Is Charles Dickens a writer of eminence?

[blazeofglory]

I do not know for certain but I have a mixed bag of comments and Virginia Wolf was critical of his lack of psychological depth. I on the other hand enjoy his books immensely for he is so simple, lucid in his prose and I do not have to exercise my brains reading his novels or short stories. I am learning a great deal about craft and syntactic and organic components in his creations. I consider them light reading but never the cheap type though he did not fathom the philosophical profundity one expects of a great novelist but he could brilliantly portray the socioeconomic traumas of the poor especially in the ninetieth century world. I indeed of late am taking a great interest in his books and maybe I want to borrow from him for my write-ups though the theme and motif will be mine born of the century or the society I am in.
Now for his sheer simplicity and social searches I consider him currently to sway my writings.
I want your arguments

[MorpheusSandman]

Undoubtedly yes. The negative criticisms of him are usually on a philosophical/psychological level, as if it's not enough that an artist simply be an impeccable, original craftsman, they also have to be great philosophers and psychologists (even though very few are); and that he was sentimental. As for sentimentalism, I always say that as long as an artist doesn't use sentimentalism for a crutch, ie, to cover up a lack of craft, skill, and thought, then it shouldn't be vilified. I also think those that look for philosophical/psychological depth tend to miss the sociological depth in Dickens. Did any author at that time portray injustice more critically, or with more sympathy towards the poor, oppressed, and outcasts as Dickens? Did any author do so from as many perspectives--from the judicial systems in Bleak House, to the workhouses of Oliver Twist, to industrialism in Hard Times? Dickens is also subtler than many give him credit for, and novels like Great Expectations and David Copperfield repay many repeat readings.

[barbara0207]

In my opinion, Charles Dickens is certainly an important writer of the 19th century. To some degree, Virginia Woolf is certainly right about psychology. The main characters in his serious novels, especially the heroes and heroines, tend to be too good to be true, e.g. Oliver Twist or David Copperfield. On the other hand, Dickens painted a vivid picture of the society of his time and was one to give his readers a certain insight into themes like poverty and working conditions. Many of his readers, especially from the middle and upper classes, became aware of deplorable social conditions mainly by his books or developed some kind of understanding for the lower classes. Dickens may not have been a genius like Shakespeare but his themes reached a lot of readers and perhaps made the world a somewhat better place.

For your own writing, you should pay special attention to language. Dickens often seems a bit long-winded to modern readers - typical 19th century style - so change the language as well.

[kev67]

At least in the UK Charles Dickens is considered an author of high eminence. When I was at school he seemed to be viewed second only to Shakespeare in English class. His books are still frequently adapted for film and television. Not all of Dickens' characters are psychologically deep. I think he concentrates on the psychological development of only a few of his characters, while other characters remain fixed, are unreflective and incapable of change.

[Poetaster]

There is a cult of Dickens here in the UK, and while I must admit I don't find Dickens is a personal favorite, it's not as if I do not understand why that is so. He's now part of the cultural brickwork of this country. Like Kev said, when I was at school he was considered second only to Shakespeare.

[osho]

I agree with all of you and admit that there are philosophical and psychological paucity in his writings but yesterday when I read some of his stories I observed he could delve into psychological realms though not in the proportion and force we find in Dostoevsky and there are no dearth of elements that put us on a philosophical and ethical planes and his ways are to paint some pictures of the nineteen century England and the torments of the poor and the destitute and even a great philosopher – writer Tolstoy felt indebted to him for giving a minute vent to his characters. A writer born 200 years ago still keep on shaping our writing style is a matter of reflection. Most of what he wrote comes out of the lower middle class social stratum and he could beautifully portray the undercurrents of socioeconomic disparity and what the economically disadvantaged. Nobody’s man is one example of this fact and reading his books place him among the best and ranking him with Tolstoy, Victor Hugo. His eminence is unquestionable

[Pierre Menard]

There seems to be this odd idea that if you aren't tackling all-encompassing, existential themes of life and the universe, you're somehow a lesser writer. It's a very 20th century idea, and seems typical of the overly-romanticised notion of artists. How does one decide which themes are more worthy than others anyway? Dickens still deals with love and death and friendship and society, etc…not every novel has to wiggle deep down into a characters sub-consciece. Good characterisation isn't always three dimensional, multi-faceted characters, sometimes good characterisation can be about how you draw your characters, how you make them memorable, Dickens ability to create lasting, broad characters is notable. And as Morpheus said, sentimentality in of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's not sickeningly over the top or making up for a lack of craft or artistry.

[osho]

In fact good characters, great characters, bad characters are not unbecoming themes in novels and if fish out these components novels become dry and displeasing. Who reads Joyce and Sartre emotively and even Kafka is not the writer of the common man and the places reserved by Tolstoy, Victor Hugo where righteousness is in focus and have certain directions and moral order cannot be replaced by any writer in the name of postmodernism or deconstructionism or the like and writing needs a kind of order and man’s capacity for understanding deeper and subtler realities is limited and delving into the subconscious demands of us greater mulling and if we do deeply and vent it that becomes mostly unreadable

[stlukesguild]

There seems to be this odd idea that if you aren't tackling all-encompassing, existential themes of life and the universe, you're somehow a lesser writer. It's a very 20th century idea...

I'm not certain I would ascribe this affliction to the 20th century. The idea of judging a work of art based upon external non-art issues (theological, sociological, economic, moral/ethical, etc...) has been with us forever. We need only think of the Puritans.

...and seems typical of the overly-romanticised notion of artists.

I certainly agree with you here. There are far too many who have deluded notions about artists. Artists (as a whole) are not prophets, visionaries, or revolutionaries. Great artists and great art can be selfish, voluptuous, and have the least interest in the "unwashed masses".

How does one decide which themes are more worthy than others anyway?

Well... there will always be those who read with a political cant. They demand that art reinforce their own socio-political views and values... otherwise the art can't be deemed "great". Again: Puritans.

Dickens still deals with love and death and friendship and society, etc…not every novel has to wiggle deep down into a characters sub-consciece. Good characterisation isn't always three dimensional, multi-faceted characters, sometimes good characterisation can be about how you draw your characters, how you make them memorable, Dickens ability to create lasting, broad characters is notable. And as Morpheus said, sentimentality in of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's not sickeningly over the top or making up for a lack of craft or artistry.

Dickens employs caricature... in a manner not unlike Expressionism. But as you suggest, this has not resulted in characters that aren't lasting. Dickens must rank alongside Shakespeare and a few others in the ability to invent characters that remain in the readers mind... that you could imagine beyond the confines of the original novels.

Who reads Joyce and Sartre emotively and even Kafka is not the writer of the common man and the places reserved by Tolstoy...

I'm sorry to shatter your delusions... but Tolstoy is no more read by the "common man" than Kafka, Joyce, or Sartre. 1400 pages dealing with the comings and goings of entire families and clans as well as long engagements with Napoleonic/Russian history is not something likely to be read on the beach as a follow up to "Good in Bed", "Twilight", "The DaVinci Code" or "Harry Potter".

Victor Hugo where righteousness is in focus and h(as) certain directions and moral order cannot be replaced by any writer in the name of postmodernism or deconstructionism or the like...

No... Victor Hugo cannot be "replaced" by Franz Kafka, Italo Calvino, or J.L. Borges... but neither can they be "replaced" by Victor Hugo. Each author of real merit offers his or her own unique vision. You seem trapped by dogma... worshiping all that reinforces your own faith... and rejecting all that might challenge it.

writing needs a kind of order

And do you presume that Kafka, Calvino, Borges, or the other Modernists and Post-Modernists (most of whom you likely have never read in any depth) are without "order"?

... man’s capacity for understanding deeper and subtler realities is limited and delving into the subconscious demands of us greater mulling and if we do deeply and vent it that becomes mostly unreadable

In other words... if the author delves into the subconscious or digs for a deeper level of understanding... the work becomes challenging to you (and your "common readers") and thus it is a failure... "unreadable"?

[Oedipus]

When I read a work of his I found myself not only failing to be attached to his much-lauded 'characters', but actually repulsed by them. Dickens, I could only think, was some kind of bitter, petty person who chuckled to himself while making his little caricatures; instead of making cases against opinions, he merely takes the opinion and inserts it into the mouth of some crudely drawn character, intending to base some 'comedy' around mocking them. That at any rate was the impression.

'But he writes about the poor!' - so a propagandist as well as a hack? Between his sentimental melodramas, I am told he 'terrified and depressed' his wife - perhaps he merely made her read his writings, which would have had that effect? A first-rate hack, I suppose.

[bluosean]

[COLOR="#B22222"]

... man’s capacity for understanding deeper and subtler realities is limited and delving into the subconscious demands of us greater mulling and if we do deeply and vent it that becomes mostly unreadable

In other words... if the author delves into the subconscious or digs for a deeper level of understanding... the work becomes challenging to you (and your "common readers") and thus it is a failure... "unreadable"?

Of Corse. "When one cannot see through a thing, one must needs to look over it."

I cannot agree with the last post (though from what I have read of Dickens, it seems that his wife was indeed married miserably to him), and I don't even understand the well known criticism that Dickens's characters are caricatures. Some of his flitting characters are not developed, but David, Agnes, Little Dorrit, and innumerable others are as real as any in Hardy, Faulkner, or any other writer. Maybe it is because his books have so, so many more characters than others and that they are shortly described that this has come about. Even a novel like Crime and Punishment (though it is also set in a populous city, unlike the country of, say, Hardy and Faulkner), only focuses on a few characters. Dostoyesvky, by the way, really liked Dickens.

[Pope of Eruke]

I have only read a bit, but I like him a lot. He's very enjoyable to read, even if he doesn't tackle big philosophical issues.

[Darcy88]

I definitely consider him a writer of "eminence." Great Expectations truly blew me away with how masterfully exquisite it was in its passion and its style. I have been meaning to re-read it for some time. Other than that I've read small parts of a few of his other novels and found them quite impressive.

[kev67]

I definitely consider him a writer of "eminence." Great Expectations truly blew me away with how masterfully exquisite it was in its passion and its style.

I agree. Great Expectations was the most moving book I have ever read. It took me about three weeks to stop thinking about it afterwards.

I did not think A Christmas Carol or Hard Times were as good, but you could not say that Hard Times is not philosophical. It attacks self-serving economic theory and hot-housing of school children.

[duke-one]

Really; what do we read novels for? There are endless books on history, philosophy, sociology etc. from any and all viewpoints. If every character in a story had to be so fully developed that we could psychoanalyze them in depth where would the enjoyment go? I think a great novel is one that grabs your mind, twangs your heartstrings some (at least) and when your done you are glad you spent the time to read it. If we only read absolutely perfect, earth shaking novels I think the list would be short indeed. While I'm at it the same applies to movies: the really great ones are pretty rare and we would go through those pretty quick.
KDM