2021 Murder of Roger Ackroyd ‘In crime
writing, the criminals are not fundamentally
bad people.ʼ
2021
‘In crime writing, the criminals are not fundamentally bad people.ʼ To what extent do you agree
with this view? Remember to include in your answer relevant detailed exploration of authorial
methods. [25 marks]
Murder of Roger Ackroyd
Dr Sheppard having a strain of weakness but not being fundamentally bad.
The cruelty and method in which he kills, subverts his values, and deceives characters.
Throughout centuries, critics have discussed whether the presentation of criminals as being
fundamentally bad people is shallow unbelievable character writing or a useful technique for
exploring crimes. In Atonement we are presented with two main criminals – Briony Tallis and
Paul Marshall – who present very different conflicting aspects of being a criminal. Similarly, in
the Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Dr Sheppardʼs position as a criminal is viewed as being due to
something within him, but also something around him which motivates him. In this essay I will
discuss to what extent ‘in crime writing the criminals are not fundamentally bad peopleʼ.
In 1926, during the Golden Age of Crime where ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroydʼ is set, criminal
activity was believed to be present in people with an ‘evil geneʼ which causes them to be
different from the rest of the population causing them to commit crimes. This was believed so
that a comfortable distance was created between the ‘normal civilianʼ and ‘despicable criminalʼ.
Dr Sheppard subverts this however being presented as a mundane ‘every-manʼ character
whose profession as a doctor and position as being the man everyone in Kingʼs Abbot trusts
makes him seem not fundamentally bad, but normal.
Instead, his crime seems to occur due to a “strain of weakness” within him described initially by
his sister Caroline and secondly Poirot. Ralph Paton, whom everyone in the village agrees has a
“weak nature” surrounding money, appears a fundamentally weak people. Poirot wonders aloud
where his weakness may lead, and Caroline interjects stating that her brother is “weak as
water” addressing him directly by stating; “Iʼve always considered it my duty to look after you.
With a bad bringing up, Heaven knows what mischief you might have got into by now”. On the
surface this appears to be mild teasing, yet Poirot mentions this “weakness” later on painting a
hypothetical portrait of a man with a “strain of weakness” that in the right circumstances would
lead him to make many bad decisions. The man, for example, may stumble accidently on a
secret (such as Mrs Ferrars murdering her husband) and unable to resist his weakness and
opportunity to make a lot of money would fall victim to this “strain”. Initially this seems to just be
talk surrounding a possible criminal, yet upon closer inspection or knowledge of the criminal it
writing, the criminals are not fundamentally
bad people.ʼ
2021
‘In crime writing, the criminals are not fundamentally bad people.ʼ To what extent do you agree
with this view? Remember to include in your answer relevant detailed exploration of authorial
methods. [25 marks]
Murder of Roger Ackroyd
Dr Sheppard having a strain of weakness but not being fundamentally bad.
The cruelty and method in which he kills, subverts his values, and deceives characters.
Throughout centuries, critics have discussed whether the presentation of criminals as being
fundamentally bad people is shallow unbelievable character writing or a useful technique for
exploring crimes. In Atonement we are presented with two main criminals – Briony Tallis and
Paul Marshall – who present very different conflicting aspects of being a criminal. Similarly, in
the Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Dr Sheppardʼs position as a criminal is viewed as being due to
something within him, but also something around him which motivates him. In this essay I will
discuss to what extent ‘in crime writing the criminals are not fundamentally bad peopleʼ.
In 1926, during the Golden Age of Crime where ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroydʼ is set, criminal
activity was believed to be present in people with an ‘evil geneʼ which causes them to be
different from the rest of the population causing them to commit crimes. This was believed so
that a comfortable distance was created between the ‘normal civilianʼ and ‘despicable criminalʼ.
Dr Sheppard subverts this however being presented as a mundane ‘every-manʼ character
whose profession as a doctor and position as being the man everyone in Kingʼs Abbot trusts
makes him seem not fundamentally bad, but normal.
Instead, his crime seems to occur due to a “strain of weakness” within him described initially by
his sister Caroline and secondly Poirot. Ralph Paton, whom everyone in the village agrees has a
“weak nature” surrounding money, appears a fundamentally weak people. Poirot wonders aloud
where his weakness may lead, and Caroline interjects stating that her brother is “weak as
water” addressing him directly by stating; “Iʼve always considered it my duty to look after you.
With a bad bringing up, Heaven knows what mischief you might have got into by now”. On the
surface this appears to be mild teasing, yet Poirot mentions this “weakness” later on painting a
hypothetical portrait of a man with a “strain of weakness” that in the right circumstances would
lead him to make many bad decisions. The man, for example, may stumble accidently on a
secret (such as Mrs Ferrars murdering her husband) and unable to resist his weakness and
opportunity to make a lot of money would fall victim to this “strain”. Initially this seems to just be
talk surrounding a possible criminal, yet upon closer inspection or knowledge of the criminal it
