioning Lanscombe. In the usual tradition of the faithful old butler, he is rather circumspect. But Entwhistle appeals to him not a..."

That was very well done, both by Entwhistle and in Christie's portrayal.

Goby appears in The Blue Train , also. In this novel he is working for an American millionaire. I like this 'cross over' (as it might be called when discussing television programmes of late) in the novels. I am now wondering if I have missed Mr Goby in other Christies.