วีดีโอ

Your - absolutely wonderful, as usual - review only confirms my opinion of the book. I have attempted reading it several times and never managed to progress beyond a couple of chapters. I may give it another try. Apparently, in the course of his research and interviews, Capote fell in love with one of the killers and even attended his execution? Capote had a penchant for ‘factions’ - presenting fact as fiction and vice versa - more vice versa, in fact. In that last regard, Answered Prayers is the most notorious as it led to his ostracism from NY high society. His best faction is the novella Hand-carved Coffins, an intriguing, rather macabre kind of story, which is riveting from start to finish and deserves to be filmed or televised.

It’s amazing to watch intellectuals defend racism. The whole premise that white males have a leg up because of their skin color is laughable victim speak nonsense.

One more comment---apparently Mike stopped reading Dorothy L. Sayers after this one, which for us fans is a shame. Mike does insightful reviews. I know the next in the series is a short story collection, which is very mixed---some good ones (The Article in Question; the Dragon's Head) and some awful ones (The Man with Copper Fingers; Ali Baba's Cave---it is known she needed the money and stretched for plots though we love her characters). If Mike cannot face short stories, go on to The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club ("unpleasantness" being British-speak for murder and so on.)

About Sayers putting in such long discussions of family relationships and inheritance law. If you read enough British fiction, you find a deep, deep interest everywhere in who inherits (since often one family member gets it all) and how Our Hero (or Heroine) is affected by his place in the kin network. Try reading the denoument of Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped---and 50 other British novels you can get your hands on. For instance, Dorothy Sayers wanted Lord Peter to be really rich (fun for her to fantasize), but not have the responsibility of being Duke---so she could not make Peter his father's heir but sees to it that inherits another way plus is an astute businessman who makes money in his spare time. Many British may not be as bored as you were by this part of the story. If you read the whole series into what Jill Paton Walsh added you will find that, alas, he does become Duke and emphatically finds it a burden.

I think the title, Clouds of Witness, has some of Sayers's double layers of meaning. As a clergyman's daughter and future writer of ecclesiastical drama, Sayers knew her Church of England and her scripture well, and the phrase "clouds of witness" actually quotes a phrase from a letter of Paul. But a lot of the plot of this book has to do with finding more witnesses to the behavior of both the victim and accused---not a crowd exactly, but the lack of those witness's testimony was creating clouds until the clouds were dispersed. And then, Peter's taking an airplane, through the clouds from New York City, which at that date was only conceivable by a rich man, was key in the timing of getting all needed witnesses to the dramatic trial in the House of Lords.

Thanks . Nice work. Hope to see you in Davood's reading group soon. 😁 Patrick

This is one of my favorites. I enjoyed the setting a lot.

For me, Taken at the flood is a very ambivalent book: In some parts, I would argue it is even great (the post war description of rationing, dysfunctional telephones, the confusion as to gender roles and class ('WHY don't we have the lifestyle we had before?!?' Read: Being waited on for starvation wages). I liked the realistic description of what the Cloade family were thinking about Rosaleen, being well aware how unkind they were but still their greed carried the day against their decency. And I thought Christie was quite clever by making us focus on the question whether David really was 'Rosaleen's' brother and thus overlooking whether she really was his sister - although there were quite enough clues to tip us off. But then their was the resolution. As you said - a lot of Poirot's so called deductions being simply guesswork which we have to accept as truth because the author says so was bad enough, but I could let it slide by shrugging my shoulders, saying every author sometimes slips up. But the whole moral of the Ronny travesty... Christie's idea of a 'good' romantic relationship is questionable at best on a good day - here it is downright sickening. I would applaud her for her unflinching presentation of a woman in the late 40ies or beginning fifties being forced by convention into a marriage to an abusive oaf who will never forgive her for having been braver (and whatever else) than he was and will take it out on her on a regular basis. I would - if there was even the slightest hint that she intended it that way. Instead - as you pointed out - Poirot gives his blessing to it and thus we have to assume that she really thinks Lynn's fate is one of happy ever after.

I only just discovered your channel and am very happy about it. Oh yes, The Clocks! I remember quite liking the murder plot in itself and I also thought the description of the girls' interaction at the secretarial bureau was well done. Edna, btw, in my opinion was precisely the airheaded girl who would walk to the 'murder house' (drum roll!) sort of like today she'd scroll through selfies of people at a public accident or something. Apart from all the mind-blowing coincidences you mentioned, however, the main distraction for me was the narrative voice of Colin Lamb in this one. He is supposed to be a young man of the swinging sixties - but he sounds and feels like an old woman and that's just...

Superb detailed review. Impressive how much time and trouble you have taken! Always look forward to your appearances. Interesting that there is also a fairy tale about a king and his three daughters - asking them to say how much each loves him and turning against the youngest who lives him most etc. Was it in the Brothers Grimm or Charles Perrault?

A short and little-known Pulitzer Prize winner is Now in November. I read somewhere that this was also an inspiration for A Thousand Acres. I would say it's more depressing and tragic than A Thousand Acres. Now in November deals with a mortgage and the destruction of the land and the environment. Smiley weaves through her novel the role of pesticides in 1970s farm life.

i'm Greg, the viewer who recommened A Thousand Acres. I come from a farm background in the Midwest which is what originally attracted me to this novel. Smiley nails Midwestern far life down to the most minute details, like when she desribes the interior of the barn at the end of the novel. Ginny's failed attempt at murdering Rose made sense to me as I looked at it through the prism of farm life and sexual abuse. The sexual abuse caused resentment between the sisters. Also, Rose had the children Ginny never had. Farm life is stifling and monotonous. What I saw in Ginny's attempt to kill Rose was her asserting power and control over her life. She was able to research, plan, and execute on her own with no interference or second-guessing from the men or her sisters.

Lots of insights and interesting ideas here. I really liked your reflections on why we have retellings and what we can get from reading a retelling. I imagine that people who retell a story must have mixed feelings about the original story, and their retelling is a way of responding to those mixed feelings.

Just finished this one. I rather enjoyed it, but I was alerted to one huge plot hole by another reader. How could Blunt and Gerda have known that Amberiotis was going to go to that particular dentist?

Great review, in my opinion, the most comprehensive and all-rounder commentary I have heard till now. Cheerios!

Let’s talk about that 20 million statistic because it can shed some light on propaganda in history. Now first, Stalin was a very bad person. He was cruel, sociopathic, deeply selfish, often insane, and he tormented his own people as well as countless others. He has earned his spot among the worst people in history. That said there was an effort to demonize Hitler in the US and the West as a whole. From this anti-socialist crusade, we get the “20 million” statistic. The book that gave us the “Stalin killed 20 million” statistic is titled “The Black Book of Communism” and it was published in 1997. Right off the bat anyone on the far right, including Fascists and Nazis, loved this number. It meant Stalin killed more people than Hitler which of course means socialism is worse than Fascism. The problem though is that this book is propaganda more than history. The book's goal is to compare communism and Nazism and make communism look worse. The book has been found to Manipulate data Exclude crucial details Wildly overestimate some statistics Wildly underestimate other statistics 2 of the historians involved in the cook (Werth and Margolin) both accused Courtois of being obsessed with reaching “100 million killed by socialism” and that Courtois’s scholarship was sloppy at best. So how many people did Stalin kill? Well here is the difficultly- what counts? With Hitler it’s easy. The SS (under his direct command) constructed and then used extermination camps in an effort to eradicate Jews. With Stalin though it is tricky. Of all the major events leading to mass deaths under Stalin’s rule, the largest are famines. Is Stalin to blame for the famine? It’s like blaming Trump for COVID. Sure we can say Trump made it worse, but it isn’t his fault a global pandemic sprang up. So let’s see what the numbers show The Great Purge, 900,000 killed Operation Lentil, 144,704 killed. Note there are lots of “forced deportation”. This is where Soviet forces show up in a region and forcefully move the population elsewhere. These were “unwanted” groups and were basically forced to leave their homes and lives behind with the clothes on their back. They were often starved or killed in the process of deportation and left on the very worst pieces of the land the USSR had to offer. Deportation of Tatars, 50,000 killed Kulak Deportations, 500,000 killed Deportations of Estonians, Germans, Poles, Balts, and Ukrainians 309,521 killed Deaths in Gulags, 1.053,000 killed I am uncomfortable with this one a bit just because many people were sent to the Gulag for justified reasons. However, there were many innocent people sent there so it's worth attributing to Stalin's reign of terror. German civilians killed from deportation, forced labor, or war crimes by the USSR, 600,000 killed 150,000 killed during 1945 campaign 450,000 killed in Soviet prison camps German POWs, 1,000,000 killed Total: 4,557,225 That’s it- those are all the intentional deaths. Some of them are not super clean cut but I think we can attribute these to Stalin and the government he ran. Now we get to the confusing bit- the famines. A famine is not the game as a genocide. In a genocide there is intent- there is a desire and specific actions taken to bring about the murder of people. A famine is a disaster. Famine may be accidental or caused by the weather. A bad economic policy that leads to famine is not as morally evil as an intentional military policy of “hunt and kill all the ___ people”. Does that make sense? Here are the famines Soviet Famine of 1932-1933: 6,000,000 deaths Holodomor: 4,000,000 deaths Soviet Famine of 1946: 1,000,000 deaths. Kazakh Famine: 2,000,000 So if we include the famines Stalin can be blamed for 16,557,225 deaths roughly. However, I do not think that is fair. There is considerable debate over what caused these famines and if they were directly Stalin's fault. Most often, Stalin is blamed for the Holodomor but not the other 2. The famine of 1946 for instance was directly due to how ravaged the USSR had been by Germany during the prior years. I tend to agree that Stalin should be blamed for the Holodomor and the Kazakh famine as there is strong evidence these were intentional at least to some degree. Thus 4 million dead in the Holodomor plus 4.557,255 killed in various atrocities plus 2 million dead in the Kazakh famine brings us to 10,557,255. I think we can 100% blame Stalin for about 4,000,000 deaths- past that it’s all debate.

Communism struggles with the remarkable fact that this collectivist ideology only seems to work for people who believe in individual salvation and personal responsibility. Communism is basically two things: No private property. You share with other people the tools, land, trees, ideas, cars, works of art that make your living. You contribute to the common pot what you can. You get out of the pot what you need. The idea sprang from Christian monasteries. Monks worked in silence and, amid the prayers, had plenty of time to introspect. Many came to ask themselves and everyone around: why can’t the whole of humanity live the same pious, quiet, and spiritual lifestyle as us? There will be no wars, no angry people, no famines, no suffering. Scientific Communism Then came Marxists with a very practical answer: we can make it work if we mandate everyone to give up their private property. Everyone will work for everyone’s salvation. To top it, no one will need to die to get Communist salvation. It will all happen in this world, not the next one! In the 20th century, Communists managed to organize themselves and grab power across much of the world. They met much resistance but ultimately overcame it. The largest and the most populous countries in the world even became a clear and present danger to the most prosperous and strong Capitalist countries. The bourgeois scum got the scare of their lives! Selfishness pays One problem kept popping up. Humans are shaped by evolution to be a bunch of lazy, selfish, sneaky predators. It takes the fear of pain, starvation, and death to get us off our idle behinds and make ourselves useful. There is also a tiny minority of people who are driven by curiosity, vanity, and the desire to make a difference. But they are a maddeningly selfish bunch, too. They prefer to do their own stuff and object strongly when other people tell them what to do. There’s also a powerful, unselfish thing called love. It can do wonders and prevail over everything. But the unselfishness of love makes it the most dangerous enemy of Communism: people eagerly sacrifice the common good for their kids, their lovers, their family, and their friends. God or perdition What on Earth can trump our (1) selfishness, greed, laziness, and (2) our loyalty to our loved ones? There's only one thing that seems to be able to do that. It’s the love of God and faith in individual salvation. This is what the tale of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac is about. For us common people, this means: God is willing to give us individual salvation if we are ready to betray our loved ones for Him. (In the USSR, we had a Communist rendition of Abraham’s Test: “Who do you love more, Soviet rule or your Dad?”) Enforcement The history of Communism shows that Marx's idea of the ideal society requires a degree of individual discipline and self-policing that no totalitarian society can ensure. You need a community of people who are obsessed with individual responsibility in the face of God. If you start mixing these pious creatures with lazybones, creeps, and men/women in love with each other, the latter ones get a ginormous unfair advantage. They will be piggybacking, leeching, and stealing for themselves wherever possible, while the self-sacrificing dimwits will be busting their backs to make everyone’s life better. You may, of course, put the police, worker’s watchers, KGB operatives, and neighbor informants on the task of enforcing Communist morals. What happens next is the lazybones, leeches, and thieves use every trick in the book to become the enforcers. This is exactly what happened everywhere, from Soviet Russia through the Red Khmer’s Kampuchea to the Chavista Venezuela. Conclusion The upshot to the story: you may make Communism work, in some places, for some time. To achieve that, you need People who believe in individual responsibility before God or History A wall between them and people who don’t believe in God/History Preferential arrangements from the government in terms of property protection and economic incentives. On even terms, greedy people always outcompete selfless people.

To fully grasp Stalin’s logic, you need to look at the world through Stalin’s eyes. Stalin was a run-of-the-mill Bolshevik who devoted himself to the destruction of the Russian Empire. He didn’t appear very bright to start with, but he had an extraordinary memory, and he was an eager learner. We don’t know his exact motivation. Yet we do know that he burned with an unwavering hatred of this patriarchal society, in which extreme inequality and poverty predominated. Stalin worked with a lot of like-minded comrades who said “We know how to blow up this rotten place.” And unlike all our modern armchair Communists, they didn’t just talk-they actually did it. They seized power in 1917-1918 and went about building a classless society. The first thing they did was to take the means of production from the hands of its owners, the capitalist class. Everyone armed with a weapon considered anyone richer than themselves to be capitalist parasites, and started taking away the bloodsuckers’ stuff. Houses, cars, wives, petty cash, all things bourgeois. Other people, naturally, objected. A civil war ensued in 1919-1920, and when the dust settled down, Russia was a country in ruins. Stalin’s comrades kept quarreling between themselves. The big questions, such as “Who to blame?” and “What to do?” seemed to have more answers than there were comrades. (This always happens whenever radical Socialists discuss Socialism). Being a true Bolshevik, Stalin could not passively watch the cause of Communism become stalled and compromised by his fractured, ineffectual comrades. He did what Lenin and Trotsky, and other classic thinkers of the movement had taught and practiced: a true revolutionary must never be hampered by the bourgeois notions of good and evil. A true Bolshevik must deliver. And Stalin was an exemplary Bolshevik. Stalin took the formidable tools of victorious proletariat state - such as the secret police, revolutionary tribunals, prisons, torture chambers and firing squads,-and turned them against his quarrelling comrades. They all disappeared, one by one. After them went the rest of the old Russian urban class who might slip a word about how things had not been as bad as they were turning out to be under the Bolsheviks. Next went millions of peasants who objected to Stalin taking away their grain to finance his industrialization and armament program. Then went everyone who was not obedient or quick enough to obey Stalin’s orders. That’s how the Soviet Union, that magnificent monolith of proletarian might, emerged as the entire world came to know it. That’s how USSR crushed Hitler and sent the first man in space. Does anyone truly think the USSR could have achieved this if it had not been for the effectiveness (detractors call it “brutality”) of Stalin? The Chinese, Korean, Yugoslav, Albanian, Cuban, Kampuchean, Vietnamese comrades watched and learned. They managed to replicate this success. What can be more convincing to practitioners of social change than a method that can be replicated? The crucial lesson of Stalin’s rule is this: Next time your well-intentioned, university-educated, herbal-tea-soaked SJWs tell you they know a better way to the just and equal society, don’t listen. They have no clue. They never get anything done. They’re just windbags with a rich vocabulary. The only way to the radical social change is the Bolshevik way. They say “brutality,” Communists say “resolve.” “Take the heat or get out of the kitchen.” (Karl Marx). The choice is yours. -- i’m kidding. it’s not Karl Marx

I just found your channel. I appreciate that you read such a wide variety. I was reading a chapter a day of War and Peace but found I could never get any momentum in the story that way. I ended up reading it faster and finished it in a month. I'm glad I did that because it made the book more enjoyable for me.

Catching up on your War & Peace updates, Mike - I’m so glad you’re having a good time with it! How far are you now if I might ask? I had another friend join the readalong in April and she caught up shockingly fast and has now zoomed ahead by a couple weeks - but it’s been so fun to read alongside other people (including the substack…not sure how much you’re dipping into the chapter chat threads, but they are serving up their own little dramas and slices of humanity each day, too! 😅)

Nice review, now im going to buy this book! keep making videos.

I'll echo the other commenters that Marsh improves from this first outing--she later referred to this book derisively as "A Man Laid an Egg". Continuing to read her myself, and I will say she would've been well served by a more ruthless editor trimming her novels by ~10%.

They get better. I reread this recently and yes, there is a whole lot of tomfoolery going on (including that insane murder method). You can definitely tell this is a first novel.

All spot-on and quite brilliant, as your reviews go. I wouldn’t have started with the very first Marsh - as it pales into oblivion compared to her masterpieces (Death in a White Tie, Surfeit of Lampreys, Scales of Justice, Final Curtain etc) NB She gets better as she progresses. Her characters are frequently very amusing and memorable and she has a superb sense of place. You will probably like Enter a Murderer too - one of her theatrical whodunits.

This is an outstanding review of 'It Can't Happen Here'! I just finished reading the novel yesterday and noticed that you pointed out many of the same issues with the heavy political content and the character of Doremus Jessup. I agree with you about the character flaws of Doremus. In fact, Doremus is self-analytical enough to question how effective he's been with his newspaper and editorials, wondering if he has been so quick to criticize because he has been secure in his 'ivory tower' existence and can easily pass judgment on a cretin like Shad Ledue. I think Lewis must have felt an urgency to pack as much in to his 'of the moment' dystopia that he got sloppier with his craftsmanship and characterization than he was with his much more polished and nuanced earlier novels such as 'Main Street' and 'Babbit' (the only others of his that I have read so far). Great job, Mike!

The most interesting of Ngaio Marsh : Final Curtain, Surfeit of Lampreys, Scales of Justice, Death in a White Tie, Tied Up in Tinsel, Death in Ecstasy.

Good to see you - and hear you. Long-awaited. Waiting for Curtain.

Have you ever read Pauline Kael's film criticism? I highly recommend her work.I think she's the greatest film critic this country has ever produced.

I love being able to get a more rapid-fire overview of your recent and forthcoming reads like this (and images!). This might sound corny, but you have a really comforting presence. I found myself engaged the whole way through! I might have to check out that A.O. Scott book. I could use a revitalized view of critics and criticism. The 2005 film Capote is an excellent telling of the writing and aftermath of In Cold Blood. I highly recommend it (Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance is exceptional in spite of an initial strangeness). In line or in contrast with Bootstrapped, you may appreciate The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovitz. It analyzes the flip side of "lifting oneself up by one's bootstraps" by looking at the highly rigorous and relentless pursuit of excellence among the upper class and the psychological harms but also exponential advantages (and thus perpetual inequality and cultural division) this brings. Daniel Markovitz has many insightful interviews on the subject online you can check out first.

It's a good read, but not one of Christie's best. Still enjoyable though. And sorry to be so picky, but your descriptions of some of the characters are quite inaccurate. Megan Symmington is actually Megan Hunter. She's the daughter of Mrs Symmington from a previous marriage and therefore Mr Symmington's stepdaughter. The fact that Megan is the 'odd one out' in the otherwise 'perfect' Symmington family unit is one of the reasons that Jerry feels sympathy for her in the first place. And Aimée Griffith is Owen's sister, not his wife. Her actions at the end of the book are driven by her long-suppressed attraction to one of the other characters.

Good review! I finished Third Girl yesterday and my initial thoughts are very similar to yours. The novel started off strong with the unusual and puzzling entrance of Norma and her "statement". The insult, and Mrs Oliver's reaction to hearing about it, was pretty hilarious. I also enjoyed the juxtaposition of city v countryside, the various descriptions of architecture. Generally there weren't so many characters that I found it difficult to remember and follow. There were some clever little twists and turns in the storylines, but I wasn't satisfied with the ending. Like you said, the solution that Mary and Frances were one and the same seemed a bit too far a stretch for me personally. I think it's plausible for most the characters to fall for the disguise, but not all. Firstly, Claudia (who is portrayed as clever and astute) presumably met both Mary and Frances and didn't notice? Secondly, and more importantly, Norma spent decent chunks of time with both (and I doubt she was drugged 100% of the time) and surely she would notice. The background explanation of where the two criminals had met and hatched this plan was also too thin and felt rushed. Lastly, I agree that the side story of the uncle's papers and espionage felt a bit sloppily added into the main narrative. Christie could have incorporated those details in a more convincing way; that thread never seemed to have been tied up properly. Overall quite an enjoyable book, mainly because of the often amusing interactions between Poirot and Mrs Oliver, or Poirot and police. I don't think it ranks high against other Christie novels, but as a general book review I still rate it relatively high because Christie is such a brilliant writer. Anyway, please keep reviewing books 👍

Check out Steven Kotkin's Stalin. Definitive.

Another fascinating review! More, please.

Superb review - one of your most in-depth peceptive - and most entertaining.

But you haven’t done Roger Ackroyd, ABC Murders, Peril at House etc - all 1st class Poirots. And looking forward to Ngaio Marsh!

There have been one film and one TV adaptation of the book. Neither very good.

This one was pretty rough. I thought she had beaten the "elephants" theme to death early on, but then she exhumed it and resumed the flogging. 😭

All you need to know about the ending is that even Rollie Cloade himself was confused about it. To be honest though, by the end of this novel you basically find yourself thinking "sure, that might as well happen". 😂

Definitely feel the culprit wasn't that well set up. How could anyone know the murderer happened to be standing behind Sarah when the statement was made? In any case, her character is barely developed and her motive is pretty tenuous for a number of reasons.

You said it's not really a politicsl book. TH-cam algorithms disagree. 2-3 years ago, I was looking up this book, and my YT started to come up with a lot of vidoes conservative channels. Also, my search for reviews for the book on YT didn't include this video of yours but plenty of conservative channels that have videos of the author talking abut the book. I'm in the middle of reading his other book which I really enjoyed. I stepped back from buying this book when I saw how much conservatives love it. I shouldn't but I read enough stuff that they say that piss me off, I dont need to pay for it.

Excellent review and commentary. You gained a fan because of your comment at the 18 min mark; labeling.

This novel and Postern of Fate were used as a source by scientists to prove, that Christie was probably suffering from Alzheimer, when writing them. Which makes the whole memory theme rather sad, as it was probably what Christie was feeling herself. Still, the book should never have been published, and Postern of Fate for sure shouldn't have been.

"A Haunting in Venice" is the absolute worst. It really bears no resemblance to the novel and is utterly unwatchable. The Suchet version is far better.

Avoid the Branagh Poirots. Irredeemable bilge, waste of big budgets.

Very perceptive of you - about the change of social values in the 60s Christie chronicles.

Remember both Poirot and Mrs Oliver talked heartlessly about the girl victim in Dead Man’s Folly. Best Christie with child in it - Crooked House.

You haven’t reviewed the best Poirots have you? ABC, Orient Express, Peril at End House, Roger Ackroyd? Cards on the Table?

It was cobbled together with the help of her brother-in-law - the stories had already appeared in mags. It also marks Christie’s lowest point, after her disappearance and reappearance, while she was recovering from nervous breakdown and trying to avoid the Press.

Enormously interesting - not only what you say about the books - but what it says about you as well. You do live up to your (self-imposed) eclectic- reader reputation! NB When you finish Agatha Christie, do try Ngaio Marsh (Final Curtain, Death in a White Tie, Black as He is Painted).

The double life of Mary who is Frances in the city and N’s stepmother in the country, just by means of a wig and makeup, has always fascinated me as it is completely unlikely. In the same way as the fact that Mrs Leidner could have married the same man twice without realizing it in Murder in Mesopotamia. The last chapter where Frances is unmasked as Mary - all that yawning she does - is also unconvincing.