De moord op Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie

(2) The character and motives of the criminal should be normal. (1) The story must not rely upon elaborate and incredible disguises. Mainly, he says they should follow the laws of his favourite, The Moonstone. I’ve been unable to find any Eliot reviews of Roger Ackroyd, but there is a Criterion article published in 1927 in which he outlines his ideals for a good detective story. Even so, Laura Thompson’s introduction to the current UK paperback refers to a “myth” that critics didn’t like it, and that the trick ending annoyed the public.Įndearingly, TS Eliot seems to have loved Christie. More recently, in 2013, the Crime Writers’ Association voted it the best crime novel ever written. The book has consistently impressed critics, too: in 1926, the New York Times labelled it a “superior mystery”, while the Observer said it made “breathless reading from first to the unexpected last”. I read it almost 100 years after publication (and just one week after reading Endless Night, which has a very similar plot structure), yet it still felt sharp. Many similarly elegant sleights of hand allow Christie to prevent us from feeling cheated when we eventually realise Sheppard’s guilt, and also to keep us in suspense. He isn’t lying, but he is hiding the truth. You’d have to be smart to realise first time around how significant it is that Sheppard only gives us his side of the conversation. They’ve just found Roger Ackroyd murdered.” “Parker telephoning,” I shouted to Caroline, “from Fernly. I ran upstairs, caught up my bag and stuffed a few extra dressings into it. Here’s what he tells us after he picks up the receiver: I particularly enjoyed the report of a vital telephone call made to Sheppard shortly after the murder was committed. After that, the signs are there – but far more subtle.

That’s the most outrageous moment in the book and easy to miss among all the initial excitement.

De moord op Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie