Ship of Fools: Dame Agatha Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd"

Thread: Dame Agatha Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026806

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I shall be leading the discussion of this early novel. I have to re-read it myself so I hope to start around the 20th.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

Looking forward to it, Sir Kevin! I'm a huge fan of Dame Agatha. Fortunately, I also have a bad memory so keep forgetting who the murderer is! [Smile]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

It's on order from the library. I'm sure I've read it, but a long time ago.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

POSSIBLE SPOLILERS AHEAD

quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
Looking forward to it, Sir Kevin! I'm a huge fan of Dame Agatha. Fortunately, I also have a bad memory so keep forgetting who the murderer is!

I don't know if that's meant as sarcasm, but TMORA is probably the Agatha Christie novel with the hardest-to-forget murderer.

And actually, it was partly knowing who the killer was in Ackroyd that eventaully made me give up on reading Christie mysteries. I was reading one of her books, and after a few pages, and a glance at a tellingly named chapter title, figured out what the gimmick was going to be. It wasn't precisely the same one used in Ackroyd, but the same general ballpark.

I should say that the recklessly named chapter was a pretty big factor there as well. I'm not sure if that was in the original, or added in for an American edition.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

I have never read this one, but have read most of hers. I have kept this one to the last as I'd heard its perhaps the best. The someone went and spoiled it for me! (not you Stetson, it was a while ago).

So I think I may read it by 20th if possible.
Thanks for signposting to it Sir Kevin.

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

I'm giving it a go.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

No sarcasm intended, hence the smiley-face. I can remember the various plots that Agatha used, but not always which book or play they were used in. The only ones I'm sure about are Murder on the Orient Express and A Murder is Announced.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

I've just downloaded this to my Kindle. I know who did it, so I'm finding it interesting reading it from a technical point of view.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I often find Christie an interesting read because she's dated, very much writing in a time, and you find out so much about the mores of the time she's writing because it's there in the background.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I often find Christie an interesting read because she's dated, very much writing in a time, and you find out so much about the mores of the time she's writing because it's there in the background.

The Tom Adams covers from the late 60s seem like a deliberate effort at marketting Christie to a post-psychedelic audience.

You could come away with a fairly misleading idea of the books based on these covers. But it's always fun to see tame, family-friendly fare re-branded with racy or freaky imagery on the front.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I've not read this one, but listened to it on the radio when I was a teenager. I definitely remember who the murderer is - I'm with Stetson, that this must be 'the hardest-to-forget murderer'! I guess though, a person can remember the plot and the murderer but just forget the name of the book it goes with.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I was reading one of her books, and after a few pages, and a glance at a tellingly named chapter title, figured out what the gimmick was going to be. It wasn't precisely the same one used in Ackroyd, but the same general ballpark.

I'm curious - which book was this?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I often find Christie an interesting read because she's dated, very much writing in a time, and you find out so much about the mores of the time she's writing because it's there in the background.

Agreed - the attitude towards Anglo-Catholics in the early stories is particularly fascinating.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I was reading one of her books, and after a few pages, and a glance at a tellingly named chapter title, figured out what the gimmick was going to be. It wasn't precisely the same one used in Ackroyd, but the same general ballpark.
I'm curious - which book was this?

My guess would be The ABC Murders. One chapter heading points to the real intended murder victim, with the others being smokescreen. Similarly, for anyone with a basic knowledge of English towns, when one of the letters is the initial of a tiny village in the back of beyond while the rest are medium to large towns it's a pretty obvious signpost to the real motive.

Sorry. That's a spoiler, but to be fair most of her other plots are rather better.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

That it is. I've moved on to The 4.50 to Paddington but am rereading Ackroyd tomorrow on wife's Nook.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

USUAL SPOILERS WARNING

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I was reading one of her books, and after a few pages, and a glance at a tellingly named chapter title, figured out what the gimmick was going to be. It wasn't precisely the same one used in Ackroyd, but the same general ballpark.
I'm curious - which book was this?
My guess would be The ABC Murders. One chapter heading points to the real intended murder victim, with the others being smokescreen. Similarly, for anyone with a basic knowledge of English towns, when one of the letters is the initial of a tiny village in the back of beyond while the rest are medium to large towns it's a pretty obvious signpost to the real motive.

Sorry. That's a spoiler, but to be fair most of her other plots are rather better.

No, actually, it wasn't The ABC Murders, and that book was actually one where I fell for the ruse, and believed that the murderer was ABC(I honestly thought Christie had foregone the "whodunnit" aspect of the story, as in a Columbo episode).

I'm not sure what you're meaning about the town names, though. From what I recall, the real giveaway was that one victim was a wealthy art collector, with what must have been a substantial estate, whereas the rest of them are relative nobodies.

I can't quite recall the name of the book where I guessed the ending, but the plot involved a woman who was suffering through various near-miss murder attempts, which she originally thinks to be accidents. At one point, a list is made up of all the possible suspects who could be trying to kill her, each labelled with a letter of the alphabet, ending in(let's say) P.

The chapter heading that gave it away was something like "The Culprit: Q", meaning not someone on the list. You can guess who it was.

[ 07. January 2014, 23:30: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

This is the book discussed above.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I identified the murderer in one of Christie's mysteries by reading the cast of characters. All except one had an obvious motive; I correctly assumed that that one was the murderer.

Moo

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I identified the murderer in one of Christie's mysteries by reading the cast of characters. All except one had an obvious motive; I correctly assumed that that one was the murderer.

Moo

Heh. When I read that, I made a bet with myself that you're American, and then checked your location. As far as I know, it was only the Pocketbook editions from Simon And Schuster that had those lists at the beginning.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I often find Christie an interesting read because she's dated, very much writing in a time, and you find out so much about the mores of the time she's writing because it's there in the background.

One of my friends used The Murder at the Vicarage as an illustration of attitudes towards the Church of ENgland in post-was Britain in an academic essay.

Stetson said

quote:
As far as I know, it was only the Pocketbook editions from Simon And Schuster that had those lists at the beginning.

I think such lists are really useful My husband is in the habit of writing his own. He once wrote 'wanker' as a reminder against a character's name (not in a Christie book) and then lent the book to my mum.

I've finished the book (yes, Sit Kevin, I read it properly) and am looking forward to the discussion.

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

I've finished too.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gussie:
Stetson said

quote:
As far as I know, it was only the Pocketbook editions from Simon And Schuster that had those lists at the beginning.
I think such lists are really useful.

I like having a list of characters and a brief description of their relationships to the other characters.

I object, however, to being told which characters have a motive for the murder.

Moo

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Me too!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gussie:
Stetson said

quote:
As far as I know, it was only the Pocketbook editions from Simon And Schuster that had those lists at the beginning.
I think such lists are really useful.
I like having a list of characters and a brief description of their relationships to the other characters.

I object, however, to being told which characters have a motive for the murder.

Moo

For the record, I have nothing against those lists either. I was just kinda commenting on a shared cultural experience of reading Agatha Christie in American editions.

I do agree that it's kinda lame the way they sometimes gave away the motivations, or described the characters' personalities in suspicious terms.

SPOILERS

Oddly enough, the exact same gimmick as in ABC Murders was used in the Hollywood thriller Jack Reacher a few years ago, and I failed to see it coming. Despite its being pretty much spelled out in the first ten minutes of the film.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Will be re-reading Ackroyd starting tonight and I may have gently persuaded my lovely bride to read it also and participate in the discussions as that is the first thing she'll see when she opens her Nook later today...

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

Referring to the thread title...

Was Dame Agatha actually made Dame by that name? I wonder if she was ever referred to as Lady Mallowan (her second husband being a knight).

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Dunno. Not currently in England.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
Was Dame Agatha actually made Dame by that name? I wonder if she was ever referred to as Lady Mallowan (her second husband being a knight).

Either would have been OK, though in public life she was usually referred to as Dame Agatha Christie because she was far more famous than her husband. She was a Dame in her own right, but Max was knighted three years before she was made a Dame. Being made a Dame is the feminine equivalent of being knighted.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

Thanks Jane R. That answers that! Sorry to divert the thread.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I'm working on a big project and may not begin posting on the book until the 21st--hope everyone understands, many hours at work.

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

Greatly enjoyed the book, I had read it before but had completely forgotten it. I may have some comments when full discussion begins.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Questions coming soon, but after midnight GMT: I have been at work all day.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

1. Did you guess the identity of the killer before the end?

I didn't.

2. What was the effect of having the doctor assist Poirot during the investigation?

It kept his guilt secret until the end.

3. Did Dr. Sheppard interfere?

Not really. He just chronicled the investigation and allowed Poirot to use his surgery as an interview room.

4. Did Poirot offer him a way out at the end of the book? Why or why not? What do we learn about Poirot's character?

To be determined.

5. Compare / contrast Poirot and Inspector Raglan. Discuss how their personalities and investigative methods differ. How does that author juxtapose them?

(Still reading last 30 pages at this writing...)

6. Why did Captain Paton disappear?

Because he though his wife was guilty.

7. Does Dame Agatha plant clues in the novel that may reveal the identity of the true murderer?

None that I could plainly see.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:

1. Did you guess the identity
1. I first read this almost fifty years ago and just reread it last week. I didn't guess the identity of the murdered the first time, but the artificiality of Christie doesn't make want to solve the murders. I knew the case from reading too much criticism the second time.

2. What was the effect of having the doctor assist Poirot during the investigation?

Reading it the first time, I fell into the trap of discarding the narrator as suspect. This is the big "She didn't play fair" complaint that she violated the Decalogue of Detective Fiction
The doctor also serves as a convenient way to provide information about the various victims. I've probably watched too many David Suchet Hecule Poirot television shows, but the difference between the Doctor and Hastings is like watching a famous comedy pair from a bizarre angle. It's disorienting in how it differs from the classic duo. That may not have happened when the book was first written since the duo was not as established.

3. Did Dr. Sheppard interfere?

He talked Ralph Paton into running away and pushing his sister into noisy action. That last may have been inadvertent under her prying eye.

4. Did Poirot offer him a way out at the end of the book? Why or why not? What do we learn about Poirot's character?

He offered him the chance to commit suicide or run like a dog. I think we learn that Poirot thinks he is above the law. That may come from his career as a Police Inspector. He also cares about the victims. I also think he was offended by the Doctor thinking he could trick Poirot.

5. Compare / contrast Poirot and Inspector Raglan. Discuss how their personalities and investigative methods differ. How does that author juxtapose them?

Different flavors of vanity and security. Raglan relies on methodical plodding in the usual way. The Inspector seemed a fairly stock character.

6. Why did Captain Paton disappear?

He was also trying to avoid announcing the marriage.He though his wife was guilty and that would have to point to her.

7. Does Dame Agatha plant clues in the novel that may reveal the identity of the true murderer?

The space where the dictation machine was, and the doctor being mechanically minded were both clues. The recording falsifying the timetable is now a stock whodunit trick. I don't know how original it was in the 20's.

[ 22. January 2014, 04:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

4. Did Poirot offer him a way out at the end of the book? Why or why not? What do we learn about Poirot's character?

He did, but it was not an honourable one: while he could have left the country and lived for many years on the 'legacy' he extorted from the late Mrs. Ferrar, he apparently topped himself instead.

5. Compare / contrast Poirot and Inspector Raglan. Discuss how their personalities and investigative methods differ. How does that author juxtapose them?

Monsieur Hercule Poirot is very vain about his moustache (as I am about mine) but his vanity extends to all corners of his life. He also thinks he is better than anybody else and more intelligent. The latter may be true. Getting together all of the suspects to interrogate them as a group is a stock gambit in many thrillers.

Inspector Raglan is a stock character, but he is never fully developed as a unique personality and seems to be there just to ensure that the story has all of the required characters. He is unable to accomplish any task that actually would have led to the solving of the crime.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

1. Did you guess the identity of the killer before the end?

I’d read it before so I knew who had done it, and was looking out to see how she covered that up.

2. What was the effect of having the doctor assist Poirot during the investigation?

If you haven’t read it before, it would throw you off the scent, assuming he was just being the slightly thick foil to the great detective.

4. Did Poirot offer him a way out at the end of the book? Why or why not? What do we learn about Poirot's character?

This seems fairly standard procedure in this type of book, Lord Peter Wimsey does it a couple of times, and Holmes often doesn't turn people in. I didn’t think the choice was between suicide and running away, but between suicide and being arrested, but maybe I need to read that bit again.

5. Compare / contrast Poirot and Inspector Raglan. Discuss how their personalities and investigative methods differ. How does that author juxtapose them?

Raglan was totally forgettable. Poirot annoys me with his little grey cells, I much prefer Miss Marple

7. Does Dame Agatha plant clues in the novel that may reveal the identity of the true murderer?

She does have the bit where Shepped does the murder that reads a bit odd when you know who did it.

I really liked the Mah-jong scene which I thought was well done, and the character of the sister was interesting, or had the potential to be in the hands of another writer

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Spoiler Alert

There's a homage "Who killed Roger Ackroyd" which I haven't read. It apparently sets up the sister as the actual murderer.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
Referring to the thread title...

Was Dame Agatha actually made Dame by that name? I wonder if she was ever referred to as Lady Mallowan (her second husband being a knight).

Although she was called Dame Agatha in her professional life, I believe she preferred to be called Lady Mallowan in her private life. You would expect that from a lady of he conservative background and in many ways highly conventional personality.

I read my way through a lot of Christies in high school and gave myself the task of re-reading about 7 or 8 again a few years ago. Once you get through the style and the conventional value system (evil is evil; good is good, and usually rather well-bred), they are still fun. Evocative of a social class and era that are gone. Re-reading the books led me to an interesting biography, The Duchess of Death: The Unauthorized Biography of Agatha Christie, Richard Hack.

In the 1940s, Edmund Wilson, an eminent American literary scholar, wrote an essay "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?," which expressed the contempt of a true High Brow. It's worth reading for those Shipmates who want to hone their skills in the use of withering scorn.

[ 22. January 2014, 23:49: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

I read it 37 years ago for a college class: English 346, Studies in Modern Literature: Detective Fiction. As Professor Lieberman said, "I have never been so bored in my life." Christie was simply a bad writer--wooden dialogue, no concept of character beyond mannerisms, and no idea of plot beyond surprise twists. Even taking the crudest notion of the mystery as a puzzle for the reader, she pulls it off only by concealing clues (contrast her with Dorothy Sayers in that regard). As one critic, I can't remember who, said: "She never played fair with the reader in her life."

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
4. Did Poirot offer him a way out at the end of the book? Why or why not? What do we learn about Poirot's character?

He did, but it was not an honourable one: while he could have left the country and lived for many years on the 'legacy' he extorted from the late Mrs. Ferrar, he apparently topped himself instead.

I'm not sure that topping himself would have been seen as not honourable in the mores of the time. Public disgrace and the gallows would probably have been seen as more dishonourable. The same viewpoint can be seen in those old stories of army officers being given a loaded pistol and expected to use it, the alternative being public shaming for non-capital offences like cheating at cards.

Tangentially, readers of Agatha Christie and other crime writers of the classic period perhaps forget that the story unfolds against a background of capital punishment. This implicitly and sometimes explicitly informs the actions of the characters, and can flavour the whole plot. (This is perhaps more an issue for UK readers where hanging is now a distant memory.)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Allowing the murderer to commit suicide to avoid the public shame of trial and execution was a standard plot device in Golden Age detective stories. All it probably proves is that Poirot (a) had a high enough opinion of the doctor to be reasonably certain that he would 'take the gentleman's way out' and (b) felt sympathy for the doctor's sister, who would also have been publicly disgraced if he'd been arrested and tried for the crime. Lord Peter Wimsey usually allows sympathetic murderers to commit suicide, too - provided they can be trusted to behave like gentlemen. There's a bit at the end of Murder Must Advertise where he discusses this very issue with the (middle-class) murderer. Suicide under these circumstances was considered honourable - like committing seppuku to protect your family from the consequences of your actions.

I thought Poirot was acting out of character in this story, but maybe that was the point; he tried retiring to grow vegetable marrows (why marrows? there are more interesting vegetables) and it didn't suit him. In the next book he's back in London, where he feels more at home.

[ 23. January 2014, 13:42: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

1. Did you guess the identity of the killer before the end?

No, I had no idea.

2. What was the effect of having the doctor assist Poirot during the investigation?

It meant Poirot had a foil, someone to voice his thought processes to, and a local person to question. He could use the doctor to obtain information from suspects too.

3. Did Dr. Sheppard interfere?

I didn't think so. But writing his account missing out what he knew was interference.

4. Did Poirot offer him a way out at the end of the book? Why or why not? What do we learn about Poirot's character?

Yes, he offered him a way out which seems strange and immoral to us. But as others have pointed out, for the times could have been seen as noble.

5. Compare / contrast Poirot and Inspector Raglan. Discuss how their personalities and investigative methods differ. How does that author juxtapose them?

Poirot is strange and flamboyant with a wicked sense of humour and a logical mind. He brought this story to life ; it was quite dull before he appeared. Raglan is dull and plodding. I'd forgotten his name.

6. Why did Captain Paton disappear?

I don't know!

7. Does Dame Agatha plant clues in the novel that may reveal the identity of the true murderer?

I didn't spot any. I do hate unreliable narrators!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Why did Captain Paton disappear?

Because he's an idiot. A noble idiot, perhaps, but still an idiot.

Of course if he hadn't, we might have stopped suspecting him earlier.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

How like real life village life in early to mid- twentieth century Britain do you think this type of murder mystery is? There are quite a few examples of this tupe of mystery (Patricia Wentworth being my favourite) and they all faeture crusty colonels, nosy old maids etc.

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

Americans are cognizant of our barbaric criminal justice system, so don't have to remind ourselves about capital punishment.

I had a brief suspicion about the doctor, but I might just have remembered from the first time I read it a long time ago. I suspected Paton immediately, as I was expected to do.

I can't read Poirot without thinking of David Suchet. He totally is Poirot for me.

I went directly from this book to 4:50 from Paddington and Miss Marple, which I had never read. (Spoiler) Another kindly family doctor. Is this a fluke, or did she do this often? I really think I prefer Miss Marple. One thing satisfying about Christie (as I think someone else also pointed out), there is such a thing as good and evil, and you can depend on the evil being found out in the end.

Posted by gustava (# 15593) on :

quote:
7. Does Dame Agatha plant clues in the novel that may reveal the identity of the true murderer?

I think she shows in a couple of places that the narrator's not to be trusted, particularly when Flora asks him why he went to the Three Boars on the night of the murder, something he left out of his first account. It seemed really obvious the second time I read the book; not so much on my first reading a wee while ago now.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I did wonder a wee bit why the protagonist went to the pub, if not to drink!

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I want to thank everyone, including my wife, for participating in the discussion. Perhaps we can do another thriller soon...

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I haven't finished this yet - couldn't get to the library to collect it until the 16th January and don't enjoy taking it to read on my commute - although I do know the security in most of the libraries I work in now

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

OK, just for completeness, I have finished this and I've either read this before or know Christie too well, because I knew from early on that it was the Doctor and spotted most of the clues in passing. I don't remember reading this one, but I've come across this trick before.

There are other Christies with (marginally) better characterisation and more interesting settings.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I have just finished it (sorry, mental stuff means I am a much slower reader nowadays [Hot and Hormonal]

) and did think that there are a few Christies where it's the doctor and/or narrator - at least one other one.

I find that Marples are generally better for a certain kind of early 20th Century rural English life, and Poirots are better for observing early-mid 20th Century English class issues/social mores. I think they are quite different kinds of book, really. I generally prefer Marple but like the Poirots where he is in some sun-baked exotic location (or what counted for exotic in the 20s and 30s).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0