The Murder of Roger Ackroyd – Agatha
Christie - ‘The process of detection is more
interesting than the characterisation.ʼ - 2017
Agatha Christieʼs criticisms for having flat characters.
The characters many motives being interesting.
Poirotʼs detective method defining him as a detective figure.
Poirot being only a detective not his own character.
Poirot being a different type of detective.
Importance of Roger Ackroyd not being complexed, so we do not feel sympathy.
Dr Sheppardʼs characterisation being interesting as he breaks detective tropes.
When looking at Poirotʼs character it is therefore important to view the thin slices we receive
before and after the crime occurs, so as readers we can fully evaluate his character aside from
his position as the novels detective. Poirot uses his own personal idiosyncratic ethical code
when responding to crime as his goal as stated to Flora in Chapter 7 where he tells her that he
will only accept the case it he can receive “all the truth”. Through this he appears very different
to the farcical police who are motivated by monetary gain to enforce law and justice, and by
rejecting Floraʼs offer of money, similar to how he rejects Linnets on Death on the Nile, he takes
an anti-capitalist stance on crime with his principle being only the uncovering of the truth. At
the end of the novel, when Poirot allows Dr Sheppard to escape conventional punishment by
committing suicide which Golden Age detective fiction viewed as ‘justified karmaʼ, he is
advocating for a type of legal injustice to spare the feelings of Caroline and the safety of the
town. It is vital to remember that Poirot has reached his goal of understanding the truth and as
he is not a part of the police, he is not bound by law to bring the criminal to legal justice. This
showcases an interesting part of Poirotʼs character which is separate from his place as the
detective. It shows that he is willing to bend the rules to follow through on his own personal
code of right and wrong. This can also be seen in ‘The Murder on the Orient Expressʼ where
Poirot keeps silent because of the sheer numbers of people involved in the crime and the fact
that if the murderer was allowed to live the world would be a worse place. These aspects of his
character are fascinating as they differentiate him from other detectives suggesting that his
character may be more interesting that his process of detection.
In crime fiction when focusing on character it is important to focus on the victims. The crime
which actually propels the narrative is not even the one alluded to in the title but one that
predates the events of the novel yet is entangled with it - the death of Mr Ferrars which occurs
a year before the narrative begins causing Mrs Ferrars to kill herself which drives the narrative.
Due to this, the reader must question to what extent the characterisation can truly be deemed
as more important than the process of detection when the victims which allow the plot and
Christie - ‘The process of detection is more
interesting than the characterisation.ʼ - 2017
Agatha Christieʼs criticisms for having flat characters.
The characters many motives being interesting.
Poirotʼs detective method defining him as a detective figure.
Poirot being only a detective not his own character.
Poirot being a different type of detective.
Importance of Roger Ackroyd not being complexed, so we do not feel sympathy.
Dr Sheppardʼs characterisation being interesting as he breaks detective tropes.
When looking at Poirotʼs character it is therefore important to view the thin slices we receive
before and after the crime occurs, so as readers we can fully evaluate his character aside from
his position as the novels detective. Poirot uses his own personal idiosyncratic ethical code
when responding to crime as his goal as stated to Flora in Chapter 7 where he tells her that he
will only accept the case it he can receive “all the truth”. Through this he appears very different
to the farcical police who are motivated by monetary gain to enforce law and justice, and by
rejecting Floraʼs offer of money, similar to how he rejects Linnets on Death on the Nile, he takes
an anti-capitalist stance on crime with his principle being only the uncovering of the truth. At
the end of the novel, when Poirot allows Dr Sheppard to escape conventional punishment by
committing suicide which Golden Age detective fiction viewed as ‘justified karmaʼ, he is
advocating for a type of legal injustice to spare the feelings of Caroline and the safety of the
town. It is vital to remember that Poirot has reached his goal of understanding the truth and as
he is not a part of the police, he is not bound by law to bring the criminal to legal justice. This
showcases an interesting part of Poirotʼs character which is separate from his place as the
detective. It shows that he is willing to bend the rules to follow through on his own personal
code of right and wrong. This can also be seen in ‘The Murder on the Orient Expressʼ where
Poirot keeps silent because of the sheer numbers of people involved in the crime and the fact
that if the murderer was allowed to live the world would be a worse place. These aspects of his
character are fascinating as they differentiate him from other detectives suggesting that his
character may be more interesting that his process of detection.
In crime fiction when focusing on character it is important to focus on the victims. The crime
which actually propels the narrative is not even the one alluded to in the title but one that
predates the events of the novel yet is entangled with it - the death of Mr Ferrars which occurs
a year before the narrative begins causing Mrs Ferrars to kill herself which drives the narrative.
Due to this, the reader must question to what extent the characterisation can truly be deemed
as more important than the process of detection when the victims which allow the plot and
