Dumb Witness

I really enjoyed this one! I found the characters more interesting, the overall story more intriguing (starting with the client already being dead), and enjoyed Poirot more than I have in his other books. I really liked him lying, always going somewhere new to talk to someone else, and especially enjoyed his relationship with Hastings, who I loved as the narrator, as I found Poirot more fun with an established friend to play off of.
This isn't the smartest Christie mystery for a few reasons, but I was entertained the entire time and got through it quickly. I enjoyed the cute dog stuff, I didn't guess where things were going, and I was satisfied with the endings for all the characters, including the detectives.
I look forward to reading show more more books featuring Hastings! show less

It must be challenging to think up so many titles for so many novels. That's the only explanation I can think of for the choice of title for this one as it only barely relates to the story at all. I like the dog, but Hastings kind of gets on my nerves in this one. Poirot seems a little snippy this time, so maybe Hastings is annoying him, too. The whole novel feels a little haphazard, like Christie was feeling weary also. Or I might be projecting.

In this Poirot novel, Christie laid emphasis on the transition occurring in 1930's England.. A strong-willed, elderly Victorian, Emily Arundel, is suspicious of what her relatives may be up to. She’s all too aware that they want her money. That said, she is of the opinion that such suspicions should remain within the confines of the closed family circle. Even if the younger generation are foolish and prone to scandalous behavior, that need not be the talk of the village. Emily reaches out to Poirot quietly, but dies before he receives the correspondence that invites him to investigate. Technically, he has no client, but Poirot distrusts the situation and surreptitiously seeks to learn more about the situation in Market Basing. show more Christie makes clear that much of the Victorian mindset (whether good or bad) is passing away, The murder is not what's important here; what is important is the transition that the dying, the passing, represents.

The role of Bob, Miss Arundel’s fox terrier, is to ensure that only the right people gain admittance to the closed social family circle.

While reading, note the descriptions of Littlegreen House and the layout of its rooms. Christie rarely gave this much physical detail about a particular setting and that she does so here is indicative of her theme. The way in which a Victorian household viewed the functions of space was giving way to new attitudes about what was convenient, necessary, and affordable.

Published under the title of [Dumb Witness] in the UK and under the title of [Poirot Loses A Client] in the US. show less

Poirot receives a two-month-old letter in the post. In her correspondence Emily Arundell tells Poirot of her uneasiness because she suspects that her recent fall down the stairs was not an accident at all but a deliberate attempt by someone in her family to kill her. Intrigued, Poirot and Hastings make their way to Market Basing, only to discover that Miss Arundell has been dead for nearly two months. Poirot smells a rat and begins to investigate.

A highly enjoyable and cleverly plotted whodunnit that manages to keep the perpetrator's identity concealed almost until the very end, and the ending, despite Poirot's legendary unveiling of the killer in the company of everyone assembled, is quite unusual. Agatha Christie never lets us forget show more that we're dealing with humans and their complicated emotions and to that end uses Poirot as the mouthpiece for those who can no longer speak for themselves to arrive at the truth. The only thing that grated a little was Hastings putting words into the mouth of Bob the dog, but luckily those instances are rare. show less

A rich elderly woman suspects someone in her family is trying to kill her to get their inheritance a bit early. She writes to Hercule Poirot but due to the letter being mislaid it isn't delivered until a couple of months later — when Miss Emily Arundell has already died and left her considerable fortune to someone outside of the family. Though investigating a possible attempted murder seems moot to that doofus Hastings, given that the target has died of apparently natural causes in the meantime, Poirot persists. He learns that all of the family members (nieces, nephew and assorted spouses) are desperate for money, giving them all a capital (no pun intended) motive. But did any of them actually initiate a fatal action?

The "dumb show more witness" of the title is Bob, Miss Emily's intrepid wire terrier. He doesn't exactly solve the mystery but his actions and inactions are key to unraveling the case. I don't know much about Christie's personal life but I'm going to wager she was a dog lover, judging by the affectionate way she portrays Bob, even going so far as to give him actual dialogue. It's utterly charming and I'm glad Poirot was able to clear him of any wrongdoing in the case.

The more Poirot books I read the more I dislike the Hastings character. I realize he's there to provide a handy vehicle for Poirot to explain the clues and solution to the reader, but good grief no one can be that stupid and still be able to tie his shoes. Unlike Watson, who has his own charm separate from Sherlock Holmes, this sidekick has no redeeming characteristics that I can discern. I far prefer the Poirot cases where he is absent in Argentina or wherever, but even he can't keep this one from being a winner. show less

One of the focal points of this novel is the unreliable narrator. The assumption is that if the dog, Bob, could tell his story, he would be able to narrate what actually happened. But in fact Bob does not see all.

The principal narration is through the eyes of Captain Hastings, and the reader has come to expect that he often gets things wrong. But there are other points of view expressed including Poirot's. Under Hastings' influence we either dismiss or accept these other points of view, but which is the right one?

This is also a classic Poirot. Various red herrings are laid, and various scenarios and alibis tested, accepted or rejected. And then of course there is the final denouement. But Poirot has already meted out his own peculiar show more form of justice.

I thought there were at least a couple of unsatisfactory plot elements: I couldn't imagine anyone hammering a tack into wood in the middle of the night and expecting to go undetected, and I thought the murderer changed character too much. Unexpectedly Poirot becomes the owner of Bob the dog.

I originally reviewed this novel in 2011 and gave it the same rating. I have re-read it to participate in this month's Crime Fiction of the Year Challenge for 1937 at Past Offences. show less

If you are anything like me, you know that while the term 'cozy mystery' is pretty accurate and conjures up images of quilts and warm firesides and tea kettles and so on, they should really consider using the term 'comfort mystery' instead. This week I have had the second half of 50 skin - well, let's call them decorations - removed from my neck and chest area, AND have had a colonoscopy, and in the waiting rooms prior to both these procedures I felt no fear, because I had my Kindle. And a very pleasant comfort mystery. I did not feel cozy in the least but I certainly felt comforted.

In short, Agatha (via Poirot in this case, and a slightly less dense than usual Hastings) does it again.