Talk:The Mousetrap

Identity of the murderer

All the time, editors come and seek to remove the identity of the murderer. This is then reverted on the basis that Wikipedia has established policy. Also bear in mind that, when an artist creates something and puts it into the world, they don't have any say in how people use it (except in vary rare cases where, eg a photographer or a painter, may have a contractual hold on the user). Agatha Christie may well have asked that the identity not be revealed. Well, she would, wouldn't she? So would those who own the commercial rights on the show. But she is dead and they have no say. Personally, I think the world would have been done a favor if everyone knew who did it and nobody went to see this tired and unconvincing play. However, the point is, if people want to know who did it, without seeing the play, they are entitled to find out in an encyclopedia. Bluehotel (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually dont see the fact thsy she is dead as being the relevant issue . I am sure that we would keep the ending for Avatar if the still living Camrom made a similar request. While I am not a legal expert I doubt that authors/directors etc would not have the right to suspress stuff like this once the work is released for public consumption.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is suggested that her death is the relevant issue, merely observing that there's no way of arguing the toss with her. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agatha Christie's work is still copyrighted so I suppose that there is at least someone who has a say, even though I don't think that spoilers fall under copyright law. However, it is said that everyone watching the play or reading the script (which is not publicly available) has to swear not to reveal the ending. Does it count as a NDA ? Does it mean that revealing it is actually illegal for someone who has watched the play ? 217.109.123.82 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not. They are asked not to reveal it; they don't sign a contract on the way out agreeing not to do it (and even if they did it would not be illegal, but a breach of contract... assuming that such a contract was valid; they'd have to be offered a quid pro quo for signing). Pinkbeast (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If this was actually illegal I'm sure that Wikipedia's legal department would have taken the ending down a long time ago or there would have been suit by now. Also, while I am not a lawyer, I don't see any chance that being asked not to reveal something could possibility qualify as a legally binding contract. In short there is no NDA. If you unsure Wikipedia does have a legal department though I doubt that they would give a different answer.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The script is publicly available, it's been sold in various printed book forms for decades, and the ending is revealed in textbooks that discuss the work, with no legal repercussion. Penguin Books, who have published one such collection of Christie's works, have an online teacher's guide which openly reveals the ending, rather than awkwardly apologising for not being legally able to and telling the students that they'll just have to read to the end of the script themselves. --McGeddon (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The script has no wording asking the audience not to reveal the ending. Neither does the short story "Three Blind Mice." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if it did I highly doubt that asking the audience to do that could possibly be considered a binding contract that would make posting the ending on Wikipedia illegal.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And (although there is clearly no such contract) I for one have not seen the play, so I cannot possibly be a party to the (nonexistent) agreement with the audience. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should be thorough enough to include a synopsis of a work's plot. The alternative is tantamount to saying you don't believe that Wikipedia articles on fictional works should be complete. There's really nothing else to say on the matter, is there? ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 22:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary makes little sense

The plot summary in its current version makes little sense. First, for instance, "the Corrigans" are mentioned without ever having been introduced. Second, Sergeant Trotter is described as "the eldest of the three Corrigan children," but we are then told that Miss Casewell is "Trotter's elder sister." Beyond these inconsistencies, it might help if other loose ends are tied up (e.g. what are the true reasons for Paravincini's apparently suspicious behaviour).

Anyhow, this version of the summary has at least the virtue of internal consistency. I propose to revert to that version unless there are strong objections. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I for one would object if you literally mean to revert to that version, because there have been quite a number of edits made, some of which are considered and important. I think you need to make edits to the existing version, so we can see what's what. If that means you take quite a bit from the previous version, that is fine. That would be my view. Bluehotel (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the older plot summary, for the same reasons. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Paravicini just doesn't make sense. :-) In "Three Blind Mice", it's a bit more explicit that he's a black marketeer, but knowing that doesn't really clarify the way he interacts with Trotter. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've hacked together an entirely new plot summary in my sandbox. It's undoubtedly overly detailed and in serious need of pruning and copyediting, but I'd be happy to put it in the article so it can be cut down to size (or to leave it in my sandbox for a bit so it can be cut down to size there). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the second part of the plot summary that's problematic, I think. In fact, I never entirely got it when I saw the play. Who the Corrigan children are, for example, needs explaining. Bluehotel (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's explained in the paragraph that starts "Trotter and Giles return and Trotter explains his purpose to the household" in my summary. The kids are a bit of a MacGuffin; they exist to be something that motivated the killer to kill. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Fluffernutter's replacement plot summary is nearly 2000 words in length - MOS:PLOT recommends keeping plot summaries "between 400 and 700 words", so we really need to pare this back down. --McGeddon (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)