Scan barcode
A review by julan1027
The Monogram Murders by Agatha Christie, Sophie Hannah
3.0
Three bodies are found at the Bloxham hotel. Each body has been arranged identically on the floor and in to each mouth identical monogramed cufflinks have been inserted. When Hercule Poirot learns of this unusual case from his friend Catchpool of Scotland Yard, he becomes concerned that it may be related to an unsettling meeting he had with a young woman in a coffee shop earlier that evening. As the two investigate the case, they find that it may have its roots in a village tragedy that took place many years earlier.
I adore Agatha Christie and was excited that an author had finally been found to try to bring the world a new Hercule Poirot mystery. In the past I've been thrilled with Sebastian Faulks taking on Wodehouse and Robert Goldsborough taking on Stout. Christie's style may be far more difficult to replicate because I don't feel that Hannah quite captured it.
Poirot's speech pattern was on point; it felt as if it had the correct rhythm. Also, Hannah touched on many of his characteristic traits - orderliness, the eyes that turn more green when he has an idea, his refusal to reveal all to his confused associates, and obviously his use of his little grey cells. However, where was his lovely egg shaped head, or his pride in his mustache? What was he doing in a lavender guest house that felt as if it would be filled with all of the clutter and frilliness that he so despises? Also, a coffee house seems unlikely for his fussy palate although the cuisine was said to be exceptional, so perhaps I can accept that.
I noticed at the beginning of the book that the writing lacked some of the panache and precision of Christie. It felt too casual and not as grammatically proper. To the author's credit, it either improved as I read or I became so caught up in the story that I no longer cared.
The biggest issue I had was Catchpool. Christie's detectives were always perfectly removed from emotional entanglements in the mysteries, but Catchpool had these bizarre flashbacks and issues with death that felt distinctly non-Christie. Of course, Hastings developed crushes on women and let his affection for them get in the way of the case, but it never felt as creepy as Catchpool's issues. Hastings could behave foolishly, but Catchpool had some deeply rooted psychological things going on that were totally out of place in a Christie-style book. Obviously killers often had psychological issues, but not the detectives. This bothered me a great deal and bothered me from the beginning of the book until the end of the book. One of the great joys of Christie books is that the focus is on the mystery not on the emotional dramas of the detectives. While appreciating the idiosyncrasies of Poirot, Hastings, Japp, Marple, or even Battle, one never had to be bogged down in their pasts, their childhood traumas, or their emotional scars. I can't help but think Christie in 1929 would have expected Catchpool to have a stiff upper lip and simply get over his past and on with the job. Plus, if he had issues with death, why was Catchpool at Scotland Yard? Why was he afraid to ask questions of surly villagers? He was after all a police officer... But the flash-backs - annoying. Did Hannah think it would improve Christie to bring in more psychological baggage because Christie doesn't need improvements or modern updates.
The mystery had an adequate number of clues and red-herrings. It was complex, but could be worked out by the reader based on the information provided. There wasn't really a huge pool of suspects so a good deal of time was devoted to figuring out why and how rather than by whom. The closing scenes were a drawn out and rather convoluted at times, but all the loose ends were wrapped up nicely.
It wasn't an Agatha Christie since nobody can come close. But if I thought of it as a mystery rather than a Christie, it was a decent enough read.
I adore Agatha Christie and was excited that an author had finally been found to try to bring the world a new Hercule Poirot mystery. In the past I've been thrilled with Sebastian Faulks taking on Wodehouse and Robert Goldsborough taking on Stout. Christie's style may be far more difficult to replicate because I don't feel that Hannah quite captured it.
Poirot's speech pattern was on point; it felt as if it had the correct rhythm. Also, Hannah touched on many of his characteristic traits - orderliness, the eyes that turn more green when he has an idea, his refusal to reveal all to his confused associates, and obviously his use of his little grey cells. However, where was his lovely egg shaped head, or his pride in his mustache? What was he doing in a lavender guest house that felt as if it would be filled with all of the clutter and frilliness that he so despises? Also, a coffee house seems unlikely for his fussy palate although the cuisine was said to be exceptional, so perhaps I can accept that.
I noticed at the beginning of the book that the writing lacked some of the panache and precision of Christie. It felt too casual and not as grammatically proper. To the author's credit, it either improved as I read or I became so caught up in the story that I no longer cared.
The biggest issue I had was Catchpool. Christie's detectives were always perfectly removed from emotional entanglements in the mysteries, but Catchpool had these bizarre flashbacks and issues with death that felt distinctly non-Christie. Of course, Hastings developed crushes on women and let his affection for them get in the way of the case, but it never felt as creepy as Catchpool's issues. Hastings could behave foolishly, but Catchpool had some deeply rooted psychological things going on that were totally out of place in a Christie-style book. Obviously killers often had psychological issues, but not the detectives. This bothered me a great deal and bothered me from the beginning of the book until the end of the book. One of the great joys of Christie books is that the focus is on the mystery not on the emotional dramas of the detectives. While appreciating the idiosyncrasies of Poirot, Hastings, Japp, Marple, or even Battle, one never had to be bogged down in their pasts, their childhood traumas, or their emotional scars. I can't help but think Christie in 1929 would have expected Catchpool to have a stiff upper lip and simply get over his past and on with the job. Plus, if he had issues with death, why was Catchpool at Scotland Yard? Why was he afraid to ask questions of surly villagers? He was after all a police officer... But the flash-backs - annoying. Did Hannah think it would improve Christie to bring in more psychological baggage because Christie doesn't need improvements or modern updates.
The mystery had an adequate number of clues and red-herrings. It was complex, but could be worked out by the reader based on the information provided. There wasn't really a huge pool of suspects so a good deal of time was devoted to figuring out why and how rather than by whom. The closing scenes were a drawn out and rather convoluted at times, but all the loose ends were wrapped up nicely.
It wasn't an Agatha Christie since nobody can come close. But if I thought of it as a mystery rather than a Christie, it was a decent enough read.