The Murder of Roger Ackroyd – Agatha
Christie ‘It is difficult for readers to admire
Poirot despite his ability to solve the case.ʼ
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd – Agatha Christie ‘It is difficult for readers to admire Poirot
despite his ability to solve the case.ʼ To what extent do you agree with this view? Remember to
include in your answer relevant detailed exploration of Christieʼs authorial methods. [25 marks]
Poirotʼs investigative method – being hands on/knowledge of human psychology and also
guesses.
Poirot allowing Dr Sheppard to survive undermining his previous actions.
Dr Sheppard fooling the reader and therefore this being mirrored on Poirot making him
seem more genius.
In crime fiction, specifically detective fiction, the crime is supposed to be difficult to solve but
still available for the more insightful and suspecting readers to discover the answers. This
allows the novel to become more interactive so that the audience can act as secondary
detectives when reading the novel. In ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroydʼ, we are presented with the
detective Hercule Poirot whose investigative and method of detection adds an intriguing plot
point to the novel while allowing the reader themselves to string together the clues. However,
some critics have stated that his method is inconsistent and a subversion to crime fiction
tropes. In this essay I will therefore discuss to what extent readers may struggle to admire
Poirot despite his ability to solve the case.
As we are introduced to Poirot in Chapter 3 as ‘The Man Who Grew Vegetable Marrowsʼ he is
immediately presented as a somewhat ridiculous character whose “suspiciously black hair” and
“two immense moustaches” leading to readers and characters ignoring the “pair of watchful
eyes” which hold an immense knowledge of the human psyche. He is introduced in a similar
way to all of his novels, leading to the ‘dramatis personaeʼ around him doubting his detective
ability and ‘wondering if his successes were all a mysterious series of chancesʼ. However, it is
the way in which Poirot transcends all of these doubts reflecting an immense intelligence within
himself which causes the readers to admire him.
Poirot is clearly not just an arm-chair detective as he is willing to literally get his hands dirty in
pursuit of a clue, such as the ring which he finds in the pond, with the inscription ‘from R. March
13thʼ which Ursula Bourne threw away. Much like Sherlock he also uses psychological
knowledge of people to group and identify them. He reveals that the criminal must be a man
with a “strain of weakness” within himself painting the exact portrait of the criminal figure early
on in the novel. As Caroline describes her brother as being “weak as water” due to a “bad
upbringing”, Poirot then leads to a description of a man with a “weakness” deep inside him
which the right circumstances could awake leading to him being tempted into the opportunity to
Christie ‘It is difficult for readers to admire
Poirot despite his ability to solve the case.ʼ
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd – Agatha Christie ‘It is difficult for readers to admire Poirot
despite his ability to solve the case.ʼ To what extent do you agree with this view? Remember to
include in your answer relevant detailed exploration of Christieʼs authorial methods. [25 marks]
Poirotʼs investigative method – being hands on/knowledge of human psychology and also
guesses.
Poirot allowing Dr Sheppard to survive undermining his previous actions.
Dr Sheppard fooling the reader and therefore this being mirrored on Poirot making him
seem more genius.
In crime fiction, specifically detective fiction, the crime is supposed to be difficult to solve but
still available for the more insightful and suspecting readers to discover the answers. This
allows the novel to become more interactive so that the audience can act as secondary
detectives when reading the novel. In ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroydʼ, we are presented with the
detective Hercule Poirot whose investigative and method of detection adds an intriguing plot
point to the novel while allowing the reader themselves to string together the clues. However,
some critics have stated that his method is inconsistent and a subversion to crime fiction
tropes. In this essay I will therefore discuss to what extent readers may struggle to admire
Poirot despite his ability to solve the case.
As we are introduced to Poirot in Chapter 3 as ‘The Man Who Grew Vegetable Marrowsʼ he is
immediately presented as a somewhat ridiculous character whose “suspiciously black hair” and
“two immense moustaches” leading to readers and characters ignoring the “pair of watchful
eyes” which hold an immense knowledge of the human psyche. He is introduced in a similar
way to all of his novels, leading to the ‘dramatis personaeʼ around him doubting his detective
ability and ‘wondering if his successes were all a mysterious series of chancesʼ. However, it is
the way in which Poirot transcends all of these doubts reflecting an immense intelligence within
himself which causes the readers to admire him.
Poirot is clearly not just an arm-chair detective as he is willing to literally get his hands dirty in
pursuit of a clue, such as the ring which he finds in the pond, with the inscription ‘from R. March
13thʼ which Ursula Bourne threw away. Much like Sherlock he also uses psychological
knowledge of people to group and identify them. He reveals that the criminal must be a man
with a “strain of weakness” within himself painting the exact portrait of the criminal figure early
on in the novel. As Caroline describes her brother as being “weak as water” due to a “bad
upbringing”, Poirot then leads to a description of a man with a “weakness” deep inside him
which the right circumstances could awake leading to him being tempted into the opportunity to
