Crime, Mysteries & Thrillers discussion

Hello fellow Crime, Mystery, and Thriller readers! This discussion is about And Then There Were None and your hostess is Gem.
___________________________________________
Information about Spoiler Alerts

Please note that our discussion can be about any and all aspects of the book: The theme, plot, story structure, characters, settings, etc. It is likely the discussion will contain spoilers from the start. If you have not finished the book, be careful not to read the posts of others until the end.

Feel free to use spoiler formatting, instructions are in the upper right above the comment box.
___________________________________________


First, there were ten—a curious assortment of strangers summoned as weekend guests to a private island off the coast of Devon. Their host, an eccentric millionaire unknown to all of them, is nowhere to be found. All that the guests have in common is a wicked past they're unwilling to reveal—and a secret that will seal their fate. For each has been marked for murder. One by one they fall prey. Before the weekend is out, there will be none. And only the dead are above suspicion.

Count me in for this discussion! I'm about 80% through the audio, brilliantly narrated by Dan Stevens (Matthew from Downton Abbey). I couldn't get a hard copy so had to create a character list :).

Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts.

I also listened to the Dan Stevens audio and was very impressed- I liked this much better than I did Murder on the Orient Express. With that one I was not much impressed with the ending, and was wondering if this would go a similar direction, but once I got there, I thought it was really fascinating. (view spoiler)[ I was leaning toward either Wargrave or Blore (or a partnership) because the killer seemed to have access to such specialized confidential information. Then after Wargrave died, I really felt Blore didn't have the brains to pull it off alone, so I went with Lombard. But the real ending was great and unexpected, to me. (hide spoiler)]

Very good book. The classic movie based on it was good too. Are they doing an updated movie? They've revisited other Christie stories recently.

I have a [spoiler] code - so I will comment & "Focus on Author" & the rich 'history' (gleaned over the yrs.) being a fan of Christie, Hercule, Ms. Marple etc & 'And then there....'

First - the 'original' British title was 'Ten Little (N-word)' & thus when it was published in America became 'Ten Little Indians' (though equally as 'offensive,' yet different time & unfortunately there were no 'PC' Police) a film adaptation was released in (I think) '45 with Fitzgerald 💗 that funny looking old coot, Huston (Angelica Huston's famous grandfather Walter) & Hayward (not Rita) & subsequently MANY more film adaptations have followed & it was also a Very 'successful' play!

Second - Agatha Christie had quite the love hate relationship with characters, the press & success - she famously disappeared, became 'reclusive' at times, divorced (for that time in England & elsewhere (esp for the woman) it was 'scandalous' & 'shame' inducing) & had a great 💓 of Egypt!

So, I "Focus on the Author" Agatha Christie & hope (w/o [spoilers]) you 'Enjoy' the read of this undeniable 'Classic' work by one 'Classy' Dame, author, mother, wife & beloved human being!

I just finished this and loved it! I think I've seen the 1945 movie years ago, but remembered none of it except brief visual sketches, so I was pretty much taken by surprise at the ending. Did anyone else see the future Stephen King in this book? The march of dread, the inevitably of one's demise, but drawn out into a slow terror all are also hallmark's of King's horror works.

I liked that this took a departure from Christie's usual detective/amateur sleuth approach. But it did have her hallmark recap of the murder(s) in "the manuscript", telling us in detail what happened.

Recently there was a BBC 3-part mini-series of this. I started to watch but did not go very far. It's on Acorn here in the States if anyone subscribes and also available on DVD. I know my library has it. It has a great cast! https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06v...

I also enjoyed this article on why this book is a masterpiece, written at the time of the broadcast of the new mini-series. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...

I agree about keeping track of the characters. I made a list of the "indictments" charged via the recording and then ticked them off as they died or I wouldn't have been able to track, especially since I listened vs reading in print.

The racism and antisemitism did bother me, although I passed that over because of the times in which she wrote, where she wrote and the class she belonged to in British society. Not making it right, just an explanation. Remembering that Britain originally sided with Hitler helps explain a little about the culture of that time. I think the bias against "others" was a lasting remnant of the Colonial era, unfortunately.

Suzy wrote: "I agree about keeping track of the characters. I made a list of the "indictments" charged via the recording and then ticked them off as they died or I wouldn't have been able to track, especially s..."

I'm reading the book White Trash by Nancy Isenberg ... and it has an interesting idea of how the British felt of native peoples.

As to Britain "siding" with Hitler.. not really. It depends which British you are talking about. Churchill knew who Hitler was from the beginning. But no one wanted to go to war again.

Kirsten wrote: "Suzy wrote: "I agree about keeping track of the characters. I made a list of the "indictments" charged via the recording and then ticked them off as they died or I wouldn't have been able to track,..."

I'll have to check out that book, Kirsten. You're right that "Britain" didn't side with Hitler, but in the years building up to WWII, many in high society were enamored with Hitler.

Sorta off topic as to the book, but for me it does explain the references in Christie's books. I read the first Lord Peter Whimsey by Dorothy Sayers a few years ago and was appalled at how antisemitism was a theme (not just a passing reference) in that book and decided not to read others!

Suzy wrote: "Kirsten wrote: "Suzy wrote: "I agree about keeping track of the characters. I made a list of the "indictments" charged via the recording and then ticked them off as they died or I wouldn't have bee..."

You're depriving yoursef, then!!! They're the best. I look past a lot of it. The times were different. Many of the golden age sci-fi books are horribly misogynist and I still like them.

I did enjoy this one and had NO idea how it had been done. But it was true - there were NONE! It was weird and scary and fiendishly clever. reviewed it here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I read it years ago when a paperback copy was enclosed with the namesake CD ROM computer game, but unfortunately remember little about it.

PattyMacDotComma wrote: "I did enjoy this one and had NO idea how it had been done. But it was true - there were NONE! It was weird and scary and fiendishly clever. reviewed it here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/..."

I'm so glad! This is one of my favorite books.

I hope everyone is enjoying this book and thank you to everyone participating in the discussion. I'm about halfway through. I hope to finish this weekend and then I'll return to give my thoughts.

I will hopefully finish it this weekend.

Fiendishly clever. It is not that there is an absence of unlikely plot developments but the skill with which the reader is left clueless has to be admired. I hope that since one is allowed to use spoilers, nobody will mind if I reveal the murderer. But I wonder how many were able to guess who the murderer was. I was not able to do so. This time I read the book while knowing who the murderer was and how the reader had been fooled and wanted to know what crumbs Agatha Christie left around to give us even a chance.
For safety’s sake here is the spoiler alert.
(view spoiler)[First, I tried to see whether Christie had cheated. Reading the opening itself I thought I had got her as the murderer was the one person who knew that the letter he had supposedly received was not genuine as it had been written by himself and in the rumination it reads as if the murderer(the judge) himself believes in the letter. But on closer examination that is not true, it is just the judge thinking that it is exactly the kind of letter his friend would have written and so if anybody was to examine it, it would pass muster. I could find no other clear example of the judge’s thoughts. So, no cheating.
I then tried to see whether any clues had been provided.

The most obvious clue was the reference to the red herring swallowing rather than being swallowed. This clearly indicates that the doctor has been murdered by someone with whom he has created a red herring. He was too good a doctor to have certified someone as dead who was not unless he had been persuaded to do so. So, that was the red herring. One of the previous six victims was not actually dead and he had first persuaded the doctor to declare him dead and then killed the doctor.
That brings us to the judge. If you look closely, there are several indications that the judge was the murderer. He was the victim previous to the doctor and if the doctor had wrongly declared him dead then it was imperative that the doctor be next. Then there is the verse:
Five little Indian boys going in for law;
One got in Chancery and then there were four.
This verse has two special qualities. It is the only one which clearly refers to one specific person – the judge and does not refer to a specific manner of death or death itself other than by implication.
Then there are the ruminations during breakfast after the third death of which one seems to be that of the murderer:
“"The damned fool, he believed every word I said to him. It was easy... I must be careful, though, very careful...”
By the use of the word damned the women are automatically excluded! And who is the one person who can still get someone, knowing it to mean the doctor, to still believe in him – clearly the judge the one with the most trustworthy and high status profession.
Then there is the staging of the judge’s death. Not only did the doctor keep everyone away but how did the murderer have the time for the candles, the robe and the wig and why? All the other murders are committed efficiently without the need for dramatics.
The judge also fits because from their admissions and inner monologues (except for the Rodgers) it is clear that the others are in fact guilty of the crimes they are accused of.
Finally if one takes into account that the judge is used to passing out harsh sentences and the reference to his having visited a doctor, theoretically one could have worked out that the murderer was the judge. (hide spoiler)]

Suzy wrote: "I just finished this and loved it! I think I've seen the 1945 movie years ago, but remembered none of it except brief visual sketches, so I was pretty much taken by surprise at the ending. Did anyo..."
Thank you for the link to the Telegraph article. I do not agree with many of her critics. If she was such a bad writer, then why are we still reading her 80 years later?

I'm done! I thought this was absolutely brilliant. The more I read Agatha Christie the more I remember why I loved reading her when I was younger.

I initially guess the killer was one of the guests, but I kept guessing wrong. By the end, I had absolutely no idea who was responsible for the murders.

⊱✿Gem✿⊰ wrote: "I'm done! I thought this was absolutely brilliant. The more I read Agatha Christie the more I remember why I loved reading her when I was younger.

I initially guess the killer was one of the gues..."

Sorta like the guests . . . guessing who the killer is and being wrong, but with much more dire consequences. :)

I got behind but totally enjoyed this book! My mom found a postcard from NYC showing the play “10 Little Indians” the original title so I used it as my bookmark and it gave the “10” deaths so helped me follow.