Crime, Mysteries & Thrillers discussion
This topic is about
And Then There Were None
Archive - Group Reads
>
And Then There Were None - March 2015
date
newest »
newest »
Hi, is it okay to ask a question right off the bat?Around Goodreads I see readers throwing-up-their-hands in horror at the book's 'original title'. Or, it's 'UK title'. What the heck was wrong with it? Search me! :(
Not trying to be provocative here, just genuinely have no idea why people leap to censor/redact in such wholesale fashion. I say whatever Christie originally decided upon for her title, let it stand.
Feliks wrote: "Hi, is it okay to ask a question right off the bat?Around Goodreads I see readers throwing-up-their-hands in horror at the book's original title. What the heck was wrong with it? Search me! :(
N..."
Seriously? I guess I've never seen that yet, but I don't understand why anyone would care about a title.
Yes indeed. I encountered it this very week in the 'book recommendations engine' of Goodreads. Christie's books (this one in particular) often come up in people's reviews.What ensues: folks throwing up their hands, in the best tradition of theatrical melodrama. :0
Seriously. It is just a title and it also relates to the plot, the setting, and the theme of the tale.
Last time I looked, this wonderful Joseph Conrad novel with an even more incendiary title is still being published.
Feliks wrote: "Seriously. It is just a title"In this instance, it is not, "just a title".
Not to the many people who would be browsing book shops or walking by on the street and who have experienced that word.
Besides, "just a title" is not a good precedent to set. A lot of words and beliefs could become "just a title".
What 'word'? Indian? Sounds perfectly innocuous to me. What precisely do you read into this commonplace term which I don't? What horrifying experience do you assume people are being subjected to? Let's allow that people have minds perfectly capable of mounting a defense against a book title seen in a shop window. They're not going to fall to the ground in panic or mortification.
I'm going to see this mystery enacted on stage in Philly at the end of March. Although I've read the book and seen the movie (more than once), I still look forward to seeing it done live. (I'll let you know if the word "Indian" comes up.)
Thank you for the explanation, Feliks. Personally, I'm sorry PC has become such an issue. I'm no longer young, and I won't bow to that crap. Younger people will either shoot me or think I'm demented or have the beginnings of Alzheimer's. I just think it's ridiculous and has caused too many problems for everyone, even deaths. Like you say, if Agatha Christie named it, let it go. She deserves that respect.
As long as you have a song in your heart, you are young, I say. Don't think of yourself any other way!It is appalling, though--this manipulating of language. I don't care what the agenda is. History shows the danger of 'playing-games-with-words', as if words themselves are 'a problem'. I staunchly disagree.
Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here. I'm honestly mystified. The phrase we use here in the USA is currently, 'Native American Indian'. Last I heard, anyway. Agatha Christie is not mean-spiritedly calling them 'savages' or 'redskins' in her book title. So what's the issue, then?
I am sure Native American Indian tribes all have their own internal, private phrases they use to describe themselves. So if there's some notion that we are not showing enough respect, no word except one from their own language would satisfy, yes? So how would it even work? Which one to choose? Plus, if we did choose some generically ancient, authentic phrase from their tongue--how would we know that term is not discriminating-towards-native-american-indian-women? Or towards, animals? Or towards, the weak?
We just can't make the English language the scapegoat for all our insecurities.
Feliks wrote: "What 'word'? Indian? Sounds perfectly innocuous to me. What precisely do you read into this commonplace term which I don't? What horrifying experience do you assume people are being subjected to? L..."The original release was Ten Little N***ers. I'm sure you can fill in the letters.
And I'm sure you can see why that title was eventually changed?
Aha! Well yes in that case I can at least, perceive the logic being applied. All along I thought the word at fault was 'indian'. Thanks for clearing this matter up for me! You have done me a good service.
Thank you, Feliks! I do, indeed, have a song in my heart, and at times, it beats too loudly because no one wonders what's on my mind, LOL! I think it's called losing one's filter these days.Indians? I grew up playing cowboys and Indians, and I had a toy bow & arrow with a rubber sucker tip on it that, if licked and aimed at something flat, could stick. If PC dictates that indian isn't the correct word, what shall we call the cowboys now? Where does it end? Tonto, of course, was my favorite Indian and always will be.
It's tragic that my home state of Illinois lost our beloved Chief Illiniwek at the U of I because of PC. It's horrible. For as long as I can remember until the last few years, Chief was elected from the student body for gymnastic ability to be the U of I's sports mascot for the beautiful dance before games and halftime entertainment. It was done to the same song played by the band, and it was the most wonderful event I'd ever seen as a small child at the games with my parents. My brother went to medical school there, and we both agreed that it evoked the most emotional pride in Illinois' heritage by the spectacular beauty of the dress and dance of the tribe. You could actually feel it in your chest, and it brought tears to the eyes of many, including me. It was uplifting, inspiring, stirring, and for lack of a perfect word of what I really felt, awesome. My grandma was a direct descendent of a tribe, and she was affected deeply when zealots began trouble over it. I'm glad she didn't live to see what eventually happened.
Feliks wrote: "Thanks for clearing this matter up for me!"No problem. When there are at least three different titles that a novel has been officially known by, it can become an Abbott & Costello routine, without specifics.
I am looking forward to reading this book. I've had this book for Three months now and I finally will be reading it.
Mary wrote: "I am looking forward to reading this book. I've had this book for Three months now and I finally will be reading it."I read this book about 20-30 years ago and I'll be finally re-reading it.
Just downloaded the "ebook" from one of three libraries I can access. Can t wait to get started. Wish I could have gotten the audio book from the library. I love having the electronic books available. I can listen while driving, walking the dog, cleaning, exercising and in so many places where I could not read a physical paper book. Thank heaven for technology!
Okay, but 'listening to a book' is not 'reading it'. You're skating. Not really putting in the effort--or reaping the gains--actual readers do.(Lots of folks seem to forget: life isn't supposed to be 'luxurious'. Societies which foolishly adore softness and ease, don't last long).
I remember the first time I read this book. It was a yellowed Bantam(?) paperback someone had left in a drawer, forgotten about. I found it in a bedside table, in an unused room. Someone just left it there. Probably the last time anyone had flipped the pages was before I had even been born. Who's book was it? I didn't know. No one wanted it.
It had an exotic, moody cover art though--alluring--incomprehensible at first. A noose with hunks of green leaves hanging down all around. I would later learn this was seaweed.
Anyway, the cover intrigued me and I relished the story as I turned the pages. I was grateful to find such a book--the main character was a female, but the writing was brisk and business-like. Also: I learned a little bit about English culture--speech--customs. The story teaches you not to simply 'trust what you see or hear'.
I liked as well, that it was not sappy or weepy. It was tough and hard. Domestic life is boring for young lads of elementary school age, as I was at the time--books like this, took me all over the world.
When I was done reading it, I placed it right back where I had found it.
Feliks wrote: "Okay, but 'listening to a book' is not 'reading it'. You're skating. Not really putting in the effort--or reaping the gains--actual readers do.(Lots of folks seem to forget: life isn't supposed to be 'luxurious'. Societies which foolishly adore softness and ease, don't last long)."
Stories were told long before being written.
Some people have a better experience with a told story; some with a written one.
If the text is the same, what's the harm? The listeners are experiencing the story's input in a different way then the readers... neither is "superior" as a way to be entertained.
I have to agree with James and others here. Although I almost never listen to a book on CD any more, I do appreciate that audible versions are available to people who used to read but who can no longer see well enough to do some. My sister, for example, is bedridden from a stroke 10 years ago; she has no sight in one eye and that is just one example of someone who used to read voraciously. Surely, we should be grateful that literature/stories come to us in many ways.I'm also thinking of my young grandson who got the idea somehow that reading wasn't cool [only in second grade] and I've been reading with him as he practices. There is something of a breakthrough coming and he's starting to enjoy reading. I'm thankful that, as a senior citizen, the world of books is available to me. I've been reading and loving it for more than sixty years. Maybe someday I'll listen to books again, but I'm a visual learner; others are aural learners. Viva la difference!
Feliks wrote: "Hi, is it okay to ask a question right off the bat?Around Goodreads I see readers throwing-up-their-hands in horror at the book's 'original title'. Or, it's 'UK title'. What the heck was wrong wi..."
Agree
I just finished reading the book. I know there was a controversy at the title or one of the previous titles, but I don't think that's anything that should discriminate against the actual book. I've read this before and I loved it then. I re-read it and I still love it!
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Why? I just think it's beautifully crafted with a fun theme. You have an isolated location and everyone is incommunicado. No phones, no cell phones, no computers, no radio, etc. (I mean, one character uses a light signal to communicate with the mainland.)
You have characters who - allegedly - should be considered villains, yet, you are sympathetic towards them - most of them.
And, you have a delightful plot. People being murdered right and left. Will it be stopped?
It reminds me of a movie I saw years ago: "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" (1971) where a list of people is murdered one-by-one according to the Ten Plagues of Egypt. I think I'll watch the movie "Ten Little Indians" (1965) to celebrate reading the book!
Read the book and did not feel it was that great. Cardinal sin! Just could not get into it at all.Then, I have a play subscription. Went on Sunday and did not like the play because they changed it completely. I usually make it a point to never see a movie after reading a book because I know they will botch it up. And they did. But, all is well because I did not like either play or book.
Chava wrote: "Hi all,This is the thread to discuss And then there were none. The group will be led by Farhana. Thank you, Farhana."
Thank you Chava and Hello everyone!
First of all, I was so busy in February and March I was irregular in Goodreads and actually missed that I was supposed to moderate the discussion thread on this. Just realized a while ago and feel embarrassed indeed.
I'll try to put in my feedback on this book, in case anyone still wants to participate or is active in this discussion. :)
I didn't know the book's title had been changed or there was any controversy regarding it! Interesting new information!As for Christie and her murder-mysteries, they've saved my life on numerous occasions when I required my mind to drift away from personal problems or workload, kept me per-occupied with the best who-dunnits.
I first came across the book some 7/8 years ago in a bookstore in my neighborhood but couldn't buy it at that time. Ebooks weren't that easily available or popular back then. Finally read the ebook last year and loved it a lot.
While I've seen and read modified and adapted version of the theme of 'And Then There Were None' in sub-plots of other stories, translations and movies, reading the original was an absolute thrilling experience. It had been a long while before I read this, that I couldn't put a book down and finished it at a stretch. The location, the backdrop, the stories behind the characters, the sub-plots, the main-plot, the style of writing, everything was appealing.
I've often felt Christie was a genius! How else could she write so many unique murder-mysteries in one lifetime? I thank her for leaving works behind that can intrigue a reader after more than half a century.
At the same time, I wonder how she would have preferred to murder off a character in today's murder-mystery world of technologies? How would have Poirot, Miss Marple or any of her sleuths deducted or solved with or without the gadgets and internet? Only if she could write now! :)
Totally agree with you farhana. This book is one of her best, and what a writer she is.
I saw the stage version of the book last Saturday night. No mention of "indians." Little tin soldiers were used as substitutes.
This is the thread to discuss And then there were none. The group will be led by Farhana. Thank you, Farhana.