7. Ten Little Indians

Book: Ten Little Indians

Author: Agatha Christie

Number of pages: 173

What I’m watching: TV: How I Met Your Mother Movies: First Men in the Moon, The Swan Princess, And Then There Were None¹

What I’m playing: Dead Space 3, God of War 3, Skyrim

 

 

 

            Alright, now that I have zero homework, I am prepared to start knocking out some novels from my unread shelves. I’ve seen the film And Then There Were None, based on the book, but this was my first time reading the novel. There’s a 48 page reader’s supplement inserted in the book, which oddly enough, I have read. I read it for a paper I did on Agatha Christie, “The Dame that Came from Devon.” I wanted to find that paper because I don’t remember anything about it apart from the title, but I don’t think I saved a copy. The insert is pretty much a little background, pictures from the film, and short reviews of the novel.

            Ten Little Indians is a murder mystery, a genre at which Christie is superb. The back cover made it seem like the book had a different ending than the film, which renewed my intrigue toward the mystery. What’s more, Agatha Christie prefaces the novel with dramatic character descriptions such as “Emily Brent – A sixty-five-year-old spinster whose troubled dreams and rambling diary were the only indications of a disturbed – and perhaps dangerous – mind” and “Dr. Armstrong – At first the physician was a convenient dispenser of sedatives and diagnostician of causes of death, but later the others remembered that he was the only one who had easy access to poison” (Pocket Books 5). These did a wonderful job of priming me for the story. One thing was odd, though. Christie also included for each character the page of his or her first appearance. I’ve never seen that before in a book.

            The book opens with eight characters all mysteriously invited to Indian Island, coaxed either by a mention of an old friend or the promise of money. Agatha Christie excels at her characterizations. Simply the way each person travels indicates something. The people who came for the money are in a third-class train car. Anthony Marston raced to the boat in his fancy car, a character detail I will explain in a bit. Ten Little Indians has a lot of exposition, but Agatha Christie keeps it clever and entertaining.

            So, they all get to the island, which is nothing but bare rock except for the mansion and its two caretakers, Mr. and Mrs. Rogers. Turns out nobody has met the owner of the house, not even the Rogerses, who were only hired days ago. The mysterious host has yet to arrive. Before long, a recorded voice accusing all the guests and the servants of murder is heard on the gramophone. Throughout the play, the truth of each accusation is first denied then discovered.

            What loosens their tongues are the murders. One by one, the ten people on the island start meeting their deaths. It starts with Marston, guilty of running down two children in his speeding car, choking from poison. Each death follows an old nursery rhyme hung up all around the house, “Ten Little Indians:”

            Ten little Indian boys went out to dine;

            One choked his little self and then there were nine.

            Nine little Indian boys sat up very late;

            One overslept himself and then there were eight.

            Eight little Indian boys traveling in Devon;

            One said he’d stay there and then there were seven.

            Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks;

            One chopped himself in halves and then there were six.

            Six little Indian boys playing with a hive;

            A bumblebee stung one and then there were five.

            Five little Indian boys going in for law;

            One got in Chancery and then there were four.

            Four little Indian boys going out to sea;

            A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.

            Three little Indian boys walking in the Zoo;

            A big bear hugged one and then there were two.

            Two little Indian boys sitting in the sun;

            One got frizzled up and then there was one.

            One little Indian boy left all alone;

            He went and hanged himself and then there were none. (28)

Chancery, as I looked up, refers to an English court. The host, U. N. Owen (a pseudonym), got all ten guests on the island to exact a personal justice on people who escaped the legal system. However, after a thorough search of Indian Island, the group finds that they are alone. Turns out Mr. Owen is one of the ten accused people. Ten Little Indians is a great murder mystery, so I don’t want to spoil a lot of details about who dies and who’s the killer.

            There are some things I do want to talk about. Two characters use the phrase “There’s a nigger in the woodpile” (31; 74). I tried looking up what that even means, and I guess it might have to do with escaped slaves hiding in woodpiles. Though the characters exhibit some racism, I wouldn’t say Agatha Christie comes off as racist herself. At least one character speaks against prejudice:

     Emily Brent‘s brow, which had been frowning perplexedly, cleared. She said, “Ah, I understand you now. Well, there is Mr. Lombard. He admits to having abandoned twenty men to their deaths.”

                 Vera said, “They were only natives…”

                 Emily Brent said sharply, “Black or white, they are our brothers.” (69)

So, the racism in Ten Little Indians is only in beliefs held by certain characters, unlike Hilda Manning’s inherent racism that was reflected in her play.²

            Since this is a plot I don’t want to ruin, I won’t say much more. The plot of the book is almost exactly like the movie, so there were some parts that dragged for me since I knew what was going to happen or not happen. The fruitless search of the island, for example. However, had I not known what would happen, I’m sure it all would have been much more suspenseful. The mystery was still pretty thrilling, even though I knew all the answers.

I want to mention the focus placed on meals throughout the ordeal. Pretty much every breakfast, lunch, and dinner reveals the atmosphere of the group. Sometimes they’re quiet over their food, other times talkative, sometimes conversation is strained. Mealtime is a great place to reflect the current mood. The characters are also constantly drinking to calm their nerves while everyone around them is dying. Alcohol is pretty much the cure-all. For a murder mystery, I found it funny how much time everyone spent eating and drinking. Then again, as Lombard said, “Let’s eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Or who knows, perhaps, even today” (Samuel French 61). But wait a minute, Lombard didn’t say that in the novel…

 

Verdict (Is the book staying or going?): Staying.

 

He said it in the stage version. Bonus book! I also have (but haven’t read) Ten Little Indians, the script!

 

Book: Ten Little Indians

Author: Agatha Christie

Number of pages: 97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            I’ve seen the movie and read the book. They had their differences. Now I’ve got the stage version.³ Would anything else be different? Would the entire ending change? A lot of the names change. Some of the victims’ names and the ways the guests die are different, too. The occasional typo doesn’t help. Blore’s victim starts as “Lendor” (26), then becomes “Landor” (38), and finishes as “Lander” (38). Another instance of a typo is when the speaker is supposed to switch to Lombard, but it remains Blore’s line, so at one point it’s written that Blore says, “I suspect Sir Lawrence. Blore suspects me” (75). Of course, there are more changes than just in the names.

            The entire play is set in the mansion’s main room along with a connecting balcony behind it. That definitely changes a lot of the action. Plus, Mr. Owen would be poisoning Marston in front of the audience, although I’m sure it’d be inconspicuous. The murder of Emily Brent also happens onstage, and I wonder how that would be accomplished without the audience or other characters onstage noticing. Marston is pretty annoying in the play. He calls everything “wizard.” The mansion’s wizard, Vera’s wizard, his car is wizard…I don’t feel like counting any more up. Dr. Armstrong says Wargrave looks likes a tortoise (17), which makes me think of Yertle the Turtle, who acts as a judge in Seussical the Musical.

            Agatha Christie does a good job moving all the action into the room, allowing some action to happen in between scenes are on the balcony. However, some parts of the novel had to be taken out altogether, which is too bad. Of course, the biggest difference of all is the lack of inner monologue.

Without inner monologue, Scrubs would mostly be JD staring at nothing.

Following people’s thoughts as they tried solving the whodunit or as they descended into madness was a huge part of the novel, but third person quasi-omniscience isn’t possible (or at least it’s very difficult – a lot of asides and other techniques) to translate onto a stage. A great deal of characterization got lost in translation. No one ever read the whole “Ten Little Indians” rhyme aloud in the play. I wonder if it would be included in the playbill/program. I like that idea, letting the audience follow along and wonder what’ll happen next.

            After my comment about alcohol as a cure-all, I got a laugh from one of Vera’s lines:

                 LOMBARD. I say, you do look low. How about a drink to steady your

            nerves?

     VERA. (Rises, flaring up) A drink! Two corpses in the house at nine o’clock in the morning and all you say, “Have a drink”! An old man going quite crackers – “Have a drink”! Ten people accused of murder – that’s all right – just have a drink. Everything’s fine so long as you have a drink. (57)

I still stand by what I said about Ten Little Indians focusing on eating and drinking because only a few pages later, Vera changes her mind:

     VERA. (To WARGRAVE) You were right to insist on our going to lunch – and drinking some brandy with it. I feel better.

     WARGRAVE. (Returns to coffee tray – takes his own coffee; stands by mantelpiece) The court always adjourns for lunch. (63)

It’s not important, but the amount of eating and drinking stood out to me.

            So, there are a lot of minute details which got switched around, slightly altered, or taken out, but the ending is very different than the novel. Sadly for my blog, I don’t want to risk spoiling anything of the ending, so I will stay silent. I will say the play’s ending is close to the 1945 movie.

            One last thing I want to mention. Apparently, the novel and play first got published under the title “Ten Little Niggers,” as mentioned on the script’s inside title page. That would result in a much more frequent and casual use of the pejorative word throughout the novel and play. Then again, does that reflect racism in Agatha Christie? She’s using an old racist nursery rhyme – not her own – as a framework for her murder mystery.

There’s no authorial intrusion to indicate any attitude of Christie. I also ask myself, even though “Indian” might have a less strong connotation than “nigger,” how racist is the title “Ten Little Indians”? Does that title carry any less racist overtones? Am I just more sensitized to the n-word? I don’t know. I still believe that the racism in Ten Little Indians is held by the characters, but not in Agatha Christie herself.

            Bottom line, Ten Little Indians is an intriguing thriller that I still enjoy.

 

Verdict (Is the book staying or going?): Going. The book was better.

 

Notes 

1. After all my talk of Ten Little Indians, my fiancé and I felt like watching the movie. It’s funny (not haha funny) that she had read the book but not seen the film and I had seen the film but had only just read the book.

2. For more on the subject of racist writing, I recommend Chinua Achebe’s “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness.’”

3. My copy of the script was once used by someone playing the part of Emily Brent.

 

Works Cited 

Christie, Agatha. Ten Little Indians. New York: Pocket Books, 1973. Print.

Christie, Agatha. Ten Little Indians. New York: Samuel French, 1946. Print.

 

 



6. Agnes of God

Book: Agnes of God

Author: John Pielmeier

Number of pages: 76 

What I’m watching: Movies: Kung Pow: Enter the Fist, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged)

What I’m playing: Dead Space 3

 

 

 

 

            Okay, for my next book selection I needed a new new approach. After Doctor Faustus, I’ve only read comedies that weren’t funny. Maybe I’ll try a drama, see if that works any better. And so, what did I pick? Agnes of God, first written in 1979 and then made it to Broadway in 1982. I noticed Amanda Plummer playing the role of Agnes on Broadway. The name looked really familiar, and upon checking IMDB, I found that she is in Hercules (which I just watched) and is Honey Bunny from Pulp Fiction (which I just did a large project on in my Literary Theory course (and I’m planning a Tarantino marathon very soon)).

            The play features a very small cast. There’s Agnes, a young novice who is found with a murdered newborn in a wastebasket, but doesn’t remember how it happened. There’s Mother Miriam, the Mother Abbess of the convent where Agnes lives. And finally, there’s Dr. Martha Livingstone, the court-ordered psychiatrist sent to examine Agnes’s mental status and competency for a trial. The plot of the story follows Dr. Livingstone as she works to uncover the identity of the father and the events of the night of the infant’s birth and death. Along the way is a lot of clashing between psychology and Catholicism from the doctor and mother abbess, pretty much science/fact versus religion/faith. It was kind of hard for me to read the play because I believe the two are not mutually exclusive. Hell, I just got my psychology degree from a Catholic university (plus I am Catholic). However, it’s difficult for the characters because they are layered with personal reasons to be at odds with each institution. Even though the two sides challenge each other – which in turn challenge the audience, in this case, me – and I often disagreed with characters, Agnes of God is incredibly compelling and left me thinking after I was finished.

            I could empathize with all the three women and wanted to find out the hidden truth about that night. Without revealing too much, a number of disturbing details are discovered about Agnes’s past, and I just feel so bad about it all. I don’t want to give away what happened because it is a good play, even if I didn’t always like the opinions of the characters. It challenges values without being unnecessarily offensive. It’s also a movie, but I haven’t seen it so I can’t say anything about that. I did talk with someone who saw the original Broadway production in the 80’s. He said the staging of Agnes of God was pretty conceptual and supposed to sort of take place in the mind. The writing of the play follows that concept by being very minimalistic and smoothly transitioning between scenes in the present and scenes of memories. He remembered how the stage was curved like a slope and at one point Agnes ran up it similar to Donald O’Connor in Singing in the Rain.

            In the end, although at times I was frustrated when the characters’ views verged on extreme, it was good to see some conflict, especially after a few plays which sorely lacked it. The play’s ending lacks closure, but in a way that’s okay. John Pielmeier doesn’t hold back, and there were plenty of “Aw, shit!” moments for me. I can see myself returning to this play for another read and potential analysis.

 

Verdict (Is the book staying or going?): Staying! I found a play I’ll keep!

 

Bibliography

Pielmeier, John. Agnes of God. New York: Samuel French, 1982. Print.

5. Why Worry?

Book: Why Worry?

Author: Hilda Manning

Number of pages: 81

What I’m watching: TV: Cadfael, Community, Once Upon a Time, Misfits Movies: Muppet Treasure Island, Sunday in the Park with George, MST3K: The Magic Sword, Mysterious Island, Hercules

What I’m playing: Injustice: Gods Among Us, Uncharted 3, Far Cry 3, From Dust, Dead Space 3, Skyrim

 

            Dammit, I did it again! Stuff happened, and I didn’t blog. I got a cat.

Professor George Bailey

I just graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and English from Cardinal Stritch University, so I had a few weeks of projects, papers, and exams. And, like my last double-post, I have two plays ready to review.

            So, picking out my next book, I had several things in mind. I wanted an easier read than Shakespeare because I was so busy and I knew figuring out Shakespeare’s language would slow me down. I also just wanted to find a play that I liked. A few months in and I haven’t found a book I want to keep. And with that frame of mind, I selected Why Worry?

            So the book opens with a brief introduction of this play, written in 1940. “There have been plays about eccentric families in the past, but we feel confident in claiming that never on stage has there been seen a collection of more lovable nit-wits than Hilda Manning presents in this sparkling new farce” (3). That’s pretty presumptuous. “Here’s the situation: Mrs. Desdemona Dalrymple is the widow of the celebrated Shakespearean-“ (3). Darn it, I was trying to avoid Shakespeare. Maybe it won’t be a big deal. “Shakespearean actor, Brutus Dalrymple. She lives in the past, still glorying in the triumphs of her famous husband. To keep his spirit alive, she has named her children after characters in Shakespeare’s plays: grown-up Hamlet and Viola, and nine-year-old Ophelia” (3). Ugh, it’s a huge deal. “Furthermore, she will permit them to speak only in the language of the classics; they call each other ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ and talk in blank verse” (3). Fuck! All I wanted was a play that wasn’t Shakespeare’s language. The editor or whoever wrote this inflated praise goes on to write about another character, Tokay, “the Japanese house boy and poet. Tokay is one of those actor-proof parts, with some of the funniest lines in a very funny play; the audience will love him” (4). To quote Confucius, “He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good.”

On the page of character descriptions, Tokay is described as “short and wiry, with typical Oriental grace in his movements. He is exceedingly polite, always grinning and bowing to others” (7). Holy crap, this play is going to be racist. The play was written a year before the Pacific War, so it has a different racism than the anti-Japanese sentiment during WWII.

There’s also a girl named Doris, who “is attractive in a rather hard way” (8). What does that mean? I have no idea. On to the actual play…

So, Hamlet and Viola hate being trained for Shakespearean acting by their mother, but have trouble explaining it to Desdemona. Tokay is the family’s servant, and his first line and stage directions are indicative of his entire role in the show. He gets asked to answer the doorbell and responds, “The bell? Oh, yes; I complying quickly. (Grins, bows, and hurries off)” (11). Simple, happy obedience and broken English cover about 90^% of Tokay’s action and dialogue through the play. He is such a stereotype, and apparently in 1940, that makes him hilarious. There are some other characters: Bill the clumsy vacuum salesman and Jerry, Desdemona’s lawyer who loves her. He tells her why they should get married, and she answers “Your arguments are stale; I know them well and they impress me not” (24). What’s he see in her? The rest of Act I plays out with Desdemona accepting an old friend’s dying wish in a letter to care for his daughter. Desdemona remembers the daughter as an infant. Doris, the daughter, shows up as a teenager, and Desdemona remembers that Doris was a baby, but that was 15 years ago. What an idiot! But I guess that’s the joke. The play did call her a nit-wit.

Act II is more of the same. Hamlet, Viola, Ophelia, and now Doris all are instructed by Desdemona to talk like Shakespeare, even though they’d rather speak normally. Ophelia is probably my favorite character. She’s kind of funny because she’s a little kid. Honestly though, the whole play is revolving around the gimmick of classical language versus vernacular and it drags so slowly. Halfway through the play, Tokay is still “hastening to obeying summons of bell” (42). Oh yeah, the rest of the time he’s not answering the door, he writes half-nonsensical poems. All the characters are flat, and I’m bored. Viola sighs, “thee, thou, blank verse – I’m sick of it – sick and tired of it” (42). Me too.

At one point, Hamlet is a total dick to Tokay. Tokay is reading Doris one of his poems:

TOKAY. (Reads)

“I obtaining in Japan lady friend having very nifty faces,

I going get her some day, you bet, to taking her other places,

I having reason to doing this, you see, I having slight cases of love,

She making me always thinking of pretty animals, like for instance

dove!”

DORIS. Well, I like that very much, Tokay. You send that to your lady friend, and I bet she’ll be very touched.

TOKAY. (Rises, grinning and bowing) Oh yes! Sure! I sending it to her. Only slightly difficulty, she not having able to read.

HAMLET. (Enters C. from R.) Well, you back, Doris?

DORIS. Looks that way.

HAMLET. Haven’t you got anything to do in the kitchen, Tokay?

TOKAY. Oh, yes. Sure.

HAMLET. Well, do it!

TOKAY. (Bows) I complying with greatest of ease. (47)

Tokay is more obedient than Ella of Frell. He reminds me of Wong from The Shakiest Gun in the West. And Mrs. Dalrymple really is an idiot. She doesn’t know who Benny Goodman is or what okey-doke means or how much fifty grand is. I’m not sure if she’s just pretending not to know contemporary things or she really is that out of touch with the times.

            Hamlet and Doris run off to become dancers. Desdemona calls her a “hussy” (63). That’s pretty strong language, uncharacteristic of Mrs. Desdemona, and undeserving for Doris. Bill takes Mrs. Dalrymple’s oil stocks and leaves the house unnoticed. Desdemona’s mean old mother-in-law Gertrude shows up demanding those exact same stocks. Apparently Brutus had only been holding on to the stocks for his mother and she’s here to claim them or the fifty grand they’re worth. Gertrude later returns with Mike, an asshole of a cop, to arrest Mrs. Dalrymple if she doesn’t have the stocks or money. One last racist stereotype that Tokay’s character had been missing gets filled in:

MIKE. (From off L.) Out o’ de way, Buddy! (Enters C. from L., pushing TOKAY in front of him and followed by AUNT GERTRUDE.)

            TOKAY. I not liking this-

MIKE. Oh, you not liking this, hey? Well, look out before I lose my temper – (Raises his hand to strike; as he does so, TOKAY grasps his arm, twists it expertly, and he lands on his back on the floor. He looks up dumbly) What hit me?

            TOKAY. (Grins, bows) Having honor to be championship of jiu jitsu!

            (64-65)

Of course Tokay is a master martial artist.

            So Bill shows up with a giant wad of money. He gives fifty grand to Gertrude, and she leaves. Turns out he didn’t steal the stocks. He was doing the noble deed of going to his father, who turns out to be an expert in oil stocks. His father got a great deal on selling the stocks. Bill returned with a buttload of money for Mrs. Dalrymple. He and Viola get together in the end. Hamlet and Doris return together. Jerry and Mrs. Dalrymple get together, and she loosens up on talking like Shakespeare all the time. Everyone’s got a match, just like the end of a real Shakespearean comedy.

            Why Worry? was awful. Characters were boring, a single premise was dragged out for three acts. There was the bare minimum of conflict in the plot. I only found a handful of lines even remotely funny. If you want a good comedy about a quirky family, I recommend You Can’t Take It With You. And Hilda Manning’s play is astonishingly racist. Speaking of racist, one of the inside cover’s adverts is for The Nutt Family, another play which includes “two blackface parts, Orestus and Cerise, who bring down the house every time they are on.” Why are they blackface roles and not roles for black people? I don’t get it. And after Tokay was described as the assuredly funniest character, I doubt the veracity that these two would bring down the house. Damn, I was disappointed by this play. Why Worry? just sucks.

 

Verdict (Is the book staying or going?): The play shall goeth.

 

Works Cited

Manning, Hilda. Why Worry? New York: Samuel French, 1940. Print.