Bestseller Simmons (The Terror) brilliantly imagines a terrifying sequence of events as the inspiration for Dickens's last, uncompleted novel, The Mystery of Edwin Drood, in this unsettling and complex thriller. In the course of narrowly escaping death in an 1865 train wreck and trying to rescue fellow passengers, Dickens encounters a ghoulish figure named Drood, who had apparently been traveling in a coffin. Along with his real-life novelist friend Wilkie Collins, who narrates the tale, Dickens pursues the elusive Drood, an effort that leads the pair to a nightmarish world beneath London's streets. Collins begins to wonder whether the object of their quest, if indeed the man exists, is merely a cover for his colleague's own murderous inclinations. Despite the book's length, readers will race through the pages, drawn by the intricate plot and the proliferation of intriguing psychological puzzles, which will remind many of the work of Charles Palliser and Michael Cox. 4-city author tour. (Feb.)Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Droodby Dan Simmons
Did Dickens begin living a dark double life after the/b>
- Editorial Reviews
- Product Details
- Related Subjects
- Read an Excerpt
- What People Are Saying
- Meet the author
On June 9, 1865, while traveling by train to London with his secret mistress, 53-year-old Charles Dickens--at the height of his powers and popularity, the most famous and successful novelist in the world and perhaps in the history of the world--hurtled into a disaster that changed his life forever.
Did Dickens begin living a dark double life after the accident? Were his nightly forays into the worst slums of London and his deepening obsession with corpses, crypts, murder, opium dens, the use of lime pits to dissolve bodies, and a hidden subterranean London mere research . . . or something more terrifying?
Just as he did in The Terror, Dan Simmons draws impeccably from history to create a gloriously engaging and terrifying narrative. Based on the historical details of Charles Dickens's life and narrated by Wilkie Collins (Dickens's friend, frequent collaborator, and Salieri-style secret rival), DROOD explores the still-unsolved mysteries of the famous author's last years and may provide the key to Dickens's final, unfinished work: The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Chilling, haunting, and utterly original, DROOD is Dan Simmons at his powerful best. Bonus ebook included: Charles Dickens classic "The Signal-Man"- the haunting tale of a train worker tormented by ghostly predictions that is referenced in the novel.
Based on the last five years of Charles Dickens's life, this thriller, narrated by friend/rival novelist Wilkie Collins, blends biography and fiction as it explores the complicated relationship between the two writers. New York Times best-selling novelist Simmons (The Terror) leads listeners into the shadowy world of Victorian London, while Audie Award nominee Simon Prebble (Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell) convincingly brings Dickens and Collins to life. But though full of atmosphere and suspense, the book is overlong and includes too many subplots that distract from the main story line. With its many references to Dickens and his works, this title should especially appeal to bibliophiles and enthusiasts of Victorian literature. [Audio clip available through
Nancy R. Ives
A spellbinding tale, bold and sly and so steeped in the filigree of this era that it seems to have been written just after a séance during which both Dickens and Wilkie Collins were present."Julia Keller, Chicago Tribune"
Simmons has captured to a tee the high style of late Victorian melodrama: the story line is consistently engrossing and utterly unpredictable. This rip-roaring adventure is a true page-turner."Library Journal
- Little, Brown and Company
- Publication date:
- Sold by:
- Hachette Digital, Inc.
- NOOK Book
- Sales rank:
- File size:
- 2 MB
Read an Excerpt
By Simmons, Dan
Little, Brown and CompanyCopyright © 2011 Simmons, Dan
All right reserved.
My name is Wilkie Collins, and my guess, since I plan to delay the publication of this document for at least a century and a quarter beyond the date of my demise, is that you do not recognise my name. Some say that I am a gambling man and those that say so are correct, so my wager with you, Dear Reader, would be that you have neither read nor heard of any of my books or plays. Perhaps you British or American peoples a hundred and twenty-five or so years in my future do not speak English at all. Perhaps you dress like Hottentots, live in gas-lighted caves, travel around in balloons, and communicate by telegraphed thoughts unhindered by any spoken or written language.
Even so, I would wager my current fortune, such as it is, and all future royalties from my plays and novels, such as they may be, on the fact that you do remember the name and books and plays and invented characters of my friend and former collaborator, a certain Charles Dickens.
So this true story shall be about my friend (or at least about the man who was once my friend) Charles Dickens and about the Staplehurst accident that took away his peace of mind, his health, and, some might whisper, his sanity. This true story will be about Charles Dickens’s final five years and about his growing obsession during that time with a man—if man he was—named Drood, as well as with murder, death, corpses, crypts, mesmerism, opium, ghosts, and the streets and alleys of that black-biled lower bowel of London that the writer always called “my Babylon” or “the Great Oven.” In this manuscript (which, as I have explained—for legal reasons as well as for reasons of honour—I intend to seal away from all eyes for more than one hundred years after his death and my own), I shall answer the question which perhaps no one else alive in our time knew to ask—“Did the famous and loveable and honourable Charles Dickens plot to murder an innocent person and dissolve away his flesh in a pit of caustic lime and secretly inter what was left of him, mere bones and a skull, in the crypt of an ancient cathedral that was an important part of Dickens’s own childhood? And did Dickens then scheme to scatter the poor victim’s spectacles, rings, stickpins, shirt studs, and pocket watch in the River Thames? And if so, or even if Dickens only dreamed he did these things, what part did a very real phantom named Drood have in the onset of such madness?”
THE DATE OF DICKENS S DISASTER was 9 June, 1865. The locomotive carrying his success, peace of mind, sanity, manuscript, and mistress was—quite literally—heading for a breach in the rails and a terrible fall.
I do not know if you Dear Readers living so many years hence still record or remember history (perhaps you have renounced Herodotus and Thucydides and dwell perpetually in the Year Zero), but if any sense of history remains in your time, you must know well the important events of the year we called Anno Domini 1865. Some events, such as the end of the fraternal conflagration in the United States, were considered of some drama and considerable interest by many in England, although not by Charles Dickens. Despite his great interest in America—having travelled there already and written books about it, not altogether flattering books one must add, and after having struggled so fiercely to receive some recompense for the piracy of his works in that copyright-flaunting chaos of former colonies—Dickens had little interest in a war between some distant North and more-distant South. But in 1865, the year of his Staplehurst disaster, Charles Dickens had reason to be very satisfied indeed with his own personal history.
He was the most popular novelist in England, perhaps in the world. Many people in England and America considered my friend to be—outside of Shakespeare and perhaps Chaucer and Keats—the greatest writer who had ever lived.
Of course, I knew this to be nonsense, but popularity, as they say (or as I have said), breeds more popularity. I had seen Charles Dickens stuck in a rural, doorless privy with his trousers down around his ankles, bleating like a lost sheep for some paper to wipe his arse, and you will have to forgive me if that image remains more true to me than “the greatest writer who ever lived.”
But on this June day in 1865, Dickens had many reasons to be smug.
Seven years earlier, the writer had separated from his wife, Catherine, who obviously had offended him in their twenty-two years of marriage by uncomplainingly bearing him ten children and suffering several miscarriages, all the while generally putting up with his every complaint and catering to his every whim. This endeared his wife to him to the point that in 1857, during a walking trip we were taking in the countryside during which we had sampled several bottles of local wine, Dickens chose to describe his beloved Catherine to me as “Very dear to me, Wilkie, very dear. But, on the whole, more bovine than entrancing, more ponderous than feminine… an alchemist’s dull brew of vague-mindedness, constant incompetence, shuffling sluggishness, and self-indulgent idleness, a thick gruel stirred only by the paddle of her frequent self-pity.”
I doubt if my friend remembered telling me this, but I have not forgotten.
Actually, it was a complaint that did Catherine in, domestically speaking. It seems (actually, it does not “seem” at all—I was there when he purchased the blasted thing) that Dickens had bought the actress Ellen Ternan an expensive bracelet after our production of The Frozen Deep, and the idiot jeweller had delivered the thing to the Dickenses’ home in London, Tavistock House, not to Miss Ternan’s flat. As a result of this mis-delivery, Catherine had given forth several weeks’ worth of bovine mewlings, refusing to believe that it was merely her husband’s token offering of innocent esteem to the actress who had done such a wonderful (actually, I would say barely competent) job as the hero’s beloved, Clara Burnham, in our… no, my… play about unrequited love in the Arctic.
It is true, as Dickens continued to explain to his deeply hurt wife in 1858, that the author had the habit of showering generous gifts on his fellow players and participants in his various amateur theatricals. After The Frozen Deep he had already distributed bracelets and pendants, a watch, and one set of three shirt studs in blue enamel to others in the production.
But, then, he wasn’t in love with these others. And he was in love with young Ellen Ternan. I knew that. Catherine Dickens knew that. No one can be sure if Charles Dickens knew that. The man was such a convincing fictionalist, not to mention one of the most self-righteous fellows ever to have trod the Earth, that I doubt if he ever confronted and acknowledged his own deeper motivations, except when they were as pure as springwater.
In this case, it was Dickens who flew into a rage, shouting and roaring at the soon-cowed Catherine—I apologise for any inadvertent bovine connotation there—that his wife’s accusations were a slur on the pure and luminously perfect person of Ellen Ternan. Dickens’s emotional, romantic, and, dare I say it, erotic fantasies always revolved around sanctified, chivalric devotion to some hypothetical young and innocent goddess whose purity was eternally beyond reproach. But Dickens may have forgotten that the hapless and now domestically doomed Catherine had watched Uncle John, the farce that we had put on (it was the tradition in our century, you see, always to present a farce along with a serious drama) after The Frozen Deep. In Uncle John, Dickens (age forty-six) played the elderly gentleman and Ellen Ternan (eighteen) played his ward. Naturally, Uncle John falls madly in love with the girl less than half his age. Catherine must have also known that while I had written the bulk of the drama, The Frozen Deep, about the search for the lost Franklin Expedition, it was her husband who had written and cast the romantic farce, after he had met Ellen Ternan.
Not only does Uncle John fall in love with the young girl he should be protecting, but he showers her with, and I quote from the play’s stage directions, “wonderful presents—a pearl necklace, diamond ear-rings.”
So it is little wonder that when the expensive bracelet, meant for Ellen, showed up at Tavistock House, Catherine, between pregnancies, roused herself from her vague-minded shuffling sluggishness and bellowed like a milk cow with a Welsh dairyman’s prod between her withers.
Dickens responded as any guilty husband would. But only if that husband happened to be the most popular writer in all of England and the English-speaking world and perhaps the greatest writer who ever lived.
First, he insisted that Catherine make a social call on Ellen Ternan and Ellen’s mother, showing everyone that there could be no hint of suspicion or jealousy on his wife’s part. In essence, Dickens was demanding that his wife publicly apologise to his mistress—or at least to the woman he would soon choose to be his mistress when he worked up the courage to make the arrangements. Weeping, miserable, Catherine did as she was bid. She humiliated herself by making a social call on Ellen and Mrs Ternan.
It was not enough to assuage Dickens’s fury. He cast the mother of his ten children out.
He sent Charley, his eldest son, to live with Catherine. He kept the rest of the children to live with him at Tavistock House and eventually at Gad’s Hill Place. (It was always my observation that Dickens enjoyed his children until they began to think and act for themselves in any way… in other words, when they ceased behaving like Little Nell or Paul Dombey or one of his other fictional constructs… and then he quickly grew very bored with them.)
There was more to this scandal, of course—protests by Catherine’s parents, public retractions of those protests forced by Dickens and his solicitors, bullying and misleading public statements by the author, legal manoeuvrings, much terrible publicity, and a final and irrevocable legal separation forced on his wife. He eventually refused to communicate with her at all, even about the well-being of their children.
All this from the man who epitomised, not just for England but for the world, the image of “the happy home.”
Of course Dickens still needed a woman in his house. He had many servants. He had nine children at home with whom he did not wish to be bothered except when he was in the mood to play with them or dangle them on his knee for photographs. He had social obligations. There were menus and shopping lists and florists’ orders to prepare. There was much cleaning and organising to oversee. Charles Dickens needed to be freed from all these details. He was, you must understand, the world’s greatest writer.
Dickens did the obvious thing, although it might not have seemed so obvious to you or to me. (Perhaps in this distant twentieth or twenty-first century to which I consign this memoir, it is the obvious thing. Or perhaps you have, if you are smart, abandoned the quaint and idiotic institution of marriage altogether. As you will see, I avoided matrimony in my time, choosing to live with one woman while having children with another, and some in my time, to my great pleasure, called me a scoundrel and a cad. But I digress.)
So Dickens did the obvious thing. He elevated Catherine’s spinster sister Georgina to the role of surrogate wife, mistress of his household, and discipline-mistress of his children, hostess at his many parties and dinners, not to mention Sergeant Major to the cook and servants.
When the inevitable rumours began—centred on Georgina rather than on Ellen Ternan, who had receded, one might say, from the gaslights to the shadows—Dickens ordered a doctor to Tavistock House. The doctor was told to examine Georgina and then was ordered to publish a statement, which he did, declaring to all and sundry that Miss Georgina Hogarth was virgo intacta.
And that, Charles Dickens assumed, would be that.
His younger daughter would later say to me, or at least say within my hearing, “My father was like a madman. This affair brought out all that was the worst—and all that was the weakest—in him. He did not care a damn what happened to any of us. Nothing could surpass the misery and unhappiness of our home.”
If Dickens was aware of their unhappiness, or if it mattered to him if he was indeed aware, he did not show it. Not to me, nor to his newer and ultimately closer friends.
And he was correct in his assumption that the crisis would pass without his readers’ abandoning him. If they knew of his domestic irregularities at all, they had obviously forgiven him. He was, after all, the English prophet of the happy home and the world’s greatest writer. Allowances must be made.
Our male literary peers and friends also forgave and forgot—with the exception of Thackeray, but that is another story—and I must admit that some of them, some of us, tacitly or privately, applauded Charles’s freeing himself of his domestic obligations to such an unattractive and perpetually dragging sea anchor. The break gave a glimmer of hope to the bleakest of married men and amused us bachelors with the thought that perhaps one could come back from that undiscovered matrimonial country from which it was said that no man could ever return.
But, I pray you, Dear Reader, remember that we are speaking of the man who, sometime earlier, shortly before his acquaintance with Ellen Ternan, as he and I cruised the theatres for what we called “the special little periwinkles”—those very young and very pretty actresses we found to our mutual aesthetic satisfaction—had said to me, “Wilkie, if you can think of any tremendous way of passing the night, in the meantime, do. I don’t care what it is. I give, for this night only, restraint to the Winds! If the mind can devise anything sufficiently in the style of Sybarite Rome in the days of its culminating voluptuousness, I am your man.”
And for such sport, I was his.
I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN 9 June, 1865, the true beginning of this cascade of incredible events.
Dickens, explaining to friends that he was suffering from overwork and what he had been calling his “frost-bitten foot” since mid-winter, had taken a week off from his work of finishing Our Mutual Friend to enjoy a holiday in Paris. I do not know if Ellen Ternan and her mother went with him. I do know they returned with him.
A lady whom I have never met nor much wish to, a certain Mrs William Clara Pitt Byrne (a friend, I am told, of Charles Waterton—the naturalist and explorer who reported his bold adventures all over the world but who had died from a silly fall at his estate of Walton Hall just eleven days before the Staplehurst accident, his ghost later reported to be haunting the place in the form of a great grey heron), loved to send little bits of malicious gossip to the Times. This malevolent morsel, reporting the sighting of our friend on the ferry from Boulogne to Folkestone that day of the ninth of June, appeared some months after Dickens’s accident:
Travelling with him was a lady not his wife, nor his sister-in-law, yet he strutted about the deck with the air of a man bristling with self-importance, every line of his face and every gesture of his limbs seemed haughtily to say—“Look at me; make the most of your chance. I am the great, I am the only Charles Dickens; whatever I may choose to do is justified by that fact.”
I am told that Mrs Byrne is known primarily for a book she published some years ago titled Flemish Interiors. In my modest opinion, she should have reserved her vitriolic pen for scribbling about divans and wallpaper. Human beings are clearly beyond her narrow scope.
After disembarking at Folkestone, Dickens, Ellen, and Mrs Ternan took the 2.38 tidal train to London. As they approached Staplehurst, they were the only passengers in their coach, one of seven first-class carriages in the tidal train that day.
The engineer was going full speed—about fifty miles per hour—as they passed Headcorn at eleven minutes after three in the afternoon. They were now approaching the railroad viaduct near Staplehurst, although “viaduct”—the name given the structure in the official railways guide—may be too fancy a word for the web of girders supporting the heavy wood beams spanning the shallow river Beult.
Labourers were carrying out a routine replacement of old timbers on that span. Later investigation—and I have read the reports—showed that the foreman had consulted the wrong timetable and did not expect the tidal train for another two hours. (It seems that we travellers are not the only ones to be confounded by British railway timetables with their infinite holiday and weekend and high-tide-time asterisks and confounding parentheses.)
A flagman was required by railway policy and English law to be stationed 1,000 yards up the rails from such work—two of the rails had already been lifted off at the bridge and set alongside the track—but for some reason this man with his red flag was only 550 yards from the gap. This did not give a train travelling at the speed of the Folkestone–London tidal express any chance of stopping in time.
The engineer, upon seeing the red flag so tardily waved and—a much more soul-riveting sight, I am sure—upon seeing the gap in rails and beams in the bridge ahead, did his best. Perhaps in your day, Dear Reader, all trains have brakes that can be applied by the engineer. Not so in our day of 1865. Each carriage must be braked individually and then only upon instructions from the engineer. He madly whistled for the guards along the length of the train to apply their brakes. It did little good.
According to the report, the train was still doing almost thirty miles per hour when it reached the broken line. Incredibly, the engine jumped the forty-two-foot gap and leaped off the track on the other side of the chasm. Of the seven first-class carriages, all but one flew free and plummeted to their destruction in the swampy riverbed below.
The surviving coach was the one carrying Dickens, his mistress, and her mother.
The guards’ van immediately behind the engine was flung to the other track, dragging the next coach—a second-class carriage—with it. Immediately behind this second-class carriage was Dickens’s coach and it jolted partially over the bridge as the other six first-class carriages flew by and crashed below. Dickens’s carriage finally ended up dangling over the side of the bridge, now being kept from falling only by its single coupling to another second-class carriage. Only the very rear of the train remained on the rails. The other first-class carriages had plummeted and crashed and rolled and buckled and generally been smashed to matchwood and splinters on the marshy ground below.
Dickens later wrote about these moments, in letters to friends, but always with discretion, taking care never to mention, except to a few intimates, the names or identities of his two fellow travellers. I am certain that I am the only person to whom he ever told the complete story.
“Suddenly,” he wrote in his more widely disseminated epistolary version of events, “we were off the rail, and beating the ground as the car of a half-emptied balloon might do. The old lady…” [We must read “Mrs Ternan” here] “… cried out, ‘My God!’ The young lady travelling with her [this is Ellen Ternan, of course] screamed.
“I caught hold of them both… and said: ‘We can’t help ourselves, but we can be quiet and composed. Pray don’t cry out!’
“The old lady immediately answered: ‘Thank you. Rely on me. Upon my soul I will be quiet.’ We were then all tilted down together in a corner of the carriage, and stopped.”
The carriage was indeed tilted steeply down and to the left. All baggage and loose objects had fallen down and to the left. For the rest of his life, Charles Dickens would suffer repeated spells of feeling as if “everything, all of my body, is tilted and falling down and to the left.”
Dickens continues his narrative:
“I said to the two women, ‘You may be sure that nothing worse can happen. Our danger must be over. Will you remain here, without stirring, while I get out the window?’ ”
Dickens, still lithe enough then at the age of fifty-three, despite his “frost-bitten foot” (as a long-time sufferer of gout, which has required me to partake of laudanum for many years, I know gout when I hear its symptoms, and Dickens’s “frostbite” was almost certainly gout), then clambered out, made the tricky jump from the carriage step to the railbed above the bridge, and reported seeing two guards running up and down in apparent confusion.
Dickens writes that he grabbed and stopped one of them, demanding of the man, “Look at me! Do stop an instant and look at me, and tell me whether you don’t know me.”
“We know you very well, Mr Dickens,” he reports the guard replied at once.
“Then, my good fellow,” cried Dickens, almost cheerily (at being recognised at such a time, a petty soul such as Clara Pitt Byrne might have interjected), “for God’s sake give me your key, and send one of those labourers here, and I’ll empty this carriage.”
And then, in Dickens’s letters to his friends, the guards did as they were bid, labourers laying down planks to the carriage, and then the author clambered back into the tilted coach and crawled down its length to retrieve his top hat and his flask of brandy.
I should interrupt our mutual friend’s description here just long enough to say that, using the names listed in the official railway report as my guide, I later tracked down the very guard that Dickens reports stopping and galvanising into such useful action. The guard—a certain Lester Smyth—had a somewhat different recollection of those moments.
“We were trying to get down to ’elp the injured and dying when this toff who’d climbed out of the teetering first-class coach runs up to Paddy Beale and me, all wild-eyed and pale, and keeps shouting at us, ‘Do you know me, man!? Do you know me!? Do you know who I am??’
“I admit that I replied, ‘I don’t care if you’re Prince Albert, mate. Get out of my bleedin’ way.’ It was not the usual way I’d speak to a gentleman, but that wasn’t no usual day.”
At any rate, Dickens did commandeer the work of some labourers to help extricate Ellen and Mrs Ternan, he did crawl back into the carriage to retrieve his flask and top hat, he did fill his top hat with water before clambering down the steep bank, and all witnesses agree that Dickens went immediately to work down among the dying and the dead.
IN HIS FIVE REMAINING YEARS after Staplehurst, Dickens would only say about what he saw in that riverbed—“It was unimaginable”—and of what he heard there—“Unintelligible.” This from the man generally agreed to have the greatest imagination, after Sir Walter Scott, of any English writer. And from a man whose stories were, if nothing else, always eminently intelligible.
Perhaps the unimaginable began when he was clambering down the steep embankment. Suddenly appearing next to him was a tall, thin man wearing a heavy black cape far more appropriate for a night at the opera than an afternoon’s voyage to London on the tidal train. Both men were carrying their top hats in one hand while grabbing at the embankment for balance with their free hands. This figure, as Dickens later described to me in a throaty whisper during the days after the accident when his voice “was no longer my own,” was cadaverously thin, almost shockingly pale, and stared at the writer from dark-shadowed eyes set deep under a pale, high brow that melded into a pale, bald scalp. A few strands of greying hair leapt out from the sides of this skull-like visage. Dickens’s impression of a skull was reinforced, he said later, by the man’s foreshortened nose—“mere black slits opening into the grub-white face than a proper proboscis” was how Dickens described it—and by small, sharp, irregular teeth, spaced too far apart, set into gums so pale that they were whiter than the teeth themselves.
The author also noticed that the man had two fingers missing—or almost missing—on his right hand, the little finger and the ring finger next to it, as well as a missing middle finger on his left hand. What especially caught Dickens’s attention was the fact that the fingers had not been cut off at the joint, as is so often the case in an accident to the hand or subsequent surgery, but appeared to have been severed halfway through the bone between the joints. “Like tapers of white wax that had been partially melted,” he told me later.
Dickens was nonplussed as he and this strange black-caped figure slowly worked their way down the steep embankment, both using shrubs and rocks as handholds.
“I am Charles Dickens,” gasped my friend.
“Yesss,” said the pale face, the sibilants sliding out through the tiny teeth. “I know.”
This nonplussed Dickens all the more. “Your name, sir?” he asked as they slid down the embankment of loose stones together.
“Drood,” said the man. At least Dickens thought this is what the man said. The pale figure’s voice was slurred and tinged with what may have been a foreign accent. The word came out sounding most like “Dread.”
“You were on the train going to London?” asked Dickens as they approached the bottom of the steep hill.
“To Limehousse,” hissed the ungainly form in the dark cape. “Whitechapel. Ratcliff Crossss. Gin Alley. Three Foxesss Court. Butcher Row and Commercial Road. The Mint and other rookeriessss.”
Dickens glanced up sharply at this strange recital, since their train had been going to the station in central London, not to these dark alleys in East London. “Rookeries” was a slang term for the worst of the tenement slums in the city. But now they had reached the bottom of the hill, and without another word, this “Drood” turned away and seemed to glide into the shadows under the railway bridge. In a few seconds the man’s black cape blended with the darkness there.
“You must understand,” Dickens was to whisper to me later, “I never for a second thought that this strange apparition was Death come to claim his own. Nor any other personification of the tragedy that was even then unfolding. This would have been too trite even for far lesser fiction than that which I create. But I do admit, Wilkie,” he said, “that I wondered at the time if Drood might have been an undertaker come from Staplehurst or some other nearby hamlet.”
Alone now, Dickens turned his attention to the carnage.
The train carriages in the riverbed and adjoining swampy banks were no longer recognisable as railway coaches. Except for iron axles and wheels protruding here and there at impossible angles from the water, it was as if a series of wooden bungalows had been flung out of the sky, perhaps dropped from some American cyclone and smashed to bits. And then the bits looked to have been dropped and smashed yet again.
It seemed to Dickens as if no one could have survived such impact, such destruction, but screams of living sufferers—for in truth the injured far outnumbered the dead—began to fill the river valley. These were not, he thought at the time, human sounds. They were somehow infinitely worse than the moans and cries he had heard when touring overcrowded hospitals, such as the East London Children’s Hospital at Ratcliff Cross—which Drood had just mentioned—where the indigent and unclaimed went to die. No, these screams seemed more as if someone had opened a portal to the pit of Hell itself and allowed the damned there to cry out one last time to the mortal world.
Dickens watched a man stagger towards him, arms outstretched as if for a welcoming hug. The top of the man’s skull had been torn off rather the way one would crack an eggshell with a spoon in preparation for breakfast. Dickens could clearly see the grey-and-pink pulp glistening within the concave bowl of splintered skull. The fellow’s face was covered with blood, his eyes white orbs staring out through crimson rivulets.
Dickens could think of nothing to do but offer the man some brandy from his flask. The mouth of the flask came away red from the man’s lips. Dickens helped him lie on the grass and then used the water in his top hat to clean the man’s face. “What is your name, sir?” asked Dickens.
The man said only, “I am gone,” and died, the white eyes continuing to stare up at the sky from their bloody pools.
A shadow passed over them. Dickens whirled, sure—he told me later—that it would be Drood, the apparition’s black cape widening like a raven’s wings. But it was only a cloud passing between the sun and the river valley.
Dickens refilled his top hat from the river and came upon a lady, who also had blood streaming down over her lead-coloured face. She was almost naked, her clothes reduced to a few token strips of bloody cloth dangling like old bandages from her torn flesh. Her left breast was missing. She refused to pause for the writer’s ministrations and did not seem to hear his urgings that she sit down and wait for help. She walked past Dickens in a brisk manner and disappeared into the few trees that grew along the bank.
He helped two stunned guards extricate the crushed body of another woman from a flattened carriage and lay the body gently on the bank. A man was wading downstream, screaming, “My wife! My wife!” Dickens led him to the corpse. The man screamed, threw his arms above his head, and ran wildly into the swampy field near the river, crashing and thrashing about, all the while emitting sounds that Dickens later said “were like the hisses and death grunts of a boar pierced through the lungs by several large calibre bullets.” Then the man fainted, dropping into the marsh more like someone shot through the heart than through the lungs.
Dickens went back towards the carriages and found a woman propped against a tree. Except for a little blood on her face, perhaps from a slight scalp wound, she seemed uninjured.
“I shall bring you some water, madam,” he said.
“That would be very kind of you, sir,” she replied. She smiled and Dickens flinched. She had lost all of her teeth.
He went to the stream and looked back to see a figure he took to be Drood—presumably no one else was foolishly dressed in a heavy opera cape on that warm June day—solicitously bent over the woman. When Dickens returned a few seconds later with his top hat filled with river water, the man in black was gone and the woman was dead but still showing her ragged, bloodied gums in a parody of a final smile.
He went back to the smashed carriages. Amidst the rubble of one coach, a young man moaned feebly. More rescuers were sliding down the slope. Dickens ran to get several strong guards to help extricate the fellow from the broken glass, torn red velvet, heavy iron, and collapsed wooden floor of the compartment. While the guards grunted and lifted the heavy window frames and shattered flooring that had now become a fallen roof, Dickens squeezed the young man’s hand and said, “I shall see you to safety, my son.”
“Thank you,” gasped the injured young gentleman, obviously an occupant of one of the first-class carriages. “You are most kind.”
“What is your name?” asked our novelist as they carried the young man to the bank.
“Dickenson,” said the young fellow.
Charles Dickens made sure that Master Dickenson was carried up to the railway line where more rescuers had arrived, then he turned back to the carnage. He rushed from injured person to injured person, lifting, consoling, assuaging thirst, reassuring, sometimes covering their nakedness with any rag he could find, all while checking other scattered forms to confirm that they were no longer amongst the living.
A few rescuers and fellow passengers seemed as focused as our author, but many—Dickens told me later—could only stand there in shock and stare. The two figures doing the most that terrible afternoon amidst the wreckage and groans were Dickens and the bizarre form who called himself Drood, although the black-caped man seemed always to be just out of earshot, always on the verge of vanishing from sight again, and always appearing to glide rather than walk from wrecked carriage to wrecked carriage.
Dickens came upon a large woman, the peasant cloth and design of her dress showing that she had come from one of the lower-class carriages. She was face-down in the swamp, her arms under her body. He rolled her over to be certain that she was no longer among the living, when suddenly her eyes popped open in her mud-covered face.
“I saved her!” she gasped. “I saved her from him!”
It took a moment before Dickens noticed the infant clasped fiercely between the fat woman’s heavy arms, the small white face pressed deep against the woman’s pendulous bosoms. The baby was dead—either drowned in the shallow swamp or asphyxiated by its mother’s weight.
Dickens heard a hissing call, saw Drood’s pale form waving to him from the web of shadows under the broken bridge and walked towards him, but came first to a collapsed, upside-down carriage where a young woman’s bare but shapely arm protruded from what was left of a window. Her fingers moved, seeming to beckon Dickens closer.
Dickens crouched and took the soft fingers in his own two hands. “I am here, my dear,” he said to the darkness inside the small aperture that had been a window only fifteen minutes earlier. He squeezed her hand and she squeezed his back, as if in gratitude for her deliverance.
Dickens crouched but could see nothing but torn upholstery, dark shapes, and deep shadows within the tiny,
triangular cave of wreckage. There was not enough room for him to squeeze in even his shoulders. The top frame of the window was pressing down almost to the marshy ground. He could only just hear the rapid, terrified breathing of the injured woman above the gurgle of the river running by. Without thinking of the possible impropriety of it, he stroked her bare arm as far as he could reach it in the collapsed wreckage. There were very fine reddish hairs along her pale forearm and they glowed coppery in the afternoon light.
“I see the guards and possibly a doctor coming,” Dickens said into the tiny aperture, squeezing her arm and hand all the while. He did not know for sure if the approaching gentleman in the brown suit who carried a leather bag was indeed a doctor, but he fervently hoped so. The four guards, carrying axes and iron pry rods, were jogging ahead, the gentleman in the formal suit puffing to keep up.
“Over here!” Dickens cried to them. He squeezed the woman’s hand. Her pale fingers squeezed back, the first finger closing, opening, and then curling and closing again around his first fingers much as a newborn baby would instinctively but tentatively grasp its father’s hand. She said nothing, but Dickens heard her sigh from the shadows. It seemed almost a contented sound. He held her hand in both of his and prayed that she was not seriously injured.
“Here, for God’s sake, hurry!” cried Dickens. The men gathered around. The heavy, suited man introduced himself—he was a physician by the name of Morris—and Dickens refused to relinquish either his place by the wrecked window or the young lady’s hand as the four guards began levering the window frame and smashed wood and iron upward and to the side, enlarging the tiny space that had somehow been the woman’s shelter and salvation.
“Careful now!” shouted Dickens to the guards. “With great care, by all means! Allow nothing to fall. Careful with the bars there!” Crouching lower to speak into the dark space, Dickens fiercely gripped her hand and whispered, “We almost have you, my dear. Another minute. Be brave!”
There came a last, answering squeeze. Dickens could feel the gratitude in it.
“You’ll have to get back a minute, sir,” said Dr Morris. “Back just a moment while the boys heave and lift here and I lean in to see if she is too injured to move yet or not. Just for a moment, sir. That’s a good gentleman.”
Dickens patted the young lady’s palm, his fingers reluctant to release her, feeling the final, parting pressure from her thin, pale, perfectly manicured fingers in return. His mind pushed away the very real but totally inappropriate sense of there being something physically exciting in such intimate contact with a woman whose acquaintance he had not yet made and whose face he had not yet seen. He said, “You’ll be out of all of this and safe with us in a moment, my dear” and surrendered her hand. Then he crawled backwards on all fours, clearing the way for the workmen and feeling the marsh moistness seeping up through the knees of his trousers.
“Now!” cried the doctor, kneeling where Dickens had been a moment before. “Put your backs into it, boys!”
The four burly guards literally put their backs into it, first lifting with their pry bars and then setting their backs against the ragged wall of collapsed flooring that now became a heavy pyramid of wood. The cone of darkness widened a bit beneath them. Sunlight illuminated the wreckage. They gasped as they strained to hold the debris up and then one of the men gasped again.
“Oh, Christ!” cried someone.
The doctor seemed to leap back as if he had touched an electrified wire. Dickens crawled forward to offer his help and finally saw into the space.
There was no woman, no girl. Only a bare arm severed just below the shoulder lay in the tiny open circle amidst the debris. The knob of bone looked very white in the filtered afternoon light.
Everyone shouted. More men arrived. Instructions were repeated. The guards used their axes and iron bars to pry open the wreckage, carefully at first and then with a terrible, almost wilfully destructive abandon. The rest of the young woman’s body simply was not there. There were no complete bodies anywhere in this pile of wreckage, only mismatched tatters of torn clothing and random bits of flesh and gouged bone. There was not so much as an identifiable scrap of her dress left behind. There was only the pale arm ending in the bloodless and tightly curled and now motionless fingers.
Without another word, Dr Morris turned and walked away, joining other rescuers milling around other victims.
Dickens got to his feet, blinked, licked his lips, and reached for his flask of brandy. It tasted of copper. He realised that it was empty and that he was tasting only the blood left on it from some of the victims to whom he had offered it. He looked around and around for his top hat and then saw that he was wearing it. River water from it had soaked his hair and dripped down his collar.
More rescuers and onlookers were arriving. Dickens judged that he could be of little further help there. Slowly, awkwardly, he climbed the steep riverbank up to the railbed where the intact carriages now sat empty.
Ellen and Mrs Ternan were sitting in the shade on some stacked rail ties, calmly drinking water from teacups someone had brought them.
Dickens started to reach for Ellen’s gloved hand and then did not complete the motion. Instead, he said, “How are you, my dear?”
Ellen smiled, but there were tears in her eyes. She touched her left arm and an area just below her shoulder and above her left breast. “A bit bruised, I believe, but otherwise well. Thank you, Mr Dickens.”
The novelist nodded almost absently, his eyes focused elsewhere. Then he turned, walked to the edge of the broken bridge, jumped with the easy agility of the distracted to the step of the dangling first-class carriage, crawled through a shattered window as easily as if it were a doorway, and clambered down through rows of seats that had become rungs on the now-vertical wall of the coach floor. The entire carriage, still dangling precariously high above the valley floor and connected by only one coupling to the second-class carriage on the rails above, swayed slightly like a vibrating pendulum in a broken hallway clock.
Earlier, even before rescuing Ellen and Mrs Ternan, he had carried out his leather bag carrying most of the manuscript of the sixteenth number of Our Mutual Friend, which he had been working on in France, but now he had remembered that the last two chapters were in his overcoat, which still lay folded in the overhead above their former seats. Standing on the backs of this last row of seats in the swaying, creaking coach, the river thirty feet below reflecting darts of dancing light through the shattered windows, he retrieved the overcoat, pulled the manuscript out to make sure that all the pages were there—it had been slightly soiled but was otherwise intact—and then, still balancing on the seats, he tucked the papers back into his overcoat.
Dickens then happened to look straight down, down through the shattered glass of the door at the end of the carriage. Far below, directly beneath the train car, some trick of the light making him appear to be standing on the river rather than in it, apparently totally unconcerned by so many tons of wood and iron swaying above him, the person who called himself Drood was tilting his head far back to stare straight up at Dickens. The man’s pale eyes in their sunken sockets seemed to have no eyelids.
The figure’s lips parted, its mouth opened and moved, the fleshy tongue flickered out from behind and between the tiny teeth, and hissing sounds emerged, but Dickens could make out no distinct words over the metallic groaning of the dangling carriage and the continuous cries of the injured in the valley below. “Unintelligible,” murmured Dickens. “Unintelligible.”
The first-class carriage suddenly swayed and sagged as if preparing to drop. Dickens casually caught the overhead with one hand to keep his balance. When the swaying ceased and he looked down again, Drood was gone. The writer tossed the coat with his manuscript in it over his shoulder and clambered up and out into the light.
Excerpted from Drood by Simmons, Dan Copyright © 2011 by Simmons, Dan. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
What People are saying about this
Meet the Author
Dan Simmons is the award-winning author of several novels, including the New York Times bestsellers Olympos and The Terror. He lives in Colorado.
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >
"Drood" is a novel that falls at the intersection of several genres - mystery, horror, biopic (for which I'm not sure there is a literary term), and even a little fantasy. Simmons has drawn heavily on the biographies of Wilkie Collins, the novel's narrator, and Charles Dickens and for that reason the atmosphere of the novel is almost palpably real. Although the novel is inspired by the titular character from Dickens's unfinished final novel the driving force of the novel comes from Wilkie himself and Simmons fuels the narrative with Wilkie's awe and resentment of Dickens. Wilkie's narrative voice carries an echo of modern psychological drama but a person who has already read his novels will appreciate how remarkably well Simmons captures Wilkie's writing style within the book; readers of Simmons's previous novel "The Terror" will find that Wilkie and Dickens wrote a play based on the same ill-fated nautical expedition and Simmons takes advantage of that historical detail. Simmons also draws on Wilkie's capacity for vivid description; from Wilkie's opium dreams to the novelists' forays into the violent Undertown of London, Simmons renders it all in lurid deatail, keeping the reader going, and turning the pages as if "Ghost Wilkie" were there to do the deed personally. Although the weather during my reading was peaceful "Drood" would be a perfect book for reading during a thunderstorm. This is not a novel for the squeamish, particularly if you like domestic animals, and the description of Wilkie's opiate use is extensive.
I really wanted to like this novel. The idea sounds ingenious. It appears to be well researched. Where does it all unravel? First the length, 775 pages. While a little disconcerting I wanted to immerse myself in the Victorian England of Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins. I realized the attention to detail of the times and the authors lives would make the story fairly long. Historical fictions usually are. However, it seems overly padded with detail that has no bearing on the story at all. And Dan Simmons regurgitates some of the same information over and over as if the reader needed constant reminders. And not once or twice, but constantly! I recognize the extensive research that went into the book but I felt that the story was bogged down by unnecessary details about Dickens' and Collins' life. I read through the first half of the book, and kept waiting for the spark to kick the story into gear. It never came. Events that seemed to spur action (and my interest) were quickly lost in the overwhelming detail. By the time i was 75% done, I became determined to finish this huge tome and find out what all the fuss was about. It had been suggested and recommended by Steven King in his Entertainment Weekly year end best of column. While not an absolute guarantee of literary value, I usually find that I DO enjoy the books Mr. King suggests. However this never got beyond an overblown, poorly told biography of Dickens' final five years. Ultimately, not my cup of tea...
As novelist Wilkie Collins narrates on 9 June 1865, fifty three years old Charles Dickens accompanied by his secret mistress takes the train from Folkestone to London. In their car were three people, Charles, Ellen Tiernan and her mother. However, near the Stapelhurst railroad viaduct, a human error leads to the destruction where a bridge was under repair. Dickens and the Tiernan female pair survive.
Dickens tries to help others though it looks hopeless. Amidst the carnage, he meets another apparent survivor, morbid Edwin Drood, who survived the ordeal due to his traveling inside a coffin. Drood vanishes while Dickens follows his trail to the nastiest decadent side of London. As Collins continues his account, he wonder if Drood ever existed and whether Dickens made him to cover nefarious dealings.
This is an excellent historical thriller that looks closely at the last few years of Dickens¿ life using the unfinished final novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood and other historical facts as a basis for this wonderful account. The story line grips the audience from Collins¿ opening monologue and never slows down with readers scrutinizing clues throughout as to whether Dickens¿ lost his mind, concealed his activities with the invention of Drood as the narrator believes, or if Drood lived. Dan Simmons is at his best with this insightful psychological Victorian thriller.
I couldn't wait to get my hands on this book, having just finished The Terror and savoring the hints and plot devices of this new book from Dan Simmons. And, truly, it's a very enjoyable read, with it's hints at Dickensian prose, it's wildly building, fantastic plot, and just plain good writing. But there was one problem. The ending was supposed to be a total surprise and, ultimately a curse worthy of The Twilight Zone. I would not reveal specifics, but here was my problem..... I read the book and just like most, never for a minute did I realize what had happened early on. And I didn't REQUIRE knowing.......to conclude, pretty much half way through, what was going on here and how it was happening. In fact, the whole question seems to hinge, in the readers own mind, whether the plot device was nothing more than the question being asked throughout the novel, the whole point of the action, really, in another way. If one can come to the right conclusion without ever realizing what the plot device IS, then is the author actually whispering to us that, just as the one character insisted, it bore no role? But perhaps I say too much already. I know this. Even though I gave the book an average rating, I am going back to reread it and consider the words of a particular character now that I know what I do.
I was so looking forward to Drood, as The Terror is one of my favorite books. Sadly, I can't say that I enjoyed it nearly as much. While the 700+ pages in The Terror seemed to fly by, I found myself struggling to get through to the end of Drood. I love Mr. Simmons' descriptive writing style. He really makes you feel as if you're there with the characters. However, in the case of Drood all I kept thinking was this should have been a book of at least 400 pages less. There was just too much straying from the underlying story to keep me interested. Which is a shame, because it seemed like such a promising story. Honestly, by the end of the book I really didn't care who Drood was, if he was or wasn't real, etc. I just wanted to finish the book so I could move on to something better. I feel terrible even writing this review becase I am such a fan of Dan Simmons' work, but I would recommend that you save your money and either check the book out of the library, borrow someone else's copy or -- if you feel you must purchase it -- wait for the paperback. This book pales greatly in comparison with The Terror.
Drood is a fictional account of the last five years of Charles Dickens' life. Little is known about Dickens at that time, so Simmons was able to take excellent creative license. The story is narrated by author Wilkie Collins ( The Woman in White, The Moonstone) and the story is as much about his life as it is Dickens'. Wilkie and Dickens were long time friends, collaborators and competitors. The book starts out with a train accident at Staplehurst involving Dickens and in retelling the story to Wilkie, we first hear of the horrific looking man named Drood. Dickens becomes obssessed with finding Drood and drags Wilkie along to late night excursions into Undertown; a city of catacombs and home to those too wretched to live among the poor in above ground London. There are also opium dens and a myriad of crypts. On the night Wilkie and Dickens go to Undertown, they find a river of sewage that they can not cross. It is here that a boat pulls up to take Dickens, and only Dickens to meet with Drood. Wilkie does not hear of the story until later and has only Dickens word of what transpired. A former inspector, Fields then tries to blackmail Wilkie into sharing all the Dickens will tell him about Drood, as Fields states that Drood has been responsible for hundreds of murders in the last several years. Collins feels like a pawn between the inspector and Dickens and does not know what to believe. my review: I thought this book was excellent and addictive and I barely noticed that it was almost 800 pages long. Wilkie is fascinating; he is an opium addict and his jealousy of Dickens grows pathalogical. As he is so unreliable as narrator, the reader is uncertain if parts are true or figments of Wilkie's opium dreams or envious nature. Though I think one can appreciate the book on another level if well-read with Dickens and Collins' novels, I had not yet read anything by Collins and did not feel that I missed anything. However, it does take us through Collins' writing of The Moonstone and spoiled the mystery for me. I still want to read it though. This was an amazing mix of historical fiction, mystery, and psychological terror. I also really appreciate all of the research that must have gone into this novel and to still make a page turner is quite feat. I also felt that Simmons captured the atmosphere and writing of the period. I can not recommend this enough, it is a must read. my rating 5/5 http://bookmagic418.blogspot.com/
I've seen a lot of mixed reviews about this book. Some people say that the description on the dust jacket is misleading to the author rambles. Well I just wanted to add my 2 cents. This was my first novel of Dan Simmons that I've read and I loved every minute of it. The book has a 19th century Gothic feel that I haven't seen done since "The Poe Shadow". Yes the story of Drood is buried among the life story of the protagonist Wilkie Collins but to me it draws you into his decaying mind due to his abuse of laudanum. This story has some great imagery. What's not to like about Green skinned women with tusks for teeth, doppelgangers, secret Chinese opium dens...etc. It's a journey into the underbelly of Victorian society. I liked it from the start but it really picks up after the first 30 pages. I say give it a chance if you like the idea of a haunting journey into the mind of an addict.
HISTORY, HORROR, SUSPENSE, MYSTERY !!!! This book has it all, I found myself lost in the Dickens era, furiously turning pages, huddled in the recliner in the middle of the night with my little book light illuminating the pages. I couldn't wait to see how the story ended and once I read the last pages I found myself wanting the story to go on. This was the first Dan Simmons novel I have read but I assure you it will not be my last.
Other than his Trojan War on Mars series, the best Simmons I have read. See also Matthew Peal.
Drood was my first introduction to the writing of Dan Simmons. I was attracted to this work because of my recent fascination with the works of Charles Dickens. I was impressed by the amount of background knowledge possessed by the author regarding the personalities of the characters, and the mastery of details regarding the period involved. And there is certainly no question as to Mr. Simmons creative talents. However, at one point, mid-way into this novel, I was angered by what I perceived to be a complete abandonment of the previous plot and style; and yet I was mistaken. In fact, I had been fooled exactly as intended by the author's own devices. Realizing my mistake, I continued on to the end, and was completely satisfied at how the novel progressed. My only reservation is that the novel's momentum lagged at times. Induced by this book to read his earlier novel: Terror - I am finding that that novel, although just begun, is better still.
The writing style is incredible. Writing as the author Wilke Collins, Simmons writes in the vernacular of upper-class, mid-19th century England, which is not the easiest style to copy and make interesting. The mystery of who is Edwin Drood has always been of interest to me and I find that learning more about the author Charles Dickens, helps to explain much about his writing. Although Dickens can be dense to read, by writing in the style of Collins, Simmons is able to get around Dickens' density and retain the character of the man. The horror and intrigue is intense, even for someone who reads a lot of it. There is more a sense of horror based in the reality of 19th Century England, rather than the mystical unreality of many modern horror writers. The writing style is so good, it elevates the story, much in the same way the author Elizabeth Kostova did in her book The Historian. At times though, because the horror is based in reality, it is almost too much for me. It might be good for a book club that likes Dickens, or Collins, especially to parse the style of writing and the development of the plot. I did find Collins' diversions into his personal life to be a bit distracting, but I can see how it develops his character more, and I feel that is an important part of the story. How could someone so self-involved and frumpy follow Dickens into the mouth of Hell? Only intense curiosity and commitment to their friendship could have kept him going. The book is also a great study in character development.
A wonderful historical novel about the last five years of Charles Dickens's live that lovers of Dickens, historical novels, murder mysteries, occult, romance, thrillers, and fine literature won't want to miss! Historical facts are blended with incredibly creative fiction concerning characters both in Dickens's life and his last and unfinished book "The Mystery of Edwin Drood."
This wonderful novel by Dan Simmons blew me away. I was expecting Drood to be good, and it was! Simmon's is a master at alterative historical fiction; Proof: The Terror and Drood. Strongly recommended for historical fiction fans or any one looking for a good, consuming read. Don't let the length scare you.
Despite all the negative reviews I have read, i decided to pick up this monstrustous 771 page novel. I am very happy that I did because right from the first chapter, this story really sucks you in. It is a tale of pure madness and Dan Simmons writes it beautify. You are there with the narrator during the most thrilling scenes I have ever read in a book. If you think think is just a mystery novel surrounding the mysterious charactor drood, it is not what the whole story is about but is much of the bulk of it is. The only thing I did not like about the novel is its size. I was able to finish this one in 4 days (it was very hard to put down) but I felt that many little details could have been left out of the story but it helped make the story that much more real. I highly recommend this novel even if it does not interest you, I promise it will grip you and you will keep reading to find out more.
I think any fan of Dan Simmons will eat up Drood as avidly as did I. Let me start off by saying I did enjoy the read...greatly. So much so that I now find myself compelled to learn more about Dickens and to unravel the myth that Simmons wove from the reality that exists of the man - but that's my burden to bear. Crisp writing, great story telling and compelling characters made Drood for me a success. The only criticism I have (if one can call it such) is that I found myself at the end of the tale grasping for resolution. I didn't have enough answers when I closed the back cover at the end of the story. Did I enjoy the ride? Yes. Did I enjoy being brought by a master writer like Simmons into the head of a man's demented downward spiral? Absolutely, Yes. Was Drood, the character in the book of the same name, as out of focus as his silhouette on the cover? To me, Yes. Would I have liked there to be more Drood in Drood? Yes. I qualify the above amateur review with a reminder that I am a fan of Dan Simmons' writing. Drood will hold a place on my bookshelf and I will most certainly find time to read it again in the years ahead.
Dan Simmons repeats the excellence of The Terror. Well researched and worthy of Dickens himself. This book is masterful and maintains the same graceful style that transported me in The Terror. The characters are full-bodied. Wilkie is the epitome of self-deluded vanity. The pacing of the story is great, a gradual progression and digression as the tension builds. Well, I loved it. I hope he continues to write in this vein in the future. I will happily wait.
This could have been a great book because it is a great story idea. Instead its an ok to good book. The historical aspects of dickins, london and drood are, at first, so compelling.....then it all seems to fall apart. The narration seems to happen in the following ways....the first few hundred pages live up to the idea of a drood then for 200 plus pages there is barely mention of him. Then another 150 pages the narrative seems to go off the rails into nothingness....then the last 100 is like watching paint dry. How can the last 100 pages of a book be so boring? That's a crime!!! It was a sheer act of will that I finished this tome! I didn't mind the end as some has mentioned but it took way too damn long for the final reveal. If I had to do it over again....I would not read this book. It would have been more fun to have someone storytell it to me. Perhaps audio book would be the way to go.
I agree with a couple other reviewers; I was really looking forward to this book but found that the length, the constant "reminders" of facts already described by the author and the minutia of Dickens' and Wilkie's lives made the book a bit tedious to get through. It was rather interesting for the most part but not as compelling and thrilling as I had hoped.
My father recommended this book to me. In my opinion, it was OK. I was expecting a lot of scares, but I didn't get too much of them. The story is about an encounter Charles Dickens has with a mysterious figure that goes by the name of Drood, and eventually becomes the basis for his unfinished novel, The Mystery of Edwin Drood. The story is told from the perspective of the famed writer and Dickens' close friend, Wilkie Collins. I would highly recommend this book for a fan of both historical fiction and horror fiction, like me. The reason I don't like this book too much and that I think it is OK is because there is way too much detailed description of the literary and playwright careers of both Wilkie Collins and Charles Dickens and about all the mistresses that Wilkie Collins has and a bit overly descriptive of Victorian London. I don't think I would read any other books by Dan Simmons based on my experience with this one. Also, maybe not the best choice for book club discussions.
Drood is a supernatural thriller: part mystery, part historical authority on Charles Dickens, part suspense thriller. Very heavy on the Dickens facts - you will be a Dickens authority after reading this book! But running throughout the book is an undercurrent of supernatural thriller. Wilkie Collins, friend of Dickens and narrator to our tale, is drunk with laudanum throughout the entire book, but manages to take us along on a wild ride through the steaming hovels of London in order to find our Drood, only to find that Drood is a fictional character in one of Dickens fantasies? Or that he is a resurrected Egyptian priest who controls his subjects through mesmerism? The mystery will keep you turning the pages. The incessant mention of Dickens' history will bother you just a little. Overall, a very good book and I am on my second read.
I gave this book two out of five stars because 2/5 of the book is excellent. This novel is a well-researched and extremely thorough depiction of the last 5 years of Charles Dickens' life as told by his oft-times collaborator and rival Wilkie Collins. You will find that Charles Dickens becomes obsessed with the occult after his tragic Staplehurst train accident--of which he was one of few survivors. As a fan of historical fiction I was extremely intrigued by this book and within the first few chapters I was hooked. However, this book goes from exciting to merely interesting to wildly absurd, to "I guess I'll just stick with it" . . . and then there's still 300 pages left to slog through. This book never gives you what you're waiting for. It just diverts and bores you, and then it ends. Overall, I was disappointed and was in a bad mood for two day just trying to finish the thing.
I am a fan of Simmons' Hyperion and Ilium and decided I'd try one of his other genre. What a complete boor! At best it is a brave attempt at writing in a period style. But why bother when there are so many authentic period books. His characterizations are fine (if you don't mind a weak-willed blow-hard as a main character), but the story line is plodding and filled with attempts at stylization that comes across as pedantic. Way too many "dear reader"s for me. It is the first time that I have ever found myself three quarters of the way through a book and seriously considering asking the author for my money back. I just hope Flashback brings him back to his groove.