Have Your Say

Miscellaneous

Please use this area for any Topics you feel don't fit in with other areas of the forum.

Ways AC used to surpise us

(Contains spoilers!)

Lone_Wolf 07 Feb 09 at 7:29 p.m. GMT

This contains spoiler information. Show

I'd like to talk more about the phenomena of AC surprising plot twists in the end and what actually makes them surprising. Why do we sometimes easily guess the murderer in one novel, but the ending of some other novel takes us completely by surprize?

Of course, the discussion would be pretty spoilery. Read at your own risk.

When we first begin reading AC, we are still naive and think that if a character is the least likely person to commit murder, he, most likely, didn't commit it. But soon we realize that, in that twisted world of Dame Agatha, the opposite is true - the outward likehood of a character being the criminal is inversely proportional to his chance of being revealed as such in the end.

But we sometimes still fall for the trap and don't even consider the possibility of someone being a criminal 'till he is revealed.

Why? What psychological tricks Agatha Christie uses to deceive us?

Sometimes she liked to subvert cliched tropes which are not traditionally subverted - like the "Love Triangle" trope, which was subverted in different ways in Five Little Pigs and Death On The Nile, each of which begins with what seems to be a classic love triangle of a gullible man, deceiving temptess and suffering rejected woman.

Any other ideas about the psychological tricks AC used? Why did the ending of a particular novel managed to surprise you?

Login or register to add posts and reply

7 replies

Reverse order

Attica76 30 Jan 10 at 5:41 p.m. GMT

That's a very good list above.

I'd only like to add one point - when we're told what the murderer is thinking (not directly incriminating, of course) along with all other suspects. When I sort of get into their head it lulls me into a false sense of security.

HeiseiHolmes 29 Jan 10 at 3:48 p.m. GMT

I solve them sometimes, but sometimes in doing this I look so much into everything that I can't enjoy the natural storytelling of the books.

hobbit 16 Feb 09 at 5:24 p.m. GMT

I was a little apprehensive about writing so much, but I honestly feel there's still a lot more to say on this topic. To read my post-mortem of AC's various techniques you'd think she was a lame writer who relied on stunts and cheap gimmicks to surprise her reader - which is absolutely not the case. Most of the time the solution is (relatively!) straightforward...and yet I always struggle to guess the killer. Actually who am I kidding? I almost NEVER guess the killer.

Now I don't think of myself as particularly stupid, so other than the reader's natural disinclination to guess the murderer, which I touched upon briefly, I really can't think of any logical reason as to why this might be the case. It's a bit of a mystery, if you'll pardon the pun.

Hobbit

squatty 15 Feb 09 at 11:28 a.m. GMT

Brilliant post Hobbit - I think you've picked up all the major plot devices. I would just add one more. There have been a few occassions where a major character has been apparently missing from the murder scene, whilst most of the other suspects are there. It often transpires that the "missing"person was there all along, either in disguise or through some cunning twist of times. There are also a couple of books where AC actually reveals the soultion very early on but it is dismissed or hidden away amongst a load of other information. I also agree that AC understood the psychology of her readers. I dont think she would have had the enduring apppeal if the reader was always able to work out the villan.

hobbit 09 Feb 09 at 9:47 p.m. GMT

In addition to these plot devices there are also several other factors which I feel aid Agatha Christie in her mission to dupe the reader. Firstly, the reader often doesn't want to guess who did it (as that can really spoil the book) and so deliberately makes only a very weak attempt to logically assemble the facts. I know I am very guilty of doing this. Also the reader may often disregard information which doesn't seem to make sense; this is almost always because it singularly ruins the 'case' which the reader has assembled in his or her mind. However this sort of disregarding is illogical, as it is the very facts which do not make sense that are integral to solving the mystery. Oh, and of course the speed at which most people read is often such that not every single detail is picked up on straight away – which plays straight into AC’s hands!

I’m sure there are many other techniques used, and hopefully this topic will get quite a few more thoughtful responses!

Hobbit

hobbit 09 Feb 09 at 9:46 p.m. GMT

3) The murderer makes themselves the obvious suspect...and then is made (by a false piece of evidence) above suspicion. This device I have a problem with, as I sort of feel it's cheating. If I were ever to commit a murder (which I cannot envisage as a likely occurrence) then the last thing I would do is bury myself in unnecessary suspicion, even if it were all part of a 'master plan'. A good example of this is in 'Murder at the Vicarage' where the killer takes an incredible risk, seemingly void of any sensible logic.

4) False identity leaves the killer with an apparent absence of motive. There are countless examples of this throughout AC's work and, as long as there is sufficient evidence to deduce that the killer is working under a false identity, I have no problem with this. When coupled with another of the plot devices above it can make guessing the murderer almost impossible.

5) There are two murderers working in partnership. I personally also view this as cheating. The cards are already stacked in the author's favour when it comes to guessing the killer - using such a plot device can create a web so elaborate untangling it is utterly impossible. However I do accept it can make for some of the most surprising reveals in crime novels.

hobbit 09 Feb 09 at 9:45 p.m. GMT

What an interesting question! I think there are so many different aspects to it, its difficult to know where to begin. You're correct, naivety will initially play a part. However even the most experienced Christie reader is, I believe, pretty unlikely to guess many solutions. Obviously there is a clear method for guessing the killer, to which your post alluded: simply pick the most unlikely suspect (or indeed character, which may be a more appropriate description of many of AC's murderers). I believe Agatha Christie herself admitted that this method works '9 times out of 10'. However it's often easier said than done. Here are some of the plot devices which I believe you will NEVER guess on your first encounter with them. 1) The murderer pretends to be the intended victim. There is one very famous example of this (which I shan't announce for spoiler purposes), as well as two others which I can think of off-hand, however there may well be more. I think it was a fairly original idea of AC's, at least to the extent that she used it, and will almost certainly deceive you on the first read. 2) The murderer works alongside/is the detective. Again a couple of obvious examples springs to mind, but i feel confident in saying AC recycled this plot device many a time. I think this trick works particularly well because it 'plays against' the typical crime novel - indeed it works against all the traditions of the genre. At the time it was written the idea was particularly unusual.