Status
Available
Call number
Series
Genres
Collection
Publication
HarperCollins (2007), Edition: Facsimile edition (Reissue), Hardcover, 320 pages
Description
An elderly spinster has been poisoned in her country home... Everyone blamed Emily's accident on a rubber ball left on the stairs by her frisky terrier. But the more she thought about her fall, the more convinced she became that one of her relatives was trying to kill her. On April 17th she wrote her suspicions in a letter to Hercule Poirot. Mysteriously he didn't receive the letter until June 28th... by which time Emily was already dead...
User reviews
LibraryThing member cbl_tn
Dumb Witness is vintage Christie. The deceased is an elderly woman whose family is attentive to her not from affection but because of the wealth she controls. Her nieces and nephew all have financial needs that would be greatly eased by their hoped-for inheritance. Her paid companion is overworked
I had read the book before, and this time I listened to the audio version read by Hugh Fraser, who plays Hastings on the British television series. I liked the book when I first read it, and liked it even more hearing Fraser's interpretation. Hastings is the book's first-person narrator, so it seemed right to hear Fraser's voice speaking the words. His pace is perfect, as are the character voices. Especially the dog, Bob, who plays an important role in the book. If you're a mystery fan who loves dogs, this is one to listen to rather than read.
Show More
and under-appreciated, and might welcome the release from drudgery that would occur with her employer's death. The unusual twist in this case is that Hercule Poirot receives a letter from the woman requesting his services, but the letter arrives several weeks after her apparently natural death. Did one of her relatives or household staff do something to hurry her much-anticipated death? Poirot is on the case.I had read the book before, and this time I listened to the audio version read by Hugh Fraser, who plays Hastings on the British television series. I liked the book when I first read it, and liked it even more hearing Fraser's interpretation. Hastings is the book's first-person narrator, so it seemed right to hear Fraser's voice speaking the words. His pace is perfect, as are the character voices. Especially the dog, Bob, who plays an important role in the book. If you're a mystery fan who loves dogs, this is one to listen to rather than read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AlanWPowers
Fortunately saw the T.V. version the night before I picked this up randomly, delighted to have seen Bob the dog, wire-haired Terrier, and his trick rolling the ball down the stairs, running down and catching it himself. Not in the book, where he pushes the ball downstairs, and Charles catches it,
Serious personality differences such as the Greek Dr. Tanios, who is fat, jolly and amusing in the novel, and yes, despised as a foreigner (from Smyrna) in both. In the film, he's another handsome actor, a loss in variety. At dinner, Dr. Tanios amuses; not in the film, where it's hard to see his charm.
Poirot finally arrives in Chapter V, at breakfast, reading letters and sorting into four piles; he re-reads the one, cross-written, from Emily Arundell, months earlier. Hercule drinks chocolate eveyr morning at breakfast. Hastings' car is a second-hand Austin.
The T.V. film made several improvements in addition to the dog's great trick: Poirot meets Emily Arundell, and even advises her to make a new will, whereas in her novel Poirot only arrives after she dies. Also, the inheritrix Lawson lives in Bayswaater, in a flat crowded with too much furniture, while the spendthrift niece Theresa lives in Chelsea, on the river, in a house almost without furniture, probably sold as she works through her 30K pound inheritance. Her fiance Dr Donaldson is "a stick" who also needs money, not personally, but for lab research. Bella and Dr. Tarios live at the Durham Hotel, Bloomsbury, a part of London I know well from stayig at B&B's nearby, and of course the British Museum, as well as the literary Bloomsbury Group.
Theresa's brother Charles has no fancy motorboat (a fine film addition) but whiles away money on gambling--visually so much less interesting (107).
The novel has a great scene on Dr. Grainger's "bullying" Miss Emily into taking her medicine because "You show me anyone who's lived to over seventy [in the late 1930's] and you show me a fighter, someone who's got the will to live"(54).
Charles confesses that Atty Purvis tried to dissuade Aunt Emily from her 2nd will. And after Charles tells the narrator Hastings that Aunt Emily showed him the new will, Poirot exits, and slams the door as if he's left, but goes back to hear at a crack in the door, Theresa shout "You Fool!" to her brother (111, end of Ch.XIV). Poirot then exits quickly, shutting the door silently. Evidently a detective's skill, how to shut the door quietly or... with a bang.
Show More
throws it back up. Also, Bob's not on a "lead" in the book; he heels, though Poirot in the film has him leashed. Nor does Poirot himself advise Emily Arundell on making a new will; in fact, Poirot only arrives after Miss Arundell has died. Nor does Charles have a grand, fast boat in the novel, though he does still need money.Serious personality differences such as the Greek Dr. Tanios, who is fat, jolly and amusing in the novel, and yes, despised as a foreigner (from Smyrna) in both. In the film, he's another handsome actor, a loss in variety. At dinner, Dr. Tanios amuses; not in the film, where it's hard to see his charm.
Poirot finally arrives in Chapter V, at breakfast, reading letters and sorting into four piles; he re-reads the one, cross-written, from Emily Arundell, months earlier. Hercule drinks chocolate eveyr morning at breakfast. Hastings' car is a second-hand Austin.
The T.V. film made several improvements in addition to the dog's great trick: Poirot meets Emily Arundell, and even advises her to make a new will, whereas in her novel Poirot only arrives after she dies. Also, the inheritrix Lawson lives in Bayswaater, in a flat crowded with too much furniture, while the spendthrift niece Theresa lives in Chelsea, on the river, in a house almost without furniture, probably sold as she works through her 30K pound inheritance. Her fiance Dr Donaldson is "a stick" who also needs money, not personally, but for lab research. Bella and Dr. Tarios live at the Durham Hotel, Bloomsbury, a part of London I know well from stayig at B&B's nearby, and of course the British Museum, as well as the literary Bloomsbury Group.
Theresa's brother Charles has no fancy motorboat (a fine film addition) but whiles away money on gambling--visually so much less interesting (107).
The novel has a great scene on Dr. Grainger's "bullying" Miss Emily into taking her medicine because "You show me anyone who's lived to over seventy [in the late 1930's] and you show me a fighter, someone who's got the will to live"(54).
Charles confesses that Atty Purvis tried to dissuade Aunt Emily from her 2nd will. And after Charles tells the narrator Hastings that Aunt Emily showed him the new will, Poirot exits, and slams the door as if he's left, but goes back to hear at a crack in the door, Theresa shout "You Fool!" to her brother (111, end of Ch.XIV). Poirot then exits quickly, shutting the door silently. Evidently a detective's skill, how to shut the door quietly or... with a bang.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lecari
In this Poirot mystery, Poirot receives a vague letter from a woman that is dated to several months ago. This grabs his attention, so he goes to visit her and find out why she wanted her help – only to find that she died shortly after it was written. Although Captain Hastings is adamant that he
Again, full of the great sense of mystery and exciting twists at the end. I had no idea who the murderer was until the last chapter; Ms Christie manages to disguise it and keep you interested the whole way through. It was also full of the typical light humour, such as jokes about his moustache and the lies he tells people to get information. These books are a pleasure to read, I love hearing about Poirot’s way with people and his amazing way of reading the ‘psychology of the individual’ to assess the best way to get them to open up and to tell who committed the murder.
This was a good, fun, short read (although slightly longer than the last few, at 400+ pages). It took me only a few hours to finish. Not really anything too taxing, but definitely enjoyable and I’d recommend these to anyone. Reading these past few Poirots I can definitely see why Agatha Christie is so revered as the queen of mystery novels!
Show More
should let it rest since she’s dead, Poirot insists he cannot, and investigates further.Again, full of the great sense of mystery and exciting twists at the end. I had no idea who the murderer was until the last chapter; Ms Christie manages to disguise it and keep you interested the whole way through. It was also full of the typical light humour, such as jokes about his moustache and the lies he tells people to get information. These books are a pleasure to read, I love hearing about Poirot’s way with people and his amazing way of reading the ‘psychology of the individual’ to assess the best way to get them to open up and to tell who committed the murder.
This was a good, fun, short read (although slightly longer than the last few, at 400+ pages). It took me only a few hours to finish. Not really anything too taxing, but definitely enjoyable and I’d recommend these to anyone. Reading these past few Poirots I can definitely see why Agatha Christie is so revered as the queen of mystery novels!
Show Less
LibraryThing member markatread
Agatha Christie began writing the Hercule Poirot mysteries in 1920. Captain Hastings narrated many of the short stories Agatha Christie wrote about Poirot and by 1937, when Dumb Witness was published, Agatha Christie had also written 15 novels in which Poirot appeared. In 7 of the novels Captain
Hercule Poirot is not an easy man to be friends with and even Captain Hastings becomes irritated with him from time to time. But when all is said and done, Captain Hastings is the only friend that Poirot ever had and as such, Dumb Witness holds a somewhat sentimental place for those that have read a lot of the Poirot mysteries. Many of the things that made all the Poirot/Hastings books special are in this one – Poirot makes fun of Hastings for not seeing what Poirot sees; Hastings becoming frustrated with Poirot for not playing fair when he eavesdrops on suspects or tells lies to get them to give him information, etc. But the thing that Dumb Witness has - as all the previous books have had that Poirot and Hastings appear in together- is that throughout the book it is clear that both men like each other and are truly friends.
In the same year that Dumb Witness was published, so was Death on the Nile. Captain Hastings does not appear in that book and the difference is obvious. In Dumb Witness, the reader only sees the story through Captain Hastings eyes. But in Death on the Nile, Agatha Christie has multiple angles that she can tell the story from – not just from Captain Hastings view point. Christie’s ability to add different layers to the story increases and Death on the Nile is a more textured, less claustrophobic story.
The mystery in Dumb Witness is a good one and is well told. The interactions between Poirot and Hastings are very good and the plot line and Poirot’s unraveling of the stories that each of the suspects tells is also very believable. The story does bog down with so much talking at times and all of the human characters are somewhat hard to like. The best of the human characters that Christie has in the story, the woman that is killed, is dead before Poirot even gets to the scene of the crime so she is not available to keep all the other characters interesting. The most interesting character in the book is the dumb witness –Bob the “frisky terrier” - that was the murdered woman’s dog. He and Captain Hastings quickly become friends and Hastings can hear what Bob is saying. These encounters are funny and add to the book.
Agatha Christie was a dog lover and even dedicated this book to her own dog, Peter. It is only fitting that as Ms. Christie says goodbye to Captain Hastings for what would be 38 years that at the end of Dumb Witness she would have Poirot give Hastings the dog Bob to be his new friend.
By letting Hastings go, Agatha Christie gained the ability to tell her stories the way she felt suited her best. But even as Agatha became tired of Poirot in later years (even was quoted as saying he was a “….tiresome, ego-centric little creep”) Captain Hastings never stopped supporting his friend and being someone Poirot could depend on. When it came time to solve his final case, Poirot called for his friend to come and help him and Arthur Hastings came and helped his friend Poirot - as he always had.
Show More
Hastings is once again the narrator and friend that accompanies Poirot on his cases. But then after Dumb Witness, for the next 38 years and more than 20 books that Christie wrote about Poirot, Captain Hastings does not appear again until the final book, Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case (1975).Hercule Poirot is not an easy man to be friends with and even Captain Hastings becomes irritated with him from time to time. But when all is said and done, Captain Hastings is the only friend that Poirot ever had and as such, Dumb Witness holds a somewhat sentimental place for those that have read a lot of the Poirot mysteries. Many of the things that made all the Poirot/Hastings books special are in this one – Poirot makes fun of Hastings for not seeing what Poirot sees; Hastings becoming frustrated with Poirot for not playing fair when he eavesdrops on suspects or tells lies to get them to give him information, etc. But the thing that Dumb Witness has - as all the previous books have had that Poirot and Hastings appear in together- is that throughout the book it is clear that both men like each other and are truly friends.
In the same year that Dumb Witness was published, so was Death on the Nile. Captain Hastings does not appear in that book and the difference is obvious. In Dumb Witness, the reader only sees the story through Captain Hastings eyes. But in Death on the Nile, Agatha Christie has multiple angles that she can tell the story from – not just from Captain Hastings view point. Christie’s ability to add different layers to the story increases and Death on the Nile is a more textured, less claustrophobic story.
The mystery in Dumb Witness is a good one and is well told. The interactions between Poirot and Hastings are very good and the plot line and Poirot’s unraveling of the stories that each of the suspects tells is also very believable. The story does bog down with so much talking at times and all of the human characters are somewhat hard to like. The best of the human characters that Christie has in the story, the woman that is killed, is dead before Poirot even gets to the scene of the crime so she is not available to keep all the other characters interesting. The most interesting character in the book is the dumb witness –Bob the “frisky terrier” - that was the murdered woman’s dog. He and Captain Hastings quickly become friends and Hastings can hear what Bob is saying. These encounters are funny and add to the book.
Agatha Christie was a dog lover and even dedicated this book to her own dog, Peter. It is only fitting that as Ms. Christie says goodbye to Captain Hastings for what would be 38 years that at the end of Dumb Witness she would have Poirot give Hastings the dog Bob to be his new friend.
By letting Hastings go, Agatha Christie gained the ability to tell her stories the way she felt suited her best. But even as Agatha became tired of Poirot in later years (even was quoted as saying he was a “….tiresome, ego-centric little creep”) Captain Hastings never stopped supporting his friend and being someone Poirot could depend on. When it came time to solve his final case, Poirot called for his friend to come and help him and Arthur Hastings came and helped his friend Poirot - as he always had.
Show Less
LibraryThing member rosalita
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
The "dumb 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 More
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 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
LibraryThing member xicanti
Hercule Poirot answers a letter from a potential client, only to discover that the woman died two months ago.
I know I'm in the minority here, but this is one of my favourite Christies. I found it absolutely delightful. The mystery itself is unconventional; Poirot must determine whether or not a
I must confess, though, that I wouldn't have liked this book nearly so much had it not been for Bob, the deceased's terrier. Dame Agatha was very much a dog person, and it really shows here. Her portrayal of Bob is spot on; I especially liked the dialogue Hastings attributed to him. I'm sure other dog lovers will find just as entertaining as I did.
I know I'm in the minority here, but this is one of my favourite Christies. I found it absolutely delightful. The mystery itself is unconventional; Poirot must determine whether or not a
Show More
seemingly natural death was, in fact, a murder. The cast is large and diverse; absolutely everyone is interesting. The ending is sensible, yet I didn't see it coming. I got a big kick out of it.I must confess, though, that I wouldn't have liked this book nearly so much had it not been for Bob, the deceased's terrier. Dame Agatha was very much a dog person, and it really shows here. Her portrayal of Bob is spot on; I especially liked the dialogue Hastings attributed to him. I'm sure other dog lovers will find just as entertaining as I did.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Jiraiya
A disappointing book with the murderer being identified very early on. I chose a different person as my murderer, and stayed with it. The book, apart from what it tries to be, is a puzzlement in itself. There is no danger of being sidetracked. There are no meandering threads chock a block with
For once Hastings didn't have an adverse effect on the flow of the telling. Usually Hastings shines in his stupidity. But here, not so. What's more, his Belgian mentor too is not his usual self. There are many accounts of the suspects and never have suspects spoken so truthfully in a mystery book. If they hide something...hey presto! Poirot duly eavesdrop on the naughty ninnies.
Hercule Poirot is not as fun as Jane Marple. I pictured Miss Arundell like I pictured Miss Marple. Poirot is too noticeable. Marple's rich personality adorns her books with a flourish of confidentiality. I could imagine Marple young. Barely. But Poirot, not so much. Even here, with fewer foibles, he appears fake. And less fun. That is important.
Show More
false clues.For once Hastings didn't have an adverse effect on the flow of the telling. Usually Hastings shines in his stupidity. But here, not so. What's more, his Belgian mentor too is not his usual self. There are many accounts of the suspects and never have suspects spoken so truthfully in a mystery book. If they hide something...hey presto! Poirot duly eavesdrop on the naughty ninnies.
Hercule Poirot is not as fun as Jane Marple. I pictured Miss Arundell like I pictured Miss Marple. Poirot is too noticeable. Marple's rich personality adorns her books with a flourish of confidentiality. I could imagine Marple young. Barely. But Poirot, not so much. Even here, with fewer foibles, he appears fake. And less fun. That is important.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jrsearcher
I liked this book. As long as you are willing to ignore Hastings (idiot), it's a good little mystery.
LibraryThing member bearette24
Kept me guessing to the very end!
LibraryThing member RubyScarlett
Really enjoyable but transcribing a dog's thoughts was incredibly far-fetched and I had trouble suspending disbelief.
LibraryThing member smik
Hercule Poirot is placed in a difficult position because by the time he takes up Emily Arundell's commission she is already dead. He really could have just walked away. In fact, that is what Hastings thinks he should have done. But Poirot can smell murder, even though Emily's doctor is convinced
If only Bob the dog could talk.. would he have been able to come up with the same final plot resolution as Hercule Poirot? That is the implication of the title, but I somehow don't think he would have. In the last few pages of the novel Poirot takes us painstakingly through the facts he assembled and the boxes he ticked, and we realise just how complex the plot really is.
~~~~~~~~~
Apparently the concept of DUMB WITNESS was originally fleshed out in a short story The Mystery of the Dog’s Ball that remained unpublished until it was finally published in Agatha Christie’s Secret Notebooks: Fifty Years of Mysteries in the Making,
Show More
she died a perfectly natural death of liver failure. Emily had recently changed her will, cutting out her immediate family who were all desperate for her money, and who originally were to have received considerable inheritances. And was this just a temporary measure to scare someone off? Had she really intended to revert to her original will, but died before she could?If only Bob the dog could talk.. would he have been able to come up with the same final plot resolution as Hercule Poirot? That is the implication of the title, but I somehow don't think he would have. In the last few pages of the novel Poirot takes us painstakingly through the facts he assembled and the boxes he ticked, and we realise just how complex the plot really is.
~~~~~~~~~
Apparently the concept of DUMB WITNESS was originally fleshed out in a short story The Mystery of the Dog’s Ball that remained unpublished until it was finally published in Agatha Christie’s Secret Notebooks: Fifty Years of Mysteries in the Making,
Show Less
LibraryThing member kathleen586
I was surprised by the amount of inconsistencies in the characters' names. Emily Arundell's father is referred to as Charles the first time (he is called John thereafter). Bella's maiden name is first Winter, then Biggs the other several times it is mentioned, and her son's name is Edward a few
Show More
times, and then John the next few times. Show Less
LibraryThing member psychedelicmicrobus
Poirot doesn't miss a thing in this mystery story. I like the extra element of the dog being a major character- it's quite charming.
LibraryThing member lycomayflower
Husbeast and I listened to this audiobook on a long drive this past weekend. Was familiar with the story from the Suchet TV show (though that TV adaptation of this one did some very odd things to characterization and some smaller plot points), but hearing how Christie actually put the story
Show More
together was entertaining anyway. There's some really funny social commentary (send-ups of various English village types, mostly) and the characterization of a dog who is important to the plot is a delight, perhaps mostly because of Hugh Fraser's reading--which was wonderful all around. Show Less
LibraryThing member riverwillow
This is one of the first stories Christie wrote where Poirot solves a murder in restrospect. In this case he receives a letter some two months after Emily Arundell has died, of natural causes. But Poirot is unsatisfied, eventually proving that she was murdered. Wonderful.
LibraryThing member BookAngel_a
I am a Poirot fan, so I enjoyed this mystery as I expected. The little dog in the story is precious and adds a new element to the plot. I don't remember an animal being featured this way in another Christie book. While I was reading, I kept thinking that the plot reminded me of another Christie
Show More
book but couldn't remember which one. I thought I had guessed the killer but I was wrong. Which makes me like it more! Show Less
LibraryThing member katzenfrau
Last night I finished reading Poirot Loses a Client, and was disappointed. There was one fine point that AC didn't explain her POV on, and it "tripped" me up, heh heh. Namely, would a string strong enough to trip someone actually *break* as they tripped, or not. AC was assuming it would, I was
But you see, I thought the string wouldn't break, and that the would-be murderer would have to be the first person to arrive on the stairs, and snip the string with a pair of cuticle scissors or something. Which left only one possibility. Except that that possibility didn't have a motive at the time--unless there was an Ordeal by Innocence situation, which was clearly indicated by the psychology.
Anyway. I was wrong.
Show More
assuming it wouldn't, and that makes all the difference between AC's solution (which was lame) and mine, which was a carbon copy of Ordeal by Innocence and which faithfully followed the rule that "the person to whom the money goes..."But you see, I thought the string wouldn't break, and that the would-be murderer would have to be the first person to arrive on the stairs, and snip the string with a pair of cuticle scissors or something. Which left only one possibility. Except that that possibility didn't have a motive at the time--unless there was an Ordeal by Innocence situation, which was clearly indicated by the psychology.
Anyway. I was wrong.
Show Less
LibraryThing member passion4reading
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
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 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 More
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 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
LibraryThing member smik
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
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 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.
The principal narration is through the eyes of Captain Hastings, and the reader has
Show More
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 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
LibraryThing member bbbart
Very entertaining entry in the Poirot series. Just when you think you have gone through all possible Poirot story lines, Agatha Christie always manages to squeenze in an original one.
In `dumb witness', Poirot investigates a seemingly perfectly natural death of an old lady leaving her extraordinary
Very intriguing plot and again a very nice insight in the upper class society of the interbellum Great Britain.
In `dumb witness', Poirot investigates a seemingly perfectly natural death of an old lady leaving her extraordinary
Show More
wealth to her companion, as such disinheriting her family.Very intriguing plot and again a very nice insight in the upper class society of the interbellum Great Britain.
Show Less
LibraryThing member g33kgrrl
The main delight in this audiobook is listening to Hugh Fraser's interpretation of the dog's thoughts, which is fantastic. On the other hand, I dislike Dame Agatha having a murderer - spoiler - pretend to be an abused woman since she has a really unfortunate habit of being gross regarding domestic
Show More
violence in other books. Show Less
LibraryThing member richardderus
It's all a bit silly, really; the entire plot hangs on the fact that a rather too easily manipulated old spinster (what a creepy word that is in today's world!) would not come right out and say.what.she.meant. Her leeching relatives need her money and she is so very inconsiderate as to decline to
She gets the help. Poirot, to whom she had appealed for protection but who didn't receive her plea until too late, arrives at her former home pretending to consider buying it. He solves the crime, of course, but the fact is nothing much happens as a result except the direct killer commits suicide. (Others had the idea of helping the tenaciously alive old dear to assume room temperature, but for a variety of reasons that frankly made my eyes roll so hard I saw my brain, didn't.)
Honestly, I think this is why the story is narrated by Hastings. It is just too slight a structure to bear the direct involvement of Poirot. Best filtered through the deactivated charcoal of Hastings' brain. I gave the story as high a rating as I did because I love Bob the dog and his manic energy. The greedy relatives are bog-standard, uninteresting selfishness machines. (This has direct relevance to my own life the past few days.)
But all in all, it was a good idea to read it right now, and Overdrive saved me having to buy it. I'd tell anyone who's already a Poirotian to read it without concern for being disappointed.
Show More
die. Without help, that is.She gets the help. Poirot, to whom she had appealed for protection but who didn't receive her plea until too late, arrives at her former home pretending to consider buying it. He solves the crime, of course, but the fact is nothing much happens as a result except the direct killer commits suicide. (Others had the idea of helping the tenaciously alive old dear to assume room temperature, but for a variety of reasons that frankly made my eyes roll so hard I saw my brain, didn't.)
Honestly, I think this is why the story is narrated by Hastings. It is just too slight a structure to bear the direct involvement of Poirot. Best filtered through the deactivated charcoal of Hastings' brain. I gave the story as high a rating as I did because I love Bob the dog and his manic energy. The greedy relatives are bog-standard, uninteresting selfishness machines. (This has direct relevance to my own life the past few days.)
But all in all, it was a good idea to read it right now, and Overdrive saved me having to buy it. I'd tell anyone who's already a Poirotian to read it without concern for being disappointed.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DeltaQueen50
Dumb Witness by Agatha Christie is a 1937 mystery story that features Hercule Poirot and is narrated by his friend Captain Hastings. The story opens by introducing Emily Arundell, a wealthy elderly spinster, and her family, a motley collection of greedy relatives. When Emily takes a fall upon the
Unfortunately by the time Poirot receives the letter Emily has died presumably of natural causes. After reading the letter Poirot isn’t convinced that her death was natural so, with Hastings at his side, he sets out to investigate.
Dumb Witness definitely showcases the intelligence of Hercule Poirot, but I felt that his manner of solving the crime was a little extreme. However, the book has all the ingredients that we have come to expect from an Agatha Christie novel, plenty of red herrings, unreliable witnesses, interesting dialogue and a clever murderer who probably would have gotten away with it, if only Hercule Poirot wasn’t involved. I also enjoyed meeting Bob, the wire haired-terrier, the title’s Dumb Witness.
Show More
stairs, it is blamed upon her dog leaving his ball at the top of the staircase, but Emily is greatly afraid that it wasn’t a ball that she tripped over. She writes to Hercule Poirot, wanting his help and very importantly, his discretion.Unfortunately by the time Poirot receives the letter Emily has died presumably of natural causes. After reading the letter Poirot isn’t convinced that her death was natural so, with Hastings at his side, he sets out to investigate.
Dumb Witness definitely showcases the intelligence of Hercule Poirot, but I felt that his manner of solving the crime was a little extreme. However, the book has all the ingredients that we have come to expect from an Agatha Christie novel, plenty of red herrings, unreliable witnesses, interesting dialogue and a clever murderer who probably would have gotten away with it, if only Hercule Poirot wasn’t involved. I also enjoyed meeting Bob, the wire haired-terrier, the title’s Dumb Witness.
Show Less
LibraryThing member forsanolim
If only Emily Arundell would die, then her three nieces and nephews would finally be able to inherit her sizable wealth. She nearly does die, in fact, when she slips on her dog's ball in the middle of the night and is sent flying down the stairs. Luckily she doesn't die, after all, but she becomes
Another fun mystery (this is definitely my year of Agatha Christie). I don't think this was my absolute favorite, though I haven't yet read many other Poirot books that I can compare it to.
Show More
suspicious both that she didn't actually trip on a ball and that her fall was no accident. She drafts a letter to Hercule Poirot before dying a couple months later. Only after her death does the letter end up in Poirot's hands, at which point he begins to investigate on behalf of his deceased client.Another fun mystery (this is definitely my year of Agatha Christie). I don't think this was my absolute favorite, though I haven't yet read many other Poirot books that I can compare it to.
Show Less
LibraryThing member delphimo
An old maid dies, but her will just recently was changed. What did Emily Arundell discover before her death that made her change her mind concerning her heirs? What a delicious story of a limited number of suspects like the previous story of Cards on the Table. This story presents a better story
Show More
and with more understanding. Agatha Christie utilizes many quaint phrases such as “nigger in the woodpile” that would be very incorrect today. Poirot must wade through many piles of mud to uncover the most important source of greed. The killer attempts murder by leaving a thread for Miss Emily to catch her foot and fall down the stairs. This attempt fails. So, a second attempt does work, but the doctor states that Miss Emily died from pre-existing conditions and foul play is neglected. Enter Hercule Poirot and all his little tricks and of course, his little grey cells. So utterly delightful. Just wish I could talk with Agatha and find out the significance of the names of her characters. Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1937-07-05
Physical description
320 p.
ISBN
0007234465 / 9780007234462
Local notes
Emily Arundell, a woman of a considerable fortune, is surrounded by grasping young relatives. She is injured by falling down a staircase, and everyone believes that she tripped over a ball left by her pet fox terrier, Bob. Emily later dies, and her estate is unexpectedly left to her companion, Miss Lawson. A letter written before her death to Hercule Poirot is too late to save her life, but it puts Poirot on the trail of a murderer.
Also published as Poirot Loses a Client.
From the HarperCollins Crime Agatha Christie Facsimile Series, famously featuring Agatha Christie's own dog on the cover. (1937, Poirot.)
Also published as Poirot Loses a Client.
From the HarperCollins Crime Agatha Christie Facsimile Series, famously featuring Agatha Christie's own dog on the cover. (1937, Poirot.)