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 2010 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 exp...

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...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog