Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I think you're right that London is really the main character of the novel. The depiction is vivid and lush and squalid. Stinky, even. That said, Simmons' interweaving of the real history of Dickens' last few years and Wilkie Collins' history, their publications and record of public appearances, with all the speculation of what might be going on in their relationship... It's a MASTERFUL piece of historic novelizing.
|
Agreed. The amount of historical info in the book means it essentially reads as a biography of Dickens' last years - and this is one of the reasons I am so let down - it has transcended fiction to the point where I want a conclusion on Drood, dammit! lol.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Casting back, there were a couple of things that happened that can't be explained by Spoiler: Wilkie being mesmerized or wacked out on opiates. The one that most came to mind was the discovery of the Egyptian artifacts in the buildings, on the walk that whats-his-name who ended up being Fields' son took him on. If Fields was really chasing a figment Drood and had turned is son just as mad, where did those things come from?
Do you figure the underground opium den was real? I do. So then why, the first time they went there, did whatsisname-the-chinaman say something like, "This is the entrance to the gateway to the outer vestibule of undertown." Later it's asserted that no such place exists.
|
I agree. Another thing that cant be explained is that Spoiler:
Drood (or one of agents) killed Wilkie's mom: Dr Ramseys (Rameses). I was surprised that Wilkie never despaired on this or reacted with greater intent to find and kill Drood, and that he accepted Dickens' explanation so timidly. If there is no Drood, the only explanation is that Wilkie killed her himself. And the description that the neighbour gave of the man negates that possibility, plus his mom would have recognised him even under a veil.