Three Act Tragedy

Hercule Poirot #11

by Agatha Christie

Who wouldn't be pleased to attend a small dinner party being held by Sir Charles Cartwright, once the leading star of the London stage? At his "Crow's Nest" home in Loomouth, Cornwall.

Unfortunately, thirteen guests arrived at the actor's house, most unlucky. One of them was a vicar. It was to be a particularly unlucky evening for the mild-mannered Reverend Stephen Babbington, who choked on his cocktail, went into convulsions and died. But when his martini glass was sent for chemical analysis, there was no trace of poison -- just as Hercule Poirot, also in attendance, had predicted. Even more troubling for the great detective, there was absolutely no motive!

Librarian's note: the first fifteen novels in the Hercule Poirot series are 1) The Mysterious Affair at Styles, 1920; 2) The Murder on the Links, 1923; 3) The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, 1926; 4) The Big Four, 1927; 5) The Mystery of the Blue Train, 1928; 6) Peril at End House, 1932; 7) Lord Edgware Dies, 1933; 8) Murder on the Orient Express, 1934; 9) Three Act Tragedy, 1935; 10) Death in the Clouds, 1935; 11) The A.B.C. Murders, 1936; 12) Murder in Mesopotamia, 1936; 13) Cards on the Table, 1936; 14) Dumb Witness, 1937; and 15) Death on the Nile, 1937. These are just the novels; Poirot also appears in this period in a play, Black Coffee, 1930, and two collections of short stories, Poirot Investigates, 1924, and Murder in the Mews, 1937. Each novel, play and short story has its own entry on Goodreads.

Genres: Mystery, Agatha Christie, Fiction, Crime, Classics, Audiobook, Mystery Thriller

336 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 6, 1935

About the author

Agatha 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)

Reviews

[Bionic Jean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three Act Tragedy, published in 1935 and also known as “Murder in Three Acts” is not a play, but a novel by Agatha Christie. It is her ninth novel to feature her famous Belgian sleuth, Hercule Poirot, who had already starred in a collection of short stories and an actual play. Agatha Christie’s readers were beginning to look forward to an appearance by their favourite pompous, puffed-up little retired detective, and much of the humour in these books comes from his behaviour and the attitude of those around him. In the first few pages, one character here describes Poirot as the:

“most conceited little devil I ever met … rum little beggar … rather a celebrated little beggar though”.

Agatha Christie planned the structure of her stories in detail, and this carefully crafted work is presented as a piece of theatre, in which the story is split into 3 Acts. In the “First Act―Suspicion”, there is a mysterious death, with suspicions about how the person died. The “Second Act―Certainty” begins with the announcement of another character’s death. And in the “Third Act―Discovery” Hercule Poirot comes centre stage.

Even the frontispiece is laid out to reinforce this amusingly droll literary device. It resembles a theatrical programme for Three Act Tragedy:

Directed by
SIR CHARLES CARTWRIGHT

Assistant Directors
MR SATTERTHWAITE
MISS HERMIONE LYTTON GORE

Clothes by
AMBROSINE LTD

Illumination by
HERCULE POIROT

(It even provides a cheeky subtle clue.)

In a way Sir Charles Cartwright does direct the show; he is the focal character of the entire piece. It is in his bungalow, high above the harbour of Loomouth, where the action begins, and in his enquiries he is ably assisted by two characters: the keenly observant and amiable Mr. Satterthwaite, and the young enthusiastic Hermione Lytton Gore otherwise known as “Egg”. Together they spend most of the novel discovering and slowly revealing the mystery. Eventually however, Poirot turns his “illuminating” gaze on the whole proceedings, and aided by his perspicacious direction, the reader sees spotlight after spotlight added, until the stage is floodlit, revealing the entire audacious plot in sharp focus.

Agatha Christie had by now developed a smooth touch, and was expert in leading by false impressions, under the guise of inviting her readers to solve the crime for themselves. She had become the mistress of misdirection. We have a finite and well described list of characters from whom to select our villain. Spunky young heroines, debonair, dashing or angry youths, crusty elderly military or professional men, accompanied by their busybody or good-hearted astute wives, all feature again and again in Agatha Christie’s novels.

Other recurring elements include the references to a well-known nursery rhyme, the sending of a poisoned box of chocolates, a tattoo or a birthmark, a quirky name for one of the young female characters, and a spot of matchmaking by Hercule Poirot. And servants, although not often considered as central to the story, may not always be what they seem. Yet familiar as the disparate elements may be, the plots still entertain and set our own “little grey cells” working.

And so the curtain rises, and our play begins. Immediately we have a sense of deja vu. The action begins yet again, in a country house in the fictitious seaside town of “Loomouth”― that clever conflation of the real life “Looe” and “Exmouth”― in Cornwall, where Agatha Christie’s earlier novel, “Peril at End House” had been set. The celebrated actor, Sir Charles Cartwright is hosting a lavish dinner party at his bungalow, “Crow’s Nest”. His long-standing and loyal housekeeper Miss Milray, has efficiently offered to be present at the dinner, to obviate the horror of having thirteen seated at dinner. Thus yet again we encounter the superstitious idea that “thirteen at dinner” would be disastrously unlucky.

We meet each of the remaining dozen guests. They are Dr. Bartholomew Strange, Lady Mary Lytton Gore and her daughter Hermione, nicknamed “Egg”, Captain Dacres, who gambles, and his wife Cynthia, a successful dressmaker― the original for “Abrosine”, in the mock theatrical programme at the commencement of this novel. There is also the playwright Muriel Wills, whose professional name is “Anthony Astor”, Oliver Manders, a young motorcycle mechanic, Angela Sutcliffe, a well-known actress, the personable and astute Mr. Satterthwaite, the mild-mannered Reverend Babbington and his wife, and, of course, the star of the show for us … who else but … Monsieur Hercule Poirot.

The dinner has not even started when catastrophe strikes. One of the guests suddenly chokes on their cocktail, goes into convulsions and dies. But have they been murdered, as the host believes? The guests are none too sure, but Hercule Poirot deems this unlikely. The relevant martini glass was sent for chemical analysis, but as Hercule Poirot had predicted, no trace of any poison was found there. There was in addition, no motive for such a crime―the victim was well loved and respected―and the possibility of a suicide seemed ridiculous. Therefore the great detective concluded that this was an unfortunate death, but not a suspicious one. It must, after all, have been due to natural causes.

Act Two tightens the screw. A few months later Mr. Satterthwaite is in Monaco, and has been reading about the circumstances of another death he considers suspicious. Dr Bartholomew Strange, who had also been a guest at the earlier dinner party in Cornwall, had been holding a dinner party at his home in Yorkshire, when he suddenly died after drinking a glass of port wine. The coroner had ruled that he was poisoned with nicotine in his cocktail, yet once again there was no trace of it in his glass! The circumstances seemed so similar as to provide fresh grounds for suspicion. With this new knowledge, the police decided to exhume the Reverend Babbington’s body, and the discovery was made that he died from the same cause. Sir Charles Cartwright is also in Monte Carlo, and shows him another newspaper clipping which names the guests present on this occasion. Could it be mere coincidence that a number of them had also been present at his own dinner party, all that time ago?

The two ruminate over this problem, and we are privy to their thoughts. There is no doubt, surely, that this is a case for M. Hercule Poirot to solve, especially since he also happens to be in Monte Carlo at the same time. Egg Lytton Gore has already written to Sir Charles Cartwright, asking him to return to London as soon as he can, so Mr. Satterthwaite and Sir Charles Cartwright both then decide to return to England by the next train, to try to determine who this audacious murderer is. However, as we know, Hercule Poirot is not one to dash off on what might be a wild goose chase. The others are frustrated by his lack of participation, but Poirot prefers to cogitate, scolding them:

“Only one thing will solve this case―the little grey cells of the brain. To rush up and down England, to hope that this person and that will tell us what we want to know―all such methods are amateurish and absurd. The truth can only be seen from within.”

… “But yes, exactly that. Think! With thought, all problems can be solved.”

We love to read about Poirot’s eccentricities, but Sir Charles and Mr Satterthwaite also themselves at times provide us with an entertaining picture:

“They hunted round the floor, raising the carpet, looking under the bed. There was nothing anywhere, except a splash of ink beside the fireplace. The room was disappointingly bare.
They left it in a somewhat disconcerted fashion. Their zeal as detectives was momentarily dampened.
Possibly the thought passed through their minds that things were arranged better in books.”

From now on, Hercule Poirot is absent. It is not until Act 3, chapter 3, that we read “Re-enter Hercule Poirot”, and his loyal friend Captain Hastings is not mentioned at all in this novel. For most of Three Act Tragedy, the role of amateur sleuth is taken by Mr Satterthwaite, aided surprisingly by Egg Lytton Gore as well as Sir Charles. There is even a third murder, to engage their attention.

Interestingly, Three Act Tragedy is the only story in which Mr Satterthwaite assists Hercule Poirot. Usually he can be found assisting another of her characters, Harley Quin, in particular the stories in “The Mysterious Mr. Quin” published in 1930. Here, he wisely observes:

“One knows so little. When one knows more it is too late.”

In Three Act Tragedy, there are subplots a-plenty, involving blackmail and insanity as well as murder. There are hidden romantic liaisons as well as obsessional love; there is an actor who is always playing a part, and loves to be centre stage, displaying his many talents for theatrics; there is the semblance of a character who never, in fact, existed: and there is even an insane asylum, and a secret laboratory, where the poisons could be distilled. And running through is a nursery rhyme: the title of Muriel Wills’s play: “Little Dog Laughed” of which she says:

“It’s a kind of modern version of the nursery rhyme―a lot of froth and nonsense―Hey diddle diddle and the dish and the spoon scandal. Of course it all revolves around Miss Sutcliffe’s part―everyone dances to her fiddling―that’s the idea.”
Sir Charles said:
“Not bad. The world nowadays is rather like a mad nursery rhyme. And the little dog laughed to see such sport, eh?” And he thought suddenly: “Of course this woman’s the Little Dog. She looks on and laughs.”

But who exactly, in Murder in Three Acts is looking on, and laughing?

Although the definitive version of this novel is now considered to be the 1935 Three Act Tragedy, its first true publication was as a serial in six installments. This was in the American magazine, the “Saturday Evening Post” the previous year, under the title “Murder in Three Acts”. Current American editions of Three Act Tragedy still differ, in that the motive of the killer has been changed. Surprisingly this has not needed any rewriting or adjustment in any other chapters of the novel.

Although we may miss the inclusion of the endearingly straight Captain Hastings, there is continuity of a sort. In the later novel, “The ABC Murders” Poirot recounts to his friend what had occurred since they last met. Incredible as it may seem, he, Hercule Poirot, had been almost “exterminated” by a murderer who was “not so much enterprising as careless”. The point where Poirot realises this, is one of the novel’s most enjoyable moments:

“Mr. Satterthwaite looked cheered.
Suddenly an idea struck him. His jaw fell.
‘My goodness,’ he cried, ‘I’ve only just realized it! That rascal, with his poisoned cocktail! Anyone might have drunk it! It might have been me!’
‘There is an even more terrible possibility that you have not considered,’ said Poirot.
‘Eh?’
‘It might have been me,’ said Hercule Poirot.”

Murder in Three Acts is not, in my opinion, one of Agatha Christie’s greatest works, but it is an enjoyable and innovative tale, where guessing the perpetrator will use all your skills of detection. I personally failed, perhaps because I am always deceived by one of her cleverly written characters, in this case Sir Charles Cartwright, who now reminds me of Dr. Sheppard, the ingeniously imagined viewpoint character in “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Yet of the two novels, I consider this the lesser one, even though it was the first of Agatha Christie’s books to sell 10,000 copies in its first year.

Agatha Christie’s love for the theatre is evident, and the way she incorporated this into her writing is ingenious: the end sequence in Chapter 15, “Curtain” is a particular delight. As is her wont, her detective has set a trap for the suspects, in this case in chapter 11, entitled “Poirot Gives a Sherry Party”. What he learns here consolidates his theories, and enables him to gather together all the suspects, before he delivers a revealing speech which will be devastating for one person there …

“Hercule Poirot sat in a big armchair. The wall lights had been turned out. Only a rose-shaded lamp shed its light on the figure in the armchair. There seemed something symbolic about it―he alone in the light―and the other three―Sir Charles, Mr Satterthwaite and Egg Lytton Gore―Poirot’s audience―sitting in the outer darkness.”

And yet for all this delightfully tight construction, there is a lot of loose writing in the novel, which jars a little. In the first few pages, Agatha Christie keeps using the word “unconsciously”, and even says “it was impossible to tell” twice within three sentences. Surely this must have been better edited out. Also, the author’s subliminal thinking is sometimes evident, such as this Freudian slip. Mr Satterthwaite is strolling in the gardens, and cogitating on Egg Lytton Gore. He remarks:

“Now where have I seen that particular shaped head before?” as Hercule Poirot comes into his view.

A lengthy series of novels, whose detective was retired in the very first one, must inevitably create some problems for the author. And why is Captain Hastings sometimes there, and others not? He actually married one of the characters in the second novel featuring Hercule Poirot, “Murder on the Links”, which would have made a considerable difference to his life in general. Agatha Christie must have hoped that her readers would forget some of the details.

Agatha Christie could be skilled at “covering up” inconsistencies in her writing. For instance, it is noticeable that Poirot sometimes speaks perfect English, and at others he seems to be stumbling a great deal, as if English is an unfamiliar language to him:

“Why do you sometimes speak perfectly good English and at other times not?”
Poirot laughed.
“Ah, I will explain. It is true that I can speak the exact, the idiomatic English. But, my friend, to speak the broken English is an enormous asset. It leads people to despise you. They say―a foreigner―he can’t even speak English properly. It is not my policy to terrify people―instead I invite their gentle ridicule. Also I boast! An Englishman he says often ‘A fellow who thinks as much of himself as that cannot be worth much.’ That is the English point of view. It is not at all true. And so, you see, I put people off their guard. Besides,” he added, “it has become a habit.”

Despite this explanation’s clear contrivance, it serves to convince us. We also forgive any coincidences, and even the weak motive for the murders. We are left feeling fully satisfied that here all fits together in a complex, neat jigsaw: the puzzle completed, with no missing pieces.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Three Act Tragedy is another good one from Christie.
When the sweet Reverend Babbington falls over dead after drinking a cocktail at renowned actor Sir Charles Cartwright's dinner party, no one but Cartwright thinks it's anything but a terrible tragedy.



Fast forward a bit and another one of the guests from that same dinner party keels over dead.
So? <--you say rather callously.
Well, he dropped dead after having a drink at a party with most of the same guests from Cartwright's.
AND IT WAS POISON!
Smitten with a 20something beauty who wants his help, 50something Sir Charles takes up the mantle of lead amateur investigator. Along with Mr. Satterthwaite and Hercule Poirot, these four will do what the local police cannot - solve the mystery!



Fun Fact: This has the distinction of having a girl named Egg as the main love interest. I'd say she was the heroine of the story, but she's less interested in the mystery and more interested in getting Sir Charles to fall for her. Most of Christie's heroines have their eyes on some guy, but the good ones are also just plain curious and want to figure out whodunnit. Egg only seemed interested in the mystery as an excuse to hang out with Charles and stroke his...ego.
Bah!



One thing I liked was that Poirot had to be somewhat prodded to get involved.
Although, I've noticed a great deal of the Poirot stories are about cases he solves after he has retired. And every time we have to go through some spiel about how he's bored, and retirement isn't what he thought it would be, and he needs some stimulation for his grey cells.
After so many books, you'd think he'd just open up his practice again and stop with that vegetable marrow pipe dream.



Poirot is the big name in this, but Mr. Satterthwaite is another clever solver of mysteries that I recognized from The Mysterious Mr. Quin. Apparently, he also appears in another short story, Dead Man's Mirror, which is a part of Murder in the Mews. <--I'm getting to that one soon.

Overall, this was a fun read that will more than likely keep you guessing till the very end.
Recommended!

[Adrian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, Poirot at his imperious best. More thoughts tomorrow.

Through Christmas and the New Year (2018/19) my family and I watched a lot of Agatha Christie, from David Suchet's Poirot, through Peter Ustinov to John Malkovich, plus also a documentary drama about Christie's disappearance for 11 days in 1926. Included in this Christmas Christie extravaganza was "Three act tragedy".

So to the book itself; although Poirot does not appear as much as he does in the TV version, he is still instrumental in the solving of the crime, despite Sir Charles Cartwright playing the "great detective". Without giving the game away, there are a number of twists and turns that had me confused and bamboozled in both the tv version and the book, needless to say Hercule was not.

Also without giving the game away, it has the best final sentence of any detective book I have ever read, maybe even of any book.

[Jamie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was so certain that I knew who the killer was with this one … and I was, as usual, so very, very wrong. Sigh.

Anyway, this is a perfectly fine Poirot novel, although it's pretty light on the Poirot. He makes a few appearances throughout the story, but he isn't really the main character. Of course, that doesn't stop him from solving the case and giving his usual monologue at the end. It's not my favorite Christie, but it's a perfectly acceptable murder mystery overall. The nickname “Egg” really grated on my nerves, though.

3.7 stars, rounded up.

[Flo Camus · Rating 2 out of 5]

[2.4⭐] 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙨 de Agatha Christie es una novela de misterio escrita en 1935. La trama sigue el formato de una obra de teatro en tres actos, con un asesinato en cada uno que está interconectado con el otro y, del cual, Hércules Poirot hará una profunda investigación para poder dar con el asesino. 


Es cierto que esta es de las novelas que más asesinatos tiene, pero, por desgracia, no ha logrado gustarme del todo. Supe de inmediato quién era el asesino, siento que acá no se esmeró tanto la autora como en sus otras obras (es normal que ante tantas obras prolijas haya alguna que flaquee y me temo que este es el caso). 

Es novedoso el hecho de que haya iniciado presentando a los personajes como si fueran directores, guionistas, asistentes, etc, pero la originalidad no se ve reflejada a lo largo de la historia. 
La premisa inicial es interesante, con dos asesinatos aparentemente desconectados en reuniones sociales, pero a medida que avanza la trama, el ritmo se vuelve lento y hasta repetitivo. El detective Hércules Poirot, aunque siempre astuto y meticuloso, no brilla tanto en esta ocasión, se siente como si estuviera en un segundo plano ( su participación resulta algo diluida en comparación con otras novelas más intensas en las que ya ha aparecido). Además, el hecho de que el narrador sea externo hace que se pierda ese estilo tan característico e interesante de relatos anteriores. 

Como dije con anterioridad, la revelación del culpable es menos impactante de lo que podría ser. Siento que no ha logrado su cometido: el sorprender al lector. Se hace demasiado evidente desde el primer momento en el que presentan a este personaje ya que es bastante misterioso y encaja perfecto con el perfil. Además, algunos personajes secundarios, como Egg Lytton Gore y Mr. Satterthwaite, no logran generar el suficiente interés o profundidad para mantener la atención del lector. De hecho, he sentido que son personajes sumamente olvidables y hasta me llegaba a confundir con varios de ellos (siendo que nunca me había sucedido con una novela de Christie ya que tenían personalidades más marcadas e historias más interesantes).


Finalmente, puedo decir que 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙨 es un libro que no considero fundamental. De hecho, ahora comprendo porqué es de los libros menos leídos de Christie y, honestamente, considero que ha sido la peor novela que he leído de ella. Sin duda, esta novela no le hace justicia a su prolífica literatura. 

[Gabriel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Terriblemente decepcionado con este libro de Agatha Christie. Voy a tratar de ser conciso y explicar porqué.

Si te da flojera leer hasta el final todo se resume a una trama que reutiliza aspectos de otros libros de Hércules Poirot. A medida que voy leyendo las novelas de Hércules Poirot en orden cronológico me voy dando cuenta que se está repitiendo el mismo patrón en los casos para que el lector se sorprenda. Y no, la verdad es que conmigo no funcionó y estoy seguro que con muchos otros tampoco; a menos, claro está, de que esos otros lectores no hayan leído los libros del detective belga en orden. Es más, seguro que a quien no ha leído ninguno de los libros que menciono abajo les gustaría este caso.

1. Empezando con los múltiples sospechosos que uno ya sabe que solo son un medio de distracción para no llegar al meollo del asunto, como en Asesinato en el Orient Express.

2. Los impulsos o lo que ha motivado a cierta persona (de género no identificado) a cometer lo crímenes es muy parecida a la del libro La muerte de Lord Edgware. Literal, es un copia y pega.

3. Lo que nos lleva a un tercer punto que conecta con la misma revelación del asesin@ para que sea impresionante, pero lastimosamente no fue así. Ya me lo olía desde el principio con la primera pista que recogieron. Solo diré que El asesinato de Roger Ackryod lo hizo antes y fue mucho mejor.

4. Como un plus, también el cuarto libro Los cuatro grandes me preparó magistralmente para sospechar de alguien que puede tomar más de una sola cara.

En fin, que este libro solo me parece uno más del montón, que ha reciclado cosas de casos en el pasado y temo, de verdad temo que a Agatha se le vayan acabando las ideas porque hay un montón de libros más con Poirot como protagonista. Y no quiero que solo sea puro copia y pega. Ah, y Hércules sin tanto protagonismo en el mismo libro me pareció aburrido de leer.

[Thibault Busschots · Rating 4 out of 5]

A renowned actor hosts a dinner party at his home. Among the guests are retired detective Hercule Poirot and Mr Satterthwaite (whom you might remember from Agatha Christie’s The Mysterious Mr Quin). When one of the guests dies after sipping from a cocktail, the actor believes it was murder. But there is no trace of poison in the guest’s glass. And then another person dies exactly the same way. It’s a mystery worth solving for detective Hercule Poirot.


Mr Satterthwaite is once again more an observer rather than a detective. He investigates by following the actor’s lead and slowly collects all the necessary puzzle pieces. But in the end, it’s Poirot who swoops in to solve the puzzle.


Not the most memorable Poirot book to be honest and Poirot himself pretty much stays in the background for quite a while. But the mystery concept is strong and the writing is so brilliant that it does keep you guessing till the end. Which makes it quite a solid and enjoyable murder mystery read.

[W · Rating 2 out of 5]

Agatha Christie's Belgian detective,Hercule Poirot declares that he has retired,but when the nasty business of murder confronts him,how can he not investigate ?

And as he says,at the very end,he is lucky not to have become a victim himself.The murderer has already struck twice,and is preparing to kill again.

Intriguing as it may sound,this is one of the worst Christie books I have read.Too slow and disjointed,the story just plods along.

Poirot's own appearance is relatively brief,and Christie changed the ending for some editions.
A relief,when it finally came to an end.

It had been lying on my shelf for years,and I hadn't found it compelling enough to complete,earlier.
(Also published as Three Act Tragedy)

[Darren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe a generous 3.5

Reading slump officially over. This was a re-read of a book that I first read about 15 years ago. I didn't remember any of it when reading this again.

It's so-so. Not one of her best but a quick fairly enjoyable read

[Piyangie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Three Act Tragedy is another interesting murder mystery in the Poirot series. The story is written in three "Acts" as in a play. True to its kind, the story unfolds through the chapters as a lively drama.

We see only a little of Hercule Poirot in the story. After his first appearance in the "First Act", he re-enters only in the "Third Act". So instead of Poirot, we meet two amateur detectives (Mr. Satterthwaite and Sir Charles Cartwright), poking their noses around, finding clues and gathering evidence to unravel the murderer's identity. As a Poirot fan, I would have liked to have more of his presence, but at the same time, I didn't mind the two amateurs doing the physical work, allowing Poirot to work with his "little grey cells".

This was a fun read. I liked the different characters and enjoyed their peculiar characteristics. Poirot makes a bit of a mess before getting onto the right track. As with most of her novels, Agatha Christie had kept out vital clues to make Poirot's final denouement interesting, but I entertained my own suspicion on who the murderer was. And I was delighted to be proved my hunch was right.

The motive was another matter, however. When Poirot painstakingly established the motive behind the crimes, it came as a real surprise. Nothing in the story pointed toward it. We don't learn how Poirot got hold of some of the information that established the motive to complete his case. I'm not too happy when Christie deliberately withholds clues, but I guess that's how she makes her final revelation more compelling.

I enjoyed the read very much despite the slow pace. I particularly loved the final scene where Poirot and Mr. Satterthwaite reflect on the event of the first murder and realize that either of the two could easily have been a victim. The dialogue between them was hilarious.

"My goodness," he (Satterthwaite) cried, "I've only just realized it! That rascal, with his poisoned cocktail! Anyone might have drunk it! It might have been me!"
"There is an even more terrible possibility that you have not considered," said Poirot.
"Eh?"
"It might have been me," said Hercule Poirot."

The curtain fall was done brilliantly. The egotism of the little Belgian detective is simply adorable.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Poirot #11: Christie's and Poirot’s Class in Observation

“The trouble is, that nobody observes anything,” Mr. Crossfield said.

How do we observe? Christie, continuing her focus on theater-based mysteries, supposes (through Poirot) that actors, playwrights, theater-goers and detectives, among others, all can observe closely, though they will obviously typically notice different things. But who observes best, according to Poirot? You guessed it. A coolly rational egg-shaped-head Belgian.

Story: A recently retired actor, Sir Charles Cartwright, (which we find later is actually a stage name, his real name Mugg, which is another name for Fool, which is an historical role for someone who is either an actual fool or someone who plays a fool) throws a party for 13 people, and one, a Mr. Babbington, dies, after sipping a cocktail, yet there’s no trace of poisonous evidence on or in the glass. The police--and Poirot, who happens to be nearby--decide the old boy died of natural causes, but Sir Charles and his friend, Sattherthwaite, who smell something fishy about it, spend half the book using their actorly and theatergoer-ly observing skills trying unsuccessfully to crack the case. They are joined in this process by Hermione (known as Egg) Lyton Gore, who in joining the pursuit of justice also pursues Sir Charles, though she is thirty years younger than him.

(Sir Charles also likes Egg, although he also says to Egg at one point, “I always find eggs so depressing.” Is that a nice thing to say to a future lover, Charlie? And what does this say about his deeper feelings for the egg-shaped-head Poirot?

Of course since these three stooges find out very little, using their non-detective powers of observation, it makes for a pretty forgettable first half, though they are slightly less clueless in their detective work than Poirot's usual sidekick Hastings in so many other Poirot mysteries. Charles, the actor, sometimes sets up scenes to try things out, see how they’d work. So that’s sometimes a little interesting, especially as we consider the resolution of the tale. Anyway, there ARE three acts, and three murders, one per act, with theater references and play contexts abounding, but it doesn’t really get very interesting til Poirot starts using his “little grey cells”.

“A man like Hercule Poirot doesn’t have to look for crime—it comes to him.”

So Christie is on Poirot #11. Which distinctive things is she trying here to amuse herself (and us) with?

*This one has an omniscient narrator, which Christie doesn't usually use, because Poirot only really comes in to play in the second half. In this one Poirot does none of the usual interviewing of people; he mainly just uses the possibly flawed information others give him, and he just, well, THINKS. Later he asks for 24 hours to just sit and make his house of cards as he thinks, though. . .

*these cards are from a children’s game, Happy Families (ha!) instead of the usual deck of cards.

*Motive goes hand in hand with mystery, yet one murder seems to be (essentially) motive-less here. Why kill nice old man Babbington? No one knows! Maybe there IS no reason, and how would that play, in a mystery?!

*Christie, who has been interested in chemical toxicity since her days working in a hospital, uses nicotine poisoning in this one. Nothing special about it here, but it’s a curious murder weapon. And who knew that Christie would realize—ahead of most of the world--that nicotine could kill ya?

*Agatha has a series of comments about women in her work, almost exclusively made by women, which are sometimes amusing: “I hate women. Lousy cats.” “Bitch!” (in 1934!). “Mrs. Temple was not pretty,” our narrator observes, and there are a lot of comments women and men make about women’s looks. Maybe this is not that unusual, but I always notice that how the men look is not that important to Christie or her narrators.

*Again in this book, there are one or two characters making anti-semitic remarks, or ones identifying Jews with money, so there’s a kind of pattern in Christie’s work that doesn’t seem to be like the pattern of women bashing women. Were people anti-semitic in 1934. . . . um, yes.

*People are always saying things like “It must have been the work of a lunatic,” or madman, when it doesn’t seem to make sense why someone would kill such a nice man as Babbington, for instance.

Christie often plays with readers by commenting on what they know are typical tropes of mystery and detective novels. For instance, of the butler Ellis, missing from the time of the first murder, only Miss Wills notices that he has a birthmark. At one point actor Charles and playwright Miss Wills discuss birthmarks vs. scars:

“'Dash it all,' went on Sir Charles, with feeling, 'in detective stories there’s always some identifying mark on the villain.'
'It’s usually a scar in stories,' said Miss Wills thoughtfully.
'A birthmark’s just as good,' said Sir Charles

Let me just say: It’s a good thing to do, to return to such scenes after you finish the book to appreciate Christie’s cleverness and wit and powers of observation. If you observe her closely, you will be pleased to see that there are actually clues!

I thought this was a 3 star book for at least half the book, but the finish—always the finish! I as usual did NOT know how (in spite of said clues) this would get resolved until within the last seven or eight pages—bumps this up to nearly four stars, and since I am still smiling from the funny last line: Four stars. Three Act Tragedy? More of a delightful comedy (except for the gruesome deaths, I guess, but the deaths in cozy mysteries are never all that disturbing).

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ugh… lets get this one over with. Three Act Tragedy is a mess. It stands right after The Big Four as the worst Christie novel I’ve read (to be fair though, it is nowhere near as bad as The Big Four… but then again, few books are). It is an utter mess from start to finish.

This is one of those award Poirot novels where Poirot himself is a side character in his own novel; pretty much reserved for letting everyone gather all the clues, step in at the last moment and say “no , no no, this is what really happened.” He is in it maybe ¼ of the book and that may be a generous assessment.

Our lead this time is Mr. Satterthwaite (who is actually from Christie’s Mr. Quinn short story series, which shows that she was doing crossovers long before Marvel made it cool); who is a fairly reasonable detective in his own right, bringing into question why Poirot is even needed in this book. My quick answer would be because Poirot’s series was and still is more popular and Christie liked money (don’t we all?). Poirot gives us a reason , but it seems rather forced, and like Christie needed to “explain” the character in such a way as to why he wouldn’t be a proper lead for this case. It feels like she’s just trying to make an excuse for Poirot, as frankly it feels a bit out of touch from what we are shown of Satterthwaite.

Beyond the leads, the case is a bit of a mess as well. The first murder happens within 20 pages and we are never given time to really get to know the victim. Everything seems so rushed in terms of the case that besides the three or four characters, everyone seems completely flat. We are given relatively few scenes with the main suspects, and pretty much every couple of chapters ends with a run down of how little everyone really knows.

The main motive behind the crimes were rather ridiculous in my opinion, but apparently from what I’ve read on the main Christie website as well as a few others, this was one of Christie’s own reactions, so much so that she changed the ending for some editions of the book. I don’t know if I got the author preferred ending or the original, but it’s a pretty dreadful excuse and comes off as a very last minute addition with little buildup to it.

The only thing saving this from the dreaded 1 star review is that the reason behind the FIRST crime and first crime only, is rather clever. Now that may seem contradictory given my last paragraph, but if you read the book, I assure you that makes sense.

Now, with that said, it is my suggestion that you simply don’t bother. This one is completely worthy of skipping without missing anything. Very disappointing and only recommended for Christie/Poitor completionists.

[Brina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Agatha Christie, the Queen of Crime. For the second straight year I am taking part in a modified Read Christie challenge, modified because I at times have to switch out books in the challenge for ones I haven’t read yet. This year a group of us are reading through the challenge books together, and I join in if it happens to be a book I hadn’t gotten to yet. Hercule Poirot had been my introduction to Dame Christie years ago, so I have always preferred cases featuring the Belgian sleuth. This year I am reading through the Poirot cases I might have missed in lieu of reading the books in the challenge. Three Act Tragedy was actually a book for this challenge a few months ago, but I thought I had read it already - go figure- so I skipped and then noticed that this is a book I had not previously read so I swapped out this month’s Cards on the Table, which I had read. Mysteries have long been my palette cleanser starting with Nate the Great and Cam Jansen in elementary school and working my way up to Dame Christie and the few contemporary series that I enjoy. Agatha Christie ‘s creations have long been my favorite of all of them, so, challenge or no challenge, I often find myself gravitating back to her every four weeks or so. Here is Poirot in Three Act Tragedy.

Sir Charles Cartwright holds a house party at his Cornwall home. He is joined by Bartholomew Satterthwaite, Miss Lytton Gore known as Egg, and ten other guests, one of whom happens to be Hercule Poirot. This brings the number of diners at the dinner party to an unlucky thirteen, so Sit Charles’ trusted assistant Miss Millray joins in the proceedings. Even with fourteen attendees at dinner, one of their member, Mr Baddington, rhe local vicar, is found dead. People thought stroke due to the vicar’s age, but findings soon lead to murder. The party breaks up but Cartwright, Satterthwaite and Miss Lytton Gore decide to act as amateur detectives. This does not come until later after another death at another dinner party where Dr Bartholomew Strange is also found dead of nicotine poisoning in his drink. During this time, Sir Charles has fled to Monte Carlo, where he is joined by Satterthwaite. Ah, the upper class, who can embark and disembark at will. Christie loved poking fun at their ststion in life and it is no different here. Upon hearing the news of the murder of Tollie Strange, Cartwright and Satterthwaite decide to return to London so they can attempt to solve the two murders. While at the Wagon Lits office, the two encounter none other than Poirot who is between jobs. These two murders pique his interest and he discreetly follows the pair to London.

For years, Christie noted that she tired of Poirot, but he was her money maker. Three Act Tragedy is the book published directly after Murder on the Orient Express, which became her most highly regarded case. Getting rid of Poirot was easier said than done. Christie created other characters so her writing would not become rote, those we know today such as Miss Marple, Colonel Race, and her alter ego, Ariadne Oliver. Christie penned Poirot until her death but at times scaled bsck his involvement in certain cases. In Three Act Tragedy, Poirot plays a supporting role. The lead character is Sir Charles Cartwright, an actor accustomed to having his name in the spotlight. Cartwright also has reached the age, according to the perceptive Satterthwaite, where he begins to fall for young ladies. He is smitten with Miss Lytton Gore and wishes to marry her. Likewise, Miss Lytton Gore has developed a bit of hero worship for Cartwright and is obsessed with him. I do not think that she is actually in love with this man who is thirty years her senior. Poirot realizes that Cartwright has to have the starring role so he stays on the periphery. He remains the best at solving murders but he does so here at a distance and does not have as many pages on print here.

Other readers thought that this case was funny. In a way it is because the three would be detectives stumble and bumble their way toward solving the case. None of them has a clue as to whodunit or how to go on sleuthing. They think it is a game or an act. Poirot figures it out nearly from the beginning. He does attempt to push the sleuths in the right direction but does not want to take over their starring role. In the interim he tells them that the case will be solved by thinking and using his grey cells. Egg is restless as a young woman is apt to be and is determined to solve the murders sooner than later. Because the three would be detectives are so clueless, I found myself pining for Hastings. He made for an inept sidekick, but he was with Poirot for a number of cases so understood his mannerisms. I understand Christie’s need to change up her peripheral characters, but I did not take to the protagonists in this case, probably because they were in charge and Poirot waiting in the wings rather than the other way around. As much as Dame Christie grew tired of Poirot, she created in him a timeless character who people are still reading over one hundred years later. Poirot relays to Satterthwaite that he has only been wrong once in his career. In order for these books to work for me, Poirot has to be the star, otherwise he would not be Hercule Poirot.

As with every Poirot case I have ever read, Christie withholds key information so that the readers can not decipher whodunit. Poirot illuminates the would be sleuths at the end, delivering his soliloquy, explaining step by step how the murderer set up his plan and committed the crime. As usual, most of this information was not revealed to readers until the last ten pages. Even though I would love to figure out whodunit before Poirot, I know that isn’t possible because withholding clues was one of Dame Christie’s literary devises. It is what made her standout as the Queen of Crime. Poirot has a large capacity for love and always encouraged characters to get married even if they wavered over it. He was especially tender with Egg Lytton Gore during this last chapter, which made me happy that at least Dame Christie stayed true to Poirot’s character even when he was not the star. I have read almost all of the full length books starring Poirot. He remains my favorite of her personas after all these years, even if he was not her favorite. Even though this was not my favorite Poirot case, it was still enjoyable as is any opportunity I have to spend time with the moustachioed Belgian sleuth. Until next time, mes amies.

4 stars

[Rodrigo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pues me ha gustado, que bueno es Poirot cuando se pone a pensar con las células grises, jajajajaja.
El libro se divide en 3 actos como si fuera una obra de teatro, ya que su actor principal es una estrella del mismo que vive retirado.
Muchos posibles sospechosos y 2 muertes que parecen estar relacionadas pero que es difícil intuir como el asesino logró cometerlo.
Estaba el libro en su 2/3 actos pasando sin mucha brillantez (debido a la escasa aparición de Poirot), pero en el último tercio se han ido descubriendo mas pistas y al final Poirot, ya por fin, metiéndose de lleno en el caso, hizo una resolución brillante, como siempre.
Pensé en una sospechosa incluso mientras leía pensé te tengo... ay iluso!!!
Ni por asomo estaba cerca de adivinar...
Valoración: 7.75/10
Sinopsis: Trece invitados acuden a cenar en la fiesta organizada por el célebre actor sir Charles Cartwright en su casa. Una noche particularmente desafortunada para el reverendo Stephen Babbington, quien tras probar su cóctel cae muerto. Pero cuando el vaso vuelve del laboratorio sin que se hayan detectado rastros de veneno, Poirot se prepara para uno de esos casos imposibles. Y como si esto fuera poco, no parece haber ningún móvil para el crimen...

[Katerina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Three Act Tragedy is one of the best stories in Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot series and if I didn't remember the who dunnit since it's my second read I would have enjoyed reading it so much more.
It's intriguing enough and if you read it for the first time you can't possibly imagine why or by whom the murders are being committed. I definitely recommend it!
And as always there are negatives and positives...
For me the positives were that there aren't many french sentences in this story and the friend that helped sir Charles in his investigations since I couldn't stand the latter!
The negative ones were that Hercule Poirot isn't so much present while sir Charles and his friends investigate and that I disliked most of the characters in this story!

[Zala · Rating 4 out of 5]

For once I actually guessed- I mean, deduced the murderer.

[Wanda Pedersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

My regularly scheduled Appointment with Agatha novel. It is probably the one that I have enjoyed the least since I began this venture. I always look forward to my regular dose of Christie, but like the murder victims in this novel, I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth.

My first objection: I think Jane Marple would have been much superior to Hercule Poirot in this story. She would have seen to the heart of the matter in a much quieter, safer way. She would have been sympathetic, but firm with Miss Egg Lytton Gore. No doubt she would remember some lovelorn young woman in a similar situation in Chipping Cleghorn. She could have gently inserted herself into the story, rather than bulldozing her way in as Poirot does (at least as Egg perceives it).

My second reservation: I feel that Violet Milray is treated quite ruthlessly by the author. We cannot all be beautiful and many a plain woman has had to develop skills, such as organisation and efficiency, to make their living. They are very aware of how others perceive them. They are not without emotions and often endure the unrequited loves of men who barely look twice at them. Worse, those same men turn around and say nasty things behind their backs, as Sir Charles does to Miss Milray. No wonder she was planning to leave his employ.

Unusually, I twigged to the murderer's identity much earlier than usual. Not unusually, there is the long explanation by M. Poirot, followed by the murderer's chance to choose how to respond, with a strong implication that suicide might be it. I can think of at least one more sensible way that the killer might have proceeded, not requiring the complicated plotting. But I am not the author and she structured things as she willed. All I can say is that I will be in no hurry to revisit this mystery.

[Katie Lumsden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyable, as Agatha Christie always is.

[Ali Salehi · Rating 4 out of 5]

قراره موضوع نقد امشبمون «تراژدی در سه پرده» از «آگاتا کریستی» جنایی نویس مطلقا بی نظیر در بحث سرگرمی ( نه هنری) باشه.
به عنوان یه کتاب جنایی خوب و سرپا و ارضا کننده نیاز استراحت انسان ، اثر خیلی خوبه.
نوع نثر انتخاب شده درسته.
شخصیت ها بشدت در حد نیاز ازشون بیان میشه.
هر از گاهی حس تعلیق در ما ایجاد میشه که خیلی خوبه. یه شوک برای پایان کتاب داریم ، که اصلا خوب نیست و باعث میشه اثر برای من مخاطب یکبار مصرف باشه.به طوری که سری بعدی که اثر رو میخونیم دیگه لذتی برامون نداشته باشه. اما چرا من میگم خوبه؟
چون سرگرم کننده خوبیه.
به قول عالیجناب «فیودار داستایفسکی» : سروران من ، باور کنید که زیاد فهمیدن خوب نیست.
حقیقتا ، انسان باید گاهی دغدغه ها رو رها کنه و بچسبه به یک تفریح سالم و درست.
از نظر من کتاب هم میتونه روشنگر مسیر تفکرات و ذهنیت انسانی باشه و هم سرگرمی سالم و درست.

•هنر یا سرگرمی
من همینجا روشن کنم که نه تنها با ادبیات سرگرمی مخالف نیستم ، بشدت هم موافقم.ولی چرا هنر رو از سرگرمی جدا میبینم و چرا اصلا ادبیات رو بخشی از حیطه هنر میبینم؟
اگر از من بپرسید «هنر» چیست؟ جواب من فقط یک جمله‌ست : هر پدیده ای که بتونه باعث برانگیختگی احساسی در شما بشه و اون احساس موجب تغییر تفکر ، ذهنیت و یا باورهای شما باشه هنر شناخته میشه.
حالا آیا ادبیات باعث برانگیختگی احساس در ما میشه؟
به یاد بیارید لحظه خوانش «هملت» رو
لحظه خوانش «یادداشت های زیرزمینی» رو
و هزاران اثر دیگه
احساسی در ما بر انگیخته میشه واقعا غیر قابل وصفه.
اما چرا بعضی آثار صرفا سرگرمی اند؟ چون وقتی من کتاب رو ببندم ، نهایت زمانی که بتونم بهش فک کنم پنج یا شش دقیقه‌ست.
پس نمیتونه احساسی رو در من برانگیخته کنه اما بی ارزش نیست. اصلا. چون من رو سرگرم کرده.و همین قابل دفاعه.

[Cristina Lazăr · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://carti.blog/2025/03/31/tragedi...

[Razvan Banciu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let us introduce Mrs. Average, as people are usually right when they say that if you read one of Agatha's book, you've read all of them. Not to mention the great stupidity of Sir Charles, as he became a serial murderer because he has an old marriage he cannot escape from and he's attracted to a younger girl. Love is blind, but sometimes also very, very dumb...

[Metodi Markov · Rating 4 out of 5]

В тази криминална история разследването се води основно от група аматьори, присъствали на първото убийство. Поаро благоволява да се задейства чак в третото действие и естествено, бързо разгадава случая.

Една звезда по-малко за "Трагедия в три действия", заради леко предвидимата поне за мен развръзка.

Преводът е поостарял и на места може да обърка читателя малко.

Цитат от 1934 година:

"Безжалостни са тези съвременни момичета ... и ужасно енергични." :)

[Dr. Laurel Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

I freely admit to my own bias: the reason I recently gave Peril at End House only 3 stars is the same reason I am giving Three Act Tragedy five--I solved End House with embarrassing speed (for reasons outlined in my review), whereas Three Act Tragedy blindsided me. I was absolutely convinced that I knew who the murderer was, and I think Christie predicted that the careful reader would think so, hence her playing with us in a scene at the end when a certain person tries to destroy evidence. I loved having a further twist catch me off guard; I felt that all was back to normal in Christie-land when The Queen of Crime outfoxed me as I expect her to do! After all, that is why I love and respect her above all others; if I want to solve a mystery halfway through I'll read...well, pretty much anyone else, honestly.

However, Three Act Tragedy deserves all five stars quite apart from whether I solved it before Poirot or not. It's not a well-known novel at all; in fact, I'd never read it before and was amazed to find such a strong Golden Age Christie novel had slipped under my radar. Dame Agatha thinks of everything--she answers every question I had save one (more on that later). For example, I wondered at first why Poirot was even in this novel since Mr. Satterthwaite seemed to be doing well at sleuthing, but she explains it perfectly: Satterthwaite's psychology is wrong for this case. He is always, in every book in which he appears, the perfect "audience", and here that means he can't see past the acting. A nice touch, consistent with his characterization elsewhere--the quality that is usually his strength as a detective is his downfall here, so the even greater detective takes over!

I have never been stumped on so many different fronts before--I couldn't figure out who had done it, nor why, nor even how, like the world's most frustrating game of Clue! One of the most unusual motives in all of Christie-dom. Why didn't I suspect the right person? I think it's because I knew Mr. Satterthwaite was innocent (as he is a recurring amateur detective character, usually with his supernatural partner Mr. Quin to guide him). I thought his innocence extended to someone else (name omitted to avoid spoilers), even though I know perfectly well--and I say it ALL THE TIME--that with Christie the murderer can be absolutely anyone. Should have listened to myself.

Psychology is the theme of the novel and I was deeply impressed by some of the subtle ways Christie employs it. For instance, I got chills when a clue connected to the casual use of a childhood friend's former name; it rang completely true, as I could imagine my best friend referring to me with an old childhood nickname rather than my real name. Tiny details like that make the solution all the better. My only complaint: we never did find out where the secret passage was, did we?! It was somewhere in the library, but Poirot never found it and it was apparently irrelevant to the case. A shame, as I love a good secret passage!

[Erin *Proud Book Hoarder* · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a bit frustrating for awhile. Hardly any Hercule Poirot was in it! Even so, I grew a bit bored and not just because of the absence of the detective. At first the story was all over the place before the middle act, which was distracting. The characters and scenes were interesting enough for a bit, but meh...I kept wanting to skim ahead after awhile. Much of it was thoughtful dialogue among secondary characters without any continuing ties to go on.

After page 128, seriously, Hercule Poirot started appearing for real. There was a minor scene with him at the beginning but nothing fancy. Once he came on stage the story started to come together even more so, even if it wasn't from his usual detective-type meddling. At first I was afraid this would be another disappointing mystery type where a solution is found without any clever clues to help the reader...however, it turned not to be so when the case was explained.

The clues instead were so very minor and subtle it was almost impossible to pick up on them. Interesting and much better after the second act, the ending was a dramatic one that surprised me on who the culprit was. Leave it to Christie to stun the reader.

Despite the redemption, still left this one as three stars and a least favorite of the series. Too slow, disjointed, not enough of the infamous Belgian detective, and while the ending was great, it did not hold enough power to excel the rest of the book.

[Rosa Cristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitivamente los libros de Agatha Christie no me decepcionan, y me da mucha alegría encontrar a mi investigador favorito Hercules Poirot, tan colorido y peculiar; la historia inicio en una cena, donde uno de los invitados, el párroco del pueblo, fallece, en un principio nadie sospecha de nada, pero días mas tarde otras personas fallecen en casi igual circunstancias, es entonces cuando todo se vuelve sospechoso en inicia la investigación típica de nuestro detective. La historia me mantuvo super enganchada aunque al principio siempre se me dificulta memorizar los personajes, una vez lo consigo la historia fluye, el final me sorprendió nuevamente, ya que no tenía ninguna sospecha del culpable. 😲

[Dawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well this was a pleasant surprise, as I couldn't remember the entire plot or story when I started reading - which is usually the case, having been a fan for so long.
Not only did I not remember - I didn't guess the murderer until 85%!
Perfect entertainment. For some bizarre reason, I imagined Charles Cartwright all the way through as Laurence Olivier, yet Poirot was still David Suchet (who else?!) ...

[Shreyas Deshpande · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another one of the thrilling plots conceived by the master of mystery stories.
The plot starts slowly and builds up but as always highly impossible to even guess who would be the murderer. The plot thickens with many characters involved but eventually we have the logical conclusion by the master himself, Hercule Poirot.
The writing which has mesmerised many all over the world wields her magic again. The language synonymous to all her books is impeccable.

Ratings:- ⭐⭐⭐⭐

[Julie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very enjoyable mystery that kept me guessing. I really enjoyed the strong characterizations. One of the main characters has the rather unusual nickname of Egg. At some point quite far along in the story the nickname Egg is explained, apparently when Hermione Lytton Gore was tiny she would fall over each time she tried to get up, rather like an egg and the name stuck. It reminded me of the egg-shaped weebles that were popular when my sister was little in the early 1970s. I can remember the jingle from the TV advertisements, "weebles wobble but they don't fall down!" Those advertisers knew a thing or two about creating catchphrases that stick!

Narration by the sublime Hugh Fraser. I truly enjoy listening to him ably act all the characters in this series.

[samantha Bookworm-on-rainydays · Rating 5 out of 5]

Keeps you guessing till the last page.

[Lorna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Three Act Tragedy was another spellbinding mystery of detective fiction by Agatha Christie with Hercule Poirot largely in the background until the Third Act: Discovery. It was preceded by First Act: Suspicion and Second Act: Certainty. Although this was a different format, it was quite engaging. Once again I was late in determining who the murderer might be but it was wonderful read in the process.

When renowned London stage actor Sir Charles Cartwright hosts a dinner party in his home in Cornwall, one of the guests mysteriously dies after sipping a dry martini served to the guests. His guests included Hercule Poirot; psychiatrist Sir Bartholomew Strange; Hermione “Egg” Litton Gore and her mother; Captain and Cynthia Dacres; playwright Muriel Wills; Egg’s friend Oliver Manders; Mr. Satterthwaite; and Reverend Babbington and his wife. A few of the guests seem to feel that there was something strange and the victim could have been murdered and begin to investigate in consultation with Hercule Poirot. What transpires is another fantastic mystery by the queen of mystery.

“But let us not waste time. . . There is much to be done. There must be no more deaths. We must see to that.”

“All that is true. But there is more. . . It is—how shall I put it?—a passion for getting at the truth. In all the world there is nothing so curious and interesting and so beautiful as the truth. . .”