I prefer the novel any day. Yellow Iris is a short story I've always found unsatisfactory because it seemed confused and hurried - mainly because it WAS in a shortened form. Again, I get the feeling that AC liked the premise of the story and wished she had devolped it further once it had oiginally been used. Thankfully, AC never let this fact stop her as she went on to do this a number of times in her career.

I think leaving out Poirot was the right thing to do. Race was a character who had previously worked with Poirot, and therefore well known to AC readers, but she hadn't used him for almost 10 years when she wrote this one. By using him, she provides a link between the more recognisable, more orthodox novels in which her established detectives feature and the more 'dangerous' and untrodden path of the non-series novels. Even fans of her work get complacent and many tend to stick with the novels and the characters they are 'safe' with rather than try something new and unfamiliar. By using a character like Race, AC was providing a link between these two world and drawing her readers into unknown territory and a new experience.

And actually, Race doesn't really replace Poirot. His isn't the lonely role of the sole investigator, he is involved through his friendship with George Barton and, because of his time in the Secret Service, he is allowed to be privvy to the thoughts and actions of Chief Inspector Kemp. He acts very much as he has in his appearances with Poirot, in a supporting role and offering another point of view. I like the way this is done.

(Cont) AC provides us with three 'detectives', all with very different status and way of looking at the problem. Kemp represents the Police and the official line (but also a new official line as he has replaced Battle in the role and is a younger version with his own way of working), Race represents the old order and the solid family friend (a little more stereotypical in his thinking) and Anthony Brown represents the unorthodox and slightly dangerous point of view. It's a really interesting mix and we find ourselves following three possible solutions instead of just the one.

And Race doesn't get there first. It's a combination of the three intelligences at work that provide the ultimate solution and gives us a different ending to the more standard all-suspects-in-one-room-and-one-is-a-killer type. Not that I havbe a problem with these, far from it. But variety is the spice of life we are told and this book adds a certain piquancy of its own.

I agree Puffinjill - I love this book for that reason. I enjoyed the different approach from Colonel Race, a different way of looking at things than Poirot or Miss Marple.

The only problem is that I suggest new readers read "The Man in the Brown Suit" before Sparkling Cynanide - or Cards on the Table. There is more tension in the Brown Suit if a reader doesn't know that Colonel Race is one of the good guys!

Good point, MariaCaterina! I find the younger, handsome, brooding Race a good reason to read The Man In The Brown Suit anytime! And, unlike Poirot, we do get to see Race age (or should I say mature?) throughout his appearances. Not quite as much as Tommy and Tuppence, I admit, but it's still interesting to see him at different stages of his life. Shame we het him in so few novels!

I LOVE SPARKLING CYANIDE IS ONE OF MY FAVOURITES, IN THIS ONE, POIROT IS NOT IN THE STORY, AND HE WASN´T AT THEY CAME TO BAGDAD, WHICH IS ALSO A VERY GOOD BOOK.

I am re-reading the book and I'm enjoying a lot. It's different from the others books,but it's really a good one, maybe one of the best.About Poirot, in the beginnig I missed him, but now I think it was a good idea to replace him by Race. Colonel Race was the right choice for the story.

BIG BIG SPOILER ALERT!!!

Just a small point that has been bugging me about this book. Why is it that Christine Shannon, who sees the hurried little waiter return Iris's dropped bag to the table, DOESN'T realise that when they all return they sit at different places? After all, she's very astute and has noticed every single little detail of what went on at the Barton table. I think she would have noticed that they all sat down in the wrong places after dancing.

Has this bothered anyone else? It's not a criticism, far from it as I really like the book, it's just one detail that keeps irking me.

Puffinjill: I agree. I have wondered about that, too. Also, one's orientation does not only depend on where you find your glass at a table. When they were sitting down again after the dancing, they should have noticed they were suddenly facing a different wall.

It doesn't stop me from enjoying the book at all, it just seemed a rather glaring omission. Jane is right, we would normally recoginise our own place at a table from many things but I suppose we can accept that the relief of tension the characters were feeling might make them less aware of where they were.

Yes, I agree about the relief of tension, Puffinjill. Many commentators have said that they found the whole "different places at the table" setup to be unconvincing, but I found it wholly believable.

Firstly, as there were several people at the table, it would be unlikely that anyone would end up looking at a different wall, just a slightly altered aspect of the same one.

Then, as people got up to dance, the chairs would have been pushed back out of position anyway.

Also, those with their backs to the cabaret would have shifted their chairs to face the band and get a better view.

If these points do not convince you, well, they had all been drinking champagne!

What I love about this book is the way the story is told from all the characters appearing. I love them all, Stephen and Sandra, Iris and Anthony, George, Lucilla Drake (altough I always quicken my reading pace when she appears) and even Ruth! They are all thoroughly believable.

I too had my doubts about them not noticing that they sat down in the wrong place - but if the table was crowded with very little space between oneself and one's neighbour I suppose it's possible.

Ok, I just finnished Sparkling Cyanide last night. I put off reading it for years, believing that it was the same story as Yellow Iris with the same murderer. But it isnt the smae killer, so adds a new twist. I'm pleased with myself as I worked out the motive and whodunnit!  It was a good read.

But I didnt really get why George arranged the whole 2nd dinner gathering? Was he being stupid or did he actually know who the killer was and watch their reaction?

When I read the front page "what can I do to drive away remembrances from mine eyes" it just sounded like it would be a fantastic book.