Sell Dickens to Me. . . .

[The Comedian]

Chalk it up to my own personal character flaw(s): Maybe I'm too stupid to understand Dickens; maybe I'm thoughtlessly inconsiderate (redundant, I know; I know) of Dickens' treatment of Victorian people and society; or maybe I'm simply weak-willed but. . . .

I cannot finish a Dickens novel.

Great Expectations? I got about half way through when I thought, "I cannot keep wasting my time like this. I quit!"

Little Dorrit? Half way though again when the realization set in: "I don't care about any of these people, any of this plot, certainly not this writing style." So in a desperate fit of weakness, I quit on him again.

My latest attempt with Dickens: Last week. A Tale of Two Cities. The result? The same.

I got about 120 pages into it and. . . .every person seemed a caricature, so I couldn't feel anything for anyone. There seemed to be some drama in the plot, but because the characters seemed such faceless generalizations, I just couldn't feel the drama.

And the prose style, while I fully understand the Victorian style and how it differs from ours, just seems rushed. Sloppy. Sure there were times of brilliance, sentences of merit, paragraphs of note. But overall. Meh.

So, if I take up the task of trying to "get into Dickens" again, how should I approach it? I mean, despite the cruel, heartless things I've said about him, I really want to like Dickens, I just can't, at least not now.

[Il Dante]

First, I'll grant you that Dickens' style is, by modern standards, perhaps overly rich. The closer one gets to the 1700s, the more the writing becomes increasingly baroque and bombastic until we are set upon by a tsunami of pretentious verbiage and prolix periods enough to drive one up the wall and down again. To us, the old style isn't direct. Rather, it's rich. We live in the era of Will Strunk and E.B. White, the "omit needless words" paradigm.

So I think that part of the problem that you (like many other modern readers) have with Dickens may be that his style is just kinda' annoying. Fair enough.

But I think that Dickens' style varies somewhat from book to book. Oliver Twist, for example, has a fairly obtuse style. But David Copperfield has a much more human, somewhat less rich style. A Tale of Two Cities is very political and serious... to the point, perhaps, of being ponderous. The point is that Dickens novels are various and some may suit you more than others. If ponderous and self-important epics aren't your style, then ATOTC is certainly not the right novel.

Regarding Great Expectations, I feel that this novel is best in its pay-off at the end and in the overall story-arc. Its ending(s) are intriguing and highly un-dickensian, and its overall story-arc is an interesting statement on humanity and the human experience. Thus, you might appreciate it more after finishing it and then reflecting on it.

Regarding character caricatures... yes, many Dickens characters are caricatures (see, Fagin). But many aren't. Many are very well-drawn, and you get to know them and all their quirks, characteristics, and foibles. And THEN you are interested in seeing what will happen to them in the end.

My personal experience with Dickens was thus. When I was eight, for some reason I tried to read Oliver Twist. I hated it. I stopped after the third chapter. When I was twelve I tried to read Oliver Twist. I hated it. I stopped after the fourth or fifth chapter. When I was sixteen I tried reading Oliver Twist and I resolved to plow through it to the end come what may, even if my mind should go numb with boredom and if the firmament cracked and the earth crumbled. At first, I hated it; but as I persevered I began to slowly care about several characters. I began to become somewhat interested in what happened to them. This interest increased and crescendoed until towards the end I literally couldn't put the book down. Sweating with excitement, I finished the book and decided to go out and read some more Dickens.

[PeterL]

Don't worry about it. Dickens was a writer of serials, so his was constantly rushed, and he didn't edit them done for publication as complete works, so there are some bits that don't quite fit. He also had to write a certain number of words for every episode, so there are places where things were strung out or chopped off depending on what was necessary. As a reader I do not like Dickens, but as a writer I have sympathy for him. If he had taken a few months to smooth things out before they were published, then I am sure that his novels would be much better.

[dfloyd]

One must have the ability to roam with the knowledge that the byways of the trip are worth reaching journey's end. This can only be accomplished through repeated readings. After reading all the novels of Dickens, with the exception of Barnaby Rudge, I can truthfully say, as I near journey's end, that the trip was worth the perils imposed upon the reader. Dickens' is not an easy read. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I cannot finish a Dickens novel.

I cannot start one.

[kelby_lake]

A Christnas Carol would be a good start. It's short and it only has one plot- and not that many characters. Okay, that's kind of the opposite of everything Dickens is known for, but it's a start.

[kiki1982]

I cannot start one.

haha me neither.

I have given up, and boy, have I tried.

[applepie]

I'd love to sell you on it, but I think it took me an entire year to read Great Expectations. I like the stories for the most part, but he can be a bit of a bore to read.

[MarkBastable]

I'd start with Sketches by Boz.

[Stendhal]

I have only read Hard Times, and I thought it was very good, but I can observe many of the fair complaints made about Dickens. However, the novel has a lot of wonderful commentary on society which remains relevant today. If you want to enjoy Dickens, I strongly suggest this book. It is short, which allows you to sample his style in an amount that won't exhaust you. My Norton Critical Edition is 223 pages long minus contexts and criticism. The central themes are very interesting and relevant to modern society.
However, you do not have to like Dickens. There is a mass volume of great literature both among the classics and among contemporary literature, so you do not have to like every author. Also, do not compare Dickens to others of the Victorian Era because his writing style is radically different as far as I can tell based on my readings from the era.

[annatkwhelk]

You could try David Copperfield. I'm currently halfway through and it has (so far) managed to hold my attention - which is usually pretty easily distracted. And thats in spite of the dust cover giving away half the plotlines.

Trying to work out why I like it: I think its partly because there are so many brilliant, eccentric characters. Its worth checking out for Betsy Trowood alone. Also the fantastic names he invents: Mr Micawber, Uriah Heep etc.

...anyway good luck.

[MUMUKSHA]

I agree with Stendhal about Hard Times. It is a little different from Dickens' other novels.
It is only in the beginning that the characters and the emphasis on false ideology governing the education will seem exaggerated. But eventually it all becomes pretty normal. It's a good book. I could feel Dickens' concerns most in this book than any other.
However I enjoyed reading David Copperfield, The Old Curiosity Shop and the like more.

[The Comedian]

Trying to work out why I like it: I think its partly because there are so many brilliant, eccentric characters. Its worth checking out for Betsy Trowood alone. Also the fantastic names he invents: Mr Micawber, Uriah Heep etc.

This is just it -- maybe Dickens and I will never get along (though maybe my next try will be Hard Times, as it seems to be getting some good press here). These eccentric characters with the goofy names. . . . that's one of the things that I don't like about him. They just don't seem real -- not that everything has to be dower and serious, but I have to believe the character. And it just seems that with his characters, I can never make the transition to reality. . . . his characters all seem like actors on a stage practicing their lines.

[qimissung]

haha me neither.

I have given up, and boy, have I tried.

Me either. Comedian, Why do you feel it necessary to like Dickens? Why can't you just chalk it up to a matter of taste? I'm sure you have read many other novels of a serious nature.

I, on the other hand, have read a handful, but I feel it's time to quit reading merely for pleasure. And if I'm not in a classroom, few of the big guns of literature seem to qualify in that respect. Maybe it's just the exhaustion of holding down a job and raising kids; I don't know, but I feel it's time to try.

I'm starting with somthing a little easier first, though. I've started "The Known World;" I'll let you know if I finish it.

[Quark]

And the prose style, while I fully understand the Victorian style and how it differs from ours, just seems rushed. Sloppy. Sure there were times of brilliance, sentences of merit, paragraphs of note. But overall. Meh.

Dickens was a writer of serials, so his was constantly rushed, and he didn't edit them done for publication as complete works, so there are some bits that don't quite fit. He also had to write a certain number of words for every episode, so there are places where things were strung out or chopped off depending on what was necessary. As a reader I do not like Dickens, but as a writer I have sympathy for him. If he had taken a few months to smooth things out before they were published, then I am sure that his novels would be much better.

Well, I'm not really going to "sell" you on Dickens. If the characters don't speak to you, then they just don't. There really isn't anything to do about that (although you could look at the volumes of criticism about how Pip is the most interesting psychological study in all of Victorian literature). But, you need to be careful about describing Dickens' approach to writing. When you describe him as "sloppy," or claim that he's "rush[ing]." Then you're stepping out of your own subjective reaction to Dickens and stepping into biography--something that has to be approached with more circumspection. Your comments here make it sound like Dickens was some hack churning out long periods for a few pence. I exaggerate, of course, but the implication of what you're saying is that Dickens didn't spend long enough crafting his novels. This is the sort of thing that would be true, if it were true. But, it's not. Dickens is often considered one of the master-craftsmen of British literature. Far from being oppressed by the demands of publishers, he frequently got control of the projects he was involved in and made changes to suit his writing. Right from the beginning this true. When the publishers of Pickwick Papers asked Dickens to write little stories about Robert Seymour's illustrations, Dickens objected that he didn't know how to write about the things Seymour drew. Eventually, he maneuvered himself into the position of writing stories that Seymour would then illustrate. This is what Dickens did throughout his career: gain control of his medium. By the 1860's he's publishing his own material. I don't think he was particularly constrained by the demands of literary marketplace. Far from it, he was the most independent successful writer of his time.

And he didn't seek control over just the medium, he also worked hard to get the content of his novels just right. You can look at almost any point of Bleak House or Great Expectations to see this. Take Pip's introduction to Herbert Pocket in chapter 11. Here's the last few paragraphs:

My heart failed me when I saw him squaring at me with every demonstration of mechanical nicety, and eyeing my anatomy as if he were minutely choosing his bone. I never have been so surprised in my life, as I was when I let out the first blow, and saw him lying on his back, looking up at me with a bloody nose and his face exceedingly fore-shortened.

But, he was on his feet directly, and after sponging himself with a great show of dexterity began squaring again. The second greatest surprise I have ever had in my life was seeing him on his back again, looking up at me out of a black eye.

His spirit inspired me with great respect. He seemed to have no strength, and he never once hit me hard, and he was always knocked down; but he would be up again in a moment, sponging himself or drinking out of the water-bottle, with the greatest satisfaction in seconding himself according to form, and then came at me with an air and a show that made me believe he really was going to do for me at last. He got heavily bruised, for I am sorry to record that the more I hit him, the harder I hit him; but he came up again and again and again, until at last he got a bad fall with the back of his head against the wall. Even after that crisis in our affairs, he got up and turned round and round confusedly a few times, not knowing where I was; but finally went on his knees to his sponge and threw it up: at the same time panting out, "That means you have won."

He seemed so brave and innocent, that although I had not proposed the contest, I felt but a gloomy satisfaction in my victory. Indeed, I go so far as to hope that I regarded myself while dressing as a species of savage young wolf or other wild beast. However, I got dressed, darkly wiping my sanguinary face at intervals, and I said, "Can I help you?" and he said "No thankee," and I said "Good afternoon," and he said "Same to you."

Most immediately, the scene is a funny parody. Pip's education is outlined in the first chapters (learning to read, going to school, etc.), and this introduction to Herbert makes fun of then contemporary ideas about education. Fighting was considered to be part of how boy's learning to compete in Victorian society. Thomas Arnold, headmaster of Rugby in the 1830's, wrote down his teaching philosophy in Tom Brown's School Days--which was later published in 1858. In it, he argued that "After all, what would life be without fighting? ... From the cradle to the grave, fighting, rightly understood, is the business, the real highest, honestest, business of every son of man." Herbert wants to be, and will become, that highest and honestest gentleman. Pip certainly want to be, too. The scene is clever jab at people like Arnold who thought that the kind of dueling Herbert and Pip do will make great people. Dickens' description of Herbert mocks Arnold throughout. Pip praises Herbert's "brave[ry] and innocence," but can't help notice that Herbert has "no strength." Pip respects Herbert somehow, but also notices that Herbert is completely ineffectual. This is part of Dickens' critique of manners in the novel--that they only go so deep. The fight is really a clever play on the ideas of the time. It's also part of the novel's continuing themes.

Also, the last paragraph is incredibly revealing of the child Pip and the adult Pip recounting these events. The feeling of criminality that Pip feels is an important thread that runs through the novel, and we see it creep up here. This buried feeling of guilt returns again and again. He calls himself a "wolf," which is what Orlick, who reflects many of Pip's less seemly characteristics, later will refer to him as. The words, sentence structure, and themes are each carefully chosen in this scene. It's hard to call this sloppy. And this isn't even a very major passage in the book. I just openned my book and started writing. I could do this for almost any part of the novel.