The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
question
Glaring flaws in Murder of Roger Ackroyd
Raghav
(last edited
May 11, 2021 10:06AM
)
May 11, 2021 02:51AM
** This post has spoilers, so if you haven't read the novel, don't read further **
Though a mind boggling revelation at the end, there are some glaring loopholes in this story. I list them below:
1. Dr. Sheppard told the ship steward in the morning to give him a call at 10:00PM that night. He was so sure that he would be at home after doing all he planned at Roger's house.
2. When he left the study after the crime, he was sure no one would enter the unlocked door in the 10 min he would take to go around the house and in through the window. Though he had told parker that roger is not be disturbed, other members of the house did not know that and could have entered in those 10 mins.
4. Dr. Sheppard timed the dictaphone for 9:30 PM being sure that someone would be around to hear those two sentences. He could not have played it multiple times, as the same sentence would have been repeated raising suspicion.
4. He was sure that when call from steward comes it would be him who picks it up and not his sister by any chance. Everything depended on him picking the call. If his sister picked and heard - "no reply", then he can't declare Roger is murdered, so can't go back to Fernly to remove the dictaphone. The dictaphone and ultimately the murder would be traced back to him as he had it for repairing.
So the whole plot hinges on such weak points, as to who picks the telephone call or does someone hear the dictaphone near roger's study.
Having read it for the first time recently, I thought to discuss some weakness in the plot points of a novel that is so celebrated and undoubtedly remarkable.
Though a mind boggling revelation at the end, there are some glaring loopholes in this story. I list them below:
1. Dr. Sheppard told the ship steward in the morning to give him a call at 10:00PM that night. He was so sure that he would be at home after doing all he planned at Roger's house.
2. When he left the study after the crime, he was sure no one would enter the unlocked door in the 10 min he would take to go around the house and in through the window. Though he had told parker that roger is not be disturbed, other members of the house did not know that and could have entered in those 10 mins.
4. Dr. Sheppard timed the dictaphone for 9:30 PM being sure that someone would be around to hear those two sentences. He could not have played it multiple times, as the same sentence would have been repeated raising suspicion.
4. He was sure that when call from steward comes it would be him who picks it up and not his sister by any chance. Everything depended on him picking the call. If his sister picked and heard - "no reply", then he can't declare Roger is murdered, so can't go back to Fernly to remove the dictaphone. The dictaphone and ultimately the murder would be traced back to him as he had it for repairing.
So the whole plot hinges on such weak points, as to who picks the telephone call or does someone hear the dictaphone near roger's study.
Having read it for the first time recently, I thought to discuss some weakness in the plot points of a novel that is so celebrated and undoubtedly remarkable.
reply
flag
In three of the four points I don't see a problem. Only the third point is somewhat doubtful.
1. Planning to be home at a certain hour can hardly be a problem. He lives in the village, so he only had to leave on time.
2. A butler in an old English household would make sure that no one entered that room if his master didn't want to be disturbed.
3. That's the only somewhat doubtful point. You could also wonder if the difference between live and recorded sound can't be distinguished. Every detective novel has little plot points that can leave you arguing about the credibility of certain details.
4. He only needed to be closer to the phone than his sister at that hour, so he would surely be the one to answer the phone.
So with a small exception for the third point I think it's all perfectly credible. In a detective suspense is more important than realism, but I think this one is exceptionally well constructed.
1. Planning to be home at a certain hour can hardly be a problem. He lives in the village, so he only had to leave on time.
2. A butler in an old English household would make sure that no one entered that room if his master didn't want to be disturbed.
3. That's the only somewhat doubtful point. You could also wonder if the difference between live and recorded sound can't be distinguished. Every detective novel has little plot points that can leave you arguing about the credibility of certain details.
4. He only needed to be closer to the phone than his sister at that hour, so he would surely be the one to answer the phone.
So with a small exception for the third point I think it's all perfectly credible. In a detective suspense is more important than realism, but I think this one is exceptionally well constructed.
My only observation is the doctor committing such a grisly murder without worrying about blood splatter from the wound.
While the plot twist of the narrator being the killer was a good twist, I agree with these plot holes. Dr. Sheppard is so completely dependent on details falling into place by chance for it all to work. Also, the fact that he was able to do it all with no glaring mistakes. Sure, all of your points of critique are easily argued, but I found the entire thing overall hard to swallow.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
