Charles Dickens' unexpected death shook the world in 1870, and since then, fans have tried to devise the ending to the iconic Victorian writer's last, unfinished mystery novel. Lyn Squire is one of those curious fans and in his book, “Immortalised to Death” (Level Best Books, Sep. 26), we see Dickens dead at his desk, slumped over his unfinished novel
In this interview, Lyn talks about what led him to take up the mystery, the clues he found along the way, and how Dickens’ last, unfinished novel, “The Mystery of Edwin Drood,” has become a quest for so many readers. Lyn also talks about the world of Dickens fans and some of his favorite works by the legendary writer.
What about Charles Dickens’ death led you to make it the plot of your book?
Charles John Huffam Dickens died on June 9th, 1870, leaving “The Mystery of Edwin Drood,” the novel he was then writing, only half finished. He penned the words that closed the sixth instalment (of a planned 12) on June 8th; the next day he was dead. The basics of the story as set out by Dickens are these: The sinister John Jasper, choirmaster at Cloisterham Cathedral, appears to be plotting to do away with Edwin, fiancé of Rosa Bud, so that he has a clear field to pursue his own mad obsession with the delightful young lady. Edwin disappears during a storm. Was he murdered by Jasper? And if so, how was Jasper brought to justice? Everyone who reads the completed first half of the Drood mystery inevitably tries to guess what happened in the story’s unwritten second half and, with luck, solve the mystery. Imagine my delight then when a clue that had not previously been explored by anyone, popped up before my astonished eyes. That clue led me to a fresh solution to Dickens’s story and that in turn became the plot for my novel, “Immortalised to Death.”
For those not familiar, tell me about Dickens’ death and why fans have tried to solve the last novel?
Interest in “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” has been immense and endures to this day. This must partly be because it is, after all, a story by the master, his last ever, and, moreover, the only mystery he ever wrote. But in my view, the main reason is that Dickens was writing a truly intriguing tale of a yet-to-be-committed murder when he died, leaving countless readers hanging.
The number of attempts made to discover the ‘true’ ending, ranging from the ingenious (a Sherlock Holmes pastiche) to the absurd (The Mysterious Mystery of Rude Dedwin), attests to the remarkable interest generated by the novel. A 600-page bibliography published in 1998, for example, lists almost 2,000 attempts to unearth clues in the text, decipher how the plot might evolve, and, of course, discover Edwin’s fate and, how Jasper, if he did indeed murder Edwin, is brought to justice. Interest in the story has continued into the 21st century, as evidenced by a Broadway musical in 2012 in which the audience chooses the ending, a PBS Masterpiece production also in 2012, and in 2014, a one-day academic conference in Senate House in London!
Have you tried to work out an ending to the book?
Absolutely. The clue that led to my solution has to do with the location of a diamond and ruby engagement ring. John Forster, Dickens’s literary agent and lifelong friend, claims in his 900-page biography of the author that the ring was to be found in Edwin’s breast pocket after he disappears. The distinctive jewels of the ring allow identification of Edwin’s decomposed body and lead to Jasper’s capture. This claim has been widely accepted, but there is good reason to question whether the ring was in Edwin’s breast pocket on the night of his disappearance. According to Dickens’s timeline, this would require that the young man carries a ring of considerable sentimental and monetary value around in his waistcoat pocket for several days. Would he be so casual with a priceless ring? Probably not. It is much more likely that he would lock it away for safekeeping. And if so, all the attempted continuations to the story based on Forster’s claim are wrong.
Could the possibility of the ring being somewhere other than on Edwin’s person have been totally missed by everyone else? To find out, I wrote up the evidence in support of my ‘clue’ as a short article and submitted it to The Dickensian (a UK publication devoted entirely to Dickens) where I knew it would be subject to rigorous scrutiny by Britain’s foremost Dickens scholars. Scrutiny complete, the editors accepted my article as an original contribution to the ongoing debate about the mystery’s ending, and published it in the Summer 2012 issue.
With that validation in hand, I examined the raft of new possibilities for the novel’s ending that had now been opened up. The one I finally fastened on is 100% consistent with what Dickens had written in the first half of the story, avoids the awkward period the ring had to remain in Edwin’s pocket, and reflects Dickens’s approach to storytelling and his literary tendencies as evidenced by his other novels. The full solution is set out in “Immortalised to Death.”
Absolutely. The clue that led to my solution has to do with the location of a diamond and ruby engagement ring. John Forster, Dickens’s literary agent and lifelong friend, claims in his 900-page biography of the author that the ring was to be found in Edwin’s breast pocket after he disappears. The distinctive jewels of the ring allow identification of Edwin’s decomposed body and lead to Jasper’s capture. This claim has been widely accepted, but there is good reason to question whether the ring was in Edwin’s breast pocket on the night of his disappearance. According to Dickens’s timeline, this would require that the young man carries a ring of considerable sentimental and monetary value around in his waistcoat pocket for several days. Would he be so casual with a priceless ring? Probably not. It is much more likely that he would lock it away for safekeeping. And if so, all the attempted continuations to the story based on Forster’s claim are wrong.
Could the possibility of the ring being somewhere other than on Edwin’s person have been totally missed by everyone else? To find out, I wrote up the evidence in support of my ‘clue’ as a short article and submitted it to The Dickensian (a UK publication devoted entirely to Dickens) where I knew it would be subject to rigorous scrutiny by Britain’s foremost Dickens scholars. Scrutiny complete, the editors accepted my article as an original contribution to the ongoing debate about the mystery’s ending, and published it in the Summer 2012 issue.
With that validation in hand, I examined the raft of new possibilities for the novel’s ending that had now been opened up. The one I finally fastened on is 100% consistent with what Dickens had written in the first half of the story, avoids the awkward period the ring had to remain in Edwin’s pocket, and reflects Dickens’s approach to storytelling and his literary tendencies as evidenced by his other novels. The full solution is set out in “Immortalised to Death.”
I’ll assume you’re a fan of Dickens’ work. What about it drew you in? Any favorites?
Dickens wrote over a dozen marvelously sprawling stories and introduced the world to some wonderful characters. That said, and this is obviously a matter of personal taste, I find many of his novels rather long-winded and too wordy. I like best his shorter books like “Oliver Twist,” “The Tale of Two Cities” (my number one choice) and “Hard Times.” I like stories with a strong plot, whereas Dickens built stories around his characters. Think of “The Pickwick Papers,” his first major literary success. The monthly instalments of this story recount a series of humorous incidents and embarrassing adventures linked, not by a continuous storyline laid out in advance, but by the foibles and eccentricities of the Pickwick Club members.
While this tendency to let the characters drive the story remained throughout his career, he did introduce more structure into his later novels and eventually adopted the practice of preparing notes outlining each story, the earliest surviving set being for “Dombey and Son” published in 1848. Interestingly, the notes for “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” stop at Instalment Six, the halfway point. The pages covering the second half of the novel have instalment numbers at the top but are otherwise totally blank. Dickens was obviously not going to provide a road map for anyone trying to work out the solution to his mystery.
What kind of research did you need to do?
Novelists writing historical fiction almost invariably draw on real people who live in real places and through real events. The more famous the subject of the story, the more likely that the reader will know something, and possibly a great deal, about that person. If too many historical inaccuracies creep in, readers will be jarred out of their enjoyment of the story and may stop reading.
In my case, the person in question was England’s most celebrated and beloved novelist – Charles Dickens. Ensuring historical accuracy, then, was a top priority for me. Here’s what I did. I first read several biographies of the author (including John Forster’s 900-page monster) and several other biographies of secondary characters. I also read all of his novels because I wanted to make sure that when Dunston wrote his continuation of “The Mystery of Edwin Drood,” he stayed true to the literary tendences of the great author himself. And I visited Gadshill Place, Dickens’s home in Kent, to make sure that the book’s description of the house was as faithful to the original as possible. I actually stood in his study where the murder in my novel is supposedly perpetrated. This may sound like a lot of work, but to my mind it was more of an opportunity to learn about a truly fascinating man who accomplished so much in his 58 years.
Tell me about Duston Burnett. Why does he take up the mystery?
Fictional detectives typically fall into two broad categories. One is the classic sleuth exemplified by the magnificent Sherlock Holmes with his extraordinary powers of observation and brilliant, never-wrong deductions. The other is the tough, hard-boiled private eye like Sam Spade who could be beaten to a pulp in one chapter and yet be back on his feet in the next ready to go. Of course, there are many variations on these stereotypes.
In my case, I wanted someone who was far from typical detective material. This thought led me to my protagonist, Dunston Burnett, a diffident, middle-aged, retired bookkeeper. For a quick mental (Dickensian) image of him, think of a latter-day Mr Pickwick. He does however have two talents. He has what his policeman friend calls “pre-ductions,” insights that jump well beyond the known facts and that, unlike Sherlock’s, may or may not prove prescient. And once he gets his teeth into something, he has the perseverance of King Bruce’s spider. The question confronting Dunston (and the reader) then, is this: Are his limited detective skills – pre-ductions and tenacity – anywhere near enough to unravel the apparently perfect murders he encounters?
This is the first of a series. What can we expect in future books?
This tension between Dunston Burnett’s limitations as a detective and the apparently unsolvable mysteries confronting him that lies at the heart of “Immortalised to Death” is carried forward into two other stories comprising The Dunston Burnett Trilogy.
How does Dunston fare? Suffice it to say here that the picture is mixed. In “Immortalised to Death” (to be published by Level Best Books on Sept. 26 of this year) Dunston’s envisioned conclusion to The Mystery of Edwin Drood takes him a long way towards solving a bigger mystery surrounding the death of Dickens himself, but perhaps not quite all the way. In book number two, “Fatally Inferior” (forthcoming in September 2024), he unearths the motive behind a woman’s disappearance but is that enough to lead him to the killer?
The third, “The Séance of Murder” (forthcoming in September 2025), is set against the spiritualist movement that swept through Victorian England. Here the issue is more dire: can Dunston expose the murderer of the heir to the Crenshaw Baronetcy before he himself is done away with? If any of these stories generate interest, I will look for a new character and start another series. If they turn out to be duds, I’ll take up golf.
You have a lengthy writing background. How did this help with the writing of this book?
The surprise was that I wrote a novel at all. Throughout my 25-year career as a development specialist, I wrote over 30 articles and several books within my area of expertise. Illustrative titles are: “International Development: Is It Possible?” (joint with Nobel Laureate J.E. Stiglitz, Foreign Policy), and “Fighting Poverty” (American Economic Review). I was also lead author for “World Development Report, 1990,” which introduced the metric – a dollar a day – still used today to measure poverty worldwide. Nothing here to suggest I would ever write a novel.
And then I read “The Mystery of Edwin Drood.” I had always been an avid reader of whodunits, but it was the thrill of solving Charles Dickens’s unfinished story that convinced me to put aside my development pen and turn to fiction.
I saw that you write book reviews. What does a book need to get the thumbs-up from you?
I have reviewed over 100 mysteries for City Book Review (Sacramento). The ones that stand out have something unique about them. Given the enormous number of mysteries that come off the press every year, the greatest challenge must surely be finding that unique something. This could be the writing style (not often), or the lead character (more often), but usually for mysteries it is the plot. Examples that spring to mind are “The Pale Blue Eye” by Louis Bayard, an inspired story of revenge at West Point, with its truly inventive twist in the tale. Or more recently, “The Eighth Detective” by Alex Pavesi, which makes the reader think more generally about mysteries and their structure. These stories earn five stars in my estimation because they had the magic of uniqueness about them. My hope is that the original solution to “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” presented in “Immortalised to Death” will nudge my novel towards the fringes of the unique category.
No comments:
Post a Comment