AND THEN THERE WERE NONE

Justice Wargrave (good name) is described as looking cruel, predatory, and inhuman. He’s the logical choice for U.N. Owen, the man playing judge, jury, and executioner. How is the opening (and the narrator’s ability to dip in and out of all characters’ heads) a red herring? Were you misled?

Did you know anything about And Then There Were None before reading it? If so, did this impact your experience of the novel? (It reminded us of Knives Out. And the movie Clue!)

Who did you think the killer was before the identity is revealed? Was there anyone you suspected? Did you think someone was hiding on the island? (Sarah thought someone had to be hiking on the island.)

Suspense thriller author Dean Koontz says people are always living in a “constant state of suspense.” Do you feel that suspense is a fundamental part of human existence? Are people constantly wondering about the future, facing unknown situations, and dealing with uncertainty? PARANOIA

Did knowing the characters’ responsibility for the deaths of innocents impact how you felt when the characters themselves were murdered?

And Then There Were None notes about death order: Justice Wargrave arranges the deaths of the various characters in order of ascending culpability. “Anthony Marston and Mrs. Rogers died first, the one instantaneously, the other in a peaceful sleep.” Marston, I recognized, was a type born without that feeling of moral responsibility which most have. He was amoral–pagan. Mrs. Rogers, I had no doubt, had acted very largely under the influence of her husband.” Do you agree with his assessment of the characters’ relative guilt?

Incorporated into this is the level of guilt they felt about their crime. Wargrave gives Marston one of the easiest deaths. He killed two children he could barely remember and felt no remorse. Claythorne, who killed a child for love and felt remorse, has the worst death. This makes no sense. A lack of remorse feels more monstrous. Also, the general killed for revenge against the man sleeping with his wife behind his back. This feels again more understandable than Marston. Is Emily Brent really worse than Rogers, who committed actual murder? Both are witholders in some way. One withheld medicine. One withheld pity.

Several characters committed crimes for either love or money. Are any of them likable? Are some more sympathetic than others? (Sarah notes the ordinariness of the murderers. From all classes and walks of life. Sociopaths lurking among us. This in itself was a clue to the boatman that something was off.)

As people begin dying, the characters must evaluate the trustworthiness of those around them. If you were on the island, what alliances might you form, and who would you want on your side?

Why does Emily Brent write in her diary, “THE MURDERER’S NAME IS BEATRICE TAYLOR.” Does she feel (conscious or unconscious) guilt for what she had done? Does Blore feel guilt upon recalling Landor’s face and the fact that he had had a wife and a teenage daughter? Does Miss Claythorne feel guilt? At the end, she thinks, “‘You can go to the rock, Cyril.’ That was what murder was–as easy as that! But afterwards you went on remembering.” Which guests come to regret their past actions?

Let’s talk class and gender. Do you find it strange that Rogers continues to serve the guests despite his wife’s death? Or that women leave the men alone after dinner and are in charge of meals and cleanup? (They also left Rogers in the woodshed and didn’t even bring him up to his room.)

Talk about the motive behind the murders (legal justice vs. philosophical justice). Each guest is guilty of a crime that couldn’t be prosecuted in a court of law. Has justice been accomplished in the end? Is the murderer a “madman,” a “dangerous homicidal lunatic” as Justice Wargrave and other guests claim? Or is the murderer acting with clear-headed logic and rationality?

Were you surprised by the murderer’s identity? Would you have preferred the final victim to learn who the killer was? Why might Christie have withheld that information from readers until the epilogue?

Justice Wargrave’s message in a bottle:

• “I have always felt strongly that right should prevail.”
• “To see a wretched criminal squirming in the dock, suffering the tortures of the damned, as his doom came slowly and slowly nearer, was to me an exquisite pleasure.”
• “All I have done is to protect the jury against the emotional effect of emotional appeals by some of our more emotional counsel. I have drawn their attention to the actual evidence.”
• No “artist can be satisfied with art alone. There is a natural craving for recognition.”
• Three clues: (1) Edward Seton was guilty; (2) Armstrong’s death was associated with a red herring; and (3) Wargrave’s “brand of Cain” (to protect him from being killed).

Final And Then There Were None notes: Writers Gillian Flynn and Christopher Bollen say And Then There Were None is a compelling mystery because it explores themes of murder and justice without relying on a detective. How does it compare to the Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple novels? Author David Baldacci wrote, “If you’re one of the few who haven’t experienced the genius of Agatha Christie, this novel is a stellar starting point.” Do you agree?