The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926) by Agatha Christie

In preparation for JJ, Moira and Brad’s discussion of this title on Saturday, (see The Invisible Event for details), I decided to give this book a re-read. This post is not a typical review, with a synopsis, and is a more a collection of my thoughts.

Spoiler warning

This is the sort of book you should know nothing about before reading, so I recommend reading it before you proceed any further with this post.

When I first read this book, I unfortunately already knew the ending going in, but I still enjoyed it nevertheless, giving it a 5/5 on Goodreads. This is one of Christie’s most famous books for that “thing” which we’re never supposed to talk about. But on this re-read I was hoping to see whether there was more to this book than that.

One of the first things I noticed about my re-read was how much I had forgotten. For instance, I had no recollection of Miss Russell’s subplot in the narrative, with her son who is a drug addict. Moreover, I think the ITV David Suchet adaptation gave me a number of false memories. I was quite surprised to be nearly at the end of the book, for example, and find the butler had not been runover. Then of course there is the change in ending, and in some ways, I can see why they did, as the denouement Christie provides is visually less dramatic, even though she drops a bombshell of a twist.

I think anyone re-reading this book is naturally going to be looking at the narrator and what he says and, importantly, does not say. It is also on a re-read that you can see the many clues Christie provides her readers with, which are not so easy to spot on a first read. Lee Horsley (2005) sums it up well that this is ‘a novel that would seem to be written to be re-read.’ I enjoyed and appreciated the intricacy of the plot more this time, seeing the relevance of the fake call much more prominently; even if part of me was thinking that the killer relied a lot on no one else entering or going near the study until 9:30pm. The murderer’s plan is definitely something I am interested to hear Brad, JJ and Moira’s thoughts on.

Dr Sheppard’s first-person narrative is wonderfully slippery, and it is deceptive and fair in equal measure. This book is an excellent example of how sentences or pieces of information can have more than one meaning. For example, on the first page when Dr Sheppard has just told of Mrs Ferrars’ death we are told:

‘To tell the truth, I was considerably upset and worried. I am not going to pretend that at the moment I foresaw the events of the next few weeks. I emphatically did not do so. But my instinct told me that there were stirring times ahead.’

Naturally as a blackmailer, who is now having to contemplate murder to cover up the former, such a time would be worrying. Nevertheless, this section is equally in keeping with a Watson narrator, including foreshadowing statements.

Then there is the fact that Poirot sets up comparisons between Dr Sheppard and Captain Hastings, (his usual Watson narrator, who was in Argentina), which on a perhaps subconscious level, reinforce the suggestion that Dr Sheppard is fulfilling Hasting’s role. However, on this re-read there are stylistic differences, I noted. There is not the same hero worship that Hastings can indulge in, when recording Poirot’s cases, and I also felt there was a different sort of intensity in Dr Sheppard’s questions to Poirot. After all he needs to know what Poirot is thinking, out of self-preservation and it is interesting to see how he oscillates between being worried that Poirot knows too much and being scornful of Poirot’s capabilities. Although I wonder whether at the end Dr Sheppard is in a degree of denial, about how close Poirot is to catching him out.

However, I now have a confession to make: I don’t dislike this classic, but I am less enamoured with it than I was. One of these reasons is the narrative voice. I enjoy what it is able to do and it is incredibly skilful, yet I feel this re-read made me see more the restrictions it also contains.  Compared to other books by Christie I felt the writing style is more sparse than usual and whilst the narrative voice is very puzzle focused, it seemed to contain less, what I would call, thematic detail, and less character-making comments.

Although before anyone leaps in to prove the contrary, I do think there are some exceptions. We do get occasional descriptions which express a lot in a few words, such as with Mrs Ackroyd, who Dr Sheppard writes, ‘gave me a handful of assorted knuckles and rings to squeeze, and began talking volubly.’ There is also of course Caroline Sheppard, our narrator’s sister. I would say she is the best depicted character in the book, which is not surprising given that Christie said she was her ‘favourite character in the book – an acidulated spinster full of curiosity, knowing everything, hearing everything: the complete detective service in the home.’ Naturally, it has been said many times before that we can see a prototype for Miss Marple in Caroline, who her brother writes ‘can do any amount of finding out by sitting placidly at home. I don’t know how she manages it, but there it is.’ Dr Sheppard is at his most personal when describing his interactions with his sister and their conversations are some of my favourite from the book. I particularly love the way he introduces her into his account of the case: ‘The motto of the mongoose family, so Mr Kipling tells us is: “Go and find out.” If Caroline ever adopts a crest, I should certainly suggest a mongoose rampant.’

The other great piece of comedy in the book comes through their speculations about their new neighbour, Poirot and I love how Dr Sheppard thinks he might be a retired hairdresser! Whilst we are talking about Poirot, I found it interesting to think about the fact we are told he has retired. I guess it seems ironic to us, given how many cases he was going to go on to do. Was Christie at this stage already wanting to pack him up and move on to something else? Or was the retirement angle merely an excuse for getting Poirot into the locale of the crime? It is interesting to note that at one point in the story Poirot tells the suspects: ‘I am much aged, my powers may not be what they were […] In all probability this is the last case I shall ever investigate. But Hercule Poirot does not end with a failure.’ Again, it seems very out of place for readers nowadays, or at least somewhat premature. Although the statement Poirot makes could very much apply to Curtain (1975).

Those who have been reading my blog for a while will know that I am fond of reading books which analyse crime fiction and today’s read is definitely a title which comes up a lot. So having re-read the book this got me thinking: Why are critics so keen to discuss this book? What theories do they think it supports? Looking at a handful of texts I found that discussion centred around a few key ideas:

Christie the Rule Breaker

The seemingly rule breaking aspect of the book unsurprisingly draws a lot of attention from critics and academics. Looking at this element of the novel, it makes me wonder how much the fame of Christie has eclipsed the works of other writers from the early 20th century. For example, Patricia Merivale (2010) incorrectly claims Christie ‘originated the “unreliable narrator” as a variant of the “least likely suspect.”’ Not only are there earlier examples of a narrator who also turns out to be killer, but there are many novels written before Christie’s which create a destabilising effect through their choice of murderer.

However, another key theme which stems out of Christie’s big twist is how it challenges the way readers read books and interpret information. For instance, Lee Horsley wrote in Twentieth-Century Crime Fiction (2005) that Christie and Sayers played ‘in various ways with readers’ expectations and generic conventions relating to the functions of different characters.’ Horsley goes on to write that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd:

‘really established her reputation, because it was here that she most flagrantly violated the expectations of her readers whilst at the same time demonstrating her technical brilliance in handling the clue-puzzle plot.’

Meanwhile Heta Pyrhonen in A Companion to Crime Fiction (2010) notes that this book makes us ‘less secure in our expectation of comfortable closure.’

Village Satire

I think this aspect of the book is seen more strongly at the start, and through Caroline’s role in the plot. Heta Pyrhonen (2010) wrote Christie’s choice of killer, as well as her setting, ‘enables her to sharpen her exposure of social pretence.’ Furthermore, George Grella in ‘Murder and Manners’ (1970) felt that this text ‘serves a number of purposes,’ including ‘satiris[ing] the tiny rural village of King’s Abbot.’ This is an idea which certainly has some milage and it makes me wonder whether Christie named her village after two respectable pillars of society, because her book was going to reveal such a personage as a murderer.  

It’s one of Us

In Crime Fiction (2005) John Scaggs comments that:

‘Sheppard clearly demonstrates that the threat of social disorder comes from within society, and the reason for this is simple. By identifying the threat to the social order as coming from within, Golden Age fiction emphasises the necessity, embodied in the figure of Miss Marple, of a society that maintains the social order through self-surveillance.’

He goes on to add that:

‘In Christie’s fiction, this impulse to recover and reinstate the sort of order that existed in the past is a direct response to the disruption in the present caused by the crime of murder.’

Having re-read the book, I am not sure I can entirely agree with these statements. Looking at the first one, I am not sure the text entirely supports the idea of maintaining ‘social order through self-surveillance.’ That to me sounds like everyone watching each other in order to check for behaviours which are reportable to the police. Moreover, you could argue that whilst characters such as Caroline notice a lot of things, their interpretation of them is not always fully correct. If anything books such as this one, and The Murder at the Vicarage (1930), reinforce the need to give the correct interpretation to facts. Observation without this, instead becomes quite a negative thing. Furthermore, the first Miss Marple novel, actually shows a criminal plot which manipulates nosy neighbours into providing them with proof of innocence.

Moving on to the second idea, the ‘impulse to recover and reinstate the sort of order that existed in the past.’ Again, I am not particularly seeing it overly evidenced in the text. The ending does not particularly reinstate things to “how they were”. Ralph Paton has married the parlour maid instead of his cousin, who in turn becomes engaged to a famous game hunter. Moreover, although it is not said, one can imagine the loss of the well liked and respected village doctor, is going to cause quite a chasm, and not just for his sister. Then there is the fact that Poirot encourages Sheppard to commit suicide to spare his sister the scandal of a legal trial. Justice is restored but in something of a sly manner. If anything, my reading of Christie leads me to consider whether Christie is less likely to advocate everything reverting to how they used to be, and instead more likely to propose a combining of the old with the modern in order to create a new future. We can sort of see this with Flora’s engagement to Major Blunt. Although I appreciate I might be clutching at straws here.

All in all, I did enjoy reading this book, but I don’t feel it is a 5 out 5 read for me any longer. Perhaps my requirements for such a rating are different to what they were when I first read it. I don’t feel the ending in and of itself can justify such a rating. The book is a bit overlong in my opinion and I can see why the adaptation made the final third more active and dramatic.

Hopefully I have not scandalised anyone with these closing remarks. However, I do have a final question for you. George Grella (1970) states that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is Christie’s best book. I don’t think I would agree with that, but do you?

Rating: 4.25/5

22 comments

  1. Spoiler Re: The somewhat sparse writing style. It’s there, but I believe it’s a conscious decision by Christie. The reason why I think so is because even Poirot comments on the differences in style between “Hastings” and “Sheppard”. It’s no wonder that Caroline is the best depicted character in this book, because the scenes with her are the ones where Sheppard has least to hide. Even Poirot says, that only in scenes about his private life Sheppard puts himself onto the forefront.

    I don’t think it’s her best book, but it’s in my top three, so almost the best. And I am among those who actually likes it better with the rereads.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oh yes I completely agree that the sparse writing style is there for a purpose. It’s just I enjoyed the style less, despite knowing of the purpose, this time around. I didn’t expect to find it that way, as my woolly memories were glowingly positive, but there Christie novels I think are better.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. This is on my TBRR pile. I read it in grade 8, and someone spoiled it for me. I don’t remember it at all well, except for a few bits about the mechanics of the trick.

    I doubt it really surprises anyone anymore, the trick having been sublimated into a thousand variations on the unreliable narrator. But it would have fooled me in grade 8.

    One variant I did like (and spotted its own trick!) was Adair’s The Act of Roger Murgatroyd — which has reduced at least one mystery blogger to spitting fury! Very highly recommended.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes I really wish I had had the opportunity to read this book without knowing the solution beforehand. I can imagine it being a breath taking moment. I have read Adair’s book, just can’t remember anything about it.

      Like

  3. I am new to this group and feel I am going to learn a lot! I really enjoyed the very knowledgable review of the book, which made me think about it anew. For me, this is a book that is more ‘well regarded’ than ‘well loved’ but you’ve still got to take your hat off to Christie for sheer innovation.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Welcome! Always nice to have new people join our corner of the internet.
      Christie’s technical skill is indisputable in this book. I read it for the first time when I had not read as many classic crime novels, and I wonder whether I was more bowled over by it as a consequence.

      Like

      • I agree on the influence of Suchet’s portayal of Poirot. One thing that was interesting for me re-reading this … I heard Suchet’s Poirot voice in my head whenever Poirot was speaking on the printed page.

        Like

  4. I thought I’d get to this on my Poirot countup (well, it’s not a countdown) in time for the podcast, but forgot that Poirot Investigates comes between this and Links. Guess I’ll have to be a little late…

    Liked by 1 person

  5. 🤯🙀 Only 4.25?! I think I rank ‘Roger Ackroyd’ as Christie’s best work – or, perhaps, as her most memorable one. Though I’m not sure if it stands up well on a second reading, when one already knows the central conceit. In away it’s the sort of mystery novel that’s really only wrapped around making a key idea work. Personally, I enjoyed reading it for the second time, to spot how closely the narrative veers towards the edge of the cliff – but I can see that not everyone would enjoy the ride.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes most memorable vs. book I got the most out of are two separate things in my mind. I feel Like I got more out of re-reading other Christie books than this one.
      And yes I know I am nearly becoming as controversial as JJ in my likes and dislikes lol

      Like

  6. “Lee Horsley wrote in Twentieth-Century Crime Fiction (2005)”

    I did a double take seeing this. There is an American actor named Lee Horsley, as well.
    He played a crime-stopping Texas millionaire in the 1980s TV series ‘Matt Houston’
    AND
    he played Archie Goodwin in a short-lived TV adaptation of the Nero Wolfe books.

    … completely off-topic but felt compelled to share …

    Liked by 1 person

  7. SPOILER ALERT !

    SPOILER ALERT !

    SPOILER ALERT !

    The earliest example of the Ackroyd trick I have seen is in a novel by Anton Chekhov (1884).

    In a french novel published about 25 years back, there is a clever use of the trick. The narrator’s thoughts and actions will confirm that he can’t be the culprit, but at the end he turns out to be the killer. Actually, he had an accident which gave him temporary amnesia. After a few months, he got back his memories but the particular incident of the killing remained blotted out. As a result, he himself is curious to know the murderer and consults a detective to find out.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Hmmmmmmmm . . . . .

    Well, I agree about some things here and disagree about others. The Suchet adaptation is pretty weak, in my opinion, but J., M. and I pondered the possibility of this ever having a really powerful adaptation, given how much it works as literature.

    What I disagree with you about the most is the writing style. I love Dr. Sheppard’s writing style for a whole slew of reasons. Reading it this time around I noticed more than ever before how he is competing with Hastings in so many ways. It’s one of the loveliest aspects of the book.

    And I want to double down in spades what John said above about the joy of re-reading this one. If ever a Christie deserved a close study after reading to see how brilliantly she exercised a trick (that admittedly others had tried before), this is the book that deserves it. There are plenty of things to complain about – and I think J., M. and I will complain about them on Saturday – but it turns out to be deserving of its classic status.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I don’t dispute the cleverness of the trick or how well it is executed, but for me, on this re-read, it did not compensate sufficiently for what the text did not give. I don’t feel I can excuse the things it lacked solely because of the ending, of which I never got the surprise of discovering.
      Question, since Christie did not originate this ending, is it simply her execution of it which gives it classic status? Or is it because she is Christie and is more well-known?
      Knowing the solution going into the book for the first time meant that on my first read I was looking out for tell tale signs in the narrative, so on my second read, doing that activity was less interesting. I was looking for something more, and I don’t feel I got enough of that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Brad – well said. I hadn’t read this in 15 years and it was like visiting a wonderful old friend who I hadn’t seen in a long while. For me, lulling the reader to believe that Sheppard is a substitute for the missing Hastings makes the ending all more impactful and memorable for an unsuspecting reader.

      And finally while I enjoy Suchet as Poirot, sadly this particular television adaptation was dreadful.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Kate, this was Christie’s sixth book but only her third whodunnit! I think that her trickery escalated to fine effect after the first two (Styles and Links) and most deservedly raised her standing with readers.

    Or – maybe it was the ten missing days . . . . . . . . . 😉

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.