Agatha Christie Lovers discussion

Originally published in 1939.

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.

Here's the link to the previous discussion: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Has someone already started this one? I read it two times in Italian and a third time in English, so I admit I'm not so eager to read it again, though I liked it very much...But I think I should for joining the discussion.

I’ve read this one a few times, the last time in 2012–it doesn’t feel like it’s been eight years. I wasn’t planning to reread it again this month, but we’ll see.

I thought to avoid a re-reading and passing directly to the next novel, "Sad Cypress", that is one of the reasons because I made up my mind to Join this group. I vaguely remember the story but I remember very well that I loved it...!
Yesterday I borrowed it at the local library and so I can already start reading it.

I finished it yesterday. Simply the best! I loved it the first time I read a decade ago and I love it this time too.

One of my favorites and I’m rereading it again. I couldn’t get Sad Cypress as an audiobook from the library but And There Were None was available so I decided to reread it for the 5th time.

I think this book is a good example of proof that Christie was not cozy. A lot of her books were dark, although that does not take away from their brilliance.

Oh, I'm so glad that others have enjoyed this book as much as I have. I saw the TV adaptation a while back and thought it reflected the book very well.

I've seen the TV version a couple of times, and it's interesting to read the book knowing who the culprit is.

I chose to read this book a few years back because I read somewhere that this was Ms.Christie’s favorite book, and also because it has always been among the top 10 locked-room mysteries until now. I read this in 2015, so I can’t actively participate in your discussion. I remember that it was brilliantly written. It is my daughter’s favorite book. And she is a picky reader. She has read it 3 times already. I saw the TV version too.

This book has been very controversial over the years because of the original titles. For more information: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2...

☯Emily wrote: "This book has been very controversial over the years because of the original titles. For more information: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2..."

Interestingly, the book was never published in the US with the Ten Little N**title, as that word was even controversial here at that time. She should have just stuck with And Then There Were None, but she had a thing about nursery rhymes.

Frances wrote: "I chose to read this book a few years back because I read somewhere that this was Ms.Christie’s favorite book, and also because it has always been among the top 10 locked-room mysteries until now. ..."

I believe most of the movie/TV adaptations used her play script (which had a different ending) versus what was in the book (and which was much grimmer.)

The ending in the book is definitely different from the film versions I have seen.

Tara wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "This book has been very controversial over the years because of the original titles. For more information: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2..."

Interestingly, th..."
No, the book was published in the US as "Ten Little Indians" which is it own way is just as racist. That is why it was eventually changed.

Tara wrote: "Frances wrote: "I chose to read this book a few years back because I read somewhere that this was Ms.Christie’s favorite book, and also because it has always been among the top 10 locked-room myste..."

Ooh! I should re-read the ending again. It's been a while since I read the book. And I just watched the film version and didn't notice the difference. I did notice that Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones) was an impressive actor.

☯Emily wrote: "Tara wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "This book has been very controversial over the years because of the original titles. For more information: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2..."

Inte..."
The initial publication in the US was under the ATTWN title first, it was subsequent publications that used the Indian title. (I don't generally use wikipedia as a source, but it at least confirms what I'm sharing):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The....

I also don't agree that calling someone an Indian is racist. The Europeans who first arrived here thought they were in India, hence the name. It is not meant as a pejorative or slur. By that logic, calling someone a Native American is just as racist because the name America also came from the European settlers. I'm not aware of a generic label that all of the different tribes used to describe themselves to outsider members, as they closely identified within their own tribe. History is certainly tricky and imperfect, but I am generally not on board with the banning of "bad" words, as we just find other words also deemed to be "problematic" that need to be removed from the lexicon. Where does it end?

I was not referring to the term "Indian" as being racist, but the poem Agatha Christie used, whether she used the N word or Indian. The poem is pretty horrible. I'm sure that if the poem referred to whites in a minstrel show it would have caused an uproar.

Seven little "white boys" cuttin' up their tricks,
One broke his neck and then there were six.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lit...

To get the Indian perspective on the lyrics, read https://indiancountrytoday.com/archiv...

Tara wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Tara wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "This book has been very controversial over the years because of the original titles. For more information: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2......"

Tara, you brought up an interesting point. Especially now that sports teams are having to rename themselves (the Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians), and although the Atlanta Braves will possibly only give up their “Tomahawk chop”. I’m here in the Philippines, and my 77yo mother was teaching my 2yo nephew the 10 Little Indians nursery rhyme, when my brother told her it was inappropriate. She couldn’t understand why it was a bad thing when she had taught it to all of us when we were growing up. In her mind there was nothing at all disrespectful about counting out 10 Native Americans. It’s just like counting 10 of any persons of any nationality.

☯Emily wrote: "To get the Indian perspective on the lyrics, read https://indiancountrytoday.com/archiv..."

Thank you for the links, Emily. I don’t know much about Native American history, but I have been educating myself. I recently read There There, which although is fiction, was helpful.

Thanks for referring There There. I am reading other novels written about the Native experience in the United States, but have not read this.

☯Emily wrote: "Thanks for referring There There. I am reading other novels written about the Native experience in the United States, but have not read this."

Emily, there are also Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI, and Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History which are non-fiction. But I have not read either.

*My apologies to the Buddy Read for the detour in the conversation.

☯Emily wrote: "I was not referring to the term "Indian" as being racist, but the poem Agatha Christie used, whether she used the N word or Indian. The poem is pretty horrible. I'm sure that if the poem referred t..."

Thats a good point Emily. Although if you think about it, most of the nursery rhymes of the past have been dark, violent, and grim. From ring around the rosie (referring to the bubonic plague), to tales like Hansel and Gretel or The Little Mermaid, that had tragic elements to them. They have been heavily sanitized by the likes of Disney, but the original stories were far different in their tone and meaning.
And although it is a detour from the content of the book itself, I think all good literature evokes a deeper and broader discussion, as we've seen here.

Agree!

Tara said: “History is certainly tricky and imperfect, but I am generally not on board with the banning of "bad" words, as we just find other words also deemed to be "problematic" that need to be removed from the lexicon. Where does it end?”

A good point. I’ve seen two articles this month on vocabulary that tie into this discussion and current events:

Everyday words and phrases that have racist connotations
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/us/rac...

Scrabble players are taking racial and ethnic slurs out of the game
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/us/scr...

Heather L wrote: "Tara said: “History is certainly tricky and imperfect, but I am generally not on board with the banning of "bad" words, as we just find other words also deemed to be "problematic" that need to be r..."

Interesting articles. I knew the origins of most of the words, but not 'master bedroom.' In the second article, it doesn't mention which words are racist. I can see heated discussions in games over the derivation of a word played.

Emily,

That was my problem with the second article, too. They talk about disallowing ‘offensive’ words, but give no examples.

More details about the Scrabble controversy with a few examples:
https://slate.com/culture/2020/07/scr....

The first word eliminated was the N word according to another article. https://scrabbleplayers.org/w/Slurs

Scrabble publishes an authorized word list, so I'm assuming that the slurs will not be included in the next edition.

Thanks for the Slate article, Emily!

Thanks for all of the good timely discussion. I appreciate the links.

I’ve read it before this and didn’t like or finish it 🧐😭

My choice for June's Read Christie 2024.
I can understand why it is considered one of the most famous Christie novels. It is a locked-door mystery and I like those. Few suspects, one location and a mystery to solve. What is there not to like?
I was excited to read this novel because I had already seen many adaptations but couldn't remember who the culprit was. It was a surprise when I discovered who it was.
This book gave many difficulties to Christie, and I can understand why. It is so complex and I think it plays with some interesting ideas. To begin with, the killings follow a childish rhyme, which for me was a brilliant idea of Christie because we know what is going to happen but still, we don't know who is behind it.
The dynamics between the characters are incredible too. They start to be friendly to one another but when the killings start they don't know whom to trust or who is going to be the next victim. It is a very tense situation because they can't go anywhere.
I have to admit that I didn't quite like any of the characters, but I disliked instantaneously Emily Brent. She thought very highly of herself because of her morality but was immoral like the rest. Also, Vera seems a very jolly girl who doesn't fit the rest of the group, but in the end, she is as bad as them, or worse.
And then we have the portrayal of justice in this story. We see many injustices every day and maybe we suspect some foul play in some situations that the law can't do anything, but still, violence is not the answer. Christie knew that the human race is a violent creature, and how many of us would resort to murder if we knew we wouldn't be found? I believe she thought about it a lot, not just because she was a crime novelist but also because of the crimes that occurred in her time. They inspired her. I think that Christie thought a lot about the order of the killings and who would be the last. In a way, she explained that in the epilogue. I want to believe she left Vera for a reason. As I said before, Vera seems a very nice girl, who the readers seem to like and even hope she would be spared, but she didn't hesitate to lead an innocent child to his death. She didn't feel remorse. Throughout the story she denies what she deliberately did. Always saying that everyone acquitted her and it was all for her love of Hugo. In the end, she was delusional and that's why she did what she did. Christie doesn't kill many children in her books and I believe she wanted to show that not everything is permitted, even if it's for Love.
And talking of remorse, I don't think any of the characters felt that, but I think General MacArthur realized he was wrong, he did a bad thing and was going to be punished for that. He accepted it and that is why he was spared of a long waiting by his killer.
All the characters were guilty of something and, even if the killer was the only one who was innocent in the beginning, his actions and motives made him guilty as the rest of the lot.
I enjoyed this reading. I used an audiobook and, as the end was near, I got nervous and couldn't stop listening. I knew I wasn't going to discover the culprit 'cause I know that Christie makes us think in one direction when in reality is the other way around. She was proud of her work when she finished and she was right to be. It's an amazing book with an extraordinary plot.

i finished this book 3 days ago. it was AMAZINGGG
you guys will love it. definitely shocked me

Gwendolyn wrote: "i finished this book 3 days ago. it was AMAZINGGG
you guys will love it. definitely shocked me"

I agree. I enjoyed this book and have watched more than one TV movie based on the same premise and it's always good.