Reading the Detectives discussion

This is the spoiler thread for And Then There Were None.



Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread, as it is assumed that anyone reading this thread has finished the book.

I believe I first saw the play of And Then There Were None, where Christie changed the ending, so that two of the characters are innocent and there is a romance between them.

As far as I remember, I much preferred the play and was disappointed to find that in the book and TV adaptation they are all killed and there is nobody to root for, and no romance element! I have realised that I definitely prefer mysteries where there is a character I can like, as mentioned over in the general thread.

Yes, having everyone guilty and dead by the end means this book is unremitting in its bleakness. Its cleverness doesn't compensate for me.

And the judge is quite an actor!

I don't believe they were all killed in the movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037515/?...). They had a bit of a romance and learned to trust each other.

I love this book unreservedly. I do think there are characters that, although guilty, you can have sympathy for. In a way, it is more about them accepting their guilt and coming to terms with it and Vera is obviously the one who hasn't come to terms with what she did and the disastrous consequences.

General McArthur, who sits on the cliff top and realises he will be killed, almost welcomes it. Others, like Lombard, feel no guilt.

You could argue that Dr Armstrong was the one who had most used his guilt for good - he did kill a patient while drunk, but then he turned his life around.

Anyway, I can see the flaws, but I think this is a masterpiece.

I'm with Susan on this one. It's the darkest book of hers I've read so far, but I loved it. I first experienced the story at the Theatre and as far as I remember, that play stayed close to the book, I don't remember anyone surviving. I do remember feeling quite chilled when we left. A great story.

Brilliant twist to have a 'dead' man as the villain, but I don't understand how the judge manages to pretend to be dead and fool everyone - wouldn't they see him breathing/feel that he has a pulse?!

Especially as I think someone else has to help Dr Armstrong to carry him! Poetic licence, I suppose?

Judy wrote: "Brilliant twist to have a 'dead' man as the villain, but I don't understand how the judge manages to pretend to be dead and fool everyone - wouldn't they see him breathing/feel that he has a pulse?..."

The doctor might have had (although would have had them with him?) that would slow down the heart sufficiently. Although the judge could be on heart medicine that might be able to do that, too. But I think even then there were medications that could have that effect. And, Christie, having worked in the pharmacy (and done prodigious research) might well have known about them.

I just couldn't understand why the Rogers continued to cook and clean. If I thought I'd be killed any minute, I would have resigned immediately ;)

Yes, that was strange.

Also, what did others think about the judge's ranking of guilt? I think I'd have put Marston (the man who was speeding and killed the two children) higher - his insouciance and lack of concern for what he'd done would have made me want to teach him a moral lesson, so I'd have left him to suffer for longer.

I am surprised Wimsey never killed anyone, tearing around the countryside in his car. I think we have mentioned in other discussions how many people were killed by cars speeding, before laws were brought in.

Tony (?) Marston really could hardly remember what he had done, could he? So, I suppose his perception of guilt was less, but - yes - I didn't see him as the least offender by any means. Surely, his sheer lack of worry over what he had done, should have meant he should have suffered more?

I thought the woman who sacked her maid for getting pregnant wasn't really a killer at all - her behaviour might be very snobby and uncaring, but it was a fairly standard thing to happen, tragically.

I also thought the judge was far worse than any of the others, so his rankings of guilt were pretty irrelevant!

Yes, that's true, Judy :)

Agreed! The 'one chopped himself in bits' killing always makes me flinch...

Roman Clodia wrote: "Yes, that was strange.

Also, what did others think about the judge's ranking of guilt? I think I'd have put Marston (the man who was speeding and killed the two children) higher - his insouciance..."

I took it that Waldegrove thought he was too amoral & dim to understand what he had done.

But Emily Brent was also too rigid & intolerant to understand. & technically not murder.

I think I would have bumped her off first, followed by Mrs Rogers.

I read it that the last three were the most guilty in Waldegrove's eyes, but the order of their death was by chance.

What a great idea - so, if we were to change the order, who would be most/least guilty?

I felt that the judgemental behaviour of Emily Brent was reprehensible. If we look at the novel as a moral reminder to the reader, the lesson to be learnt from this story is an important one. Being judgemental is a constant today, even with a relaxation of moral codes. Perhaps Christie wanted to emphasise the damaging characteristic that can be.

Emily Brent was utterly sure of herself, wasn't she? She never thought she would be killed, because she never thought she was guilty.

I still don't think she is guilty of anything in legal terms - but that's an interesting point about the book giving a moral reminder to the reader, Robin. It might well bring readers up short who don't identify with any of the other characters, but would do just the same as Emily Brent.

Many of them were not guilty in a legal sense, only in a moral sense. Thus the law could not touch them and the need for retribution.

& (from the other thread) why I love it so much.

I love it so much because it is so creepy. Nearly impossible to put down.

I love the plotting & the tight timelines. Christie tidies up every loose end.

I love the moral questions it poses.

My favourite moment is when Vera & Philip look at each other after finding the doctor's body. What a moment!

My only quibble is that Waldegrove uses very weak evidence to believe Vera guilty of murder. Hugo could have been mistaken.

My only quibble is that Vera went through so much only to hang herself and I don't think she would, but it works. I think it's a masterpiece and one of the best crime novels ever written.

Susan wrote: "My only quibble is that Vera went through so much only to hang herself and I don't think she would..."

That's a good point - also how could the judge know she would do so?

He was manipulating from behind. That apart, I think it works beautifully. You may disagree, which is fair enough, but I think it's an important highlight in crime writing. She did something different and it still stands as a very creepy and interesting read. I would NOT like to be on that island, or in that house. She writes the atmosphere beautifully.

Carol and Susan, thanks for sharing your thoughts about this - clearly the creepiness is a matter of taste. I do suspect though if I had come to this book fresh, without knowing the story already then I would not have been able to put it down either.

On the questions of how the judge knows that Vera and the others are guilty, and how he knows she will kill herself, I suppose there is a feeling in the book that he can't fail - he is pulling all the strings and his judgement is final.

Susan wrote: "He was manipulating from behind. That apart, I think it works beautifully. You may disagree, which is fair enough, but I think it's an important highlight in crime writing. She did something differ..."

I certainly agree that it is an important highlight in crime writing - in a way Christie is a victim of her own success here, since it has been copied so much over the years that it is hard to recapture just how different it would have felt on first publication.

I've seen TV episodes of mystery series which copy most of the plot!

Absolutely. It seems quite common now, but she often played with the rules - Roger Ackroyd, etc. She really was something special as a crime writer.

Carol Clouds ꧁꧂ wrote: "I love the moral questions it poses...."

Yes I think that's one of the best things about crime fiction - it makes you think about what's right and wrong, and this book does it particularly well.

On a slight tangent, I'm reading Railway to the Grave at the moment in which a wealthy man (view spoiler)[ commits suicide on the train line. There are two points relating to morality in this. One is that the local vicar refuses to allow him to be buried in the churchyard, because suicide was a sin according to Christianity. The second was that his 'goods and chattels' would be forfeit to the Crown because suicide was illegal at the time (story set in 1855) unless the inquest gave a verdict of 'not of sound mind'. (hide spoiler)] Both of these points are argued over by the various characters and it adds an interesting element to the story, especially because these days neither of them would apply (as far as I know anyway).

I thought Vera would be unlikely to hang herself, but the judge may have had a back up plan such as hanging her himself. Or she may have assumed she would be blamed for all the dead bodies around her and just gave up.

Sue wrote: "Carol Clouds ꧁꧂ wrote: "I love the moral questions it poses...."

Yes I think that's one of the best things about crime fiction - it makes you think about what's right and wrong, and this book does..."

Sue, following your tangent, how are Marsten's railroad detective stories? Have you read the series from the start? I really like Andrew Martin's Jim Stringer series (The Necropolis Railway), but there hasn't been a new one for quite awhile and I'm looking for a replacement series. Any reply would be more appropriate in the 'mysteries you are reading' thread. Thanks.

Sandy wrote: how are Marsten's railroad detective stories? Have you read the series from the start? ..."

I've replied over on the mysteries thread Sandy :-)

One of the tricks for mystery writers in this style is to introduce all these characters and get the reader to know and care enough about each to differentiate between them. I don't think anyone is better than Agatha Christie at this. In this one, she doesn't even have a Poirot or Marple for readers to latch onto while meeting the many suspects. I never had to work hard or turn back the pages to remember "who the heck was this and what is their story?"

This book, and it's premise, are so well known that I've been assuming I read it somewhere over the years, but I found that was wrong. Glad I picked it up, I really enjoyed it.

Doug wrote: "One of the tricks for mystery writers in this style is to introduce all these characters and get the reader to know and care enough about each to differentiate between them. I don't think anyone is..."

That is very true. Also helped by the pace I read it. I found it nearly impossible to put down.

I did have to turn back to check who a few of them were early on, but it became clearer after a bit.

Doug, I think it is a book that people think they know - but the book is so much better than any stage/television adaptation. Always nice to go back to the original.

I always had a crush on Philip Lombard reading this when I was young and wanted him to survive. I think I'd enjoy the play adaption where he does survive! Of course seeing Aidan Turner play Lombard in the BBC adaptation a couple of Christmasses ago definitely helped with the crush.

I think in that TV version Judge Wargrave speaks to Vera before she hangs herself and it seems pretty clear that he would intervene if she didn't kill herself, but that's not in the book.

In terms of the order of crimes, I always thought there should be some divide between those who allowed someone to die through carelessness and those who did it deliberately for gain. By this accounting method, Vera definitely comes out at the worst - she deliberately caused a small child to drown. But the Rogers were also deliberate, whereas Emily Brent was purely neglect and Dr Armstrong was carelessness. So I'd definitely tinker with the order a bit.

I see strong similarities with Curtain (view spoiler)[which also explores 'murders' which are committed without the murderer personally lifting a finger. (hide spoiler)]

Oh yes Annabel, I think you are right about the TV ending being slightly changed.

A lot of these crimes seemed more taking advantage of a hopeful chance, rather than any real intent to murder directly - the child swimming to the rocks, the man sent off on a hopeless mission in the trenches, the elderly woman whose doctor doesn't reach them in time. It does make you wonder how often people are killed without being discovered - how often an ambulance is called too late, on purpose, etc. It is interesting that Christie is looking at these grey areas of murder, rather than someone being knifed, or shot or poisoned.

By the time the judge "died" I was actually sure that one of the other victims wasn't quite so dead, since staging corpse like this should take some amount of unsupervised time - more than any of the remaining survivors had. I didn't suspect the bloke himself though.

Looking back, I am not quite sure how I feel about the book yet. Reading it was fun enough, because I enjoyed learning more about the characters and their inner turmoils as the story progressed and I had fun making up theories who died when and during which activity.

On the other hand I can so very well relate to Chandler's resentment towards this kind of book at the moment. All of the characters have more or less gruesome actions in their past - and in Vera's case they are even beautifully explored in her shifting states of self-denial - but in the context of the island all those crimes of greed, envy and cold self-righteousness succumb to mere puzzle pieces in someone's twisted amusement. Wargrave says it himself, he wanted to kill someone, he just needed an excuse so he could still feel good about himself while doing it.

Susan wrote: "I just couldn't understand why the Rogers continued to cook and clean. If I thought I'd be killed any minute, I would have resigned immediately ;)"

I agree Susan! Although perhaps it was a sign of the times that Rogers was a butler and so he carried on being a butler through not knowing what else to do. People 'knew their place'. He was very isolated after his wife died. He was seen as a servant by the other guests and they didn't stop treating him as one all the way through. I felt quite sorry for him in a way.

Judy wrote: "I thought the woman who sacked her maid for getting pregnant wasn't really a killer at all - her behaviour might be very snobby and uncaring, but it was a fairly standard thing to happen, tragicall..."

Yes, at the time that would have been a very common attitude so it seemed a but harsh that she had to die as a result. But I suppose the fact that she felt such guilt about it, and imagined Beatrice at the window and so on, meant that even she knew really that she'd done something awful.

Susan wrote: "My only quibble is that Vera went through so much only to hang herself and I don't think she would, but it works. I think it's a masterpiece and one of the best crime novels ever written."

I wasn't really convinced by Vera's behaviour at this point. And the crazy judge couldn't have known she would do it. In his confession he describes it as an interesting psychological experiment, to set her room up and to see if she took the bait. I thought that was one of the creepiest parts of the story! I think perhaps he had a back up plan though, given how meticulous he was in planning the whole thing, so she would have been pushing up the daisies one way or another!

Judy wrote: "I did have to turn back to check who a few of them were early on, but it became clearer after a bit."

Me too. With most crime novels I make notes about who all the characters are as I go along. Yes, I really am that obsessive about trying to work out whodunnit before I get to the end of the book!

Anyway, with this book I didn't feel I needed to, because she puts a handy dandy little bio for each of them at the beginning. I referred back to that a bit to start with but they were distinctive enough that I got them all straight reasonably early on.

One of the things I like most about Agatha Christie is that she doesn't go into gory details about the deaths. Just as well in this book as there are so many of them! I enjoy crime fiction because of solving the puzzle, but I'm really put off if there are too many entrails!

Sue wrote: "One of the things I like most about Agatha Christie is that she doesn't go into gory details about the deaths. Just as well in this book as there are so many of them! I enjoy crime fiction because ..."

Ha, yes my mother used to love Christie & Heyer murder mysteries because they were"nice" murders! :D

If there is one weak spot in the plot, it was how the crazy judge shot himself at the end. It seems so reliant on a really unlikely Heath Robinson sort of idea, and so many things could have stopped it from working properly!

One of the real difference between UK GA crime and that developing in the US at the same time, was the lack of blood and gory deaths. As we've said before, WWI had a huge impact on British readers being tired of death and violence. Also, the fad of puzzles, such as crosswords, and jigsaws, were huge at that time and I think those books were puzzles, to be worked out and enjoyed.

Carol Clouds ꧁꧂ wrote: "Ha, yes my mother used to love Christie & Heyer murder mysteries because they were"nice" murders!..."

Nice - yes exactly!

Sandy wrote: "I thought Vera would be unlikely to hang herself, but the judge may have had a back up plan such as hanging her himself. Or she may have assumed she would be blamed for all the dead bodies around h..."

Exactly that, Sandy. Imagine being Vera on a remote island with 9 dead bodies and you the only one alive. Who murdered them? You're sure to be accused.
Another aspect - you are on an island with 9 dead bodies, limited supplies, and no way of knowing if you'll ever get off the island. Might as well make the end quick.

I have read, listened to audiobook and radio dramatisation, watched on TV, and now just finished watching the 1945 movie. All run pretty true to the book, but the ending seems to have been a point of concern, and so is the most often changed feature.

And even though I know the story and outcome so well, I still marvel at how the book can still keep me in suspense. Certainly Christie's best in my view.