Don't read it, watch it. That's my advice.
Printable View
Don't read it, watch it. That's my advice.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry here, but I suppose I need to remember that readers don't necessarily care to function like scholars or writers. Dickens, in many instances, translates well to video, but his stories have a finer nuance than what film can necessarily capture, and I believe one should read enough of Dickens to learn enough: Without Dickens I could never understand Henry James so well, or found the more divergent Victorian voices of Gissing and Gaskell.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
But I am a student of literature, and always will be, so I suppose it amounts to what people want for themselves--not that Dickens is that mentally taxing.
Don't cry Jozy :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
It's an alternative suggestion, that's all. Not everyone copes well with the style of Dickens, but to appreciate Dickens, to move beyond the perceived caraciture and see the excellent story that lies beneath, if you like, you can do worse than watch one of the well done serialised versions of one of Dickens' books. The BBC seem to have an ability to translate Dickens to TV (as opposed to movie, generally serialised over a number of episodes) quite faithfully whilst maintaining the nuances of humour, social commentary, etc. If someone feels they need to 'appreciate' Dickens, but can't stomach the books, a good serialisation is a reasonable alternative.
I'm surprised to see so many people dissatisfied with Dickens. I've only read David Copperfield, but I definitely enjoyed that. I am currently reading Great Expectations and I find myself in love with it - it far exceeds the pleasure of reading David Copperfield.
I feel like I should mention that just because Dickens wrote his novels serially, doesn't mean his novels are not serious attempts at literature. I'll remind you that Shakespeare wrote his plays on crude pamphlets in a nearly illegible handwriting. He also put in little effort to establish a final draft, leading to discrepancies between surviving copies of his plays. But are we to say that Shakespeare's plays are not serious attempts at literature, that they cannot be considered great literature because they were not written with the proper care that a writer should take in writing?
Of course, it is easy to see how the serial publication of Dickens novels' affects their structure. There are many unnecessary byroads, a lot of verbiage - 20th-century standards might call it overwrought - and at times his prose is obtuse and requires some parsing.
But when I think of how Dickens was writing in the mid-19th century, under the limitations of serial publication, I can't help but find his writing remarkable. For one thing, there is much personality in his prose - a pleasant atmosphere of warm, familiar humor for the reader to dwell in. And then there is also much technical virtuosity - he is able to structure complex sentences effortlessly. Lastly there is technique - a lot of it. He has a genius for unforgettable metaphor and simile. He is furthermore able to use motifs like none other.
The only one that I could finish (or even get past the 20th page) was A Christmas Carol. Every other one that I try, I end up thinking "blah blah blah blah" and toss it aside.
I understand what you are saying, Ktm, but I just... I don't know, it is kind of bland to me. There seems to be nothing left to discover, it is all there. And his prose, well, ok, some of it is good, but most of it is all so bland, full of cliché, not imaginative at all, he repeats himself endlessly (though due to serial writing). I just do not find him interesting; It is too sraightforward, there is nothing there apart from what is on the page.
Hardy, for example, also a serial writer, is clearly the better one, both in vocab and imagination and motifs.
Dumas, French writer, who also wrote in serial and really used long sentences to boost characters, he leaves something to be discovered and he has just that little bit more originality than Dickens.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that Dickens started as a journalist, maybe because he didn't have an education focussed on vocab and mythology for example in itself (though Hardy neither I thought), but to me, Dickens is boring. Not worth it for his prose, not worth it for his words and not worth it for his themes because after seeing them once, you have seen them all. He is only worth it for his stories, but he could have made them much shorter.
Dickens is wonderful. Full of irony and satire. A true great
Maybe you should try these.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
Have you tried Bleak House or the Old Curiosity Shop? They are both fantastic!
I found i was able to appriciate Dickens better after reading Elizabeth Gaskell. She bridged the gap between Austen and Dickens for me. :nod: Transitional.
Well I haven't read Dumas, and of Hardy I have only read Tess of the D'Ubervilles, but I have to say I was bored by Hardy, so it seems we have had the opposite experiences. Though to be fair I read Hardy when I was a less mature reader, and I might very likely think otherwise upon revisiting him.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Of course, a lot of it is also personal preferences. A writer might write certain themes, settings, and plots that relate to our own personal experiences. And different people can relate to different authors, etc. Maybe it's just a matter of that.
Though now that Hardy's name is being tossed all over the place, I feel compelled to pick up another Hardy novel!
haha. You see different tastes ;), only I sometimes do not dare to say that I don't like Dickens. People tend to look at you as a philistine or something. But here we can discuss anything :).
Do pick up another Hardy, though maybe he might be too morbid and sad for your taste. Dickens is more positive. There is always a light at the end of misery. Hardy is just misery that ends in more misery. I like it :).
If you are not that big on negative stuff then try Far from the Madding Crowd, it's a little more Romantic in view and ends accordingly. Jude the Obscure would be his best, but that is very very sad I have learned. (I haven't actally read it and I try not to get to know too much of the plot).
Oh, Jude, Jude, Jude...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD3ovfZXO5Q
Did I ever tell you that I'm planning on writing a hit stage adaptation in conjunction with Paul McCartney of Jude? Yes, it's going to be my ticket out of relative poverty, a ticket to the big time! I've got most of it all in my head already. It'll be a sell out show everywhere. I've just got to make sure nobody beats me to it, for if they do, I'll kill them.
Does anybody know Paul's number?
Oh good, someone else - I thought I was the only one that happened to! Though I often find on closer questioning that the most vehement protesters have only read David Copperfield or Oliver Twist or watched them on tv and they frequently have not read much else of contemporary authors.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I've tried and tried with Dickens - I think the problem for me is that I was introduced to him too soon - I was about nine when I read the Christmas Stories and the edition I read had the boz illustrations which gave me hallucinations when I was ill one time and scared the daylights out of me. I managed DC and OT, had Great Expectations as a set book and quite liked it, but failed with The Old Curiosity Shop, Tale of Two Cities, Nicholas Nickleby, Hard Times and so far, Bleak House, though the opening paragraph is gripping. Somehow I can never believe in his characters, they lack a certain introspection though that is perhaps requiring a nineteenth century author to write with twentieth century perpectives.
But I will persevere - I have copies of GE and BH on the shelf and will try yet again to overcome my prejudices.
The laughter through tears is an apt contortion for me because I am not a huge Dickens enthusiast, but the professional advocacy on his behalf has been ringing in my ears for roughly twenty years (ringing now literally in weary all night running around beating down red tape tiredness), and Comedian's frustation seemed a bit too eager:shocked:.
I agree with those professionals on a few points: One, his metaphorical power is fairly greater than that of his rivals and friends, like Collins, for instance. You can make yourself into a master craftsman like Collins, but great writers take it a step further, and Dickens is, I think it is fair to say, the equal of his near contemporary Victor Hugo.
Not that this means we need to bow down and lick his boots, as he is flawed and overwrought with sentimentality in any number of episodes--but he was not fooled about the meanness of life in the Victorian era, and works like David Copperfield and Bleak House and GE--which I actually like and is my favorite Dickens novel--pricked the conscience of his audience, and they were intended to, not to mention what A Christmas Carol did for modern Christianity.
I prefer many other writers to Dickens, but I don't think I'd have that preference available if Dickens had not busted down the door--and even a contemporary mannerist like Zadie Smith owes him a debt or two. (Hint to you Brits, Zadie is hot at the moment.)
I don't understand this comment Jozanny, why do we Brits need a hint about her hotness? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny