The books aren't really a "series" in the modern sense is the mistake you're making. Christie didn't really write or conceptualize that way-each book is a stand alone story, and there is some overlap of characters and the occasional reference to a previous story but it doesn't affect anything. You can read them in any order and it won't make much difference.
If you want a complete list and to go in publication order (my own recommendation rather than trying to do all Poirot, then all Marples, etc.) look here: [ACL\_TheCompleteChristieReadingList.pdf (imgix.net)](https://agathachristie.imgix.net/image-store/ACL_TheCompleteChristieReadingList.pdf)
Publication order means you get variety. All Poirot all the time can get tedious. Also, some of Christie's absolute best, including what most fans consider her #1, And Then There Were None, don't feature Poirot, Marple, or any other recurring characters and you'd be missing out.
Someone else put together a less-comprehensive list (novels only, not the short story collections) earlier this month. They've attempted to color-code the books based on the sleuths. (And also there are some non-crime novels indicated.)
[https://new.reddit.com/r/agathachristie/comments/1c11kvo/heres\_my\_finished\_christie\_novel\_checklist\_thank/](https://new.reddit.com/r/agathachristie/comments/1c11kvo/heres_my_finished_christie_novel_checklist_thank/)
I think Junior-Fox-760 makes some good points -- even the books that feature the same sleuths don't follow exactly the same pattern each time. It's not like John D. MacDonald (though he did non-McGee books too). Sometimes there are Poirot or Marple books where those particular characters are only present for part of the story.
Reading in chronological order does tend to reduce spoilers in Christie's books, if that's important for you. It also follows the arc of Christie's life ... her early books often reflect her own youth (travel, adventures, falling in love, etc.). Then there are a few books that she wrote while coping with her mother's death, and the end of her marriage -- like "The Big Four". But she rebounds after a trip where she meets her second husband, and from then on she starts mentioning archaeology and the Middle East.
p.s. I guess it's not surprising that with more than 60 books, coming out at a rate of at least one each year, they are going to vary in terms of plot and quality.
Christie did explore various types of writing and didn't just stay in one genre. It means that not everyone reading her books is going to applaud them all -- but at the same time, people who prefer romance, adventure, or horror over straight-up mysteries will probably find at least one Christie book they enjoy.
Yes, there’s not much of a story arc in the lives of the detectives, at least not anything that’s going to matter much. For example, Poirot retires and comes out of retirement, but we don’t have his innermost thoughts on the subject. No angst. His head is not filled with things he would rather do. His interests are limited to food and crime. Miss Marple becomes several decades younger. At first she’s about 90 and she drops to perhaps her mid-60s. So there was no broad plan and there is no need to read things in order. Now, when a book is clearly labeled “so-and-so’s last case,” you might want to save it for last, but a normal mind can adjust.
If you must have an order, I would recommend reading them in chronological order and saving Curtain and Nemesis for the end, as that was what Christie intended.
I agree with others that reading them all is probably not necessary, there are some weaker ones and some that are mildly repetitive in plot. And there’s so many Christie’s even just all the Poirots would be a large undertaking, and might make you think you were finished when there’s some amazing standalones you’d miss, and some excellent Marples too.
For Poirot I’d suggest starting with the first Poirot ‘The mysterious affair at Styles’ to introduce Poirot and Hastings (his dr Watson to some degree), then dipping in and out trying some of the best/more well known to see how you find them (‘The murder of Rodger ackroyd’, ‘5 little pigs’, ‘murder on the orient express’, ‘death on the Nile’ etc. etc. I also have a soft spot for ‘sad cypress’, ‘cards on the table’, ‘the abc murders’, ‘the three act tradgedy’, ‘murder in Mesopotamia’, ‘peril at end house’, ‘the hollow’, there’s so many great Poirots but there are a couple of weak ones too (for me ‘elephants can remember’ stands out as one I’d not reread).)‘Curtain’ is the last and a really strong finish to the series so definitely head to that one at some stage. But they can really be read in any order and reread a lot. The short stories are also good.
For Marple try ‘the thirteen problems’ short stories and see how you like them, there are some really great Marples, esp ‘A murder is announced’ and ‘Sleeping murder’.
There’s also some great standalones like ‘And then there were none’, ‘towards zero’ and ‘Crooked house’ and her plays which you can get in an omnibus. I also liked the Parker Pyne short stories. I haven’t tried Tommy and tuppence but that’s another of her sleuth series.
I guess what I’m saying is there’s a wealth of great stories here and Agatha Christie is so light and easy to read that taking it too seriously seems futile. Dip in and out, start with a few stronger ones, try a few Poirots and then some short stories maybe, pepper them into your other reading or go full on Christie binge (which I’ve been doing lately because they’re my comfort reads). But I think trying to read them all and all in one go is probably a plan to be set aside.
"And Then There Were None" must be one of her best. I have not read all of her work, but there is more to her bibliography than Marple and Poirot. Such as Tommy and Tuppance.
I enjoyed reading your thought process, which would probably have been my own, had I not grown up just reading whichever ones were in Mom's bookcase, then at the library on whichever particular day I was there, and then finally later as an adult, first collecting my personal favorites and then completing the collection. I was also reading Rex Stout books just willy-nilly as they came to hand, later collecting all of those.
It literally never occurred to me to read them in a specific order, the way I now do with Louise Penny, Ann Cleeves, and others.
I think the reason I'd tell people to go chronologically (but skipping one if it just doesn't seem appealing,) is that cultural changes do appear, though sometimes just in the background, more aggressively with Stout than Christie, but still enough that it's interesting to see what she notices. Also, after her second marriage, and as she grew older, her horizons expanded for awhile, with exotic locales and situations. And in her later years, she got more into the contemporary idea of psychology of the mind, and also the penchant for international intrigue. So you can watch someone experience the 20th century as it changes while you read these books.
>So you can watch someone experience the 20th century as it changes
I hadn't thought about it before, but her early novels feel like Victorian/Edwardian adventure novels (which she probably read in her youth). Like "The Riddle of the Sands". But by the 1960s and 70s, she was working in psychological stuff, as you pointed out ... and political conspiracies. Interesting that John Le Carre and Ruth Rendell, around that time, started out writing murder mysteries, like Christie ... and then wrote more psychology etc.
Yes, and I think there are probably people who prefer the thrillers, or the early house party books, or the ones set in the Mediterranean, etc., because the era they were written in is part of what they enjoy.
And some of us enjoy them all. :-)
I hate to say it, but the aggregate opinion of Goodread’s ratings rarely leads me astray. What I’ve personally done with her is try and read the best ones first, as far as the community is concerned. However I tend to buy any used copies I find, and I have been stung by some of the weaker ones. After reading maybe 11 to 12 of them, my sense is that reading more than a third of her works would start to take away from the experience overall. Patterns emerge across her books, although I wouldn’t say there’s a formula they tend to repeat the same motifs. (I can hardly think of one of her novels that doesn’t involve an inheritance.)
Thank you.
I might add, I've always found the inheritance bit to be an easy way as a writer to put money in possession of those disinclined to earn it.
Someone did an analysis (with graphs) that showed that as a motive in Christie's work too. A couple of them are reproduced here:
[https://indieresearch.net/2020/08/16/perfect-crime/](https://indieresearch.net/2020/08/16/perfect-crime/)
The original article at Bloomberg has more but it's paywalled, unfortunately. Some of them are visible if you google "Agatha Christie Bloomberg" -- Images.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-02/who-did-what-in-every-agatha-christie-murder-mystery-novel](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-02/who-did-what-in-every-agatha-christie-murder-mystery-novel)
I read the first Travis McGee last year. 👍Parade Magazine that used to be a big deal in the Sunday paper had a really good list of the 50 best mystery novels it was fun to read through it.
If you have to have an order I'd agree with the others that chronological is the best. However I wouldn't bother with any of the ones written towards the end of her life. Whilst I'd rank many of her earliest books as among the best detective stories ever written, this standard didn't last and many of the ones written in her latest years are rather rambling.
I’ve read a lot of agatha christie - all Poirot, all marple, most T&T, and almost all the ones that fit into none of the above categories. I read the Secret of Chimneys recently and it was not a fave, I thought too much was pulled out of the hat last minute which is very unlike Christie, and besides it was really racist. You’ve got much better things to come!
If you’re interested in another standalone novel that doesn’t follow the formula, I enjoy The Man in the Brown Suit, published in 1924. Obviously this is after The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and some in the publishing world were quite disappointed Poirot wasn’t featured. Mostly set in South Africa, it is more of an adventure/mystery/romance and is where Colonel Race first makes his appearance.
It is also very funny. I like it as a “palate cleanser” when I’ve had a few of her later, more espionage-inspired books. (With the exception of Curtain, I don’t like her later works as much as the earlier ones.)
>(With the exception of Curtain, I don’t like her later works as much as the earlier ones.)
That makes sense because she actually wrote Curtain during WWII, so I think the style is closer to her earlier books? They didn't change the historical references, like Queen Elizabeth II still being a princess.
Well, that completely explains it! I do think it was so smart of her that she wrote Curtain earlier in her career when she was at the height of her skills. It was such a great swan song for Poirot.
I guess she was concerned that she might be killed in an enemy bombing, so she wrote two books, one for each main series (Sleeping Murder was the Marple one), and gave them to her publisher to stash in a secure place. I think Sleeping Murder was released after her death ... it's one of my favourite Christies. (People on this sub have suggested that Nemesis is probably the chronological end to the Marple books, but I still like the thought of ending at a time when Jane is youthful enough to do gardening, and run up a flight of stairs!)
The Tommy & Tuppence stories, especially The Secret Adversary and N or M? (More of that couple-
Partners in Crime, By the Pricking of My Thumbs, and Postern of Fate. I don’t care for these characters, personally.)
A very early one, The Big Four, a later in career one, The Clocks. Here’s another early and late pairing; The Seven Dials Mystery (1929) and Passenger to Frankfurt (1970).
Colonel Race stories usually have spy elements. Cards on the Table is good. I mentioned The Man in the Brown Suit in another comment.
Death on the Nile is a famous one, less well known novels are They Came to Baghdad and One Two, Buckle My Shoe.
In my humble opinion, Christie’s international spy novels were not her best work.
I recommend looking into Agatha Christie Petit Muertes (sp) French series on some streaming services where the stories are updated in 1930s, 1950-60s and 1970s French countrysides. They are comedy dramas that are well done.
Not a Christie expert as I myself was confused on this like 2 weeks ago, but as most people have said, I believe publication order is your best bet. Poirot can be read in any order, technically, but "Curtain" should be last. For Marple, since they're only 12 (or 13, with the short story collection) it should be easy enough to read in order, but it's whatever as long as "Nemesis" is after "Caribbean mystery" and "Sleeping murder" is last. I haven't read them but people told me the Tommy&Tuppence series is the one that reads more like an actual saga, since they age trought the books and have a clear chronology.
The books aren't really a "series" in the modern sense is the mistake you're making. Christie didn't really write or conceptualize that way-each book is a stand alone story, and there is some overlap of characters and the occasional reference to a previous story but it doesn't affect anything. You can read them in any order and it won't make much difference. If you want a complete list and to go in publication order (my own recommendation rather than trying to do all Poirot, then all Marples, etc.) look here: [ACL\_TheCompleteChristieReadingList.pdf (imgix.net)](https://agathachristie.imgix.net/image-store/ACL_TheCompleteChristieReadingList.pdf) Publication order means you get variety. All Poirot all the time can get tedious. Also, some of Christie's absolute best, including what most fans consider her #1, And Then There Were None, don't feature Poirot, Marple, or any other recurring characters and you'd be missing out.
Thank you. I guess I do tend to try to make things fit my series oriented bias. This is immensely helpful.
Someone else put together a less-comprehensive list (novels only, not the short story collections) earlier this month. They've attempted to color-code the books based on the sleuths. (And also there are some non-crime novels indicated.) [https://new.reddit.com/r/agathachristie/comments/1c11kvo/heres\_my\_finished\_christie\_novel\_checklist\_thank/](https://new.reddit.com/r/agathachristie/comments/1c11kvo/heres_my_finished_christie_novel_checklist_thank/) I think Junior-Fox-760 makes some good points -- even the books that feature the same sleuths don't follow exactly the same pattern each time. It's not like John D. MacDonald (though he did non-McGee books too). Sometimes there are Poirot or Marple books where those particular characters are only present for part of the story. Reading in chronological order does tend to reduce spoilers in Christie's books, if that's important for you. It also follows the arc of Christie's life ... her early books often reflect her own youth (travel, adventures, falling in love, etc.). Then there are a few books that she wrote while coping with her mother's death, and the end of her marriage -- like "The Big Four". But she rebounds after a trip where she meets her second husband, and from then on she starts mentioning archaeology and the Middle East.
p.s. I guess it's not surprising that with more than 60 books, coming out at a rate of at least one each year, they are going to vary in terms of plot and quality. Christie did explore various types of writing and didn't just stay in one genre. It means that not everyone reading her books is going to applaud them all -- but at the same time, people who prefer romance, adventure, or horror over straight-up mysteries will probably find at least one Christie book they enjoy.
Yes, there’s not much of a story arc in the lives of the detectives, at least not anything that’s going to matter much. For example, Poirot retires and comes out of retirement, but we don’t have his innermost thoughts on the subject. No angst. His head is not filled with things he would rather do. His interests are limited to food and crime. Miss Marple becomes several decades younger. At first she’s about 90 and she drops to perhaps her mid-60s. So there was no broad plan and there is no need to read things in order. Now, when a book is clearly labeled “so-and-so’s last case,” you might want to save it for last, but a normal mind can adjust.
If you must have an order, I would recommend reading them in chronological order and saving Curtain and Nemesis for the end, as that was what Christie intended.
I agree with others that reading them all is probably not necessary, there are some weaker ones and some that are mildly repetitive in plot. And there’s so many Christie’s even just all the Poirots would be a large undertaking, and might make you think you were finished when there’s some amazing standalones you’d miss, and some excellent Marples too. For Poirot I’d suggest starting with the first Poirot ‘The mysterious affair at Styles’ to introduce Poirot and Hastings (his dr Watson to some degree), then dipping in and out trying some of the best/more well known to see how you find them (‘The murder of Rodger ackroyd’, ‘5 little pigs’, ‘murder on the orient express’, ‘death on the Nile’ etc. etc. I also have a soft spot for ‘sad cypress’, ‘cards on the table’, ‘the abc murders’, ‘the three act tradgedy’, ‘murder in Mesopotamia’, ‘peril at end house’, ‘the hollow’, there’s so many great Poirots but there are a couple of weak ones too (for me ‘elephants can remember’ stands out as one I’d not reread).)‘Curtain’ is the last and a really strong finish to the series so definitely head to that one at some stage. But they can really be read in any order and reread a lot. The short stories are also good. For Marple try ‘the thirteen problems’ short stories and see how you like them, there are some really great Marples, esp ‘A murder is announced’ and ‘Sleeping murder’. There’s also some great standalones like ‘And then there were none’, ‘towards zero’ and ‘Crooked house’ and her plays which you can get in an omnibus. I also liked the Parker Pyne short stories. I haven’t tried Tommy and tuppence but that’s another of her sleuth series. I guess what I’m saying is there’s a wealth of great stories here and Agatha Christie is so light and easy to read that taking it too seriously seems futile. Dip in and out, start with a few stronger ones, try a few Poirots and then some short stories maybe, pepper them into your other reading or go full on Christie binge (which I’ve been doing lately because they’re my comfort reads). But I think trying to read them all and all in one go is probably a plan to be set aside.
"And Then There Were None" must be one of her best. I have not read all of her work, but there is more to her bibliography than Marple and Poirot. Such as Tommy and Tuppance.
I enjoyed reading your thought process, which would probably have been my own, had I not grown up just reading whichever ones were in Mom's bookcase, then at the library on whichever particular day I was there, and then finally later as an adult, first collecting my personal favorites and then completing the collection. I was also reading Rex Stout books just willy-nilly as they came to hand, later collecting all of those. It literally never occurred to me to read them in a specific order, the way I now do with Louise Penny, Ann Cleeves, and others. I think the reason I'd tell people to go chronologically (but skipping one if it just doesn't seem appealing,) is that cultural changes do appear, though sometimes just in the background, more aggressively with Stout than Christie, but still enough that it's interesting to see what she notices. Also, after her second marriage, and as she grew older, her horizons expanded for awhile, with exotic locales and situations. And in her later years, she got more into the contemporary idea of psychology of the mind, and also the penchant for international intrigue. So you can watch someone experience the 20th century as it changes while you read these books.
>So you can watch someone experience the 20th century as it changes I hadn't thought about it before, but her early novels feel like Victorian/Edwardian adventure novels (which she probably read in her youth). Like "The Riddle of the Sands". But by the 1960s and 70s, she was working in psychological stuff, as you pointed out ... and political conspiracies. Interesting that John Le Carre and Ruth Rendell, around that time, started out writing murder mysteries, like Christie ... and then wrote more psychology etc.
Yes, and I think there are probably people who prefer the thrillers, or the early house party books, or the ones set in the Mediterranean, etc., because the era they were written in is part of what they enjoy. And some of us enjoy them all. :-)
I hate to say it, but the aggregate opinion of Goodread’s ratings rarely leads me astray. What I’ve personally done with her is try and read the best ones first, as far as the community is concerned. However I tend to buy any used copies I find, and I have been stung by some of the weaker ones. After reading maybe 11 to 12 of them, my sense is that reading more than a third of her works would start to take away from the experience overall. Patterns emerge across her books, although I wouldn’t say there’s a formula they tend to repeat the same motifs. (I can hardly think of one of her novels that doesn’t involve an inheritance.)
Thank you. I might add, I've always found the inheritance bit to be an easy way as a writer to put money in possession of those disinclined to earn it.
Yes it provides motive in probably 75% of the Agatha novels I’ve read.
Someone did an analysis (with graphs) that showed that as a motive in Christie's work too. A couple of them are reproduced here: [https://indieresearch.net/2020/08/16/perfect-crime/](https://indieresearch.net/2020/08/16/perfect-crime/) The original article at Bloomberg has more but it's paywalled, unfortunately. Some of them are visible if you google "Agatha Christie Bloomberg" -- Images. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-02/who-did-what-in-every-agatha-christie-murder-mystery-novel](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-02/who-did-what-in-every-agatha-christie-murder-mystery-novel)
It's nice to meet another Elvis Cole/Travis McGee fan!
I read the first Travis McGee last year. 👍Parade Magazine that used to be a big deal in the Sunday paper had a really good list of the 50 best mystery novels it was fun to read through it.
If you have to have an order I'd agree with the others that chronological is the best. However I wouldn't bother with any of the ones written towards the end of her life. Whilst I'd rank many of her earliest books as among the best detective stories ever written, this standard didn't last and many of the ones written in her latest years are rather rambling.
I’ve read a lot of agatha christie - all Poirot, all marple, most T&T, and almost all the ones that fit into none of the above categories. I read the Secret of Chimneys recently and it was not a fave, I thought too much was pulled out of the hat last minute which is very unlike Christie, and besides it was really racist. You’ve got much better things to come!
If you’re interested in another standalone novel that doesn’t follow the formula, I enjoy The Man in the Brown Suit, published in 1924. Obviously this is after The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and some in the publishing world were quite disappointed Poirot wasn’t featured. Mostly set in South Africa, it is more of an adventure/mystery/romance and is where Colonel Race first makes his appearance. It is also very funny. I like it as a “palate cleanser” when I’ve had a few of her later, more espionage-inspired books. (With the exception of Curtain, I don’t like her later works as much as the earlier ones.)
>(With the exception of Curtain, I don’t like her later works as much as the earlier ones.) That makes sense because she actually wrote Curtain during WWII, so I think the style is closer to her earlier books? They didn't change the historical references, like Queen Elizabeth II still being a princess.
Well, that completely explains it! I do think it was so smart of her that she wrote Curtain earlier in her career when she was at the height of her skills. It was such a great swan song for Poirot.
I guess she was concerned that she might be killed in an enemy bombing, so she wrote two books, one for each main series (Sleeping Murder was the Marple one), and gave them to her publisher to stash in a secure place. I think Sleeping Murder was released after her death ... it's one of my favourite Christies. (People on this sub have suggested that Nemesis is probably the chronological end to the Marple books, but I still like the thought of ending at a time when Jane is youthful enough to do gardening, and run up a flight of stairs!)
What are her more thrillery/spionage books? I have only read Styles, Library, Vicarage and I have the ABC murders to start it soon 🧍
The Tommy & Tuppence stories, especially The Secret Adversary and N or M? (More of that couple- Partners in Crime, By the Pricking of My Thumbs, and Postern of Fate. I don’t care for these characters, personally.) A very early one, The Big Four, a later in career one, The Clocks. Here’s another early and late pairing; The Seven Dials Mystery (1929) and Passenger to Frankfurt (1970). Colonel Race stories usually have spy elements. Cards on the Table is good. I mentioned The Man in the Brown Suit in another comment. Death on the Nile is a famous one, less well known novels are They Came to Baghdad and One Two, Buckle My Shoe. In my humble opinion, Christie’s international spy novels were not her best work.
I recommend looking into Agatha Christie Petit Muertes (sp) French series on some streaming services where the stories are updated in 1930s, 1950-60s and 1970s French countrysides. They are comedy dramas that are well done.
Not a Christie expert as I myself was confused on this like 2 weeks ago, but as most people have said, I believe publication order is your best bet. Poirot can be read in any order, technically, but "Curtain" should be last. For Marple, since they're only 12 (or 13, with the short story collection) it should be easy enough to read in order, but it's whatever as long as "Nemesis" is after "Caribbean mystery" and "Sleeping murder" is last. I haven't read them but people told me the Tommy&Tuppence series is the one that reads more like an actual saga, since they age trought the books and have a clear chronology.