The Ming Dynasty playwright Tang Xianzu has a classic declaration of love in "Peony Pavilion": Love does not know what to do, it goes deep, the living can die, and the dead can live. Those who are born and cannot be killed, and those who are dead and cannot be resurrected, are not the most emotional; the flawless explanation of Du Liniang's resurrection for loving the dead is an impossible lie even in the modern civilization where medical treatment is highly developed, but who wants to deny her untruthfulness?
The joke that we often mention: let's love and kill each other; in fact, it is the most perfect portrayal of life, and it is precisely because of love and killing that the poignant love story can be continued, if life can focus on each individual, connect their ordinary lives, this love story can be repeated, but in different time, space, different people and things. However, life is carried out in chronological order, can not be like the novel will be the structure, plot back and forth movement, the so-called ups and downs, logic burning, echoing back and forth, smooth, is the ordinary results of the presentation, however, too often, we can not smooth, this is why after reading so many books, or live your own life.
Agatha Christie is the unparalleled king of fiction in the history of detective literature, and its ingenious conception, the tact of the plot, the meandering of logic, the superposition of stories, the richness of knowledge, and the grasp of details are definitely a model of later generations, and "Massacre on the Nile" is a classic in the classic.
Simple, or complex
The novel takes the female protagonist Jackie and the male protagonist Simon designing to kill the rich woman Lynnette as the main line, through the bitter meat meter, the serial meter, and finally through the journey to Egypt, in a ship in the vast sea, the state of cooperation between the male and female protagonists is interpreted to the extreme. The sequence of characters in the book begins, focusing all the contact points on tourism in Egypt, in fact, they all come to Linnett, and what each character wants from Linette, and the introduction behind each character setting is very directive, just to see if we can read it when we read. These grasps and speculations about the details are the most basic elements of logical analysis, and only by keeping these details in mind can we continuously superimpose the subsequent plots, and finally find irrationalities, and then use logical analysis to identify doubts.
With the continuous deepening of the story, the continuous emergence of new characters, leading to the theft of pearls and Colonel Reiss's pursuit of the murder, not only increases the complexity of the story, but also makes up for the loopholes in the storyline, but also plays a role in interfering with the main line, but all the unchanging truths are always suspected by countless people: the truest story is often the most ordinary, the most obvious, the first to think of, but we have become accustomed to complexity, but we will give up these easy truths, and dare not ask for money.
There are two points of ingenuity in the conception, the first is that the book first introduces the characters one by one, behind the setting of each character, there is a clue that is easy to cause conjecture, each character is inextricably linked to Linnett, and also has the motive to kill her, for love, for money, for jealousy, for hate, for revenge, etc., the ugly side of human nature is all revealed. And the most obvious thing is that because of love, Jackie, who was robbed of her lover, killed Lynnett, and the setting of this story is too obvious.
Second, but strangely strange, in Jackie is precisely the person who can be proved by everyone that it is impossible to kill Lynette, as the husband of the deceased and The leg injured Simon is sympathetic and proved by everyone, if it is not Poirot's perfect deduction and the judgment of logical details, no one can guess that the most unlikely murderer is precisely the murderer, the simplest obvious story of killing for love, is it written by Grandma so tactfully, bumpy, and finally back to the simple starting point, is it very simple, if there is no Poirot will be the details in a series, Would you really think it's simple?
Details, extensive involvement of knowledge
How to deduce logical reasoning to the fullest, how to show your own brain-burning wisdom: details. The best drawing thread, when we marvel at Poirot's strong analytical ability and detail observation ability, will we also know that the so-called details are essentially the full use of knowledge, there is not enough knowledge reserves, there is no ordinary training that is different from ordinary people, even if these details are directly displayed to you, you will let it slip away quietly.
And the novelist just likes to divide these details unevenly, that is, he likes to scatter and disrupt the order, that is, he likes to arouse the high resonance of the reader, otherwise how can there be a "Oh" after knowing the result! Poirot analyzes through time that Simon only has five minutes to commit the crime, but Simon has a leg injury, how can he complete the task? But logic and time is to tell Poirot only 5 minutes to commit the crime, at this time, the details of the unused scarlet nail polish will give logic strong support, and simply see two different nail polish, even Poirot will have many explanations, no result of the inference, and what is the difference with nonsense?
All the details that are different from everyday life can be used as doubts for reasoning, which seems to be the usual trick of novelists. Remember that maid Louise? He was talking well, and suddenly he changed the tone of his speech, and the tone of the statement became the tone of conditional hypothesis, and this sudden linguistic implication, only Poirot noticed, successfully uncovered the transmission of Simon's secret words; and the first bullet that mysteriously disappeared hit the table, and it was also the last detail of the plot. Consider that Simon and Jackie's first conspiracy at the "Aunts" restaurant is actually a plan to succeed, and it is not a terrible plot echo.
So, it's not so much that Poirot connects the details, but that the details make Poirot, and if these details are also discovered by us, can we string them together?
Difficult to close plot settings
But a novel is a novel, and without a perfect interpretation of a novel, there are always a few doubts that are difficult to completely convince the reader.
Grandma sets the conspiracy between Simon and Jackie into one: pushing Simon to Linette through love and killing each other, and the two agree on a plan, make a big fuss in order to hide their eyes, kill Linette on the way to travel, and then the two enjoy a carefree life together, which is 4 doubts.
1, Simon because he loves money and wants to get the pleasure of machismo, so on the one hand, he asks quan to marry Linnett, on the other hand, he wants to kill Linnett, and most importantly, he still loves Jackie. After getting the money, he and Jackie lived a good life in high society. This plot setting is too far-fetched, Simon will also kill Jackie after getting the money, because after getting the money, he will enjoy the high society life with his lover, which is the biggest lie to love.
2, Jackie loves Simon and wants to be with Simon, so she helps Simon implement the perfect assassination plan, Jackie is not so much about loving Simon as she is about loving money, or wanting to love money with Simon. Smart as Jackie, many times in the middle of the way she already knew that the assassination plan was very likely to fail, or did she go all the way to the black, was it really because of love?
3, but the two people quarreled and everyone knew, even if Linnett died, the two gained huge wealth, how could they gain a foothold in high society? The two are together, will the case be re-examined?
4, on the way to Egypt, the three people have encountered many times, are these many encounters, are Simon and Jackie planned in advance, this plan is also listed in too detail, the operation is completely non-implementable? If it was a temporary idea, then how did Simon reveal the plan to Jackie in advance? This deep acting, will not get caught in the drama?
Write at the end
Maybe this is Grandma's strength, make full use of the lies and poignant beauty of love, and interpret love and killing to the simple and extreme: Jackie for Simon, staged a bitter meat plan, Simon killed Lynette for Jackie, Lynette for Simon, took his life, Simon played a serial plan for Lynnett, cut continuously, rationally and chaotically, is in love, who can say it clearly?
Author: Herong
Copyright Notice: This article is originally produced by "Fish and Sheep Secret History" and enjoys the copyright. Unauthorized, may not be reproduced, welcome to forward the circle of friends.