Veromika's Reviews > The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

Let it be known that the first ever novel I read was 'Why didn't they ask Evans?' by Agatha Christie. As a fourteen year old discovering the beauty of fiction, Christie gave me a world of danger and possibilities, of immense questions and a spectacular solution. It was nothing short of venturing on a journey through exotic lands with your camera in immaculate posture ready to capture all you can. I would attribute the hunger for new stories I've cultivated over the years, to the queen of detective fiction herself. Going back to her work feels like coming home.

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd gives us Poirot in his subtlest form, urging the reader to solve a mystery that seems to have been solved before it even began.

It's been a while since I read Poirot. I did watch the latest movie: Death on the Nile and found it woefully lacking. In a way, the book was a reintroduction to Poirot and the elements that any avid Poirot reader would connect to him immediately.

Is this The Agatha Christie masterpiece?

Being the third novel published featuring the acclaimed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, The 'Murder of Roger Ackroyd' doesn't have any dearth of praises and accolades. It has also been touted as the best crime novel ever written and lauded for its surprise twist ending. I must confess I did read the novel with unbridled anticipation for the famous ending. Whether I was satisfied or not is secondary, because for a book published in 1926, Christie does give a controversial ending that has undoubtedly inspired a generation of crime writers. But does it stand timelessly tall, deserving its praise?

[Spoiler warning: I find it improbable to review the book without including spoilers. So, if you are a Christie/Poirot fan - abandon the review right here, because I can vouch you will enjoy the novel.]

The Setting

The entirety of the novel takes place in King's Abbot, a village somewhere near Liverpool. It begins with the suicide of the wealthy widow Mrs. Ferrars, distressing her fiance Mr Ackroyd. Our view to the story is through the lens of Dr. James Sheppard, the principal narrator/confidant of Mr. Ackroyd. We are introduced to the Ackroyd family, the servants, the secretary, the family friend, all of whom take their place in spectrum of suspicion.

Christie doesn't let us pause anytime from start to finish, demanding our undivided attention because there is a lot happening in King's Abbot. Every character seem to have something to hide, very so often a shade of doubt is thrown on them, letting the reader decide whether it is a clue or a distraction. The tale of 'Who could have murdered Roger Ackroyd' is spun with dexterity enticing the reader in classic Christie fashion. There is a balance of give and take of information, with enough clues littered across the narration that tempts the reader to form links and theories, but never enough to arrive at an answer.

"So wicked the way people went about saying things, And yet, the worst of it was, there was usually a grain of truth somewhere in these wild statements."

In retrospect, I don't think it was ever possible for the reader to solve the mystery because we are rarely given essential data to form the complete picture. While Poirot runs around the town, gathering clues and forming opinions, we are limited in our view of his mind through a third-party narrator, who appears to be as clueless as us. When the final plot twist is revealed, the desired effect is to shock the reader as the story takes a route we never knew existed, but instead of awe I felt like my connection to the story was severed.

A story of an unreliable narrator

Christie revealed in her autobiography in 1977 that the central idea for the novel was given to her by her brother-in-law, who introduced a possibility of the murder being committed by a 'Dr. Watson' type character. She obviously ran with the idea. Dr. Sheppard fits into the tidy shoes of 'companion of a famous detective' rather well. He endures Poirot's idiosyncrasies, acts as a sounding board for Poirot's ideas and lends a hand in the ongoing investigation. Much like Dr. Watson, it is through his narration that we enter this make-believe world in King's Abbot. By making Dr. Sheppard the murderer, Christie gives a firm shake to the reality rooted in the story so far, telling us we never really had a right to believe a word of this narration.

It is not just the story that changes course with this revelation, every piece of narration written develops a sense of duplicity, giving it a retrospective ambiguous shroud. When I read a detective fiction, I tend to look at all the characters and see if they fit the cutout of the murderer, so I gave Dr. Sheppard the same treatment. I didn't have much evidence or intuition to support me, but I did wonder if he could be the murderer, and this thought made the final revelation not so staggering for me.

What didn't work for me was the abruptness with which Christie reveals her final trump card. Before we could get accustomed to the idea of Dr. Sheppard being the murderer, the novel ends. While I understand that the ending preserves the narrative style and integrity from start to finish, it deprives us of clarity that could have been provided in the form of other characters perceiving the shocking news.

Being used to the Poirot fanfare, I was disappointed by the final confrontation scene, because it takes place in private. There is no audience to gasp along with the reader, who form a crucial relatable link to the story, which makes the final scene appear suspended from the rest of the narration, severing my link to the story so far.

What this 'twist' does is also dilute the significance of the earlier clues, convoluted storylines and character conflicts, giving you an impression that a large part of the novel was designed to digress your attention, or rather get it tangled in insignificant bearings. Somehow that doesn't sit right with me.

If we solely consider the fact that this was done is 1926, essentially re-defining the should-have's and would-have's of detective fiction, I would give some allowance because it was done first and done how!

The joy of a Detective Fiction

I certainly struggled with my feelings when I finished the novel and as stated above there were things that worked for me and things that didn't, but the sheer joy of reading the detective fiction genre again, and too an Agatha Christie, was very much worth any skirmishes I had with the plot.

"The truth, however ugly in itself, is always curious and beautiful to the seeker after it."

Christie writes in a past-paced, need-to-know-basis narration that makes you feel like you're on an electric train that won't stop or slow down until you reach the destination. Pages fly by and you would just consume it all without a frown. Every detail given has a significance, every character introduced play a part and nothing goes to waste. I would suggest readers going through a slump to pick up this genre to kick-start their reading again. Works with me every time.

As I said in the beginning, reading Agatha Christie feels like coming home. I enjoyed my time with the book.