Northwest Akron Branch Library's Online Book Discussion discussion
This topic is about
And Then There Were None
June's Title
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
2. Was there any one individual you originally suspected? What about Dr. Armstrong, who goes off alone to find General Macarthur?
3. Locate the various clues Christie leaves along the way... 1) clues designed to lead us off the path, as in a red herring, and 2) clues that point to the real culprit.
4. What is the point of the poem "Ten Little Soldiers" and the fact that after each death one of the figurines on the dining room table goes missing? How do both poem and figurines function in the story? Why might Christie have used such a symbol?
5. Why does Emily Brent write in her diary the name Beatrice Taylor as the murderer? Does Brent feel guilt for what she had done...or not? Do any of the guests come to regret their past actions?
6. Talk about class and gender distinctions. Do you find it strange that Rogers continues to serve the guests despite the death of his wife? Or that women are in charge of meals and clean-up? What about the anti-semitic references?
7. Each of the guests is guilty of a crime, but not one that could be prosecuted in a court of law. Does each receive his/her just deserts? Is the murderer insane as all the guests claim? Or is he/she acting with clear-headed logic and rationality?
8. Is the ending satisfying? Were you surprised by the identity of the murderer? Would you have preferred the final victim to discover who the killer was before dying? Why might Christie have withheld that information from readers, as well, until the epilogue?
9. Have you read any other Agatha Christie novels? Which ones...and how does this compare?
These questions were supplied by LitLovers (www.litlovers.com)
1. Talk about the characters—are any of them likable? Do you develop sympathy for anyone in particular: put another way, are some more sympathetic than others? Why might Christie have put together such an unpleasant cast of characters?I find Dr. Armstrong the most sympathetic. I think that it is hard to judge any character based on their past because there are questions on a few of who was really guilty of what. I think Dr. Armstrong is the most gullible and sympathetic character and that Justice Wargrave took advantage of him during the last half of the book. I do not find any of the characters “likable” but I wonder if that is just because we can’t get to know them very well over such a short book.
2. Was there any one individual you originally suspected? What about Dr. Armstrong, who goes off alone to find General Macarthur?
I originally read this book a long time ago and I reread it recently. When I first read the book, I believe I suspected Macarthur actually based on his calm and collected behavior till the moments before his death. Even right before his death, he still spoke so calmly about death and that he had accepted his death, which seems suspicious.
3. Locate the various clues Christie leaves along the way... 1) clues designed to lead us off the path, as in a red herring, and 2) clues that point to the real culprit.
I think the first clue really given and is continuous throughout the book is the location of the gun at any given time. Usually in mysteries, the issue of where and who holds the gun is really important. Another red herring given is that Dr. Armstrong is the only one with the knowledge to fully say how and when someone dies. It seems suspicious at times because he could give the wrong time of death or the wrong cause to throw the others off the trail.
The clues given away to the real culprit are harder to find because Wargrave got Armstrong to help towards the end of the book. Armstrong is the only one to inspect Wargrave because the others believe him to be telling the truth. Another clue I picked up on with Wargrave, is the heavy lead he takes through the whole ordeal. The others look to him for help on what they should do next when they should come to the conclusion as a group.
4. What is the point of the poem "Ten Little Soldiers" and the fact that after each death one of the figurines on the dining room table goes missing? How do both poem and figurines function in the story? Why might Christie have used such a symbol?
I think the poem is in the book as a use of foreshadowing but also as a kind of continuous omen. Once the guests and the reader start to figure out that each character is dying in the specific ways that the poem describes, Christie is telling the audience the ending of the novel. She is saying that there will be no one left at the end of the book even though we and the characters don’t want to believe it. It is always a reminder that even after the first few murders, or when Armstrong disappears, that there is more to come and they shouldn’t believe that they won.
I know the original was “Ten Little Indians” which I am very glad that they changed and I think that it is really interesting that they changed it to soldiers. Soldiers typically follow direction even into death, like in General Macarthur’s case, and that these characters are just often walking into their own death just as the play describes.
I think there is also something true about children’s poems and fairy tales often have tragic and horrifying endings or meanings. This one is something that Wargrave had been interested in since he was a child and I believe that this influenced the number of people he actually decided to kill.
5. Why does Emily Brent write in her diary the name Beatrice Taylor as the murderer? Does Brent feel guilt for what she had done...or not? Do any of the guests come to regret their past actions?
I think that Brent writes that Beatrice Taylor is the murderer because she believes that she may not have caused her death but that the ghost of Taylor has come back to cause her problems. She doesn’t seem to feel guilty for what she has done but she has this fear of the unpious and that Beatrice Taylor then and now is testing her and her devotion to God and her uppity morals.
I think some of them really regret their past actions. I think Vera has a kind of guilt but it isn’t the ghost of the boy but the ghost of Hugo that comes back to haunt her. So I think she feels guilty as to how it affected her relationship with Hugo rather than the fact someone died. General Macarthur also seems to feel guilty but more for how it affected his relationships rather than the fact it caused the death of a person.
6. Talk about class and gender distinctions. Do you find it strange that Rogers continues to serve the guests despite the death of his wife? Or that women are in charge of meals and clean-up? What about the anti-semitic references?
There are definitely some large class and gender differences between the guests throughout the book. I think that there was definitely something weird about Rodgers continuing to work the morning after his wife died. The lower class guests are only invited to work while the richer ones are invited for a holiday. I think Christie included these class differences because she was wealthy herself and could not understand that working people wouldn’t want to continue working (or that they have to usually continue working after the death of a loved one because of the loss of income) because she would have had those servants to take care of her throughout her life.
The gender differences seem to be taken as fact in the novel when some of the men think that the women are weak or that the women are often the ones that need to be consoled or find themselves fainting in stressful moments. I think this is just a plot device the Christie has used so you don’t suspect the women but it is antiquated and not necessary for the story.
7. Each of the guests is guilty of a crime, but not one that could be prosecuted in a court of law. Does each receive his/her just deserts? Is the murderer insane as all the guests claim? Or is he/she acting with clear-headed logic and rationality?
I don’t think that anyone deserves to be killed for their crimes but I feel like characters like Anthony Marsten, that felt more inconvenience by their crime rather than actually feel any emotion deserved to be prosecuted but not with murder. Especially since the murderer believes that he is basically God and has the right to sentence them without hearing more than just gossip about the guests and decides that is enough to put them to death.
8. Is the ending satisfying? Were you surprised by the identity of the murderer? Would you have preferred the final victim to discover who the killer was before dying? Why might Christie have withheld that information from readers, as well, until the epilogue?
I thought the ending with Vera dying was satisfying but I was not a fan of how the epilogue was set up. It’s pages and pages of that self-gradurizing from Wargrave and I understand that we don’t know the true identity of the killer because we follow the characters till Vera is the last one and even Vera doesn’t know. I think it is interesting that it is this romantic idea of putting it in a bottle and throwing it to sea.
9. Have you read any other Agatha Christie novels? Which ones...and how does this compare?
I have tried other Agatha Christie novels but I have never been able to finish any others. This one is definitely my favorite because it is so interesting compared to her others though.
Mod
1. Talk about the characters—are any of them likable? Do you develop sympathy for anyone in particular: put another way, are some more sympathetic than others? Why might Christie have put together such an unpleasant cast of characters?
Until the end, I did like Judge Wargrave and felt sympathetic toward Vera Claythorne. I also felt sympathetic for whichever Rogers who was convinced by the other not to seek help quickly for their former employer allowing her to die.
I liked the Judge because he was matter a fact and seemed to not make assumptions in regard to guilt or innocence. Though later we find that he was judge, jury, and executioner…
I initially felt sympathetic for Vera because I thought she may have been duped by Hugo Hamilton, the uncle of the boy who died in her care, to allow the boy to put himself in a dangerous situation that killed him. However, we learn at the end of the book that he did not dupe her and that he actually loved his nephew very much.
As far as whichever Rogers was convinced by the other, even though they were wrong, I can see how one could give in to the pressure from a spouse. Which was acknowledged by the Judge who murdered Mrs. Rogers early on to spare her the horror of watching everyone else die (as opposed to her husband who he killed about halfway through). It was the assumption of the Judge that Mr. Rogers convinced his wife. “Mrs. Rogers, I had no doubt, had acted very largely under the influence of her husband.” The Judge did not know which of the Rogers convinced the other.
I think Christie put together such an unlikeable cast so the reader wouldn’t mind them being murdered.
2. Was there any one individual you originally suspected? What about Dr. Armstrong, who goes off alone to find General Macarthur?
No, because all of the characters, at one time or another, were alone and could’ve committed the murders or conspired with another character to carry them out.
3. Locate the various clues Christie leaves along the way... 1) clues designed to lead us off the path, as in a red herring, and 2) clues that point to the real culprit.
I really didn’t pick up on the clues that were in the story. In the Epilogue, when the Judge reveals his three clues the police could use to solve the crime, the Mark of Cain seemed too obscure for me.
The clue about the red herring, as pointed out by the Judge, “at that period there are only four persons and of those four I am clearly the only one likely to inspire him with confidence.” And, the police being aware of the guilt of Edward Seton making the Judge guiltless. Those make sense.
The clue about the Mark of Cain on the Judge and Cain being the first murderer was very obscure. Though, perhaps at the time that this story was written, the average person may have had more knowledge of the bible than we do today.
4. What is the point of the poem "Ten Little Soldiers" and the fact that after each death one of the figurines on the dining room table goes missing? How do both poem and figurines function in the story? Why might Christie have used such a symbol?
The point of the poem was the inspiration for the judge on how to murder his criminals. To do it as he says as a “fantastical crime - something stupendous - out of the common!”
The figurines are removed to increase the horror of those left behind. So they could feel their impending death approaching inexorably.
I believe Christie uses the poem and symbolism of the figurines disappearing to generate suspense.
5. Why does Emily Brent write in her diary the name Beatrice Taylor as the murderer? Does Brent feel guilt for what she had done...or not? Do any of the guests come to regret their past actions?
Emily writes Beatrice Taylor’s name as that of the murderer because she is angry that she is being held accountable for her death.
In Emily’s eyes, it is Beatrice’s fault that she is on the murderer's list. Beatrice made her mistakes, got herself fired and then killed herself. And now, because Emily fired Beatrice for her poor behavior, she sees herself as being murdered by Beatrice’s actions.
What Emily doesn’t recognize (or refuses to recognize) is that she is judgmental, entitled, and likely did cause Beatrice to commit suicide. What options did Beatrice have in the late 1930’s being unmarried, pregnant and unemployed?
There were only two guests who I thought showed regret for their past actions. General Macarthur and Vera Claythorne. Though, in Vera’s case, I think she regrets the loss of Hugh and the resulting consequences in regard to the boy she was watching.
6. Talk about class and gender distinctions. Do you find it strange that Rogers continues to serve the guests despite the death of his wife? Or that women are in charge of meals and clean-up? What about the anti-semitic references?
I didn’t find it strange that Rogers continued to serve the guests after the death of his wife. Everyone experiences death and grieving differently. It is not uncommon for people who lose a loved one to want to stay busy and maintain a sense of normalcy.
The role of women in the book I feel reflect the sensibilities and cultural expectations of the time it was written.
I regard to the anti-semitic references, I think that racism was common place and mostly accepted at the time that this book was written. The copy I read was the 2012 edition which had mostly cleaned up the racist references, but if you go back to the original edition, it was filled with many racist references. And, I don’t feel comfortable even sharing the original title which referenced an ethnic group.
7. Each of the guests is guilty of a crime, but not one that could be prosecuted in a court of law. Does each receive his/her just deserts? Is the murderer insane as all the guests claim? Or is he/she acting with clear-headed logic and rationality?
I don’t think that everyone deserved death. In the case of Emily Brent, she was certainly an awful person, but Beatrice’s choices were her own.
I do think that the Judge was insane. Wanting to murder, and torture through fear of murder, wanting to do it in such a fashion that it highlighted his intelligence, was insane. And, rather narcissistic.
8. Is the ending satisfying? Were you surprised by the identity of the murderer? Would you have preferred the final victim to discover who the killer was before dying? Why might Christie have withheld that information from readers, as well, until the epilogue?
I was satisfied with the end and I was surprised that the Judge was the murderer. I thought it offered an interesting approach to wait until the epilogue to reveal the murderer. I think that it maintained the suspense to the very end, or acted as a surprise twist because it’s going to look like the murderer will never be revealed.
9. Have you read any other Agatha Christie novels? Which ones...and how does this compare?
I have not. I did enjoy the recent theatrical release of Murder on the Orient Express, so I may try another Christie title to see if I enjoy it.
Mod
Phoeby wrote: "they have to usually continue working after the death of a loved one because of the loss of income"
Poor people have to continue working because they can't afford no to.
And, I'm glad that you found this title interesting. Mystery has rarely been a genre that I've enjoyed reading with a few exceptions. This book being one.
From: https://www.agathachristie.com/about-...
"Born in Torquay in 1890, Agatha Christie became, and remains, the best-selling novelist of all time.
She is best known for her 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, as well as the world’s longest-running play – The Mousetrap. Her books have sold over a billion copies in the English language and a billion in translation."