The Big Four

 

By Agatha Christie (read by Hugh Fraser) published in 1927

An "Agatha Christie Centenary Celebration" Read

 

 

 

Was this the Perils of Pauline or an Agatha Christie novel?

I had thought that  The Death of Roger Ackroyd was a turning point in her writing. Apparently, I was wrong.  Sadly, with The Big Four, she has gone back to the melodramatic ways of her first few books. The book reads like a series of short stories one would see published in a magazine, making this one of the worst we have read so far. Yes, an author is entitled to a few lemons but to have it so close on the heels of Roger Ackroyd is disappointing.

As I made my way through the book, twice, there was a constant refrain in my head: B-movie, Perils of Pauline, B-movie, Perils of Pauline. I don't object to the world domination conspiracy theory theme that drives the story. I can live with the combination of detective story and spy thriller. I do, however,  object to how poorly it is written -- clownish, clumsy, choppy, trite, entirely lacking in the subtlety of Roger Ackroyd. Hundreds of these stories are written every year. Ian Fleming,  John LeCarre, et al. built careers on such world domination tales. What did they have that AC lacked?  I can't tell you what it is, I just know it isn't there.

I can hear my lit professors. You must give examples, you must give examples. To which I reply, I am done wasting my time on this book. I'm not being graded on this, so let someone else give examples. I'm moving on.

DCD score: 4/10 (rules broken)  Van Dine score: 6/20 (rules broken)

I'll explain this scoring in a separate post, eventually.