Talk:The Mystery of Edwin Drood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / 19th century (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by 19th century task force.


The article says:

…all considered possible suspects

Suspects for what?

--Phil | Talk 14:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


What is meant by the phrase Jekyll-and-Hyde-esque. Does the character actually take a potion which releases his less-inhibited and more violent side? 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jekyll-and-Hyde motif is often used to descibe people whose actions seemed to be inconsistant, and the phrase used to be casually used to describe someone suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder. When people talk about Jekyll and Hyde, the potion isn't the first thing they think of. JustIgnoreMe 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually the portrayal of Jasper as having a split personality is feature of the musical not the novel. In the novel although he suffers from occasional momentary debilitating seizures and occasional momentary angry rages, he has a single duplicitous personality. --teb728 02:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that he has a "split personality" as much as it is that he leads a double life. He's a choirmaster and at the same time he lives a mean, sinful life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Should musical be spun-off into its own entry?[edit]

Doesn't the musical version by Rupert Holmes rate its own entry with synopses, song list, development history, etc? It's not as though Oliver! is folded into Oliver Twist. ChrisStansfield 05:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually The Mystery of Edwin Drood (musical) has existed since April 2006, and this article links to it. --teb728 01:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My mistake- I thought the link led to "musical theater." Typically a redirect to a similar named- or themed- article will have a separate, "For more on the xxx, see "xxx" at the beginning or ending of a section, no? ChrisStansfield 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea: I put that in. I agree that the link was cryptic: actually I found the article on the musical not from this article but from a third article.
Perhaps much of the text on the musical belongs there and not here. I copied to the musical's talk the information on the musical which appears here and not there. --teb728 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that- I moved it to the top using a template so that it would visually be more inline with other articles, but your work is appreciated: I'll take a look at the musical page in the meantime, but I don't think the info on this page goes too far overboard. Maybe one or two trims? ChrisStansfield Contribs 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Installment cost[edit]

The text says that each installment cost one shilling. Is there a source for this? The illustration – apparently the cover of the last installment written is marked 18 pence. --teb728 08:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Imperialism of Edwin Drood[edit]

With all do respect, I have to differ with the statement that "Drood's imperialism is an invention Rupert Holmes." Lilian Nayder, in the book Unequal Partners: Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins, & Victorian Authorship raises it as a major issue in the book. A quote from her book can be found on the Victorian Web here: "Left half finished at Dickens's death, Edwin Drood centers on the disappearance of an imperialist-in-the-making and addresses the theme of empire and crime in several ways: through the ambitions of Edwin Drood, whose plans to "go engineering into the East" and "to wake up Egypt a little" are forestalled by his presumed death;". To say that that that and the racism shown toward the twins were Holmes's "inventions" is kind of missing the point. Now look at the beginning of Drood's encounter with Neville from the book itself:

"Do you stay here long, Mr. Drood?" says Neville. "Not this time," is the careless answer. "I leave for London again, to-morrow. But I shall be here, off and on, until next Midsummer; then I shall take my leave of Cloisterham, and England too; for many a long day, I expect." "Are you going abroad?" "Going to wake up Egypt a little," is the condescending answer. <emphasis mine> "Are you reading?" "Reading?" repeats Edwin Drood, with a touch of contempt. "No. Doing, working, engineering. My small patrimony was left a part of the capital of the Firm I am with, by my father, a former partner; and I am a charge upon the Firm until I come of age; and then I step into my modest share in the concern. Jack-you met him at dinner-is, until then, my guardian and trustee."

Here's another passage:

"Pooh, pooh,"says Edwin Drood, equally furious, but more collected;"how should you know? You may know a black common fellow, or a black common boaster, when you see him (and no doubt you have a large acquaintance that way); but you are no judge of white men." This insulting allusion to his dark skin infuriates Neville to that violent degree, that he flings the dregs of his wine at Edwin Drood, and is in the act of flinging the goblet after it, when his arm is caught in the nick of time by Jasper.

Of course Drood's native Imperialism, racism, and condescension are major components of his feud with Landless, and were planted by Dickens himself, wouldn't you agree? ChrisStansfield Contribs —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStansfield (talkcontribs) 06:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Holmes got the idea of imperialism from Nayder rather than inventing it himself. But Dickens gives the motivation for the conflict between Landless and Drood explicitly:
“Now, there are these two curious touches of human nature working the secret springs of this dialogue. Neville Landless is already enough impressed by Little Rosebud, to feel indignant that Edwin Drood (far below her) should hold his prize so lightly. Edwin Drood is already enough impressed by Helena, to feel indignant that Helena’s brother (far below her) should dispose of him so coolly, and put him out of the way so entirely.”
This is what tried to summarize, but I couldn’t find a decent summary of Drood’s side.
I agree that Drood’s condescension is a major component of his feud with Landless, but if we can believe Dickens, imperialism is not. It is true of course that Drood plans to work in Egypt, but I see no indication that this plan is involved in the conflict.
Your second quote may indicate some racism Drood’s part, but it is basically a reply to Landless’s comment, “I said that in the part of the world I come from, you would be called to account for it.” By this time of course both are under the influence of (probably drugged) wine.
Nayder is right that imperialism is a dynamic in the book generally: It inclines people to believe the worst about Landless, and conversely it makes him defensive. But other than his defensiveness it doesn’t drive the conflict with Drood. --teb728 08:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
When we use the terms 'Imperialist' or 'Racist' in connection with Dicken's works we are thinking with 21st century minds. Dickens would not have considered himself racist as we understand it, and would have considered imperialism a Good Thing - his attitude was simply that of most 19th century Englishmen, that the English, being (at the time) the dominant and most civilsed nation on the planet, had a duty to spread their civilisation across the globe so that all nations could benefit from it ("The White Man's Burden" as we called it then). Black people were, in the 19th century, believed to be less civilised and less capable of controlling their emotions than whites - they were thought to be a species somewhere between ape & man. Nowadays we know differently, but we cannot accuse Dickens - or any other writer earlier than the 1930's - of racism, as the notion that blacks were of equal worth to whites simply didn't exist in his day. He is merely reflecting the standard attitude of his time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherscross (talkcontribs) 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


I keep getting a bit jarred when I get to the talk page to see that this has been claimed by WikiProject: Films despite the fact that there's about a paragraph's-worth of information about the films, and the film in question could be any of four. I guess my point is that the film or films should either be forked into their own entries (which can THEN fall under the aegis of WP:FILM), or, barring anyone knowing or caring enough about the movies to go to that effort, drop the WP:FILM tags entirely. At the very least, we should drop the infobox dictating how to bring it up to "Start-class" for WP:FILM, as putting a film infobox on this page would just be...silly. It's about a book, no? ChrisStansfield Contribs 11:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you start a film article with all the films described, then you can move the films tag to the films article's talk page, and WP:FILMS will stop putting it here. Then you can just cross-link the films article from here. Of course, all the links that have to do with the film will need to be moved over to the films article. (Click on "What links here" to the left of the article). That's always the most time consuming part of splitting articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was a dirty job, but someone had to do it. I created a page for the 1935 film, another for the 1993 film, and I went though the "What links here" list and moved about 100 links from here to the films and musical. ChrisStansfield Contribs 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed to find that there is zero information on here about the 1960 TV miniseries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also 1980 TV spectacle from USSR it's not on imdb for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'James Version'[edit]

I've added a bit of detail about the 1873 "James Version', both since it can still be found in some libraries (my parents have a copy) and Doyle got involved in the business. However, I don't want anyone thinking that I'm endorsing it or Spiritualism. Can someone work on better phrasing of this part? CFLeon (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Albert Field[edit]

"[Albert] Field believed he had solved a legendary literary whodunit, Charles Dickens' unfinished "The Mystery of Edwin Drood," and was trying to get his analysis published when he died at 86, according to his friend."

Drood is the only Dickens book I've never appreciated. Dick Scalper (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Drood A Novel[edit]

Perhaps we should mention Dan Simmons' new novel in this article. Jamhaw (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)jamhaw

Lead section very revealing[edit]

Does the lead section of this article spoil the book for any would-be readers? ~ R.T.G 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand. By “lead section” you do mean the section above the Table of Contents, right? If so, I don’t see what you find revealing: It says the novel was unfinished, and it introduces some of the principal characters. But it doesn’t mention Drood’s disappearance or the mysterious characters Princess Puffer and Dick Datchery.
Perhaps you meant the “Summary” section; I agree that section is very revealing. If that’s what you meant, what do you think should be done about it? Tag it with a Spoiler warning? Actually the “Characters” and “Hints and Suspicions” sections are also quite revealing.
I first read the novel after having seen the musical Drood, and I don’t feel that spoiled the book for me. —teb728 t c 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Its actually a good article. I think it is of good interest for anyone interested in novel writing. Given the book was so far from completion, it's contents are of as much value for speculation as entertainment. I doubt the book is often sold for entertainment (given its non completion) so revealing here is possibly important. Surely it is easily past "start class"? Many of the Dickens articles are lengthy and concise but most are on "start class". In fact only six are rated "B-class" and not one rated better including "Start class" David Copperfield and A Christmas Carol. ~ R.T.G 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick Datchery[edit]

The speculation about Datchery is unsourced. I suspect it is original research (which may not be included in Wikipedia articles). It should be deleted unless reliable source(s) is/are provided. —teb728 t c 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)