Top 5 Agatha Christie Novels (So Far)

You should have known by now that Agatha Christie is one of my favorite writers and my most read. I remember vividly the day I found my first Agatha Christie novel. It was in elementary or junior high school. I was about 12-13 years old, and by that time have been reading many adventure and detective stories (mainly Alfred Hitchcock's, Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew), but none about real murder.

One day I walked into the school library, hoping to find some adventure books I haven't read before, and stumbled upon this title: After the Funeral. I was hooked instantly by the synopsis, and checked out the book instantly. Later at home I showed the book to my dad (still unsure whether I would want to read about murder), but he encouraged me to, saying that he used to love Agatha Christie too; hers are great detective novels, and seldom contain violent or bloody scenes, which hitherto I've been afraid to find. So I read it, and... LOVED it! After that, monthly bookstore visits became my most exciting moments during high school, because I'd get to pick one or two new Agatha Christie's to bring home. Well, they only lasted several days, and so I'd spend the next weeks in expectant to the next visits!

Now I have read, roughly, about 70 books (mostly during night school and college), and right now I'm in the middle of rereading (or reading if I've missed it before) all Christie's crime novels (omitting the short stories collections) in publication chronological order in the Agatha Christie Perpetual Reading Challenge.
From these rereading I found out that, but few memorable favorites, I've forgotten most of them. However I was lately intrigued by a few bloggers who inquired my opinion on which Christie's to start with. And several days ago I came to realize how many "top ten lists" of Agatha Christie's out there, and thought I might as well publish mine. Not that I'm an expert or something, no! I've forgotten most of them, and am still in the middle of the rereading process anyway. So I will narrow it down to TOP FIVE of my favorites, and most probably I'd change my mind every now and then, but for now, here it is...

MY TOP 5 AGATHA CHRISTIE

FIVE: Towards Zero

This is one unique crime story, the one without murder at the start, or you might call it a murder in the making. Yes, it is! If the murder is the zero point, here's a story of the broilings of many seemingly unrelated events, happening to different people, and the thought of it inside the mind of the murderer-to-be. It provides you with the unique study of a criminal mind.


FOUR: Crooked House

This is one of Christie's "close intimate murder" stories - you know, a crime which happens in a small intimate surrounding, involving close relatives. It's usually the best Poirot's works, but this one is different. First of all, there's no detective. Then there's also the eccentricity of the family, and the feeling that there's always something dark lurking there behind you that sent a chill down your spine throughout the reading. It's one of my most memorable Christie, and you'd ponder a lot about human mind after reading this!

THREE: And Then There Were None

The most thrilling story Christie's
ever written. Ten people are invited to spend holiday in an isolated Island, then, one by one, they are murdered. And as the title's hinted, they were all eventually dead. No survivor and no possibility of outsider, who's the murderer then?? A gripping story, a kind of modern gothic. No wonder it becomes one of the famous ones from Christie.


TWO: Curtain

If you are new reader, please remember NOT to read this first. It's Hercule Poirot's final case, and served as a farewell. It's Poirot's in his ultimate understanding of criminal mind, that without him, no one could have thought that a murderer is in action. For me personally, it's the most memorable and emotional, but it's also the most exquisite murder case. So, read it after you've read all Poirot's other cases (and they are numerous!)

When I narrowed down the list to five, I didn't realize that there're more than that (and damn, it's so hard to pick just, isn't it?) So may I present you with one honorable mention?

HONORABLE MENTION: Peril at End House

Murder case investigation is usually started with murder, right? This one is different. Poirot investigates some murder attempts directed towards a girl, disguised as accidents. This is another interesting study of crime psychology, with an unusual plot twist!


ONE: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

I think this is one of the biggest plot twists ever in detective novels, and probably the most eloquently written by Christie (especially the last chapter!) You'd find it in all the top lists out there, and it's one of Christie's most famous. It's Hercule Poirot's case, and one of the best psychological studies from Christie. I remember thinking after my first reading (I've read it 3 times), that to murder is foremostly the decision. Everyone can do it when provided with motive and opportunity - one decision will make huge differences. How dangerous human free will is!

Well, there are at least six novels you can consider from, if you want to start reading, or read further, of Agatha Christie. You can get more in my Agatha Christie Perpetual Reading Challege list. But there are so many, your head must be spinning. Let me just help you...

HOW TO PICK YOUR FIRST OR NEXT AGATHA CHRISTIE'S : 

1. Reading order

They are not in chronological order, and each book tells a standalone story. However, to get intimate with the two recurring detectives: Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple, you would want to read their first books before the other, and finally end with their finales. The Mysterious Affair in Styles is where you'd learn Poirot's little history and background, while The Murder at the Vicarage is the first appearance of Miss Marple. They'd be your good starting point. The Mysterious Affair in Styles, in particular, is Christie's first crime book, so by starting it, you'd see how she begins, and how she'd improve in the next ones.

2. Detectives

What a crime novel without detective, right? However, with Christie, you'd find some stories are indeed without detective. The most famous in this category are And Then There Were None. There are also several with amateur-turns-detective, such as Crooked House. But in most cases you'll meet some recurring detectives. The most famous one is Hercule Poirot - the only fictional character who ever received a real obituary in a newspaper. There's also Miss Marple, Inspector Battle, and the jolly couple: Tommy and Tuppence.

3. Themes

My favorite Christie's are the close intimate murders like Crooked House or Dumb Witness, but some might prefer more dramatic ones like Lord Edgware Dies or Three Act Tragedy. If you love witty espionage thriller, The Secret Adversary or The Secret of Chimneys would be great for you.

If you're picking Agatha Christie for teenager, I'd say And Then There Were None would be a good starting point. You might not want to give them something brutal such as Murder on the Orient Express, but I think the rest are good enough.

So, which Christie's have you read, and which you'd read next?

How I Read Book Tag

I saw this tag at The Once Lost Wanderer, and thought it'd be fun to do my own.

Do you have a certain place at home for reading?
I love reading in my bedroom, as it is the quietest place in my apartment. Plus the view is quite nice!

Can you just stop reading or do you have to stop after a chapter/a certain number of pages?
Oh I can stop reading anywhere I need to. You see, I don't have luxury to spend certain time for reading, thus I read whenever I have spare time: during lunch break at work, on the way to and from work, before sleep, etc. It means that I must stop when it's time to do something else, and I can go back to where I've left it very easily.

Bookmark or random piece of paper?
Bookmark. I always have several bookmarks (thanks to Book Depository!) in my bag, on my desk at work, and on my night table at home. Whenever I lost one (happens quite often) I can always find another.

Multitasking: music or TV while reading?
Neither. When I'm reading, it's a collaborated work of my brain, heart, and senses. I don't need any kind of distraction. And the music would be playing in vain anyway, since I would not be able to enjoy it. Better to play it when I can focus on the music while having something trifle to do.

Do you eat or drink while reading?
Not as a habit. I'd just eat or drink because I'm hungry/thirsty, or if I'm reading during the lunch break :)

Reading at home or everywhere?
Everywhere. Most often on the way to and from office. I take a grab car, so I have the luxury of sitting and reading (mostly) without interruptions for 15 to 20 minutes.

One book at a time or several at once?
Usually one at a time, if the book is engaging enough, but sometimes I'd need another for a change. Agatha Christie's are always perfect for this!

Reading out loud or silently in your head?
Silently, though sometimes I read some passages out loud just to know how it sounds.

Do you read ahead or even skip pages?
With crimes or thrillers, I never read ahead, but with slow paced books such as Dickens, yeah.. sometimes when the story is dragging on, I read ahead some pages, just to know where it will lead me, or whether it relates to the main plot or not. There's nothing harmful in that; on the contrary it could encourage me to read on (or the skip it).

Breaking the spine or keeping it like new?
I don't really bother with the book's looks. Its value is in the passages it contains, and I keep it to read again in the future, not mainly for display. While I always keep my books as neatly as possible, I don't deliberately "keep it like new".

Do you write in your books?
Of course! Write, underline, dog-ear; though not in every book.

Whom do you tag?
Are you interested in doing this? Then consider yourself tagged!

The Pearl by John Steinbeck

The Pearl is a novella about a poor Mexican-Indian pearl fisherman called Kino. He lives a happy, simple, peaceful life with his family: Juana, the wife, and Coyotito, the baby, in a bush house (hut) in a rural village of La Paz, California. The story (parable is more fitting) begins with an image of a humble but fulfilling live of the family, which is symbolized by The Song of the Family that Kino hears inside his head, while Juana sings softly:

"Juana sang softly an ancient song that had only three notes and yet endless variety of interval. And this was part of the family song too. It was all part. Sometimes it rose to an aching cord that caught the throat, saying this is safety, this is warmth, this is the Whole."

Then, in the midst of this peaceful image, comes a scorpion, hangs on the rope of Coyotito's bed, and stings the baby. The scorpion is like a stone that is plunged into a calm water, sending ripplings of trouble - an evil entity that sends trouble to a happy life: "The Song of Evil, the music of the enemy, of any foe of the family, a savage, secret, dangerous melody, and underneath, the Song of the Family cried plaintively."

Juana sucks the poison, but the wound keeps swelling, so Kino and Juana brings the baby to the doctor. Now the doctor is another "evil", a white man with greedy nature: "This doctor was of a race which for nearly four hundred years had beaten and starved and robbed and despised Kino's race." The doctor, seeing that Kino is poor, rejects attending to the baby without payment.

The next day Kino dives into the water hoping to get pearls to pay the doctor. And being in the best of luck, he finds the hugest and finest pearl he - or even the neighborhood - has ever seen, that he dubs as The Pearl of the World. Kino sees inside the Pearl the things he had wanted for a long time, but had forgotten because of the impossibility. Now it all comes back to him: a marriage in the church for his wife, nice clothes and good education for Coyotito, and a rifle for himself. And as usual with the finding of a treasure, greediness begins to float on the surface of its surroundings. The neighbors, the doctor, the priest, the pearl dealers - the greediness touches them all. And as greediness is the root of all evils, with it, comes envy, stealing, cheating, and even murder.

That night a thief comes to steal the pearl, but Kino throws him away. The next morning he goes to the town to sell his pearl to the dealers. For years the pearl fishermen have been deceived by the dealers, who are actually owned by one owner, but act as if they compete with each other, so that they can control the low price. Kino is offered a thousand pesos, for a pearl he believes amounted at least fifty thousands. He rejects it and will sell to the capital instead. However, more thieves come to Kino's bush house, and he is forced to kill one man. At this point, Juana tries to warn Kino that the pearl brings evil, but Kino, already grows ambitious and greedy himself, refuses to let it go. The last night before their departure, a group of unknown men vandalize Kino's canoe and burn his house. There's no coming back now, the pearl becomes their life or death. Along the dangerous journey, the Song of the Evil keeps its melody, becomes stronger every moment, drowning the Song of the Family.

So The Pearl reflects upon the cycle of human life. There's peace for several years, but then comes "the enemy", one critical moment that shakes the peacefulness. But the novella's center point is the perpetual battle of good and evil. The Song of the Family and The Song of Evil, which are playing alternately in Kino's head, symbolizes the good vs evil in us. The evil might be sleeping for years of peaceful living, but one critical incident might awaken it from its slumber, and, who knows what path it will lead us to.

This story also shows the complexity involved in the battle of good vs evil. Kino's poverty in the first place, came from hundred years of oppression of the other race (the whites) against his. There's always this hatred and suspicion against the whites in his heart, planted by his ancestors. The scorpion sting is only the trigger. Without it, Kino, Juana, and Coyotito might have lulled by their contented life, despite of their poverty. But the scorpion sting awakens the ancient hatred and suspicion. The pearl triggeres his greediness to take everything that has been robbed by his enemies. He could have accepted the thousand pesos offered by the dealer at the town, but the long suspicion and hatred burns his greediness and hatred further to the utmost.

And lastly, The Pearl reminds us that good and evil are always existed, they live side by side since the beginning of world, to its end. We can't avoid them; it's a perpetual struggle, and that the best thing to do is always try to do good (listen to our Song of the Family), and avoid evil (ignore the Song of Evil). That's all we can do.

I think I have found a new favorite: The Pearl. It's so beautiful in writing and poignant in capturing the essence of life.

Rating: 5 / 5

Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie

This book has appeared in many lists of Agatha Christie's top novels - from The Guardian's "The Top 10 Agatha Christie Mysteries" in 2009, Entertainment Weekly's "The Nine Great Christie" in 2014, to Barnes and Noble's 10 Absolutely Essential Agatha Christie Novels on 2017. It's also one of the most famous Christie's books-made-into-movies. But for me, this is the most hideous, brutal case, and one of my least favorites of all.

Hercule Poirot is in Istanbul after solving a case in the Middle East, when he is summoned back immediately to England. By the help of M. Bouc, fellow Belgian who is the director of Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits, Poirot obtains a second class berth in the elegant Orient Express. He actually intended to have a first class one, but it's apparently unavailable - which is unusual during the winter seasons. On board the train are also thirteen other passengers from multi-dimensional backgrounds. One of them, an unpleasant, harsh man named Mr. Ratchett, tries to hire Poirot because his life is in danger. But Poirot, disliking him, rejects the proposal. On the first night the train is unexpectedly stopped, stuck in a snowbank. In the morning, Mr. Ratchett is found dead, with twelve random stab wounds. A charred piece of paper with "Armstrong" written in it is found in his cabin, gives Poirot the valuable key to solve the mystery.

Armstrong refers to Daisy Armstrong, a 3 year old child who was kidnapped and murdered by a man called Cassetti - a tragedy that triggered some further tragedy in the family. Poirot concludes that Ratchett is actually Casetti, and that the motive of his murder is vengeance. So, the strong point of this story is more on the method, rather than motive. Without the presence of the police, it leaves to Poirot, M. Bouc, and Doctor Constantine (why a doctor should almost always present near the murder cases?...) to find from the passengers, one or more people who are connected to the Armstrongs, as the murderer.

This is one of the "easy" cases, the "I-should-have-noticed-it-from-the-first-but-it-seemed-impossible" ones. I can't explain more, as it would spoil the whole mystery. It's sufficient to say that if you do the math, you'd probably guess the murderer. This is also one of the greatest deduction works of Poirot, using his thorough methodical grey cells to seek the truth from the labyrinth of cross alibis and clues.

What makes me dislike this novel, is the baseness of the murder, and immorality of the conclusion. As I didn't find any other way of explaining my points without scattering clues, I must warn you at this point to...

**Spoiler alert - Please skip this paragraph if you haven't read the book.**

1st point: hideous crime. There's too much blood for my taste. I much prefer the more subtle ones - murder with poison, for example. If it must include stabbing, at least done by cold headed murderer, not vengeful random stabs - and twelve times too... ugh!! With the motive as the strong point, at least we'd have also the psychological aspect through the investigation (the humane side). This one is mainly clues, alibi, methods, and eventually, the animal passion. No, I can't imagine how a governess, for example, who, despite loving the child so much, could stab a knife into a man's body just like that. I mean, I understand how she might have hated that man, cursed him a lot, wished him to be dead in horrible ways. But to do a journey to stab him... at least, didn't she waver a little at the critical moment? And what about the other eleven/twelve people, were they just driven by the same animal instinct to kill the prey? That's what I see in this book, a group of animal hunting a prey.

2nd point : unbelievable conclusion. I was truly disgusted at how those criminals were let free by "the judges". I know Rachett is a rascal, and the Armstrongs' history is so tragic, but letting them do a brutal crime just like that? Not even a single punishment?

** Spoiler ends **  

If I had a book I wish Agatha Christie has never written, this is the one.

It could have been an interesting case, but like I said, it's too hideous and disgusting crime for me.

Rating: 2,5 / 5

Classic Character: The Loyal Gabriel Betteredge of The Moonstone

Gabriel Betteredge is my only favorite character in The Moonstone. He first worked for the Verinders as bailiff, but as he's getting older and less vigorous, Lady Verinder makes him the house steward (a combination of butler and housekeeper). Betteredge loves Defoe's Robinson Crusoe so much, it becomes a kind of Bible to him - not only comforting and calming him when he's distressed, he also consults it when confused. He will open his battered copy to a random page, and somehow, certain passage would justify his conviction, or assure his idea.

I wonder if he is a true classics literature (besides Robinson Crusoe) reader, because he seems to be quite an open-minded Victorian man. True, he still holds common Victorian prejudices on women, races, and social background - he's grown up with those values anyway, however, when he knows the qualities of certain person, he doesn't hesitate to respect and acknowledge his/her true values. We can see the proofs in Betteredge's acknowledgment of (Lady) Julia and Rachel Verinder, his daughter Penelope, and also Rosanna Spearman, whom he regards as different from common women. It's more difficult, though, for Betteredge to deal with Ezra Jennings because of his appearances and social background. Betteredge complies with him at first only in obedience to his master, but little by little he begins to grow respectful towards Jennings.

Besides being funny, smart, witty, loving person, and a good writer (his narrative is my most favorite), I love Betteredge also for always being so kind to Rosanna Spearman, in spite of her background. When he gets to know her shady personal qualities, he learns to trust her, that when the the Moonstone is missing, and Sergeant Cuff suspects her, Betteredge keeps defending her.

But perhaps I admire Betteredge mostly for the way he serves the family with loyalty, respect, and dignity. Though just a servant, Betteredge is proud of his profession, and proud to serve such an honorable family. Now that is a quality you rarely find these days - perhaps one of few aspects I admire from Victorian era. People nowadays tend to underestimate the dignity of serving; they criticize people who are satisfied of being employee for the rest of their lives without having slightest ambition to "upgrade" themselves to the employer level. They even call us employees as "corporate slave". We are no more slaves than our bosses, really!

A friend of mine has repeatedly told me that I possess capability of being an entrepreneur, why didn't I use it to start my own company, rather than serving my boss? Well, so what if I retire as an employee, if I've done my job well? I'm not worse than they who become entrepreneurs. I believe that we were born with different background and qualities (nowadays they call it privileges, but it's the same really). Some are born rich, some poor; some with management skill, some administrative, and so on. 

The Verinders, Franklin Blake are born upper classes; Betteredge working class. But without Betteredge, the Verinders won't be able to maintain their households, as Betteredge won't be able to feed his family without the Verinders. There is the codependency built upon their employment.

So, I admire Betteredge for being proud of his job - which he'd done respectably and professionally, that in the end the Verinders become also respectful towards him, as they couldn't do without him. He's also proud of being employed by the Verinders; he takes the family as his own, that he'd feel insulted when others insult the family. In the end, loyalty towards one's employer - when given in a mutual respectable relationship - is not a sign of weakness, or even slavery. On the contrary, it's an honorable and fulfilled life of one's profesional career. If I have lived in Victorian era, I would have chosen to be in Betteredge's position (having pride of my skill) than to be a lady (with vain idleness). And I also regard present my position as employee with steady income and growing skill, is much fulfilling than to be an entrepreneur with all the risks and headaches!

The Classics Club Meme 2.0: The Most Read Authors

It's been a long time since I last did The Classics Club meme. This year they reboot the questions, and this one is one of my favorites - plus I happen to have more time to spare than last month! So here we go...

Which classic author have you read more than one, but not all, of their books and which of their other books would you want to read in the future?

These are my top three authors that I've read most:

AGATHA CHRISTIE (70 books)

That's a rough amount, because I read Christie's from high school and sometimes I forget which title I've actually read. It's safe to say that I have read most of hers, but not all.

Starting 2019 I have been doing the Agatha Christie Perpetual Reading Challenge, planning to read/reread her crime books in chronological order (but omitting the short stories collection because I'm no great fan of short stories). I'm also in for Six Shooter Mystery Reading Challenge this year, planning to read six books each year. One particular title which I am sure I haven't read is Why didn't they ask Evans? And it's the next and last book from both challenges' list I'll be reading this year, so that's the one I'm most looking forward to!

ÉMILE ZOLA (22 books)

From the 20 books of Rougon-Macquart cycle, only one book I haven't read; it's the last one: Doctor Pascal. And beyond the cycle, I've also read two novels and one non fiction.

As I am in the middle of The Rougon-Macquart Project, the next two I'm gonna reread this year are The Belly of Paris and The Conquest of Plassans. I'm actually excited about Doctor Pascal, but it has to wait until I have finished the other 19.... :(

CHARLES DICKENS (18 books)

There's no year goes by without at least a Dickens or two to read. Tell me, which one should I read next? Martin Chuzzlewit or Nicholas Nickleby?

Other than these three, I'm also working on reading from several other authors in my Author Challenge. Who knows, I might add one or more authors along the way?

The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins

The Moonstone is considered the first detective novel that established the ground rules of modern detective novels. Though I agree with this statement, I think Agatha Christie is still the reigning queen of the genre.

Published in 1868, it is an epistolary novel about the missing of a yellow diamond called Moonstone, which was originally placed on the forehead of the Hindu god of the moon statue, located at a Hindu temple in India. The diamond protected by three hereditary guardians from Brahmin caste, who do not hesitate to perform crime, even murder if needed, in order to save it. One day a British army officer - a rogue named Colonel Herncastle - stole it from the temple in a looting during the Siege of Seringapatam, and brought it to England. His life has never been in peace ever since.

Colonel Herncastle's sister is a Lady Verinder, who disliked her notorious brother. Furious with his sister's rudeness and humiliation, he took an unusual way of revenge, by bequeathing the Moonstone to his niece, Rachel Verinder, when she turns eighteen. Several days before the birthday party, three Indian jugglers come to the town, and even ask permission to perform at the Verinders' on the night of the birthday party. They get to see Rachel, who, excited by the inheritance, pins the Moonstone on her blouse. That night Rachel keeps the diamond in an Indian cabinet in her parlour. The next day they finds the cabinet empty, the diamond is missing. They hire the best detective to investigate the case, but, despite of the progresses Sergeant Cuff has made, Lady Verinder stops the investigation altogether, as it has somewhat bothered Rachel. And so the mystery is left unsolved.

Two years from the unfortunate event, Franklin Blake - Rachel's cousin - who was tasked of bringing the Moonstone to Rachel at her birthday night, takes initiative to keep a neat record of everything that had happened from the moment they got the Moonstone, to the moment when the mystery is eventually solved. He compiles narrative of persons involved, reports, letters, and diary, to create a complete and true history of the Moonstone mystery. And so, that is what we read as this novel.

I was in love with the novel from the first chapter, which is Gabriel Betteredge's narrative. Betteredge is the Verinders' chief steward (butler and housekeeper), a pleasant, humorous, warm hearted old man who loves Defoe's Robinson Crusoe so much, that the book becomes his 'bible' and sole consolation in life. He is the sole reason why I kept reading this book. I loved his narrative, it shows his wittiness, loving nature, and loyalty towards the Verinders. How I've wished that he'd keep the pen to himself for the rest of the book, and I might have automatically granted it five stars, no matter how the story unfolds. However, Collins didn't agree with me. He chose, instead, to trust the next narration to a hypocrite girl (a Pharisee of modern world) who I despised! After that, several other persons alternately took over the pen, and that, I think, was when I took first of the five stars I've stored for the book. I love continuity in a book. Two narration is still okay, but NOT more than that, please!!

The other half star I reluctantly took away is from the opium experiment. I don't know much about the side effect of opium, but I think the opium plot involving Franklin Blake is quite lame and absurd.

Apart from those two objections of mine, The Moonstone promised to be an enjoyable Victorian story, with the oriental superstition, the mysterious swamp, the social injustice leading to tragedy, the romance - though it would be better if the heroine isn't that spoilt, selfish, insensible as Rachel. But yeah... Collins isn't Dickens.

All in all, I must say that I'm quite disappointed. It started very nicely, but ended disappointingly. I don't know how it supposed to "establish the ground rules of modern detective novels" if the detective was shunned before he could do his job, and the amateur who took over is head over heels in love, which means he's not clearheaded, and thus, unfit for the task. It is a good Victorian novel, but not as a detective novel. Trust that to Agatha Christie only!

Final rating: 3,5 / 5