Previous
Irony
Definition of Metaphor
A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two different things by saying that one thing is the other. The comparison in a metaphor can be stated explicitly, as... read full definition
A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two different things by saying that one thing is the other. The comparison in a metaphor... read full definition
A metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two different things by saying that one thing is the other... read full definition
Chapter One
Explanation and Analysis—Her Golden Car:
In Chapter 1, Joanna describes Linnet's self-assurance, wealth, and beauty with a metaphor:
“Linnet Ridgeway, can you look me in the face and tell me of any one occasion on which you’ve failed to do exactly as you wanted?”
“Heaps of times.”
“Oh, yes, ‘heaps of times’—just like that—but no concrete example. And you simply can’t think up one, darling, however hard you try! The triumphal progress of Linnet Ridgeway in her golden car. […] In the meantime, enjoy the triumphal progress in the golden car. Only I wonder, I really do wonder, what will happen when you want to go down a street which has a board saying ‘No Thoroughfare.’”
The metaphor of Linnet's "triumphal progress in the golden car" illustrates Linnet's life. She has wealth, beauty, charm, and the energy to go after everything she wants. In this way, her life is like an expensive car: she can go anywhere with ease and style. Joanna then extends the metaphor: what will happen when Linnet cannot do as she wants? Joanna metaphorically speaks of this hypothetical impasse as a street marked No Thoroughfare, through which Linnet's golden car cannot drive.
This scene is also an instance foreshadowing because it is Linnet's determination to get what she wants, regardless of the boundaries she has to cross, that leads to her murder. Her betrayal of Jackie and engagement to Simon incites the events of the novel.
Related Themes:
Chapter Four
Explanation and Analysis—Rich Man, Poor Man:
In Chapter 4, Poirot chastises Linnet for taking Simon from Jackie. He alludes to a biblical story to illustrate how he understands Linnet's actions.
You have heard of King David and of the rich man who had many flocks and herds and the poor man who had one ewe lamb—and of how the rich man took the poor man’s one ewe lamb. That was something that happened, Madame.
This allusion to the Bible is from Samuel 2:12. The story Poirot tells is a parable about a rich man with many livestock who nevertheless chooses to take a poor man's one ewe. Just as Poirot tells Linnet this story to prove that she's been selfish, in the Bible this parable is told to King David so he can realize the error of his ways. Even the circumstances of David's sin are similar to Linnet's transgression: David sent a man into the frontlines of a campaign so that man would die and David could marry the man's wife.
The parable also serves as a metaphor for Linnet's choice. As the "rich man," she seduced her less fortunate friend's fiancé and therefore took from someone else, even though she needs nothing and could marry a different man with ease. Poirot points out the power imbalance in her relationship with Simon, which Linnet insists has nothing to do with their marriage.
Related Themes:
Chapter Five
Explanation and Analysis—The Moon and the Sun:
In Chapter 5, Jackie uses a metaphor to describe why Simon left her for Linnet:
There’s such a thing as glamour, Monsieur Poirot. And money helps that. Linnet had an ‘atmosphere,’ you see. She was the queen of a kingdom—the young princess—luxurious to her fingertips. […] Look at the moon up there. You see her very plainly, don’t you? She’s very real. But if the sun were to shine you wouldn’t be able to see her at all. It was rather like that. I was the moon . . . When the sun came out, Simon couldn’t see me anymore . . . He was dazzled. He couldn’t see anything but the sun—Linnet.
Jackie's first metaphor compares Linnet to a queen or a princess. Then, Jackie explains how Simon forgot about her so quickly with a metaphor, in which she compares herself to the moon and Linnet to the sun. Linnet outshone her, just as in the daytime the sun can make the moon impossible to see.
Later, in Chapter 6, Simon uses the same simile:
It’s like the moon when the sun comes out. You don’t know it’s there anymore. When once I’d met Linnet—Jackie didn’t exist.
This moment is foreshadowing, and Poirot notices it with suspicion—why do Simon and Jackie use the same metaphor? Perhaps Simon and Jackie decided upon this explanation for Simon's behavior when they were planning the murder.
Related Themes:
Chapter Six
Explanation and Analysis—The Moon and the Sun:
In Chapter 5, Jackie uses a metaphor to describe why Simon left her for Linnet:
There’s such a thing as glamour, Monsieur Poirot. And money helps that. Linnet had an ‘atmosphere,’ you see. She was the queen of a kingdom—the young princess—luxurious to her fingertips. […] Look at the moon up there. You see her very plainly, don’t you? She’s very real. But if the sun were to shine you wouldn’t be able to see her at all. It was rather like that. I was the moon . . . When the sun came out, Simon couldn’t see me anymore . . . He was dazzled. He couldn’t see anything but the sun—Linnet.
Jackie's first metaphor compares Linnet to a queen or a princess. Then, Jackie explains how Simon forgot about her so quickly with a metaphor, in which she compares herself to the moon and Linnet to the sun. Linnet outshone her, just as in the daytime the sun can make the moon impossible to see.
Later, in Chapter 6, Simon uses the same simile:
It’s like the moon when the sun comes out. You don’t know it’s there anymore. When once I’d met Linnet—Jackie didn’t exist.
This moment is foreshadowing, and Poirot notices it with suspicion—why do Simon and Jackie use the same metaphor? Perhaps Simon and Jackie decided upon this explanation for Simon's behavior when they were planning the murder.
Related Themes:
Chapter Fifteen
Explanation and Analysis—Pennington's Plan:
In Chapter 15, Poirot uses metaphors to describe a possible motive that might have led Pennington to kill Linnet:
If Linnet Doyle were to die, her fortune would pass to her husband—and he would be easy to deal with; he would be a child in the hands of an astute man like Andrew Pennington. Mon cher Colonel, I tell you I saw the thought pass through Andrew Pennington’s head. ‘If only it were Doyle I had got to deal with . . .’ That is what he was thinking.
Poirot metaphorically says that Simon would be so financially uninformed as to be "a child" in Pennington's control. Poirot's phrase "in the hands of an astute man like Andrew Pennington" is also metaphorical language, since Pennington would not literally hold Simon. Nor could Poirot have literally seen "the thought pass through Andrew Pennington's head," but he uses this metaphor to mean that Pennington's intentions and logic were transparent to him.
Poirot speaks excellent English, but his French phrases ("mon cher") and deliberate manner of talking, free from the Britishisms and frequent contractions of other characters, remind the reader that he is French. His distinctive manner of speaking perhaps even helps the reader imagine him talking in a French accent.
Chapter Twenty-Five
Explanation and Analysis—Delighted:
In Chapter 25, Poirot asks Pennington to come in for an interview after Mrs Otterbourne's murder. In his reluctant agreement, Pennington employs verbal irony:
"Will you come to my cabin in half an hour’s time?”
“I should be delighted.” Pennington did not sound delighted. He did not look delighted either. Race and Poirot exchanged glances and then abruptly left the room.
Pennington says something he clearly doesn't mean. This moment is not only an example of verbal irony but also a possible clue, as Race and Poirot's reaction tells the reader. Why is Pennington reticent to speak with the men? Is it because he's the murderer, or for some other reason? As the reader later discovers, he has something to hide, but he killed neither Linnet nor Mrs. Otterbourne. It may be that, at this point, he worries the murders will be pinned on him. After all, Poirot believes he tried to kill Linnet with the falling rock, and he has plenty of motive.
But in Chapter 27, Poirot ultimately determines that Pennington did not murder Linnet or anyone else aboard the boat:
[Pennington] had the motive, yes. He had the will to do it, yes. He got as far as attempting to do it. Mais c’est tout. For this crime, something was wanted that Pennington hadn’t got! This is a crime that needed audacity, swift and faultless execution, courage, indifference to danger, and a resourceful, calculating brain. Pennington hasn’t got those attributes. He couldn’t do a crime unless he knew it to be safe. This crime wasn’t safe! It hung on a razor edge. It needed boldness.
Poirot metaphorically says the crime "hung on a razor edge." It was planned but also highly risky, and Pennington isn't the sort of man who murders if there's any risk he'll get caught. Poirot uses his understanding of the suspects' psychology to draw conclusions that the more traditional criminologist Colonel Race would not have come to.
Related Themes:
Chapter Twenty-Seven
Explanation and Analysis—Delighted:
In Chapter 25, Poirot asks Pennington to come in for an interview after Mrs Otterbourne's murder. In his reluctant agreement, Pennington employs verbal irony:
"Will you come to my cabin in half an hour’s time?”
“I should be delighted.” Pennington did not sound delighted. He did not look delighted either. Race and Poirot exchanged glances and then abruptly left the room.
Pennington says something he clearly doesn't mean. This moment is not only an example of verbal irony but also a possible clue, as Race and Poirot's reaction tells the reader. Why is Pennington reticent to speak with the men? Is it because he's the murderer, or for some other reason? As the reader later discovers, he has something to hide, but he killed neither Linnet nor Mrs. Otterbourne. It may be that, at this point, he worries the murders will be pinned on him. After all, Poirot believes he tried to kill Linnet with the falling rock, and he has plenty of motive.
But in Chapter 27, Poirot ultimately determines that Pennington did not murder Linnet or anyone else aboard the boat:
[Pennington] had the motive, yes. He had the will to do it, yes. He got as far as attempting to do it. Mais c’est tout. For this crime, something was wanted that Pennington hadn’t got! This is a crime that needed audacity, swift and faultless execution, courage, indifference to danger, and a resourceful, calculating brain. Pennington hasn’t got those attributes. He couldn’t do a crime unless he knew it to be safe. This crime wasn’t safe! It hung on a razor edge. It needed boldness.
Poirot metaphorically says the crime "hung on a razor edge." It was planned but also highly risky, and Pennington isn't the sort of man who murders if there's any risk he'll get caught. Poirot uses his understanding of the suspects' psychology to draw conclusions that the more traditional criminologist Colonel Race would not have come to.
Related Themes:
Chapter Twenty-Eight
Explanation and Analysis—Naked Shining Truth:
In Chapter 28, Colonel Race complains to Poirot that the famous detective is "beating around the bush" by solving the mystery of the missing pearls instead of focusing on the three murders. Poirot explains his thought process to Race with a metaphor that is also an allusion to an earlier Agatha Christie novel:
Once I went professionally to an archæological expedition—and I learnt something there. In the course of an excavation, when something comes up out of the ground, everything is cleared away very carefully all around it. You take away the loose earth, and you scrape here and there with a knife until finally your object is there, all alone, ready to be drawn and photographed with no extraneous matter confusing it. That is what I have been seeking to do—clear away the extraneous matter so that we can see the truth—the naked shining truth.
This archeological metaphor is a reference to the Poirot novel Murder in Mesopotamia, in which Poirot is called to an archeological dig to solve a murder. The allusion also serves as a defense of his detective work. There are a lot of moving parts in Death on the Nile, and many characters lie even though they are not involved in the murder. What Poirot argues here is that it's crucial to "take away the loose earth," or figure out what clues and details are not related to the murder, so that the "object is there, all alone […] with no extraneous matter confusing it." In this case, the "object" Poirot seeks to see clearly is the actual murder, as opposed to the jewelry theft, financial troubles, and family secrets that also occur in the novel.
Related Themes:
