This novel is interesting in that Mrs Christie concerns herself with the working classes both lower (Mrs McGinty, James Bentley, Bessie Burch, Maude Williams etc) and middle (the Rendalls, the Summerhayes etc). The village of Broadhinny and it's residents of all classes are well drawn and there is a nice sense of post war, withdrawn respectability where everyone knows each other but in reality they know very little about each other at all. There is a lovely piece of 'mood setting' towards the middle of the novel; Poirot and Mrs Oliver have more-or-less been accepted into the village (after some initial hostility) and are guests at a party on a summer's evening. After the party most of the guests walk back to the house of wheelchair-bound  Mrs Upward to tell her all about it. Mrs Christie conjures up such a lovely, relaxed atmosphere and a perfect picture of a balmy summers night that you really want to be there. Then however she shatters it when Poirot produces photographs of the 'women victims'. Suddenly the relaxed atmosphere is gone and everyone is on edge once more. It's the last time you see these people so relaxed because soon there is a second murder!

The mystery is a good one and unfolds slowly and I like the novels where Mrs Christie deals with a disparate group of friends and neighbours, most of whom are very well drawn. There are a couple of excellent portraits of disappointed youth in James Bentley and Deirdre Henderson as well as the more energetic youth of Maude Williams. This is the second appearance in a Poirot novel of Mrs Oliver and although she has less to do here than in the later novels, her presence in welcome. Mrs Christie must have enjoyed writing the exchanges between Mrs Oliver and Robin Upward who is adapting one of her works for the stage. Overall I found it a very good book although still not one of my very favourites.

I particularly enjoyed those exchanges between Mrs Oliver and Robin Upward. I should imagine those parts were quite autobiographical, and while they made for some of the lighter moments in the novel, I think they made one appreciate an author's frustration at having playwrights or movie-makers "butcher" their stories. In fact, sometimes when watching the more recent adaptations, I'd like to get the film-makers to read these exchanges between Robin and Ariadne, and get an idea of what AC herself would think of having her characters and plots changed like that. But that is a subject for another discussion :)

As Guest Editor, I would like to start the discussion by asking who is reading the book at the moment. Let's read together!

Dear Guest Editor:

I will have to get this book and catch up with you on the reading.  I would like to read with you and others and comment!

What book will be read next month so that I can go ahead and get the book if I don't have it already?  I hope we can read The Hollow soon.  It is my favorite and would be a good choice for this time of year, since it takes place in September!

I know everyone is excited about the movie of Mrs. McGinty coming out, but I haven't gotten it yet where I live.  I will read AC's original first, and then when I see the movie, I will know the true story as AC intended it to be!

I'm going to start rereading McGINTY either this week or sometime next week.

Hi Guest Editor - sorry for ploughing in with comments earlier. I read this quite recently so its still quite fresh but I'm happy to go through it again.

I read MCginty very recently , just some weekends ago, and it was amazing! Definitely one of the top 10 of Poirot! I recommend it to anyone!

What I most like on Mr. McGintys Dead? Probably the same fact as in Sad Cypress – for suspisious one looks the case as hopeless (was even condemned) – not for Poirot!

I like it, when there are seemingly no new tracks, everything shows only one possible solution – and at the end is everythig otherwise.

I reread the novel after seeing the recent Poirot tv production of it. I had not read it in maybe 30 years and was surprised, as ever, at the skill of the writing. Sadly Agatha Christie has been cheapened by wayward television and film adaptations and I feel that anybody coming to her as a new writer through the wrong medium will get a distorted impression of her as a novelist. There has to be a reason why she sells so many books and the main reason is that she is a brilliant writer not only in her chosen genre but as a social chronicler of her times. Crime very often reflects society. In Mrs M she perfectly captures that post-war atmosphere of patching things up, making do and, in true British fashion making the best of things. The various households depicted are like a mocrocosm of 1940s England where the class divide is eroded away and the new money no longer belongs to the aristocracy. Poirot's discomfort has never been captured so brilliantly as in this novel and his relationship with Ariadne Oliver speaks volumes of Agatha Christie's relationship with her creation, Poirot.

I always liked this book. The milieu is unusual and the plot twist (name ambiguity) although not new-see also Peril at End House-works very well.

Yes, I like so much this book! The storyline is very interesting, and I had a lot of fun when I read it.

Am I the only one who disagrees? Mrs McGinty's Dead is one of the worst Christie novels I have read. I really didn't find any real story in it and it actually bored me. The film was a bit less boring, but still, the worst Christie film I've ever seen.

I agree with other posters who have mentioned how AC wonderfully captures the unrest and decay of the period - summed up perfectly by the guest house Poirot finds himself staying at. I also think it is one of her most ingenious murders. For the murderer to commit the murders he/she does for the reasons he/she does is extremely plausible. And although I can only imagine what this is like, I love Mrs Oliver's despair at the liberties the playwright, Robin Upward wants to take with her book. It rings totally true.

I love the trials and tribulations of Ariadne Oliver in her "collaboration" with our dear upcoming playwright Robin Upward.  Its delicious, especially in her exasperation with his supreme obliviousness to her opinions on the matter. 

I think this is the book which opens with Poirot ruminating on food and the fact that there are only three meals a day.  I love this whole discussion.  It sometimes mirrors the way I think.  Ah food! 

And then the scene where Poirot goes to view the body of Mrs. McGinty and comments that she must have been an attractive woman at one time.  Its a wonderful quick sketch of a tragedy that we barely get a glimpse of, but it makes Mrs. McGinty real. 

I have read all Christie murders at least 20 times if not more.  Nowadays I read them more for these small quick sketches that are so evocative.  Christie writes just a few words but they are words that stir my imagination to supply the rest of the picture.  Wonderful talent!

I really like "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" for what it tells us about Poirot. This is one of a very limited number of novels where Christie uses the "wrong man on trial" theme. Here, the system has failed. An innocent man is about to be hanged. This is not a sympathetic man. He is not particularly pleasant or noticeably virtuous, and he has no desire to save himself, yet he is not a killer, and Poirot concerns himself sufficiently with the man's fate to not only clear the wrongfully convicted man's name, but to find a suitable wife for him, as well! Poirot takes the case for no fee, puts himself in the considerable discomfort of the Summerhayes's boarding house, and nearly gets himself killed, all because he cannot let a killer go free and let an innocent man be punished. "Order and method" aren't just a motto for Poirot, they're a philosophy for life. When a murder occurs, the social fabric is disrupted, and Poirot takes it upon himself to fix everything.

Mrs. McGinty’s Dead is also not a terribly dark story, there are lots of deft situations and witty observations, like the already mentioned sufferings of Mrs. Oliver adapting her novel for the stage, Poirot becoming a paying guest and the matter-of-fact journalist of the Sunday Comet. The crime-from-the-past theme has been used by Christie many times before and you can tell she obviously studied the famous trials of her day. Most of the characters are a bit two-dimensional but then, there are so many of them in this novel. Only the person of James Bentley has a bit more nuance and the character of superintendent Spence is more interesting than the professional policemen we normally encounter in the Poirot books. This is certainly a man with a problem that weighs heavily on his conscience. As usual with Christie, the time line is a bit vague and the ages of the people connected to the earlier murder cases do not always correspond.

I've always wondered about the murder weapon in this book. The jewel-encrusted sugar hammer is described in such detail, that I know that Christie must have come across one of them in real life. I think that she saw one somewhere, learned what it was, and thought "I have GOT to kill someone with one of those in a book." I wonder where she saw it?

The sugar hammer always struk me as slightly out of place in the novel. It sounded a bit too exotic for such an ordinary town with such plain people (I know some had a colonial background). Also, this particular weapon had no real function (except for bashing in Mrs. McGinty's head), since it was never found near the crime place nor did it indicate to a certain person (during the first crime investigation by the police).

Why then did the murderer go through so much trouble? There must have been other blunt instruments that were easier to find and to dispose of. Did you not think that is was rather a coincidence that Poirot's attention was imediately drawn to this particular object? Of all the other tools that are ususally found in a normal household, he noticed this one. So you are right, I think Christie must have been familiar with this particular tool.

By the way, it was not until the recent TV-episode of the book that I realised what a really ugly thing it was! No wonder it was constantly on offer at different jumble sales and church bazars; everybody wanted to get rid of it.

Christie sometimes used certain murder methods from her own experience, like the complicated way of poisoning in 'Styles', something she must have encountered during her time working in the dispensary. Do you think she ever fired a real gun just to find out how it felt or how loud the bang would be? It must have been important for her to know. Sometimes in her books a gun makes a loud noice (A Murder is Announced) but most of the time it just goes: Pop! (Death on the Nile, Murder at the Vicarage).

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

I have read this book many years ago. As far as I remember, the most impressive aspect of Mrs McGinty's Dead was the complicated challenges of dark side of human soul among low-class people. This time, we are not in a nobleman's family but in a village. The basic structure of this book, is very similar to that of After the Funeral which is not surprising since the latter has been written one year after the former. Although the frame seems to be identical, the details are beautifully independent and new. This is one of those books that are more likely to be a Marple story, rather than a Poirot one and also one of those books that you would like it even more if you re-read it (which is a general characteristic of her all psychology-based books) .

Marc Anton, you just made me realize that the sugar hammer is a vital clue! I am really glad that you've started to post regularly on the board once more. Consider what the sugar hammer is as an object– showy, a little bizarre, and above all, dramatic. It's unique and eye-catching, and above all, memorable. It's also impractical. It must have been cumbersome to have carried it to and from the scene of the crime, especially afterwards, when it was covered in blood. Only a killer determined to commit an artistic murder witnessed by no one but himself would go through such impractical and illogical steps, when he could have just picked up a rock outside the house or a kitchen knife at the scene. And then, instead of throwing it in the nearest river or burying it in the woods, the killer hides in in plain sight by selling it at a rummage sale, after first cleaning it thoroughly. It's a stupid mistake, but the killer couldn't bear to destroy what he considered to be the crucial prop in his little drama. As Poirot says, it's the psychology that matters. Only one character in the entire book would have acted like this. Only one suspect would have put style and drama over self-preservation. When you think about the murder weapon: what it is, what was done with it, and why the killer took such unnecessary steps, it becomes obvious who the murderer must be! The conversations the killer has with Mrs. Oliver aren't just comic relief, they're vital clues, illustrating how the killer thinks and acts, even when it doesn't always make sense to someone other than himself.