Murder on the Orient Express

Ich wollte eigentlich nur ein Kapitel lesen. Doch Mord im Orient-Express hat mich sofort festgehalten – und ließ mich erst auf der letzten Seite wieder los. Agatha Christie hat mich in diesen luxuriösen Zug gesetzt, mitten im Schnee, mit einem Mord an Bord und lauter verdächtigen Passagieren. Und ich habe jede Minute genossen.

Hercule Poirot ist nicht einfach nur ein Detektiv. Er ist ein Meister des Beobachtens, ein Genie mit Schnurrbart, der still alles durchschaut. Ich mochte seinen scharfen Verstand – und seine höflich-ungeduldige Art hat mich immer wieder zum Schmunzeln gebracht.

Was ich an diesem Krimi besonders liebe: Es geht nicht nur darum, wer der Mörder ist. Sondern auch warum. Christie legt Spuren wie Puzzleteile aus – und ich tappte ihr begeistert hinterher.

Die Atmosphäre ist einmalig: ein eingeschneiter Zug, stilvolle Salons, flüsternde Stimmen, kleine Lügen. Ich war dabei. Ich hörte das Knarzen des Zuges, sah die schneebedeckte Landschaft vorbeiziehen – und rätselte Seite für Seite mit.

Und als die Auflösung kam? Ich war sprachlos. So klug. So unerwartet. So brillant.

Agatha Christie hat nicht nur einen Krimi geschrieben. Sie hat ein Theaterstück auf Schienen erschaffen. Und ich saß in der ersten Reihe.

Wer Spannung liebt, sollte unbedingt einsteigen. Und den Orient-Express so schnell nicht verlassen.

This book is probably one of her most well-known novels with a dozen or so adaptations, and I personally find it to be the most bland (in terms of writing) but most interesting (in terms of its adaptations).

In terms of writing a mystery, I find many of the clues too subtle to even be recognisable. Some of that is due to the audience she was clearly writing for, with Americanisms being far less common in daily speech (such as the clue of an English person who uses the phrasing of 'long distance' rather than 'trunk call', which wouldn't really even seem like a clue to many people today). Some of it is due to things that, probably as a person from the United States reading this book, I find to be more perplexing than useful as clues because they also felt wrong for us (like an American actress playing up an accent and Christie choosing to write this dialogue as 'kinder' [kinda], vurry, and Parrus... which all feel wrong, but are probably recognisable to a British audience who says 'er' as 'ah').

Other clues are sentences that would be more noticeable as stage directions, and I think this is why more people really engage with this story through a visual medium. The glances between characters that you're supposed to take note of are easier to recognise in the way cameras can follow a character's glance. It truly is a story that, I think, is boring to read on the page but is more engaging on-screen (even if, for some reason, one adaptation has Poirot losing his cool over everyone lying to him, which feels super out of character).

I also think this kind of story would be better if removed from the aristocracy. The aristocracy often receives what they feel is justice, and it's incredibly rare that they don't. It's also absurd to think that every single person in a household (particularly those often labeled as 'the help') would fawn over the same small child. It feels incredibly unrealistic and is clearly a story that comes from someone who... would see the world in that manner.

I think it'd be a better kind of story in the hands of, for example, victims of abuses that almost never receive any consequences. Maybe if someone like Brock Turner were the Ratchett/Cassetti character, it'd actually be very good.

I've most likely seen an adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express in the distant past but I didn't remember any details of the plot other than Poirot is stuck on a train and murder happens. So it was quite fun to read a bit of vintage mystery.

At the start of this book, Poirot is travelling back from Syria (I know, how things change) which involves boats and luxury, long distance trains. After briefly acquainting himself with everyone in first class, Poirot retires for the night. In the morning he awakes to a train at standstill and a dead body in one compartment. With the train stuck in snow, he might as well go about solving the crime.

He sets about discovering the past of the victim and questioning all the passengers in a very Poirot fashion. Using his little grey cells he pieces together the events of that night by interviews, supposition and very circumstantial evidence. As the investigation goes on it seems there are far too many coincidences but it all comes together in the end.

It's of the time in the sense there are a lot of stereotypes based on nationality. It is suggested that the murderer can't be English because stabbing is a very Latin way to kill someone. However making Poirot Belgian means he is also harsh on the English too, which stops it from being a bit smug. Still, if you are sensitive to this kind of thing in older books, it might ruin your experience.

When I got to the end, it jogged my memory a bit, at least the idea of how it was carried out. I think the concept of how the murder was committed is one that's not been too overused, but it's probably that which makes it one of her most read, along with the train based setting. Needless to say I found it gripping enough, although it takes while to get into because there's so many characters. If you fancy trying Agatha Christie, this is good place to start.