Our Mutual Book Club

[Quark]

The voting is done. Our Mutual Friend wins! Here is our thread.

As usual, we're hidden away in the author's forums--LitNet's equivalent of the back alleys in Dickensian London. Yet, I'm hopeful that the poll caught enough eyes to draw some people into this obscure corner of the site. I'm also hoping the book draws some interest, too. Our Mutual Friend is a good one. It's got a lot of funny scenes, great mystery, and warm moments. It's also got a lot of symbolic weight and thematic substance. It might take a while for everyone to read, but, once things get going on the thread, I'm sure there will be some excellent posts.

This is a late novel (1864-65) in Dickens career, but it reads more like a follow-up to Bleak House than it does like the works that actually precede it (Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities). Most of Dickens later work has a much more psychological focus, and, in general, it just has more focus period. Our Mutual Friend, though, returns to the sprawling social criticism that made Dickens the initial success he was. With this novel, he also returns to the bulky, twenty-installment, monthly format in which he wrote many of his other earlier classics (Bleak House, Little Dorrit, Pickwick Papers, etc.). Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities were smaller works published occasionally in magazines. Our Mutual Friend, on the other hand, came out at regular intervals in little blue books that were almost pamphlet size. They were about a forty pages each, but much of it was filled with ads for Fraiser's Miracle Ointment or Johnson's Magisterial Firm. You have to flip some pages to get to anything Dickens, and when you do get there the font is almost microscopic.


http://www.qub.ac.uk/ourmutfr/Illustrations/images/cover-colour.jpg
The Original April 1865 Version of Our Mutual Friend

Each of these would carry three or four chapters of the novel. Since this is such long novel, I suggest that we use these installments to pace the discussion. We could discuss the first installment (chps. 1-4) for a while, and then move on to the second (chps. 5-7)--then the third (chps. 8-10), etc. It might get a little chaotic if we try to discuss the book all at once, so I think breaking up the discussion into a series of mini-conversation would probably be a good idea. Also, this will give everyone some idea of how the novel was actually received at first. The large, clean texts that we're holding now are nothing like what nineteenth-century readers would have owned. We can't all get the little blue books (although if you're at a university library you might), but we can at least read the text in the chunks that Dickens had in mind. So, for both history's sake and this thread's sake, I suggest we break the discussion up. I can post introductions to each section, so that those just joining the thread will know where we are in the novel.

I don't mind if people want to make general comments about the book, as well. You might want to attach the spoiler tag to it, though, so that you don't give away anything--after all, there's quite a bit of mystery in the novel. Also, feel free to bring up anything and everything loosely related with the novel--like film adaptations or Victorian history. If there's lots of discussion on something like that, I can always open up a spin-off thread on that topic. In any case, this thread is up, and discussion starts whenever we have the time to read and post. Thanks for voting in the poll everyone.


http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/angry_cat.jpg
Angry Cat Reminds You That Homework Help Will Not Be Forthcoming from This Thread!

Thanks again people. Comments, anyone?

[Janine]

hahah, Quark, angry cat is hilarious....good one. How long is the book? I don't own a copy, but I loved the BBC miniseries of this novel. I really should read it. I didn't realise, when I just voted, that the pole was closed and I also thought it was just a favorite novel pole. I might be able to join in in some capacity. Fine job on your introduction!

[Jozanny]

Angry Cat has an open invitation to move in with me; Joey in particular would love to join him in the pool ;). I'll begin reading sometime this morning, promioso. I snooted back into Theron Ware for a bit to recalibrate back to the 19th century.

[wessexgirl]

*MY THOUGHTS ON THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK. I DON'T THINK I HAVE POSTED ANY SPOILERS, JUST A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE CHARACTERS, BUT PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.*

Well, I've just finished watching the BBC production again, and I urge anyone who has the chance to watch it, it's excellent. I've now read the first four chapters, as suggested by Quark, and love the way Dickens has drawn such excellent character descriptions of the participants so far. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on the Veneerings dinner party, and the swipe he takes at those characters. There are some lovely turns of phrase, particularly the description of a character who has a "fatal freshness" on him, I'm assuming, like a lamb to the slaughter, as a newcomer amongst the venal "society" he is interacting with. A lovely comical scene.

I like the way he's written that comic interlude after the introduction of Lizzie, and her world. He makes no bones about where his sympathies are going to lie, does he? Great character portraits of the Wilfer family too. He is also adept at his usual trick with names, Bella Wilfer, being beautiful, but wilful; her father only ever signing his initial as R, as his name is "too self-assertive", coupled with his genial appearance, described as cherubic, giving us a wonderful pen-portrait of a shy, retiring man, who is good-natured and good-hearted, in a couple of pages. We have been shown in a few chapters the disposition of some of the main players in the story so far, Bella's pride and haughtiness, Eugene's emptiness, Lizzie's goodness, Rokesmith's reserve etc, by the use of some wonderfully acute observations by Dickens.

How are you all finding it so far?

[Quark]

hahah, Quark, angry cat is hilarious....good one.

Angry Cat has an open invitation to move in with me; Joey in particular would love to join him in the pool ;).

I'd be more than willing to unload Angry Cat. Really, he's pleasant most of the time. But he doesn't like two things: water and LitNetters looking for homework help in the wrong threads. Beware of Angry Cat!


How long is the book?

It's quite long--but good. It runs about 800 pages in most books. You should be able to find it at libraries and bookstores, as it is one of the more widely read of Dickens' works.


I really should read it. I didn't realise, when I just voted, that the pole was closed and I also thought it was just a favorite novel pole. I might be able to join in in some capacity.

Yeah, I thought it might get confusing. Originally, I had laid out what I was trying to do in the OP, but that got buried pretty fast and the poll itself wasn't specific enough. I was just surprised that so many people posted that the OP got covered up. I wasn't counting on that happening.


I'll begin reading sometime this morning, promioso. I snooted back into Theron Ware for a bit to recalibrate back to the 19th century.

Don't worry about it. We're probably going to go pretty slow at first to give everyone time to read. It's a dense novel, so you don't want to rush through it.


Well, I've just finished watching the BBC production again, and I urge anyone who has the chance to watch it, it's excellent.

I'm downloading it now. I'll post links to it after I watch it.


I particularly enjoyed the chapter on the Veneerings dinner party, and the swipe he takes at those characters. There are some lovely turns of phrase, particularly the description of a character who has a "fatal freshness" on him, I'm assuming, like a lamb to the slaughter, as a newcomer amongst the venal "society" he is interacting with. A lovely comical scene.

It's a well-done scene. I liked the description of Veneering as "a kind of sufficiently well-looking veiled-prophet, not prophesying." Dickens carefully sets him up for this line with lots of little indications of being removed and ineffectual. When Dickens finally makes his little jab, it fits so well--and is that much more crushing. It's almost not fair: the narrator has such a fine sense of everything, and the characters he's making fun of are such bumbling fools.

There's a sad undercurrent to this scene, though, too. After all, if these are people with money and power, what does that mean for the rest of us? Their society isn't something anyone wants to be in, yet it's impossible to avoid. This is also the only scene that even approaches community and pleasant social interaction--and it's unbearable. These first chapters give us a pretty bleak picture of the world. There's a family that's knit together by the children lying to the father and the father holding his children back. There's a society of people with no fellow-feeling. There's some professionals who hate their profession. Only idiots like the Boffins pair can enjoy themselves in these circumstances. I once described Dickens novels as squeezing a little bit of humanity out of a bad situation. This novel certainly is giving us a bad situation.

You make some other good observations in your post, but I'm running out of time to post at the moment. I'll get to them when I post an intro to the first four chapter.

[Jozanny]

I am not very far in yet, as my kitty kids swish kindle when mom needs to cease and desist and pay attention to them, but will concede that Dickens skillfully echoes Charon in portraying the ferryman on his skiff that is more of the ooze in the Thames than an object through which man bends forces of nature to his use:

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/2700000/Charon-s-crossing-greek-mythology-2714227-800-589.jpg

But this man and his daughter also seem to be an actual consequence of the Industrial Age itself, creatures particular to it.

[Jozanny]

But scenes like Twenlow's dynamic with the Veneerings are scenes that illicits tortured screams from my soul ;) I suppose defenders would say humanizing the characteristics of a dining table is part of the trademark Dickensonian genius, and it can be effective, but here it only served me up some confusion. Quark and Dark have indicated they have already read the novel. I haven't, but there seems to be some grammatical issues in Twenlow's table brain. It could be the file preparer made an error or two, since this was a free download, or it might be Dickens, I don't know.

[Quark]

but will concede that Dickens skillfully echoes Charon in portraying the ferryman on his skiff that is more of the ooze in the Thames than an object through which man bends forces of nature to his use:

That's a good thought. You're right that there's a sort of modern retelling of the Charon myth. Instead of Charon changing a coin to transfer the dead across the river of pain to Hades, Dickens has the modern ferryman pick your pockets and tow you behind the boat in sludge. The original Charon myth is filled with strong emotion and theological implications, but Dickens' Charon is stripped of everything but dirty, selfish realism. There's no afterlife that Dickens' Charon is taking you. It's only the police station. That's fitting, of course. The opening chapters are all about hitting the reader with the bleak, inescapable reality of London. An afterlife (however unpleasant) might conflict with that message.

As for the river, it's a complex figure in Our Mutual Friend. It collects all the filth and slime--physically and morally--but it also serves as the conduit through which new and more hopefully things can enter London. Dickens uses the river and water in many different ways throughout the novel.


But this man and his daughter also seem to be an actual consequence of the Industrial Age itself, creatures particular to it.

Undoubtedly. This all very topical. All the characters have something to say about the times. There was much talk about the kinds of education you see from characters like Charley and Wegg. The Veneering reflect sociological changes in England at the time.


But scenes like Twenlow's dynamic with the Veneerings are scenes that illicits tortured screams from my soul ;) I suppose defenders would say humanizing the characteristics of a dining table is part of the trademark Dickensonian genius, and it can be effective, but here it only served me up some confusion.

Examples. Examples. I need examples. What tripped you up? There's a few too many characters to keep track off--too many leaves in Twemlow as it were--but I didn't notice any grammatical errors--at least not any meaning-destroying ones.


We have been shown in a few chapters the disposition of some of the main players in the story so far, Bella's pride and haughtiness, Eugene's emptiness, Lizzie's goodness, Rokesmith's reserve etc, by the use of some wonderfully acute observations by Dickens.

Yeah, there's quite a bit of setting up the board in these opening scenes, but I always like Dickens' introductions to his characters. Sometimes in the novel that's all we get of them, too. Some characters show up for a couple of pages, and are never heard from again.

As I was suggesting before, I thought it might be good to talk about the sections of the novel as they were published. I'll try to post introductions to each section, so that people just joining the thread will know where we're at. So here's

Chapters 1-4

A common complaint of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is that it's just a story of people walking. On the other hand, though, is Our Mutual Friend: a story much about people sitting--and staring. Lizzie and Hexam sit in the boat staring at the water. Lizzie and Charley sit at home staring into the fire. The Veneering sit at dinner, and we gaze at their reflection in the mirror. For most of the beginning characters are just as recumbent as Mrs. Boffin and staring in wonder at something near or far. This adds to the feeling of stasis that readers get as they stare at the grim spectacle that is Victorian England. It may seem like over-reading to draw a connection between the posture of the characters and the readers--but in Dickens there is no such thing as over-reading. His books are so tightly controlled that even seemingly unimportant minor characters in the beginning come back to play huge roles later on. The readers forget about people like Skimpole and Magwitch, but Dickens doesn't. Everything plays a role in the story.

The first few chapters give us the economic reality of the book: people don't work, they just scavenge. No one is involved in any productive labor. Instead, they scavenge for resources. Hexam steals from the dead. The dust collector makes money by carrying aware ash and garbage. The Veneering speculate. The Boffins inherit. No one, though, actually makes anything socially useful. This is obviously meant to contrast with the unpaid work of Lizzie. If it's not clear already that she's the heroine, I'll just come out and say it: she's the likeable heroine we're all supposed to be pulling for. Ultimately, she's trying to keep the family together, but she's also trying to live her own life.


http://charlesdickenspage.com/characters/lizzie_gaffer_hexam-stone.gif

We also have the introduction to the main mystery of the novel: what happened to John Harmon? In chapter 2, Mortimer lets loose Harmon's story, but we're still unclear after four chapters how the story ends.

Oh, and I think I should qualify what I said about the Boffins a couple posts back. I may have been a little too hard on them. They are good people, but, let's face it, they also have the IQ of a potato.

[wessexgirl]

I've only read the first 4 chapters so far, and the Boffins don't make an entrance until C5 in my edition. I am going to try and read a little more now, but I don't want to get too far ahead, as we're concentrating on the beginning here.

Yes, the river is extremely important to the whole novel, as we will see throughout, particularly in Lizzie's story.

It's obviously meant to be ironic that the Boffins are so named, as you say, they have little IQ, and so what better name to give them than Boffins? I know that Dickens can be criticised for this style of his, where the names of the characters reflect their disposition, or are ironic in the case of the Boffins, but how better to hit you straight away with what he thinks? The Veneerings are a splendid example, all surface, show and gloss. Lizzie may have a relatively normal name in comparison, perhaps his way of showing, as he does from the start that she is his heroine, but if we think about it, Hexham has connotations of hex, or curse, and she certainly does have a blighted life. Anyway, I will go and read the next chapter on the Boffins, as that seems as if it should be included in our beginning section, and I'll pop in later.

[Quark]

I've only read the first 4 chapters so far, and the Boffins don't make an entrance until C5 in my edition. I am going to try and read a little more now, but I don't want to get too far ahead, as we're concentrating on the beginning here.

You're right. I was breaking my own rules. The Boffins don't come until until chapter five. I might have to reread the first four chapters, since I'm forgetting what's in them. Right now, I'm almost half way through the novel, so it's getting a little unclear to me what happened at the beginning.


It's obviously meant to be ironic that the Boffins are so named, as you say, they have little IQ, and so what better name to give them than Boffins? I know that Dickens can be criticised for this style of his, where the names of the characters reflect their disposition, or are ironic in the case of the Boffins, but how better to hit you straight away with what he thinks? The Veneerings are a splendid example, all surface, show and gloss. Lizzie may have a relatively normal name in comparison, perhaps his way of showing, as he does from the start that she is his heroine, but if we think about it, Hexham has connotations of hex, or curse, and she certainly does have a blighted life.

Yeah, the names kind of give everything away, but Dickens is trying to remind readers that these characters are not just individual people--they're also type of people that one sees in English society. There's a sort of universal quality to them that might be lost if they had realistic names.

[OrphanPip]

The name thing is drawing on a tradition of the Picaresque novels and 17th-18th century comedies where these kinds of "character type" names are expected. In drama the use of these kinds of names is often an expedient way to characterize a character without much effort, but I think in Dickens it is more of reflection of his love for the traditions of comedy and satire.

[Quark]

The name thing is drawing on a tradition of the Picaresque novels and 17th-18th century comedies

That's quite right. A lot of Dickens' writing looks back to the eighteenth-century. What do you think of the novel so far, though? Have you read this one before?

[wessexgirl]

Is anyone still reading? I'm sorry I haven't posted for a while, only I'm back at work now, and haven't had time to keep up. I did read the next 3 chapters before returning to work, but didn't want to post as we were still on the first 4. I will try to get back into it over the weekend, but I have so much to do, so may not get around to it. I need to get my priorities right - books before chores :biggrin5:.

[Quark]

Is anyone still reading?

I've almost finished. I stopped last week, though, because there wasn't much activity on the thread. That's fine, of course. If we don't have the time for the discussion right now, we shouldn't post. I don't want to give anyone more work than they already have. I just thought it might be fun to go over a long novel like Dickens' with a group of pretty literate people.


I will try to get back into it over the weekend, but I have so much to do, so may not get around to it.

I'll probably post something, too, this weekend. There's still quite a lot to say about the novel.

[caspian]

Yeah, there's quite a bit of setting up the board in these opening scenes, but I always like Dickens' introductions to his characters. Sometimes in the novel that's all we get of them, too. Some characters show up for a couple of pages, and are never heard from again..
I'm sure The Veneerings are one of them.




The first few chapters give us the economic reality of the book: people don't work, they just scavenge. No one is involved in any productive labor. Instead, they scavenge for resources. Hexam steals from the dead. The dust collector makes money by carrying aware ash and garbage. The Veneering speculate. The Boffins inherit. No one, though, actually makes anything socially useful. This is obviously meant to contrast with the unpaid work of Lizzie. If it's not clear already that she's the heroine, I'll just come out and say it: she's the likeable heroine we're all supposed to be pulling for. Ultimately, she's trying to keep the family together, but she's also trying to live her own life.


http://charlesdickenspage.com/characters/lizzie_gaffer_hexam-stone.gif

We also have the introduction to the main mystery of the novel: what happened to John Harmon? In chapter 2, Mortimer lets loose Harmon's story, but we're still unclear after four chapters how the story ends.

Oh, and I think I should qualify what I said about the Boffins a couple posts back. I may have been a little too hard on them. They are good people, but, let's face it, they also have the IQ of a potato.

Yes, Lizzie is the likeable heroine. But i don't see any suitable match for her other than dead John Harmon. Is it certain that he's dead?

[Jozanny]

Is anyone still reading? I'm sorry I haven't posted for a while, only I'm back at work now, and haven't had time to keep up. I did read the next 3 chapters before returning to work, but didn't want to post as we were still on the first 4. I will try to get back into it over the weekend, but I have so much to do, so may not get around to it. I need to get my priorities right - books before chores :biggrin5:.

Don't wait for me. I am not a huge Dickens fan and I am sorry but my stripes refuse to change color, so while I may plod along it will be at a slow pace. I have the thread on subscription and will probably chime in when Quark isn't looking and has moved on.:biggrin5:

[OrphanPip]

I'm still reading it, but I'm just doing it at a slow pace because of time constraints at the moment.

Edits: Dickens works better if read slowly over a long period anyway ;), even it isn't conductive to discussion.

[Quark]

That's okay. It's not like the thread is going to go anywhere. I'll be around all this summer to discuss whatever. If you get around to the novel, post something and I'll probably reply.

[Jozanny]

I am reading it Quark, but my kindle habits have taken some time to develop and I just finished The Damnation of Theron Ware, a remarkable novel for the time in which it was written, and raced through a short French smut piece which delighted me, and returned to Dreiser.

I did not used to have 50 bookmarks at once; the online era is pure evil, I daresay. ;) I sift a page or two and then round and about race to the finish, as in my student days.

I did not intend to deceive by voting. A review made me hope that Dickens in a dark mood would radicalize himself, but alas... (sighs). Perhaps I will push slightly further today, ignoring my own ludicrous and existential despair, which is a source of infinite jest, for Yorick's skull, Sterne's early textual self-referencing, and dead over-educated tennis players for whom literary brilliance wasn't enough!

I am on the first dinner party....

[Quark]

Well, don't feel like it's an obligation. Everyone already has enough work to do.

[Jozanny]

I have completed chapter two, with Mortimer's anecdote setting up the entire pretext for the novel; the only notations I've made, to date, are how Dickens seemed concerned that the accumulation of wealth seems to mar the social structure of human relationships, even within the internal dynamics of the family.

Thus far, I wish Dickens had tightened up his exposition some--the time he spends satirizing the Veneerings seems too fluid, in a negative way, and though the two writers have little internally to compare with each other, Woolf's effusiveness with dinner parties is stronger than Dickens own.

Depending on my cats' Bad Hairball day, I will see how far along I can get by the end of the week.

[Quark]

I have completed chapter two, with Mortimer's anecdote setting up the entire pretext for the novel; the only notations I've made, to date, are how Dickens seemed concerned that the accumulation of wealth seems to mar the social structure of human relationships, even within the internal dynamics of the family.

Thus far, I wish Dickens had tightened up his exposition some--the time he spends satirizing the Veneerings seems too fluid, in a negative way, and though the two writers have little internally to compare with each other, Woolf's effusiveness with dinner parties is stronger than Dickens own.

Yeah, but I think you have to put the scene in context. So much of it is about a very Victorian theme: the noveau rich and their attempts to buy respectability. I think in contemporary American society sudden wealth isn't something one has to defend. Many tend think that money is its own justification. If you're wealthy that must mean you're successful, and if you're successful that means you deserve money. For Victorians, this wasn't always the case, and many novels of the time explore the ways wealth is created and then anxiously defended. Middlemarch is a prime example of this. Bulstrode essentially steals his wealth, and then uses it to buy a place in society. This is a common plot for the time. After all, this is the age of neo-gothic architechture which is little more than the attempt to throw up a false image of age and dignity on top of something new and untested. This is the architecture that will go over the new Houses of Parliment, Law Courts, and new London Churches: all new sites of power trying to look as though they're old and established. The Veneerings are following in the same style. They use their money to buy a coat of arms, some honorable acquaintances, and even a faux lineage.

Unlike Middlemarch, though, which is a much broader psychological and social investigation into this theme, I thought the scene in Our Mutual Friend was about showing how that habit of creating false pasts extends to everyone in society--not just the newly wealthy. Everyone at the Veenerings table has some false past they're trying to convince everyone is real. This is supposed to contrast with the very real history of Harmon--which is framed almost as a fantastic story.

I think this is probably why the scene goes on for so long. It's a satire that might not have much force today, but I imagine it was quite cutting in its day. Anyway, if you keep reading, do keep posting things. After having read the whole novel, I'm dying to talk about it.

[caspian]

I'm mainly fond of naturalistic writing, so reading Dickens is like taking a nice, long vacation for me. - there's no doubt I'm promised happy ending, a beautiful story mixed with everything; humor, romance, mistery, criticism etch. It feels so good :):):)
This is my forth Dickens novel, first in original. And I'm loving it. It has a lot in common with Little Dorrit. -I think Mutual friend is deeper. Money, greed, corruption of high class society, poverty of working class. Mr. Veneering's dinner table serves all.

I'm halfway through the book. Just reached the part where a "love triangle' is in the air. Charles visits Eugene. I should admit I'm a lousy matchmaker. :D So far no one is good enough for perfect Lizzie. I can't wait to see how Dickens handles it. . Number of characters is extraordinary. I've just met new character -Mr Riah -the jew moneylender is very promising. Dickens is hard to predict. I can't help wondering how all of his varied characters would come together in the end.

I don't know if I like Eugene. His arrogance is so sharp. Though I believe it's just mask.

Dickens is so amusing:

'Thankee, sir, thankee,' returned that gentleman. 'And how do
YOU like the law?'

'A--not particularly,' returned Eugene.

'Too dry for you, eh? Well, I suppose it wants some years of
sticking to, before you master it. But there's nothing like work.
Look at the bees.'

'I beg your pardon,' returned Eugene, with a reluctant smile, 'but
will you excuse my mentioning that I always protest against being
referred to the bees?'

'Do you!' said Mr Boffin.

'I object on principle,' said Eugene, 'as a biped--'

'As a what?' asked Mr Boffin.

'As a two-footed creature;--I object on principle, as a two-footed
creature, to being constantly referred to insects and four-footed
creatures. I object to being required to model my proceedings
according to the proceedings of the bee, or the dog, or the spider, or
the camel. I fully admit that the camel, for instance, is an
excessively temperate person; but he has several stomachs to
entertain himself with, and I have only one. Besides, I am not
fitted up with a convenient cool cellar to keep my drink in.'

'But I said, you know,' urged Mr Boffin, rather at a loss for an
answer, 'the bee.'

'Exactly. And may I represent to you that it's injudicious to say the
bee? For the whole case is assumed. Conceding for a moment that
there is any analogy between a bee, and a man in a shirt and
pantaloons (which I deny), and that it is settled that the man is to
learn from the bee (which I also deny), the question still remains,
what is he to learn? To imitate? Or to avoid? When your friends
the bees worry themselves to that highly fluttered extent about their
sovereign, and become perfectly distracted touching the slightest
monarchical movement, are we men to learn the greatness of Tuft-
hunting, or the littleness of the Court Circular? I am not clear, Mr
Boffin, but that the hive may be satirical.'

'At all events, they work,' said Mr Boffin.

'Ye-es,' returned Eugene, disparagingly, 'they work; but don't you
think they overdo it? They work so much more than they need--
they make so much more than they can eat--they are so incessantly
boring and buzzing at their one idea till Death comes upon them--
that don't you think they overdo it? And are human labourers to
have no holidays, because of the bees? And am I never to have
change of air, because the bees don't? Mr Boffin, I think honey
excellent at breakfast; but, regarded in the light of my conventional
schoolmaster and moralist, I protest against the tyrannical humbug
of your friend the bee. With the highest respect for you.'

[Quark]

Hi, caspian. I didn't notice anyone had posted here. I've gotten away from the discussion because it's been rather empty of late. This doesn't surprise me one bit. I've seen enough of the forum to realize that discussions on individual texts make up a small fraction of the posts on LitNet. Trying to get posters to read a text and hold a conversation about it is a difficult thing to do and no one really has the time. Really, bookclubs have less of a chance of surviving in this environment than sea life in the Gulf of Mexico. I'll post occasionally in this thread to see if there's anyone who just happens to be reading the book at the time, but I probably won't post everyday.

I'm glad you're enjoying the book, though. I won't reveal how the love story resolves itself--although I think you probably already know where it's going. I was curious what you meant by "naturalistic." Are you talking about literary naturalism--like Gissing or Zola? Dickens would be very different from that. In fact, Dickens' melodrama and verbose narration were what Gissing was trying to get away from.

[Jozanny]

Yeah, but I think you have to put the scene in context. So much of it is about a very Victorian theme: the noveau rich and their attempts to buy respectability. I think in contemporary American society sudden wealth isn't something one has to defend. Many tend think that money is its own justification. If you're wealthy that must mean you're successful, and if you're successful that means you deserve money. For Victorians, this wasn't always the case, and many novels of the time explore the ways wealth is created and then anxiously defended. I think this is probably why the scene goes on for so long. It's a satire that might not have much force today, but I imagine it was quite cutting in its day. Anyway, if you keep reading, do keep posting things. After having read the whole novel, I'm dying to talk about it.

I am on my way to bed, wherein maybe I will read a little more in, or if not now, at the doctors' offices later, but this is exactly my problem. I can open Flaubert, Zola, even Balzac, and class consciousness slaps me in the face, but Dickens is so intent on making the dinner table adorably infantile that I never really receive the sense that the Veneerings are nouveau riche, though Mortimer setting up the plot background keys it in somewhat.

I know you want to talk up the book, and I'm not trying to frustrate you, I just have a lot to do and I have to slow my forum participation down for the time being, but where the opening chapter was sharp, the second suffers from what could have been a more effective disjunction.

Edit: I am in the opening of ch 3, where Mortimer and Eugene exchange wits with the boy.

[Quark]

I can open Flaubert, Zola, even Balzac, and class consciousness slaps me in the face, but Dickens is so intent on making the dinner table adorably infantile that I never really receive the sense that the Veneerings are nouveau riche, though Mortimer setting up the plot background keys it in somewhat.

I thought it was pretty overt that they were newly rich. Maybe it doesn't slap you upside the head with class consciousness (do you really want to be hit in the face?), but that's certainly there, too. The very beginning of the chapter tells you that "Mr. and Mrs. Veneering were bran-new people in a bran-new house in a bran-new quarter of London." There wealth is nothing traditional and established. Rather, it's bran-new, and throughout the chapter there's reference made to the new family history they've made out for themselves, new friends they've acquired, new furniture they've bought. Everything is new (and fabricated). As I pointed out in my first post, this sudden discovery of wealth and subsequent efforts to justify it is a common Victorian theme. After all, part of London went through exactly this kind of gentrification at the time, and Dickens is satirizing it and also using it in the greater structure of his novel. More than just being a clever little jab at the stupidly rich, it also expresses anxiety about art and story telling in general. Later on, Twemlow will comment on the "fictions" of the Veneering: the way they create self-serving illusions. Part of what's going on in chapter two is that Dickens is showing how fictions can be used selfishly. The Harmon narrative will become Dickens' way of saving narrative from the people like the Veneering who would use it for their own gains. So, there's a little more to the chapter than just plot exposition.


I know you want to talk up the book, and I'm not trying to frustrate you, I just have a lot to do and I have to slow my forum participation down for the time being, but where the opening chapter was sharp, the second suffers from what could have been a more effective disjunction.

Don't worry. Quark's as cool as cucumber right now. It's going to be a pretty leisurely summer for me, so I'm free to discuss whatever people want and whenever.


Edit: I am in the opening of ch 3, where Mortimer and Eugene exchange wits with the boy.

Some of the dialogue is pretty funny. I like the back-and-forths with Boffins a few chapters past where you are now.

[Jozanny]

I thought it was pretty overt that they were newly rich. Maybe it doesn't slap you upside the head with class consciousness (do you really want to be hit in the face?), but that's certainly there, too. The very beginning of the chapter tells you that "Mr. and Mrs. Veneering were bran-new people in a bran-new house in a bran-new quarter of London." There wealth is nothing traditional and established. Rather, it's bran-new, and throughout the chapter there's reference made to the new family history they've made out for themselves, new friends they've acquired, new furniture they've bought. Everything is new (and fabricated). As I pointed out in my first post, this sudden discovery of wealth and subsequent efforts to justify it is a common Victorian theme. After all, part of London went through exactly this kind of gentrification at the time, and Dickens is satirizing it and also using it in the greater structure of his novel. More than just being a clever little jab at the stupidly rich, it also expresses anxiety about art and story telling in general. Later on, Twemlow will comment on the "fictions" of the Veneering: the way they create self-serving illusions. Part of what's going on in chapter two is that Dickens is showing how fictions can be used selfishly. The Harmon narrative will become Dickens' way of saving narrative from the people like the Veneering who would use it for their own gains. So, there's a little more to the chapter than just plot exposition.

Nicely made argument, and I rarely pay such compliments, but obviously, when Quark is on, he's on!:lol:

[kasie]

Please may I join the discussion? I'm trying very hard to overcome a lifelong aversion to Dickens and believe I may have found the way to do it: I have downloaded an unabridged audio version to my iPod and am listening to it a chapter at a time, then re-reading it on-line (thank you LitNet) instead of struggling through a Mighty Tome with tiny, poor quality print, which I think is what put me off Dickens in the past. After all, Dickens wrote many of his works in instalments and these were often read aloud in family circles, so I am going back to the original method of delivery, just updated a bit.

re: the description of the river in the opening chapter: in 1858, the Great Stink, as it was called, was so bad that Parliament had to be suspended; that sped up the movement to have a proper sewerage disposal system for London. The work would have been underway by the time OMF was published but the state of the river would have been a lively memory to its first readers.

[Quark]

Please may I join the discussion?

Oh, I guess.


re: the description of the river in the opening chapter: in 1858, the Great Stink, as it was called, was so bad that Parliament had to be suspended; that sped up the movement to have a proper sewerage disposal system for London. The work would have been underway by the time OMF was published but the state of the river would have been a lively memory to its first readers.

That's all true. I think it's especially good that you point out how Dickens' readers might have perceived the opening chapters: that is, as something from the not-so-distant past. In a way, we might think of Hexam, his craft, and his locale all become mythological representations of an England that was just recently eclipsed at the time of the novel's publication. Jozanny pointed to Hexam's timeless resonance--a sort of retelling of the Charon myth--but I think you're right that there's something very topical about the opening chapter. Dickens picks some iconic images (and smells) to portray in the novel, and no doubt he's banking on his readers making the kind of connections you did. Dickens alternates between these two registers--the timeless and the topical--frequently in the novel and it's one of his skills as a writer that he can take something very specific and make it hugely important to readers everywhere.

[Jozanny]

I am not much farther along than I was (mostly because I am working and red tape busy), but thank you kasie; your historical references enrich insights--and I will try to forget my indignation over Twenilow the dining table henceforth!

[wessexgirl]

I'm not much further on yet either, but I will try to keep up. I like the idea of an audio book too, it would help me greatly, as I don't have much time to actually sit and read. I'll see if I can get hold of one.

[Quark]

Audio books are always good for a long car ride. I have to take a trip to Cleveland soon, so I'll be sure to pack one for myself. You guys might also want to check out movie adaptations of Dickens' novels. When I find a link, I'll post some to the thread.

[Jozanny]

Link:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=906670#post906670

[Anne Catherick]

I am about a third of my way through this now! Haven't read all the posts on this thread because I didn't want to see any spoilers, but couldn't resist just saying a few words.

I am loving the book so far. I put my hip out three weeks ago (I know, what am I, 80!?) and so have been in bed since July. This has actually worked out OK! When I was a child my father would always read old classics to us before bed (he was a big reader and clearly wanted us to be too!) I remember him trying to read Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island to us each year on holiday in Cornwall. It was the perfect book for it because of all the smuggler history in Cornwall and the ruggard dramatic landscape. (He also read us Jamaica Inn - the best of Cornwall classicy). Yet with Treasure Island, we kept falling asleep, each time. Oliver Twist however, because we knew the film, was a favourite of ours. He also read us David Copperfield and Nicholas Nickleby. So for me Dickens is always an author to read in bed! Doing my hip in was therefore perfect timeing, as I had just bought a best rated mattress topper from Zen Bedrooms (http://www.zenbedrooms.com/memory-foam-mattress-toppers.html) – so now reading Dickens in bed is really cheering me up! Reading in bed is the ultimate way to do it, I have always believed, and finally I have a bed of quality that matches the quality of the literature. Our Mutual Friend is certainly more in the vein of Bleak House and Little Dorrit than those like Nicholas and David and Great Expectations. However I do not think it has the comedy of LD and it is harder to connect to thatn BH. I think because there are lot less (if any!) truly sympathetic characters. Apart from 'Our Friend' himself, we are lost and left adrift amongst quite a ghoulish and fierce cast of characters. So far, it is certainly the darkest of his novels.

What a way for his canon to end ...

[kev67]

It sounds like an interesting book. It was one of four books touching on 19th century economics discussed in a book titled, The Body Economic: Life, Death and Sensation in Political Economy and the Victorian Novel, written by Catherine Callagher. The other three were Hard Times by Charles Dickens, Daniel Deronda by George Elliot, and Scenes of Clerical Life, also by George Elliot. While Hard Times was about what Callagher termed soma-economics, Our Mutual Friend was about what she called bio-economics. Soma-economics is about striking a balance between the need to work hard to earn money and having some leisure time in which to spend it. Bio-economics is more about exploiting the carrying potential of the environment to support human life. I have not read Our Mutual Friend; I gather the recycling of waste, in particular dust, is a major theme in the book.