(no subject)
Jul. 15th, 2013 10:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skygiantsThe Moonstone, by Wilkie Collins, is generally considered the first English-language detective novel. It's the kind of novel with a totally hilarious Big Twist, which makes it really frustrating that Connie Willis just straight-up spoils it in To Say Nothing of the Dog. THANKS, CONNIE WILLIS.
So I'm just going to start out by saying that I will only spoil the Big Twist for you if you want to be spoiled: the HERO did it . . . WHILE SLEEPWALKING. Boom! Wilkie Collins was patting himself on the back for months for that one.
Anyway, the plot revolves around a giant diamond of religious significance stolen from India during the British Raj, which subsequently gets left to Plucky Young Heroine Rachel Verinder for her birthday by her asshole uncle. The stone is being pursued by a trio of Indian men who would, quite reasonably, like to take their stolen gem back. Then the diamond mysteriously disappears! Time for a LOCKED-ROOM MYSTERY.
It is worth pointing out that everybody thinks the uncle is a jerk for stealing it in the first place, and yet, STRANGELY, once the Moonstone has been put into circulation and everyone is freaking out about the peril and the curse etc. and suggesting dramatic action like "smash it into a million tiny diamond pieces!" and "throw it in the sea!", no one even considers that it might be SLIGHTLY EASIER just to give it back to the original owners in the first place.
So, in short, the three Indian men on a perilous mission to regain their stolen property from these decadent and vaguely dim British aristocrats are clearly the real heroes of the novel, and everyone else is an obstruction at best and a villain at worst. That being said, we do have some interesting characters among the rest of the cast:
ROSANNA SPEARMAN: a depressed, disabled former thief who becomes infatuated with the hero and suffers a TRAGIC FATE
LIMPING LUCY: in love with Rosanna, planning to elope with her, and therefore unsurprisingly SUPER ANGRY about all of the above
I feel like I don't even need to specify that neither Rosanna nor Lucy get the narrative treatment they deserve (whee, symbolic tragic disability!), but when you're reading a Victorian novel, you take all the fascinating fanfic fodder that you can get.
EZRA JENNINGS: opium-addicted mixed-race doctor's assistant with wacky hair and a TRAGIC PAST (and also present and future); most competent character in the book . . .?
It is actually Ezra Jennings who solves the ENTIRE MYSTERY -- the one that completely stumps the Great Detective -- all while fending off racism and general stupidity, although the fact that the hero has a crush on him does make it easier. I mean, the way he does it makes no medical sense, but nonetheless, four for you, Ezra! You also would make fascinating fanfic fodder.
SERGEANT CUFF: brilliant detective who, hilariously, completely fails to solve the case, and then retires cheerfully to the country to grow roses. Way to go for following your passion, Sergeant Cuff!
And then of course you have a hero, heroine, plucky comic-relief butler, and horrible comic-relief spinster cousin, all of whom get to tell a lengthy part of the story with the sole exception of the heroine, who never actually has the opportunity to speak for herself. OOPS.
I mean, if you feel inclined to wade through some Victorian racism and ablism and sexism and Orientialism -- of which this is certainly not the worst example -- The Moonstone is a super enjoyable book; the different first-person voices are super fun to read, the plot twists are DRAMATIC and HILARIOUS, and Wilkie Collins hella knows his way around a story. It's just that, as often happens with Victorian literature, there are also lot of much better stories buried inside it that Wilkie Collins was never going to tell.
So I'm just going to start out by saying that I will only spoil the Big Twist for you if you want to be spoiled: the HERO did it . . . WHILE SLEEPWALKING. Boom! Wilkie Collins was patting himself on the back for months for that one.
Anyway, the plot revolves around a giant diamond of religious significance stolen from India during the British Raj, which subsequently gets left to Plucky Young Heroine Rachel Verinder for her birthday by her asshole uncle. The stone is being pursued by a trio of Indian men who would, quite reasonably, like to take their stolen gem back. Then the diamond mysteriously disappears! Time for a LOCKED-ROOM MYSTERY.
It is worth pointing out that everybody thinks the uncle is a jerk for stealing it in the first place, and yet, STRANGELY, once the Moonstone has been put into circulation and everyone is freaking out about the peril and the curse etc. and suggesting dramatic action like "smash it into a million tiny diamond pieces!" and "throw it in the sea!", no one even considers that it might be SLIGHTLY EASIER just to give it back to the original owners in the first place.
So, in short, the three Indian men on a perilous mission to regain their stolen property from these decadent and vaguely dim British aristocrats are clearly the real heroes of the novel, and everyone else is an obstruction at best and a villain at worst. That being said, we do have some interesting characters among the rest of the cast:
ROSANNA SPEARMAN: a depressed, disabled former thief who becomes infatuated with the hero and suffers a TRAGIC FATE
LIMPING LUCY: in love with Rosanna, planning to elope with her, and therefore unsurprisingly SUPER ANGRY about all of the above
I feel like I don't even need to specify that neither Rosanna nor Lucy get the narrative treatment they deserve (whee, symbolic tragic disability!), but when you're reading a Victorian novel, you take all the fascinating fanfic fodder that you can get.
EZRA JENNINGS: opium-addicted mixed-race doctor's assistant with wacky hair and a TRAGIC PAST (and also present and future); most competent character in the book . . .?
It is actually Ezra Jennings who solves the ENTIRE MYSTERY -- the one that completely stumps the Great Detective -- all while fending off racism and general stupidity, although the fact that the hero has a crush on him does make it easier. I mean, the way he does it makes no medical sense, but nonetheless, four for you, Ezra! You also would make fascinating fanfic fodder.
SERGEANT CUFF: brilliant detective who, hilariously, completely fails to solve the case, and then retires cheerfully to the country to grow roses. Way to go for following your passion, Sergeant Cuff!
And then of course you have a hero, heroine, plucky comic-relief butler, and horrible comic-relief spinster cousin, all of whom get to tell a lengthy part of the story with the sole exception of the heroine, who never actually has the opportunity to speak for herself. OOPS.
I mean, if you feel inclined to wade through some Victorian racism and ablism and sexism and Orientialism -- of which this is certainly not the worst example -- The Moonstone is a super enjoyable book; the different first-person voices are super fun to read, the plot twists are DRAMATIC and HILARIOUS, and Wilkie Collins hella knows his way around a story. It's just that, as often happens with Victorian literature, there are also lot of much better stories buried inside it that Wilkie Collins was never going to tell.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 03:36 pm (UTC)Thank you, that sounds like you've identified my most plausible favorite character in this plot.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 03:49 pm (UTC)Another reason to be glad I skipped over most of To Say Nothing of the Dog. Yay?
And then of course you have a hero, heroine, plucky comic-relief butler, and horrible comic-relief spinster cousin, all of whom get to tell a lengthy part of the story with the sole exception of the heroine, who never actually has the opportunity to speak for herself. OOPS.
That really bothered me, too.
On considerable reflection I think the idea is that because, in-universe, the justification for writing everything down is to establish once and for all that Rachel didn't do it, it's got to be third-party witnesses all the way, because nobody's going to be convinced by an account of How Rachel Verinder Didn't Do It if it's written by Rachel Verinder.
The Doyleist explanation, of course, is that if Rachel had been handed the narration at any point it would have blown away a lot of the mystery Collins wanted to build up around the "Who Did It" question. (If only because, until quite late in the game, the audience is supposed to be still wondering whether she did it.)
Mind you, neither of these prevents her being given at least an epilogue to reflect on her experiences, once the Big Twist is out of the way.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 04:32 pm (UTC)But yeah, it's really frustrating that we are constantly told what Rachel is like, and surrounded by people who think they get what Rachel is feeling, but we never actually get to see it for ourselves. An epilogue at least! As is, our only female POVs are Drusilla Clack -- who is not exactly treated seriously by the narrative, nor are we expected to respect her -- and Tragic Rosanna Spearman's Tragic Letter. It's not even Rachel spearheading the effort to put the story together at the end; it's entirely Franklin controlling the narrative, whiiich I do not think he should be.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 07:56 pm (UTC)I loved the book about the history behind it, Mr. Witcher Investigates that you recommended, but I'm not sure about this.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 09:20 pm (UTC)ALSO EZRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-15 09:24 pm (UTC)