Talk:The Moving Finger

Setting in time

My copy (British Fontana paperback) says "First published by William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1934" but "(C) 1942 by Agatha Christie Mallowan." I don't know the explanation of the discrepancy, but the book is clearly set pre-1939

The difference is terribly significant. The book ends with the brave but not terribly bright flying enthusiast settling down to live happily ever after with his new bride. In 1934, that's unintentional tragedy - in 1942 it's fantasy. Amcguinn 09:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Or fiction suited for a story released in the midst of war. The publication history section shows 1942 as the earliest publication, first by serialization, then the novel complete in the next year. Collins published in 1943 -- could you have transposed the numbers for Collins date of first publication? Perhaps the printer did, as 1934 makes no sense for this novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Moving Finger and recentism

SchroCat What is recentism? In the television adaptations of Agatha Christie novels and short stories, the television writer/director/producer has often moved the year to one quite different from the setting of the novel. It is easy to see it if you read the novel and see the adaptation. This was noted in a New York Times article, which is included in the section on the second adaptation for television of The Moving Finger, a novel which includes Christie's character Miss Marple. Your objection to the observation that the Miss Marple series was moved later in time from the novels, where the Poirot stories (still by Agatha Christie) were moved to a fixed year in the 1930s is completely mysterious. There is no deduction, simply a description of a difference from the novel to the adaptation, which is ordinary in the articles about the Christie novels that have been adapted for television. I have marked this page, so I will look for any reply you might have, here on your Talk Page. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

1 IMDB is a poor and unreliable source - see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb

2 Trying to rely on something in the external link section as being a suitable citation for something in the text is very poor practice. See WP:INCITE for how do use citations properly.

3 you have synthesised information from two sources into one "connected" fact: the sources do not separately confirm what is claimed, and synthesising them together gives a misleading set of "facts". See WP:SYNTHESIS for further information

4 Recentism is saying that one of the broadcasts is. "Recent" production. That's just sub-standard if someone is reading the text in a couple of years. We have said when this was set, so trying to say this is different from others is a bit silly: leave the date it was set and say no more. See WP:RECENTISM. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You could simply delete the word recent from that text you deleted in whole. The Poirot series is Wiki-linked, so its dates are contained there. The point of contrast is noteworthy as to adaptations of Christie's novels and short stories. I did not first make the point, some other editor did; I sought the references to back it up. There are no deductions involved, just facts. WP:CITEIMDB makes it clear that use of IMDb in articles is a TOPIC OF DISCUSSION not Wikipedia policy. It is certainly valid for the date a program aired, that it has aired, is not a pipe dream of some director. IMDb is used for nothing else but that in this article, if you would allow the citation before you revert in one minute. If you have a grand source for television air dates, how about you use it for this article? Having the same link twice, in External links and as a reference appears redundant to me. I do not appreciate your bullying at all. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is no "bullying" here, and your attempts to justify IMDB do not hold water (see WP:RS/IMDB: it is not a reliable source). Search for a source for the broadcast dates - there are television listing guides, newspapers, etc, which all carry the date. I see the Poirot series dates are shown, but that's immaterial here as it is from a different series, etc. As to your attempts at canvassing.... – SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Aside from this argument, the sources cited don't seem to have 1936 and 1952 as the dates for the programmes (they say mid-1930s and late 40s/early 50s respectively), and this book was not written in 1951 ("This was set after the year the novel was written, in 1952 England"). Belle (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Belle The article on Miss Marple series discussed all the shows in the series, each one set in a different post WWII year, and not the same as the period or year when the novel was published. There is another article on Poirot stories whose link has slipped my mind, that says all the stories are brought to 1936. It is in one of the articles, just did not think I needed to find that one right now. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The article on the Marple series doesn't mention the dates for any of the settings; some of the individual book articles make unsourced claims for the date settings of these adaptations, but the claim that 1952 is the year after the book was written is just wrong. I've removed the whole sentence but you can insert the 1952 date as the setting again if you can find a source for it. Belle (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, well, you are a bully. Time to chill. I have no idea what you mean by canvassing, nor why you searched to find my post to Sadads. He is an editor who has been helpful in teaching me ways to improve Wikipedia articles, as we have some topics of interest in common, and is a calm person. I needed to vent somewhere safe. If you know where those links are for first air dates for television adaptations of novels, sources that have your stamp of approval, then I say, Be Bold, find them and put them in all the articles where those dates have been placed. Be consistent, too, as you were deleting the days while leaving the month and year. If you watch Christie articles, you might see that those who watch the adaptations in the UK, where they first air, usually put up the text on the adaptation the same day or the day after the first airing. All those Christie novel adaptations, regardless of which of her detectives are featured, are one topic. Many novels that did not feature Poirot or Marple (Christie had many detectives in her 90 or so novels) were changed by the makers of television programs to feature one of those two of her detectives instead. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling me names is not going to persuade me to help you: it will lead to me telling you to piss off. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I also suggest you look for a source yourself, and in future don't edit war to remove tags: deal with the flaming problem properly so the tags are not needed. – SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat channelling his inner Alf Stewart. Belle (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Literary Reception quoted in the article

Of contemporary reviewers, the Times Lit makes some sound practical points.

I almost feel that the writer in The Observer ought to be answered within the article. He finds "an atmosphere of perpetual after-breakfast well-being". What I read is a carefully built-up sense of unease, a building feeling that the poison pen letters will lead to tragedy. Also, although as the above section in Talk brings out, the War and its societal traumas were ignored as in much wartime fiction, we notice the decay of previous certainties in this changing twentieth century world. There is incomprehension of the old norms between younger and older people, and - as my mother and her mother experienced in this period - between Londoners and country dwellers.

The Observer piece (uncaring of 'spoilers') also talks carelessly about adulterous solicitors. The solicitor is not adulterous - he is aiming at re-marriage. Two different things. Arguably, if the object of his feelings had been less respectable and conventional, none of the story would have happened!

My own problem with the plot is: by taking Megan back to stay with them, do the Burtons not make it impossible for (respectable) Elsie to stay in Symmington's home after the wife's death? I wonder if my mother's, or Dame Agatha's, generation might have answered this with "This wasn't 1900! Someone had to care for the boys." But it seems clumsy of Gerry and Joanna.

Rogersansom (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The crash

Judging by recent edits, there seems to be some argument about whether Jerry was injured in a motorcycle crash or a plane crash. In my own copy (the Fontana books edition) Miss Emily Barton refers to "a flying accident" on the third page, which should be clear enough - unless this is one of those differences between the UK and US editions? I'm going to delete the word "motorcycle" from the main plot summary for now, but if anyone has a different version then they could perhaps add a clarification. Roundabout dog (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hickson version

This was filmed in the village of Hoxne, Suffolk 2601:1C0:5E81:30C0:D030:3572:986C:E0BD (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)