What do you think?
Rate this book
Hercule Poirot #15
Cards on the Table
A flamboyant party host is murdered in full view of a roomful of bridge players!
Mr. Shaitana was famous, as were his parties. He was also a man of whom everybody was a little afraid. So, when he boasted to Poirot that he considered murder an art form, the detective had some reservations about accepting a party invitation of cards and viewing Shaitana’s private art collection. Indeed, what began as an absorbing evening of bridge was to turn into a more dangerous game altogether…
Mr. Shaitana was famous, as were his parties. He was also a man of whom everybody was a little afraid. So, when he boasted to Poirot that he considered murder an art form, the detective had some reservations about accepting a party invitation of cards and viewing Shaitana’s private art collection. Indeed, what began as an absorbing evening of bridge was to turn into a more dangerous game altogether…
324 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published November 2, 1936
About the author
Agatha Christie
4,518 books68k followersAgatha Christie also wrote romance novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, and was occasionally published under the name Agatha Christie Mallowan.
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Dame Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie, Lady Mallowan, DBE (née Miller) was an English writer known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, particularly those revolving around fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She also wrote the world's longest-running play, the murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952. A writer during the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction", Christie has been called the "Queen of Crime". She also wrote six novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. In 1971, she was made a Dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to literature. Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.
This best-selling author of all time wrote 66 crime novels and story collections, fourteen plays, and six novels under a pseudonym in romance. Her books sold more than a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation. According to Index Translationum, people translated her works into 103 languages at least, the most for an individual author. Of the most enduring figures in crime literature, she created Hercule Poirot and Miss Jane Marple. She atuhored The Mousetrap, the longest-running play in the history of modern theater.
Associated Names:
Agata Christie
Agata Kristi
Агата Кристи (Russian)
Агата Крісті (Ukrainian)
Αγκάθα Κρίστι (Greek)
アガサ クリスティ (Japanese)
阿嘉莎·克莉絲蒂 (Chinese)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,150 reviews
June 14, 2024
Another great Christie mystery.
Colonel Race meets Hercule Poirot! Not only that but Ariadne Oliver arrives and crunches on a few apples, foreshadowing what happens in Hallowe'en Party. Another Christe regular, Superintendent Battle, also shows up to make this a pretty large party of recurring characters.
When slimy collector, Mr. Shaitana, invites Poirot to his home to see a collection of murderers, our little Belgian detective can't resist. Colonel Race (secret service), Ariadne Oliver (mystery writer), and Superintendent Battle (police detective) are also all there as unwitting observers of Shaitana's impressive assembly.
On the other side of the table are four seemingly respectable guests - Dr. Geoffrey Roberts, Mrs. Lorrimer, Major John Despard, & Anne Meredith.
A few odd comments (taunts?) are made by the host to some of the guests at dinner, but as they retire to play bridge all seems well.
That is until Shaitana is found dead in his chair from a stabbed through the heart with his own stiletto at the end of the evening.
Whodunnit and why?
To solve the murder of Shaitana, Poirot & Co. will have to investigate the history of these four guests who may have gotten away with murder in the past.
I don't want to ruin anything, so I'll just say this one is another great cozy mystery that any fan of Agatha Christie will probably love.
2023
I listened to the BBC Radio Dramatization and really liked it.
Cards on the Table is one of my favorites, so it was a lot of fun to hear it with voice actors and sound effects.
I will say that I think that some of the finer points got lost in this, but if you have already read the book, you should be fine. Don't go with this version first, though!
Colonel Race meets Hercule Poirot! Not only that but Ariadne Oliver arrives and crunches on a few apples, foreshadowing what happens in Hallowe'en Party. Another Christe regular, Superintendent Battle, also shows up to make this a pretty large party of recurring characters.
When slimy collector, Mr. Shaitana, invites Poirot to his home to see a collection of murderers, our little Belgian detective can't resist. Colonel Race (secret service), Ariadne Oliver (mystery writer), and Superintendent Battle (police detective) are also all there as unwitting observers of Shaitana's impressive assembly.
On the other side of the table are four seemingly respectable guests - Dr. Geoffrey Roberts, Mrs. Lorrimer, Major John Despard, & Anne Meredith.
A few odd comments (taunts?) are made by the host to some of the guests at dinner, but as they retire to play bridge all seems well.
That is until Shaitana is found dead in his chair from a stabbed through the heart with his own stiletto at the end of the evening.
Whodunnit and why?
To solve the murder of Shaitana, Poirot & Co. will have to investigate the history of these four guests who may have gotten away with murder in the past.
I don't want to ruin anything, so I'll just say this one is another great cozy mystery that any fan of Agatha Christie will probably love.
2023
I listened to the BBC Radio Dramatization and really liked it.
Cards on the Table is one of my favorites, so it was a lot of fun to hear it with voice actors and sound effects.
I will say that I think that some of the finer points got lost in this, but if you have already read the book, you should be fine. Don't go with this version first, though!
December 24, 2021
Cards On The Table (Hercule Poirot #15), Agatha Christie
Meeting by chance at an art exhibition, the flamboyant collector Mr Shaitana tells Hercule Poirot of his personal crime-related collection, and invites him to a dinner party to see it. Scoffing at the idea of collecting mere artefacts, Shaitana explains that he collects only the best exhibits: criminals who have evaded justice.
Poirot's fellow guests include three other crime professionals: secret service man Colonel Race, mystery writer Mrs Ariadne Oliver, and Superintendent Battle of Scotland Yard; along with four people Shaitana believes to be murderers: Dr Roberts, Mrs Lorrimer, Anne Meredith, and Major Despard. Shaitana taunts his suspects with comments that each understands as applying only to them.
The guests retire to play bridge, the crime professionals playing in one room while the others play in a second room where Shaitana relaxes by the fire. As the party breaks up, Shaitana is found to be dead – stabbed in the chest with a stiletto from his own collection.
None of the suspects can be ruled out, as all had left their places at the table during the evening. Leading the police investigation, Superintendent Battle agrees to put his "cards on the table" and to allow the other professionals to make their own enquiries. Poirot concentrates on the psychology of the murderer.
The investigators look into the suspects' histories: the husband of one of Dr Roberts' patients died of anthrax shortly after accusing the doctor of improper conduct; and a botanist that Despard had been guiding through the Amazon was rumored to have been shot.
Anne's housemate Rhoda Dawes tells Mrs Oliver in confidence about an incident that Anne has been concealing, when an elderly woman for whom Anne was acting as companion died after mistaking poison for syrup of figs. Mrs Lorrimer's husband had died twenty years earlier, though little is known about that. ...
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «ورقها روی میز»؛ «شیطان به قتل میرسد»؛ «اتفاق بعد از شام»؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: یکی از روزهای سال1993میلادی
عنوان: شیطان به قتل میرسد؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: جمشید اسکندانی؛ تهران، نشر روایت، سال1372، در535 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، ثالث، سال1392؛ در414ص؛ شابک9789643808860؛ موضوع: داستانهای پلیسی و کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده ی20م
عنوان: اتفاق بعد از شام؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: محمدحسین عباسپور تمیجانی؛ تهران، تمندر، سال1374، در320 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، سبز آرنگ، چاپ دوم تا چهارم سال1378؛ در320 ص؛ شابک9649176888؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، راه کمال، سبز آرنگ، سال1385؛ در320ص؛ شابک9649686940؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، محیا، سال1390، شابک9789645577962؛
عنوان: ورقها روی میز؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: مجتبی عبدالله نژاد؛ تهران، هرمس، کارآگاه، سال1395، در278ص؛ شابک9789643639778؛
آدم با چشم وجدان، خیلی چیزها را، به مراتب بهتر از چشم اصلی میبیند؛ پوآرو
شیطانا، فردی ثروتمند، با حالت و چهره ای اهریمنی، که دوستدار گردآوری کلکسیون اشیای ارزشمند است، او در دیدارش به «پوآرو»، میگوید: «چه جالب بود اگه کلکسیونی از انسانهایی که جنایت کردند را گردآوری میکردم»؛ و «پوآرو» در پاسخش میگوید: «اینکار به نظرم جالب نیست»؛ شیطانا، هشت تن از جمله «پوآرو» را، به خانه اش دعوت میکند؛ سه کاراگاه، و رمان نویسی به نام خانم «اولیور»، و چهار تن دیگر که گمان میکند، یکی از اینها مرتکب قتل شده است؛ سپس چهار کاراگاه، و رمان نو��س با هم، و چهار تن از افرادی که یکی از آنها مرتکب قتل شده، مشغول بازی بریج میشوند، و پیش از بازی؛ شیطانا، قاتل واقعی را، تحریک میکند؛ پس از بازی، جسد «شیطانا» پیدا میشود، و «پوآرو»، با یاری جستن از سلولهای خاکستری مغز خویش، پرده از راز جالبترین پرونده ی خویش برمیدارد؛ جالب اینکه هیچ چیز، که به قاتل مربوط باشد، پیدا نمیشود، و «پوآرو»، در آغاز، از امتیازات بازی بریج، استفاده کرده، و فکر قاتل را دنبال میکند، و سرانجام میفهمد، چه کسی به قتل دست زده است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 14/12/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 02/10/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Meeting by chance at an art exhibition, the flamboyant collector Mr Shaitana tells Hercule Poirot of his personal crime-related collection, and invites him to a dinner party to see it. Scoffing at the idea of collecting mere artefacts, Shaitana explains that he collects only the best exhibits: criminals who have evaded justice.
Poirot's fellow guests include three other crime professionals: secret service man Colonel Race, mystery writer Mrs Ariadne Oliver, and Superintendent Battle of Scotland Yard; along with four people Shaitana believes to be murderers: Dr Roberts, Mrs Lorrimer, Anne Meredith, and Major Despard. Shaitana taunts his suspects with comments that each understands as applying only to them.
The guests retire to play bridge, the crime professionals playing in one room while the others play in a second room where Shaitana relaxes by the fire. As the party breaks up, Shaitana is found to be dead – stabbed in the chest with a stiletto from his own collection.
None of the suspects can be ruled out, as all had left their places at the table during the evening. Leading the police investigation, Superintendent Battle agrees to put his "cards on the table" and to allow the other professionals to make their own enquiries. Poirot concentrates on the psychology of the murderer.
The investigators look into the suspects' histories: the husband of one of Dr Roberts' patients died of anthrax shortly after accusing the doctor of improper conduct; and a botanist that Despard had been guiding through the Amazon was rumored to have been shot.
Anne's housemate Rhoda Dawes tells Mrs Oliver in confidence about an incident that Anne has been concealing, when an elderly woman for whom Anne was acting as companion died after mistaking poison for syrup of figs. Mrs Lorrimer's husband had died twenty years earlier, though little is known about that. ...
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «ورقها روی میز»؛ «شیطان به قتل میرسد»؛ «اتفاق بعد از شام»؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: یکی از روزهای سال1993میلادی
عنوان: شیطان به قتل میرسد؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: جمشید اسکندانی؛ تهران، نشر روایت، سال1372، در535 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، ثالث، سال1392؛ در414ص؛ شابک9789643808860؛ موضوع: داستانهای پلیسی و کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده ی20م
عنوان: اتفاق بعد از شام؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: محمدحسین عباسپور تمیجانی؛ تهران، تمندر، سال1374، در320 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، سبز آرنگ، چاپ دوم تا چهارم سال1378؛ در320 ص؛ شابک9649176888؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، راه کمال، سبز آرنگ، سال1385؛ در320ص؛ شابک9649686940؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، محیا، سال1390، شابک9789645577962؛
عنوان: ورقها روی میز؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: مجتبی عبدالله نژاد؛ تهران، هرمس، کارآگاه، سال1395، در278ص؛ شابک9789643639778؛
آدم با چشم وجدان، خیلی چیزها را، به مراتب بهتر از چشم اصلی میبیند؛ پوآرو
شیطانا، فردی ثروتمند، با حالت و چهره ای اهریمنی، که دوستدار گردآوری کلکسیون اشیای ارزشمند است، او در دیدارش به «پوآرو»، میگوید: «چه جالب بود اگه کلکسیونی از انسانهایی که جنایت کردند را گردآوری میکردم»؛ و «پوآرو» در پاسخش میگوید: «اینکار به نظرم جالب نیست»؛ شیطانا، هشت تن از جمله «پوآرو» را، به خانه اش دعوت میکند؛ سه کاراگاه، و رمان نویسی به نام خانم «اولیور»، و چهار تن دیگر که گمان میکند، یکی از اینها مرتکب قتل شده است؛ سپس چهار کاراگاه، و رمان نو��س با هم، و چهار تن از افرادی که یکی از آنها مرتکب قتل شده، مشغول بازی بریج میشوند، و پیش از بازی؛ شیطانا، قاتل واقعی را، تحریک میکند؛ پس از بازی، جسد «شیطانا» پیدا میشود، و «پوآرو»، با یاری جستن از سلولهای خاکستری مغز خویش، پرده از راز جالبترین پرونده ی خویش برمیدارد؛ جالب اینکه هیچ چیز، که به قاتل مربوط باشد، پیدا نمیشود، و «پوآرو»، در آغاز، از امتیازات بازی بریج، استفاده کرده، و فکر قاتل را دنبال میکند، و سرانجام میفهمد، چه کسی به قتل دست زده است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 14/12/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 02/10/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
October 25, 2022
I consider this case, Hercule Poirot, book #15 as a modern classic. Four detectives and four murder suspects invited to a dinner party, with a predictable result... murder! A well crafted story with some great denouements towards the end. This case also saw the debut of the irrepressible detective fiction writer Ariadine Oliver. 8 out of 12.
2013 read
2013 read
May 7, 2024
Lunchtime Listen April/May 2024
I have to say this is still a real favourite of mine as far as Poirot is concerned. It also has the excellent Superintendent Battle and Mrs Ariadne Oliver, as well as a brief appearance by Colonel Race. A real cornucopia of detectives. But of course there is a real reason for this, all courtesy of the mephistophelian Mr Shaitana, who ultimately ends up dead.
This is brilliantly narrated by the truly wonderful Hugh Fraser, who obviously perfected his Poirot accent through his long association with David Suchet.
Group Series Read 2019
Well, how have I missed this one. I don't remember the book or the David Suchet TV version, and yet this was or should I say is, one of my all time favourite Poirot novels.
The story is an excellent one, with all the twists and turns you can expect from the "Dame" and for the first time in a while, it also heavily features the enigmatic Poirot, as well as the delectable Ariadne Oliver.
Without giving the game away, literally, the story is focussed upon a meal hosted by an unpopular man with 8 guests. Following the meal the guests split into 2 , with 4 people playing Bridge in one room, and 4 others (all detectives in their way) playing Bridge in the next door room. Mr un-Popular is sat by the fire relaxing through an evening of Bridge. At the end of the evening after many rubbers (!) Mr un-Popular is found dead.
Poirot and Mrs Oliver being 2 of the "detectives" are ably joined by a Police Superintendent and a Secret Service operative (the other two players) in their investigation of the only 4 possible suspects.
After many twists and turns, red herrings and blind alleys the denouement is a lot more than expected.
This is truly a great detective story and could be held up as a paragon of the genre. Thoroughly enjoyed and thoroughly recommended. Certainly a big contender for my "book of the month"
I have to say this is still a real favourite of mine as far as Poirot is concerned. It also has the excellent Superintendent Battle and Mrs Ariadne Oliver, as well as a brief appearance by Colonel Race. A real cornucopia of detectives. But of course there is a real reason for this, all courtesy of the mephistophelian Mr Shaitana, who ultimately ends up dead.
This is brilliantly narrated by the truly wonderful Hugh Fraser, who obviously perfected his Poirot accent through his long association with David Suchet.
Group Series Read 2019
Well, how have I missed this one. I don't remember the book or the David Suchet TV version, and yet this was or should I say is, one of my all time favourite Poirot novels.
The story is an excellent one, with all the twists and turns you can expect from the "Dame" and for the first time in a while, it also heavily features the enigmatic Poirot, as well as the delectable Ariadne Oliver.
Without giving the game away, literally, the story is focussed upon a meal hosted by an unpopular man with 8 guests. Following the meal the guests split into 2 , with 4 people playing Bridge in one room, and 4 others (all detectives in their way) playing Bridge in the next door room. Mr un-Popular is sat by the fire relaxing through an evening of Bridge. At the end of the evening after many rubbers (!) Mr un-Popular is found dead.
Poirot and Mrs Oliver being 2 of the "detectives" are ably joined by a Police Superintendent and a Secret Service operative (the other two players) in their investigation of the only 4 possible suspects.
After many twists and turns, red herrings and blind alleys the denouement is a lot more than expected.
This is truly a great detective story and could be held up as a paragon of the genre. Thoroughly enjoyed and thoroughly recommended. Certainly a big contender for my "book of the month"
August 21, 2024
I credit Agatha Christie with spawning my early love of the dark, hidden psychology that lurks in all of us. I started reading her at the age of nine (explains a lot, doesn't it?). I have, therefore, a soft spot in my heart for her. This particular time in my life called for a comfort read - something akin to macaroni and cheese or a plate of brownies - and marks the first time in decades that I've revisited this particular work.
It's funny to observe Agatha Christie now, as a critical reader. The first thing I noticed was 99.5% of this book is dialogue. She also uses the adjective "Mephistophelian" about 17 times (approximately 16 times too many). There's almost no description of setting or mood, and her characters are more types than fully fledged beings.
BUT. The plot is marvellous, ridiculous, and audacious, all at the same time. In short: Mr. Shaitana, a "Mephistophelian" man, in addition to being Mephistophelian, is a collector. He collects snuff boxes, various curios... and... murderers. The very best murderers, to be sure, which means, murderers who haven't been caught. Yet. After meeting the great moustachioed detective Hercules Poirot, Shaitana decides to host a party to show off his evil little collection. Well, you can imagine how THAT party goes.
Even though the constant dialogue is a bit suffocating, the vocabulary somewhat lacking, and character development fairly limited, I have to say, Dame Christie knows her way around a mystery like none other. She keeps you guessing, right to the end. Thoroughly enjoyable. As enjoyable as a plate of brownies, minus the calories and inevitable self-loathing that comes with it.
Now... on to a re-read of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd....
It's funny to observe Agatha Christie now, as a critical reader. The first thing I noticed was 99.5% of this book is dialogue. She also uses the adjective "Mephistophelian" about 17 times (approximately 16 times too many). There's almost no description of setting or mood, and her characters are more types than fully fledged beings.
BUT. The plot is marvellous, ridiculous, and audacious, all at the same time. In short: Mr. Shaitana, a "Mephistophelian" man, in addition to being Mephistophelian, is a collector. He collects snuff boxes, various curios... and... murderers. The very best murderers, to be sure, which means, murderers who haven't been caught. Yet. After meeting the great moustachioed detective Hercules Poirot, Shaitana decides to host a party to show off his evil little collection. Well, you can imagine how THAT party goes.
Even though the constant dialogue is a bit suffocating, the vocabulary somewhat lacking, and character development fairly limited, I have to say, Dame Christie knows her way around a mystery like none other. She keeps you guessing, right to the end. Thoroughly enjoyable. As enjoyable as a plate of brownies, minus the calories and inevitable self-loathing that comes with it.
Now... on to a re-read of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd....
August 7, 2024
“Cards on the Table. That’s the motto for this business. I mean to play fair.”
So says the chief investigating officer in this novel, who also says he is a:
“Great admirer of yours, Monsieur Poirot. Little gray cells – order and method. I know all about it.”
Such a thought can be fervently echoed by millions of fans of the diminutive Belgian detective, Monsieur Hercule Poirot, worldwide. The 1936 novel, Cards on the Table, is the fifteenth novel by Agatha Christie to feature her perennially popular detective, and Superintendent Battle of Scotland Yard is the investigator with a brain to (almost) match Poirot’s own.
Superintendent Battle features in other stories by Agatha Christie, as does Colonel Race, who is a British secret agent. A third recurring character is Ariadne Oliver, an endearing crime mystery writer, who makes her first appearance in Poirot’s company here. However, this is not Mrs. Ariadne Oliver’s debut. She did have a brief earlier role in the Parker Pyne short story “The Case of the Discontented Soldier”. Sadly the amiable and ever-helpful Captain Arthur Hastings does not appear in this novel, but as can be seen, we do have plenty of other favourite characters to fill the gap.
Amateur sleuths among Agatha Christie’s readers will have realised that we already have four detectives in the novel, which is surely curious. In fact they form part of a carefully chosen set of guests, invited by the mysterious Mr. Shaitana, who is hosting an unusual dinner party. Mr. Shaitana seems to be a bit of a dandy:
“The whole of Mr. Shaitana’s person caught the eye – it was designed to do so. He deliberately attempted a Mephistophelian effect. He was tall and thin; his face was long and melancholy; his eyebrows were heavily accented and jet black; he wore a moustache with stiff waxed ends and a tiny black imperial. His clothes were works of art – of exquisite cut – but with a suggestion of the bizarre”
Interestingly, “Shaitana” is a Hindi word, meaning “Devil”. Mr. Shaitana does seem to be universally disliked:
“Every healthy Englishman who saw him longed earnestly and fervently to kick him!”
Is this because of his extravagant sense of style? Or his supreme confidence? Or is there perhaps a touch of envy in those who know him?:
“He existed richly and beautifully in a super flat in Park Lane … and gave wonderful parties – large parties, small parties, macabre parties, respectable parties and definitely “queer” parties.”
Nevertheless, “He was a man of whom nearly everybody was a little afraid. Why this … was so can hardly be stated in definite words. There was a feeling, perhaps, that he knew a little too much about everybody. And there was a feeling, too, that his sense of humour was a curious one.”
Ah, there we have it. Each invited guest must be wondering why they have been given such preferential treatment, and perhaps too, they also might wonder what Mr Shaitana knows about them.
In her foreword, Agatha Christie has told us the sort of detective story she does not like:
“Spot the least likely person to have committed the crime and in nine times out of ten your task is finished …
“I prefer to warn them beforehand that this is not that kind of book. There are only four starters, and any one of them, given the right circumstances, might have committed the crime. That knocks out forcibly the element of surprise … They are four widely divergent types, the motive that drives each one of them to crime is a peculiar to that person, and each one would employ a different method. The deduction must, therefore, be entirely psychological, but it is none the less interesting for that, because when all is said and done it is the mind of the murderer that is of supreme interest.”
This could almost be Poirot thinking. And so, we see the author’s thoughts made concrete, for our entertainment.
Mr. Shaitana was a man of great taste, and he was also a great collector of rare objects. When he met Hercule Poirot, seemingly by accident, he mentioned that one of his strangest collections was of people who had committed murder. Moreover, because he only collected “the best”, he only collected the ones who got away with it. “The successes!” An idea suddenly occurred to Mr. Shaitana. He would host a dinner party, where Poirot would be able to meet these “exhibits” for himself. Was Poirot interested?
How could Poirot resist? What an opportunity to get his little grey cells working. And so we move to the actual dinner.
There are eight guests. Four are people who had once been suspected of murder, and four are the detectives. All the guests are pleasant and charming. There is Doctor Geoffrey Roberts, a cheerful and successful middle aged medical practitioner, and Mrs Lorrimer, a widow of sixty, who is an expert bridge player. There is Miss Anne Meredith, a shy young woman who used to work as a companion to various elderly ladies, and Major John Despard, a lean handsome man who is an explorer and safari hunter. The conversation seems varied enough, covering conventional topics such as films, books and politics, but also – and perhaps more significantly – poisons, and how to cure sleeping sickness.
After dinner, the guests retire to play contract bridge. All the four sleuths play cards in one room, while the others play in another room. Mr. Shaitana declines to play, and meanders between the rooms following the games of bridge being played. He finally settles down to relax, in a big chair by the fireplace in the smoking room, where the suspects play their game, as the light gradually fades at the end of the day. After the sleuths’ game has ended, Colonel Race goes through to where Mr. Shaitana is sitting in the shadows, and then quietly calls Poirot over.
Poirot and Colonel Race see that the flamboyant Mr. Shaitana has been silenced for ever: stabbed in the chest, with a weapon from his own collection. Mr. Shaitana had tempted Providence, and he had lost.
As Poirot said:
“Shaitana was a man who prided himself on his Mephistophelian attitude to life. He was a man of great vanity. He was also a stupid man – that’s why he is dead.”
As Ariadne Oliver had noticed, Mr. Shaitana mentioned “the black angel” which Inspector Battle picked up:
“A neat little reference to poison, to accident, to a doctor’s opportunities, to shooting accidents. I shouldn’t be surprised if he signed his death-warrant when he said those words.”
The blurb tells us the name of the victim in the first sentence, which is not usually something we would welcome knowing in advance. However, Agatha Christie’s set-up for this murder mystery is both audacious, and yet brilliantly simple:
“In the opinion of Mr Shaitana, each of these four people had committed murder. Had he evidence? Or was it a guess.”
Surely the host would not have expected himself to be a victim? Suicide whilst putting the blame on another, also seems to be precluded, by the vicious method of the crime. It is an intriguing murder puzzle in itself – and then the many layered complexity of this case hits us. We realise that we also have four other possible murders to solve, and that these are reverse murders, where we know the identity of the murderer, but not necessarily the victim, or the crime.
We have been subtly invited by the Queen of Crime to solve five murder mysteries in one!
The four detectives agree to take one each of the other four guests, to investigate as the possible murderer one-to-one. Since each happens to suspect a different guest, the allocation of guests is straightforward. As Ariadne Oliver herself remarks:
“The four murderers and the four sleuths – Scotland Yard. Secret Service. Private. Fiction. A clever idea.”
To help his own part of the investigation, Poirot decides to take the score sheets which each of the guests made in their bridge game, in case it should reveal something untoward. His approach, as he says, is always from the psychological angle; looking for the motive and psychology behind the murder, to ascertain the truth. Yet he knows others might think some of the details he focuses on to be foolish:
“I never think your questions foolish, M. Poirot,” said Battle. “I’ve seen too much of your work. Everyone’s got their own way of working.”
and when he is asked by Poirot to describe his own style, Inspector Battle replies:
“A straightforward, honest, zealous officer doing his duty in the most laborious manner – that’s my style. No frills. No fancy work. Just honest perspiration. Stolid and a bit stupid – that’s my ticket.”
But Major Despard sees through his act, and when another guest describes the Inspector as “rather stupid”, comments:
“That, I should imagine, is part of Battle’s stock-in trade … He’s an extraordinarily astute man. A man of remarkable ability.”
This is, in my opinion, one of the best Poirot novels. Even the title is a riddle, with a double meaning. Superintendent Battle says that Cards on the Table was to be their motto, but the entire plot of novel is based on the theme of playing cards. All the potential murderers played the card game, contract bridge, as the main murder was actually committed. A third interpretation of the title is another metaphor. To play contract bridge demands a certain level of skill, and ability to take risks. This also forms part of Poirot’s method: a close analysis, and study of the psychology of each individual.
Cards on the Table is multi-layered, with at least five separate possible murders to solve. Yet because it is so well structured, it is straightforward to read. As Agatha Christie herself remarked, we have a small set of characters to choose from, and each is completely different in their personality and motives. We readily engage with each, and because they are attached to different sleuths, we follow their cases without difficulty. This is not to say, however that they are easy to solve. Quite the reverse.
Despite the genuine clues, Agatha Christie deftly leads us along false trails and feeds us many red herrings. There are bodies galore, with several murders in the past as well as the present one – plus a future murder, a future suicide and a future accidental death. There is romance – and deceit. A hired actor is employed by one of the detectives, to great effect. And, astoundingly, the entire plot turns on the game of bridge, and the bids made, alongside the guests’ memories of the room they were in. Poirot’s bases his theory upon the murderer’s recollection of the bridge game. The solution to the murder is an analytical one – quite brilliant and a complete surprise.
The writing is subtle, and the humour is delightful. Poirot is as vain as ever, and we love him for it:
“The question is,” he said, … “can Hercule Poirot possibly be wrong?”
“No one can always be right,” said Mrs Lorrimer coldly.
“I am,” said Poirot. “Always I am right. It is so invariable that it startles me. But now it looks, it very much looks, as if I am wrong. And that upsets me!”
All the detectives spark off each other, and we get in-jokes which refer to other Poirot novels (which I will not quote, for fear of “spoilers”). We get a good impression of Mrs. Ariadne Oliver’s detective novels, with her hero “Sven”. She has authored thirty-two detective novels, and the part where she describes the difficulties of her craft is very droll. Take this exchange:
“Women,” said Mrs. Oliver, “are capable of infinite variation. I should never commit the same type of murder twice running.”
“Don’t you ever write the same plot twice running?” asked Battle.”
And Poirot proceeds to identify two of her novels which are essentially the same plot. There is a good-humoured teasing relationship which exists between her and Poirot, which is a joy to read about. I feel there is part of Agatha Christie herself in both of these characters.
Cards on the Table was adapted by Leslie Darbon as a stage play in London’s West End in 1981, although without Hercule Poirot! Gordon Jackson played Superintendent Battle and the cast included Derek Waring, Belinda Carroll, Mary Tamm and Patricia Driscoll. Agatha Christie herself had liked to adapt her novels as plays, but never included Poirot as the detective, as she did not feel that any actor would be able to portray him successfully. It is a shame she did not live long enough to see David Suchet’s incarnation, which seems well nigh perfect.
David Suchet starred in the entire canon of Poirot stories for ITV, over many years, and the adaptation of Cards on the Table was broadcast in 2006. As usual, David Suchet starred as Hercule Poirot and Zoë Wanamaker as Ariadne Oliver. However, Nick Dear’s adaptation differs from the novel in so many respects, that it is like a completely different story. The method of the murder, and who committed it, are the same, but otherwise it is really only loosely based on the novel. Several motives are different, two of the detectives are replaced, and there are even different deaths.
However Cards on the Table has also been adapted for radio by BBC Radio 4, featuring John Moffatt as Hercule Poirot, Donald Sinden as Colonel Johnny Race, and Stephanie Cole as Ariadne Oliver. This adaptation is much more faithful to the plot of the novel.
Agatha Christie had warned us in her foreword that the novel has only four suspects and the deduction must be purely psychological. Amusingly, she also said that this was one of the favourite cases of Hercule Poirot, while his friend Captain Hastings found it very dull. She then wonders how her readers will feel.
I find myself agreeing with Hercule!
So says the chief investigating officer in this novel, who also says he is a:
“Great admirer of yours, Monsieur Poirot. Little gray cells – order and method. I know all about it.”
Such a thought can be fervently echoed by millions of fans of the diminutive Belgian detective, Monsieur Hercule Poirot, worldwide. The 1936 novel, Cards on the Table, is the fifteenth novel by Agatha Christie to feature her perennially popular detective, and Superintendent Battle of Scotland Yard is the investigator with a brain to (almost) match Poirot’s own.
Superintendent Battle features in other stories by Agatha Christie, as does Colonel Race, who is a British secret agent. A third recurring character is Ariadne Oliver, an endearing crime mystery writer, who makes her first appearance in Poirot’s company here. However, this is not Mrs. Ariadne Oliver’s debut. She did have a brief earlier role in the Parker Pyne short story “The Case of the Discontented Soldier”. Sadly the amiable and ever-helpful Captain Arthur Hastings does not appear in this novel, but as can be seen, we do have plenty of other favourite characters to fill the gap.
Amateur sleuths among Agatha Christie’s readers will have realised that we already have four detectives in the novel, which is surely curious. In fact they form part of a carefully chosen set of guests, invited by the mysterious Mr. Shaitana, who is hosting an unusual dinner party. Mr. Shaitana seems to be a bit of a dandy:
“The whole of Mr. Shaitana’s person caught the eye – it was designed to do so. He deliberately attempted a Mephistophelian effect. He was tall and thin; his face was long and melancholy; his eyebrows were heavily accented and jet black; he wore a moustache with stiff waxed ends and a tiny black imperial. His clothes were works of art – of exquisite cut – but with a suggestion of the bizarre”
Interestingly, “Shaitana” is a Hindi word, meaning “Devil”. Mr. Shaitana does seem to be universally disliked:
“Every healthy Englishman who saw him longed earnestly and fervently to kick him!”
Is this because of his extravagant sense of style? Or his supreme confidence? Or is there perhaps a touch of envy in those who know him?:
“He existed richly and beautifully in a super flat in Park Lane … and gave wonderful parties – large parties, small parties, macabre parties, respectable parties and definitely “queer” parties.”
Nevertheless, “He was a man of whom nearly everybody was a little afraid. Why this … was so can hardly be stated in definite words. There was a feeling, perhaps, that he knew a little too much about everybody. And there was a feeling, too, that his sense of humour was a curious one.”
Ah, there we have it. Each invited guest must be wondering why they have been given such preferential treatment, and perhaps too, they also might wonder what Mr Shaitana knows about them.
In her foreword, Agatha Christie has told us the sort of detective story she does not like:
“Spot the least likely person to have committed the crime and in nine times out of ten your task is finished …
“I prefer to warn them beforehand that this is not that kind of book. There are only four starters, and any one of them, given the right circumstances, might have committed the crime. That knocks out forcibly the element of surprise … They are four widely divergent types, the motive that drives each one of them to crime is a peculiar to that person, and each one would employ a different method. The deduction must, therefore, be entirely psychological, but it is none the less interesting for that, because when all is said and done it is the mind of the murderer that is of supreme interest.”
This could almost be Poirot thinking. And so, we see the author’s thoughts made concrete, for our entertainment.
Mr. Shaitana was a man of great taste, and he was also a great collector of rare objects. When he met Hercule Poirot, seemingly by accident, he mentioned that one of his strangest collections was of people who had committed murder. Moreover, because he only collected “the best”, he only collected the ones who got away with it. “The successes!” An idea suddenly occurred to Mr. Shaitana. He would host a dinner party, where Poirot would be able to meet these “exhibits” for himself. Was Poirot interested?
How could Poirot resist? What an opportunity to get his little grey cells working. And so we move to the actual dinner.
There are eight guests. Four are people who had once been suspected of murder, and four are the detectives. All the guests are pleasant and charming. There is Doctor Geoffrey Roberts, a cheerful and successful middle aged medical practitioner, and Mrs Lorrimer, a widow of sixty, who is an expert bridge player. There is Miss Anne Meredith, a shy young woman who used to work as a companion to various elderly ladies, and Major John Despard, a lean handsome man who is an explorer and safari hunter. The conversation seems varied enough, covering conventional topics such as films, books and politics, but also – and perhaps more significantly – poisons, and how to cure sleeping sickness.
After dinner, the guests retire to play contract bridge. All the four sleuths play cards in one room, while the others play in another room. Mr. Shaitana declines to play, and meanders between the rooms following the games of bridge being played. He finally settles down to relax, in a big chair by the fireplace in the smoking room, where the suspects play their game, as the light gradually fades at the end of the day. After the sleuths’ game has ended, Colonel Race goes through to where Mr. Shaitana is sitting in the shadows, and then quietly calls Poirot over.
Poirot and Colonel Race see that the flamboyant Mr. Shaitana has been silenced for ever: stabbed in the chest, with a weapon from his own collection. Mr. Shaitana had tempted Providence, and he had lost.
As Poirot said:
“Shaitana was a man who prided himself on his Mephistophelian attitude to life. He was a man of great vanity. He was also a stupid man – that’s why he is dead.”
As Ariadne Oliver had noticed, Mr. Shaitana mentioned “the black angel” which Inspector Battle picked up:
“A neat little reference to poison, to accident, to a doctor’s opportunities, to shooting accidents. I shouldn’t be surprised if he signed his death-warrant when he said those words.”
The blurb tells us the name of the victim in the first sentence, which is not usually something we would welcome knowing in advance. However, Agatha Christie’s set-up for this murder mystery is both audacious, and yet brilliantly simple:
“In the opinion of Mr Shaitana, each of these four people had committed murder. Had he evidence? Or was it a guess.”
Surely the host would not have expected himself to be a victim? Suicide whilst putting the blame on another, also seems to be precluded, by the vicious method of the crime. It is an intriguing murder puzzle in itself – and then the many layered complexity of this case hits us. We realise that we also have four other possible murders to solve, and that these are reverse murders, where we know the identity of the murderer, but not necessarily the victim, or the crime.
We have been subtly invited by the Queen of Crime to solve five murder mysteries in one!
The four detectives agree to take one each of the other four guests, to investigate as the possible murderer one-to-one. Since each happens to suspect a different guest, the allocation of guests is straightforward. As Ariadne Oliver herself remarks:
“The four murderers and the four sleuths – Scotland Yard. Secret Service. Private. Fiction. A clever idea.”
To help his own part of the investigation, Poirot decides to take the score sheets which each of the guests made in their bridge game, in case it should reveal something untoward. His approach, as he says, is always from the psychological angle; looking for the motive and psychology behind the murder, to ascertain the truth. Yet he knows others might think some of the details he focuses on to be foolish:
“I never think your questions foolish, M. Poirot,” said Battle. “I’ve seen too much of your work. Everyone’s got their own way of working.”
and when he is asked by Poirot to describe his own style, Inspector Battle replies:
“A straightforward, honest, zealous officer doing his duty in the most laborious manner – that’s my style. No frills. No fancy work. Just honest perspiration. Stolid and a bit stupid – that’s my ticket.”
But Major Despard sees through his act, and when another guest describes the Inspector as “rather stupid”, comments:
“That, I should imagine, is part of Battle’s stock-in trade … He’s an extraordinarily astute man. A man of remarkable ability.”
This is, in my opinion, one of the best Poirot novels. Even the title is a riddle, with a double meaning. Superintendent Battle says that Cards on the Table was to be their motto, but the entire plot of novel is based on the theme of playing cards. All the potential murderers played the card game, contract bridge, as the main murder was actually committed. A third interpretation of the title is another metaphor. To play contract bridge demands a certain level of skill, and ability to take risks. This also forms part of Poirot’s method: a close analysis, and study of the psychology of each individual.
Cards on the Table is multi-layered, with at least five separate possible murders to solve. Yet because it is so well structured, it is straightforward to read. As Agatha Christie herself remarked, we have a small set of characters to choose from, and each is completely different in their personality and motives. We readily engage with each, and because they are attached to different sleuths, we follow their cases without difficulty. This is not to say, however that they are easy to solve. Quite the reverse.
Despite the genuine clues, Agatha Christie deftly leads us along false trails and feeds us many red herrings. There are bodies galore, with several murders in the past as well as the present one – plus a future murder, a future suicide and a future accidental death. There is romance – and deceit. A hired actor is employed by one of the detectives, to great effect. And, astoundingly, the entire plot turns on the game of bridge, and the bids made, alongside the guests’ memories of the room they were in. Poirot’s bases his theory upon the murderer’s recollection of the bridge game. The solution to the murder is an analytical one – quite brilliant and a complete surprise.
The writing is subtle, and the humour is delightful. Poirot is as vain as ever, and we love him for it:
“The question is,” he said, … “can Hercule Poirot possibly be wrong?”
“No one can always be right,” said Mrs Lorrimer coldly.
“I am,” said Poirot. “Always I am right. It is so invariable that it startles me. But now it looks, it very much looks, as if I am wrong. And that upsets me!”
All the detectives spark off each other, and we get in-jokes which refer to other Poirot novels (which I will not quote, for fear of “spoilers”). We get a good impression of Mrs. Ariadne Oliver’s detective novels, with her hero “Sven”. She has authored thirty-two detective novels, and the part where she describes the difficulties of her craft is very droll. Take this exchange:
“Women,” said Mrs. Oliver, “are capable of infinite variation. I should never commit the same type of murder twice running.”
“Don’t you ever write the same plot twice running?” asked Battle.”
And Poirot proceeds to identify two of her novels which are essentially the same plot. There is a good-humoured teasing relationship which exists between her and Poirot, which is a joy to read about. I feel there is part of Agatha Christie herself in both of these characters.
Cards on the Table was adapted by Leslie Darbon as a stage play in London’s West End in 1981, although without Hercule Poirot! Gordon Jackson played Superintendent Battle and the cast included Derek Waring, Belinda Carroll, Mary Tamm and Patricia Driscoll. Agatha Christie herself had liked to adapt her novels as plays, but never included Poirot as the detective, as she did not feel that any actor would be able to portray him successfully. It is a shame she did not live long enough to see David Suchet’s incarnation, which seems well nigh perfect.
David Suchet starred in the entire canon of Poirot stories for ITV, over many years, and the adaptation of Cards on the Table was broadcast in 2006. As usual, David Suchet starred as Hercule Poirot and Zoë Wanamaker as Ariadne Oliver. However, Nick Dear’s adaptation differs from the novel in so many respects, that it is like a completely different story. The method of the murder, and who committed it, are the same, but otherwise it is really only loosely based on the novel. Several motives are different, two of the detectives are replaced, and there are even different deaths.
However Cards on the Table has also been adapted for radio by BBC Radio 4, featuring John Moffatt as Hercule Poirot, Donald Sinden as Colonel Johnny Race, and Stephanie Cole as Ariadne Oliver. This adaptation is much more faithful to the plot of the novel.
Agatha Christie had warned us in her foreword that the novel has only four suspects and the deduction must be purely psychological. Amusingly, she also said that this was one of the favourite cases of Hercule Poirot, while his friend Captain Hastings found it very dull. She then wonders how her readers will feel.
I find myself agreeing with Hercule!
February 10, 2023
One of Agatha Christie's finest with four detectives, four murder suspects, and at least five murders. Poirot is at his best with his incroyable mustache and his little grey cells, magnifique! He decides who the murderer is by their bridge game that night and by their powers of remembrance.
February 15, 2020
3,5. The plot was awesome, but the book's conclusion wasn't good!
July 4, 2017
I'm done! It feels like I am finishing books up so slowly lately - June wasn't a strong reading month.
Thanks to Hercule Poirot, it ended well - the Belgian detective dominates the story from start to finish. That may sound like it's something needless to say, but Agatha Christie did tend to have some Poirot books where the beloved detective didn't even show up until the second half or toward the end. In this case we open up with him at a party and end with him entertaining survivors.
The story was fascinating. While it wasn't her strongest mystery, who cares because I loved the general concept. Poirot was invited along with three other detectives of sorts (one mystery novelists, a Scotland Yard Detective, etc) to have dinner with four murderers who had gotten away with it. When the party host is found dead in front of all the guests, they had four suspects.
Blending the past murders with the present was interesting enough, but it was the time Christie took to dig into various motivations and personality traits that was the actual winner here. Sometimes her story takes so much focus that characters play mere backdrop counterparts, but in this case the paper people are individually drawn and convincingly motivated.
It may not be the most exciting in her library, but so far it's one of my many favorites. The story speeds by and it stays intriguing from start to finish. The ending line was just hilarious too - have to love the people who dare to tease the detective.
Thanks to Hercule Poirot, it ended well - the Belgian detective dominates the story from start to finish. That may sound like it's something needless to say, but Agatha Christie did tend to have some Poirot books where the beloved detective didn't even show up until the second half or toward the end. In this case we open up with him at a party and end with him entertaining survivors.
The story was fascinating. While it wasn't her strongest mystery, who cares because I loved the general concept. Poirot was invited along with three other detectives of sorts (one mystery novelists, a Scotland Yard Detective, etc) to have dinner with four murderers who had gotten away with it. When the party host is found dead in front of all the guests, they had four suspects.
Blending the past murders with the present was interesting enough, but it was the time Christie took to dig into various motivations and personality traits that was the actual winner here. Sometimes her story takes so much focus that characters play mere backdrop counterparts, but in this case the paper people are individually drawn and convincingly motivated.
It may not be the most exciting in her library, but so far it's one of my many favorites. The story speeds by and it stays intriguing from start to finish. The ending line was just hilarious too - have to love the people who dare to tease the detective.
January 8, 2022
Agatha Christie Book Reading Challenge
BOOK 19 :- JUNE 2020
4 STARS
BOOK 19 :- JUNE 2020
4 STARS
October 30, 2021
Me ha parecido básico, aburrido, tiene su gracia en algunos momentos pero no me convence porque la trama se centra específicamente en cuatro sospechosos que pueden ser posibles asesinos. Así que como lector cuentas con un 25% de probabilidad de acertar; lo que le quita tensión al asunto. En ningún momento me sentí embelesado por el caso y no sobra decir que me ha resultado profundamente previsible. Es que no hay más, no sorprende para nada. Al menos si alguien ha leído mucho de la reina del crimen le parecerá flojísimo pero comprendo que quiénes apenas empiezan con Christie consideren lo contrario. Hay una vuelta de tuercas al final pero como ya estoy acostumbrado a eso en ella pues se me hace normal. De hecho, al comienzo hay una aclaratoria de la autora que deja en evidencia que puedes estar del lado de la postura de Poirot, a quien le encantó este caso. O del lado de Hastings, quien lo no le ve lo especial.
Sumado a eso contamos con cuatro detectives que son personajes recurrentes en otras historias como: Hércules Poirot, el coronel Race, la escritora Ariadne Oliver y el superintendente Battle. Y aún así, siento que se centra más en unos que en otros lo que le da un desbalance nada favorable, echando en falta la presencia de dos que no aparecen mucho. Y nada, a probar suerte con el que sigue a ver si me gusta, que le tengo ganas; aunque este ni me ha gustado ni disgustado. Solo me ha dado igual y lo bueno es que la reina del crimen un bloqueo jamás te causará (o al menos en mi caso).
Sumado a eso contamos con cuatro detectives que son personajes recurrentes en otras historias como: Hércules Poirot, el coronel Race, la escritora Ariadne Oliver y el superintendente Battle. Y aún así, siento que se centra más en unos que en otros lo que le da un desbalance nada favorable, echando en falta la presencia de dos que no aparecen mucho. Y nada, a probar suerte con el que sigue a ver si me gusta, que le tengo ganas; aunque este ni me ha gustado ni disgustado. Solo me ha dado igual y lo bueno es que la reina del crimen un bloqueo jamás te causará (o al menos en mi caso).
April 16, 2020
I hadn't read any Christie in years, though I've kept my ancient paperback copies of her books through many household moves. Picking up Cards on the Table as part of a group read reminded me why I haven't let them go.
In a word, reading this was fun , pure and simple. Christie isn't brilliant at any one aspect of writing, but she's decent at all of them. And I love the pace. The plot moves along briskly without feeling rushed, and the various misdirections at the end are deliciously entertaining.
The fictional detective Poirot's friend, the fictional author of mysteries Ariadne Oliver, makes an appearance in this book and as always, she's an entertaining addition. Her idiosyncrasies, along with Poirot's, balance nicely against the two more staid "sleuths" making up the crime-solving foursome in the book (four other characters are the potential murderers).
I suppose that if I knew more about the game of bridge the book would have been even more entertaining, but I thoroughly enjoyed it anyway. Definitely rates 5 stars when compared with other golden age mysteries.
In a word, reading this was fun , pure and simple. Christie isn't brilliant at any one aspect of writing, but she's decent at all of them. And I love the pace. The plot moves along briskly without feeling rushed, and the various misdirections at the end are deliciously entertaining.
The fictional detective Poirot's friend, the fictional author of mysteries Ariadne Oliver, makes an appearance in this book and as always, she's an entertaining addition. Her idiosyncrasies, along with Poirot's, balance nicely against the two more staid "sleuths" making up the crime-solving foursome in the book (four other characters are the potential murderers).
I suppose that if I knew more about the game of bridge the book would have been even more entertaining, but I thoroughly enjoyed it anyway. Definitely rates 5 stars when compared with other golden age mysteries.
May 31, 2019
Cards on the Table, Poirot #15
“Real life’s a bit different,” said [Scotland Yard Superintendent] Battle.
“I know,” said [mystery novelist] Mrs. Oliver. “Badly constructed. . . . I could make a better murder any day than anything real. I’m never at a loss for a plot.”
Not a household name, Cards on the Table, yet it has things to recommend it. First, it involves a—first time—introduction by “Agatha Christie,” speaking for Hercule Poirot as a “real person,” whose case we will read as one of his favorites. The core of this case is the murder of a mysterious “foreign” (always exoticizing the other, this Christie) snuff box collector, a Mr. Shaitana who organizes a bridge party to exhibit yet another “collection”—of murderers—(four people he knows who have committed murderers and gotten away with it. Shaitana also invites Scotland Yard Superintendent Battle, Colonel Race of the Secret Service, Ariadne Oliver, a famed mystery novelist, and Hercule Poirot, a semi-retired Belgian detective.
“It is impossible not to give oneself away—unless one never opens one’s mouth! Speech is the deadliest of revealers”—Poirot
The presumption is that between the four of these latter types we will see who is the best sleuth, and though we already know the answer to this one, the four actually work together pretty well. Battle in particular is a more than able participant in the solution to the crime, not a joke like former Poirot sidekick Hastings, and I like this arrangement better. It's less insulting to the Scotland Yard. That the mystery novelist Oliver is also in the hunt is a kind of joke Christie plays on herself in a homey, self-deprecating way. She’s the comic relief in the story, and sort of a star of the show, a really memorable character.
Shaitana is killed with a knife during the bridge game, so it is clear one of the invited murderers (wait! was that a good idea, inviting four murders to dinner, or not?) have done him in. Poirot’s primarily psychological analysis (the mind at times can see more clearly than the heart) focuses on bridge moves, the extent to which each suspect recalls items in the room, and the past—did the suspects actually kill someone, and if so, how? People reveal who they are to Poirot, and they rarely surprise him, finally, after he figures them out. Logic rules. You will not figure this one out, but if you want to stay close to a solution, pay attention to what Poirot pays attention to, and largely ignore the rest. The rest isn't boring, but it is a fair number of pages you know are not completely relevant, of course, but necessary detective work.
One feature of this one is that a confession takes place roughly fifty pages from the end (250 pages into it), a confession I completely buy, but that is just the beginning of a series of crazy surprises and pretty ingenious reversals. This is a pretty average Christie tale, for the most part, but the way it turns out reveals that “average” for Christie is spectacular for most mystery writers. I might nitpick that it goes on too long as they will often do, but in the end, mais oui!
Some interesting features:
*Shaitana is referred to as Mephistophelean by several characters, with his flair for the dramatic.
*As is often the case characters are racist about Jews, but here “Dagos” are in for their share of abuse.
*But white men? Colonel Race dismisses Major Despard of suspicion: “He’s a white man, Battle.” “Incapable of murder, you mean?” “Incapable of what I’d call murder, yes.” [by which he means justifiable homicide isn’t murder, and white men usually have perfectly good reasons for killing people. This is Race's racist view, not necessarily Christie's view.] !!!
Writer Oliver, at the (apparent) moment of Poirot’s revelation of the murderer: “Least likely person! It seems to work out in real life just the same as in books. . .” and later, when she sees it is now someone else, she says, quite untruthfully, “I always said he did it!”
Fun times, 3.5, rounded up to 4 for the last, 5-starred, fifty pages, for the puzzle-maker non pareil. Funny and head-shakingly clever. And I had never even heard of this one!
“Real life’s a bit different,” said [Scotland Yard Superintendent] Battle.
“I know,” said [mystery novelist] Mrs. Oliver. “Badly constructed. . . . I could make a better murder any day than anything real. I’m never at a loss for a plot.”
Not a household name, Cards on the Table, yet it has things to recommend it. First, it involves a—first time—introduction by “Agatha Christie,” speaking for Hercule Poirot as a “real person,” whose case we will read as one of his favorites. The core of this case is the murder of a mysterious “foreign” (always exoticizing the other, this Christie) snuff box collector, a Mr. Shaitana who organizes a bridge party to exhibit yet another “collection”—of murderers—(four people he knows who have committed murderers and gotten away with it. Shaitana also invites Scotland Yard Superintendent Battle, Colonel Race of the Secret Service, Ariadne Oliver, a famed mystery novelist, and Hercule Poirot, a semi-retired Belgian detective.
“It is impossible not to give oneself away—unless one never opens one’s mouth! Speech is the deadliest of revealers”—Poirot
The presumption is that between the four of these latter types we will see who is the best sleuth, and though we already know the answer to this one, the four actually work together pretty well. Battle in particular is a more than able participant in the solution to the crime, not a joke like former Poirot sidekick Hastings, and I like this arrangement better. It's less insulting to the Scotland Yard. That the mystery novelist Oliver is also in the hunt is a kind of joke Christie plays on herself in a homey, self-deprecating way. She’s the comic relief in the story, and sort of a star of the show, a really memorable character.
Shaitana is killed with a knife during the bridge game, so it is clear one of the invited murderers (wait! was that a good idea, inviting four murders to dinner, or not?) have done him in. Poirot’s primarily psychological analysis (the mind at times can see more clearly than the heart) focuses on bridge moves, the extent to which each suspect recalls items in the room, and the past—did the suspects actually kill someone, and if so, how? People reveal who they are to Poirot, and they rarely surprise him, finally, after he figures them out. Logic rules. You will not figure this one out, but if you want to stay close to a solution, pay attention to what Poirot pays attention to, and largely ignore the rest. The rest isn't boring, but it is a fair number of pages you know are not completely relevant, of course, but necessary detective work.
One feature of this one is that a confession takes place roughly fifty pages from the end (250 pages into it), a confession I completely buy, but that is just the beginning of a series of crazy surprises and pretty ingenious reversals. This is a pretty average Christie tale, for the most part, but the way it turns out reveals that “average” for Christie is spectacular for most mystery writers. I might nitpick that it goes on too long as they will often do, but in the end, mais oui!
Some interesting features:
*Shaitana is referred to as Mephistophelean by several characters, with his flair for the dramatic.
*As is often the case characters are racist about Jews, but here “Dagos” are in for their share of abuse.
*But white men? Colonel Race dismisses Major Despard of suspicion: “He’s a white man, Battle.” “Incapable of murder, you mean?” “Incapable of what I’d call murder, yes.” [by which he means justifiable homicide isn’t murder, and white men usually have perfectly good reasons for killing people. This is Race's racist view, not necessarily Christie's view.] !!!
Writer Oliver, at the (apparent) moment of Poirot’s revelation of the murderer: “Least likely person! It seems to work out in real life just the same as in books. . .” and later, when she sees it is now someone else, she says, quite untruthfully, “I always said he did it!”
Fun times, 3.5, rounded up to 4 for the last, 5-starred, fifty pages, for the puzzle-maker non pareil. Funny and head-shakingly clever. And I had never even heard of this one!
September 27, 2020
Hello, to my goodreads friends. September turned out to be a busy month with holidays and work, so busy in fact that I didn’t open a book for a week and a half. With only a little over three months to go in the year, I am beginning to experience 2020 burnout, as I’m sure others have at various times throughout the year. Like so many times during this year, Agatha Christie has been there for me. The Queen of Crime with her cases featuring Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple has kept my little gray cells active in an otherwise mentally draining year. In my busiest of times, I’ve turned to Dame Christie again, this time in an unique case featuring four of her sleuths.
Mr Shaitana enjoyed collecting objects d’art and flaunting his taste at parties. A self proclaimed Mephistophelian, his collections included pieces from Egypt and the Far East, items that wowed most of his visitors. In a move that appeared even unique to him, Shaitana decided to collect four sleuths and four murderers and invite them to the same supper party. This move, while shocking, announced that there will be a murder here, so let’s see if the detectives are up to the task of preventing, or at least, solving it. The crown jewel of the dinner party was none other than Hercule Poirot who had known to only be wrong once in twenty eight years of detecting. He would be joined by Inspector Battle, Colonel Race, and the peculiar Ariadne Oliver as they attempted to foil Shaitana’s plot before murder was committed right under their collective noses. Whatever the motive of Shaitana’s experiment was, a murder was indeed committed at the party: his own. It would be up to Poirot and company to solve a case that was designed to mock their expertise.
The murder centered around a game of bridge, and Poirot’s methodology involved asking each of the four players, potential murderers all, how well they remembered both the rounds of cards dealt and the attention to detail in the room. His instinct was that one of the four would have at least noticed the other committing murder even if they did not reveal to him who the guilty party was. Whereas Mrs Oliver had no idea whodunit and acted as though she did and Inspector Battle employed the methods used at Scotland Yard, Poirot used his little gray cells to solve this case, one that utilized all four of the detectives’ collective intelligence. By conducting mind games and social experiments, Poirot would bring Shaitana’s murderer to justice and perhaps even solve some old crimes in the process. Because Poirot is never wrong.
As one who enjoys reading Poirot’s cases, I am used to seeing him work alone, or at least with Colonel Hastings who is usually as baffled by the cases as the average person. I am not as familiar with Battle or Race although they have appeared from time to time in Poirot’s other cases. It was intriguing for me to see him interact with other detectives more at his intellectual level, even ones as strange as the crime writer Mrs Oliver. In Mrs Oliver, Christie wrote herself into certain cases because it is apparent that in writing as many books as she did, she had as much aptitude to solve mysteries as her fictional creations did. Even with the assistance of three other sleuths, it is apparent that Poirot was intellectually ahead of the game, as it was he who recognized whodunit from the beginning and only had to interview all of the potential defendants in order to go through the motions of an investigation. I found this case featuring a game of bridge, an intellectual game in its own right, to be unique from Christie’s other cases, in that from the beginning the reader knows that the murderer has to be one of four people, eliminating a lot of the legwork that goes on in an investigation. As a result, Cards on the Table ended up being a more intellectual crime that usual, showcasing the height of Poirot’s intellectual sleuthing powers.
Like Poirot, I had a hunch whodunit this time around and read through to see if I was right, but more to see the methods employed in this unique setup for a case. Agatha Christie has helped me get through this unique year, and I still have a few more of her cases to get through before the year is out. Mentally, I’m ready for the calendar to read 2021. I think then I’ll be able to exercise my gray cells with literary tomes that I have not attempted in months. Until then, Dame Christie is there, and Poirot is never wrong.
4 stars 🕵️♂️
Mr Shaitana enjoyed collecting objects d’art and flaunting his taste at parties. A self proclaimed Mephistophelian, his collections included pieces from Egypt and the Far East, items that wowed most of his visitors. In a move that appeared even unique to him, Shaitana decided to collect four sleuths and four murderers and invite them to the same supper party. This move, while shocking, announced that there will be a murder here, so let’s see if the detectives are up to the task of preventing, or at least, solving it. The crown jewel of the dinner party was none other than Hercule Poirot who had known to only be wrong once in twenty eight years of detecting. He would be joined by Inspector Battle, Colonel Race, and the peculiar Ariadne Oliver as they attempted to foil Shaitana’s plot before murder was committed right under their collective noses. Whatever the motive of Shaitana’s experiment was, a murder was indeed committed at the party: his own. It would be up to Poirot and company to solve a case that was designed to mock their expertise.
The murder centered around a game of bridge, and Poirot’s methodology involved asking each of the four players, potential murderers all, how well they remembered both the rounds of cards dealt and the attention to detail in the room. His instinct was that one of the four would have at least noticed the other committing murder even if they did not reveal to him who the guilty party was. Whereas Mrs Oliver had no idea whodunit and acted as though she did and Inspector Battle employed the methods used at Scotland Yard, Poirot used his little gray cells to solve this case, one that utilized all four of the detectives’ collective intelligence. By conducting mind games and social experiments, Poirot would bring Shaitana’s murderer to justice and perhaps even solve some old crimes in the process. Because Poirot is never wrong.
As one who enjoys reading Poirot’s cases, I am used to seeing him work alone, or at least with Colonel Hastings who is usually as baffled by the cases as the average person. I am not as familiar with Battle or Race although they have appeared from time to time in Poirot’s other cases. It was intriguing for me to see him interact with other detectives more at his intellectual level, even ones as strange as the crime writer Mrs Oliver. In Mrs Oliver, Christie wrote herself into certain cases because it is apparent that in writing as many books as she did, she had as much aptitude to solve mysteries as her fictional creations did. Even with the assistance of three other sleuths, it is apparent that Poirot was intellectually ahead of the game, as it was he who recognized whodunit from the beginning and only had to interview all of the potential defendants in order to go through the motions of an investigation. I found this case featuring a game of bridge, an intellectual game in its own right, to be unique from Christie’s other cases, in that from the beginning the reader knows that the murderer has to be one of four people, eliminating a lot of the legwork that goes on in an investigation. As a result, Cards on the Table ended up being a more intellectual crime that usual, showcasing the height of Poirot’s intellectual sleuthing powers.
Like Poirot, I had a hunch whodunit this time around and read through to see if I was right, but more to see the methods employed in this unique setup for a case. Agatha Christie has helped me get through this unique year, and I still have a few more of her cases to get through before the year is out. Mentally, I’m ready for the calendar to read 2021. I think then I’ll be able to exercise my gray cells with literary tomes that I have not attempted in months. Until then, Dame Christie is there, and Poirot is never wrong.
4 stars 🕵️♂️
November 14, 2022
I believe that this is Dame Christie 23rd novel.
In this book, released in 1936, we have Hercule Poirot, Colonel Race, Superintendent Battle and the crime writer Ariadne Oliver, making her first appearance in a Poirot novel.
All four sleuths and four possible suspects were invited for dinner and a game of bridge. The host is found murdered.
This is Agatha Christie at her best!
The writing and the development of the storyline are superb.
The plot is a work of a genius, a fruit of an incredible imagination.
Although I have read this book (a Portuguese translated version) before and recently watched the adaptation for the TV (Poirot Series, with David Suchet), I was still completely hooked and I did not want to put it down.
What a pleasure I had revisiting this book, but I must confess that talking about the cards game (bridge) was a bit tedious, especially for someone who has never played cards and doesn’t know the rules.
In this book, released in 1936, we have Hercule Poirot, Colonel Race, Superintendent Battle and the crime writer Ariadne Oliver, making her first appearance in a Poirot novel.
All four sleuths and four possible suspects were invited for dinner and a game of bridge. The host is found murdered.
This is Agatha Christie at her best!
The writing and the development of the storyline are superb.
The plot is a work of a genius, a fruit of an incredible imagination.
Although I have read this book (a Portuguese translated version) before and recently watched the adaptation for the TV (Poirot Series, with David Suchet), I was still completely hooked and I did not want to put it down.
What a pleasure I had revisiting this book, but I must confess that talking about the cards game (bridge) was a bit tedious, especially for someone who has never played cards and doesn’t know the rules.
August 5, 2019
The idea is brilliant. The beginning is quite orthodox. Also this is unique novel because all four of Christie's creations- Ariadne Oliver, Col Race, Poirot and Superintendent Battle join hands to solve the murder. There is reference to a book Body in the library which Agatha later used for Miss Marple mystery. The plot is unique and investigation depends more on the psychological profiling than any other solid clue. From the beginning we know that the murderer is from among the four suspects and yet there is no clear clue. Interesting read
September 7, 2023
A really strong Agatha Christie – great fun with a good mystery.
January 26, 2020
“Least likely person! It seems to work out in real life just the same as in books. . .”
- Mrs. Oliver
Cards on the Table
The fact that this is a quote in the book absolutely delights me. That it’s played with multiple times after the quote makes it even better.
Mr. Shaitana is throwing a party. There will be drinks, bridge and a bit of murder. You see, Shaitana is a collector and one of things he’s collected is murderers. Not just any murderers, but the ones who have gotten away with it; the ones you can’t quite prove are murderers. Upon a chance meeting with Hercule Poirot, he comes with a funny (to him at least) idea. He will invite some guests over, eight people in total and four of them murders. The other four? Hercule Poirot of course, Superintendent Battle if Scotland Yard, Colonel Race of the Secret Service and Mrs. Oliver a writer of mystery novels. Four murderers and four sleuths. It’s a great little joke on his part, until one of them realizes this little game and murders him. With little in terms of clues, the only way to solve this crime, is to solve the crimes of the past and find out which, if any of the guests, really did commit them.
This is honestly one of Christie’s cleverer Poirot novels in my opinion. It’s a little slower moving then some of them, with much of the book being built up piece by piece (much like a house of cards), as we slowly piece together the past in order to understand the present. In her (very tongue in cheek) forward to the book, Christie says that this is one of Poirot’s favorite of his own cases, but that his friend Captain Hastings found it a rather dull affair. With this little joke, she actually sets the tone quite well. This is a quiet murder mystery with very little flash about it, but a great deal of analyzing the psychology of our potential murderers.
There’s also a good deal of humor in this one, much of it supplied by Mrs. Oliver. This is her first appearance in the series, and it will not be her last. She is a frequently returning character to the Poirot novels (and at least one book outside of the series) and in a rather interesting development, I actually liked her in this one. Mrs. Oliver is the anti-Captain Hastings, in that Hastings was extremely annoying in his first couple of books, but as Christie evolved as a writer, he got more tolerable. In this case Mrs. Oliver started off a rather amusing foil to Poirot, but later would become such an annoyance that I frequently hoped the cases would involve solving her murder.
Here though she plays an almost meta character, with whom Christie voices her own frustrations with writing mysteries. She claims not to care about the “facts” involving real investigations, but gets caught up in the details so much that she writes herself into corners and then has to do research to found out which type of beans would be in season so as not to be inconsistent with her books. She has gained popularity writing a foreign detective (who is Finnish rather than Christie’s Belgian sleuth) and she can’t stand him but continues writing his books because he’s popular. Given Christie’s well-known dislike of Poirot this comes off as absolutely hilarious.
All around, this one just works for me. The case is clever, the characters are entertaining, and this time around the side bits of comedy actually come off as humorous rather than groan worthy. While it doesn’t stand as one of the greatest of Christie’s books, it is certainly right below them and well worth a read to any mystery fan. A solid 4/5 stars.
- Mrs. Oliver
Cards on the Table
The fact that this is a quote in the book absolutely delights me. That it’s played with multiple times after the quote makes it even better.
Mr. Shaitana is throwing a party. There will be drinks, bridge and a bit of murder. You see, Shaitana is a collector and one of things he’s collected is murderers. Not just any murderers, but the ones who have gotten away with it; the ones you can’t quite prove are murderers. Upon a chance meeting with Hercule Poirot, he comes with a funny (to him at least) idea. He will invite some guests over, eight people in total and four of them murders. The other four? Hercule Poirot of course, Superintendent Battle if Scotland Yard, Colonel Race of the Secret Service and Mrs. Oliver a writer of mystery novels. Four murderers and four sleuths. It’s a great little joke on his part, until one of them realizes this little game and murders him. With little in terms of clues, the only way to solve this crime, is to solve the crimes of the past and find out which, if any of the guests, really did commit them.
This is honestly one of Christie’s cleverer Poirot novels in my opinion. It’s a little slower moving then some of them, with much of the book being built up piece by piece (much like a house of cards), as we slowly piece together the past in order to understand the present. In her (very tongue in cheek) forward to the book, Christie says that this is one of Poirot’s favorite of his own cases, but that his friend Captain Hastings found it a rather dull affair. With this little joke, she actually sets the tone quite well. This is a quiet murder mystery with very little flash about it, but a great deal of analyzing the psychology of our potential murderers.
There’s also a good deal of humor in this one, much of it supplied by Mrs. Oliver. This is her first appearance in the series, and it will not be her last. She is a frequently returning character to the Poirot novels (and at least one book outside of the series) and in a rather interesting development, I actually liked her in this one. Mrs. Oliver is the anti-Captain Hastings, in that Hastings was extremely annoying in his first couple of books, but as Christie evolved as a writer, he got more tolerable. In this case Mrs. Oliver started off a rather amusing foil to Poirot, but later would become such an annoyance that I frequently hoped the cases would involve solving her murder.
Here though she plays an almost meta character, with whom Christie voices her own frustrations with writing mysteries. She claims not to care about the “facts” involving real investigations, but gets caught up in the details so much that she writes herself into corners and then has to do research to found out which type of beans would be in season so as not to be inconsistent with her books. She has gained popularity writing a foreign detective (who is Finnish rather than Christie’s Belgian sleuth) and she can’t stand him but continues writing his books because he’s popular. Given Christie’s well-known dislike of Poirot this comes off as absolutely hilarious.
All around, this one just works for me. The case is clever, the characters are entertaining, and this time around the side bits of comedy actually come off as humorous rather than groan worthy. While it doesn’t stand as one of the greatest of Christie’s books, it is certainly right below them and well worth a read to any mystery fan. A solid 4/5 stars.
June 23, 2023
It is one of the great, classic Agatha Christie mysteries.
We have 4 suspects (who allegedly all successfully got away with a former murder), all of whom could have committed the crime. And we have 4 "cops": Hercule Poirot, Superintendent Battle, Colonel Race and Mrs Ariadne Oliver (alterego of AC herself).
It is a very enjoyable book and I like to think that Agatha Christie had fun writing it as there is no small amount of self-mockery & criticism possibly against her critics included.
We have 4 suspects (who allegedly all successfully got away with a former murder), all of whom could have committed the crime. And we have 4 "cops": Hercule Poirot, Superintendent Battle, Colonel Race and Mrs Ariadne Oliver (alterego of AC herself).
It is a very enjoyable book and I like to think that Agatha Christie had fun writing it as there is no small amount of self-mockery & criticism possibly against her critics included.
April 20, 2019
In this classic mystery, Poirot is invited to a dinner party with a difference by the slightly unsavoury Mr Shaitana; a rich man addicted to parties and gossip. He wants Poirot to come to dinner to meet his exhibits - murderers who he claims have "got away with it." Although Poirot finds his hobby dangerous he agrees, leading to a dinner party with four sleuths (Poirot himself, Colonel Race, who works for the Secret Service, Superintendent Battle from Scotland Yard and our old friend the detective writer Ariadne Oliver) and four possible murderers (the cheerful Dr Roberts, the explorer Major Despard, serious bridge player Mrs Lorrimer and the young and nervous Miss Anne Meredith). After dinner the guests play bridge, while Mr Shaitana dozes by the fire and, during the evening, he is murdered.
This murder leads to our four sleuths pooling information in trying to discover who could have killed the host in full view of everybody and also looking into their backgrounds to see which of them, if any, were really guilty of murder. Christie was a keen bridge player and, although you may think this makes the book dry, she is careful to only use the card game as a small part of the story. The real fun is in the uncovering of secrets, as all the guests at the dinner party meet up and discuss what happened. Although Mrs Oliver uncovers some great clues, it is M. Poirot and his little grey cells that reign supreme and solves the mystery of what happened. First published in 1936, this is Christie at her best - which is better than any other crime writer there has ever been.
This murder leads to our four sleuths pooling information in trying to discover who could have killed the host in full view of everybody and also looking into their backgrounds to see which of them, if any, were really guilty of murder. Christie was a keen bridge player and, although you may think this makes the book dry, she is careful to only use the card game as a small part of the story. The real fun is in the uncovering of secrets, as all the guests at the dinner party meet up and discuss what happened. Although Mrs Oliver uncovers some great clues, it is M. Poirot and his little grey cells that reign supreme and solves the mystery of what happened. First published in 1936, this is Christie at her best - which is better than any other crime writer there has ever been.
June 11, 2018
I’m so torn on this book. On the one hand, how often can you say that you have four — yes, four! —of Dame Agatha Christie’s sleuths in one book? On the other hand, the task they take on turns out to be a bit thin — at least at first.
A cruel globetrotter and art collector named Mr. Shaitana gathers eight people for a party. In hindsight, it turns out that he has invited four sleuths — no less than Hercule Poirot, ditzy mystery writer Ariadne Oliver; Scotland Yard’s finest, Inspector Battle, and spy/troubleshooter for the Empire, Colonel Race. Shaitana has also gathered four people he believed to be people who had gotten away with murder. One of them commits yet another murder, poisoning Shaitana with a shirt stud. (Yes, I had to look it up, too.) That means that Shaitana’s murderer has to be bridge wizard Mrs. Lorimer, successful Dr. Roberts, big-game hunter Major Despard, or pretty sweet young thing Anne Meredith.
Dame Agatha had a bee in her bonnet about being able to detect a murderer based on the psychological profiles of the various suspects, and she explores that idea in this 1936 novel. Perhaps, in this day of FBI profilers, other readers will think Dame Agatha was ahead of her time; however, to me, it seems like a faddish idea like eugenics or John Harvey Kellogg’s crackpot health regimen that seem crazy a century later. I was all ready to slap a three-star (maybe even two-star) review on Cards on the Table and rank it second only to The Big Four in awfulness.
But — curse you, Dame Agatha! — two-thirds of the way in, she deviates from this crackpottery and delivers enough twists and turns for a rollercoaster. She really knows how to surprise and beguile her readers. So I’ll ignore the tediousness of the middle of this novel and award four stars to the grand dame of the Golden Age, who managed to rescue and elevate this novel.
A cruel globetrotter and art collector named Mr. Shaitana gathers eight people for a party. In hindsight, it turns out that he has invited four sleuths — no less than Hercule Poirot, ditzy mystery writer Ariadne Oliver; Scotland Yard’s finest, Inspector Battle, and spy/troubleshooter for the Empire, Colonel Race. Shaitana has also gathered four people he believed to be people who had gotten away with murder. One of them commits yet another murder, poisoning Shaitana with a shirt stud. (Yes, I had to look it up, too.) That means that Shaitana’s murderer has to be bridge wizard Mrs. Lorimer, successful Dr. Roberts, big-game hunter Major Despard, or pretty sweet young thing Anne Meredith.
Dame Agatha had a bee in her bonnet about being able to detect a murderer based on the psychological profiles of the various suspects, and she explores that idea in this 1936 novel. Perhaps, in this day of FBI profilers, other readers will think Dame Agatha was ahead of her time; however, to me, it seems like a faddish idea like eugenics or John Harvey Kellogg’s crackpot health regimen that seem crazy a century later. I was all ready to slap a three-star (maybe even two-star) review on Cards on the Table and rank it second only to The Big Four in awfulness.
But — curse you, Dame Agatha! — two-thirds of the way in, she deviates from this crackpottery and delivers enough twists and turns for a rollercoaster. She really knows how to surprise and beguile her readers. So I’ll ignore the tediousness of the middle of this novel and award four stars to the grand dame of the Golden Age, who managed to rescue and elevate this novel.
December 11, 2021
Genial como siempre.
En esta ocasión aparecen 4 de los personajes o detectives de las novelas de A. christie, pero los actores principales son Poirot y Battle.
Les invita un excéntrico personaje a cenar y durante una partida de bridge ocurre un asesinato.
A la velada también había invitado a 4 supuestos asesinos, cuyos crímenes no habian sido descubiertos.
Así pues había 4 detectives, o fuerzas de la ley, vs 4 asesinos en teoría, ¿quien será el asesino?
Magistral desarrollo de la historia con las sospechas llendo y viniendo de unos a otros.
Cuando parecía el caso ya resuelto la novela da otro giro sorprendente.
8/10
# 3. Un libro con un corazón, un diamante, un basto (garrote-de la baraja de cartas española) o una espada en la portada. Reto popsugar 2021.
En esta ocasión aparecen 4 de los personajes o detectives de las novelas de A. christie, pero los actores principales son Poirot y Battle.
Les invita un excéntrico personaje a cenar y durante una partida de bridge ocurre un asesinato.
A la velada también había invitado a 4 supuestos asesinos, cuyos crímenes no habian sido descubiertos.
Así pues había 4 detectives, o fuerzas de la ley, vs 4 asesinos en teoría, ¿quien será el asesino?
Magistral desarrollo de la historia con las sospechas llendo y viniendo de unos a otros.
Cuando parecía el caso ya resuelto la novela da otro giro sorprendente.
8/10
# 3. Un libro con un corazón, un diamante, un basto (garrote-de la baraja de cartas española) o una espada en la portada. Reto popsugar 2021.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 8, 2024
Много готино и интересно криминале! Богатият г-н Шейтана е поканил осем човека на гости, като половината от тях са детективи. Същата вечер той е загадъчно убит, а пък детективите се захващат да търсят улики, кой от останалите четирима е извършителят. Сред разследващите е Еркюл Поаро, като той обръща внимание на резултатите от играта на бридж, за да проучи характерите на заподозрените...
„А както веднъж му казах, отношението ми към убийството е твърде буржоазно — не го одобрявам. — После добави по-тихо: — Така че… готов съм да вляза в клетката на тигъра…“
„А както веднъж му казах, отношението ми към убийството е твърде буржоазно — не го одобрявам. — После добави по-тихо: — Така че… готов съм да вляза в клетката на тигъра…“
November 20, 2018
It is not a proper review. I admit that I forgot the story.
So far, this is the only Agatha Christie's story that I could guessed the villain correctly, based on the Bridge plays. (It's hardly a spoiler clue, Poirot always asking the Bridge plays that happened at the murder scene in the story. A little experience in playing Bridge would help).
Too bad I borrowed this book from my college friend, and until now I have no chance to re-read it again. I forget who done it. it should be fun re-discovering the villain again if I could re-read it (assuming my current Bridge skill is as sharp as at my college period. LOL)
UPDATE: I saw the adaptation and the story was good in drama and plot twists, then found out that the 4 bridge players on detective tables were 4 recurring characters from Agatha Christie's universe.
So far, this is the only Agatha Christie's story that I could guessed the villain correctly, based on the Bridge plays. (It's hardly a spoiler clue, Poirot always asking the Bridge plays that happened at the murder scene in the story. A little experience in playing Bridge would help).
Too bad I borrowed this book from my college friend, and until now I have no chance to re-read it again. I forget who done it. it should be fun re-discovering the villain again if I could re-read it (assuming my current Bridge skill is as sharp as at my college period. LOL)
UPDATE: I saw the adaptation and the story was good in drama and plot twists, then found out that the 4 bridge players on detective tables were 4 recurring characters from Agatha Christie's universe.
February 16, 2014
This was one of the best Agatha Christie books I have yet read. Nine people at a bridge game, one murdered, four suspects and four above suspicion who investigate. I have to admit I picked the wrong person as the murderer and Christie gave me quite a surprise at the end. I liked that though because the clues had all been there and I was just not detective enough to pick up on them. Another career that is not for me!
July 9, 2022
Back for another Poirot mystery, I reached for this curious tale by Agatha Christie. Poirot is back in England and finds a mystery fall into his lap while he is out for an evening. It’s swift, intense, and highly entertaining. I could not stop reading, as I needed to get to the heart of the matter to bridge things together, if you pardon the pun. Christie does well and keeps the reader on their toes.
The elusive and highly mysterious Mr. Shaitana has called a number of locals together for a night of bridge. This curious cross-section of people are eager to spend time with the man, who has stories from his travels all over the world. While there are nine who have gathered, Shaitana bows out and lets the four pairs of two play around two tables in different rooms, including retired detective Hercule Poirot.
As the night progresses, the games get more intense. When someone goes to check on Mr. Shaitana, he is thought to have been sleeping, but it turns out he is sitting by the fire, dead. He’s been murdered and it must have been one of the four people sitting in the room with him. Poirot, who was in the other room, begins his detective game, soon working alongside the authorities when they arrive.
It will take examination of the bridge scores, a thorough interview process with each of the players, and some background research to set the scene in order to cobble together the truth. By the end of it all, Poirot may have a suspect, but it will take more than simply. pointing a finger to bring a killer to justice. Christie uses nuances and wonderfully detailed writing to keep the reader highly entertained throughout the reading experience.
I have been quite fond of the Hercule Poirot experience undertaking for the past few months. Each story is not only exciting, but also full of wonderful mystery writing that is no longer the norm in today’s publications. Agatha Christie knows what she’s doing and keeps the reader entertained with many reveals they could not have seen coming. Brilliant work and it keeps me wanting to read more.
Christie has a way with words and setting the scene that leaves the mystery fan begging for more. A strong narrative leads this story along quote well, pacing things as needed to ensure that it will be a stellar reading experience. Great characters and strong development of each allows the reader to formulate their own views through tough process of determining the murderer. A few plot twists allows the reader to wonder if they could have predict future things from the get-go, I have really come to enjoy many of these stories, which are usually so different from one another. I am eager to see what else Poirot will discover as he proves himself to be one of the masters!
Kudos, Dame Christie, for another swift read. Wonder what’s coming next!
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
The elusive and highly mysterious Mr. Shaitana has called a number of locals together for a night of bridge. This curious cross-section of people are eager to spend time with the man, who has stories from his travels all over the world. While there are nine who have gathered, Shaitana bows out and lets the four pairs of two play around two tables in different rooms, including retired detective Hercule Poirot.
As the night progresses, the games get more intense. When someone goes to check on Mr. Shaitana, he is thought to have been sleeping, but it turns out he is sitting by the fire, dead. He’s been murdered and it must have been one of the four people sitting in the room with him. Poirot, who was in the other room, begins his detective game, soon working alongside the authorities when they arrive.
It will take examination of the bridge scores, a thorough interview process with each of the players, and some background research to set the scene in order to cobble together the truth. By the end of it all, Poirot may have a suspect, but it will take more than simply. pointing a finger to bring a killer to justice. Christie uses nuances and wonderfully detailed writing to keep the reader highly entertained throughout the reading experience.
I have been quite fond of the Hercule Poirot experience undertaking for the past few months. Each story is not only exciting, but also full of wonderful mystery writing that is no longer the norm in today’s publications. Agatha Christie knows what she’s doing and keeps the reader entertained with many reveals they could not have seen coming. Brilliant work and it keeps me wanting to read more.
Christie has a way with words and setting the scene that leaves the mystery fan begging for more. A strong narrative leads this story along quote well, pacing things as needed to ensure that it will be a stellar reading experience. Great characters and strong development of each allows the reader to formulate their own views through tough process of determining the murderer. A few plot twists allows the reader to wonder if they could have predict future things from the get-go, I have really come to enjoy many of these stories, which are usually so different from one another. I am eager to see what else Poirot will discover as he proves himself to be one of the masters!
Kudos, Dame Christie, for another swift read. Wonder what’s coming next!
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
September 28, 2023
Agatha es una de mis autoras favoritas y con sus libros me inicié en la novela policíaca, he releido sus libros más de una vez y en esta ocasión le tocaba a Cartas sobre la mesa.
Aunque la novela me ha gustado, me esperaba mucho más de ella, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta, que aquí junta a 4 de sus grandes protagonistas, el superintendente Battle, el coronel Race, la escritora Ariadne Oliver y Hercules Poirot.
Me ha parecido que la intervencción de estos personajes ha sido muy desigual, el que menos aparece es el coronel Race, Ariadne Oliver y Poirot, casi en la misma medida, y yo he echado de menos, más de las células grises del belga y el en mi opinión el que más protagonismo tiene es Battle.
A pesar de haber leido la novela anteriormente, no recordaba casi nada de ella, y eso no es habitual, suelo recordar bastantes detalles y a pesar de ello, las disfruto igual, pero en esta ocasión estaba totalmente despistada con lo que había ocurrido en realidad.
La trama es muy adictiva, 8 personas son invitadas a comer por el señor Shaitana, 4 de ellas son "investigadores" y luego otras 4 personas, son "asesinos" no atrapados como le dice en una conversación unos dias antes, Shaitana a Poirot, entre estos están, el mayor Despard, la señora Lorrimer, el doctor Roberts y la joven Anne Meredith y en el transcurso de la cena, el anfitrión aparece muerto....
El final ha estado bien, con la típica explicación al final del caso. Aunque el libro me ha gustado no es de los mejores de la autora.
Aunque la novela me ha gustado, me esperaba mucho más de ella, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta, que aquí junta a 4 de sus grandes protagonistas, el superintendente Battle, el coronel Race, la escritora Ariadne Oliver y Hercules Poirot.
Me ha parecido que la intervencción de estos personajes ha sido muy desigual, el que menos aparece es el coronel Race, Ariadne Oliver y Poirot, casi en la misma medida, y yo he echado de menos, más de las células grises del belga y el en mi opinión el que más protagonismo tiene es Battle.
A pesar de haber leido la novela anteriormente, no recordaba casi nada de ella, y eso no es habitual, suelo recordar bastantes detalles y a pesar de ello, las disfruto igual, pero en esta ocasión estaba totalmente despistada con lo que había ocurrido en realidad.
La trama es muy adictiva, 8 personas son invitadas a comer por el señor Shaitana, 4 de ellas son "investigadores" y luego otras 4 personas, son "asesinos" no atrapados como le dice en una conversación unos dias antes, Shaitana a Poirot, entre estos están, el mayor Despard, la señora Lorrimer, el doctor Roberts y la joven Anne Meredith y en el transcurso de la cena, el anfitrión aparece muerto....
El final ha estado bien, con la típica explicación al final del caso. Aunque el libro me ha gustado no es de los mejores de la autora.
June 21, 2011
Unlike other Christie stories, at the beginning of Cards on the Table, we only have four suspects. I believe this is one of Christie's best works and even of the genre, since analyzing motives and studying personalities is one of the best things about detective fiction, and the book is packed with that. Christie tells us in the introduction that this case is Poirot's favorite, and of course that's no surprise.
However, the book is embedded with a huge amount of details which can be a bit overwhelming for some readers. But, I believe this is inevitable since the novel is purely psychological. At the end, you will realize that one of the four suspects only could have committed the crime the way it was committed. His or Her character can be seen in every detail of the crime. Definitely a Goodreads!
However, the book is embedded with a huge amount of details which can be a bit overwhelming for some readers. But, I believe this is inevitable since the novel is purely psychological. At the end, you will realize that one of the four suspects only could have committed the crime the way it was committed. His or Her character can be seen in every detail of the crime. Definitely a Goodreads!
July 17, 2021
أوراق لعب على الطاولة
هل كانت تلك التي رميت أوراق اللعب ام حكايات لمغامرات سابقة ، تم الاعتقاد بأن الزمن قد محاها ؟
وهل رميت على طاولة اللعب ام على طاولة القدر؟
وهل كانت مقامرة على الحياة ام على الموت؟
على السر أم على الحقيقة؟؟
اعتقد بأن اسم تلك الطاولة تحول في تلك الليلة ليتخذ لنفسه أسماً شفافاً لا يرى ( طاولة لعبة الحياة)
أوراق رميت ع الطاولة وأسرار حررت من قيودها وخرجت من مدافنها بالتناوب مع أدوار اللاعبين و كأنها اشباح هربت أخيراً من الماضي لتحوم فوق رؤوس اصحابها
حذقة ، ملغمة ، جوزائية المزاج ، عاصفة تارةً ، وهادئة بطريقة مشوقة ، أحياناً أخرى
تشغل تفكيرك طوال الوقت بالأسئلة والبحث عن الاجوبة ثم التحقق من صحتها
من أجمل أصدقاء الشتاء الفائت 🌌🌛
هل كانت تلك التي رميت أوراق اللعب ام حكايات لمغامرات سابقة ، تم الاعتقاد بأن الزمن قد محاها ؟
وهل رميت على طاولة اللعب ام على طاولة القدر؟
وهل كانت مقامرة على الحياة ام على الموت؟
على السر أم على الحقيقة؟؟
اعتقد بأن اسم تلك الطاولة تحول في تلك الليلة ليتخذ لنفسه أسماً شفافاً لا يرى ( طاولة لعبة الحياة)
أوراق رميت ع الطاولة وأسرار حررت من قيودها وخرجت من مدافنها بالتناوب مع أدوار اللاعبين و كأنها اشباح هربت أخيراً من الماضي لتحوم فوق رؤوس اصحابها
حذقة ، ملغمة ، جوزائية المزاج ، عاصفة تارةً ، وهادئة بطريقة مشوقة ، أحياناً أخرى
تشغل تفكيرك طوال الوقت بالأسئلة والبحث عن الاجوبة ثم التحقق من صحتها
من أجمل أصدقاء الشتاء الفائت 🌌🌛
December 6, 2017
Rating: 4* of five
The Publisher Says: It was the match-up of the century: four sleuths--Superintendent Battle of Scotland Yard; Mrs. Ariadne Oliver, famed writer of detective stories; Col. Race of His Majesty's Secret Service; and the incomparable Hercule Poirot - invited to play bridge with four specially invited guests, each of whom had gotten away with murder! But before the first rubber was completed, the host was dead.
My Review: This review is of Christie's novel and the tenth-season film adaptation for Agatha Christie's Poirot. They earn the same rating.
One of the ways couples reinforce their pair bond is shared entertainment. My Gentleman Caller and I read a lot; I'm a big mystery fan, where he is less interested in the genre. We both enjoy mystery movies a good deal, though, and the Poirot series especially. Through the amazing and wonderful Internet, we can watch episodes together, discussing them in real time, or just canoodling in cyberspace. I think I'd go bonkers if I didn't have my fix of looking at his face this way.
So this evening we watched two of the movies. First up was this very entertaining adaptation of Christie's novel of psychology. Ariadne Oliver, an author surrogate character for Mrs. Christie herself, makes her first filmed and literary appearance here. Zoë Wanamaker is a wonderful choice to play Mrs. Oliver, being husky-voiced and of a distinctive and memorable appearance. It's one of the pleasures of the films that the actors cast in Christie's roles are uniformly excellent craftspeople, and Wanamaker is no exception.
In watching this adaptation, I felt a wee bit seasick. All the roles were there, just as in the book; but they had different names, unrecognizable motives, and switched-up personae. Colonel Race, a recurring Christie character, is called something else although it's only his name that's different. Rhoda and Anne completely switch purposes, though I have no earthly notion why. The motivation for the central murder is *completely* unrecognizable. It would, in fact, have been impossible for Christie to write it in 1935 and get the book published. The Superintendent is renamed and good gracious me how he is changed up! I mean to tell you, Ma Christie would likely be apoplectic over this particular bit of modification.
The victim, Mr. Shaitana, is portrayed by Alexander Siddig, who enacted the role of Doctor Bashir on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine about twenty years ago. I hadn't recalled that the man was so very tall and so very lean. As Shaitana, a furriner and an ethnic in racist 1930s London, he (Siddig) is perfectly chosen: He looks exotic and strange, skin of brown and eyes of green and wardrobe chosen to exaggerate the actor's dramatic silhouette. Mrs. Oliver as a stand-in for Christie herself comments on his foreignness by saying he "gives {her} the jitters." Really. Yech.
The mundane murder motive in the novel is considerably spicier in the film, and actually more fun for this modern audience of two. The book presents a more complete Christieverse experience, drawing the four sleuths and one suspect from the well she reused freely. Each decision has its advantages; on the whole, I can't say that one of the media is preferable to the other. I, and certainly my Gentleman Caller, don't subscribe to the Purity Test for films. The source material will always be altered to suit the demands of the medium. That's the way it works, and more often than not has to; not infrequently the adapted film is superior to the source material, if rabid ardent nut-level fans would simply see it. (And of course there are reverse cases by the scores, it's not a one-way street by any means.)
This film, substantially altered from an excellent novel, finds a different and equal excellence. The spirit of the story is intact, and is well served by the changes made for film. And as always, the role of Poirot is complete and entire in David Suchet's hands. And mincing feet. And waxed mustache. The story, either medium, is delicious and savory and a treat not to be denied oneself.
The BBC radio drama is excellent as well.
The Publisher Says: It was the match-up of the century: four sleuths--Superintendent Battle of Scotland Yard; Mrs. Ariadne Oliver, famed writer of detective stories; Col. Race of His Majesty's Secret Service; and the incomparable Hercule Poirot - invited to play bridge with four specially invited guests, each of whom had gotten away with murder! But before the first rubber was completed, the host was dead.
My Review: This review is of Christie's novel and the tenth-season film adaptation for Agatha Christie's Poirot. They earn the same rating.
One of the ways couples reinforce their pair bond is shared entertainment. My Gentleman Caller and I read a lot; I'm a big mystery fan, where he is less interested in the genre. We both enjoy mystery movies a good deal, though, and the Poirot series especially. Through the amazing and wonderful Internet, we can watch episodes together, discussing them in real time, or just canoodling in cyberspace. I think I'd go bonkers if I didn't have my fix of looking at his face this way.
So this evening we watched two of the movies. First up was this very entertaining adaptation of Christie's novel of psychology. Ariadne Oliver, an author surrogate character for Mrs. Christie herself, makes her first filmed and literary appearance here. Zoë Wanamaker is a wonderful choice to play Mrs. Oliver, being husky-voiced and of a distinctive and memorable appearance. It's one of the pleasures of the films that the actors cast in Christie's roles are uniformly excellent craftspeople, and Wanamaker is no exception.
In watching this adaptation, I felt a wee bit seasick. All the roles were there, just as in the book; but they had different names, unrecognizable motives, and switched-up personae. Colonel Race, a recurring Christie character, is called something else although it's only his name that's different. Rhoda and Anne completely switch purposes, though I have no earthly notion why. The motivation for the central murder is *completely* unrecognizable. It would, in fact, have been impossible for Christie to write it in 1935 and get the book published. The Superintendent is renamed and good gracious me how he is changed up! I mean to tell you, Ma Christie would likely be apoplectic over this particular bit of modification.
The victim, Mr. Shaitana, is portrayed by Alexander Siddig, who enacted the role of Doctor Bashir on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine about twenty years ago. I hadn't recalled that the man was so very tall and so very lean. As Shaitana, a furriner and an ethnic in racist 1930s London, he (Siddig) is perfectly chosen: He looks exotic and strange, skin of brown and eyes of green and wardrobe chosen to exaggerate the actor's dramatic silhouette. Mrs. Oliver as a stand-in for Christie herself comments on his foreignness by saying he "gives {her} the jitters." Really. Yech.
The mundane murder motive in the novel is considerably spicier in the film, and actually more fun for this modern audience of two. The book presents a more complete Christieverse experience, drawing the four sleuths and one suspect from the well she reused freely. Each decision has its advantages; on the whole, I can't say that one of the media is preferable to the other. I, and certainly my Gentleman Caller, don't subscribe to the Purity Test for films. The source material will always be altered to suit the demands of the medium. That's the way it works, and more often than not has to; not infrequently the adapted film is superior to the source material, if rabid ardent nut-level fans would simply see it. (And of course there are reverse cases by the scores, it's not a one-way street by any means.)
This film, substantially altered from an excellent novel, finds a different and equal excellence. The spirit of the story is intact, and is well served by the changes made for film. And as always, the role of Poirot is complete and entire in David Suchet's hands. And mincing feet. And waxed mustache. The story, either medium, is delicious and savory and a treat not to be denied oneself.
The BBC radio drama is excellent as well.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,150 reviews