Persuasive Essay

Detective novels are rarely emphasized in the field of literature, but the detective novelist Agatha Christie holds a high reputation worldwide. Why is that? Because Christie’s approach to writing transcends the limits of detective fiction itself by examining the timeless topics of humanity and justice. Christie wrote thirty-four detective novels with Hercule Poirot as the detective; in nearly all of them, Poirot solves a case and then puts criminals in jail –– but there are two that stand out as the Belgian detective chooses to go against his own code. The first instance was Murder on the Orient Express (1937), and the second was Poirot’s final case, Curtain (1975). Throughout her career, Christie firmly expressed her view that morality and law exist in human society; however, murders could also coexist in a justified way. Unlike her other classics, which “revolve around one theological truth: murder is evil,” with Murder on the Orient Express and Curtain, Christie focused on exploring human intentions, digging deeper into the motives of the characters and the expression of their desires, thus revealing the twisted nature of humanity (Fitzpatrick). Ultimately, Christie shows that although justice is paramount, revenge is sometimes more humane, and murder is justified. 

​

The Poirot series is a timeline of his life; from the earlier novels, the readers discover that he is a devout Catholic and a Belgian policeman who became a private sleuth after his retirement. In the Catholic faith, murder is a sin; in the Catholic catechism, “by recalling the commandment, ‘you shall not kill,’ our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral” (2304). Born under such circumstances, Poirot possesses the same ideology. As a police who should always remember the laws of the land, Poirot knows that murder is never allowed. Looking at Christie’s books, her interpretation of justice is not the various articles of law but that those who have done wrong can be avenged, even if not in an “acceptable” way. As a private detective, Poirot went in the exact different direction of his profession and religion’s beliefs; he followed his own truth. According to Marty S. Knepper, Poirot emphasized the purpose of “to defend and protect the innocent” whether it’s “operating through conventional legal channels” or not. Oftentimes, authors explicitly involve themselves in their stories, and in this case, Poirot’s thoughts represent Christie’s ideas; she also believes murder can be justified. 

​

Christie’s view of murder is consistent with her main character. Like Poirot, she also lived through the First World War. She once wrote in her autobiography: “At that time, the time of the 1914 war, the doer of evil was not a hero: the enemy was wicked, the hero was good; it was as crude and simple as that.” Prior to her encounter with murder literature, Christie saw it no differently than anyone else, that good was good, and evil was evil. Yet, what she was attempting to achieve has never changed: “against the criminal and for the innocent victim.” In Christie’s later years, she continued believing that her passion for writing detective fiction existed “to help save innocence” (Christie, An Autobiography 452). However, the spread of evil and the limitations of human beings in society frightened her, “nobody seems to care about the innocent” (Christie, An Autobiography 438). Therefore, according to Knepper, Christie’s later books “reveal her detectives as agents of justice working to protect the innocent from characters whose evil is particularly insidious and dangerous.” Christie’s purpose is to protect the innocent when there are gaps in the laws because laws cannot punish all evils. She believes that above the law, there should be morality and justice. 

​

In Murder on the Orient Express, the crime is not simply an atrocity with vile motives, but a righteous act of revenge, or even a justified action to rid evil from society. This case is a bizarre locked room mystery that is unexpected but justifiable, and considered “the perfect crime.” The novel describes the detective Poirot who encountered his old friend M. Bouc on the Orient Express and helped him to solve the murder case that happened on this train. The train was forced to stop halfway to its destination because of heavy snow, and a passenger was murdered late that night. There were no footprints in the snow, and there were twelve passengers –– all suspects. Swedish nurse, German maid, English teacher, Hungarian diplomat, British army officer, French aristocrat, and so on; they came from all parts of the world and did not seem to have anything in common. On the contrary, the murderer happened to be all of them. In the novel, the murderers are described as “a self-appointed jury of twelve people who had condemned him to death and who by the exigencies of the case had themselves been forced to be his executioners” (Christie, Murder on the Orient Express 258). The victim, Samuel Ratchett, was actually guilty as charged. He had kidnapped Daisy Armstrong, a three-year-old girl from a wealthy family, and killed her. However, the law did not bring Ratchett to justice, “by means of the enormous wealth he had piled up, and owing to the secret hold he had over various persons, he was acquitted” (Christie, Murder on the Orient Express 71). It turns out that all the passengers are connected to the Armstrong family and have taken revenge on Ratchett for this tragic family. In reality, the true victims (the twelve murderers) can do nothing but “be his executioners.” 

​

The special ending of this novel has never happened elsewhere –– detective Poirot lets go of all the murderers. In Ina R. Hark’s analysis, even though “the conspirators have personally suffered at Ratchett’s hands,” Christie “stresses their role as dispensers of justice, not as avengers.” Poirot chose morality in front of the scales of justice, which also meant that he began to accept the imbalance of the world, a decision that overturned the absolute justice he thought under the previous rational perception. Since their motive for revenge is born out of love, and their deep compassion for the tragic little girl and her family, detective Poirot chose forgiveness due to sympathy and spared the avengers because “society had condemned [Ratchett] — [they] were only carrying out the sentence” (Christie, Murder on the Orient Express 264). The law is ruthless, but humanity is warm. Sometimes the law will lose its supposed justice, but justice itself will not be absent. The imperfection of the law made Ratchett escape the trial and get away with it, causing twelve people to go down the path of crime. Owing to the context of the times, Poirot’s approach is humane (Hark). 

​

Those old days of Poirot are still fresh in mind, but the curtain has fallen with Poirot’s moral decision in his final case. Christie describes the fall of Poirot, as if to suit his name with the great hero of Greek mythology, Hercules, with the tragic atmosphere. Poirot in Curtain illustrates the final choice he made on behalf of justice before his death. The story opens with Poirot, already seriously ill, and even so, still serving as a detective. Poirot and Arthur Hastings return to the guest house where they first worked together to solve a case, The Mysterious Affair at Styles. Poirot told Hastings that his purpose is to arrest “X,” a murderer who has committed five cases but is still at large. He knows X’s identity, but he needs Hastings’ help. This time the killer used a relatively sophisticated method of murder. Poirot “faces a criminal he can identify but cannot bring to justice by regular legal means because the criminal operates by stirring up jealousy, fear, hate, and other potentially homicidal emotions in others” (Knepper). He was not directly involved in the murder, instead, he used words, provoking hatred within others and urging them to kill. The scariest point is that, legally, he did not commit a crime because there was no evidence. 

​

As usual, X began his operation, but this time he pointed the knife at Hastings. X provoked Hastings to commit murder through his words. In the nick of time, Poirot saw through X’s ploy and stopped Hastings with a sleeping pill. Poirot eventually decided to betray his faith to protect his friend; he went to take X’s life. After all, Poirot had lost, because his opponent was to make him go against his beliefs and stain his hands with blood. Nevertheless, he did not regret this choice, although “[he] do not believe that a man should take the law into his own hands,” on the other hand, he thinks that “[he is] the law” (Christie, Curtain 223). Christie, who has written about murder mysteries all her life, also depicts the “perfect crime” in Poirot’s last case. She believes that the perfect crime is the murderer spotting the weaknesses in the people’s hearts, fanning the flames, and bewitching their minds; to achieve the purpose of instigating others to kill, they stay clean all the time. In the text, when Arthur Hastings, Poirot’s friend, was reading his letter, Poirot mentioned that “it is [his] work in life to save the innocent to prevent murder and this is the only way [he] can do it” –– Christie suggests about the idea of saving the innocents even after Poirot’s death (Christie, Curtain 205). Poirot could not find any evidence to make X confess; he had no choice but to kill him to save the innocent Hastings. He went beyond the responsibilities of being a police and a Catholic but remained his last case with the overflow of humanity and justice (Knepper). 

​

In her novels, Murder on the Orient Express and Curtain, Christie demonstrates that even though murder is commonly considered an act of evil, it sometimes becomes an effective way to implement justice in cases where the law fails to serve its role. Poirot is the ironic figure that insists on finding his own righteousness; meanwhile, he reveals the author’s unique views on the purpose of writing detective fiction. Murder on the Orient Express and Curtain are the novels where Agatha Christie stepped out from the traditional writing method to show the elusive human nature of Hercule Poirot and to emphasize the need to help the innocent. Poirot may not always follow the justice system, but he has always defended justice.