Three Act Tragedy

One of my favorites! Let me clear something up. There are two versions of this novel. Some readers have blamed Kindle for changing the story as they remember it. Kindle did not. There are TWO print versions. They differ in the motive for two of the three murders. My copy of Three Act Tragedy has one motive, my copy of Murder in Three acts has another. Total of about 30 paragraphs are different almost all in the final chapter. The credit or blame for the changes must belong to Christie or publishers, not to Kindle.

I love Agatha Christie. I have read and re-read all of her novels many times since I discovered her when I was 13 years old (a LONG time ago). I purchased the Kindle edition of every novel of hers that was available, and it has been a delight. This one, however, stumps me terribly. The Kindle edition CHANGES THE STORY from the original book. I don\’t understand it. Why? Who did this? The motive for the murder is completely different. Large sections of the story are changed or deleted. The titles of a number of Agatha Christie\’s books and short stories were changed once or more between the British and American versions. This book has had at least two different titles: \”Three Act Tragedy\” and \”Murder in Three Acts\”. Short story anthologies varied depending on when and where they were published. But I have seen no record of the entire plot of one of her novels being rewritten between versions. It is very disconcerting! And it ruins the book. In its book form, this is a good, solid Agatha Christie with a lot of originality (especially regarding motive). The new motive is much weaker than the original, and a lot of significant text is either removed or no longer makes sense. Perhaps this is a relatively unknown or early version of the book…but I don\’t think so. Was this change a decision by Kindle editors? If so, why? And why was the reader not warned that this is not an original Christie? If anyone knows the answer, I would love to find out!

By my numbering of Agatha Christie\’s \”Poirot\” NOVELS, her 1934 novel \”Poirot, Book 10: Three Act Tragedy\” is number 10 in the series. And, once again, Christie manages to irk me considerably with her endings. Prior to the last chapter, I was really happy with the book: good writing, clever structuring of the book to coincide with the background of characters, good characters (I especially like Satterthwaite), and even (gasp!) the inclusion of some evidence. Since it is a Poirot novel, more Poirot would have been nice. But, Satterthwaite makes a good proxy. Of course, since this is a Christie novel, I spent the whole thing staring upward at that Sword of Damocles hanging overhead and waiting for her to drop the other shoe and ruin things. And, yep, there it was in the last chapter. Poirot gets stuck on motive and finally figures it out. But, it\’s so ridiculously stupid that it\’s mind-boggling. Plus, even if things had worked out fine for the murderer, the deed(s) wouldn\’t have met the needs of the motive. IOW, the murder(s) solve nothing. I REALLY enjoyed this novel right up to Christie\’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (and remember, she actually put enough effort into things to give Poirot some actual evidence). So, instead of rage-reviewing it down into the abyss, I\’ll relent a bit and give it an OK 3 stars out of 5. Why, Agatha? Why?

\”But to the observant Mr. Satterthwaite it seemed as though Sir Charles hankered slightly after the part he was not, after all, to play.\” This book seems more like a follow up to the Mysterious Mr Quin stories than the Poirot novel that precedes it, Murder on the Orient Express (MOE). The one thing that reminded me of MOE, was the questioning of the suspects. The difference here is that Poirot has others (Sir Charles, Satterthwaite, and Egg) doing the questioning and report back to him. At the end, it is, of course, Poirot that solves the crime. Mr. Satterthwaite plays a major role in this novel as he did in the Mr Quin stories. As in those you have people in love and people in love with the arts. Mr S is as observant, and snobbish, as ever! As are his perceptive insights into the human condition. If you want a well crafted Christie mystery and don\’t mind that Poirot doesn\’t star in his own book, then this is for you. If you want Poirot to play a larger role, I would suggest skipping this novel and go to the next book, Death in the Clouds.

Brief Synopsis: Sir Charles Cartwright should have known that having thirteen guests for dinner was bad luck. When the evening is over someone is dead. Can Poirot solve this murder with no apparent motive? I thought this one had a lot of the same elements as Lord Edgware Dies, including the 13 at dinner superstition. It was interesting to see a little of Poirot’s backstory: that he grew up poor, with many siblings, he worked hard, rose in the police force, acquired an international reputation, he retired, was injured in the war and became a refugee in England. While in England his host was murdered and he employed his ‘little grey cells’ to solve her murder which led to his becoming a private inquiry agent in England and became rich. (pg 57) I haven’t read all of the Poirot mysteries, but this is the first full description I’ve read of his background. Fascinating stuff! This wasn’t my most favorite Poirot read, although I was fooled by the ending yet again! 3.5/5 stars.

Galaxyaudiobook Member Benefit

- Able to comment

- List watched audiobooks

- List favorite audiobooks

- Bookmark will only available for Galaxyaudiobook member