Detective writers Essay

The dim-witted police (inspector Raglan) acted as Poirot’s sidekick. Inspector Raglan is the traditional dim-witted policeman who comes up with bad suggestions, however he is also Poirot’s right hand man. When Inspector Raglan was out of sight, Poirot claimed, â€Å"†¦that stupid inspector- for he is stupid-has everything pointing his way†. Poirot is saying that he is to stupid to see the evidence that is right in front of him and it shows you his dim-wittedness. M. Poirot had asked the inspector if he had checked all the evidence carefully, but when he was asked if he had overlooked â€Å"the quick or the dead† â€Å"The inspector looked bewildered† as if he was too stupid to understand.  Poirot had also asked if he had overlooked the fingerprints on the dagger, He had then mocked inspector Raglan by exclaiming, â€Å"It is an easy matter to verify†.  Poirot, the superior detective had come across a lot of evidence during the story, however the evidence was faulty and Poirot was intelligent enough to figure this out. During his inspection around Roger Ackroyd’s room, Poirot was told that the Grandfather chair had been moved since the departure of parker’s stay in the room, The doctor said it wasn’t important, however Poirot replied â€Å"It is completely unimportant†¦That is why it is so interesting†. Here Poirot is showing us his superior judgement. When Poirot was examining the body he was very observant and he automatically knew Mr Ackroyd did not commit suicide because of the positioning of Ackroyd’s hand, â€Å"the position of the prints was somewhat awkward†.  Poirot was the only one to spot that Mr Ackroyd was dictating a letter when Mr Raymond overheard him. Poirot knew he was dictated it from how he read it out, â€Å"Would any man use such a phrase in talking to another?† This shows us that Poirot has excellent observational skills and his intelligence. It was very surprising to know that it was Doctor Shepard who committed the murder because he seemed genuine, however it was more surprising to know that it was the murderer who was the narrator, that was a huge shock. Christie had gave us a very exciting twist which didn’t follow the traditional detective story, but gave us a very interesting ending. I think that this technique adds to the excitement of the story and also intrigues the reader much more. The surprise is that the trustworthy narrator is the murderer, you automatically assume he or she is the trustworthy distant bystander. The murder was set in King’s Abbot, a village â€Å"†¦very much like any other village†. The setting was a very unexpected place for a murder, there was nothing sinister about it, so it would be a very unusual place to have a murder, however it did intrigue the reader to know whom the murdering villager was. Although the setting seemed innocent Mr Roger Ackroyd seemed different. Poirot describes the average villager of being â€Å"a country squire† however he describes Mr Ackroyd of being â€Å"†¦an immensely successful†, a contrast between the average countryman and Mr Ackroyd. From reading ‘The Orient express’ and ‘the blue carbuncle’ you notice a huge contrast in the way the author presents his characters. When reading one of Agatha Christie’s novels you find out all the characters background information where as when you’re reading a Sir Doyle novel the back ground information is limited only if The superior detective decides to concentrate on a particular character.  Agatha Christie’s method had influenced other up and coming writers. Ruth Rendell is a more recent novelist who has manipulated detective Fiction, however she has kept the certain methods of what Agatha Christie had once used. ‘Burning End’ was very unusual to my detective genre perceptions. The story had felt peculiar to how I would perceive a detective fiction. I would perceive a detective story to contain Traditional elements, where as this one doesn’t even contain a detective. The story was a mystery, where by the reader was psychologically presuming whom the murderer was at the end of the story. It was basically an open ending for the reader to ponder upon. The story had contained a few traditional elements but not as you would assume their to be. The elements found were the perfect crime, the wrongly accused suspect, the surprise ending and the dim-witted police. Each one seems very doubtful because of the open ending, however passages in the story have made the situation controversial. The crime committed that we know no perfect to or any truth to have believed the matter to be insufficient, however if beliefs were told you would assume Linda to have committed the offence. Linda seemed very caring and had worried about the welfare of Betty. She would be her personal servant, however Betty had never shown any affection or appreciation to Linda’s hard working generosity, for example Betty’s son asks her â€Å"to come and live with them at the farm. Betty responded very differently from when she asked her†. This might have provoked Linda into uncaring motives. During the death the house that Betty was living in had naturally or unnaturally caught on fire while Betty was present. Ms Rendell gives suggestions on how it set on fire, however the likeliest possibility was that the Linda had intentionally new the house was going to be caught on fire and Linda would of used it as an attempt to dispose of Betty for her ungratefulness. Linda had discovered an unpredictable way of causing fire and found it quite astonishing. She discovered this method by noticing the paper near the vase had caught on fire, to her amazement she believed the vase had began a magnifying effect when exposed to sunlight, causing the paper to be magnified, in result to a fire. Linda had intended to move the vase for safety hazards, however Linda had felt hesitation, â€Å"It was a strange feeling she had†¦she would somehow have closed a door or missed a chance†. Linda doesn’t give reference to what she had missed a chance on, but the only explanation the reader can think of is that she has missed a chance on killing Betty in such an accidental way that to Linda it was the perfect crime. Then again it may not have been Linda. The wrongly accused might have been the doctor or even Linda. No one was literally accused, however the reader would have been suspicious on particular characters. The Doctor is the most controversial of my suspects, his remarks and attitude seem to emphasize that Betty should die early with her family â€Å"†¦best for the old folks to end their days at home whenever possible.† He seems to clarify that he wants her to die soon and â€Å"He made no comment on the cigarette† where as most doctors try to keep the patient healthy, this doctor doesn’t mind the usage of cigarette smoke around her as long as it speeds up the process. Near the end the doctor believes he had killed her, he claimed it was an accident, however if it was murder or manslaughter he didn’t feel any remorse. â€Å"I don’t feel a scrap of guilt, accidents will happen and there’s nothing you can do about it†. Any other sincere human being would have felt guilty if they knew they had caused a death, it seemed as if he intentialy left the cigarette their to cause the death. Although The Burning End doesn’t contain any dim-witted police, the story still contains a sense of dim wittedness. Like Agatha Christie, Ruth Rendell uses her dim witted police role in her characters. While Brian and Michael are suggesting why Linda is miserable, they come across the fact that she feels guilty. However they don’t realise she is upset because she might have literally killed Betty. Brian and Michael knew Linda was feeling guilty but they never took it into consideration that Linda could of caused the fire. The brothers are too dim witted to see that Linda was feeling guilty over the fact that Linda may have caused the death. Michael suggests that its â€Å"guilt† that is making Linda miserable. Brian responds to Michael’s theory by blasting back â€Å"What’s she got to be guilty about? She couldn’t have done more if she’d been Mum’s own daughter.'† This would of made the crime even more perfect if it was L inda. Detective Fiction has been changed and manipulated over the past century, from Sir Doyle to Ruth Rendell. Detective Fiction has changed with time and time has changed with Detective fiction. Since Sir Doyle detective fiction has introduced new excitements and has gradually manipulated the readers thoughts. Detective stories have changed so much, from having the superior detective as the centre point to having no detective at all. Agatha Christie was the one, who began manipulating Detective Fiction, although she had made a few adjustments, she still kept the concept. Agatha intended to use the ideas of past detective writers and present them in her own way  Ruth Rendell the most recent Detective writer of my studies is a prime example of how Detective fiction has changed. Ruth stories are in contrast with Sir Doyle’s because Ruth uses the ideas and manipulations of the recent Detective writers (Agatha Christie) and recapitulates them to create new means of excitement. This is an example of how Detective fiction has changed and will proceed in the future.