Narrator in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd answer

The narrator of Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is Doctor James Sheppard. There is no
introduction of Sheppard in the beginning of the novel but the reader finds out more about him as
the story develops. He has a sister named Caroline Sheppard, who is really good at tapping into
the gossip and finding out what happens in the little village where they live. The reader also
learns that Dr. Sheppard’s hobby is gardening, tinkering with small technical devices and playing
Mah Jong. During the major part of the narrative, except in the last two chapters, Dr. Sheppard is
a very respectable character. The other characters in the novel describe and treat him with
respect. He enjoys a high degree of trust from all the other characters, and a good social standing
in the community.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd belongs to the detective genre, which brings with it certain
preconceived assumptions by the reader. Dr. Sheppard narrates the story in first person meaning
that the information about the events and investigation are focalized through him. Readers with
some knowledge of literature theory will know that a first person narrator raises issues of
trustworthiness. Dr. Sheppard’s personal narration becomes the truth as it is the only narration
given to the reader. Dr. Sheppard’s voice dominates the whole narrative, but sometimes in a very
discreet way. The domination of the narrative is of course an active choice from the author,
which in turn enables the self-conscious narrator to deceive the reader. His own character is very
subtle and he does not openly express strong ideas or opinions about others. He is in fact so
subtle that it, at some points, is easy to forget that the story is really told in first-person. This
further enhances the seeming omniscience. This deceptive omniscience of the narration
contributes to the reliability of Dr. Sheppard since he can be unreliable without it being spotted
by the reader.
Everything that is to be documented in the novel requires Dr. Sheppard to be present, or the
events have to be reported to Dr. Sheppard by someone else. At some times this leads to
awkward motivations to include Sheppard. One example of this is when Poirot wants to go to
Cranchester to interview Ursula Bourne’s previous employer. He invites Dr. Sheppard to come
along, for no particular reason. Sheppard also admits to this problem when he later says: “As I
say, up till the Monday evening, my narrative might have been that of Poirot himself”. If the
novel was narrated by Poirot, the murderer could not benefit from the advantages of being the
narrator. Since it is really Dr. Sheppard who decides what is included or not, the author needs to
provide some kind of assurance for the reader that Dr. Sheppard is reliable. It is one of the
mechanisms employed by Christie in order to steer suspicion away from Dr. Sheppard.
The investigative technique of Hercule becomes evident where Poirot asks Dr. Sheppard about
the man he met when he left Fernly Park on the night of the murder. This scene takes place in the
novel after the investigation has started and Fernly Park is examined by the police and Poirot.
The police clearly suspect Ralph Paton of the murder; there is no suspicion directed at Dr.
Sheppard and there have been no direct clues for the reader to suspect Dr. Sheppard either. Poirot
and Dr. Sheppard are standing in the place where Dr. Sheppard met the man on the night of the
murder: ‘You say it was nine o’clock, Dr. Sheppard, when you met this stranger outside the
gate?’ ‘Yes,’ I replied. ‘I heard the church clock chime the hour.’ ‘How long would it take him to
reach the house – to reach this window for instance?’ ‘Five minutes at the outside. Two or three
minutes only if he took the path at the right of the drive and came straight here.’ This scene on its
own does not show what is at stake. Here Dr. Sheppard is actually telling the truth and is not
omitting any information. He believes that he is talking about the stranger he met outside Fernly
park right after he murdered Roger Ackroyd, and not about his own role in the murder. What
might not be obvious to the reader is that the reason Poirot is asking, is that he has discovered a
gap in Dr. Sheppard’s alibi.
Another scene where the deception from Dr. Sheppard will be more obvious is when Dr.
Sheppard is at Poirot’s house and they are talking things over. This is in the middle of the novel
so the investigation is still ongoing. Sheppard asks Poirot what he thinks about the case and
Poirot talks about how he tries to find the truth in everything: - Dr. Sheppard leaves the house at
ten minutes to nine. How do I know that?’ ‘Because I told you so.’ ‘But you might not be telling
the truth – or the watch you went by might be wrong.” Poirot’s comment hints that Dr. Sheppard
is being treated as a suspect as well, and that he might not be reliable. This is an important clue
for the reader, and one that could actually help the reader solve the mystery. From a narrative
perspective the interesting point is how spreading out the information in the way that Christie
does here makes it possible to have the truth present and still undetected by the reader.
Dr. Sheppard’s helpfulness signals his reliability to the reader. If Dr. Sheppard would refuse to
help Poirot, it would seem like he has something to hide, which would in turn make him seem
like a suspicious character. The helpfulness is therefore bonding unreliability. The problem that
the character of Dr. Sheppard poses when examining whether his unreliability is detectable is
that his deception is so subtle and designed to be undetected until the last two chapters of the
novel. This is a narrative strategy that is designed by Christie; the purpose is to surprise the
unsuspecting reader. When Dr. Sheppard presents his documentation to Poirot at the end of the
novel, Poirot comments: ‘A very meticulous and accurate account,’ he said kindly. ‘You have
recorded all the facts faithfully and exactly – though you have shown yourself becomingly
reticent as to your own share in them.’ This has partly to do with the deceptive omniscience of
his narrative, as discussed before, but here the word “reticent” stands out. It means to be silent or
uncommunicative, and can be interpreted as if Dr. Sheppard has left things out when it comes to
his share in the events, which is exactly what he has done. Poirot’s comment could be seen as a
clue not to trust Dr. Sheppard.
Near the end of the novel, Poirot explains what he thinks about the reason for the murder and
what kind of man the murderer is. Poirot gives a rather lengthy but very accurate description of
Dr. Sheppard’s motives for the murder of Roger Ackroyd and blackmailing of Mrs. Ferrars. The
description ends: “He was silent for a moment. It was as though he had laid a spell upon the
room. I cannot try to describe the impression his words produced”. In this quote the omission lies
in the last sentence. What is omitted is simply what Dr. Sheppard feels about this, because if he
were to describe what he felt, he would give himself away. In the final section Poirot asks Dr.
Sheppard to stay behind to talk with him. When Poirot has revealed his proof against Dr.
Sheppard a few pages later he gives the following reason for his earlier warning: “But, for the
sake of your good sister, I am willing to give you the chance of another way out. There might be
for instance, and overdose of sleeping draught.” The emotional bond which has been built during
the novel would cause the reader to feel sorry for Dr. Sheppard as it is now suggested that he
should commit suicide. This unreliability is bonding in the way that it is used to close the gap
between the reader and the narrator. The bonding unreliability draws the reader into the
narrator’s world and could even make the reader feel like an accomplice to Dr. Sheppard. When
in the last few pages Dr. Sheppard chooses to take his own life the reader might even feel sorry
for him, that it has to end in that way.
PARAPHRASED ANSWER (NOT REQUIRED. REFER TO ORIGINAL)

The narrator of Christie's The Murder of Roger Akroyd is Doctor James Sheppard. Sheppard is not
introduced at the beginning of the book, but the reader can find out more about him as the storey
unfolds. He's got a sister called Caroline Sheppard, who's very good at tuning into the gossip and finding
out what's going on in the little village where they live. The reader also discovers that Dr. Sheppard's
hobby is gardening, tinkering with small mechanical equipment, and playing Mah Jong. Dr. Sheppard is a
rather decent character in the main part of the novel, except in the last two chapters. The other
characters in the novel have defined and treated him with respect. He enjoys a high level of confidence
from all the other characters and a strong social status in the society.
The murder of Roger Akroyd belongs to the mystery genre, which carries with it certain preconceived
ideas of the reader. Dr. Sheppard narrates the storey in the first person, suggesting that knowledge
about the events and the investigation is focused through him. Readers with any experience of literature
theory will know that the first-person narrator poses questions of trustworthiness. The personal
narration of Dr. Sheppard becomes the reality, as it is the only narration provided to the reader. Dr.
Sheppard's voice dominates the whole storey, but also in a rather subtle way. The domination of the
narrative is, of course, an active choice on the part of the speaker, which in turn allows the self-
conscious narrator to mislead the reader. His own character is very subtle and does not directly share
strong thoughts or views about others. In reality, he's so subtle that, at some points, it's easy to forget
that the storey is actually told in the first person. This further strengthens the apparent omniscience.
This manipulative omniscience of storytelling adds to Dr. Sheppard's authenticity, as he can be
unreliable without being detected by the reader.
Anything that is to be documented in the novel requires that Dr. Sheppard be present, or that someone
else can report the events to Dr. Sheppard. This often leads to uncomfortable motivations to include
Sheppard. An example of this is when Poirot wants to go to Cranchester to interview Ursula Bourne's
former employer. He asks Dr. Sheppard to come along for no special reason. Sheppard also admits to
this dilemma when he later says, "As I said, until Monday night, my storey may have been that of Poirot
himself." If the storey was narrated by Poirot, the killer could not take advantage of being the narrator.
Since it is actually Dr. Sheppard who determines what is included or not, the author needs to provide
some sort of guarantee to the reader that Dr. Sheppard is trustworthy. It is one of the methods used by
Christie to remove doubt from Dr. Sheppard.

Hercule's investigation strategy becomes clear where Poirot asks Dr. Sheppard about the man he
encountered when he left Fernly Park on the night of the murder. This scene takes place in the novel
after the investigation has begun and Fernly Park is investigated by the police and Poirot. It is clear that
the police accuse Ralph Paton of the murder; there is no suspicion of Dr. Sheppard and there is no direct
clue for the reader to suspect Dr. Sheppard. Poirot and Dr. Sheppard are standing in the spot where Dr.
Sheppard met the man on the night of the murder: 'You mean it was 9 o'clock, Dr. Sheppard, when you
met this stranger outside the gate?' 'Yes,' I said. 'I heard the clock in the church chime the hour.' 'How
long does it take him to get to the door, to enter this window, for example?' 'Five minutes outside. It
was just two or three minutes if he took the road to the right of the drive and came right here.' This
scene does not reveal what is at stake on its own. In fact, Dr. Sheppard is telling the truth here and does
not omit any detail. He claims he's talking about the stranger he met outside of Fernly Park right after
Roger Ackroyd was murdered, not about his own part in the murder. What may not be clear to the
reader is that the reason Poirot asks is that he has found a loophole in Dr. Sheppard's alibi.
Another scene where Dr. Sheppard's deceit is going to be more evident is when Dr. Sheppard is at
Poirot's house and they're talking about stuff. It's in the middle of the book, so the case is still underway.
Sheppard asks Poirot what he thinks of the case, and Poirot speaks about how he is trying to find the
truth of everything:-Dr. Sheppard leaves the house ten minutes to nine. How am I supposed to know
that?" 'Because I said so to you.' 'But you might not be telling the truth, or the watch you went through
may be wrong.' Poirot's remark indicates that Dr. Sheppard is being viewed as a suspect, and that he
may not be credible. This is an interesting hint to the reader, and one that might potentially help the
reader solve the mystery. From a narrative viewpoint, the important point is how to spread the facts in
the way that Christie does here makes it possible for the reader to have the reality present and yet
undetected.
The helpfulness of Dr. Sheppard signals his honesty to the reader. If Dr. Sheppard refused to support
Poirot, it would appear like he had something to hide, which would make him seem like a suspicious
character. As a result, the helpfulness is bonding unreliability. The problem that Dr. Sheppard's
character raises when investigating if his unreliability is observable is that his deceit is too subtle and
intended to be undetected until the last two chapters of the novel. This is a narrative technique crafted
by Christie; the aim is to surprise the unsuspected reader. When Dr. Sheppard presented his
documentation to Poirot at the end of the book, Poirot said: 'A rather careful and detailed account,' he
said kindly. 'You have listed all the facts faithfully and precisely – even though you have shown yourself
to be reticent about your own share of them.' This has to do, in part, with the false omniscience of his
narration, as mentioned above, but here the word "reticent" stands out. It means to be quiet or
uncommunicative, and it can be viewed as if Dr. Sheppard left something out when it comes to his share
of events, which is exactly what he did. Poirot's remark could be seen as a clue not to trust Dr.
Sheppard.
At the end of the book, Poirot reveals what he feels about the cause of the murder and what kind of guy
the killer is. Poirot provides a very lengthy but rather detailed explanation of Dr. Sheppard's motivations
for the murder of Roger Akroyd and the extortion of Mrs. Ferrars. The summary concludes: "For a
moment he was quiet. It was as though he had put a spell on the bed. I can't try to explain the
impression that his words made." In this quotation, the omission is in the last sentence. What is
excluded is clearly what Dr. Sheppard thinks about it, and if he were to explain what he felt, he would
give himself away. In the final part, Poirot asks Dr. Sheppard to stay behind to speak to him. When
Poirot revealed his evidence against Dr. Sheppard a few pages later, he gave the following explanation
for his earlier warning: "Still, for your good sister's sake, I am willing to give you a chance for another
way out. There may be, for example, an overdose of sleeping draught." The emotional bond that was
formed throughout the novel would make the reader feel sorry for Dr. Sheppard, as it is now implied
that he should commit suicide. This unreliability is bonding in the way it is used to close the distance
between the reader and the narrator. The bonding unreliability pulls the reader into the world of the
narrator, and may even make the reader feel like an accomplice to Dr. Sheppard. If, in the last few
pages, Dr. Sheppard decides to take his own life, the reader may even feel sorry for him, that it has to
end in that way.