Cards on the Table is one of Agatha Christie's closed-room whodunits (a format she was master of) featuring her popular detective Hercule Poirot.  But as far as Agatha Christie mysteries go, this one was just "ok" -- good but not great and definitely not Christie's best.

Unlike many of her other stories, this one didn't focus so much on Poirot -- as much time was spent on the activities of Sergeant Battle and Ariadne Oliver as on Poirot himself.  That wasn't necessarily a bad thing, since I'm not terribly fond of the too-smug Poirot.

However, for me this book had three main weaknesses that kept it from rising above the mediocre.  First -- and perhaps least -- is the character of Ariadne Oliver.  This is the first time I've encountered her, although according to the Wikipedia article on Christie, Oliver is a frequently recurring character in her mysteries featuring Poirot.  Meant to be a spoof of herself, Ariadne Oliver is a feminist writer of popular mysteries featuring a Finnish detective.  I suppose she is meant to be comic relief, but I found her to be a simply silly character who detracted from the story overall.

The second weakness of the book is that it focused largely on the game of bridge.  If you're not familiar with bridge, as I am not, then many of Poirot's deductions and comments will not make sense to you.

But the major weakness of this book is the most fundamental.  And that is, the murder was committed at a dinner party, with the 8 attendees being the only possible killers.  And the weapon was found still on the body.  So why didn't they just dust the stiletto for fingerprints, and then take the fingerprints of everyone present?  That would quickly and easily identify the murderer.  There is mention later in the book of fingerprints, so obviously fingerprint technology was available and in use in the 1930s (when this story is set).  The answer is obviously that the mystery would then be over in two chapters at the most.  Nevertheless, the long, drawn-out, elaborate investigation seemed needless and senseless to me from the beginning.

This is not Christie's worst, but not her best, either.  The narration is fine, though.
Cards on the Table is one of Agatha Christie's closed-room whodunits (a format she was master of) featuring her popular detective Hercule Poirot. But as far as Agatha Christie mysteries go, this one was just "ok" -- good but not great and definitely not Christie's best. Unlike many of her other stories, this one didn't focus so much on Poirot -- as much time was spent on the activities of Sergeant Battle and Ariadne Oliver as on Poirot himself. That wasn't necessarily a bad thing, since I'm not terribly fond of the too-smug Poirot. However, for me this book had three main weaknesses that kept it from rising above the mediocre. First -- and perhaps least -- is the character of Ariadne Oliver. This is the first time I've encountered her, although according to the Wikipedia article on Christie, Oliver is a frequently recurring character in her mysteries featuring Poirot. Meant to be a spoof of herself, Ariadne Oliver is a feminist writer of popular mysteries featuring a Finnish detective. I suppose she is meant to be comic relief, but I found her to be a simply silly character who detracted from the story overall. The second weakness of the book is that it focused largely on the game of bridge. If you're not familiar with bridge, as I am not, then many of Poirot's deductions and comments will not make sense to you. But the major weakness of this book is the most fundamental. And that is, the murder was committed at a dinner party, with the 8 attendees being the only possible killers. And the weapon was found still on the body. So why didn't they just dust the stiletto for fingerprints, and then take the fingerprints of everyone present? That would quickly and easily identify the murderer. There is mention later in the book of fingerprints, so obviously fingerprint technology was available and in use in the 1930s (when this story is set). The answer is obviously that the mystery would then be over in two chapters at the most. Nevertheless, the long, drawn-out, elaborate investigation seemed needless and senseless to me from the beginning. This is not Christie's worst, but not her best, either. The narration is fine, though.