Last Dickens, The ~ Matthew Pearl ~ October Book Club Online

[JoanP]

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 to join in.

Click register at the top of the page to create a username and password so that you can post messages in the discussions here on SeniorLearn.

 

Welcome! Everyone is invited!  

We are happy to announce that the author, Matthew Pearl, is joining us in the discussion of his  latest novel, "The Last Dickens," as he did with his "Poe Story"  and "The Dante Club.  Matthew's literary fiction picks up where Dickens left off in "The Mystery of Edwin Drood."  The story of the fate of Edwin Drood is a mystery within a mystery. When young Edwin disappears after dinner on Christmas Eve and his watch and chain are later found in the nearby river, everyone suspects foul play. Could one of Edwin’s acquaintances have murdered him – and, if so, what could their motive be?  Tragically, the mystery is destined never to be truly solved, as Dickens died before he could finish this novel – all that is left are the clues that can be found in the completed chapters. Pearl  sends a partner of Dickens’ American publisher, James Osgood, to the Dickens' estate in England where we meet the "fugitives"  from the characters of Dickens' novel.  Is Edwin Drood dead or alive? Was he killed by his uncle, John Jasper? Or did he somehow escape that fate, possibly to return later?  We are anticipating more intrigue as Pearl's fictional characters search for answers in the author's well-researched fiction.

Chapter discussion schedule October 1-6:     First Installment ~ Chapters 1-10 ~ June, 1870 October 7-10:   Second Installment ~  Chapters 11-17 ~ November, 1867 October 11-13: :    Third Installment ~  Chapters  18-22 ~ June, 1870 October 15-17: Fourth Installment ~ Chapters 23-26 October 18-23: Fifth Installment ~ Chapters 27-29 *Oct. 24-28:  Fifth Installment cont. -  Chapters 30 - 39 October 29-31: Sixth Installment ~ Chapter 40/Historical note Discussion Leaders: JoanP, Andy

Harvard Medical College, North Grove St., Boston

Some topics for discussion  Oct. 24-28: Chapters 30-39 ~  New York, Boston ~ July, 1870

1.  Can anyone find an illustration of the Harper insignia with the flaming torch and the company's Latin motto?  Just how desperate is Harpers to learn Dickens'  ending?

2.  Do you think the Bookaneers are dangerous in their pursuit of Osgood? Do they know what it is they are looking for?  Why is Jack Rogers  in New York?
 
3. How many characters in both novels who were men who "only wanted to belong to a family?" What were their relationships with their fathers?  Do you believe that Wakefield would have gone back to kill his own father?

4. What was Osgood's reaction to Tom Branagan's cable telling him what he found in Grunwald's lodgings?  

5.  Why is Dickens'  ending and Osgood's discovery  important to the Bengali  smugglers?

6. How did Rebecca learn where Dickens was heading the night he left the Parker House back in 1867?

7. Which scenes did you consider the high points of the story as it unravelled in the basement of the Medical College?  Which scenes did you most enjoy? Do you still have unanswered questions?  

8.  Can you describe how you felt as the precious pages covered with purple black ink fluttered down into the inferno?  Has the author left us a glimmer of hope at the conclusion of the Fifth Installment that someone someday might be able to transcribe that last page?


Readers' Guide Questions from FIRST  - FIFTH INSTALLMENTS
Related Links : SeniorLearn's Q & A with Author, Matthew Pearl; 19th century Boston publishing houses ; check out Mr. Osgood here; James R. Osgood Co. closes,  May, 1885 - NY Times ,   Listen to Matthew's Interview at the Parker House in Boston;  Dickens in America - by Matthew Pearl

Some Recent Questions for Matthew:http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/lastdickens/lastdickens_q_a.html

[ALF43]

Andy, don't you wish we could sit down to dinner  with Dickens' and ask him about all of this?

Oh what fun that would be Joan.  I can just see the twinkle in his eye can't you?    An email heading your way.

[marcie]

Yes, Joan, I'd love to talk to Dickens...but you know he wouldn't tell us what he had in mind for Edwin Drood.    It seems he didn't tell anyone!

SPOILER ALERT

I was very much surprised at the identity of Datchery. In Dickens' "Mystery of Edwin Drood," I had a feeling that Datchery might be someone else in disguise but I didn't suspect that to be the case in THE LAST DICKENS. Very well done, Matthew!

Osgood and Tom Branagan are disgusted with Datchery toward the end of our reading selection and Osgood tells him to leave before Branagan calls for the police.  I somehow don't think it's the last time we'll see Datchery. He does seem to have developed a fondness for Osgood, although he had to pay off his debt to Harper by misleading Osgood.

In Chapter 29, Forster shows Osgood a letter found at the auction house, purported to be from Dickens, addressed to "My dearest friend," that says "with my illnesses worsening each day, I shall reach no further than the end of the sixth number of my Drood. What hopes I had for a unique ending. I need not tell you!...."

That news causes Osgood to believe that his looking for more about the ending of Edwin Drood is a wild goose chase. He and Rebecca are to return to Boston.

Osgood says that gaining Tom Branagan's friendship has been worth all of it. At least now Osgood knows the worth of Branagan (whereas he had mistrusted Tom's "gut instincts" before).

I'm looking forward to seeing what keeps Osgood and Rebecca in England (I know they can't return now!!)

[ALF43]

I am with you Marcie, I did not expect Datchery to be an out of work actor/ ex cop junkie, employed by the Harpers.
He, himself, on a ruse, chose to become this figure out of Mystery Of Edwin Drood
.
Do you think that Dickens felt he actually was curing Rodgers when we tended to him?  
"Finally, he would blow softly on my forehead until he thought I had just awakend."

He is genuinely fond of Osgood, though isn't he?

OK, what the hey?Now we find out, from Tom Branagan that Mrs. Barton is NOT dead.  That shocked me.  Did anyone even guess that one?
This is the last day of this installement isn't it, and we've barely touched on the evilHormzad, pirates, and that awful Kylin head on the stick.

[ALF43]

From Wikipedia-
Although it looks fearsome, the (KYLIN) Qilin only punishes the wicked.
It can walk on grass yet not trample the blades and it can also walk on water. Being a peaceful creature, its diet does not include flesh. It takes great care when it walks never to tread on any living thing, and it is said to appear only in areas ruled by a wise and benevolent leader (some say even if this area is only a house). It is normally gentle but can become fierce if a pure person is threatened by a sinner, spouting flames from its mouth and exercising other fearsome powers that vary from story to story.

 In the Qilin Dance, movements are characterised by fast, powerful strokes of the head.

Sounds as if Hermanknew what he carried. with this mythological single horned beast.The Qilin Dance is often regarded as a hard dance to perform due to the weight of the head, stances and the emphasis on "fǎ jìn" (traditional Chinese: 法勁) — outbursts of strength/power/energy.

[marcie]

Yes, I forgot about that, Andy. I was surprised when Tom said that Mrs. Barton survived, "although forever diminished inside and out." Dickens did whisper something in her ear, thinking that she was dying. Was it about the fate of Edwin Drood? Is she so diminshed she can't provide clues?

[marcie]

I can't wait to talk about the end of the fifth installment. In Chapter 29 we're left with Osgood making up his mind his trip has been futile and he needs to return home ASAP. But we know the book can't end there!

[PatH]

Yes, I was surprised too, when Osgood so suddenly decided to give up and go home; he'd been so persistent and determined.  And why should he even believe Forster, who obviously has his own agenda and seems untrustworthy.  Maybe the note is a forgery.

[PatH]

As for writing the second half of the book first: you surely have to PLOT a mystery story backward.  Otherwise you'll back yourself into some corner where what you did in the first half makes the second half impossible, or you will have left out some clues you need.  You might very well at least rough out some of the second half first.  Whether Dickens, used to writing complete installments as he went along, and changing direction sometimes in reaction to people's reactions, would have written a complete second half, I'm not sure.

I think that in real life, Dickens started out knowing how he wanted the book to end, but might still have changed his mind as he went along.

[JoanP]

What a tale both Dickens and Matthew have woven!  It was bad enough trying to guess what Dickens had in mind - but now this! I admit I am completely enjoying Matthew's tale  as it unravels - but  am hoping that Matthew will be like the hypnotized Datchery - and lead us to DICKENS'  intended ending - without fully realizing what he's doing. 

PatH - yes, you'd think that Dickens would have had an idea where he was going with the ending - but if it was as obvious as it seemed in those first six installments - that Uncle Jasper had killed his nephew - how else could he have concluded - except to surprise everyone with twists and turns as Matthew has done - and reveal that things were not as they appeared to be?

Marcie - yes, just like in Dickens' novel, Datchery was in disguise - not a hops farmer from the neighborhood at all - but an ex-addict hired by Harper to follow Osgood.  Yes, that was masterful, Matthew.  Osgood listened to his story and told Tom B. to let him go.  I think that Osgood is much like Dickens - understanding the boy with the unhappy childhood - giving him a free pass.  And it seems Datchery is not going to forget this - and will work for Osgood in the final pages - I'm counting on seeing him again.

But it seems that the letter Forster shows him is proof enough that Dickens regarded him as his best friend, in whom he has confided his ending...exactly as Forster has been telling everyone.  Did you notice   Since the letter doesn't name Forster as his "friend" I find it hard to believe in the validity of this letter - but who else could he have addressed it to?  Georgina?  Pat suggests a forgery  - but who could have, would have done this?

So Osgood, feeling a failure, begins to pack for home, knowing that this is the end of Fields and Osgood.  Rebecca realizes that this is the end of her position - and the end of her relationship, if you can call it that, with Osgood.

[JoanP]

Still some question marks in my notes - before we meet up with Osgood and Rebecca back in America...

I noticed that Forster refers to the quill pen as a "rare forget-me-not"  - given to Osgood by Georgina.   I never did understand why Forster wanted to keep it in the first place - it sounded too sentimental for a man like him to want to keep such a thing. Did he bring it back to Georgy, or did she ask him for it?   And why did she give it to give it to Osgood? Is Forster okay with this?

The other question - Dickens left Forster his chronometer watch - which keeps poor time, requiring frequent shaking, causes F. to comment - "Not that I shall ever know what o'clock it is with this blasted timepiece."  Those who read MED will remember how Edwin took his watch to be set and wound on his last day - and that it was the time on his watch that indicated the time of death.  This subtle comment about the poor time Dickens' watch brings the accuracy of Edwin's watch into question.

And finally, Mrs. Barton!  She lives!!!  See, just because we had a ghastly death scene in a previous installment, doesn't mean she has to stay dead in this one.  Perhaps the same was true of Edwin Drood - and Eddie Trood too, for that matter!

[JoanP]

Happy Birthday, Andy - the last of the Libras, but on the cusp of Scorpio

Enjoy your day!!

[ALF43]

hahahah love it Joan, thank you.  Let's just hope while the cat is away the mouse doesn't play.  Naw, he wants to live.

I will have to go back and read about Dickens watch but didn't he tell someone a couple of installments ago that his watch had not functioned properly since his ordeal when he almost died?  Didn't he say itnever keeps the proper time since that ghastly event?

[JoanP]

Just the thing to leave  to your "best friend"  in your will - a watch that doesn't keep time!

[PatH]

Just the thing to leave  to your "best friend"  in your will - a watch that doesn't keep time!

Tee hee.

Pat suggests a forgery  - but who could have, would have done this?

Forster is the one who produced the letter and showed it to Osgood, claiming it had just surfaced.  He could have forged it to get rid of Osgood by discouraging him.  Forster certainly seems to want Osgood out of the way.

[JoanP]

Well, this is it!  The big REVEAL!  There is so much in this Fifth Installment, it's hard to know where to start.   Have you all finished reading it?  We may have to wait another day or so to talk about some of the big revelations.  

But we can start the discussion at the beginning of the Installment - the scene that takes place in Fletcher  Harper's office (Fletcher took over when James died in 1869, the year before Dickens), back in New York - at the meeting with Leypoldt and Nast...Nast the cartoonist!  I am a bit confused at Harper invoking Ben Franklin - saying the basis of the Harper firm is character and not capital.  What did you think of that?  This is from a man who seems to be stopping at nothing to get the information from Osgood to publish the first edition of Dickens' MED!
Is he saying this for the benefit of Leypoldt and Nast?

Can anyone find an illustration of the Harper insignia with the flaming torch and the company's Latin motto?  Just how desperate is Fletcher Harper to learn Dickens'  ending?

PatH - yes of course, that makes sense - John Forster might have forged the letter in order to preserve the ending he believes Dickens intended!

[Ella Gibbons]

Oh, dear, OH, DEAR!  I've been out of town and so busy for the past couple of days and I'm not finished with Chapter 29 yet.  I do believe the character, as with others Matthew has written about, could be fleshed out and made into a book of their own.  I mean, Rogers, the opium user, and his various jobs after an acting career, in which he employed his acting abilities. 

I was also shocked to read that Mrs. Barton was not successful in her attempt to kill herself and I was going to go back in the book to read about that incident again,  but then found myself so intrigued by the story of Yahhe, the opium dealer, who is telling his story of Herman - Ironhead Herman.

I'm wondering why the Thames Tunnel?  Why not a bridge acros the Thames?  Does the story of the Thames Tunnel have any truth in it?  I must stop and look that up.  I'll be back!

[Ella Gibbons]

WELL, WELL!!  LOOK AT THAT TUNNEL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel

Still being used today as a railroad tunnel!  Quite a history, would you walk down to it?

Yahee and Tom Branagan and Osgood descended the stairs to the lowest level of the subteranean underworld.

Joan, that would be a good picture to put up!

And Matthew should make a book out of Yahee's story!!  Pirates!  A story for children perhaps (without the opium, of course).

[ANNIE]

JoanP,
Here's a link to the HarperCollinsPublisher logo of today.  That's all I could locate.
http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/catalogue/H/49119.html
Am looking for a larger one and here we go but you have to roll down the page to see it.  Looks like Fire over Water???

http://www.scribd.com/doc/159065/logo-harper-collins-publishers

[Ella Gibbons]

I must try to finish Chapter 29 and on to Chapter 30, but I do believe we have many, many stories all wrapped into one to absorb!  Mercy!  My poor brain cannot remember from one chapter to the next!

[marcie]

JoanP found the Harper publishers logo and I've enlarged it a bit but I still can't determine the letters (of course, I can't read Latin so that doesn't help). Can anyone else decipher it?

Here is the logo:

[JoanK]

Where is Ginny, our intrepid Latin teacher, when we need her?

I have read the next section: so much happens, my goodness! Things are coming together in a very clever way. And more 19th century technology to wonder about -- I love it!!

JOANP: you asked me if I voted that Edwin Drood was still alive. I did, but just because it makes for a much more interesting plot. Dickens has strewed the clues around both ways to keep us in suspense. But it seems rather dull after that to have the most obvious thing happen. I had imagined that Jasper had tried to kill him, and perhaps thought he had, but Edwin had managed to escape somehow, and was hiding.

[marcie]

Ginny took a look at the motto, JoanK, but the letters aren't clear enough for her to decipher them.

[JoanP]

Ella, take your time to read Chapter 29 - and then read some of the back posts. We talked about that chapter for much of last week  - links to the Thames Tunnel there too.  I didn't know that it is used as a railroad tunnel today, though.  

I think you'll enjoy reading Chapter 30 - lots of information on the Harper and Bros. Publishing firm.  
 I thought it was interesting, the conversation in Harper's office.  The Harper who is speaking to his young nephew, Philip is Fletcher Harper.  Philip is the son of James Harper, who passed away the year before.  These Harpers are fascinating people - but I can't tell just how ruthless they are.  Fletcher's talk about putting more value on character than profit doesn't ring true to me.  They want to publish Dickens'  novel in the worst way - but first  they need to know what Osgood has learned in England.  They aren't hearing anything from their man, Jack Rogers.  They will pay the Bookaneers big bucks because there is much money to be made from the sale of Dickens'  last novel.  I'm just not sure that they would actually hire people to kill or do harm to Osgood.
 
JoanK - now we are questioning whether the motto on the Harper insignia is Latin.  Maybe it's French? (see the "ez"  at the end of the second word in the motto?  Thanks for clarifying the illustration, Marcie - and posting it.  It's still difficult to make out the letters behind the torch, isn't it?.  There's a prize for whomever comes up with the translation.  

I felt as you did - I couldn't believe that Dickens was going to dedicate the second half of his last novel to proving how Uncle Jasper killed his nephew.  He had to have something else up his sleeve.  I'm liking the idea that the second half was written first - or at least Dickens had it in mind - before he wrote the six episodes that were published.  

[matthewpearl]

Hi gang!

Here's a new interview with me posted on a reading group website, although I'm not sure it mentions anything that you don't know.

After my Texas trip I had to go to New York unexpectedly for something family-related, too, so I've fallen behind once again. I'll jump right into the compilation of questions.

"1. I wonder if Matthew read "I Sailed with Chinese Pirates" by Aleko Lilius.""

I didn't read that -- that's an account of experiences with pirates in the early 1900s. I did read several account from the mid-19th century, though, of sailors who were captured by pirates. Can't ask for research that's more fun than that!

"2. Did Dickens really say John Forster's name at the very last or is this part of the fiction?"

Yes, "Forster" was possibly the last audible word he spoke, at least by some accounts.

"3. Do you know anything about those monkey figurines Dickens kept on his writing desk while writing Drood?"

Dickens had several trinkets on his desks, including some frog statues, too. I don't know anything in particular about the monkeys, but I'm sure the info is out there somewhere.

"4. Matthew, did you research provide any reason Dickens decided on the name "Drood" for his main character? "

Yes, there are many theories--but remind me of the question when we've reached Installment Six, so I don't give anything away!

[ANNIE]

Marcie and Ginny,
The letters look as though one is seeing them in a mirror. Does that help to read them??  Probably not.  Just a thought. Oh, oh, just reconsidered them and am I seeing symbols inside those words that look like Greek.  For instance, delta, omega and epsilon???
I have finished the book as I had to return it.  Lots of info is released in the these last chapters and I won't give it away.  Very interesting possibilities, Matthew.

[JoanP]

Annie, I considered that the Harper insignia  was printed backwards too - but still can't see it...I think that until someone tells us what those letters are, we are not going to be able to translate the words.  I just read again what Matthew wrote in Chapter 30 about this - the context is Fletcher Harper explaining to his nephew Philip  the Harper tradition  of  trusting only Harper's to carry on the Harper publishing house  business -

"let true hands pass on an extinguished torch from sire to son!"

Matthew goes on to write- "This saying was also roughly the translation of the publishing house's Latin motto on the insignia of a flaming torch." So, not French, not Greek - but Latin.

Matthew, we have a number of Senior Learn's Latin students in our midst - who would be interested in having a go at translating the Latin words on the insignia?  Would you happen to know what they are?

Thanks for looking in on us - have not read the Sixth Installment yet and look forward to commentary of the "Droid" name.

I reread Chapter 30 again - and you know, I really don't think that Fletcher Harper wants to harm Osgood - nor does he instruct the Bookaneers to do anything but follow him - and find out what information he has for big $$$.  They really don't know what they are looking for - but whatever it is, I don't think they'd harm Osgood.  They MIGHT steal whatever it is that he finds on Dickens'  ending though.  

So it seems that the real danger to Osgood is coming solely from the drug trade, the smugglers...we know for sure that Herman is after him.  But what does the drug trade want with James Osgood?     Herman has already committed three murders (am I counting right?) - all related to Osgood's quest for Dickens'  ending.

We see that Jack Rogers is back in New York -   Why the disguise?  He seems quite sick - what is he doing on the city docks?

For those of you who read Dickens' MED, do you see Jack Rogers as a parallel to Dickens' Dick Datchery?  What is his role in Matthew's story?  

[matthewpearl]

Most of my notes on the Harpers are in storage right now, but it could be the insignia has gone through several different versions, and some point it might have been Greek rather than Latin, or even written in English. The current insignia is also a torch, though stylized without the motto.

[pedln]

JoanP, I think Jack Rogers is in disguise because he's afraid of something, probably Harper agents, who might think he knows more than he really does.  Might Rogers think he carries subliminal information about the MED ending because of his mesmerism sessions with Dickens?

And who is disquised as the Turk Smoking Opium?  That certainly would be a way for some agent to identify his contact.  Could is be one of the Bookaneers?

Annie, I think you're right -- those letters on the logo looked more like Greek.  I found another logo that had open pages with H and B, then encircled with letters, again looking more like Greek with sigma and delta.  Then PaintshopPro jumped in and froze my machine.

[ANNIE]

Well, Pedl'n!
Who do those PSP people think they are, freezing your machine??

[ALF43]

Pedln- what does he fear?   Why is it that Jack Rogers, AKA Datchery, feels such remorse?  He is after all chasing the opium (his initial reason for becoming obsessed with The Mystery of Edwin Drood), as he follows the Turk to the fish shed and witnesses an "exchange."

Up pops Wakefield again.  I don't mind telling you Matthew, this guy is starting to annoy me!  He's so solicitous-- so unbelievably available at the worst of times.  Who does he think he is questioning Osgood as to his activities in England and making such a snide remark as "I should say you are in quite better form than when I saw you in the company of the police in London covered with  rat bites."
Come on Osgood, be the man!  Belly up and tell Rebecca how you feel.  Why do men feel that women automatically can read their minds and/or their feelings?

I can't find a darned thing about Harpers insignia ladies.

[JoanP]

Good morning!

Matthew, I assume that the old flaming torch motto was changed once the Harper family relinquished control of the publications.  I don't know - there seemed to be a full line up of Harper grandchildren lined up for the future.
So the mystery continues - Greek, French, back on the table as far as the original Harper motto is concerned.  Thanks for showing us the new logo - is that the one you found, Annie?  Far less dramatic than the flaming torch, though.

Pedln!  I totally forgot Imam - (was that his name), the one who is the spitting image of the plaster figurine of the opium smoking Turk.  You think he's in disguise to look like the figurine - as a way to connect with an agent.  Now that's very interesting!  Why couldn't I have figured that out?  We know that Herman stole the figurine from Christies' - but why would Wakefield have made up the story that it was dropped at the auction?  Now we know that Wakefield is associated with Herman - and with the smugglers.

   I've been puzzled from the beginning about why Herman had tripped Osgood aboard the ship.  Now I'm seeing that it was Wakefield's idea - he would come to Osgood's rescue, accuse Herman - thereby gaining Osgood's trust.
But Osgood is totally in the dark about this - still trusts Wakefield.  Especially with Rebecca!  We understand how you are feeling, Andy!
Don't you feel an increasing feeling of dread whenever he appears on the scene?  The word,"oily" occurs to me.  I'm trusting Rebecca's judgement not to fall for him.

Jack Rogers is in disguise because he's afraid of something, probably Harper agents, who might think he knows more than he really does.  Pedln

.  OK, I'll agree with you - but what's he doing out on the dock if he's hiding from the Harper agents?  He's sick too - There must be a compelling reason for him to be out there.  
I'm sensing he is an important character in Matthew's tale - just as he was emerging to be in Dickens'  MED, in which he was seen as an investigator into the mystery of what really happened to Edwin Drood.  Pedln asks might Rogers fear he has retained subliminal information from his sessions with Dickens?  How do the rest of you  explain his fear - and his motive for being in disguise on the dock?

[Ella Gibbons]

The word,"oily" occurs to me.  I'm trusting Rebecca's judgement not to fall for him. -Joan

Yes, that is my thought, Joan! I think Rebecca has more sense than to fall for such a fellow.

Major Harper tells the Bookaneers that Osgood has something that he needs and to get it, but he doesn't know what it is.  I think he is telling them to "tail" Osgood, so we know he, Osgood, is in for some sort of trouble.

"PURE, RAW, CRUDE POPPY JUICE" - pg. 307

Rogers wanted that form of opium?  Was that the most convenient way to ship it?  How was it shipped from India to China?  Later I read that it was in the form of balls of some sort, the balls being found in buried chests.

Was that a true story of the Union General in the Civil War having wounded soldiers lick his glove that had liquid morphine on it?  How awful for anyone to do that?  A disgusting sight, indeed, as Rogers says.

Coleridge and De Quincey (who is he?) were, apparently, in the habit of taking opium.

[ANNIE]

Here's Thomas Quincey who was a writer and an opium user.

http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-de-quincey

[JoanK]

De Quincey was an English writer who is known for writing "Confessions of an English Opium-Eater"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_de_Quincey

You hear mention of him a lot: apparently the above made quite an impact. He apparently knew a lot of people, and was noted for his conversation, so he was a well known figure of the time, even though his works are not read now.

[JoanP]

Ella, sometimes I forget how many years separated Dickens last novel from the end of the Civil War.  We're reading of opium addiction amongst writers, people seeking thrills - and also seeking relief from physical ailments.  It makes sense, doesn't it, that the wounded soldiers from the war - both Confederate and Union, would be looking for something to alleviate their pain...during the war and after.  

"During the Civil War, the painkiller used most often was morphine. The morphine was often given as opium pills. The surgeons of that day had no idea what an addiction was. As a result, most of the soldiers that came back form the war were addicted to opium. Opium, however, was not hard to come by and could be found at a local drug store. If Opium pills were not available, then Dr. Chisolm suggested that first the patient should take morphine by mouth. If this was not effective then the surgeon would administer the morphine by injection. Dr. Chisolm wrote: "Finding that one-half grain of morphine every two to three hours produced no alleviation of the patient's suffering, I tried the experiment of injecting one third of a grain, dissolved in two minims of water, under the skin covering the sternum. Absorption was immediate: in two minutes the patient was relieved; in five all pain had disappeared, and in ten minutes from the time of injection the patient was sleeping soundly, after seventy hours of unmitigated torture."  http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7899/medicine.html

The story of the wounded licking the glove was just too sad to be fiction. Look -

Opium was administered ORALLY  to a massive extent in both armies, troops routinely dosed on a daily basis against malaria and diarrhea
To say administration was casual is an understatement.  Union Surgeon Major Nathan Mayer did not even dismount from his horse to dispense opeum.  Morphine Licking

[JoanP]

Jack Rogers was addicted to opium.  Harper sent him away to an asylum for the "cure" - where they perscribed heavy does of morphine.  Now he has a new dependence  on the pure raw crude poppy juice.  He indulged "every morning and every night."  

He has an addiction, he is hooked and cannot stop.  People of this time were not aware that they were becoming addicted and would be unable to stop at will.  

Dickens concentrated on this addiction in his MED, just as Matthew does here.   Do you have any idea why?  It certainly was a main issue of his time.  I seem to remember that at least one of his family members - and his writer friends - such as Wilkie Collins were addicted - even died from overdosing.  Is this one of the many causes that DIckens has written about in his novels?

Thanks for the links to DeQuincey, JoanK and Annie - I noticed that his father died when he was young - leaving him in an unhappy home - from which he ran away.
Have you noticed how many young boys had left home at this time - and turned to opium?   Unhappy fatherless boys - is that the theme here?

[ALF43]

Morphine and the use of opium has long been a cure as well as a "KILL."

It's the drug of choice in hospice care and frankly who cares if one becomes an addict?  The pain is almost immediate as you've quoted JOan.

Post operative pain is alleviated almost immediately as well and I'm sure with all of these narcotics that the drug companies have since manufactured they are looking more for the $$$ end of it than the immediacy of the results.

Ok back to Mrs. Barton.

[JoanP]

I can see the use of Morphine for medicinal purposes, yes - but for the "ecstacies"  that the well-to-do were seeking, the addictions that followed were not worth the destruction that followed.  Is it fair to say that people at that time were not familiar with the seductive, addictive powers of opium use?


Oh dear, Andy - things are unravelling so fast from the time Osgood and Rebecca set off for home - I forget the chain of events that led them to Mrs. Barton - in New York - and then to Boston to the startling revelations in  the Harvard Medical College's  gruesome basement.  Was Mr. Wakefield with them the whole time?  I forget that.  I just remember being surprised that he was the one who accompanied them to the college - supposedly protecting Rebecca while James ran his errand in the basement.

Let's go back to the ship - Tom Branagan sends a cable - he has found forgeries of the letter that Grunwald had sent to Forster.  Were the forgeries made with the pen that Dickens had used to write MED?  With blue ink?  I do remember that James was "gifted"  the pen by Forster before boarding the ship.  So James shaves off the blue ink - and finds the Parker House ink - which indicates that Dickens had used the pen during the trip to America several years before.

I got that - but please - help me to remember - how did James and Rebecca know where to find Mrs. Barton?  How did they know she was even alive?

[Ella Gibbons]

Joan, I would have to agree that opium is a major theme in this book, if not Dickens' books.  It begins with the possible addiction of Daniel and continues with addictions of other characters, opium traders, smuggling, piracy, etc.

Wars, such as the Civil War, and in our era, the Vietnam War, creates addictions to drugs, understandable in many ways. 

There is this from pg. 308:  (I haven't learned yet how to do the blue quotes in a box, shame on me):

"In going to England, Rogers had sought to fulfill a lucrative mission for Major Harper.  He also had known that Edwin Drood was set among the opium trade and had half hoped that seeing it through Dicken's eyes, he might gain some insight into his own dark history.

And then there is that mysterious TURK SEATED SMOKING OPIUM - the statue that Dickens kept in his study.  Strange thing to have around?