![]() ![]() ![]() Lee Horsley (2005) sums it up well that this is ‘a novel that would seem to be written to be re-read.’ I enjoyed and appreciated the intricacy of the plot more this time, seeing the relevance of the fake call much more prominently even if part of me was thinking that the killer relied a lot on no one else entering or going near the study until 9:30pm. It is also on a re-read that you can see the many clues Christie provides her readers with, which are not so easy to spot on a first read. I think anyone re-reading this book is naturally going to be looking at the narrator and what he says and, importantly, does not say. Then of course there is the change in ending, and in some ways, I can see why they did, as the denouement Christie provides is visually less dramatic, even though she drops a bombshell of a twist. I was quite surprised to be nearly at the end of the book, for example, and find the butler had not been runover. Moreover, I think the ITV David Suchet adaptation gave me a number of false memories. ![]() For instance, I had no recollection of Miss Russell’s subplot in the narrative, with her son who is a drug addict. One of the first things I noticed about my re-read was how much I had forgotten. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |