Someone once said in my hearing that Agatha Christie often relied on the mystery-writing method of holding back important information until the review. Never have I seen that to be more untrue than in Death on the Nile.
The reader is given all of the information that the detective receives. He even points out a few of his findings. But the point is, especially in the case of Poirot, that he doesn’t tell us the answers until the end. It’s like Encyclopedia Brown in a way. You see everything he does. But you are not told the answer unless you flip to the back of the book.
That isn’t withholding information. It is giving you a chance to figure it out yourself, which is why Christie’s books always feel so brilliant. There are misdirections. But her detectives are not only observant, but logical. Far more “cerebral” than Sherlock Holmes ever was.
Even the romantic subpots are seeded throughout the book with the skill of a good mystery. You see them coming just enough to be quite satisfied when they come to a conclusion. And the romantic subplots in this book even tie in to the main murder mystery in a way.
I love the characters. Sometimes lots of characters can be hard to track, but not in this case.
I just love this book. That is all the coherence you can hope for from me.