The A.B.C. Murders (1936) (Poirot #13) by Agatha Christie. There is a certain mindset needed to read and enjoy and get the most out of a mystery, no matter the author. You, the reader, have a certain advantage over the fictional detective. You know, even before you’ve opened the book and started the first page, that the detective will solve the mystery. This is especially so in a long running series such as the Poirot novels. No matter the puzzle or how cloaked the clues, a good detective novel will play fair and place all the information needed at your fingertips. It is not spelled out and you aren’t lead around by the nose sniffing out the right clues, but they should all be there. Beware the “mystery story” that has the detective receive a final, case breaking clue off page.
That is one of the wonderful things about a Christie story: she plays fair with the reader. Even though you have the advantage of knowing Poirot will solve the crime, you still have to work to follow the logic and winnow out the meanings of the clues, scant as they may be.
And you must utilize Poirot’s precious psychology of the criminal mind to interpret the true meaning of the events depicted. In this case, when two murders occur in different locations in England, there appears to be little to connect the pair save for the inclusion of an A.B.C. Railroad Guidebook found with the bodies. That and a letter proclaiming the murders coming to the retired Poirot shortly before the deaths.
Intrigued and worried by the murders, Poirot and Hastings join in with the police in trying to stem the flow of blood. When a third letter arrives, not prior to but on the day of the proclaimed killing, the entire inquiry almost becomes derailed.
You can be sure that even a daunted, dismayed Poirot will eventually catch the murderer, not using the plodding methods of the police, but be using the “little gray cells”. Thinking and the logical progression through the clues and the events and locations of the crimes are the only tools he needs to discover the killer’s true identity. While you may have read this mystery before I think you might be surprised by what you have misremembered, forgotten or didn’t notice the first time through.
I guess the question is. can you solve the crimes along with, or even before Poirot?
Like just about every mystery by Dame Agatha Christie, this book holds up nicely. ( )

Unfortunately I knew the twist prior to reading, still a great who done it ( )

I didn't want to read what I was supposed to read, and Jim suggested escaping with this old chestnut, which was a good idea. All the usual tropes are there, and it was pretty evident who the murderer was, but it was still nice to visit with Poirot and Hastings (who now seems to own a ranch and have a wife in South America - really?). ( )

3,5 ( )

Once again this is a novel I am reading with my U3A Agatha Christie Reading Group, and it is a re-read for me. Once again I have used the note-making facility on my Kindle to make a big list of the things that I want to talk about. (I actually started off using a printed copy, and then thought this note-making ability would be very useful).

Here are some of the things we are going to talk about - please leave a comment if you'd like to contribute to our discussion

The disclosure right at the beginning by Captain Hastings that he has departed from his usual practice of using only his own account, and has included third person accounts by someone else. So who wrote these extra chapters?
this novel was originally published in 1936, but the setting is only a year before?
How old is Poirot at this stage - Let's say he was about 60 when he arrived as a Belgian refugee during World War 1. Is he getting past it? Is Agatha Christie ageing him in "real time"?
Poirot and Hastings trying to prevent aging. Poirot with his black hair dye, Hastings with his comb-over
I think it is Agatha Christie's only novel with a plot about a serial killer. But am I right? Aren't there some novels where the killer strikes more than once?
How did Hercule Poirot tackle solving the puzzle. Why does Hastings get annoyed by his method? How do his methods differ from those of the other detectives?
the fact that Hercule Poirot has now retired several times, and now tackles only "the cream of crime"
The way Poirot is regarded (or not) by the other detectives trying to solve the crime
What is ABC trying to do with his letters to Poirot?
What are the questions Poirot asks himself in reference to the case? (Why has ABC contacted him rather than going straight to the police?)
Why does Poirot get the "vigilante" group together - the victims of crime group. What is he trying to achieve?
When does Poirot get his first idea about who is really behind the murders?
What is the final solution?

What other questions do YOU think I should put on my list? ( )