All-rounder Artist - Chapter 339: Two Kinds of Choices_1

After all, Leng Guang and Chu Kuang are not Yan People.

They didn’t set many standards for the Literary Duel, just through the dialogues in the Tribe, in front of netizens, they simply defaulted their next works as a duel —

This allowed them both plenty of time to prepare their works.

Upon deciding to write “Murder on the Orient Express”, Lin Yuan spent his following days engrossed in the task.

An introduction to the beginning.

In a frozen, snowy world, a train is traveling, and our protagonist, Poirot, happens to be on this train.

Yes, he’s really Poirot instead of Conan.

Anyway, a murder happened.

The victim was a passenger, stabbed to death inside his own compartment.

At the same time, due to a heavy snowfall, the train was forced to stop.

There was nowhere to go in this deserted place.

The police officers and the train’s doctor were forced to center their investigation around the famous detective Poirot in the train compartment!

Only by finding the killer and solving the case could they ensure the safety of the remaining passengers.

This is the so-called locked-room murder in traditional detective novels!

Due to the blocked route caused by a heavy snowfall, the train stranded in the frozen wilderness served as the classic locked-room murder environment.

It’s a classic, a staple, never fading.

In just Conan alone, countless locked-room murder cases have occurred.

Then Poirot began investigating, talking to each of the passengers and gradually learning the identity of the victim.

The victim did not seem like a good person.

He sat on the train, constantly fearful that he would get shot from who knows where, which showed how much of a detested fellow he was.

Possibly due to having too many enemies, the victim had once talked to Poirot before his death, hoping that the famous detective would protect him.

Poirot declined.

He was a detective, not responsible for protecting others.

More importantly, Poirot did not like this man with a somewhat cold look in his eyes.

However, Poirot did not expect this man to actually die.

So, Poirot had to investigate the truth as a detective.

After learning the identity of the victim, Poirot discovered a shocking fact:

There were more than ten passengers on the train, all related to a kidnapping case participated by the victim!

So their testimonies were all false!

Because they all participated in the murder!

The entire case was them cooperating to cover-up their own crimes!

Then more truth came to light:

The victim was once a kidnapper, who after brutally killing a little girl, bribed his way to freedom.

The little girl’s mother was pregnant at the time, but gave birth prematurely ending with a stillborn and subsequently died of illness.

The little girl’s father died of depression.

The nanny of the girl’s family was suspected of having severe doubts and committed suicide under interrogation.

So, the truth behind the case was shocking:

Apart from Poirot, everyone else on the train, including chairman of the train company, the medical examiner, and the train’s crew, a total of twelve people were all murderers!

They all knew the tragic family and were greatly indebted to them, so when they saw the perpetrator escape the heavy responsibility of the law, they decided to take matters into their own hands and kill him.

After understanding the whole story, detective Poirot revealed two possibilities for the case resolution.

Those who have read the Poirot series know that Poirot likes to give several possible ideas when unveiling the truth at the end, but the correct one is usually the last one.

It was the same this time.

The first idea Poirot proposed was (not verbatim):

“The killer boarded midway, ran off after the killing, could be the mafia or something, had business conflicts with the victim. This explanation is based on believing the testimonies of these twelve people.”

The testimonies of these twelve people could provide each other with alibis.

Almost no one could guess that all twelve people were the killers!

However, this theory is obviously flawed, and the train’s doctor disputed it strongly.

Poirot explained the specific flaws in the book.

Then Poirot proposed the second possibility, an astonishing possibility:

All twelve passengers were murderers; they each stabbed the victim once and created what seemed like an unsolvable case by providing each other with alibis.

Though it seemed absurd, the killers admitted to it.

The twelve people painfully recalled the tragic event of that year.

The novel also contained textual descriptions of it.

It was generally about living in immense pain after the tragic death of their benefactor’s family, where the law could no longer help them, so they chose to fight back.

At this point.

Poirot asked the man in charge of the train which answer he would accept?

The person in charge chose the first one, that is, the wrong answer.

The doctor followed on saying that he would provide some medical assistance.

Because only the first explanation could help the twelve murderers escape charges and suspicion.

But the details did not match.

So, the doctor hinted that he would provide some medical help.

Poirot never said which possibility was correct from beginning to end.

He only said, I provide two possibilities, you choose.

That is, you choose whether to hide the truth for these twelve people or expose their crimes.

The train’s person in charge and the doctor both chose to hide the truth.

Poirot, too, seemed to think the same way, otherwise, given his disposition, he wouldn’t have offered them a choice—

He decided to withdraw from this murder case as a detective.

It had a rather open-ended feel to it.

The ending did not explicitly state the outcome for the twelve murderers.

However, there’s an easter egg in one of Agatha Christie’s other novels, “A Date with Death”.

It explicitly mentioned that Poirot did not expose the twelve people.

The specific plot was the suspect’s wife (who was also one of the suspects) said to Poirot:

“I know you let the murderers go in the case of the Orient Express, allowing them to punish that heinous person. Can’t you do the same this time?”

Poirot asked, “How did you know about the Orient Express case? Not this time, these two cases are different.”

Something like that.

On the Orient Express, Poirot did indeed let the murderers go.

As for the cooperative murder model that “Murder on the Orient Express” started, although its influence is not as strong as Narrative Trickery—

The Narrative Trickery writing method has sustained Neon mystery novels for many years—

It has indeed pioneered very classic cases.

After this novel came out, many detective novels began to use the cooperative murder model, drawing inspiration from here.

Agatha Christie is the mother of many models.

If people have read similar models, reading her books might not cause a big shock. But if it’s the first exposure, the shock is actually very tremendous!

Especially the Narrative Trickery and closed circle of suspects models!

Now that Narrative Trickery is out, but the closed circle of suspects as a major plot device, has not yet been released by Lin Yuan.

Anyway, at this point, Lin Yuan had completed the adjustment and modification of the character backgrounds in “Murder on the Orient Express”.

What comes next is the formal writing.