(Contains spoilers)
I bought a Poirot story for my plane ride and was baffled when I realized it had not been written by Agatha Christie herself. Her name was written in her signature hand writing in big gold letters on the cover, but the actual author’s name was a bit lower on the page in a simple font: Sophie Hannah.
I have mixed feelings about borrowing iconic characters. As a fan, I want more, but can an author imitate another truthfully? Was Sophie Hannah up to the job? Is the book worth the read?
The answer is yes, but…
In the Mystery of Three Quarters, four unrelated strangers receive a letter accusing them of the murder of Barnabas Pandy, signed Hercule Poirot. Allegedly deceased in his bath of natural causes, Poirot tries to detangle the hidden link between the four people and the murder.
Is the book entertaining to read?
Yes. It’s well paced and I was hooked the whole plot. Secondly, I could not pinpoint any potentially murderer and this is key to a successful crime book. Not everyone can throw the reader off. Thirdly, I enjoyed the characters. Hastings set aside, I usually don’t like the inspectors Christie tags along Poirot in each story, but Catchpool did the job. Unfortunately, the change of narrator is a bit annoying for the reader.
Was the author up to the job?
The book was entertaining and I found Poirot quite in character (I just finished reading Peril at End House where Poirot was truly out of his mind!). Hannah’s Poirot was loyal to Christie’s, I did not spot any differences and I enjoyed seeing a different side of him: setting a deadline to work out a murder faster? For fun?
Sadly, I could still very much feel that it was not an original Christie story (I know it’s not the purpose of the book but still). I felt the influence of modern themes in the plot that I don’t think Christie would have addressed. Call me chronically online but I’d say this book looked like it had seen an iPhone (an expression used online to describe something too modern looking). It reminded me of Bridgerton season 3 were suddenly the characters have highlighter and gel manicure.
What made me feel that way was the story around Ivy’s eating habits and her mother allegedly wanting her to be skinny. I don’t think characters in Christie’s story would speak that way. It might be a stretch but I felt that Hugo Dockerill being quite neurodivergent was pushed in a way closer to raising awareness rather than portraying a character.
«‘I wished I understood, that’s all: what it must feel like to be you, the way you think and… carry on. I can’t imagine it. I can’t imagine needing to make three trips to post a letter because, on the first two trips, you forget to take the letter with you.’»
The third unexpected topic regarded Sylvia Rule’s abortion clinic and Timothy calling it a «barbaric way to get rid of him». I felt uncomfortable about that poor child being announced he was meant to be aborted during Poirot’s traditional solving speech. Serious topics are rarely obnoxious in Christie’s story, they are often brought up subtly in a posh English way, or in a Ariadne Oliver way (Poirot’s chaotic single sassy feminist author friend, who is actually inspired from Christie herself).
‘I should also mention, Sir, that you have a visitor waiting to see you. […]
‘A visitor?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘What is his name? Is it Eustace?’
‘No sir. It’s a Mr John McCrodden.’
‘Ah! That is a relief. No Eustace.’
Missed opportunities?
My favourite plot twist was when Poirot used the fake accident of Emerald Mason to stir empathy and remorse in McCrodden, only to illustrate what Barnabas Pandy might have thought of Annabel, explaining along the forgiveness to Vincent Lomb. That was truly brilliantly thought.
How the character of Annabel was thought was very clever and ingenious: her sacrifices, guilt, tragedy and how it echoed to Vincent Lomb. It was very well thought and totally in character to have her save her dog first.
On another note, I was disappointed that Barnabas Pandy had actually not been murdered, especially after so much emphasis on that bath oil he was soaking in (could have been the perfect weapon!). I didn’t get why Kingsbury got killed, and I don’t think the motive is strong enough that Lenore would have wanted her sister dead or imprisoned.
It also did not make sense that Lenore loved a man she had an affair with for three days. It reminded me how Rose Dawson in Titanic let her husband work hard and lived simply when she had a diamond the whole time, only to die and reunite with her 3-days long fling she had when she was 20. Like Ivy said «Poor Daddy». I knew John McCrodden had loved a woman but I could not pinpoint if it was Annabel who always seemed sad and had refused to take husband, or Ivy who had, according to her mother, no wedding prospects due to her scars. I also wondered if Peter Vondt, Pandy’s lawyer, had maybe killed him to avenge Annabel who he was feeling empathy towards, only for him to be irrelevant. As irrelevant as Mrs. Dockerill’s friendship with Freddie.
Finally, I’m dying to know if Fee got justice for her stolen cake recipe?! What was the point of that unsolved side plot?
I did enjoy the book and might read a Sophie Hannah’s Poirot again. I have her book Silent Night somewhere on my shelf.
Chapter 26
Chapter 26 
Leave a comment