In October, we will be reading David Copperfield by Dickens.
Please post your comments and questions in this thread.
Online Text
Book Club Procedures
Printable View
In October, we will be reading David Copperfield by Dickens.
Please post your comments and questions in this thread.
Online Text
Book Club Procedures
I was very intrigued when DC mentioned that it was predicted that he would be able to see/talk to ghosts. I thought "Alright, this may not be so bad", then I read further.....I'm dissappointed.
Well I borrowed it and read the first chapter sooo differant from what I remembered :nod: and there is somthing odd with the book as well but I LOVED the young peoples version when I was younger ( like between the ages of 8-10) I must have read that and ben hur 7 times so Im going to enjoy reading the propper unabridged original version........... I hope:nod:
But wow his mums a wimp isnt she.... but as I rember it all young preety dickens women were pretty pathetic barring possibly one that comes later on in this book, but Ive been told that because she alone was based on a woman he actually knew:D
I'm on page 14 :cool: :p. Disappointed that there won't be any ghosts though (according to Papaya :D)
Finished reading 6 chapters... Thought the part with the waiter was very funny (and sad).
Is there a better name for a villain than "Mr. Murdstone?" I absolutely rolled over with laughter. I'm enjoying this.
Ok what does Brooks of Shefield mean?
* Id forgoten about the house in Yarmoth I love that :D:D
Back when the UK actually produced something other than call-centre workers, Sheffield was a steel city and, I believe, Brooks was a company that made cutlery. The reference is to young david (Brooks of Sheffield) being sharp as a knife - obviously he is not however as he does not pick up on the remark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Finished reading the first nine chapters and getting really annoyed with the Mother... When will she show some character and stop saying, 'But dear Jane...'?
I am also surprised that as a child when I was reading this book, I did not pick on the fact that many of the misfortunes that befall David are owing to his naive and, dare I say, gullible nature. He fails to realise that people are not always what they seem and question their intentions.
Of course, it is true that he is a very young boy and lacking cynicism is not such a bad quality but it seems like he would have been better off with a little at least.
I was so sure that Scheherazade's choice will win that I get a copy of Hard Times...Now I have to get a new one...
Sorry, Bazarov but I really leave it to fate when it comes to resolving ties! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
Thus spoketh the coin, in short!
Is anyone else getting terribly annoyed with Steerforth and his mother? I don't know why David cannot wake up and smell the coffee...
(I am reading chapter 26 or there abouts)
I'm actually on chapter 39. Yes Steerforth is a jerk. You will see why shortly.
I finished chapter 39 last night in bed. Wow. That was one of the great chapters of all literature. It was the best chapter so far.
Having read the first 40 chapters, about two thirds of the book, I think I can venture into a few themes. But keep in mind, these are initial observations. I haven't completed the novel, nor have I read any critical commentary.
This paragraph I found enlightening. It is something Miss Mowcher, a dwarf woman who despite her born limitations has struggled to survive, tells David after they have discussed Steerforth's deviousness.
Now I'm not sure if we can trust Miss Mowcher to be on the level, since she has also proven to be somewhat devious herself, but she says this specifically:" 'because I am a sharp little thing - I need be, to get through the world at all! - and they deceived me altogether". To get through the world - how one makes one's way through the world seems to me to be the central theme, more specifically David's making his way through.Quote:
'What did I know?' said Miss Mowcher, taking out her handkerchief again, and giving one little stamp on the ground whenever, at short intervals, she applied it to her eyes with both hands at once. 'He was crossing you and wheedling you, I saw; and you were soft wax in his hands, I saw. Had I left the room a minute, when his man told me that "Young Innocence" (so he called you, and you may call him "Old Guilt" all the days of your life) had set his heart upon her, and she was giddy and liked him, but his master was resolved that no harm should come of it - more for your sake than for hers - and that that was their business here? How could I BUT believe him? I saw Steerforth soothe and please you by his praise of her! You were the first to mention her name. You owned to an old admiration of her. You were hot and cold, and red and white, all at once when I spoke to you of her. What could I think - what DID I think - but that you were a young libertine in everything but experience, and had fallen into hands that had experience enough, and could manage you (having the fancy) for your own good? Oh! oh! oh! They were afraid of my finding out the truth,' exclaimed Miss Mowcher, getting off the fender, and trotting up and down the kitchen with her two short arms distressfully lifted up, 'because I am a sharp little thing - I need be, to get through the world at all! - and they deceived me altogether, and I gave the poor unfortunate girl a letter, which I fully believe was the beginning of her ever speaking to Littimer, who was left behind on purpose!'
And Dickens builds on this by contrasting many characters making their way through the world. You can take any of the major characters and contrast them and I think you will find several sub-themes. The practical (Betsy Trotwood, Agnes) versus the idealistic (Mr. Micawber, Dora), the loving and nurturing (Peggotty) versus the cold (Miss Murdstone), selfishness (Steerforth) versus generosity (Ham), and perhpas the most important sub-theme scheming (Mr. Murdstone, Uriah Heep) versus openness (Daniel Peggotty, Mr. Wickfield).
The novel traces the naive young David making his way through the world and to the understandings of the complex world where various people make their way differently. While I have not finished, we do know (because David is telling his tale from the past tense) that he has gained experience and is no longer naive.
Who is reading and who is finished? What are your thoughts? Am I off base with my comments? Let's discuss.
Im reading but with the hassel thats been going on Im a bit behind but hopefully by next week everything will be back to normal and all Ill have to worry about is school work :D
To the question of the themes in the novel, I have to add the theme of marriage. In a way it is part of a hero's making his way through the world, but after now being about three quaters of the way through the book, it is more prominant a theme than I had expected. What startled me into this was the little incident where Aunt Betsy Trotwood's husband shows up. That was a surprise, her having a dissolute husband who drains money from her. If she too has a failed marriage, then marriage is close to the center of the book. I'm a little shocked I failed to pick up on this earlier. Looking back one remembers various marriages (Peggotty and Barkis, David's mother and Murdstone) but it hardly seemed central. Did other readers have the same problem? I really would like to know.
BTW, for you college students, this is why I would never feel comfrotable writing a major essay when I was in college on just a single read.
Aww, it's such a shame, I completed the book, though I was busy moving flats (I read all nights, basically :p), but I still down have any internet in my flat. Being dependent on university computer access, where competition is fierce, I don't have enough time to post my thoughts on the book at the moment :(
But I loved it ! :D
I hope the telephone company will finally make a move, I feel so terrible disconnected...
Will be back later!
Is anyone else reminded of Shylock's trial in Merchant of Venice when they finally face Heep (Shylock being replaced by Heep)?
Man, this is depressing; I tried so hard to push for "Copperfield", and I've had positively zero reading time (or anything time) nearly this entire month - this is actually my first post in several weeks. Pretty sure I'm still on chapter three. I'll be back though. I'm hoping to have it read in a couple weeks (we'll see how THAT works out...). Last time I vote for one of these things, I think.
Hi everybody...I'm new to this forum but love to read...is there a November selection? :)
Hi Kim. Welcome. It's to be voted on here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=19315
SPOILER SPOILER
Well I finished the book last week and I wanted to hold off writing my thoughts about it. Let me preface that these comments are based on a single reading of the novel, and perhaps I may reassess if I read it again. One does not truely know a novel on one reading. But I feel the Book Forum is entitled to my comments and thoughts. Overall I enjoyed the novel. Dicken's ability to create memorable characters is a joy. I absolutely loved aunt Betsy Trotwood, and loved to hate Uriah Heep. David was cool and Agnes was someone one could adore and loved Peggotty and Daniel Peggotty and Ham. Very memorable.
However, I must say that they are rather two dimensional, which brings me to my first criticism. There was hardly any flesh to some of these characters. Once it was established how they acted, they were fixed in it. And the scene they were in always revolved around their functional roles. And they were given these tag lines that followed them along. For instance, whenever Uriah showed up, without fail he would say how "umble" he was. And the word pecuniary would show up every time Micawber spoke. That sort of certainty in an 800 page novel became a little tiresome.
But the big problem I had with the novel was the relationships between the various elements of the plot. Dickens seems to set up these circles of story that David goes in and out of: the Steerforth circle, the Dora circle, the Emily/Daniel Peggotty circle, the Micawber circle, the Uriah Heep circle, the Betsy Trotwood circle. And what is the relationship between them? Very tenuous it seems to me. Dickens ties the Steerforth and Emily circles togther, but what does that have to do with Dora or Uriah Heep? And while he ties Micawber with Uriah, what does that have to do with the Peggotty parts? And can someone, anyone tell me what is Dora doing in the middle of all this? There is no reason for Dora to be in this. Dickens has David marry her, only to have her die of some mysterious disease that has nothing to do with any of the other plots a few hundred pages later. Rather confusing and just filler, it seems to me.
A fun novel, but very loosely put together and too long.
For me, the novel's main theme is appearance vs reality. Throughout his life, David and people around him learn that especially people are not necessarily what they seem to be. David's mum learns this from bitter experience when she marries Murdstone. Aunt Betsy, although first presented under very disagreeable light, turns out to be life saver later on. The Peggoty family, despite being poor and unrefined, show the real warmth and moral values. Steerforth, despite his charming looks, proves to be the most destructive character in the book. The Micawbers are friendly looking lot but they are rather selfish and prove destructive towards their friends. Heep is a vicious character despite his seeming humbleness (the list can go on).
When looked at from this angle, the circles, which seem somewhat irrelevant, tie up nicely. These are all necessary for David's growth. The beautiful Dora lacks personal strength and David realises that for a happy marriage a fascination based on looks is not enough (there is a very nice quote in the book actually about this. Will post it as soon as I find it).
Just a few points:
I dont see any need for the different circles of David's acquaintances to be drawn together. We all have groups in our lives who have never really met others eg work and family
I think Dora is an important character in the story, she is there as the contrast to Agnes.
Also I do not think the characters are 2 dimensional, Dickens shows the flaws and abilities of all the characters wonderfully.
Finally regarding the length, this is a criticism of just about all of Dickens work. I think however if it was shortened the brilliant characters, and interwined themes would lose a lot of their excellence.
Scher and Kilt, I hear what you're saying about the circles of story plot as I called it. I'm not saying they are completely irrelevant to each other. But to me they don't feel well integrated. I could change my mind on a second reading, though. If you feel so strong about it, let me ask this question. Which is the main plot line and which are the sub-plots?
One thing I like to do when I finish a novel is highlight a passage that shows the author's style or perhaps highlights a theme. Here's a particular passage that caught my eye. It's from chapter 35, when David is telling Aunt Betsy that he intends to propose to Dora. Not only does it show Dicken's fine ability at dialogue and characterization, bt it highlights the theme of naivete versus experience as I've articuated it or appearence versus reality as Scher's articulated it.
Quote:
As I bent forward, she put her tumbler on my knee to detain me, and said:
'Oh, Trot, Trot! And so you fancy yourself in love! Do you?'
'Fancy, aunt!' I exclaimed, as red as I could be. 'I adore her with my whole soul!'
'Dora, indeed!' returned my aunt. 'And you mean to say the little thing is very fascinating, I suppose?'
'My dear aunt,' I replied, 'no one can form the least idea what she is!'
'Ah! And not silly?' said my aunt.
'Silly, aunt!'
I seriously believe it had never once entered my head for a single moment, to consider whether she was or not. I resented the idea, of course; but I was in a manner struck by it, as a new one altogether.
'Not light-headed?' said my aunt.
'Light-headed, aunt!' I could only repeat this daring speculation with the same kind of feeling with which I had repeated the preceding question.
'Well, well!' said my aunt. 'I only ask. I don't depreciate her. Poor little couple! And so you think you were formed for one another, and are to go through a party-supper-table kind of life, like two pretty pieces of confectionery, do you, Trot?'
She asked me this so kindly, and with such a gentle air, half playful and half sorrowful, that I was quite touched.
'We are young and inexperienced, aunt, I know,' I replied; 'and I dare say we say and think a good deal that is rather foolish. But we love one another truly, I am sure. If I thought Dora could ever love anybody else, or cease to love me; or that I could ever love anybody else, or cease to love her; I don't know what I should do - go out of my mind, I think!'
'Ah, Trot!' said my aunt, shaking her head, and smiling gravely; 'blind, blind, blind!'
'Someone that I know, Trot,' my aunt pursued, after a pause, 'though of a very pliant disposition, has an earnestness of affection in him that reminds me of poor Baby. Earnestness is what that Somebody must look for, to sustain him and improve him, Trot. Deep, downright, faithful earnestness.'
'If you only knew the earnestness of Dora, aunt!' I cried.
'Oh, Trot!' she said again; 'blind, blind!' and without knowing why, I felt a vague unhappy loss or want of something overshadow me like a cloud.
'However,' said my aunt, 'I don't want to put two young creatures out of conceit with themselves, or to make them unhappy; so, though it is a girl and boy attachment, and girl and boy attachments very often - mind! I don't say always! - come to nothing, still we'll be serious about it, and hope for a prosperous issue one of these days. There's time enough for it to come to anything!'
This was not upon the whole very comforting to a rapturous lover; but I was glad to have my aunt in my confidence, and I was mindful of her being fatigued. So I thanked her ardently for this mark of her affection, and for all her other kindnesses towards me; and after a tender good night, she took her nightcap into my bedroom.
How miserable I was, when I lay down! How I thought and thought about my being poor, in Mr. Spenlow's eyes; about my not being what I thought I was, when I proposed to Dora; about the chivalrous necessity of telling Dora what my worldly condition was, and releasing her from her engagement if she thought fit; about how I should contrive to live, during the long term of my articles, when I was earning nothing; about doing something to assist my aunt, and seeing no way of doing anything; about coming down to have no money in my pocket, and to wear a shabby coat, and to be able to carry Dora no little presents, and to ride no gallant greys, and to show myself in no agreeable light! Sordid and selfish as I knew it was, and as I tortured myself by knowing that it was, to let my mind run on my own distress so much, I was so devoted to Dora that I could not help it. I knew that it was base in me not to think more of my aunt, and less of myself; but, so far, selfishness was inseparable from Dora, and I could not put Dora on one side for any mortal creature. How exceedingly miserable I was, that night!
Hey, my 6000th post!
Well, this will be my first post, but as my username suggests, I'm an avid Dickens fan, and it's been a while since I'd read David Copperfield. That said, I have read it perhaps as many as five times--cover to cover, the first being required reading in high school. I didn't think much of it in high school--very few at that age did, and probably holds true to this day. As I grew, and my own perspectives on reality vs. perception kicked into high gear, and upon re-reading, I grew to very much like the story--all 800 some-odd pages of it.
I find Scheherezade's summary of what the novel is very much about to be pretty close to the mark in my view as well. David Copperfield was essentially autobiographical in nature, and reveals a lot about how Dickens views many of the major events in his own life--Micawber being something of a parody of his own father, if memory serves me correctly. My favorite quote was, in fact, one of Micawber's, and since I'm strictly operating from memory I'll let a paraphrasing of it suffice, and avoid quotation marks. It went something akin to: income twenty pounds, expenditures, nineteen pounds six equals happiness; income twenty pounds expenditures twenty pounds and six, equals misery. -- probably not the words verbatim, but fairly close, I think, and it has been my own experience that truer words have never been spoken.
I think the thing about Copperfield I found most appealing is the manner in which Dickens, as is his wont, manages to make his characters so very real in the minds' eyes of the reader. I have my own image of folks like Uriah Heep, an utterly detestable character--the complete personification of hypocrisy and avarice. I also have a very dear sister (by adoption) who so very much reminds me of Dora that it's almost scary. She is, in every way, "a child". She needs to be treated as a child, and a spoiled one at that--even in her adulthood. What's scarier still (and understandably insulting to him) is her son has a name with the initials J. P. , and is called by many of his friends--"Jip". I found that to be somewhat amusing.
I apologize if I've strayed from the intent of this thread; and ask the reader's patience as it is my first visit to the site. I had to become a part of it as soon as I'd read some of the fora, being both an avid reader (particularly fond of the classics), and writer as well. For whatever it's worth, the name Boz, was the very first name I used back in the days before the internet when local BBS were the going rage--so this name selection wasn't based on just a whim--but upon a long established precedent. Good reading to all!
Boz
Welcome Boz. No need for apologies. I hope you contribute your knowledge more often.
Okay, finally I can give my thoughts on the novel, too. I hope discussion is still open...
I definetely had that feeling too that some of the characters were typologised too ardently. But then again, I think the novel was first published in monthly installments, so maybe that was one means to keep the characters markedly easy to remember :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
From the very first time she (and her omnipresent dog) appeared, I felt like hitting her with a bouquet of flowers :D. I found her way of dealing with serious matter very annoying, reminding me of today's Barbies. But then again, I was somehow taken by surprise how she behaved as she lay dying, telling David that it were be better for her to die because he would tire of her anyway, which probably really would have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Assuming that the whole Dora-episode was put in in order to illustrate David's "inexperienced heart", it paved the way for his final happy marriage to Agnes, so to say, and his growing wiser and wiser :).
All in all, however, I liked the novel, especially for its memorable characters like the Peggoty family, though I wouldn't have minded it to be somewhat shorter.