Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd?

Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd?[Download] ➽ Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd? By Pierre Bayard – Jobs-in-kingston.co.uk Penzler Pick August 2000 Edmund Wilson the famous literary critic once inuired disdainfully in an essay explaining his inability to develop the mystery reading habit Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd Penzler Pick August Edmund tué Roger ePUB ☆ Wilson the famous literary critic once inuired disdainfully in an essay explaining his inability to develop the mystery reading habit Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd In a single sentence with its reference to the notorious plot of Agatha Christie's sixth novel The Murder of Roger Ackroyd he struck deep at the collective spirit of a community of like minded souls the detective fiction readers of the world Ever since when the novel in uestion was first published helping to insure its author's reputation Qui a Kindle - as the ruling ueen of crafty crime mystery fans have indeed cared Passionately But until the arrival of this provocative rereading of the case written by a psychoanalyst and translated from the French it is likely that not one of them ever doubted the validity of the solution as worked out by the redoubtable Hercule Poirot After all if the author's own detective had incorrectly followed the clues laid down for him what kind of unsteady ground was the reader left standing on Although Bayard makes it clear that those picking a tué Roger Kindle Ò up his book don't necessarily have to return to the original text he does give a very concise summary of the principal characters and actions of Christie's story it is an exercise really a pleasure that I urge you toward The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is such a landmark of the genre that it is not just a bit of nostalgia a form of genial time travel but also a reminder of what the Golden Age of the mystery novel was all about the matching of wits between writer and reader with puzzles that truly puzzled and were made all the satisfying by the operative credo of fair play To address the actual plot of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is to risk spoiling the fun Let's just say there is an English village King's Abbott in which a bluff country suire the much mentioned Ackroyd resides until his untimely death stabbed by an unknown assailant Unfortunately for the murderer or so one used to think pre Pierre Bayard there is also in the village a retired Belgian police inspector the unparalleled M Hercule Poirot Poirot's celebrated little grey cells those he uses to form his theories of a case steadily power the investigation to its startling conclusion one that has always been as magnificent for its shock value as for its apparently irrefutable logic That Professor Bayard's delicate probing of the book's structure manages to turn it convincingly in a fresh direction toward an actual murderer never even suspected is a triumph of scholarship that is at once playful and serious How we approach classic texts should never be as static an experience as we generally allow it to be a truth proved anew by Who Killed Roger Ackroyd It now joins a list of other similarly clever literary treats among which I include Rex Stout's Watson Was a Woman and Frederick Crews's The Pooh Perplex Otto Penzler. This is truly a find I recently recommended Bayard's other book How to Talk About Books you Haven't Read and am eually enthusiastic about this one In this short but dense text Bayard deconstructs one of Agatha Christie's most famous Hercule Poirot novels The Murder of Roger Ackroyd It helps to re read Christie before embarking on Bayard Spoiler alert for those of you who haven't read Christie which is a mistake and you should add it along with The Mysterious Affair at Styles and The ABC Murders to your list of books this one became famous because the narrator a respectable village doctor named Sheppard turns out to be the murderer It doesn't hurt your reading of the book at all to know this In fact it helps because the purpose of Bayard's book is to suggest that the narrator is not in fact the murderer at all He points out several undeniable discrepancies both in Sheppard's narration and in Poirot's surprisingly porous investigation Perhaps Bayard's best argument is that Sheppard does not actually ever admit to committing the murder He does say he went to the house that night with the intention of killing Roger Ackroyd but once accused by Poirot never cops to the deed This leads Bayard to accuse another major character in the book as the murderer one Sheppard is protecting and I have to say he is pretty darn persuasive making Christie's book in my mind even ingenious by this turn of events and does not detract in any way Bayard lost me briefly in section three when his psychoanalysis turns on the reader and he spends just too much time explaining delusional reading and how we don't ever uite know what we're reading; it's clearly the start of this theories on non reading that he explores in his other book and while in that text it is interesting in this one it isn't But setting that hiccup aside I happily recommend this book What better way to end the summer than by returning to Christie's world of village murders and drawing room revelations through this theoretical lens that Bayard proffers? Reads like a Doctoral Thesis in psychology Filled with spoilers of almost the entire Christie oeuvre And his new solution I won't spoil it is fairly lame and like Christie comes only in the final few pages Christie however is entertaining Way too many spoilers This is written for an academic audience familiar with the entire Christie canon I had to skip pages at a time to avoid list after list ruining twist endings A really interesting re evaluation of the Agatha Christie book The Murder of Roger Ackroyd in which Bayard suggests that another character is actually the murderer not the character accused by Poirot and accepted by posterity Bayard compares Ackroyd to similar Christie novels Endless Night and Curtain as well as other works such as Oedipus Rex He examines the nature of delusions Freud's psychoanalysis and the act of reading A fascinating evaluation of both the classic book and the relationship between reader and writer The book proposes a very tasty alternate solution which shows considerable promise The psychologic profile fits better the choice of suicide by Shephard becomes logical introduces a love component to the story the entire ridiculous business with the dicataphone is not needed But it failsThe book proposes Caroline Shephard as the murderer with Dr Shephard as the blackmailer explaining she killed Ackeroyd to protect her brother Many things fit perfectly but not the clue of displacement of the 'Grandfather Chair' If Caroline killed Ackroyd why did she displaced the chair And why did Dr Shephard put the chair back to its original position after discovering the murder If she didn't displace it then who else? This thought is not even discussed in the book This book which has material worth only some pages related to the book also discusses a lot of spoilers for other books Don't read this book if you don't want Christie's other books to be spoiled A fascinating but at times frustrating readThe author is at his best when 1 discussing the rules aesthetics of detective fiction and 2 offering close readings of the texts and at his worst when wandering into the worlds of psychoanalysis and post modern literary criticism While deconstructing delusion a worthwhile activity he fails to similarly reveal the constituent parts of lying or murder in particular the key notion of intentionality is woefully absentAlas the author makes a small but serious error when commenting about Ten Little Indians when he really meant Murder in Retrospect Five Little Pigs in the British release The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is not just one of my favorite Agatha Christie books but one of my favorite books of any genre The ending is just so fantastic The clues are there for the reader to pick up on but you don't Or at least I didn't But Mr Bayard is here to say the very ambiguous writing leads to the wrong conclusion He actually refutes Dame Christie's endingthe one she has gone on record of saying is true While I believe it true what they say an artist loses ownership of her art when it's published This means that readers are free to interpret the art as they see fit even if it contradicts what the artist wanted to accomplish Mr Bayard takes this to heart Save for a lengthy foray into the details of psychoanalysis this book was enjoyable The true murderer was clever and because of the ambiguous writing I find it plausible Pure poppycock but plausible It was a fun exercise but I think it was ridiculous to contradict Dame Christie She has proven her writing prowess many times over and I'll take her word over a curious psychologist any day especially when it comes to her books If you're a fan of Christie this might be a fun read for you But be warned spoilers abound You'll not want to read this book if you've not read the vast majority of the Christie Cannon She uses the solutions of dozens of other books to back up his case ruining the endings if you didn't already know them Who killed Roger Ackroyd ? Here is a book of meta literature that is an essay about literature And about the topic that I personally love detective stories and not any kind of detective stories those of Agatha ChristieThe book has four parts the fourth analysing I should say re interpreting the novel The murder of Roger Ackroyd The other three parts being thought or digressions about detective novels that would coalesce in the last partPart 1 and 2 are interesting as they first summarise the book the main characters and disclose as a teaser some of the oddities of the murder solutions offered by Hercule Poirot They put the novel into perspective comment on its specifications like the personality of the narrator compare it with other of Christie's book with an in depth analysis of Endless nightPart 3 re analyse the book and detective stories in general via the prism of Freudian psycho analysis This is a very French thing French are mad about psycho analysis which is in my view debatable and surely the least interesting part of the book There are interesting things though like the presentation of Sophocles' Oedipus Rex or Shakespeare's Hamlet as a detective story the incomplete nature of the literary text which is completed by the imagination of the reader the different types of truth of disclosure and of adeuation p108And finally comes the fourth part After an introduction abut Christie's last published work Curtain chapter two and free the last two chapters of the book explain Bayard's theory opposed to Poirot's theory There are a few thing to object to Bayard's theory for example he dismisses completely the moving of the chair also his explanation of the phone call is not clear but on the other hand he gives a very seducing interpretation of the book I should say an elegant one The fact it is elegant does not make it truer but surely makes us keen on believing it Bayard admit it himself p135 This as a certain beauty as it transforms a sordid story of money into a story of love There is a symmetry between detective and murderer is Poirot a murderer in this book because after all he kills Sheppard? Why does Christie links Caroline and Miss Marple ? the dyad composed by he docteur and his sister mother son decisive indecisive is also very elegant He is right to highlight that one character in never uestioned alibi whereabouts which is unusual in Christie's novels Overall I would personally be tempted to by his solution rather than the author's one An amazing feat But the most interesting thing in this book is precisely what Bayard never mention in the book and that I have been wondering during the whole reading Bayard is obsessed with what is the truth of the book is Poirot wrong whom killed Roger Ackroyd What I was wondering while reading the book was Was Agatha Christie aware that when writing her book there was the possibility of a second interpretation of the murder ? Did she do it on purpose or was it accidental ? How come has it not been discovered earlier ? If this was not accidental what did Christie fell when she realised that nobody never caught the double meaning of her novel ? Can this exercise be repeated with other of Christie's novel ? And finally a uestion to myself how to be objective will I believe a truth over another because it is truer or because I am sensitive to the latest argument that I have read or to the beauty of this truth ?A lot of exhilarating mysteries for a book which is interesting for the uestions that it raises than for the answers that it brings A fascinating reading Additional comments added after a book club where we were discussing this book I was the only one being so enthusiastic about the book the other people either liking the book or even strongly disliking the book Why is that ?First most of the book club members complained that there were many spoilers of other Agatha Christie's book like Endless night or Curtain Also there were interesting different approaches about the bookFirst one of the members that just love Poirot has seen all the David Suchet programs and just thought that Poirot cannot be wrong that Bayard's idea is completely bonkers The theory where Caroline is the murderer must have been envisaged by Poirot he is too clever for this to have escaped his attention and disregarded as not plausible This member strongly disliked the bookWith another member I had a discussion of how a book once written escaped its author and allow the reader to make his own opinion I strongly believe in this My view of Madame Bovary is different from Flaubert's view and there is nothing that Flaubert can do what drives such character to do such things might very well be explained in the novel I reader can very well add an extra reason at the top of it if I feel like to And I don't need to justify myself this is just how I feel Full stop This applies to many novels but detective fictions add extra constraints to this and it is sometime difficult to stick to the same opinion Indeed in detective book you have a murder and the idea is to identify the murderer The author makes great effort to build an extremely twisted plot that ends up at the very end with a solution that makes complete sense Whoever wants to challenge this cannot just say I think the murderer is X not Y he also needs to come with an explanation of how the murder was carried out that makes sense And this is sometimes complicated if not impossibleImpossible ? That is what I thought and this is why I thought the book was so exceptional But this is not what thought another book club member who believes that detective stories should be treated almost like other books When you share your opinion about other books you are also asked to justify it the same applies to detective stories after all And surely what Bayard has done could also be applied to other crime books I didn't tried and I think it should be very difficult to do but this is just my opinion This is why this other member had just a mixed opinion what Bayard did was not exceptional it is just a brilliant exercise that could be repeatedAnd finally the uestion that we asked at the book club Do you think Agatha Christie had the idea when writing the novel that it could be interpreted totally differently with a different murderer ? Joint answer probably not but she would have probably have been very interested to hear about and she would have certainly not changed a line to this book after this Meh Not nearly as good as anticipated I can't get over his declaration that Poirot is delusional sorry if that spoils it for you And I see no reason why it's better to say that Sheppard just knew that Ackroyd had been murdered because he didn't get a phone call from Ackroyd and that's why he hot footed it over there than to believe Poirot that Sheppard set up the phone call to cover his need to get back to the scene of the crime Otherwise I could go along with his selection of alternate murderer and will even admit that the psychology fits better the disection of the text of the Christie's classic mystery is wonderful to read; but I can't accept his premace that Poirot's deduction of Dr Shepherd as the murderer is a psychotic delusion I trust Poirot's little grey cells but an interesting read all the same

Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd? ePUB Ö Qui a  Kindle - tué
  • 169 pages
  • Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd?
  • Pierre Bayard
  • French
  • 11 August 2016
  • 9782707318091