John Nieminski's letter puts into words one of my own opinions: I always come away from the latest "ending," "solution," "new light" piece with feelings of admiration for somebody else's ingenuity. Ungrateful, John, though, to advocate the Helena-as-Datchery idea — and at the same time bit the hand that feeds him! (Maybe I misunderstand, and he isn't a high school teacher as his letter seems to imply. [You do; he isn't.)) He's right about the Droodians, or Drooids as they used to style themselves; there are plenty of them. Incidentally, an interesting essay on John Jasper, as a Hero-Villain, no less, is coming out in a journal I edit: University of Mississippi Studies in English, new series, I, due, we hope, by late March or April. To look ahead, the second volume (this is an annual, but the 1980 and 1981 numbers will be out within this calender year) will run an article on the Dover reprints of Wilkie Collins's novels and stories. Subscriptions are $5.00 a year, and can come to me or the Business Manager, English Department, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677. Add one more publication to your library, fans; I expect to publish sometihing in "our line" each issue. Frank Floyd's enthusiasm for Poe reminds me, too: the 1982 issue of UMSE will be a Poe issue, and several items under consideration center on Poe's detective tales.

Back to Droodiana. Carl Larsen's letter commenting on Mr. Grewgious' name reminds me to remind him that Robert F. Fleissner has recently published some pieces concerning names and naming in Drood. This is a subject that needs lots more work; in fact, the much broader subject of names in Dickens's work is open for such readings. After all, in just about all his major, and in all the minor, fiction, Dickens plays games with names. How about the name "Helena," in Drood? It means "light," and one of my observations has been that this novel provides a pretty consistent pattern of imagery (dare I remark that by such means we might foresee a conclusion, even though we may not be able to hammer down each detail of that ending?), if we know-that such consistency in literary technique/art appears in Dickens's other novels. Light for Helena is important because of the wicked Jasper's existing in "shadow," whether it be in his skulking under trees, in the opium den dinginess, or in the shadow created by Grewgious' standing between him and the hearth's — domestic, positive, humane — light when he imparts news of the broken engagement? Enough on this subject.

Ev Bleiler's letter is interesting, although I'd like to make a little clearer one point. Just because Grewgious, and we mustn't forget Edwin himself (othrewise somebody is sure to remind Mssrs. Bleiler and Fisher what silly jackasses they are), are present when Bazzard is shown the ring does not mean that anybody but Bazzard — in my opinion — becomes Datchery. Diekens does make it a point to let us know that the whole showing of the ring has consequences, both in the text itself and in his remarks to Forster, his biographer and confidante. Why, then, show the ring to Bazzard if he will play no future role, related to that little "rose" of a gem? I agree with Bleiler's ideas about the original cover (it is reproduced in the Penguin of Drood) having ambiguities — although, strange to say, the center depicts roses, with just as many, or more, thorns as flowers, shaped like a ring, or crown of thorns. Since Dickens, much more so than, say, George Meredith, among Victorian novelists, was particular about the graphic work in his books, I'd incline to think this cover is of importance. I must say, too, I disagree with Bleiler's notion that "Datchery hates Jasper." The text doesn't say that, although Datchery ie hot on Jasper's trail — for just what we don't know. Or we don't know how many details there would have been to mount up charges against Jasper — as the unfinished text does not give them to us with exactitude. I'm not sure, though, that if "hate" is the right attitude for Datchery, that it would be inconsistent in Bazzard. He is interested in dramatics (and it is ironic that Bleiler uses words like "character" and "role" in dismissing Bazzard as a candidate for Datchery), and if signs of "hate" do come across to us as we watch Datchery's pursuit of Jasper they may result from Bazzard's acting abilities. To say that Bazzard could not be Datchery because that is "certainly no part of his proposed role as agent of Grewgious" is to fall into the procedures of so many previous readers of Drood: eliminate possibilities because you don't see them yourself! To conclude here: I have written a much longer piece on Drood that night clarify certain matters, at least as they would be consistent with Dickens's earlier methods, were it to see print. One word more: if Bleiler wished that he had emphasized Datchery's "emotional situation" more, I thoroughly concure — but remind him that that situation may be ambiguous because of the element of disguise and role-playing inherent in it.