Edwin Drood

[Anna]

And of course, as to the humour, it was completely stripped away in Great Expectations which has some great comedy in it. Dickens was a master of comedic writing.

[aeolium]

also, there's so much of Dickens's humour you can't convey on the telly.

True, vinteuil, but you can make a good effort provided you allow enough time and not try and cram the thing into a couple of episodes. We could have had more of the Deputy/Durdles sparring (and why was he chucking stones in broad daylight when he is paid to do it by Durdles if he 'ket-ches-Im-out-ar-ter-ten'?), and the lugubrious Bazzard (who is not Datchery) as well as Sapsea, Honeythunder, Billickin, Mrs Crisparkle etc. It is the minor characters who give so much life to Dickens' work and nowadays we tend to lose them.

[Anna]

Drood was 2 hours, GE was 3 but the last wonderful Bleak House was 8 hours. I imagine with cutbacks we won't have any more adaptations lasting 8 hours. Gwyneth Hughes is a crime writer and I think this showed in comparison with GE which was adapted by an East Enders script writer. Bleak of course was done by Andrew Davies. As far as I know there is no more Dickens planned by BBC tv this year

[vinteuil]

It is the minor characters who give so much life to Dickens' work and nowadays we tend to lose them.

I agree. For me, the plots are mainly a Hitchcockian macguffin to keep you going: and the major 'heroes' (and still worse 'heroines') are often tiresome - but the joy is the minor characters, the descriptions, the absurdities, the generosity of it all.

[mercia]

What happened to Edwin in the interim?

he'd dashed off to Egypt - that's what he said anyway

And why was Jasper horrified when Grewgious told him of the break-up of Edwin's engagement to Rosa

'cos at that point he thought he had killed Edwin, and that took away his motif, didn't it?



perhaps I misunderstood (and I've never read the book)

[Anna]

he'd dashed off to Egypt - that's what he said anyway
'cos at that point he thought he had killed Edwin, and that took away his motive, didn't it?
perhaps I misunderstood (and I've never read the book)

No, Edwin and Rosa, having been engaged so long (as specified in the Will) realised they would much rather be as brother and sister rather than as husband and wife, so Jasper realised he had no reason to kill as Rosa would never be possessed by Edwin. The Egypt connection was to do with Drood Snr. previously having been there I assume, although that was a little confusing, did Edwin as a child live there?

[DracoM]

< I thought it stretched the bounds of plausibility to have all Jasper, Edwin and the Landlesses all related. >

Me too.

They predictably played the opium / manic depressive / sickness of Jasper very hard, but IMO appropriately, and his bullhying of Rosa was very powerful and very nasty. Julia Mackenzie was a dream - total pro doing less is more so well.

Loved the settings / lighting and atmosphere. Cloisterham well suggested.

Opium den brilliantly done - again less is more - and Princess Puffer was excellent. Alun Armstrong as usual impeccable, unrivalled in these roles.

Much more satisfying than the appalling GE. It's a much thinner book, and the linearity of the plot far more in evidence and thus better adaptable to a concise TV frame, whereas GE sprawls and has at least three plots of some impact.

Was not Egypt where Herbert Pocket went to work? What was there about Egypt at that time that drew Brits?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

he'd dashed off to Egypt - that's what he said anyway

Yes: on his reappearence, to Rosa (having reminded her that he told her that's what he might do).

'cos at that point he thought he had killed Edwin, and that took away his motif, didn't it?

Yes: Jasper (having overheard Edwin & Rosa's conversation when she "broke off" their engagement and misunderstood their Happy exchange to mean that they were going to be married. That's why he "had" to kill Edwin; otherwise he'd (Jasper) "lose" her. When Grewgious told him that they'd broken off their relationship, he (Jasper) "realized" that he'd killed Edwin (jnr) for no reason: Edwin hadn't been a block to his designs on Rosa.

perhaps I misunderstood (and I've never read the book)

No, I don't think you have. And for the denoument, you don't need to have read the book - Dickens never got that far.

I thought it an excellent, imaginative conclusion (as good as we can expect) and a superb televisionated re-telling of the extant book.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Was not Egypt where Herbert Pocket went to work? What was there about Egypt at that time that drew Brits?

The various "trading" posts that led to the creation of the Suez Canal (completed just after Dickens' death).

[aeolium]

Yes: Jasper (having overheard Edwin & Rosa's conversation when she "broke off" their engagement and misunderstood their Happy exchange to mean that they were going to be married. That's why he "had" to kill Edwin; otherwise he'd (Jasper) "lose" her. When Grewgious told him that they'd broken off their relationship, he (Jasper) "realized" that he'd killed Edwin (jnr) for no reason: Edwin hadn't been a block to his designs on Rosa.

Yes - but what was unconvincing to me was that in the TV adaptation it relied on Jasper believing that he had killed Edwin when he had done nothing of the sort, only dreamt about it in his opium sessions. The actual murder he had committed was a year earlier, of the father. It makes a lot more sense if Jasper had really committed a crime on that stormy evening.