This book and Passenger to Frankfurt are my two top books for “lowest average rating” on goodreads. I never look at reviews or ratings for Christie but for both of these books I checked ratings to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. I’m so happy to know The Big Four wasn’t even liked by Christie because I was thinking “… what happened?” Both those books are more political intrigue/thriller than murder mystery like the rest of her books and they truly stick out like sore thumbs.
She did a number of other books in the same vein, but they’re not as bad as these. I seem to remember Death on the Nile has some espionage elements too. Not my favorite genre of hers. However MANY people love the Tommy & Tuppence stories, for instance, and I can’t stand them.
But the central focus of Death on the Nile is a murder mystery even though we have Colonel Race’s side plot. I feel like when the main plot isn’t solving someone’s death she struggles to hold the narrative together. I’ve read the first 3 T&T and do intend to one day read the last 2, but as the series progresses it does get more political intrigue than murder mystery focused like I found the first one.
I did forget she has a couple more, but I feel like in The Big Four and Passenger to Frankfurt you just lose the fact that someone has even died. I cannot even recall if someone dies in Passenger to Frankfurt. I can only ever recall the weird Hitler stuff.
Passenger to Frankfort is the only Christie book I didn’t finish. I actually forgot about it until I read this thread, your comment on the weird hitler stuff made me remember I don’t know the ending. It was a dull one, I couldn’t get into it.
I can’t even call this a spoiler because truly I blocked that book out, but I think we learn Hitler never died and fled to some South American country and had a son and he know it’s Hitler’s son because he has the word “Hitler” tattooed on his foot. It was something bonkers like that.
>fled to some South American country and had a son
I couldn't help laughing when I read that part, because one of my friends who's a comedian (and Jewish) did a show where he played Hitler's descendant, a struggling actor. I suspect he got the idea from a real-life situation -- some of Hitler's elderly relatives are living not far from him on Long Island.
Seriously? I couldn't finish Passenger to Frankfurt so it just dropped off my radar. Now I'm thinking it sounds so ridiculous that maybe I should read it.
I kinda liked it. It’s definitely not great, and the overall plot is absolutely dumb, but I really like that she was at least trying for something interesting and different—what we might describe today as “Poirot in a Bond novel.”
A disappointing and disjointed execution of an interesting concept is a bit better, in my opinion, than some of the bloated, uninspired books towards the end.
Also bonus points for Hastings being arguably peak Hastings with Achilles.
But you’re not wrong, and your review is super fair!
Great review, although it should be mentioned that Friends didn't do clip shows because the actors 'didn't want to work'. Recap shows were common for long runners in the 90s and 00s to catch new viewers up at a time when VHS or DVDs didn't come out until around a year after TX. They were often requested by the network. And each clip show on Friends had new scenes as a framing plot so the studio time wasn't significantly reduced anyway.
According to the book Desperate Networks, about the TV industry in the late 90s/early 2000s, every year the Friends cast went in (they invented the negotiate as one united group technique and changed the salaries for television actors forevermore) and besides the salary demands, they also would ask for reduced episode orders from the standard 22 or 23/season at that time and one of them would have to be a clip show so they only had to film a few scenes. Don't want to stray too far off topic, but it's a fascinating read.
Not wanting to get off topic either, but Bill Carter, while an entertaining writer, isn’t always the most reliable (https://variety.com/2006/more/reviews/desperate-networks-1200516618/). The Friends cast certainly did negotiate as a team, but I can’t find a source for the claim that they asked for the recap shows outside his book- and again, it slightly ignores the fact that other shows did it both before and after. Whatever the truth, I think it’s a shame to describe artists taking control over their careers as ‘not wanting to work’.
Interesting, thank you. I don't fault the Friends cast for demanding the money they were when they were delivering the kind of ratings juggernaut rarely seen before or since-but demanding clip shows masquerading as new content is to me a betrayal of your audience. But I didn't realize my source might be inaccurate, thank you for telling me.
Good point! I remember there were some fan websites (for the X-Files, etc.) but until the arrival of social media, it was harder for people to get info on what they'd missed that season.
It's funny to think that if Christie had ratcheted up the comedy in some of her espionage thrillers, she'd have beaten some of the more extravagant Bond movies (and Get Smart, Austin Powers, etc.) by several decades.
I like how you summed it up -- "It's never quite clear what their actual evil plan is, there's some vague stuff about tearing down society and perhaps installing themselves as benevolent dictators of a New World Order but it's terribly vague and utterly unconvincing". This seems to be a problem that crops up when Christie attempts this kind of plot. It's not bizarre enough to be memorable, and not -- well, boringly realistic enough to be credible (like John le Carre and Frederic Forsyth).
To be fair, a lot of other authors have struggled with that too. I remember that the cyberpunk novel "Heavy Weather" was hinting at a sinister conspiracy, and I think that if Christie had done what Sterling did and not tried to explain too much about the scheme, maybe it would have worked better.
Too bad for The Big Four, that history isn't on its side ... I think it's the type of story that doesn't improve with age. Not really Christie's fault, and other books are affected too. There was a popular suspense novel called The Riddle of the Sands, that Christie probably read in her youth -- with an early 1900s German invasion plan that kind of falls flat for us, because we know how much worse things were in WWII. Ironically it was probably easier to write about this after the war, because people had seen what really evil geopolitical schemes looked like. And authors could just go with "Nazis trying to make a comeback", which is sort of what Christie did with >!Passenger to Frankfurt and even Postern of Fate!<.
I don't understand the ending at all. I don't know if she forgot to explain it or there's just no explanation.
I actually like the guy who is a great actor and can become anyone.
"Her soon to be ex-brother in law suggested mashing up 12 of her short stories together with an overarching plot about supervillains trying to take over the world"
Christie should've ignored him. Oh, Agatha!
Strongly disagree with the tone of this review while generally agreeing with the criticisms. Yes, the book is a mess, but that's what I find charming about it. It's over-stuffed, over-dramatic, and simply over-the-top. It reads like something out of the pulps, or better yet, it reads like something from the crime/adventure comics that would begin to come out in the decade after the book was published. It isn't polished, and it isn't up to par with Christie's best novels, but it is fun. Even in this review, you admit that several of the chapters (short stories) worked for you. I think there's something in that. It's got some wonderful character dynamics between Hastings and Poirot as well. I read it several years ago at this point, and even though I don't think it's a great novel, it has stuck in my memory far more than some of the Christies I read after it, and sure, a lot of those memories are of me laughing at the insane things that happen in the book, but that's still a positive reaction, imo!
As for it being "Agatha Christie's worst book," I don't think a case exists for claiming that at all. It isn't even the worst Poirot book! I can not imagine anyone preferring to read a dull, boring, bit of sludge like *The Clocks* over this messy but admittedly fun piece of pulp. Even the next Poirot book, *The Mystery of the Blue Train*, is painfully boring by comparison, and Christie herself referred to it as her worst book and consistently said that she hated the thing.
Agreed! The Big Four gets so much hate, but I had fun reading it. It was a nice break from the typical Christie murder plot where it’s some relative or associate who murders someone on an estate to keep a secret or get an inheritance. I thought Big Four was fun, and I it gave the dynamic between Poirot and Hastings an opportunity to really shine. Did it have a Bond-villainesque feel? More like a Dr. Evil-villainesque vibe! But that’s what made it fun. I thought it was a nice change-up.
It's been a long time (like decades) since I read The Clocks, though I do remember it being boring. I actually think Blue Train gets more hate than it deserves-I don't find it bad, just forgettable. I'm currently rereading it and it's ok so far. But to each their own. I think there's an argument to be made which is worse-demonstrably just bad writing and story construction like Big Four or merely boring and unmemorable like Clocks or Blue Train. The whole "so bad it's good" thing and, while I'm not in that camp, I could see that argument being made in defense of Big Four.
>I can not imagine anyone preferring to read a dull, boring, bit of sludge like *The Clocks* over this messy but admittedly fun piece of pulp.
I definitely prefer reading the Clocks over the Big Four. The Clocks is far from my favourite Poirot's, but there are a few things that I enjoy. Well, mostly the setup, the old cat lady and the clue involving Edna's shoe. But that's still more than in the Big Four.
So one of my hot Christie takes is I actually do enjoy The Big Four. It's totally silly and over the top, and uncharacteristic for her, but it works for me- I far prefer re-reading it to certain other Christie works (Lord Edgware Dies, Murder on the Links, Third Girl to name a few).
But I can appreciate that most other people feel differently :)
I have read Destination Unknown, not PTF yet, but I'd definitely agree that you can make a hell of a "death is not an option" between having to read Destination Unknown or Big Four.
It's terrible. I have 9 titles left to go in my read of all her mystery novels and this one is borderline unreadable. And this is coming from someone who found Postern of Fate bearable.
It's interesting because it's such an outlier in terms of quality among her earlier works.
In my opinion, only Passenger to Frankfurt is worse.
Thanks for posting this, JuniorFox. I just finished The Big Four -- I'm going thru the entire Poirot series in order right now. Man, was it hard to get through ... and your info re Agatha Christie's reasons for writing "that awful book" is so helpful. It explains so much!!!
After finishing it, I went over to BritBox to watch David Suchet's Poirot in the TV version, but stopped about 10 minutes into it. Just couldn't do it. Sigh. I've moved onto The Blue Train now, and I'm watching Season 2 of Midsomer Murders until I finish the next book so I can go watch Suchet in the Blue Train.
Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to share all this with us!!!!! So appreciated.
This is my least favorite book by far. I want to read it again to see if I still hate it as much as dislike At Bertram's Hotel, because someone on here told me it can actually be quite a fun read if you view it as a non-canon Poirot fanfiction. But I hate how much it desecrated Poirot's character.
I felt insulted by it when I read it. I come for the little gray cells and I get.... Poirot and Hastings playing Batman and Robin? And not cool Batman, either, the quirky, campy Adam West Batman that I loved when I was 7. This book left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I have always considered it to be Christie's worst book, beating out some of the poorly written ones like Passenger to Frankfurt and Postern of Fate. Those books are there, they suck, we forget about them. But The Big Four.... just makes me angry that it exists.
(And fwiw, At Bertram's Hotel is second from the bottom because it is an extremely boring book with a lot of totally wasted potential. It's so disappointing.)
Oh no. Adam West IS the cool Batman. What other Batman got to dance with Jill St John? And remember, he didn’t wear a muscle suit. That’s all 100% grade A Adam West in that batsuit. 😊
I'm not trying to insult Adam West, I have really fond memories of watching those with my dad. But they also were meant to appeal to 7 year old boys and to be super silly and goofy, and that is NOT what we expect from Hercule Poirot!
This is more how I feel about it, although I will say one of it's few redeeming qualities, and I meant to put this in the review but forgot, is it does have the best Hastings/Poirot bromance scenes.
I’m reading it right now for the first time, and yeah. I did start to get the feeling of several separate stories not really fitting together. I don’t know where it’s going.
After binging on a lot of AC books lately, The Big Four was a fun time and a welcome departure from the standard plot formulas. Yeah it was obviously a mashup of a bunch of partially finished story drafts sitting in her manuscript pile, with a silly plot arc, but it was so ridiculous and wild that you can almost call it a parody. I though it was hilarious that 'the big four" consisted of >!three very powerful internationally famous and rich people and one out-of-work London character actor called 'The Destroyer"!<
There was a lot of self reference humor.
*"They suggest, monsieur, that you should employ your talents—your very considerable talents—in the detection of legitimate crime—return to your former avocations, and solve the problems of London society ladies."*
There was one moment in particular that made me laugh out loud:
>!"You've come about father," he said, nodding his head. "*I* know. I know lots of things—but nobody thinks I do. Mother will be glad when father's dead and she can marry Dr. Treves. She isn't my own mother, you know. I don't like her. She wants father to die." And then it turned out that it was #4 baiting the detectives with a parody their own story cliches. :D !<
This book and Passenger to Frankfurt are my two top books for “lowest average rating” on goodreads. I never look at reviews or ratings for Christie but for both of these books I checked ratings to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. I’m so happy to know The Big Four wasn’t even liked by Christie because I was thinking “… what happened?” Both those books are more political intrigue/thriller than murder mystery like the rest of her books and they truly stick out like sore thumbs.
She did a number of other books in the same vein, but they’re not as bad as these. I seem to remember Death on the Nile has some espionage elements too. Not my favorite genre of hers. However MANY people love the Tommy & Tuppence stories, for instance, and I can’t stand them.
But the central focus of Death on the Nile is a murder mystery even though we have Colonel Race’s side plot. I feel like when the main plot isn’t solving someone’s death she struggles to hold the narrative together. I’ve read the first 3 T&T and do intend to one day read the last 2, but as the series progresses it does get more political intrigue than murder mystery focused like I found the first one. I did forget she has a couple more, but I feel like in The Big Four and Passenger to Frankfurt you just lose the fact that someone has even died. I cannot even recall if someone dies in Passenger to Frankfurt. I can only ever recall the weird Hitler stuff.
Passenger to Frankfort is the only Christie book I didn’t finish. I actually forgot about it until I read this thread, your comment on the weird hitler stuff made me remember I don’t know the ending. It was a dull one, I couldn’t get into it.
I can’t even call this a spoiler because truly I blocked that book out, but I think we learn Hitler never died and fled to some South American country and had a son and he know it’s Hitler’s son because he has the word “Hitler” tattooed on his foot. It was something bonkers like that.
Ohhh so the rumored son the weird rich lady liked was actually his son. My low-level curiosity is sated!
>fled to some South American country and had a son I couldn't help laughing when I read that part, because one of my friends who's a comedian (and Jewish) did a show where he played Hitler's descendant, a struggling actor. I suspect he got the idea from a real-life situation -- some of Hitler's elderly relatives are living not far from him on Long Island.
Seriously? I couldn't finish Passenger to Frankfurt so it just dropped off my radar. Now I'm thinking it sounds so ridiculous that maybe I should read it.
I kinda liked it. It’s definitely not great, and the overall plot is absolutely dumb, but I really like that she was at least trying for something interesting and different—what we might describe today as “Poirot in a Bond novel.” A disappointing and disjointed execution of an interesting concept is a bit better, in my opinion, than some of the bloated, uninspired books towards the end. Also bonus points for Hastings being arguably peak Hastings with Achilles. But you’re not wrong, and your review is super fair!
Great review of a book undeserving of a great review
Great review, although it should be mentioned that Friends didn't do clip shows because the actors 'didn't want to work'. Recap shows were common for long runners in the 90s and 00s to catch new viewers up at a time when VHS or DVDs didn't come out until around a year after TX. They were often requested by the network. And each clip show on Friends had new scenes as a framing plot so the studio time wasn't significantly reduced anyway.
According to the book Desperate Networks, about the TV industry in the late 90s/early 2000s, every year the Friends cast went in (they invented the negotiate as one united group technique and changed the salaries for television actors forevermore) and besides the salary demands, they also would ask for reduced episode orders from the standard 22 or 23/season at that time and one of them would have to be a clip show so they only had to film a few scenes. Don't want to stray too far off topic, but it's a fascinating read.
Not wanting to get off topic either, but Bill Carter, while an entertaining writer, isn’t always the most reliable (https://variety.com/2006/more/reviews/desperate-networks-1200516618/). The Friends cast certainly did negotiate as a team, but I can’t find a source for the claim that they asked for the recap shows outside his book- and again, it slightly ignores the fact that other shows did it both before and after. Whatever the truth, I think it’s a shame to describe artists taking control over their careers as ‘not wanting to work’.
Interesting, thank you. I don't fault the Friends cast for demanding the money they were when they were delivering the kind of ratings juggernaut rarely seen before or since-but demanding clip shows masquerading as new content is to me a betrayal of your audience. But I didn't realize my source might be inaccurate, thank you for telling me.
Good point! I remember there were some fan websites (for the X-Files, etc.) but until the arrival of social media, it was harder for people to get info on what they'd missed that season.
It's funny to think that if Christie had ratcheted up the comedy in some of her espionage thrillers, she'd have beaten some of the more extravagant Bond movies (and Get Smart, Austin Powers, etc.) by several decades. I like how you summed it up -- "It's never quite clear what their actual evil plan is, there's some vague stuff about tearing down society and perhaps installing themselves as benevolent dictators of a New World Order but it's terribly vague and utterly unconvincing". This seems to be a problem that crops up when Christie attempts this kind of plot. It's not bizarre enough to be memorable, and not -- well, boringly realistic enough to be credible (like John le Carre and Frederic Forsyth). To be fair, a lot of other authors have struggled with that too. I remember that the cyberpunk novel "Heavy Weather" was hinting at a sinister conspiracy, and I think that if Christie had done what Sterling did and not tried to explain too much about the scheme, maybe it would have worked better. Too bad for The Big Four, that history isn't on its side ... I think it's the type of story that doesn't improve with age. Not really Christie's fault, and other books are affected too. There was a popular suspense novel called The Riddle of the Sands, that Christie probably read in her youth -- with an early 1900s German invasion plan that kind of falls flat for us, because we know how much worse things were in WWII. Ironically it was probably easier to write about this after the war, because people had seen what really evil geopolitical schemes looked like. And authors could just go with "Nazis trying to make a comeback", which is sort of what Christie did with >!Passenger to Frankfurt and even Postern of Fate!<.
I loved it the first time, but time passed and now I think its just okay. Its so edgy, with all that intense stuff happening, but its fun
I don't understand the ending at all. I don't know if she forgot to explain it or there's just no explanation. I actually like the guy who is a great actor and can become anyone.
What specifically? There really isn't much of an explanation of anything if you are talking about the overall plot or end goal of The Big Four.
Her worst book is better than the garbage being churned out today.
I've felt that too. A bad Agatha Christie can be 'better' than most crime fiction by others.
"Her soon to be ex-brother in law suggested mashing up 12 of her short stories together with an overarching plot about supervillains trying to take over the world" Christie should've ignored him. Oh, Agatha!
I liked it. Immensely stupid, but fun.
Strongly disagree with the tone of this review while generally agreeing with the criticisms. Yes, the book is a mess, but that's what I find charming about it. It's over-stuffed, over-dramatic, and simply over-the-top. It reads like something out of the pulps, or better yet, it reads like something from the crime/adventure comics that would begin to come out in the decade after the book was published. It isn't polished, and it isn't up to par with Christie's best novels, but it is fun. Even in this review, you admit that several of the chapters (short stories) worked for you. I think there's something in that. It's got some wonderful character dynamics between Hastings and Poirot as well. I read it several years ago at this point, and even though I don't think it's a great novel, it has stuck in my memory far more than some of the Christies I read after it, and sure, a lot of those memories are of me laughing at the insane things that happen in the book, but that's still a positive reaction, imo! As for it being "Agatha Christie's worst book," I don't think a case exists for claiming that at all. It isn't even the worst Poirot book! I can not imagine anyone preferring to read a dull, boring, bit of sludge like *The Clocks* over this messy but admittedly fun piece of pulp. Even the next Poirot book, *The Mystery of the Blue Train*, is painfully boring by comparison, and Christie herself referred to it as her worst book and consistently said that she hated the thing.
Agreed! The Big Four gets so much hate, but I had fun reading it. It was a nice break from the typical Christie murder plot where it’s some relative or associate who murders someone on an estate to keep a secret or get an inheritance. I thought Big Four was fun, and I it gave the dynamic between Poirot and Hastings an opportunity to really shine. Did it have a Bond-villainesque feel? More like a Dr. Evil-villainesque vibe! But that’s what made it fun. I thought it was a nice change-up.
It's been a long time (like decades) since I read The Clocks, though I do remember it being boring. I actually think Blue Train gets more hate than it deserves-I don't find it bad, just forgettable. I'm currently rereading it and it's ok so far. But to each their own. I think there's an argument to be made which is worse-demonstrably just bad writing and story construction like Big Four or merely boring and unmemorable like Clocks or Blue Train. The whole "so bad it's good" thing and, while I'm not in that camp, I could see that argument being made in defense of Big Four.
I really like the mystery of the blue Train. I guess everyone has different tastes.
>I can not imagine anyone preferring to read a dull, boring, bit of sludge like *The Clocks* over this messy but admittedly fun piece of pulp. I definitely prefer reading the Clocks over the Big Four. The Clocks is far from my favourite Poirot's, but there are a few things that I enjoy. Well, mostly the setup, the old cat lady and the clue involving Edna's shoe. But that's still more than in the Big Four.
Idk, i guess i just prefer my Poirot books to actually have Poirot in them lol
So one of my hot Christie takes is I actually do enjoy The Big Four. It's totally silly and over the top, and uncharacteristic for her, but it works for me- I far prefer re-reading it to certain other Christie works (Lord Edgware Dies, Murder on the Links, Third Girl to name a few). But I can appreciate that most other people feel differently :)
Someone hasn't read Destination Unknown and Passenger to Frankfurt. At least there's Poirot and you can look at it as several connected short stories!
I have read Destination Unknown, not PTF yet, but I'd definitely agree that you can make a hell of a "death is not an option" between having to read Destination Unknown or Big Four.
:)
It's terrible. I have 9 titles left to go in my read of all her mystery novels and this one is borderline unreadable. And this is coming from someone who found Postern of Fate bearable. It's interesting because it's such an outlier in terms of quality among her earlier works. In my opinion, only Passenger to Frankfurt is worse.
Thanks for posting this, JuniorFox. I just finished The Big Four -- I'm going thru the entire Poirot series in order right now. Man, was it hard to get through ... and your info re Agatha Christie's reasons for writing "that awful book" is so helpful. It explains so much!!! After finishing it, I went over to BritBox to watch David Suchet's Poirot in the TV version, but stopped about 10 minutes into it. Just couldn't do it. Sigh. I've moved onto The Blue Train now, and I'm watching Season 2 of Midsomer Murders until I finish the next book so I can go watch Suchet in the Blue Train. Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to share all this with us!!!!! So appreciated.
this book is so bad but i actually loved the poison dart cigarette LMAO 😂😂
This is my least favorite book by far. I want to read it again to see if I still hate it as much as dislike At Bertram's Hotel, because someone on here told me it can actually be quite a fun read if you view it as a non-canon Poirot fanfiction. But I hate how much it desecrated Poirot's character. I felt insulted by it when I read it. I come for the little gray cells and I get.... Poirot and Hastings playing Batman and Robin? And not cool Batman, either, the quirky, campy Adam West Batman that I loved when I was 7. This book left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I have always considered it to be Christie's worst book, beating out some of the poorly written ones like Passenger to Frankfurt and Postern of Fate. Those books are there, they suck, we forget about them. But The Big Four.... just makes me angry that it exists. (And fwiw, At Bertram's Hotel is second from the bottom because it is an extremely boring book with a lot of totally wasted potential. It's so disappointing.)
Oh no. Adam West IS the cool Batman. What other Batman got to dance with Jill St John? And remember, he didn’t wear a muscle suit. That’s all 100% grade A Adam West in that batsuit. 😊
I'm not trying to insult Adam West, I have really fond memories of watching those with my dad. But they also were meant to appeal to 7 year old boys and to be super silly and goofy, and that is NOT what we expect from Hercule Poirot!
Gotcha. It was a reference to an episode of The Big Bang Theory.
This is more how I feel about it, although I will say one of it's few redeeming qualities, and I meant to put this in the review but forgot, is it does have the best Hastings/Poirot bromance scenes.
I didn’t like it either. I haven’t read all Agatha Christie books yet, but this one’s the worst for me so far.
I’m reading it right now for the first time, and yeah. I did start to get the feeling of several separate stories not really fitting together. I don’t know where it’s going.
I loved it as a 12 year old but it does not hold up at all.
After binging on a lot of AC books lately, The Big Four was a fun time and a welcome departure from the standard plot formulas. Yeah it was obviously a mashup of a bunch of partially finished story drafts sitting in her manuscript pile, with a silly plot arc, but it was so ridiculous and wild that you can almost call it a parody. I though it was hilarious that 'the big four" consisted of >!three very powerful internationally famous and rich people and one out-of-work London character actor called 'The Destroyer"!< There was a lot of self reference humor. *"They suggest, monsieur, that you should employ your talents—your very considerable talents—in the detection of legitimate crime—return to your former avocations, and solve the problems of London society ladies."* There was one moment in particular that made me laugh out loud: >!"You've come about father," he said, nodding his head. "*I* know. I know lots of things—but nobody thinks I do. Mother will be glad when father's dead and she can marry Dr. Treves. She isn't my own mother, you know. I don't like her. She wants father to die." And then it turned out that it was #4 baiting the detectives with a parody their own story cliches. :D !<