Roger Ackroyd and the Rules of Fair Play

Belle-Haliday

(Warning: Major Spoilers Ahead)

The first
time I read ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’ I remember feeling cheated by the
ending. Sure it’s clever, sure it’s unexpected, but what’s the point if the
narrator is going to leave out huge chunks of their explanation for the sake of
creating the mystery? Give me Hastings any day - at least I knew I could trust
him. To my fourteen year old self, it was entirely unfair.

Jump
forward 5 years, and I’m rereading that particular book, and at some point over
the next few weeks, I’m going to have to review it. While I think - knowing the
ending - I appreciate it a little more (particularly when recognising the ploys
Christie uses to make us trust Sheppard) I still can’t shake the idea that this
book is some kind of cheat. And I’m not entirely convinced that that opinion is
fair.

So here’s
what I want to know: does anyone here consider ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’ to
go against the Rules of Fair Play (as set out by the Detection Club, you can
find a list here)? If yes, why? If no, why not?

GKCfan

Personally, I believe that Christie plays absolutely fair in Ackroyd.  All the clues are there, but many readers don't make the intuitive leap.  You may find it interesting to dig into the controversy at the time.  Many critics said the book didn't play fair (like the prominent writer August Derleth, years after the initial publication).  Others, like Dorothy L. Sayers, said "Fair!  And fooled you– it is the reader's job to suspect everybody."

Tommy_A_Jones

When I Read the Book for the First time I was disappointed and felt very Cheated, I loved iyt until I got to the Denoumont and then felt Angry, When I read it 2nd Time around I knew what to expect and and I think I had read somewhere perhaps on here that the clues are in what isn't said sand unfinished Sentences, The 2nd time I enjoyed the Book much more and notices the unfinished sentences so even though you will know the Identity of the Murderer 2nd time I would suggest people re-read it and then they can look for what isn't said and those unfinished Sentences.

SueRaines

Sue raines

I have recently seen the TV movie of 'Curtain' and was very surprised how Agatha treated Poirot. Has anyone else seen this or read the book and would like to comment.

She even gave him a false moustache.

LeopoldoAtila

I don''t think she cheats. It's a marvelous book!

SPOILER:

About the rules,the reader can follow his thoughts. Maybe not all of his movements,in details, but this doesn't happens with Hastings either. But the reader can follow everything.

SueRaines

Sue Raines,

Totally agree it is the reader's on version that counts but that Moustache was his pride and joy and she took it off him in the last story.

She also made him the killer which was the great unexpected twist.

It is a great story but it seemed in many ways a battle between Poirot and Christie. Naturally she won but it left me feeling it was a bit unfair.

Belle-Haliday

Tommy_A_Jones: I absolutely agree that reading it a second time is more enjoyable. I've picked up on so much this time that I never would have noticed before and working out exactly how she managed to pull the wool over my eyes the first time I read it is always fun.

GKCFan: I definitely agree that the rules are all there. I just thought it was interesting that Christie was a member of the Detection Club and yet one of her best remembered novels exists in such a grey area of the rules they laid out. 

LeopoldoAtila: It's interesting you brought up Hastings. I just reached a passage in Ackroyd where Poirot says to Sheppard "You must indeed have been sent from the good God to replace my friend Hastings" and (knowing the ending) that's such a clever way for Christie to encourage us towards trusting Sheppard the way we do Hastings. 

SueRaines

Sue Raines

Now you have all made me want to read the book!! Will chase it up

Thanks

Belle-Haliday

SueRaines: You definitely should. Anything that Christie listed as a favourite (Warning: link contains spoilers) is absolutely worth reading. 

SueRaines

Sue Raines

Thanks Belle

Tommy_A_Jones

It was this site and other people's views that made me want to give the book a 2nd chance, I am so glad I did, like alot of The Books it is like a Beautiful Painting, I get something else from most of them every time you read one, I hope I am as successful with Murder On The Links which I am giving a 2nd go to due to Opinions on this site.

Belle-Haliday

Not sure if anyone's interested, but I just posted my review of Ackroyd here. You guys gave me some great stuff to think about, so thank you to every one who's commented. 

Tommy_A_Jones

I love your review especially the bit about Chapter 3 and laughing for a full 5 minutes, I thought I was the only one who did that sought of thing, My Only Criticisms are picky, Couldn't you have reviewed it without saying who did it or if you couldn't put SPOILER ALERT!!! secondly it would have been better if you had put a more distnictive colour for the Grey Writing, I found it hard to read at times, I thin Hastings is a Brilliant Narrator , I think Dr Shephard is 4th after Colin Lamb and Jerry Burton.

tudes

I read it, Belle-Haliday. It's nice you gave the book a second chance, because I think it's one of the best!
SPOILER:
I think she (A. C) plays fair. In fact, I think she touches the boundary. The narrator speaks what he thinks and he said that "when I left him the letter still unread...looking back and wondering  if there was anything left undone" . Of course, he didn't say "I killed him", but I think it's possible to infer it from his words (when you know the truth). A.C certainly plays with us, but she's honest.

Belle-Haliday

I thought about writing a spoiler free review, but realized I wouldn't be able to talk about the things I wanted to without giving away a few vital plot points. There are at least two spoiler warnings in the review itself (one at the beginning and another one just before I give away the ending, but I've since gone back and made them more explicit so as not cause problems in the future. 

Thanks for the feedback. 

TuppenceBeresford

I think it's a really clever idea but it didn't quite work for me. In three of the first five books I read the villain was called James so when I started reading this one and saw his first name, I decided he must be the murderer. So I saw lots of the hints and missed out on the big surprise. But on the other hand it was clear how and why someone as clever as Poirot was deceived and I really liked the character of Caroline Sheppard.

I think she did play fair though. I can understand why some people might see she didn't but although she does deliberately mislead her readers, that's nothing new! She does something similar in another book, which I won't name in case anyone hasn't read it but much of the book was from the point of view of the villain and that book is one of my favourites.

Griselda

I read somewhere, I'm sure, that the ruling monarch at the time when Christie was drafting 'Ackroyd' - or perhaps a senior Duke - suggested to her the idea for the denouement in 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd', and with all due deference to blue blood, she changed her mind about who she would make the killer. I believe that she had been going to finger an alternative character completely as the murderer. 

In my view, Christie has a preference for the handsome, cad, and almost treats it as her duty to warn society to beware that type as she writes: 'Murder At The Vicarage', 'Evil Under The Sun' 'Bertram's Hotel', etc. I can guess who she had had in mind to be Roger Ackroyd's killer.

 I think there are some great clues in 'Ackroyd'  as to what Poirot is thinking, especially in the tone of voice in which he says things - and when he says to the Dr he hopes he has been wrong in his assumptions - eg, he doesn't want to believe it is, who it is. Subtlety is there in abundance. 

The great thing for me plot-wise, is the fact that only certain individuals could have done it because of the machine, and the significance of why the phone call had to be made.

The characterisation is masterful, and I think the believability of motive, very real. Every person's potential motive is convincing - even the butler rings true. The secret marriage - all so typical. The love affair of the strong silent older explorer and the young girl - very human and touching. It is a very human and touching book. 

Anubis

It is absolutely fair. If you consider Dr S's narrative as his testimony on the witness stand, you'll see that every thing he records as a fact can be confirmed by at least one other person. He simply is reticent about telling "The Whole Truth". My question is, what prevented the good medico from bumping off HP? HP is an elderly man, and I think Dr S could have taken him two falls out of three. 

Griselda

That has got me thinking, Anubis. There must be a reasons why SPOILER ALERT Dr S says he wouldn't be stupid enough to try anything. Could HP have briefed the police, whatever he suggests about being yet to do so. I thought for some time on the matter and wondered whether the police sometimes approve of the SPOILER ALERT

Griselda

Sorry, Anubis, I pushed the post button too soon.   I wondered whether the police sometimes approved of the SPOILER ALERT suicide outcome if it meant they would get an unequivocal answer to the case, a confession, or as in the case perhaps of SPOILER ALERT Dumb Witness a tacit admission of guilt by reason of having taken HP's advice on the easy way out.  For the police, it might be that they might not be able to prove the case in MORA. Poirot might tell them his version, and they might say that they only way they'd accept it was with a confession. Poirot is anxious to avert the risk of an innocent man from going to the gallows based on circumstantial evidence. He tries to force an outcome by putting pressure on the person he believes is the murderer. The ploy works, because the murderer assumes that Poirot, not stupid anymore than he the murderer is, will have brought in some concealed protection in the form of an officer or two hiding just outside the window. Or maybe the murderer thinks HP will have written down his suspicions and put them in a sealed envelope for the police to read in the event of anything bad happening to him.

Tommy_A_Jones

We only have Dr Ss word for it that he records everything also I watched something and The Detctve said in reality Murderers never tell the whole truth, they aways lkeep something back.

ChristieFanForLife

We only have Dr Ss word for it that he records everything also I watched something and The Detctve said in reality Murderers never tell the whole truth, they aways lkeep something back.

In a detective novel everyone is a suspect--you shouldn trust anyone. And for those who say A.C. cheated, I say to them, who told you the narrator of a story is 100 % reliable? The narrator is a person just like everyone else, therefore, he should be suspected. Like you said Tommy, we only have Dr. Shepherd's words for it. All the players in the book should never be trusted--they should all be questioned and questionable

StuartBarnett

I love The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. I have taught it at least half a dozen times, from mid-level undergrad to grad level. The sheer evil genius of this book is that it plays absolutely fair. Everything is there. The way to wrap your head around it is to see the book you're holding in your hands as the crime scene. And to approach the reading process itself as a detective. To read absolutely literally. As readers of detective fiction, we know that a good detective should never take one person's word. Everything must be corroborated. And that's the twist with MORA. 

SPOILERS HERE ON OUT

If you treat the narrator as one more suspect from the beginning, you realize that everything he narrates directly is uncorroborated. What he says in hearing to others, clearly is "corroborated." Now, that doesn't mean what he said is true. It simply means that it can be accepted as a fact that he said those things. The truth of what he said is a separate issue. 

So that he lies in speech is not an example of "unfairness." Everyone lies in a murder mystery. He is being fair and honest in reporting his lies accurately. The real issue of fairness is whether he lies to the reader. I would argue he doesn't. He either omits, skips, or distracts. But he does not lie. He just doesn't tell all their is to tell. Again, the reader is supposed to assume this of everyone is a murder mystery. 

Here's a simple example:

Ackroyd spoke again almost immediately.
'Make certain that window's closed, will you,' he asked.

Somewhat surprised, I got up and went to it. It was not a french window, but one of the ordinary sash type. The heavy blue velvet curtains were drawn in front of it, but the window itself was open at the top.

Parker re-entered the room with my bag while I was still at the window. 'That's all right,' I said, emerging again into the room.

'You've put the latch across?'

 'Yes, yes. What's the matter with you, Ackroyd?' 

He says out loud that he closed the window. So it's true that he said that. It doesn't make the statement true. And when he addresses us directly as the narrator, what does he tell us? He actually doesn't tell us he closed the window. Amazingly, he just describes it. The reader is nudged to assume he did. And pay attention to the word "still" in this book. It is used as a marker to indicate time has elapsed that has not been narrated. In other words, he's actually telling you that he's skipping over stuff. It's the fact that this book is so fair that makes it rather a vicious game with the reader. That's probably what people are reacting to more than teh issue of fairness--whether they realize it or not. 

Tommy_A_Jones

If we are going to treat the Narrator as a suspect should we then Treat Hastings as a suspect in the Stories he narrates, he would be permanently on edge if he was always being suspected wouldn't he?

Anubis

Just found this tidbit on the Internet: If you go to the following URL, you can listen to the radio adaptation by Orson Welles of this book, starring Edna May Oliver as the sister.

https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfRogerAckroyd

taliavishay-arbel

I have a problem with books that are narrated from one person's view but leave out important information that he knows. It's a trust problem - when I read a book which is narrated completely from one person's mind (whether in first person, like "The murder of Roger Ackroyd" or in third person, like "Pride and Prejudice" (told completely from Elizabeth's viewpoint)), I naturally identify with the storyteller. That doesn't mean I have all the facts - even in Fiction like "Pride and Prejudice", at first reading I completely agreed with Elizabeth that Wickham was wronged and Darcy a villian. and we were both proved completely wrong - and that also doesn't mean the Author can't convey information to the reader that the story-teller doesn't know (e.g. in "To kill a Mockingbird", towards the end of the trial, Jem is certain that Tim Robinson will be exonerated, while the reader, with a knowledge of the place and time, can be sure he will not be).But having the storyteller cheat makes the book less enjoyable as a human experience. For whoever reads a detective story just as a puzzle and a challenge to his wits, "The murder of Roger Ackroyd" is the ultimate mystery novel, but as escape literature, I feel it cheats us. By the way SPOILER: this is true not only in this case, where the storyteller is the villian, but also if the storyteller is the heroine, e.g. "The Ivy Tree" by Mary Stewart. I think the only book in which this (not being told what the narrator knows) didn't bother me was Charles Dicken's "Our Mutual Friend", and the reason there was that the story was told from various viewpoints - and as soon as we get to the part where the story is told from the viewpoint of the person who is hiding something, his thoughts completely reveal the truth.

Griselda

Credit to the great AC, we'd all agree, I'm sure, that she does at least put in a healthy and persistent strain of clues to indicate that Poirot is catching on to Roger Ackroyd's assassin, and the narrator does, in truth actually tell us this is going on, on the occasions when Poirot does seem to be guessing - but we are looking the other way and don't notice, and he is subtle in how he does it. I like the bit with the butler questioned when Poirot says he has two options form who he thinks has done the crime, and he says ' My friend, I hope in that it is the butler - or words to this effect. sPOILER ALERT There is also the section when the narrator confides that from this time Poirot kept his own counsel more, having previously included the doctor in his investigations, trusting him, and seeing to it that they worked a deux. And the narrator does sometimes say ' a queer look came into Poirot's eyes' just after he the narrator has said something to him. SPOILER. The bit with Caroline talking about the strain of weakness, as she calls it, is such a give away, but so brilliantly has AC directed our suspicions else where that we don't see the significance of it - and blackmail is a weak person's crime.

[email protected]

In my opinion, murder of Roger Ackroyd is the best Poirot novel I have read. In fact I read it many times. I also  watched the movie and it is a huge disappointment. I wowed never to watch, movies of Agatha Christie novels. I am happy to read them.

Tommy_A_Jones

I have a question, when Dr Shepard says Roger is a Manufacturer of Wagon Wheels, is it Wheels for Wagons or those Round Chocolate Biscuits?

SiddharthaS

Dr Sheppard himself talks about how 'fair" he has been in his manuscript, and how he left clues for a discerning reader e.g. the one about making sure he had done everything that needed to be done.  I recall stumbling at that sentence as I read it, thanks to the "suspect every one" credo that AC readers start believing in after reading just one or two of her books! 

Anubis

I hope I will not be chastised too severely if I refer once again to the book "Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?" by Pierre Bayard. In this analysis of our beloved mystery, Bayard presents compelling argument that the murder is actually someone else than who we have all been led to believe. Well worth reading if you are interested in the more intellectual aspects of crime.