The Moonstone, Wilkie Collins

The Moonstone (1868) is another classic detective story of fame that I have chosen to read. It's written by the acclaimed Wilkie Collins (1824-1889). According to Wikipedia, among other sources, this is the first English detective novel.

The Moonstone is a diamond which was looted from a holy Indian site by the English, which eventually falls into the hands of Colonel Herncastle. It's a flawed diamond of significant size and quality. There are several Indians who are looking to retrieve it for their temple. The Colonel Herncastle is ostracized by his family. The diamond is considered to bring with it a kind of curse. Therefore, as the Colonel is dying, he bequeaths it to she, Rachel Verinder, whom he considers the original instigator of the ostracism on the date of her first birthday after his death.

The story is divided into several parts. Part one follows the narrative of an elderly servant, Gabriel Betteredge, who has served Lady Verinder's family for pretty much his entire life. He's an honest man with a few interesting traits that stand out. First, he loves Robinson Crusoe, a book which is his favorite literary retreat which he mentions several times throughout the narrative. Initially he served as a grounds keeper. But in his older age, he is turned into a well respected servant. It's hard to imagine working into your 70s with never a retirement in sight.

After the first detective investigates the puzzle but cannot solve the case. He therefore sends for a Detective Cuff, who is renowned for his reputation. He seems to have been able to solve the mystery of the case, but the resolution is never come to. The theory is that it was never stolen, but rather that Rachel stole her own jewel to sell it for some unknown reason.

Roseanne kills herself over Mr. Franklin. She had fallen in love with him, apparently, and he ignored her. It's unknown why she might have felt that she had some kind of possible relationship with him. She is referred to as 'ugly.' The narrator does not know, either, why she fell in love with him.

At the end of part one there are several mysteries left unsolved.

Thus far (I am at the title of part two), I am quite impressed by the book. I really love how authentically British the narrator's voice is. He has this charm and method of throwing together a phrase that has a real charm to it.

Part two is narrated by the character of Miss Jane Ann Stamper. However, she is more often referred to as Miss Clack or Drusilla. The character is a fanatical Christian. As such, she is a nuisance. Her favourite thing to do is to distribute books and pamphlets promoting her Christian cause. She does everything she can to coerce people to read it. She goes so far to say that Rachel's mother had not properly converted to Christianity, and therefore would not have achieved a position in heaven. By doing so she burns her bridges.

The mother, Julie Verinder, dies a few days after she makes her will. She had something for Miss Stamper. But rather than talk about the something she had set aside for her, Stamper insists on the subject of her views on how life should go.

There is little about the Moonstone in this part. It is more about the situation Rachel Herncastle gets into. Godfrey, her cousin, wants to marry her. He and she both change their minds. His father is most upset by this. He is the brother-in-law of Julie. Julie had named him as the person as her executor. In revenge for the breakup between her and his son, he forces her to leave the home she grew up in. The house 'was hired in his name', so I am not sure if that means it is rented or exactly what it is. In any case, her lawyer invites her to stay in his home.

It is here that the narrative of Miss Drusilla Clack, aka Miss Jane Ann Stamper, comes to an end. It wasn't nearly as charming as part one because of the voice of the narrator. Now, this is an excellent accomplishment on the part of Wilkie Collins. He manages to create two very distinct voices within the novel. I haven't yet read another novel that has done the same (although, to be sure, there must be another).

I found part two to be a bit dreary, although it was in the last scene quite good.

On to part three. Part three is narrated by Mathew Bruff, an honest lawyer who works on behalf of Rachel. The voice in this case is different again from parts one and two. Part one had a lot of sentimentality. Part two a kind of crazed well meaningness. While part three is a cold and brief accounting of his perspective on the mystery of the Moonstone. He has the theory that the Moonstone is pawned for a sum of money to be repaid in a year, or the diamond defaults to the lender. The lender is one Mr. Luker who "stand(s) at the top of the prosperous and ancient profession of usury..." If this is the case, it casts my glance on Godfrey, since he has been the one shown to require a large sum great enough that he voided his pending marriage to Rachel.

It truly is remarkable how adept Wilkie Collins is in adopting a variety of voices.

Part 4: Third Narrative Contributed by Franklin Blake. It is through this narrative that we discover that Rachel saw Franklin Blake steal the Moonstone. However, if his narrative is to be the truth (which I think is Collins' intent), then he never meant to steal it at all.

It is revealed in this part that the evidence against him held by Roseanne was in fact his sleeping clothes with the paint stain on it. She buried it in quicksand in a strong box attached to a metal chain. She leaves the information on how to find it with her trusted friend.

Franklin learns from Rachel that she witnessed him taking it, but his narrative shows that he did not know what he was doing. Nor was the diamond in his possession following the theft. So, this was the reason that Rachel hated him, but not enough to give that information to the police.

A kind of practical joke was played on Blake that night by the Doctor (Dr. Candy) who had given him a dose of opium. While under the deep drugged sleep, he had stolen the diamond. Dr. Candy suffered an illness that ruined his mind, so it is from his recorded ramblings that reveals the joke played on him. His assitant, Ezra Jennings, informs Blake of the joke when Blake tries to interview Dr. Candy for whatever information he had. Dr. Candy's illness stole the large part of his memory, and therefore he was unable to extract the confession directly.

While many of the narratives had a strong distinct voice. However, Blakes voice in this case isn't terribly dissimilar from that of the lawyer, Mr. Bruff.

The final part is told by Ezra Jennings. The voice I referred to before isn't conferred so much by the inner vocabulary of the narrator, but by his feelings and his readings of other peoples' feelings towards him.

He is a sick man, addicted to the relief of opium. His internal motivations are selfless. He is attempting to recreate the situation, with the help of some willing and some unwilling participants, the night of the Moonstone diamond's disappearance. It is sad to read how people judge him (and other people who are physically unattractive). He reacts to Miss Verinder's positive treatment of him. His sacrifices to make this experiment work is also a result of the kindness and respect that Blake had given him. (It would appear that the gratitude of the ugly for the kindness of the beautiful has a profound effect on the victim of physical circumstance):

"I can't treat you like a stranger, Mr. Jennings," she said. "Oh, if you only knew how happy your letters have made me!"

She looked at my ugly wrinkled face with a bright gratitude so new to me in my experience of my fellow-creatures, that I was at a loss how to answer her. Nothing had prepared me for her kindness and her beauty. The misery of many years has not hardened my heart...

At this point, I have concluded the tale. As expected, Godfrey was at the bottom of the theft. Blake had been an involuntary accomplice. Godfrey's crime catches up to him. When he gets the diamond back from the loan, he attempts to run away with it. He is watched, however, and murdered by one of the Indians whose mission it was to retrieve it.

They are unable to repossess it. The Indians successfully bring it back to their temple. Their reward is a punishment for betraying their caste. The diamond is seen at the temple. I think that perhaps the diamond had been stolen from their temple in the first place, and was restored to it.

The book was quite good. Although not as intriguing or well written as that of Monsieur Lecoq, the creation of Émile Gaboriau. In other ways, in particular the numerous narrative voices which were skillfully used, it is unique and masterful.