Talk:The A.B.C. Murders

Reversed changes
I'm sorry that I've had to reverse the changes that you made but I did so for the following reasons:

1) Your new summary does not improve the understanding of the book in any notable way. It also neglects the detail of a key feature of the story in that it doesn't name the alphabeticised victims or their places of residence. It also makes errors such as "A madman is killing people in Europe." The action of the story clearly takes place in the UK.

2) There are no links in your summary. Links are not essential in Wikipedia but they do indicate well-researched pages.

3) I'm sorry to have to say this but your spelling and grammar are not up to standard. Sentences such as "He Kills in order of the alphabet" and "The next murder doesn't happen and a man walks into the police station and told the police that he did the crimes" which changes tense in mid-sentence, are good examples. It also doesn't help when you name the detective as "Hurcule Poriot".--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Typography
Is there some reason why this article is titled "The A.B.C. Murders", when the photo of the book's cover clearly reads "The ABC Murders"?

Aya T C 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you. As you can see below, I just posted the same thing. I hate OCD grammar folks who think they are so above everyone that they even correct authors! If no one else objects in one week, I will fix it myself. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the title A.B.C. when it's not?
The title is ABC Murders NOT A.B.C. Murders and because of this, the page name is even wrong. I move that this page should be retitled properly. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what I came here to note as well. 75.4.238.0 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I hold the BBC Audiobooks copy on CD, read by Hugh Fraser. Its title is The A.B.C. Murders. The Crime Club 1939 edition (first edition, 6th impression) shows the periods after the letters on its cover and on the inside cover page (offered for sale today at AbeBooks.com ). Perhaps other publishers were not consistent in their covers on this point. Google search will find the Wikipedia entry typed either way. For more confusion, the Agatha Christie web site calls it The ABC Murders in its page on this mystery novel. Prairieplant (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am planning on moving the article, the first thing you gave is the second edition, the first is the one pictured in the article. If the original book, and the website call it 'The ABC Murders' then that is the name it should have. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  08:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

, why are you moving this article? Where are you moving it? Maybe this needs to be open for discussion. Even the first American edition had the periods after each letter, see the second reference. I did not set this page up, but the present title seems correct, plus ABC Murders gets directed to the article anyway, for searches. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the above stated reasons. The original edition (UK) was, as pictured in the article, 'The ABC Murders', and as stated above, the official website calls it the same. If anything, there is no argument for keeping it where it is. Mat  ty  .  007  15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with you. The American editions are title with the periods, as is the "6th impression" of the first printing from Crime Club in the UK (the link says it is first edition, how do you get to decree otherwise?). The audio book uses the periods. You seem deaf to other facts, and current printings of the novel in its many forms. The title arises from the man set up as the suspect, with notes signed A. B. C. The train guide kept up a theme. This seems a petty reason to move the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would vote to change it to "The ABC Murders" as per the 1st UK edition. It was published first in the UK and the author was British. To clear up a couple of points above: If the Crime Club edition was published in 1939 (see other comments above), when the novel was first published in 1936, then it was presumably only the first edition of the Crime Club version, not the overall first edition. Secondly, publishers have also been messing with the text, so that doesn't necessarily indicate the correct title for this article. In my much later (Fontana, 1973) version, most of the notes are signed "A B C.". Brian Hardy 54 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for info, almost all of the 1936 UK newspaper references (reviews, publisher publicity, etc) to the book that I could find use "A.B.C." or "A B C" (i.e. with clear spacing between each letter). The only use of "ABC" is the The Era which briefly reported that the film rights to the book had been sold. 82.12.192.171 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Plot beginning and names
I fixed the names up a bit. Alphabetically by first name is never a good idea, especially when first names are seldom used in the book. Christie is very formal in her writing. I reordered it in order of surname and reformatted it the way Wikipedia numbers bullets. Also the writing of the plot is very weird. It leaps into the third murder without any rhyme nor reason. Though I don't like it's "draft" like look now, at least it'll be less confusing to the reader. Feel free to rewrite that part if you wish, just be sure to start where the book starts, please. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

First adaptation…?
The Tony Randall film isn’t the first adaptation, although it may be the first screen adaptation (can’t say for certain); the novel was adapted for radio in 1943, for the series “Suspense!” in the U.S. It’s notable for two things: it features Charles Laughton (the first person to play Hercule Poirot on stage) as Alexander Bonaparte Cust, and more importantly removes Hercule Poirot entirely from the proceedings! I can’t say that this is definitively the first adaptation, but it certainly predates the Randall picture. Jock123 (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jock123, if you have the sources for that radio adaptation, why not put it in the article?Prairieplant (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New Game
A new Poirot Adventure game is coming out this year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NRiqaj9mcw0

http://www.agathachristie.com/news/article/the-abc-murders-the-adventure-game-based-on-agatha

Don't worry the American ascent is only for the Trailer not Poirot's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.111.122 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the question? No need to use the article to advertise a game that does not exist yet. I marked the text change as citation needed, but now it seems wiser to delete the sentence. Once the game is issued, perhaps reviewed, then mention it. The above link to the Agatha Christie web site goes nowhere. What were you intending to share? Please sign your posts. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The game is available at GOG. https://www.gog.com/game/agatha_christie_the_abc_murders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.36.251.32 (talk) 00:40, September 19, 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The A.B.C. Murders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208235241/http://agathachristie.com/story-explorer/stories/the-abc-murders-1/ to http://www.agathachristie.com/story-explorer/stories/the-abc-murders-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the original article on The ABC Murders. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Naming the murderer and the victims
The murderer and the victims are named in the Plot summary and in the Character list. Naming them is not a spoiler, see WP:SPOILER. This has been a matter of debate today with editor, who does not want to name the murderer, already identified in the Plot summary, in the Character list. I find that being victim or murderer is a key aspect of the character. The murderer's identity is generally revealed at the end of a mystery or detective novel, so that seems an odd reason (named at the end of the novel) not to identify the murderer in the Wikipedia article in the character list, to my way of thinking.


 * I am aware that some Wikipedia advice suggests not adding plot action (excluded from the Plot summary) to the character description. This advice seems to be followed selectively in the Wikipedia articles about novels, especially when the literature is well known. I am thinking of some of the novels by Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, for example (e.g., Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, David Copperfield, Pride and Prejudice Persuasion, Emma (novel). A totally opposite approach is taken with the Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, where the plot summaries are minimal (or not all, as in the articles about collections of his short stories) and there is not one character list, while lengthy articles are written separately about three main characters, Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson and Moriarty. Articles about the historical mysteries of British author Ellis Peters (Edith Pargeter all include character lists with clear descriptions, e.g. One Corpse Too Many. This topic of what belongs in the article about a novel, including mystery novels, seems to be interpreted in various ways, usually consistent about the works of one author, but not the same when comparing from the works of one author to another author.  --Prairieplant (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it is correct to highlight a character in a murder mystery/crime fiction novel as the criminal of the case, if the revelation about them is not revealed until towards the end of the novel. I believe the list should dictate mainly the detective(s) of the case, the narrator (if applicable), police figures involved (if applicable), victims, and then notable characters of importance, with such importance dictated by notable factors (not if they're the chief criminal). The details of characters should list any behaviours they have, prominent connections to other characters and/or victims, and such like. GUtt01 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If they are revealed early on as the criminal, yes - they can be highlighted as such.GUtt01 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, this is your belief,, not any sort of Wikipedia formal or informal guidance, correct or otherwise. Being the murderer is, in my view, a prominent connection between that character and his or her victims. Your belief sounds like you want spoiler alerts, rather than discussing the entire novel freely in the article, without regard to when a victim or a killer is named in the text, that is, at the start or near the end. The character list is used for novels that are not mystery novels, so the rules or practices tend to be the same regardless of the genre of the novel. I might add that in novels where characters have multiple identities in the course of the story, it is helpful to name the murderer and all the alias names in the character list. It is not clear to me how you can impose that belief of yours, despite the policy against spoiler alerts. I am glad you finally put your views here on a talk page. I do wish you would stop reverting when the murderer or the victim is identified in the character list of an article about a novel, especially as that information is in the Plot summary already. Those are edit wars with no basis. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not against identifying victims, since they get revealed gradually in the course of the novel, but I'm not for identifying a character as a murderer. I'm more for have the basic traits of the characters, connections to others, and identifying marks being made.GUtt01 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the criminal is known from the start or within the mid-point of the novel, then they could be highlighted as such, since they are known by then as the primary antagonist of the novel. But if such a role is not known until the end of the novel, it hardly seems right to mark so on a character list. It is more a belief to keep the list under a neutral tone, and only highlight people per their role that is given in the majority of the novel, not after the denouncement identifies them as the murderer; such information is best kept as a plot point in the Plot Summary, not in the character list.
 * In terms of fictional story-telling, the antagonist of the story should only be ever identified on the list around upto the mid-point of the story, particularly if there are clear indications they are "the bad guy". If not, such a point must be not included on the list, as such a reveal is a key point required for the Plot Summary. GUtt01 (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)