Which book is Charles Dickens' best work?

[eric.bell]

Second question--I have Bleak House, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby, Hard Times, A Tale of Two Cities, and Great Expectations, which of these should I start with?

[Quark]

Oh, what a question. Dickens thought that David Copperfield was his best, but I'm going to have to disagree. Bleak House and Great Expectations are far better. If you like Realist fiction, go for Bleak House. It's a comedy/tragedy/satire/everything that strikes to the heart of everything that's wrong and right with nineteenth-century England. Although, it's a bit topical--and it's also 900 pages. A shorter, more accessible book is Great Expectations. It's also a much tighter narrative.

[Drkshadow03]

The Sound and the Fury.

[OrphanPip]

Of the works you have.

I would start with the shortest, Oliver Twist. This is early Dickens with a heavy dose of Victorian idealism, iconic characters, and social concern that pervades all of his work.

Quark is right that Bleak House and Great Expectations are his best. I would clump Hard Times with those two as well.

David Copperfield was Dickens favourite, and I really liked it, but I agree with Quark and think that it is maybe best read by a reader already acquainted with Dickens. Tolstoy thought it was Dickens' finest though.

[AllyFizzle]

A Tale of Two Cities. The chapter where the wine spills out into the streets is by far the best writing I have seen. The descriptions and his capturing the sentiment of the time is remarkable.

[dfloyd]

and his unfinished novel. I agree that Bleak House and Great Expectations are Dickens' best. In my time, dramatizations of Dickens' work were not avaiable for any novels except the great David Lean films of the 1940s, Great Expectations and Oliver Twist. Now with tv permitting the filming of dramatizations in multi-hour segments, almost all the novels can be viewed. These can be viewed as supplementary to the books. Most enjoy Dickens from the standpoint of his excellence of writing, not because of the mystery of his plots. Viewing the drmatizations is enjoyable and educational since the plots follow those of the books and are not Hollywoodized. That's probably why I haven't as yet read Barnaby Rudge. This is the only book not yet captured on film.

[Lokasenna]

Great Expectations, although it is the least Dickensian of his works (well, maybe apart from A Tale of Two Cities).

As for the one to read first, I'd go with Oliver Twist - it's very enjoyable, and it will give a you feel for Dickens' usual style, which will allow you to better appreciate some of his more subtle works!

[Katy North]

Personally I loved David Copperfield; the characterizations in that novel are wonderful, but I'd agree that Oliver Twist is better for those starting out as it's a little shorter.

[mal4mac]

Why not go in order of publication? That would be:

Oliver Twist
Nicholas Nickleby
David Copperfield
Bleak House
Hard Times
A Tale of Two Cities
Great Expectations

As has been suggested, starting with Oliver Twist is a good idea on several levels. I find Nicholas Nickleby equally enjoyable, and it's a contrasting story. Bleak House is a difficult and very subtle work, perhaps *the* greatest novel, so it's best to build up to that! A Tale of Two Cities is, I feel, vastly over-rated (though nothing by Dickens is 'a bad read'...)

I enjoyed David Copperfield as much as the other works on this list (... much more than "Tale".)

[JhKreisler]

The Sound and the Fury.

The sound and the fury...
What about William Faulkner...

[WuWei]

Start with Oliver Twist, to better acquaint yourself with his prose and style. Then (given that you don't plan on reading them all, which would be great, in which case I suggest you just go chronologically) I would move on to Great Expectations, in my opinion definitely his best novel.

[BellaRose]

I started out by reading David Copperfield first, and I was not enchanted with it. I've come to enjoy it more as I read it again, but I would start with Oliver Twist, as many others have said, or A Tale of Two Cities (choose this last one if you are interested in the French Revolution: it is set during the time before and during the Revolution, and Dickens intertwines the goings-on of the Revolution flawlessly with the goings-on of the characters, such as Defarge and the Bastille). As long as you read the details within A Tale of Two Cities, its length (which isn't that much, really) should be no problem for you.

As for the best? I would have to decide between Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities. I was able to read A Tale of Two Cities in class with my teacher, which increased my enjoyment of the intricately woven plot. The storyline was amazing, but as one of my friends has so eloquently expressed, Dickens had a way with words, and was a master of metaphors and imagery.

In addition, I found that ATOTC had just the right amount of details about the setting before moving on to the actual importance of the scene. Dickens does not overpower the reader with a lot of detail, as did Victor Hugo in Les Miserables (don't get me wrong, I love the book, but half-way through it, I had become an "expert" on the goings-on of Waterloo.). He provides the information in a way so that you understand what is happening, but you are not bowled over by many chapters of intricate detail.

I have not finished Great Expectations yet, but already I can tell that it is going to be one of my favorites. I usually do not like fictional works that are seemingly biographical or autobiographical (which could explain why I was not particularly in love with David Copperfield, but perhaps I could try reading it again), but the depth and sometimes the eccentricity of the characters adds to the idea of a young boy growing up and experiencing more, while growing discontent with what pleased him when he was younger. The characters of Great Expectations, in my honest opinion, have made the book what it is (so far in my reading!).

[johnw1]

Our Mutual Friend is my favorite - so atmospheric and dark, Bradley Headstone for example is one of Dickens' best drawn characters. Bleak House is very good with a well worked mystery at it's heart and some stunning prose (less enamoured with the sentimental narration of Esther Summerson) and I like Hard Times as well. However, I have not enjoyed David Copperfield, Great Expectations, Nicholas Nickleby and, worst of all, Oliver Twist! All have too much of the elements of Dickens that annoy me - excessive sentimentality, irritating characters, protagonists I can't identify with, plot lines that meander all over the place....

[Jozanny]

I don't really know that there is a best Dickens novel, as others have indicated, and I have not read them all, though I have a few more on my list, when I can deal with his melodrama once more, but I am going to mostly agree with Quark. I cannot remember all the ins and outs of Bleak House. I did read it but only really remember the story because of Masterpiece Theater (yes, I am a bad girl!) but the emotional guilt and pain, with the powerful metaphors of futility, make it one of his strongest novels, along with Great Expectations.

Copperfield is a great character study, but is not as tightly controlled as the later works.

Hard Times is the effort of a great writer who has exhausted his ability, in my estimation.

[wessexgirl]

[QUOTE=johnw1;870925]Our Mutual Friend is my favorite - so atmospheric and dark, Bradley Headstone for example is one of Dickens' best drawn characters. QUOTE]

I'm currently re-watching the excellent adaptation from a few years ago. It's absolutely brilliant. And as for Bradley Headstone......:crazy: The proposal scene in the churchyard is gobsmacking......does he think the girl would accept him after that intense scariness? The actor is wonderful however, (David Morrisey), but then, he always is. I'm assuming the gravestone he hit wasn't really made of stone.....:eek6:

[Rosie Cotton]

Tale of Two Cities is one of my favorites written by any author period. So, I'd have to go with Tale of Two Cities, but I love most all Dickens. I think Great Expectations was the only one I don't much care for.

Hard Times and Oliver Twist probably tie for second best out of those. But, Oliver Twist and Christmas Carol tie for second in general. Hard Times is third when you throw Christmas Carol in there. Don't know how that ranking works, but it does in my mind.

[Swart Fedallah]

I've read quite a few of Dickens' novels, and perhaps it is simply because it was the first one that I read, but A Tale of Two Cities has always stood out to me as his best. The ending is just amazing. I have to re-read that, it's been too long.

[cgrillo]

I've read a lot of Dickens as well, and I must say that Our Mutual Friend and Oliver Twist are my favorites. Honestly, however, I don't really remember much about A Tale of Two Cities, so I should probably read it again.

[Quark]

This is a thread that could use a poll.

[Modest Proposal]

I have only read "Great Expectations", "A Tale of Two Cities," "A Christmas Carol" and "Hard Times". Discerning posters will notice that these are all shorter works by him, which considering I like Dickens in small doses, works best for me.

Another shorter work--shorter for Dickens but long for about anyone else--that I own and plan to read is "Oliver Twist", but of the one's I've read, I liked "Great Expectations" the best.

[johnw1]

[QUOTE=johnw1;870925]Our Mutual Friend is my favorite - so atmospheric and dark, Bradley Headstone for example is one of Dickens' best drawn characters. QUOTE]

I'm currently re-watching the excellent adaptation from a few years ago. It's absolutely brilliant. And as for Bradley Headstone......:crazy: The proposal scene in the churchyard is gobsmacking......does he think the girl would accept him after that intense scariness? The actor is wonderful however, (David Morrisey), but then, he always is. I'm assuming the gravestone he hit wasn't really made of stone.....:eek6:

Yes it is superbly acted by David Morrissey (no surprises there) and generally an excellent adaptation which gets the mood of the novel spot on. It's the best adaptation I've seen - and there are a few great ones (BBC's Bleak House and Martin Chuzzlewit for example).

[TheRoyalist]

I'm at one with Modest proposal on this; I've only read three Dickens. Shocking I know but as usual it's all down to that, not enough hours in the day problem.
Of the three I've read, "Great Expectations" was the one I liked the best.
For the record, the other two were, "A Christmas Carol" and "Barnaby Rudge".
The latter is an under-rated book in my book. The scenes of mayhem in London are brilliantly written.

[eric.bell]

Thank all of you ever so much. In my mind, I had two ways by-which I would tackle Dickens: plan one, to start with Bleak House, then go from there; and plan two, to read the ones that I have in order of publication. I - after oh so many of you have thought it wise to do - have chosen to do the latter of the two and start with Oliver Twist and work my way down from there. Once again thank you all. You were ever so helpful.

[Scheherazade]

Just as a side note, I think Pickwick Papers is one of the funniest books I have read.

[Mariamosis]

"A Tale of Two Cities" is the book that really got me interested in Dickens and I followed it up with "David Copperfield", "A Christmas Carol" and "Oliver Twist". I am sure that you will enjoy them all irregardless of the order you choose.

... and yes, "The Sound and the Fury" is good as well, although not very "dickensian". :)

[mal4mac]

I have only read "Great Expectations", "A Tale of Two Cities," "A Christmas Carol" and "Hard Times". Discerning posters will notice that these are all shorter works by him, which considering I like Dickens in small doses, works best for me.

Another shorter work--shorter for Dickens but long for about anyone else--that I own and plan to read is "Oliver Twist", but of the one's I've read, I liked "Great Expectations" the best.

If you have only read his shorter, lesser works then how can you know that only short doses work best for you? I think Dickens, like Tostoy, gets better the longer his work gets. Great Expectations is also my favourite out of your list, but I prefer most of his other, longer novels!

[mal4mac]

I've read a lot of Dickens as well, and I must say that Our Mutual Friend and Oliver Twist are my favorites. Honestly, however, I don't really remember much about A Tale of Two Cities, so I should probably read it again.

That's the big problem with "Tale", I think. The characters just aren't very memorable, for Dickens. They get forgotten in the crowd of vastly more interesting characters in his other novels. The plot isn't very distinctive or memorable either, I can't separate in memory from a "general memory" of the French revolution. Some critics say its was too heavily influenced by Carlyle's book & suffers (for once!) from lack of originality. Tolstoy's doesn't produce the mass of memorable characters that Dickens does, BUT he's incredibly good at depicting societies riven by war - so "Tale" also suffers badly in comparison to "War & Peace". Also, for such a vast subject, why did Dickens make it such a short book? It feels perfunctory. Hope I haven't put you off! :) Even bad Dickens is good.

[blazeofglory]

I like hard times by him, for in this book he perfectly combined all, the way the society or the business class people of his days became corrupt and oppressive. And of course Dickens had made his voice aloud. I laud him. He seemed socialistic a little and was firmly criticized by some critics. I feel he is underrated and must be on the list of the few who sought to alter the destiny of the destitute

[Quark]

There's been quite a bit of talk about Dickens of late on LitNet. Does anyone think we could get a bookclub discussion going on one of the novels? I've been reading some of his earlier novels and would be glad to discuss them on LitNet. I'd be willing to read anything, though, if there's a good discussion.

[OrphanPip]

I've been meaning to reread Great Expectations or David Copperfield. I'd be happy to participate in a Dickens reading group.

[mal4mac]

Our Mutual Friend seems to be getting a lot of good press. As I haven't read this, it would be my nomination. I quite fancy re-reading David Copperfield, though...

[Abras]

Which should you read first? Whichever's the thinnest.
Which is the best? Whichever's the thickest.

Well, okay, maybe that second one is a little tongue-in-cheek, but the first answer actually seems like good advice -- and yes, I do tend to follow my own advice. Really, when going after a pile of books, especially from an author you have never or very rarely read, why not go with the thinnest you can find? This works especially well if you are a completionist like me and/or plan to read everything by a particular author anyway.

[janesmith]

In my opinion, for what it's worth, I think Great Expectations is by far the best crafted novel. However, I really enjoyed Little Dorrit because of the way in which it was influenced by his own experience of debtors jail.

[Quark]

I'd be happy to participate in a Dickens reading group.


Our Mutual Friend seems to be getting a lot of good press. As I haven't read this, it would be my nomination. I quite fancy re-reading David Copperfield, though...

I'll start a thread to nominate one of the novels for discussion. I can make a poll with most of the main works, and then everyone can just vote. It's getting a little late tonight, though. I'll set it up tomorrow.

[Janine]

"A Tale of Two Cities" is a masterpiece and one of my alltime favorite novels. I read it twice; second time was for a discussion thread on here. That was a couple of years ago and it was a wonderful in-depth discussion.

I own the BBC film of "Our Mutual Friend"...I love it; it's incredible. I really should read the novel. The characters are wonderful.

[mal4mac]

"A Tale of Two Cities" may be a masterpiece (isn't everything by Dickens?) but I think it's his weakest masterpiece. From what I've read, the serious critics tend to feel this way as well. For me, it came across as the the weakest of his novels, and the least enjoyable (maybe tying with Dombey and Son in that respect!) It is, certainly, different from his other novels, so it is not a good one to read to get a general impression of Dickens, and to decide if you want to read all of his vast oeuvre. (That would be Oliver, as most people are recommending...) Here's some analysis that agrees with my untrained subjective perceptions:

"A Tale of Two Cities has probably given serious critics of Dickens more trouble than any other of his novels. Written at the height of Dickens's artistic maturity, it seems almost willfully to turn away from the very modes of imagination that had made him great and to stress some of the facile formulas that had merely made him popular. From the first, admirers of Dickens have sensed this book to be an uncharacteristic expression of his genius ... the general strategy of this novel differs from that of his other fiction has the effect of leaving certain regrettable conventional elements nakedly exposed which, in the more typical novels, are submerged in the great swirl of brilliant fantastication that can only be called Dickensian. In Little Dorrit, Bleak House, Great Expectations, Our Mutual Friend, the teeming life of Dickensian invention tends to draw our attention away from the imaginative thinness of the heroes and heroines, the contrived coincidences, the strained notes of melodrama, the moments of dewy-eyed, lip-serving religiosity, while the more intently dramatic presentation of character and event in A Tale of Two Cities frequently stresses just these qualities... Most of Dickens's fiction is boldly visual, but the visualization typically concentrates on fascinating and eccentric details, wonderful gargoyles, to borrow George Orwell's happy metaphor, rather than architectural wholes. In A Tale of Two Cities, on the other hand, the visual elements are deployed panoramically, often in the compositional arrangements of a large painted canvas. As nowhere else in his writing, Dickens wants to generalize his subject, and so he repeatedly holds the novel—images, characters, events—at a long distance to be seen in broad overview, its materials arranged in manifestly formal patterns. This method might well be described as picturesque, or a little more precisely, as scenic, for the Tale is a novel where the scene is the real event. The individual human actors are frequently no more than secondary elements of the scenes of which they are part; and the episodes that focus merely on the personages, isolated from the vivid panorama which is more often foreground than background, frequently reveal the novel at its weakest.

The novels of Dickens's maturity, as modern criticism has made abundantly clear, convey much of their meaning through the elaborate evocation of symbolic atmosphere. This is true of the Tale as well, but with this difference: the symbolic atmosphere does not simply give larger resonance to what happens in the novel—ultimately, it is what happens in the novel, for the subject as Dickens conceives it can only be represented in large symbolic terms." Robert Alter, Motives for Fiction

I must look up Orwell's comments on Dickens. Most of Orwell's novels are fatally flawed through their lack of interesting characters - gargoyles or otherwise! Sometimes (as in 1984) he can overcome that through being so good at painting on a large political/intellectual canvas - maybe that's why he's so good at essays.

Is Orwell the polar opposite of Dickens as a novelist? Maybe part of the reason for the strength of Tolstoy and Shakespeare is that they they do both "character" *and* "large canvas" consistently well? Then again, Bleak House and Little Dorrit use a fairly large canvas, and the gargoyles are very much on song...

[MarkBastable]

I'd go for 'A Christmas Carol' just because - quite apart from the quality of the prose - I think it has the best plot of any work of fiction in the English language. As a narrative, it works on every level.

In other words, it's just a brilliant story.

[Jazz_]

I think I enjoyed Great Expectations the most - so I would start there if I were you ;)

[Quark]

I'll set it up tomorrow.

It's here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=52018&goto=newpost


the general strategy of this novel differs from that of his other fiction has the effect of leaving certain regrettable conventional elements nakedly exposed which, in the more typical novels, are submerged in the great swirl of brilliant fantastication that can only be called Dickensian. In Little Dorrit, Bleak House, Great Expectations, Our Mutual Friend, the teeming life of Dickensian invention tends to draw our attention away from the imaginative thinness of the heroes and heroines, the contrived coincidences, the strained notes of melodrama, the moments of dewy-eyed, lip-serving religiosity, while the more intently dramatic presentation of character and event in A Tale of Two Cities frequently stresses just these qualities

I agree with Alter that much of A Tale of Two Cities is conventional or contrived. The hero and heroine are also too much of Mary Sues to be taken seriously. I don't know if I agree with the generalization that he draws, though: that Dickens is best when he's swirling "fantastication." The "teeming life" of novels like Bleak House is one of their strengths, but sometimes it can weaken his writing, too. Our Mutual Friend overdoes it a bit. I think most of us would rather read the sentimentality and melodrama of Great Expectations (of which there's quite a lot) than to have to try to understand the tangled plot and random characters of Our Mutual Friend. Alter's observations seem to slip into the habit of much of the criticism to divide Dickens into good Dickens and bad Dickens. The good Dickens is social critic who writes dark, meandering tales of complexity and nuance. The bad Dickens is the one who writes touching little vignettes. I think when you read the books, though, you find that much of the sentiment is actually quite complex and nuanced, and some of the swirling "fantastication" is really superficial.

[mal4mac]

It's here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=52018&goto=newpost



I agree with Alter that much of A Tale of Two Cities is conventional or contrived. The hero and heroine are also too much of Mary Sues to be taken seriously. I don't know if I agree with the generalization that he draws, though: that Dickens is best when he's swirling "fantastication." The "teeming life" of novels like Bleak House is one of their strengths, but sometimes it can weaken his writing, too. Our Mutual Friend overdoes it a bit. I think most of us would rather read the sentimentality and melodrama of Great Expectations (of which there's quite a lot) than to have to try to understand the tangled plot and random characters of Our Mutual Friend. Alter's observations seem to slip into the habit of much of the criticism to divide Dickens into good Dickens and bad Dickens. The good Dickens is social critic who writes dark, meandering tales of complexity and nuance. The bad Dickens is the one who writes touching little vignettes. I think when you read the books, though, you find that much of the sentiment is actually quite complex and nuanced, and some of the swirling "fantastication" is really superficial.

I agree that Alter and other critics are often too harsh on the sentimental side of Dickens - I also like the touching little vignettes - The Old Curiosity Shop is full of them (the pony, Punch and Judy...) "Tale" scores badly in this respect - not much room for touching little vignettes in the French Revolution. I think you are dismissing the swirling fantastication too readily. Miss Havisham, Fagin, and endless others, are like characters swirled out of fairy stories into real life, who somehow manage to exist there as real people. That's the magic of Dickens.

[dfloyd]

And that is why I don't read the critics. After reading all the novels and short stories of Dickens, the worst Dickens are Barnaby Rudge, Dombey and Son, and The Olde Curiosity Shop... I thought Little Nell would never die. In any event, she took too long. While a Tale of Two Cities is not his best, it is far from his worse. And it has many great characters such as Jerry the messenger from Telson's Bank, Miss Pross, Madame Darnay's old nurse, the eternally knitting Madame DeFarge, down to Sydney Carton himself, so admirably played as the dissolute lawyer by Ronald Colman.

As for the best, Great Expectations is right up there. Anyone who has read the book is missing something by not viewing the David Lean film with John Mills as Pip, Alec Guiness as Pip's Friend, Herbert Pocket, and Jeanne Simmons in a very early role as the haughty young Estella. Bleak house is next, and another dramatization one shouldn't miss with Diana Rigg as the beautiful Lady Dredlock. I might place Our Mutual Friend next, then many would be in a dead heat with David Copperfield heading the pack. The three aforementioned would bring up the rear.

[Quark]

I think you are dismissing the swirling fantastication too readily.

I hope not. Really, all I'm saying is that both Dickens' sentiment and swirl "fantastication" can be enjoyable. I don't want to label one good and the other bad--at least at some very general level.

Although, I have to admit that I don't think I completely understood what the critic was going for when he said "fantastication" or "teeming life." He probably defined his terms in previous or following paragraphs.


As for the best, Great Expectations is right up there. Anyone who has read the book is missing something by not viewing the David Lean film with John Mills as Pip, Alec Guiness as Pip's Friend, Herbert Pocket, and Jeanne Simmons in a very early role as the haughty young Estella. Bleak house is next, and another dramatization one shouldn't miss with Diana Rigg as the beautiful Lady Dredlock.

There are some excellent adaptations. The Bleak House one was surprising good. Great Expectations lends itself well to movie adaptation--since it has such a clear order and memorable scenes--but Bleak House is a way more amorphous novel. I was expectation the movie adaptation to be either a simplification of the novel or just a mess. They pulled it off surprising well, though.

[dfloyd]

was the quality of the two David Lean b&w adaptations of Oliver Twist and Great Expectations. While much of the novels are left out since they were made before tv, they do follow the books fairly well. The depiction of Fagin and Bill Sykes and the murky atmosphere of the bog and graveyard in Great Expectations probably lend themselves to a b&w film, rather than a colored one. In any event, they are superior dramatizations of Dickens, and both starred Alec Guiness who, I believe, was not to be seen in a Dickens' movie until he played Little Dorrit's father near the end of his career.