Printable View
It is shameful for me to say, but it must be said. I've never read any Charles Dickens. I'll pass the buck and blame the educational system, which never made me read any of it. Then again, this is probably a good thing, since I pretty much know I wouldn't have appreciated Dickens in school, whether it be high or elementary.
But, I digress.
I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions on good starters to introduce someone to Dickens. This forum board has yet to steer me wrong.
Thanks!
I'd start with the shortest: A Tale of Two Cities; that way you can see if his style and writing are to your tastes. Not his best book in my view, but short enough not to be torture if you dislike it, and a good example of what the longer works are like.
Or you could try some of the short stories :) My favourite is The Signal-man.
I agree if you are not to sure about Dickens start with a Tale Of Two Cities, it is relatively short and one of his best novel.
However if you are more dedicated, his best novel by far is David Copperfield.
Oliver Twist is actually the shortest, but ya I'd start with the medium length novels. Twist is one of his earlier works and it has a lot of what Dickens is famous for, Victorian Idealism and strong memorable characters, but is not his best work.
I'd go with Hard Times, Tale of Two Cities, or Great Expectations.
David Copperfield and Great Expectations are my favourite Dickens novels.
Christmas stories and short stories, one might say I am a Dickens' fan. Because, like many Victorian authors, his novels were serialized, they tend to be overly long. However, his mastery of the English language more than compensates for the longevity of his novels. I would start with David Copperfield, a semi-autobiogrphical novel. Follow this by Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cties. After finishing these, you'll have a good idea whether you want to be a Dickens' afficianado or not. Of his longer novels, Bleak House is probably the best.
The Short stories and Christmas stories can be read at any time afterwards.
There are many great movies made from Dickens' novels. Of the older movies (in black and white), those made by David Lean are superior. These are Oliver Twist and Great Expectations. Two other older but good ones are David Copperfield staring W. C. Fields as Micawber and A Tale of Two Cities with Ronald Coleman as Sidney Carton.
The modern Dickens' movies made by Masterpiece Theatre are excellent. Bleak House is one of the best. Our Mutual Friend, the last complete novel, is also excellent, along with Martin Chizzlewitz. If you're not up to reading the really long novels, at least watch the British-made movies. I think all of his novels have been made into movies with the possible exeption of Barnaby Rudge. And maybe The Old curiosity Shop.
The people who don't like Dickens are usually those who can't assimilate his longer, complex sentences. Those who can, are usually great Dickens' fans.
How about the 'Pickwick Papers' (or whatever it's called)? I haven't read any Dickens, but I've heard it's funny. I associate dense, wordy prose (-> boring!) with Dickens, so why not start with something funny?
I second this. [However the second part I don't agree with at all. Dicken's isn't hard to read. He wrote for the public as a serial novelist printed in newspapers.]Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Else you might want to go back being a child and read Oliver Twist. Although I've yet to read Barnaby Rudge and Bleak House everything else I've read is crap. Serial novelists tend to be full of 'coincidences' and lame plot twists, and schmaltzy 'ideas'. The Pickwick Papers were at least funny at times. Tale of Two Cities is simply famous because the first and last paragraphs, otherwise you'll be thinking how he got everyone to swallow this tripe and then claim it to be prime rib.
Thanks for the input, arrytus, but I still want to experience Dickens. And, I must admit, I'm hesitant to believe any criticism when so vitriolic.
I think I'll give A Tale of Two Cities a try, especially since it is one of his most famous.
Also, I forgot that I did read A Christmas Carol last year. I'd still like to try one of his other novels, though.
Exactly right. Another possibility is Hard Times - very short and his best work, in my view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Night_Lamp
No. Both Hard Times and A Tale of Two Cities are shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Hard Times is a good one to start with.
I have read Dickens and started with David Copperfield then a tale of two cities and Hardtimes. I like his characterization so much. And of course the way he could depict the tragic side of humanity in a way few of his contemoraries and still fewer of today's writers could do. I enjoyed his reading but if we make an analogy I find Russian novels and particularly Dostoevsky more appealing to me. There is a lack of philosphical quotients in his writings and it cannot delve into deeper and deeper realms of human minds. He is not a psychological novelist and Ifind him hovering on the surface.
I enjoyed Bleak House. It's long but it's got the things you would associate with a Dickens novel. There was a BBC adaptation a few years ago that was enjoyable so you might want to watch that and see if it piques your interest.
A Tale of Two Cities is considered to be one of his best and it does have the most famous opening and closing lines of Dickens' novels. Very tragic.
You seem to be right, for some reason I remembered Twist being shorter than it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd A
As to the recommendations, Mut seems to have settled on Tale, which was the first Dickens I read when I was in high school and it is a good one to start with.
Hard Times is really good, but I have to disagree with Night that it is typical Dickens: it is Dickens most political novel and probably his least sentimental, though it has its quirky satirical moments. Of course, it's still worth reading.