lifetime book-lover who writes about - what else? - a variety of books.
well, that was WONDERFUL. i can certainly see why The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is considered Agatha Christie's best. i'd thought And Then There Were None was impressive, but i had no idea. i've been reading mystery novels since at least middle school. but, if there's one thing that reading Christie's two novels has taught me is that the devil is indeed in the details. and my, oh my how very many details i missed.
i didn't peak at the last page this time, so i had no idea who the killer was until the very end. well, i could say i figured it out before H. Poirot made it obvious. but that'd only mean i figured it out one page before H. Poirot pointed the final finger. nevertheless, i think i'm finally on to Christie. i've come to understand that she simply can not be trusted. every decision -- the plot, the narrator, the way information is provided -- is strategic. and if there's information that isn't provided, it's left out for a reason. and if there's information that is provided, it may not be for the reason one would assume. and who am i kidding? i know all of this, and i'll still probably be clueless when it comes to the guilty party in the next book. and there will, of course, be a next book. i intend to read through Christie's top ten personal favorites, and i'm looking forward to every single one.
once again, i'm pretty sure i'm one of the last people in the world to finally read this book. but just in case, i think the less i say about the plot the better. the only thing i will say is that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd struck me as a more british style mystery than And Then There Were None, probably because the former is set in a small town and is largely about the seediness that might lie behind the idyllic scenery and close relationships. i thoroughly enjoyed every single minute of this book. highly recommended.
next up: murder on the orient express. because, what else am i going to read?