Lord Edgware Dies (Poirot)

Product Information

More serious is one of the clues to the crime--once you've seen the film and read the book, you'll know which one I mean. In the book, it could point to either of two suspects and, if you stretch a bit, a third. In the film, however, the clue has been altered so that it only implicates one suspect.

I know she created Hastings as a foil for the too-clever Poirot to explain himself to, but it's about this time we begin to see the poor chap sent off to the Argentine to be married more often. I don't recall which was his final appearance (before Curtain), but I get the feeling he was for the chop as he bumbles and mumbles his way through one of Poirot's more annoying-to-him puzzles. At every step, poor old Belgian, he is positive he knows who did what to whom. Then they die! He is up and down the ladder of clues. He was right, wasn't he, every step of his reasoning? And yes, it is really necessary to have Hastings to narrate. Anything else would be unbearably precious. While Jane Wilkinson is at a dinner party that she only left for a few minutes to take a phone call. Lord Edgware is murdered. There are a lot of suspects, his daughter from his first marriage disliked him. His penniless nephew stands to inherit the title. Do you not know, my friend, that each one of us is a dark mystery, a maze of conflicting passions and desires and aptitudes? Mais oui, c’est vrai. One makes one’s little judgments — but nine times out of ten one is wrong.” Kudos, Dame Christie, for crafting so many wonderful stories. I am addicted and reader to push onwards.Supper at the Savoy! Hercule Poirot, the famous little detective, was enjoying a pleasant little supper party there as the guest of Lady Edgware, formerly Jane Wilkinson, a beautiful young American actress. During the conversation Lady Edgware speaks of the desirability of getting rid of her husband. Lord Edgware, since he refuses to divorce her, and she wants to marry the Duke of Merton. M. Poirot jocularly replies that getting rid of husbands is not his speciality. Within twenty-four hours, however, Lord Edgware dies. This amazing story once more reveals Agatha Christie as the perfect teller of Detective stories. It will be difficult indeed to lay down the book until one learns the true solution of the mystery." Carlotta Adams - An American impersonator conducting a tour in London and Paris. Hired to impersonate Edgware's wife by an unknown employer. Despite these disagreements, Thompson often asked Agatha how the book was progressing. In fact the Thompson couple were uniquely honoured, because Agatha Christie read the manuscript of the book aloud to them, and this was something that she only ever usually did for her family. Agatha Christie and Reginald Campbell Thompson clearly regained their mutual respect, because not only did she dedicate the novel to the Thompson couple, but a skeleton found on the dig was named “Lord Edgware”!

In Chapter 7, Chief Inspector Japp mentions the Elizabeth Canning case which was a real kidnapping case occurred in London in 1753. Such case created a lot of sensation in its time due to the inconsistencies of the victim's declarations and the alibis of the perpetrators. Japp mentions this case due to the particular fact that the suspect was seen at two places at the same time. In the novel Lady Edgware was seen at a dinner party at the time that she was also seen visiting the victim; whereas in the Canning case the suspect, Mary Squires, was seen traveling during the time that Elizabeth Canning said she had her imprisoned. Lord Edgware is a rude and ill-tempered man who nobody likes. Ronald Marsh even proposes a toast to the murderer for improving their lives. Lord Edgware Dies is a 1934 British mystery film directed by Henry Edwards and starring Austin Trevor, Jane Carr, and Richard Cooper. The film was based on the 1933 Agatha Christie novel Lord Edgware Dies.Subverted with Jane Wilkinson, who in the book is described as a blatantly selfish individual who shamelessly brags about wanting to kill her husband so that she can marry another man, and refuses to take the hint when Poirot tries to refuse her commission to "get rid" of her husband. In this adaptation, she is initially portrayed as a sympathetic victim who is forced to silently endure her husband's cruelty, and her asking for Poirot's help comes across more like a desperate plea than a callous demand. But all this is revealed to be an act after she is exposed as the killer, and her deliberate gloating of her final speech comes across as meaner-spirited than the childish amorality she exhibited in her final letter to Poirot in the original book. In every review about a book written by Agatha Christie I find another thing that I like about her books as for example that the number of the victims in every book isn't set as in a series I read some time ago and I knew beforehand how many victims there would be.

In chapter 19, the Duchess of Merton tells Poirot that Lady Yardly had told her about him. Lady Yardly had previously appeared in the short story, "The Adventure of the Western Star" from the Poirot Investigates collection. My only complained is that while following the unraveling of the mystery I grew fond of some characters and felt disappointed when in the end there was no information given as to their whereabouts. As I said before, it is a well executed point. Even though by the mid of the story, the reader can guess the murderer, Christie with her usual twists and turns keeps of keeping the reader in doubt as to whether the guess is correct. Also Christie had the ability to create plots that are thematically similar yet different in their execution. Only an exceptionally gifted writer can do that.So why the two titles? It came as a surprise to me, to learn that this novel by an English author was originally published in the USA. It was entitled “Thirteen for Dinner”, and serialised in six monthly parts, between March and August 1933, in “The American Magazine”. Just a month later, in September 1933, it was published in the UK as Lord Edgware Dies, and we know it better now under that later title. But I feel there should be a warning to Agatha Christie enthusiasts, who may believe that they have stumbled on a lesser known work by the Great Dame: they are the same novel. And interestingly, both titles do actually function as a kind of spoiler, although it is not really possible to tell until the conclusion is known.