Hercule Poirot is definitely one of my favourite fictional detectives as he is very talented. He is smart, and he often observes well and spots tiny little details, and he can figure out the truth by himself. He is also very sensitive to everything. Even in the first few pages, he states that “the train, it is as dangerous as a sea voyage”, and he feels that Ratchett is a dangerous man, and describes him as a “wild animal”. He has his own way of thinking, and he does not always follow the law. In my opinion, he has his own sense of moral law that he abides. For example, in this book, he knows that the twelve passengers on the Orient Express are all the murderers. They have killed Ratchett because of his wrongdoing in the past, which is kidnapping a child named Daisy Armstrong, and kills her after the Armstrong family pays the ransom. Murdering is a crime, but this time, the murderers kills Ratchett due to moral principles. However, Poirot decides to let the murderers go and he even proposes a plan that they will tell the police the murderer has escaped the train. From my point of view, I disagree with their choice. There is an idiom, “an eye for an eye”. In this case, it is “a life for a life”. Usually, it is my strong conviction that criminals should be brought to court to receive their sentence due to the matter of public justice instead of undergoing private vengeance, as it is totally against the law and unfair. However, in this case, Ratchett escaped punishment and he could not be punished. From the Armstrong family’s point of view, murdering Ratchett is the only way for them to seek their revenge.
This also leads to another theme of this book- the jury system. In reality, a jury is made up of twelve people, and they are all chosen randomly in the society. In a courtroom, the jury will vote to see if the defendant is guilty or not, whereas in this book, the twelve passengers are the symbol of a “jury”, even though it is different from the usual courtroom jury. The jury consists of the twelve passengers on the Orient Express, and they justified their murdering as they have reached a consensus that Ratchett is guilty. It is unfair, as all the passengers are related to the Armstrong family, and the judgment is totally biased. Is it fair to let people decide Ratchett’s fate? Can they murder him, an eye for an eye? Also, no one knows for sure that Ratchett has killed the victim, Daisy Armstrong. There is not enough evidence to prove that he is culpable for her death.
The author also used different techniques, especially foreshadowing. For example, at the beginning of the book, there are several lines “all around us are people, of all classes, of all nationalities, of all ages. For three days these people, these strangers to one another, are brought together. They sleep and eat under one roof, they cannot get away from each other. At the end of three days they part, they go their several ways, never, perhaps, to see each other again”. In the story, the twelve passengers are brought together as they stay on the Orient Express for three days, only to murder Ratchett. They are all linked together because of Ratchett and the Armstrong family. Then, they will part their ways. Therefore, the previous lines from the book actually serve with the purpose of foreshadowing, and it can motivate the readers to think more about the clues as it can arouse their curiosity and interest.
In conclusion, I think “Murder on the Orient Express” is one of the best detective books that I have ever read. The author creates a flawless plot with a surprising twist, and the sentence structures make the clues clearer and more easily to be remembered. Undoubtedly, it is also a page-turner, making readers want to know more and try to find the murderer. No wonder why Agatha Christie is called the Queen of Crime!
