Having now finished Drood by Simmons, I think it is rather helpful that I first read Dickens' Myster of Edwin Drood if for not other reason that to understand all the references. However, I don't think it's a necessity, as Simmons describes everything in such obvious ways.

I wonder if this book isn't way to get over the author's long-term obsession with Dickens' book and a way to somehow bring closure to the one book Dickens never finished?

Edit: the "long-term obsession" is just speculation on my part, I don't have any truth from the author upon which to base that statement. :)

Heidi wrote: "Except for the fact that I suggested this book I would not still be reading it. I simply don't understand the point. Will we discover who Drood really is? Can anyone tell me if this Drood has an..."

Heidi i have not finished Drood so these are some tentative thoughts:

Do you think the connection with the original novel is the Uncle and nephew scenario with Dickens being the uncle and Collins the nephew. Collins wants to kill Dickens in a literary way because of his authorial status.
This would add that Jasper killed Drood for no financial reason,just that he was in the way.

Another thought was the opium filled mind
The novel begins as a man, who we later learn is John Jasper, leaves a London opium den

and Collins suffered from a form of arthritis known as "rheumatic gout" and became severely addicted to the opium that he took (in the form of laudanum) to relieve the pain. As a result he experienced paranoid delusions, the most notable being his conviction that he was constantly accompanied by a subjective doppelgänger he dubbed 'Ghost Wilkie'. His novel The Moonstone prominently features the effects of opium and opium addiction.

That there was no real death


On June 9, 1865, while traveling by train to London with his secret mistress, 53-year-old Charles Dickens--at the height of his powers and popularity, the most famous and successful novelist in the world and perhaps in the history of the world--hurtled into a disaster that changed his life forever.

Did Dickens begin living a dark double life after the accident? Were his nightly forays into the worst slums of London and his deepening obsession with corpses, crypts, murder, opium dens, the use of lime pits to dissolve bodies, and a hidden subterranean London mere research . . . or something more terrifying?

So in the end, what is Drood about? Many things – the power of creativity, imagination, the haunting specter of death, jealousy, addiction, the written word, story, delusion, artistry, and many more things

Except for the fact that I suggested this book I would not still be reading it. I simply don't understand the point. Will we discover who Drood really is? Can anyone tell me if this Drood has anything to do with the character Dickens created? (I haven't read Dickens' Drood) I don't like Collins -- sad because I liked his books. I don't like anybody in this book. It's gross and ghoulish and I don't know what it's tending towards.

I believe the Other Wilkie is the real Wilkie under the influence of opium and morphine.

Is the skinned Lady with tusks real? I though for sure she was an hallucination but last night I read something that happened to the servant's daughter after Wilkie made her go into the back stairs. I can't figure out what happened to her. I am not giving the details because I am not sure it was before chapter 38. I'll check. I really want to know what you think happened in there.

Good point Stephen. I never gave a thought as to the significance of the Lady with tusks!

Paula wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I'm quite happy with the confusion in Wilkie Collins character … I'm half expecting him to disappear altogether in contradiction and illusion !!! ... ..."

Ha! That's a funny stat..."

Yes that image of Drood (turned with his back to us), Dickens (who claims to be immune from influence !) and the other Wilkie (is it suggested the OW is younger, more fresh faced, perhaps drug free !) was very striking.

Even more striking that Dickens admits the meeting as a matter of course and is amused that the real (?) Wilkie was absent. Got my mind racing Dickens/Drood ? But I think not.

So the Scarab ceremony and all the subsequent drama seem a bit obvious, almost cinematic, after all the psychodrama. Almost as though Simmons has got a bit worn out with the head games and gone for some blood and guts. The recurring scratch of the scarab is creepy though, a bit like the “tell-tale heart” of Poe.

I should add that I think, the other Wilkie (the doppelgänger)is real. This is backed up by Wilkie subsequently relating the history of his double back to his childhood. Also I believe Wilkie Collins outside this book, in his real life (ha !) did believe he was haunted by a double.

I'm beginning to suspect the green skinned Lady with tusks is a kind of emblem of guilt over Wilkie's duplicity with women

Stephen wrote: "I'm quite happy with the confusion in Wilkie Collins character … I'm half expecting him to disappear altogether in contradiction and illusion !!! ... ..."

Ha! That's a funny statement :) I was getting a little twisted around with the "Other Wilkie" discussion around page 400, and now just don't know what to believe about the man! Is it an alter ego, a hallucination brought on by the laundanum/opium combo, a mental disorder, or a way for his subconscious to allow him to view himself in different states?

Let me explain that last bit further - when Drood, Dickens, and the Other Wilkie are sitting in the kitchen talking, is the real Wilkie the actual 'real' Wilkie, or a left-my-body experience by a hypnotized Wilkie, looking in on the scene? Similarly, the OW could be the alter ego of a sleeping Wilkie? There seem to be a lot of discussion about somnambulists and doppelgangers and I'm wondering how much of it applies to Wilkie in this book.

I agree the book does take a very sharp turn to the bizarre with the scarab ceremony. This is the first time in the novel I have felt that Simmons breaks the Victorian style (and English style)... the scarab ceremony and sewer fire seem more Indiana Jones than penny dreadful.

I tried to follow links referred to in acknowledgements on Modern Egyptian Ritual Magick but they are broken. In any case ritual Egyptian magick (with a k) suggests the ceremonies of the Order of the Golden Dawn and Crowley's term “Magick” which is more of the period 1890-1910. I was a bit disappointed that this seems to be just a “horror” plot adornment rather than a statement on 19th century mysticism.

I'm quite happy with the confusion in Wilkie Collins character … I'm half expecting him to disappear altogether in contradiction and illusion !!!

Its still a strong book I think and a riveting read.

Kate wrote: "...we get a glimpse of how the people surrounding this character see him as a child, as opposed to a gentleman."

I totally agree with this statement - I'm having a hard time getting a handle on his maturity level, and his credibility as the book's narrator. Between the cries for mom, the habit of others to call him Wilkie, and then the weird way he delights in filling in for Dickens during Dickens' trip to America... then add in his crippling pain from rheumatism, and I'm just not sure what to make of Wilkie the fictional character.

It does seem that Simmons has done extensive research to add a lot of fact and truth to this story, but I wonder what his own views are of the men, and how much of Simmons' bias is coming out.

This is getting really weird with the scarab ceremony to become a scribe...

Do you think Drood is a vampire? First I though he wasn't but I changed my mind after Edward Dickinson's fate.

This discussion is for chapters 23-38 of Drood, our next neo-Victorian group read.

POTENTIAL SPOILERS BELOW!

Happy Reading!