Talk:One, Two, Buckle My Shoe (novel)

message: :Image:One Two Buckle My Shoe First Edition Cover 1940.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:One Two Buckle My Shoe First Edition Cover 1940.jpg

message: I realize we're not supposed to discuss the thing itself here, just the article; and I may as well admit I'm too much a lover of this book to try editing the article.  Nonetheless, as of today every single one of the critics cited dismisses or fails to realize the fact that this book is where Christie changes, or realizes at least her world has changed -- thus Poirot's final words to the young couple.  If there were any critics at all that shared (academically) at least some of this point of view, or realized at least the fine allegory to late-thirties politics just before WW2 -- I know of none myself, of course -- I think it would improve the article to have them cited along with all the "conventional murder-of-a-dentist mystery" critical opinions. 96.52.42.172 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The critical reception

message: The article gives Poirot's summary of the crime in the past perfect (or pluperfect) tense
:He had done this ...
I find this cumbersome, so I used the past tense in my changes to the plot.
:He did this ...
In fact, Poirot uses a variety of tenses .. past tense, past perfect and even  present tense for dramatic effect :
:He does this ...
I suggest changing all of Poirot's summary to past tense.  Alanf777 (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Grammar Question 

message: Plot nit-picky-detail : new patients were summoned with a buzzer, and the elevator with a ring. But I used the word "rang" rather than "buzzed". Alanf777 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Poirot’s involvement had forced Blunt to compound the lies with talk of assassins and spies as the detective had relentlessly tracked the truth.
The matter of spies was raised by another patient, Mr Barnes, a retired Home Office civil servant, who, in the last chapter, reveals himself to be secret agent Albert Chapman, Q.X.912 
So I added a paragraph on Barnes and removed the unsupported line. Alanf777 (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: While I enjoyed the book, I couldn't help wondering "How does Amberiotis happen to choose the same dentist as Alistair Blunt and 'Mrs Chapman'/'Miss Sainsbury Seale'"? Would you ask the person you were blackmailing to recommend you a dentist. Or tell him the time of your appointment?
To my mind, this is one of Miss Christie's least explainable plot devices.
Machiajelly (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implausibility in  the plot 

message: Although I am a huge Christie fan, having read every one of her mysteries in my twenties, I must agree with the commenter on the previous note to this effect.  Instead of concocting this convoluted (by way of understatement), dangerous and not to mention evil plot to cover up his legitimate wife’s and his scheme, when first encountering Mabelle out of the blue in London, why didn’t Blunt simply tell her that his first wife, Mabelle’s actress friend of years ago, had passed away several years ago and he had since remarried only to have lost his second wife as well?  There is no indication that the two women had been much more than casual friends in India and hadn’t kept in touch.  So would should Mabelle question this or ask to see a death certificate?  Who would ask such a thing or even think to?   Blunt should have rendered his tale of woe and then given her the brush off:  “Well, it was nice seeing you again.”  The same is true for the Greek man,  Why should he too be suspicious to investigate further?  Blunt's only worry would be that by yet another fluke Mabelle and his first wife would have a similar chance encounter.  (London is a large city, after all!)  If that worried him, then have Greda leave the area for a spell, maybe a tour of another country.  I must reluctantly agree that this is among Dame Agatha’s least plausible plots.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implausibility in the plot II