What do you think?
Rate this book
Hercule Poirot #17
El testigo mudo
Barcelona. 17 cm. 288 p. Encuadernación en tapa blanda de editorial ilustrada. Colección 'Colección Agatha Christie', numero coleccion(29). Christie, Agatha 1890-1976. Dumb witness. Traducción, A. Soler Crespo. Traducción Dumb witnees. Colección Agatha Christie. numero coleccion( 29) .. Este libro es de segunda mano y tiene o puede tener marcas y señales de su anterior propietario. 8427285299
285 pages, Paperback
First published July 5, 1937
About the author
Agatha Christie
4,687 books69.3k followersAgatha Christie also wrote romance novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, and was occasionally published under the name Agatha Christie Mallowan.
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,946 reviews
February 13, 2024
4.5 stars
Bob the dog loves his ball.
But is he the one who is responsible for his beloved owner's trip and fall?
Wait a minute.
Before we go any further, I need to brag.
I figured out whodunnit as soon as the cast of characters was introduced.
Yup. Even before I knew the secret motives or who would profit from her death.
How?
Because I know Agatha Christie.
It's ok. You can go ahead and say it.
Ok, so with her entire family under her roof for a visit, a rich old lady takes a header down the steps. She doesn't die!
But it gets her to thinking that something about the scenario of her tripping on Bob's ball isn't right. So she writes to her lawyers and she writes to a famous detective.
Months later, Poirot receives a somewhat unintelligible letter from a woman asking for his help, then finds out she died before it reached him.
And away he (and Hastings) goes!
I loved this one. And while I did pick the perp out of the lineup, so to speak, the story captivated my interest from start to finish because you just never know with Christie's mysteries.
Also, I was so happy that Bob got a happy ending!
Riiiight.
Highly recommended.
Bob the dog loves his ball.
But is he the one who is responsible for his beloved owner's trip and fall?
Wait a minute.
Before we go any further, I need to brag.
I figured out whodunnit as soon as the cast of characters was introduced.
Yup. Even before I knew the secret motives or who would profit from her death.
How?
Because I know Agatha Christie.
It's ok. You can go ahead and say it.
Ok, so with her entire family under her roof for a visit, a rich old lady takes a header down the steps. She doesn't die!
But it gets her to thinking that something about the scenario of her tripping on Bob's ball isn't right. So she writes to her lawyers and she writes to a famous detective.
Months later, Poirot receives a somewhat unintelligible letter from a woman asking for his help, then finds out she died before it reached him.
And away he (and Hastings) goes!
I loved this one. And while I did pick the perp out of the lineup, so to speak, the story captivated my interest from start to finish because you just never know with Christie's mysteries.
Also, I was so happy that Bob got a happy ending!
Riiiight.
Highly recommended.
July 8, 2019
Thoroughly enjoyed, review to follow. 4.5 stars rounded down, sorry
An excellent Poirot novel, with a twist. A letter received 2 months late sends Poirot to visit a women that has unfortunately died of a liver complaint or did she ?
Poirot leans of a mysterious accident that befell Miss Arundell shortly before her death, and like a dog with a bone he now refuses to let go of "the case" despite not working for a "living" client.
Multiple twists and turns narrated by the ever faithful Hastings, ensue as Poirot tries to firstly prove the accident wasn't and then that her death through liver problems wasn't in fact unfortunate but pre-meditated by a cold and callous murderer.
This is an excellent novel that as ever showcases the "little grey cells" of the the famous Belgian detective, and also the dogged determination of his sidekick, the inestimable Hastings . And as a bonus it was yet again a story I didn't remember at all.
An excellent Poirot novel, with a twist. A letter received 2 months late sends Poirot to visit a women that has unfortunately died of a liver complaint or did she ?
Poirot leans of a mysterious accident that befell Miss Arundell shortly before her death, and like a dog with a bone he now refuses to let go of "the case" despite not working for a "living" client.
Multiple twists and turns narrated by the ever faithful Hastings, ensue as Poirot tries to firstly prove the accident wasn't and then that her death through liver problems wasn't in fact unfortunate but pre-meditated by a cold and callous murderer.
This is an excellent novel that as ever showcases the "little grey cells" of the the famous Belgian detective, and also the dogged determination of his sidekick, the inestimable Hastings . And as a bonus it was yet again a story I didn't remember at all.
June 14, 2020
Dumb Witness (Hercule Poirot #16), Agatha Christie
Dumb Witness is a detective fiction novel by British writer Agatha Christie, first published on 5 July 1937. The book features the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot and is narrated by his friend Arthur Hastings.
Emily Arundell, a wealthy spinster, writes to Hercule Poirot on the belief, she has been the victim of attempted murder, after a fall in her home in Berkshire. However, her family and household believe she actually fell by accident, after tripping over a ball left by her fox terrier Bob.
When Poirot receives the letter, he learns she has already died; her doctor, Dr. Grainger, states her death was from chronic liver problems. A new will she made while recovering from her earlier fall bequeaths her vast fortune and home to her companion, Miss Minnie Lawson.
Seeking to investigate Emily's belief someone wanted to murder her, Poirot, accompanied by his friend Arthur Hastings, notes that under her previous will, her nephew Charles Arundell would have inherited, along with her nieces Theresa Arundell and Bella Tanios.
All three wish to contest the will, but do not pursue this course of action. Visiting the house on the pretence of buying it, Poirot discovers a nail covered with varnish and a small string tied to it at the top of the stairs.
Through Emily's last words, he concludes that Bob had been out all night and that she had therefore fallen down the stairs as a result of a tripwire, and that there is a chance Emily was indeed murdered. Her family thus become suspects in that matter. In his investigations, Poirot learns that during a seance held in Emily's home, a luminous aura was noticed coming from her mouth when she spoke. ...
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز چهارم ماه آگوست سال 2012 میلادی
عنوان: شاهد خاموش؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم مجتبی عبدالله نژاد؛ تهران، هرمس، کتابهای کارآگاه، 1390؛ در 324ص؛ شابک 9789643637576؛ چاپ دوم 1393؛ چاپ سوم 1397؛ موضوع: داستانهای کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیایی - سده 20م
عنوان: شاهد خاموش؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: سپیده حبیبی؛ تهران، نگارش الکترونیک؛ 1395؛ در 46ص؛ شابک 9786008299288؛
برای زنی سالخورده و مجرد، به نام «امیلی»، حادثه ای رخ میدهد...؛ همه برهان این رخداد را توپی پلاستیکی میدانند که توسط سگ بازیگوش «امیلی» روی پله ها رها شده بود. اما خود «امیلی» هرچه بیشتر درباره ی حادثه ی فرو افتادنش از پله ها میاندیشد، بیشتر باورمند میشود که یکی از خویشاوندانش قصد داشته تا او را به کشتن دهد؛ «امیلی» در روز هفدهم ماه آوریل، در مورد شک و تردیدهای خود، در رابطه با رخداد، نامه ای به کارآگاه بزرگوار بلژیکی، «هرکول پوآرو» مینویسد؛ اما «پوآرو» به شکلی عجیب و اسرارآمیز، در روز بیست و هشتم ماه ژوئن این نامه را دریافت میکند؛ زمانیکه «امیلی» دیگر زنده نیست، تا پاسخ «پوارو» به نامه ی خودش را بخواند
نقل از متن: (هفت نفر در «لیتلگرینهاوس» جمع شده بودند. «هرکول پوآرو» کنار بخاری ایستاده بود. «چارلز» و «ترزا اَرَندل» روی کاناپه بودند. «چارلز» روی دسته کاناپه نشسته، و دست دور گردن خواهرش انداخته بود. «دکتر تانیاس» روی مبل راحتی بود. چشمهایش قرمز بود و روبان سیاهی دور بازویش بسته بود؛ خود صاحبخانه، یعنی «خانم لاوسون»، روی صندلی صافی پشت میز دایره ایشکلی نشسته بود. او هم چشمهایش قرمز بود. موهایش از همیشه نامرتبتر بود؛ «دکتر دونالدسون» مستقیم مقابل «پوآرو» نشسته بود. قیافه بیحالتی داشت و چیزی از احساساتش معلوم نبود. به نوبت به چهره یکایک افراد نگریستم و کنجکاویم بیشتر شد. من در مدت آشناییم با «پوآرو» بارها در چنین جلساتی شرکت کرده بودم. جلسه ای با حضور عده ای از افراد درگیر که همه بظاهر آرام و خونسرد بودند، ولی در واقع نقاب بر چهره داشتند، و خویشتن واقعی خود را پنهان میکردند. دیده بودم که «پوآرو» نقاب از چهره ی یکی از این افراد برمیدارد؛ و چهره واقعی او را آشکار میکند: چهره قاتل.)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 24/03/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Dumb Witness is a detective fiction novel by British writer Agatha Christie, first published on 5 July 1937. The book features the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot and is narrated by his friend Arthur Hastings.
Emily Arundell, a wealthy spinster, writes to Hercule Poirot on the belief, she has been the victim of attempted murder, after a fall in her home in Berkshire. However, her family and household believe she actually fell by accident, after tripping over a ball left by her fox terrier Bob.
When Poirot receives the letter, he learns she has already died; her doctor, Dr. Grainger, states her death was from chronic liver problems. A new will she made while recovering from her earlier fall bequeaths her vast fortune and home to her companion, Miss Minnie Lawson.
Seeking to investigate Emily's belief someone wanted to murder her, Poirot, accompanied by his friend Arthur Hastings, notes that under her previous will, her nephew Charles Arundell would have inherited, along with her nieces Theresa Arundell and Bella Tanios.
All three wish to contest the will, but do not pursue this course of action. Visiting the house on the pretence of buying it, Poirot discovers a nail covered with varnish and a small string tied to it at the top of the stairs.
Through Emily's last words, he concludes that Bob had been out all night and that she had therefore fallen down the stairs as a result of a tripwire, and that there is a chance Emily was indeed murdered. Her family thus become suspects in that matter. In his investigations, Poirot learns that during a seance held in Emily's home, a luminous aura was noticed coming from her mouth when she spoke. ...
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز چهارم ماه آگوست سال 2012 میلادی
عنوان: شاهد خاموش؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم مجتبی عبدالله نژاد؛ تهران، هرمس، کتابهای کارآگاه، 1390؛ در 324ص؛ شابک 9789643637576؛ چاپ دوم 1393؛ چاپ سوم 1397؛ موضوع: داستانهای کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیایی - سده 20م
عنوان: شاهد خاموش؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: سپیده حبیبی؛ تهران، نگارش الکترونیک؛ 1395؛ در 46ص؛ شابک 9786008299288؛
برای زنی سالخورده و مجرد، به نام «امیلی»، حادثه ای رخ میدهد...؛ همه برهان این رخداد را توپی پلاستیکی میدانند که توسط سگ بازیگوش «امیلی» روی پله ها رها شده بود. اما خود «امیلی» هرچه بیشتر درباره ی حادثه ی فرو افتادنش از پله ها میاندیشد، بیشتر باورمند میشود که یکی از خویشاوندانش قصد داشته تا او را به کشتن دهد؛ «امیلی» در روز هفدهم ماه آوریل، در مورد شک و تردیدهای خود، در رابطه با رخداد، نامه ای به کارآگاه بزرگوار بلژیکی، «هرکول پوآرو» مینویسد؛ اما «پوآرو» به شکلی عجیب و اسرارآمیز، در روز بیست و هشتم ماه ژوئن این نامه را دریافت میکند؛ زمانیکه «امیلی» دیگر زنده نیست، تا پاسخ «پوارو» به نامه ی خودش را بخواند
نقل از متن: (هفت نفر در «لیتلگرینهاوس» جمع شده بودند. «هرکول پوآرو» کنار بخاری ایستاده بود. «چارلز» و «ترزا اَرَندل» روی کاناپه بودند. «چارلز» روی دسته کاناپه نشسته، و دست دور گردن خواهرش انداخته بود. «دکتر تانیاس» روی مبل راحتی بود. چشمهایش قرمز بود و روبان سیاهی دور بازویش بسته بود؛ خود صاحبخانه، یعنی «خانم لاوسون»، روی صندلی صافی پشت میز دایره ایشکلی نشسته بود. او هم چشمهایش قرمز بود. موهایش از همیشه نامرتبتر بود؛ «دکتر دونالدسون» مستقیم مقابل «پوآرو» نشسته بود. قیافه بیحالتی داشت و چیزی از احساساتش معلوم نبود. به نوبت به چهره یکایک افراد نگریستم و کنجکاویم بیشتر شد. من در مدت آشناییم با «پوآرو» بارها در چنین جلساتی شرکت کرده بودم. جلسه ای با حضور عده ای از افراد درگیر که همه بظاهر آرام و خونسرد بودند، ولی در واقع نقاب بر چهره داشتند، و خویشتن واقعی خود را پنهان میکردند. دیده بودم که «پوآرو» نقاب از چهره ی یکی از این افراد برمیدارد؛ و چهره واقعی او را آشکار میکند: چهره قاتل.)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 24/03/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
May 28, 2023
A lo mejor y este caso pudo pasar sin ton ni son, pero lo cierto es que me entretuvo mucho y me encantó volver a ver al queridísimo Hastings en compañía de Poirot, donde ambos para mí hacen la mejor dupla en estos casos a los que se enfrenta el detective belga. Sin embargo, es triste saber que esta es la penúltima vez que Hastings hará presencia en la saga literaria.
En fin, la premisa de la historia sigue la aparente muerte por causa natural de una señora adinerada. Sin embargo a Poirot le llegó una carta de parte de ella muy sospechosa con un atraso de más de dos meses, por lo que obviamente los familiares de ella podrían verse beneficiados de su fortuna de no ser porque esta misma creó un nuevo testamento en el que le legó todo su dinero a su dama de compañía. Asombroso pero a la vez más sospechoso. Obviamente no es de los mejores pero no me quejo. Adicción pura, lo leí en menos de dos días y al final resultó que sí, que otra vez se rieron en mi cara, ya que estuve plenamente confiado sospechando de dos personajes y al final no fue como yo creí. Al menos, no del todo.
Lo interesante y diferente a los otros casos que he leído es que las pruebas del crimen ya no están tan recientes y presentes porque ha pasado mucho tiempo desde la muerte de la señora, pero a la misma vez estamos en el caso típico en el que Poirot se dedica a recorrer sospechoso por sospechoso preguntando y reuniendo datos para que al final (como no puede ser de otra forma) su mente brillante y casi perfecta une todos los hilos. También, otro tópico recurrente que cualquier familiar o de la servidumbre pudo estar involucrado pero lo cierto es que entre todos ellos hay tensiones y desconfianzas por lo que las intenciones y motivaciones van apuntando siempre al interés por el dinero de la mujer.
Ahora, la historia está un poco para agarrarla con pinzas y eso se nota a leguas. Hay demasiadas conveniencias para que Poirot pueda resolver el caso, más que todo en las conversaciones que mantiene con los sospechosos y testigos; hay mucha información que bien nunca se pudo decir y actitudes muy comprometedoras que solo buscan despistar o parecen inofensivas solo para que al final el brillante Poirot ponga a funcionar y maquinar sus células grises. Santo remedio. No digo más, para no soltar spoiler. Que si sigo se me suelta la lengua... y no queremos eso.
En fin, la premisa de la historia sigue la aparente muerte por causa natural de una señora adinerada. Sin embargo a Poirot le llegó una carta de parte de ella muy sospechosa con un atraso de más de dos meses, por lo que obviamente los familiares de ella podrían verse beneficiados de su fortuna de no ser porque esta misma creó un nuevo testamento en el que le legó todo su dinero a su dama de compañía. Asombroso pero a la vez más sospechoso. Obviamente no es de los mejores pero no me quejo. Adicción pura, lo leí en menos de dos días y al final resultó que sí, que otra vez se rieron en mi cara, ya que estuve plenamente confiado sospechando de dos personajes y al final no fue como yo creí. Al menos, no del todo.
Lo interesante y diferente a los otros casos que he leído es que las pruebas del crimen ya no están tan recientes y presentes porque ha pasado mucho tiempo desde la muerte de la señora, pero a la misma vez estamos en el caso típico en el que Poirot se dedica a recorrer sospechoso por sospechoso preguntando y reuniendo datos para que al final (como no puede ser de otra forma) su mente brillante y casi perfecta une todos los hilos. También, otro tópico recurrente que cualquier familiar o de la servidumbre pudo estar involucrado pero lo cierto es que entre todos ellos hay tensiones y desconfianzas por lo que las intenciones y motivaciones van apuntando siempre al interés por el dinero de la mujer.
Ahora, la historia está un poco para agarrarla con pinzas y eso se nota a leguas. Hay demasiadas conveniencias para que Poirot pueda resolver el caso, más que todo en las conversaciones que mantiene con los sospechosos y testigos; hay mucha información que bien nunca se pudo decir y actitudes muy comprometedoras que solo buscan despistar o parecen inofensivas solo para que al final el brillante Poirot ponga a funcionar y maquinar sus células grises. Santo remedio. No digo más, para no soltar spoiler. Que si sigo se me suelta la lengua... y no queremos eso.
December 29, 2020
"The Hercule Poirots, my friend, need only to sit back in a chair and think."
If I started listing all the reasons why I can't do without Agatha Christie and her Poirot in my life, you'd probably reach through the screen thumbing your nose at all known laws of physics to try and kill me because, well, I'm sure you could recite them all by heart by now (I am very aware I can be that obnoxious). So I won't. I'll indulge my dark side and simply tell you why I didn't enjoy Dumb Witness (also known with the far more appetizing title of Poirot loses a client) so much as to consider it one of my favourite Poirot's adventures.
•, which of course is not a flaw, but my personal taste bids me to enjoy better crime stories that revolve around a crime "of passion", meaning not that it has to be not premeditated but that the underlying causes must be of a emotional/sentimental nature. So, yes, just a matter of personal taste here.
•But I would never have considered it as an obstacle to my enjoyment, had the solution been elaborate as I like them. I love those crazy schemes you couldn't guess if you were a genius, the one that require wits and cunning and subtlety -lots of them. Instead I found that, although I was very, very far from piecing it all together, discovering the truth about what really happened was, to me, rather underwhelming.
To sum it up, Dumb Witness is certainly enjoyable, but not outright brilliant -not my fault if Christie let me get used to the best. I wouldn't reccomend it as your first Poirot's book, but Christie's veterans would want to give it a chance.
If I started listing all the reasons why I can't do without Agatha Christie and her Poirot in my life, you'd probably reach through the screen thumbing your nose at all known laws of physics to try and kill me because, well, I'm sure you could recite them all by heart by now (I am very aware I can be that obnoxious). So I won't. I'll indulge my dark side and simply tell you why I didn't enjoy Dumb Witness (also known with the far more appetizing title of Poirot loses a client) so much as to consider it one of my favourite Poirot's adventures.
•, which of course is not a flaw, but my personal taste bids me to enjoy better crime stories that revolve around a crime "of passion", meaning not that it has to be not premeditated but that the underlying causes must be of a emotional/sentimental nature. So, yes, just a matter of personal taste here.
•But I would never have considered it as an obstacle to my enjoyment, had the solution been elaborate as I like them. I love those crazy schemes you couldn't guess if you were a genius, the one that require wits and cunning and subtlety -lots of them. Instead I found that, although I was very, very far from piecing it all together, discovering the truth about what really happened was, to me, rather underwhelming.
To sum it up, Dumb Witness is certainly enjoyable, but not outright brilliant -not my fault if Christie let me get used to the best. I wouldn't reccomend it as your first Poirot's book, but Christie's veterans would want to give it a chance.
September 15, 2020
“Hastings, a crime is a pot that boils and seethes and every now and then a significant fact comes to the surface and can be seen. There is something in the depths there—yes, there is something! I swear it by my faith in Hercule Poirot, I swear it!” --Poirot
Poirot Loses a Client is the original title of this mystery, and he does, but Christie decided later to call it Dumb Witness (Hercule Poirot #16, rolling right along here!) in honor of a dog named Peter, her beloved dog, and another, fictional, dog named Bob, who—with his ball—features in this mystery, but you already know that since the cover for this particular edition features a dog and a ball (and because she dedicates the book to her dog) (!) that the dog named Bob had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. But that’s the “dumb witness” (as in dumb, not deaf) of which she speaks. Is it nice to call the dogs you love dumb, Agatha?!
The murdered woman in this story is (rich) Emily Arundell, in her seventies, and a bevy of greedy heirs swarm around the pot of money she is leaving, so the motive is . . . money, which is not so interesting or original. If I had only read this one mystery from her I probably might have rated this 4 stars, but compared to the best of them, this is pretty unremarkable, kind of same ol’, same ol’. That "losing the client" bit has to do with the fact that AFTER the murder is discovered, Poirot gets a letter from Emily, who has been dead for a month, asking him to represent her. Okay, but again, not that interesting.
Let’s see: Dumb Witness features a typically vivacious (for Christie, one in every story) young woman (Theresa), two smart and stuffy doctors (typically dull and capable, as most men are in her mysteries). It features Hastings as narrator, though the patter between he and Poirot is getting honed a bit, it’s developed into a kind of pleasantly rude rhythm between the buffoonish Hastings and the somewhat—but amusingly--arrogant Poirot. Poirot lies in this one, he plays a deceptive role, and this raises issues about what he is willing to do to get at the truth. Poirot makes an interesting point, too, that a murder reveals a certain psychological “character” which, when you get to know the suspects, will make it clear whodunit. Oh, and there's Bob the dog and his ball, that everyone but we readers think is involved in the murder of Emily.
There’s one particularly interesting and surprising thing in this book that I might not have even noticed reading it in 1936 White England or America. The title of one chapter is: “The N---- in the Woodpile,” which is a of a racist phrase meant to relate to something not yet revealed. This was a not uncommon (of course exclusively white) expression as I understand it in the twenties and thirties, but I was still startled to see it here. I mean there are racists in Christie’s novels, partly reflective of the times, partly of their class, I suppose. But this title is still glaring and disturbing. This is her chapter title. I can’t just pass it off as a “merely” nasty (racist) flaw in Hastings as narrator. Or can I? Hastings is an elitist dope. But nah, I think this is Christie just being racist in the way of the times. So what does this “crime” in that chapter title reveal about her psychology? As with Poirot and Hastings, there are traces of elitism in Dame Christie. And some darkness. You see it in her treatment of servants as stupid or ignorant, too. Both Christie and Poirot like rich people, nobility, the finer things. And can be jerks.
She changed the title in some later editions (not the one I am reading, though, obviously) to “A Cuckoo in the Nest,” I just discovered while googling/Wikipedia-ing the phrase above. So maybe that takes a little of the sting out of it? She realized the error of her ways? But it was there and is still in this edition I am reading. . .
The major crime of this one is that it is 400 pages long, way too long for this story, which I read as fast I could. I liked it, but didn’t love it.
Poirot Loses a Client is the original title of this mystery, and he does, but Christie decided later to call it Dumb Witness (Hercule Poirot #16, rolling right along here!) in honor of a dog named Peter, her beloved dog, and another, fictional, dog named Bob, who—with his ball—features in this mystery, but you already know that since the cover for this particular edition features a dog and a ball (and because she dedicates the book to her dog) (!) that the dog named Bob had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. But that’s the “dumb witness” (as in dumb, not deaf) of which she speaks. Is it nice to call the dogs you love dumb, Agatha?!
The murdered woman in this story is (rich) Emily Arundell, in her seventies, and a bevy of greedy heirs swarm around the pot of money she is leaving, so the motive is . . . money, which is not so interesting or original. If I had only read this one mystery from her I probably might have rated this 4 stars, but compared to the best of them, this is pretty unremarkable, kind of same ol’, same ol’. That "losing the client" bit has to do with the fact that AFTER the murder is discovered, Poirot gets a letter from Emily, who has been dead for a month, asking him to represent her. Okay, but again, not that interesting.
Let’s see: Dumb Witness features a typically vivacious (for Christie, one in every story) young woman (Theresa), two smart and stuffy doctors (typically dull and capable, as most men are in her mysteries). It features Hastings as narrator, though the patter between he and Poirot is getting honed a bit, it’s developed into a kind of pleasantly rude rhythm between the buffoonish Hastings and the somewhat—but amusingly--arrogant Poirot. Poirot lies in this one, he plays a deceptive role, and this raises issues about what he is willing to do to get at the truth. Poirot makes an interesting point, too, that a murder reveals a certain psychological “character” which, when you get to know the suspects, will make it clear whodunit. Oh, and there's Bob the dog and his ball, that everyone but we readers think is involved in the murder of Emily.
There’s one particularly interesting and surprising thing in this book that I might not have even noticed reading it in 1936 White England or America. The title of one chapter is: “The N---- in the Woodpile,” which is a of a racist phrase meant to relate to something not yet revealed. This was a not uncommon (of course exclusively white) expression as I understand it in the twenties and thirties, but I was still startled to see it here. I mean there are racists in Christie’s novels, partly reflective of the times, partly of their class, I suppose. But this title is still glaring and disturbing. This is her chapter title. I can’t just pass it off as a “merely” nasty (racist) flaw in Hastings as narrator. Or can I? Hastings is an elitist dope. But nah, I think this is Christie just being racist in the way of the times. So what does this “crime” in that chapter title reveal about her psychology? As with Poirot and Hastings, there are traces of elitism in Dame Christie. And some darkness. You see it in her treatment of servants as stupid or ignorant, too. Both Christie and Poirot like rich people, nobility, the finer things. And can be jerks.
She changed the title in some later editions (not the one I am reading, though, obviously) to “A Cuckoo in the Nest,” I just discovered while googling/Wikipedia-ing the phrase above. So maybe that takes a little of the sting out of it? She realized the error of her ways? But it was there and is still in this edition I am reading. . .
The major crime of this one is that it is 400 pages long, way too long for this story, which I read as fast I could. I liked it, but didn’t love it.
December 17, 2024
An elderly rich lady thinks one of her relatives is trying to kill her, hoping to get part of her inheritance a little earlier than nature intended. So she sends a letter to Hercule Poirot, asking him to find out who’s trying to kill her. Unfortunately, the letter arrives posthumously. But that doesn’t stop Poirot from sinking his teeth into the investigation like a hungry bulldog.
As you might be able to guess from the cover, Bob, the victim’s dog, plays quite a big role in this Poirot mystery. He’s the titular dumb witness. It’s clear Agatha loved dogs too, which is something I appreciate. Though I can understand the criticism that the dog and Poirot overshadow the other characters a little bit, including the point of view character of Arthur Hastings. Still, Hastings’s contributions to the investigation are actually quite fun in a subtle way, and he helps us as the audience see what goes on in the mind of his best friend Poirot without giving too much away.
This book features a different kind of investigation from Poirot as he interrogates people without first shouting his own name from the rooftops as is usually the case because of his vanity. He is in fact keeping a very low profile by his standards. For example, at one point in the story he’s claiming to do research for a book he’s writing as a pretense to casually talk to someone about the murder investigation. This makes the whole murder mystery feel quite cozy and a bit slow-paced. Though I’m happy to say that the mystery kept me guessing until the end.
As you might be able to guess from the cover, Bob, the victim’s dog, plays quite a big role in this Poirot mystery. He’s the titular dumb witness. It’s clear Agatha loved dogs too, which is something I appreciate. Though I can understand the criticism that the dog and Poirot overshadow the other characters a little bit, including the point of view character of Arthur Hastings. Still, Hastings’s contributions to the investigation are actually quite fun in a subtle way, and he helps us as the audience see what goes on in the mind of his best friend Poirot without giving too much away.
This book features a different kind of investigation from Poirot as he interrogates people without first shouting his own name from the rooftops as is usually the case because of his vanity. He is in fact keeping a very low profile by his standards. For example, at one point in the story he’s claiming to do research for a book he’s writing as a pretense to casually talk to someone about the murder investigation. This makes the whole murder mystery feel quite cozy and a bit slow-paced. Though I’m happy to say that the mystery kept me guessing until the end.
April 27, 2022
I went into this book with preconceptions that were 50 shades of negativity. I gave, on the first read, 2 stars to this book. But I know now why I gave that rating. I have not changed much in my reading tastes, even if my mind is made of better stuff. To prove my unchangeable reaches and preferences, I may profess that I still read mysteries, and that they amount to a large majority of my chosen books.
I also find it appropriate and useful to belabour the point that my rating system is different from what it used to represent. Though I am a mystery buff at heart, I have come to the compromise that I will always ditch, or leave a book unfinished, if it is really terrible. Books that are terrible are not rare for me. But I have refined my searching, my apprising of books that I think I will like enough to feel pleased by the reading experience.
To reprise, I have a rating system that is very low key. On the other hand, to get 5 stars from me in this day and age, is a singularity. I really want to find a 5 star read, and my refined and fecund hunts for books, on empiric evidence, do not leave me with many 5 star books. Let alone that, but even a 5 star book might, no, will necessarily mean that the book falls short of perfection.
Still wanting to clear the air, I must maintain and affirm, that my 3 star reads, which most of the female persuasion sees as negative, is blush inducing praise from me. Indeed, many 3 star reviews are negative in their color and tone. As an aside, I want to highlight the fact that most of the ratings in Goodreads are 4 star ones. At least that what the majority of my friends do. They write a glowing review, and many times than what the law of averages dictates, give a 4 star rating. Mission accomplished.
So if one is a woman who rates most of her reads 4 stars and rates mediocre books 3 stars, then we have a problem of dissonance. My 3 star ratings - and I just rated this book of Christie's the same rating - are very positive. I have thought long and hard about it and I conclude that this dissonance would be a problem if most people followed suit.
Of that, there is no danger, though theoretically, one wonders. If every person saves most of their salaries rather than let their appetites be guided by the invisible hand of Smith - there are so many Smiths, but in Economics, there is only one, and his name is Adam - then the economy of the land will be in limbo. So it is the same case with me. If I rate a book 3 or 2 stars, and I possess the opinion that these are good ratings, then people who follow my reasoning will definitely get a book a crappy score.
And I do affirm the logic that is private to me, that for me a 2 star read is a positive score. But since the majority of ratings is 4 stars, then I need lose not a moment's sleep over gaming the system for the worst.
This book was nice. It was clever and imaginative. I think I gave it 2 stars (from my ancient rating system) because the criminal had traits that I admire in a person, and I was reluctant to feel satisfied by the said murderer's identity. I went through most of the book with little memory of the book. Souvenirs that remained behind were those of a misdirection that I remembered because it was ingenious at the time. Now I am giving this book 3 stars. Consider it as if some random person had given it 4.5 stars, rounded to 4.
I have nothing but admiration for Agatha Christie as far as this book goes. There is a lot of Poirot. We even get a lot of Hastings. There was nothing to be said about matchmaking of the type that Christie is usually guilty of. There was little doubt about the murdered's way of passing away. Then there was the matter of the deceased's pooch. The anthropomorphic attribute that Christie bestows on the dog, Bob(sensible name), were played to restriction, and control. The dog of the dead woman did not howl or cry. It seemed to get over the death of its mistress well enough. It was in possession of an above average intelligence for dogs, and when we see the animal for the last time, we realise that through the terrier, we have given the deceased a narrative life of her own, dead though she might have been.
This is a first class mystery. The ensemble of the interviewees is perfection itself. I am glad but surprised that a book of 280 pages occupied so little time to go through it. The signature of Christie is that, apart from her strong ability to astonish us with twists, she never repeated herself. I repeat, she never, you know. This lack of repetition and the stand alone appearance of the book are both strengthening ingredients to this book. It is so tempting for a writer to meander, losing sight of the mantra that if you are bored writing the book, your audience will definitely be bored by reading that book.
I also find it appropriate and useful to belabour the point that my rating system is different from what it used to represent. Though I am a mystery buff at heart, I have come to the compromise that I will always ditch, or leave a book unfinished, if it is really terrible. Books that are terrible are not rare for me. But I have refined my searching, my apprising of books that I think I will like enough to feel pleased by the reading experience.
To reprise, I have a rating system that is very low key. On the other hand, to get 5 stars from me in this day and age, is a singularity. I really want to find a 5 star read, and my refined and fecund hunts for books, on empiric evidence, do not leave me with many 5 star books. Let alone that, but even a 5 star book might, no, will necessarily mean that the book falls short of perfection.
Still wanting to clear the air, I must maintain and affirm, that my 3 star reads, which most of the female persuasion sees as negative, is blush inducing praise from me. Indeed, many 3 star reviews are negative in their color and tone. As an aside, I want to highlight the fact that most of the ratings in Goodreads are 4 star ones. At least that what the majority of my friends do. They write a glowing review, and many times than what the law of averages dictates, give a 4 star rating. Mission accomplished.
So if one is a woman who rates most of her reads 4 stars and rates mediocre books 3 stars, then we have a problem of dissonance. My 3 star ratings - and I just rated this book of Christie's the same rating - are very positive. I have thought long and hard about it and I conclude that this dissonance would be a problem if most people followed suit.
Of that, there is no danger, though theoretically, one wonders. If every person saves most of their salaries rather than let their appetites be guided by the invisible hand of Smith - there are so many Smiths, but in Economics, there is only one, and his name is Adam - then the economy of the land will be in limbo. So it is the same case with me. If I rate a book 3 or 2 stars, and I possess the opinion that these are good ratings, then people who follow my reasoning will definitely get a book a crappy score.
And I do affirm the logic that is private to me, that for me a 2 star read is a positive score. But since the majority of ratings is 4 stars, then I need lose not a moment's sleep over gaming the system for the worst.
This book was nice. It was clever and imaginative. I think I gave it 2 stars (from my ancient rating system) because the criminal had traits that I admire in a person, and I was reluctant to feel satisfied by the said murderer's identity. I went through most of the book with little memory of the book. Souvenirs that remained behind were those of a misdirection that I remembered because it was ingenious at the time. Now I am giving this book 3 stars. Consider it as if some random person had given it 4.5 stars, rounded to 4.
I have nothing but admiration for Agatha Christie as far as this book goes. There is a lot of Poirot. We even get a lot of Hastings. There was nothing to be said about matchmaking of the type that Christie is usually guilty of. There was little doubt about the murdered's way of passing away. Then there was the matter of the deceased's pooch. The anthropomorphic attribute that Christie bestows on the dog, Bob(sensible name), were played to restriction, and control. The dog of the dead woman did not howl or cry. It seemed to get over the death of its mistress well enough. It was in possession of an above average intelligence for dogs, and when we see the animal for the last time, we realise that through the terrier, we have given the deceased a narrative life of her own, dead though she might have been.
This is a first class mystery. The ensemble of the interviewees is perfection itself. I am glad but surprised that a book of 280 pages occupied so little time to go through it. The signature of Christie is that, apart from her strong ability to astonish us with twists, she never repeated herself. I repeat, she never, you know. This lack of repetition and the stand alone appearance of the book are both strengthening ingredients to this book. It is so tempting for a writer to meander, losing sight of the mantra that if you are bored writing the book, your audience will definitely be bored by reading that book.
August 20, 2021
A disappointing book with the murderer being identified very early on. I chose a different person as my murderer, and stayed with it. The book, apart from what it tries to be, is a puzzlement in itself. There is no danger of being sidetracked. There are no meandering threads chock a block with false clues.
For once Hastings didn't have an adverse effect on the flow of the telling. Usually Hastings shines in his stupidity. But here, not so. What's more, his Belgian mentor too is not his usual self. There are many accounts of the suspects and never have suspects spoken so truthfully in a mystery book. If they hide something...hey presto! Poirot duly eavesdrop on the naughty ninnies.
Hercule Poirot is not as fun as Jane Marple. I pictured Miss Arundell like I pictured Miss Marple. Poirot is too noticeable. Marple's rich personality adorns her books with a flourish of confidentiality. I could imagine Marple young. Barely. But Poirot, not so much. Even here, with fewer foibles, he appears fake. And less fun. That is important.
For once Hastings didn't have an adverse effect on the flow of the telling. Usually Hastings shines in his stupidity. But here, not so. What's more, his Belgian mentor too is not his usual self. There are many accounts of the suspects and never have suspects spoken so truthfully in a mystery book. If they hide something...hey presto! Poirot duly eavesdrop on the naughty ninnies.
Hercule Poirot is not as fun as Jane Marple. I pictured Miss Arundell like I pictured Miss Marple. Poirot is too noticeable. Marple's rich personality adorns her books with a flourish of confidentiality. I could imagine Marple young. Barely. But Poirot, not so much. Even here, with fewer foibles, he appears fake. And less fun. That is important.
July 12, 2022
Another Poirot mystery, a new chilling murder that requires solving! Agatha Christie puts a spin on murder and pulls her protagonist into the middle of it, sure to get the ‘grey matter’ of all readers bouncing with excitement. In a piece that forces clues to be assembled from nothing, Poirot appears to do so masterfully and with panache. Another winner in this ever-evolving series.
After taking a fall down some stairs, Emily Arundell was in quite the state. While many were sure the ball on which she tripped was placed there by her dog, Emily could not shake that someone in her family may have been involved, wanting to see her dead. She was so convinced of this that she penned a note to an old friend, retired detective Hercule Poirot.
Travelling to Arundell’s’s home with his longtime friend, Captain Arthur Hastings, Poirot seeks to poke around, only to learn that Emily Arundell has died. Could her concerns in the letter have been realised, even when there is no trace of murder? Poirot sets about interviewing those closest to the victim to see how they might have benefitted from her death and what it means to the larger picture.
As Poirot learns more, it becomes apparent that someone was up to something nefarious, though just what’s happened has not come to the surface as of yet. Poirot digs deeper and learns that the initial fall was more than simply tripping on a rubber ball, but who might have been trying to do away with Emily Arundell? Poirot and Hastings find clues and motives, but it will take much effort to piece it all together and make the final accusation. Christie does it again, keeping readers on the edge of their seats!
It is refreshing to read something that is free from all the extemporaneous flfuff that finds its way into writing these days. I was pleased to be able to push my way through this story and be highly entertained while the protagonist educated me on the nuances of mystery work. Christie pens great stories and i have loved this series since I started.
With crisp narrative writing, the story moves along at a wonderful pace, keeping me on my toes as I try to decipher what’s going on with every page turn. There is so much to follow, alongside a cast of unique characters, all of which Christie moves around the board with ease. I could not forget to mention all the plot twists that occur, cementing the greatness of the story with every reveal. Poirot shines again, using his unique mannerisms to extract the truth from a group of unwitting suspects. I am eager to see how things will keep progressing, even if that means diving head deep into a large number of books that remain in the series.
Kudos, Dame Christie, for another great piece that left me scratching my head.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
After taking a fall down some stairs, Emily Arundell was in quite the state. While many were sure the ball on which she tripped was placed there by her dog, Emily could not shake that someone in her family may have been involved, wanting to see her dead. She was so convinced of this that she penned a note to an old friend, retired detective Hercule Poirot.
Travelling to Arundell’s’s home with his longtime friend, Captain Arthur Hastings, Poirot seeks to poke around, only to learn that Emily Arundell has died. Could her concerns in the letter have been realised, even when there is no trace of murder? Poirot sets about interviewing those closest to the victim to see how they might have benefitted from her death and what it means to the larger picture.
As Poirot learns more, it becomes apparent that someone was up to something nefarious, though just what’s happened has not come to the surface as of yet. Poirot digs deeper and learns that the initial fall was more than simply tripping on a rubber ball, but who might have been trying to do away with Emily Arundell? Poirot and Hastings find clues and motives, but it will take much effort to piece it all together and make the final accusation. Christie does it again, keeping readers on the edge of their seats!
It is refreshing to read something that is free from all the extemporaneous flfuff that finds its way into writing these days. I was pleased to be able to push my way through this story and be highly entertained while the protagonist educated me on the nuances of mystery work. Christie pens great stories and i have loved this series since I started.
With crisp narrative writing, the story moves along at a wonderful pace, keeping me on my toes as I try to decipher what’s going on with every page turn. There is so much to follow, alongside a cast of unique characters, all of which Christie moves around the board with ease. I could not forget to mention all the plot twists that occur, cementing the greatness of the story with every reveal. Poirot shines again, using his unique mannerisms to extract the truth from a group of unwitting suspects. I am eager to see how things will keep progressing, even if that means diving head deep into a large number of books that remain in the series.
Kudos, Dame Christie, for another great piece that left me scratching my head.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
November 24, 2020
Real Rating: 3.5* of five
It's all a bit silly, really; the entire plot hangs on the fact that a rather too easily manipulated old spinster (what a creepy word that is in today's world!) would not come right out and say.what.she.meant. Her leeching relatives need her money and she is so very inconsiderate as to decline to die. Without help, that is.
She gets the help. Poirot, to whom she had appealed for protection but who didn't receive her plea until too late, arrives at her former home pretending to consider buying it. He solves the crime, of course, but the fact is nothing much happens as a result except the direct killer commits suicide. (Others had the idea of helping the tenaciously alive old dear to assume room temperature, but for a variety of reasons that frankly made my eyes roll so hard I saw my brain, didn't.)
Honestly, I think this is why the story is narrated by Hastings. It is just too slight a structure to bear the direct involvement of Poirot. Best filtered through the deactivated charcoal of Hastings' brain. I gave the story as high a rating as I did because I love Bob the dog and his manic energy. The greedy relatives are bog-standard, uninteresting selfishness machines. (This has direct relevance to my own life the past few days.)
But all in all, it was a good idea to read it right now, and Overdrive saved me having to buy it. I'd tell anyone who's already Poirotois to read it without concern for being disappointed.
Agatha Christie's Poirot: Dumb Witness (TV episode)
Rating: 4* of five
The episode is considerably changed in ways that organize events more lucidly. Poirot and Hastings arrive in a *completely* different part of England, the Lake District, and one of the characters is an old chum of Hastings' from the Army. Charles the Chum is *far* more interesting in the TV version! Some very of-its-time marital drama is also significantly less tedious in the adaptation, becoming a meaty matter of genuine and necessary relevance to the story instead of mealymouth whining. The murderer doesn't commit suicide. And dear me, didn't Bob just get a different ending! Instead of going home with Poirot (!!), he is rehomed with some deeply ditzy spiritualists whose presence in the story becomes thereby a matter more than convenient to the plot.
On the whole, I prefer the filmed version. Both have charms and both have flaws. I'll plump for the modern take on marriage every time.
It's all a bit silly, really; the entire plot hangs on the fact that a rather too easily manipulated old spinster (what a creepy word that is in today's world!) would not come right out and say.what.she.meant. Her leeching relatives need her money and she is so very inconsiderate as to decline to die. Without help, that is.
She gets the help. Poirot, to whom she had appealed for protection but who didn't receive her plea until too late, arrives at her former home pretending to consider buying it. He solves the crime, of course, but the fact is nothing much happens as a result except the direct killer commits suicide. (Others had the idea of helping the tenaciously alive old dear to assume room temperature, but for a variety of reasons that frankly made my eyes roll so hard I saw my brain, didn't.)
Honestly, I think this is why the story is narrated by Hastings. It is just too slight a structure to bear the direct involvement of Poirot. Best filtered through the deactivated charcoal of Hastings' brain. I gave the story as high a rating as I did because I love Bob the dog and his manic energy. The greedy relatives are bog-standard, uninteresting selfishness machines. (This has direct relevance to my own life the past few days.)
But all in all, it was a good idea to read it right now, and Overdrive saved me having to buy it. I'd tell anyone who's already Poirotois to read it without concern for being disappointed.
Agatha Christie's Poirot: Dumb Witness (TV episode)
Rating: 4* of five
The episode is considerably changed in ways that organize events more lucidly. Poirot and Hastings arrive in a *completely* different part of England, the Lake District, and one of the characters is an old chum of Hastings' from the Army. Charles the Chum is *far* more interesting in the TV version! Some very of-its-time marital drama is also significantly less tedious in the adaptation, becoming a meaty matter of genuine and necessary relevance to the story instead of mealymouth whining. The murderer doesn't commit suicide. And dear me, didn't Bob just get a different ending! Instead of going home with Poirot (!!), he is rehomed with some deeply ditzy spiritualists whose presence in the story becomes thereby a matter more than convenient to the plot.
On the whole, I prefer the filmed version. Both have charms and both have flaws. I'll plump for the modern take on marriage every time.
December 19, 2024
At the beginning of the year I attempted the Read Christie challenge, reading one book a month for the entire year. I have been reading Dame Christie for years now so I had actually read a number of the selections so I decided to fill in the remaining months wirh Hercule Poirot cases that I had not read yet. Three fourths of the way through the year, the challenge got cumbersome. Christie had written about Poirot for fifty years to the point that later cases appeared stale and formulaic. Hercule Poirot is not stale nor a mere sketch of his earlier self, but I had read so many that cases appeared to mesh with each other. I put the Queen of Crime aside for a few months, and on a rainy day, I read Poirot and Me by the one and only David Suchet, who played the role of Poirot for twenty five years on television. It got to the point where Suchet and Poirot became one and the same. If Suchet could embody the role for twenty five years then one book per month could hardly seem like a chore. After finishing Poirot and Me, I got motivated to resume this personal challenge. The sun has barely made an appearance in the last few weeks. It is weather I usually associate with curling up on the couch and reading mysteries. The time was right to read Poirot again, so I selected a few cases from the library for my daughter and I to read as the year winds down.
What made Poirot and Me such an insightful memoir is that David Suchet went above and beyond describing his personal experiences as an actor. He read the entire Poirot body of work in order to prepare for his acting. One theme he noticed in many of the cases is that Agatha Christie poked fun at the British upper classes. Prior to the wars, landed gentry lived in country estates and sent their children off to boarding and finishing schools. Patriarchs and on occasion matriarchs used these childless opportunities to amass great wealth, which they would pass on to their children through inheritances at the right time. In many cases, Poirot’s Christmas comes to mind immediately, the patriarch is not a likable person, creating a feeling of animosity toward him and divisions between siblings of subsequent generations. Children and grandchildren know that they stand to inherit a fortune and inevitably someone murders the patriarch. Poirot is called to investigate and discover which of the family is a bad seed who would even consider killing a dead older relative. Hercule Poirot is always right, so the guilty party is discovered and taken to justice, allowing the other siblings to divide the inheritance that was rightfully theirs all along. It is with this backdrop that Poirot finds himself in the services of now deceased spinster Emily Arundell who did not want her nieces and nephews to gain access to her money. It is up to Poirot to discover who is behind the plotting to get dear aunt Emily out of the way before money goes to the wrong hands.
Dumb Witness takes place in 1936. Poirot no longer lives at Whitehaven and has taken rooms in a swanky London flat with George his valet in his service. The story begins with Hastings just back from Argentina and calling on Poirot. When Hastings appears in a case he takes on the role of narrator and provides comic relief from Poirot’s superior mind. As is often the case, Poirot figures out clues and an entire case while Hastings is still thinking, and according to Poirot, not thinking logically. Jamais, one has to use one’s little grey cells, mon cher, Poirot implores to his friend, but Hastings is often only good for chauffeuring and answering Poirot’s calls. I read mysteries to figure out whodunit not for the comedic scenes. Dame Christie had to change things up because Poirot was her money maker for over fifty years. Some cases employed Hastings and some did not, but, inevitably, Poirot was never wrong. Here the case is simple: a dog’s ball is a key clue designed to cover up a string around a nail used to attempt murder on Emily Arundell. Miss Emily believed that her nieces and nephew were evil people and that any of them could swindle her or attempt murder. Comically, Hastings follows this line of thinking and blames the dog’s ball. Poirot, like Arundell, knew that the ball was not the weapon, and that is why Arundell sought him out. That Hastings could not see this had me shaking my head. I know he is not a dunce, but sometimes it takes him a while to piece things together. Oh, Hastings.
As with all cases, Poirot figures things out long before anyone else involved. I noticed that this book is nearly a third longer than many of Poirot’s other cases as it accounts for dialogue, setting the stage, and more falling action than usual. Poirot had to methodically question all of the suspects without giving himself away as a detective. The more astute denizens of the village had heard of him and knew that he was not trying to write a book about Emily’s father or inquire about buying her home. There are not many foreign looking people with impeccable looking mustaches in rural English so his disguise did not work, which I thought humanized his character. Poirot had to discover why Emily Arundell would change her will during the last few weeks of her life, why any of her family members would want to bump her off, and who would be shrewd enough to blame a dog. As in many cases, the dog here named Bob was better behaved and a better living being than most of the personas in the story. Again, this is Christie taking a poke at the evil percolating in modern society, to the point where a dog is a better companion to an old woman than any of her family members. Bob’s scenes brought a smile to my face and made this novel for me.
Even though Poirot is not a dog person, Hastings is. Poirot figured out which family member meant to kill their aunt Emily before that person killed more innocent victims. Hastings inherits Bob the dog although Emily Arundell’s companion meant for the dog to go to Poirot; he really is not a dog person. David Suchet believes that Christie wrote the endings to her books first, and that is why all characters are suspects. It is why a clue first appears at the end of each case and why Poirot delivers a soliloquy to the assembled characters in a novel’s penultimate scene. Suchet notes that she leaves a trail of clues for readers to discover, and all that we have to do is place the pieces together and we will know whodunit before Poirot. Unfortunately, even the best of us are not as adept at crime solving as Hercule Poirot is; I have yet to solve a case until Poirot reveals who the guilty party is. It is on my bucket list to crack a case before the end. Agatha Christie wrote Hercule Poirot for fifty years. David Suchet played him for twenty five. What is one case a month? Dumb Witness brought cheer to an otherwise dismal stretch of gloomy days. The banter between Poirot and Hastings is always good for some laughs. Dumb Witness has been a springboard toward resuming my Read Christie challenge. One of these days I have to figure out whodunit, so why not Poirot.
4 stars
What made Poirot and Me such an insightful memoir is that David Suchet went above and beyond describing his personal experiences as an actor. He read the entire Poirot body of work in order to prepare for his acting. One theme he noticed in many of the cases is that Agatha Christie poked fun at the British upper classes. Prior to the wars, landed gentry lived in country estates and sent their children off to boarding and finishing schools. Patriarchs and on occasion matriarchs used these childless opportunities to amass great wealth, which they would pass on to their children through inheritances at the right time. In many cases, Poirot’s Christmas comes to mind immediately, the patriarch is not a likable person, creating a feeling of animosity toward him and divisions between siblings of subsequent generations. Children and grandchildren know that they stand to inherit a fortune and inevitably someone murders the patriarch. Poirot is called to investigate and discover which of the family is a bad seed who would even consider killing a dead older relative. Hercule Poirot is always right, so the guilty party is discovered and taken to justice, allowing the other siblings to divide the inheritance that was rightfully theirs all along. It is with this backdrop that Poirot finds himself in the services of now deceased spinster Emily Arundell who did not want her nieces and nephews to gain access to her money. It is up to Poirot to discover who is behind the plotting to get dear aunt Emily out of the way before money goes to the wrong hands.
Dumb Witness takes place in 1936. Poirot no longer lives at Whitehaven and has taken rooms in a swanky London flat with George his valet in his service. The story begins with Hastings just back from Argentina and calling on Poirot. When Hastings appears in a case he takes on the role of narrator and provides comic relief from Poirot’s superior mind. As is often the case, Poirot figures out clues and an entire case while Hastings is still thinking, and according to Poirot, not thinking logically. Jamais, one has to use one’s little grey cells, mon cher, Poirot implores to his friend, but Hastings is often only good for chauffeuring and answering Poirot’s calls. I read mysteries to figure out whodunit not for the comedic scenes. Dame Christie had to change things up because Poirot was her money maker for over fifty years. Some cases employed Hastings and some did not, but, inevitably, Poirot was never wrong. Here the case is simple: a dog’s ball is a key clue designed to cover up a string around a nail used to attempt murder on Emily Arundell. Miss Emily believed that her nieces and nephew were evil people and that any of them could swindle her or attempt murder. Comically, Hastings follows this line of thinking and blames the dog’s ball. Poirot, like Arundell, knew that the ball was not the weapon, and that is why Arundell sought him out. That Hastings could not see this had me shaking my head. I know he is not a dunce, but sometimes it takes him a while to piece things together. Oh, Hastings.
As with all cases, Poirot figures things out long before anyone else involved. I noticed that this book is nearly a third longer than many of Poirot’s other cases as it accounts for dialogue, setting the stage, and more falling action than usual. Poirot had to methodically question all of the suspects without giving himself away as a detective. The more astute denizens of the village had heard of him and knew that he was not trying to write a book about Emily’s father or inquire about buying her home. There are not many foreign looking people with impeccable looking mustaches in rural English so his disguise did not work, which I thought humanized his character. Poirot had to discover why Emily Arundell would change her will during the last few weeks of her life, why any of her family members would want to bump her off, and who would be shrewd enough to blame a dog. As in many cases, the dog here named Bob was better behaved and a better living being than most of the personas in the story. Again, this is Christie taking a poke at the evil percolating in modern society, to the point where a dog is a better companion to an old woman than any of her family members. Bob’s scenes brought a smile to my face and made this novel for me.
Even though Poirot is not a dog person, Hastings is. Poirot figured out which family member meant to kill their aunt Emily before that person killed more innocent victims. Hastings inherits Bob the dog although Emily Arundell’s companion meant for the dog to go to Poirot; he really is not a dog person. David Suchet believes that Christie wrote the endings to her books first, and that is why all characters are suspects. It is why a clue first appears at the end of each case and why Poirot delivers a soliloquy to the assembled characters in a novel’s penultimate scene. Suchet notes that she leaves a trail of clues for readers to discover, and all that we have to do is place the pieces together and we will know whodunit before Poirot. Unfortunately, even the best of us are not as adept at crime solving as Hercule Poirot is; I have yet to solve a case until Poirot reveals who the guilty party is. It is on my bucket list to crack a case before the end. Agatha Christie wrote Hercule Poirot for fifty years. David Suchet played him for twenty five. What is one case a month? Dumb Witness brought cheer to an otherwise dismal stretch of gloomy days. The banter between Poirot and Hastings is always good for some laughs. Dumb Witness has been a springboard toward resuming my Read Christie challenge. One of these days I have to figure out whodunit, so why not Poirot.
4 stars
May 28, 2022
Agatha Christie Book Reading Challenge
3.75 Stars
BOOK 41 :- April 2022
3.75 Stars
BOOK 41 :- April 2022
February 21, 2016
Αυτό το βιβλίο μου άρεσε πολύ, όχι για την ιδιαίτερη πλοκή του ή για την εξωφρενική φαντασία της συγγραφέως του (όχι ότι δεν τα είχε).
Το λάτρεψα διότι σε αυτό το βιβλίο, ο ήρωας του, Ηρακλής Πουαρώ, λύνει και δένει!!!
Πραγματικά κλέβει την παράσταση, λέει ψέματα, παίζει θέατρο, το καταδιασκεδάζει...σκαρφίζεται χίλιες δύο ιστορίες με υπερκινητικότητα, αλλά πάντα με την φινέτσα που τον χαρακτηρίζει!. Μια πολύ διασκεδαστική ιστορία, που στο μέλλον θα την ξαναδιάβαζα, κι ας ξέρω τώρα πια τον δολοφόνο.
Το λάτρεψα διότι σε αυτό το βιβλίο, ο ήρωας του, Ηρακλής Πουαρώ, λύνει και δένει!!!
Πραγματικά κλέβει την παράσταση, λέει ψέματα, παίζει θέατρο, το καταδιασκεδάζει...σκαρφίζεται χίλιες δύο ιστορίες με υπερκινητικότητα, αλλά πάντα με την φινέτσα που τον χαρακτηρίζει!. Μια πολύ διασκεδαστική ιστορία, που στο μέλλον θα την ξαναδιάβαζα, κι ας ξέρω τώρα πια τον δολοφόνο.
January 11, 2021
Another top-notch Christie whodunit.Emily Arundell is a rich spinster with relatives she doesn't like.They are after her money and she has a whole lot of it.And she,on her part,does not want them to have it.
She has a dog which has a habit of leaving its ball on top of the stairs.Somebody could slip there and meet with an accident.Sure enough,this happens to Emily,but she survives.
However,shortly thereafter,she dies.The doctor's verdict is death by natural causes.But is that really the case ?
Before she dies,she writes to Hercule Poirot.But the letter takes over two months to reach Poirot.Even though his client is already dead,Poirot takes up the case.
He invents a whole set of fabricated stories as he interviews the various suspects.It was amusing to see Poirot being repeatedly addressed as "M.Parrot."
An entertaining mystery,which moves along at a brisk pace and comes to a clever conclusion.
She has a dog which has a habit of leaving its ball on top of the stairs.Somebody could slip there and meet with an accident.Sure enough,this happens to Emily,but she survives.
However,shortly thereafter,she dies.The doctor's verdict is death by natural causes.But is that really the case ?
Before she dies,she writes to Hercule Poirot.But the letter takes over two months to reach Poirot.Even though his client is already dead,Poirot takes up the case.
He invents a whole set of fabricated stories as he interviews the various suspects.It was amusing to see Poirot being repeatedly addressed as "M.Parrot."
An entertaining mystery,which moves along at a brisk pace and comes to a clever conclusion.
June 3, 2021
Detective Hercule Poirot receives a strange & rambling letter from an old lady, which prompts him to visit her to find out more. His friend Hastings feels it is a waste of time, but the mystery deepens when they learn that the lady is dead. Is her death foul play, & why did the letter she wrote take two months to reach Poirot ?
Agatha Christie deftly plots a fast paced, fun read & we even get to hear the thoughts of Bob the dog in the narrative. Another highly entertaining story from the Queen of Crime.
Agatha Christie deftly plots a fast paced, fun read & we even get to hear the thoughts of Bob the dog in the narrative. Another highly entertaining story from the Queen of Crime.
September 14, 2023
“The dog hunts rabbits. Hercule Poirot hunts murderers.”
I am addicted to Poirot's stories!!!
Smart and sneaky as usual.
June 23, 2016
Seventy year old Miss Emily Arundell wasn’t looking forward to the Easter weekend when her family would descend on her. She knew they were all interested in a slice of her vast fortune; they had been told in no uncertain terms to wait until she died. But when she left her room in the dead of night unable to sleep, Emily tripped at the head of the stairs and tumbled to the bottom. After being checked over by her niece’s husband who was a doctor, it was found her only injuries were bruises and shock. Emily was very lucky. But as she lay in her bed with her mind constantly playing over the incident, Emily was convinced she didn’t fall over her dog, Bob’s ball even though that was what the family had concluded.
M. Hercule Poirot received a letter on June 28th but was astounded to note it was dated 17th April. He was bemused as to why it had taken so long to get from Market Basing to London – it was only a short drive. The letter was from one Miss Emily Arundell and though a rambling and confusing letter, Poirot was convinced the writer was concerned for her health. When he and Hastings drove to Market Basing that very day, he was shocked to discover Miss Arundell was dead – her home “Littlegreen House” was up for sale.
Poirot’s little grey cells were decidedly interested in investigating this conundrum – the mystery was one he would solve; the famous detective M. Hercule Poirot never failed! But with his client dead, how was Poirot to go about it? Hastings was more than a little befuddled…
Dumb Witness by Agatha Christie is another great Poirot mystery. Old fashioned and stuffy, nevertheless the mystery is beautifully laid out with Poirot wading his way through everything, big or small, in his usual meticulous manner. It’s always great to catch up with the great detective and his sidekick Hastings each time I pick up an Agatha Christie novel. Highly recommended.
M. Hercule Poirot received a letter on June 28th but was astounded to note it was dated 17th April. He was bemused as to why it had taken so long to get from Market Basing to London – it was only a short drive. The letter was from one Miss Emily Arundell and though a rambling and confusing letter, Poirot was convinced the writer was concerned for her health. When he and Hastings drove to Market Basing that very day, he was shocked to discover Miss Arundell was dead – her home “Littlegreen House” was up for sale.
Poirot’s little grey cells were decidedly interested in investigating this conundrum – the mystery was one he would solve; the famous detective M. Hercule Poirot never failed! But with his client dead, how was Poirot to go about it? Hastings was more than a little befuddled…
Dumb Witness by Agatha Christie is another great Poirot mystery. Old fashioned and stuffy, nevertheless the mystery is beautifully laid out with Poirot wading his way through everything, big or small, in his usual meticulous manner. It’s always great to catch up with the great detective and his sidekick Hastings each time I pick up an Agatha Christie novel. Highly recommended.
April 16, 2022
3.5
“L’intelligenza è una cosa e il gusto un’altra”.
Otro de los casos del inspector belga, Hércules Poirot. La verdad es que esta novela me ha sorprendido y me ha gustado más de lo que pretendía. Igual se debía al hecho que sus últimas lecturas no me parecieron tan buenas, sin embargo, está me ha mantenido lo suficiente entretenida la mayor parte del tiempo. Además, está mi querido capitán y para mí eso ya mejora la historia.
“Hastings, Hastings, io non mi permetto mai di “pensare”, almeno nel senso che voi attribuite a questa parola. Per il momento mi limito a fare certe riflessioni”.
Este libro me lo he leído en italiano y en cuanto a su nivel de idioma lo encuadraría entre un B1-B2. Asimismo, la autora no utiliza un vocabulario específico ni se deja llevar por largas descripciones exhaustivas. Se trata de una novela para pasar la tarde y que todo tipo de publico pueda leerla sin dificultad.
Como siempre, no he llegado a averiguar quien es el asesino y ya ni lo intento porque Agatha hace trampas y no nos cuenta todos los detalles. Sin embargo, si tengo que destacar algo es que esta novela no ha tomado el mismo esquema de sus novelas, sino que le ha dado un giro de 90º y la verdad es que le ha quedado bien. A por el próximo.
"Io non sono dalla parte di nessuno, madame. Sono dalla parte della verità, sempre.
“L’intelligenza è una cosa e il gusto un’altra”.
Otro de los casos del inspector belga, Hércules Poirot. La verdad es que esta novela me ha sorprendido y me ha gustado más de lo que pretendía. Igual se debía al hecho que sus últimas lecturas no me parecieron tan buenas, sin embargo, está me ha mantenido lo suficiente entretenida la mayor parte del tiempo. Además, está mi querido capitán y para mí eso ya mejora la historia.
“Hastings, Hastings, io non mi permetto mai di “pensare”, almeno nel senso che voi attribuite a questa parola. Per il momento mi limito a fare certe riflessioni”.
Este libro me lo he leído en italiano y en cuanto a su nivel de idioma lo encuadraría entre un B1-B2. Asimismo, la autora no utiliza un vocabulario específico ni se deja llevar por largas descripciones exhaustivas. Se trata de una novela para pasar la tarde y que todo tipo de publico pueda leerla sin dificultad.
Como siempre, no he llegado a averiguar quien es el asesino y ya ni lo intento porque Agatha hace trampas y no nos cuenta todos los detalles. Sin embargo, si tengo que destacar algo es que esta novela no ha tomado el mismo esquema de sus novelas, sino que le ha dado un giro de 90º y la verdad es que le ha quedado bien. A por el próximo.
"Io non sono dalla parte di nessuno, madame. Sono dalla parte della verità, sempre.
September 6, 2020
In this installment of the Poirot series, the famous detective is faced with a difficult task, that is to investigate the death of Miss Emily Arundell who has written him a peculiar letter about an accident she suffered and her possible suspicion that it may not be an accident. Poirot, who receives the letter only after her death, is in a dilemma as to how to construct the events. His little grey cells tell him that something is remiss and he takes the letter as a commission from the dead to discover the truth and do justice by the dead. And in this task, Poirot receives assistance from Bob, the "dumb" witness.
The murder-mystery plot is not one of Christie's best, nor can one say that it is a clever one, nevertheless, it is a pretty interesting one. The murderer and the motive were spotted earlier on, but that didn't make the story less enjoyable. The set of characters, Captain Hasting's never-ending whining, Poirot's little deceptions (which backfires once or twice), and the overall humour contributed considerably to the enjoyment of the story.
I've read a considerable number of Agatha Christie works now and I can see that she repeats similar concepts with different storylines. But every one of them feels new and fresh. How she does that is beyond my understanding.
The murder-mystery plot is not one of Christie's best, nor can one say that it is a clever one, nevertheless, it is a pretty interesting one. The murderer and the motive were spotted earlier on, but that didn't make the story less enjoyable. The set of characters, Captain Hasting's never-ending whining, Poirot's little deceptions (which backfires once or twice), and the overall humour contributed considerably to the enjoyment of the story.
I've read a considerable number of Agatha Christie works now and I can see that she repeats similar concepts with different storylines. But every one of them feels new and fresh. How she does that is beyond my understanding.
May 16, 2019
I really enjoyed the different twists and turns in Dumb Witness. It wasn’t Christie’s strongest, but it was a fun read nonetheless.
December 17, 2024
Dumb Witness was another suspenseful mystery to be solved by Hercule Poirot by Agatha Christie. And this delightful book was again narrated by his friend Hastings as he joins Poirot in a very complicated investigation into the suspicious death of an elderly spinster, Emily Arundell, the last of five sisters living in the family home, Littlegreen House, in Market Basing, England. Complicating this investigation from the outset is that Hercule Poirot receives a letter from Emily Arundell, two months after her death, asking him to undertake investigations on her behalf with the utmost discretion because she suspects that a member of her family may be trying to kill her. The letter goes on to relate an an accident resulting in a fall down the stairs attributed to her fox terrier’s ball on the landing. However, she knows that is not how her fall occurred and is requesting that Poirot investigate further. Complicating this are her relatives that stand to benefit from her legacy, including several nieces and one nephew. And there is her companion, the flighty Wilhelmina “Minnie” Lawson and two long-time servants. At the center of the story is the delightful and frisky fox terrier, Bob, and his imagined inner monologues adding some humor to the tale. There is a lot of intrigue as the investigation ensues with each of the characters coming under suspicion. Again, Agatha Christie, the Queen of Mystery was way ahead of me.
“Jamais de la vie! Me, I reason. I employ little grey cells.”
“Naturally there are side issues. To separate the main issue from the side issues is the first task of the orderly mind.”
June 6, 2015
This book is really important to me now. But not because of the story. So this review will be drastically biased, and I will explain why in a moment.
If you follow my reviews, it's no surprise to you that I am a super Christie fan, and yes, I'll admit, in my experience reading her books she can do no wrong! Every book I've read has been fantastic or at least worth reading. I love her style, her characters, and her in general. I actually have a poster of her on my wall, no word of a lie.
This book was no exception. I was caught off guard by the ending, and the adventure of getting to the ending was worth the read as well. But, in all honesty, this should not be a five star read, it should be four. Maybe less if I wasn't such a fan boy.
This past week has been really hard for me and my family. I spent more time at the hospital than at home, I slept maybe 6 hours in 3 days, and I had to work and do a job interview on top of that. It's been really stupid. And to be quite honest with ya'll, I know that I rate with my heart more often than not. Reading this book is all the kept me sane all week. You may disagree, but for me, that's worth 5 stars.
If you follow my reviews, it's no surprise to you that I am a super Christie fan, and yes, I'll admit, in my experience reading her books she can do no wrong! Every book I've read has been fantastic or at least worth reading. I love her style, her characters, and her in general. I actually have a poster of her on my wall, no word of a lie.
This book was no exception. I was caught off guard by the ending, and the adventure of getting to the ending was worth the read as well. But, in all honesty, this should not be a five star read, it should be four. Maybe less if I wasn't such a fan boy.
This past week has been really hard for me and my family. I spent more time at the hospital than at home, I slept maybe 6 hours in 3 days, and I had to work and do a job interview on top of that. It's been really stupid. And to be quite honest with ya'll, I know that I rate with my heart more often than not. Reading this book is all the kept me sane all week. You may disagree, but for me, that's worth 5 stars.
June 10, 2022
Perhaps I've read a few too many Poirot mysteries in the past couple of years, but I found this one rather lackluster. Our detective doesn't seem quite as sharp as usual and Hastings seems particularly dense. They pick at each other when you would expect them to be happy to be together again, now that Hastings has returned from the Argentine. There's much more running around, interviewing people, when Poirot usually stresses thinking through a crime and resists this much activity.
Really, the most engaging character was the terrier, Bob. His personality came through loud and clear, when everyone else was rather boring. In the matter of doggy details, Hastings finally has an advantage over Poirot, understanding dogs far better than he does humans. The dog is a playful detail, especially when Christie gives his “thoughts" in print, granting him intelligence as many dog lovers do.
As usual, Poirot gathered the suspects for a last lecture, but I hardly cared. Did Christie give me enough hints to see the solution? I'm not sure, but I find myself not worried about it. Not a book that I will read again, I think.
Really, the most engaging character was the terrier, Bob. His personality came through loud and clear, when everyone else was rather boring. In the matter of doggy details, Hastings finally has an advantage over Poirot, understanding dogs far better than he does humans. The dog is a playful detail, especially when Christie gives his “thoughts" in print, granting him intelligence as many dog lovers do.
As usual, Poirot gathered the suspects for a last lecture, but I hardly cared. Did Christie give me enough hints to see the solution? I'm not sure, but I find myself not worried about it. Not a book that I will read again, I think.
April 9, 2024
As I am a dog person, and there is a dog principally involved with this story, it is no surprise I enjoyed reading Dumb Witness. Poirot's escapades were charming, Hastings was less infuriating than usual, and Bob the dog is a treasure that I hope appears in later stories.
The story begins with a rather silly attempt on the life of Miss Emily Arundell, a rich woman with no children. She has two nieces: Bella, a very drab woman married to a greek man (apparently this is tantamount to disgrace), and Theresa, a very reckless young woman less in the family way and more in the extravagance way. She also has a nephew named Charles that is described as a total rogue and known petty criminal. Miss Arundell doesn't trust any of her relations and begins to suspect that one of them has tried to kill her, in order to expedite obtaining their inheritance. So, in the most petty way possible, she changes her will and leaves it to her live in companion. She also writes a letter to Poirot, but NEVER SENDS IT.
Months after she dies of seemingly "natural" causes, Poirot receives her letter and decides to take up the case, despite learning the woman who's hired him is already dead.
The mystery is rather straight forward: Did Emily Arundell die of natural causes, or was she murdered? And who was the culprit of the first failed attempt on her life? Though the mystery is straightforward, it is the suspects that make this story interesting. There are seven total possible murderers, all of them with motive, and all of them suspicious. I'm sad to say I picked wrong! Christie stumped me this time.
I enjoyed the setting and the story, though it does take some time to get into due to all the characters. Poirot and Hasting's banter is top notch in Dumb Witness, and Christie cracked me up on multiple occasions due to her sheer grasp of human nature and sly way of writing it. This moment in particular, was a treat:
Poirot and I behaved in the customary fashion of people being shown over houses. We stood stock-still, looking a little ill at ease, murmuring remarks such as “very nice.” “A very pleasant room.”
As was this comment of Poirot's about Theresa's ill matched love interest:
“And yet you care for him. Why, I wonder?”
“Oh, what are reasons? Why did Juliet fall for Romeo?”
“Well for one thing, with all due deference to Shakespeare, he happened to be the first man she had seen.”
I also really loved the way Christie wrote Bob the dog. She was very clever in writing dialogue for him. It made me want to reach through the pages and take the sweet dog home myself! I was very happy that this is a story in which the dog gets a happy ending!.
My advice: Read Dumb Witness for Bob the dog, stay for the mystery.
This book is a part of my goal to read all the Hercule Poirot stories.
previous reviews:
The Murder on the Links
Poirot Investigates
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
The Big Four
The Mystery of the Blue Train
Murder on the Orient Express
Murder in the Mews
The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding
Halowe'en Party
Dumb Witness
The Mystery of the Blue Jar and The Witness for the Prosecution
Death in the Clouds
The story begins with a rather silly attempt on the life of Miss Emily Arundell, a rich woman with no children. She has two nieces: Bella, a very drab woman married to a greek man (apparently this is tantamount to disgrace), and Theresa, a very reckless young woman less in the family way and more in the extravagance way. She also has a nephew named Charles that is described as a total rogue and known petty criminal. Miss Arundell doesn't trust any of her relations and begins to suspect that one of them has tried to kill her, in order to expedite obtaining their inheritance. So, in the most petty way possible, she changes her will and leaves it to her live in companion. She also writes a letter to Poirot, but NEVER SENDS IT.
Months after she dies of seemingly "natural" causes, Poirot receives her letter and decides to take up the case, despite learning the woman who's hired him is already dead.
The mystery is rather straight forward: Did Emily Arundell die of natural causes, or was she murdered? And who was the culprit of the first failed attempt on her life? Though the mystery is straightforward, it is the suspects that make this story interesting. There are seven total possible murderers, all of them with motive, and all of them suspicious. I'm sad to say I picked wrong! Christie stumped me this time.
I enjoyed the setting and the story, though it does take some time to get into due to all the characters. Poirot and Hasting's banter is top notch in Dumb Witness, and Christie cracked me up on multiple occasions due to her sheer grasp of human nature and sly way of writing it. This moment in particular, was a treat:
Poirot and I behaved in the customary fashion of people being shown over houses. We stood stock-still, looking a little ill at ease, murmuring remarks such as “very nice.” “A very pleasant room.”
As was this comment of Poirot's about Theresa's ill matched love interest:
“And yet you care for him. Why, I wonder?”
“Oh, what are reasons? Why did Juliet fall for Romeo?”
“Well for one thing, with all due deference to Shakespeare, he happened to be the first man she had seen.”
I also really loved the way Christie wrote Bob the dog. She was very clever in writing dialogue for him. It made me want to reach through the pages and take the sweet dog home myself! I was very happy that this is a story in which the dog gets a happy ending!.
My advice: Read Dumb Witness for Bob the dog, stay for the mystery.
This book is a part of my goal to read all the Hercule Poirot stories.
previous reviews:
The Murder on the Links
Poirot Investigates
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
The Big Four
The Mystery of the Blue Train
Murder on the Orient Express
Murder in the Mews
The Adventure of the Christmas Pudding
Halowe'en Party
Dumb Witness
The Mystery of the Blue Jar and The Witness for the Prosecution
Death in the Clouds
October 13, 2019
Weer een topper van Agatha Christie. Ik had het verhaal al eens gezien als aflevering van de tv serie, maar ik vond het boek beter.
Poirot krijgt een brief van juffrouw Arundell, die echter twee maanden nadat hij geschreven is, aankomt. Uit de brief blijkt dat Emily Arundell hem dringend wenst te spreken, over een zaak van groot belang.
Poirot besluit, in gezelschap van Hastings, ter plaatse eens te gaan kijken. Dan ontdekt hij dat juffrouw Arundell gestorven is kort nadat ze de brief geschreven had. En een paar weken voordat ze stierf, had ze een lelijke val gemaakt van de trap, 'zogezegd' veroorzaakt door de bal van haar hondje Bob, die de bal bovenaan de trap had laten liggen en waarover Emly gestruikeld was.
Poirot vindt dat er vele dingen zijn die niet kloppen, en vermoedt dat Ms. Arundell vermoord is.
Op het einde een onverwachte ontknoping, en in de loop van het verhaal kon iedereen wel de dader zijn.
Goede profilering van sommige personnages ook.
Poirot krijgt een brief van juffrouw Arundell, die echter twee maanden nadat hij geschreven is, aankomt. Uit de brief blijkt dat Emily Arundell hem dringend wenst te spreken, over een zaak van groot belang.
Poirot besluit, in gezelschap van Hastings, ter plaatse eens te gaan kijken. Dan ontdekt hij dat juffrouw Arundell gestorven is kort nadat ze de brief geschreven had. En een paar weken voordat ze stierf, had ze een lelijke val gemaakt van de trap, 'zogezegd' veroorzaakt door de bal van haar hondje Bob, die de bal bovenaan de trap had laten liggen en waarover Emly gestruikeld was.
Poirot vindt dat er vele dingen zijn die niet kloppen, en vermoedt dat Ms. Arundell vermoord is.
Op het einde een onverwachte ontknoping, en in de loop van het verhaal kon iedereen wel de dader zijn.
Goede profilering van sommige personnages ook.
February 7, 2020
Poirot receives a rambling letter from a woman, which tells him absolutely nothing at all. But there is one curious feature to this letter. It was written two months ago. This arouses Poirot's curiosity and he pays the woman a visit, only to discover that she died a while after writing the letter, apparently of natural causes. Murder? No, says Hastings. Yes, says Poirot. And we know which of them we would believe!
I think this may appeal to some dog lovers, but I really found the long monologues with the dog, Bob, talking, quite wearisome. It was interesting to have so many negative characters as suspects, and I was completely misled by assuming the obvious. In fact, this time, Christie completely surprised me. I even remember someone else being the murderer!!
Quite a good book, but now that I am reading the series in sequence, I'm becoming a little stricter with the rating. 4 stars instead of 5.
I think this may appeal to some dog lovers, but I really found the long monologues with the dog, Bob, talking, quite wearisome. It was interesting to have so many negative characters as suspects, and I was completely misled by assuming the obvious. In fact, this time, Christie completely surprised me. I even remember someone else being the murderer!!
Quite a good book, but now that I am reading the series in sequence, I'm becoming a little stricter with the rating. 4 stars instead of 5.
February 28, 2022
“The dog hunts rabbits. Hercule Poirot hunts murderers.”
Funny how one forgets... I read this two years ago and somehow forgot who the culprit was! Some scenes were clear, but that fact had vanished. Actually, that was excellent - I could re-experience the murder mystery :O)
Once more, we have a totally bad bunch of people, all behaving in the most calculating ways. Who looks the guiltiest? Or perhaps it should be the other way around? Fear not - Poirot and Hastings are on the case.
Another enjoyable read. I think Christie used the dog/ball/accident in another story, a short story. It was found, in her notebooks (if my memory is correct), that she he had several plots, all rather different, that started with this incident. Yep - how did that brain work ;O)
Funny how one forgets... I read this two years ago and somehow forgot who the culprit was! Some scenes were clear, but that fact had vanished. Actually, that was excellent - I could re-experience the murder mystery :O)
Once more, we have a totally bad bunch of people, all behaving in the most calculating ways. Who looks the guiltiest? Or perhaps it should be the other way around? Fear not - Poirot and Hastings are on the case.
Another enjoyable read. I think Christie used the dog/ball/accident in another story, a short story. It was found, in her notebooks (if my memory is correct), that she he had several plots, all rather different, that started with this incident. Yep - how did that brain work ;O)
March 16, 2019
A perfect Christie "closed room" mystery that for me, much like Hastings's mind and his own deliberations, twisted and turned around various people.
Written in 1937 it has that mix of middle class England, Victorian aunts and younger family members as well as love, money and yes of course murder.
I also enjoyed Christie's subtle humour both with and at Poirot's expense, especially from an elderly lady midway through the book.
A 4-star read from the "Queen of Crime".
Written in 1937 it has that mix of middle class England, Victorian aunts and younger family members as well as love, money and yes of course murder.
I also enjoyed Christie's subtle humour both with and at Poirot's expense, especially from an elderly lady midway through the book.
A 4-star read from the "Queen of Crime".
January 6, 2022
Agatha Christie is always a good idea!
I enjoyed thoroughly the reading of the story but felt disappointed that the person that got on my nerves wasn't the murderer! 🤣
You can't avoid feeling like Hastings while searching for the guilty individual and suspect everyone but by a subtle hint managed to figure out who was behind the murder even though not at the very beginning!
Another great addition to the Hercule Poirot series!
I enjoyed thoroughly the reading of the story but felt disappointed that the person that got on my nerves wasn't the murderer! 🤣
You can't avoid feeling like Hastings while searching for the guilty individual and suspect everyone but by a subtle hint managed to figure out who was behind the murder even though not at the very beginning!
Another great addition to the Hercule Poirot series!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,946 reviews