Skip to main content

In The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, how did Christie prevent the reader from suspecting Dr. Sheppard as the criminal?

First and foremost, Christie took the unusual step of having Dr. Sheppard function as the first person narrator of the story. We see everything through his eyes, filtered in such a way as to make himself look innocent. He becomes Hercule Poirot’s confidant, chronicling the events and even adding his own suspicions to throw the reader off even more. Because he only speaks in good terms of the victim and is a respected member of the town, as readers we instinctively trust him as well. 


In addition, Christie also used her classic technique of having other characters with motive and opportunity. At one point Poirot observes, “Everyone at this table is hiding something,” and he is right. Dr. Sheppard acknowledges, “Everyone’s eyes dropped before him, including mine.” But we still don’t understand precisely what he means until the end. Christie leads us to believe he is feeling guilty about secretly hiding Ralph Paton in a hospital.


Ralph Paton becomes a major focus of the book, with many characters (including the police) speculating about where he is and whether or not he is the murderer. He seems to have motive and opportunity. As readers we also focus on Paton, with the other characters coming in and out of focus as their secrets are revealed. The doctor seems the most innocent of all, to the reader if not to Hercule Poirot.


In the end Poirot gives the doctor a chance to make his own choice, and Sheppard chooses to commit suicide, leaving the last chapter of his narrative the explanation of all the misleading clues and omitted information within the story. As it typical with Christie, the reader is left saying, “Ah ha! So that’s what happened!” and everything seems clear.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more