The Problem of 'Edwin Drood': A Study in the Methods of DickensNicoll, W. Robertson (William Robertson), Sir
General
The Problem of 'Edwin Drood': A Study in the Methods of Dickens
Nicoll, W. Robertson (William Robertson), Sir
Cathedrals in literature; Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Mystery of Edwin Drood; Murder in literature
Those who more or less strongly still believe that Dickens meant to spare
Edwin rest their case mainly on a subjective impression. Says Dr. James:
‘On the other hand, whether the result would be a piece of “bad art” or
not, I do think it is more in Dickens’s manner to spare Edwin than to
kill him. The subjective impression that he is not doomed is too strong
for me to dismiss.’ {122} It is difficult to argue against a subjective
impression. The fact remains that Edwin Drood becomes superfluous. He
has effected no lodgment in any human heart. Mr. Walters says that Drood
is little more than a name-label attached to a body, a man who never
excites sympathy, and whose fate causes no emotion. Proctor, who
believes that Edwin Drood survived, admits that he lived unpaired. ‘Rosa
was to give her hand to Tartar, Helena Landless to Crisparkle, while
Edwin and Mr. Grewgious were to look on approvingly, though Edwin a
little sadly.’
Mr. Lang in the Gadshill edition of Dickens wrote: ‘Edwin and Neville are
quarrelsome cubs, not come to discretion, and the fatuity of Edwin,
though not exaggerated much, makes him extremely unsympathetic.’ But in
his book on the subject Mr. Lang changes his view and writes: ‘On
re-reading the novel I find that Dickens makes Drood as sympathetic as he
can.’ Thus impressions alter. Gillan Vase, in her continuation of the
story would make us believe that on Edwin’s reappearance Rosa transferred
her heart from Tartar to her old lover! But taking the story as it
stands, we see that the sorrow for his death is not deep, and that no
heart is broken by his disappearance. Rosa is consoled, and more than
consoled. Helena grieves for her brother, and flings a shield over Rosa.
Neville and Edwin have never been good friends. Grewgious has cheerfully
acquiesced in, if he has not instigated, the breaking of the engagement
between Rosa and Edwin. The appropriate explanation is: ‘Poor youth!
Poor youth!’ That is all.
It has been suggested that there is a parallel between _No Thoroughfare_
and _Edwin Drood_. According to Proctor it is suggested clearly in _No
Thoroughfare_ that Vendale has been murdered beyond all seeming hope.
Proctor’s real argument seems to be that Vendale is not marked for death,
and does not die, and that Edwin Drood belongs to the same class. He
says that Nell and Paul, Richard Carson and the other characters who die
in Dickens’s stories are marked for death from the beginning, but that
there is not one note of death in all that Edwin does or says. I believe
that this is entirely contrary to the facts. There are some who like
Edwin, but none who love him. He is hated by his uncle, and hated
perhaps by Neville.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account