The Apologia 💀

How is the Apologia metafictional?

Sheppard is writing the novel we are reading. He is writing about writing.

What actually is an apologia?

A defence, not an apology

What does Sheppard reveal his motive was in writing this book?

He 'meant it to be published someday as the history of one of Poirot's failures'

How does Sheppard maintain his power at the end of the novel?

He gets the agency to take his life, unlike Ackroyd.

He chooses when and how the story ends.

We don't get to see any of the newly established equilibrium as theorised by Todorov.

''I am rather __ with myself as a __. What could be __, for instance, than the following'

''I am rather pleased with myself as a writer. What could be neater, for instance, than the following''

''All true, you see. But suppose I had put a row of __ after the first __''

''All true, you see. But suppose I had put a row of stars after the first sentence''

''Everybody seems to have taken a __''

''Everybody seems to have taken a hand''

''My greatest __ all through has been __''

''My greatest fear all through has been Caroline''

''She will never know the __''

''She will never know the truth''

''My death will be a grief to her, but grief passes''

''My death will be a grief to her, but grief passes'' - clinical and distant mindset. There is no love, only logic.

''Venoral? There would be a kind of __ __.''

''Venoral? There would be a kind of poetic justice.''

''I feel no __ for her. I have no __ for myself either.''

''I feel no pity for her. I have no pity for myself either.''

''But I wish __ __ had never __ from work and come here to __ vegetable __'' - last line

''But I wish Hercule Poirot had never retired from work and come here to grow vegetable marrows'' - last line conforms to Sheppard sardonic humour. He is mocking us as the reader, we failed to catch him and we don't get the reward of a new equillibrium.

How does a second reading benefit us?

Sheppard thinks he has fooled us, but we know better and share the secret with Poirot.

How is Poirot letting James die significant?

Shows Poirot's motive for investigation. He is the 'good dog' that 'does not leave the scent'. He doesn't care for legal justice but searches for the truth.

How is 'poetic justice' significant in golden age detective fiction?

Post war readers want binary outcomes, good is rewarded, evil is punished.

Poetic justice creates moral ambiguity as the evil is still punished but not in the way we want it to. We can't punish the bad (James) without punishing the good (King's Abbot, especially Caroline)

Poetic justice rejects conventions of cosy crime which we enjoy.

What does Nick Elliot say about crime fiction?

It satisfies our yearning for justice and a fair world. It satisfies our need for moral and narrative conclusions

Why is the ending slightly uncomfortable?

Everything stays the same. Other than some changed relationships, the new equilibrium has not broken the bourgeoise social milieu. Every other criminal in the text gets away with it.

Why does Sheppard's criminality scare us?

He never directly lied, and we assume we can detect the criminal mind of somebody. Sheppard subverts this.