Murder on the Orient Express

Christina Huynh and Sydney Kier

Van Dine and Agatha Christie Van Dine has twenty rules

that signify what a mystery book is and what it should or shouldn’t include. In most of Agatha Christie’s writing, his rules are contradicted. Although she follows some, is her book still considered a mystery?

What are the rules?

VocabularyConcocter – to devise ; make up

Hymeneal – relating to marriage

Pother – commotion ; debate

Expenditure – to use up

Irremediably - incurable

Culpability – deserving to be blamed

Delineation - description

Verisimilitude – seeming to be true

Sleuthing – to track ; trail as a detective

Ineptitude – incompetent ; not appropriate

Edited version of Van Dine’s rules

#1 The reader must receive the same information/clues as the detective

#2 Must not lie to the reader or give the reader fake information

#3 The plot must be focused on the mystery ; not romance

#4 The detective can not the the culprit #5 The culprit must have a understandable

confession that seems logical #6 There must be a detective figure who

uses clues to come up with his/her analysis of the mystery

#7 Someone must die in the novel #8 The clues must be based on physical

proof #9 explains that mystery must have only

one detective otherwise it is to much for the reader to keep up with each detectives logical reasoning's.

#10 The reader must know who the culprit is and have some suspicion of him/her.

#11 is saying that the culprit has to be a surprise. Therefore someone like the servant is to predictable and shouldn’t be the murderer.

#12 proclaims that it is acceptable for the murder to be a partnership; in the end it has to be mainly one character though.

#13 says that the killer cant be in a group/gang because it stereotypical or expected to do a bad thing.

#14 states when solving the crime it must be realistic and scientific. Not imaginary.

#15 says the reader shouldn’t be able to guess the culprit at first, but if they reread the book it would be obvious.

#16 says it should always be action packed and shouldn’t have a lot of dialogue.

#17explains that the murderer cant be regretful over doing such a complex crime

#18 says it cant be accidental or suicidal because that is unintelligent.

#19 states that the purpose of the crime should be personal and emotional.

#20 explains that the story cant be original. So think outside of the box and don’t use explanations like fingerprints.

Rule #1

“1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.” (Van Dine)

Explanation:

Christie’s novel, Murder on the Orient Express, created a plethora of chances for it’s readers to put together the mystery. She described each and every clue in her novel. Rule #1 is saying that the readers must have a chance to understand all the clues as the plot of the story thickens. When Poirot picks up the handkerchief, Agatha plainly described exactly what it looked like and what it was made of. Murder on the Orient Express :

“It was a small square of cambric, very dainty. In the corner was an embroidered initial—H.” (Christie 260)

Rule #3

Van Dine’s rule number three states that “there must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar” (Van Dine). In other words, Van Dine believes that a mystery book should be about solving the crime and finding evidence; therefore no love interest should be incorporated into the narrative.

Agatha Christie's novel contradicts Van Dine’s opinion. Many characters like Count and Countess Andrenyi, for example, had an affectionate relationship throughout the book. Mary Debenham and Colonel Arbuthnot’s relationship benefitted the plot line the most. Agatha Christie described there connection secretive and vague. This correlation made the reader more interested and suspicious as the mystery went on. I too disagree with Van Dine’s statement. I think that having relationships build character and go into depth about there connections, also sometimes it makes the mood more mysterious and frightening.

Murder on the Orient Express:“Monsieur Poirot” the count said earnestly and passionately, “consider my position. Do you think I could stand the thought of my wife dragged through a sordid police case…” (Christie 207)

Rule #11

“ 11. A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is too easy a solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person – one that wouldn’t ordinarily come under suspicion.” (Van Dine)

Explanation:

This specific rule in Van Dine’s formula does not agree with Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express at all. This rule specifies that no matter what, the servant of the victim must not be the culprit of the murder because it is too expected. In the novel, was not only Ratchett’s secretary the murderer, but Pierre Michel, the Wagonlit conductor, as well.

Murder on the Orient Express :

“In which case, Maqueen knew of the note and of its destruction—in other words, he was either the murderer or an accomplice of the murderer.” (Christie 235)

Rule #18

• Van Dine states that “a crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. To end an odyssey of sleuthing with such an anti-climax is to hoodwink to the trusting and kind- hearted reader” (Van Dine). •I agree with his opinion because if the resolution was suicidal or accidental the book would be pointless. A murder is defined as an unlawful premeditated killing by another human being. A mystery isn't as intriguing unless it is a murder. Murder gives the author more choices to attach personal conflict and detail into the story. In this book Ratchett, also known as Cassetti, was murdered by twelve other passengers. The author was able to create many killers because they all had emotional attachment to the victim. That is why the book is considered a murder. If it was self committed or unintentional the book wouldn’t be puzzling or worth reading. Therefore, I agree with Van Dine. •Murder on the Orient Express:“Well,” she said, “you know everything now, M. Poirot. What are you going to do about it? If it must all come out, can’t you lay the blame upon me and me only? I would have stabbed that man twelve times willingly…” (Christie 245).

Rule #19

• “The motives for all crimes in detective stories should be personal. International plottings and war politics belong in a different category of fiction — in secret-service tales, for instance. But a murder story must be kept gemütlich, so to speak. It must reflect the reader's everyday experiences, and give him a certain outlet for his own repressed desires and emotions” (Van Dine).

• This is simply stating that there should be a lot of emotion and relation to personal happenings. If that is included in the novel, the reader is more likely to become attached and scared because it is realistic. The Murder on the Orient Express has a lot of connections with personal experience to the Armstrong family and internal emotions because of it. Agatha Christie’s narrative agrees with Van Dine’s nineteenth rule.

• Murder on the Orient Express: “We decided then and there (perhaps we were mad– I don’t know) that the sentence of death that Cassetti had escaped had got to be carried out. There were twelve of us…” (Christie 243)

12 people in jury- 12 wounds- 12 people related to the Armstrong case

Agatha Christie’s novel the Murder on the Orient Express does not follow all of Van Dine’s procedures. For example rule number 11 is contradicted. It states that the employee must not be the culprit for it is too easy to predict. Her books disagree with the multiple other rules but they are still considered mystery novels. Agatha Christie does not abide by the boundaries that Van Dine have listed, yet Murder on the Orient Express is a fascinating mystery story that goes beyond expectations.

WORK CITED

Christie, Agatha. Murder on the Orient Express. Toronto: Bantam, 1983. Print.

""Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories"(1928)." Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories (1928) by S.S. Van Dine. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2012.