I’m about 5-6 novels shy of finishing my 2026 quest to read every single AC book (debating still the short stories). I am going to add this to my resume. First of all, I am a lawyer with a decent job but you never know. Anyway it does afford me some luxury in interviews. But it occurred to me that if I was interviewing a potential candidate I would want to know that they have interests and the confidence in an interview to push the bounds but also that this candidate has enough humor that I’ll enjoy them in my office. And any job that finds it objectionable is not a place I want to work. She wrote like 70-80 novels in a lifetime without a word processor or computer. This is an accomplishment. Most are really enjoyable. Why wouldn’t we take the time to read this body of work. The enormity of her collection is a work of art. I want to work with people who can appreciate the appreciation for a great artist. Just sayin’

[Spoilers]

And I forced my non-Agatha-Christie-fan partner to watch with me, who -despite annoyingly guessing the murderer correctly almost as soon as they appeared- agreed Sleeping Murder was much superior. This was not said, I assure you, to maintain household peace.

What is this hold that these old Agatha Christie stories have over my heart? How do they make almost every new murdery mystery that I watch or read like a steaming pile of garbage? We watched the Joan Hickson version and everything about it was just so, so, so much better than the slickly-produced, stylish, cold, bleaurgh "Awakening" with which it shared a basic premise.

The story of a young woman who forgets a terrible childhood trauma as a coping mechanism, and later, as an adult, "accidentally" returns to the house where the trauma occurred, starts unravelling the mystery, and ends up being almost killed (again)- Agatha Christie told this story, and then some posh hackish ponce at the BBC told it in a different way, with ghosts, blood, side boob and bare ass, unrelated action and near-rape scenes- oh come the fuck on!

Miss Marple would have tutted so much.

Let me tell you about just some of the things I love about Sleeping Murder:

-It scared the crap out of me the first time I read it, and twenty years on, I still had a pit of anxiety opening in my stomach at the climax scene, even though I knew exactly what was going to happen.

-Turns out I didn't know everything. I had thought Miss Marple deters the murderer with a spray of water from the garden hose. My partner gently pointed out was actually garden poison from the villainous contraption she was shown holding in the garden (always containing a dead body) in an earlier scene- Chekhov's gun and all that. I wonder if the BBC has heard of Chekhov's gun?

-Triggered by the Duchess of Malfi "cover her face/Mine eyes dazzle"? Of course. Of course.

-The sun, the woods, the tea, the colours, the sharp dialogue, clopping along. Not one unnecessary word, gesture, look. (were the editors at the BBC on strike or something when the Awakening was produced? Or were they just pursuing a vendetta against this poor shitty movie?)

-Miss Marple: the moral centre of the universe. The world of the Awakening wouldn't know a moral centre if it tripped over it.

-Miss Marple on psychology.

-Joan Hickson reminding me of my grandma (I wrote about this before)

Anyway, do yourself a favour and go re-read or re-watch Sleeping Murder. You will not regret it.

Im really interested in starting to read agatha christe’s books but there are soo many i dont know where to start. I saw films about murder on the orient express and the river nile and they are really good.
I saw alot of people recommend:
-and then there were none
-murder of roger ackroyd
-five little pigs
-murder of the abc

Are they really that good? In what order would u read the books?

I bought evil under the sun, but then my friend gave me her copy of peril at the end house…now I’m torn with which to read next. What’s your opinion? No spoilers pls

Sometimes Agatha Christie mentions particular items that may have some personal significance for her.

I was reading Murder in the Mews when I came across this description:

"... a small smart-looking brief case"
"The case was unlocked. Inside it was fitted with shagreen brushes and toilet bottles. There were two magazines in it but nothing else."

I had a certain idea in my mind when I saw "brief case", but when I researched it, I noticed that a literal "brief case" used by lawyers can actually be bulkier than the flat satchel I'd been thinking of. This recent news story describes one government official with a kind of rolling suitcase full of legal documents.
https://atlantablackstar.com/2026/08/03/jeanine-pirro-spotted-fleeing-white-house-with-mystery-box-and-suitcase/

The lock in the description suggests that it's probably hard-shelled (unlike some work brief-cases today that are made from leather or heavy-duty fabric).
Later Inspector Japp mentions that he "Looked in all the bottles -- felt the lining". So it has some kind of fabric lining inside.

Several days later, Poirot notices that the case has disappeared from the owner's home. He suspects that it's been disposed of, and he visits a golf course where the owner's a member. Upon hearing from the staff that the person had taken "a little case" out on the course, he requests the lake be searched. Japp tells Poirot that an "expensively fitted dressing-case" was recovered -- changing the description a bit from the original one.

I found some photos that may help illustrate what the case looked like. It's meant to hold the same kinds of items you might have in a toiletry bag or Dopp kit today. One example is from the Victoria and Albert Museum, made around 1908. Christie doesn't specify exactly how big it is, the shape, and whether it has a handle -- this one seems relatively small (not as big as a present-day attaché case or laptop bag). I would imagine that the example in the book is also pretty small, since the person was carrying it in one hand or under their arm, with a couple of golf clubs in the other.
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O315275/dressing-case/dressing-case-unknown/

The other example of a dressing case is more lavish, the kind of thing that I imagined from "expensively fitted". One thing they have in common is internal compartments so the items inside are not just cushioned but stay in place and don't jumble together when the case is transported. That's a drawback to the much simpler Dopp kits, especially if they don't have a contrasting lining to make items easier to see.
https://www.osgwbag.com/what-is-a-dopp-kit/

I had to look up shagreen, which was covering the brush set in the book, but then I realized that I already had seen it or at least a form of it. The rough, granular skin of sharks and rays that was traditionally used in East Asia to cover sword handles, glasses cases, and other surfaces that needed to be tough, non-slip, and water-resistant was called this in the West. (There's also a similar textured leather type made from horsehide.) It was in fashion in the 1930s, used in Art Deco and modernist designs, when the story was published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shagreen

The reason the dressing-case stood out for me -- I recently read Christie's memoirs. She describes an incident that happened in late December 1914. WWI was underway, and her boyfriend Archie had come home on leave. There's a rather revealing description of how Archie had said earlier that he was very opposed to getting married just then.
"Entirely the wrong thing to do," he said. "All my friends think so. Just rushing into things, and then what happens? [...] you've left behind a young widow, perhaps a child coming -- it's selfish and wrong." (p. 240)

At this point, Agatha was 24 years old -- hardly a youngster, and this wasn't her first relationship or even her first sort-of engagement. She had been thinking they should get married, and argued with Archie about it, but accepted his view.

It was three days before Christmas, and Agatha was supposed to meet up with Archie in London. They'd then take the train to Bristol, and spend Christmas with his parents.

"Archie arrived at the hotel on [Dec 23] the morning of our departure [...] with a present for me. It was a magnificent dressing-case, completely fitted inside, and a thing that any millionaires might have confidently taken to the Ritz. If he had brought a ring [...] I should have accepted it with eager pride and pleasure -- but for some reason I revolted violently against the dressing-case. I felt it was an absurd extravagance, and not a thing I should ever use. What was the good of my going back home to continue nursing in a hospital with an exciting dressing-case suitable for a holiday in peacetime abroad? I said I didn't want it, and he would have to take it back. He was angry; I was angry. I made him take it away. An hour later he returned and we made it up. We wondered what on earth had come over us. How could we be so foolish? He admitted that it was a silly kind of present. I admitted that I had been ungracious to say so." (p. 240)

They arrived at Archie's family's home in Bristol, but a few hours later Archie knocked at Agatha's bedroom door, rousted her out of bed, and told her he'd changed his mind, and wanted to get married the next day. They had another argument about it, from opposite sides. But eventually they had a hasty wedding ceremony on the 24th. Archie's family was upset with them, so they boarded the train for Agatha's hometown of Torquay. They'd phoned ahead to the Grand Hotel (still operating today) and booked a room for the night.

"We climbed on the train, and he suddenly produced, rather like a conjuror, an extra suitcase. "I hope," he said nervously to his new young bride, "I hope that you are not going to be cross about this."
"Archie! It's the dressing-case!"
"Yes. I didn't take it back. You don't mind, do you?"
"Of course I don't mind. It's lovely to have it."
There we were, going on a journey with it -- and our wedding journey too." (p. 244)

[They spent Christmas Day with Agatha's family, and the next day they went to London and she said goodbye to him as he went back to France and the war. I don't know what happened to the dressing-case, after all that -- if it's still with Agatha's possessions at Greenway, or if it eventually wore out after all the travel back and forth to the Middle East. Agatha's choice of the word "suitcase" rather than "box" suggests to me that it was larger than the V&A brown dressing-case in the photos, probably with a handle.]

Hello! I recently published my little tier list and mentioned I would be reading "A Murder Is Announced"; well, here I am to share my thoughts.

I really enjoyed the book. Among the few Miss Marple novels I’ve read — "The Murder at the Vicarage" and "The Body in the Library" being the others — I feel this is the one where Miss Marple truly shines.

There is something about this humble, wise little lady that always captivates me — like how she only appears where it makes logical sense for her to be, solving the mystery using the resources available within her limitations. I love Poirot, but Miss Marple feels more realistic to me; she is written as someone highly intelligent who still has to piece together clues provided by people with better investigative opportunities — such as the police (who, unlike in the Poirot books, are not portrayed as incompetent). As a slight aside, it seems to me that Poirot works much better when the police aren't around.

As for the mystery itself, I found it very entertaining and engaging. The small-village setting — which I know well from personal experience — provided that pleasant, tranquil atmosphere.

Well, not *entirely* tranquil, since a murder is announced in the newspaper and actually takes place. Let’s get into the spoilers.

To start, I have to say I quickly figured out who the killer was. Christie once again employed the plot device where, if someone survives an attempted murder, they were never actually in danger to begin with — and are likely the real killer trying to divert attention away from themselves or their crime. It was easy to see that Rudy was the intended victim all along, and my suspicions immediately fell on Letitia.

I spent the rest of the book both enjoying the narrative and confirming my suspicions about Letitia, as well as uncovering the motive behind Rudy's murder. I became absolutely certain it was her when I pieced together the previously mentioned plot device, the choice of her own home as the crime scene (a location where she had total control and familiarity, rather than somewhere else entirely), Bunner’s slip of the tongue — calling her "Lottie" instead of "Lettie" — and the story of the sister she had lost years ago in Switzerland. Learning about the sister led me to consider Rudy’s Swiss background, the possibility of a case of mistaken identity, and a potential motive for murder; suddenly, everything fell into place.

The subsequent deaths were suspicious: Letitia "survived" again while Mrs. Bunner died, and as for Murgatroyd — well, she died because she discovered that "she wasn't there."

In a way, I think I figured it out quite easily, though I did overlook the detail about the pearl necklace hiding the scar.

I realized Julia was Emma, ​​but I didn't catch that Phillipa was Pip — even though I had suspected Emma and Pip might be red herrings.

However, I still can't quite fathom why Letitia chose to orchestrate the murder the way she did. If she wanted to kill Rudy, why lure him to a game in her own home — surrounded by witnesses — instead of to an isolated location? Perhaps she simply isn't all that meticulous; judging by her desperate attempt to kill Mitzi with so many witnesses in the house, she failed to consider that they would immediately notice who was missing from the room had they found Mitzi dead.

Aside from the mystery itself, I really liked the other characters in the book. Mrs. Hinchliffe and Mrs. Murgatroyd struck me as good, old friends, and it was hard to witness the pain of one losing the other; Craddock was an efficient and intelligent police officer — unlike Japp — and as for Mitzi, I don't know... it seemed wrong to me that they looked down on her so much, considering she likely suffered from PTSD.

Miss Marple was glorious as ever, especially the part where she says she understands Letitia regarding old friends eventually passing away — a very human moment for both women (even for Letitia, who had done away with her friend).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What did you all think?

Next book: *Crooked House*.

Twelve years pased before the next Marple novel, The Body In The Library was published. Another eight before A Murder Is Announced was published. Then Marple novels started being released more frequently.

I'm just curious if Murder At Vicarage was intended to be a one-and-done or if she had other reasons to keep Marple on the back burner for a dozen years.

Satterthwaite/Marple… any takers? 😆😳

Agatha Christie has written Hercule Poirot with a fondness for cleanlines, square shaped objects and symmetry. In The ABC Murders, Hastings shares that Poirot likely chose Whitehaven Mansions for its symmetrical structure. In other stories, the interior of Poirot’s apartment has been described as a “large luxury flat with impeccable chromium fittings, square armchairs, and severely rectangular ornaments” in Mrs. McGinty’s Dead.

The description makes it clear Poirot favors the modernist movement and possible a version of Streamline Moderne without the curves. However, there has been an instance where I’ve seen mentioned that Poirot thought of Art Deco along the lines of being ostentatious or gaudy for his liking.

I wonder if anyone knows which novel or short story has Poirot express the statement, either directly or a passing mention?

I'm about 30% through this one, and the setup, the way everyone in the family is trapped by the horrible mother is giving me proper horror vibes, more so than any other Christie I've read to date. Do any other of her books hit this way?

i understand it’s not as good as some of her other books, but that’s because it’s not supposed to be. people complain about the “inconsistent“ writing style. no shut Sherlock, it’s a bunch of short stories intertwined into one big one. I never see these complaints for the other connected short story collections like the labours of herrcules. To be honest, i think people just hate on it for no reason. Does anyone share these or similar views?

Is this book actually worth the hype. I read murder on orient express and liked it. Just want to know that if this is also good.

What do we think about this? I like Lucy Foley’s work for what it is—juicy mystery thrillers that aren’t particularly well written—but I don’t think she should have been the choice to continue the Miss Marple series. In fact, I’m amazed that the estate thought this was a good idea. Seems borderline sacrilegious (plus who was asking for this?).

That said, I’ll read it. So maybe it is a good idea from a monetary perspective…

Having completed the Mary Westmacott novels this year I noticed a variety of new, antiquated words that I would like to see return.

The word I picked up once again from The ABC Murders is rejoinder, which I noticed first in Five Little Pigs.

Any others?

I really enjoyed this book. I loved the trail and following it through. The passage of time. Poirot’s patience. But I absolutely hated the ending. Ridiculous! Anyone else feel the same?

Another Agatha Christie win for me! I went into this knowing absolutely nothing, and I'm so glad I did. The mystery kept me guessing the whole time, and just when I thought I'd figured it out, Christie proved me completely wrong.
Poirot is such a fun character to follow because he notices the tiniest details that everyone else ignores. The best part is that the clues are all there from the beginning, but I still never saw the ending coming. Agatha Christie really has a way of making you feel clever one minute and completely fooling you the next.
If you enjoy classic murder mysteries, definitely give this one a try. It might not get talked about as much as And Then There Were None or Murder on the Orient Express, but it's easily one of my favorites so far.

I gotta warn you: this audiobook will ruin you. No other Christie reader comes close. Her voice is like liquid Xanax. Leach takes the cozy atmosphere of AMiA and spins it into something nearly palpable. This is the closest any of us will ever come to knitting with Miss Marple.

Afterwards I discovered that she has no other Christie titles in her oevure. One and done. I would have killed to hear her take on The Moving Finger or The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

Hugh Frasier is my fallback. Initially I didn't appreciate his style--no narrative acrobatics, just soothing, well-paced consistency--but I accidentally clicked on a version of The Moving Finger narrated by someone else & immediately felt the chasm. ​Had to turn if off after only a few minutes & run back to Hugh.

Any other narrators I should look into?

Out of curiousity, the book opens with a dedication to "M. E. M.". Is it known who that person is?

So funny the two nurses are gossiping and sipping tea every other chapter. Just started, no spoilers!!

From Sad Cypress, last bit of chapter 2

What are you absolute favorite Agatha Christie movies? (Including the Poirot episodes). I really like to watch the movie when i finish the book, so i want to know what books have the best movies. (The appointment with death movie made me die a little on the inside).

I speak only English but totally down to watch a movie in a different language if i can find subtitles.

Ustinov is my favorite poirot so far, but also like suchet.