Great essay:) I mostly agree but didn't Vera intend the child to die (so her boyfriend could inherit his property? She deliberately sent him out to the danger zone when his mother would not be there and only pretended that she was swimming over to try and save him. So I don't think her crime was negligence. It's premeditated murder. It would only be called negligence by law as they don't have enough evidence to proof her motif and intentions.
Vera planned the boy's death. It was premeditated and it was murder. She knew that he couldn't do it and wanted her lover to inherit the money that the boy would have.
This was an excellent speed run of an essay, very impressive and insightful. I don't think I could ever approach the quality of your points in such a short time and I admire your mastery.
I personally think your essay was super duper enjoyable, however I can see why they wouldn't pass it since usually mark schemes look for connecting the author's possible intentions with the techniques they use to construct the narrative and then using that as evidence for the point you wanna get across.Still this video was amazing and I'm glad the algorithm recommended it to me!
I clicked on the video, realised I should read the novel first, went to amazon, couldn´t find an aesthetically pleasing edition, went down the rabbit hole that is Christie´s bibliography and ended with 5 ebooks from the public domain, none of which are "And then there were none". I´m reading that Styles book now.
I loved the video! It had me watch the BBC series based on the movie - and then had me read a book vs. series review, just so that I would have a clue of the difference between the two. I don't know what criteria your teacher judged your essay on. But I wonder if it has something to do with how you formulate and then answer the original question: "Can vigilante justice be considered an acceptable way of establishing justice?" The way I understand Wargrave, he is not arguing that what he is doing is justified or right. Maybe I've overlooked it, if so I apologise. My understanding is that, after he retired from being a judge and decided to not prolong his death, he decided he wanted to live life to its fullest. Meaning, he wanted to kill and he wanted to be remembered for it. But his sense of justice didn't allow him to kill the innocent. The obviously guilty has already been dealt with on his watch, so he shifted his focus to the less obviously "not innocent" to kill. You could call this "vigilante justice", but I don't see that as his motive. He doesn't kill them, because they deserve to be punished or because the justice system failed. He kills them, because he wants to kill in a spectacular way, but doesn't want to kill innocent people. That is also why it doesn't matter to him, that the death sentence doesn't match the crime. And so, if it doesn't matter to him, the initial question cannot be answered by analysing his actions. It could be answered by analysing how his lust for killing and fame is interfering with his (possible) drive for justice. Had his drive for justice been greater than his lust for murder and fame, he might have dished out a different kind of punishment, that more satisfyingly matched the crime. E.g. Letting Lombard die from thirst and hunger and letting Vera drown. But it is not about their crimes. It is only about how "not innocent" their are. Which is also reflected in how he ranks them, where the most innocent of the not-so-innocent goes first. I don't see his actions as vigilante justice. He knows that what he is doing is wrong and he doesn't care.
I personally think your take is too simplistic. All the people on the island are not criminally liable, no, but it’s quite clear that they are very much guilty, which is exactly the point. The justice system has checks and balances, but sometimes that means that people will get away with harming others. In particular the characters in the novel have committed crimes against the weak and dependent, servants, children, seniors, natives (there js also a strong undercurrent of racism and colonialism, which is subject of another essay here on youtube. Absolutely worth a watch btw). Wargrave so far has managed to live out both his sense of justice and his homicidal tendencies within the restrictions of the law, though he is known as a “hanging judge”. Now that his life is ending he decides to ditch the checks and balances. I believe he very much considers himself another murderer on the island, because he knows that this is not just about justice - it’s also about his enjoyment. Everything about the story is grey. There are no heros and arguably no real villains. The victims are the perpetrators. Nobody deserves sympathy and yet, we will feel some at some point. It is a masterclass in layered writing and one of Christie’s most famous for that exact reason. Truly, I don’t think it makes a case against vigilante justice. There are no descriptions of mourning husbands or orphaned children. Nobody seems to miss the people on the island all that much, or at least Christie doesn’t bother to tell us of any impact their deaths had on the world, other than causing a great mystery for the police. Like most things that happen here the murder of the islanders are also grey. Did they deserve it? Did they deserve to live? It’s up to you to decide. Christie doesn’t give us any clear answers.
Okay, I am back after listening to the audio book (which I did while editing microscopy pictures, so those two are forever linked now) and I watched the video. I think you expressed yourself very well and it was easy to follow your reasoning. However, as someone else has already said, I don´t think you relied in the book enough to proof the points you were making. You quoted some of Wargreeve´s letter in the epilogue. But for example, it might have been interesting to take a look at the effects that the prolonged experience had on uhh what´s her name, Vera? The woman who died last. At the beginning of the book she was full of denial about her own role in the boy´s death. She had convinced herself that it was an accident and that she did everything she could. But by the end she admits that she send the little boy into the water when she knew nobody would notice and get him to safety in time, effectively killing him. So I guess I disagree with your assessment that her only crime was negligence, as it was her plan for the boy to die so that her lover could inherit. And in taking a close look at this transformation you could maybe gain a glimpse into Wargreeve´s mind, since this is what he had planned for the worst sinner on the island. Even though I don´t really understand why the dude who dies first is less of a sinner, because he shows no remorse. I feel like that makes what he did, killing two children because of his reckless behaviour, a lot worse. Especially since he is still driving recklessly fast and putting other people in danger, not having learned from that experience at all. Also something that might have been interesting to examine. The ranking of the victims. I do however now realise that both of those points might be off topic for the question you sought to answer in this assay. :D
I was thinking the same thing about Vera. She was the worst. I think he deems the first guy's crime as the least evil because he technically didn't "intend" to kill the 2 people but killed them out of his reckless, irresponsible driving. Though technically by that logic, Emily Brent should have come before or right after him (or at least after Mrs. Rogers) since she didn't "intend" her servant to commit suicide either. Her crime was simply throwing her pregnant servant out in the name of her religious beliefs (even though she technically went against the Christian beliefs in doing so).
If you wrote this while perfecting your English, not your first language... brava!! Whether one agrees with your interpretation of vigilante in this book, one must admire the clarity in which you present it. I agree with others that Vera deliberately sent the boy to drown, and thst she was the most sinful/evil. Anthony felt no remorse so he wouldn't react in guilt and fear if killed later. The general lived a miserable life in the aftermath of sending his wife's lover to death. Otherwise, I would want him to be after Blore or Lombard.
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
[READ THE DISCLAIMER IN THE DESCRIPTION PLEASE]
This is a [SPOILER] diss track, only in video format :D
Great essay:) I mostly agree but didn't Vera intend the child to die (so her boyfriend could inherit his property? She deliberately sent him out to the danger zone when his mother would not be there and only pretended that she was swimming over to try and save him. So I don't think her crime was negligence. It's premeditated murder. It would only be called negligence by law as they don't have enough evidence to proof her motif and intentions.
Vera planned the boy's death. It was premeditated and it was murder. She knew that he couldn't do it and wanted her lover to inherit the money that the boy would have.
This was an excellent speed run of an essay, very impressive and insightful. I don't think I could ever approach the quality of your points in such a short time and I admire your mastery.
I personally think your essay was super duper enjoyable, however I can see why they wouldn't pass it since usually mark schemes look for connecting the author's possible intentions with the techniques they use to construct the narrative and then using that as evidence for the point you wanna get across.Still this video was amazing and I'm glad the algorithm recommended it to me!
I clicked on the video, realised I should read the novel first, went to amazon, couldn´t find an aesthetically pleasing edition, went down the rabbit hole that is Christie´s bibliography and ended with 5 ebooks from the public domain, none of which are "And then there were none". I´m reading that Styles book now.
I loved the video! It had me watch the BBC series based on the movie - and then had me read a book vs. series review, just so that I would have a clue of the difference between the two. I don't know what criteria your teacher judged your essay on. But I wonder if it has something to do with how you formulate and then answer the original question: "Can vigilante justice be considered an acceptable way of establishing justice?"
The way I understand Wargrave, he is not arguing that what he is doing is justified or right. Maybe I've overlooked it, if so I apologise. My understanding is that, after he retired from being a judge and decided to not prolong his death, he decided he wanted to live life to its fullest. Meaning, he wanted to kill and he wanted to be remembered for it. But his sense of justice didn't allow him to kill the innocent. The obviously guilty has already been dealt with on his watch, so he shifted his focus to the less obviously "not innocent" to kill.
You could call this "vigilante justice", but I don't see that as his motive. He doesn't kill them, because they deserve to be punished or because the justice system failed. He kills them, because he wants to kill in a spectacular way, but doesn't want to kill innocent people. That is also why it doesn't matter to him, that the death sentence doesn't match the crime. And so, if it doesn't matter to him, the initial question cannot be answered by analysing his actions. It could be answered by analysing how his lust for killing and fame is interfering with his (possible) drive for justice. Had his drive for justice been greater than his lust for murder and fame, he might have dished out a different kind of punishment, that more satisfyingly matched the crime. E.g. Letting Lombard die from thirst and hunger and letting Vera drown.
But it is not about their crimes. It is only about how "not innocent" their are. Which is also reflected in how he ranks them, where the most innocent of the not-so-innocent goes first. I don't see his actions as vigilante justice. He knows that what he is doing is wrong and he doesn't care.
I personally think your take is too simplistic. All the people on the island are not criminally liable, no, but it’s quite clear that they are very much guilty, which is exactly the point. The justice system has checks and balances, but sometimes that means that people will get away with harming others. In particular the characters in the novel have committed crimes against the weak and dependent, servants, children, seniors, natives (there js also a strong undercurrent of racism and colonialism, which is subject of another essay here on youtube. Absolutely worth a watch btw). Wargrave so far has managed to live out both his sense of justice and his homicidal tendencies within the restrictions of the law, though he is known as a “hanging judge”. Now that his life is ending he decides to ditch the checks and balances. I believe he very much considers himself another murderer on the island, because he knows that this is not just about justice - it’s also about his enjoyment. Everything about the story is grey. There are no heros and arguably no real villains. The victims are the perpetrators. Nobody deserves sympathy and yet, we will feel some at some point. It is a masterclass in layered writing and one of Christie’s most famous for
that exact reason. Truly, I don’t think it makes a case against vigilante justice. There are no descriptions of mourning husbands or orphaned children. Nobody seems to miss the people on the island all that much, or at least Christie doesn’t bother to tell us of any impact their deaths had on the world, other than causing a great mystery for the police. Like most things that happen here the murder of the islanders are also grey. Did they deserve it? Did they deserve to live? It’s up to you to decide. Christie doesn’t give us any clear answers.
Okay, I am back after listening to the audio book (which I did while editing microscopy pictures, so those two are forever linked now) and I watched the video. I think you expressed yourself very well and it was easy to follow your reasoning. However, as someone else has already said, I don´t think you relied in the book enough to proof the points you were making. You quoted some of Wargreeve´s letter in the epilogue. But for example, it might have been interesting to take a look at the effects that the prolonged experience had on uhh what´s her name, Vera? The woman who died last. At the beginning of the book she was full of denial about her own role in the boy´s death. She had convinced herself that it was an accident and that she did everything she could. But by the end she admits that she send the little boy into the water when she knew nobody would notice and get him to safety in time, effectively killing him. So I guess I disagree with your assessment that her only crime was negligence, as it was her plan for the boy to die so that her lover could inherit. And in taking a close look at this transformation you could maybe gain a glimpse into Wargreeve´s mind, since this is what he had planned for the worst sinner on the island. Even though I don´t really understand why the dude who dies first is less of a sinner, because he shows no remorse. I feel like that makes what he did, killing two children because of his reckless behaviour, a lot worse. Especially since he is still driving recklessly fast and putting other people in danger, not having learned from that experience at all. Also something that might have been interesting to examine. The ranking of the victims. I do however now realise that both of those points might be off topic for the question you sought to answer in this assay. :D
I was thinking the same thing about Vera. She was the worst. I think he deems the first guy's crime as the least evil because he technically didn't "intend" to kill the 2 people but killed them out of his reckless, irresponsible driving. Though technically by that logic, Emily Brent should have come before or right after him (or at least after Mrs. Rogers) since she didn't "intend" her servant to commit suicide either. Her crime was simply throwing her pregnant servant out in the name of her religious beliefs (even though she technically went against the Christian beliefs in doing so).
If you wrote this while perfecting your English, not your first language... brava!! Whether one agrees with your interpretation of vigilante in this book, one must admire the clarity in which you present it.
I agree with others that Vera deliberately sent the boy to drown, and thst she was the most sinful/evil. Anthony felt no remorse so he wouldn't react in guilt and fear if killed later. The general lived a miserable life in the aftermath of sending his wife's lover to death. Otherwise, I would want him to be after Blore or Lombard.