Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Berkley Books
Pages
358
Description
Hercule Poirot thought that retiring to a small village to do some gardening would bring his detective career to a halt. But when Roger Ackroyd's body is found in his study with a knife stabbed into him, Poirot takes on the case. Ackroyd, whose wealthy fiancee had just recently committed suicide, is hosting a dinner party for a swathe of guests one night when a friend comes to him in confidence and reveals that someone had been blackmailing his late fiancee. That is the last time anyone saw Mr. Ackroyd alive. Join one of Agatha Christie's most notable characters in this entertaining and surprising murder mystery.
Series
Collection
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1926-06-07
Physical description
358 p.; 6.75 inches
ISBN
0425200477 / 9780425200476
Similar in this library
Media reviews
"El asesinato de Roger Ackroyd" es una novela clásica de misterio escrita por Agatha Christie, publicada por primera vez en 1926. La historia es narrada por el Dr. James Sheppard, un médico del pequeño pueblo inglés de King's Abbot. La narración comienza con el aparente suicidio de la rica
Show More
viuda Sra. Ferrars, que estaba prometida en matrimonio con Roger Ackroyd, un rico industrial.
La trama da un giro dramático cuando el propio Roger Ackroyd aparece asesinado en su estudio. Hércules Poirot, el famoso detective belga, se aloja en el pueblo y el Dr. Sheppard le pide que investigue el caso. Los métodos únicos de Poirot y su aguda capacidad de observación entran en juego a medida que examina las pistas e interroga a los sospechosos.
A medida que Poirot profundiza en el misterio, descubre una red de secretos, mentiras y relaciones ocultas entre los habitantes de King's Abbot. La novela es especialmente famosa por su sorprendente giro final, que desafía las convenciones de la novela policíaca de su época.
Sin revelar demasiado para evitar spoilers, cabe señalar que "El asesinato de Roger Ackroyd" se cita a menudo como una de las obras más ingeniosas e influyentes de Agatha Christie. La estructura narrativa y la identidad del asesino contribuyen a la reputación de la novela como un clásico del género de whodunits y un ejemplo destacado de la maestría de Christie en el arte de escribir novelas de misterio. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member akfarrar
The Ultimate Deception
Agatha Christie’s job, as a writer of Detective Novels, was, paradoxically, to hide the criminal – much like a spiv with the card game, Hide the Lady. Even though the punter aims to find the card – and makes wild guesses (based, of course, on superior talents) the
Not much hope, I’m afraid!
‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’ has to be Ms Christie’s ultimate deception – it certainly had me fooled right ‘til the end. No matter where I looked, the Lady was hidden.
Up pop all the usual suspects – and with a Christie you know if someone is accused, it isn’t them. One by one she knocks out everyone – and I do mean everyone! Surely she hasn’t had a total stranger do the murder?
No, the wrist works it’s magic: Poirot, shows you the superiority of his little grey cells and you loose again.
And I can’t tell you the secret – I won’t spoil the thrill.
What I will say is it is beautifully done.
Agatha Christie manages here to exploit the genre ‘Detective Novel’ in a way which relies on the reader’s knowledge of all the usual tricks, of lulling them into a false sense of security and then flipping them onto their backs. It is a book to be read rather than a story to be told – and despite the amazing craftsmanship of Granada television’s version with David Suchet, it fails precisely because this is not only a story but an exploration of the relationship between reader and writer.
Poirot has gone into retirement – Hastings is away in Argentina, Scotland Yard is not involved. A local rich man is the victim of murder (the only one, incidentally in the story – the TV version needed to double the number, bring Inspector Japp in where he wasn’t wanted and simplify the plot by removing a couple of key characters). There is blackmail and love, lost wedding rings and phone calls in the night.
Poirot, after throwing marrows around, one of which lands in his neighbour’s garden and smashes open at the feet of the doctor, is brought in on the sidelines – he hardly features in fact. There is a chair out of place, a man arrested in Liverpool, and the delicate feelings of the local constabulary all to be taken into consideration.
And a lot of consideration is being done by a local tribe of Miss Marples. Nosey old women pop up in profusion – and references to the greatest detective of all times can’t be avoided: The story is retold by the Doctor whose shoes were splattered – a Watson to Poirot’s Holmes.
As you would expect, it is the twist and turns of the plot that matter rather than deep characterisation, but to suggest the book is shallow as a result would be to deny the profound insight Ms Christie shows into the psychology of her readership.
The term masterpiece has been justifiably applied to the book – and I fully concur.
Just make sure you read the book before you see the film!
Agatha Christie’s job, as a writer of Detective Novels, was, paradoxically, to hide the criminal – much like a spiv with the card game, Hide the Lady. Even though the punter aims to find the card – and makes wild guesses (based, of course, on superior talents) the
Show More
side-show spiv will win every time – maybe it’s just a trick, a slight of hand, but we come back again and again in the vain hope of putting one over on the expert.Not much hope, I’m afraid!
‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’ has to be Ms Christie’s ultimate deception – it certainly had me fooled right ‘til the end. No matter where I looked, the Lady was hidden.
Up pop all the usual suspects – and with a Christie you know if someone is accused, it isn’t them. One by one she knocks out everyone – and I do mean everyone! Surely she hasn’t had a total stranger do the murder?
No, the wrist works it’s magic: Poirot, shows you the superiority of his little grey cells and you loose again.
And I can’t tell you the secret – I won’t spoil the thrill.
What I will say is it is beautifully done.
Agatha Christie manages here to exploit the genre ‘Detective Novel’ in a way which relies on the reader’s knowledge of all the usual tricks, of lulling them into a false sense of security and then flipping them onto their backs. It is a book to be read rather than a story to be told – and despite the amazing craftsmanship of Granada television’s version with David Suchet, it fails precisely because this is not only a story but an exploration of the relationship between reader and writer.
Poirot has gone into retirement – Hastings is away in Argentina, Scotland Yard is not involved. A local rich man is the victim of murder (the only one, incidentally in the story – the TV version needed to double the number, bring Inspector Japp in where he wasn’t wanted and simplify the plot by removing a couple of key characters). There is blackmail and love, lost wedding rings and phone calls in the night.
Poirot, after throwing marrows around, one of which lands in his neighbour’s garden and smashes open at the feet of the doctor, is brought in on the sidelines – he hardly features in fact. There is a chair out of place, a man arrested in Liverpool, and the delicate feelings of the local constabulary all to be taken into consideration.
And a lot of consideration is being done by a local tribe of Miss Marples. Nosey old women pop up in profusion – and references to the greatest detective of all times can’t be avoided: The story is retold by the Doctor whose shoes were splattered – a Watson to Poirot’s Holmes.
As you would expect, it is the twist and turns of the plot that matter rather than deep characterisation, but to suggest the book is shallow as a result would be to deny the profound insight Ms Christie shows into the psychology of her readership.
The term masterpiece has been justifiably applied to the book – and I fully concur.
Just make sure you read the book before you see the film!
Show Less
LibraryThing member ChocolateMuse
This is a classic Poirot, in which Poirot himself has some personality and a genuine accent, unlike other Christies I've read (Halloween Party comes to mind, in which his character is rushed and apparently made of cardboard, with a token Mon ami thrown into his conversation as an afterthought).
Show More
This book is well plotted, moderately well-characterised (as far as Christie goes - don't expect George Eliot or Dosteovsky here) and engaging enough as a story even without the mystery solving element. The mystery aspect itself is certainly one of Christie's better ones. Solid Christie, and recommended. Show Less
LibraryThing member Ianigsy
In some ways a classic English country house murder mystery, this book is also something more. Towards the end, the story becomes something more complex as Dr Sheppard's account of events following the murder of Roger Ackroyd take on a more sinister and psychological aspect. Even if you know the
Show More
twist ending, it's pulled off with such style that it's worth waiting for. Show Less
LibraryThing member mmyoung
Warning -- spoilers galore.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is famous for its ‘twist’ ending. But in reality the ending would not be a surprise if the reader had not accepted an unwritten and unstated assumption -- that when we read a story the narrator’s mind is an open book it us. This is not to
Yes Christie does play greatly with the reader in this book, using their own reading skills against them, but my belief is that she plays fair. We are never not told something of importance that Poirot told Sheppard. We don’t always know what Poirot is doing or thinking but we have exactly the same information that Poirot had when he first began to suspect Sheppard of being the murderer. And this is, perhaps, the first Poirot book in which we really understand what he means when he says that other people have the facts they just don’t think through the meaning of those facts. If the reader did exactly that they should at least find themselves asking the questions of the characters that Poirot asks.
Lastly I think it does Christie a disservice to class Sheppard among the pantheon of unreliable narrators. Sheppard writes the truth, he merely uses his knowledge and understanding of the ways in which we read in order to make us, the readers, the source of the unreliability. Sheppard writes:
“
I am rather pleased with myself as a writer. What could be neater, for instance, than the following: ‘The letters were brought in at twenty minutes to nine. It was just on ten minutes to nine when I left him, the letter still unread. I hesitated with my hand on the door handle, looking back and wondering if there was anything I had left undone.’
All true, you see. But suppose I had put a row of stars after the first sentence! Would somebody then have wondered what exactly happened in that blank ten minutes?
“
p. 196
Through Sheppard Christie is pointing out to the reader how naturally and passively they follow the lead suggested by the writer. In other words, the twist in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is the lack of a twist. Christie gives to the reader all the information they need to make the same deductions as Poirot and she understands enough about the nature of the average reader to know that they will not find the clues, will not notice the inconsistencies and in fact will demonstrate that when an author really does play fair with them they, rather than Sheppard, will play the part of Hastings to Poirot.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is famous for its ‘twist’ ending. But in reality the ending would not be a surprise if the reader had not accepted an unwritten and unstated assumption -- that when we read a story the narrator’s mind is an open book it us. This is not to
Show More
say that we expect the narrator to be unreliable, but we don’t expect the narrator to tell us everything he or she thought and did over the course of events. Quite often the incidents and thoughts edited are things the reader did not want to know. Readers are usually not apprised as to the number of bowel movements the narrator had over the course of the story nor are they told about all the times that the narrator refrained from a passing desire, for example, to pick their nose. Yes Christie does play greatly with the reader in this book, using their own reading skills against them, but my belief is that she plays fair. We are never not told something of importance that Poirot told Sheppard. We don’t always know what Poirot is doing or thinking but we have exactly the same information that Poirot had when he first began to suspect Sheppard of being the murderer. And this is, perhaps, the first Poirot book in which we really understand what he means when he says that other people have the facts they just don’t think through the meaning of those facts. If the reader did exactly that they should at least find themselves asking the questions of the characters that Poirot asks.
Lastly I think it does Christie a disservice to class Sheppard among the pantheon of unreliable narrators. Sheppard writes the truth, he merely uses his knowledge and understanding of the ways in which we read in order to make us, the readers, the source of the unreliability. Sheppard writes:
“
I am rather pleased with myself as a writer. What could be neater, for instance, than the following: ‘The letters were brought in at twenty minutes to nine. It was just on ten minutes to nine when I left him, the letter still unread. I hesitated with my hand on the door handle, looking back and wondering if there was anything I had left undone.’
All true, you see. But suppose I had put a row of stars after the first sentence! Would somebody then have wondered what exactly happened in that blank ten minutes?
“
p. 196
Through Sheppard Christie is pointing out to the reader how naturally and passively they follow the lead suggested by the writer. In other words, the twist in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is the lack of a twist. Christie gives to the reader all the information they need to make the same deductions as Poirot and she understands enough about the nature of the average reader to know that they will not find the clues, will not notice the inconsistencies and in fact will demonstrate that when an author really does play fair with them they, rather than Sheppard, will play the part of Hastings to Poirot.
Show Less
LibraryThing member fist
I hadn't read an Agatha Christie novel since my mid-teens, and I was quite prepared to find this book old-fashioned and trite. To my delighted surprise, the writing is crisp and occasionally tongue-in-cheek, with some great characters, amongst which Poirot in great form (Maggie Smith should be cast
Show More
as Mrs. Ackroyd if a film is made of this book). As a detective novel, it is a tour de force - saying more would be a spoiler. Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
Of all the Agatha Christie books I've read--of all the mystery books I've read, there are three with such jaw-dropping resolutions that you want to scream, "I don't believe she did that!" One is And Then There Were None, another is Murder on the Orient Express and the third is The Murder of Roger
This is a perfect puzzle box tale, a classic "locked room" mystery in a country manor complete with butler. The kind of mystery Raymond Chandler in an essay naming Christie complained were "contrived" and "arid formula." Literary critic Edmund Wilson even wrote an essay attacking mysteries titled "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?" Go ahead and sniff disdainfully at me if you like for my rating of a full five stars. It's not Dostoevsky with complex characters and profound thoughts on the human condition(tm) but it's entertaining and clever and there's good reason it's been in print for over 80 years. (And I like it a hell of a lot more than Chandler's The Big Sleep.)
Show More
Ackroyd. Of the three, this is the one I was tempted to read again immediately upon finishing to make sure Christie played fair--she did. One thing that struck me on reread was not only how smoothly this was written--it's first person and that's important--but also how much humor there is, despite it being a murder mystery. Although certainly there are aspects to detective Hercule Poirot's personality that lend itself to comedy. This is a perfect puzzle box tale, a classic "locked room" mystery in a country manor complete with butler. The kind of mystery Raymond Chandler in an essay naming Christie complained were "contrived" and "arid formula." Literary critic Edmund Wilson even wrote an essay attacking mysteries titled "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?" Go ahead and sniff disdainfully at me if you like for my rating of a full five stars. It's not Dostoevsky with complex characters and profound thoughts on the human condition(tm) but it's entertaining and clever and there's good reason it's been in print for over 80 years. (And I like it a hell of a lot more than Chandler's The Big Sleep.)
Show Less
LibraryThing member skavlanj
A Book of Detective Fiction*
I'm not sure how I feel about The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (meaning the novel itself - I'm solidly in the anti-murder camp). If you judge it based on its entertainment value, it is a well-written, satisfying book. From that perspective I enjoyed reading it and understand
TMORA is told by a first-person narrator, Dr. Sheppard, who relates the tale of his late friend Mr. Ackroyd, discovered dead shortly after receiving a letter from another dead person, Mrs. Ferras. The letter reveals to Ackroyd who it was that was blackmailing Ferras for poisoning her husband; however, Ackroyd decides to withhold the name from Sheppard (and consequently from we readers). The letter disappears after the murder, leaving us in the dark. And the whodunnit begins.
Spoiler Alert: although I won't reveal the criminal, it should be fairly obvious from the focus of my discussion. I don't see a way around critiquing the book without giving it away.
Dr. Sheppard is an unreliable narrator, more than your typical first-person narrator. I suspected his narration early on, when he misspells the name of his neighbor, the famous detective Hercule Poirot, even though he is narrating the story after the events have occurred and knows the proper spelling. It is an odd detail, similar to the mysteriously moving chair in the murder room, that is significant precisely because of its peculiarity. There were several other points in the story where the doctor's actions were suspect, where he withholds information from the police and Poirot (but which he has supplied to the reader) that build his unreliability. Those were obvious clues and easy to spot. What wasn't easy, and where I have difficulty with the story, is the facts Sheppard omits from his narrative and which aren't supplied in any other fashion until Poirot reveals them in dramatic fashion when he gathers all the suspects for the climactic "the murderer is in this room" scene. They made me think about the detective story as a genre, and what a reader's expectations should be of the author. My opinion is that the reader should have a fair opportunity to solve the crime, that the reader is a part of the investigative team and should be privy to whatever evidence the other investigators discover. With that belief, I feel cheated by the withholding of one critical piece of evidence by both the narrator, who perpetrates the hoax, and Poirot, who uncovers it. This hidden action is the only way the criminal can get away with the crime and, conversely, through its discovery get caught.
I also felt manipulated throughout the telling, as Christie throws multiple diversions at the reader through the introduction of the backstories of most of those present the night of the murder and is fond of having her detective make unexplained comments, all to seemingly throw the reader off the trail. I'm less clear on whether that's fair or not, given that the reader in this case is being treated like the detective and subject to the same bad assumptions, diversions and dead ends.
I will complement one aspect of Christie's method, that of her characters speaking not only to the other characters but to the reader. Several character's descriptions of other character's lend credibility to the maligned character's culpability. And take Poirot's statement about murder cases, "Everyone in them has something to hide," to heart. Christie is leading you to the criminal as she leads you away.
What the reader absolutely has to set aside is any sense of proportion in the sheer mass of backstories. Each backstory provides its character a motive, weak or strong, and each falls under suspicion and is cleared as the novel progresses. There is a lot going on with all these people, more than seems plausible, but TMORA would be a much different book, and likely not an entertaining one, if we only had one suspect and it was just a rehashing of how the crime was both committed and detected without the color these diversions provide.
* - I've had to set my themed reading list aside for now, as I'm taking a couple literature classes this summer through a state program that provides free tuition for Texas residents over 55. This novel is assigned for my Modern and Contemporary British Literature class that's focused on detective fiction.
I'm not sure how I feel about The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (meaning the novel itself - I'm solidly in the anti-murder camp). If you judge it based on its entertainment value, it is a well-written, satisfying book. From that perspective I enjoyed reading it and understand
Show More
why its on the 1001 Books list. But that is not the type of book I typically read, and that's the angle I'm struggling to set aside (old dogs, new tricks).TMORA is told by a first-person narrator, Dr. Sheppard, who relates the tale of his late friend Mr. Ackroyd, discovered dead shortly after receiving a letter from another dead person, Mrs. Ferras. The letter reveals to Ackroyd who it was that was blackmailing Ferras for poisoning her husband; however, Ackroyd decides to withhold the name from Sheppard (and consequently from we readers). The letter disappears after the murder, leaving us in the dark. And the whodunnit begins.
Spoiler Alert: although I won't reveal the criminal, it should be fairly obvious from the focus of my discussion. I don't see a way around critiquing the book without giving it away.
Dr. Sheppard is an unreliable narrator, more than your typical first-person narrator. I suspected his narration early on, when he misspells the name of his neighbor, the famous detective Hercule Poirot, even though he is narrating the story after the events have occurred and knows the proper spelling. It is an odd detail, similar to the mysteriously moving chair in the murder room, that is significant precisely because of its peculiarity. There were several other points in the story where the doctor's actions were suspect, where he withholds information from the police and Poirot (but which he has supplied to the reader) that build his unreliability. Those were obvious clues and easy to spot. What wasn't easy, and where I have difficulty with the story, is the facts Sheppard omits from his narrative and which aren't supplied in any other fashion until Poirot reveals them in dramatic fashion when he gathers all the suspects for the climactic "the murderer is in this room" scene. They made me think about the detective story as a genre, and what a reader's expectations should be of the author. My opinion is that the reader should have a fair opportunity to solve the crime, that the reader is a part of the investigative team and should be privy to whatever evidence the other investigators discover. With that belief, I feel cheated by the withholding of one critical piece of evidence by both the narrator, who perpetrates the hoax, and Poirot, who uncovers it. This hidden action is the only way the criminal can get away with the crime and, conversely, through its discovery get caught.
I also felt manipulated throughout the telling, as Christie throws multiple diversions at the reader through the introduction of the backstories of most of those present the night of the murder and is fond of having her detective make unexplained comments, all to seemingly throw the reader off the trail. I'm less clear on whether that's fair or not, given that the reader in this case is being treated like the detective and subject to the same bad assumptions, diversions and dead ends.
I will complement one aspect of Christie's method, that of her characters speaking not only to the other characters but to the reader. Several character's descriptions of other character's lend credibility to the maligned character's culpability. And take Poirot's statement about murder cases, "Everyone in them has something to hide," to heart. Christie is leading you to the criminal as she leads you away.
What the reader absolutely has to set aside is any sense of proportion in the sheer mass of backstories. Each backstory provides its character a motive, weak or strong, and each falls under suspicion and is cleared as the novel progresses. There is a lot going on with all these people, more than seems plausible, but TMORA would be a much different book, and likely not an entertaining one, if we only had one suspect and it was just a rehashing of how the crime was both committed and detected without the color these diversions provide.
* - I've had to set my themed reading list aside for now, as I'm taking a couple literature classes this summer through a state program that provides free tuition for Texas residents over 55. This novel is assigned for my Modern and Contemporary British Literature class that's focused on detective fiction.
Show Less
LibraryThing member smik
There are some interesting themes in this novel.
* King's Abbot is peaceful little village but under that tranquil surface there are some very nasty secrets indeed.This idea of seething disharmony and nasty things hidden in village life is a theme that reoccurs in the Miss Marple novels and more
* There's a lot in this novel about marital troubles. The original Mrs Ackroyd turned out to be a dipsomaniac who died four years after her marriage. Roger Paton is not a particularly nice person, not a good catch for the lovely Flora. In the "real" background this is 1926, the year that Chrisie's own marriage collapsed, with her husband announcing that he loved another, and at the end of the year her own famous "disappearing act" occurred.
* Christie was obviously still searching for an acceptable protagonist for her novels. Hercule Poirot had made his first appearance in THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES in 1920, and then again in THE MURDER ON THE LINKS. When THE MAN IN THE BROWN SUIT appeared in 1924 reviewers had apparently questioned why Hercule Poirot had been retired. From now on he would make almost annual or at least biennial appearances. But Poirot is not a country person.
* There's a problem with Poirot coming out of his retirement. Captain Hastings who was the narrator in the first two Poirot appearances, and Watson to Poirot's Holmes, has inconsiderately gone off to the Argentine. Christie who obviously felt Poirot needed a foil, and a narrator, decides to use the local doctor as his apparent confidante and we read the action in Dr. Sheppard's words. In fact Sheppard, while, like Hastings is still not entirely au fait with what Poirot is thinking, turns out to be an unreliable narrator, so the reader is to an extent deceived.
* Christie is also at this stage developing a panorama of background characters. There's mention for example of Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard, and of the local Sussex coroner Colonel Melrose.
Some people have said that THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD is Christie's best novel. The Wikipedia entry says : It is one of Christie's best known and most controversial novels, its innovative twist ending having a significant impact on the genre.
In fact I didn't find it all that easy to read. It seemed chock full of information and facts, as if Christie was trying to pour everything into my brain, to see if I could sift the chaff from the wheat, and come up with the answer. For me also the novel is an illustration of my conviction that she doesn't always play fair with the reader.
* King's Abbot is peaceful little village but under that tranquil surface there are some very nasty secrets indeed.This idea of seething disharmony and nasty things hidden in village life is a theme that reoccurs in the Miss Marple novels and more
Show More
recently in Midsomer, a dangerous place to visit in Festivals.* There's a lot in this novel about marital troubles. The original Mrs Ackroyd turned out to be a dipsomaniac who died four years after her marriage. Roger Paton is not a particularly nice person, not a good catch for the lovely Flora. In the "real" background this is 1926, the year that Chrisie's own marriage collapsed, with her husband announcing that he loved another, and at the end of the year her own famous "disappearing act" occurred.
* Christie was obviously still searching for an acceptable protagonist for her novels. Hercule Poirot had made his first appearance in THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES in 1920, and then again in THE MURDER ON THE LINKS. When THE MAN IN THE BROWN SUIT appeared in 1924 reviewers had apparently questioned why Hercule Poirot had been retired. From now on he would make almost annual or at least biennial appearances. But Poirot is not a country person.
* There's a problem with Poirot coming out of his retirement. Captain Hastings who was the narrator in the first two Poirot appearances, and Watson to Poirot's Holmes, has inconsiderately gone off to the Argentine. Christie who obviously felt Poirot needed a foil, and a narrator, decides to use the local doctor as his apparent confidante and we read the action in Dr. Sheppard's words. In fact Sheppard, while, like Hastings is still not entirely au fait with what Poirot is thinking, turns out to be an unreliable narrator, so the reader is to an extent deceived.
* Christie is also at this stage developing a panorama of background characters. There's mention for example of Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard, and of the local Sussex coroner Colonel Melrose.
Some people have said that THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD is Christie's best novel. The Wikipedia entry says : It is one of Christie's best known and most controversial novels, its innovative twist ending having a significant impact on the genre.
In fact I didn't find it all that easy to read. It seemed chock full of information and facts, as if Christie was trying to pour everything into my brain, to see if I could sift the chaff from the wheat, and come up with the answer. For me also the novel is an illustration of my conviction that she doesn't always play fair with the reader.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Eyejaybee
I see from the flyleaf of this book tat i bought it at the age of thirteen, on a visit to York with my parents in the long, hot summer of 1976. At that time I was obsessed with Agatha Christie's books, and just read them one after another all the way through the school holidays. This particular
Reading it again, thirty seven years later, it still works. Of course, this time I knew in advance who the murderer was, and armed with that foreknowledge I could see that all of the necessary clues are there. As usual, there is an acute social observation here (though I am fairly confident that I was utterly oblivious to this when I read the book as a boy), and the class strata are rigidly delineated. Still, the plot is watertight and the characters fairly plausible (within the wonderful world of Christie's village life, anyway), and nearly ninety years after it was first published it remains an engaging and engrossing story.
I am pretty sure that i will be re-reading several more of Dame Agatha's works over the coming months.
Show More
episode in the Hercule Poirot canon is now regarded as rather a classic, and the solution to the murder was particularly innovative (Don't worry, I won't give anything away).Reading it again, thirty seven years later, it still works. Of course, this time I knew in advance who the murderer was, and armed with that foreknowledge I could see that all of the necessary clues are there. As usual, there is an acute social observation here (though I am fairly confident that I was utterly oblivious to this when I read the book as a boy), and the class strata are rigidly delineated. Still, the plot is watertight and the characters fairly plausible (within the wonderful world of Christie's village life, anyway), and nearly ninety years after it was first published it remains an engaging and engrossing story.
I am pretty sure that i will be re-reading several more of Dame Agatha's works over the coming months.
Show Less
LibraryThing member vanedow
There is a reason they call Agatha Christie the Grand Dame of Mystery. This story is a great example of her work. In a quiet country village, a woman dies - is it suicide? Next, a wealthy widower is stabbed to death in his study. Suspects and motives abound, but the police just can't seem to sort
I am a big fan of Christie's Poirot novels. The character of the detective is just so funny, his appearance so unexpected, that you can't help be surprised right along with his audience when he takes the random facts you never bothered to notice and turns them into a solution to the mystery.
This is a classic murder mystery in its pure form. There are no side romances or steamy sex scenes. There is no impending doom to keep you in suspense. What you will find in this book is a great whodunnit, as you try to figure it all out. I did not see the ending coming until just a few pages from the last.
Christie's shrewd understanding of character reminds me a bit of Jane Austen. Even as you can't help but be amused and annoyed with Mrs. Bennet, the extraneous characters in the Murder of RA will keep you well entertained.
I liked this book a lot and would recommend it to all of you out there who love mysteries for the mystery, and who enjoy thinking you might be a good detective.
Show More
the matter out. Enter the great detective, Hercule Poirot. I am a big fan of Christie's Poirot novels. The character of the detective is just so funny, his appearance so unexpected, that you can't help be surprised right along with his audience when he takes the random facts you never bothered to notice and turns them into a solution to the mystery.
This is a classic murder mystery in its pure form. There are no side romances or steamy sex scenes. There is no impending doom to keep you in suspense. What you will find in this book is a great whodunnit, as you try to figure it all out. I did not see the ending coming until just a few pages from the last.
Christie's shrewd understanding of character reminds me a bit of Jane Austen. Even as you can't help but be amused and annoyed with Mrs. Bennet, the extraneous characters in the Murder of RA will keep you well entertained.
I liked this book a lot and would recommend it to all of you out there who love mysteries for the mystery, and who enjoy thinking you might be a good detective.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DirtPriest
I actually bought this book for my friend's birthday and he both enjoyed it and hated it so much that he more or less begged me into reading it right in the middle of the Dragonlance Chronicles. He had reason for doing so. As a Holmes enthusiast, I tried a few of Christie's books years ago and I
Show More
didn't enjoy them nearly as much as the classic Holmes stories way back then. I am very glad I read one again on recommendation (mystery stories are generally far from my reading list). This book was very enjoyable, well paced and, as expected, filled with delightful twists and a great ending. At least, I liked the end-my friend was very shocked and disappointed for reasons that would spoil the solution to the crime if I went into details. The main story is about a rich businessman who is found dead in his study, and each member of the household has some suspicion on them towards the murder. By chance, a retired Hercule Poirot happens to be the new neighbor and eventually is invited in to help the police solve the crime. Blah, blah. My only complaint was that there seemed to be a lot of characters for a short work, but hey, it wasn't particularly complicated or overdone. This was a very well thought out, witty and extremely enjoyable short read and I shall read many more Poirot stories and the other Agatha Christie sleuths' tales in the future. By the way, there are many reviews of this book on its little info page and they explain the story better than I do. Show Less
LibraryThing member sarah-e
When I pick up something by Agatha Christie, I know it's going to be good. The narrator is instantly fascinating, especially as he describes his investigations with the fastidious little Belgian (who the narrator hilariously thinks is a hairdresser upon meeting!). I wish I had counted the number of
Show More
times "little grey cells" appeared in this book - far more than the other Poirot mysteries I have read! Show Less
LibraryThing member Intemerata
I'm starting to get a bit worried about my memory. I'm pretty sure I read all of Agatha Christie's books as a teenager, and I've definitely watched various TV versions multiple times, and yet the dénouements keep coming as a surprise to me. And in this case I'm glad of it, because it would have
This is the only one of Christie's books on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list. I can absolutely see why - it's a beautifully constructed mystery, very imaginative, and doubtless a huge influence on the genre - but is it really better than, say, Murder On The Orient Express? I'm not convinced.
Show More
been a completely different experience reading the book if I'd known who the murderer was.This is the only one of Christie's books on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list. I can absolutely see why - it's a beautifully constructed mystery, very imaginative, and doubtless a huge influence on the genre - but is it really better than, say, Murder On The Orient Express? I'm not convinced.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ptaylor12
One of the best mysteries ever written.
LibraryThing member bcquinnsmom
One of my favorite Christie books, not so much for Poirot's detection skills, but for its classic ending. This time around was my second reading of this book, and knowing the ending, it was still fun watching the solution to this rather baffling crime unravel.
Because of the nature of the story, I
There are also a number of humorous moments throughout. An entire chapter is devoted to a rather crazy mah-jong game where the players share their own theories about the case in between calling out plays. And at one point, one of the suspects calls Poirot a "little foreign c*ck duck," and I swear I heard the voice of John Cleese in my head, as the epithet reminded me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the French knights mercilessly taunt King Arthur and his men ("your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries"). But on the serious side, I have to say that this second reading provided me with a deeper appreciation for Christie's attention to minute detail -- as even little things turn out to be important in this book.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is one of Christie's best works, with an ending you won't soon forget. It's a definite must read in the Christie canon and one of my personal favorites.
Because of the nature of the story, I
Show More
can't really give an in-depth summary here. If you decide to read this book, believe me, you'll thank me later. In the quiet English village of King's Abbot, Roger Ackroyd, as the title suggests, ends up murdered in the study of his home Fernly Park. As it just so happens, Poirot is in the village, staying in the house next door to Dr. Sheppard (the narrator) and his sister Caroline, where he spends his days growing vegetable marrows. Dr. Sheppard believes his new neighbor is a hairdresser, based on the evidence of Poirot's moustache. But Poirot reveals his true colors as he gets down to the business of Ackroyd's murder, using his "little gray cells" to comb through the staggering amount of red herrings and a number of suspects in the case. There are also a number of humorous moments throughout. An entire chapter is devoted to a rather crazy mah-jong game where the players share their own theories about the case in between calling out plays. And at one point, one of the suspects calls Poirot a "little foreign c*ck duck," and I swear I heard the voice of John Cleese in my head, as the epithet reminded me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the French knights mercilessly taunt King Arthur and his men ("your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries"). But on the serious side, I have to say that this second reading provided me with a deeper appreciation for Christie's attention to minute detail -- as even little things turn out to be important in this book.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is one of Christie's best works, with an ending you won't soon forget. It's a definite must read in the Christie canon and one of my personal favorites.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Kellswitch
This was the first ever Agatha Christie book I've ever read and I am a bit mixed on it. I find it hard to fairly judge the older mysteries because all the things and tropes we take for granted now were brand new and not always worked out then.
I found this book very hard to get into at first, until
I thought the mystery was well handled and once I thought about the conclusion I can see how it got there, often surprise endings feel like a cheat where corners are cut and things happen off stage as it were so you had no chance to see it coming, not so in this case. When you look back, the pieces were all there.
I enjoyed this one well enough, and I really enjoyed Poirot's character so I will happily give more of the books a try.
I found this book very hard to get into at first, until
Show More
after about the first 100 or so pages, which is when the Poirot character actually started to become more involved in the story and it focused less and less on the first characters introduced and they actually started working on solving the mystery. That is the point where I started to get engaged in the story and it started to be fun.I thought the mystery was well handled and once I thought about the conclusion I can see how it got there, often surprise endings feel like a cheat where corners are cut and things happen off stage as it were so you had no chance to see it coming, not so in this case. When you look back, the pieces were all there.
I enjoyed this one well enough, and I really enjoyed Poirot's character so I will happily give more of the books a try.
Show Less
LibraryThing member markatread
This is the 4th of the Poirot mysteries and as such Poirot is still somewhat of a character that is evolving and developing. Captain Hastings is not in this book, he has gone to Argentina since Poirot has retired from being the great detective and moved incognito to a small village. And the book
This is a high class who-dunit. An almost perfect, classic English mystery set in a village where the country squire-like character is killed and multiple people have motive and oppurtunity. The number of clues is dazzling and the solution to the murder remains elusive. Many murder mystery series rely on the reader to develop a relationship with the hero and then be willing to follow the hero through stories that are not necessarily well plotted or have gapping holes in the logic. But such is not the case in this book. Without Hastings or Inspector Japp or Miss Lemon to help develop the character of Poirot for us, the reader is left with the ability of the writer to tell us a story that is interesting and well plotted. And Agatha Christie does that and more. She not only tells us a great story, she shows us a little piece of the little Belgian's heart even without Hastings there to describe it as Poirot shows understanding and kindness to the character that we the reader have come to care for the most during the telling of the story. It is an artful telling of the story by Agatha Christie.
Show More
misses Hastings, especially his narration and his ability to help us see Poirot clearly. The narrator this time is the village doctor, Dr. Shepard. And what you miss without Hastings in the role of narrator, the reader gains with the doctor in that role as he is better able to describe the village and the people who live there than Hastings would have been able to do. In fact the character that is most clearly developed and resonants (even more so than Poirot) is the doctor's sister, Caroline. She is a spinster, busybody that has an intricate information network that can find out anything she needs to know about her village (almost an early prototype of Miss Marple who did not appear for another 4-5 years). The exchanges between Caroline and her brother are some of the best parts of the book. This is a high class who-dunit. An almost perfect, classic English mystery set in a village where the country squire-like character is killed and multiple people have motive and oppurtunity. The number of clues is dazzling and the solution to the murder remains elusive. Many murder mystery series rely on the reader to develop a relationship with the hero and then be willing to follow the hero through stories that are not necessarily well plotted or have gapping holes in the logic. But such is not the case in this book. Without Hastings or Inspector Japp or Miss Lemon to help develop the character of Poirot for us, the reader is left with the ability of the writer to tell us a story that is interesting and well plotted. And Agatha Christie does that and more. She not only tells us a great story, she shows us a little piece of the little Belgian's heart even without Hastings there to describe it as Poirot shows understanding and kindness to the character that we the reader have come to care for the most during the telling of the story. It is an artful telling of the story by Agatha Christie.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kalypso219
The best of all of her books that I have read so far. A very quick read. I could hardly put it down. A very clever, surprising ending. I thoroughly enjoyed this one from start to finish.
LibraryThing member cmbohn
I love this one. Another of the ones I just reread. A county squire type fellow is found stabbed in the back in his study. His fiance has recently died of an overdose after being blackmailed into desperation. The story is told by the village doctor, a confidante of the dead man. The local police
Show More
are stumped. But new village resident, Mr. Porrott, turns out to be none other than the great detective himself who comes out of retirement to take this case. Show Less
LibraryThing member wendyrey
Classic Agatha Christie murder mystery .Full of cliches about class and the clever private detective and stupid police.
I wonder how much of the drug (cocaine) issue reflects real life at the time or is it just a literary device.
A good read.
I wonder how much of the drug (cocaine) issue reflects real life at the time or is it just a literary device.
A good read.
LibraryThing member defrog
I’d never read her before, despite having a lot of her books in the house as a kid (my mom is a fan), but at three for HK$90, I figured I’d take a shot. It’s pretty good – seems about what you’d expect for a Brit whodunit, but I have to say I never saw the ending coming. Good stuff, but I
Show More
don’t know if I’m going to be buying her entire back catalogue any time soon. Show Less
LibraryThing member cherokeelib
Looking for a mystery classic? You've found a great one! In this mystery, Christie famously produces one of her greatest whodonits, a truly baffling crime. Dare you to figure it out!
LibraryThing member mostlyharmless
The grand daddy of murder mysteries!
Forget the purist whims of the denoument "not being fair". How many of the readers have a personal favourites in detective fiction which they deem to be "fair", whatever that may mean?
No matter how old this book is, it always seems to be continually on the list
Forget the purist whims of the denoument "not being fair". How many of the readers have a personal favourites in detective fiction which they deem to be "fair", whatever that may mean?
No matter how old this book is, it always seems to be continually on the list
Show More
of the rookie reader - and ,lets face it, history has treated the book with much more respect than the critics who hauled the book over in 1926. Show Less
LibraryThing member Bookmarque
I can see how the people who first read this early Christie effort thought it unfair. The device used is very clever, but does not afford the reader the same access to clues that Poirot has. Not that many of us have ever unraveled a Christie mystery before her pet detectives.
This one moved along
Christie characterizes her victim just enough so that we feel empathy, but not too much. We know he was a stingy man despite being so fabulously wealthy. Through Poirot’s interviews with the suspects, their characters come to light as well, not all of them pleasant either. There is a love interest or two thrown in, but it’s not dwelt upon too much. That would bog down the story, which moves at a pretty good pace. I seem to always think of Christie’s mysteries as slow moving affairs with too much focus on every tiny detail of the landscape. So far, this impression hasn’t held with the few Christies I’ve read as an adult.
Britain in the 1920s was represented fairly well although I didn’t get a full dose of that atmosphere as I would in an American novel of the same era. Not much slang or talk about technology apart from the dictaphone (not capitalized in the book, but MS Word wants to capitalize it for me now), which was a very large and bulky affair, what being new and all.
The ending is somewhat loose for this author and showed Poirot’s compassion and sensitivity to the rest of the citizens. We’re left to wonder a bit what happens, but not so much that the novel feels unfinished. I kept hearing David Suchet in my head every time Poirot spoke and often pictured parts of the movie (Ackroyd’s house was especially memorable – an art deco gem), and although I couldn’t specifically remember whodunit, the ending wasn’t a total shock.
This one moved along
Show More
quite well with humor and wit and just a touch of sarcasm. I liked Dr. Sheppard as a narrator and/or chronicler. Watson to Poirot’s Holmes. His portrayal of his sister, Caroline, was especially vindictive. Village life means close contact which, indeed, breeds contempt.Christie characterizes her victim just enough so that we feel empathy, but not too much. We know he was a stingy man despite being so fabulously wealthy. Through Poirot’s interviews with the suspects, their characters come to light as well, not all of them pleasant either. There is a love interest or two thrown in, but it’s not dwelt upon too much. That would bog down the story, which moves at a pretty good pace. I seem to always think of Christie’s mysteries as slow moving affairs with too much focus on every tiny detail of the landscape. So far, this impression hasn’t held with the few Christies I’ve read as an adult.
Britain in the 1920s was represented fairly well although I didn’t get a full dose of that atmosphere as I would in an American novel of the same era. Not much slang or talk about technology apart from the dictaphone (not capitalized in the book, but MS Word wants to capitalize it for me now), which was a very large and bulky affair, what being new and all.
The ending is somewhat loose for this author and showed Poirot’s compassion and sensitivity to the rest of the citizens. We’re left to wonder a bit what happens, but not so much that the novel feels unfinished. I kept hearing David Suchet in my head every time Poirot spoke and often pictured parts of the movie (Ackroyd’s house was especially memorable – an art deco gem), and although I couldn’t specifically remember whodunit, the ending wasn’t a total shock.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Love_Musik
Great in the end, but it took me a long while to get into. Sooo well worth it in the end though
Subjects
Awards
Anthony Award (Nominee — 2000)
Haycraft Queen Cornerstones (1926)
Julian Symons' 100 Best Crime Stories (1926 — 1926)
Call number
FIC F Chr