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

[Jack of Hearts]

Charles Dickens just wasn't as good as they say. But the thing is that they say, and you take what they give you, and then you say he was good.

He wasn't, though. He was a good newspaper writer, at best.

Someone said Joyce. Whoever says reading Joyce emotively is arcane... you're doing it wrong. That little Irish hack was the real deal, in terms of both being evocative AND prose stylistics.






J

[kiki1982]

I have to agree wholeheartedly. No matter how much Dickens is revered, I can't get past the maddening style he has. Sure, his stories are great (they've become part of the fabric of society almost, like folk tales), good characters (in adaptations at least, on paper they don't seem so interesting to me) and he may provide a pretty accurate picture of London in the 19th century (Gustave Doré on paper), but there remains one big but which is even the most important for a writer in my opinion: he's got no style. Dumas is also a sentimental writer, and shoddy (he made continuity mistakes by the dozen), but his writing doesn't grate. I want to chuck Dickens against the wall after about 20 pages because he repeats over and over and over.

Those who put him only second to Shakespeare, where do they class ,authors like Hardy, I wonder? There are millions of writers who were better at their trade than Dickens, although he is somewhat redeemed by the quality he produced (in a bad style). He shouldn't be revered as an author, but as a great creator of stories. I wish people would make their difference.

[chrisvia]

I think if the evaluation of Dickens is limited to the social novel, then, yes, he is a writer of eminence.

[MorpheusSandman]

there remains one big but which is even the most important for a writer in my opinion: he's got no style. Funny, there are many who'd say Dickens has too much style and too little substance. In fact, of all the common negative criticisms of Dickens, a lack of style is almost never one.

[chrisvia]

[I have deemed my comment as vapid.]

[bluosean]

There was no one here that put Dickens second after Shakespeare. There are many that do just this though. Nevertheless, most, probably, would rate Hardy higher, despite Dickens' enduring popularity. What many don't like about Dickens today is that he is so old-fashioned. As already said by Morpheus, he was very sentimental, very often religious, and adhered to Mercy, Piousness, Purity, etc. (How can we see Little Dorrit as anything but unbelievably pure, and what would many of his greatest stories be without the benevolence of a rich benefactor to finally relieve suffering?). As Morpheus seems to suggest, Dickens had more style than most. His repetitions are also his own, and in no way distract from his greatness as a writer. I remember reading a sentence where Dickens used the word "and" something like 50 times. In others, there are sentences with three separate sets of parenthesis, or, still others where Dickens uses every conceivable punctuation (including dashes, parenthesis, copious commas, and semi-colons). That his writings were serialized does not distract a bit from his greatness. We must look at the novel in the end, and, no matter how he got there, his are excellent.

Actually, though I like Hardy, I prefer Dickens to Hardy. Dickens was certainly more influential, and also, in my opinion, more original. I realize there are many that would despair to call Dickens anything but classical, and would much prefer the much more modern Hardy. But Hardy did not do anything, really, that George Meredith did not.

[mal4mac]

There was no one here that put Dickens second after Shakespeare. There are many that do just this though. Nevertheless, most, probably, would rate Hardy higher, despite Dickens' enduring popularity.

Although Hardy is great I think "most" would rate Dickens higher. But who is "most"? Maybe teenage nihilists would rate Hardy higher, "'cause he's dark, bro'" :), but long-in-the-tooth critics all rate Dickens higher, perhaps the highest amongst novelists. For instance Professor John Sutherland, the critic famous for reading 3000 Victorian novels in ten years, calls him "the inimitable", and "the greatest English novelist". Harold Bloom picks him out as the writer of the greatest canonical novel, along with George Eliot. Some of the early twentieth century critics tried to belittle Dickens, but I think that's now generally recognised as an aberration, like Tolstoy attacking Shakespeare. I've read a lot of Dickens and Hardy, and find Dickens the greater, but wouldn't be without Hardy's bleak vision.



What many don't like about Dickens today is that he is so old-fashioned.


As in "not modern"? That's simply an observation of fact, what point are you *trying* to make.



As already said by Morpheus, he was very sentimental, very often religious, and adhered to Mercy, Piousness, Purity, etc. (How can we see Little Dorrit as anything but unbelievably pure, and what would many of his greatest stories be without the benevolence of a rich benefactor to finally relieve suffering?).


I wouldn't say "very sentimental". He can get quite sentimental now and again, but people *are* sentimental, so perhaps he's more realistic in using this than some dour modernist who avoids sentiment completely. And he uses sentiment so well, just one of the many colours on his palette.

"Very often religious"? That's just plain wrong! Sometime you get a hint of his Christianity, but that's certainly not up front. And religious characters & institutions are often given a severe bashing.

Some people are "saint like", so what's wrong with introducing someone like Little Dorrit? In Victorian society it was usually a rich benefactor who brought relief. There was no welfare state. Also there are many innocent characters who come to sad ends - Little Nell, Smike, Jo the Crossing Sweeper... So, overall, you don't get the impression that Dickens was suggesting that "rich benefactors solve everything".

[mal4mac]

I have to agree wholeheartedly. No matter how much Dickens is revered, I can't get past the maddening style he has... he repeats over and over and over.

But with variations, like much of classical music. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" repeats "It was the ... of times" twice! But is that bad style? In that sentence he then has ten phrases beginning with "this was...". To me, this doesn't seem like bad style, to me this is wonderful use of repetition, to me it is the equivalent of Mozart introducing a theme and varying it.

[Oedipus]

Maybe teenage nihilists would rate Hardy higher, "'cause he's dark, bro'" :), but long-in-the-tooth critics all rate Dickens higher, perhaps the highest amongst novelists.

Old critics liking something more than something else doesn't mean it is better; merely and wholly it means more appealing them. But if you like Hardy more you must be a 'teenage nihilist'? I also don't think it is common to place him above, for example, Cervantes.

[kiki1982]

I merely raised the issue of Dickens ranking second below Shakespeare because I think it was Kev who said many do (not here). I find that quite astonishing.

I know it's not often his style people comment on. I'm aware that most criticism of him concerns the melodramatic Romantic aspect of his work, which is frankly irrelevant. If you are reading Victorian, you are bound to encounter over-the-top drama, mad coincidences and dei ex machina. Those who do criticise him for that are frankly unaware of the themes used in Romanticism. You can like it or you cannot like it (it's a matter of taste), BUT you can't criticise a writer for writing as a man/woman of their time.

What I do find unforgivable in any writer is bad style. Even Trollope who wrote 1,000 words before he went to work every day and who wrote also to survive in part with all the melodramatic and slightly predictable perks of a 19th century writer has far superior style (in my modest opinion). His prose flows properly, is just long enough, is just repetitive enough not to overdo it. And he is not the greatest, just nice.

I suspect Dickens is liked so much because some authors are too difficult or depressing (like Hardy) and others have mysteriously and unjustly been forgotten (like Trollope). Dickens is basically like Shakespeare in that he is omnipresent, with that difference that Shakespeare is not somewhat ill-deserved. Yes, I do feel that strong about it.


But with variations, like much of classical music. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" repeats "It was the ... of times" twice! But is that bad style? In that sentence he then has ten phrases beginning with "this was...". To me, this doesn't seem like bad style, to me this is wonderful use of repetition, to me it is the equivalent of Mozart introducing a theme and varying it.

That is not entirely true. A bit of repetition is not a problem. The problem I have with Dickens (and I'm sure some minority in the reading public with me) is that he repeats entire chapters (with variation, admittedly) Also using so many brackets, dashes, and what have you in one sentence is confusing and betrays haste to get something finished or wanting to say too much in one sentence (and shoddy editing or lack of self-criticism). Even Dumas, who was criticised for his long sentences (and because of that accused of using a ghost writer) didn't pull out all the stops in that respect. If this kind of repetition happens once, it's an interesting feature, if it happens twice you overlook it, a third time you get slightly irritated and the fifth time you see it as 'he is up to his old tricks again.

In terms of Mozart: to music theorists he's predictable and not a innovator. He will never modulate to a different key than is logical, contrary to other more original composers. At any rate, a normal piece of music contains theme 1 (introduced at the start) only about 4-6 times unchanged. But we should bear in mind that a theme in music is only to be heard, not read, so it needs to be repeated more to stick. Renewers like Beethoven and Haydn (who developed the symphony), though, experimented with the rhythm of the theme, but would obfuscate it so much you would barely recognise it only to revisit it at the end of the piece. They certainly do not start their piece with a dragged out theme and variations (unless their piece is a theme with variations).

[kev67]

I merely raised the issue of Dickens ranking second below Shakespeare because I think it was Kev who said many do (not here). I find that quite astonishing.


Dickens did seem regarded 2nd only to Shakespeare when I was at school. Not that many of us pupils liked either of them. I can remember teachers reading out extracts from three Dickens books: Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities and A Christmas Carol. I can also remember us studying three Shakespeare plays: Julius Ceasar, Macbeth and The Merchant of Venice, and I think we did one of his sonnets too. After leaving school, I got the impression that Jane Austen was regarded by the academic world as the 2nd best author after Shakespeare, at least in Britain. Other nations might have disagreed, but that was their affair. As a schoolboy, I suspected the academic authorities did not rate anything as good that was not over 100 years old. I think another reason that Dickens was popular in schools was that many of his protagonists were children or young adults. My impression was Hardy was someone who was studied at A level, along with Chaucer. Beowulf and who knows what would be studied at university. I am not sure what the case is now with schools. The BBC GCSE bitesize webpage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/) only lists one Dickens book, Great Expectations. I am rather surprised with some of the other books in the list. GCSEs are the exams our sixteen-year-olds take.

[MorpheusSandman]

The problem I have with Dickens (and I'm sure some minority in the reading public with me) is that he repeats entire chapters (with variation, admittedly) Also using so many brackets, dashes, and what have you in one sentence is confusing and betrays haste to get something finished or wanting to say too much in one sentence (and shoddy editing or lack of self-criticism).Some examples would be helpful, especially what you mean regarding "repeating entire chapters." If those repeats are, indeed, with variations, then that would seem little different than (keeping with the classical example) refrains or a recapitulation in which a reader/listener is invited to compare/contrast the two and understand the relevancy of the changes and developments. As for long sentences, I have no problem with them and, in fact, prefer them to the terseness of Hemingway. A lot of writers have made consistent use of long sentences, especially in the modern era: Proust, Joyce, Faulkner in novel-form, Stevens, Merrill, Ashbery in poetry. Even Hungary's László Krasznahorkai is infamous for his long, winding, extremely complex sentences that found their cinematic equivalent in Bela Tarr's long takes in his Krasznahorkai's adaptations.

I don't think long sentences "betray haste" in the least. If anything, it's the reverse. Long, complex sentences require greater skill and concentration to keep track of the meaning. If one is "in a hurry" it's much easier to write lots of short sentences than a few long sentences. Of course, the constant complaint from readers is that long sentences are confusing. To this I say: get over it and become a better reader. Long sentences test your concentration, and if you fail to comprehend them the fault is with you and not with the author (assuming the author is competent and writing grammatically correct long sentences). Admittedly, I sometimes get lost myself in reading long sentences, especially those with unusual syntactic constructions and a lot of foreign words (in Joyce and Stevens especially), but that just inspires me to concentrate harder on what I'm reading. Like long takes in cinema, they allow a reader to immerse themselves more in the moment, rather than allowing them to "reset" with every punctuation mark/edit.


In terms of Mozart: to music theorists he's predictable and not a innovator.Nonsense. Especially in opera, there's arguably no greater innovator in the form's history (only Wagner bears comparison). No composer did more to elevate the concerto to high art, to diversify the chamber ensemble, to integrate pre-classical forms and foreign styles with Viennese classicism, or to turn music towards the introspective seriousness that so marked romanticism. It's actually hard to find any composer of eminence of the 19th century that didn't take something from Mozart, certainly when it comes to opera, the concerto, and chamber music. That Mozart didn't "modulate to illogical keys" seems to be critiquing Mozart by romantic standards where such a thing did not become common until after Beethoven.

Also, your understanding of sonata form (which is what I assume you mean by "normal piece of music") is shaky: in sonata form you have the exposition, with subject 1 in the tonic and subject 2 in an opposing key; development (where the theme or themes of subject group 1 and/or 2 are varied in key, rhythm, harmony, accompaniment, etc.); and recapitulation of the exposition, often with variations. Obviously there are a great many variations within the form itself. Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all experimented with the form in different ways, but the form is still quite recognizable in most all of their music. We can talk all day about to what degree each experimented/innovated, but to claim that Mozart was always "predictable" and not "innovative" is just ignorance. Besides the fact that Mozart was the first to significantly apply sonata form on a large scale to opera and the concerto, he also innovative in how densely a composer could develop and integrate those themes. Something like Beethoven's 5th Symphony, with its terse but complexly interwoven themes is a direct outgrowth of the thematic ideas present in Mozart's 40th and 41st Symphonies; while Beethoven's 3rd, with its elongated thematic material, is a direct outgrowth of those ideas present in Mozart's 38th and 39th Symphonies. Even the wild and terrible "drama" in Beethoven can be attributed to Mozart's Requiem, which Beethoven himself called "wild and terrible."

[MorpheusSandman]

Dickens did seem regarded 2nd only to Shakespeare when I was at school. Not that many of us pupils liked either of them. I can remember teachers reading out extracts from three Dickens books: Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities and A Christmas Carol... After leaving school, I got the impression that Jane Austen was regarded by the academic world as the 2nd best author after Shakespeare, at least in Britain.Dickens makes for good school reading because of all the "great" authors he is definitely one of the most accessible. Other great novelists like Austen, George Eliot, Milton, Joyce, Faulkner, Melville, Henry James, are all either too subtle, complex, esoteric, etc. for high school. I actually think Dickens' ability to "bridge that divide" between academic appreciation and popular enjoyment is one of his greatest strengths, as there aren't many writers (or artists, period) you can say that about. Usually the popular are hated by the elite, and the elite are hated by the popular.


As a schoolboy, I suspected the academic authorities did not rate anything as good that was not over 100 years old.Anything old has the benefit of having the weight of critical understanding behind it, so it's much easier to teach. It's much harder to teach newer or contemporary authors as critics and academics are still coming to grips with understanding them.


The BBC GCSE bitesize webpage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/) only lists one Dickens book, Great Expectations. I am rather surprised with some of the other books in the list. GCSEs are the exams our sixteen-year-olds take.In terms of Dickens appealing to both elites and the public, Great Expectations is probably the novel that bridges that divide the best, though Bleak House is usually considered his best amongst critics, it's less accessible.

[JBI]

Depends which novels one reads. Something like Hard times is quite terse, whereas Bleak House or David Copperfield are more poetic. In terms of caricature, Dickens is one of the best authors. He is probably the most scathing of English writers, able to draw a cartoonish character in a handful of words.

[bluosean]

Mal: I made the observation that Dickens is very pre-modern as a suggesting that that is why he was being bruised in some of the previous posts. I must now make that sentiment explicit when I preferred not to do so; it was a means of trying to understand some of the dislike I was reading, and this since claims of his having a bad style are ridiculous. When someone says Dickens is bad, or something similar, I am tempted to think that this is a result of what I have already written above. I was of thinking the general reader when I said "most" since the pendulum has seemed to swing to the tragic, the psychological, and other things that Dickens often was not.

We both do agree that his repetitions are part of his art, and that they are part of his greatness. That is good. You seem to misunderstand though my position, and maybe I was unclear. I really like Dickens; he is one of my favorites. I'll need to work on expressing better though.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong when you say Dickens was not religious. He was very religious, of course it is all an undercurrent, but it is a very strong influence. (Read any of his non-fiction). I would also call him very sentimental. He did attack many facets of London life, especially institutional, but in the end it was always the benevolence or mercy of a benefactor that relieved plight. When that mercy was not there, the fate of the poor would remain in doubt. But Dickens firmly believed that there was good, that it could come to the poor, that corrupt institutions or selfish individuals would not provide it, and that the discerning gentleman of mercy was the only way that this could come.

[stlukesguild]

JBI- Depends which novels one reads. Something like Hard times is quite terse, whereas Bleak House or David Copperfield are more poetic. In terms of caricature, Dickens is one of the best authors. He is probably the most scathing of English writers, able to draw a cartoonish character in a handful of words.[/COLOR]

MorpheusSandman- As for long sentences, I have no problem with them and, in fact, prefer them to the terseness of Hemingway. A lot of writers have made consistent use of long sentences, especially in the modern era: Proust, Joyce, Faulkner in novel-form, Stevens, Merrill, Ashbery in poetry. Even Hungary's László Krasznahorkai is infamous for his long, winding, extremely complex sentences that found their cinematic equivalent in Bela Tarr's long takes in his Krasznahorkai's adaptations.

I don't think long sentences "betray haste" in the least. If anything, it's the reverse. Long, complex sentences require greater skill and concentration to keep track of the meaning. If one is "in a hurry" it's much easier to write lots of short sentences than a few long sentences. Of course, the constant complaint from readers is that long sentences are confusing. To this I say: get over it and become a better reader. Long sentences test your concentration, and if you fail to comprehend them the fault is with you and not with the author (assuming the author is competent and writing grammatically correct long sentences). Admittedly, I sometimes get lost myself in reading long sentences, especially those with unusual syntactic constructions and a lot of foreign words (in Joyce and Stevens especially), but that just inspires me to concentrate harder on what I'm reading. Like long takes in cinema, they allow a reader to immerse themselves more in the moment, rather than allowing them to "reset" with every punctuation mark/edit.

I must agree with JBI and Morpheus (and suggested such in my earlier post). With regard to long vs short sentences, I personally appreciate both. Three of my favorite writers of the 20th century, Franz Kafka, J.L. Borges, and Italo Calvino employ rather stripped down sentences... Kafka's and Borges' being almost mundane in style... perfectly contrasting with the often magical/unreal/absurd nature of their prose... while Calvino writes in an almost crystalline... poetic manner. Yet I also love the long, labyrinthine, poetic prose of Proust, Robert Burton, Edward Gibbon, Walter Pater, etc... A preference for short over long sentences is but a personal preference and says nothing about the merit of the writer one way or another. I wholly agree that the complaint concerning long sentences is so frequent among some readers that I wholly agree with his suggestion that you "get over it and become a better reader." Shakespeare and his peers, Chaucer, Spenser... Hell, most poetry, be it William Blake or T.S. Eliot presents a challenge to the reader unfamiliar with a given manner of writing... but one doesn't (without looking ridiculous) fault the writers for one's own shortcomings or inexperience with a such.

Nonsense. Especially in opera, there's arguably no greater innovator in the form's history (only Wagner bears comparison).

My initial thoughts exactly. Monteverdi, Handel, Gluck, Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, and Richard Strauss may be the most important innovators in opera... and I cannot imagine any... with the arguable exception of Wagner... more innovative than Mozart. Mozart's death at age 35 is undoubtedly the greatest loss in music history... and arguably the whole of Art (although Keats would be right up there). One cannot even begin to imagine what another ten years might have brought to the symphony and opera considering the stunning innovations of his final works. The last movement of the "Jupiter" Symphony remains recognized as one of the greatest musical achievements... even by those who generally don't like Mozart or the "Classical Era" in general.

Predictable?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7dv2-bxhE8

No composer did more to elevate the concerto to high art, to diversify the chamber ensemble, to integrate pre-classical forms and foreign styles with Viennese classicism, or to turn music towards the introspective seriousness that so marked romanticism. It's actually hard to find any composer of eminence of the 19th century that didn't take something from Mozart, certainly when it comes to opera, the concerto, and chamber music. That Mozart didn't "modulate to illogical keys" seems to be critiquing Mozart by romantic standards where such a thing did not become common until after Beethoven.

Exactly. One might just as well suggest that Rembrandt brought little innovation to the visual arts because he failed to employ the expressive distortions of form and heightened colors as used by Matisse.

[mal4mac]

Trollope ... has far superior style [to Dickens]. His prose flows properly, is just long enough, is just repetitive enough not to overdo it. And he is not the greatest, just nice.

I just can't see how you can say that! Trollope had much in common with Dickens, and is therefore 'not bad', but Dickens did everything so much better. Dickens' imagination, characters, perception, humanity and plots are superior. Trollope is, at best, superior light entertainment. The drip of his cynicism is always audible, the absence of any higher ideal always palpable. I'm not surprised that he is John Major's favourite author. Maybe you have Trollope tagged rightly as "not the greatest, just nice", but I feel you must really have a Dickens blind spot if you can rate Trollope above him.



The problem I have with Dickens (and I'm sure some minority in the reading public with me) is that he repeats entire chapters (with variation, admittedly)


Can you give an example? I can't, off the top of my head. I certainly can't recall feeling he had repeated a chapter in an unnecessary manner.



Also using so many brackets, dashes, and what have you in one sentence is confusing...


I've never found it so. This is another example of his exuberant creativity, part of what makes his style so exciting. OK, he can sometimes seem in a bit of a hurry, but I usually find that exciting rather than "unfinished". Maybe he sometimes strains a sentence because he has so much to say, but it's all worth saying, so this comes across as the fullness of pregnancy rather than the fullness of the garbage can (as in Dumas...)

[kiki1982]

I just can't see how you can say that! Trollope had much in common with Dickens, and is therefore 'not bad', but Dickens did everything so much better. Dickens' imagination, characters, perception, humanity and plots are superior. Trollope is, at best, superior light entertainment. The drip of his cynicism is always audible, the absence of any higher ideal always palpable. I'm not surprised that he is John Major's favourite author. Maybe you have Trollope tagged rightly as "not the greatest, just nice", but I feel you must really have a Dickens blind spot if you can rate Trollope above him.

I'm purely comparing those two on a prose style level, though. Indeed Trollope is light entertainment and in themes and things Dickens is far better. I will give you (and everyone that). Hence why Trollope has been forgotten and Dickens not. Trollope's themes are not larger than 19th century life. Dickens's are. But then I wonder, if that were the issue, Austen is also a little bit blinkered (through no fault of her own), but then here prose is superior by many miles to both of them. Eminence is a strange thing.


Can you give an example? I can't, off the top of my head. I certainly can't recall feeling he had repeated a chapter in an unnecessary manner.

The first 100 pages (I think) of Little Dorrit contained 3 (!) chapters with exactly the same content on the non-love of Mr Clenham. The first one was kind of funny, the second one was repetition and the third one was page filling. Not even Dumas dared to do this (as far as I know of anyway).

But I'll get some examples together and explain my point.

[ennison]

Someone complained that CD had no style. Every writer has a style. Dickens is a writer of clever but entertaining style. He wrote a lot so there will be bits less impressive than others. If you are put off by the cartoonish nature of some of his characters then, well, you are put off by them. He is very funny. He plotted very well. He is very good at description and atmosphere. There are numerous facets to his talent. He is entertaining and he tackled serious issues. The best of his work can hold its head up today with anything.

[JBI]

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

I cannot say I agree that he plotted well. His concepts are usually good but he often wrote himself into holes that he needed a sort of deus ex machina plot twist to get out of. His strength is in sketching, and his style is more varied than for which we give him credit.

That being said, I'm not his biggest fan, but there is an unquestionable genius to his work, the likes of which harken back to the great comedic sketches of the western tradition.

One of the more interesting ideas to think of is the question of moralizing in his works, which begs one to reconsider his personal politics.

[JCamilo]

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.

It is more than that. If you bring a character that is a shoemaker and "develops" him to an "uniqueness", you may be look to discover one guy in one city was like him. However, charicature of a shoemaker - and a characture is made by exagerating some general aspects of a person - will find a similar real person in about every block. Those kind of people are almost as part of the geography of a city, not only helping to conect the reader as also bringing up realism.

Some people seriously confund a good character with the character abble to dwell in long monologues and this a characture is unable to carry "depthness" and this show a lack of capacity of the writer, when, in Dickens case, shows his capacity to refresh basic archetypes and places them in the right momment of the narrative, with the right dialogue. Or the case of Cervantes, Since Quixote is a wandering charicature as well.

[mal4mac]

Dickens case, shows his capacity to refresh basic archetypes and places them in the right moment of the narrative, with the right dialogue.

This is well put, although I might go further and say he creates new, and relevant, archetypes - Uriah Heep, for instance. This character has something of the basic archetype "evil, clever, manipulator", perhaps represented in its purest form by Iago, but Dickens provides added dimensions "working class, social climber, massive chip on shoulder, pretence at humbleness", that is so relevant to modern times. I guess we know many Heeps, even if we haven't brought the character type to consciousness; Dickens being a genius does that for us, and because Heep *is* an archetype he doesn't need to use many words to give him life, in depth, because he's deep within all of us an as archetype. It's a miracle that Dickens does this so often, with so many characters.

[EmptySeraph]

Dickens was a bore. But then again, which 19th-century fiction writer isn't? He probably failed as an artist. Still a great writer though, a good stylist.

[Danik 2016]

This is well put, although I might go further and say he creates new, and relevant, archetypes - Uriah Heep, for instance. This character has something of the basic archetype "evil, clever, manipulator", perhaps represented in its purest form by Iago, but Dickens provides added dimensions "working class, social climber, massive chip on shoulder, pretence at humbleness", that is so relevant to modern times. I guess we know many Heeps, even if we haven't brought the character type to consciousness; Dickens being a genius does that for us, and because Heep *is* an archetype he doesn't need to use many words to give him life, in depth, because he's deep within all of us an as archetype. It's a miracle that Dickens does this so often, with so many characters.
And no other writer I know recriated the atmosphere of victorian London as he did.