It’s been 3 decades (3!) since I’ve read an Agatha Christie book. I used to devour her books when I was a teenager. I loved every single one of them – especially the Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple mysteries. I never ever guessed who the murderer was. And it’s no exception with this particular book.
I’m guessing this story was written in the 1920’s (well it was first published in 1929 so I’m assuming it was written in that decade). However, it didn’t feel outdated. I also liked the dialogues, which there were plenty of. For example, the following passage between Bundle and her father Lord Caterham. It is so upper class but funny:
‘Even you,’ he said, ‘can’t have been to London and back in this time.’
‘I haven’t been to London,’ said Bundle. ‘I ran over a man.’
‘Only I didn’t really. He was shot.’
‘How could he have been?’
‘I don’t know how he could have been, but he was.’
‘But why did you shoot him?’
‘I didn’t shoot him.’
‘You shouldn’t shoot people,’ said Lord Caterham in a tone of mild remonstrance. ‘You shouldn’t really. I daresay some of them richly deserve it-but all the same it will lead to trouble.’
‘I tell you, I didn’t shoot him.’
‘Well who did?’
‘Nobody knows,’ said Bundle.
‘Nonsense,’ said Lord Caterham. ‘A man can’t be shot and run over without anyone having done it.’
‘He wasn’t run over,’ said Bundle.
‘I thought you said he was.’
‘I said I thought I had.’
‘A tyre burst, I suppose,’ said Lord Caterham. ‘That does sound like a shot. It says so in detective stories.’
‘You really are perfectly impossible, Father. You don’t seem to have the brains of a rabbit.’
So I’m not giving anything away in terms of the plot. It’s pretty much formulated: someone gets murdered, another person (or persons) tries to solve the mystery, the reader gets plenty of clues along the way then we find out who the murderer is at the end. It’s light reading; no in-depth or development of character but I like it!