It amazes me that few critics and commentators on "Edwin Drood" bother to consult Forster's book to see what Forster (and Dickens) had to say. According to Forster: "The story I learnt [from Dickens] was to be that of the murder of a nephew by his uncle... The last chapters were to be written in the condemned cell to which his wickedness had brought him. Discovery by the murderer of the utter needlessness of his crime was to follow hard upon commission of the deed; but all discovery of the murderer was to be baffled until towards the close, when, by means of a gold ring which had resisted the corrosive effects of the lime into which the body had been thrown, not only the person murdered was to be identified but the locality pf the crime and the man who committed it. So much was told to me [by Dickens]. It will be recollected that the ring, taken by Drood to be given to his betrothed only if their engagement went on, was brought away with him from their last interview. Rosa was to marry Tartar, and Crisparkle the sister of Landless. Crisparkle himself, I think, was to have perished in assisting Tartar finally to unmask and seize the murderer." <br><br>From this, it seems quite plain to me that Tartar is Datchery. It must be remembered that we have little more than half of the novel. It seems to me that Dickens would have spent quite a bit of time elaborating and filling out Tartar in both his guises until the final surprise revelation. <br><br>We do know that Dickens intended to make much more of Sapsea. Forster publishes a long scene with Sapsea that Dickens actually wrote beforehand and intended to include in a later chapter. Oddly, this extract is never published with the book and seems to be unknown to most commentators. It is undoubtedly the work of Dickens. Forster affirms it is Dickens's handwriting and that he found it with the author's "other manuscripts".