Operation Book Club discussion
This topic is about
And Then There Were None
BOOK 32: And Then There Were None
date
newest »
newest »
And Then There Were None was my very first introduction to Agatha Christie in 8th grade, so it will forever have a special place in my heart. (I really, really love her books.) Though I don't think I'd read the book again since then, so it was nice to revisit it!I remembered really enjoying Lombard's character even then, so it was fun to read it again and pick out more of the reasoning why (because I still did). I think it has a lot to do with him being so honestly dishonest. Everyone else, when accused, withdraws and defensively gets offended and declares "Well I never could do that sort of thing!" whereas Lombard straight up owns it. It's certainly not good, and he's not a good person, but at least he knows it. I appreciate that.
The story itself is chilling, and finishing it late at night still makes me feel a little on edge. The psychological effect on Vera... it makes me shudder. The way the inspectors at the end go through, trying to piece it out. The letter from Wargrave. The rhyme and the china figures.
It was nice on the reread knowing how it ended so that I could see the hints and clues beforehand. There were quite a few times where I saw Wargrave stepping in to either end a discussion that might be compromising or to be clearly in charge so that everything would go according to plan. It seems so natural when you don't know, but so sinister when you do.
For those who hadn't read it before, who did you think it was?
What do you think of the morality and ethics of "helping along justice" in places where it can't be brought before the law? (Though, maybe not in quite such a sadistic way...)
Mod
unfortunately I made the mistake of watching the television series first (a year ago or whenever it came out) so I already knew the twist :( but I guess the fact that I loved the book anyway is a testament to her talent. and I did love being able to pick up on the clues, knowing who the killer was. the whole time I kept thinking 'well OF COURSE it's him..... but would I have been able to figure it out if I didn't actually know??' this is going to haunt me. (I can't remember who I thought it was when I was watching the tv series, but I definitely was not able to guess it from that.)
I just love the setting of this story, the atmosphere of a huge abandoned house on an isolated island. it was so creepy and one of my favorite things was when she'd slip into different people's thoughts, and you'd have one person thinking 'where did the revolver go?' or 'how are we going to get out of this?' and then it would switch to Wargrave, and without knowing his identity we'd read someone thinking 'not long now, stay focused, no one suspects you' - so chilling, I loved it so much.
I really liked Lombard as well; him being so unflinching about his crime compared to the rest of them was really interesting. for that reason when I was watching the show I automatically assumed it wasn't going to be him, that would have been way too obvious, but it was interesting how so many characters considered him below them for being so unapologetic, when he was really the only one who was never lying to himself. there's also that thread of decorum that runs through this story - how most of them still try to act in socially appropriate ways and hold onto that mask of etiquette that they'd surrounded themselves with, even when it was clear it was too late for that.
What do you think of the morality and ethics of "helping along justice" in places where it can't be brought before the law? (Though, maybe not in quite such a sadistic way...)
this is SUCH a great question and one of the truly incredible things about this book is that Christie was able to come up with TEN instances of crimes which are morally reprehensible but unable to be punished by the law. it's such an interesting theme because it makes you think, at what point do someone's crimes become completely unforgivable? because all of these people did terrible things, and yet, for the most part, we're still rooting for them. the psychology behind this story is so fascinating, and I love stories like that that examine the role of the law in enforcing justice, because for as much as we equate those two words, law is a man-made and man-enforced concept, and doesn't always necessarily dovetail with true justice. Wargrave seeing himself as the True Enforcer of Justice was so fascinating and really made him the perfect choice for the killer.
to those of you who've seen the BBC adaptation, what did you think of some of the changes they made? (notably I'm thinking: the heavy focus on Vera as the main character; Blore being accused of homophobia rather than perjury; the relationship between Lombard and Vera; the way Wargrave is revealed to be the killer, etc....) and did you like it as an adaptation?
Mod
I also made the mistake of watching the television series before reading the book, and I wasn't as lucky with the timing. I think my hold on the series (and it was a fairly long waiting list) came in at the local library within a few days of And Then There Were None being announced as a choice for book club. I made the decision to watch the series (which I thought was fantastic) anyway. Although I did still enjoy the novel, and gave it four or four-and-a-half stars, I know I would have been more impressed if I hadn't watched the show first. In particular, I am always incredible impressed by authors who can write a mystery or detective story and create a twist or ending that the reader doesn't see coming. Certainly I would not have guessed the culprit, and the way the deaths are matched to the nursery rhyme left me very impressed by how clever Christie is with this book. Reading the book after watching the adaptation, I could really see how smoothly the judge controls the actions of those on the island, suggesting next steps and directing the line of questioning, and then seemingly ending up the next murder victim just when the other guests might be starting to get suspicious.
I think one of the things that really added to the book is that sometimes we would get the unfiltered thoughts of the island guests, but not always be told whose thoughts we were reading.
I also found Lombard a really engaging character, both in the series (although Aidan Turner, who I was already fond of from Being Human has something to do with that) and in the novel. His wolfish quality and the unapologetic honesty of knowing what he is and where he stands in the world made him a really compelling presence for me.
I loved the sense of atmosphere Christie builds up, first with the creepy house, and the stormy seas, and an isolated island, and then through the knowledge that the killer is among them and no one is safe.
I have to admit that the judge's letter at the end and his professed sadistic desire to kill but also his rigid sense of justice and desire to kill the guilty mostly made me think of Dexter and his "code", a set of personal ethics (although as much about not getting caught as it is about killing only those who deserve it). I wonder if the author of those books drew any inspiration from Agatha Christie?
In general though, it's a really interesting question posed about the ethics of killing the guilty. What I found really fascinating was that even the judge has his own hierarchy within this group of people, saying he gave the quickest and most painless deaths to those whose guilt was the lightest, compared with the more cold-blooded offenders, who he made suffer the longest. The notion that some people are guiltier than others based on their intent or their remorse over the crimes. I loved the whole letter where you get the killer's thoughts on the entire orchestration.
I did like the BBC adaptation and I thought it really got across the darkly creepy atmosphere of the original story, and that it was well acted by all. I actually found Vera in the adaptation much more interesting because she's a cooler customer and it's a little harder to get a sense of what she's thinking at any given time. I guess in a historically set piece with mostly male main characters, I liked seeing a woman who remains mostly collected throughout the story, and I think it's more effective to watch the psychological aspects work on her when she seems more put together to begin with. I don't think the Lombard-Vera relationship was especially necessary, although I suppose it adds that much more baggage to her character when she kills not just another guest but someone she's been engaged in an affair with. Certainly I had more sympathy for Blore (although I mostly see him as a bit of an oath) in the novel where perjury is his crime than I do for a homophobic character.
Mod
I guess in a historically set piece with mostly male main characters, I liked seeing a woman who remains mostly collected throughout the story
so we actually rewatched the BBC series this weekend, and one thing I LOVED about it was how vera's hysterical tendencies in the book were given to armstrong in the show - like armstrong being the one to have the hysterical fit after rogers' death. it's great that they decided not to play up the hysterical woman trope.
I actually liked the Vera/Lombard relationship, I'm usually not a fan of random heterosexual relationships being thrown into everything, but I think it worked for the characters and I loved the extra level of drama it added to Vera killing Lombard. though on second thought I would have been fine with Lombard/Blore or Armstrong/Blore being a thing - if they were really committed to doing Blore's backstory the way they did it could have been an internalized homophobia thing? or they could have just stuck to perjury. I'd have been fine with that.
in the show I really loved the reveal that Vera had purposefully murdered Cyril - this information was withheld for a fair amount of time in the book too but in the show it's this real OH MY GOD moment that makes you reevaluate everything you'd thought of her character until that point.
so all in all I really liked the show too! great performances, and Charles Dance in particular and the girl who played Vera were amazing. I do think it was a bit slow paced at times especially compared to the book which was so fast-paced, but they did well to get the atmosphere right.
Did you immediately assume everyone was guilty or innocent? Or a mix of both? Did any of the characters surprise you with what they did? Did you think anyone did/did not deserve their fate?I truly love this book. This is partially nostalgia talking - I read it for the first time almost 15 years ago. There's something about unraveling a well-crafted murder mystery. It was eye opening to read it again with some exposure to the plot, because I was able to step back and admire how the narrative was constructed and how well everything tide up. As Wargrave said at the end, it was an attempt at producing a work of art, and my opinion it was a success (the novel itself as well as the events that unfolded.)
What did you think of Wargrave being the murderer? I think he did a good job of staying relatively unassuming for his stature and not drawing attention to himself. He hid his imaginative side well. Did you suspect anyone in particular (other than Wargrave)? One thing that I remembered from my first reading was that I had been so convinced that Vera was the murderer. This time around, I saw so many instances in the text that put her in the right position to be a prime suspect. Until her own scare in her bedroom, putting her in the wrong place, she made a really good decoy and I completely fell for it. I think there was also a bit of a feminist motivation - she (and Emily while she was alive) was constantly being discounted because she was a woman. I kind of wanted it to be her in order to prove them wrong.
I love that Wargrave was bold enough to say that death "acquitted" someone too late, when his own "death" was the red herring and not an acquittal at all. I have to wonder how well Wargrave really knew everyone. I suppose as this was his Swan Song and a work of art, he'd want to be pretty sure before going forward, but in the letter at the end, he seemed to suggest that there may have been a chance that Vera would not have hung herself...and then what? I see what he saw - her guilt and loss and how the rhyme weighed on her more than the others - but what if he was wrong? Lombard didn't overtly seem to show any guilt, but he was one of the last ones standing as well - something which was reserved for the guiltiest who would let their crimes weigh on their conscience. Conversely - if Tony Marston had been in the house longer, might realization have caught up with him?
I loved the setting, and I was particularly struck by the insistence on the modernity (for the time) of the house - no "dark and stormy night in a creepy old house" cliche. "It had no atmosphere...somehow that was the most frightening thing of all." [64-65]
The island imagery worked wonderfully for the story. I love to see how islands are used in literature. "There was something magical about an island - the mere word suggested fantasy. You lost touch with the world - an island was a world of its own. A world, perhaps, from which you might never return." [29] You can see why a character like Wargrave would be drawn to it - the fantasy, the sense of creating his own world, and the isolated prison he and the others would never leave. General MacArthur's take in the end intrigued me: "Peaceful place...he thought. Best of an island is once you get there - you can't go any farther...you've come to the end of things...He knew, suddenly, that he didn't want to leave the island." [70]
Random thoughts:
Emily Brent: "I'm very annoyed with myself for being so easily taken in. Really that letter is absurd when one comes to examine it. But I had no doubts at the time - none at all." [88] I had to laugh when I read this, because I was so easily swayed by the story and I definitely had my moments of being "taken in". Some of my early assumptions were quite foolish in hindsight.
I was struck by the irony when Vera claimed that "She didn't want to die. She couldn't imagine wanting to die...Death was for - the other people." [72] ...and yet, she's the one who takes her own life in the end. She brings up the abstraction of death, in the sense that "it wouldn't happen to me" no matter how dire the situation is.
I also loved the dual use of the word "incredible". There was a constant back and forth between meaning "not credible" and meaning "amazing". It fits the ending extremely well.
First of all, sorry for being late. Okay, this is the first downright mystery book that I've ever read and I just can't imagine any other book living up to the standards that it set. Anyway, I actually hadn't seen the BBC adaptation nor any other one, and went in completely blind. I didn't know who the killer was, and was trying to figure it out at certain times, but I'll admit that it was all just so enjoyable that halfway through I decided to just go with the flow of the story.
Looking back, it now makes sense. I was having a hard time keeping track of all the characters and needed a constant reminder of who was who and then they suddenly dropped dead. At the time, though, I didn't really realise that Wargrave was never really given a POV other than to set his first victim.
The ending did take me by surprise, I expected Vera and Lombard to I don't know, go off to the sunset, Grease style. I was actually surprised that this was not the case, but I investigated, and apparently this is the way that the play, adapted by Christie herself goes.
I was actually really into the psychological thriller aspect of it, how Vera was getting extremely paranoid about it all. I liked how cool and collected Lombard was about it all, for the most part, when compared to the other characters. For him it was just another tight situation to get out of.
I think I read a review that pointed out something that bothered me while I was reading it: there is some classism when it come to Rogers. At no point do they even truly suspect him, and even allow him to handle their food when they think that he murdered his wife. I mean, that's a dumb move if you think that someone wants to kill you, but so is that you know that and still sit down at the table three times a day and make some small chat because that's what society expects from you.
All in all, I throughly enjoyed this book.
Mod
(again I watched the show first, but) I assumed it was a mix of both! ones like Tony and Lombard were obvious that they were guilty, but with Vera in particular, I was sure at first that she was innocent.
Did you think anyone did/did not deserve their fate?
I think one thing that's interesting about this book is how Wargrave equates death with justice. as someone who doesn't condone capital punishment, I don't think any of these characters deserved their fates. I think they all deserved to go to jail (maybe with the exception of Emily and MacArthur...? whose roles in the deaths were more abstract than the others...) but no matter how terrible their crimes, I wouldn't want to subject anyone to that kind of sadistic torture.
I was struck by the irony when Vera claimed that "She didn't want to die. She couldn't imagine wanting to die...Death was for - the other people." [72] ...and yet, she's the one who takes her own life in the end.
I love that observation! Vera's suicide is especially fascinating from a psychological perspective - obviously there was enough guilt weighing on her that it was always going to be a possibility, but like you said, Dawn, what if she hadn't done it? but then I also wonder if she had decided to live and tried to make it back to shore, wouldn't she have been hung anyway, as the presumed murderer of 9 people?
I think I read a review that pointed out something that bothered me while I was reading it: there is some classism when it come to Rogers.
that's a great point too, I also noticed that! they knew someone was murdering them but still had no problem telling Rogers to cook their food...? actually a lot of things they did made absolutely no sense to me, like continuing to split up as their numbers dwindled. but yes, I agree that class definitely played into the way they interacted with and dismissed Rogers.
(oh, and don't worry about being late!)
Did you immediately assume everyone was guilty or innocent? Or a mix of both? Did any of the characters surprise you with what they did? I think for the most part I assumed people were guilty (aside, of course, from the obvious ones who admitted it). Vera was the one for whom it did take me the longest to realize she wasn't innocent, like others have said, and I loved the way they brought you into that. For the others, their internal monologues revealed a lot -even those that protested their innocence still thought about what they'd done and admitted it to themselves. Vera, though, is thinking about various parts of it and it's not until the end when she's thinking the whole plan out (say it's okay, swim but be too late) that you realize she actually does do cold-blooded murder. I think that puts her in an interesting position compared to characters like Armstrong or Tony. They messed up and someone died as a result, but Vera truly thought out a plan that would result in someone's death. As the person we (or at least I) sympathized with the most, it's a bit of a shock. After all, we get her POV the most--she should be innocent!
Did you think anyone did/did not deserve their fate?
I don't think anyone deserves to be sentenced to death by a mad judge who's decided to play God. Did they deserve to die? I am a person who doesn't think anyone has the right to decide that another person should die, so that's a no, but even just within the context of the story I don't think so. As I mentioned, characters like Armstrong and Tony didn't plan to kill anyone, it was recklessness and oversight. And for those who purposefully did, Vera and the General for example, they got their punishment anyway. The General was almost happy to be killed, because he'd lived for so long with the knowledge of what he'd done. Had Vera lived, I think she would have ended up with that same feeling -knowing she chose to kill an innocent person and being haunted by it.
What did you think of Wargrave being the murderer?
It absolutely makes sense in retrospect that I kick myself for not figuring it out! They even get close to suspecting at a few points, and Lombard even says something to the effect of "I bet it's the judge, too long playing God and seeing right and wrong." If only he'd held that belief longer....
I did purposefully pay attention to the POV this time around, and thought it was very interesting that after we get the Wargrave POV where he acquits himself of murdering Seton, we never get it again (except for the "unnamed thoughts" sections). That should be a big tip off for us too, the fact that for such a major character we don't get any of his thoughts until the end.
Dawn, I like your question of what if Vera hadn't killed herself? It's important to remember that Wargrave was still alive at that point. (And watching her. Creepy.) If she hadn't done it, he probably would have found another way. Waiting til she slept, catching her unaware, something. He's certainly not the type of person to leave it all up to chance. There was some chance involved (timing, how people paired up) but he had plans that wouldn't be swayed. My question is, what if Vera hadn't shot Lombard, but the other way around? I think Wargrave would have had a much harder time making Lombard give in to atmosphere or physically overpowering him.
Enjoy!