Beautiful Caroline Crale was convicted of poisoning her husband, but just like the nursery rhyme, there were five other "little pigs" who could have done it: Philip Blake (the stockbroker), who went to market; Meredith Blake (the amateur herbalist), who stayed at home; Elsa Greer (the three-time divorcee), who had her roast beef; Cecilia Williams (the devoted governess), who had none; and Angela Warren (the disfigured sister), who cried all the way home.
Sixteen years later, Caroline's daughter is determined to prove her mother's innocence, and Poirot just can't get that nursery rhyme out of his mind.
This title was previously published as Murder in Retrospect.
©1942 Agatha Christie Limited (P)2001 HarperCollins Publishers
Five Little Pigs ranks among some of the best audiobooks I've listened to.
The story was very suspenceful with a great twist at the end.
Mr. Fraser always does a good job with characterizations, listening to him read a book is like listening to an old time radio show, the book comes to life.
The ending was emotionally satisfying.
One of the best of the Piroit mysteries, Christie really grew as a writer as she developed the character. Piroit developed from a Sherlock Holmes knock off to a detective with a distinctive personality who ended up being quite unique in the annals of detective fiction.
Nice twist in this one, and I was glad to find one I had not previously read. Thank you, audible!
This was a very well-told, engrossing mystery that I thought I had figured out several times - enough said about that!
I highly recommend this book on every level - great characters, action, suspense and a wonderful feel for the period of summer houses, England, and the great performance by Hercule Poirot himself. The way he solved this mystery was seemingly simple (which is why I thought I had solved it) but was clever because he had each character involved in the murder write a summary of what happened - 16 years later. And it takes little grey cells to unravel the truth.
Hugh Fraser is so consistently good I am in awe of his talent - his reading of the characters makes you forget you're not there listening to them speak.
Don't miss it.
Love books! Classics and lighter fiction, mysteries (not too violent please :-). And selective non-fiction--whatever takes my fancy.
Hugh Fraser (who played Hastings, the sidekick of Hercules Poirot on the well-loved tv series) narrates this book, as he has done with several other Christie books.
He did the best he could with this book I think. While I doubt there are actually any "bad" mysteries by Agatha, I would not place this among her best works. It is tedious, and Poirot goes back and forth among the possible candidates for the murderer just interviewing them.
There is very little action otherwise, and I found myself actually becoming a little bored (almost a first for anything by AC). Don't know whether a different narrator might have spiced it up a bit--Fraser wasn't terribly animated in his reading--though perfectly ok in other respects.
I'd say, if you love Agatha Christie, this should be on your listening/reading list so you can complete the works. It is not bad--it just is not up to the usual quality of her writing.
I'm open to any book as long as it is true to itself.
This is one of my favourites because I really feel for some of these characters. More than any of her books I find this one emotional because I feel like so many lives were ruined by this murder and like there was a genuine villain. I found this a very satisfying book. The narration as always is excellent.
While I like the concept attempted here - the same event told over a decade later by the 5 participants in the event - the execution of it in a novel just didn't really inspire mental or emotional involvement. Yes, it was boring.
The "Rashomon" technique of having the participants tell different versions of the same death (and the events before and after) would be fine, except in a book it requires long passive statements......in this case, for instance, Poirot reads letters from the witnesses of their recollections. In a visual medium like a book or TV show, we see the stories in flashbacks, but they are still seen as action. In a textual medium like a novel, it is written in the past tense and often read by a third party (without personal flourishes in word choice and tone) - and that's a lot more boring and flat.
I think this is the first Agatha Christie novel that I wouldn't recommend - except for the excellent narration by Hugh Fraser, that makes it acceptable.
I really think that Poirot turns me off every single time. I love Agatha's books that don't revolve around detectives. But even Miss Marple is better than Poirot.
Oh of course! As I said, I love her detective-less books. I just haven't found a Poirot book that leaves me feeling satisfied.
Listening to Fraser kept my attention more than the actual story. I probably wouldn't have finished this book if I had been reading it myself.
The quality of the writing was, as always, spectacular. The twists and turns of the mystery are classic Christie. But the story itself is just boring. It's a lot of he-said, she-said and talking and thinking.
I would recommend any Agatha Christie.
It's an unusual story because it's the reconstruction of a case many years after it happened.
I like Hugh Fraser, but I have to say that his Poirot here wasn't that much distinguishable from the other characters.
They thought the past wouldn't come back. They were wrong.
Report Inappropriate Content