Joyce shifts the point of view frequently between characters, leaving me wondering where to place my empathy. The Madam takes the majority of the story, so why focus on Mr. Doran in a manner that takes time from her? By giving each character point of view agency, Joyce examines the story from all sides. I am torn whether this is actually necessary or produces a greater emotional empathy.

This line resembles a previous line in Araby, "The cold air stung us and we played till our bodies glowed." Both instances use glow as a symbol of vitality, life or the soul itself? The light in question emanates against objects (or does light always have contrast, IE the dark). The inner glow radiates against the stinging cold and in this case, it is held back only by the shield of her skin. Is it life? Lust? Possibly the same thing.

What a massive shift in storytelling and tone. Is this the same book? This mini story recounts clear actions over time. The difference in tone matches the generational shift from youth to adults. Despite a lack of inner turmoil the adults appear worse because their story has played out to an unhappy end. This places the earlier stories in a gloomy new context

Just what exactly is he going to do to her? Joyce implies danger by using a violent verb, “threat” followed up by a vague sentence. By leaving it undefined, Joyce pairs known with unknown to devastating effect. “What he would do to her,” is only read in the previous context of threat. Joyce leaves unwritten meanings in his work, a great tactic for eliciting the reader’s imagination or in this case, fear.

The faraway place is a theme for Dubliners but can we see a reason for this? What are the words in each story that give a sense of stiltedness, stillness, stuffiness, and feeling trapped? Each story features a leaving of some kind, but every place is foreign, (more foreign?) when living on an island.

Joyce plays with the formations of the short story. Araby and Eveline appear as two halves to the same tale. One is looking for someone who is not there for him, and the other cannot be there for someone looking for her. These themes answer each other from across time and perspective making a call and response, an answer through an indirect emotional truth.

The big question of course, just what was he doing? Joyce wisely does not say, leaving a reader to imagine the worst thing possible, like a mirror to our fears we project terror.

Both stories feature older people that claim to have knowledge the younger do not. Old Cotter and this mysterious pedophile seem filled with disdain for the world and especially the younger generation. Not all of this is clear-cut dialogue and POV so it could be hard to quantify. A good measure would be to see If the older characters possess a similar vocabulary. All possible variations on verbal themes of contempt and nihilism could be analyzed

What exactly does James know that everyone else does not? He knows the mysteries of the church and also, knows his death is coming. This makes him a mystical figure, and his actions are now construed with different meaning. In this context, his words do not reflect his life so much as glimpsing the world to come. If he was aware of his impending demise, what does he say and do that no other character does?

Of the three characters presented, narrator, aunt, and uncle, only the uncle has any form of physical description. He possesses, beady eyes, smokes a pipe, and has a red nose. Focus on the uncle gives him importance. The narrator (or Joyce as the narrator) does not bother to describe himself (to the reader) only the main focus of his concerns. Does this present a more realistic style of writing? A good determiner, is to count simile, like a, as (noun) as a.. etc.

Mansfield uses a technique here of stating a term then “piling on” the following similar words Dissolving, and disappearing are unnecessary to communicate the original point. So, what is she doing here? Mansfield also uses the technique earlier in the text. She writes, “Spring - warm, eager, restless - was there.” This word-flood feels designed to overwhelm the sense, in theory she could keep going, adding six or even ten more descriptors but that calls attention to itself, defeating the purpose.

In their first encounter, the Fat Man believes he knows Leila, he recognizes her face from yore. The Fat Man is a purveyor of information relating to Leila. After their dance, it is Leila who does not know him, making his role transactional. So is the Fat Man real? He does not have his own agency, backstory or wants. Instead, he is either a literal or metaphorical harbinger, an angel portending her fate.

This is the second time Lucille looks out the window when uncomfortable. Owl, Window, Star and Wings are nouns with connotations of the unknown, something beyond the physical present. Leila longs to escape by removing herself from an area. Fleeing, is a childish way of confronting a problem. At the end of the story, Lucille completes her transformation into adulthood by escaping in an action that makes her happy, (dancing) instead of storming off.

Mansfield’s writing is an explosion of color and sense. Food is the perfect combination of both, visual excitement with bursts of experience. Mansfield writes of, strawberries, fish, ice, butter and pineapples. Is this another way of referencing the richness of her world? Strawberry evokes red, and butter and Pineapple, yellow. I am curious to count up “food-Words” and see how many elicit specific colors, if she is only using food as an adjective for describing the place, or if it has any real impact on the plot or character’s personalities.

I assumed Titania was a reference to a character in a Midsummer night's dream by Shakespeare. In looking it up, I see it is also, another reference to another flower. Flowers pop up everywhere in this book. The characters reference flowers, wear flowers, are named after flowers (Rose), and inhabit a world filled with blooming flowers. If they continue to be a constant, we can look at mapping their appearances, or lack of as having meaning from the author. This, more-than-a theme, makes the chapters feel less distinctive. As if the characters inhabit Mansfield’s stories, but do not drive the action nor impart their belief system on their own world.

William calls this worker “filthy.” True, the man is covered in some soot like black substance, but his moral judgements extend beyond just the physical appearance. What is William’s background that he should make this judgement? Earlier, he mentioned going to sleep with a “old towel with a knot in it.” While I assumed this to be the signs of poverty, his comment on the railway worker indicates his status as moneyed. Frugality is practiced by the poor out of necessity however the wealthy could also wish to possess this trait. The rich buy toys, gamble, and throw garden parties, but all of that can be justified as necessary to them.

A quick search of the text reveals 103, instances of the word “something.” The word has a myriad of meaning but it stands in place of the unknown. Here it is used in rapid succession four times. Mansfield is a writer with precise descriptions, so what is she trying to say? In these four cases, the word something comes before a description, pink, soft, new, different. Mansfield by using a vague term before an exact word, elicits and draws out the nature of that thing and applies it broadly to everything the reader might know and experience.

Mrs. Kember is described as a caricature, previously, her husband, is described as a handsome man from a novel. The descriptions emphasize their ‘unrealness’ from their reality-based setting. They also are both described as forms of art. She is a drawing; he is a novel. Did Mansfield mean to use a similar taxonomy of description, to liken the two characters? If so, other words in the same class also apply. She is a watermelon and he, a cantaloupe, the Atlantic and Pacific, a bee and a wasp, a mouse, a rat. These words signify something of difference, yet an interconnected nature.

From the beginning to this point I counted 17 words that evoke water in some way. These words range from beach and bay, to drops, splash, and finally Sea, dew, streams, the physical modes of wetness. This amount of description cannot be sustained for every location. To describe so many references to the houseness or fieldness of a place will leave little room for character or plot. Is it that the beginning of the book requires more description? Or does water and dampness play a part of the story?

The original drugging of Mr. Franklin by Dr. Candy is simply to prove that medicine works. When Mr. Candy himself is ill, three doctors cannot agree on proper treatment. So just how primitive is medicine in the Moonstone? Mr. Bruff, on the other hand, is brought in as witness to prove the truthfulness of a medical experiment. A lawyer, by virtue of profession, cannot prove that science functions but it demonstrates the values of Victorian society that his word is trusted. Up until the moment of the experiment, Bruff shields himself with his papers, with the rules that dictate Victorian society. Law operates on the binary, true or false, legal or illegal while medicine (before germ theory) is mystical and suspicious. Today, Lawyers’ can exploit loopholes to prove anything, while doctors are revered for their knowledge, making an almost complete reversal from the Victorian Era.

What do those with physical disabilities know, that others do not? The Moonstone suggests an almost mystical connection between knowledge and physical abnormality. Gooseberry is the latest in a line of characters, noted for his difference in appearance, and presentation of new information. Rosanna Spearman wrote a new version of events in a letter. With her Death, the letter was not passed to anyone but someone who shared her difficulties, Limping Lucy. The case seems further stuck until Ezra Jennings, the sickly Opium addict reveals further writing from Dr. Candy. Gooseberry, with his odd eyes, sees the transfer of diamond where others are fooled. Of all these characters, Gooseberry performs an action, in observing, that reveals further information. The other’s only, observe the actions of others.

The Moonstone has a dry and sparse narrative. The characters describe their world through rigid social codes. The proper way of doing things is so thoroughly de regueur that any deviation is wildly exuberant. The fantastical imagery conjured by opium nightmares is startling, for they operate in what appears to be a separate universe. The most fascinating moments in The Moonstone, are the breaking of these society's norms. The desires, dreams, lust, shame, and hallucinations peel back a layer of stiff reality to reveal the true state of their world, just under the politeness, chaos reigns. Collins suggest that only their manners keeps them at bay.

How are the Indians described in the moonstone? This question is a natural basis for analysis as it is a time capsule of Victorian belief. At the beginning, the Indians employ mystic arts of magic and juggling but as the story progresses they evolve in method. The Indians use brute violence, trickery, and guile, but in doing so, they prove through perseverance a strangely high esteem. Mr Bruff disparages his fellow Englishman Septimus Luker and shows respect to the leader of the Indians. Despite the Indians goal of “stealing” what is not theirs, they are also not disparaged as thieves nor mocked for their beliefs, such as Miss Clack. The Indians are afforded a strange dignity for being “murderous foreign thieves.”

The Characters spend chunks of time describing other character’s thoughts and actions. The plot moves along at a glacial pace in favor of lush writing about inner motivations and lives. In more modern novels, characters describe or prove themselves through dialogue and action. But describing oneself gives a character clear agency, motive, and action. As the character is in control of themselves, This demonstrates tension, for they are not passive but drivers in their own story.

In a multi viewpoint story like the Moonstone, the next narrator is a choice. Why have one character relate a part of the story and not another? Obviously some characters must play a role in the action but others serve an observational and descriptive function. Betteredge swapped with Clack produces the same opportunities for wit and humor, although stemming from this last chapter, I expect this lawyer to ACT. At this middle stage of the book, the next narrator, villain, hero, and thief have been laid out. Can the reader assemble the puzzle with only these sections? I predict the next narrator to be, Franklin Blake or Murthwaite.

The three “hindoo” jugglers desire to steal the diamond but do so only for their strong belief in their religion. The original diamond theft by Colonel Hearncastle was done for greed, and implied that the current thief is also motivated by an evil desire. Is there a moral purity to acting out of religion from the Christian side? An equal counterpart to the Indians? If so, Ms. Clack is not the saint she likes to appear as, frequently clashing with others. This story, while having an undercurrent of religion, does not present as an East VS West battle of religion or philosophy. More so it is an exciting backdrop for a most English story.

When reading in first person point of view, it is common to forget the narrator themselves and become absorbed into the story. Betteredge’s character kept jarring me out of the narrative with his extremely “male” observations. Is this Collins’ intent? Or just a product of the times out of place with today? The first pages from any character will frequently describe their world, to give the reader a sense of personality, such as brushing hair. Betteredge’s narration focused on the silliness of female behavior and cast moral judgement upon it. I believe this is meant to be “cranky” old man behavior even for the Victorian times. Even if this view of women was common, there is no reason to mention it so frequently except to define his character.

While we speak of the colonized and colonizer mentality, between India and England, I wonder how much English people have internalized their own view of themselves from the point of view of the upper class. “Board wages,” are vastly reduced wages, just enough so that they can eat. While if there is no fish, the fisherman does not eat, nor the blacksmith if there is no metal but the servant does not entirely depend on an abstraction for their wages. The family has not packed up and gone away for long, and yet the loyal servants, people, who live with this family, immediately have their wages garnished. I have the notion the servants accept this view of themselves and this system because their internal views do not come from themselves but from those (the Verinder family) in power.

The Moonstone was taken from the Indians. The Indians want to take it from Rachel Verinder, and somebody has taken it from her. In these events, the moonstone has slipped from the religious to the rich to an unknown thief. By it’s very nature, it causes greed and thievery to ensue. When can taking be considered good? The quicksand is mentioned to give it importance in the story and now we finally have a use. It is currently being used to hide a garment covered in incriminating paint. More so than hide guilt, the quicksand can cleanse the brown paint right off the dress. This place is mentioned in an almost cursed manner but it has the potential to be the most honest thief in the story. If the Moonstone is deposited in the quicksand, it will take away the guilt and cleanse it of blood and greed. The quicksand is a moral equalizer that might end up taking the stone simply because it is indifferent to its charm. From where it came, it shall return.

Why does Betteredges disagree in searching the servants quarters? A crime has been committed, an injustice but in the ensuing action, no further wrongs should be committed. Betteredge, like our first narrator, believes in a world of rules and laws. Our first narrator is astonished that in a large battle of British killing Indians, his cousin Colonel Hearncastle kills not for the country but for his own profit. In both instances, a strict moral code must be observed and larger wrongs should not break down into a chain of crimes. What is the basis for this? Simple politeness cannot be the sole factor. Collins writes of a belief that the only thing preventing humans from stomping off the cliff of reason into an abyss of chaos is an upholding of formality. No matter how small it seems, letting a wrong be an independent event that starts no domino effect is of utmost importance for society.

Who defends an unjust system the most? Those who benefit or those who aspire, to benefit? Trumpery means worthless, trash, and in naming a fellow worker’s trade as such, Betteredge reveals his beliefs. One that supports a strict class and social hierarchy. The Gardener is beneath the Sergeant and conversing with him on the same topic “lowers” him. Betteredge also knows his place, and only feels disgust, he does not vocalize it. Betterdge not only reveres the high class family but carries out their beliefs to the detriment to himself. He is like a man staring into a window at a roast he cannot touch while thanking the family for letting him see it. It is sad to see him so grateful for the crumbs of the wealthy at the expense of himself and his own family. He does not aspire to create his own wealth, or independent life, only serve another.

Betteredge is a strange character, in the sense that he is entirely defined by others and not himself. He performs very few actions, and spends a large amount of his given time describing his wife, daughter, lady Verinder, the family he serves and most importantly Robinson Crusoe. What most defines him is the repeated action of a re-reading the same book, almost as if it was a personal bible. An interesting side note would be to graph how much of his descriptions are of those around him.

While the first narrator, invokes, truth, honor, and swears of his duty as a soldier, Betteredge's honesty can be ascertained as believable through his lack of self, his humbleness and plain character in which he prefers to describe a world inhabited by others. Certainly that is a man to be trusted in describing a following fantastic tale. Collins seeks to reassure the reader that the narrators are trustworthy

In writing of the great gem, Collins does not describe it with an English origin that is relatable. A lump of coal dug from the Earth will be familiar to the reader. Mining both can be a similar process. Instead, it is set in the “exotic” head of an alien god and is imbued with powers beyond our understanding. In framing a treasure this way, Collins seemingly appeals to the reader’s sense of adventure and curiosity. Collins is fulfilling a promise, delivering what made a reader pick up the book in the first place.

“The Moonstone will have its vengeance yet on you and yours!”

The last words of the dying Indian, a curse spoken to the narrator’s cousin, is excellent foreshadowing that sets up the rest of the story. In the back of the mind is fear of a great wrong done. How and where will vengeance be exacted? The Moonstone was published in 1868, ten years earlier, The Sapoy or Indian Rebellion against British rule claimed the lives of thousands of British soldiers and possibly hundreds of thousands of Indians. In this recent context, the curse can be understood as a lingering unease of a truly bad event. It is only a matter of time before hostilities boil back to the surface for prior deeds and wrongs that cannot be undone. Can it be the guilt of a penitent man?