Sell Dickens to Me. . . .

Chalk it up to my own personal character flaw(s): Maybe I'm too stupid to understand Dickens; maybe I'm thoughtlessly inconsiderate (redundant, I know; I know) of Dickens' treatment of Victorian people and society; or maybe I'm simply weak-willed but. . . .

I cannot finish a Dickens novel.

Great Expectations? I got about half way through when I thought, "I cannot keep wasting my time like this. I quit!"

Little Dorrit? Half way though again when the realization set in: "I don't care about any of these people, any of this plot, certainly not this writing style." So in a desperate fit of weakness, I quit on him again.

My latest attempt with Dickens: Last week. A Tale of Two Cities. The result? The same.

I got about 120 pages into it and. . . .every person seemed a caricature, so I couldn't feel anything for anyone. There seemed to be some drama in the plot, but because the characters seemed such faceless generalizations, I just couldn't feel the drama.

And the prose style, while I fully understand the Victorian style and how it differs from ours, just seems rushed. Sloppy. Sure there were times of brilliance, sentences of merit, paragraphs of note. But overall. Meh.

So, if I take up the task of trying to "get into Dickens" again, how should I approach it? I mean, despite the cruel, heartless things I've said about him, I really want to like Dickens, I just can't, at least not now.

First, I'll grant you that Dickens' style is, by modern standards, perhaps overly rich. The closer one gets to the 1700s, the more the writing becomes increasingly baroque and bombastic until we are set upon by a tsunami of pretentious verbiage and prolix periods enough to drive one up the wall and down again. To us, the old style isn't direct. Rather, it's rich. We live in the era of Will Strunk and E.B. White, the "omit needless words" paradigm.

So I think that part of the problem that you (like many other modern readers) have with Dickens may be that his style is just kinda' annoying. Fair enough.

But I think that Dickens' style varies somewhat from book to book. Oliver Twist, for example, has a fairly obtuse style. But David Copperfield has a much more human, somewhat less rich style. A Tale of Two Cities is very political and serious... to the point, perhaps, of being ponderous. The point is that Dickens novels are various and some may suit you more than others. If ponderous and self-important epics aren't your style, then ATOTC is certainly not the right novel.

Regarding Great Expectations, I feel that this novel is best in its pay-off at the end and in the overall story-arc. Its ending(s) are intriguing and highly un-dickensian, and its overall story-arc is an interesting statement on humanity and the human experience. Thus, you might appreciate it more after finishing it and then reflecting on it.

Regarding character caricatures... yes, many Dickens characters are caricatures (see, Fagin). But many aren't. Many are very well-drawn, and you get to know them and all their quirks, characteristics, and foibles. And THEN you are interested in seeing what will happen to them in the end.

My personal experience with Dickens was thus. When I was eight, for some reason I tried to read Oliver Twist. I hated it. I stopped after the third chapter. When I was twelve I tried to read Oliver Twist. I hated it. I stopped after the fourth or fifth chapter. When I was sixteen I tried reading Oliver Twist and I resolved to plow through it to the end come what may, even if my mind should go numb with boredom and if the firmament cracked and the earth crumbled. At first, I hated it; but as I persevered I began to slowly care about several characters. I began to become somewhat interested in what happened to them. This interest increased and crescendoed until towards the end I literally couldn't put the book down. Sweating with excitement, I finished the book and decided to go out and read some more Dickens.

Don't worry about it. Dickens was a writer of serials, so his was constantly rushed, and he didn't edit them done for publication as complete works, so there are some bits that don't quite fit. He also had to write a certain number of words for every episode, so there are places where things were strung out or chopped off depending on what was necessary. As a reader I do not like Dickens, but as a writer I have sympathy for him. If he had taken a few months to smooth things out before they were published, then I am sure that his novels would be much better.

One must have the ability to roam with the knowledge that the byways of the trip are worth reaching journey's end. This can only be accomplished through repeated readings. After reading all the novels of Dickens, with the exception of Barnaby Rudge, I can truthfully say, as I near journey's end, that the trip was worth the perils imposed upon the reader. Dickens' is not an easy read. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Quote:

---

I cannot finish a Dickens novel.

---

I cannot start one. :biggrin5:

A Christnas Carol would be a good start. It's short and it only has one plot- and not that many characters. Okay, that's kind of the opposite of everything Dickens is known for, but it's a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I cannot start one. :biggrin5:

---

haha me neither.

I have given up, and boy, have I tried.

I'd love to sell you on it, but I think it took me an entire year to read Great Expectations. I like the stories for the most part, but he can be a bit of a bore to read.

I'd start with Sketches by Boz.

I have only read Hard Times, and I thought it was very good, but I can observe many of the fair complaints made about Dickens. However, the novel has a lot of wonderful commentary on society which remains relevant today. If you want to enjoy Dickens, I strongly suggest this book. It is short, which allows you to sample his style in an amount that won't exhaust you. My Norton Critical Edition is 223 pages long minus contexts and criticism. The central themes are very interesting and relevant to modern society.
However, you do not have to like Dickens. There is a mass volume of great literature both among the classics and among contemporary literature, so you do not have to like every author. Also, do not compare Dickens to others of the Victorian Era because his writing style is radically different as far as I can tell based on my readings from the era.

You could try David Copperfield. I'm currently halfway through and it has (so far) managed to hold my attention - which is usually pretty easily distracted. And thats in spite of the dust cover giving away half the plotlines.

Trying to work out why I like it: I think its partly because there are so many brilliant, eccentric characters. Its worth checking out for Betsy Trowood alone. Also the fantastic names he invents: Mr Micawber, Uriah Heep etc.

...anyway good luck.

I agree with Stendhal about Hard Times. It is a little different from Dickens' other novels.
It is only in the beginning that the characters and the emphasis on false ideology governing the education will seem exaggerated. But eventually it all becomes pretty normal. It's a good book. I could feel Dickens' concerns most in this book than any other.
However I enjoyed reading David Copperfield, The Old Curiosity Shop and the like more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annatkwhelk

Trying to work out why I like it: I think its partly because there are so many brilliant, eccentric characters. Its worth checking out for Betsy Trowood alone. Also the fantastic names he invents: Mr Micawber, Uriah Heep etc.

---

This is just it -- maybe Dickens and I will never get along (though maybe my next try will be Hard Times, as it seems to be getting some good press here). These eccentric characters with the goofy names. . . . that's one of the things that I don't like about him. They just don't seem real -- not that everything has to be dower and serious, but I have to believe the character. And it just seems that with his characters, I can never make the transition to reality. . . . his characters all seem like actors on a stage practicing their lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

haha me neither.

I have given up, and boy, have I tried.

---

Me either.:D Comedian, Why do you feel it necessary to like Dickens? Why can't you just chalk it up to a matter of taste? I'm sure you have read many other novels of a serious nature.

I, on the other hand, have read a handful, but I feel it's time to quit reading merely for pleasure. And if I'm not in a classroom, few of the big guns of literature seem to qualify in that respect. Maybe it's just the exhaustion of holding down a job and raising kids; I don't know, but I feel it's time to try.

I'm starting with somthing a little easier first, though. I've started "The Known World;" I'll let you know if I finish it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

And the prose style, while I fully understand the Victorian style and how it differs from ours, just seems rushed. Sloppy. Sure there were times of brilliance, sentences of merit, paragraphs of note. But overall. Meh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Dickens was a writer of serials, so his was constantly rushed, and he didn't edit them done for publication as complete works, so there are some bits that don't quite fit. He also had to write a certain number of words for every episode, so there are places where things were strung out or chopped off depending on what was necessary. As a reader I do not like Dickens, but as a writer I have sympathy for him. If he had taken a few months to smooth things out before they were published, then I am sure that his novels would be much better.

---

Well, I'm not really going to "sell" you on Dickens. If the characters don't speak to you, then they just don't. There really isn't anything to do about that (although you could look at the volumes of criticism about how Pip is the most interesting psychological study in all of Victorian literature). But, you need to be careful about describing Dickens' approach to writing. When you describe him as "sloppy," or claim that he's "rush[ing]." Then you're stepping out of your own subjective reaction to Dickens and stepping into biography--something that has to be approached with more circumspection. Your comments here make it sound like Dickens was some hack churning out long periods for a few pence. I exaggerate, of course, but the implication of what you're saying is that Dickens didn't spend long enough crafting his novels. This is the sort of thing that would be true, if it were true. But, it's not. Dickens is often considered one of the master-craftsmen of British literature. Far from being oppressed by the demands of publishers, he frequently got control of the projects he was involved in and made changes to suit his writing. Right from the beginning this true. When the publishers of Pickwick Papers asked Dickens to write little stories about Robert Seymour's illustrations, Dickens objected that he didn't know how to write about the things Seymour drew. Eventually, he maneuvered himself into the position of writing stories that Seymour would then illustrate. This is what Dickens did throughout his career: gain control of his medium. By the 1860's he's publishing his own material. I don't think he was particularly constrained by the demands of literary marketplace. Far from it, he was the most independent successful writer of his time.

And he didn't seek control over just the medium, he also worked hard to get the content of his novels just right. You can look at almost any point of Bleak House or Great Expectations to see this. Take Pip's introduction to Herbert Pocket in chapter 11. Here's the last few paragraphs:

Quote:

---

My heart failed me when I saw him squaring at me with every demonstration of mechanical nicety, and eyeing my anatomy as if he were minutely choosing his bone. I never have been so surprised in my life, as I was when I let out the first blow, and saw him lying on his back, looking up at me with a bloody nose and his face exceedingly fore-shortened.

But, he was on his feet directly, and after sponging himself with a great show of dexterity began squaring again. The second greatest surprise I have ever had in my life was seeing him on his back again, looking up at me out of a black eye.

His spirit inspired me with great respect. He seemed to have no strength, and he never once hit me hard, and he was always knocked down; but he would be up again in a moment, sponging himself or drinking out of the water-bottle, with the greatest satisfaction in seconding himself according to form, and then came at me with an air and a show that made me believe he really was going to do for me at last. He got heavily bruised, for I am sorry to record that the more I hit him, the harder I hit him; but he came up again and again and again, until at last he got a bad fall with the back of his head against the wall. Even after that crisis in our affairs, he got up and turned round and round confusedly a few times, not knowing where I was; but finally went on his knees to his sponge and threw it up: at the same time panting out, "That means you have won."

He seemed so brave and innocent, that although I had not proposed the contest, I felt but a gloomy satisfaction in my victory. Indeed, I go so far as to hope that I regarded myself while dressing as a species of savage young wolf or other wild beast. However, I got dressed, darkly wiping my sanguinary face at intervals, and I said, "Can I help you?" and he said "No thankee," and I said "Good afternoon," and he said "Same to you."

---

Most immediately, the scene is a funny parody. Pip's education is outlined in the first chapters (learning to read, going to school, etc.), and this introduction to Herbert makes fun of then contemporary ideas about education. Fighting was considered to be part of how boy's learning to compete in Victorian society. Thomas Arnold, headmaster of Rugby in the 1830's, wrote down his teaching philosophy in Tom Brown's School Days--which was later published in 1858. In it, he argued that "After all, what would life be without fighting? ... From the cradle to the grave, fighting, rightly understood, is the business, the real highest, honestest, business of every son of man." Herbert wants to be, and will become, that highest and honestest gentleman. Pip certainly want to be, too. The scene is clever jab at people like Arnold who thought that the kind of dueling Herbert and Pip do will make great people. Dickens' description of Herbert mocks Arnold throughout. Pip praises Herbert's "brave[ry] and innocence," but can't help notice that Herbert has "no strength." Pip respects Herbert somehow, but also notices that Herbert is completely ineffectual. This is part of Dickens' critique of manners in the novel--that they only go so deep. The fight is really a clever play on the ideas of the time. It's also part of the novel's continuing themes.

Also, the last paragraph is incredibly revealing of the child Pip and the adult Pip recounting these events. The feeling of criminality that Pip feels is an important thread that runs through the novel, and we see it creep up here. This buried feeling of guilt returns again and again. He calls himself a "wolf," which is what Orlick, who reflects many of Pip's less seemly characteristics, later will refer to him as. The words, sentence structure, and themes are each carefully chosen in this scene. It's hard to call this sloppy. And this isn't even a very major passage in the book. I just openned my book and started writing. I could do this for almost any part of the novel.

Don't read it, watch it. That's my advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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.

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 :)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

So, if I take up the task of trying to "get into Dickens" again, how should I approach it? I mean, despite the cruel, heartless things I've said about him, I really want to like Dickens, I just can't, at least not now.

---

Maybe you should try these.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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 :). .....

---

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.

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

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:

Bleak House had quite a good TV adaptation. The characters are supposed to be comic observations for god's sake not searing psychological examinations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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?

---

Ooh, what a good idea, where's my pen........? :ihih::lol:

It will be a smash, and then I could follow it up with something like "Tess, the Musical", and we could get Andrew Lloyd Webber to produce it and market the search for a Tess on Saturday evening primetime tv, but the warbling wannabees might come unstuck if they have to audition on a gallows while trying to sing with a rope round their neck......:lol:

A Christmas Carol is his most readable book.

I would say I'm a fan, but even I gave up on Martin Chuzzlewit.

I've always thought Zadie was hot! I hope she soon recovers from the sucess of her first book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

Ooh, what a good idea, where's my pen........? :ihih::lol:

It will be a smash, and then I could follow it up with something like "Tess, the Musical", and we could get Andrew Lloyd Webber to produce it and market the search for a Tess on Saturday evening primetime tv, but the warbling wannabees might come unstuck if they have to audition on a gallows while trying to sing with a rope round their neck......:lol:

---

:eek6:Ahhhh, don't even joke about stealing my idea...

No, I don't think I'd go with the Tess and certainly not with that horrible man Webber and his teenie shows - no, I would be a one hit success and then move on to other things.

I think that Mr Squat-thrust would make a good character in a Dickens novel, Mr Squat-thrust, Mr Squat-thrust, you can really get your teeth into it...

I am a supporter of the Hey Jude-thing.

And I support Neely's Webber-thing as well. Absolute cr*p. Oh, my God, how can people like that gibberish. It just sounds all so... the same.

So lt's phone Paul and do some writing :D

I hadn't read Dicken's since high school (40 years ago) and only remembered hating "A Tale of Two Cities". The recent BBC adaptation of "Bleak House" piqued my interest and have now read half a dozen of his novels.
One approach I took as a lark was to read David Copperfield as a serial. My edition clearly marked where the "numbers' (published groups of chapters) stopped and started and I purposely waited at least a week between them. I think this greatly enhanced my appreciation of how he was working with the publishing media of his time. When descibing Dicken's to my non-reading friends I relate him to a one-man production company of a hit TV series - actually many overlapping hit TV series. He is writing as he goes along and interacting with his public as he does so. From what I've read he was very aware of public reaction to his stories and molded the plots accordingly.
Try one of the BBC adaptations (Bleak House and Little Dorrit are my favorites) and then pick up the book. His characters are amazing!
That said....
I read only for pleasure and do not consider myself a scholar so please keep that in mind when reading my comments.

Pete in Portland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Don't read it, watch it. That's my advice.

---

Heavens no! The film adaptations of Dickens novels are almost all deplorable dross. Even if the film makers could manage to be reasonably faithful to the stories or to the most essential qualities of the characters - or indeed to include all of at least the major characters - which they apparently can't, film or stage could never capture the humour and biting social commentary of Dickens's written words. One exception as to the former point (there are none as to the latter) is the 1994 miniseries production of Martin Chuzzlewit, with Tom Wilkinson as an incredible Seth Pecksniff. Truly Excellent! Don't even try to watch any of the David Copperfield adaptations. Miserable, every one of them.

Read the damn books. Hang in there. It's worth it. The middle can get slow. So what? What else have you got to do that's so important? Take it slow. Savour it!!! It's beautiful writing! Don't expect to read more than about 10 pages an hour, or 20 a day. His original readers had a month to digest 32 pages, 19 months to read most of his long novels. It took me about four months to read Bleak House. It was absolutely worth it. You might be able to get through Hard Times in a week or so, but I wouldn't recommend starting with it. It is the least memorable of his novels (of the 10 I've read - still have a few to go).

I'd start with Our Mutual Friend, and just don't quit. The pay off in that one is huge. Trust me.

But if you just don't like it, and prefer more direct, simplistic, language, then don't read Dickens. Try Douglas Adams. Not that his writing is simplistic or very direct. It isn't. You've probably read at least some of his work. Did you like The Hitchhiker's Guide books? I loved them. Douglas Adams (Happy Towel Day, BTW), and Kurt Vonnegut were the only authors I really loved before I started reading Dickens. Adams, you might have noticed, also has a farily complex, highly descriptive writing style. A couple years ago I was reading The Salmon of Doubt (Adamses essays and notes published after his death), and somewhere in there are listed his favourite authors, which include Kurt Vonnegut ('hey', I thought, 'mine too!'), and Charles Dickens, who I'd never read, and knew of him only that he'd written A Christmas Carol and A Tale of Two Cities. But if Adams liked him - and Adams also liked Vonnegut - then, well, next chance I got I picked up A Tale of Two Cities. And it was rough going at first. Such complex language! So many odd expressions and references, and words I didn't know! It was like trying to read Shakespeare in 9th grade all over again. But I immediately saw Dickens's influence on Adams, and that helped me appreciate it, and I pushed on, even though I wasn't always certain that I understood perfectly everything I was reading. But eventually I was hooked, probably about two thirds of the way along. It's not a very long book, comparatively, so that helped.

I'm sure you're quite mistaken about his writing being rushed and sloppy. This man worked himself into an early old age and death. Rushed and sloppy are the powerpoint bullet outline screenplay pitches masquerading as novels that seem to be popular today. As for the complexity of style, I love it. Strunk and White's principles of concision are meant for scientific writing, and do not apply to literature, in my opinion.

Try Our Mutual Friend. One chapter every day or two. I'd recommend the Penguin Classics paperback editions. They have very helpful end-notes and other interesting appendices, including samples of Dickens's working notes, which are fascinating.

Good luck.

My best advice: skim. I am nearly done with my first Dickens novel (David Copperfield, fyi) and so far I have found very little to induce me to skim -- but, honestly, I went into it with very clear plans: if ever it got boring, heavy handed, yawn-inducing even, I could skim through or even skip ahead. Now I know this amounts to sacrilege in some people's eyes, but the way I see it... well, Dickens wrote profusely, in a style that has scholars speaking more in pages than in sentences or paragraphs. Additionally, it seems to me Dickens sometimes wrote... well, if not carelessly, than at least not with the greatest of care. This opinion, then, only naturally induces me to put about as much effort into reading it as I think he put into writing it.