Moira’s review of And Then There Were None > Likes and Comments

62 likes · like
Comments (showing 1-45 of 45) (45 new)    post a comment »
dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Elizabeth wrote: "I must admit the horrible tv shows have completely turned me off Christie. I know, I need to get over it.

I'm thinking I might like Miss Marple more, because Christie apparently based it on her grandmother and her 'cronies,' and I do love nosey old ladies (Granny Weatherwax FTW!). But I just can't get over those late-night A&E endless rerunnings of Hercule Poirot, AUGH.

You went back and read Sayer, right?"

....ummmmm.....if I say no you will still <3 me right? (They're all in a pile! Right on the bookshelf! I just keep forgetting!....)


message 2: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Elizabeth wrote: "Just read Gaudy Night."

So many people say to read it! But shouldn't I read all the others first?....well ha ha no probably not. Okay I'll read it first to hook myself in, I've done that with other series. //digs out book from pile


message 3: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Elizabeth wrote: "Um, have you read my review of it? I started there. Really. It's very good."

NO. Where is it? Ah there it is. //does the clicky


message 4: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow Oh, read Gaudy Night!! I had that same "where have you been?!" experience. And I haven't read others yet, either, but it stands alone.

I read all the Christies (maybe not the Poirots) when I was around 10-12 years old. I loved them until I got really sick of them. I think this one was my favorite.


message 5: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Meredith wrote: "Oh, read Gaudy Night!! I had that same "where have you been?!" experience. And I haven't read others yet, either, but it stands alone."

OMG I TOTALLY will - I know _just_ where the Sayers books are, too, right on a bookshelf in a neat stack in the bedroom, unlike THE ROVING PROFESSOR AND THE WANDERING MADMAN. //sobs

I really liked the first few Marples I read, then hit a bad patch, urgh. I don't like the ones where she isn't as prominent.


message 6: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow You won't regret Gaudy Night, I think. Christie marked the end of a longstanding love affair I had with mysteries (inspired by Nancy Drew, of course). When I got to where I could predict the endings, I had to abandon the entire genre. I still remember the day. . . . And I still don't have a sense of suspense because of the heavy dose of Christie and Tom Clancy movies in my childhood. I broke.


message 7: by Christy (new)

Christy Christie marked the end of a longstanding love affair I had with mysteries (inspired by Nancy Drew, of course). When I got to where I could predict the endings, I had to abandon the entire genre.

I went through something similar when I was younger. I started with Nancy Drew and read through all of the Agatha Christie books (or most of them anyway) and read some Ellery Queen and Dashiell Hammett and lots of others as well. And then I just got sick of it. I could either predict the endings a mile away or, as with some of Christie's novels, I felt like the author was sort of cheating by withholding information.

Recently, though, I've begun enjoying mysteries again, mostly of the Scandinavian detective sort (Mankell, Larsson, Sjöwall and Wahlöö, etc.). I have also really enjoyed Tana French's books. The difference, I think, is that I care a lot less about the mystery itself now and a lot more about the people attempting to solve the mystery; these books are good for that.


message 8: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow Christy wrote: "I could either predict the endings a mile away or, as with some of Christie's novels, I felt like the author was sort of cheating by withholding information."

Exactly, and it bugs me when they cheat you of the information, too. I completely agree about it being so much better when it's about the people, not the mystery. That was why Gaudy Night was so wonderful. I have been reluctant to start the Larssons. Not because of the people I know who didn't like them, but more because of the people I know who really loved them. I hate to be a hater.


message 9: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Meredith wrote: "more because of the people I know who really loved them. I hate to be a hater"

Heh, it's slightly amusing how in the reviews everyone who didn't like it focused intently on the sandwiches. What I noticed was that awful Billy's Pan Pizza.


message 10: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Meredith wrote: "more because of the people I know who really loved them. I hate to be a hater"

More seriously, I think the series stands or falls on Lisbeth. People who know me well told me I would love the character - I wasn't that interested in the books before then - and I love Bad Girls, and I'd read a fair amount about his intentions in writing the trilogy and how bad the translation was, which made me more forgiving, I think. A lot of the writing is clunky and he does go into seemingly unnecessary detail and follow the characters in what seems like slo-mo, but that's also a direct carryover from stuff like Dashiell Hammett (at one point, hand to God, I think it's in Maltese Falcon, Hammett gives us a really detailed description of Sam Spade making....A SANDWICH) which Larsson was a big fan of. I also don't think he got a chance at all to revise and polish even the first book, let alone look over the English translations, so again, I tend to be more forgiving, mainly because of LISBETH. If you don't like her you probably won't like the series. She's the hook.

Anyway, let a thousand interpretations bloom! That's what GR is all about, right? (I think we can all agree Bree Tanner SUCKS, tho)

(ha, uh, I did not do that on purpose, srsly.)


message 11: by Christy (new)

Christy I have been reluctant to start the Larssons. Not because of the people I know who didn't like them, but more because of the people I know who really loved them. I hate to be a hater.

I have to say, I really enjoyed the first two (was let down by the third). I can't say I would call them among the best novels I've ever read, but there was plenty there for me to like. I would recommend Henning Mankell (the Wallander series is great) and Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö (the Martin Beck series is also great--so far) over Stieg Larsson.


message 12: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Christy wrote: "I would recommend Henning Mankell (the Wallander series is great) and Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö (the Martin Beck series is also great--so far) over Stieg Larsson. "

I've heard GREAT things about both those, especially Martin Beck. - I actually thought the second Larsson book was more of a letdown than the third - but actually the 2nd and 3rd volumes are more like one big book (that cliffhanger right at the end of the 2nd doesn't help). I do wonder what he'd planned for the future books.


message 13: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile What you say about Agatha Christie's conjuring ability is very valid and I can empathise with a stubborn refusal to flow with the current, a reaction to a feeling of pressure to like somone whom you are supposed to like, of being made ot like them, like an unloveable relative. Out of stubbornness the temptation is to say, with no better reason than the wish to safeguard one's own identity/dignity, "this writer is overrated".
On another subject, I have a gripe with your decision to refer to Agatha Christie as simply Christie as though you didn't have time or space for the first name. Like many commentators and critics these days, you disregard what used to be considered the courtesy of referring to women writers by their first name as well as second name or as Mrs or Miss.... I know that what was once regarded as couteousness is now regarded as condescending, with the result that women writers are as often referred to curtly by their second names as male writers are but surely there are some writers, and Agatha Christie is one of them, who are so well known by their first and second name in combination, that the name Agatha Christie is the whole name, that referring to them plainly by their second name is not only discourteous (which is definitely is), it is downright confusing. If someone talks about a person called "Christie" my first thought is that they are talking about the serial killer John Christie. "Agatha Christie" please, not "Christie".


message 14: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow Do you feel that way about Jane Austen? You don't think it's okay to call her Austen in a work of criticism?


message 15: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile Sparrow wrote: "Do you feel that way about Jane Austen? You don't think it's okay to call her Austen in a work of criticism?"

No I don't.


message 16: by Christy (new)

Christy Esdaile wrote: ". Like many commentators and critics these days, you disregard what used to be considered the courtesy of referring to women writers by their first name as well as second name or as Mrs or Miss.... I know that what was once regarded as couteousness is now regarded as condescending, with the result that women writers are as often referred to curtly by their second names as male writers are but surely there are some writers, and Agatha Christie is one of them, who are so well known by their first and second name in combination, that the name Agatha Christie is the whole name, that referring to them plainly by their second name is not only discourteous (which is definitely is), it is downright confusing. If someone talks about a person called "Christie" my first thought is that they are talking about the serial killer John Christie. "Agatha Christie" please, not "Christie". "

Does this apply only to women writers for you? If so, then I would take your perceived discourtesy and confusion over sexism any day. The idea that we should refer to women writers as Mrs. or Miss (not even Ms.?) and not do the same for men or that women need to have their whole name included but men don't is ridiculous. And if readers cannot figure out, in a review of an Agatha Christie book, what "Christie" is being referred to, then that is not the writer of the review's problem.


message 17: by Esdaile (last edited Dec 21, 2011 02:04PM) (new)

Esdaile I would add to my answer that "ok" is such a vague word that it is difficult to know what you mean exactly when you ask me "is it ok" or not ok to do something but I think it is typical of the age in which we live to simplify, reduce and not to embellish and I deplore an unwillingness to embellish. It is also typical of the time in which we live that "time saving" is regarded as a major virtue. It saves time to drop the first name (which has no practical use and everything today must have a practical use, as EM Forster observed in Howard's End when he made that telling comment about the Wilcox family-"they put everything to use")and ergo, a writer's first name is unceremoniously dropped. In day-to-day intercourse most individuals, including those who refer to writers by just their second names, would themselves feel slighted if they were to be addressed by only their second name. There are writers, however, whose status is linked to one word, for example, Shakespeare, Marx. This icon status is usually indicated by the possibility of making an adjective of their names: Marxist, Shakespearean.


message 18: by Sparrow (last edited Dec 21, 2011 02:26PM) (new)

Sparrow Esdaile wrote: "I would add to my answer that "ok" is such a vague word that it is difficult to know what you mean exactly when you ask me "is it ok" or not ok to do something but I think it is typical of the age in which we live to simplify, reduce and not to embellish and I deplore an unwillingness to embellish. It is also typical of the time in which we live that "time saving" is regarded as a major virtue. It saves time to drop the first name (which has no practical use and everything today must have a practical use, as EM Forster observed in Howard's End when he made that telling comment about the Wilcox family-"they put everything to use")and ergo, a writer's first name is unceremoniously dropped. In day-to-day intercourse most individuals, including those who refer to writers by just their second names, would themselves feel slighted if they were to be addressed by only their second name. There are writers, however, whose status is linked to one word, for example, Shakespeare, Marx. This icon status is usually indicated by the possibility of making an adjective of their names: Marxist, Shakespearean."

I will agree to replace the word "okay" with the word "acceptable." Maybe I think oppositely to you because I work in a legal community and we all call each other by our last names (in day-to-day intercourse). I find it respectful and collegial.

Otherwise, I agree with everything Christy said. But, I do enjoy the insufferably patronizing tone you are using. It's been a while since I've seen quite such an entertaining tone.


message 19: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow Actually, in filing legal documents, in the U.S., it is required to use the last name of adult parties, and only children are referred to with first names. I find the requirement to use a first name with only women likewise infantilizing.


message 20: by [deleted user] (new)

I am certainly in amazement, Ms...um, what should I do about your last name here, Elizabeth?

I think it is the NYT that refers to all mentioned parties with Ms. or Mr. I love it when they write an article about Meat Loaf and call him Mr. Loaf.

Wait, why exactly is it only for women writers? Or should I say authoresses?


message 21: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell ....wow, I missed this WHOLE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. GO MOI. Yeah, referring to female authors by their last name only is a standard litcrit thing, and adding the first name just because they're women is patronizing and sexist, thanks everyone for stepping up to the plate while I was NOT GETTING NOTIFICATIONS WTF.


message 22: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile Moira wrote: "....wow, I missed this WHOLE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. GO MOI. Yeah, referring to female authors by their last name only is a standard litcrit thing, and adding the first name just because they're women is ..."

Using upper case on the internet is widely considered to be the written equivalent of shouting
and there is no cause to shout, even if I
have touched a raw nerve. I have no intention of following "the standard litcrit thing", thank you very much. I have a question for you: would you mind if someone, a police constable for example, or a doctor, addressed you with just your surname, instead of Mrs. Miss or Ms (and can someone tell me how Ms is pronounced?)?


message 23: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell OMG no. Good day sir.


message 24: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Thomas wrote: "with frustration with goodreads for not getting a notification. "

Yeah, exactly. (NOW I'm getting notifications. WTF.)


message 25: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile Elizabeth wrote: "I've only got one name, like Cher or Madonna. Are we advocating for "Mrs. Cher" here in the review of her works, or, even better:

Miss Madonna's book, Sex, is a true masterpiece of e..."


Madonna is similar to the "icon names" I meantioned, besides which it is not even an official name but an artistic or iconic one. Madonna, Marx, Shakespeare, Stalin are "brand names" if one can call them that and are in that sense enough in themselves.

There are two wholly different reasons that I would not refer to Agatha Christie as just "Christie". One is that famous writers do acquire "labels" of names with or without initials, with or without first names, which become through usage the names which they are called in print: George Bernard Shaw but TS Eliot, Keats, Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers. This does not follow any logical system, it follows from usage and convention; it often has something to do with harmony, by which I mean that the chosen appelation often sounds especially pleasant.
A quite separate argument stems from the convention that in the past it was considered discourteous to refer to a woman just by her surname, whereas in the case of a man it was acceptable. This is considered "patronising and sexist" in the, to borrow a phrase, "lit crit convention" and by the standards of the liberal modern age in general. The standards of the liberal modern age claim to be open minded and tolerant but they are not so, insisting for example that everyone follow down the path of disembellishing language, abusing those who are reluctant to do so.
In the case of Agatha Christie I have a strong hunch (I cannot prove it but she was conservative in most things) that she herself would have preferred to be referred to as Agatha Christie, not Christie, were she alive to voice her opinion (sofaras I know, she died before the use of plain last names came into vogue). Some might see that as another argument for referring to her as Agatha Christie and not just Christie. It is likely to have been what the writer herself would have preferred.


message 26: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile Elizabeth wrote: "I call Jane Austen "Jane" only in all my reviews because through her books she has become my intimate friend and I feel we should be on a first name basis by now. Obviously, I have not asked her pe..."

Elizabeth wrote: "I've only got one name, like Cher or Madonna. Are we advocating for "Mrs. Cher" here in the review of her works, or, even better:

Miss Madonna's book, Sex, is a true masterpiece of e..."


You do not say why you regard the argument as "stupid" but clearly people feel strongly enough to react (strongly) to it so not everyone thinks it is stupid. I do not think it is in the least stupid. The persistent use of last names (and scorn for those who keep to convention in this respect) is a telling example of the trend of our times to strip down, simplify, diminish and equalise. Here are my sentiments expressed better by far than I could hope to express them:


reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's.


message 27: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile Thomas wrote: "oh deary. she was EMPHASIZING. not SHOUTING. you might even notice that none of the CAPITALIZED WORDS have anything to do with the actual argument, but with frustration with goodreads for not getti..."

If you say so. I do not understand why it was necessary to emphasise (especially with the expression abbreviated to WTF which is usually shouted and hardly an emphasis but never mind).


message 28: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 22, 2011 08:08AM) (new)

This guy is like a Christmas present. I love the argument that while he condescends and claims to speak for women - how would you feel, etc? Like it had never occured to us women to take offense over people treating us the same as dudes - our strong reaction against his patronising and infantilizing statement & tone shows a "strong reaction" and is evidence of his argument's merit?


HAHAHAHAHA.

That's not shouting, that's horrified laughter.

Oh, and I forgot to quote the relevant passage:

You do not say why you regard the argument as "stupid" but clearly people feel strongly enough to react (strongly) to it so not everyone thinks it is stupid. I do not think it is in the least stupid. The persistent use of last names (and scorn for those who keep to convention in this respect) is a telling example of the trend of our times to strip down, simplify, diminish and equalise. Here are my sentiments expressed better by far than I could hope to express them:


reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's.


As long as we're douchily quoting poetry, he's my bit:

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'


message 29: by Sparrow (last edited Dec 22, 2011 08:21AM) (new)

Sparrow I think Moira might have been shouting, but not at you, Esdaile, never at you. I don't know how long you've been on goodreads, but for the past couple of years the notifications often stop working with no alert, and it is VERY ANNOYING, and people are DRIVEN TO SHOUTING about it. It has nothing to do with you.

The Miss Madonna usage sounds stupid because, in the U.S. at least, we only ever refer to someone by "Ms." or "Mr." and a first name if they are a kindergarten teacher, so it has come to indicate that a person referred to that way teaches a low grade of elementary school. So, juxtaposing that with Madonna's sex book, I think, would only ever be done as a joke. The joke is that it evokes in image of Madonna reading the Sex book as a picture book to a group of children.

To clarify, I do not find it offensive for someone to refer to me by "Ms." and my last name, nor do I find it offensive for someone to refer to me by my last name alone. But, I do find it kind of hilarious for a man to get on the internet and reprimand a woman for how women would feel about being referred to without a first name or prefix. I hate to speak for everyone, but maybe some of us feel like it is more disrespectful to reprimand a stranger on the internet because of rules of address that no longer exist, than to refer to someone by a last name.


message 30: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 22, 2011 08:11AM) (new)

Don't worry. I have alerted the irony brigade. I am hopeful that they will be able to put this one out.

Edit: And I quote again, for posterity. Who knows when he will huff off, affronted by women having an opinion about how women are addressed, leaving a wake of deleted posts.

Madonna is similar to the "icon names" I meantioned, besides which it is not even an official name but an artistic or iconic one. Madonna, Marx, Shakespeare, Stalin are "brand names" if one can call them that and are in that sense enough in themselves.

There are two wholly different reasons that I would not refer to Agatha Christie as just "Christie". One is that famous writers do acquire "labels" of names with or without initials, with or without first names, which become through usage the names which they are called in print: George Bernard Shaw but TS Eliot, Keats, Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers. This does not follow any logical system, it follows from usage and convention; it often has something to do with harmony, by which I mean that the chosen appelation often sounds especially pleasant.
A quite separate argument stems from the convention that in the past it was considered discourteous to refer to a woman just by her surname, whereas in the case of a man it was acceptable. This is considered "patronising and sexist" in the, to borrow a phrase, "lit crit convention" and by the standards of the liberal modern age in general. The standards of the liberal modern age claim to be open minded and tolerant but they are not so, insisting for example that everyone follow down the path of disembellishing language, abusing those who are reluctant to do so.
In the case of Agatha Christie I have a strong hunch (I cannot prove it but she was conservative in most things) that she herself would have preferred to be referred to as Agatha Christie, not Christie, were she alive to voice her opinion (sofaras I know, she died before the use of plain last names came into vogue). Some might see that as another argument for referring to her as Agatha Christie and not just Christie. It is likely to have been what the writer herself would have preferred.



message 31: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow Thanks. I'm glad you're on top of these notices.

I just wanted to get this one copied for posterity:

Esdaile wrote: "Madonna is similar to the "icon names" I meantioned, besides which it is not even an official name but an artistic or iconic one. Madonna, Marx, Shakespeare, Stalin are "brand names" if one can call them that and are in that sense enough in themselves.

There are two wholly different reasons that I would not refer to Agatha Christie as just "Christie". One is that famous writers do acquire "labels" of names with or without initials, with or without first names, which become through usage the names which they are called in print: George Bernard Shaw but TS Eliot, Keats, Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers. This does not follow any logical system, it follows from usage and convention; it often has something to do with harmony, by which I mean that the chosen appelation often sounds especially pleasant.
A quite separate argument stems from the convention that in the past it was considered discourteous to refer to a woman just by her surname, whereas in the case of a man it was acceptable. This is considered "patronising and sexist" in the, to borrow a phrase, "lit crit convention" and by the standards of the liberal modern age in general. The standards of the liberal modern age claim to be open minded and tolerant but they are not so, insisting for example that everyone follow down the path of disembellishing language, abusing those who are reluctant to do so.
In the case of Agatha Christie I have a strong hunch (I cannot prove it but she was conservative in most things) that she herself would have preferred to be referred to as Agatha Christie, not Christie, were she alive to voice her opinion (sofaras I know, she died before the use of plain last names came into vogue). Some might see that as another argument for referring to her as Agatha Christie and not just Christie. It is likely to have been what the writer herself would have preferred."



message 32: by [deleted user] (new)

Whoops. Double teamed.


message 33: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow haha!! Too many copies are better than none.


message 34: by [deleted user] (new)

My heart still bleeds that we lost much of Virgin John's output. Never again!


message 35: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile Christy wrote: "Esdaile wrote: ". Like many commentators and critics these days, you disregard what used to be considered the courtesy of referring to women writers by their first name as well as second name or as..."

We have to disagree then. I would prefer to be thought sexist than discourteous. Incidentally, nobody has yet said whether they would mind or not mind being addressed by their surname only by say an official or a doctor. It is sad that people have a problem with using the two words Agatha Christie. This was her name (and I think she wished to be referred to as "Agatha Christie"-would that count for nothing?) used in public reference to her and her writing from the time of the publication of "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" in 1920 until about 1980, when dropping first names came into vogue. For over half a century it was rare to find a reference to just "Christie" but around 1980 our modern and tolerant age with its customary complacency, began to preach that it is "absurd" that men and women should be treated differently, consequently in the case of referring to writers it was absurd (and sexist) that anyone should bother to mention more than the writer's surname. It is part of the pervasive and pursuasive late twentieth century fashion to reduce everything and everyone to the simplest common denominator, so it is part of a widespread trend. It is used for the titles of books too. Anthony Powell's "Dance to the Music of Time" is pruned back by some commentators to a skimpy "Dance". As anyone who has read 1984 will remember, totalitarian regimes are pioneers of abbreviations and abbreviations have taken the form of a kind of linguistic foot rot in the modern world. For example, most English commentators on Nietzsche persist in referring to his works by the first letters of the titles, sometimes German titles sometimes English (and that is confusing). Thus "GM" in an essay on Nietzsche probably refers neither to General Motors nor to Gay Marriage, but to Zur Genealogie der Moral.


message 36: by Sparrow (last edited Dec 22, 2011 03:46PM) (new)

Sparrow In my opinion, sexism has, among many other negative features such as greed and self-indulgence, the aspect of being very discourteous. I would not have a problem with a doctor referring to me by last name if that was the common practice of the doctor. I don't think anybody has a problem using Agatha Christie's first name, but I think we have a problem with you reprimanding somebody for not doing so.


message 37: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile I do not know what "we" means here but I agree that sexism can and often is a form of discourtesy. I think I am regretting more than reprimanding. Be that as it may, I have given my reasons why I dislike the use of just the second name and rest my case.


message 38: by Miriam (new)

Miriam I have no issue with being addressed only by my surname. It is the norm in the military and some schools.

And I agree with Sparrow that sexism is inherently discourteous, even if it is not so intended.


message 39: by [deleted user] (new)

Miriam wrote: "I agree with Sparrow that sexism is inherently discourteous, even if it is not so inte..."

...and additionally, that treating women with a separate-but-equal set of standards in terms of address is inherently sexist. The "convention" to which you keep gesturing is long dead. Let's keep it that way.


message 40: by Miriam (new)

Miriam Wasn't it a fairly brief convention in any case? Most of the Victorian criticism and scholarship I've read used "Mr" for men rather than just the last name.


message 41: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Yeah, plus I'm just, um, ALLCAPSY. It's sort of a terrible habit. I blame Harriet the Spy.


message 42: by Sparrow (last edited Dec 22, 2011 05:58PM) (new)

Sparrow Esdaile wrote: "I do not know what "we" means here but I agree that sexism can and often is a form of discourtesy. I think I am regretting more than reprimanding. Be that as it may, I have given my reasons why I dislike the use of just the second name and rest my case."

By "we" I meant the ladies that have expressed disagreement with the argument that you are making. I do not intend, however, to speak for everyone, so I used the qualifying language "I think," if you were confused by the non-specificity of that as well.

Perhaps I didn't understand your use of the word "gripe," and your criticism that the name Christie is confusing without the first name Agatha. This came off as reprimanding to me, but maybe you were actually being humble in noting the regrettable fact that you didn't realize a review of a book by the author Agatha Christie also refers to the author Agatha Christie when it says "Christie." If so, I agree that it is regrettable, and maybe we can all just have a good laugh about that mistake.


message 43: by Esdaile (new)

Esdaile Ceridwen wrote: "Miriam wrote: "I agree with Sparrow that sexism is inherently discourteous, even if it is not so inte..."

...and additionally, that treating women with a separate-but-equal set of standards in ter..."


Sparrow wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "I do not know what "we" means here but I agree that sexism can and often is a form of discourtesy. I think I am regretting more than reprimanding. Be that as it may, I have given my..."

Ceridwen wrote: "Miriam wrote: "I agree with Sparrow that sexism is inherently discourteous, even if it is not so inte..."

I am gratified to learn that you do not intend to speak in everybody's name, message 54.

Well, I certainly reprimand you now for implying that I am such a dullard as not to realise that Christie (usually) refers to Agatha Christie! The suggestion that I might think "Christie" referred to John Crhistie was mainly tongue in cheek, although the practise of referring to people by their surnames or first names alone can lead to confusion. ("When you say Dylan, he thinks you are talking about Dylan Thomas, whoever he was. The man aint got no culture.") I have had to double check in the past to find out if a reference to "Lawrence's writing" was to DH Lawrence or TE Lawrence. To repeat: I find the use of Agatha Christie's last name without the first name curt and lazy and I suppose that I am allowed to express that view (one has to be careful about what views it is permissable to express in tolerant liberal Britain these days). It jars. For some people it does not jar. Although the point appears at first glance trivial, there are opposed views of the world revealed here and a person who vigorously espouses one view or the other is unlikely to wish to seek out the company of the other if it can be avoided.
If we (by "we" I mean those commenting in this thread) continue discussing this we are all likely to repeat ourselves, so I suggest letting it rest at that, with neither "side" if sides is what we are, claiming the last word.



message 44: by mark (new)

mark monday THE NEW QUEEN OF CRIME, SHE USURPS CHRISTIE'S THRONE, CAGEMATCH BETWEEN PHYLLIS AND AGATHA, TWO BITCHES ENTER ONE NOVELIST LEAVES,

words can't describe how much I loved reading that


10c2jameswaterhouse I completely disagree, this is a great book


back to top