What do you think?
Rate this book
Hercule Poirot #42
Elephants Can Remember
The two young people were locked in love and shadowed by fear. A grisly double death decades before had come to haunt both their lives, a legacy of horror from beyond the grave.
237 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1972
About the author
Agatha Christie
4,057 books68.7k followersAgatha Christie also wrote romance novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, and was occasionally published under the name Agatha Christie Mallowan.
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,962 reviews
April 1, 2022
Elephants Can Remember (Hercule Poirot #40), Agatha Christie
Elephants Can Remember is a work of detective fiction by British writer Agatha Christie, first published in 1972. A classic Hercule Poirot investigation, Agatha Christie’s Elephants Can Remember has the expert detective delving into an unsolved crime from the past involving the strange death of a husband and wife.
عنوانهای برگردان فارسی کتاب: «فیلها به خاطر میآورند»؛ «مرگ اسرارآمیز»؛ نويسنده: آگاتا کریستی (میلر)؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز سی و یکم ماه می سال2012میلادی
عنوان: فیلها به خاطر میآورند؛ نويسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: حمیدرضا بلندسران؛ مشخصات نشر: تهران، هرمس، سال انتشار1391؛ قطع کتاب11/5در19، تعداد صفحات264ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1393؛ چاپ سوم سال1396؛ شابک9789643637491؛ موضوع داستانهای کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیا- سده20م
عنوان: مرگ اسرارآمیز؛ نويسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: قدیر گلکاریان؛ مشخصات نشر تبریز، تلاش، چاپ دوم سال1390، در274ص؛ شابک9645750342؛
نقل از متن: (فیلها به خاطر میآورند؛ فصل اول: ضیافت ناهار نویسندگان؛ خانم «اولیور» خودش را در آینه برانداز کرد و نیم نگاهی به ساعتی که روی تاقچه بخاری قرار داشت انداخت؛ به خیالش، این ساعت بیست دقیقه عقب بود...؛ سپس کار آرایش موهایش را از سرگرفت؛ مشکلی که خانم «اولیور» داشت ــ مشکلی که خودش هم راحت به آن معترف بود ــ نوع آرایش موهایش بود، که دائم تغییر میکرد؛ تقریبا همه مدلها را به تناوب، امتحان کرده بود؛ یکبار موهای پُف دار، بعدش موهایی ژولیده، که باید همه آنها را به عقب شانه میکردید، تا چهره قابل قبولی پیدا کنید؛ او هم امیدوار بود، که حداقل چهره ی قابل قبولی داشته باشد؛ هم مدلهای فِردار را امتحان کرده بود، هم مدلهای درهم و برهم هُنری را، اما امروز به خودش قبولانده بود، که سبک آرایش موهایش اهمیت چندانی ندارد، چون تصمیم داشت کاری را انجام دهد، که به ندرت از او سر میزد، و آن به سر گذاشتن کلاه بود؛ در طبقه بالای کمد لباس، «خانم اولیور»، چهار تا کلاه قرار داشت؛ یکی از آنها، ویژه ی مراسم عروسی بود؛ وقتی به جشن ازدواج بروید، کلاه، یکی از موارد ضروری است؛ اما او حتی برای این مناسبتها هم، دو تا کلاه داشت؛ یکی از آنها که داخل جعبه گردی قرار داشت، جنسش از چرم بود؛ این کلاه کاملاً اندازه سرش بود، و در برابر باران ناگهانی، و پاشیده شدن آب از سوی اتومبیلهای درحال عبور هم، بخوبی از سرش محافظت میکرد؛ کلاه دیگر که پرنقش و نگارتر بود، کاملاً مناسب مراسم ازدواجی بود، که در بعد از ظهر یک روز یکشنبه تابستانی، برگزار شود؛ روی آن، چند تا گل، و یک روبان دیده میشد، که یک پارچه توری زردرنگ گلدار، سطحش را پوشانده بود؛ دو کلاه دیگرِ روی قفسه، از آنهایی بودند که تقریبا به همه کار میآمدند؛ یکی از آنها، که خانم «اولیور» اسمش را گذاشته بود کلاه خانه اربابی، از نمد قهوه ای بود، و با هر نوع لباس پشمی تناسب داشت و دارای لبه ای بود، که راحت میشد آنرا به سمت بالا یا پایین کشید؛ خانم «اولیور» یک پلیور پشمی برای گرم شدن در روزهای سرد، و یک پلیور نازک برای استفاده در روزهای گرم داشت، که رنگ هر دوِ آنها با آنها با کلاه جور درمیآمد؛ با اینحال، گرچه پولیورها را به دفعات پوشیده بود، کلاهها را تقریبا هیچوقت استفاده نکرده بود؛ واقعا هم چه دلیلی دارد که بخواهید فقط برای رفتن به دهکده، و صرف غذا با دوستانتان، از کلاه استفاده کنید؟ اما کلاه چهارم، از بقیه گرانقیمت تر بود، و بسیار بادوامتر؛ خانم «اولیور» فکر میکرد: شاید این ویژگی به خاطر قیمت بالای آن است؛ کلاه بی لبه ای بود، که از لایه های متنوعی از مخمل نرم، شکل گرفته بود؛ با سایه روشنهایی که داشت، با هر نوع لباسی جور درمیآمد؛ خانم «اولیور»، با تردید مکثی کرد، و بعد درخواست کمک کرد: ــ «ماریا»؛ با صدای بلندتری فریاد زد: ــ «ماریا»، یک دقیقه بیا اینجا؛ «ماریا» آمد؛ معمولاً خانم «اولیور» از او میخواست تا نظرش را، در مورد نوع پوشش او بیان کند؛ «ماریا» گفت: ــ میخواهید آن کلاه شیک و قشنگتان را سرتان بگذارید، نه؟ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ آره؛ میخواستم بدانم به نظرت اینطوری بهتر است یا برش گردانم؟ «ماریا» عقب ایستاد و نگاهی انداخت؛ ــ خب، الآن که آنرا برعکس روی سرتان گذاشته اید؛ اینطور نیست؟ ــ آره، خودم میدانم؛ فکر کردم اینطوری یک جورهایی بهتر باشد؛ ــ اوه، چرا بهتر باشد؟ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ خب، انگار بهتر روی سرم نشسته؛ البته از دید من اینطور است؛ فروشنده اش هم همین نظر را داشت؛ ــ چرا فکر میکنید اگر آنرا برعکس سرتان بگذارید بهتر است؟ ــ چون اینطوری رنگهای قشنگ آبی و قهوه ای سوخته را میبینی؛ به نظر من، خیلی بهتر از مدلی است که رنگهای سبز و قرمز و شکلاتی دارد؛ در این لحظه، خانم «اولیور» کلاه را از سرش برداشت، و آنرا دوباره سرش گذاشت، و حالتهای دیگرِ آنرا امتحان کرد، اما در آخر، نه خودش و نه «ماریا»، از هیچکدام از حالتها خوششان نیامد؛ ــ نمیتوانید آن را یکوری بگذارید؛ منظورم این است که به صورتتان نمیآید، مگر نه؟ به صورتِ هیچ کس نمیآید؛ ــ نه؛ فایده ندارد؛ فکر کنم آخرش هم باید آنرا همانطور صاف روی سرم بگذارم؛ «ماریا» گفت: ــ خب، فکر کنم درستش هم همین باشد؛ خانم «اولیور» کلاه ر�� از سرش برداشت؛ «ماریا» کمکش کرد، تا لباس پشمی خوشدوختِ نازک و زیبایی را، که رنگ آلبالویی ملایمی داشت، به تن کند، و کلاهش را روی سرش میزان کند؛ بعد گفت: ــ خیلی خوش تیپ شدید؛ خانم «اولیور» از این رفتار «ماریا» خوشش میآمد؛ با کمترین ایرادگیری و بهانه ای، همیشه او را مورد تایید و تحسین قرار میداد؛ «ماریا» پرسید: ــ میخواهید در مراسم سخنرانی کنید، نه؟ ــ سخنرانی! خانم «اولیور» با صدایی وحشت زده گفت: ــ نه، البته که نه؛ خودت میدانی که من هیچوقت سخنرانی نمیکنم؛ ــ خب، به نظرم در چنین ضیافتهایی از این کارها انجام میدهند؛ شما هم برای همین به آنجا میروید دیگر؛ مگر غیر از این است؟ نویسندگان مشهور سال 1973میلادی یا حالا هر سالی؛ چه میدانم؛ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ من لازم نیست سخنرانی کنم؛ آنجا پر است از آدمهایی که به اینکار علاقمندند، و خیلی هم بهتر از من سخنرانی میکنند؛ «ماریا» که سعی داشت خانم «اولیور» را وسوسه کند، گفت: ــ اما من مطمئنم که اگر یک کم روی آن تمرکز کنید، خوب میتوانید سخنرانی کنید؛ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ نه، نمیتوانم؛ من خودم میدانم توانایی چه کارهایی را دارم، و چه کارهایی را ندارم؛ این کار مرا مضطرب و عصبی میکند؛ احتمالاً خیلی از جاها زبانم میگیرد، و بعضی چیزها را دوبار تکرار میکنم؛ نه تنها پیش خودم احساس حماقت میکنم، بلکه احتمالاً از دید دیگران هم احمق به نظر خواهم رسید؛ البته خودِ کلمات مشکلی ندارند: میتوانی آنها را جایی بنویسی، یا روی یک دستگاه ضبطشان کنی، یا اینکه آنها را دیکته کنی؛ خیلی وقت است که با کلمه ها سروکار دارم، و میدانم که اهل سخنرانی نیستم؛ ــ بسیار خب؛ امیدوارم همه چیز بخوبی پیش برود، و مطمئنم همینطور هم خواهد شد؛ باید مراسم خیلی باشکوهی باشد، نه؟ ــ آره؛ صدای خانم «اولیور» پر از تشویش و اضطراب بود؛ تایید کرد: ــ یک ضیافت ناهارِ باشکوه برای نویسندگان؛ چیزی نمیگفت، اما پیش خودش فکر ��یکرد که چرا باید به این مراسم برود؛ کمی ذهنش را جستجو کرد، چون همیشه واقعا دوست داشت بداند، که به جای اینکه اول کاری را انجام دهد و بعد فکر کند که چرا آن کار را کرده، از اول باید چه کار کند؟ «به نظرم...» بازهم با خودش حرف میزد، و خطابش به «ماریا»یی نبود که اینک با عجله به آشپزخانه برگشته بود، چون احساس کرده بود بوی سر رفتن ظرف مربایی که روی اجاق گاز گذاشته بود، به مشامش رسیده؛ «به نظرم بد نیست بروم و ببینم چه حسی دارد؛ همیشه به ضیافتهای ناهار، و این جور جاها دعوت میشوم و هیچ وقت هم در آنها شرکت نمیکنم.» خانم «اولیور» وقتی به آخرین بخش ضیافت ناهار رسید، در حالیکه با ته مانده های کیک «مَرنگ» در بشقابش بازی میکرد، نفسی حاکی از رضایت بیرون داد؛ از طرفداران پر و پا قرص «مَرنگ» بود، و طعم خوب این شیرینی، آخرین برنامه ضیافت را نیز دلپذیر کرده بود؛ با اینحال، وقتی کسی به سنین میانسالی میرسد، باید مراقب مصرف شیرینیجات باشد؛ مثلاً دندانها: کاملاً سالم بودند، و این مزیت را داشتند، که درد نمیگرفتند، سفید بودند، و ظاهری قابل قبول داشتند؛ مثل دندانهای اصل بودند، اما واقعیت این بود که اصل نبودند؛ و دندانهایی که اصل نباشند، از نظر خانم «اولیور»، نمیتوانستند از مواد درجه یکی باشند؛ میدانست که دندان سگها از عاج واقعی است، در حالیکه دندانهای انسان، تقریبا از جنس استخوان هستند، و اگر هم مصنوعی باشند، از جنس پلاستیک؛ به هر حال، موضوع این بود که نباید از داشتن دندانهای مصنوعی، خجالت کشید؛ کاهو، بادام شور، و چیزهای دیگری مثل شکلاتهای مغزدار، کاراملهای چسبناک، و شیرینیهای خوشمزه از موادی هستند که خوردنشان مشکل است؛ یکبار دیگر نفسی از سر رضایت بیرون داد، و مشغول خوردن آخرین تکه از شیرینی اش شد؛ ناهار خوبی خورده بود، یک ناهار خیلی خوب؛ خانم «اولیور» از همه چیز راضی بود، و از هر لحاظ احساس آرامش میکرد؛ از مراسم لذت فراوان برده بود؛ از مهمانان و افراد حاضر هم همینطور؛ این ناهار که در اصل برای گرامیداشت زنان نویسنده زن نمیشد؛ نویسندگان دیگر، منتقدان و خوانندگان نیز بودند که در مراسم حضور داشتند. خانم «اولیور» بین دو نفر از نویسندگان مرد حاضر در مراسم نشست؛ «اِدوین اوبین»، شاعری که او از اشعارش خیلی لذت میبرد، آدم شوخ مشربی بود که تجارب خیلی جالبی از زندگی شخصی و ادبی و نیز سفرهای خارج از کشورش داشت؛ از علاقمندان به رستورانها و انواع غذاها بود، و همین باعث شد تا آنها موضوع ادبیات را کنار بگذارند، و سرخوشانه، در مورد غذا با یکدیگر صحبت کنند؛ سِر «وِسلی کنت» هم که در طرف دیگرش نشسته بود، همصحبت دلپذیری در این ضیافت به حساب میآمد؛ مطالب خیلی جالبی درباره کتابهایش گفت، و با ظرافت طبعی که در بیان سخنانش داشت، اجازه نداد تا خانم «اولیور» معذّب شود، در حالیکه خیلیها ناخودآگاه مخاطب را دچار این احساس میکردند؛ دلایلش را برای علاقمندی به برخی از آثار خانم «اولیور» اظهار داشت؛ این دلایل که منطقی هم به نظر میرسیدند، باعث شدند تا خانم «اولیور» نظر مساعدی نسبت به او پیدا کند؛ با خودش فکر کرد که تعریف و تمجید از زبانِ مردها، همیشه پذیرفتنی است؛ این زنها بودند که غلو میکردند؛ امان از بعضی چیزهایی که همین زنها برایش مینوشتند! واقعا که! البته همیشه هم زنها نبودند؛ گاهی اوقات هم بودند مردان جوان، و احساساتی، که از دوردستترین نقاط برایش نامه مینوشتند؛ همین هفته پیش بود که داشت نامه ی یکی از طرفدارانش را میخواند، که اینگونه شروع شده بود: «با خواندن کتابتان، احساس میکنم که باید چه بانوی بزرگواری باشید.» ظاهرا ��س از خواندن کتاب «دومین ماهی قرمز» چنان هیجان ادبی شدیدی به او دست داده بود، و چنین چیزهایی را نوشته بود، که البته از نظر خانم «اولیور» کاملاً بیمورد بود؛ چندان اهل تواضع و فروتنی ن��ود؛ به نظرش داستانهای پلیسی ای که مینوشت در نوع خودشان خوب بودند؛ بعضیشان هم خیلی خوب نبودند، و برخی دیگر خیلی بهتر از بقیه بودند؛ اما تا جاییکه میدانست، هیچ دلیلی وجود نداشت که کسی تصور کند او یک زن بزرگوار است؛ او تنها این شانس را داشت که توانسته بود با استفاده از استعداد و مهارتی که در نوشتن دارد، افراد بسیاری را که به مطالعه علاقه داشتند سرگرم کند؛ و این از دید خانم «اولیور» یک خوش شانسی بزرگ بود؛ خلاصه آنکه، روی هم رفته، او توانسته بود به شایستگی از پس این آزمون سخت برآید؛ خوش گذرانده بود و با آدمهای خوبی صحبت کرده بود؛ حالا همه داشتند به جایی میرفتند که قهوه ها دست به دست میچرخید و میشد با افراد دیگر گپ زد؛ اینجا بود که احتمال خطر ....) پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 01/01/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ 10/01/1401هجری خوشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Elephants Can Remember is a work of detective fiction by British writer Agatha Christie, first published in 1972. A classic Hercule Poirot investigation, Agatha Christie’s Elephants Can Remember has the expert detective delving into an unsolved crime from the past involving the strange death of a husband and wife.
عنوانهای برگردان فارسی کتاب: «فیلها به خاطر میآورند»؛ «مرگ اسرارآمیز»؛ نويسنده: آگاتا کریستی (میلر)؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز سی و یکم ماه می سال2012میلادی
عنوان: فیلها به خاطر میآورند؛ نويسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: حمیدرضا بلندسران؛ مشخصات نشر: تهران، هرمس، سال انتشار1391؛ قطع کتاب11/5در19، تعداد صفحات264ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1393؛ چاپ سوم سال1396؛ شابک9789643637491؛ موضوع داستانهای کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیا- سده20م
عنوان: مرگ اسرارآمیز؛ نويسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: قدیر گلکاریان؛ مشخصات نشر تبریز، تلاش، چاپ دوم سال1390، در274ص؛ شابک9645750342؛
نقل از متن: (فیلها به خاطر میآورند؛ فصل اول: ضیافت ناهار نویسندگان؛ خانم «اولیور» خودش را در آینه برانداز کرد و نیم نگاهی به ساعتی که روی تاقچه بخاری قرار داشت انداخت؛ به خیالش، این ساعت بیست دقیقه عقب بود...؛ سپس کار آرایش موهایش را از سرگرفت؛ مشکلی که خانم «اولیور» داشت ــ مشکلی که خودش هم راحت به آن معترف بود ــ نوع آرایش موهایش بود، که دائم تغییر میکرد؛ تقریبا همه مدلها را به تناوب، امتحان کرده بود؛ یکبار موهای پُف دار، بعدش موهایی ژولیده، که باید همه آنها را به عقب شانه میکردید، تا چهره قابل قبولی پیدا کنید؛ او هم امیدوار بود، که حداقل چهره ی قابل قبولی داشته باشد؛ هم مدلهای فِردار را امتحان کرده بود، هم مدلهای درهم و برهم هُنری را، اما امروز به خودش قبولانده بود، که سبک آرایش موهایش اهمیت چندانی ندارد، چون تصمیم داشت کاری را انجام دهد، که به ندرت از او سر میزد، و آن به سر گذاشتن کلاه بود؛ در طبقه بالای کمد لباس، «خانم اولیور»، چهار تا کلاه قرار داشت؛ یکی از آنها، ویژه ی مراسم عروسی بود؛ وقتی به جشن ازدواج بروید، کلاه، یکی از موارد ضروری است؛ اما او حتی برای این مناسبتها هم، دو تا کلاه داشت؛ یکی از آنها که داخل جعبه گردی قرار داشت، جنسش از چرم بود؛ این کلاه کاملاً اندازه سرش بود، و در برابر باران ناگهانی، و پاشیده شدن آب از سوی اتومبیلهای درحال عبور هم، بخوبی از سرش محافظت میکرد؛ کلاه دیگر که پرنقش و نگارتر بود، کاملاً مناسب مراسم ازدواجی بود، که در بعد از ظهر یک روز یکشنبه تابستانی، برگزار شود؛ روی آن، چند تا گل، و یک روبان دیده میشد، که یک پارچه توری زردرنگ گلدار، سطحش را پوشانده بود؛ دو کلاه دیگرِ روی قفسه، از آنهایی بودند که تقریبا به همه کار میآمدند؛ یکی از آنها، که خانم «اولیور» اسمش را گذاشته بود کلاه خانه اربابی، از نمد قهوه ای بود، و با هر نوع لباس پشمی تناسب داشت و دارای لبه ای بود، که راحت میشد آنرا به سمت بالا یا پایین کشید؛ خانم «اولیور» یک پلیور پشمی برای گرم شدن در روزهای سرد، و یک پلیور نازک برای استفاده در روزهای گرم داشت، که رنگ هر دوِ آنها با آنها با کلاه جور درمیآمد؛ با اینحال، گرچه پولیورها را به دفعات پوشیده بود، کلاهها را تقریبا هیچوقت استفاده نکرده بود؛ واقعا هم چه دلیلی دارد که بخواهید فقط برای رفتن به دهکده، و صرف غذا با دوستانتان، از کلاه استفاده کنید؟ اما کلاه چهارم، از بقیه گرانقیمت تر بود، و بسیار بادوامتر؛ خانم «اولیور» فکر میکرد: شاید این ویژگی به خاطر قیمت بالای آن است؛ کلاه بی لبه ای بود، که از لایه های متنوعی از مخمل نرم، شکل گرفته بود؛ با سایه روشنهایی که داشت، با هر نوع لباسی جور درمیآمد؛ خانم «اولیور»، با تردید مکثی کرد، و بعد درخواست کمک کرد: ــ «ماریا»؛ با صدای بلندتری فریاد زد: ــ «ماریا»، یک دقیقه بیا اینجا؛ «ماریا» آمد؛ معمولاً خانم «اولیور» از او میخواست تا نظرش را، در مورد نوع پوشش او بیان کند؛ «ماریا» گفت: ــ میخواهید آن کلاه شیک و قشنگتان را سرتان بگذارید، نه؟ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ آره؛ میخواستم بدانم به نظرت اینطوری بهتر است یا برش گردانم؟ «ماریا» عقب ایستاد و نگاهی انداخت؛ ــ خب، الآن که آنرا برعکس روی سرتان گذاشته اید؛ اینطور نیست؟ ــ آره، خودم میدانم؛ فکر کردم اینطوری یک جورهایی بهتر باشد؛ ــ اوه، چرا بهتر باشد؟ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ خب، انگار بهتر روی سرم نشسته؛ البته از دید من اینطور است؛ فروشنده اش هم همین نظر را داشت؛ ــ چرا فکر میکنید اگر آنرا برعکس سرتان بگذارید بهتر است؟ ــ چون اینطوری رنگهای قشنگ آبی و قهوه ای سوخته را میبینی؛ به نظر من، خیلی بهتر از مدلی است که رنگهای سبز و قرمز و شکلاتی دارد؛ در این لحظه، خانم «اولیور» کلاه را از سرش برداشت، و آنرا دوباره سرش گذاشت، و حالتهای دیگرِ آنرا امتحان کرد، اما در آخر، نه خودش و نه «ماریا»، از هیچکدام از حالتها خوششان نیامد؛ ــ نمیتوانید آن را یکوری بگذارید؛ منظورم این است که به صورتتان نمیآید، مگر نه؟ به صورتِ هیچ کس نمیآید؛ ــ نه؛ فایده ندارد؛ فکر کنم آخرش هم باید آنرا همانطور صاف روی سرم بگذارم؛ «ماریا» گفت: ــ خب، فکر کنم درستش هم همین باشد؛ خانم «اولیور» کلاه ر�� از سرش برداشت؛ «ماریا» کمکش کرد، تا لباس پشمی خوشدوختِ نازک و زیبایی را، که رنگ آلبالویی ملایمی داشت، به تن کند، و کلاهش را روی سرش میزان کند؛ بعد گفت: ــ خیلی خوش تیپ شدید؛ خانم «اولیور» از این رفتار «ماریا» خوشش میآمد؛ با کمترین ایرادگیری و بهانه ای، همیشه او را مورد تایید و تحسین قرار میداد؛ «ماریا» پرسید: ــ میخواهید در مراسم سخنرانی کنید، نه؟ ــ سخنرانی! خانم «اولیور» با صدایی وحشت زده گفت: ــ نه، البته که نه؛ خودت میدانی که من هیچوقت سخنرانی نمیکنم؛ ــ خب، به نظرم در چنین ضیافتهایی از این کارها انجام میدهند؛ شما هم برای همین به آنجا میروید دیگر؛ مگر غیر از این است؟ نویسندگان مشهور سال 1973میلادی یا حالا هر سالی؛ چه میدانم؛ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ من لازم نیست سخنرانی کنم؛ آنجا پر است از آدمهایی که به اینکار علاقمندند، و خیلی هم بهتر از من سخنرانی میکنند؛ «ماریا» که سعی داشت خانم «اولیور» را وسوسه کند، گفت: ــ اما من مطمئنم که اگر یک کم روی آن تمرکز کنید، خوب میتوانید سخنرانی کنید؛ خانم «اولیور» گفت: ــ نه، نمیتوانم؛ من خودم میدانم توانایی چه کارهایی را دارم، و چه کارهایی را ندارم؛ این کار مرا مضطرب و عصبی میکند؛ احتمالاً خیلی از جاها زبانم میگیرد، و بعضی چیزها را دوبار تکرار میکنم؛ نه تنها پیش خودم احساس حماقت میکنم، بلکه احتمالاً از دید دیگران هم احمق به نظر خواهم رسید؛ البته خودِ کلمات مشکلی ندارند: میتوانی آنها را جایی بنویسی، یا روی یک دستگاه ضبطشان کنی، یا اینکه آنها را دیکته کنی؛ خیلی وقت است که با کلمه ها سروکار دارم، و میدانم که اهل سخنرانی نیستم؛ ــ بسیار خب؛ امیدوارم همه چیز بخوبی پیش برود، و مطمئنم همینطور هم خواهد شد؛ باید مراسم خیلی باشکوهی باشد، نه؟ ــ آره؛ صدای خانم «اولیور» پر از تشویش و اضطراب بود؛ تایید کرد: ــ یک ضیافت ناهارِ باشکوه برای نویسندگان؛ چیزی نمیگفت، اما پیش خودش فکر ��یکرد که چرا باید به این مراسم برود؛ کمی ذهنش را جستجو کرد، چون همیشه واقعا دوست داشت بداند، که به جای اینکه اول کاری را انجام دهد و بعد فکر کند که چرا آن کار را کرده، از اول باید چه کار کند؟ «به نظرم...» بازهم با خودش حرف میزد، و خطابش به «ماریا»یی نبود که اینک با عجله به آشپزخانه برگشته بود، چون احساس کرده بود بوی سر رفتن ظرف مربایی که روی اجاق گاز گذاشته بود، به مشامش رسیده؛ «به نظرم بد نیست بروم و ببینم چه حسی دارد؛ همیشه به ضیافتهای ناهار، و این جور جاها دعوت میشوم و هیچ وقت هم در آنها شرکت نمیکنم.» خانم «اولیور» وقتی به آخرین بخش ضیافت ناهار رسید، در حالیکه با ته مانده های کیک «مَرنگ» در بشقابش بازی میکرد، نفسی حاکی از رضایت بیرون داد؛ از طرفداران پر و پا قرص «مَرنگ» بود، و طعم خوب این شیرینی، آخرین برنامه ضیافت را نیز دلپذیر کرده بود؛ با اینحال، وقتی کسی به سنین میانسالی میرسد، باید مراقب مصرف شیرینیجات باشد؛ مثلاً دندانها: کاملاً سالم بودند، و این مزیت را داشتند، که درد نمیگرفتند، سفید بودند، و ظاهری قابل قبول داشتند؛ مثل دندانهای اصل بودند، اما واقعیت این بود که اصل نبودند؛ و دندانهایی که اصل نباشند، از نظر خانم «اولیور»، نمیتوانستند از مواد درجه یکی باشند؛ میدانست که دندان سگها از عاج واقعی است، در حالیکه دندانهای انسان، تقریبا از جنس استخوان هستند، و اگر هم مصنوعی باشند، از جنس پلاستیک؛ به هر حال، موضوع این بود که نباید از داشتن دندانهای مصنوعی، خجالت کشید؛ کاهو، بادام شور، و چیزهای دیگری مثل شکلاتهای مغزدار، کاراملهای چسبناک، و شیرینیهای خوشمزه از موادی هستند که خوردنشان مشکل است؛ یکبار دیگر نفسی از سر رضایت بیرون داد، و مشغول خوردن آخرین تکه از شیرینی اش شد؛ ناهار خوبی خورده بود، یک ناهار خیلی خوب؛ خانم «اولیور» از همه چیز راضی بود، و از هر لحاظ احساس آرامش میکرد؛ از مراسم لذت فراوان برده بود؛ از مهمانان و افراد حاضر هم همینطور؛ این ناهار که در اصل برای گرامیداشت زنان نویسنده زن نمیشد؛ نویسندگان دیگر، منتقدان و خوانندگان نیز بودند که در مراسم حضور داشتند. خانم «اولیور» بین دو نفر از نویسندگان مرد حاضر در مراسم نشست؛ «اِدوین اوبین»، شاعری که او از اشعارش خیلی لذت میبرد، آدم شوخ مشربی بود که تجارب خیلی جالبی از زندگی شخصی و ادبی و نیز سفرهای خارج از کشورش داشت؛ از علاقمندان به رستورانها و انواع غذاها بود، و همین باعث شد تا آنها موضوع ادبیات را کنار بگذارند، و سرخوشانه، در مورد غذا با یکدیگر صحبت کنند؛ سِر «وِسلی کنت» هم که در طرف دیگرش نشسته بود، همصحبت دلپذیری در این ضیافت به حساب میآمد؛ مطالب خیلی جالبی درباره کتابهایش گفت، و با ظرافت طبعی که در بیان سخنانش داشت، اجازه نداد تا خانم «اولیور» معذّب شود، در حالیکه خیلیها ناخودآگاه مخاطب را دچار این احساس میکردند؛ دلایلش را برای علاقمندی به برخی از آثار خانم «اولیور» اظهار داشت؛ این دلایل که منطقی هم به نظر میرسیدند، باعث شدند تا خانم «اولیور» نظر مساعدی نسبت به او پیدا کند؛ با خودش فکر کرد که تعریف و تمجید از زبانِ مردها، همیشه پذیرفتنی است؛ این زنها بودند که غلو میکردند؛ امان از بعضی چیزهایی که همین زنها برایش مینوشتند! واقعا که! البته همیشه هم زنها نبودند؛ گاهی اوقات هم بودند مردان جوان، و احساساتی، که از دوردستترین نقاط برایش نامه مینوشتند؛ همین هفته پیش بود که داشت نامه ی یکی از طرفدارانش را میخواند، که اینگونه شروع شده بود: «با خواندن کتابتان، احساس میکنم که باید چه بانوی بزرگواری باشید.» ظاهرا ��س از خواندن کتاب «دومین ماهی قرمز» چنان هیجان ادبی شدیدی به او دست داده بود، و چنین چیزهایی را نوشته بود، که البته از نظر خانم «اولیور» کاملاً بیمورد بود؛ چندان اهل تواضع و فروتنی ن��ود؛ به نظرش داستانهای پلیسی ای که مینوشت در نوع خودشان خوب بودند؛ بعضیشان هم خیلی خوب نبودند، و برخی دیگر خیلی بهتر از بقیه بودند؛ اما تا جاییکه میدانست، هیچ دلیلی وجود نداشت که کسی تصور کند او یک زن بزرگوار است؛ او تنها این شانس را داشت که توانسته بود با استفاده از استعداد و مهارتی که در نوشتن دارد، افراد بسیاری را که به مطالعه علاقه داشتند سرگرم کند؛ و این از دید خانم «اولیور» یک خوش شانسی بزرگ بود؛ خلاصه آنکه، روی هم رفته، او توانسته بود به شایستگی از پس این آزمون سخت برآید؛ خوش گذرانده بود و با آدمهای خوبی صحبت کرده بود؛ حالا همه داشتند به جایی میرفتند که قهوه ها دست به دست میچرخید و میشد با افراد دیگر گپ زد؛ اینجا بود که احتمال خطر ....) پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 01/01/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ 10/01/1401هجری خوشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
March 28, 2021
Elephants Can Remember made me sad...because I solved it. You see, the reason I hold Dame Agatha Christie in such high regard is that she always outfoxes me, even though I've been studying the detective genre and teaching courses on it for years. No other author can do it; fond as I am of Dame Agatha's Golden Age contemporaries--Dorothy Sayers, Patricia Wentworth, Josephine Tey, Ngaio Marsh, et. al.--they seldom baffle me unless they haven't played fair and given me enough to go on. But Dame Agatha...I rarely figure her out before the end. This novel, though, seemed transparent to me, and that's a shame. I don't believe for one moment that Dame Agatha declined in talent with age--she wrote excellent novels throughout her 56-year career, and a few of my favorites were written late in her life. I just think, for whatever reason, this wasn't one of her best.
Dame Agatha has many excellent "cold case" novels; they were one of her specialties--Murder in Retrospect, Dumb Witness, Nemesis, Sleeping Murder, and many others. Perhaps she did finally run out of variations on this specific theme. Perhaps it should have been a Miss Marple case instead of a Poirot, since Miss Marple does such a wonderful job of playing the gossipy old lady in situations like this. I don't know. I just know that for once the obvious twist was the correct one, and I'd rather never speak of that again!
Dame Agatha has many excellent "cold case" novels; they were one of her specialties--Murder in Retrospect, Dumb Witness, Nemesis, Sleeping Murder, and many others. Perhaps she did finally run out of variations on this specific theme. Perhaps it should have been a Miss Marple case instead of a Poirot, since Miss Marple does such a wonderful job of playing the gossipy old lady in situations like this. I don't know. I just know that for once the obvious twist was the correct one, and I'd rather never speak of that again!
May 12, 2022
Elephants.
Amazing creatures as long as they stay out of rooms.
When a rude woman asks a highly impertinent question about the death of Ariadne Oliver's goddaughter's parents, it piques her interest in what was originally thought to be a murder-suicide.
And if anyone can help her get to the bottom of things, it's her old friend Hercule Poirot.
Ok. So this was one of Christie's last books. She died of old age in 1976 and this was published in 1972. Taking all of that into consideration, this book is something that I think most fans of Christie will love. Is it the best? Eh.
The twist in the murder story is actually pretty good.
Three women that loved the same man! Mental illness! A string of dead children! Twins! An odd assortment of wigs! The unbreakable bond of love between sisters! And finally...a dog.
But there's a lot of rambling along the way, and if you don't appreciate hearing old people talk about the past (I actually do like this) then you might not find as much to enjoy about it as I did.
However, I think fans will find a lot of intelligence left in an author who was nearing the end of her life. What I'd suggest is that this one is for the dyed-in-the-wool Christie addicts who want insight into their favorite author's last few years.
Recommended for fans of Agatha Christie and Poirot.
Amazing creatures as long as they stay out of rooms.
When a rude woman asks a highly impertinent question about the death of Ariadne Oliver's goddaughter's parents, it piques her interest in what was originally thought to be a murder-suicide.
And if anyone can help her get to the bottom of things, it's her old friend Hercule Poirot.
Ok. So this was one of Christie's last books. She died of old age in 1976 and this was published in 1972. Taking all of that into consideration, this book is something that I think most fans of Christie will love. Is it the best? Eh.
The twist in the murder story is actually pretty good.
Three women that loved the same man! Mental illness! A string of dead children! Twins! An odd assortment of wigs! The unbreakable bond of love between sisters! And finally...a dog.
But there's a lot of rambling along the way, and if you don't appreciate hearing old people talk about the past (I actually do like this) then you might not find as much to enjoy about it as I did.
However, I think fans will find a lot of intelligence left in an author who was nearing the end of her life. What I'd suggest is that this one is for the dyed-in-the-wool Christie addicts who want insight into their favorite author's last few years.
Recommended for fans of Agatha Christie and Poirot.
August 8, 2024
Hercule Poirot book No. 40 starts with Ariadne Oliver bringing Poirot a very cold and old double suicide case that Poirot has to investigate decades after it occurred… hence the title. 5 out of 12. Two Stars.
2014
2014
January 21, 2021
It is now over 4 years that I, along with other members of the Reading The Detectives Group, have been reading Agatha Christie's detective novels. We started with a year of the redoubtable Miss Marple and we are coming to a conclusion after 3 (and a bit ) years of the inimitable Hercule Poirot, I shall miss them both. (Luckily we have started a group read of non Marple/Poirot Christies.)
So, I was meant to be reading this book in December last year I think, but a (rare) reading slump, saw me fall 3 books behind schedule in this reading challenge. That said it has only taken me 2 days to read it, as I seem to be on a bit of a roll.
This is the first book I have read of Poirot's that references directly some of his previous cases (well the first I remember ), and reading some of the posted reviews, other people feel that it mirrors/borrows the plot from some previous books.
Personally I didn't find that many similarities with previous novels, yes it involved an incident in the distant past that Poirot has to investigate, and whilst he has done it once before, how many times has investigated a current crime ?
This book features the wonderful Ariadne Oliver and a brief appearance from the slightly creepy Mr Goby, who stares at the fireplace. For those who have never read this book , it is based around a young woman who's prospective mother-in-law is worried that she has inherited murderous tendencies after her mother and father supposedly ended their lives in a suicide pact.
Poirot gets involved as the young woman happens to be the god daughter of his close friend the wonderful Ariadne Oliver (I will always see Zoe Wanamaker). Having watched all the David Suchet Poirot's a few months ago I remembered this story, but still enjoyed this a lot. Hercule and Ariadne investigate all the way through this novel, and bring it to a conclusion really well (I do not see it as wishy-washy and vague as some reviews have mentioned)
Yes I have given it 4 stars, but to be honest, to me it was around a 4.4 stars so was almost a 5 star detective read for me.
So, I was meant to be reading this book in December last year I think, but a (rare) reading slump, saw me fall 3 books behind schedule in this reading challenge. That said it has only taken me 2 days to read it, as I seem to be on a bit of a roll.
This is the first book I have read of Poirot's that references directly some of his previous cases (well the first I remember ), and reading some of the posted reviews, other people feel that it mirrors/borrows the plot from some previous books.
Personally I didn't find that many similarities with previous novels, yes it involved an incident in the distant past that Poirot has to investigate, and whilst he has done it once before, how many times has investigated a current crime ?
This book features the wonderful Ariadne Oliver and a brief appearance from the slightly creepy Mr Goby, who stares at the fireplace. For those who have never read this book , it is based around a young woman who's prospective mother-in-law is worried that she has inherited murderous tendencies after her mother and father supposedly ended their lives in a suicide pact.
Poirot gets involved as the young woman happens to be the god daughter of his close friend the wonderful Ariadne Oliver (I will always see Zoe Wanamaker). Having watched all the David Suchet Poirot's a few months ago I remembered this story, but still enjoyed this a lot. Hercule and Ariadne investigate all the way through this novel, and bring it to a conclusion really well (I do not see it as wishy-washy and vague as some reviews have mentioned)
Yes I have given it 4 stars, but to be honest, to me it was around a 4.4 stars so was almost a 5 star detective read for me.
July 9, 2023
Long summer days and nights are perfect for reading whodunits. With hours to spare hundreds of pages can feel like nothing as one is intrigued by a crime and whodunit. For this last year I have been enamored with Louise Penny’s Armand Gamache. I have noted on more than one occasion that if one were to place Hercule Poirot in 21st century Quebec, Gamache would be the result. As I have been reading through that series, it has been awhile since I read a mystery featuring the actual Hercule Poirot. The Belgian sleuth famous for his bald head, mustaches, and use of gray cells always has me on the edge of my seat. I decided to reacquaint myself with the esteemed Belgian sleuth.
Hercule Poirot is long retired, although crimes find him, and those who know him as being a famous detective are now residing in graveyards. Ariadne Oliver, the crime writer turned amateur detective, is in need of Poirot’s assistance after her a detestable woman enquired after the death of Oliver’s g-daughter’s parents. I have found Oliver irksome in the past but, perhaps, as this book is from later in Dame Christie’s life, she has reformed her characters and made them wistful and people friendly. Or it could be that this Mrs Burton-Cox is absolutely disgusting and makes Oliver charming in the process. Ariadne Oliver thinks up crimes in her head; she does not solve them, so she turns to the one person she know can solve any crime: Hercule Poirot. The crime at hand is twelve years old and was closed as a murder-suicide, yet something is off. Poirot implores Oliver to chase elephants: people who remembered the victims, when he tracks down his old contacts at the police force. One of these “elephants” has to remember a key clue to bring the closed case to justice.
Poirot’s gray cells work faster than those of the average person’s. In the past he chose to work along even though he had “assistance” from Captain Hastings or another equally unqualified assistant. Much of the detecting this time around requires a woman’s intuition, and for that Poirot needs Oliver to chase elephants. The key clues they have are four wigs and that one of the victims was a twin. For once I thought I had figured out the case before it closed, something I have been determined to do for years. It also intrigued me how Christie had the accomplished Poirot working in concert with Oliver and seeing what both brought to the table, sensing that in Christie’s old age she wanted to show how men and women think differently and offer much to society from distinct vantage points. Even though Oliver is not an adept detective, her sleuthing provides Poirot with key clues that allow him to solve the case. He could not have questioned witnesses in the same manner as a woman, which I found as an extra layer of intrigue to this case.
Generations of crime writers have Agatha Christie to thank for their careers. She is Dame Christie, the queen of crime for a reason. As per usual, Poirot uses his little gray cells to solve a closed case. His former colleagues are shocked because they would have never thought of the outcome from the same angle. That is why Hercule Poirot is the best detective there is. I might have actually figured out whodunit this time around, or at least thought of a key plot point before it was introduced. There are still other Poirot cases for me to read, so, perhaps, eventually I will figure the entire case out before the end. That is my goal anyway. While I continue with modern mysteries, I am glad to be reminded that it is always a pleasure to read a Hercule Poirot mystery. He was once the best detective in the world, and it is always mind stimulating to read Dame Christie’s books with Poirot front and center.
Hercule Poirot is long retired, although crimes find him, and those who know him as being a famous detective are now residing in graveyards. Ariadne Oliver, the crime writer turned amateur detective, is in need of Poirot’s assistance after her a detestable woman enquired after the death of Oliver’s g-daughter’s parents. I have found Oliver irksome in the past but, perhaps, as this book is from later in Dame Christie’s life, she has reformed her characters and made them wistful and people friendly. Or it could be that this Mrs Burton-Cox is absolutely disgusting and makes Oliver charming in the process. Ariadne Oliver thinks up crimes in her head; she does not solve them, so she turns to the one person she know can solve any crime: Hercule Poirot. The crime at hand is twelve years old and was closed as a murder-suicide, yet something is off. Poirot implores Oliver to chase elephants: people who remembered the victims, when he tracks down his old contacts at the police force. One of these “elephants” has to remember a key clue to bring the closed case to justice.
Poirot’s gray cells work faster than those of the average person’s. In the past he chose to work along even though he had “assistance” from Captain Hastings or another equally unqualified assistant. Much of the detecting this time around requires a woman’s intuition, and for that Poirot needs Oliver to chase elephants. The key clues they have are four wigs and that one of the victims was a twin. For once I thought I had figured out the case before it closed, something I have been determined to do for years. It also intrigued me how Christie had the accomplished Poirot working in concert with Oliver and seeing what both brought to the table, sensing that in Christie’s old age she wanted to show how men and women think differently and offer much to society from distinct vantage points. Even though Oliver is not an adept detective, her sleuthing provides Poirot with key clues that allow him to solve the case. He could not have questioned witnesses in the same manner as a woman, which I found as an extra layer of intrigue to this case.
Generations of crime writers have Agatha Christie to thank for their careers. She is Dame Christie, the queen of crime for a reason. As per usual, Poirot uses his little gray cells to solve a closed case. His former colleagues are shocked because they would have never thought of the outcome from the same angle. That is why Hercule Poirot is the best detective there is. I might have actually figured out whodunit this time around, or at least thought of a key plot point before it was introduced. There are still other Poirot cases for me to read, so, perhaps, eventually I will figure the entire case out before the end. That is my goal anyway. While I continue with modern mysteries, I am glad to be reminded that it is always a pleasure to read a Hercule Poirot mystery. He was once the best detective in the world, and it is always mind stimulating to read Dame Christie’s books with Poirot front and center.
April 23, 2020
When I first read this novel, I did not realise that it was among the late ones, published in 1972 (and AC died in 1976).
Now it was a more conscious read and bearing the publishing date in mind, it really felt a little ... hmm... maybe "tired" is the appropriate word.
The mystery in itself was quite intriguing, but the way it was presented, was not. Hercule Poirot and Mrs Oliver both lacked energy and the solution was also just an eye-witness eventually confirming & telling what happened.
Not a bad book altogether, but not engaging either.
Now it was a more conscious read and bearing the publishing date in mind, it really felt a little ... hmm... maybe "tired" is the appropriate word.
The mystery in itself was quite intriguing, but the way it was presented, was not. Hercule Poirot and Mrs Oliver both lacked energy and the solution was also just an eye-witness eventually confirming & telling what happened.
Not a bad book altogether, but not engaging either.
January 8, 2017
“Elephants can remember, but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget.”
My first Christie of 2017. It took me a few attempts to get into the story, not because it was difficult to find a way to engage with the plot but purely because I enjoyed re-reading the opening of the story where Ariadne Oliver, Dame Agatha's alter ego in this series, considers the different ways to wear a hat and which hat is appropriate for which occasion.
I love Ariadne. She's the scatty, sassy, creative, liberal counterpart to Poirot. Not as brilliant in applying logic, but just as brilliant by her exuberance and love of life.
As for the story itself, this was quite different from previous works of Christie. Although there are some similarities with A Murder is Announced (one of my favourites), Elephants Can Remember is not a locked room mystery and puts much more emphasis on the different mental states and attitudes of the characters, who all seem to be entities who interact with each other, but who seem to act somewhat isolated from other characters.
Despite the occasional comic relief through Ariadne's antics, there is little that is cozy or twee about this story and in a way it struck me as if Christie tried her hand at a dark, psychological thriller, rather than at another Poirot mystery. I very much admired the attempt. Many of the Christie novels I love best are quite dark - just look at Endless Night! - even though she is of course best known for mysteries that are more akin to puzzles than gritty crime novels.
Maybe my appreciation for Elephants Can Remember has been influenced by my recent foray into the writing of Patricia Highsmith, whose work was contemporary to Christie's later work (including Elephants), but I did wonder whether Christie was influenced by the change in direction that crime fiction in the 1960s and 1970s seemed to have undergone.
My first Christie of 2017. It took me a few attempts to get into the story, not because it was difficult to find a way to engage with the plot but purely because I enjoyed re-reading the opening of the story where Ariadne Oliver, Dame Agatha's alter ego in this series, considers the different ways to wear a hat and which hat is appropriate for which occasion.
I love Ariadne. She's the scatty, sassy, creative, liberal counterpart to Poirot. Not as brilliant in applying logic, but just as brilliant by her exuberance and love of life.
As for the story itself, this was quite different from previous works of Christie. Although there are some similarities with A Murder is Announced (one of my favourites), Elephants Can Remember is not a locked room mystery and puts much more emphasis on the different mental states and attitudes of the characters, who all seem to be entities who interact with each other, but who seem to act somewhat isolated from other characters.
Despite the occasional comic relief through Ariadne's antics, there is little that is cozy or twee about this story and in a way it struck me as if Christie tried her hand at a dark, psychological thriller, rather than at another Poirot mystery. I very much admired the attempt. Many of the Christie novels I love best are quite dark - just look at Endless Night! - even though she is of course best known for mysteries that are more akin to puzzles than gritty crime novels.
Maybe my appreciation for Elephants Can Remember has been influenced by my recent foray into the writing of Patricia Highsmith, whose work was contemporary to Christie's later work (including Elephants), but I did wonder whether Christie was influenced by the change in direction that crime fiction in the 1960s and 1970s seemed to have undergone.
November 12, 2024
“She was a lucky woman who had established a happy knack of writing what quite a lot of people wanted to read. Wonderful luck that was, Mrs. Oliver thought to herself.
I actually really enjoyed this novel although it was very different to the usual Agatha Christie murder mysteries. Elephants Can Remember deals with a cold case, one devoid of threat or danger, where Poirot tries to put together events that happened 12 years prior. This could sound drab but for the brilliance of Ariadne Oliver. She has a central role here. Not only does the case land on her lap but she actively goes in search of elephant people with long memories to great humour. Even Poirot behaves, encouraging and helping her in this endeavour.
The mystery can be solved by the reader rather easily but it is the manner in which it is written that I liked. That and the fact that Ariadne embodies Agatha for me. Her comments about the literary gathering, experience with fans, etc., all sounded like things Christie had experienced.
I actually really enjoyed this novel although it was very different to the usual Agatha Christie murder mysteries. Elephants Can Remember deals with a cold case, one devoid of threat or danger, where Poirot tries to put together events that happened 12 years prior. This could sound drab but for the brilliance of Ariadne Oliver. She has a central role here. Not only does the case land on her lap but she actively goes in search of elephant people with long memories to great humour. Even Poirot behaves, encouraging and helping her in this endeavour.
The mystery can be solved by the reader rather easily but it is the manner in which it is written that I liked. That and the fact that Ariadne embodies Agatha for me. Her comments about the literary gathering, experience with fans, etc., all sounded like things Christie had experienced.
March 8, 2013
This was my least favorite of all the Poirot novels. On the surface it was a Poirot novel, possessing all the necessary elements: the complicated mystery, the little clues that don't seem at first relevant, the humor that comes out mainly through the side kick full of fanciful ideas, the love story between two young people, and of course, Poirot himself. But despite all these elements, the entire book read, not like an Agatha Christie, but like someone attempting to write in the style of Agatha Christie. Overall, it was too heavy in dialogue, and structured somehow more like a drama than a novel. The voice, particularly in the characterization of Poirot, was all wrong. And the mystery itself....Though I didn't have every detail worked out, primarily because I was over complicating things and building in coincidences that turned out to be untrue, I still managed to figure the whole thing out well before Poirot. And I think that's the first time I've ever done that.
November 24, 2023
A convoluted mystery which left most of the participants stumped. I usually enjoy stories which include the character Ariadne Oliver, but in this story she seemed dim and annoying.
Topics include: twins, mental illness, and exploring family history.
Favorite quotes:
"Love can turn to hate very easily. It is easier to hate where you have loved than it is to be indifferent where you have loved."
"Elephants can remember," said Mrs. Oliver, "but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget."
"Old sins have long shadows."
Topics include: twins, mental illness, and exploring family history.
Favorite quotes:
"Love can turn to hate very easily. It is easier to hate where you have loved than it is to be indifferent where you have loved."
"Elephants can remember," said Mrs. Oliver, "but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget."
"Old sins have long shadows."
February 19, 2023
În lipsa lui Hastings, pe care nici măcar nu mai sper că îl voi revedea într-unul din puținele romane rămase în serie, Ariadne Oliver este o parteneră care dă culoare intrigii. Aceasta este o scriitoare de romane polițiste, excentrică, cu idei multe și trăsnite, care ghidată de Hercule Poirot încearcă să rezolve misterul unei crime/sinucideri care s-a petrecut cu mult timp în urmă. Și doar niște memorii demne de niște elefanți ar putea face lumină într-un caz atât de vechi. Acesta este și leitmotivul care o va ghida pe tot parcursul anchetei „elefanții nu uită niciodată”. Rolul lui Hercule Poirot nu este unul proeminent, dar dinamica dintre cei doi este una amuzantă.
February 11, 2021
“She was a lucky woman who had established a happy knack of writing what quite a lot of people wanted to read. Wonderful luck that was, Mrs. Oliver thought to herself.”--Ariadne Oliver
One more to go! I have read all the Christie Poirot books in order, the last couple years or so, and this is the last one she wrote, published in 1972, when she was 81, though she wrote the last intended one in the series, Curtain, in the forties, to be released at the conclusion of the series. The first, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, she wrote in 1920. She died at 85.
Elephant is just okay, compared to the great ones of the forties. When I review Curtain I will name my favorites. This one is amusing in that for humans at 81, memory is a struggle, a kind of focus in literature and life. One is not interested in memory at 20 in the same way. People forget, sure, though they sometimes remember things for many years. So? This story involves solving a murder that took place many years ago, which had been deemed a double suicide. The solution involves twins, wigs, the detective writer Ariadne Oliver again helping Poirot solve the crime. The elephant-never-forgets theme is way over done, and pretty boring; people are seen as elephants if they remember. The epithet “nosy parker” is repeated possibly five times; had she just heard it and couldn’t get it out of her head?
For what she may have known was one of the last Poirot books, she surprisingly spends very little time reflecting on Poirot’s career, though there are some footnotes about books where Poirot has gone back and solved a cold case, something like this book. Maybe she was thinking she had Curtain in the bag to do that for her? She repeats a proverb she had just used in the last book: “Old sins have long shadows.” Did she forget she had just used it? Is she then not an elephant?
The best thing about this book is Ariadne Oliver, of whom Christie clearly wishes she had written more, but was stuck with the Belgian guy for her whole life that she was sick of by this point. Gee, I wonder what will happen to the old boy, who was retired already in 1920 when she first wrote about him. 52 years later, you do the math, is he 117?!
“Elephants can remember, but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget”—This is kind of how I feel about this book, after reading it. Forgive and forget. It’s not terrible, I guess, but I am by now ready to be done with her and Poirot, sorry to say, as it has been a largely fruitful and fun journey. And oh, I've forgotten the plot of the book altogether! And now who is Poirot? Agatha who?
(I apologize to all readers who see my conclusion as insensitive to families impacted by dementia. But I have two sibs who suffer from this, and who no longer know me, so laughter is sometimes the best medicine. But I am getting older by the minute, too, so my memory is already shaky. . . now what was I saying?)
One more to go! I have read all the Christie Poirot books in order, the last couple years or so, and this is the last one she wrote, published in 1972, when she was 81, though she wrote the last intended one in the series, Curtain, in the forties, to be released at the conclusion of the series. The first, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, she wrote in 1920. She died at 85.
Elephant is just okay, compared to the great ones of the forties. When I review Curtain I will name my favorites. This one is amusing in that for humans at 81, memory is a struggle, a kind of focus in literature and life. One is not interested in memory at 20 in the same way. People forget, sure, though they sometimes remember things for many years. So? This story involves solving a murder that took place many years ago, which had been deemed a double suicide. The solution involves twins, wigs, the detective writer Ariadne Oliver again helping Poirot solve the crime. The elephant-never-forgets theme is way over done, and pretty boring; people are seen as elephants if they remember. The epithet “nosy parker” is repeated possibly five times; had she just heard it and couldn’t get it out of her head?
For what she may have known was one of the last Poirot books, she surprisingly spends very little time reflecting on Poirot’s career, though there are some footnotes about books where Poirot has gone back and solved a cold case, something like this book. Maybe she was thinking she had Curtain in the bag to do that for her? She repeats a proverb she had just used in the last book: “Old sins have long shadows.” Did she forget she had just used it? Is she then not an elephant?
The best thing about this book is Ariadne Oliver, of whom Christie clearly wishes she had written more, but was stuck with the Belgian guy for her whole life that she was sick of by this point. Gee, I wonder what will happen to the old boy, who was retired already in 1920 when she first wrote about him. 52 years later, you do the math, is he 117?!
“Elephants can remember, but we are human beings and mercifully human beings can forget”—This is kind of how I feel about this book, after reading it. Forgive and forget. It’s not terrible, I guess, but I am by now ready to be done with her and Poirot, sorry to say, as it has been a largely fruitful and fun journey. And oh, I've forgotten the plot of the book altogether! And now who is Poirot? Agatha who?
(I apologize to all readers who see my conclusion as insensitive to families impacted by dementia. But I have two sibs who suffer from this, and who no longer know me, so laughter is sometimes the best medicine. But I am getting older by the minute, too, so my memory is already shaky. . . now what was I saying?)
September 22, 2018
Before the middle of the book, I already knew the solution to the crimes. Moreover, the explanation for the crimes was too melodramatic. And I love Poirot, but he appears little in this story, as Ariadne Oliver does too many investigations. Well, I read it in my native language and I got it from the public library where I work, but I have this book in the original in my home. Now, I don't know when I will read this story again to improve my English.
January 29, 2020
I thought this book was very well written, however it does make the police who investigated the original deaths, look rather stupid and willing to accept one particular explanation rather than investigating what happened. If Poirot and Ariadne Oliver can find out the answers a decade after the original deaths then it doesn't say much for Inspector Garroway and his detectives who investigated the original crime. There are enough clues along the way for the reader to work out who did what.
November 22, 2020
Elephants Can Remember is one of the very poorly written murder-mysteries of the Poirot series. There was nothing original about the story, only a mixture of borrowed elements from the preceding novels thrown together.
Here, Poirot is brought in to investigate a past crime at the request of both Ariadne Oliver and the daughter of the victims. Poirot is assisted by Ariadne Oliver to probe into the past to collect information/evidence towards unearthing the truth.
The story was muddled with no proper flow. The investigation was haphazardly done and much was relied on conjecture. There was not much in the mystery; it was too simple and was easily figured out. The dual identity and the disguising which we've seen in some of her other stories were employed here with poor effect. Also, very little attempt is made at engaging the reader's attention and interest.
Personally, I think this was the most disappointing in the Poirot series. Perhaps, being almost at the end of the series, Agatha Christie may have gotten tired with hunting for new ideas.
Here, Poirot is brought in to investigate a past crime at the request of both Ariadne Oliver and the daughter of the victims. Poirot is assisted by Ariadne Oliver to probe into the past to collect information/evidence towards unearthing the truth.
The story was muddled with no proper flow. The investigation was haphazardly done and much was relied on conjecture. There was not much in the mystery; it was too simple and was easily figured out. The dual identity and the disguising which we've seen in some of her other stories were employed here with poor effect. Also, very little attempt is made at engaging the reader's attention and interest.
Personally, I think this was the most disappointing in the Poirot series. Perhaps, being almost at the end of the series, Agatha Christie may have gotten tired with hunting for new ideas.
July 2, 2020
ωραία τα βιβλία της.
December 9, 2010
Choose Your Own Adventure!
The elephant brain is denser than the human’s, and the temporal lobes, associated with memory, are more developed than in humans. Elephant lobes also have more folding, so that they can store more information. That’s why elephants have excellent memory. But why? Elephants can recognize over 200 different individuals. This is essential, as females depend on one another for raising the young, more than in the case of other mammals. A mother can remember who is trustful and complex bonds are the bricks of elephant society, while the memory is the cement. When two elephants approach one another, they emit a “contact appeal”: if the other recognizes the appeal, it responds and approaches; if not, it starts to agitate and adopts a defensive position. This capacity of recognition lasts a very long time, even after one individual is dead: even the recording of a dead animal attracts the attention of its relatives and descendants.
If you are an enemy of elephants, choose http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
If you love elephants because of their long memories (better to remember all those grudges) and because of their big feet (all the better to stomp your enemies into paste), choose http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
The elephant brain is denser than the human’s, and the temporal lobes, associated with memory, are more developed than in humans. Elephant lobes also have more folding, so that they can store more information. That’s why elephants have excellent memory. But why? Elephants can recognize over 200 different individuals. This is essential, as females depend on one another for raising the young, more than in the case of other mammals. A mother can remember who is trustful and complex bonds are the bricks of elephant society, while the memory is the cement. When two elephants approach one another, they emit a “contact appeal”: if the other recognizes the appeal, it responds and approaches; if not, it starts to agitate and adopts a defensive position. This capacity of recognition lasts a very long time, even after one individual is dead: even the recording of a dead animal attracts the attention of its relatives and descendants.
If you are an enemy of elephants, choose http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
If you love elephants because of their long memories (better to remember all those grudges) and because of their big feet (all the better to stomp your enemies into paste), choose http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
April 7, 2020
A good story.
Celia Ravenscroft and Desmond Burton-Cox want to marry. Desmond’s mother by adoption, Mrs Burton-Cox am odious woman opposes the marriage. At a literary luncheon she approaches Ariadne Oliver, who is Celia’s godmother to help her scupper the happy couples marriage plans. Celia’s parents died years ago in what the police determined to be a suicide pact. Mrs Burton-Cox wants to know who was the instigator as Molly the wife had a twin sister, Dolly that was mentally unstable. If she can prove this Desmond may hesitate to marry Celia if lunacy runs in the family.
Oliver and Poirot team up to investigate and find out the motive behind the deaths. The character development is very good but not enough red herrings and not difficult to work out the motive. The four wigs, a dog that bites and the past accidents associated around Dolly with children lead us to the motive.
A pleasant read and Oliver has Agatha Christie’s alto ego gives us a little insight into her eccentricity.
Celia Ravenscroft and Desmond Burton-Cox want to marry. Desmond’s mother by adoption, Mrs Burton-Cox am odious woman opposes the marriage. At a literary luncheon she approaches Ariadne Oliver, who is Celia’s godmother to help her scupper the happy couples marriage plans. Celia’s parents died years ago in what the police determined to be a suicide pact. Mrs Burton-Cox wants to know who was the instigator as Molly the wife had a twin sister, Dolly that was mentally unstable. If she can prove this Desmond may hesitate to marry Celia if lunacy runs in the family.
Oliver and Poirot team up to investigate and find out the motive behind the deaths. The character development is very good but not enough red herrings and not difficult to work out the motive. The four wigs, a dog that bites and the past accidents associated around Dolly with children lead us to the motive.
A pleasant read and Oliver has Agatha Christie’s alto ego gives us a little insight into her eccentricity.
August 3, 2021
4/5⭐
“Hay un proverbio que mi abuela solía repetir: Los pecados viejos tienen largas sombras.”
Este libro se me hizo una lectura ligera y entretenida.
Lo que más me gustó fue como se desarrolla la trama hasta descubrir la verdad. Aclaro esto porque lo que me gustó de otros libros de Agatha Christie es el final, pero en este libro me gustó absolutamente todo.
“Hay un proverbio que mi abuela solía repetir: Los pecados viejos tienen largas sombras.”
Este libro se me hizo una lectura ligera y entretenida.
Lo que más me gustó fue como se desarrolla la trama hasta descubrir la verdad. Aclaro esto porque lo que me gustó de otros libros de Agatha Christie es el final, pero en este libro me gustó absolutamente todo.
June 27, 2023
"Los elefantes pueden recordar".
Dos amigos, Hercules Poirot, famoso detective, y Ariadne Oliver, famosa escritora de novelas policíacas, investigan una tragedia ocurrida hace muchos años: un doble suicidio.
Ambos, cada uno a su manera, empieza con la caza de "elefantes", y poco a poco, gracias a los recuerdos de estos, logran armar el rompecabezas del caso y descubrir lo que realmente ocurrió.
Realmente creí que era yo quién sentía super lento este libro hasta que vi más reseñas donde precisamente todos comentaban lo mismo, es extraño siento un libro de Poirot pero el no está como protagonista si no otra mujer, no me terminó de convencer y aja, fue bastante lento. No hay que atrapar al asesino, que es de las cosas más emocionantes en las novelas de Agatha Christie, la trama es entretenida pero no da el ancho a sus hermanitos.
Lo más interesante solo pasa en las últimas páginas pero medio enredado que nisiquiera estoy segura si le entendí del todo.
Dos amigos, Hercules Poirot, famoso detective, y Ariadne Oliver, famosa escritora de novelas policíacas, investigan una tragedia ocurrida hace muchos años: un doble suicidio.
Ambos, cada uno a su manera, empieza con la caza de "elefantes", y poco a poco, gracias a los recuerdos de estos, logran armar el rompecabezas del caso y descubrir lo que realmente ocurrió.
Realmente creí que era yo quién sentía super lento este libro hasta que vi más reseñas donde precisamente todos comentaban lo mismo, es extraño siento un libro de Poirot pero el no está como protagonista si no otra mujer, no me terminó de convencer y aja, fue bastante lento. No hay que atrapar al asesino, que es de las cosas más emocionantes en las novelas de Agatha Christie, la trama es entretenida pero no da el ancho a sus hermanitos.
Lo más interesante solo pasa en las últimas páginas pero medio enredado que nisiquiera estoy segura si le entendí del todo.
December 15, 2020
Weer een verhaal waarin Poirot samenwerkt met Mrs. Oliver, wat fijn om te lezen is. Beiden hebben zo hun eigenaardigheden, en samen vormen ze een fantastisch team. Deze keer gaat het om de peetdochter van Mrs. Oliver, Celia. Haar aanstaande huwelijk staat op hel spel, als gevolg van een onverkwikkelijke gebeurtenis in het verleden. Het is aan Poirot en Mrs. Oliver om uit te pluizen wat er zoveel jaar voordien écht gebeurd is.
Vlot leesbaar, en een intrigerend verhaal.
Vlot leesbaar, en een intrigerend verhaal.
May 4, 2017
Reviewing an audio book is difficult because you have to separate out the different aspects: story, narrator and how well the story works in this media.
First, the story feels a bit typical and mundane with no real excitement or cause pushing the storyline along. It really comes down to a bunch of old people gossiping over a murder-suicide. The whole justification for this matter being brought to light just doesn't compel one to care all that much.
The narrator did a superb job differentiating the characters and giving them the appropriate feeling. With so much dialogue, he really had his work cut out for him and he saved this from being a 2 star rating.
This book would have been better suited, in my opinion, as an actual book. Focusing on the dialogue and following along was troublesome, at times. Some books translate rather well to an audio version, but this was not one of them.
Foul language and gore is absent. This book does bring up issues of murder, suicide and even sexual impropriety (though nothing vulgar or graphic) so that I would not recommend it to young readers. I'd put this in the category of older teens, but one could really find much better works that showcase the author's talent. I suggest going there first and leaving this one behind.
First, the story feels a bit typical and mundane with no real excitement or cause pushing the storyline along. It really comes down to a bunch of old people gossiping over a murder-suicide. The whole justification for this matter being brought to light just doesn't compel one to care all that much.
The narrator did a superb job differentiating the characters and giving them the appropriate feeling. With so much dialogue, he really had his work cut out for him and he saved this from being a 2 star rating.
This book would have been better suited, in my opinion, as an actual book. Focusing on the dialogue and following along was troublesome, at times. Some books translate rather well to an audio version, but this was not one of them.
Foul language and gore is absent. This book does bring up issues of murder, suicide and even sexual impropriety (though nothing vulgar or graphic) so that I would not recommend it to young readers. I'd put this in the category of older teens, but one could really find much better works that showcase the author's talent. I suggest going there first and leaving this one behind.
June 28, 2018
Poirot is still my favourite of AC's detectives. And every time I read one, I picture David Suchet in my mind. :)
Ariadne Oliver returns in this book and she is such a fantastic character. Apparently she is slightly auto-biographical and if that is the case than Ms Christie must have been a ton of fun to be around.
As usual, there are loads of clues and potential plot lines, and although I mostly got there, I still didn't quite solve everything. Great fun!
Ariadne Oliver returns in this book and she is such a fantastic character. Apparently she is slightly auto-biographical and if that is the case than Ms Christie must have been a ton of fun to be around.
As usual, there are loads of clues and potential plot lines, and although I mostly got there, I still didn't quite solve everything. Great fun!
June 12, 2023
This Poriot mystery is mainly remembered for being the last novel that Christie wrote in which features the famous Belgian detective.
It's been an epic journey working my way through the series (though I've still got Curtain left to read...) and this story that tackles memories as part of a plot did feel very much like the end of Christie's career as a writer.
There's some nice references to earlier cases, so reading in order added to the experience while seeing Poriot team up with Ariadne Oliver is always fun.
The hook was quite enticing as an unsolved murder of a husband and wife is reassessed.
With both bodies having been shot and the revolver featuring both sets of prints, the question arises of the potential of a double suicide or if one of them murdered the other first.
The difference between Poriot speaking to the police who covered the initial case and Oliver meeting elderly witnesses adds a nice different approach by the pair too.
The novels main problem is that these side characters didn't feel as striking enough compared to other novels and sadly showed a decline in Christie's writing ability due to her age.
It's been an epic journey working my way through the series (though I've still got Curtain left to read...) and this story that tackles memories as part of a plot did feel very much like the end of Christie's career as a writer.
There's some nice references to earlier cases, so reading in order added to the experience while seeing Poriot team up with Ariadne Oliver is always fun.
The hook was quite enticing as an unsolved murder of a husband and wife is reassessed.
With both bodies having been shot and the revolver featuring both sets of prints, the question arises of the potential of a double suicide or if one of them murdered the other first.
The difference between Poriot speaking to the police who covered the initial case and Oliver meeting elderly witnesses adds a nice different approach by the pair too.
The novels main problem is that these side characters didn't feel as striking enough compared to other novels and sadly showed a decline in Christie's writing ability due to her age.
November 1, 2024
Hercule Poirot returns with another baffling case, perfect for the series fan. In a steep outside the normal, Poirot tackles a case of death years in the past. Someone is seeking to understand what happened to her parents, especially the rumours of double suicide. Poirot is alway up for a challenge and delves deeply to better understand the victims and those around them, all in an effort to crack the case and provide solace to an adult with a storm cloud of concern. Agatha Christie dazzles with this piece and keeps the reader wondering throughout.
Hercule Poirot may live in the present, but there are times when the past comes crashing into the current day. Poirot recollects a case from the past when he was asked to look into the death of a woman who fell off a cliff and the eventual discovery of a married couple. It appears as though it might have been a double suicide, though some whispers lead Poirot and those in town to wonder if it might have been a murder-suicide. Illness? Romantic pact? A relationship gone awry? Whatever it was, Poirot will get to the bottom of the case and use his skills to eke out the truth from those who remember the couple. As Poirot pushes deeper, he discovers just how scrambled things become when time is used to stretch out people’s memories. A great story that shows that Christie is keen on variety.
Agatha Christie uses her stellar storytelling abilities yet again, having her protagonist look backwards to remember cases form the past, as well as trying to use witness statements that force their powers of recollection. The story develops effectively and leaves the reader hooked on each clue that comes to pass. The narrative clips along and Christie provides key hints to solve everything, given some patience and determination. Poirot leads a great cast of characters, all of whom are sure to provide the reader with a great flavouring. The case, though cemented well in the past, proves effective to entertain the series fan and curious reader alike.
Kudos, Dame Christie, for another great story.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
Hercule Poirot may live in the present, but there are times when the past comes crashing into the current day. Poirot recollects a case from the past when he was asked to look into the death of a woman who fell off a cliff and the eventual discovery of a married couple. It appears as though it might have been a double suicide, though some whispers lead Poirot and those in town to wonder if it might have been a murder-suicide. Illness? Romantic pact? A relationship gone awry? Whatever it was, Poirot will get to the bottom of the case and use his skills to eke out the truth from those who remember the couple. As Poirot pushes deeper, he discovers just how scrambled things become when time is used to stretch out people’s memories. A great story that shows that Christie is keen on variety.
Agatha Christie uses her stellar storytelling abilities yet again, having her protagonist look backwards to remember cases form the past, as well as trying to use witness statements that force their powers of recollection. The story develops effectively and leaves the reader hooked on each clue that comes to pass. The narrative clips along and Christie provides key hints to solve everything, given some patience and determination. Poirot leads a great cast of characters, all of whom are sure to provide the reader with a great flavouring. The case, though cemented well in the past, proves effective to entertain the series fan and curious reader alike.
Kudos, Dame Christie, for another great story.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
November 5, 2018
Ας το ομολογήσω πια : η Αγκάθα Κρίστι έγραψε και μερικές πατάτες, έτσι δεν είναι ; Ίσως το πιο προφανές whodunit που έχω διαβάσει. Όπως και άλλοι εδώ μέσα είπαν, η λύση του "μυστηρίου" ήταν προφανής. Αλλά το πρόβλημα δεν είναι αυτό. Το πρόβλημα είναι πως ένα βιβλίο γραμμένο το 1972, φαντάζει τόσο πολύ "παλιομοδίτικο" για την εποχή του : μακρυμάλληδες που παίρνουν ναρκωτικά, και αχ αυτοί οι σιδηροδρομικοί υπάλληλοι που κάνουν απεργία. Σαν θείτσα από την Βικτωριανή εποχή που τηλεμεταφέρθηκε στα 70s και σοκάρεται. Να μην πιάσω τα σχεδόν αφελή σχόλια-και οριακά ρατσιστικά να τα διαβάζεις στη σύγχρονη εποχή- περί "φρενοβλαβών" που μπαίνουν σε μια "φρενολογική" κλινική, έτσι γενικά και αόριστα-με γιατρό μάλιστα γκεστ. Ρε Αγκαθα, κάνε ένα ρισερτς. Και αν βαριέσαι να την κάνεις, γράψε "η γυναίκα ήταν τρελή", μην καταπιέζεσαι. Επίσης, η Αριάδνη Όλιβερ ήταν το προφανές alter ego της, ήτοι το βιβλίο είχε τόσο αυτολιβάνισμα που βαρέθηκα. Μπορεί να έφταιξε και η μέτρια μετάφραση από τις εκδόσεις Λυχνάρι, που όλοι οι Έλληνες φανς της Κρίστι πίνουν νερό στο όνομα τους, μόνο εγώ θυμάμαι τις καλαίσθητες εκδόσεις Ερμείας;
EDIT : ιδιαίτερα αρνητική εντύπωση μου έκανε και η στάση της συγγραφέως (τελικά έπρεπε να ενηλικιωθώ για να καταλάβω τον προφανή συντηρητισμό της Α. Κρίστι) απέναντι στο θέμα της υιοθεσίας. Μάλλον, οι θετές μητέρες δεν είναι "πραγματικές" μητέρες (ΟΚ, και φυσικά δεν είναι, αλλά το πνεύμα της συγγραφέως είναι εντελώς αρνητικό), άσε που επιβουλεύονται και την περιουσία των υιοθετημένων τέκνων τους...
Επίσης : σε τι κόσμο ζούσε τέλος πάντων αυτή η κυρία ; Όλοι πια "θα κληρονομούσαν ένα σεβαστό ποσό" για να ζήσουν ; Το είδα σε πάμπολλα βιβλία της. Καλά, δεν δούλευε κανείς τους ; Μιλάμε,πλέον για το 1972. Ο πατέρας ήταν ανώτερος δημόσιος υπάλληλος, τι περιουσία είχε για να φτάσει για τα τέκνα του ; Άντε και η βιολογική μητέρα ήταν "τραγουδίστρια της ποπ".Δεν μιλάμε για τον υποκόμη του Σάσσεξ. Και μετά σε πείραζαν οι απεργίες των σιδηροδρομικών. Κότα.
EDIT : ιδιαίτερα αρνητική εντύπωση μου έκανε και η στάση της συγγραφέως (τελικά έπρεπε να ενηλικιωθώ για να καταλάβω τον προφανή συντηρητισμό της Α. Κρίστι) απέναντι στο θέμα της υιοθεσίας. Μάλλον, οι θετές μητέρες δεν είναι "πραγματικές" μητέρες (ΟΚ, και φυσικά δεν είναι, αλλά το πνεύμα της συγγραφέως είναι εντελώς αρνητικό), άσε που επιβουλεύονται και την περιουσία των υιοθετημένων τέκνων τους...
Επίσης : σε τι κόσμο ζούσε τέλος πάντων αυτή η κυρία ; Όλοι πια "θα κληρονομούσαν ένα σεβαστό ποσό" για να ζήσουν ; Το είδα σε πάμπολλα βιβλία της. Καλά, δεν δούλευε κανείς τους ; Μιλάμε,πλέον για το 1972. Ο πατέρας ήταν ανώτερος δημόσιος υπάλληλος, τι περιουσία είχε για να φτάσει για τα τέκνα του ; Άντε και η βιολογική μητέρα ήταν "τραγουδίστρια της ποπ".Δεν μιλάμε για τον υποκόμη του Σάσσεξ. Και μετά σε πείραζαν οι απεργίες των σιδηροδρομικών. Κότα.
September 28, 2021
An annoying woman approaches Ariadne Oliver at an author luncheon. Her son wants to marry (one of) Mrs. Oliver’s (many) goddaughter(s), who was orphaned in a terrible event: the murder-suicide of her parents. The mother demands to know: which parent was the murderer?Whoa, this is one of the last Agatha Christie novels, and it read to me like a mystery written by someone who had used up every last bit of enthusiasm she ever had, and was running on fumes. I didn’t realize she could be this utterly boring. And obvious. Even though I didn’t even care who dunnit, I still figured out the general bones of the story long before the Big Reveal.
An intrigued Mrs. Oliver and her friend Hercule Poirot set off to solve a decade-plus-old mystery, with some help from the memories of elephants, who never forget.
Everything about this was boring. Characters, setting, dialogue, backstory — dull, dull, dull.
And when it wasn’t dull, it made me angry. Misogyny, outright or whiffed, accompanied nearly every female character. The attitudes towards adoption presented in this book — that adopted relatives are not and never will be “real” relatives — did not sit well with me at all, speaking as someone with two adopted siblings and an adopted cousin.
In addition, I’m not convinced that the math in the book — the characters’ ages and the amount of time that was supposed to have passed — worked out, but I couldn’t be bothered to go back through the book and track it a second time.
This really isn’t worth any more words, but I will end with one question: How does a person end up with so many godchildren that they can’t keep track of them all? This seems more like some kind of honorary godparenting than a serious endeavor. But perhaps that was standard for famous authors in the UK in the mid-20th century.
August 17, 2010
I was too distracted by the impossible timeline of Mrs. Oliver's age vs. the length of time she and Poirot have been friends to focus on the story.
If she was a bridesmaid at her friend's wedding, then they must have been around the same age--presumably within five years of each other. Now, if that school friend was 35 when she died, and her death occurred 13 years ago, that would make Mrs. Oliver at most 53 years old. How, then could she and Poirot have been friends for 40 years, as she says in the beginning of the book? When they meet, she's already "Mrs. Oliver," a lady, all enormous and gray-haired and loopy--certainly not a 13-year-old girl.
Trying to figure out whether Christie meant to write that they'd been friends for 20, even 30 years, or if the entire "we were school friends" connection was a mistake to begin with, drove me NUTS. It was very sloppy and detracted from an otherwise acceptable--if boring--mystery.
If she was a bridesmaid at her friend's wedding, then they must have been around the same age--presumably within five years of each other. Now, if that school friend was 35 when she died, and her death occurred 13 years ago, that would make Mrs. Oliver at most 53 years old. How, then could she and Poirot have been friends for 40 years, as she says in the beginning of the book? When they meet, she's already "Mrs. Oliver," a lady, all enormous and gray-haired and loopy--certainly not a 13-year-old girl.
Trying to figure out whether Christie meant to write that they'd been friends for 20, even 30 years, or if the entire "we were school friends" connection was a mistake to begin with, drove me NUTS. It was very sloppy and detracted from an otherwise acceptable--if boring--mystery.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,962 reviews