I'm a long-time Christie fan. This book is by far my least favorite of all her books. Poorly plotted, it was a slog to get through, and I struggled to finish it. If you enjoy spy/thriller/suspense fiction, there are many better options than this. Helen McInnes, for example.
I am not sure why I can't add stars to my comment but this book rates less than one.
I have to agree with the assessment that this is the worst book I have ever read. There did not seem to be a plot that I could comprehend. There were no murders to solve. And the "feel" of the book content was simply just wrong.
I enjoy Christie's books a lot but this one is nothing more than a dust collector.
No no no NO.
Written by Christie when she was 80 yrs. old in 1970, this book may have seemed a bit far-fetched then, but now that we are finally aware of the NWO, Soros, and Agenda 21, it makes a lot of sense when looked at from that perspective. It could be she was trying to warn us, or maybe I've just read too many mysteries.
Agatha Christie’s fans will probably not enjoy this book. It departs completely from Mrs. Christie’s style. First of all, it is a spy thriller—but not like other and older Christie’s spy thrillers. It reminded me a lot of Buchan’s books—especially The 39 Steps. So, if you don’t like old-fashioned spy thriller, don’t even get this book out of the library shelf! If you read Buchan and liked it, you will enjoy this book. Mrs. Christie was highly criticized, even ridiculed, when the book appeared. A fellow writer condemned its “idiotic conventions.” A highly condescending critic wondered if “the old dear” understood “the difference between a hippie and a skinhead.” One will never know, since she never mentioned either in the book; one then wonders if this critic actually read her book... Another critic wrote the plot was “inconceivable,” which is surprising, considering he was old enough to have heard of Hitler’s Youth. For him the book’s end was “incomprehensible muddle,” yet, it was clear to me. (I guess I am a very, very bright person!) The same critic believed Mrs. Christie did not understand what “Third World” meant; yet it was clear she used it not with the connotation of “Third World Country,” but the world the rebelled youths thought they were going to create. It is clear that her critics never perused the pages of John Buchan; they would have been well informed had they bothered, instead of dishonorably belittling an eighty year-old extremely lucid lady. She was quite write when she described how the youths were being brainwashed: "against their mode of government; [...] their parental customs, [...] the religions in which they have been brought up." Just like it is (still) happening nowadays.
You're kidding, right? Wow. Not only one of the worst Christie books I've read, but it would have to rank as one of the worst books I've ever read. First of all, it really should be categorized under "Science Fiction". (Heavy on the Fiction, but that still won't give it enough slack.) My first thought as I started to read this, was: "Wow. It kind of seems like Agatha is starting to lose it a little." Then, after reading more, my curiosity led me to check, and it seems like quite a few people have that opinion of some of the last work she did. Understand that I'm a firm believer that someone can be sharp as a tack at over 100, so eighty doesn't seem old to me, and it's not that so much, as just maybe being a little "out of touch", for lack of a better term.
There are no age suitabilities for this title yet.
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.