This was a "listen-along" with Themis, although she finished days ago. Overall:

Butter in a Lordly Dish: this was a short, approximately 30 minute, radio play. It started slow, and ended violently. I'd give this one three stars.

Personal Call: another short, approximately 30 minute, radio play. Inspector Narracott makes a brief appearance here - he also shows up in The Sittaford Mystery, which I am rereading now. In addition, this has a bit of a supernatural aspect, which is very unusual for Agatha. I'd give this one 3 1/2 stars.

Interlude: the first interlude involves some radio interviews, including an interview with Agatha Christie which occurred on the 10th anniversary of The Mousetrap. This was extremely interesting, and I laughed out loud over the discussion about how much longer the play would run (we are at 50 + years and counting now, which they definitely did not predict). This material gets 4 stars.

Murder in the Mews: this was about an hour long. It's not one of my favorite stories, tbh, and I thought the adaptation was just ok. They cut out one of the major clues that Poirot uses to get the solution (the golf clubs don't make an appearance here), but I do think that the radio play did a good job of humanizing the victim and making the motive behind the mystery plausible and sympathetic. Better than the story, and even better than the Poirot adaptation (although the Suchet episode is hugely entertaining). Another 3 stars.

Epilogue: I'm listening to another interview at this point. The historical material is pretty interesting.

Overall, I am glad I listened! Next on the Agatha play schedule is the script of Murder on the Nile.

This isn't a review so much as it is some random thoughts.

First, this book begins on a train, so if you are ever looking for a book involving train travel, but you don't want to go with either of the Poirot possibilities, this one will fit. Luke Fitzwilliam, our main character, has just returned to England after working as a policeman in Malay. He meets Miss Pinkerton in the train car and spends a bit of time socializing with her, as she is an elderly woman who reminds him of his Aunt Mildred.

Not his Aunt Jane, although Miss Pinkerton is pretty obviously a Jane Marple analog. Murder is Easy was published in 1938, after Murder at the Vicarage (published in 1930), but before The Body in the Library - Christie wouldn't bring back Jane Marple until 1942. It's interesting that Miss Pinkerton is one of the first victims in the book. Wychwood Under Ashe, the setting for Murder is Easy, is also very reminiscent of St. Mary Mead.

This is also nominally an Inspector Battle book, although he doesn't appear until after the 80% mark (page 224 out of 254) and he really does almost nothing except make Luke Fitzwilliam feel like an idiot. I'm not sure why Agatha decided to wedge Battle into the book when it was moving along perfectly well without him.

There are other issues with the book, including one of the means of murder. She falls back on the really unconvincing "infecting a wound with bacteria" means of murder that she also used in Cards on the Table (if my memory serves) and it doesn't work any better here than there (actually, it's worse here, b/c the victim is a doctor). In reading this book for the second time, her machinations behind the scene are more obvious, and the misdirection is a little bit heavy-handed.

What does work pretty well, though, is the confrontation between the murder and the intended final victim, which is a genuinely suspenseful and fairly terrifying few moments. There are also elements of Towards Zero at work here, but that book is much more successful than this one, in my opinion.

This is a middling Christie, better than her worst, no where near her best, but still worth reading. With 66 books, that's going to encompass the majority of her work.

I'll be using this for Snakes & Ladders, but I haven't quite decided where yet.

I actually did enjoy this one more the second time around, although I maintain that the puzzle aspect of the book is just not good. Before I get to that, though, I want to talk about what I liked.

Ariadne Oliver is very prominent in this book, as is Miss Lemon, which were the two things that I just loved about it. Miss Lemon isn't as prominent here as she is in Hickory Dickory Dock, but we get a fairly sustained appearance. And Mrs. Oliver is actually assaulted as part of this investigation as she is blood-hounding about after The Peacock. 

This reread has solidified for me how much I love Christie's young(er) women. Every time I read one of her books, I find a side character that just fills me with delight. Hastings is actually one of my least favorite sidekicks, and Mrs. Oliver is absolutely my most favorite. Any book where Ariadne Oliver shows up - even if she's just mentioned - makes me smile. I even liked Norma Restarick, the putative victim, who grew on me throughout the course of this book.

I will say that the book IS better than the adaptation, which keeps the same murderer but not all of the murders. The best thing about the adaptation is Tom Mison as David Baker, aka The Peacock. He comes off much better in the adaptation than in the book, where he has no redeeming value.

This is also Poirot (and Agatha) at his most cerebral. Not quite so much as The Clocks, perhaps, but by this time in the series, Poirot is quite elderly (the timeline for Poirot is problematic, to put it as charitably as possible) since this book occurs during the swinging sixties. While he has slowed down physically, the little grey cells are still as clever as ever.

Which brings me to the primary weaknesses of the book - it just isn't plausible. The actual motive behind the murder is clever, and works well, but (and here I will venture into spoiler territory, so click the spoiler warning at your own risk)

Basically, if I don't read this one for the mystery, but read it for the interactions between the characters and the opportunity to spend time with a clever, elderly Hercule Poirot, I really enjoy it. The plot though, eh. 

The Burden is the first of the books written by Agatha Christie under her Mary Westmacott nom de plume that I've read, although it was the last one published. It was published in 1956, the same year she published Hickory Dickory Dock and Dead Man's Folly.

This is a very strange little book centered around Laura, the least-loved child in her family. Very early in the book, she has a younger, favored, brother who dies, and Laura hopes that her situation will change. Her younger sister, Shirley, is born, which puts her back in the position of being less.

She makes friends with a cranky local man who generally dislikes children, but sees something in Laura that is interesting. He remains a constant friend and fixture in her life. Initially, Laura's feelings about Shirley are decidedly negative - until she saves Shirley's life at significant risk to her own, when Shirley is around 2 years old. Laura becomes deeply protective of Shirley from that point on, and raises her once their parents die unexpectedly.

Agatha Christie sets this up as a contrast between dark - Laura - and light - Shirley. Laura gets short shrift with her own life, dedicated essentially to caring for Shirley. Shirley falls hard for a pretty awful man, whom she later marries. This becomes a significant source of tension, when he ends up significantly disabled by polio. This does not improve him.

I read this book very quickly, partly to just get it over with, I think. I really didn't like it - the decisions being made by all of the characters were confounding. The ending was just weird.

Even in the context of this book, which is described as a "psychological romance," Agatha can't get away from crime. In addition, I don't think that I agree that this is a romance, as that genre identifier is generally applied today. I don't think that Laura is capable of an HEA, given the level of trauma that she sustained during her life (at least not without a lot of therapy). She is restrained to the point of isolation.

I'm not sorry I read it, because Agatha. But I am hopeful that it is the weakest of her Westmacott books, because it's hard for me to imagine that they could be worse.

This was only my second time reading this book - the first time I read it, I remember being extremely underwhelmed. Like other Christie's, this one improved the second time I read it. This makes me wonder if rereading Passenger to Frankfurt will somehow turn it into The ABC Murders (kidding, kidding). I attribute this to the fact that I'm less concerned with Christie's high-wire mystery act, and rather I allow myself to be absorbed into her world.

Mrs. McGinty's dead has several wonderful side characters - the delightful Superintendent Spence, who is just bothered by the murder conviction of James Bentley, scheduled for execution.

And Bentley was eventually arrested and tried?"

"Yes. The case came on at the Assizes. Yesterday. Open and shut case. The jury were only out twenty minutes this morning. Verdict: Guilty. Condemned to death."

Poirot nodded.

"And then, after the verdict, you got in a train and came to London and came here to see me. Why?"

Superintendent Spence was looking into his beer glass. He ran his finger slowly round and round the rim.

"Because," he said, "I don't think he did it...."

With this set up, Poirot heads off to Broadhinny, Kilchester to do some digging around and to see if he can figure out why Mrs. McGinty, a hard-working charwoman with few financial resources, but a mild tendency towards being a busy body, is dead. Upon arrival, he insinuates himself into the community. 

The best thing about this book - and I mean the best thing about this book - is Ariadne Oliver. She has arrived in Broadhinny because Robin Upward, a local playwright, has persuaded her to allow him to adapt one of her Sven Hjerson. The interactions between Robin and Ariadne are hysterical.

"But people who read my books know what he's like! You can't invent an entirely new young man in the Norwegian Resistance Movement and just call him Sven Hjerson."

"Ariadne darling, I did explain all that. It's not a book, darling, it's a play. And we've just got to have glamour! And if we get this tension, this antagonism between Sven Jherson and this - whats-her-name?--Karen--you know, all against each other and yet frightfully attracted--"

"Sven Hjerson never cared for women," said Mrs. Oliver coldly."

Mrs. Oliver decides that she will assist Poirot in solving the mystery, and takes care to introduce him to the Upwards and the other members of the local, minor gentry, while she fights with Robin and continues to despise her main character.

"How do I know why I ever thought of the revolting man?" I must have been mad! Why a Finn when I know nothing about Finland? Why a vegetarian? Why all the idiotic mannerisms he's got? These things just happen. You try something--and people seem to like it--and then you go on -- and before you know where you are, you've got someone like that maddening Sven Hjerson tied to you for life. And people even write and say how fond you must be of him. Fond of him? If I met that bony, gangling, vegetable-eating Finn in real life, I'd do a better murder than any I've ever invented."

I'm dying here.

The mystery is really just OK, although the murderer is a nasty piece of work. This book is worth reading because of Ariadne Oliver, though, and I have a feeling that it will become a favorite reread precisely because of her.

I've decided to reread several of the mysteries that I've only read because I don't remember them well. So, you'll be seeing lots of Christie on my feed for the next few months as I finish her novels, and then work through my personal ranking. What a way to spend the spring!