Problem with Dickens.

[Infinitefox]

Does anyone else here find his stuff hard to read? His sentences seem to be un-necessarily complex. Also he uses a lot of words that, even though I know the meaning, make it hard for me to connect and understand what he's saying, if that makes any sense. It gets to the point where I put the book down and can't finish it.

[mayneverhave]

I have a few problems with Dickens, myself. None of them, however, involve his being difficult.

I'm not sure leveling the charge of erudition or complexity against an author is really a valid criticism.

[Jozanny]

I'd echo mayneverhave nearly word for word here Infinite. Dickens can occasionally strain the humanity of his characters by pushing them too perilously close to caricature, but he is no Henry James, which in terms of meaning is a compliment. I find his diction fairly straight forward, which may be part of his staying power. Can you offer a sample passage to highlight your difficulty?

[JBI]

Dickens was good, but not for all the books still in print. As far as a popular one like Hard Times goes, that is only good to an extent - the language comes nowhere near what he achieves in Bleak House.

I think the problem with Dickens is that he seems a very divided author. There are the good books, which have a more poetic style, whereas there are the rougher books, which rely more on social commentary, and less on style.

I think I'm of the camp that rejects the whole F. R. Leavis reading for moral notion, and when I choose to read novels, I am looking for an exploration into how the author handles his writing, of which Dickens does superbly half the time, but the other half flops.

I'm probably a minority opinion on this, but really, half his works seem too base, too periodic, and not poetic enough. He seems to have achieved the most when he was minipulating language more than pounding out opinions.

[Zee.]

I've only read Hard Times and Great Expectations, and that was enough for me.

I find his writing bleak, uneventful and boring.

[Jozanny]

Not that I want to defend Dickens, but Hard Times came at the end of his career lima, and he was exhausted, and he was not capable of being England's Steinbeck-- in the sense that Steinbeck used social plight as a deliberate protest. I rather like Great Expectations.

I need to amend that. Dickens was a Victorian Steinbeck, but he did not have Steinbeck's ability to capture the trauma of the underclass in an industrial context, or, to make mass suffering its own metaphor. Steinbeck is a real leftist in this sense, whereas Dickens, I mean yes, he saw inequity, but his solutions for it were sort of via a sentimental indirection.

JBI, I have read enough of Dickens to have a glimmer of what you mean, but Charles was not the *writer's writer* that made up the genius of Flaubert, James and company. Dickens was much closer to being the public romance novelist, which some scholars deem Princess Casamassima, trying to save it.

But that was Henry James's problem in his mid-career. He could not be Dickens by virtue of castigating Dickens in his own work.

[Zee.]

It doesn't matter.
His name is on the novel - like the rest of his.
And it was crap.

[Dr. Hill]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Dickens was a great author. Tale of Two Cities is an epic novel.

[Zee.]

It's a matter of opinion.

To me, his writing is boring and dry.

[Jozanny]

It's a matter of opinion.

To me, his writing is boring and dry.

Aren't you shutting the door on learning how to offer more nuanced critiques of successful authors with such sweeping statements?

Dickens is a great writer, flawed, like many, but he was the franchise of his day lima. No lover of literature can dismiss this.

[Zee.]

Why must I enjoy Dickens?

I yes, love literature, it doesn't mean I MUST love Dickens. And i don't, so I won't pretend to.
I felt no connection to his books, for me to enjoy a book and want to continue reading it, it must intrigue me - his work doesn't.

[Hank Stamper]

i dont think dickens ever set out to be poetic - his books are nearly always a satire on society and he is striving to make a clear point about society's ills, im not saying you cant be poetic if you are doing that, but for dickens it was more important to get his message across than dress it up in flowery language

it has to be remembered as well that much of what he wrote was serialised and he was churning this stuff out according to deadline, which was obviously a constraint on his style.. that being said, i dont think there is anything wrong with his style.. i enjoy his caricatures (even if this can sometimes err on the ridiculous) and find him very amusing at times..

[hoope]

Dicken is one of my fav. novelist , infact he was the first i read for. So i adour him alot .
About his writing .. YEA! some of them are a bit too complex to read .. he uses high & difficult vocabulary but yet not in all of his novels . I noticed that in HARD TIMES .. however Christmas Carol was great , Oliver twist .. and many others i find it not hard to read .

[hoope]

It's a matter of opinion.

To me, his writing is boring and dry.

Well it aint dry .. nor boring ..
He has a great imagination & if he's not your type of writer Yet no need to describe it boriing .. since you mentioned that you didn't read much for him.

[wessexgirl]

i dont think dickens ever set out to be poetic - his books are nearly always a satire on society and he is striving to make a clear point about society's ills, im not saying you cant be poetic if you are doing that, but for dickens it was more important to get his message across than dress it up in flowery language

it has to be remembered as well that much of what he wrote was serialised and he was churning this stuff out according to deadline, which was obviously a constraint on his style.. that being said, i dont think there is anything wrong with his style.. i enjoy his caricatures (even if this can sometimes err on the ridiculous) and find him very amusing at times..

:thumbs_up I agree completely. I love Dickens.

Lima, no-one says you have to like him, but you can't say he's boring, or crap. His novels are peopled with characters, sometimes as Hank says, verging on the ridiculous, but they are memorable. I don't think there's another writer, apart from Shakespeare, where his characters are so widely known, even by people who haven't necessarily read them. These characters have taken on a life of their own outside of literature. Think of Oliver Twist with the Artful Dodger and Fagin; or Mr Micawber and Uriah Heep from David Copperfield. What about Miss Havisham from Great Expectations, or Wackford Squeers and poor Smike from Dotheboys Hall in Nicholas Nickleby? Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without A Christmas Carol and Scrooge and Tiny Tim. Mrs Gamp has even given her name to an umbrella. These are just a few of the many. There are loads of weird and wonderful characters, and I think literature would be a lot poorer without them and their brilliant creator Dickens. He certainly is not boring or crap.

[JBI]

i dont think dickens ever set out to be poetic - his books are nearly always a satire on society and he is striving to make a clear point about society's ills, im not saying you cant be poetic if you are doing that, but for dickens it was more important to get his message across than dress it up in flowery language

it has to be remembered as well that much of what he wrote was serialised and he was churning this stuff out according to deadline, which was obviously a constraint on his style.. that being said, i dont think there is anything wrong with his style.. i enjoy his caricatures (even if this can sometimes err on the ridiculous) and find him very amusing at times..

He was writing fiction, not non-fiction. It is fair to critique his books that use a worse style. I think style was important to him, hence his language, but in some books, probably because of his money-seeking desires, he simply flopped with the language. I think it is a fair critique.

[Hank Stamper]

He was writing fiction, not non-fiction. It is fair to critique his books that use a worse style. I think style was important to him, hence his language, but in some books, probably because of his money-seeking desires, he simply flopped with the language. I think it is a fair critique.

im not saying it is not a fair critique... he was writing fiction yes, but he was commenting and reflecting on something that he thought was wrong with society and satirised that by inventing ridiculous caricatures to prove his point (bumble, pumblechook, bounderby, etc)... style is obviously important to most serious authors and dickens is no exception, but i dont think he was as preoccupied with style as much as he was with substance, certainly when he had something important to say (personally i think he flopped in that sense with hard times... not because of language, but because he didn't want to antagonise the mill owners and so his account of life in the industrial north was somewhat watered down).. but like you say, profit motives obviously did have a massive influence on his work and that can't be overlooked

[Hank Stamper]

and as somebody has already mentioned, a tale of two cities is an epic novel, and that has nothing do with caricature and everything to do with being a great story teller

[Hank Stamper]

I don't think there's another writer, apart from Shakespeare, where his characters are so widely known, even by people who haven't necessarily read them.

i think this is a really good point too.. it doesnt necessarily prove that he is a great writer in terms of style, but it is demonstrable of his value to English literature that is unsurpassed in recent times

im not sure how many henry james characters people who are unfamiliar with henry james would be able to reel off...

my point is, style isnt everything...

[Dr. Hill]

I think Dickens had a masterful hold of the English language, he just was not afraid to show it and didn't dumb it down for anyone. He was a brilliant writer, as far as prose goes.

[mayneverhave]

I think I'm of the camp that rejects the whole F. R. Leavis reading for moral notion, and when I choose to read novels, I am looking for an exploration into how the author handles his writing, of which Dickens does superbly half the time, but the other half flops.

I'm probably a minority opinion on this, but really, half his works seem too base, too periodic, and not poetic enough. He seems to have achieved the most when he was minipulating language more than pounding out opinions.


i dont think dickens ever set out to be poetic - his books are nearly always a satire on society and he is striving to make a clear point about society's ills, im not saying you cant be poetic if you are doing that, but for dickens it was more important to get his message across than dress it up in flowery language

I'll defend JBI and Joz here. By poetic, I doubt JBI meant this to mean flowerly. "Flowerly" in fact is more of a sweeping, perjorative way of generalizing all poetry, when its really more characteristic of the romantic movement - and even then "flowerly" grossly underestimates the quality of the poetry.

By poetic, we mean a general ability with language that involves vividness, a sense of rhythm and cadence, in short, a very lyrical and descriptive prose style. How a writer manipulates his language is, in my opinion, the very way in which we measure the writer's greatness. Reading Paradise Lost, as Samuel Johnson might, purely for moral messages, and ignoring the highly poetic and grandly vivid language of the verse means you might as well read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia.

[wessexgirl]

By poetic, we mean a general ability with language that involves vividness, a sense of rhythm and cadence, in short, a very lyrical and descriptive prose style.

Dickens work is not vivid???? :confused: Even if he is satirical, ironic, funny, and trying to convey a message, his language is all of those things. How else do we conjure up those images of his characters, stories etc. which are so recognisably "Dickensian?" See,there's even an adjective for it.

[Zee.]

Still think his work his boring..

I could substitute that word over and over, doesn't change the fact.

[mayneverhave]

my point is, style isnt everything...

It is certainly the main thing. Language is a filter. It conveys a meaning, that we can assume be expressed in any language. When writing in a language (since it is so far impossible to write outside of one), it is necessarily stylistic. The words we read and the sentences we find in novels and in poetry are linguistic - this language has style. Beckett chosing to write in French because it is the language that best allows him to write without "style" does not imply that Beckett has completely been rid of style. As of yet, we do not have a universal means of expression (perhaps one day something involving numerical values), but of course these numberical values must be expressed using symbols, which are stylistic - arabic numerals, chinese numerals, etc.

Simply put, it is impossible to avoid style in writing. Therefore, since language is the medium in which artistic ideas are conveyed in writing (as opposed to music, painting, etc.), we must study the language itself. Without the language itself, there is no message/theme/character to be conveyed, therefore language is of the utmost importance.


Dickens work is not vivid???? :confused: Even if he is satirical, ironic, funny, and trying to convey a message, his language is all of those things. How else do we conjure up those images of his characters, stories etc. which are so recognisably "Dickensian?" See,there's even an adjective for it.

I wasn't making any comment on Dickens, merely that "poetic language" is not synonymous with "flowery".

Also, the fact that there is a word "Dickensian" does not mean anything. Theoretically, we can form an adjective from any author's name to describe his style or idealogies - Shakespearean, Kafkaesque, Cartesian, Nabokovian, Hegelian, etc.

To take up the last example - I for one dislike Hegel. I could possibly be wrong in considering his philosophy rubbish (although I doubt it), but the mere fact that the word "Hegelian" exists doesn't act as a refutation to my dislike of him.

[wessexgirl]

I wasn't making any comment on Dickens, merely that "poetic language" is not synonymous with "flowery".

Also, the fact that there is a word "Dickensian" does not mean anything. Theoretically, we can form an adjective from any author's name to describe his style or idealogies - Shakespearean, Kafkaesque, Cartesian, Nabokovian, Hegelian, etc.

To take up the last example - I for one dislike Hegel. I could possibly be wrong in considering his philosophy rubbish (although I doubt it), but the mere fact that the word "Hegelian" exists doesn't act as a refutation to my dislike of him.

Of course you can form an adjective from any name. I do not think that many would conjure up such complete imagery as "Dickensian" though. Mention most of those names to the general public, particularly non-readers, and they would not have a clue about them. I think you'd be hard-pushed to find many who could not picture Dickens and his world, whether they've read them or not. His characters have become part of a national, or even international consciousness. I may be wrong, but I once read that he is the most popular author after Shakespeare, in the world. That takes some doing. And we were talking about fiction here, not philosophy. A "Dickensian" world is not like any other, it is a unique and iconic one.

[Emil Miller]

Well it aint dry .. nor boring ..
He has a great imagination & if he's not your type of writer Yet no need to describe it boriing .. since you mentioned that you didn't read much for him.

Hoope, if you remember, I am one of your friends, and it is wonderful to see what happens when young women fall out over a particular writer. It is like watching a lioness defending her cub. Dickens was a flawed writer in some ways but he was undoubtedly a great one. Anyone who has conscientiously read Oliver Twist, David Copperfield etc. will carry those characters with them throughout their life. I only wish, dear Hoope, that you didn't waste your time reading rubbish like Twighlight; surely you must see the difference.

[Hank Stamper]

It is certainly the main thing. Language is a filter. It conveys a meaning, that we can assume be expressed in any language. When writing in a language (since it is so far impossible to write outside of one), it is necessarily stylistic. The words we read and the sentences we find in novels and in poetry are linguistic - this language has style. Beckett chosing to write in French because it is the language that best allows him to write without "style" does not imply that Beckett has completely been rid of style. As of yet, we do not have a universal means of expression (perhaps one day something involving numerical values), but of course these numberical values must be expressed using symbols, which are stylistic - arabic numerals, chinese numerals, etc.

Simply put, it is impossible to avoid style in writing. Therefore, since language is the medium in which artistic ideas are conveyed in writing (as opposed to music, painting, etc.), we must study the language itself. Without the language itself, there is no message/theme/character to be conveyed, therefore language is of the utmost importance.

of course you cant avoid style when writing... when did i ever make such a statement? all i said was that style isnt EVERYTHING, meaning that style - while it is important - does not a good story make... language and style IMO are two completely different things

[Hank Stamper]

I'll defend JBI and Joz here. By poetic, I doubt JBI meant this to mean flowerly. "Flowerly" in fact is more of a sweeping, perjorative way of generalizing all poetry, when its really more characteristic of the romantic movement - and even then "flowerly" grossly underestimates the quality of the poetry.

By poetic, we mean a general ability with language that involves vividness, a sense of rhythm and cadence, in short, a very lyrical and descriptive prose style. How a writer manipulates his language is, in my opinion, the very way in which we measure the writer's greatness. Reading Paradise Lost, as Samuel Johnson might, purely for moral messages, and ignoring the highly poetic and grandly vivid language of the verse means you might as well read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia.

basically yes it was pejorative...................................... but i said FLOWERY not flowerly..... as already mentioned, how can you possibly say dickens is not vivid? or how can you say he doesnt have a descriptive prose style???

milton belongs to a certain era, as does dickens... and comparing the two is irrelevant... i agree that milton is obviously more poetic than dickens, but then milton is a poet, dickens set out to make a social statement, and in his era, this highly poetic style was not the best way to make that social statement

if you judge every writer by their poetic style, then they clearly all LOSE, because nobody comes near shakespeare

[Mopey Droney]

I think where I part company with some of the other posters here is that I don't read for solely aesthetic reasons. Yes, I plan to be a critic/professor, and yes, I enjoy reading things from the perspective of: "It's not what it's about, it's how it's about". I like to learn the tropes and tricks of storytelling, to analyze how it's done, to see who is the most streamlined, who does it the cleanest, the best, with the most beauty. All of that is well and good and firing off in one corner of my head while reading, and I can and do (and do enjoy) writing papers entirely in that mode. But I am not just a critic, I am also a full human, who sees art not just as a game of aesthetic beauty but also potentially of spiritual and ethical beauty, who turns to art not just for intellectual stimulation but also for comfort--and comfort not in a beach-read way but in a very wholesome fulfilling way that stays with you not just for the few days after you've turned the last page but also for the rest of your life. I have a need inside of me for a well-told story that makes me feel. Some would stick up their nose at that sort of popular indulgence, but I feel sorry for the person who is so removed that he can't allow himself to really feel a story anymore. Dickens is one of those authors that really makes me feel. And I can write long papers about his structure and the political implications and his use of language till the cows come home, and I can enjoy it too. But it's not the reason why I'm a reader. Dickens scratches a very human itch, an itch I have no desire to deaden by numbing with any more of an injection of theory than is necessary for illumination. I believe at the end of the day that writers write not for critics to understand and deconstruct, but to communicate with another person. It is fun to study how communication takes place, and identify the unity and take pleasure in the turn of a phrase, but that's not always the same as hearing somebody. Dickens is a writer I hear. I hope I have not come off as naive and youthfully arrogant, just sincere and diplomatic is all I intended. When I said something similar on another forum the whole board started calling me "pretentious".

[Hank Stamper]

I believe at the end of the day that writers write not for critics to understand and deconstruct, but to communicate with another person.

at the end of the day, it gets dark ;)

but :thumbs_up ... dickens was never writing to please critics, he was trying to convey ideas... critics will always try and find some fault in his writing.. and i guarantee the majority of those faults will be with his 'lack of style', as demonstrated here.... im sure if you asked him yourself, he would be more concerned that you understood his message, rather than appreciated his 'style'... although im sure most critics would point out that what dickens believed himself was irrelevant

[Pewnut]

I must confess, I find it difficult to read two Dickens books back to back but I really enjoy his novels when I read them in moderation. I think he was a brilliant writer and I would be very surprised to find anyone who has read, say, Bleak House to not be moved by the death of Jo the street-sweeper (http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/bleakhouse/48/).

“I’m a moving on, sir.”

“Let me lay here quiet, and not be chivied no more,” falters Jo; “and be so kind
any person as is a passin nigh where I used fur to sweep, as jist to say to Mr
Sangsby that Jo, wot he known once, is a moving on right forards with his
duty, and I’ll be wery thankful. I’d be more thankful than I am aready, if it wos
any ways possible for an unfortnet to be it.”

[wessexgirl]

I think where I part company with some of the other posters here is that I don't read for solely aesthetic reasons. Yes, I plan to be a critic/professor, and yes, I enjoy reading things from the perspective of: "It's not what it's about, it's how it's about". I like to learn the tropes and tricks of storytelling, to analyze how it's done, to see who is the most streamlined, who does it the cleanest, the best, with the most beauty. All of that is well and good and firing off in one corner of my head while reading, and I can and do (and do enjoy) writing papers entirely in that mode. But I am not just a critic, I am also a full human, who sees art not just as a game of aesthetic beauty but also potentially of spiritual and ethical beauty, who turns to art not just for intellectual stimulation but also for comfort--and comfort not in a beach-read way but in a very wholesome fulfilling way that stays with you not just for the few days after you've turned the last page but also for the rest of your life. I have a need inside of me for a well-told story that makes me feel. Some would stick up their nose at that sort of popular indulgence, but I feel sorry for the person who is so removed that he can't allow himself to really feel a story anymore. Dickens is one of those authors that really makes me feel. And I can write long papers about his structure and the political implications and his use of language till the cows come home, and I can enjoy it too. But it's not the reason why I'm a reader. Dickens scratches a very human itch, an itch I have no desire to deaden by numbing with any more of an injection of theory than is necessary for illumination. I believe at the end of the day that writers write not for critics to understand and deconstruct, but to communicate with another person. It is fun to study how communication takes place, and identify the unity and take pleasure in the turn of a phrase, but that's not always the same as hearing somebody. Dickens is a writer I hear. I hope I have not come off as naive and youthfully arrogant, just sincere and diplomatic is all I intended. When I said something similar on another forum the whole board started calling me "pretentious".

I think you've put it very well Mopey. And I think what you're saying is how I feel too. I also enjoy all the intellectual study and deconstruction of literature, but as you say, writers don't write for critics, they write for their readers, to communicate something, and we can analyse structure and style "until the cows come home". But does a piece of literature "speak" to you. I think there's no doubt that Dickens does that, as his longevity and status has proved. If it didn't, he would be one of the many forgotten Victorian novelists by now. You don't sound pretentious at all.

[Lady Marian]

I have a few problems with Dickens, myself. None of them, however, involve his being difficult.

I'm not sure leveling the charge of erudition or complexity against an author is really a valid criticism.

Hear, hear! Dickens' vocabulary and sentence construction may seem too much to us now, but if he tried to say the exact same things in modern vernacular English (or American), it would have taken him five times as long.

But then there are some of us adoring fans who just love the language despite the headaches it causes. :crash:

[londa]

By todays standards, yes he uses a whole lot of words. I read them and don't try to make much meaning out of the long descriptive parts. There are many parts that set a mood and I can just read them quickly without straining myself to understand every little bit. I keep a character list, and synopsis print out from the internet tucked in the book for details I've missed. He is actually quite funny, and dramatic. Maybe you would like them more after watching a movie based on one.

[MissScarlett]

I don't think a person has to like Dickens to love literature. He can't be everyone's cup of tea. But he was a master writer.

[hellzchocolate]

I always thought he was paid by the word for his novels... They were posted a chapter at a time on a newspaper and they paid him by the word which makes the novels so unbearably long and repetitive or well that's what i learned in english class.

[optimisticnad]

I think where I part company with some of the other posters here is that I don't read for solely aesthetic reasons. Yes, I plan to be a critic/professor, and yes, I enjoy reading things from the perspective of: "It's not what it's about, it's how it's about". I like to learn the tropes and tricks of storytelling, to analyze how it's done, to see who is the most streamlined, who does it the cleanest, the best, with the most beauty. All of that is well and good and firing off in one corner of my head while reading, and I can and do (and do enjoy) writing papers entirely in that mode. But I am not just a critic, I am also a full human, who sees art not just as a game of aesthetic beauty but also potentially of spiritual and ethical beauty, who turns to art not just for intellectual stimulation but also for comfort--and comfort not in a beach-read way but in a very wholesome fulfilling way that stays with you not just for the few days after you've turned the last page but also for the rest of your life. I have a need inside of me for a well-told story that makes me feel. Some would stick up their nose at that sort of popular indulgence, but I feel sorry for the person who is so removed that he can't allow himself to really feel a story anymore. Dickens is one of those authors that really makes me feel. And I can write long papers about his structure and the political implications and his use of language till the cows come home, and I can enjoy it too. But it's not the reason why I'm a reader. Dickens scratches a very human itch, an itch I have no desire to deaden by numbing with any more of an injection of theory than is necessary for illumination. I believe at the end of the day that writers write not for critics to understand and deconstruct, but to communicate with another person. It is fun to study how communication takes place, and identify the unity and take pleasure in the turn of a phrase, but that's not always the same as hearing somebody. Dickens is a writer I hear. I hope I have not come off as naive and youthfully arrogant, just sincere and diplomatic is all I intended. When I said something similar on another forum the whole board started calling me "pretentious".

Is there no 'applause' icon here?

I think majority of us are like you, we're after well-told stories which make us not only think but feel.

You don't sound 'pretentious' here, I've not read the other post you mention so I can't comment on that. :lol: :lol: But here you've eloquently explained what so many of us feel but struggle to express.



Still think his work his boring..

I could substitute that word over and over, doesn't change the fact.


:lol:

Well argued.



I don't think a person has to like Dickens to love literature. He can't be everyone's cup of tea. But he was a master writer.

I couldn't have said it better myslelf. I haven't read all of his novels but I love the ones I have read. He most definitely is not everyone's cup of tea, he tends to 'whine' on a little too much, he wrote far more than necessary, some of his characters are so saintly you just want to :flare: However he is a 'master writer', there is hardly anyone out there who can match his caricatures, his complex plots and his outstanding vocabulary. After Shakespeare he is arguably the greatest English writer, all these people can't be wrong.

[prendrelemick]

He is the best of authors, he is the worst of authors. He shows wisdom and foolishness.

He has written some of my favourite books, and favourite passages, and some I've found to be unreadable self indulgent nonsense.

[Skadifirst]

Hi. I'm new as of today because I was looking up the titles of some Dickens and ended up here. I'll admit it's been a hoot so far.
Poor Fox wrote Does anyone else here find his stuff hard to read? His sentences seem to be un-necessarily complex. Also he uses a lot of words that, even though I know the meaning, make it hard for me to connect and understand what he's saying, if that makes any sense. It gets to the point where I put the book down and can't finish it.

Then she gets answered by someone, wait let me look.....Oh MayNever that uses his big and all grown up vocab. that's more confusing than ANYTHING Dickens ever wrote - I have a few problems with Dickens, myself. None of them, however, involve his being difficult.

I'm not sure leveling the charge of erudition or complexity against an author is really a valid criticism.
I can't quit laughing about this, and i will try my best not to a level a charge of erudition and DEFINITLY not complexity against you.
Then we get into he wasn't poetic enough, and then the ......I yes, love literature, it doesn't mean I MUST love Dickens. Honey, he's dead, doesn't care and of course you don't. This board couldn't hold the list of so called 'classics' that put me to sleep.
Uh, gee, how to explain Dickens without going overboard, becoming complex, yada, blech?
Does he seem to romanticise his characters in books that should have been 'more compelling, harder edged;' for the time? Hardly, for two reasons. He LIVED a lot of those characters, and if he didn't want to dredge up a more PAINFUL image than some of you can get, well, maybe it's because he left a little of his (and his characters) life horror to your imagination. It was supposed to be fiction right? Although so much of it was painfully autobiographical. Secondly, I don't believe, and this is just my opinion as a psychologist, and what I've read about him, that he EVER really lost his fear of poverty, starvation, and other delights available in Victorian times. To criticise to harshly seems to me to have been entirely too scary for him. He was popular, and PAID, and fed. Some of his things were better than others. Depending on your taste. I think that can be said of any author at any time or anyone who produces any product for money.
Read him and enjoy him. Or if you don't like his style why read him?
Just read!!!!!
Cheryl

[bluosean]

Yeah. The first replyer completely missed the point of the post (probably, 'didnt care' is a better way to put it than 'missed'). It just got worse from there. This happens a lot though. I'll admit that I say what I want to say in cases like this too. It was a question not a criticism. Fox was asking for help. This time though ill try to be helpful. I don't really know what to say if you find Dickens difficult to read. Usuall books are difficult to read because the reader is disinterested. Interest in a topic can take you a long way (even as far a looking up every other word and asking questions on forums--I don't mean that as a joke). Try reading A Christmas Caroll. It's a great Dickens book and short. Should not be too hard to get through. If you like it than you can try Oliver Twist. If you don't you should probably try a different author.

[isidro]

I find there are two kinds of readers in this world, though I may be putting this in an overly shallow manner. There are those who enjoy Dickens and there are those who like Hemingway and the two rarely, in my experience, meet. Their writing styles are so phenomenally different that it seems nearly impossibly to harbor equal affection for both. You might guess by my writing that I am a Dickens fan and avid reader. Dickens writes that way because he likes to bask in the beauty of language so his prose often reads much like poetry. Some people do not like it and find it overly ornate, and that is fine. I would suggest The Old Man and the Sea in that case. But others love that aspect of Dickens and read his work expressly for that reason. It's just a matter of taste, I suppose.

[Alexander III]

I find there are two kinds of readers in this world, though I may be putting this in an overly shallow manner. There are those who enjoy Dickens and there are those who like Hemingway and the two rarely, in my experience, meet. Their writing styles are so phenomenally different that it seems nearly impossibly to harbor equal affection for both. You might guess by my writing that I am a Dickens fan and avid reader. Dickens writes that way because he likes to bask in the beauty of language so his prose often reads much like poetry. Some people do not like it and find it overly ornate, and that is fine. I would suggest The Old Man and the Sea in that case. But others love that aspect of Dickens and read his work expressly for that reason. It's just a matter of taste, I suppose.

I love both Dickens and Hemingway :)