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

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more