Welcome

If you’re new to the site and would like to get involved please click on one of the buttons in the box below.

WHICH AC STORY WAS NOT BELIEVABLE TO YOU?

24

Comments

  • Tommy_A_JonesTommy_A_Jones Gloucestershire, United Kingdom ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree youngmrquin
  • youngmrquinyoungmrquin Buenos Aires, Argentina ✭✭✭
    edited February 2014
    *SPOILERS*

    Not only it wasn't beliavable, I felt AC cheated us here or at least, wasn't playing fair. As a narrator herself, she never (in the books I have read) tells a lie to the reader. She may hide information or build a scenery in which someone sees something in the wrong way, but all the information given is transparent.
    Here, in the first two chapters, she plays unfair by describing the reunion with "Cora" in it. If it had been other character's narration, it could have been fair ast least (but still difficult to believe). A case could be made in her favour in the sense that in the first chapter people is described from the point of view of one of the servants. However, in chapter 2, this isn't that clear and it feels more like and external narrator. Yet the character is still refered as "Cora". How were we as readers going to discover this mechanic if we were told, by and external narrator, that Cora was there?
  • Yes, when you say it like that it would have made a lot of sense to have made a member of the family a narrator. Despite the small degree of improbability though, I still really liked After the Funeral.
  • Tommy_A_JonesTommy_A_Jones Gloucestershire, United Kingdom ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have just remembered one member of the Family had an idea SPOILER! The won who was slugged on the head, you have to bear in mind they hjadn't seen Cora for ages and the event they were at was a sad one so that would make a difference
  • After The Funeral SPOILERS!!!!! I feel that any stories than involve imposters changing their appearance, give people feelings of disbelief. But it's worth remembering, this was in  the days when alot of photographs weren't clear. They were sepia or black and white, often grainy. If someone like Cora was  prone to heavy make up, then 20 years later, I don't think that anyone could tell. They had no photoes of her to check, as she had no contact with her family. Most of the people at the funeral were of the 2nd generation and didn't know Cora anyway.  Admittedly her brother should have known, but perhaps he was too busy complaining?




    "Do not allow evil into your heart. It will make a home there." Poirot -Death On The Nile
  • youngmrquinyoungmrquin Buenos Aires, Argentina ✭✭✭
    edited February 2014
    *SPOILERS*

    MissQuin: yes, I agree with you. As Tommy has already pointed out, a) there were many years since the last time she was seen in a family meeting and photographs weren't clear, and b) those members who were present were really young.
    However, I still claim that, as said in my last post, AC wasn't playing fair here. As an external narrator, she calls Miss Gilchrist explicitly "Cora" and we ought to believe her because she never lies. In Seven Dials or Sittaford the reader is made to believe something taken for granted certain information, but all what is written is "real". I mean, she doesn't provide false information. How were we supposed (as readers) to figure this out if we were told that Cora was there?
    If the narrator would have been one of the members of the family, the mislead would have been made sense because in the end it was his/hers point of view. But this is not the case. Like Tommy, I really enjoyed the book but I felt that the solution was impossible for the reader.
  • Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head guys. The quality of the photos would certainly make a difference and the the time since she was last seen by the family - a lot changes in 20 years! (or however long it was). As well as that, one of the characters (I forget who) realised that Cora wasn't Cora so that made it somewhat more realistic. Really though, I think close analysis like this is simply good from separating Christie's absolute classics from her very good books. 
  • MissQuinMissQuin ✭✭✭
    edited February 2014
    I mentioned before, I don't mind if a story is slightly unbelievable, if the characters are interesting. 


    Murder In Mesopotamia SPOILERS!!! A woman meets a man, marries him, she thinks he's dead. Then she meets another man, but it turns out it's the very same man in disguise! Surely she'd notice?! I mean you can change your appearance for a brief time. But every single day? No. But saying that I liked the book because the characters were endearing. The relationship between Poirot and Nurse Leatheran is warm but also quite amusing.  

     
    "Do not allow evil into your heart. It will make a home there." Poirot -Death On The Nile
  • Tommy_A_JonesTommy_A_Jones Gloucestershire, United Kingdom ✭✭✭✭✭
    You have described the book very succinctly Miss Quin, but there we part company, The Book in my view is to The Poirot books what Passenger To Frankfurt is to Non-series books, In My view The worst, an there is nothing I could say in its favour, The Big Four has good Chapters, The Labours of Hercule are a nice take on the Mythological  counterpart but there is Nothing I could say in favour of Murder In Mesopotamia, I thought ITV did a much better job, The Book needed Hastings Badly and ITV put him in it.


  • roamingrover86roamingrover86 United Kingdom Investigator
    Totally agree with YoungMrQuin . Just couldn't get it around my head about Miss Gilchrist going unnoticed . Well, she did get  found out with that mirror reflection explanation but for her to pull it off the first time must have meant that everyone else present were BLIND!

Sign In or Register to comment.