ŷ������

Hello, Fellow Moonstoners! :)
I am posting a bit early this week because I have tones of paperwork to do this weekend. But you will find this portion flows nicely from last week.

This week we are picking up the end of the First Narrative: Ch 6-8 (Drusilla Clack, cousin) and
the complete Second Narrative: Ch. 1-3 (Matthew Bruff, family solicitor)

Second Period: The Discovery of the Truth 1848-1849 (several narratives)

Week 5
First Narrative Ch. 6-8
(Miss Drusilla Clack)

After an exchange of letters between Drusilla Clack and Franklin Blake, we learn that Lady Verinder’s death leaves Rachel as the ward of her uncle, Mr. Ablewhite, Sr. until she comes of age or marries. Rachel will live in Brighton with Mrs. Ablewhite and one of her daughters. Soon afterwards, Rachel breaks off her engagement with Godfrey, which precipitates an argument with her guardian. Rachel returns to London with Matthew Bruff, the family lawyer.
_____________________
Second Narrative Ch. 1-3
(Matthew Bruff, solicitor)

With his narrative Mr. Bruff fills in many gaps in the story. He gives us a logical reason why Godfrey has so easily given up his long sought engagement to Rachel. (We also see that Godfrey’s words to Drusilla were true, but incomplete.)

Bruff has had two encounters which give us more information about the pursuit of the diamond, and the likelihood that the Diamond has been used as collateral against a debt. Bruff has met with an Indian gentleman who is seeking information on British money-lending practices. He has also met with the adventurer, Mr. Murthwaite, who is able to give some perspective on the clash of cultures. Together they create a timeline of events related to the diamond and an expectation of what may happen next.


Questions
1. What do you make of Drusilla Clack as a narrator? What does she add to the story?
2. How does Matthew Bruff’s narrative contrast with those we have had so far?
3. In what ways has Collins replaced Sergeant Cuff with a series of amateur sleuths? Do you find this an effective device?
4. Over the course of the story, we have seen Rachel and Franklin both as suspects and discounted as suspects. Are the reasons to believe their innocence plausible?
5. How is the net closing in around Godfrey Ablewhite... if, in fact, he is the guilty party?
6. Have you given any more thought to Roseanna Spearman’s part in the mystery?

I disliked Ms. Clack, so I didn't give much weight to her narrative. Yes, there are points that were made clear through her, but overall, I'd rank her narrative low in reliability.

I'm glad Rachel broke off her engagement to Godfrey. They are ill-suited. And my dislike of Godfrey is justified through Bruff's narrative.

I thought Collins's use of amateur sleuths is an interesting device. They provide different POVs on the mystery.

Drusilla’s hypocrisy and interference is quite repellent, Piyangie. I think many readers agree with you. Even her name is unpleasant.

The first time I “read�� The Moonstone, I was much younger and listening to cassette tapes while doing chores and painting the walls of my first apartment. I missed much of the nuance in this character and saw her as misguided, but with good intentions. It was not until a later reading that I realized what a trial she must have been to the dying Lady Verinder.

I noticed that as well. The Clack has no empathy, or common sense for that matter.

I don’t think I have read of two ‘lovers�� who both agreed to marry and then both agreed to break it off in the space of four weeks. Obviously love had nothing to do with it on either side.

Back to Drusilla Clack - Yes annoying, irritating and insensitive to the needs of others, but like Betteredge, she also made me laugh. In an earlier section she said��.
’I looked through the window, and saw the World, the Flesh, and the Devil waiting before the house—as typified in a carriage and horses, a powdered footman, and three of the most audaciously dressed women I ever beheld in my life.��
But when Godfrey’s father said to her ‘Miss Jane Ann Stamper be d—�� and Miss Clack’s reaction was to rush for her pamphlet entitled ‘Hush, for Heaven’s Sake!�� I actually laughed out loud. Definitely not a person to have around during a crisis or when people are grieving but I think her evidence is important, particularly about the characters of Godfrey and Rachel.

Matthew Bruff is definitely anti Godfrey (not exactly sure why) and his approach is much more business like compared to the other two narrators. His idea that Godfrey needs a large sum of money immediately points the finger of suspicion at him, but if the diamond is locked away in a bank vault he cannot realise the value of it there. Rachel believes he is innocent and has said she knows it but how?

As for Rachel and Franklin there is obviously some huge misunderstanding that is keeping them estranged from each other.
I can understand why Franklin went to the Continent at first, but why hasn’t he written or at least tried to elicit some explanation from Rachel? He hasn’t even bothered to come back for Lady Verinder’s funeral, something I expected him to do. It could be that he can’t be contacted, but running away is no solution for Franklin.

Good point about the funeral! You’re right; that does seem strange.

Another surprise for me this time around is how much I like Mathew Bruff. In previous readings I was caught up in the romance and the intrigue. But this older version of myself finds his straightforward dependability to be a welcome element in this world of more uneven temperaments.

Sheesh, I’m getting old! I need to go and watch Greg Wise smolder as Franklin Blake again.

It was a relief to pass from Clack to Mathew Bruff. I suppose he's more like your typical 19th century gentleman, but I found him more reliable and less chatty and judgemental.

Bruff's testament feels the least biased. Betteridge was biased for his affection and loyalty to Rachel and her mother. Miss Clack was biased for her general dislike of most things and people. Bruff's felt more frank and succinct - providing cold facts.

In modern crime fiction, I usually prefer the amateur sleuths over the pros, but I have to say here that I miss the sergeant! I don't trust Godfrey - he seems shifty, in want of cash, impulsive and clearly hiding something. I'm glad he and Rachel did not go through with their engagement but I never expected them to, to be honest.

I had totally forgotten about the existence of Roseanna Spearman - not sure where her tragic story fits in...