The Thirteen Problems: Agatha Christie ****

Until relatively recently, I rather looked down my nose at Agatha Christie, but having now read the likes of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Five Little Pigs, I've realised there's a lot more to her writing than comes across in TV and film adaptations, so I recently picked up a copy of The Thirteen Problems from my local(ish) independent bookshop and was not disappointed.

This is the very first book to feature Miss Marple, but rather than providing a single, book-length mystery, this 1932 title includes 13 short stories. The premise is that six people are gathered in a house and each tells a story of a mysterious happening in their past, challenging the others to solve the mystery. The guests somewhat reluctantly include the initial host's elderly aunt Miss Marple, who ends up solving every mystery. (This is then repeated at a dinner party, plus an individual consultation, to make up the total of thirteen.)

What I found fascinating as a big Sherlock Holmes fan was that, whether deliberately or not, this does feel almost like a set of Holmes stories - but with the detective as different from Holmes as it's possible to be. Like the Holmes shorts, these stories give us an engaging mystery and its solution in relatively few pages. And the primarily first person narratives, as each person tells their story, plus a certain period style, is reminiscent of Dr Watson's narration of the Holmes stories.

There's a good mix of mysteries, including one with an intriguing timeline twist. The writing isn't as engaging perhaps as can be the case with the best of Christie's writing, but it's good enough - and there's an enjoyable challenge in trying to spot what really happened (I did occasionally, but not too often).

All in all, an excellent bouquet of mystery tales.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can order The Thirteen Problems from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog