I think And then there were none was hard to write, because Christie gave us insight into the characters thoughts without revealing the murderer. That's incredibily difficult.
Read an interesting article, just now, on The Telegraph online. The author talks about Christie's determination to confront and detail instances of evil. Apparently, she saw many instances of it in her own lifetime. Talking of style, the journalist says that And Then There Were None 'is quite unlike other Christies.' ' Nowhere else does she achieve the same 'schematic distillation'. Crikey. I thought we were erudite with our 'axioms' and literary references. We've obviously got a long way to go.
I don't agree with taking justice into one's own hands, so I'm not going to enjoy the denouement, or find satisfaction in the outcome.
I agree.I've never suspected who the murderer was. And, yet, you know a lot of things about the characters, theirs feelings and thoughts.
And don't think the book is scary either. I think it shows the dark side of human nature and how people- apparently very respectful- can be cruel (even when they think that they are doing is the right thing).
I have not read the book but i have seen the stage play
I went to see the play and at the end it was revealed that Lombard didn't kill anyone just that he wanted people to believe that he had. In the BBC adaptation there wasn't any mention of this? Was there liberties taken by the stage play or had the BBC adaptation got it wrong. Can anyone put the record straight
Only reader got the chance to know reaching last page, holding breadth all along, to find out a excellent revelation of a wicked psychology. To me, it is the novel of atmosphere and psychology in crud from not only for murder but also for the victims. They bound to face the horrendous past of theirs before facing death.