This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I found a similar text at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-Murder-of-Roger-Ackroyd
is this gonna be an issue?
Two major spoiler warnings -- excellent idea, particularly with this novel. If people still ignore them it's their own fault. Future contributors, please think twice before removing the second warning. -- KF 08:40 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well count me as an imbecile then because I just deleted the change! Read Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Content Disclaimer please.-- Jtomlin1uk ( talk) 09:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added how the book nearly got Agatha tossed out of the Detection Club. The book is probably the most controversal mystery fiction book of the 20th century, simply because Christie used an original plot device in the book to fool everybody. It certainly worked. I was fooled by it, but totally remember reading the last part and sucking in my breath when the final reveals took place. I realized I had just read the work of a genius.
good solution Bwithh 05:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
If we're not going to divulge the murderer's identity, then this warning:
"Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details about the murderer's identity follow."
is superfluous, and in fact is inaccurate. Frankly, any reader who sees that warning - in bold, italicized text at the top of the summary - and still reads the article has no complaint that he has seen the identity of the killer. In the edit I made that was just deleted (taking other relevant content with it), the identity of the killer required at least one PgDn.
In this particular case, I believe that the identity of the killer is critical to a discussion of the book, because the killer's identity was a major part of the resulting controversy, and because Christie's decision to make him the killer was a watershed moment in detective fiction. | Klaw Talk 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, your comment about proposing "our own opinions or theories" is irrelevant. There is no question over whether Christie used the unreliable narrator or not. | Klaw Talk 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article is skipping around the killer's identity in its present state. If you read the "controversy" paragraph, even though the solution isn't directly given to you, I think there are enough clues for the reader to figure out the big twist. So why be vague? Either don't tell a thing, or just be blunt about it.... which is what I would recommend since this is an encyclopedia, not a teaser for the book. Readers should be careful reading about fiction works on here if they don't want to be spoilt, *especially* as there's a spoiler warning, so they can't say they weren't warned. Right now it seems like the article can't really make up its mind, do we give the killer's identity or not? so it tries to make both sides happy, but that makes little sense. Big D -- 25 January 2006
I did not read all this discussion before I edited the Plot summary in September, having read many other Wikipedia articles on Christie's mystery novels, and being aware of Wikipedia's policy mentioned above in the post by Jtomlin1uk, against spoiler alerts. The policy has been made stronger since then, if anything WP:SPOILER Text included in the Plot summary, but really about the narrative voice or story structure are moved to their own sections. The subheading in the Plot summary section (added perhaps 5 years ago) is gone, and should stay gone. This made the Plot summary shorter, too. I hope editors can remain in agreement about the nature of Wikipedia articles on mystery novels, or any novel: the articles discuss the whole story, and all the interesting characters. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Isaac Asimov borrowed Christie's device in his science fiction/mystery novel THE CURRENTS OF SPACE. Although the guilty party does not narrate the story, part of it is narrated (third person) from his point of view without giving away his guilt -- which means that it does technically "follow the rules" CharlesTheBold 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the spoiler warning was removed and re-added and removed again... many times, in spite of the discussion above (it looks like the community decided to use the spoiler warning on this particular article). I tried to restore it... and I discovered that Template:Spoiler has been deleted... sorry, I didn't know the en.wiki policy about spoilers is different from the corresponding it.wiki policy. I apologize again! -- KingFanel ( talk) 13:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Literary significance and reception section appears to have either original research, or several paragraphs in need of citation. I cannot determine which. I am specifically referring to the first bulleted section that reads as follows:
From: The most notable aspect of the book, which led to considerable controversy on its publication …
…
To: History has been much kinder to Christie, crediting her for an original idea …
This six-paragraph section is unreferenced, is the original research of another editor, or is the synthesis of works from several sources that may or may not have drawn the conclusion presented. The last of these cannot be determined without verifiable sources provided.
For now, I am going to insert inline templates where one needs to cite verifiable sources and hope that some can be found. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 04:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You’ll notice that I’ve used the {{ Reference necessary}} template, which results in entire paragraphs or sentences being highlighted. As the usage notes here and here indicate: In comparison with the {{ Fact}} template, “[t]his template should be used when there are sentences of uncited text that should be cited. … [U]nlike the {{ Fact}} template, this template may highlight more than one sentence of text to describe as needing a citation. Once a citation is added, please remove the template from the highlighted text.” [Emphasis added.] I only mention this in case anyone was wondering why there is highlighting citation needed in the text. As soon as these items can be referenced, the {{ Reference necessary}} templates will be removed, one by one. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose the following edit when we've waited long enough:
Literary significance and reception
- The Times Literary Supplement's review of June 10, 1926, began with "This is a well-written detective story of which the only criticism might perhaps be that there are too many curious incidents not really connected with the crime which have to be elucidated before the true criminal can be discovered". The review then gave a brief synopsis before concluding with "It is all very puzzling, but the great Hercule Poirot, a retired Belgian detective, solves the mystery. It may safely be asserted that very few readers will do so". [1]
- A long review in The New York Times Book Review of July 18, 1926, began,
There are doubtless many detective stories more exciting and blood-curdling than The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but this reviewer has recently read very few which provide greater analytical stimulation. This story, though it is inferior to them at their best, is in the tradition of Poe's analytical tales and the Sherlock Holmes stories. The author does not devote her talents to the creation of thrills and shocks, but to the orderly solution of a single murder, conventional at that, instead. [2]
- After setting up the setting and the basics of the plot, the review continued,
In conventional detective story style, seemingly trivial and extraneous details become clarifying evidence to him [Poirot] while they baffle the reader only the more. It is really Poirot's method which holds the reader's interest. Matters become more and more complicated, till one surprising fact after another begins to reveal itself. It would most certainly not be fair in the present case to reveal the outcome of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, and it would consequently be pointless to give a detailed synopsis of it and tantalizingly stop at the denouement. Miss Christie is not only an expert technician and a remarkably good story-teller, but she knows, as well, just the right number of hints to offer as to the real murderer. In the present case his identity is made all the more baffling through the author's technical cleverness in selecting the part he is to play in the story; and yet her non-committal characterization of him makes it a perfectly fair procedure. The experienced reader will probably spot him, but it is safe to say that he will often have his doubts as the story unfolds itself. [2]
- The review concluded: "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd cannot be too highly praised for its clean-cut construction, its unusually plausible explanation at the end, and its ability to stimulate the analytical faculties of the reader. It soars far above the crude, standardized mystery stories which have become customary merchandise." [2]
- The Observer of May 30, 1926, said,
No one is more adroit than Miss Christie in the manipulation of false clues and irrelevances and red herrings; and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd makes breathless reading from first to the unexpected last. It is unfortunate that in two important points — the nature of the solution and the use of the telephone — Miss Christie has been anticipated by another recent novel: the truth is that this particular field is getting so well ploughed that it is hard to find a virgin patch anywhere. But Miss Christie's story is distinguished from most of its class by its coherence, its reasonableness, and the fact that the characters live and move and have their being: the gossip-loving Caroline would be an acquisition to any novel. [3]
- The Scotsman of July 22, 1926, said,
When in the last dozen pages of Miss Christie's detective novel, the answer comes to the question, "Who killed Roger Ackroyd?" the reader will feel that he has been fairly, or unfairly, sold up. Up till then he has been kept balancing in his mind from chapter to chapter the probabilities for or against the eight or nine persons at whom suspicion points. With each new development the design of the problem seems to shift, as with movement of a kaleidoscope; and we are kept guessing without coming much nearer to the solution, not withstanding that we have the privilege of perusing the notes of Dr Sheppard, the medical man who is on the spot almost immediately after the crime has been committed, and of listening to the conversations between him and M. Poiret [ sic], that almost uncanny genius in tracking the guilty, with whom he seeks to play the part of Watson with Sherlock Holmes. Everybody in the story appears to have a secret of his or her own hidden up the sleeve, the production of which is imperative in fitting into place the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle; and in the end it turns out that the Doctor himself is responsible for the largest bit of reticence. The tale may be recommended as one of the cleverest and most original of its kind. [4]
- Robert Barnard, in A Talent to Deceive: An appreciation of Agatha Christie, writes:
Apart — and it is an enormous "apart" — from the sensational solution, this is a fairly conventional Christie. The tone is light, at times almost "comedy of manners"; the setting is English village, with the emphasis on the big house; the characterization is standard, with the first and best of her strong-minded spinsters, noses a-quiver for scandal. A classic, but there are some better Christies. [5]
This removes all of the original research stuff leaving only reviews. And, this is consistent with the other articles on Christie's novels. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 01:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Done —
SpikeToronto (
talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
References for this section
Recently, an anonymous editor added some information regarding Pierre Bayard’s book, Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd? (Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?) to this article. It was reverted, but then the reverting editor and I thought that perhaps it should be put back in, in a more appropriate section, and then, if there were objections, we could form consensus, one way or another, here on the talk page. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As for the Bayard stuff, although I put it back in, I think I agree with your sentiments re: fan fiction, but also re: still holding interest. — Spike Toronto 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not (that is, they certainly don't have to be in block quotes). Particularly if you have knowledge of other Christie novel pages, please standardize! And feel free to trim the quotes more; I think they're still way too long. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph a couple times, as it is original research. It might be difficult to accept it, but in wikipedia, we need a source saying a reliable, independent source has actually reached that conclusion - not just the editor:
- DavidWBrooks ( talk) 22:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall any reference to Mrs Ferrars' Christian name in the novel. On what basis is she ascribed the name Dorothy? Rithom ( talk) 05:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
DavidWBrooks If you look at lots of articles about the many books by Agatha Christie, you will see a consistent opening paragraph in the lead. The name of the book, the year of first publication and publisher, whether first was US or UK, and the prices in each country. If there was a difference in title in US compared to UK, that is also mentioned. Some editors went to a great deal of effort to get the books with that information, consistently. In your edit here, you wanted to change one article's lead paragraph on your own preference. I think you would have to change them all, then, and I see no reason to do that, myself. I am not one of the editors who set up the article on every book Christie wrote, but I have edited a few of them. I have respected that earlier work, as it appears accurate, no one has a source to alter it. I have used cite format for the sources, but not in every article as I have not read every one of her books, yet. How about it? -- Prairieplant ( talk) 01:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Jtomlin1uk, you are editor responsible for over a quarter of the present article text. Does it matter to you if the lead paragraph of this article is changed from the standard opening paragraph for all the articles on the novels of Agatha Christie? DavidWBrooks has already made the change, as he figured his view outweighed mine to keep it the same as it was. I am "only one" and so is DavidWBrooks, but some are more equal? ;-) -- Prairieplant ( talk) 14:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The lead section describes this book as "one of Christie's ... most controversial novels". However, I could not find any explanation of what was controversial about it. Is that explained anywhere in the article? That is the only direct mention of controversy in the article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I found a similar text at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-Murder-of-Roger-Ackroyd
is this gonna be an issue?
Two major spoiler warnings -- excellent idea, particularly with this novel. If people still ignore them it's their own fault. Future contributors, please think twice before removing the second warning. -- KF 08:40 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well count me as an imbecile then because I just deleted the change! Read Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Content Disclaimer please.-- Jtomlin1uk ( talk) 09:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added how the book nearly got Agatha tossed out of the Detection Club. The book is probably the most controversal mystery fiction book of the 20th century, simply because Christie used an original plot device in the book to fool everybody. It certainly worked. I was fooled by it, but totally remember reading the last part and sucking in my breath when the final reveals took place. I realized I had just read the work of a genius.
good solution Bwithh 05:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
If we're not going to divulge the murderer's identity, then this warning:
"Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details about the murderer's identity follow."
is superfluous, and in fact is inaccurate. Frankly, any reader who sees that warning - in bold, italicized text at the top of the summary - and still reads the article has no complaint that he has seen the identity of the killer. In the edit I made that was just deleted (taking other relevant content with it), the identity of the killer required at least one PgDn.
In this particular case, I believe that the identity of the killer is critical to a discussion of the book, because the killer's identity was a major part of the resulting controversy, and because Christie's decision to make him the killer was a watershed moment in detective fiction. | Klaw Talk 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, your comment about proposing "our own opinions or theories" is irrelevant. There is no question over whether Christie used the unreliable narrator or not. | Klaw Talk 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article is skipping around the killer's identity in its present state. If you read the "controversy" paragraph, even though the solution isn't directly given to you, I think there are enough clues for the reader to figure out the big twist. So why be vague? Either don't tell a thing, or just be blunt about it.... which is what I would recommend since this is an encyclopedia, not a teaser for the book. Readers should be careful reading about fiction works on here if they don't want to be spoilt, *especially* as there's a spoiler warning, so they can't say they weren't warned. Right now it seems like the article can't really make up its mind, do we give the killer's identity or not? so it tries to make both sides happy, but that makes little sense. Big D -- 25 January 2006
I did not read all this discussion before I edited the Plot summary in September, having read many other Wikipedia articles on Christie's mystery novels, and being aware of Wikipedia's policy mentioned above in the post by Jtomlin1uk, against spoiler alerts. The policy has been made stronger since then, if anything WP:SPOILER Text included in the Plot summary, but really about the narrative voice or story structure are moved to their own sections. The subheading in the Plot summary section (added perhaps 5 years ago) is gone, and should stay gone. This made the Plot summary shorter, too. I hope editors can remain in agreement about the nature of Wikipedia articles on mystery novels, or any novel: the articles discuss the whole story, and all the interesting characters. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Isaac Asimov borrowed Christie's device in his science fiction/mystery novel THE CURRENTS OF SPACE. Although the guilty party does not narrate the story, part of it is narrated (third person) from his point of view without giving away his guilt -- which means that it does technically "follow the rules" CharlesTheBold 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the spoiler warning was removed and re-added and removed again... many times, in spite of the discussion above (it looks like the community decided to use the spoiler warning on this particular article). I tried to restore it... and I discovered that Template:Spoiler has been deleted... sorry, I didn't know the en.wiki policy about spoilers is different from the corresponding it.wiki policy. I apologize again! -- KingFanel ( talk) 13:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Literary significance and reception section appears to have either original research, or several paragraphs in need of citation. I cannot determine which. I am specifically referring to the first bulleted section that reads as follows:
From: The most notable aspect of the book, which led to considerable controversy on its publication …
…
To: History has been much kinder to Christie, crediting her for an original idea …
This six-paragraph section is unreferenced, is the original research of another editor, or is the synthesis of works from several sources that may or may not have drawn the conclusion presented. The last of these cannot be determined without verifiable sources provided.
For now, I am going to insert inline templates where one needs to cite verifiable sources and hope that some can be found. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 04:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You’ll notice that I’ve used the {{ Reference necessary}} template, which results in entire paragraphs or sentences being highlighted. As the usage notes here and here indicate: In comparison with the {{ Fact}} template, “[t]his template should be used when there are sentences of uncited text that should be cited. … [U]nlike the {{ Fact}} template, this template may highlight more than one sentence of text to describe as needing a citation. Once a citation is added, please remove the template from the highlighted text.” [Emphasis added.] I only mention this in case anyone was wondering why there is highlighting citation needed in the text. As soon as these items can be referenced, the {{ Reference necessary}} templates will be removed, one by one. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose the following edit when we've waited long enough:
Literary significance and reception
- The Times Literary Supplement's review of June 10, 1926, began with "This is a well-written detective story of which the only criticism might perhaps be that there are too many curious incidents not really connected with the crime which have to be elucidated before the true criminal can be discovered". The review then gave a brief synopsis before concluding with "It is all very puzzling, but the great Hercule Poirot, a retired Belgian detective, solves the mystery. It may safely be asserted that very few readers will do so". [1]
- A long review in The New York Times Book Review of July 18, 1926, began,
There are doubtless many detective stories more exciting and blood-curdling than The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but this reviewer has recently read very few which provide greater analytical stimulation. This story, though it is inferior to them at their best, is in the tradition of Poe's analytical tales and the Sherlock Holmes stories. The author does not devote her talents to the creation of thrills and shocks, but to the orderly solution of a single murder, conventional at that, instead. [2]
- After setting up the setting and the basics of the plot, the review continued,
In conventional detective story style, seemingly trivial and extraneous details become clarifying evidence to him [Poirot] while they baffle the reader only the more. It is really Poirot's method which holds the reader's interest. Matters become more and more complicated, till one surprising fact after another begins to reveal itself. It would most certainly not be fair in the present case to reveal the outcome of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, and it would consequently be pointless to give a detailed synopsis of it and tantalizingly stop at the denouement. Miss Christie is not only an expert technician and a remarkably good story-teller, but she knows, as well, just the right number of hints to offer as to the real murderer. In the present case his identity is made all the more baffling through the author's technical cleverness in selecting the part he is to play in the story; and yet her non-committal characterization of him makes it a perfectly fair procedure. The experienced reader will probably spot him, but it is safe to say that he will often have his doubts as the story unfolds itself. [2]
- The review concluded: "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd cannot be too highly praised for its clean-cut construction, its unusually plausible explanation at the end, and its ability to stimulate the analytical faculties of the reader. It soars far above the crude, standardized mystery stories which have become customary merchandise." [2]
- The Observer of May 30, 1926, said,
No one is more adroit than Miss Christie in the manipulation of false clues and irrelevances and red herrings; and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd makes breathless reading from first to the unexpected last. It is unfortunate that in two important points — the nature of the solution and the use of the telephone — Miss Christie has been anticipated by another recent novel: the truth is that this particular field is getting so well ploughed that it is hard to find a virgin patch anywhere. But Miss Christie's story is distinguished from most of its class by its coherence, its reasonableness, and the fact that the characters live and move and have their being: the gossip-loving Caroline would be an acquisition to any novel. [3]
- The Scotsman of July 22, 1926, said,
When in the last dozen pages of Miss Christie's detective novel, the answer comes to the question, "Who killed Roger Ackroyd?" the reader will feel that he has been fairly, or unfairly, sold up. Up till then he has been kept balancing in his mind from chapter to chapter the probabilities for or against the eight or nine persons at whom suspicion points. With each new development the design of the problem seems to shift, as with movement of a kaleidoscope; and we are kept guessing without coming much nearer to the solution, not withstanding that we have the privilege of perusing the notes of Dr Sheppard, the medical man who is on the spot almost immediately after the crime has been committed, and of listening to the conversations between him and M. Poiret [ sic], that almost uncanny genius in tracking the guilty, with whom he seeks to play the part of Watson with Sherlock Holmes. Everybody in the story appears to have a secret of his or her own hidden up the sleeve, the production of which is imperative in fitting into place the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle; and in the end it turns out that the Doctor himself is responsible for the largest bit of reticence. The tale may be recommended as one of the cleverest and most original of its kind. [4]
- Robert Barnard, in A Talent to Deceive: An appreciation of Agatha Christie, writes:
Apart — and it is an enormous "apart" — from the sensational solution, this is a fairly conventional Christie. The tone is light, at times almost "comedy of manners"; the setting is English village, with the emphasis on the big house; the characterization is standard, with the first and best of her strong-minded spinsters, noses a-quiver for scandal. A classic, but there are some better Christies. [5]
This removes all of the original research stuff leaving only reviews. And, this is consistent with the other articles on Christie's novels. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 01:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Done —
SpikeToronto (
talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
References for this section
Recently, an anonymous editor added some information regarding Pierre Bayard’s book, Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd? (Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?) to this article. It was reverted, but then the reverting editor and I thought that perhaps it should be put back in, in a more appropriate section, and then, if there were objections, we could form consensus, one way or another, here on the talk page. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As for the Bayard stuff, although I put it back in, I think I agree with your sentiments re: fan fiction, but also re: still holding interest. — Spike Toronto 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not (that is, they certainly don't have to be in block quotes). Particularly if you have knowledge of other Christie novel pages, please standardize! And feel free to trim the quotes more; I think they're still way too long. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph a couple times, as it is original research. It might be difficult to accept it, but in wikipedia, we need a source saying a reliable, independent source has actually reached that conclusion - not just the editor:
- DavidWBrooks ( talk) 22:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall any reference to Mrs Ferrars' Christian name in the novel. On what basis is she ascribed the name Dorothy? Rithom ( talk) 05:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
DavidWBrooks If you look at lots of articles about the many books by Agatha Christie, you will see a consistent opening paragraph in the lead. The name of the book, the year of first publication and publisher, whether first was US or UK, and the prices in each country. If there was a difference in title in US compared to UK, that is also mentioned. Some editors went to a great deal of effort to get the books with that information, consistently. In your edit here, you wanted to change one article's lead paragraph on your own preference. I think you would have to change them all, then, and I see no reason to do that, myself. I am not one of the editors who set up the article on every book Christie wrote, but I have edited a few of them. I have respected that earlier work, as it appears accurate, no one has a source to alter it. I have used cite format for the sources, but not in every article as I have not read every one of her books, yet. How about it? -- Prairieplant ( talk) 01:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Jtomlin1uk, you are editor responsible for over a quarter of the present article text. Does it matter to you if the lead paragraph of this article is changed from the standard opening paragraph for all the articles on the novels of Agatha Christie? DavidWBrooks has already made the change, as he figured his view outweighed mine to keep it the same as it was. I am "only one" and so is DavidWBrooks, but some are more equal? ;-) -- Prairieplant ( talk) 14:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The lead section describes this book as "one of Christie's ... most controversial novels". However, I could not find any explanation of what was controversial about it. Is that explained anywhere in the article? That is the only direct mention of controversy in the article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)