Appointment with Death by Agatha Christie
Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, 1937
255 pages
Mystery; Hercule Poirot

Source: Library

Summary: "You do see, don't you, that she's got to be killed?" is the dramatic first line of this book. This appears to Belgian detective Hercule Poirot like an impassioned writer discussing his work. But shortly after, the terrifying matriarch of the Boynton family is found dead amid suspicious circumstances.

Thoughts: It took forever for the woman to be killed. Almost half of the book is setting the scene, showing how each member of the family revolves his or her life around Mrs. Boynton and is terrified of her, excepting her daughter-in-law who is planning to leave her husband due to his cowardice in standing up to the mother. I was particularly interested in the psychology Poirot undertakes in order to understand their frames of minds during the period leading up to her death. I also liked that there are references to some of Poirot's other cases, including two that I have read.

I loved Lady Westholme-she was funny and briskly efficient. I would have liked to see more of her. I did not like the romances in this book. Sarah and Raymond were lame, lame, lame, separately and together.

SPOILER
While I didn't expect to figure out the murderer, I hated that it was Lady Westholme, who was awesome. I wanted it to be Raymond (total loser), Sarah King (also a loser as evidenced by her interested in Raymond), or Carol (sister to Raymond and similar in appearance).
END SPOILER

Overall: 4/5. Gripping but disappointing end.

Cover: I keep saying this but I really do love these covers.

Agatha Christie never failed me!! Endingnya bener2 gak terduga >_<

second read:
The cool thing about having terrible memory is that I can reread mysteries without knowing the ending.

first read:
I really didn't see that ending coming, and I had thought of about ten different endings.

A little disappointing

It’s like the the big foreign full-cast Poirot novels are far better suited for the big screen, where the exotic places, foreign people and the large cast (typically with famous guest stars) comes fully into its rights.

As a novel this one felt a little flat with too much easy home made psychology.

One thing about Agatha Christie, she’s going to make someone the murder who you didn’t think it would be (that you’re then slightly disappointed by)

‘Oh, it is difficult—Man is an animal very delicately balanced. He has one prime necessity— to survive. To advance too quickly is as fatal as to lag behind. He must survive! He must, perhaps, retain some of the old savagery, but he must not— no definitely he must not— deify it!’

This feels like a pretty low rating; when I think about the mystery, especially as compared to other mysteries I've read recently, it feels like it deserves to be more in the 4 star range. But I have to take enjoyment into consideration, and when I do, it's more of a 3. I think I've started rating Christie books a little differently. Because I know that she works so well for me, and because I know that 9 times out of 10, she's going to deliver all of the ingredients I need for a really good mystery, I've started to place a little more importance on things like characters, and writing, and setting. I mean, I know that the mystery is going to be good. It's always good! So I guess I hold her to a higher standard.

This one has a slower start than most of the other Poirot mysteries; Poirot hardly even appears for the first 40 percent or so. We're in Jerusalem following a wealthy American family, with an odious, controlling matriarch that everyone in the family despises. There are also some family friends, a couple doctors, including an obnoxious French doctor I spent all my time wanting to strangle. Poirot is called in to investigate when the old woman turns up dead. Christie did what she does best, and this had really great build-up, establishing of characters and motives and all that. Lots of clues to pick up on and follow. I really have no complaints about the mystery itself. (I kinda wish it had turned out to be someone different, but ah well.) I did find myself a little annoyed by Papa Poirot though. This isn't the first time he's gotten on his high horse to be like, "I don't care how abusive and awful a person was, murder is murder and I'll get to the bottom of it!" but I got irritated all the same. Like okay, lighten up bonhomme, some people need to get got. :/ The less said about the setting the better; it's all as mildly racist as can be imagined. There were some comments made that had me squinting.

I really did get annoyed that

Spoiler

Christie didn't play fair in the end. Like, I LOVE the time honoured tradition of gathering all the suspects in one room, and telling them all how he figured things out, boasting and preening all the way. Poirot did get more shouty and obnoxious this time around, as he moved from suspect to suspect, but I wasn't going to hold that against him. UNTIL, of course, we realise that he HADN'T invited the actual murderer to the gathering. :/ What a copout! And the fact that she was listening in from the next room, and just shot herself when she realised that she had been discovered? Really? Absolutely the least satisfying way to end a mystery. I could live with the fact that Lady Westholme was the killer, because the mystery was well-crafted, but for it to end that way was dumb.

Listened to the audiobook as read by Hugh Fraser, which remains the best way to experience these books. I think I'll read a couple more, and then take a little break from Hercule Poirot for a while. I miiiiight be getting a little burnt out on the Belgian. 

Very good! Enjoyable and easy read. Poirot was there pretty much beginning to end and that’s the most I can ask. I’m definitely a bit swayed in my enjoyment of this one since I was able to read from an actual 1938 printed copy. A beautiful book definitely adds to a beautiful reading experience for me anyway.