ATTWN: Week 1, Chapters 1 - 6

[Peppermill]

I am enjoying your discussion and looking forward to it, but at this point doubt I shall have very much to add.

I worked the polls yesterday and my way of recouping from the 5 am to 8 pm job  (plus up an hour earlier and extra time at the end for delivery of results) was to sit and devour ATTWN this morning.  In no way do I have the self-discipline to read a mystery like this in stages over several weeks!     

It is definitely an enjoyable read.  However, I don't know what to discuss about it, so I shall probably just follow the rest of you with delight.

I do have one question -- I presume from the comments so far that an earlier edition used "Indian" where the version I just bought used "Soldier".   Is that accurate?   I was trying to think as I read how that would have influenced my reactions to the story -- I'm not sure it would have made a great deal of difference, but it might have if I had known the story first with "Indians."  But, then, why would the temporality or sequence of the experience matter?  Just because the change was jarring, or for other, deeper reasons?   Also, I wondered who might have been responsible for the change.  (The reasons and the financial motivations seemed rather easy to speculate upon, although I don't "know" them either.)

Pepper

[Lmfwhite]

---

Peppermill wrote:

I do have one question -- I presume from the comments so far that an earlier edition used "Indian" where the version I just bought used "Soldier".   Is that accurate?   I was trying to think as I read how that would have influenced my reactions to the story -- I'm not sure it would have made a great deal of difference, but it might have if I had known the story first with "Indians."  But, then, why would the temporality or sequence of the experience matter?  Just because the change was jarring, or for other, deeper reasons?   Also, I wondered who might have been responsible for the change.  (The reasons and the financial motivations seemed rather easy to speculate upon, although I don't "know" them either.)

Pepper

---

My edition does use "Indian".  Was "Soldier" replaced in your edition for all of the following areas:  the poem of the 10 Little Indians (which was the basis for all the murders), the 10 Indian china figurines (where one disappeared after each murder), and the location of the novel on "Indian Island"? 

[IBIS]

I understand that there were some changes made from the first publication to later editions.

The original title was "Ten Little (N)"... the "n" word. And in later editions, when it was deemed too abusive a term, they changed it to "Indians", and some editions even used "soldiers".

---

Lmfwhite wrote:

---

Peppermill wrote:

I do have one question -- I presume from the comments so far that an earlier edition used "Indian" where the version I just bought used "Soldier".   Is that accurate?   I was trying to think as I read how that would have influenced my reactions to the story -- I'm not sure it would have made a great deal of difference, but it might have if I had known the story first with "Indians."  But, then, why would the temporality or sequence of the experience matter?  Just because the change was jarring, or for other, deeper reasons?   Also, I wondered who might have been responsible for the change.  (The reasons and the financial motivations seemed rather easy to speculate upon, although I don't "know" them either.)

Pepper

---

My edition does use "Indian".  Was "Soldier" replaced in your edition for all of the following areas:  the poem of the 10 Little Indians (which was the basis for all the murders), the 10 Indian china figurines (where one disappeared after each murder), and the location of the novel on "Indian Island"? 

---

[IBIS]

And yes, the first edition of the book with the original title "Ten Little N..." did use have little African-like  statuettes. And the poem that was framed in each bedroom used the "n" word.

Because of the controversial word, it became "indian". Today, in more politically sensitive versions, children often use "soldier boys" or "teddy bears" as the object of the rhyme.

[Peppermill]

---

Lmfwhite wrote:

---

Peppermill wrote:

I do have one question -- I presume from the comments so far that an earlier edition used "Indian" where the version I just bought used "Soldier".   Is that accurate?   I was trying to think as I read how that would have influenced my reactions to the story -- I'm not sure it would have made a great deal of difference, but it might have if I had known the story first with "Indians."  But, then, why would the temporality or sequence of the experience matter?  Just because the change was jarring, or for other, deeper reasons?   Also, I wondered who might have been responsible for the change.  (The reasons and the financial motivations seemed rather easy to speculate upon, although I don't "know" them either.)

Pepper

---

My edition does use "Indian".  Was "Soldier" replaced in your edition for all of the following areas:  the poem of the 10 Little Indians (which was the basis for all the murders), the 10 Indian china figurines (where one disappeared after each murder), and the location of the novel on "Indian Island"?

---

Short answer:  YES!

I suspect that the reasons for the change to soldier were basically the same as the ones for the changes from the N word to Indian.   I wonder, though, if that would have happened if the story had started out with "Indians".    I don't even know what the "original" nursery rhyme used, for that matter.  A title I recall is "Ten Little Indians All in a Row", but I don't remember the rhyme, so I can't comment on whether or to what extent Agatha Christie or subsequent publishers changed it.

Pepper

[Ryan_G]

We were actually talking about this change on twitter the other night.  I had never read the "soldier" term until I rebought the book for this discussion.  I have always seen it as "Indian".  So when I tried reading the newer book I was so annoyed that I had to return it and get a edition that still used "Indian".  I'm not sure why it would be changed in that way but that's neither here nor there. 

Now the change from the N word to Inidans made a lot more sense and I'm overly glad it did get changed.  Thought the N word still slips through when the wood pile reference is made.  So I always wanted to know why that stayed in the book when all the other refrences were taken out.

[Peppermill]

Remember all the fuss about football team names here some years ago now?  I wonder if this change was made about the same time frame as a "political correctness" concern -- which I don't intend as belittling the issues as some would perceive them.

Ryan, can you describe why the change seemed so annoying -- I'm trying to ask the question I've been asking myself, why or when does one term versus the other matter here?

---

Ryan_G wrote:

We were actually talking about this change on twitter the other night.  I had never read the "soldier" term until I rebought the book for this discussion.  I have always seen it as "Indian".  So when I tried reading the newer book I was so annoyed that I had to return it and get a edition that still used "Indian".  I'm not sure why it would be changed in that way but that's neither here nor there. 

Now the change from the N word to Inidans made a lot more sense and I'm overly glad it did get changed.  Thought the N word still slips through when the wood pile reference is made.  So I always wanted to know why that stayed in the book when all the other refrences were taken out.

---

[IBIS]

The term "Indian" is currently considered a negative term... the pc word is "Native American". That's probably why they changed Indians to "Soldiers".

Just as "Oriental" is now a negative term... the preferred word is Asian.  

I just learned that "senior citizen" is no longer the appropriate term. Preferred is "older adult."

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[Ryan_G]

I guess I find it so annoying that a work of art (which I consider most books to be) is changed to placate someone's sensibilites.  If you are offended by something don't read, watch, or look at it.  Leave the artist's/writer's/director's vision alone.  I think that changing Indian to soldier is PC run amok (and I'm saying this as a liberal)

---

Peppermill wrote:

Remember all the fuss about football team names here some years ago now?  I wonder if this change was made about the same time frame as a "political correctness" concern -- which I don't intend as belittling the issues as some would perceive them.

Ryan, can you describe why the change seemed so annoying -- I'm trying to ask the question I've been asking myself, why or when does one term versus the other matter here?

---

Ryan_G wrote:

We were actually talking about this change on twitter the other night.  I had never read the "soldier" term until I rebought the book for this discussion.  I have always seen it as "Indian".  So when I tried reading the newer book I was so annoyed that I had to return it and get a edition that still used "Indian".  I'm not sure why it would be changed in that way but that's neither here nor there. 

Now the change from the N word to Inidans made a lot more sense and I'm overly glad it did get changed.  Thought the N word still slips through when the wood pile reference is made.  So I always wanted to know why that stayed in the book when all the other refrences were taken out.

---

---

[Curt42]

The reading I have done said that the change to Indians occurred when the book was released in the US for the first time.  Also the title was changed for the US version to ATTWN.  When Christie wrote the play version she left it in the British title format but changed the last word to Indians.  I was not aware of the change to soldiers until I started reading this discussion.  PC strikes again.

[IBIS]

The book's title was changed to "And Then There were None" when it was published in the US. The "n" word has strong controversial connotations in American culture. It didn't seem to arouse the same virulent negative associations in England as it does in the US.

Dame Agatha herself made the change to Indians. And frankly, authors want the widest exposure to their "works of art"... and if it means changing the words, without seriously damaging the original intent of the work, many authors will do it.

[Ryan_G]

I don't have a problem with changing the N word to Indians.  Especially when the author is the one doing it. That wasn't what I was talking about at all.  I had more of an issue with changing Indians to Soldiers which eliminated the shape of the island out of the story as well.  I don't see any real reson for that change.  Especially when the left the N word in the book

---

IBIS wrote:

The book's title was changed to "And Then There were None" when it was published in the US. The "n" word has strong controversial connotations in American culture. It didn't seem to arouse the same virulent negative associations in England as it does in the US.

Dame Agatha herself made the change to Indians. And frankly, authors want the widest exposure to their "works of art"... and if it means changing the words, without seriously damaging the original intent of the work, many authors will do it.

---

 for the wood pile statment.  Which the word is also used in her first book, The Mysterious Affair at Styles.

[Lmfwhite]

---

Ryan_G wrote:

Now the change from the N word to Inidans made a lot more sense and I'm overly glad it did get changed.  Thought the N word still slips through when the wood pile reference is made.  So I always wanted to know why that stayed in the book when all the other refrences were taken out.

---

My  version, published by St. Martin's in 2001 uses Indian.  No N word in the wood pile reference but I may be looking in the wrong place.  Don't want to insert a spoiler since the wood pile reference I was reading is in Chapter 11.  Were you referring to another place in Chapters 1-6?

[IBIS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None

Here's the wikipedia link, and it has a cover of the original title of the book.

By the way, in that edition, the island was named N----- Island.

The rhyme in the bedrooms counted out ten little n-----s. And the figurines were little African boys.

When Dame Agatha changed it to "Ten Little Indians", and in the US to "And Then There Were None", the island became known as Indian Island. The rhyme in the bedrooms decimated ten little indians. And the figurines were little indian boys.

In the editions about Ten Little Soldiers, the island was known as Soldier Island.

The rhyme in the bedrooms killed off ten little soldiers. And the figurines were little tin soldiers.

These changes explain why this story is the most published mystery of all time.

[Ryan_G]

Justice Wargrave says it in chapter 7.  I think we have the same edition so it would be on page 107.

---

Lmfwhite wrote:

---

Ryan_G wrote:

Now the change from the N word to Inidans made a lot more sense and I'm overly glad it did get changed.  Thought the N word still slips through when the wood pile reference is made.  So I always wanted to know why that stayed in the book when all the other refrences were taken out.

---

My  version, published by St. Martin's in 2001 uses Indian.  No N word in the wood pile reference but I may be looking in the wrong place.  Don't want to insert a spoiler since the wood pile reference I was reading is in Chapter 11.  Were you referring to another place in Chapters 1-6?

---

[Peppermill]

That Wiki article really tells the story!  (Definitely a "spoiler" link!)

I found the snippets from the reviews particularly of interest -- and veering towards more than a bit over the top on the significance of racial overtones.  

There is also a link to the Sparknotes -- I took a look at the theme, motif and symbols section, as well as the summary and analysis of Chapter One.  I found these better written than notes such as these sometimes are.

So, Ibis, thanks for the wiki link  -- but I hope that anyone reading it has finished the story!

PS -- I don't think of myself as particularly "liberal," but given especially the pre-existing history, I do understand why "Indian" got republished as "soldier."  There has been a stong Native American voice making itself heard in recent years.  It also sounds as if the change was solid marketing in the sense of adding another boost to sales.

---

IBIS wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None

Here's the wikipedia link, and it has a cover of the original title of the book.

By the way, in that edition, the island was named N----- Island.

The rhyme in the bedrooms counted out ten little n-----s. And the figurines were little African boys.

When Dame Agatha changed it to "Ten Little Indians", and in the US to "And Then There Were None", the island became known as Indian Island. The rhyme in the bedrooms decimated ten little indians. And the figurines were little indian boys.

In the editions about Ten Little Soldiers, the island was known as Soldier Island.

The rhyme in the bedrooms killed off ten little soldiers. And the figurines were little tin soldiers.

These changes explain why this story is the most published mystery of all time.

---

[basson_mommy12]

Hey, all!  Good to be back!  I've had the glorious H1N1 and after 5 days, I'm finally feeling up to doing... SOMETHING.

My favorite character is the island: Indian Island makes the entire premise of the tale possible.  Someone made the comment earlier about the house and island being exposed and there's nowhere to hide - one cannot even hide from themselves.  I think that's perfectly put, so I cannot improve upon it.

I loved the ways each character is drawn to the island - their weaknesses are so well known, it makes me want to know why these particular individuals came to the attention U.N. Owen.  They certainly are not the only 10 guilty persons to escape justice in all of England....?

[IBIS]

Peppermill, and everyone, I apologize for not alerting you that the Wikipedia link was a spoiler.

I only wanted to show the initial cover of the story.... I didn't realize that I was posting it on the thread for chapters 1-6. It should properly have been in the WHOLE BOOK thread.

So sorry...

---

Peppermill wrote:

That Wiki article really tells the story!  (Definitely a "spoiler" link!)

---

[IBIS]

Hi Ruth, welcome back. Sorry to hear about H1N1... 

You do bring up an interesting point about why these particular guests? And not the hundreds of others in England who's crimes can't be touched by the legal system.

Ten seems like such a nice round number. The rhyme itself lends itself to that nice round figure.

Killing off many more would have taken too long, and ingenious as she is, Dame Agatha would eventually have run out of unique ways to kill people. 

---

basson_mommy12 wrote:

Hey, all!  Good to be back!  I've had the glorious H1N1 and after 5 days, I'm finally feeling up to doing... SOMETHING.

My favorite character is the island: Indian Island makes the entire premise of the tale possible.  Someone made the comment earlier about the house and island being exposed and there's nowhere to hide - one cannot even hide from themselves.  I think that's perfectly put, so I cannot improve upon it.

I loved the ways each character is drawn to the island - their weaknesses are so well known, it makes me want to know why these particular individuals came to the attention U.N. Owen.  They certainly are not the only 10 guilty persons to escape justice in all of England....?

---

[Peppermill]

---

IBIS wrote:

Peppermill, and everyone, I apologize for not alerting you that the Wikipedia link was a spoiler.

I only wanted to show the initial cover of the story.... I didn't realize that I was posting it on the thread for chapters 1-6. It should properly have been in the WHOLE BOOK thread.

So sorry...

---

Peppermill wrote:

That Wiki article really tells the story!  (Definitely a "spoiler" link!)

---

---

I had finished the book, so it was no problem for me, Ibis. I didn't mean to embarrass or harass you in any way, but since it did include the story so specifically, I just decided to call it out for other readers.

My apologies, Ibis. I did truly enjoy the link.  I also hope any reader realizes if they go to Sparknotes, they do so at their own risk relative to the sections they choose to peruse.

Pepper