Talk:And Then There Were None/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial text

I added a line about stage play being performed.

To be integrated into the article, if possible:

The applies in the the US. Would be interesting to have some input on elsewhere - is it popular in the UK? What about in the rest of the Eng. speaking world, and in translation?

It seems to be particularly popular for community theatre, perhaps due to the fact that it all takes place in and around an isolated house, and utilizes an ensemble cast, also because Christie's writing style is quite theatrical. Ellsworth 22:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

God, please stop leaving "commentary" on the front page!

It's annoying. There is a talk-back page for a reason, you know. Stop being so picky. If you think something's incorrect, change it yourself.

Why should I bother?

Besides, I've left the same commentary about the order of events surrounding the General's death several times. When is someone going to get it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.231.66 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Regardless of the qualifications of said contributors, and whether their source is the text itself or their own memory. Gotcha.

Wait a minute God is leaving commentary on this page? perhaps we should read it:) 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added that Gears of War has a reference to this novel. Information goes round.... Oh, and should I add taht to the Gears of War article too if it has a trivia page? I might not have time - you guys might have to edit it. 207.210.16.76 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo in the book?

I love this book and have read many times, but perhaps I am wrong but I think there is a mistake in the book in chapter1 section V. Macarthur is recalling in his head how his old friends have been shunning him all do to a rumor. The text read "Armstrong had talked he supposed". The next section vi talks about Dr. Armstrong. I would think most first time readers would be confused and think that Armstrong and Macarthur know each other. Later Macarthur recalls a person named Armitage. Did Christie mean to write Armitage in chap1 v and write Armstrong instead and no editor ever caught it? Smith03 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the

article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Ten_Little_Niggers}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to be trifling, here. I think that the original title of the book, should be mentioned in order to display the attitude of the times and how political correctness ate up the title, in order to cover the original offensive title and keep the book sales going... Fuck it... come the revolution anybody that's polytically correct will rank 6th up the wall.

Signing off, pissed off somewhat at the fucked up pseudo-glamorous state of this world that cares about apperances and not content...

Project2501a 19:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but there's no need to get riled up about it. It looks like a well-meaning anon who probably had not heard about the original title and didn't read the article fully to find out more. A mistake, not an agenda. Please remember to be civil -- and that has everything to do with a pleasant collaborative environment and nothing to do with political correctness.... Best wishes! Catherine\^talk 20:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As recently as 1988 I obtained a copy of the British version of the book (at London's Heathrow Airport) under "And Then There Were None" but which referred to the island and the rhyme with "Nigger Island" and "Nigger Boys". I think the title and contents should reflect that it is a period piece where the word "Nigger" did not necessarily have the offensive context it does now.

The word "Nigger" is offensive in modern times, I agree. However, trying to retroactively wipe it out deny history and cultural times. Two of the greatest crimes in historical history were the destruction of the works of the Mayans, and the library at Alexandra due to Christian destruction of pagan works. I won't be a party to a cover-up of history.

Ten Little Niggers is the original UK title, but even when it was first published, it was released as And Then There Were None for US publication. It was renamed Ten Little Indians later on. Although I agree the original UK title needs to be recognised, this is by no means a recent "politically correct" revision. The word was offensive in America even at the time, and And Then There Were None has claims to be a genuine alternative title, so I don't really think this is a crime comparable with the destruction of Mayan cultural works. Tobelia 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In Finnish, the book was published in 1940, and the name was "Eikä yksikään pelastunut" (And nobody survived). In 1968, the reprint's name was "Kymmenen pientä neekeripoikaa" (Ten little negro boys). The 2004 edition had again the original Finnish name. --Lalli 09:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I beleive the page should be move to And then there were none for the reason a lot of Christie's books were originally published under a different name but are listed on wikipedia under their most common name. This seems to be the only book that is listed under its original title. The book I believe is far more commonly known as ATTWN or 10 L Indians than 10 . The article should of course state the orginal title but the page itself I believe should be under ATTWN which is far more well known title of the book play and movies.Smith03 21:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it a rule somewhere that all moves should be discussed in the talk page first before you move them? Project2501a 22:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page move should definitely have been discussed here first. Google give some support for you: "And Then There Were None +Christie" gets some 40,000 hits (although the majority seem to be about the movies); "Ten Little Indians +Christie" gets about 13,000 (+10,000 for "10" instead of "ten"); and "(+100 for "10" instead of "ten"). In itself, that's a reflection of political correctness; other web authors have doubtless hesitated to use the offensive title. However, I suggest we get the input of the Christie experts on hand, since it's a touchy subject addressed many times before in many other forums. — Catherine\^talk 23:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. How do we go about that? Project2501a 23:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've left a note on the Talk:Agatha Christie page; if that doesn't provoke some discussion, I'll see if there are other places online where it's discussed, and invite outside opinions. — Catherine\^talk 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'd like to say that the novel name reflects not only the author's but also the predominant view of the time.we can only accept it as it was.there is no need to take offence because the author does not show any prejudice in her novels in this regard

Tone of the article

So there's a big tone tag on the page, but I'm not entirely sure what this refers to, to be honest. I'd love to clean up the article and get rid of that tag, but I'll need to understand the problem first. :) Thanks. Turnstep 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed by someone Turnstep 12:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was about to be bold when I saw your question on this talk page. I held off, but since there have been no major changes, I have decided to inflict my version onto the article. Feel free to revert it. I have:

• removed "this book does not contain" from the intro. It seems a funny way to describe the book. Very few of Christie's detectives were all-knowing. Hercule Poirot is it, really;
• removed enumeration of occupations of the victims (there was a general, not an admiral, and I am sure that people of the time would have referred to the first guy as a gentlemen, not an heir!) and shrunk the plot summary;
• rearranged the subtitle to refer to the play first, because it came before the films;
• removed the external link because whilst the "study guide" it talks about looks to be dubious value, it is hard to tell because you have to pay to see most of it. I think the external links policy doesn't like that;
• removed reference to the short story because I really don't see the relevance of a story about anarchistic passive resistance.

Source for Christie's dissatisfaction with prior adaptations is her autobiography. I would like to see a source for the idea that it was originally published as . I've never heard that. Something I haven't done is to transwiki the rhyme to Wikisource, but it does need doing. It should be on Wikisource rather than on Wikipedia. There is, annoyingly, no template for "transwiki this section". There is only one for "transwiki this article". Which I am not sure is terribly appropriate :) Also, the long long sentence about the Russian film doesn't make any logical sense. Is the judgement call about political correctness being made and applied to the first title or to the second? I left that for someone else to sort out.

Telsa 17:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Supposedly?

"supposedly non offensive"? Would someone really ever be offended by "And Then There Were None?" If this is so, then perhaps every book title can be considered "possibly offensive". Or is the intent of the change that there are those who are not any more offended by the original title? Turnstep 12:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that indeed some people would. This article [1] claims that it "presents another aspect of embedded racism, which is that of genocide." 213.47.127.75 07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That is possibly the most pathetic thing I have EVER read. People w honitpick over two little portions of a book written when thoughts such as that were more commonplace and acceptable. "And Then There Were None", is a murder mystery, not a manual on genoice...--ABigBlackMan 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nigger in the Woodpile

On August 18, text was added to this article stating that although "many" people believe that Ten Little Niggers (TLN) was the original title of the book, The Nigger in the Woodpile (TNITW) was the "true original title... which could not be used in public for reasons of political correctness."

This makes no sense for several reasons:

• How could a book be published under a title that "could not be used in public"?
• If TNITW was an unacceptable title at the time, how could TLN have been acceptable?
• Online catalog searches show that neither the Bodleian Library (a depository library), nor the Library of Congress (likewise), nor the UCLA or University of Toronto libraries, have the book listed as TNITW. They all have it listed as TLN, even though that title was never used in the US, and some of them have entries for an unrelated work called TNITW.
• The book The Agatha Christie Companion, which discusses the problematic titles at some length, makes no mention of the title TNITW.
• No hits anywhere near the top of a Google search in English on "Christie" plus the TNITW title are using the phrase as the title of the book, except this article and mirrors of it.

My initial thought was that this must be vandalism, but I see that the person who introduced these changes has made others that are not vandalish. So I now think he was simply copying an erroneous source. Perhaps TNITW was a working title during the writing of the book, and Christie or her publishers then simply decided that they liked TLN better... but that is only my conjecture, and should not go in the page unless confirmed!

Several web pages point out that the phrase TNITW appears in the book (even in the US editions under other titles), and I guess it's possible that this may have something to do with the origins of such an error.

Anyway, I am boldly deleting all references to TNITW as a title; if someone has a source that confirms it after all, then let's see what it is. Because at the moment, I just don't believe it. (Not because I think the use of that title would be implausible, understand; only that there would be plenty of supporting evidence if it was ever used.)

According to this article [2] the phrase "Nigger in the Woodpile" occurred in the third act of the play, but has meanwhile been replaced with "guilty party" by Samuel French Inc. who hold the (US?) rights to the play. I suppose that the idea that this phrase was the original title somehow stems from there. 213.47.127.75 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that all the characters have something hidden, The Nigger in the Woodpile would be a logical name for the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.115.53 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My 1993 copy of the play (ISBN 0-00-224344-X) uses the phrase "Snake in the Grass", not "Guilty Party" which leads me to suspect the veracity of the article referred to above. BTW, Samuel French have both the UK and US printing rights.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References for the Pimlott drama

• Preview: And Then There Were None, Gielgud Theatre, London The Independent 2005-10-25
• Review: And Then There Were None, Gielgud Theatre, London The Independent 2005-10-27
• First Night Reviews: And Then There Were None The Times 2005-10-26

Wasn't sure whether/how to reference these in the article. Have at it!

--Telsa 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that Agatha Christie is a great author and that she should be honored.

(original comment by 65.24.237.136 (talk · contribs))

Character list

I deleted part of Vera's profession. It originally read (ex-governess = maid). A governess is not a maid; she provides live-in child care.

This, my children, demonstrates a major flaw in Wikipedia's construction. There is little, if any, authority control, so mistakes, and worse, can be posted without anyone blinking.

It's not a flaw, but a result of the main feature of Wikipedia (and basically every wiki, for that matter); like you already discovered, just as anybody can post mistakes, so anybody can fix them! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some things are obvious

Dr. Edward Armstrong, a private physician (doctor)

I think everyone pretty much knows what the word physician means, as well as the word housekeeper, so I'm going to delete it all.

Except that Mrs. Rogers is also the cook, which is NOT synonymous with housekeeper. You might want to get it right this time.

Plot

In the plot section, it says characters in order of death. First of all, they are missing the first victim. Second, not all of them die. Philip Lombard, and Vera doesn't die. It should also mention Philip Lombard isn't the real Lombard but Lombard's friend posing as him.

Excuse me, but HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE BOOK? Lombard is Lombard, Vera shoots him and then hangs herself. Also, the first victim is ANTHONY MARSTON, "Prince Nicky" only appears in the 1945 movie version.

I agree. Also, why is one of Agatha Christie's greatest works given with a spoiler? Roger Ackroyd is one thing, but this is a great murder mystery. People should have the chance to read it without knowing the ending.

This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool to get people to read the book. As a reference source, the article should provide all relevant information about the subject, including the ending. Wikipedia is not censored, and this is further reiterated in both Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. The article may provide spoiler warnings, as we have. The article may not delete spoilers if the information has already been provided for. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 20:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PS - please sign your posts! It makes the conversation easier to follow. Just type ~~~~. Also, please consider registering under an account name; it keeps your IP private, too.

In a way, the first victim really isn't listed. Mention should be made of Isaac Morris. I haven't done it myself because I'm not sure where he should be first mentioned (epilogue, perhaps?). And Introducing... A Leg 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Be bold, as they say. And Introducing... A Leg 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Excuse me, but does anyone know the theme of the book its self? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.72.217 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Popularity of play

I added a bit about the stage version being popular with amateur performers (schools and community theater) but of course I only have knowledge about in the US. What about elsewhere in the world? What about in other languages? Ellsworth 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Category

Given the dark tone and sad ending of the book, wouldn't this be categorized as a horror novel? -- Jason Palpatine 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

No, because there's no supernatural elements to the novel. It's a murder mystery. SkittlzAnKomboz 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For something to be HORROR does not necessitate that the story involve some supernatural aspect. Jason Palpatine 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of disbelief {?}

• When Lombard finds his missing pistol {replaced by Wargrave} supposedly for an experienced Mercenary he doesn't automaticaly check to see if its still loaded or not. If he had, he would have seen that it had not been fired and he would have then remembered that when he; Blore; and Armstrong had ran to Vera's room {she had screamed when she felt wet seaweed on her neck} that there would not have been enough time for anyone to have shot Wargrave. Therefore 1) Armstrong was Lying 2) Wargrave was not dead 3) Armstrong and Wargrave were secret allies. Of Course this would have ruined the entire plot!Furthermore, Wargrave supposedly planned the deaths to occur in order from the least culpable ending with the person most deserving of death. But there is no way that Wargrave could have known that Claythorne would shoot Lombard (and out in the sun!, required by the nursery rhyme). This further puts the ending's believability in peril.

Logic Clues that Unknown is Wargrave

• Although the Scotland Yard Detectives claim that they cannot trace "Mr Unknown" via wealth-there is a logic as that "Unknown" is Wargrave:
  • 1)First "U,N.OWEN" would have to be quite wealthy to purchase Indian Island-this lets out those who plainly cannot afford to purchase the Island-Miss Brent and Claythorne who are too poor; Lombard is nearly broke; MacArthur exists on a goverment pension; Mr & Mrs Rogers are employed by a employment agency; Blore has a obviously small business. This leaves only 3 persons who could be considered wealthy enough to buy the island: Martson-who dies first; Armstrong-whose body is moved over high tide mark after he died. The only one left is Wargrave.
  • 2) Whoever bought the Island has to have much knowledge of each of the victiums past. The Only two persons who could have access to this knowledge are Blore and Wargrave. Furthermore The evidence record indiating each of the victiums-this is reminise of a trial. The only persons having experience of trials are Blore and Wargrave. Blore could not have dropped statute on his own head. Again the only one left is Wargrave.

Correct year

I think it should be better if there were years to each title. Ten Little niggers (the original english title) is from 1939. The two US-titles are later. And then there were none are from 1940 and Ten little indians are from 1965. As it stands now in the article you get the impression that they are all from 1939. Kurben 29 aug 2006 12.16

Genesis album

Moved from article:

"*British rock band Genesis titled their 1978 album ...And Then There Were Three..., a reference to the 'Ten Little Indians' poem as well as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the recent departure of guitarist Steve Hackett, which shrunk the band from a quartet to a trio."

If the title was given in reference to the poem, it belongs on the poem's page, not here. Clarification? -Shannernanner 05:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Study in Scarlet

Novel's plot resembles 1933 Study in Scarlet film, with the same nursery rhyme. 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Very very closely resembles, I would say. Even to the detail that the villain is the one who is shot in the head. So, for a start, the 1933 film deserves some credit for not being derivative of Christie, which it is not getting at sites like imdb. And it raises the question, who then is the author of the plot? Was Christie influenced by the film, or was there a folk tradition of the story that predated both?

I suggest adding a line to the Film, TV and theatrical adaptations section to say something like:

The K.B.S. Productions Inc. film, A Study in Scarlet (1933), predates the publication of Ten Little Niggers and follows a strikingly similar plot. (This time the rhyme refers to Ten Little Black Boys.) The original authorship of the story is therefore not known.

PhilPalmer 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The final line of your suggestion is blatently incorrect.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The popular culture entry

"The memes "ten little Indians" and "and then there was one" have been used many times in modern days to refer to situations in stories – such as slasher films, other horror films, and disaster films — in which the characters die off one by one. This is how many films of those genres are structured in order to both provide gory scenes periodically, and to ultimately force the main character to face off against the villain alone. This main character in slasher films is often referred to as the "final girl" and shares many similarities with the doomed Vera Claythorne, the final victim in Christie's novel."

I don't think this part of the article is particularly encyclopedic. In particular, the use of the term "meme" is ill-advised. Memes have nothing to do with this point. Meme-theory is by no means established enough as a mode of cultural analysis, or of literary criticism, to be deployed as casually as it is here, and without qualification. I mean, it's an application of evolutionary theory to cultural analysis, for God's sake. It's science-fiction. And it's largely arbitrary - it doesn't tell you anything about what you're talking about - it just makes propositions as to what kind of entity an idea is. This doesn't belong in a wikipedia article that has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins. I suggest substituting a more appropriate word, like "theme", which is much more neutral and, I'll wager, the word the writer was looking for in the first place. Fionnmatthew 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this book have a point?

Umm, I've never read it, but does this book actually have a point? Is there really nothing more to say about it than that ten people die? Kamikaze Highlander 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at it that way, no fiction book has a point. The point is to entertain, and maybe frighten, the reader! Nousernamesleft 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think is it points out many good things to think about, like Is it OK to murder a murderer?76.181.14.252 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Book name

In the video game i think the characters are sailors, thus being called '10 little sailor boys'. Should this be mentioned at the top of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will James (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Allusion to real murder?

In chapter 11 (page 171) Blore mentions an incident in were a daughter killed her parents in a similar manner to how Mr. Rogers was killed (with an axe). Did that really happen and if so who was it? Thatother1dude 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly a reference to the real-life case of Lizzie Borden. The details match the real-life case. Rossrs 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks youThatother1dude 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Ellery Queen trivia reference

I've removed the suggestion from the trivia section that this book's plot is very similar to Ellery Queen's There Was An Old Woman. The only real similarity is the use of a nursery rhyme to link the murders. In the Queen novel, there is no isolation, at least one of the murders is committed in view of other people by an identifiable person, many of the characters are strikingly eccentric, most of the characters are members of the same family, and there's one major difference that would require a spoiler warning. There is a closer example, The Bishop Murder Case featuring Philo Vance by S. S. Van Dine, but even that is not close enough to be a striking parallel. Many Christie novels and stories use the linking device of a nursery rhyme to link a series of murders, and it has occasionally been done by other authors, but I don't think Christie is parallelling anyone here except perhaps herself. I've also removed the suggestion that the movie Mindhunters is "based on" this book. There are certainly some similarities, but the correlation is not strong enough to be called "based on" -- and I think that would infringe copyright. 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Amalgamation

Every single entry in the "trivia" section was actually a reference to "And Then There Were None" being echoed in some other artwork, and there was a section immediately above it called "Echoes in other media", so I amalgamated the two sections into one. If someone feels that this is still a trivia section, by all means add the trivia box back to the top of the page. Accounting4Taste 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Original title

There's been a lot of back-and-forth about this -- let's set it straight. The original title under which this book was first published is Ten Little Niggers. It's not a very attractive title to our modern sensibilities, and people have good reasons for disliking it, but the historical fact, according to the official website footnoted in the body of the article, is that that is the ORIGINAL TITLE. It is not currently published under that title. The book was NEXT published as Ten Little Indians, and the interior material like the rhyme was altered to say "Indians". After that, the book was published with the title under which it is known today, And Then There Were None. This is all historic fact. It's amply footnoted from completely authoritative sources in the body of the article, and you can check it for yourself. Please let it stand as is. Accounting4Taste 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I will be reverting this about once a day for the rest of my life. Okay, fine, but I'm going to stop assuming good faith from here on in. Accounting4Taste 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting today. Accounting4Taste 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's disgusting that just because the meaning of a word has changed slightly now all references have to be changed. Does this mean that in 50 to 100 years if the name Romeo or Juliet becomes offensive, the play will be renamed to Roger and Jane? This "political correctness" has to stop before it becomes illegal to refer to anyone or anything.--NeF 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, it's the killer who brings the rhyme in. So apparently, using the word "nigger" is bad, but killing nine people and committing suicide in such a way as to implicate someone as your murderer is just fine. -88.110.129.119 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, while "Ten Little Niggers" was a common nursery rhyme in the UK, it was largely known as "Ten Little Indians" in the USA (much like Ring-a-ring-o-Roses / Ring around the Rosie), so it seems more likely that the title was changed in the first instance not principally because it was offensive (that might have been a secondary consideraion), but because it might confuse American readers. -- PinkEllie 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Title used later

The article as it stands gives the impression that the title Ten Little Niggers was withdrawn almost immediately. That's not so: my copy of the book is titled Ten Little Niggers and is unbowdlerized, and was printed in 1981. It's published in the UK by Fontana and is the 35th impression. -Q4 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)