I'm back reading books with my favorite Canadian,
Jabba.
We have a problem though. We only read massive books together. Our last undertaking was
Byatt's Possession.
This time: Dan Simmons'
Drood.

This massive book could protect you against intruders, be used instead of hand weights while exercising, and maybe even turn into a table. At nearly 800 pages one wonders: does it have to be so long simply because it concerns Charles Dickens (writer of lengthy sentences and books)?
Drood examines the last five years of Dickens' life through the eyes of his opium addict
frenemy Wilkie Collins.
I knew the book was going to be something about the making of Dickens' last and unfinished novel
The Mystery of Edwin Drood (which
Jabba and I will also be reading), but I didn't expect
Wilkie. Reading the first page I was like:
Wilkie...like
The Wilkie...like
The Woman in White Wilkie...really? We're doing this?
At it's worst, Drood is fan fiction for Victorian Lit nerds.
At it's best, Drood is a rousing tale of mystery and manipulation.
The question remains: Would I have liked it as much as I did if it wasn't based on real people that I have background knowledge of? The answer: I don't
think so.
I think a non-Vic Lit person reading
Drood would feel like I felt when I read
Vivaldi and the Number 3: like you're missing all of the inside jokes. You're not in the club of esoteric knowledge and so the story is entertaining but missing a key piece.
Having said
that, as an English Lit (and specifically Victorian Lit) person, reading
Drood was like watching: Dickens and
Wilkie, the E! True Hollywood Story.
Not only does the reader get an unreliable narrator (
yay!) in
Wilkie Collins, but there is also insight into the creative process (and all the manipulation and competition that goes into it) of one of history's favorite writers.
And don't forget mesmerism. What is the Victorian period without rich people engaging in dark magic?
Overall,
Drood was fun...but. BUT.
As the
madre would say, Simmons is no Dickens. True. But does he need to be?
I will say the first 400 pages are better than the second. Which would be the opposite of reading Dickens.
And when I finally got to the 4
th anniversary of Dickens' meeting the spooky
Drood (you know Dickens will die on an anniversary of meeting the death/ghost/Egyptian/spirit/phantom) and Dickens doesn't die...I had to walk away from the book for a minute because: I HAVE TO READ ABOUT ANOTHER ENTIRE YEAR.
And
Wilkie's unreliable narrator gets downright whiny and annoying by the end.
And then there's the issue of the killing of three dogs.
Mixed. My feelings are mixed.
I do, however, thank
Drood for making me want to go back and read
Wilkie's The Moonstone and
The Woman in White, and Dickens'
Little Dorrit and
The Mystery of Edwin Drood.
To conclude my waffling opinion: if only for the traipsing through the Victorian period looking over the shoulders of great writers,
Drood was worth reading.

"His gaze wandered from the windows to the stars, as if he would have read in them something that was hidden from him. Many of us would, if we could; but none of us so much as know our letters in the stars yet - or seem likely to do it, in this state of existence - and few languages can be read until their alphabets are mastered."
Charles Dickens, The Mystery of Edwin Drood.