Describing Ratchett as a "wild animal,"

something less than human, the murder less

offensive.
the Armstrongs have slayed a beast rather
than a human being
Christie is working to wear away our
sympathy for Ratchett in favor of the
Armstrongs. Thus, the challenge and focus
of the novel is on the duel between
murderer and
detective, rather than the murderer and
victim.

Believe it or not, the Simplon Orient Express

was – and still is – an actual train line that
Agatha Christie herself rode.
Why does Christie use this train as the
setting of her story? Well, we've come up
with a few reasons why it fits.
First of all, the train passes through several
different countries. That makes it an
international train – and the passengers are
entirely international, too.
Second, the train is an invention of the
modern age. This makes it a perfect place to
dramatize ideas about modern justice
(which is exactly what the book does).
Third, it's a small, confined place where
everyone is stuck together. That means that
the murderers, the victim, and the
investigators are all thrown together. No one
can really skip town, which makes for a fun
and suspenseful read.
Finally, the train itself is split up into first
and second classes. The separation makes
us keenly aware of the passengers' social
standing and place in the world – key factors
to solving the mystery.

Christie has been criticized for the less-than-

diverse social setting of her books. The
majority of her mysteries examine the
British
upper-middle class society from which she,
herself, came. Especially in her pre-war
writing, she emphasizes the moneyed
traveler and
leisure class. Most of her characters have
maids, butlers, gardeners and other such
servants. The children have nurses and
governesses. There are working class men
and women in Christie's novels, but they
typically play minor parts--usually finding
the
 body or are murdered themselves.

The social setting of Murder on The Orient

Express adheres to Christie's upper-middle
class standard. There are working-class
people
on the train, but all were Armstrong
servants. With the exception of Ms.
Debenham, the servants have minor parts in
the story and are
generally weaker than the aristocratic
characters. This is especially apparent as
Poirot interviews each character. Princess
Dragomiroff, Countess and Count
Andrenyi, Mrs. Hubbard, Colonel Arbuthnot
is all particularly strong while Antonio and
Greta Van
Ohlsson collapse into emotion and tears.

Poirot often speaks of English stiffness and

resolve, which becomes the true
distinguishing factor between classes on the
train. For instance, Poirot knows that Colonel
Arbuthnot knows Mary very well because
the Colonel calls her by her first name. An
Englishman
would never call a lady by her first name
unless they had known each other for a long
while.

How long one can withstand showing

emotion is a test of one's "English- ness"
and certainly a gauge of one's class
standing.

Like Colonel Arbuthnot, the aristocratic

characters can contain their emotions more
than the working class characters. It is no
surprise that Linda Arden, the famous and
terribly wealthy actress, concludes the book
and calmly tells Poirot the details of their
plot--she has the privilege of composure
and poise. The train is a perfect place to see
class difference. Especially with such a
diverse crowd gathered, from all classes,
all nationalities and all ages, we can clearly
see the characteristics common to social
class.

Like a scientist, Poirot uses a set process to

solve Herculean cases.

For instance, he asks each female suspect

what color her robe is and each male
suspect if he
smokes cigarettes. Poirot has each person
write his or her name so he can see which
hand they write. He checks and rechecks
people's
alibis through the accounts of others.
There is a clear, scientific protocol and
rigorous discipline to his work.

Christie typically uses a closed circle setting

in her novels. The closed circle, meaning
there exists a limiting factor that only
allows a certain amount of suspects, is not
only more convenient for the writer and the
detective, but makes the novel more
exciting--anyone of the circle may be the
murderer. As seen in Murder on The Orient
Express, tempers flare, people are anxious
and
all of the action is heightened because
danger exists--a murderer on board. By
using a closed circle setting, spatial and
human
boundaries are defined. The closed circle
also works to isolate the crime and make it
different and removed from everyday
activity.
This separation helps the believability of
the crime and circumstance because it is
isolated, but also helps to further sanitize
the
crime--it is nothing that happens in
everyday society. The setting allows the
focus of the crime to be placed only on the
crime and
detection.

M. Bouc and Dr. Constantine elevate the

reader's own
perception of herself, saying "I'm smarter
than them!" This ego-boost keeps the reader
in the game, it motivates the reader to keep
reading and playing. It is harder to be
frustrated with the whodunnit because there
exists two characters who are perpetually
more
frustrated than herself. This self-
satisfaction may be a complete delusion for
the reader, they may know less than M.
Bouc or Dr.
Constantine, but the "Watson" character is
always the comic scapegoat-the person who
will always seem the least intelligent.
The wet label not the grease spot are not
elaborated on, but things stick in
the readers mind because they are out of
character and, of course, because of the
title of Chapter 4--"The Grease Spot on the
Hungarian Passport."

Hardman's language is particularly

distinctive from the rest of the passengers.
Hardman is known for using expressions
such as "can
you beat it?" and "It's got me beat" and
other such colloquialisms that set him apart
from the other, more proper European
passengers. Hardman is constantly using
slang like, "Count me out," "I take off my hat
to you," "American dame" and "Bughouse";
Hardman describes Poirot as "a pretty slick
guesser. Yes, I'll tell the whole world you're a
slick guesser." There is so much slang
in Hardman's language that one might
think he knew nothing else. Christie created
an idea of the American, a one-dimensional
stock
"American." The use of slang in the novel
is awkward at times by comparison to the
other character's speech and betrays
Christie's
expertise on America. Like Dr.
Constantine, she struggles to translate
American English; he asks Poirot if he will
rely on intuition,
"what the Americans call 'the hunch'?"
Hardman is an "idea" of the typical
American citizen; he is a big, slouching
American that
uses more slang than proper English.

Alcoholism and law breaking are also traits

associated with: Hardman's suitcase, his
"grips" are bursting with hidden "spirituous
liquor." The American, out of the borders
of American prohibition lines, binges on
alcohol and lines his suitcase with liquor.
Hardman admits, "I can't say Prohibition
has ever worried me any" and fully intends
to bring alcohol into the US, "By the time I
get
to Paris...what's left of this little lot will go
into a bottle labelled hairwash." American
law is portrayed as silly and
ineffective and Americans desperate,
repressed alcoholics. The men joke about
prohibition laws, M. Bouc says with a smile,
"You are
not a believer in Prohibition, Monsieur
Hardman." M. Bouc thinks that the name
"speakeasy" is "quaint," implying the U.S. is
a
backwards country and he characterizes
American language as "so expressive."

Americans and
American women are bold, improper, ugly
people.

Diversity and Progress are something that

the European men admire about America, "It
is true that
America is the country of progress," says
Poirot.

By this new set of morals, the Armstrongs

are allowed to kill Ratchett and not receive
punishment for the crime. Because they had
a
"jury" of twelve murderers, the crime is
permissible. Arbuthnot and Poirot discuss
trial by jury; however, the type of jury that
 Arbuthnot refers to is not the Western sort.
When Arbuthnot tells Poirot that he thinks
Ratchettt should have been "hanged-or
electrocuted" for his crimes, Poirot asks
him if he prefers "private vengeance" to law
and order. Colonel Arbuthnot tells Poirot that
there can't be "blood feuds," but "trial by
jury is a sound system." Colonel Arbuthnot
draws no connection between established
State
law and trial by jury, the jury systems is
rather an extension of "private vengeance."
The "sound system" Arbuthnot talks about is
the system he and other friends and
family of the Armstrong family used to kill
Ratchett--a group of twelve deciding the fate
of one
man. This "system" is law and order
separate from the law and order of the
state.

Poirot apparently understands what

Arbuthnot means by this statement, he tells
Arbuthnot, "I am sure that would be your
view."
Although Poirot does not know who exactly
killed Ratchett at this point, Poirot is sure
that whoever murdered Ratchett felt
justified
 in the killing. The clue found in the
bedroom specifically associates the
Armstrongs with the crime; whoever killed
Ratchett was
somehow involved with the Armstrong
family or sympathetic to their plight. The
killer was certainly avenging the death of
young Daisy
Armstrong. Arbuthnot's statement about
the "trial by jury" essentially gives away the
motive and justification for the crime and
also
provides the moral basis for murder.