The Puzzle of Dickens's Last Plot by Andrew Lang
Scanned and proofed by David Price
ccx074@coventry.ac.uk





The Puzzle of Dickens's Last Plot




INTRODUCTION



FORSTER tells us that Dickens, in his later novels, from BLEAK HOUSE
onwards (1853), "assiduously cultivated" construction, "this essential
of his art." Some critics may think, that since so many of the best
novels in the world "have no outline, or, if they have an outline, it
is a demned outline," elaborate construction is not absolutely
"essential." Really essential are character, "atmosphere," humour.

But as, in the natural changes of life, and under the strain of
restless and unsatisfied activity, his old buoyancy and unequalled
high spirits deserted Dickens, he certainly wrote no longer in what
Scott, speaking of himself, calls the manner of "hab nab at a
venture." He constructed elaborate plots, rich in secrets and
surprises. He emulated the manner of Wilkie Collins, or even of
Gaboriau, while he combined with some of the elements of the detective
novel, or ROMAN POLICIER, careful study of character. Except GREAT
EXPECTATIONS, none of his later tales rivals in merit his early
picaresque stories of the road, such as PICKWICK and NICHOLAS
NICKLEBY. "Youth will be served;" no sedulous care could compensate
for the exuberance of "the first sprightly runnings." In the early
books the melodrama of the plot, the secrets of Ralph Nickleby, of
Monk, of Jonas Chuzzlewit, were the least of the innumerable
attractions. But Dickens was more and more drawn towards the secret
that excites curiosity, and to the game of hide and seek with the
reader who tried to anticipate the solution of the secret.

In April, 1869, Dickens, outworn by the strain of his American
readings; of that labour achieved under painful conditions of
ominously bad health - found himself, as Sir Thomas Watson reported,
"on the brink of an attack of paralysis of his left side, and possibly
of apoplexy." He therefore abandoned a new series of Readings. We
think of Scott's earlier seizures of a similar kind, after which
PEVERIL, he said, "smacked of the apoplexy." But Dickens's new story
of THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD, first contemplated in July, 1869, and
altered in character by the emergence of "a very curious and new
idea," early in August, does not "smack of the apoplexy." We may
think that the mannerisms of Mr. Honeythunder, the philanthropist, and
of Miss Twinkleton, the schoolmistress, are not in the author's best
vein of humour. "The Billickin," on the other hand, the lodging-house
keeper, is "in very gracious fooling:" her unlooked-for sallies in
skirmishes with Miss Twinkleton are rich in mirthful surprises. Mr.
Grewgious may be caricatured too much, but not out of reason; and
Dickens, always good at boys, presents a GAMIN, in Deputy, who is in
not unpleasant contrast with the pathetic Jo of BLEAK HOUSE. Opinions
may differ as to Edwin and Rosa, but the more closely one studies
Edwin, the better one thinks of that character. As far as we are
allowed to see Helena Landless, the restraint which she puts on her
"tigerish blood" is admirable: she is very fresh and original. The
villain is all that melodrama can desire, but what we do miss, I
think, is the "atmosphere" of a small cathedral town. Here there is a
lack of softness and delicacy of treatment: on the other hand, the
opium den is studied from the life.

On the whole, Dickens himself was perhaps most interested in his plot,
his secret, his surprises, his game of hide and seek with the reader.
He threw himself into the sport with zest: he spoke to his sister-in-
law, Miss Hogarth, about his fear that he had not sufficiently
concealed his tracks in the latest numbers. Yet, when he died in
June, 1870, leaving three completed numbers still unpublished, he left
his secret as a puzzle to the curious. Many efforts have been made to
decipher his purpose, especially his intentions as to the hero. Was
Edwin Drood killed, or did he escape?