Dickens and me have a – shall we say – troubled relationship. Nothing to do with the shabby way in which he treated his wife, although that certainly doesn’t help. Rather my issues are with his style. Far too many grotesque characters, too many digressions and diversions. So wordy as well. And his female characters – oh watch my eyes roll – maudling and sentimental.
There is one exception to all of that. Bleak House. Superlative in every way and nothing at all maudling or sentimental about Lady Dedlock. I’m afraid though that I must caveat my praises thus. I don’t think I could have read it without the support of a group read and a parallel viewing of the BBC’s superb TV series.
You see, I’ve never recovered from being introduced to Dickens via David Copperfield at the age of 14. A classic case of being made to slog over something for months with a deadly dull English teacher ….
Anyway, this being the 200th anniversary of Dickens’s birth, I thought I’d give him one more shot and so I signed up to The Argumentative Old Git’s readalong of Our Mutual Friend. Not that I intended to read it. I borrowed an unabridged audio – 27 discs. I saw the televised series years ago and remember some of the themes, in particular the environmental thread. Unfortunately, I discovered about 10 CDs into the “book”, that there were far too many threads, characters, diversions and digressions for me to keep track of what was going on while driving. After listening to CD 11 3 times, I surrendered.
My efforts to get to grips with Dickens fared better when I went on the Dickens trail in February.
August is a month full of driving for me and so I got hold of an unabridged audio of Oliver Twist. Who is not acquainted with the story of Oliver thanks to the musical. I remember being taken to Manchester, to a big fancy cinema, to see this. I also played a very mean Mr Bumble (who else?) in the school play. In those days I needed cushions to pad myself out. .. Sadly no longer. So I thought there’s no danger of me losing the plot while listening to this. I can concentrate on how Dickens tells the story. I was in for a surprise or two. All those subplots and digressions ….. this was the first time I knew that the very parochial Mr Bumble had a wife, who delivered the much deserved comeuppance and that that whole subplot was very, very funny. Of course, I knew about the darkness of Sykes and Fagan and the tangled web that poor Oliver cannot escape. And the nuanced portrait of Nancy, the proverbial tart with a heart. But, but, but Dickens drove me to complete and utter distraction with his utter reliance on coincidence to resolve the plot, and the repetition – how many times did Oliver escape Fagan’s clutches, only to be kidnapped once more. It only happened once in the film, proving that a judicious editor can improve on the original. And even though Mark Lester’s cherubic face is forever imprinted on my mind, I do not buy that Oliver could remain so perfectly stain-free and spotless in the environments to which he was subjected. As for the perfect and completely virtuous dull-as-dishwater Rose, now my eyes really are rolling …… and I’m applauding Oliver Stone once more for knowing what to leave on the cutting-room floor.
So you see, my relationship with Dickens remains troubled. It begs the following question: why am I participating in Dickens in December? Not to complete My Mutual Friend (although I do intend to return to it sometime) but to record my thoughts of Oliver Twist before they fade entirely and to read a couple of new novels, penned by those who find Dickens more inspiring than I do. I’ve enjoyed a number of reads this year that have paid homage to classic novels of the past, and although I’m not his greatest fan, I grant that Dickens provides a wide seam of inspiration for others. I’m looking forward to this.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
That read along of Our Mutual Friend was the least successful read along ever: I was the only one who participated! My fault entirely – I’m a poor organiser of such things.
Oliver Twist is an early novel, and yes, there is indeed much wrong with it. But it does, I think, project a very real sense of menace; and I can’t think of any other novel that is so crammed full of iconic scenes & images.
Dickens is, as we can all accept, a very flawed writer. But if you happen to be on his wavelength, as it were, you tend not to focus on the flaws: for if focusing on flaws impedes one’s appreciation of all that is so wonderful, then what is the point? But if you’re not on his wavelength, of course, the flaws are bound to loom large.
For me, as you know, I remain an enthusiastic Dickensian. I tend to agree with critic Edmund Wilson when he opined that Austen & Dickens were the greatest of all British novelists. Except, in my case, it’s Austen I need to work hard to come to terms with. I pan doing that next year.
I’m also surprised that he is so flawed but highly original too. He will never be my favourite writer because I think he overdraws things and I’m just not touched or moved by him but I can still enjoy reading him.
I really need to read Bleak House sooner or later.
I’m looking forward to the books you read which were inspired by him.
I’m a great Dickens fan, despite his flaws. I actually like the theatricality of his writing and his social criticism, although I can’t disagree with you on his portrayal of women.
I wholeheartedly recommend Claire Tomalin’s biography of Charles Dickens. Whether you like his writing or not, he certainly was a remarkable man.
The criticism that Dickens couldn’t portray women is often made, but I’m not sure I agree. Surely Miss Havisham, Betsey Trotwood, Sarah Gamp, Miss Murdstone, etc. are among the most memorable of fictional creations. Fair enough, these are all grotesques and caricatures. But what about Esther Summerson, say? (Many don’t like her as a person, but the point is that she is believable.) How about the immensely tragic figure of Lady Dedlock? Or Estella, who has grown up emotionally crippled, but is sufficiently intelligent and self-aware to realize this? What about such characters as Miss Wade or Fanny Dorrit (both from “Little Dorrit”) who nurse their sense of injury and do themselves more harm than was ever done to them? How about Harriet Beadle (“Tattycoram”) from “Little Dorrit”, who has been adopted, and who resents her position in the household of being neither a family member nor a servant? How about the repressed Louisa Gradgrind from “Hard Times”? How about Bella Wilfer, or Lizzie Hexam (both from Our Mutual Friend)? These all seem to me psychologically acute portraits.
Yes, there is a problem with the purer-than-pure romantic heroines such as Agnes Wickfield, Madeleine Bray, etc. Yes, that was the tradition of the time that the romantic hero and heroine should be innocent and pure, and Dickens never really found a way round this till his later novels, where he was happy to give his romantic heroes and heroines flawed. But if these romantic heroes are pallid and colourless, the same criticism could surely be made also of the romantic heroes – Nicholas Nickleby, Martin Chuzzlewit, the adult David Copperfield, et. – all as dull as ditchwater. The problem, it seems to me, is not that Dickens couldn’t create women (there are enough counter-examples to indicate otherwise), but that he had no idea what to do with the romantic leads. But he was not the first to run into this problem. The eighteenth century allowed their romantic heroes to be less than pure (Fielding’s Tom Jones for instance), the heroines either had to be placed well in the background (e.g. Sophia Western in “Tom Jones”), or, once again, they were merely dull and pallid. It’s a problem, I agree, but not really one that manifests itself in Dickens’ later novels.
Himadri, if only I knew enough Dickens to write an impassioned response …..
in fact, I don’t need to because you’ve covered all points and counterpoints for me. Thanks for that.
I agree wholeheartedly about the dull heroes. I mean of all the leads to introduce to a 14-year-old, why pick dull David Copperfield and saccharine sweet Dora? And even a BBC adaptation of Nicholas Nickleby couldn’t make him interesting.
Dickens was grappling with a common problem as you point out but most of the time not too successfully for this C21st reader. Unbeatable, however, as a C19th commercial proposition.
At this point in time, you’ll only find Bleak Houseand the unfinished-by-me A Mutual Friend on my bookshelves. Purely on the basis of having no characters that I’d love to strangle with their own halos.
I’ll grant you this there are no such characters in Great Expectations either but I hated that for a whole different set of reasons, when I read it back in the days of the BBC Big Read (remember that). However, I have been thinking long and hard about GE recently – the reasons why to be elucidated in another post – and I suspect the time for a reread is fast approaching.
Hey, Himadri, what am I, chopped liver?
I have only read Great Expectations and liked it very much. Right now I’m reading some of his short stories – some which I liked, some…not so much. Maybe I am having a troubled relationship with Dickens as well.
I have heard good things about Bleak House. One day…