This was followed by the grisly discovery of two more bodies, a husband and wife, shot dead. But who had killed whom? Was it a suicide pact? A crime of passion? Or cold-blooded murder?
Poirot delves back into a crime committed 15 years earlier and discovers that, when there is a distinct lack of physical evidence, it's just as well that "old sins leave long shadows".
©1972 Agatha Christie Limited, a Chorion Company. All rights reserved; (P)2003 HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, London UK
"The acknowledged queen of detective fiction." (The Observer)
"Splendid...she tells us all we want to know and nothing that is irrelevant." (The Times)
Classic Christie mystery
It might be because I've read so many of Christie's mysteries before but I found this story slightly predictable.
Awesome story, first class narration, characters beautifully described and performed. Love High Fraser- the very finest Agatha Christie narrator.
I listened with my husband and 12 year old son (and dog- story has dog interest too) we all were held by the story until the exciting end!
I enjoyed listening to this typical Christie plot with twists and turns galore. It focuses quite a bit on Ariadne Oliver before Poirot gets involved but is well read by Hugh Frazer
"Elephant's can remember "
At the age of 11 Ceila was sent to Switzerland, to go school, she's then told her parents have been found dead, a pistol between them, everyone believes that it's suicide pack, until she decides to get married, and her mother in law starts poking around but why????????
"Sadly predictable, and another tiresome cold case"
Having listened to the entire Poirot series of Christie books, I can't help but think that as she got older, her writing capabilities faltered a little. Why do I think this?:
1. The book is shorter than usual, almost like she ran out of steam.
2. She has a tendency to repeat herself with what the characters say within a single conversation.
3. The pace of the book is painfully slow.
4. Worst of all: I accurately guessed the correct solution about an hour and a half in, which is the cardinal sin for detective novels.
If it gets to the point where you are frustrated at the supposedly genius detective for being so stupid for not seeing the obvious solution, then something has gone wrong with the writing. In previous Christie books I am always pleasantly surprised and astounded at the cunning way she essentially double bluffs the reader by making a character seem like the murderer, but dropping hints about another person that the discerning reader picks up, only to find that even those hints are a red herring, but in this book it was all too obvious and therefore quite boring.
In addition to this I find her cold case stories such as this carry a certain lack of excitement.
Despite this, Hugh Fraser is of course magnificent, and in my opinion by far the best reader of these books.
"agatha christie 5th best work and the worlds 5th!!"
yes by a bit
mis Oliver because she is bait smart
grate love it
the suicide plan
"Avoid the later Christie novels"
I've really enjoyed Hugh Fraser's other readings of Christie's novels, and, whilst Fraser is as good as ever, sadly Christie herself just isn't up to scratch here.
First published in the 1970s, Elephants Can Remember doesn't come close to the Poirot novels of forty years before. I couldn't even listen to it all the way through, it was so dull. Best avoided I think, and better to try another Poirot story instead.
Report Inappropriate Content