Zahra

Not as mysterious as the first book, but as funny

Revisado: 01-30-23

The mystery part of the book was less puzzling that I like my mysteries, but I enjoyed listening to it all the same.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Quite funny and the mystery is plenty mysterious

Revisado: 01-30-23

The writing is witty and mystery is quite novel. I loved listening to it. Solve a puzzle and have a lot of laughs, what's not to like!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

False sense of suspense and doubt

Revisado: 03-16-22

Of course the podcasters have to say in the end that they don’t know whether he did it or not. Otherwise the entire podcast will be summarized into a single sentence, the conclusion. But I think that makes it look as if there is a reasonable doubt about it.
And I hate that they have given the murderer all the attention he craves. Also the podcasters seem to have gotten too close the “prime suspect“, daily talks and so many visits … how can they remain objective? Maybe that’s why they can’t seem to make up their mind.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Not a Mystery!

Revisado: 09-27-21

Phryne Fisher books are not really about the mystery. The mystery part is just a theme. You have to convince yourself that there is something to solve. If you take out the description of everybody's clothes, the menu for every meal, recipe for cocktails and other drinks, lyrics of songs, poems, and Phryne's sexual appetite, the volume of each book would be cut in half.

And that's usually fine! If you like the characters, you just want to meet them again in another book. But this book makes no sense, Phryne doesn't really solve anything, there are too many threads that are left dangling, and most of the book is about the romance between Sherlock (renamed and made stupid to leave room for Phryne to shine) and John Watson (barely renamed to Wilson).

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Patronizing to Death

Revisado: 12-22-19

It’s not a good sign when the narrator keeps pointing out how we were lied to, we are fooled and how we are wrong and so on,… It just assume so much about the reader, it gets annoying really quickly. The narrator is angry. How does that help the book?

Very early on, a thesis is established: Narrative of Perpetual Progress is a lie, we were better off before agricultural way of life was adopted. We weren’t meant to settle in one place and built things and sit in offices. We have lost our ability to live in harmony with the natural world. We can’t go back and going forward is a lie! My problem around here was: where is the rest of the book going to go from here? It’s even overtly frowned upon a reader who naively expected a solution or a proposition might be forthcoming by the end of the book. Isn’t that nice! What is the point of reading a book, if the take away is “you are doomed to be unsatisfied with life, because you were designed for a different one, and you can’t have that one. And don’t even think about a solution. Don’t believe anyone who tells you about a solution. It’s a lie.”

As far as interesting educational information is concerned, I think it was not much new in the book for me. If you have read a few Frans de Waal books and maybe Behave (by Sapolsky) and Sapiens, I don’t think there are many eye-opening ideas presented in this book. Of course the author’s assessment of the same information might be new to you, as it was to me. And you might also find some arguments downright bizarre.

I wrote a blog about why I find the book's argument inadequate, https://www.zahra.page/blog/2019/civilizedtodeath

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

No, no and NO!

Revisado: 08-16-19

I don't know where to begin. I've listen/read almost all Agatha Christie books. Definitely all the Poirot mysteries. This is such a disappointment.

One:
This is not Poirot at all. Period. Shouting, ordering people around, mean insulting... also he never withholds important information, unless he found out something at the end of a book and hasn't had time to reveal it yet, and does so in the last tell-all moment, even then all the hints are there to at least make the reader guess what he is up to and what he suspects. Agatha Christie lays all that you need to know to solve the problem somewhere in plain sight, it never hangs on the missing info.

Two:
The narrator, the young Scotland Yard detective is simply blind! Even when Poirot is spelling things out he doesn't seem to follow the simplest reasonings. I understand that the narrator (usually) doesn't get things the right way, right away but eventually once the reader has been lead all the way to the answer what is the point of dragging the stupidity any further?

Three:
Plot holes so big you could fit an entirely new story in them! None of it makes sense. At first it looks like a highly detailed plan by the wrongdoers of the story, in the end everything about it is stupid and unnecessary. To avoid spoilers I wont say more here.

Four:
The writing! why so repetitive? why? I think the author should respect her readers more.

SPOILERS... The twists just don't make sense!
For example, Jennie leaves Lady W.'s house because they've already made their plans and she can't be there when Poirot shows up! Ok! and this has happened just shortly before Poirot shows up because we know the new maid is horribly inexperienced. Ok! meanwhile Lady W has had time enough to take the crested bowl belonging to Jennie out of the servants' quarters and put it in a guest room (what kind of lady does this?) and then Nancy (who is in on the plan) painted Lady W in that same place with the bowl in the picture, and had time enough to finish it? And then has to repaint it with a different color to hide the crest? Why paint it in the first place? The plans were already made! You either care or not care about the crested bowl. Why even say you were delivering a picture to Lady W and then stayed for dinner (alibi)? You're friends with Lady W and she is going to lie anyway, just say you were there for dinner... why bring attention to the altered picture? This is just one example of things that don't make sense at all!

Another example: Just remembering that in 1920s all lifts had lift attendants (unlike the story) the story falls apart badly. Not much of a mystery left for Poirot to solve.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

IMPOSSIBLE TO LISTEN TO

Revisado: 05-02-18

I didn't last an hour in the book with all the citations breaking in every two or three words.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña