The Murder of Roger Ackroyd question

At one point it did occur to me, but then I thought nah. This was my first experience with the unreliable narrator device, and I'll admit that I was kind of in shock for about a week afterwards.

I didn't guess Dr. Sheppard, but right at the beginning it bothered me that no one really questioned him. I think he received very little scrutiny from the police, and, after it was revealed that he was the last to see Ackroyd alive (disregarding the unaccountable voice-recording), I got really suspicious, but my bias to leave the narrator be only made me wonder at the competency of the investigators. I definitely never believed that Ackroyd had talked to anyone after Sheppard, but I can't say why I thought that.

I suspected the narrator only when Poirot asked for the papers ... As I know Poirot , it was the 1st time that he asked for the memories ...but really it was a surprise and I thought that I was now big enough to discover the murderer ...But Agatha was again and again greater

no, i couldn`t. that`s why i was so angry at agatha christie as the book ended up that way. i felt like a fool:)

This is the only Agatha Christie book in which I DID gues who the killer was!

No, but she doesn't give you enough information to guess it either. That's why my friend, who loves Mary Higgins Clark said she dislikes Agatha Christie.
She simply doesn't understand how British people write. J.K Rowling does the same but she's not writing a murder mystery thinking an American will expect to solve it because of how American mystery authors write.

oh god no, I was so surprised xD

I did actually guess. I think that's one reason why I like this book so much: Both because I thought it was a clever twist, and because I felt clever for figuring it out. ;)

I've got to say, this was the only Agatha Christie book that I ever solved before reading the end, and I didn't even think it was that difficult.

To be fair, I was reading some books back then that made me intensely paranoid about the narrator. I was lucky to be in that state of mind for this one.

I'm not going to lie, I did watch the show a few months before I read the book. The first time I read it, I didn't think he was the murderer until the very end. It wasn't obvious at all. It was a very surprising ending.

Great God no....the ending blew me away...a real masterpiece by AC :)

The copy I had claimed on the back cover that I would never guess who did it, so I opened it up, saw it was in first person, and immediately thought "It must be the narrator." I was actually really disappointed I was right. I don't know if I would have thought of it if it hadn't been for that though -- whoever wrote the copy for the back should feel ashamed XD

I guessed it a number of times while reading the book mainly because of the fact that it would gonna be the most shocking truth possible there and there was no as such proof in the proceedings that it's impossible, and for the same reason had put that aside with the thought that "No! This can't be!"

I dontn't get how could someone guess that the Dr. was the murdere? Is there any clue? Frankly speaking I failed to guess it right...

This was the first Agatha Christie novel I had ever read. I acutal read it as a part of the required reading for a college course called Detective Fiction. I was completely surprised at the ending! I also became hooked on Agatha Christie mystery novels. She is the Queen of Mystery and Suspense!

Nope couldn't guess it. No chance I knew who was it.

Excellent book, with great characters and detalied plot. It wasn't the only one in which the narrator was the murderer, nevertheless - Endless Night it's the same.

I suspected a few people along the way, and even suspected the real culprit. I was very suspicious when Poirot gathered all the "suspects" into a room, but I was never sure of it.

I had slight doubts, particularly since Piorot came up to Dr. Sheppard's House and inquired Caroline about him.
Also, this was my second novel from Agatha, first being the Mysterious Affairs At Styles, in which Piorot much shares many of his theories with Hastings which particularly wasn't with Dr. Sheppard.

Totally took me by surprise. This is in fact one of my favourite book.

I thought the Dr. might have done it 3/4 of the way into the book. I looked for the most unlikely person who could have done it and based on the interactions between Poirot and Dr Sheppard and yes his notes, I guessed it might have been the good doctor. My only skepticism was regarding the person who made the phone call. the doctor was home when he received the so-called phone call. Now we know how he managed that. Really good book.

I did not know but croossed my mind. Witn A Christie I expect anything...

You don't often read a book where the ending is such a surprised - it kept my interest from beginning to end.

Nope, never would've guessed.

no nt at all it was sooo surprising i was shocked how could anyone expect that the narrator is the killer !!
impressive end i loved it

dr. sheppard 'seemed' so innocent except the last chapter

This was one that I figured out relatively early on.

(Not always the way with these novels despite my having been a senior criminal investigator of complex domestic and multinational cases at the federal level for more than 20 years.)

I sort of unintentionally found out who did it before getting to the plot twist. While reading it I felt inspired to come up with a similar story. I guess reading a key phrase within the work sparked my imagination. I thought, "Hmm, wouldn't it be a neat twist if in my story the .... was the killer all along!" and then I got to the scene where Poirot asks the killer to admit they did it followed by him personally confronting him. I had the same idea. So I'm not going to write the story I guess. haha.

I was correct in guessing that Sheppard was involved in the murder to some extent, though I thought that both Sheppard and Ralph were in kahoots...the two red flags for me came towards the beginning, the first being when Sheppard met with Ralph at the inn the afternoon. The sudden jump-cut mid-conversation to a scene later in the day convinced me that Sheppard was withholding information from the reader. The second was the failure to key the reader into his visit to the inn after he left Fernley that night. My theory was bolstered when Poirot began to act shifty around Shepphard, fielding him off to do pointless activities, and as he began to get more opinion from Caroline. A final thought that crossed my mind was that as Sheppard was the town doctor, he would've most certainly performed the autopsy on Mr. Ferrars, knowing the cause of death to be murder, hence having motivation to blackmail Mrs. Ferrars.

Unfortunately, I knew all the way through. I think I heard "you'll never guess who it is" so many times that I figured the unlikeliest person would be the narrator, and so in effect I spoiled myself.

It was an idea that bounced around my head several times while reading the book but it was never an idea I committed to. It was more of a “wow wouldn’t that be a cool thing for an author to do one day but I don’t know how it would work/ how someone could pull it off.” So I guess that’s on me for doubting Agatha Christie. It wasn’t an “I KNEW IT MOMENT” because I never let myself seriously consider it. Which Agatha in her genius was counting on.

I guess I was always suspicious of Dr. Sheppards story on some level. I definitely thought it was weird that he spent so much time telling a story about him opening and closing a desk. I thought it was a little bit odd that Poirot attached himself to Sheppard so soon while still including him in the “someone’s lying” speeches. I thought it was weird that he wasn’t overtly looking for Ralph. But frankly every thing that Hercule Poirot does is odd and inexplicable on some level.

Mostly what set me off was that Sheppard seemed off in some way from the beginning (mostly in regards to his sister and the fact that he acted like certain things that were obviously suspicious weren’t taken as suspect to him even tho he noticed them enough to record, Mrs. Russels visit for example, which was just odd to me) and that was kicked into high gear when it was revealed that the story being told was his writing/ his version of events. Because it was notable and NOTICED by Poirot that this was his story and that he had left things out.

While reading this novel I had an aha-erlebnis four chapters before the end. I made a list of suspects, motives, opportunity and alibis, and came to the conclusion that nobody could have done it. Then I saw it all of a sudden, and went back to previous chapters to see my theory confirmed. Since then it has become a rule in reading Agatha Christie that I have to guess the murderer four chapters before the end.

I did actually. It just randomly crossed my mind 'what if it was him?' and the rest of the story made me more and more sure. The only thing I didn't know how to explain was the phone call.

I loved the bookThe Murder of Roger Ackroyd. But I was able to guess that Dr.Sheppard did it (Maybe because of the few review lines that I glanced through where It was said that there is a mind-blowing twist in the end or maybe because of the similar plots in movies/series ). I read with the thought that Dr.Sheppard murdered Roger Ackroyd from almost half of the book. I have continued further only to learn about the plot of the murder. I felt there were not many weighted characters (felt important) to shift the blame of murder as well. Nevertheless, It was a good book.

This is probably one of my favorite of Christie's books. I had no idea while reading it but once it was revealed it was a huge ah ha moment which I loved, very few books have given me one. I always argue with my dad who says he knew it from like chapter 3 (I think he just likes to push my buttons). But the concept of an unreliable narrator was so great!

I was both shocked and annoyed the first time I read it then on a site someone said look at what isn't said and the unanswered questions and unfinished sentances then you realise it is solvable and possible to get to the right conclusion.

I realized who it was a paragraph before the big reveal, which came after heavy hinting from Poirot and a distant recollection of a Wikipedia article about the author.
I can not begin to describe to you the levels of dread I felt at the moment of the realization. Here was a character I liked and never once suspected!
I do not like the book any less, in fact I feel I like it more. It was clever, though I hope to never read a book with that twist again.

I'm usually hopeless at working out the culprit but in this story the "surprise" almost had me fall out of my chair!

I absolutely had no idea. It was a big shock. I was only 14 then .

I had NO idea it was coming. Could not have guessed the ending if my life had depended on it. Once I really thought about it, there were clues and everything lined up. I've never been able to guess the outcome in any Agatha Christie book (or other mysteries, for that matter). I guess I'll just have to read more of them. ;)

Honestamente, me quedé con cara de estúpido viendo cómo Poirot resolvía en mi cara el caso jajajajja.
Estuvo en frente todo el tiempo, quedé en shock jajajajaj

A few months before I started this book, some one accidently told me that the murderer in one of Christie's best book turns out to be the narrator itself. But never while reading Murder of Roger Ackroyd I suspected it to be the same book! And hence was saved from the worst spoiler ever. Kudos to her writing.

Don't feel bad, I didn't have a clue. One of her better tricks.

That was one of the best- not to say the best book i've ever read. And the ending, it was shocking. I can say that i thought it might be sheppard, but then i coulnt figure out how he did it, so i abandoned the idea. And then BAM i was right - and i loved it

Haha, I had absolutely no idea.

While reading I accidentally dropped the book and a page from the last chapter opened up and even though I tried to close my eyes really fast I still managed to see a couple of words.

I was ... happy. Cause I was certain I hadn't been spoiled. Because the meaning I thought I had seen seemed to imply that the narrator was the murderer. I even wrote a blog post about how silly it would be if it was true... and then I read the end and felt like the world's dumbest person.

So I had no clue.
And that's unusual. I'm one of those people who have trouble with mystery/crime fiction cause I guess who the murderer is pretty soon and then it's not the same.
But I have never solved a Christie mystery. Most likely because every single one of the characters has motives in every murder mystery :p

I vowed that I would guess, but I couldn't. The person was above suspicion for me. I analyzed all the characters except him, and some of my theories were correct. But I mean, (view spoiler)[ who can we trust if not the narrator? How do we even know what the story was if we doubt the truthfulness of the narrator? (hide spoiler)]

I didn't know who it was! Some others might say that she was cheating, but she did give clues, and if one reads back, they're right there in plain sight. And the character's personality doesn't clash horribly with the idea of murder.

She interwove. She gave clues. Like Poirot said, we were given all the facts, and it was up to us to see if we could figure it out. Don't feel like a fool-- that wast the whole point- to shock and surprise. It's what made it enjoyable. I couldn't guess, but I'm going to be on my guard next time. Yes indeed...

Not for a moment did I doubt Dr Sheppard. She was queen of thrillers. This ending makes the book memorable and one of the greatest novel I read in this genre

no one would've suspected james Shepphard because he was the narrator and everyone thinks the narrator tells the readers everything

I actually guessed it immediately after the crime and first impressions on police...and i sticked to my point

I was surprised that it was the doctor.In the 5-6 books that I've read by Christie ,I was able to guess the murderer, but not in this one.