The Full Wiki

Five Little Pigs: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Five Little Pigs  
Murder in Retrospect First Edition Cover 1942.jpg
Dust-jacket illustration of the US (true first) edition with alternative title. See Publication history (below) for UK first edition jacket image with original title.
Author Agatha Christie
Cover artist Not known
Country United States
Language English
Genre(s) Crime novel
Publisher Dodd, Mead and Company
Publication date May 1942
Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback)
Pages 234 pp (first edition, hardback)
Preceded by The Body in the Library
Followed by The Moving Finger

Five Little Pigs is a work of detective fiction by Agatha Christie and first published in the US by Dodd, Mead and Company in May 1942 under the title of Murder in Retrospect[1] and in UK by the Collins Crime Club in January 1943 although some sources state that publication occurred in November 1942[2]. The UK first edition carries a copyright date of 1942 and retailed at eight shillings (8/-)[2] while the US edition was priced at $2.00[1].

The book features Hercule Poirot. The novel is notable as a rigorous attempt to demonstrate Poirot’s repeatedly stated contention that it is possible to solve a mystery purely by reflecting upon the testimony of the participants, and without access to the scene of the crime.

This was the last novel of an especially prolific phase of Christie's work on Poirot. She published thirteen Poirot novels between 1935 and 1942 out of a total of eighteen novels in that period. By contrast, she published only two Poirot novels in the next eight years, indicating the possibility that she was experiencing some frustration with her most popular character.

Five Little Pigs is unusually repetitive in the sense that the same events are retold from several standpoints.


Plot introduction

Sixteen years after a woman has been convicted of the murder of her husband, her daughter, Carla Lemarchant, approaches Poirot to investigate the case. Poirot embarks optimistically upon an unprecedented challenge, but soon fears that the case may be as cut and dried as it had first appeared.


Explanation of the novel's title

Like One, Two, Buckle My Shoe before it and Hickory Dickory Dock after it, the novel is named for a nursery rhyme usually referred to as This Little Piggy that is used by Poirot to organise his thoughts regarding the investigation.

Plot summary

Carla is engaged to be married but she is afraid that the fact that her mother killed her father will poison her husband's love for her, as he may fear that she has inherited a husband-killing tendency. Moreover, Carla remembers that her mother would never lie to her to hide an unpleasant truth and her mother told her she was innocent through a letter. That is enough for Carla but she wants Poirot to prove her mother's innocence to her husband to be.

Carla's father, painter Amyas Crale, was murdered with a poison, coniine, which had been extracted from hemlock by Meredith Blake but subsequently apparently stolen from him by Carla's mother, Caroline Crale. Caroline confessed to having stolen the poison, claiming that she had intended to use it to commit suicide. This poison ended up, however, in a glass from which Amyas had drunk cold beer, after complaining that 'everything tastes odd today'. Both the glass and the bottle of cold beer had been brought to him by Caroline. Her motive was clear: Amyas’s young model, and latest mistress Elsa Greer, had revealed that he was planning to divorce Caroline and marry her instead. This was a new development; though Amyas had frequently had mistresses and affairs, he had never before shown any sign of wanting to leave Caroline.

Poirot labels the five alternative suspects “the five little pigs”: they comprise Elsa Greer (now Lady Dittisham); Meredith Blake; Meredith’s brother, Phillip Blake; Cecelia Williams, the governess; and Angela Warren, Caroline’s younger half-sister. As Poirot learns from speaking to them during the first half of the novel, none of the quintet has an obvious motive, and while their views of the original case differ in some respects there is no immediate reason to suppose that the verdict in the case was wrong.

The differences are subtle. Phillip Blake’s hostility to Caroline is overt enough to draw suspicion. Meredith Blake mistrusts him, and has a very much more sympathetic view of her. Elsa seems emotionally stunted, as though her original passion for Amyas has left her prematurely devoid of emotion, except for hatred for Caroline Crale. Cecilia, the governess, gives some insight into both Caroline and Angela, but claims to have definite reason for believing Caroline guilty. Finally, Angela believes her sister to be innocent, but a letter that Caroline wrote to her after the murder contains no protestation of innocence, and makes Poirot doubt Caroline's innocence for perhaps the first time.

In the second half of the novel, Poirot considers five accounts of the case that he has asked the suspects to write for him. These establish the succession of events on the day of the murder, and establish a small number of facts that are important to the solution of the puzzle. In the first place, there is a degree of circumstantial evidence incriminating Angela. Secondly, Cecilia has seen Caroline frantically wiping fingerprints off the bottle of beer as she waited by Amyas’s corpse. Thirdly, there has been a conversation between Caroline and Amyas, apparently about Amyas 'seeing to her packing' for Angela's return to school. Fourthly, Elsa overheard a heated argument between Caroline and Amyas in which he swore that he would divorce her and Caroline said bitterly 'you and your women'.

In the denouement, Poirot reveals the main emotional undercurrents of the story. Philip Blake has loved Caroline but his rejection by her has turned this to hatred. Meredith Blake, wearied by his long affection for Caroline, has formed an attachment to Elsa Greer, that is also unreciprocated. These are mere red herrings, though. Putting together the case that would incriminate Angela (she had the opportunity to steal the poison on the morning of the crime, she had previously put salt in Amyas’s glass as a prank and she was seen fiddling with the bottle of beer before Caroline took it down to him; she was very angry with Amyas), he demonstrates that Caroline herself would have thought that Angela was guilty. Her letter to Angela did not speak of innocence, because Caroline believed that Angela must know for a fact that Caroline was innocent. This explains why, if Caroline was innocent, she made no move to defend herself in court. Moreover, Angela was seriously disfigured by a scar on her face, an injury caused by Caroline in a jealous rage many years ago. Caroline had always felt deeply guilty about this and therefore felt that, by taking the blame for what she thought was Angela's crime, she could earn redemption.

Caroline’s actions, however, unwittingly proved her innocence. By wiping the fingerprints off the bottle, she showed that she believed that the poison had been placed in it, rather than in the glass. Moreover, seen to handle the bottle there was no reason to remove her own fingerprints; she can only have been removing those of a third party.

Angela, however, was not guilty. All the evidence incriminating Angela can be explained by the fact that she had stolen valerian from Meredith’s laboratory that morning in preparation for playing another prank on Amyas. (Because she described the theft of the valerian in the future tense Poirot realised that she had never carried out this trick; Angela had completely forgotten that she had stolen the valerian on the morning of that fateful day).

Poirot’s explanation solves the case to the satisfaction of Carla and, most importantly, her fiancé. But, as Elsa forces him to admit, it cannot be proven. Poirot states that though his chances of getting a conviction are slim, he does not intend to simply leave her to her rich, privileged life. Privately, however, she confides the full measure of her defeat. Caroline, having earned redemption, went uncomplainingly to prison, where she died soon after. Elsa has always felt that the husband and wife somehow escaped her, and her life has been empty since.

The last paragraph of the novel underlines this defeat. “The chauffeur held open the door of the car. Lady Dittisham got in and the chauffeur wrapped the fur rug around her knees.”

Characters in “Five Little Pigs”

  • Hercule Poirot, the Belgian Detective
  • Carla (Caroline) Lemarchant, the daughter of Caroline Crale
  • Sir Montague Depleach, Counsel for the Defence in the original trial
  • Quentin Fogg, K.C., Junior for the Prosecution in the original trial
  • George Mayhew, son of Caroline’s solicitor in the original trial
  • Caleb Jonathan, family solicitor for the Crayles
  • Superintendent Hale, investigating officer in the original case

The “Five Little Pigs”

  • Phillip Blake, a stockbroker (“went to market”)
  • Meredith Blake, a reclusive former amateur herbalist (“stayed at home”)
  • Elsa Greer (Lady Dittisham) , a spoiled society lady ("had roast beef”)
  • Cecilia Williams, the devoted governess ("had none”)
  • Angela Warren, a disfigured archaeologist (“cried 'wee wee wee' all the way home”)

Literary significance and reception

Maurice Willson Disher's review in The Times Literary Supplement of January 16, 1943 concluded, "No crime enthusiast will object that the story of how the painter died has to be told many times, for this, even if it creates an interest which is more problem than plot, demonstrates the author's uncanny skill. The answer to the riddle is brilliant."[3]

Maurice Richardson was pleased to see the return of Poirot to Christie's works when he reviewed the novel in the January 10, 1943 issue of The Observer. He concluded, "Despite only five suspects, Mrs. Christie, as usual, puts a ring through the reader's nose and leads him to one of her smashing last-minute showdowns. This is well up to the standard of her middle Poirot period. No more need be said."[4]

J.D. Beresford in The Guardian's review of January 20, 1943 said, "Miss Agatha Christie never fails us, and her Five Little Pigs presents a very pretty problem for the ingenious reader." It concluded that the clue to who committed the crime was, "completely satisfying."[5]

Robert Barnard: "The-murder-in-the-past plot on its first and best appearance – accept no later substitutes. Presentation more intricate than usual, characterization more subtle."[6] All in all, it is a beautifully tailored book, rich and satisfying. The present writer would be willing to chance his arm and say that this is the best Christie of all."[7]

References or Allusions

Hercule Poirot mentions the celebrated case of Hawley Harvey Crippen as an example of a crime reinterpreted to satisfy the public enthusiasm for psychology.

The painting that is hung upon the wall of Miss Cecilia Williams' room, described as a "blind girl sitting on an orange" is by George Frederic Watts and is called "Hope". In it, a blind girl is featured playing a harp that has only one string left but she doesn't give up playing it.

Film, TV or theatrical adaptations

In 1960, Christie adapted the book into a play, Go Back For Murder, but edited Poirot out of the story. His function in the story is filled by a young lawyer named Justin Fogg, son of the lawyer who lead Christine Crane's defence. During the course of the play, it is revealed that Carla's fiancé is an obnoxious American who is pressuring her into revisiting the case, and in the end, she leaves him for Fogg.

David Suchet starred as Poirot in an adaptation of the novel shown during 2003 as part of the series Agatha Christie's Poirot. There were a few major changes in this version. One was that Philip Blake's affections were not for Caroline, as in the book, but for Amyas, thus making Philip Blake gay. Caroline was executed in the adaption, instead of being sentenced to life in prison and then dying a year into her jail sentence, as in the book. Carla's name was also changed to Lucy, and she does not have a fiancé in the film. Nor, in the film, does she fear she has hereditary criminal tendencies; she merely wishes to prove her mother innocent of the crime. Furthermore, after Poirot exposes Elsa as Amyas' murderer, Lucy aims at her with a pistol, with Elsa provoking Lucy to shoot her and Poirot urging Lucy to spare Elsa's life so that justice can truly be served. Eventually, Lucy lowers her pistol and Elsa leaves, broken and defeated.

Publication history

Dustjacket illustration of the UK First Edition (Book was first published in the US)
  • 1942, Dodd Mead and Company (New York), May 1942, Hardback, 234 pp
  • 1943, Collins Crime Club (London), January 1943, Hardback, 192 pp
  • 1948, Dell Books, Paperback, 192 pp (Dell number 257 [mapback])
  • 1953, Pan Books, Paperback, 189 pp (Pan number 264)
  • 1959, Fontana Books (Imprint of HarperCollins), Paperback, 192 pp
  • 1982, Ulverscroft Large-print Edition, Hardcover, 334 pp ISBN 0-70-890814-4
  • 2008, Agatha Christie Facsimile Edition (Facsimile of 1943 UK First Edition), HarperCollins, April 1, 2008, Hardback, ISBN 0-00-727456-4

The novel was first serialised in the US in Collier's Weekly in ten instalments from September 20 (Volume 108, Number 12) to November 22, 1941 (Volume 108, Number 21) under the title Murder in Retrospect with illustrations by Mario Cooper.


  1. ^ a b American Tribute to Agatha Christie
  2. ^ a b Chris Peers, Ralph Spurrier and Jamie Sturgeon. Collins Crime Club – A checklist of First Editions. Dragonby Press (Second Edition) March 1999 (Page 15)
  3. ^ The Times Literary Supplement January 16, 1943 (Page 29)
  4. ^ The Observer January 10, 1943 (Page 3)
  5. ^ The Guardian January 20, 1943 (Page 3)
  6. ^ Barnard, Robert. A Talent to Deceive – an appreciation of Agatha Christie - Revised edition (Page 193). Fontana Books, 1990. ISBN 0006374743
  7. ^ Barnard. (Page 85)

External links


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address