Moonstone, The by Wilkie Collins ~ April/May Book Club Online

[PatH]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome.

The Moonstone
Wilkie Collins

In T.S. Eliot called The Moonstone "the first and greatest English detective novel." Told from the standpoint of several, very different, very British characters, it is the funny, irreverent, dramatic, romantic, very British story of the theft of an Indian jewel taken from the eye of an idol and then stolen again from a very British country house by mysterious Indians. Come and join us: I'll bet you can't guess "whodunit" and what they did!     Discussion Schedule: April 15-21: Through section XI in Gabriel Betteredge's narrativeo April 21-25:   Betteredge's narrative, up to THE END OF THE FIRST PERIOD April 26-May 1: SECOND PERIOD: first two narratives:Miss Clack and Mr. Bruff May 2-6: the first part of Franklin Blake's narrative, through Chapter VII, ending with "I saw her, and heard her, no more". May 7-11: Franklin Blake's narrative, Chapter VIII to end, all of Ezra Jennings' Narrative. Related Links::Gutenberg electronic text

For Your Consideration
May 10-?  The rest of the book.

1. Nowdays mystery readers expect an author to "play fair"--give enough information so the reader has at least some chance of guessing the solution.  Does Collins play fair?

2. The opening and closing scenes of the book take place in India, and deal with events in the moonstone's history.  What does this do for the book?

3. How is a part of Ablewhite's life something like Collins'?  How did they differ in this?

4. We see four people or groups who are foreign to various degrees, by birth, training, or experience: The Indians, Mr. Murthwaite, Ezra Jenkins, and Franklin Blake.  How does their foreignness affect the people around them?  How does it affect you?

5. How does this book reflect the ideas and concerns of its time and place? How, if at all, are his ideas advanced for his time?

DISCUSSION LEADERS: JoanK &  PatH

[Jonathan]

'I am not sure why Collins found it necessary to kill Godfrey off.' Good point, Zulema. And there are so many other details to wonder about. What will you remember about the book? It certainly is an elaborate construction.

Just a quick guess would be that Collins was looking for symmetry with the death of Godfrey. The Moonstone began with murder and now ends with murder. Perhaps Collins wanted to disappoint Miss Clack who had her heart set on Godfrey. He certainly wanted to put a dagger into her heart.

[JoanK]

Maybe he was tired of writing, and killing him off was quicker than any other ending he could think of. 

This does foreshadow on of the "unwritten rules" of modern mystery fiction: the guilty one has to be punished for their crime. That's one of the things I like about mysteries: their sense of justice. Bad things and bad people happen but, at least in this artificial world, justice triumphs.

We may feel death is a rather severe punishment for theft. But not, perhaps, to the Indians, who saw this not just as theft, but as sacrilege.

[BarbStAubrey]

Forgot the earlier part - how about that breakfast??!!?? AND it was chosen because he was not hungry?!?

[Frybabe]

At the end, when the Moonstone was returned to its place of worship, the three Brahmins who brought it back were essentially banished from the area and from each other to wander about the rest of their lives. I don't think it was stated explicitly, but would that have been because they killed to get the Moonstone back? That would have been a big fat no-no to the Hindus, especially to the Brahmin (scholar/priest) class.

[PatH]

I think also that Collins wanted a sensational ending, with lots of dramatic events.

The Brahmins had doubly sacrificed their caste in the service of the God of the Moon: by crossing the water, and by dressing as members of lower castes.  Spending the rest of their lives in pilgrimage was the means decreed by the god (presumably through his priests) for purifying them from this.

By the way, one of the many sore points leading to the Sepoy Mutiny was the British desire to change their previous agreement that native troops would not be sent to fight in areas that had to be reached by water.

[BarbStAubrey]

Ring-around-a-rosy they all fall down - we suspected the three Indians when the story started and all these side stories are held together by the sightings or expected sightings of the Indians - Interesting format with a love story - forgot she was only nineteen - loved the description of Gooseberry's wandering eyes -

Did we ever learn what Jennings' debilitating illness was that put him is such pain he needed to take the laudanum?

All that in and out of the trap door with bolts and the silence of Applewhite before his death confused me but I got the gist of it.

Which one was worse Godfrey, a trustee for two boys,who spent their money on his mistress or John Herncastle for taking the diamond after the raid in India?

[Scottieluvr]

Sorry for my absence, I’ve been busy with home and yard work. I did read everyone’s posts to keep me abreast of the conversation. 

Overall, this was an enjoyable read. The Moonstone’s plot was dominated by a sweet mystery, but I would never deem it a romance. I proudly confess to being a romance junkie, since my teen years, and this story’s central focus was not on love and happily-ever-after.

The characters were intriguing and fun. I benefitted from Collins use of a diarist narration to provide character insights and their roles within this mystery.

However… I must confess, The Moonstone was extremely wordy. Proven by the fact I had to put this book down too many times, an unusual act for me. The excessive details did not spark a captivating pictorial experience for me. I don’t like having every detail provided me…

I truly believed Rosana Spearman stole the diamond and threw it in the Shivering Sands, and then expected Collins to bring us back to that area in the end. Another point, it doesn’t surprise me that Godfrey stole the diamond to repay money that wasn’t his; used to support his lavish lifestyle. However his dying shocked me – didn’t see that coming. I anticipated Franklin and Rachel getting back together. 

I will enjoy reading this story again. 

[PatH]

Oh, good, Pamela, you're back for the windup.  Agreed, the main focus is not on the romance.  The wordiness can be a problem.  Some of us have recently read two books by Dickens here, so we've gotten used to it, as Dickens is just as wordy.

Godfrey's death surprised several of us.  He had to be punished, but death is more than enough.  (I was going to say overkill, but thought the better of it.)  He wouldn't have had much of a life once he was discovered, though.  Jail for the theft of the diamond and the boy's inheritance, and when he got out, the loss of everything he cared about--total contempt from everyone, no chance of doing the things he had done before, and possibly still liable for the stolen money.

Jonathan points out that beginning and ending the book with murder makes for symmetry.  It's a double symmetry.  At the start, the wicked John Herncastle murders 3 Indians to steal the diamond.  At the end, 3 indians murder a Herncastle (on his mother's side) to get the diamond back.

[BarbStAubrey]

I thought the last bit with Mr. Murthwaite in India describing the ceremony was lovely - very romantic - not in the man loves a women but the romance of place and word description - the stuff of dreams - a fitting ending to a Victorian story

Amazing to know a story that well as the author knows Robinson Caruso that like finding bible verse he can pick out all events in the story as Betteredge experiences them and fit a sentence to the event.

For the time in history Jennings led a long life - seems to me he was described as in his seventies which is the age of of Betteredge as well.
Betteredge's book tobacco scent walking reminded me - have any of you ever purchased a used book from Amazon that arrived wreaking of cigarettes or marijuana  -  inevitably those smelling from cigarettes come from the Carolinas and once from Kentucky while those with overwhelming marijuana fumes are from Oregon.

Compared to Dickens, Collins sure had included lots of unexpected twists and turns - Godfrey's death was not as dramatic as Tulkinghorn's but as unexpected and poor Jennings died with a lengthy illness similar to Richard Carstone - do you think Jennings had consumption - or what was his illness?

[PatH]

Jennings himself says he is forty.  He looks much older because of the disease and his sufferings from the false accusation.  We are told his disease is an incurable internal complaint, but not what it is.  I don't think it's consumption; the description doesn't fit.

I like your comment about the used books.

[Scottieluvr]

Jonathan points out that beginning and ending the book with murder makes for symmetry.  It's a double symmetry.  At the start, the wicked John Herncastle murders 3 Indians to steal the diamond.  At the end, 3 indians murder a Herncastle (on his mother's side) to get the diamond back.

Or karma???   
 

[Scottieluvr]

Betteredge's book tobacco scent walking reminded me - have any of you ever purchased a used book from Amazon that arrived wreaking of cigarettes or marijuana  -  inevitably those smelling from cigarettes come from the Carolinas and once from Kentucky while those with overwhelming marijuana fumes are from Oregon.

Sadly, my collected paperbacks suffered a familiar fate, why I won’t sell them online. My favorite used bookstore reeks of cigarette smoke too. I am still surprised when seeing people smoking, believed myself the last person to quit the habit. Obviously, a bit haughty on my part. 

[Scottieluvr]

Oh, good, Pamela, you're back for the windup.  Agreed, the main focus is not on the romance.  The wordiness can be a problem.  Some of have recently read two books by Dickens here, so we've gotten used to it, as Dickens is just as wordy.

Its like “The Lord of Rings” series for me, I bought the books because I enjoyed the movies so much.  And everyone declared the books were even better. However, I found the author overly proud of “seeing” the written word…  So never finished the series. I vow to read them ALL, before I die. 

[JoanK]

Glad you're back, SCOTTIELUVR. I think we were all feeling that the book was too long. This is your first discussion here -- hope you like the way we do it.

Used books scented with cigarettes -- oh, yes! Marijuana, not so much (but I'm not sure I know what marijuana smells like). So I should avoid the Carolinas and Oregon in ordering used books? Hmmm.

[salan]

Thoughts on the book...It was rather wordy and went on too long.  I can't say I was surprised about who stole the moonstone; but I was surprised that he was killed.  In my opinion, the ending of a book should be worth the wait; and this one wasn't. Knowing that it was published as a serial explained some of the "wordiness" to me.  The book made me want to read Robinson Crusoe again (shame on me, I haven't read it since my early teens.)  I found it free on Amazon and will read it again one day.

Sorry I didn't enjoy it more.
Sally

[JudeS]

Now that the book is closed and only thoughts remain, I will attempt to state what Collins was trying to "preach" about or what the "meta-message" of the book was.

First and foremost it is about British Imperialism.  We start off with Robinson Crusoe and Betteridge  . Robinson Crusoe, (so says T.S.Eliot) is the story of an Englishman who is self sufficient but when he finds a black man on his island, makes him into a slave and turns him into a Christain.
The Indians in the book are devoted to their cause and have a different set of values than the Englishmen. Their religous beleifs also guide their lives.  All religions have their demands.
So we have two serious subjects here, religion and imperialism.
(Does Mrs. Clack really represent Christianity in Collins's mind? or is he just using her for comic relief?)

The third subject of interest to Collins is the position of women in society. In general he shows respect for women and  wishes to give them as much power as society allowed at the time. He tries to put them on an even footing with men but his society and its rules doesn't quite allow it.

I would say the book is a noble effort by Collins to put forth his ideas but it really succeeds only as the first mystery novel. But that is nothing to be ashamed, of I'm sure.

[BarbStAubrey]

  Seems the English turn as much as they can touch in the world into their "Great Expectations".

[waafer]

I must say that as I progressed through the book I was absolutely sure that the moonstone had been stolen by Rosanna and of course disposed of in the shimmering sands.  OK I was wrong.

[BarbStAubrey]

I finally went back and re-read the letter from Roseanna and it struck me - have any of you also read a story that included a secret lover replacing the love token given to the object of their affection for the love token given by the acknowledged lover? I am sure I read this in something -

While Googling to find any hint of where I could have read that scenario I did come upon this tidbit that I think is fascinating - looks like Collins took hook line and sinker the typical actions of a medieval Knight to his lady and simply reversed genders.

Chivalric or Courtly Love (known in medieval France as "fine love" or fin amour) originated with the so-called troubadours of the late eleventh century... By the middle of the 13th century, the troubadour philosophy had become practically institutionalized throughout the courts of Europe, and "fine love" had become the basis for a glamorous and exciting new style of life.
    
    Ritualistic. Couples engaged in a courtly relationship conventionally exchanged gifts and tokens of their affair. The lady was wooed according to elaborate conventions of etiquette (cf. "courtship" and "courtesy") and was the constant recipient of songs, poems, bouquets, sweet favors, and ceremonial gestures. For all these gentle and painstaking attentions on the part of her lover, she need only return a short hint of approval, a mere shadow of affection. After all, she was the exalted domina--the commanding "mistress" of the affair; he was but her servus--a lowly but faithful servant.

    Secret. Courtly lovers were pledged to strict secrecy. The foundation for their affair--indeed the source of its special aura and electricity--was that the rest of the world (except for a few confidantes or go-betweens) was excluded. In effect, the lovers composed a universe unto themselves--a special world with its own places (e.g., the secret rendezvous), rules, codes, and commandments.

   Adulterous. "Fine love"--almost by definition--was extramarital. Indeed one of its principle attractions was that it offered an escape from the dull routines and boring confinements of noble marriage (which was typically little more than a political or economic alliance for the purpose of producing royal offspring). The troubadours themselves scoffed at marriage, regarding it as a glorified religious swindle. In its place they exalted their own ideal of a disciplined and decorous carnal relationship whose ultimate objective was not crude physical satisfaction, but a sublime and sensual intimacy.

[JoanK]

JUDE: "I would say the book is a noble effort by Collins to put forth his ideas but it really succeeds only as the first mystery novel. But that is nothing to be ashamed, of I'm sure."

As one who loves mystery novels, nothing to be ashamed of indeed!

I agree that it does not rise to the level of great literature. But that it deserves to be remembered through the generations.

What do you all think?

[Jonathan]

waafer, in post 418, says 'OK I was wrong'. Couldn't that be said for all of us? I believe we were all being led up the garden path by the detective himself, wanting us to argue about how the path should be surfaced: grass or gravel.

But I think you were right, waafer, in giving a lot of attention to Rosanna. She is immeditately identified as a thief. And she does set her heart on stealing something. Rachel's diamond, of course. But which one? Or both?

The book is actually full of mysteries, not the least of them the effects of opium. Has anyone read De Quincey's Confessions of an English Opium Eater? And how it enhances ones dreams? Or ones literary efforts?

And Robinson Crusoe is a smokescreen, or wool over our eyes. The book was immensely popular and a monument to Defoe was being erected about the time The Moonstone came out.

My heart will always bleed for Rosanna.

[Jonathan]

I'm not sure that Godfrey could be accused of stealing the diamond. It might be difficult to establish ownership in a court of law. Perhaps an accessory after the fact in the long history of the moonstone. It was Godfrey's living in sin that left him deserving punishment. Which was also true of Collins. No doubt he was always getting it from the religious people and Miss Clack's character was the result.

[PatH]

Some odds and ends:

Jude, I don't think Clack represent's Christianity in Collins' eyes; I think he's making fun of something he disapproves of.  And I bet it hit home.  Those sermons some of you dug up are just like her.

Jonathan, whether or not Ablewhite's taking the diamond is stealing (I think it is, once he failed to give it back) when he pawned it to Luker that's disposal of stolen goods, so they could get him for that.

I had no idea there was a Robinson Crusoe boom at that time.  Betteredge's use of it must have resonated with Collins' readers.  Collins is also parodying people who can quote Scripture for absolutely everything.

[Zulema]

JUDE,  as I've said before, I am very happy that I got to read this book finally, whether it is the first mystery novel or not.  And I agree on your take of what Collins' main themes were.  So many of the best mystery writers of the present weave into their plots much social commentary.  In The Moonstone's case, the stone had to be returned to its rightful place for the world to become reasonable again, albeit the world we were given in the novel.  Meanwhile there were plots and subplots to keep us entertained and guessing.

[Jonathan]

It has been enjoyable rereading  and talking about this Victorian classic. Of course I found more in it now than the sheer adventure I remember reading as a teenager. More history than mystery, the way I see it now.

Sergeant Cuff was a disappointment. I don't think he earned his fee. And yet despite his melancholy nature he did arouse a 'detective fever' in Betteredge, who should get a bigger credit for moving the story along. Cuff was happiest talking yard work with the gardener, and when the crisis comes he's in Ireland doing his own.

Dickens may have found the book wearisome, but Collins enjoyed the last laugh, when Dickens tried the opium theme in The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Of course we all found it tedious at times. The book should have been edited, but sales were so good, it was probably felt better not to rock the merry boat.

[JoanP]

Have you seen this new Kindle commercial - the little kids talking about the need for lovable characters.  "You need loveable characters to enjoy the story."   I hope you can read this - really cute... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmbjwYtSBU

Do you believe that's true?  Are lovable characters essential to a good story? And were there lovable characters in The Moonstone?  I remember Zulema observing a week or two ago..."we're supposed to like Franklin Blake."  I think that may have been Wilkie C's shortcoming - he didn't make his characters "lovable" enough - or he more or less told us which were the good, which were the bad...which to love, which to suspect.  If you had to choose one - or even two characters  you found lovable, who would you choose?

I didn't figure out who took the Moonstone - though I did believe that Cuff earned his fee, Jonathan - by concluding that the stone's disappearance was an inside job...though he did miss the Godfrey's involvement.  THere was no way he could have figured that out.  I vaguely remember thinking it was odd that Godfrey was allowed to leave the house the next morning when everyone else was told to remain in the house....No one suspected him at all.

[Frybabe]

I thought the most lovable character was Betteridge, but only because I associated him with Carson of Downton Abbey, especially when he took umbrage that Rachel may have been involved in the disappearance of the diamond - Carson sticking up for Mary, always. Otherwise, I didn't think any of them were particularly lovable. I did feel some sympathy for Jennings, but oddly, not much for Roseanna.

[BarbStAubrey]

Seems to me there is an awful lot of "Looking for" in this story - they are all looking for something - almost like walking along the streets of a vacation town and stopping in all the quaint shops deciding if we liked the shop or not based on our looking for a certain kind of outcome.  Seems to me that is how we as readers are "looking for". However, the characters in the stories - some are like the shops and some are like someone looking in the shops.

The Indians were looking for this stone long before Colonel Herncastle looked in the Palace for the gem.

Betteredge is like a shop. Characters stop at to get a dose of what it is like to live looking to match life experiences with his bible Robinson Caruso and he is looking to others for direction to live a life of service.

Godfry is looking, not only for money but, it appears the scintillating experiences money can buy as well as, he is looking for compliments to bolster his ego from his Christian ladies.  

Godfry's father is looking for his version of justice and for money.

Roseanna is looking for acceptance and a love.

Cuff is looking to grow the perfect rose

Hmm Penelope is the only one I can think of that is not looking for anything in particular - maybe to make her Dad proud our her.

Rachel does a lot of looking - for a good time at her party - to decide on a husband - to keep her secret - bottom line she is looking for love.

Franklin does the most traveling and he is the one who touches on just about every character in the book as he is looking to discharge his responsibility to Rachel - looking to find the stone - fell in love along the way while not out looking for love but when it found him he looked to make right his relationship with Rachel.

He seems to be the one to be gobsmacked at his own behavior as he seems to be the one on the trail and so is this a quest story - the knight in shining armor looking for his amour while tracking down a stone that is the symbol of light, life, durable incorruptibility and sincere constancy, innocence. All the attributes we define as a token to a young women we love. Is this a quest for Franklin to better understand himself and what he is capable of while looking for a stone that symbolizes his also looking for love?

He is the only one in the story who changes so, loveable or not I am thinking he has to be the protagonist.

The stone does not change - it changes hands but it does not change - we are shown layers of Rachel but no scene of her learning something about herself - Betteredge, Godfrey, even Drusilla do not change where as Franklin's life is about learning in Europe's Universities - he learns about the Opium experiment and how he reacts using Opium - he learns he took the diamond and only later does he learn through the actions of others that he is not a thief and the biggie he learns he is in love - Rachel is looking for love where as Franklin realizes he is in love.

[JoanK]

BARB: "He [Franklin] is the only one in the story who changes so, loveable or not I am thinking he has to be the protagonist."

That's a good point. Maybe that's the weakness: there's little growth in this story.

[BarbStAubrey]

Maybe JoanK that is because the Victorians thought that they had it made in the shade and were at the top of the food chain in all things so they were more about the status quo and about changing the world to match their top of the line life - the Great Expectations of Britain to see the 'want' everywhere and give it a boost to be like them.

[PatH]

In The Moonstone's case, the stone had to be returned to its rightful place for the world to become reasonable again, albeit the world we were given in the novel.

The stone does not change - it changes hands but it does not change

This is important.  The story is framed by the two narratives--the theft of the diamond from Seringapatam and its return to the forehead of the god in Somnauth.  You can say that this is the real story—the diamond managing to return to where it belongs.  The details which make up the entertaining mystery we have just read are just the mechanism.

[BarbStAubrey]

hmm PatH makes me think more and more as if the Diamond is the Holy Grail - I think that is how I will remember this story.

[JudeS]

Besides being a mystery this book is also a "quest" story. It's not the Holy Grail but the Moonstone that everything centers upon.Both are seen as religous tokens to be worshipped.

Frybabe
 I too liked Betteridge . He was  a rather likeable chap but simple and yet wise.

I also liked Cuff who in his own way was clever and straight as an arrow. A man who adores Roses has to be loveable.

[JoanP]

Jude...I liked Gabriel Betteredge too...as you and Frybabe did.  Do you think  it was because he was of un certain age that we were able to relate to him?  Old school?  I'm wondering how Collins' readers regarded him and his habit of turning to Robinson Crusoe for guidance.  Did they roll their eyes and snicker at him as they would at grand daddy?

Defoe seemed an unlikely mentor, didn't he?  The theme of being marooned and cut off from everyone else is pervasive - as others have noted.  But did Betteredge feel this way too - as Miss Clack, Rosanna, Jennings did?  What did he see in Robinson Crusoe that provide him such an escape?

I looked up some information on Defoe - and found that Robinson Crusoe (1719) was his first
novel, and in fact many identify it as "the first novel written in the English language."  Interesting because Defoe was born in 1660 - which if I figure right - he was just about 60 years old when he began his first novel -" the first novel in the English language."  http://www.rcwalton.com/Robinson%20Crusoe.pdf
Maybe Betteredge recognized a kindred spirit in his writing.

Some of you have mentioned that you read Robinson Crusoe so many years ago, you hardly remember it.  Same here.  Would anyone be interested in reading it with our group on Senior Learn?

[salan]

I think that's a good idea, Joan P.  Although, we all might be disenchanted when we read it as adults.  It's free on Kindle and I am sure libraries all have at least one copy.

Betteredge was my favorite character in The Moonstone. 

Sally

[Jonathan]

I was sorry to see it end with so many still to be heard from. What a story the succeeding trios of Brahmins, who kept watch over the moonstone for a thousand years, could have to tell. Their precious diamond. Almost lost in the quicksands. Used by an unholy pagan to get himself out of financial difficulties. The diamond's sojourn in England was not a happy one.

People in the know still think that Robinson Crusoe can be discovered anew. How about the other one by Daniel Defoe?  His well-known Moll Flanders. I've never read it, but a quick check gives me the impression that the book is a type of fifty shades of female trials and tribulations in merrie England. Of immorality and grace and sanctimonious twaddle. A curious combination of Drusilla and Rosanna? A bio of Daniel Defoe has the book dealing with 'marriage, bringing up children, work, money, fame, power, adventure, war, politics and religion.' That could stretch the limits of our enchantments.

My Reader's Encyclopedia has this about it: 'The heroine is a woman of extraordinary beauty, born in the Old Bailley. She is twelve years a harlot, five years a wife, twelve years a thief, and eight years a convict in Virginia; but ultimately she becomes rich, lives honestly, and dies a penitent in the reign of Charles II.'

All that in 300 pages.

[PatH]

Jonathan, I read Moll Flanders many years ago, and can recommend it.  The heroine is nothing like either Drusilla or Rosanna, though.  She is cheerfully immoral, and flits from man to man, with many liasons and marriages, and a large number of children, who always end up someone else's responsibility.

[Frybabe]

Uh, oh! I didn't know Defoe wrote Moll Flanders  . Never saw the movie; never read the book.

I enjoyed reading The Moonstone.

[BarbStAubrey]

Ha - Moll Flanders could be enshrined for us today an icon of success - take away our or her moral values of proprietary and family - she used what she had when there were few to no doors open for a women and made a huge financial success with her assets, skills, and her brain. You gotta love her...

As to Robinson Crusoe that whole bit about Friday and the white faced ingeniousness was not my cup of tea. It was written in a way that made me uncomfortable and only years later after reading Edward Said's Orientalism was I able to put words to my uncomfort.

Part of why Betteredge was not my favorite - his obsession to Crusoe made me think he would like to reverse his situation and control others which he often did by using his control of the house granted to him by Lady Verinder - I found him too oily.