The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

"The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd" came highly recommended as an antidote to my fairly disappointing read of the 1966 Poirot novel, "Third Girl", I'd been told that the "Murder of Roger Ackroyd" written forty years earlier when both Poirot and Christie were in their prime, would give me a taste of the real thing. Nevertheless, I was unprepared for just how excellent this book is.

The writing is assured and confident. The murder mystery is a peculiar and ingenious variant of a locked room mystery with a wide variety of possible villains and some surprising plot twists.

What drew me into the book from the first page was Agatha Christie's decision to forego the authorial voice and tell the tale entirely through the eyes of James Sheppard, the show more village Doctor.

Sheppard is a keen but dispassionate observer of his fellow man. He lives with his sister, who is plugged into all the local gossip and he is the first person called to the scene of the murder around which the plot revolves. Sheppard's eye for detail and his amused and sometimes disdainful assessment of the rather odd little Belgian man who has recently come to live next door to him in gives a fresh view of Poirot. It also sets up Sheppard and Poirot as a rough analogue of Watson and Holmes, slipping me into a comfortable and familiar dynamic.

For most of the book, I was entertained by the story and impressed by the craft that went into setting up a series of surprising revelations and the gradual but inexorable netting of all the red herrings swimming through the plot. I was also surprised an pleased by the compassion that Poirot demonstrated for the people whose lives he was dissecting. The tone of this book was far more forgiving than I was used to from Agatha Christie.

Following convention faithfully, we moved on to the Great Reveal and I settled down to discover all the clues I'd missed that would lead me, through the application of method and the little grey cells, to the name of the killer.

The reveal Agatha Christie gave me was a surprise on every level. It transformed my understanding of the novel I had just read, not only in terms of who committed the dastardly deed but in terms of Christie's whole intent with the book.

What I had taken for an accomplished but conventional amateur sleuth locked-room murder mystery was something quite different and much more subversive. It managed, while respecting, and even excelling at using, the cosy conventions of the genre, to deliver something much darker and much more surprising.

I don't want to give the plot away so I'll just say that it had the same effect on my perceptions as the first time that I saw the Double Slit experiment and discovered, from a single set of observations, that light was both a wave and a particle. "The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd" is both a classic golden age locked room mystery and an early example of an exploration of the amoral mind of a murderous sociopath.


At this point, I wanted to applaud, but doing that when you're alone in your room seemed a step too far, so let me do it here instead. BRAVO, Agatha Christie.



If she had written no other book, I believe "The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd" would have secured her place as a gifted writer with a stunningly original mind and a deep understanding of the banality of evil.

I listened to the audiobook version, narrated by Hugh Fraser, who seemed to me to be the perfect fit for Doctor Sheppard. You can hear a sample of his work by clicking on the SoundCloud link below.


[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/214698110" params="color=#ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true" width="100%" height="300" iframe="true" /] show less

I am re-reading Agatha Christie's books in the order they were published. This is #7.

I feel like Christie hit her stride with this novel. The plotting is tight, characters are distinctive, the crime is straightforward, the clues are all there, misdirection is 'honest,' and Poirot has developed the character which will stay with him for the rest of the novels. The prose is clean and easy to read. Christie brings the period between the wars to life, a particular era in England that will never come again. So there's some nostalgia there, but also I recognize that this era is characterized by a certain...intolerance, shall we say?...for certain ethnic groups. In this case, Christie has a sentence or two which are anti-semitic in show more content.

This is a re-read, so I knew whodunnit before I began. But with that foreknowledge, I was able to appreciate the clues and the misdirection to an even greater extent than when I was trying to figure out the crime. The solution is clever, and when I first read the book I was completely surprised when all was revealed. show less

“It is completely unimportant. That is why it is so interesting.” — Roger Ackroyd

This was a masterpiece. I started my foray into mystery novels with this book and I fear I've started at the pinnacle and now there's nothing that will live up to the thrill this one gave me 😂

From the very first page, it has you hooked by the characterisation, and the MC pov has such an entertaining voice. His interactions with his sister were especially so fun and full of personality. I usually have a lot much trouble remembering a big cast of characters, but because all the characters had relationships and possible motives pertaining the murder victim, it was actually very easy to follow along and remember them and their unique quirks.

I went into show more this without reading any spoilers apart from people saying this is the best mystery novel, and boy am I glad I didn't read spoilers! I was carefully reading each line and wondering if such and such was meant to be an important clue, and whether I was reading too much into it. But no! I didn't figure out the truth until the very end and what a brilliant reveal it was!! Everything comes together so neatly, all the interlinking plots and side plots and motivations. I was thoroughly entertained and would call this a perfect mystery book! show less

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!

I didn’t review this after my first read, so I get to write a fresh review now after re-reading it. I have to say, I’ve never been so excited to re-read a book, especially a whodunnit. But the famous twist in this one just has to draw you back. The first read is all about who did it, but the second is all about how he managed to tell you the story without revealing it.

Christie constructs the narrative carefully, and effectively. Dr. Sheppard comes across as an affable—if not especially sharp-witted—guide through the village and the investigation. Much like Hastings, of course, and Poirot’s constant comparisons drive this feeling home. But when you’re aware of the truth, you see all those small turns of show more phrase, the little hints and specific omissions that let him be factual without being truthful. Christie delivers them with just enough restraint that they blend into the flow of the story. One of my favorites was “Ackroyd was sitting as I had left him in the armchair before the fire.” Yeah, well, I guess he would have been. But I don’t even remember noticing that line the first time.

The officious Caroline is also a great foil, and perfect source of misdirection. She lets Christie (and Dr. Sheppard) pull information into the story from unexpected directions, which provides cover for the truth as much as it works to reveal it. The sibling dynamic also makes her brother look all the more reasonable, bolstering our trust in him. It’s a nice touch.

Even Poirot is more enjoyable here than in some of the other Christie novels I’ve seen him in. His arrogance & irascibility are pretty toned down. Considering this was one of the first Poirot novels that was published, it’s impressive that he does come across as a man with his career behind him—a bit casual, more tolerant than ever, even gracious. It’s enjoyable to spend time with him.

I enjoyed it right up to the end, again. Well worth both the read and the re-read. show less

I think it can be somewhat difficult for modern, jaded readers to appreciate just how audacious Agatha Christie's _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_ was when first published in 1926. While on the surface quite typical of the "cozy" mystery style--a murder in a quaint country village, a number of suspects, a number of secrets--the story broke the firmly-entrenched rules of mystery fiction, causing an infamous controversy among Christie's contemporaries. Setting aside any possible reference that might give away the ending, I will say that the story is still today ingenious and shocking.

In the hands of a lesser writer, the story would likely fall flat; and, of course, in the hands of a lesser detective, the story probably wouldn't rise so far show more above the crowd as it does. Hercule Poirot is a classic character, a major force depicted with the perfect economy of style. As usual, he doesn't disappoint. I always have great fun riding shotgun with Papa Poirot.

The book is not only one of Christie's masterpieces, but it's also a masterpiece in general, and a cornerstone of mystery fiction. Five stars. show less

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a classic mystery novel, in which all the suspects are known upfront and the reader gets the opportunity to take guesses and make new theories with every twist and turn of the evidence. Christie is absolutely masterful in weaving together the storylines of multiple characters, both in terms of their secret backstories and in terms of how they act as the investigation plays out. The clues are revealed in a logical order, so that it never feels as though information is being held back to leave the reader in artificial suspense, and none of these revelations blow the case wide open. The police inspectors on the case are obviously less capable than Poirot, and the reader is able to view them with a critical show more eye, and yet they also give voice to some of the very theories the reader may have come up with by that point in the story. All of this combined to keep me guessing and re-guessing right up until the big reveal at the very end. A very satisfying mystery.

The writing itself was simple but not at all lacking. It was easy to read and gave the effect of letting the mystery of the plot take center stage rather than forcing the reader to puzzle over what the sentences were trying to convey. It also showcased a great sense of timing, in places comedic and in places dramatic. I did chuckle and gasp and think, "I knew it!". It kept me incredibly engaged throughout.

Of course, the reader does benefit from reading slowly and carefully in the beginning. There's a large cast of characters, which works phenomenally for the pool of suspects but also requires a certain amount of concentration. I never got bored with this initial portion, suspecting as I did that every person and every detail would end up being important to the overall solution, but readers who haven't read as many mysteries might appreciate the advice going in.

It should be said that, given the time period in which the book was written, there is a certain amount of racism and sexism. In terms of the sexism, though, I got the sense from the beginning, or very near it, that our first-person narrator is more sexist than I believed the author to be. The same was true of the police inspectors and certain other characters as well, which created an effect I quite enjoyed. While certain characters concluded from the beginning that the victim must have been murdered by a man, for example, I didn't write any of the female characters off my list of suspects because it seemed entirely possible to me that they would all be proven completely wrong. To me, the female characters felt very well-written, like real women who had grown up under and internalized to a greater or lesser extent the sexism of their time period. They did not feel like characters that an author's sexist ideas had artificially weakened or pushed other unrealistic traits or behaviors onto.

Overall, I definitely recommend this book to fans of classic mystery or mystery fans in general who would enjoy an excellent example from this time period. I recommend that you take it slow in the beginning and take breaks to stop and think throughout, but if you take your time, you'll end up with a very rewarding experience. show less

Alright, past self. I know you were forced to read this in a college English class, but seriously, what? You're saying it was just ok??

Current me is shaking her head in shame. And thinking, I should probably re-read this, as my memory of it was that it was pretty damn good. Entertaining, and dramatic, and an ending I didn't expect, with a quirkily developed cast. Why didn't I think so the first time? Odd.