You might not know this about me but I love the Poirot TV show, it's something I've watched for years and I love most kinds of cosy murder/crime TV shows but I haven't read any! This read is a continuation of the Poirot series and it's the third in the series - I haven't read the others but as with most crime books, you can jump into the series whenever you want.

We follow Poirot as he is accosted by four people who claim to have received letters accusing them of murder signed by Poirot. What follows is an exploration into the potential murder, the secrets people hold for years, the ties between people and a very enjoyable series of mysteries that are all neatly wrapped up at the end.

I did like the writing style, it was very quick and easy as well as formulaic so it follows the traditional murder mystery narrative (which I both like and dislike). It was an interesting mystery that kept me guessing but I found the ending quite disappointing.

Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot would always be hers, that's for sure. When I first read one of Poirot's case, it was the 'Murder at the Orient Express' the I compare it with the movie. I feel movie!Poirot has more to tell and the character is more likeable. Perhaps because Christie was writing a classic.

In this book, Sophie Hannah created the movie!Poirot for me. I can still hear the Belgian accent from the moustache detective along with his OCD for order. It is so fun to read the first half of the book, where all the characters are introduced and the story starts.

I would start with what I like, the book has the promise of a new mystery, a letter signed by Poirot sent to four strangers and the characters' reactions are so real, how they were so mad when it happened.
Then Poirot tried to explain but none of them really cared about that. And Poirot, being as curious as he was, decided to solve the case and took matter into hand.

The way Poirot tried to find the solution was fun and nevertheless nostalgic. I felt like reading the movie!Poirot in the book and this movie!Poirot seemed more lively. All with his tricks trying to solve the case and how he loved to find more of what beneath the case. In addition, the side case, the mystery of the cake is a bit refreshing as it turns out that the case became more complicated.

What I think could be improved was the solution. Instead of the usual concrete evidence, it was mere assumption from Poirot's side and I'm not sure I love this kind of solution. Although the way Poirot explained it was quite believable, but I still think it could not give much, given the situation. It's complicated, the case, but not the kind I truly like. In addition, the switching POV kind of annoying. If the author decides to use Catchpool POV, it would be better if it's still in the third POV instead of changing to a first one. Sometimes I almost forgot who's I in the story.

But I still give a 4 star because of the premise and the movie!Poirot here.

What is it about?

The Mystery of the Three Quarters is the third novel in Sophie Hannah's, Hercule Poirot series which is set in 1929.

Poirot is accused by a woman he has never met before of sending her a letter which accuses her of murdering a man named Barnabas Pandy. She won't listen him or his denial and storms off. On returning home he finds he has a visitor, a man who has received a similar letter. Poirot needs to clear his name and find the real murderer of Mr Pandy.

I enjoyed The Mystery of the Three Quarters as an intriguing mystery. Having read many of the Poirot novels, this is my first of the re-visited series and I was interested to see how it compared.

Ms Hannah has managed to capture the atmosphere of Agatha Christie's series with twists, turns and red herrings as there were in the original series.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, while it does not have the same depth as Agatha Christie’s Poirot, it’s a good entertaining read.


I would like to thank the Author/the Publishers/NetGalley for the opportunity to read this book in exchange for a fair and honest review

I was really excited when I found out that Sophie Hannah was going to write new novels featuring one of my favorite characters in literature, Hercule Poirot. I expected the stories and the characters to be similar to the ones created by Agatha Christie, but they are Sophie Hannah’s own creation, so that’s probably why I didn’t enjoy them so much. Although set in 1930s, the story has a modern feeling (especially the conversations) and the character of Hercule Poirot is completely different from the one created by Agatha Christie. The presence of a complicated mystery that it’s difficult to figure out make this an entertaining read, but if you are looking for a continuous of Agatha Christie’s work, you won’t find it here.

I’ve had a bit of a bad run of authors writing new adventures for classic characters. I like that new audiences are discovering these well-loved characters, but recently, when I read these new advertures, I seem to hit a wall over liking the story.

So why, I hear you ask, did I want to read this? Because I wanted to. Well, I wanted to read Closed Casket, the second in the new Hercule Poirot mysteries. I even got an copy to read, but got super chicken over it so never read it. But with this, I went “I want to try this. Plus, the premise sounds super intriguing and very Agatha Christie. And it’s an author I’ve never read before.”

Poirot comes home from lunch to find an angry woman standing in his doorstep. Here, she demands to know why he sent her a letter, accusing her of murder. Poirot has not sent any letter, has no idea who she is nor the person who was murdered. The woman doesn’t believe him and, shaken, Poirot goes into his house, only to come face to face with a man who’s son has received the same letter from Poirot.

Over the next 48 hours, two more people comes to Poirot, saying he has written these letters to him, accusing him of murder. But Poirot doesn’t understand why these four unrelated people are accused of murder by someone pretending to be him…

Who is Barnabas Pandy who these four are meant to have murdered? Was he murdered? Who is the poison letter writer? And can Poirot find the answers before more lives are put in danger?

Where do I start with this?

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that no-one can write an Agatha Christie mystery expect Agatha Christie. She has her own quality, so I can’t compare Sophie Hannah to Agatha Christie as these are two very different crime writers. Plus, half way through Three Quarters, I did audiobook The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and And Then There Were None and I saw instantly how different these two authors are.

Now, the Three Quarters. The best way to tackle this is splitting the book in two halves.

I had such fun with the first half. The premise was intriguing and I had a blast with Poirot, Catchpool and trying to figure out if this was a murder or a poison pen letter, something we haven’t really seen Poirot tackle (though I think this was touch upon in a Miss Marple - The Moving Finger?). I whizzed through the first half of the story and it was because I had such fun, I audiobooked Roger Ackroyd and And Then There Were None.

But the second half… this is where the story fell flat to me. It because a struggle to read. It lost the fun of the first half and became an overly complicated crime novel. It didn’t feel like a Poirot mystery. It felt like the story was trying too hard to be too smart. And because it became so complex, I wondered “if we removed Poirot, I don’t think anyone would noticed. It doesn’t have that special Poirot-ness to it anymore.”

Plus, there were several occasions where the chapters flipped from being third person to first person (with Catchpool narrating) and this was jarring. I didn’t like this and wished it would stick to one style or another.

So, how do I talk about this? It didn’t blow me away like I hope. Because of the ending and how it dragged/messy it became, I wouldn’t be rushing out to buy it. But I don’t want to abandon this series completely. I do want to try another Sophie Hannah story with Poirot or maybe one of her own novels. I am leaning towards Closed Casket, but am more wary of it now. But I do want to try one more time… but I think I might dive into another Christie before I do and, when I do, give myself distance so I’m not trying to compare…

Usual gathering of the suspects at the end, usual Poirot 'eccentricities', usual intrigue, twists and turns but an unusual amount of humour. Cleverly written and in the right Christie style

The latest Hercule Poirot reboot by Sophie Hannah, The Mystery of Three Quarters, is an ingenious new outing for Agatha Christie’s famous detective.

Here we have the classic country-house mystery populated by characters whose lives we feel we actually have a window onto, even if we don’t particularly care for them. Because this is a whodunit the author has to put various clues in place, dotted throughout, but not so deeply buried that the reader can’t recall them when the denouement comes and all is revealed.

Sophie Hannah carries this all off with aplomb. She paints vivid pictures of situations that aren’t overly cluttered or confusing but succinct and easy to grasp. The story moves along at pace and never gets bogged-down.

The crime here is initially hard to pin down and the characters sufficiently ‘woolly’ in their plausibility and alibis to all be possible suspects. Even the murder, when it is finally revealed, isn’t quite so straight forward.

This is the author’s third new outing for Poirot coming after The Monogram Murders and The Closed Casket set in the later years of his career, featuring his valet George. The original stories from this period read more darkly than the early ones. Poirot was perhaps more lonely, more solitary, a little depressed. Not so here. He now has lively sidekicks in the form of Inspector Edward Catchpool of Scotland Yard and the feisty Euphemia Spring, known as ‘Fee’, who runs the local coffee-shop.

The Inspector is a curious construct offering the necessary bridge with the Police system and a friend in the same first-person way Captain Hastings used to be. What’s more he appears to be Watson to Poirot’s Holmes, writing-up the cases for posterity. The coffee-shop is a place Poirot can’t help but return to, both for the quality of the coffee and the company he finds there.

Any criticism? Well nothing’s perfect. Nothing can actually be “Agatha Christie” except the Dame herself. Here the story is narrated partly in the first-person and partly the third. This I found a little odd at times, but over all it managed to work. There are a few scenes early on that I felt were too comedic, more Wodehouse than Christie, and I found them a little strange given the subject matter, but things soon got back on track.

This book and its convoluted plot is easy to recommend for all fans of the genre. The way it has been written is to make it somehow timeless. Yes, there are references to the year it is set in and capital punishment, but not many. The story could easily be set in any decade of the 20th century, even the 21st. That it is set between the wars is not always obvious.

A good, solid and satisfying mystery then, with characters that believe it or not, you feel will carry on their privileged existences outside of the book.

A recommended read for all fans new and old. You’ll find yourself smiling as you hear those famous Poirot phrases once more!

A typically baffling Poirot mystery -- he always keeps something(s) up his sleeve until the gathering together at the end. More red herrings than in a fishmonger's window. Spoiler Alert -- wet dog's legs!

This is the third novel from Sophie Hannah featuring Agatha Christie's famous detective Hercule Poirot. It is the first one I have read by the author and I am pleased to report it does recall those classic Agatha Christie mysteries. 

'The Mystery Of The Three Quarters' is set in 1930’s London, when returning home after lunch one day, Hercule Poirot finds an angry woman waiting outside his front door. She demands to know why Poirot has sent her a letter accusing her of the murder of Barnabas Pandy, a man she has neither heard of nor ever met. Poirot has also never heard of a Barnabas Pandy, and has accused nobody of murder. He goes inside, only to find that he has a visitor waiting for him who also claims to have received a letter from Poirot that morning, accusing him of the murder of Barnabas Pandy.

From this start a plat unfolds where four letters were received seemingly from Poirot and each person was accused of the murder of Barnabas Pandy. Poirot is soon on the case and the book features plenty of skeletons coming out of the closet of various family members and those acquainted with Barnabas Pandy. In true Christie style Poirot gathers all those involved together in a room to unveil the murderer.

Sophie Hannah certainly keeps within the style of an Agatha Christie book and it is good to see Hercule Poirot on new adventures. Recommended for Poirot fans and those who like a classic murder mystery read.

What's it about?

Returning home after lunch one day, Hercule Poirot finds an angry woman waiting outside his front door. She demands to know why Poirot has sent her a letter accusing her of the murder of Barnabas Pandy, a man she has neither heard of nor ever met.

Poirot has also never heard of a Barnabas Pandy, and has accused nobody of murder. Shaken, he goes inside, only to find that he has a visitor waiting for him — a man who also claims also to have received a letter from Poirot that morning, accusing him of the murder of Barnabas Pandy…

Poirot wonders how many more letters of this sort have been sent in his name. Who sent them, and why? More importantly, who is Barnabas Pandy, is he dead, and, if so, was he murdered? And can Poirot find out the answers without putting more lives in danger?

My thoughts

This is the third Sophie Hannah Poirot novel, and I was initially hesitant about picking it up. I listened to her first, The Monogram Murders, as an audiobook and absolutely loathed it. I stopped and started so many times that my Audible app asked if I was having technical difficulties. But given that I did eventually finish it, and wanted to know whodunnit, I half-concluded that it was Julian Rhind-Tutt's narration I mainly objected too. So when I was offered an advance copy of the third in the series, I thought I'd give it a go. 

I'm going to write this review in two parts. The first will be about how this works as a crime novel, my likes and dislikes, and so on. The second part will be about how this works as an Agatha Christie novel. It's how I thought about the novel as I was reading, so it's how I'm going to write this. 

As a crime novel, it's fine. The solution fits the problem and most of the loose ends are tied up. I liked the original premise - anonymous letters accusing strangers of a murder that wasn't a murder - and I thought it was neatly tied up. The clues and red herrings were well-placed and very Christie-esque in their use. If you like classic crime, you won't be disappointed by this. However, I would've liked more character development. There is a big supporting cast in this, and some of them were arbitrarily thrown in. It's clear who we're meant to be focusing our sleuthing powers on, so the other letter recipients' backstories get a bit lost. It's a bit of a catch-22 situation; Hannah needs the multiple recipients for the plot, but doesn't have the space to capitalise on the drama. 

Now we come to how it works as an Agatha Christie. I've been giving this a lot of thought. I am a big Christie fan, from borrowing her books from Ripon library as an 11 year old, to collecting every edition I can as a 30 year old. So I think that when reading this book, I am almost on edge, waiting for Hannah to trip up. Indeed, when glancing through the reviews for this (and her other Poirot novels), there are always "Poirot would never do that!" comments. Frankly, Poirot is a fictional character, and Hannah has clearly done her research into him. To that end, I'm willing to relax (or at least try to) and just accept this as a continuation with unavoidable shifts in style. Equally, what is a TV adaptation but another interpretation of character, and there have been plenty of those. 

Would I recommend it?

Yes, I think I would. As long as you leave your expectations at the title page.

As a lover of all that Agatha Christie wrote, I was delighted that Sophie kept up the character of Hercules Poirot. All his little habits and idiosyncrasies were there, and as with Christie you were never sure who had done it, until the very end. Going from one suspect to the next but never getting it right.

A great read, and, as with Christie novels, one I did not want to put down.

Well what can I say? My own little grey cells got plenty of exercise while reading The Mystery of Three Quarters!

Sophie Hannah is the perfect choice to write the continuing adventures of Poirot. She's absolutely nailed his quirks and eccentricities, and his attention to detail, and retained Christie's clear and decisive prose.

In this mystery, Poirot investigates four identical letters sent to seemingly random recipients accusing them of the murder of Barnabas Pandy., and purporting to be from Poirot himself.

But nothing is as it seems as Pandy's death has already been deemed an accident, and what connects the four people who received the letter if anything?.

It's down to Poirot to investigate, and bring all of the suspects together for the great reveal.

As with Christie, no matter how hard I tried to work out the connections and who the guilty party/parties may be, I found that my powers of deductions were not up to Poirot's!

The character development is spot-on, and the plot reveals itself slowly and surely.

A triumph in the Poirot canon.

Thanks to NetGalley and the HarperCollins for the e-arc.

Although I am an avid watcher of Poirot, Miss Marple, etc, this is the first "Agatha Christie" type novel that I have read. I have to say, Sophie Hannah has recreated Poirot perfectly! I mean wow! I have to admit that I did use David Suchet's voice in this book for Poirot. Sophie kept me guessing all throughout this book and had me absolutely gripped to the end to the point where I took my lunch break at my desk at work an hour earlier than usual, and then realised that because I was sitting on a bank of desks by myself in the corner, that if I took another hour for lunch then people would not realise I'd already been. I couldn't get away with a third hour though...One of my colleagues another day asked what I was reading, and I ended up having to give her an update every day on what had happened - even when she went off on annual leave. That's never happened before!
So, to sum up, this is an absolutely gripping book , it never lets you go, and I did not expect that ending...wow wow wow!!

The book is fantastic. Its easy to dive into and get lost in. Theres twists and turns and I can hand on heart say that I didn't know who done it until I was meant to.

The story is about four people who are each claiming that Poirot is accusing them of murder by letter. Poirot wants to know why someone is using his name to accuse each of these people and more to the point, why the person believes they have murdered Barnabas Pandy. Each of the accused say they dont know the man.

Im a lover of Agatha Christie so this book of course got my interest. If youre looking for a complete copy of Agatha, this isn't it. Theres parts of the book where you would swear Agatha wrote it, parts where it felt like reading a brand new Christie novel but then theres the parts where you find yourself thinking Agatha would never have said or done this. And thats okay. I dont think anyone will be able to live up to her but Sophie Hannah sure gives her a run for her money!!

I received an ecopy of The Mystery of Three Quarters by Sophie Hannah from Netgalley. I was intrigued as to whether Ms Hannah could pick up the baton from the much loved Agatha Christie and write an authentic novel starring our old friend Monsieur Hercules Poirot.

In the main I was delighted, the detective appeared to be in tip top form and I noticed no hint of any deviation from character.

The plot however, did seem a little cumbersome at times especially with it's conclusion which, frankly, I found more than a little farfetched.

An engaging novel nevertheless and one which I would recommend to any lover of Christie style crime drama but maybe not to the true officiendo.

Three quarters is about right. For me this book doesn't quite hit the giddy heights and just seems to lack a crispness that I have become accustomed to bearing in mind who the main character is. An impossible act to follow I know and the storyline is good and the book is a good read so I would recommend without hesitation. It just felt a little like Poirot by numbers. I did check other reviews to make sure I wasn't being unduly harsh or out of touch but others seem to have felt the same way. I guess you can't have your cake and.... well you'll see

Tried this as l love Sophie Hannah but it wasn’t for me l do like crime books but this was a too gentle pace for me but l do feel true to the intended style and it will appeal to many I’m sure

I have to hand it to Sophie Hannah, she has got the whole Agatha Christie – Hercule Poirot and 1930s vibe down to a fine art. Instead of trying to replicate Christie’s style and characters, Hannah gives her readers the feeling they are wandering around in the mind maps and plots of the grande dame of crime, whilst infusing the story with her own style and sense of humour.

I imagine it is both exciting to be the face of the new Poirot and incredibly difficult to live up to such high expectations. Sophie Hannah does so with great panache.

In this third new mystery featuring Poirot, the most famous detective in the entire world (his words), finds himself in the midst of a mystery about the author of a series of poison pen letters. Hercule Poirot himself has accused multiple people of murder, of killing the same man. He has written, signed and sent these letters himself. The accused, start popping up all over the place to threaten, shout and berate him for his thoughtless accusations.

Just one problem, the pedantic Belgian with the meticulously groomed moustache has never heard of the supposed victim, the recipients of said letters and he certainly hasn’t accused anyone of ‘the murder most wicked’ – well at least not lately. Luckily there is nothing Poirot loves more than a criminal trying to pull the wool over his eyes.

Three Quarters is step back into time and it gives the reader a sense of nostalgia. It is the typical Poirot crime mystery readers love to immerse themselves in. Hannah gives her readers the Christie of old but stamps her mark on it with confidence, which makes for a great read.

I was sent a copy of The Mystery of Three Quarters by Sophie Hannah to read and review by NetGalley.
This new Hercule Poirot novel was a very pleasant mystery romp in true Agatha Christie style. Lots of players and lots of twists and turns, with plenty of amusing moments from M. Poirot. A perfect antidote to the relentlessly graphic crime thrillers of the modern day.

Sophie Hannah is a successful crime writer who, since 2014 (with permission from the Christie estate), has been writing new Hercule Poirot stories in the voice of Agatha Christie. The Mystery of Three-Quarters is Hannah's third Poirot tale and perfectly captures not only the iconic character, but the tone of Christie's original books.

Lots of classic Poirot conventions are used here. It almost feels little Poirot-by-numbers, but it does work to give a healthy dose of nostalgia to the read. For example, we see the list making technique, (Poirot literally makes a list of questions he still has about the situation.) Another thing that we've seen frequently in previous books is nicely explained by the man himself, 'One never knows what is of vital importance, or where the connections lie, until the solution is apparent. The most inconsequential-seeming detail can be the one that matters most.' Seeing the details no one else does is a Poirot trait and small details do matter very much in this plot. Plus there is, of course, a reference to the little grey cells. I would have disappointed if there hadn't been.

Now, onto said plot: 'Everything that has happened is peculiar in the extreme.' Narrated by Inspector Edward Catchpool of Scotland Yard, the story begins when four different people question why Poirot has written a letter accusing them of murdering Barnabus Pandy. The thing is, Poirot did not write those letters... so who did? And who is Barnabus Pandy? This is an intriguing case for Poirot as not only has he been personally drawn into it, but he must work out who wrote the letters and what exactly did happen to Barnabus Pandy... Plot-wise - it ticks all the Christie boxes.

I thought the cast of characters was also strong and really liked how the book explores relationships as much as anything else. ''Human relationships are extremely complicated', said Poirot.' And he's not wrong, especially the ones here - from Annabel Treadway with her constant air of misery to John McCrodden and his battle of wills with his father - but that's what makes it so interesting - everyone seems guilty and not guilty at the same time. Ultimately though, it comes down to this: 'no man can act in a way that is contrary to his own nature,' and seeing into someone's core is, of course, what Poirot does better than anybody.

Throughout, Hannah builds up brilliant layers of suspense, narrative turns and character crossovers, and although it's very cleverly done, it doesn't necessarily throw up any great surprises and did feel a little strung out at - ironically - around three-quarters of the way through. Is it a great detective story? Yes. Does it rank up there with Christie's best? No. But then the bar is set so high, that was always going to be a tough challenge. I don't want to end on a negative though, overall this was a great mystery read and it was a joy to be back in Poirot's company for a new story.

Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC.