[[ ePUB ]] Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd?Author Pierre Bayard – Multi-channel.co

Agatha Christie S Classic Novel The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd Has Sparked Great Debate In The Years Since Its Publication In , Inspiring Cultural Critics From Roland Barthes To Umberto Eco To Explore Its Unique Construction A Murder Mystery In Which The Murderer Appears To Be The Narrator Now, In A Thrilling Twist On The Conventional Solution, Pierre Bayard S Who Killed Roger Arkroyd Reopens The Ackroyd File With Unexpected Results Is The Killer Still At Large Bayard S In Depth Investigation Of This Well Loved Classic Will Change Forever The Way Mysteries Are Read Now, In A Thrilling Twist On The Conventional Solution, Pierre Bayard S Who Killed Roger Arkroyd Reopens The Ackroyd File With Unexpected Results Is The Killer Still At Large Bayard S In Depth Investigation Of This Well Loved Classic Will Change Forever The Way Mysteries Are Read This Book Is Not A Spoof It Is A Humorous Entirely New Analysis Of The FamousMystery It Challenges The Reader To To Challenge He Author In The Apparent Possible, Plausible Solution Of The Mystery

10 thoughts on “Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd?

  1. says:

    This is truly a find I recently recommended Bayard s other book How to Talk About Books you Haven t Read and am equally 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 quite 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

  2. says:

    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.

  3. says:

    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.

  4. says:


  5. says:

    Agatha Christie nin sundu u nerme ve y ntem akademik bir bak a s yla ok sa lam bulgularla ele tirilmi Fakat yazar n alternatif olarak sundu u nerme de t pk orjinalini ele tirdi i noktalarda oldu u gibi tamamen yorum ve y nlendirmeye dayal kalm Eksik bilgi verilerek yalan s yleme zerinden yaz lan bir polisiyede sonuca gitmenin imkans zl noktas nda kal nabilirdi.

  6. says:

    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 fails.The 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.

  7. says:

    A fascinating but at times frustrating read.The 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 absent.Alas 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.

  8. says:

    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.

  9. says:

    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

  10. says:

    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.