Drood - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Vaultboy · 12-01-2009, 11:55 PM

Having recently completed the 771 page tome that is Drood, I ended with mixed emotions about this book that I had to share and discuss and 'get closure'on.

The narrator makes the statement in the final chapter that for the Reader this story has always been about Dickens and Drood or Drood and Dickens. For me, this is not true. The brilliance in this book is how Victorian London is brought to life so vividly - (for me) better than in Dickens' novels or in other fiction like Sherlock Holmes novels etc. The stark realities (and fantasies) of life circa 1850 delivered by Simmons really brings home the appreciation that we have never had it so good as we do today, and it does so in beautiful, yet acceptable prose, that is both dark and uttlerly grave, but also humourous and lighthearted at times.

As a spatial planner, I revelled in the way Simmons weaved the realities of settlement design and structure and the impact this has on daily life into the tale. THere's the whole debate on the capitalist role of town planning to provide just enough services to the poor to keep them working for the rich that Simmons brings deliciously to the boil with his midsummer ventures into the rookeries. Furthermore, just the realities he depicts of travel and communiciation a century ago and how tighly this is bound to the relationships between people made this book worth reading in itself, and because of these elements I would recommend the book to anyone.

Its been a while since I enjoyed a book as thoroughly as I enjoyed Drood, but in the end, I felt betrayed. Two thirds of brilliance, Simmons took the easy way out in the last third and robbed me of conclusions to mysteries on several fronts. THe commitment of the reader is not repaid. Yes, I am aware that several elements in the book are purposefully obscured or left unexplained e.g. Spoiler: the thing on the servants' stairs, the manifestation of the

Other Wilkie and the mysteries surrounding Ellen Ternan, which I can accept (this is a mystery novel, after all), but the essential plot events left unexplained leaves me with a "so what" feeling about the story, which to be honest, I also felt after finising Olympos, although to a far lesser degree. SImmons has told a good story alright, but one with a weak conclusion. I am left feeling like Wilkie critiqueing a Dickens novel (which may have Simmons intention, but I doubt it). I realise that for many readers, the main interest was how Drood links to Dickens' "The mystery of Edwin Drood", and perhaps those readers got what they wanted. Having never read that work, I wouldn't know.

Spoiler:
for me, it all started with the death of Fields. Whilst not an unexpected plot event, Simmons is not the caliber of Stephen King when it comes to killing of main characters and keeping the story moving. The book sets up (as wilkie says) a three way battle of wits between Drood, Field and Dickens. The simple solution in the end that there is no "Drood", based on Dickens' late "explanation" that he mesmerised Wilkie and played games on him for five years does not work.

I realise that the "was he real or wasn't he" debate in itself is a worthy effect of a good novel, but I felt that Simmons had overbalanced this book to still leave that debate open. Perhaps if it was 200 pages shorter it would have worked, but as it is there are too many loose ends.

There are lots of questions that are unlocked and left unexplained Spoiler: once you accept that Drood did in fact exist.

As said above, I easily give Drood 4/5 and woud recommend it to anyone, but I was let down with the conclusion. I see Del Toro picked up the movie rights. I would be interested to see what changes he makes to the ending specifically. A penny for your thoughts on the book and the ending?

ratbastid · 12-02-2009, 07:28 AM

I loved it, but I'm also a literature junkie and have long been interested in the speculation around The Mystery of Edwin Drood. It's been a couple months since I finished it, so a few of the names in it are escaping me...

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.

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.

snowy · 12-02-2009, 07:36 AM

Based on what's been said here, I'll have to pick it up from the library. It sounds like a book that would definitely tickle my fancy.

Vaultboy · 12-02-2009, 08:04 AM

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.

ratbastid · 12-02-2009, 09:11 AM

That's right.... Unless Spoiler: she died of natural causes and the doctor was just a doctor. That's the thing about this book--what part of it CAN'T you attribute to Wilkie just being addled? Even the scene outside the window at Bag's End (I know... What is it really?) while Dickens is dying... That could have been entirely manufactured inside Wilkie's head.

Vaultboy · 12-02-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's right.... Unless Spoiler: she died of natural causes and the doctor was just a doctor. That's the thing about this book--what part of it CAN'T you attribute to Wilkie just being addled? Even the scene outside the window at Bag's End (I know... What is it really?) while Dickens is dying... That could have been entirely manufactured inside Wilkie's head.

Bag's End? The Hobbit? You mean Gad's Hill Place ...

ratbastid · 12-02-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaultboy

Bag's End? The Hobbit? You mean Gad's Hill Place ...

Thank you!

12-01-2009, 11:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
Vaultboy Addict Location: Third World	Drood Having recently completed the 771 page tome that is Drood, I ended with mixed emotions about this book that I had to share and discuss and 'get closure'on. The narrator makes the statement in the final chapter that for the Reader this story has always been about Dickens and Drood or Drood and Dickens. For me, this is not true. The brilliance in this book is how Victorian London is brought to life so vividly - (for me) better than in Dickens' novels or in other fiction like Sherlock Holmes novels etc. The stark realities (and fantasies) of life circa 1850 delivered by Simmons really brings home the appreciation that we have never had it so good as we do today, and it does so in beautiful, yet acceptable prose, that is both dark and uttlerly grave, but also humourous and lighthearted at times. As a spatial planner, I revelled in the way Simmons weaved the realities of settlement design and structure and the impact this has on daily life into the tale. THere's the whole debate on the capitalist role of town planning to provide just enough services to the poor to keep them working for the rich that Simmons brings deliciously to the boil with his midsummer ventures into the rookeries. Furthermore, just the realities he depicts of travel and communiciation a century ago and how tighly this is bound to the relationships between people made this book worth reading in itself, and because of these elements I would recommend the book to anyone. Its been a while since I enjoyed a book as thoroughly as I enjoyed Drood, but in the end, I felt betrayed. Two thirds of brilliance, Simmons took the easy way out in the last third and robbed me of conclusions to mysteries on several fronts. THe commitment of the reader is not repaid. Yes, I am aware that several elements in the book are purposefully obscured or left unexplained e.g. Spoiler: the thing on the servants' stairs, the manifestation of the Other Wilkie and the mysteries surrounding Ellen Ternan, which I can accept (this is a mystery novel, after all), but the essential plot events left unexplained leaves me with a "so what" feeling about the story, which to be honest, I also felt after finising Olympos, although to a far lesser degree. SImmons has told a good story alright, but one with a weak conclusion. I am left feeling like Wilkie critiqueing a Dickens novel (which may have Simmons intention, but I doubt it). I realise that for many readers, the main interest was how Drood links to Dickens' "The mystery of Edwin Drood", and perhaps those readers got what they wanted. Having never read that work, I wouldn't know. Spoiler: for me, it all started with the death of Fields. Whilst not an unexpected plot event, Simmons is not the caliber of Stephen King when it comes to killing of main characters and keeping the story moving. The book sets up (as wilkie says) a three way battle of wits between Drood, Field and Dickens. The simple solution in the end that there is no "Drood", based on Dickens' late "explanation" that he mesmerised Wilkie and played games on him for five years does not work. I realise that the "was he real or wasn't he" debate in itself is a worthy effect of a good novel, but I felt that Simmons had overbalanced this book to still leave that debate open. Perhaps if it was 200 pages shorter it would have worked, but as it is there are too many loose ends. There are lots of questions that are unlocked and left unexplained Spoiler: once you accept that Drood did in fact exist. As said above, I easily give Drood 4/5 and woud recommend it to anyone, but I was let down with the conclusion. I see Del Toro picked up the movie rights. I would be interested to see what changes he makes to the ending specifically. A penny for your thoughts on the book and the ending? __________________ "Failing tastes of bile and dog vomit. Pity any man that gets used to that taste."

12-02-2009, 07:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Based on what's been said here, I'll have to pick it up from the library. It sounds like a book that would definitely tickle my fancy. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

12-02-2009, 07:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I loved it, but I'm also a literature junkie and have long been interested in the speculation around The Mystery of Edwin Drood. It's been a couple months since I finished it, so a few of the names in it are escaping me... 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. 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.

12-02-2009, 09:11 AM	#5 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	That's right.... Unless Spoiler: she died of natural causes and the doctor was just a doctor. That's the thing about this book--what part of it CAN'T you attribute to Wilkie just being addled? Even the scene outside the window at Bag's End (I know... What is it really?) while Dickens is dying... That could have been entirely manufactured inside Wilkie's head.