Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
A Murderer in Death on the Nile
Download 129.16 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 4A Murderer in And Then There Were None
- 5A Murderer in Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case
- Works Cited Primary sources
- Secondary sources
3A Murderer in Death on the Nile
Death on the Nile is a novel with a famous Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, who travels with other guests on a boat called Karnak where a rich woman Linnet Doyle is found murdered. Poirot early finds out that almost everybody on the boat has a motive for the murder. However, the most probable murderer, Jackie de Bellefort, has a bulletproof alibi. Simon Doyle and Jackie de Bellefort love each other but they do not have enough money to live happy life. Nevertheless, when Linnet Ridgeway steals Simon from Jackie, Simon early starts thinking about murdering Linnet. After her death, he, as her surviving spouse, would inherit Linnet’s fortune, marry Jackie and they could finally live happily. However, Simon’s problem is that he is not very clever and his ideas how to kill Linnet are too obvious and the police would reveal the truth easily, since as Jackie says “he would probably have just bunged arsenic into her and assured the doctor would say she’s died of gastritis. He always thought things would go right.” (173) Jackie thus begins to worry that Simon could really commit a murder and then he could be convicted of it. Therefore, she decides to take everything into her own hands and devises a clever and nearly perfect murder plan. Even though she is angry with Linnet, her real motive for the murder is to protect Simon. Had it not been for his thoughts of killing Linnet, she would not have decided to carry out the plan. Simon, on the other hand, is resolute and is able to do everything to gain Linnet’s fortune without thinking about consequences. He is just a tool, a man of action who commits the murder, while Jackie is a real brain of the whole plan. Poirot characterizes the murder as “a crime that needed audacity, swift and faultless execution, courage, indifference to danger, and a resourceful, calculating brain.” (157) They both need each other because neither Simon, nor Jackie would have killed Linnet alone. Simon would have never devised such a clever plan, whereas Jackie would not have been able to murder Linnet while she sleeps, as she admits at the end. However, together they form a strong combination, which results in an almost perfect murder. The key of the whole plan is deception because almost everything happens in a different way than it appears. Simon pretends his love of Linnet, while Jackie follows a new married couple everywhere they go. The main reason why Jackie follows Linnet and Simon is to ensure that nobody will suspect her of being on the Karnak. She appears there as anywhere else just to annoy life of Linnet and Simon. If Jackie only appeared on the Karnak, it could be noticeable and someone could start to suspect Jackie and Simon of committing Linnet’s murder together. However, the most significant deception is the way Linnet’s murder is committed. Simon and Jackie need just a couple of witnesses of the scene that happens in the saloon. They perform a quarrel that ends with Jackie’s shooting into Simon’s leg. The shot, a handkerchief stained with a red ink and Simon lying in pain on the couch gives the witnesses, Cornelia and Mr. Fanthorp, the clear impression that Mr. Doyle has been shot. Jackie continues in her performance and pretends nervous breakdown to give Simon enough time for killing Linnet while he is left in the saloon. He uses the pistol with which Jackie shot him and which she kicked under the coach so that nobody would be interested in it until the murder is done. When Simon returns, he shoots himself using Miss Van Schuyler’s velvet to avoid skin scorching, which shows that the murderers thought about everything, even about the smallest details that could ruin the whole plan. If Simon had not used the velvet, his skin would have been scorched, which would not have been possible if he was really shot by Jackie from a distance. Afterwards, Simon modifies the pistol so that it seems that only two shots were fired. Finally, Mr. Doyle throws the pistol and the velvet into the sea. The plan ensures Jackie and Simon an ostensibly solid alibi, which was Jackie’s priority when she devised it. Miss Bowers stays with Jackie all night because Simon’s urges. Jackie, on the other hand, ensures alibi to Simon by shooting him into his leg. When the pistol is not found, everyone is supposed to believe that someone saw the event in the saloon, waited for the right moment, took the pistol and shot Linnet. Therefore, the crime is thought to be done on the spur of the moment. Jackie attempts to imply it several times. First when she tells Poirot she wants to kill Linnet in the way it really happens later and pretends to hear someone listen to their conversation. She reminds it to Poirot during her interrogation after Mrs. Doyle’s murder. Simon, on the other hand, tries to lead Poirot to the conclusion that a motive for Linnet’s murder was theft of her pearls. Even though the plan is perfectly timed and thought-out to the least detail, the fact that it is done on the boat full of people is crucial to its revelation. Simon was seen by Linnet’s maid Louise Bourget, which leads to other two murders that were not intended. Louise decides to blackmail Simon but the problem is that he is constantly treated. However, when she is interrogated and Simon is present, Louise takes advantage of it and insinuates him that she knows the truth. If a murderer had been anyone else, the maid could have simply revealed her secret to them in private. It is the most important clue for Poirot, since he immediately notes the words Louise used and the way she said them. Jackie and Simon are aware of danger but Simon is unable to move due to his injury and thus he cannot commit another murder. Jackie’s love to Simon forces her to kill Louise using Dr. Bessner’s knife when the maid is counting money and is not paying any attention to her surroundings. Nevertheless, even this murder is not done without a witness. Mrs. Otterbourne saw Jackie entering the maid’s cabin and when Louise is found murdered, she realizes that Jackie must be the murderer. The third murder is done thanks to Jackie’s quick reaction. She keeps a cool head when Simon warns her of another threat, “ ‘For God’s sake, start at the beginning. You know the person who killed Louise Bourget, you say.’ ” (140-41) Simon deliberately speaks up hoping that Jackie hears him and he also asks Mrs. Otterbourne to start at the beginning to give Jackie some time. There is no time for preparation but Jackie takes advantage of her great shooting skills and manages to shoot Mrs. Otterbourne on time. However, another misfortune for Simon and Jackie is Tim Allerton, who heard “… a man running past his door. But nobody should have been running along the starboard side of the deck. What he heard was the stockinged feet of Simon Doyle running past his cabin.” (169) Testimonies of Tim Allerton and Louise Bourget are the key to the whole mystery not only for Poirot but also for readers. Jackie and Simon are, however, not only unlucky when their murders are seen by witnesses but they also make several mistakes, which help Poirot reveal the truth. Simon is weaker of both accomplices because of his stupidity, naivety, bad acting skills and immaturity. Poirot early notes that Mr. Doyle rarely shows any affection for Linnet. He also pretends to be very careful about money, particularly when he does not want Linnet to spend money on private boat because it would mean that Jackie could not follow them and thus they could not carry out their plan. If he was really annoyed by Jackie’s chasing, he would certainly agree with his wife’s idea and give a little more money to get rid of Jackie, particularly if his wife is so rich and does not have to care about money at all. Simon makes another mistake when he uses the same simile as Jackie as far as his reason why he decides to marry Linnet is concerned, which immediately attracts Poirot’s attention and later on leads him to the conclusion that Jackie and Simon are still lovers. The detective takes advantage of Simon’s naivety and succeeds in deceiving Mr. Doyle suggesting that Jackie could have stolen the pearls. Simon’s reaction just confirms Poirot his assumption. The detective is aware of Jackie’s cleverness and he knows that it would be very difficult to delude her and thus he pays his attention to Simon. After all, had it not been for Simon’s breakdown and following confession, Poirot would not probably been able to prove that Simon and Jackie are the murderers. However, Simon makes the biggest mistake when he breaks the plan and writes a letter J on the wall using Linnet’s blood. It again shows his foolishness, since he does not realize consequences of his little inducement. The letter implies that a murderer wanted the others to think that Jackie killed Linnet. However, together with other arrangements Simon has to make, it does not make any sense and it also immediately attracts Poirot’s attention: Someone wished to kill Linnet Doyle. Someone overheard the scene in the saloon last night. Someone sneaked in there and retrieved the pistol–Jacqueline de Bellefort’s pistol, remember. Somebody shot Linnet Doyle with that pistol and wrote the letter J on the wall… All so clear, is it not? All pointing to Jacqueline de Bellefort as the murderess. And then what does the murderer do? Leave the pistol-the damning pistol-Jacqueline de Bellefort's pistol for everyone to find? No, he or she throws the pistol, that particular damning bit of evidence, overboard. Why, my friend, why?’ … ‘It is more than odd-it is impossible!’ … ‘I mean that the sequence of events is impossible. Something is wrong. (104) Death on the Nile belongs to Christie’s novels, in which murderers are the likeliest suspects. According to Delamater, “Death on the Nile belies the claim advanced by Cawelti and others that Christie favors the so-called least likely person in resolving her mysterious. … In Death on the Nile, however, Cawelti’s claim is all but refuted, for the estranged couple-Jacqueline de Bellefort and Simon Doyle-are the most likely suspects, the ones with the most to gain.” (Delamater and Prigozy 89-90) Agatha Christie provides both with ostensibly perfect alibi and together with many false traces that have nothing to do with the murder itself turns the attention to other potential suspects. The fact that Simon and Jackie could not have committed Linnet’s murder is reminded and stressed many times in the novel: “… ‘The result is quite definite. Jacqueline de Bellefort did not shoot Mrs. Doyle. So we are forced to look elsewhere.’ (109) … ‘Doyle never left the lounge on the night of the tragedy till he was shot at and wounded in the leg. The impossibility of his walking a step that is attested to by a doctor and a nurse both independent and reliable witnesses. Simon Doyle could not have killed his wife. He could not killed Louise Bourget.’ ” (156) Almost everyone on the ship has a reason to hate Linnet and there were many other people who simply envy her that she has everything. Among the suspects is Rosalie Otterbourne, who is angry when she finds out that Linnet is also on the board of the Karnak and she is also seen by Miss Van Schuyler dropping something into the water at the night of murder. Fleetwood is alleged to revenge Mrs. Doyle for ruining his relationship with Linnet’s former maid. Mrs. Allerton, on the other hand, uses a word “fey” (63) when she sees Linnet just before she is almost killed by a big boulder. The big rock is one of the most prominent author’s false traces. Jackie could not have thrown it down the cliff and Simon saved Linnet when it all happened. It seems to be connected with Linnet’s following murder and it thus distracts attention from Jackie and Simon. In fact, the boulder has nothing do with it, since Mr. Pennigton, who is the one to have tumbled the boulder, has a different motive why he did so. However, his strange behavior and the fact that his revolver is used to kill Mrs. Otterbourne point at him as well. Another significant false trace is Linnet’s pearls that are stolen at the night of the murder and appear to be related to it. Neither Simon, nor Jackie would have killed Linnet for jewels. Therefore, it must have been done by someone else. Nevertheless, Delamater thinks that the novel was written for “the experienced readers” (Delamater and Prigozy 90) who know from the beginning that Simon and Jackie killed Linnet but they are “unable to figure out just how they did it.” (Delamater and Prigozy 90) It is the truth that after clarifying all false traces, there seems to be nobody who could have done it unless readers realize that the crime was premeditated. Nobody could have known about the quarrel in the saloon and thus Jackie and Simon are the only ones who could have committed the intended murder. However, the way they did it is still a mystery. Death on the Nile introduces a murderous couple, a man and a woman who both seem to have a solid alibi and who would have been the most suspect had it not been for their alibi. The novel is thus an example of a novel in which murderers are the most obvious suspects. Readers are deceived with many false traces which have nothing to do with the murder itself and which are supposed to divert them from the correct solution. However, there are some facts that could help reveal the murderers such as the stolen velvet, which suggests that the crime was not committed on the spur of the moment, and a logical contradiction between the pistol thrown away into the Nile and the letter J on the wall. As far as the murderers are concerned, they pay for an audacity of their plan. They commit the murder on the boat full of people. The result is that one of the travelers sees the crime, which leads to other two murders that were not intended. 4A Murderer in And Then There Were None And Then There Were None belongs to favorite Agatha Christie’s works with an easy plot but also with an increasing atmosphere and surprising ending. Agatha Christie herself said: “ ‘It was so difficult to do that the idea had fascinated me.’ ” (agathachristie.com) Ten completely strangers are sent to an isolated island by a mysterious U. N. Owen and later on they are, one by one, killed. The police is helpless because there is no reasonable explanation who and how could have murdered those people. The murderer is revealed just at the end of the novel thanks to a note found in a bottle. Had it not been for the note, the murderer would have never been revealed. Lawrence Wargrave as a judge is looking for justice but his profession influences his mind and together with a fatal illness, he becomes obsessed by justice. He devises a clever and elaborate plan which should ensure equity. As a judge, Wargrave was a witness of many trials in which justice was not reached and a person who was really guilty was acquitted. His obsession with justice leads him to murders. Philip Lombard, one of the guests on the island, is the first to mention Wargrave as the potential murderer and he even finds the right reason: …he’s an old man and he’s been presiding over courts of law for years. That is to say, he’s played God Almighty for a good many months every year. That must go to a man’s head eventually. He gets to see himself as all powerful, as holding the power of life and death–and it’s possible that his brain might snap and he might want to go one step farther and be Executioner and Judge Extraordinary. (181) The judge is determined to take the law into his own hands and punish those who escaped justice in the court. Wargrave chooses nine people who were suspect of committing a crime but they were not convicted. The tenth actual victim is Morris, who arranges everything the judge needs and after that, he is overdosed, which looks like a suicide but in fact, it is carefully premeditated murder. Lawrence meets several people who are somehow connected with the chosen persons and know about their crimes. He uses his experience with daily talking to people as a judge and easily convinces them to tell him the truth. His natural authority is also emphasized several times in the novel: “The judge interposed. He spoke with the authority that a lifetime in the courts had given him” (64) … “now he assumed command with the ease born of a long habit of authority. He definitely presided over the court.” (161) This quality is very important, since it enables Wargrave to make the others behave as he wants. Lawrence is therefore a good manipulator and he is able to estimate how people will behave because he knows human psychology. It is the key to his plan. The judge uses the attribute several times, for example when he chooses Armstrong as his accomplice because he knows it is the best choice, since Armstrong is trustworthy and has a lot in common with him. They are both members of highly professional jobs and thus for Armstrong it is inconceivable that the judge could be the mysterious murderer, Mr. Owen. Moreover, if Lawrence pretended his death without telling anyone, Armstrong as a doctor would be the first to check him and it would be impossible to deceive the doctor with false head wound. Armstrong completely trusts the judge and does exactly what Wargrave wants him to do. Lawrence’s knowledge of human psychology is also important at the very end of his plan. When the last two people remain, Wargrave is absolutely sure that after all suffering and tension, they will not trust each other. Vera and Lombard suspect each other, while the judge is only a watcher, he need not murder any more. Even it is risky, Lawrence counts on Vera’s win and meanwhile prepares all for his last victim. Vera is alone on the island with nine dead bodies, or at least she thinks so. “The consciousness of her own will, the state of nervous tension consequent on having just shot a man, and the hypnotic suggestion of the surroundings cause the last ex-murderer, Vera Claythorne, to hang herself.” (Wu 164) Wargrave just watches all hidden in her bedroom and is prepared to intervene if Vera finally makes up her mind. The judge is determined to punish the selected people and he hopes they will feel guilty for what they did. It is shown when Vera says that Miss Brent told her about her accusation and Wargrave is curious about Miss Brent’s feelings: “ ‘A perfectly straightforward story. I personally should have no difficulty in accepting it. Tell me, Miss Claythorne, did she appear to be troubled by a sense of guilt or a feeling of remorse for her attitude in the matter?’ ” (213) However, the judge does not only want them to feel remorse, he also wants them to suffer. The less people remain, the more they all suffer, suspect one another and their fear increases. Even his selected order in which the victims die is not random. As Wu says “Lawrence Wargrave considers that there are different degrees of murder among his intended victims. Those whose guilt is the lightest should pass out first and not suffer the prolonged mental strain and fear that the more cold-blooded offenders are to suffer. As a result, Anthony Marston and Mrs. Rogers die first, because Marston is an amoral person and Mrs. Rogers acted very largely under the influence of her husband.“ (Wu 163) Vera, on the other hand, let a small boy drown so that she could be with his love, which Wargrave considers to be the most serious crime of all. The judge hopes he gains justice, which is his primary motive for the murders. He discloses at the end that it is abhorrent to him that an innocent person or creature should suffer or die by any act of him and that he has always felt strongly that right should prevail. (302) That is one of the reasons why Wargrave decides to play a recording. He needs to be sure that the people really did their crimes and he succeeds because reactions of his guests reveal him that they are all really guilty. Wargrave’s sense for justice is also shown at the end of the novel when he commits a suicide. The judge is no longer innocent and therefore he punishes himself for his crimes. The second motive which leads him to the cruel plan is Lawrence’s profession and his own traits. He has thought of committing a perfect murder that nobody is able to solve since his childhood. However, it must not be an ordinary one but “a fantastical crime-something stupendous-out of the common!” (303) Because of his playfulness, he decides to use an old nursery rhyme about ten little soldier boys and thus each murder is special and the judge uses various ways of committing murders. He also insists on each detail, which is particularly shown on a murder of Miss Brent. The judge took with him a bumble bee and thus even this murder could be committed according to the nursery rhyme. In effect, it was Armstrong’s syringe that killed Miss Brent but the nursery rhyme would have been violated without the bumble bee and that would be inconceivable for Wargrave. Another example of his punctuality is a murder of Blore, who is killed by a huge clock in the shape of a bear. The plan is very risky because it depends on many things and the judge needs everything to go exactly as he determined. The key to his plan is the fact that nobody on the island has alibi for any committed murder because the judge wants the others to suspect one another and not to trust anyone, which would be impossible if someone has alibi. Wargrave himself emphasizes the fact that murders could be done by anyone on the island several times: “ ‘I take it, Dr Armstrong, that a woman would have been physically capable of striking the blow that killed poor Macarthur?’ … ‘The other two deaths have resulted from the administration of drugs. That, no one will dispute, is easily compassed by a person of the smallest physical strength.’ ” (166) Thanks to his knowledge of human psychology, he manages to make the other persons on the island behave as he needs and wants, which is the key to his success. The others only know as much as they are told by Wargrave and reveal what they are supposed to. It is Lawrence himself, who takes up investigation after the first death. He points out that their strange host’s initials means “UNKNOWN” (72) and later on it is again the judge, who reveals that there is only one option concerning a question who the murderer is: “ ‘It is perfectly clear. Mr. Owen is one of us …’ ” (162) Wargrave is, however, not only lucky but he is also self-confident. The judge believes in his skills, which is another reason of his success. He uses a person or good reason why the people should visit the island. He must be pretty sure that they will arrive, since if only one person decided not to go to the island, the whole plan would be ruined. The first three murders require a cool head and patience. They are successfully done because the judge always chooses the right moment when nobody is paying attention what is going on and thus can see the judge when he is committing the murders. It can be seen when the first murder is done. Wargrave takes advantage of shock caused by accusations raised by the recording and gives poison into Marston’s drink. However, the most important and difficult part for Lawrence is last murders. The first murders are at first considered to be mere accidents but when more and more murders come, everyone becomes more careful and wary. It is the judge himself who constantly remembers the others that if they are careful, nothing bad can happen. It is, however, only another thorough tool that is a part of his plan how to gain trust of the others and distract attention from himself. Because of the last reason, Wargrave decides to devise his own murder with Armstrong's help. The remaining persons thus watch one another and completely forget that there could be someone else. It is also a red herring for readers, since “the reader, of course, assumes that the dead must remain dead, so when Justice Wargrave becomes the sixth victim, he is immediately presumed innocent.” (Singer 163) Singer also says that readers are not wary enough as far as information and events interpreted by characters are concerned even though Agatha Christie herself emphasized that they are often accidentally or deliberately false. (Singer 163) Wargrave’s death is an example of such a case because readers are given information about his demise by Dr. Armstrong. If readers do not reveal that deception and believes in Lawrence’s death, they are led to an unsolvable mystery. Lawrence Wargrave is one of the most prominent characters in the novel and probably the only one to be able to devise such an elaborate murder plan. Despite that, it is not easy to find out who the murderer is. The novel has many false traces that lead readers to a blind alley. The most obvious one is the way Agatha Christie passes on suspicion from one person on another so that a person who seems to be the most suspect is shown to be the next victim. It all starts after Mrs. Rogers’s death when the first signs of suspicion appear and Mr. Rogers seems to be the most suspicious of all: Anyway there’s no active danger to them as far as they know. Then, last night, some unknown lunatic spills the beans. What happens? The woman cracks–she goes to pieces. Notice how her husband hung over her as she was coming round. Not all husbandly solicitude! Not on your life! He was like a cat on hot bricks. Scared out of his life as to what she might say. (110-111) Agatha Christie thus turns attention of readers to Mr. Rogers, who is suspected by the others. Moreover, there are strong arguments and facts that imply that Mr. Rogers could be the murderer. The recording is turned on by him, the reaction of his wife on the accusation and her following death and he is also the first to remark missing china figures. Apart from that, Mr. Rogers is later on caught in the room where the dead bodies were put and his way of walking very soft could be a perfect quality of the murderer: “ ‘That chap moves damned quietly. A minute or two ago we saw him in the garden. None of us heard him come upstairs.’ ” (150) When Mr. Rogers turns out to be the fourth victim of the insane murderer, Agatha Christie immediately turns readers attention to Miss Brent. Blore notes that she was outside when Mr. Rogers was killed, which he considers to be evidence against her because “ ‘if the woman was innocent she’d be too dead scared to go wandering about by herself. She’d only do that if she knew that she had nothing to fear. That’s to say if she herself is the criminal.’ ” (202) After her and Wargrave’s death, only four people remain. Readers are led to believe that a murderer is Armstrong, who is actually the next victim. However, when Wargrave pushes him down the cliff, his body gets stuck between rocks. Therefore, Armstrong’s murder remains hidden for the time being. The others consider his disappearance to be his confession. Readers are again deceived because if characters think Armstrong disappeared, they tend to believe it too. Moreover, there are other facts that support this assumption. Christie gives the impression that Armstrong is still alive until Blore’s death. Blore is struck with a huge clock which falls from a window. Vera and Lombard are a long way from the scene of crime when the murder happens and thus it is natural that the murderer must be Armstrong. However, everything is again denied when Armstrong’s body is found. The most suspicious person thus turns out to be another victim and there are just two remaining people who accuse each other of committing all those murders. When Vera appears to be the last person on the island, everything implies that she is the insane murderer. Nevertheless, it is again rebutted when it is later revealed that the chair that Vera kicked away was neatly put on the original place. Suddenly, there seems to be no explanation of who could have done the murders. Inspite of these facts, there are a few clues that could help reveal who the murderer is. Mr. Unknown is obsessed with justice and the judge is a profession that looks for it. The whole plan needs cool head and good knowledge of human psychology that are qualities required for this profession. However, as Ne points out, the fact that Wargrave is a judge may also be misleading: “Knowing the social role of ‘judge’ the reader can generate certain expectations about group membership, such as that the judge is likely to be male and fairly advanced in years. More significantly, they can also generate expectations about personal categories, namely, that the judge is moral and aims not only to be law-abiding but to maintain the law. Such expectations help put the reader off the scent, as the schematic bias means that they will tend to ignore information that does not quite fit the schema.” (Ne 135) And Then There Were None introduces a murderer who commits his murders according to a nursery rhyme. Wargrave uses traditional methods of committing murders which are, however, modified in order to follow the nursery rhyme. The plan is risky but everything goes according to Wargrave’s intentions and thus he manages to create an inexplicable mystery. The judge belongs to a group of Christie’s murderers who are the most obvious suspects. However, Christie cleverly misinterprets information and facts presented in the novel in such a way that she diverts attention from Wargrave and at the same time transfers suspicion to a person who is shown to be the next victim. 5A Murderer in Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case Curtain is the last book with the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, who is still able to reveal a murderer, even though he is paralyzed. The murderer, Stephen Norton, is very different from most murderers and his way of committing crimes is unique and ingenious. Five murders have ostensibly nothing in common but despite that there are actually connections among them. Hercule Poirot has solved many difficult and often mysterious cases but now he is aware of Norton’s dangerousness and the fact that it is not possible to know who the next victim is makes the whole case very tricky. Finally, the detective is enforced to commit a murder, which is something against which he has fought throughout his life. Stephen Norton is a quiet man, who suffers because of his handicaps. He limps and stammers. Norton was also bullied at school and “he seems to have had at no time any gift for asserting himself or for impressing his personality on other people.” (218) His “masterful and bossy” (218) mother is another reason why he decides to commit murders. Elizabeth Cole also mentions Norton’s ability to see a lot of things that happen around him. That is a very important quality because it enables him to gain important pieces of information about his potential victims: “The only thing necessary was to understand them-to penetrate their thoughts, their secret reactions and wishes.” (219) Norton committed the first five murders in the way he could not have been related to them. All murders seemed to be mere accidents, which is the first connection. The second one is the fact that there was always only one suspect and nobody else was considered to be a murderer. Norton always has solid alibi but despite it, he does not succeed in deceiving Poirot. The Belgian detective finds out that Norton knew or was an acquaintance of all murderers, which leads him to reveal a real and very dangerous murderer. Norton does not actually commit any murder and has no motive for murdering any of the victims. His aim is simple. He looks for a possibility to force an unhappy person who hates or has any other motive for killing someone else to really do it. Norton manages to manipulate people around him to behave in the way he wants. Poirot describes Norton’s method as “an art perfected by long practice.” (217) Norton knows “the exact word, the exact phrase, the intonation even to suggest and to bring cumulative pressure on a weak spot!” (217) He basically takes an advantage of a person’s weak moment and with a few unobtrusive but very convincing sentences arouses in the person a desire to get rid of their suffering. Were it not for Norton and his words, a person would not commit a crime. The murders which are done under Norton’s influence are always committed in such a way that there is only one person who can be suspect and, in some cases, convicted. Norton, on the other hand, is virtually untouchable by the law. Pyrhönen emphasizes that “although many of Christie’s culprits aim at such perfection ... none attains quite the same level of cunning as the mysterious and self-reflexively named X in Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case (1977).” (Pyrhönen 218) … “By thouroughly erasing his (as it turns out) participation in the crime X ... achieves a degree of perfection unknown in any other Christie criminal.” (Pyrhönen 219) There is no way to prove that he has anything to do with any of those murders. Even Poirot has to admit the fact that he faces the most interesting criminal in his career. The detective admires the perfection of Norton’s technique but, on the other hand, he is also frightened, since he knows that Norton discovers a pleasure and does not want to give it up. X, as Poirot calls Norton, is obsessed with violence, brutality and mental torture. He has finally discovered the way he can assert himself. Therefore, there will be other murders committed under Norton’s influence if Poirot does not stop him. Norton’s method is very well shown when Mr. Luttrell shoots his wife after several remarks made by Norton. At first, Stephen uses his ability to see what is going on and quickly mentions that Mr. Luttrell is bullied by his wife: “ ‘I say Hastings, that was pretty ghastly. It gets my back up to see that poor old boy bullied like that. And the meek way he takes it! Poor chap.’ ” (52) Norton speaks up on purpose to make sure that Mr. Luttrell hears him. Later on, Norton’s request for a drink leads to an argument between the Luttrells. It is an ideal moment to use the opportunity and persuade Mr. Luttrell to kill his wife to stop her bullying. Norton starts a conversation about various shooting accidents. Boyd Carrington is an old man with a bad memory. He often says stories which somebody else told him as his own. Norton took advantage of it and told him a story about a man who shot his own brother. Norton is pretty sure that Boyd Carrington says the story as his own immediately after he is given an opportunity and during the conversation about shooting accidents, the opportunity is provided. Norton uses Mr. Luttrell’s state of mind and encourages him with several inconspicuous remarks: “ ‘What a splendid chap he is!’ … ‘Everything he’s turned his hand to has succeeded. Clear-headed, knows his own mind-essentially a man of action. The true successful man.’ … ‘Marry and settle down? And suppose his wife bullies him.’ ” (94) Those words, which are not suspicious to anybody, are enough to encourage Mr. Luttrell to do something that he would have never done. However, it is Carrington's story, which is the main impulse which gives Luttrell an idea of shooting his wife. Norton’s remarks just support Luttrell to really carry out the idea. Therefore, the initial incentive even does not come from Norton. Everything seems to be a mere accident, even though there are some thoughts that Mr. Lutrell really wanted to kill his wife. One is, however, certain-nobody could link Norton with it. Stephen enjoys setting people against each other. His try to persuade Hastings that his daughter is attracted to Allerton leads into an argument between Hastings and his daughter: “ ‘Ought we to shut that?’ I asked. Norton hesitated a minute before saying: ‘Well-er-I don’t think everybody’s in yet.’ A sudden suspicion darted through my mind. ‘Who’s out?’ ‘Your daughter, I think-and-er-Allerton.’ ” (53) Norton immediately uses any chance to encourage Hastings that he has to protect Judith. The Captain is too trustful and believes easily what somebody else tells him they saw or heard without taking the trouble to verify whether it is really the truth. Norton realizes that quality soon and takes advantage of it. The first hints are given during a conversation regarding euthanasia: “ ‘Of course it’s not. It’s really a question of courage. One just hasn’t got the guts, to put it vulgarly.’ ” (121) A few moments later, Norton warns the Captain of Allerton and tells him the story about a girl who took her life with an overdose of Veronal because of Allerton. Stephen also accompanies the Captain to ensure that he only hears and sees what Norton wants him to see and hear from the conversation between Allerton and Nurse Craven. He also does not allow Hastings to find out that it is not Judith, whom Alleton is speaking to. Norton also involves Boyd Carrington again. It is he, who insists on Hastings' speaking to Judith, which leads into another argument between them. After all those hints and deceptions, even such a nice man as Hastings succumbs to Norton. He is determined to stop Allerton before he hurts Judith. However, even this time Norton is not successful, since Poirot intervenes on time giving a sleeping pills into Hastings’ glass of chocolate. When the Captain wakes up, he is terrified of what he wanted to do: “I saw now, clearly and sanely, how overwrought and wrongheaded I had been. Melodramatic, lost to all sense of proportion. I had actually made up my mind to kill another human being. … I must have been mad last night!” (140) Persons who are subject to Norton’s hints are usually under their influence only for some time until they realize consequences of what they did or planned to do, which is also a case of Mr. Luttrell, who realizes it when he is aiming at his wife and deliberately misses her head. Norton joins a conversation whose topic is somehow sensitive and which has a potential to influence someone’s conscience. A conversation about marriage and divorce starts murderous plans of Mrs. Franklin, whose marriage is unhappy. Mr. Franklin is against divorce and Norton’s quick response forces Barbara to begin to think about being free and happy again: “ ‘A man chooses his wife. She’s his responsibility until she dies-or he does.’ ” (150) Barbara‘s husband does a lot of experiments with drugs and thus there will be no suspicion. It will be taken as an accident if he dies of poisoning. However, even Norton’s method is not perfect. It ensures him that he is untouchable by the law but it does not secure him success. Norton at first tried to force Dr. Franklin to get rid of his wife but his hints did not have any influence on the doctor. Therefore, he turned his attention to Mrs. Franklin. A mentally strong and balanced personality is able to resist Norton’s remarks but few people have such nature and thus Stephen’s attempts are usually successful. It is difficult to find a murderer in this novel despite of the fact that readers know the murderer’s method at the very beginning of the novel. Norton is very well hidden and even though his inconspicuousness can be suspicious, the facts that he always has solid alibi and other characters’ speeches about killing are prominent turn attention to someone else. Singer points out to another important false trace: “Probably the most basic whodunit expectation is that the murderer must be committed by the murderer. But in Curtain, as is appropriate for Christie’s terminal Poirot mystery, even this expectation is broken. Stephen Norton does not murder anyone; yet as a catalyst he is the murderer.” (Singer 169) Almost every character speaks about and believes in Norton’s good nature. Even though Hastings admits that Norton could be the murderer in the very beginning of the novel, he is persuaded that Norton is innocent because of his love for birds. The Captain believes that a love of nature is essentially a healthy sign in a man. (34) False traces are typical of Agatha Christie and this novel is not an exception. According to Alexander, it is an example of a novel in which presented information and facts are manipulated in such a way that it leads readers to the wrong solution. (Alexander 9) Hastings’ suggestion regarding unsuccessful murder of Mrs. Luttrell that there must be someone else who shot at the same time as Mr. Luttrell did, leads into the conclusion that X is someone who was not in the house when Mrs. Luttrell was shot. Norton was undoubtedly inside and thus the whole suggestion just distracts attention from him. However, the most misleading facts are Mrs. Franklin’s and Norton’s death. Readers learn that it is Dr. Franklin, whom Judith loves, after Mrs. Franklin’s death, which is supposed to be a motive for her death. Dr. Franklin’s talking about an idea of elimination also attracts attention: “ ‘It’s an idea of mine, you know, that about eighty per cent of the human race ought to be eliminated. We’d get on much better without them.’ ” (60) His comments in the evening of his wife’s death point directly at him: “ ‘I’ve done something that I’ve been meaning to do for a long time. Very satisfactory, that.’ ” (157) The words do not have anything with Barbara’s death but they are said at the moment when readers tend to relate them to it. Moreover, Barbara’s demise itself is another red herring because it was Dr. Franklin, who was supposed to be murdered by Barbara, but Agatha Christie deceives readers making them believe that Dr. Franklin killed her wife so that he could be with Judith. Hasting’s daughter is also a supporter of getting rid of useless lives, as Riley points out “like Franklin, she is passionately dedicated to the dispassionate pursuit of scientific knowledge. She announces as loudly and more often than he that ‘useless live ... should be go out of way.’ Dr. Franklin’s nervous wife, Barbara, fits Judith’s definition of ‘useless’.” (Riley 312) Moreover, she behaves strangely in the evening. She is a person who brings Barbara her drops and then leaves the room “abruptly, nearly colliding with Nurse Craven in the doorway.” (156) Her words that she tells Hastings also suggest that Judith could be the murderer but they again have nothing to do with Barbara’s death: “… ‘I am the one to be forgiven.’ … ‘That’s all right. Let’s forget it. Everything’s all right now.’ ” (158) Agatha Christie thus forces readers to suspect Dr. Franklin or Judith by manipulating presented facts. They are both suspect only because Hastings unconsciously turns the table with cups of coffee, which causes that Barbara drinks a poisoned cup of coffee which was meant for Dr. Franklin. That event is described in such an inconspicuous way that only very cautious readers take notice of it. Apart from Barbara’s death, Norton’s murder is another false trace. Considering the fact that it appears to be a suicide, Norton seems to be one of X’s victims, which would mean that the dangerous murderer must be someone else. Moreover, when Poirot urges Hastings to ensure that Norton will not tell anyone about what he saw through the glasses, Norton seems to be in danger. Readers thus easily tend to believe that Stephen knew something important regarding the case and told Poirot, the murderer found it out and after killing Norton, he or she also killed Poirot. The theory is supported by Hastings’ conviction that Poirot’s death was not natural. In fact, it is just another red herring, since the detective means that there is a danger that Norton could use it to “open up an interesting new angle of the suicide case.” (233) Norton is dissatisfied when Mrs. Franklin death is claimed to be a suicide. However, if he said that it was Dr. Franklin and Judith, whom he had seen, the police could reopen the case. The shocking ending when Poirot is shown to be Stephen’s murderer is evidence of Christie’s ingenuity, since, as Singer says, “who could be more above suspicion than the hero of most Agatha Christie’s greatest works.” (Singer 168) Poirot decides to stop Norton and the only way he sees is to kill him. The detective is not sure whether he does the right thing, but he defends his action pointing out to the fact that he will save many innocent lives. However, Pyrhönen shows different point of view on Poirot’s action and sees the detective as Norton’s final victim, since “detective has not been able to think of any way of stopping the criminal other than killing him. Making the detective a murderer is the finest victory in the master criminal’s career, even though it means his own demise.” (Pyrhönen 219) Poirot has always spoken against taking the law into one’s own hands but now he is forced to do it himself. There is a question whether there is another way to stop Norton other than killing him, since it is impossible to prove Stephen’s participation in any murder which is committed under his influence. If the detective had not done it, Norton would have continued making the others commit murders. Poirot’s murder is not perfect, since he is not able to shoot Norton into the temple. However, when Norton is found with a shot “in the exact centre of his forehead” (199) and with a small pistol in the hand in his bedroom, which was closed from inside, nobody has suspicion. Stephen Norton invents a unique and imaginative way of committing murders. His method consists in using a person’s weakness and suffering to force them to kill someone who stands in their happiness. Norton thus not only chooses victims but he also selects murderers of a potential murder. He is thus untouchable by the law because a murder is actually committed by someone else. Considering other false traces which turn attention to potential suspects, Norton belongs to a group of Christie’s unlikeliest murderers. Agatha Christie uses two unique and surprising facts. Poirot turns out to be a murderer and a real murderer does not commit any murder. Conclusion The selected murderers examined in the previous chapters show some similarities but they are also different from one another. They can be compared from many aspects. The first point of view is their methods of committing their crimes. Wargrave commits murders according to the nursery rhyme and victims are killed according to a seriousness of their crimes. Each murder is a little bit different in order to comply with the nursery rhyme. He uses various known techniques such as poisoning, blow to the head, shooting and throwing down the cliff. As far as the last two victims are concerned, the judge even does not have to do anything, since they kill themselves. The judge’s plan is risky because it depends on many things. Wargrave is also lucky several times, for example the revolver does not have to fall on the floor in the way Wargrave presumes when he commits his suicide at the end. However, everything goes well and thus the judge creates an unexplained mystery. The other murderers are unlucky, since they are always revealed by Hercule Poirot. Franklin Clarke’s method is similar to Wargrave’s because he murders his victims in an alphabetical order, which can be seen as a type of a nursery rhyme. Nevertheless, Wargrave as well as Clarke only use nursery rhymes to give the impression that murders are committed by an insane murderer. Franklin also changes his ways of committing the murders. Two victims are struck into their heads, the other is strangled and the last one is stabbed. Nevertheless, his decision to change the way of committing the murders is one of the clues that lead to his revelation. Simon and Jackie devise a clever and well-timed crime. However, despite that, Simon is seen entering Mrs. Doyle’s cabin, which later on leads to other two murders which were not intended. Apart from that, they, especially Simon, make some mistakes, which result in failure of their plan. Two murders are done by Jackie, while the only intended murder is committed by Simon. Two victims are shot, while the remaining one is stabbed. There is difference between Jackie and Simon and Wargrave. While the judge does murders on the deserted island and makes sure in advance that there will be no witnesses, Simon and Jackie have to commit their murder on the boat full of people, since they need somebody else to be charged with it. Their method is thus much riskier than the judge’s one, which is proved when two of their murders are seen by witnesses. Jane Wilkinson also uses traditional methods for her crimes. She stabs two of her victims and overdoses the third one with Veronal. The reason why she decides to change her method in one case is her intention to make the police believe it was a suicide. The way of committing a murder enables Jane, Franklin, Jackie and Simon to ensure ostensibly solid alibi, while Wargrave is among suspects until his simulated death. Stephen Norton is different from the others. His murder method is perfect and even better than Wargrave’s because the judge might have been seen and revealed by any remaining person on the island. Norton uses other people as a tool for committing a murder. It is thus impossible to link him to any murder which is committed because of his clever hints. His success consists in manipulating other people’s minds, which is a similarity between his and Wargrave’s method. Even Poirot has to admit that there is no chance of proving who an actual murderer is, which forces him to kill Norton in order to save other innocent lives. Even though Norton’s method is perfect and unique, it is still the same, which is a difference from the other selected murderers, who all at least once change their techniques. On the other hand, he has no reason why he should change his method because despite of the fact that it is still the same, nobody suspects him. However, while Norton himself always uses the same technique, murders committed under Norton’s influence are done in various ways. What is even more interesting, Norton himself does not know how a murder will be committed. Mrs. Wilkinson, Clarke and Wargrave need an accomplice who is not aware of being a part of a murder plan. Simon and Jackie, on the other hand, commit the murders together, while Norton does not need any help, since he himself does not commit any murder. However, it is necessary for him to persuade a person to murder somebody else. If he was not capable of doing so, there would be no murders. The second aspect is a motive. Jackie and Simon, Franklin Clarke and Jane Wilkinson commit murders for their own benefit. However, Jackie would not have done it had it not been for Simon. He is so obsessed with an idea of inheriting his wife’s money that Jackie fears he will do something stupid. That is a reason why she decides to devise the murder plan. Therefore, her real reason why she decides to kill Linnet is to protect Simon. Clarke, like Simon, is also obsessed with money, while Jane commits three murders only because her new love must not marry a divorced woman. Wargrave is a judge obsessive about justice. He wants to punish people who committed crimes but were not condemned for them. Another reason is his desire for a perfect murder. The judge has wanted to do it since his youth and his illness gives him courage to satisfy his craving. Norton’s motive is just fun. He has been ignored since his childhood but he early discovered his ability to manipulate other people and force them to do something that they would never do without his influence. He finds pleasure in it, since it is a way he can assert himself. Norton and Lawrence thus commit their murders primarily because of obsession and self-satisfaction. The third aspect is their personalities. Wargrave coolly kills ten people to reach justice and then commits a suicide, since then he is also a criminal and thus he needs to be punished too. Nevertheless, he dies satisfied that he managed to create an inexplicable mystery. The judge takes advantage of his natural authority, knowledge of human psychology and experience with daily talking to people, which helps him carry out the plan successfully. His choice of a nursery rhyme as an inspiration for murders shows his playfulness. As Wargrave himself said, he could not kill innocent people, which shows his morality. On the other hand, he does not realize that even judge cannot take the law into his own hands and makes decisions about lives of the others according to his judgment. However, his differentiation of good people from bad people distinguishes him from the other chosen murderers. Norton heartlessly chooses not only victims but also their murderers who can also be seen as victims of Norton’s influence and hints. Stephen does not care at all whether a person whom he chooses is somehow immoral or bad. The only thing he is interested in is whether a person has some weaknesses and thus he or she could be an easy target of his manipulation. He is, without any doubt, the most serious and most dangerous murderer. Norton enjoys violence, fear, suspicion and brutality. It is like a drug for him, which means that he needs to do it all the time. Even completely innocent people may succumb to Norton and do something wrong. He is a hidden evil and there is no way he can be stopped but his own death. Poirot knows it and that is why he decides to take the law into his own hands, like Wargrave, and kills Norton. The detective is not sure whether he did the right thing but he knows he saved many other innocent lives. Franklin Clarke and Jane Wilkinson are very similar to each other as far as their personalities are concerned. Clarke is selfish and cruel, since he murders three innocent people to cover a single murder of his brother and he also wants to sacrifice Cust. Franklin does not feel sorry for victims and their relatives at all. His only concern is to ensure that Cust will be charged and he will inherit brother’s fortune. Like Norton, Clarke is also not interested who his victims are and whether they do something wrong. As far as the comparison between Clarke and Wargrave is concerned, Wargrave’s advantage consists in his knowledge of human psychology, which is, on the contrary, one of the main reasons why Franklin’s plan fails. Too random selection of victims reveals Poirot that the murderer is not a madman as Clarke tries to persuade him. Another difference between them is their willingness to take the risk. Clarke’s exaggerated caution leads to revelation of his plan, while judge’s risky plan works perfectly because he is able to capture the right moment for his murders. Jane Wilkinson only pursues her own interest too. She knows in advance that she needs to kill two people to carry out her plan. In the end, she is forced to commit another murder because of her mistake. She thus shares many features with Clarke. Like him, she is able to do anything to achieve her goal. Simon and Jackie, on the other hand, only want to kill Linnet but because of their misfortune, they are forced to do two more murders. If they had succeeded in Linnet’s murder and nobody had seen them, they would not have continued in committing murders. Simon is able to do anything to gain his wife’s money and kills Linnet without any remorse. Jackie herself admits that she could not kill Mrs. Doyle in her sleep, which means that she is not so ruthless as Simon. However, when their plan is in danger, she is willing to kill two people. Jackie is also much cleverer than Simon, whose stupidity is one of the reasons why their plan is revealed. The last aspect is a reason why murderers seem to be innocent. A typical Agatha Christie’s murderer is usually someone who seems to have solid alibi or is so inconspicuous that attention is turned to other potential murderers. Agatha Christie’s method consists in manipulating information and facts presented in the novels and other false traces which are supposed to divert readers’ attention from the right solution. Jackie and Simon would be the most suspicious characters if they did not have ostensibly solid alibi and thus there appears to be no way they could have done Linnet’s murder. Other false traces are then supposed to turn attention of readers to other suspects. Lord Edgware Dies is very similar in this respect. Jane Wilkinson would be the most suspected person in the novel if she did not seem to have solid alibi. However, Agatha Christie cleverly manipulates facts in order to persuade readers that Jane was at the party, while a woman who came to her husband’s place Carlotta. Jane and Jackie say that they would like to murder a person who is later really murdered and even in such a way they said. Readers tend to believe it to be a red herring which is supposed to make them think that Jane and Jackie are murderers. If readers tend to think it to be a false trace, they believe that a murderer must be someone else because it would be too obvious if a murderer says in advance how they commit a murder. Therefore, readers eliminate Jackie and Jane from potential suspects, even though they are really murderers. Christie also uses her manipulating facts and events in And Then There Were None and Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case. It is more obvious in the latter, where some statements of characters are deliberately said at the moment when readers tend to relate them to murders, although their real meaning is completely different. Because of that, Dr. Franklin and Judith seem to be the most suspected persons, while Norton appears to be innocent. Moreover, Christie uses Norton’s death to conclusively divert attention from him, since his murder is done in such a way that he seems to be one of X’s victims. The same deception is used in And Then There Were None, where, however, Wargrave’s death is at first simulated. He actually dies as the last person on the island. Franklin Clarke uses letters to ensure himself alibi. The letters connect all murders A.B.C. commits and at the same time exclude victims’ relatives including Clarke from suspicion. Therefore, he is not among suspects at all, while Christie gives the impression that a murderer is Cust. While Jane is hidden behind male identity, Clarke hides behind an insane murderer. To conclude, Norton method is the most innovative and perfect in terms of impossibility of its actual murderer’s revelation. Wargrave’s technique works because of his ideal traits necessary for carrying out the plan and of the fact that everything goes perfectly. Jane Wilkinson’s murder plan contains a number of deceits. Jackie and Simon commit the riskiest and bravest murder because it is done on the boat full of people. The most significant feature of Clarke’s method is the fact that he is not among suspects at all because of his cautious and careful way of committing murders. Even though Agatha Christie uses the same tricks and patterns in her novels, she modifies it and uses it in a different way and thus it is not easy even for experienced readers to reveal the truth. Christie’s success consists in her experimentation with possibilities that the genre of detective stories provides. The best example is Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case, in which murders are not committed by an actual murderer and even Hercule Poirot is shown to be a murderer. Christie also creates a lot of red herrings and deceptions which divert readers from the right solution. To find out who a murderer is, it is necessary to read her novels carefully and think about what it is read, otherwise it is easy to be deceived by Christie’s tricks. Works Cited Primary sources:
Secondary sources:
Summary The aim of the thesis is to examine murderers and their methods of committing murders in chosen detective stories by Agatha Christie - Lord Edgware Dies, The ABC Murders, Death on the Nile, And Then There Were None, and Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case – and compare them from different aspects. The thesis also points out to an important element which is typical of Christie’s novels. A murderer is usually someone who is either inconspicuous or has solid alibi. The first part of the thesis is divided into five chapters which explore murderers’ personalities, motives, their ways of committing murders and mistakes they make. Each chapter also points out to the way Agatha Christie manipulates readers and diverts them from a real murderer. Among those deceptions is an intentional misinterpretation of presented facts and false traces which often have nothing to do with a murder itself. The second part of the thesis compares the individual murderers and shows their similarities and differences. Resumé Cílem práce je charakteristika a porovnání vrahů a jejich způsobů, kterými spáchali vraždy ve vybraných detektivkách od Agathy Christie (Smrt Lorda Edgwara, Vraždy podle abecedy, Smrt na Nilu, Deset malých černoušků a Opona: Poirotův poslední případ). Práce rovněž upozorňuje na důležitý prvek typický pro romány Agathy Christie. Tímto prvkem je skutečnost, že vrahem je většinou ten, kdo je nejméně podezřelý, nebo má dokonalé alibi. První část práce je rozdělena do pěti kapitol, jejichž cílem je charakteristika osobností vrahů, jejich motivů, způsobů spáchání vražd a chyb, kterých se dopustili. Každá kapitola rovněž poukazuje na způsoby, jakými Agatha Christie manipuluje se čtenáři a odvádí je od skutečného vraha. Mezi ně patří záměrně nesprávný výklad uváděných faktů a falešné stopy, které často nemají nic společného se samotnou vraždou. Druhá část práce porovnává jednotlivé postavy vrahů a poukazuje na jejich podobnosti a odlišnosti. Download 129.16 Kb. Share with your friends:
|