I dont like Charles Dickens books and find them boring?

[lifeisart]

Im just wondering if im the only one who doesnt like his works.
Whenever i read comments on the Internet about Dickens, everyone is like ''wow amazin'', ''his works are must-read books''.

and im like ''whatttt?''

Do you all really like his works? I mean... They, of course, are very very precious works to come that era in which we live.

I just find his works quite boring! im sorry to say that.

[Dreamwoven]

I agree wth you lifeisart, and said so in the other thread on Dickens.

[Dreamwoven]

I think its like this. I went to school in the 1950s in England and the teacher thought we should be familiar with the work of Dickens. Dickens is a major English author. In the days you just had to study Dickens books. My personal view is that it is a good way to put school children off by expecting them to read and enjoy any important author before they are ready for it. Its probably quite different today.

[Pompey Bum]

Im just wondering if im the only one who doesnt like his works.
Whenever i read comments on the Internet about Dickens, everyone is like ''wow amazin'', ''his works are must-read books''.

and im like ''whatttt?''

Do you all really like his works? I mean... They, of course, are very very precious works to come that era in which we live.

I just find his works quite boring! im sorry to say that.


that's my topic, i only just realized your topic. I've just posted a thread about me finding his works boring.

I find his works very boring and dictracting. I've only read 2 books of him, though! I feel bored with full of depictions of the characters, i've been able to read liek 150 pages. I'm sure he's a remarkable auther, but long depictions makes me disctacted and i end up thinking about unrelated issues while reading.

Welcome to the site, lifeisart. :)

I have never been bored by Dickens and especially not by his characterization. How would having less developed characters make a novel more interesting? Dickens sentence structure is often complex (unlike the way many authors write today) and he loves to bombard us with "words, glorious words." That could explain why your mind wanders while reading him; but it's really just a matter of sticking with it and being patient with yourself until you get used to the way he writes. I wouldn't give up, even if he's not your thing right now. Read other 19th century authors (Jane Austen, for example), and when you feel ready, try A Christmas Carol, which is much shorter than most Dickens novels and more culturally familiar (I'm sure you know the story already). After that, try Oliver Twist and a Tale of Two Cities. When you are comfortable with the complexity of Dickens' prose, you will be ready for major works like Great Expectations and Bleak House and even enormous books like David Copperfield and Little Dorrit. But remember you have your whole life to do this. Don't convince yourself that Dickens is beyond you just because you prefer other writers just now. Good luck and enjoy! :)

[lifeisart]

Thanks! i finally found someone like me. ı thought i was awkward about this!

I havent read much English literature book but if Dickens is ''wow'', then Austen is ''wow wow wow'' to me.

[lifeisart]

Thank you Pompey Bum.

Characterisation is good, but i dont think we need to read that much to analyze characters. Pride and prejudice is perfect in that! Jane Austen really makes a good job in manners and characters. But i dont feel the same when i read Dickens. Also occurances happens soo way slow to me :(. So when i read depictions, i end up thinking about my day or aconversation between me and my friend.

For example hedescribes like; A man with curly hair and blue eyes, while his heart is beating very fast to observe, has also umbrella, because it rains cats and dogs outside their blue painted huge and 8-windowed paradise. (I'm sorry for my bad English, i hope i dont have many mistakes in that sentence)

I usually like focusing on occurings rather than how characters looks like. A short depiction would be enough for me like ''a man with curl hair and blue eyes is outside of their house''.

I think i cannot understand the issue about Dickens and my point of view on his works is probably wrong.

Also yes, i know about English and American culture, so i do not have any difficulty because of cultural differences. Maybe i feel bored because I've read 3-4 books about Victorian age (I know Austen is a bit of earlier) :). Maybe after reading some, i got bored about reading an era which i have ideas about. But I'll give it a try after reading some other books. I may even start reading them in English in the future!

For now, i bought an English books for my vocabulary ''B A Paris - Behind Closed Doors'', after reading some, i may get back to Dickens' works.

And thanks for supporting me about it!

[mona amon]

I always used to skip the long descriptive parts in Victorian novels when I was younger, so I could get to the story. These days I read every word, because I've come to appreciate good writing for its own sake, but maybe you could give 'skipibus' a try. I love Dickens because he's so funny!

Also what Pompey said. I hope you return to him after you become a more experienced reader. Good luck!

[lifeisart]

Thanks for your good wish! i also wanna return to Dickens, beucase i, surely, escape something many people see

Also, i may use here to ask people's book suggestions in the future. After finishing my book.

[Red Terror]

Charles Dickens characters are not believable. He is full of sentimentality. He writes well though --- I'll grant him that.

[Jackson Richardson]

Jane Austen and Charles Dickens are my two favourite authors, although they are so different. Pompey and Mona have suggested some of the reasons why reading Dickens is worthwhile.

But if Dickens doesn’t click for you, leave him.

Although he seems to be regarded here as one of the literary greats of all time, it was not always like that. He has always been popular but he was often rather despised by the cultured. (I suspect Virginia Woolfs’s comment that Middlemarch was for adults was a dig at Dickens and the arrogant critic F R Leavis pointedly left him out of Leavis’s Great Tradition of English novelists.) I doubt whether he got on to academic courses seventy years’ ago.

Red has mentioned the sentimentality and implied the degree of caricature in the characterisation – think of all their funny names. There’s the embarrassing attitude to pretty, helpless young women (he was a lousy husband). And there is the shameless melodrama.

He was compared unfavourably to Thackeray by Victorian readers because “he couldn’t draw a gentleman”. Apart from the helpless snobbery of that remark, it ignores Thackeray’s satire on highly unsatisfactory gentleman and Dicken’s eventually tragic portrait of Sir Lester in Bleak House.

It does however draw attention to Dickens’ vulgarity, both in the sense he is shamelessly sentimental etc and his drawing characters from the lowest part of society and his immense popularity in his own day with all ranks of readers.

[Red Terror]

Jane Austen and Charles Dickens are my two favourite authors, although they are so different. Pompey and Mona have suggested some of the reasons why reading Dickens is worthwhile.

But if Dickens doesn’t click for you, leave him.

Although he seems to be regarded here as one of the literary greats of all time, it was not always like that. He has always been popular but he was often rather despised by the cultured. (I suspect Virginia Woolfs’s comment that Middlemarch was for adults was a dig at Dickens and the arrogant critic F R Leavis pointedly left him out of Leavis’s Great Tradition of English novelists.) I doubt whether he got on to academic courses seventy years’ ago.

Red has mentioned the sentimentality and implied the degree of caricature in the characterisation – think of all their funny names. There’s the embarrassing attitude to pretty, helpless young women (he was a lousy husband). And there is the shameless melodrama.

He was compared unfavourably to Thackeray by Victorian readers because “he couldn’t draw a gentleman”. Apart from the helpless snobbery of that remark, it ignores Thackeray’s satire on highly unsatisfactory gentleman and Dicken’s eventually tragic portrait of Sir Lester in Bleak House.

It does however draw attention to Dickens’ vulgarity, both in the sense he is shamelessly sentimental etc and his drawing characters from the lowest part of society and his immense popularity in his own day with all ranks of readers.

I'm not a Dickens scholar by any means. I only read two of his novels: Twist and Expectations. He writes very well; he always uses the right words. He was a genius. I really liked the opening chapters of Twist ("that boy will come to be hung") and I love the Artful Dodger (although he does not appear much in the novel, he stole the novel from Twist and the other characters). Ditto for Miss Havisham in Expectations.

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd

[Jackson Richardson]

Red said above Dickens’ characters are unbelievable and on a purely practical level Miss Havisham is unbelievable – I mean how on earth can she sleep, eat or wash? She must be dependent on hard working servants, but they are never mentioned. She is like an allegorical figure – you don’t ask how Justice lives having to hold a sword and scales in her hands all the time.

But in another sense Miss Havisham is all too believable and made more vivid by her Gothic setting – a domestic tyrant, destroying herself to exercise power over others and bringing up a child perversely.

Mrs Clenam in Little Dorrit fits the same description, except she is without the Gothic element in keeping with a dire Calvinism. She is to my mind far less sympathetic than Miss Havisham but at the end more tragic.

[Vota]

I've read A Christmas Carol and David Copperfield, and thoroughly enjoyed them both. Dickens is rather verbose, but he is eloquent. (UPCOMING SPOILER) I will never forget how much I came to hate Uriah Heep, which proves how great Dickens was with characterization as you never really see Uriah do anything bad, you just hear about it second hand. Dickens' description of Uriah is so strong that you come to loathe the character.

If you don't like his writing or stories there's plenty of other authors. You might also find that you didn't like those particular works of his. I really like Thomas Mann's writing, but I didn't care for Buddenbrooks. Not every work of an author will necessarily appeal even to their most diehard fans.

[ennison]

Miss Havisham doesn't wash methinks. The most unbelievable people I meet are out there in "the real world"

[Pompey Bum]

Mrs Clenam in Little Dorrit fits the same description, except she is without the Gothic element in keeping with a dire Calvinism. She is to my mind far less sympathetic than Miss Havisham but at the end more tragic.

I find Mrs. Clennam a more believable character than Miss Havisham. She has two servants (three if you count Amy) receives visitors, and seems to have a better idea of how to survive. I don't find either one of them sympathetic, but at least Mrs. Clennam is motivated (however perversely) to help Amy. Miss Havisham ultimately proves to be a sadistic old loon. But she is surely one of Dickens greatest creations. Complete believability is not necessary to be an effective and even brilliant character. Miss Havisham touches a nerve. Mrs. Clennam, though also an effective character, does not strike such an unforgettable chord.

[Dreamwoven]

I've read A Christmas Carol and David Copperfield, and thoroughly enjoyed them both. Dickens is rather verbose, but he is eloquent. (UPCOMING SPOILER) I will never forget how much I came to hate Uriah Heep, which proves how great Dickens was with characterization as you never really see Uriah do anything bad, you just hear about it second hand. Dickens' description of Uriah is so strong that you come to loathe the character.


Perhaps its the name, which is just great - Uriah Heep, a pile of excrement...

[Sherrymartin]

I've read A Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations, and liked them very much. However, I'm currently struggling through The Mystery of Edwin Drood for Victober. I'm finding it a hard slog. For some reason, I feel the prose is very twee and mannered in a way that is not typical of Dickens. Also, I neither like any of the characters nor find them compelling. I generally love the BBC interpretations of his books. Maybe if I watch the video I have, I will enjoy it more. I plan to read Hard Times next and from what I have heard of it, I think I'll enjoy it much more than MOED.

[kiz_paws]

Dickens writing is very heavy reading indeed. I find getting through the first chapter or so very tedious. But it is worth the 'bother', as much detail is outlined in the early parts of his books. His characters come to life beautifully and with a lot of comic thought, too! Dickens is quite humorous, if you give it a chance. I loved Great Expectations. Bleak House was deep; awesome writing there.

I guess bottom line is that one needs to concentrate on all the 'wordiness' that are between the covers of Dickens novels. It really is worth it! :)

[Red Terror]

Read Libra by Don DeLillo


Im just wondering if im the only one who doesnt like his works.
Whenever i read comments on the Internet about Dickens, everyone is like ''wow amazin'', ''his works are must-read books''.

and im like ''whatttt?''

Do you all really like his works? I mean... They, of course, are very very precious works to come that era in which we live.

I just find his works quite boring! im sorry to say that.

[Cindyy35]

Many people don't like his books, it really depends from person to person. I personally, find his writing repetitive but I have been in the "scene" for many years. For a fresh newbie it might seem exciting and special. Every time I hear one of my friends go on and rave about him, I roll my eyes in the back of my head. But I do remember that first glee and passion.

[millwallbill]

I tend to prefer Trollope to Dickens.

[kev67]

I found Dickens rather stodgy in my youth. I thought I'd give him another chance on his 200th year and read Great Expectations. No other book has moved me so much. I think he is patchy. When he made the extra special effort, the writing is superb. At other times I find him melodramatic, or even dull. My second favourite of his so far is Bleak House.

[Pompey Bum]

I have never been bored by Dickens and especially not by his characterization. How would having less developed characters make a novel more interesting? Dickens sentence structure is often complex (unlike the way many authors write today) and he loves to bombard us with "words, glorious words." That could explain why your mind wanders while reading him; but it's really just a matter of sticking with it and being patient with yourself until you get used to the way he writes. I wouldn't give up, even if he's not your thing right now. Read other 19th century authors (Jane Austen, for example), and when you feel ready, try A Christmas Carol, which is much shorter than most Dickens novels and more culturally familiar (I'm sure you know the story already). After that, try Oliver Twist and a Tale of Two Cities. When you are comfortable with the complexity of Dickens' prose, you will be ready for major works like Great Expectations and Bleak House and even enormous books like David Copperfield and Little Dorrit. But remember you have your whole life to do this. Don't convince yourself that Dickens is beyond you just because you prefer other writers just now. Good luck and enjoy! :)

I found this thread nostalgic. Just listen to my blather from three years ago! I hope poor lifeisart got what he was looking for. My attitude has probably hardened since then. Dickens is sublime. Yes, you have to cringe through his sentimentality, and yes, his morality is often oppressive. But his characterization and humor are unforgettable, and his dexterity with language is almost unparalleled among English novelists (Fielding is his equal--at least in Tom Jones). I suspect that modern students are unprepared for Dickens (or Fielding or Thackeray or Trollope) because they have spent years being pandered to by their teachers (who may not have been much challenged themselves). All of which goes to show that I've become a bitter old man in only three years. AVAST, YE BRIMSTONE BEASTS! :)

[desiresjab]

Anyone who claims to like everything with a high reputation is a phony. Dickens was apparently one of those geniuses for whom writing was easy. I have read that both he and Twain revised very little, as their first drafts showed a lot of perfection. I was never able to substantiate those claims, however.