New Leaf March 2019 Discussion • Edwin Drood by Charles Dickens

[gmw]

Yes, there are authors that write such detailed outlines that no mystery need be left unresolved even if the never get around to finishing the first chapter. But it is also possible to work with only the shape of a story in your mind; that shape might involve certain key elements (like Magwitch, for example) while leaving much else hidden in a fog - even to the writer - until it is actually written. But I find it difficult to imagine that Dickens could have written his stories that way because the first parts went out for publication and could not be tweaked later. So, either Dickens kept a quite detailed outline in his mind, or he trusted to his abilities as a writer (that he could write himself out of any corner he had written himself into by the previous chapters).

[Bookworm_Girl]

I checked out from my library the Modern Library edition with an introduction by Matthew Pearl and have read through his analysis this weekend. He addresses the question “are we certain Dickens himself knew the ending?”. He believes that Dickens did have a structure in his head, but while he was writing it really was still a work in progress. He says that at times Dickens might be writing months, weeks or even days before each installment deadline. He provides examples from Great Expectations, Martin Chuzzlewit and David Copperfield where Dickens rewrote scenes or changed plot direction based on feedback from friends, events happening in his real life such as negative American coverage or even complaints from readers of earlier installments. Pearl also states that there is strong evidence that the number plans to outline the plot were filled out after writing rather than before (i.e. more a log than a plan), indicating flexibility in where the novel was headed. Lastly, Pearl asserts that Dickens paid close attention to sales reports on the last day of each month called “Magazine Day.” He was able to revise his works according to the market success or disappointment.

[gmw]

Thanks, Bookworm_Girl. Wow. I was going to say something about it taking a lot of confidence, but then I suppose it was something that he worked his way into. To some extent it was the reality of publishing at that time and he found ways to take advantage of it.

[Dazrin]

I suppose I should jump in and say something. Unfortunately I don't have much to say. I tried to read this for several days and in both book and audio formats. I just couldn't keep forcing myself to try. I am not going to chalk this up to a bad book or anything given my reading funk this year. I have barely read 1/2 of the books I would normally have finished at this point of the year. About the only thing I have been able to get into is Terry Pratchett (working on my 5th Discworld novel right now). I'm sure at some point I will get out of this mode but right now it feels like it will go on forever.

[Bookpossum]

I suppose the modern equivalent is TV shows that I gather can be written on the run to incorporate current affairs, opinion polls etc. The difference is that they seem to have a clutch of writers, researchers and so on. Dickens was a one-man band.

Are we any closer to deciding whether Edwin Drood survived the attack? I was ambivalent, but I think based on the evidence of what Dickens said to people like his son and to the illustrator, that Edwin was indeed dead, and that the ring was going to play a part in identifying his remains.

ETA. Sorry Dazrin, I crossed in the post with you. Good luck with getting out of your slump.

[gmw]

I wonder if the story might have been on the verge of revealing that. The first quarter/third was lead in, after which Drood disappears. Now we had hit the halfway mark and I think it was due for the next "spark", and a revelation one way or another about Drood would seem appropriate at this point. The spark might have been Princess Puffer, but somehow I see her a more long term project, something intended for nearer the ending - maybe visiting Jasper in gaol or some such.

I had been firmly on the side of Edwin Drood is dead, and I'm still inclined to think that was Dickens' intention up to this point. However Bookworm_Girl's post has me wondering whether Dickens might have been keeping his options open. Maybe he really was watching out for public opinion before deciding which way to go. If it looked like the public wanted Drood to survive, then Dickens would produce him, if not, then evidence of his death would soon be forthcoming ... and I still think the latter was more likely.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

I suppose I should jump in and say something. Unfortunately I don't have much to say. I tried to read this for several days and in both book and audio formats. I just couldn't keep forcing myself to try. I am not going to chalk this up to a bad book or anything given my reading funk this year. I have barely read 1/2 of the books I would normally have finished at this point of the year. About the only thing I have been able to get into is Terry Pratchett (working on my 5th Discworld novel right now). I'm sure at some point I will get out of this mode but right now it feels like it will go on forever.

Pratchett's one of my go-to authors when nothing else seems to be working, Christie is another. Someone with lots of familiar books that I just sort of soak in for a while. Very comforting. Good luck.

[Bookworm_Girl]

I think that he intended to have Jasper be the murderer, but he was keeping his options open as evidenced by the discussion about the title. Another interesting point mentioned in the Pearl essay is that we know Edwin’s parents died, but his father’s first name wasn’t mentioned. Dickens could have twisted the title to refer to Edwin’s father if he was also an Edwin for all we know could have happened in the second half that was never written. The main message of Pearl’s essay was that the element of surprise was a very important “commodity” to Dickens.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

I suppose I should jump in and say something. Unfortunately I don't have much to say. I tried to read this for several days and in both book and audio formats. I just couldn't keep forcing myself to try. I am not going to chalk this up to a bad book or anything given my reading funk this year. I have barely read 1/2 of the books I would normally have finished at this point of the year. About the only thing I have been able to get into is Terry Pratchett (working on my 5th Discworld novel right now). I'm sure at some point I will get out of this mode but right now it feels like it will go on forever.

Sorry to hear that, Dazrin. We all have reading slumps, and they are no fun. I don’t generally re-read so for myself returning to a familiar author like Dickens was kind of like a palette cleanser for me. I’m sure you’ll break out of it sometime soon. Just try not to think about it too hard.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

About the only thing I have been able to get into is Terry Pratchett (working on my 5th Discworld novel right now). I'm sure at some point I will get out of this mode but right now it feels like it will go on forever.

Originally Posted by gmw

Pratchett's one of my go-to authors when nothing else seems to be working, Christie is another. Someone with lots of familiar books that I just sort of soak in for a while. Very comforting. Good luck.

We probably all go through those slumps. I usually reread something from the Liaden universe or another series with strong world building - like touching base with home for a while.

I had to really work at reading the book, and I’m finding it hard to offer comments. I’m sorry, because want to be an active member and contribute to the discussion. I’m not much of a Dickens fan anyway, and just didn’t find this story engaging. The passages describing the town were really the only element that spoke to me.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Victoria

[...]The passages describing the town were really the only element that spoke to me.

Or how about the opening two paragraphs from chapter II, that something I particularly liked:

Whosoever has observed that sedate and clerical bird, the rook, may perhaps have noticed that when he wings his way homeward towards nightfall, in a sedate and clerical company, two rooks will suddenly detach themselves from the rest, will retrace their flight for some distance, and will there poise and linger; conveying to mere men the fancy that it is of some occult importance to the body politic, that this artful couple should pretend to have renounced connection with it.

Similarly, service being over in the old Cathedral with the square tower, and the choir scuffling out again, and divers venerable persons of rook-like aspect dispersing, two of these latter retrace their steps, and walk together in the echoing Close.

.

[gmw]

While I'm putting up some quotes, can anyone help me with elaboration/explanation for this:

He drops his two keys back into his pocket one by one, and buttons them up; he takes his dinner-bundle from the chair-back on which he hung it when he came in; he distributes the weight he carries, by tying the third key up in it, as though he were an Ostrich, and liked to dine off cold iron;

Is there some legend regarding Ostriches and iron? Is maybe a legend of Ostriches carrying food in their feathers or something?

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by Victoria

I had to really work at reading the book, and I’m finding it hard to offer comments. I’m sorry, because want to be an active member and contribute to the discussion. I’m not much of a Dickens fan anyway, and just didn’t find this story engaging. The passages describing the town were really the only element that spoke to me.

Well, we aren’t all going to like the same books equally. Good job for giving the book a try though! It’s acceptable to say why you didn’t like something. I thought your earlier post about why you didn’t think it was much of a mystery good for offering a different perspective. Maybe it will resonate with someone else and spark a new line of discussion. Or maybe by following along with what others say it will make you rethink or get a different appreciation for what you didn’t like.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by gmw

Or how about the opening two paragraphs from chapter II, that something I particularly liked:

Whosoever has observed that sedate and clerical bird, the rook, may perhaps have noticed that when he wings his way homeward towards nightfall, in a sedate and clerical company, two rooks will suddenly detach themselves from the rest, will retrace their flight for some distance, and will there poise and linger; conveying to mere men the fancy that it is of some occult importance to the body politic, that this artful couple should pretend to have renounced connection with it.

Similarly, service being over in the old Cathedral with the square tower, and the choir scuffling out again, and divers venerable persons of rook-like aspect dispersing, two of these latter retrace their steps, and walk together in the echoing Close.

Yes, I enjoyed his description of the rooks, and the parallel with the clergy too. I also enjoyed his descriptions of the little secluded square in London, and the thick London fog. They were quite invocative.

I think I must be a visual reader, because I enjoy world-building in fiction, along with character development, much more than books which rely on symbolism or profound themes. For example, Dickens’ descriptions of Grewgious’ living / working quarters, and his daily routines were quite interesting. They made him seem like a real person, and one I became invested in.

On the other hand, the tender moments between Crisparkle and his angel mother, bowing their heads together each morning were far too sweet to be believed. I also found Dicken’s descriptions of Crisparkle’s feelings about his mother overly sentimental. And that’s how I generally experience Dickens. I admire and respect what he did in terms of social justice, but in terms of reading enjoyment, he’s too sentimental and preachy.

Originally Posted by gmw

While I'm putting up some quotes, can anyone help me with elaboration/explanation for this:Is there some legend regarding Ostriches and iron? Is maybe a legend of Ostriches carrying food in their feathers or something?

Your question made me curious, so I checked Professor Google. And apparently there was a widely held belief regarding Ostriches and iron; however, I’m not sure how they link to Durdles: https://mad.hypotheses.org/131

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Well, we aren’t all going to like the same books equally. Good job for giving the book a try though! It’s acceptable to say why you didn’t like something. I thought your earlier post about why you didn’t think it was much of a mystery good for offering a different perspective. Maybe it will resonate with someone else and spark a new line of discussion. Or maybe by following along with what others say it will make you rethink or get a different appreciation for what you didn’t like.

Bookworm_Girl, thanks for the encouragement! I’m new to the book club, and want to be an active participant, vs. the drive-by voters discussed in the ‘Welcome to New Leaf’ thread LOL. But as you say, we can’t always enjoy the same books equally.