The Moonstone - For Readers Who Finished The Book!

[AGBF]

This thread is for the discussion of readers who have finished reading The Moonstone and are, thus, not worried about learning any of the secrets of the plot! Don't read this thread if you are still reading the book and want to enjoy the suspense!

Deb/AGBF

 

[Haven]

I came over to this forum to offer an apology to everyone. I posted about the book club idea because I truly wanted to be a part of it, but I've since learned that I do not like discussing a book before I've finished reading it, so our chosen mode of discussion just doesn't work for me. In addition, the traditional "one month between discussions" format works best for me, because I need that kind of time to finish a book since I read so many books for work, and thus need that time to actually finish a book club book.

SO, that being said, I am terribly sorry that I haven't been an active participant in the discussions about this book. (I'm not assuming that anyone cares or noticed, by the way.) I'm just feeling guilty that I proposed something, it was well received, and now it appears that I am not participating.

I still plan on reading the book in its entirety, and I look forward to discussing it when I have done so. I'm relieved to see that this thread exists, because I'll pop in here when I'm ready to discuss.

If anything, I've enjoyed learning this fact about myself as a reader--that I dislike discussing books before I've finished reading them. I've been a reader for so long, yet I've never really noticed this about myself.

This sounds dramatic, but I don't mean for it to be. I hate to appear to be ignoring a commitment, and I felt that I owed everyone an explanation.

I look forward to discussing the book very soon!

 

[elrohwen]

Haven, no worries! Personally, I love discussing books while I'm reading, so I really enjoyed having a few threads going with a couple active members to chat with. There weren't that many of us in the active threads, so I'm assuming there are more who, like you, would rather discuss once they've finished. I tend to forget what happens in the first half of the book, so I like to discuss as I go so that I don't forget things that I'm thinking of.

I'm ready for discussion!! Who else is with me?

I also wanted to say that I'm pretty impressed that the first thread for this book was started just about a month ago, and I actually finished the book in a month. I didn't think I'd be able to actually finish in that timeline.

 

[Blackpaw]

Oh not to worry at all Haven! i think i might be with you actually...i didnt start posting until i was finished. I guess i just like to digest before i dissect?? hmmmm, unfortunate (and illogical!) metaphor

 

[Blackpaw]

I really enjoyed the novel...I have never taken to modern crime fiction, but i loved the 'cant put it down' feeling, and all the twists of the Moonstone.i think for me it combined a period of literature/style that i really enjoy, and the genre of mystery which i havent read much of (especially in terms of popular, contemporary crime/mystery).

Im interested to hear from people who read a lot of modern crime/mystery fiction - can you see devices employed in the Moonstone that are still frequently used today? Im guessing that perhaps there will be a lot of tropes in the moonstone that resonate now...?

 

[rainwood]

I thought the book was okay, but not great. The biggest problem for me was that I never got a clear picture of who Franklin Blake or Rachel were or why I should care about them. Neither of them were memorable or all that likable so I wasn't really interested in their romance, their breakup, or their reuniting. And this is from someone who loves, loves, loves all of Jane Austen's heroines and was so emotionally invested in the happiness of the Misses Bennet, Dashwood, Elliot, and Woodhouse. I didn't have that kind of connection here.

To me, the most interesting characters were the secondary ones, like Sargeant Cuff, Ezra Jennings who made such a brief but memorable appearance, the annoying Miss Clack, and the intriguing but mysterious Murthwaite. They seemed more like real people, but their story lines kind of petered out except for Jennings. I'd also have liked to read more about Penelope Betteredge for some reason. Betteredge was a bit of a plodder in his narrative, and his apologies for it only highlighted the issue rather than endearing me to it. And I was surprised I didn't connect with Blake even during his extended narratives except to think he wasn't much of a catch. He seemed like a silly puppy dog much of the time even when telling his own story. And Rachel suffered from me not knowing much about her except her obstinate and inexplicable behavior in the beginning and a couple of the narrators saying she was a good person and a kind soul. In that respect, the structure of the novel worked against itself.

The narration being chronological, but from different people was an interesting device - was it experimental for its time? - but I thought it also contributed to the novel being longer than the story could support. I was impatient at times to get on with it. That may just be me reading it through present-day eyes but much of the detail seemed like filler rather than serving the story.

I'm glad I read it though. I'd never heard of 'The Moonstone' before and never would have picked it up on my own. Thank you for helping me to broaden my horizons. I need to do that more often.

 

[elrohwen]

Rainwood, I thought a lot of your critique on the characterizations was spot on. Rachel seemed like such a stereotype of a woman, clearly written by a man. She got on my nerves more than anything. I did actually grow to like Blake more during his narrative than I had at the beginning, so I didn't dislike him so much, but he was kind of a bland character.

As far as epistolary novels go, no, it wasn't new or experimental - I've even read that they were very out of style by that point. There were some specific aspects of the Moonstone that made it unique though, but the basic style wasn't unique.

In general, I completely agree with Blackpaw - I've read a lot of books from this time period/genre, and not really any modern mysteries, so this was a fun book for me. I actually read it once before, in high school, and I enjoyed it much much more this time around.

 

[doodle]

rainwood, since you mentioned Austen, I have to ask--did Miss Clack remind you at all of Mary in Pride and Prejudice? I agree that I didn't really care much what happened with Rachel and Franklin because the reader is further removed from their characters, but I loved the varying personalities of the narrators, and I loved that the use of that set-up highlights how subjective Truth really is. I also tend to get into how women are portrayed in a novel, so I was very interested in how Clack's portion was portrayed. She's the only female narrator; she's also the only one whose account is tempered by Blake's additional commentary. We're led to believe her account less because Franklin discredits her. Betteredge also discredits women often in his narrative, so it's an interesting juxtaposition having all these male narrators who view women in such a way compared to the strength or independence of women such as Lady Verinder or headstrong Rachel. From that standpoint, it makes it all the more noteworthy to me that by the end of the novel, I still didn't really feel like I knew her character, but why is that? All the male narrators either treat her as if she's a delicate flower in the throes of a fit typical of a woman or are completely baffled by her whims. Compare that to Clack's disgust at how forthright and unfeminine she sees Rachel as being, and I'm beginning to think that with an unbiased narrator, perhaps I would've liked Rachel's character a lot. I sense a contrast between how the men believed they were supposed to regard Rachel (and all women) and how Rachel actually was, but your sense of the true Rachel is warped because you only get that through the eyes of Miss Clack, who believes Rachel should adhere to those standards just as staunchly as the men believe it.

 

[rainwood]

Doodle -

Miss Clack does remind me a bit of Mary in P&P who also used religion/morality more as a reproach and a downer rather than to inspire and uplift. 'You have delighted us long enough' is still one of my favorite lines ever. I probably shouldn't say this, but Miss Clack also reminds me of my MIL a bit minus the leaflets! I will be punished for that statement somehow, I'm sure.

 

[rainwood]

As far as epistolary novels go, no, it wasn't new or experimental - I've even read that they were very out of style by that point. There were some specific aspects of the Moonstone that made it unique though, but the basic style wasn't unique.

Elrowhen -

What aspects of 'The Moonstone' were unique for its time? The intro to my book said it was one of the first mysteries or maybe even said it was the first. Is that right?

 

[doodle]

Doodle -

Miss Clack does remind me a bit of Mary in P&P who also used religion/morality more as a reproach and a downer rather than to inspire and uplift. 'You have delighted us long enough' is still one of my favorite lines ever. I probably shouldn't say this, but Miss Clack also reminds me of my MIL a bit minus the leaflets! I will be punished for that statement somehow, I'm sure.

Bahaha, I promise, I won't tell your MIL! You should just delight her with a house full of leaflets!

Now that I've read the book, I'm going to have to scout out this movie rendition I heard about. I'd be interested in seeing how a film adaptation of this one works since part of the interest of the book is the constant changing of narrators.

 

[elrohwen]

As far as epistolary novels go, no, it wasn't new or experimental - I've even read that they were very out of style by that point. There were some specific aspects of the Moonstone that made it unique though, but the basic style wasn't unique.

Elrowhen -

What aspects of 'The Moonstone' were unique for its time? The intro to my book said it was one of the first mysteries or maybe even said it was the first. Is that right?

Yep, first mystery/detective story (Dickens followed up with a detective in Bleak House, I think, that was pretty similar in character, though the book as a whole wasn't as much of a mystery). I also read that it was the first epistolary novel that have a narrator putting together the pieces of the story. Usually you just get disjointed letters or narratives, so it was unusual to have Blake organizing and commenting on the narratives of the others.

 

[dragonfly411]

edited = wrong thread