|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Epilogue
Summary: Epilogue
I have wanted—let me admit it frankly—to commit a murder myself. . . . I was, or could be, an artist in crime! Two policeman, Sir Thomas Legge and Inspector Maine, discuss
the perplexing Indian Island case. They have reconstructed much
of what happened on Indian Island from diaries kept by various guests. It
is clear to them that the murderer was not Blore, Lombard, or Vera.
When they arrived, the police found the chair Vera kicked away to
hang herself mysteriously set upright against the wall. We learn
that Isaac Morris, who hired Lombard and Blore and bought the island
in the name of U. N. Owen, died of an apparent sleeping-pill overdose
the night the guests arrived on the island. The police suspect that
Morris was murdered. The police know that the people
of Sticklehaven were instructed to ignore any distress signals from
the island; they were told that everything taking place on the island
was part of a game being played by the wealthy owners of the island
and their guests.
The rest of the epilogue takes the form of a manuscript
in a bottle, found by a fisherman and given to the police. It is
written by Judge Wargrave, who writes that the manuscript offers
the solution to an unsolved crime. He says he was a sadistic child
with both a lust for killing and a strong sense of justice. Reading
mysteries always satisfied him. He went into law, an appropriate
career for him because it allowed him to indulge his zeal for death
within the confines of the law. Watching guilty persons squirm become
a new pleasure for him. After many years as a judge, he developed
the desire to play executioner. He wanted to kill in an extraordinary,
theatrical way, while adhering to his own sense of justice. One
day, a doctor mentioned to Wargrave the number of murders that must
go unpunished, citing a recently deceased woman he felt sure was
killed by the married couple who worked as her servants. Because
the couple withheld a needed drug in order to kill her, the murder
could never be proven. This story inspired Wargrave to plan multiple
murders of people who had killed but could not be prosecuted under
the law. He thought of the “Ten Little Indian” rhyme that he loved
as a child for its series of inevitable deaths.
Wargrave took his time gathering a list of victims, bringing
up the topic of unpunished murders in casual conversations and hoping
someone would mention a case of which they knew. Wargrave learned
he was terminally ill and decided to kill himself after doing away
with his victims. Wargrave’s tenth victim, we learn, was Isaac Morris,
who acted as his agent in making the arrangements for Indian Island,
and who had been responsible for selling drugs to a young acquaintance
of Wargrave, who subsequently killed herself. Before leaving for
Indian Island, Wargrave gave Morris poison, which he claimed was
a cure for Morris’s indigestion.
Wargrave killed Marston and Mrs. Rogers first, he writes, because
they bore the least responsibility for their crimes—Marston because
he was born without a sense of moral responsibility, and Mrs. Rogers
because she was under the sway of her husband when they murdered
their elderly employer. Next he killed General Macarthur, sneaking
up on him near the ocean. Wargrave goes on to describe how he tricked
Armstrong into becoming his ally: Armstrong, he notes, “was a gullible
sort of man . . . it was inconceivable to him that a man of my standing
should actually be a murderer.” He notes that he killed Mr. Rogers
while the butler was out chopping sticks. At breakfast, he poisoned
Emily Brent. Later, Armstrong agreed to help Wargrave fake his death,
and pretended to examine the body of the judge and find a gunhot
wound on his forehead. Wargrave arranged to sneak out
and meet the Armstrong by the shore that evening. There, he pushed
Armstrong over a cliff into the ocean.
After Armstrong’s death, Wargrave returned to his room
and played dead. Killing Blore was easy, since the ex-policeman
foolishly came up to the house alone, and Wargrave then watched
with satisfaction as Vera disposed of Lombard. Wargrave writes that
he would have killed Vera himself, but he wanted to make her death
fit the rhyme, so he set up her room in a suggestive way, with a
noose hanging down and the smell of the sea wafting in, letting
Vera’s own guilt drive her to suicide.
Wargrave says he wrote the manuscript because he takes
an artist’s pleasure in his own work and wants recognition. He wonders
if the police will pick up on three clues: first, that Wargrave
was the odd man out—he was not really guilty of a murder, as the
rest were, since in condemning Edward Seton to death he condemned
a guilty man. Second, the line about the “red herring” points to
the fact that Armstrong was somehow tricked into his death. Third,
Wargrave’s death by a bullet through the forehead will leave a red
mark like the brand of Cain, the first murderer in the biblical
book of Genesis.
Wargrave closes by describing the mechanism by which
he will pull the trigger of the revolver from a distance and have
the revolver flung away by an elastic band, thereby shooting himself
so that he falls back on his bed as though laid there by the others.
He concludes that men from the mainland “will find ten dead bodies
and an unsolved problem on Indian Island.” Analysis: Epilogue
The traditional detective story ends with a scene in which
the sleuth, having carefully considered all the evidence, gathers
the characters together and explains everything that has happened,
concluding by unmasking the killer. Something similar takes place
in the epilogue to And Then There Were None, although
the police detectives are utterly baffled by what has transpired,
and it is left to another character to explain things and untangle
the mystery. Here, this other character is Wargrave, the murderer.
Instead of being investigated and solved by a master detective,
the ten murders in this novel can be solved only by the man who
has committed them.
The unorthodox structure of this plot begins to make sense
when we consider the themes that Christie has been exploring: specifically the
effects of conscience and the administration of justice. These are classic
detective-fiction themes, but Christie gives them a different spin
by making her murder victims guilty of other murders unpunishable
by any legal means. One can argue that the killings on Indian Island
are not crimes at all but rather acts of ultimate justice. Wargrave
is not killing for personal gain; rather, he is simply doing with his
own hands what he did through the agency of law while he was still
a judge. Seen in this light, Christie’s decision to have him play the
detective role and explain the mystery to the reader makes a certain
kind of sense. In a traditional mystery story, the detective is
the agent of justice, stepping in when a crime has been committed
and assuring that the murderer is duly punished. In this story,
Wargrave is doing exactly that, albeit by stepping outside the bounds
of the law and becoming a killer himself.
Of course, there are objections to seeing Wargrave’s actions
as just. For example, one might point out that not all the crimes
that he punishes are really deliberate and premeditated murders.
However much we may despise Emily Brent, for instance, she did not
actually kill her servant; Emily merely fired her, and the servant
committed suicide. Similarly, however appalling a human specimen
Tony Marston may be, his running over of two children was accidental.
The same lack of malice characterizes Dr. Armstrong, who did not intend
to kill the woman who died on his operating table. Armstrong and
Marston’s actions may have been heinous, but one could argue that
they don’t deserve to die. Christie goes out of her way to make
us sympathize with Wargrave’s victims, despicable though their actions
may have been.
Wargrave himself, meanwhile, is a markedly unsympathetic character.
He presents himself as an agent of justice, but he admits to experiencing
a perverse pleasure in the taking of life, beginning with the “various
garden pests” that he killed as a boy and continuing through his
human victims. He is just but not at all merciful, and he kills
with enthusiastic cruelty. He is also grandiosely arrogant; his conception
of himself as an “artist” reduces his victims from human beings
to mere means toward his selfish ends. Indeed, he writes his confession
only because he cannot bear the idea that his perfect crime will
go unappreciated.
At its conclusion, Christie’s novel both does and does
not reassert moral order. Wargrave’s actions do not go unpunished;
he shares the same fate as the people he has murdered. He has become
a murderer himself, and so, under his own code of justice, he cannot
be allowed to live. In this regard, Christie returns to the neat
moral symmetry of the classic detective story: the guilty receive
what they deserve, and no one gets away with murder. At the same
time, however, Wargrave would have died of a terminal illness in
any case, and by killing himself he merely asserts authority over
death. He arranges his death in a way that thrills him, and dies
a happy man and a proud artist. Christie allows us to feel the satisfaction
of finally understanding the mystery, but she does not allow us
the satisfaction of seeing the murderer sniveling, angrily led away
in handcuffs, or humiliated in front of the world. Wargrave never
loses his control or his murderous sense of justice. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | About
©2006 SparkNotes LLC, All Rights Reserved.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||