Puzzle Doctor

Five Little Pigs aka Murder in Retrospect by Agatha Christie

Five Little PigsSomeone must have bought Hercule Poirot a book of nursery rhymes that he read too much. When Carla Crale comes to him to ask him to find the truth about her father’s murder – he was poisoned and her mother was sentenced to life imprisonment  for the crime – he decides that the five potential alternate suspects represent the pigs in the rhyme “This Little Piggy…” – which they don’t, really. Seriously, what was Poirot thinking, apart from, “Hey, maybe it might help Dame Agatha come up with a title for a book…”

Amyas Crale, a painter, was poisoned, apparently by his wife Caroline. But her daughter believes that her mother was telling her the truth when she denied her guilt in her final letter, and hires Poirot to find the truth. But sixteen years have passed since the crime took place, fifteen since Caroline died in jail, so all Poirot has at his disposal is the five witnesses – two friends of Crale, the young model he was having an affair with, his young sister-in-law and her governess. With so much time having passed, is it possible that the truth can be discovered?

It’s often said that Christie didn’t like Poirot – often said by her, in fact. But from 1935 to 1942, she wrote eighteen novels, thirteen of which featured the little Belgian – nine in a row, in fact. Anyway, this was the last of the thirteen, before she took a four year break until The Hollow – not my favourite of her books. There’s no sign of any animosity here though, as he gets a good run out in this cracking little mystery.

This is very much played as a mystery based on personalities and psychologies, but it isn’t really. On paper, it sounds rather dull – Poirot interviews all five suspects, reads their accounts of the day of the murder and then solves the crime. It’s not, though. Well, mostly not. As we got the fifth suspect, to be honest, I could have done with the plot moving on a bit.

The mystery itself is, of course, fairly clued and, if you can sift through all the evidence, then it’s all quite solvable.

You can tell there’s a “but…” coming, can’t you?

But… the murderer is pretty obvious – at least three of the suspects have motives that vary from “weak” to “non-existent”. As with Sad Cypress, the reason for Caroline’s silence is dubious. And there’s a massive plot-hole.

This might verge pretty close to a spoiler… apologies, so stop reading if you haven’t read the book.

Still here? Right. Why exactly does Caroline take the poison from Meredith Blake’s cabinet? It’s not to kill Amyas or Elsa, or to commit suicide. I’ve re-read the last section three times and it’s never explained, and I can’t think of a reason that makes sense either. Very annoying.

It has been described by some as one of her best – I can’t agree with that, but it’s worth a look to see her try something different with Poirot. It’s probably her best attempt at the “murder in the past” storyline, certainly the best using Poirot – I prefer Sleeping Murder and need to look at Nemesis again – but the plot-hole really bugs me. If I’ve missed something obvious, do let me know.

So, recommended, but there are a number of better Poirot novels out there. There’s also my Agatha Christie page, with a number of Poirot links on it.

27 comments

  1. I happen to be in the camp that says this is one of her best. From a narrative structure standpoint it is a marvel. They way Christie incorporates so many viewpoints and how she plants the clues especially in the manuscripts submitted to Poirot are truly admirable qualities. As for that logical loophole — the simplest explanation is that people often do inexplicable things in real life. And I think fictional characters should be allowed freer rein to behave illogically and inexplicably.

    Like

    Reply

    • Hmm… you’ve not convinced me about the plot-hole.

      But you’re right, there’s much to admire about this one, it just didn’t quite click with me. If there was more reason to suspect anyone apart from the murderer, it would help. The clue-planting, however, is a work of art.

      Like

      Reply

  2. I am reading through the Agatha Christie books, slowly, and haven’t gotten to this one, so I skimmed some of this. But seems like an interesting discussion of the book, and I look forward to seeing how I like it.

    After having read a lot of Christie in my younger years, the ones I am reading now are like new to me. I have only read three Poirot’s, and he still isn’t my favorite investigator, but the stories have been good regardless.

    Like

    Reply

    • Poirot’s on good form here. Confident in his own abilities, he plays the five suspects well in order to get them to spill the beans.

      Probably in the top half of the Poirot books…

      Like

      Reply

  3. I totally agree. It’s not a bad book but not one of her best. It seems a little derivative and I wonder if there was a true life case that Christie based the story on. Thanks for the review!

    Like

    Reply

  5. I found this to be a very good mystery. In fact, I stayed up to two in the morning last night to finish Five Little Pigs. I was able to figure out the false solution to the mystery (Caroline’s actions after the crime don’t make sense otherwise) but was fooled by the real solution. I thought that the real killer didn’t have a motive for the crime, but I overlooked a clever bit of wordplay which Poirot seizes upon to solve the crime. (I think the same wordplay is in a Miss Marple mystery, but I’m not sure.)

    As for your plot hole, I think the answer is simple. Caroline steals the poison intending to kill herself, but changes her mind. The reason why she changes her mind also gives the killer their motive.

    I’m interested in what you think of Lord Edgeware Dies, but I would recommend checking it out of your library rather than purchasing it. You may think the killer in Three Little Pigs is obvious, but the killer in Lord Edgeware Dies is INCREDIBLY obvious.

    Like

    Reply

    • I’ve read Lord Edgware Dies – one of the first ones I read nearly thirty years ago. Absolutely loved it, but yes, the killer was obvious even then.

      For the record, I’ve read almost all of the Poirot novels – the exceptions are, I think, Blue Train and Big Four – partly because everyone says they’re rubbish. But I’ll get round to them eventually…

      Like

      Reply

  6. I am still confused about the ending of the, “FIve Little Pigs,” by Agatha Christie. If you have not read the book, STOP LOOKING AT THIS COMMENT!! It will spoil the book for you.
    Those of you who have read the book, will you please answer my one question of, “Who actually committed the crime?” To me, it did not state it clearly in the book. So, if you have read the book, please answer this question.

    Like

    Reply

    • I think that it is stated clearly right at the end of Chapter Four – the very last paragraph in fact. I won’t indicate who it was for casual blog readers, but Poirot makes it clear here. And it’s confirmed in Chapter 5…

      Like

      Reply

  7. I’ve just finished this book and was completely baffled by the same plot hole – just spent the last hour trying to find something on the net to help me out and found your comments! So thank you for letting me know I’m not the only one – I don’t feel quite so stupid for feeling like the whole story was ruined. I’ve just started reading Christie in my forties and really enjoying it so far. “And then there were none” is fantastic. Also the audio book of “Orient Express” read by David Suchet is brilliant – how anyone can produce so many different character voices and have multiple conversations like that – deeply impressive stuff.
    BTW ……..SPOILER………Kate – it was ……..……
    ….
    …..
    ……
    [REDACTED] – see my reply to Kate’s post above – Puzzle Doctor

    Like

    Reply

  8. Still haven’t got round to Orient Express, as it’s too gimmicky for me. I much prefer Poirot in his more standard mysteries – Mrs McGinty’s Dead is a particular favourite.

    And I’ve lopped the spoiler off your comment, btw, but Kate should be able to work it out from what I’ve told her

    Like

    Reply

  9. Am just rereading this story and have come across something that is driving me mad. Caroline scarred Angela for life when Angela was a baby. However, bearing in mind Caroline is 19 years older than Angela (she is 34 when her husband is killed, Angela is 15), how old was she when the incident happened ? She must have been at least 19 when she DID WHAT SHE DID (I believe it counts as a plot point) so why is everyone acting like it was just a childish rage and not the actions of an adult psychopath ? Whichever THING SHE DID, it was a savage act and I know that she is supposed to have moved on from that but did she receive any sort of punishment ?
    I know this is quite an old blog post but I was hunting around to see if anyone else was having problems with the plot, and I found your site.

    Like

    Reply

  17. Motives for all five suspects, I would have thought … but all of them with apparently strong motives not to commit the crime. Five quite different perspectives unfolding throughout the book makes for a complex and interesting story, which is really all about the psychology. It all makes sense in the end – consistent with what we knew all along about Amyas, Caroline and the other women in his life.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  20. EDITED BY PUZZLE DOCTOR:

    An attempt to explain a plot hole ahead – MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD – you have been warned

    Caroline stole the poison because he wanted to kill herself – she was ridden by guilt for what he did to her sister and suddenly, Elsa announced to everyone Amyas wanted to leave Caroline and marry her, which Amyas initially did not deny. These two things combined drove Caroline to suicidal thoughts.

    However, Amyas was just appeasing Elsa because he wanted to finish the painting – he had absolutely no intention to marry her and leave Caroline. When he saw situation with Caroline was serious, he convinced her everything was fine. However, Elsa overheard and, having seen Caroline stole the poison (which signaled to her Caroline had wanted to kill herself which, in turn, convinced Elsa even more Amyas had wanted to leave his wife and marry her), she was now sitting there with all her hopes dashed and with ACCESS TO PERFECT MURDER WEAPON. Hence, she took the coniine bottle and poisoned Amyas.

    So there you go – no plot hole at all.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  21. I love these reviews and the opportunity to comment! I’ve recently rekindled my fondness for Christie and read this one just last week. As for the plot hole, I think Caroline *did* steal the poison with suicide as the intention — she didn’t know yet her husband’s true intentions. As for this work overall, I was a bit surprised it’s ranked so highly by various reviewers, as it certainly wasn’t exhilarating like the more typical Poirot novels But I felt it had its own flavor of bittersweet nostalgia. In a way it reminds me of that McEwan novel, Atonement.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.