Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining re-assessment of the famous tale
Review: Hercule Poirot concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dr. James Sheppard killed Roger Ackroyd. Though many faulted Agatha Christie for allowing the narrator to also be the killer, for the next three-quarters of a century most readers fully agreed or simply accepted Poirot's evaluation of the famous homicide. However, Pierre Bayard believes that Sheppard has been wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit. Using psychoanalysis, Bayard finds giant holes in Poirot's assessment of the murder. Bayard believes that Poirot failed to search for missing information and employs the Van Dine acceptable steps of 1920's detective tales to prove that Sheppard is the victim of a pompous sleuth rather than a killer. Pierre Bayard provides a unique perspective into the classic murder mystery that will leave readers spellbound and questioning many of our givens about the Christie tales. He makes a great argument that Poirot was wrong and Sheppard was innocent. Fans of Christie or any one who enjoys a thorough murder investigation will relish this well written, vacuum-sealed evaluation into who really killed Roger Ackroyd. Harriet Klausner
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining re-assessment of the famous tale
Review: Hercule Poirot concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dr. James Sheppard killed Roger Ackroyd. Though many faulted Agatha Christie for allowing the narrator to also be the killer, for the next three-quarters of a century most readers fully agreed or simply accepted Poirot's evaluation of the famous homicide. However, Pierre Bayard believes that Sheppard has been wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit. Using psychoanalysis, Bayard finds giant holes in Poirot's assessment of the murder. Bayard believes that Poirot failed to search for missing information and employs the Van Dine acceptable steps of 1920's detective tales to prove that Sheppard is the victim of a pompous sleuth rather than a killer. Pierre Bayard provides a unique perspective into the classic murder mystery that will leave readers spellbound and questioning many of our givens about the Christie tales. He makes a great argument that Poirot was wrong and Sheppard was innocent. Fans of Christie or any one who enjoys a thorough murder investigation will relish this well written, vacuum-sealed evaluation into who really killed Roger Ackroyd. Harriet Klausner
Rating: 
Summary: A Worthy Analysis
Review: First, a warning, Bayard's book contains long discussions of the methods used by Christie to hide the answer in many of her books. As such, it is best suited for Christie readers who have already read those works, or who do not mind having surprises revealed. Otherwise, Bayard provides a good analysis of how Christie fools her readers, pulling back the curtain to reveal the magician's secrets. His taxonimy of the tricks is useful, although incomplete. This makes it a good guide for an aspiring mystery writer looking to see how Christie worked her magic. Bayard's psychoanalysis of the crime is a bit more speculative. One can nit-pick his facts and conclusions, but the exercise is itself useful. Appling critical analysis to Christie's solution seems no less absurd than Tey's re-analysis of Richard III in Daughter of Time, the endless books on Jack the Ripper's identity, or decades of English literature classes convinced that the author is the last person to understand the significance of his own works. In sum, worth reading for those who enjoy learning about the tricks of the mystery writing trade.
Rating: 
Summary: In fact, Christie not Bayard is the book to read.
Review: Having picked up this book with great apprehension, given the pretentiousness of much of what poses today for literary analysis, I cannot say that I am surprised by its content. Bayard takes what is undoubedly one of the cleverest and most readable of all mysteries and deconstructs it in light of the psychoanalytical theories of Freud and the literary theories of Barthes. The result: an only occasionally interesting but overwhelmingly ponderous (amazing, given that it runs only 140-plus pages) work. Operating on the basis of the theory that detective novels have an indeterminate meaning, Bayard creates a new solution for the problem of who killed Ackroyd. The problem is that his solution is not nearly as clever as Agatha Christie's, nor is the book as engagingly readable. In place of Christie's sprightly prose, Bayard subjects his readers to reflections on the nature of literary reality such as "This incompleteness of the world of the work invites the thought that a whole intermediate world exists around every character that is partly conscious and partly unconscious, produced by the limited nature of statements and the impossibility of increasing the available data" (p. 106). If you love post-modernist epistemological rambling, you'll enjoy this book. If you love a good mystery, read (or re-read for its downright cleverness) Christie's original novel instead.
Rating: 
Summary: I swear this guy is in denial or something...
Review: I recently recieved this most interesting book on request for my birthday. I started reading that evening, and I simply couldn't put it down until I finished. It's quite interesting, but probably not in the way M. Pierre Bayard planned it to be. The man writes very well, in a very informative style...too informative, in fact. One thing I could not stand is when Bayard gave away the endings to about a dozen or so of Christie's books to enforce his writing. Thankfully, being a life-long Christie fan, I'd read most of them, but some I did not. Bayard reveals some of Christie's most twisted, wonderful endings in a single chapter! So, before reading Who Killed Roger Ackroyd, it would be a good idea to have these books under your belt: (unless you don't care) And Then There Were None, Crooked House, Endless Night, (There's a LOT about this one) The Pale Horse, 4:50 from Paddington, and Witness for the Prosecution --- For those of you who want to read this book without reading all those others, just skip the chapter on the Van Dine Principle. Problem solved. These are just a FEW of the books to which the miraculous endings are spoiled. I can't believe this guy. I mean, who writes an ENTIRE BOOK to prove another author wrong in her story? IT'S HER STORY, PIERRE!! Now, here's my solution to Pierre Bayard. And, of course, like Poirot's solution to the Murder of Roger Ackroyd, I may be completely wrong. Bayard was reading The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. He had his heart set on one particular suspect as being the killer. Perhaps he has read more Christie mysteries, and figures he is pretty good at spotting the murderer before Poirot. When Poirot announces HIS solution, Bayard goes into complete denial. He re-reads crucial plot points of the book, then manipulates them into his own way of saying Poirot's suggested killer is innocent. His own weird way of Justice. I say Bull. You don't need to be a psychoanalyst to understand Christie's wonderful books. She wrote them for average, ordinary chaps like myself to understand them. Everything you need for a compelling story is RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK! WHY? WHY??? Why contaminate Agatha Christie's books with all this psycho-crud? Most of us just want to read Christie and let that satisfying "warmth" settle into our hearts when her loveable sleuths clean everything up nice and tidy like. Well, now that I've gone off and ripped into Bayard's book, I guess I should restate that it an oddly fascinating read. Again, skip the Van Dine chapter, and the one about Endless Night if you haven't read that book, and you'll be fine. Poor Christie.
Rating:
Summary: Um... what?
Review: I'm a huge Agatha Christie fan and a psychology major, so I was given this book as a gift by someone who though I would enjoy it. Wrong! By the time I was done reading it the cover was torn and the binding broken from being hurled against the wall in frustration. First of all, I get it. Second of all, it's this kind of [stuff] that give psychology a bad name. This guy has nothing better to do that rethink one of the greatest mystery novels of all time?..
Rating:
Summary: Um... what?
Review: I'm a huge Agatha Christie fan and a psychology major, so I was given this book as a gift by someone who though I would enjoy it. Wrong! By the time I was done reading it the cover was torn and the binding broken from being hurled against the wall in frustration. First of all, I get it. Second of all, it's this kind of [stuff] that give psychology a bad name. This guy has nothing better to do that rethink one of the greatest mystery novels of all time?..
Rating:
Summary: In fact, Christie not Bayard is the book to read.
Review: If you have not yet read Agatha Christie's THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD, you are not doing yourself a favor by reading any of the reviews on this board, some of which give away the solution to that classic mystery. I strongly suggest that you read it first before going any further on this page.Christie's controversial 1926 novel has long been considered a masterpiece of the genre, and for good reason. With its intricate plot and ingenious solution, THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD is a first-rate mystery from a first-rate mystery novelist. Pierre Bayard's book, WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD?, is structured as a re-examination of the facts, and suggests--no, declares outright--that Christie's solution is the wrong one. Quite a claim, really. And yet, readers who suspend their disbelief at the sheer audacity of the author's proposition and take the experiment at face value are bound to be disappointed, as I was. For only about twenty-five percent of WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD? is devoted to Bayard's new hypothesis (which is, by far, the most interesting part of the book). The other seventy-five percent is devoted to exposition on matters of literary theory, philosophy, and psychoanalysis. There's nothing necessarily wrong about that, except that I found much of Bayard's argument largely irrelevant, contradictory, and unforgivably pretentious. Unfortunate, considering that a few of his points are actually quite astute; I found the chapters on "the paradox of the liar" and "the lie by omission" perceptive and thought-provoking. But when Bayard suggests more than once that not only could Christie's other mysteries benefit from further scrutiny, but that the detective story in general is full of potential holes...well, as a mystery fan, I didn't exactly appreciate the implication that my favorite genre was doomed to be an exercise in futility. I was even more annoyed by Bayard's use of psychoanalysis as a tool in his argument, as though Freudian theory matters a whit to Agatha Christie's (admittedly cardboard) characters. This section (four chapters!), in which Bayard introduces such ideas as "disorganized paranoid delusion" and accuses Hercule Poirot of having a "paranoid thought disorder," is easily the most unnecessary part of the book. Personally I consider it a shameless attempt by Bayard to peddle his psychoanalytic knowledge under the guise of an intelligent reading exercise. Certainly I respect him for his considerable expertise in this area, but really, couldn't he just publish these four chapters in a separate psychology textbook, rather than try to convince readers that he's actually doing something constructive with Christie's novel? Finally we get to Bayard's conclusion regarding who really killed Roger Ackroyd. The revelation was certainly a surprise, and afforded me a moment of pleasure--which was immediately dashed by the realization that Bayard's shock revelation, unlike Christie's, was neither airtight nor carefully developed. I was hoping for a clever reworking of plot elements so that the result would be at least on the level of an above-average mystery novel. I guess being a Christie reader has inflated my expectations. Bayard all but ignores THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD's meticulously layered plot and instead uses a simplistic process of elimination to rule out all the suspects but one. Most unsatisfying. It's one thing to trash someone else's work, but it's another thing to try to formulate your own solution, especially when you're up against a pro like Dame Agatha. I shudder to think of the result if Bayard sets out to write a legitimate detective story of his own. Maybe the idea behind this project was so misconceived, it was doomed from the start regardless of the execution. After all, the whole concept behind the book is rather pointless. In all great fiction, the story becomes so real to the reader that we forget that the author is pulling the strings, but that's no reason to go overboard and dictate "what really happened." Call me crazy, but when I read a book--ESPECIALLY when I read an Agatha Christie--I usually expect the author to have full control over the story and the characters' actions and what they think and say. Didn't the editors of this book (if there were any involved, I'm not sure) bother to note that Bayard makes just a little too much use of artistic license? The most glaring problem with WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD?, however, is the fact that it doesn't even comply with its own manufactured rules. Bayard's novel is rife with self-contradictions. He attempts to use psychoanalysis to probe Christie's characters, even though judging them according to Freudian theory is akin to using calculus as a device for counting to ten. He attempts to furnish a new solution to the crime, even though he claims that the book's structure precludes any solid conclusions. He pooh-poohs the reliability of the mystery genre, but champions his own methods as a way to understand it. Finally, he completely ignores what makes Christie such an effective writer--her craftsmanship and her endlessly inventive plotting--and instead trots out some very elementary reasoning in a pitiful attempt to outwit her. If you must read WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD?, be forewarned that it does give away the solutions to some of Christie's best novels (many of them, in my opinion, even better than THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD), so hold off until after you've read them all. But by the time you've done that, you'll probably have a much deeper understanding of the writer and her work than what Bayard has demonstrated here.
Rating:
Summary: Such a disappointment
Review: If you have not yet read Agatha Christie's THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD, you are not doing yourself a favor by reading any of the reviews on this board, some of which give away the solution to that classic mystery. I strongly suggest that you read it first before going any further on this page. Christie's controversial 1926 novel has long been considered a masterpiece of the genre, and for good reason. With its intricate plot and ingenious solution, THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD is a first-rate mystery from a first-rate mystery novelist. Pierre Bayard's book, WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD?, is structured as a re-examination of the facts, and suggests--no, declares outright--that Christie's solution is the wrong one. Quite a claim, really. And yet, readers who suspend their disbelief at the sheer audacity of the author's proposition and take the experiment at face value are bound to be disappointed, as I was. For only about twenty-five percent of WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD? is devoted to Bayard's new hypothesis (which is, by far, the most interesting part of the book). The other seventy-five percent is devoted to exposition on matters of literary theory, philosophy, and psychoanalysis. There's nothing necessarily wrong about that, except that I found much of Bayard's argument largely irrelevant, contradictory, and unforgivably pretentious. Unfortunate, considering that a few of his points are actually quite astute; I found the chapters on "the paradox of the liar" and "the lie by omission" perceptive and thought-provoking. But when Bayard suggests more than once that not only could Christie's other mysteries benefit from further scrutiny, but that the detective story in general is full of potential holes...well, as a mystery fan, I didn't exactly appreciate the implication that my favorite genre was doomed to be an exercise in futility. I was even more annoyed by Bayard's use of psychoanalysis as a tool in his argument, as though Freudian theory matters a whit to Agatha Christie's (admittedly cardboard) characters. This section (four chapters!), in which Bayard introduces such ideas as "disorganized paranoid delusion" and accuses Hercule Poirot of having a "paranoid thought disorder," is easily the most unnecessary part of the book. Personally I consider it a shameless attempt by Bayard to peddle his psychoanalytic knowledge under the guise of an intelligent reading exercise. Certainly I respect him for his considerable expertise in this area, but really, couldn't he just publish these four chapters in a separate psychology textbook, rather than try to convince readers that he's actually doing something constructive with Christie's novel? Finally we get to Bayard's conclusion regarding who really killed Roger Ackroyd. The revelation was certainly a surprise, and afforded me a moment of pleasure--which was immediately dashed by the realization that Bayard's shock revelation, unlike Christie's, was neither airtight nor carefully developed. I was hoping for a clever reworking of plot elements so that the result would be at least on the level of an above-average mystery novel. I guess being a Christie reader has inflated my expectations. Bayard all but ignores THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD's meticulously layered plot and instead uses a simplistic process of elimination to rule out all the suspects but one. Most unsatisfying. It's one thing to trash someone else's work, but it's another thing to try to formulate your own solution, especially when you're up against a pro like Dame Agatha. I shudder to think of the result if Bayard sets out to write a legitimate detective story of his own. Maybe the idea behind this project was so misconceived, it was doomed from the start regardless of the execution. After all, the whole concept behind the book is rather pointless. In all great fiction, the story becomes so real to the reader that we forget that the author is pulling the strings, but that's no reason to go overboard and dictate "what really happened." Call me crazy, but when I read a book--ESPECIALLY when I read an Agatha Christie--I usually expect the author to have full control over the story and the characters' actions and what they think and say. Didn't the editors of this book (if there were any involved, I'm not sure) bother to note that Bayard makes just a little too much use of artistic license? The most glaring problem with WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD?, however, is the fact that it doesn't even comply with its own manufactured rules. Bayard's novel is rife with self-contradictions. He attempts to use psychoanalysis to probe Christie's characters, even though judging them according to Freudian theory is akin to using calculus as a device for counting to ten. He attempts to furnish a new solution to the crime, even though he claims that the book's structure precludes any solid conclusions. He pooh-poohs the reliability of the mystery genre, but champions his own methods as a way to understand it. Finally, he completely ignores what makes Christie such an effective writer--her craftsmanship and her endlessly inventive plotting--and instead trots out some very elementary reasoning in a pitiful attempt to outwit her. If you must read WHO KILLED ROGER ACKROYD?, be forewarned that it does give away the solutions to some of Christie's best novels (many of them, in my opinion, even better than THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD), so hold off until after you've read them all. But by the time you've done that, you'll probably have a much deeper understanding of the writer and her work than what Bayard has demonstrated here.
Rating:
Summary: Bayard doesn't have a clue
Review: The idea of a story entering the public domain and giving rise to a variety of interpretations and even, in the case of a mystery novel, to a new ending, is an interesting one. What a pity that Bayard lacks the analytical and writing skills to make a go of it. There is much wrong with this book, but I would like just to point out one glaring error. Bayard's 'solution' depends on Roger Ackroyd admitting the murderer through the french windows in his study. Unfortunately, there were no french windows in the study; they were in the drawing room. The study had sash windows. Although this invalidates Bayard's entire thesis, it is among the least of the problems with this book. The real mystery (more puzzling than anything Ms Christie could have dreamed up) is how this book got published in the first place.
|
