The character of Ariadne Oliver is written in a more serious light in Hallowe'en Party. She is very distraught after being present at a party where a young girl has been murdered and becomes concerned that the girl's boasting to her may have led to her demise. Usually, Mrs Oliver, although shocked at any murder, has thoroughly enjoyed herself and thought highly of her womanly detective instincts. This, however, is a sobering experience and a less frivoulous side is revealled. Through this, we see more to her than just the rather eccentric writer tangled in her own plots, and she becomes much more real.

I would have loved AC to write more about her but as a central figure (without Poirot) I'm not convinced she could carry a complete book. I know she is without him in The Pale Horse and her rememberances give Mark Easterbrook the one clue that ties the plot together, but she plays a small part in the rest of the book. Yes, she makes wild, suprisingly accurate, stabs at the solution of a mystery but her thought processes would be very muddly throughtout an entire text! Having said all this, I have a soft spot for her rambling and eccentric arguements and feel AC's work would be poorer without her.

It's a promising set-up: the idea of a girl being drowned in an apple-bobbing bucket is a very strong and ghoulish image, but unfortunately the rest of the book just doesn't live up to the opening ideas.

Unfortunately it's late Christie, full of padding and rambling about the degeneracy of youth, and lacking any strong characterisation.

There are lots of plot holes. (If Mrs Llewellyn-Smythe's will was never posted and has remained hidden on a book shelf for a couple of years, why did the killers need to fake the forged codicil in the first place?)

And the final revelation about the affair between Michael and Rowena comes completely out of nowhere as the two characters don't even meet in the book.

The ending is nicely thrilling and suspenseful, but it doesn't make up for the book's glaring flaws.

I know the holes in the plot are rather large and obvious and so, again, are the coincidences. In fiction, how is it characters with a shared history they would rather forget always seem to find themselves living in the same town/village? If that was me (not that I have anything in my past that I am runnung away from. Honest.), I would immediately up sticks and move again rather than wait and see if the past catches up with me. But Miranda and her Mother stay put when Michael arrives on the scene. As if the world isn't a big enough place not to keep constantly rubbing up against those you would rather forget!Mind you, this happens in a few Christies and is used to good effect. (Look at Murder on the Links. Not as if M. Renauld couldn't have affordee another Villa elsewhere!)  

But I find the atmosphere created in Hallowe'en Party sufficiently disturbing and mitigates all the other problems I can see in the book. I know they are all there but I still end up each time I read it drawn in by all that I like about it and can enjoy it, faults and all.

Well, in "Links" the person Renauld wanted to forget deliberately tracked him down in order to live near him, and his attempts to get away were the catalyst for the plot.  Christie does explain some of the reasons for the forgery- it's a backup plan in case the estate is tied up in legal issues, plus they need to discredit the maid.  And the Michael/Miranda's mother meeting again may not be a coincidence... at the end of the book she expresses doubts.  It's possible that Michael tracked her down because he wanted to meet his daughter.  Anyway, Miranda had a lot of roots in that town, and Miranda probably didn't want to move, and her mother didn't want to force her.  In any case, she probably figured Michael would move away once the landscaping job was done.  Finally, there are hints that Rowena had an affair in the flashback scenes, and there are a lot of subtle hints as to who her paramour might have been.  I think a line she mentions about beauty is meant to reflect the time she spent with Michael. The two never meet in the book because they want to be discreet.   Frankly, I think that a lot of the so-called plot holes are explained, but they're filled up in throwaway lines and implications, so they're hard to catch.

In Murder on the Links, Madame Daubreuill had lived in that town for years befor M. Renauld made his home there. She soon cottoned on to him and was quick to turn this to her monetary advantage but I don't think she spent years trying to find George Conneau. I think that was an unhappy coincidence for all the Renaulds. In Hallowe'en Party, I thought Michael was unaware of having a child until he came to Woodleigh Common. i will have to read it again to be sure.

This isnt a bad book, out of the later Poirot's its good but doesnt have that sparkle the earlier ones had. Very little stands out in my mind about the book, apart from, if I'm correct? Mrs O stopped eating apples, as she was put off for life! She moved on to figs? There a small glimmer of humour here, which I think the book needed.

I was getting rather impatient towards the end. I wasn't really too pleased with the murderers. The connection between them was vague. I wanted to know more about them.

The little girl is supposed to clever, but she's rather unreal. She gladly go off in a killers car? But I didn't want her to be killed, I was glad she wasnt.