Problem with Dickens.

[Pewnut]

I must confess, I find it difficult to read two Dickens books back to back but I really enjoy his novels when I read them in moderation. I think he was a brilliant writer and I would be very surprised to find anyone who has read, say, Bleak House to not be moved by the death of Jo the street-sweeper.

“I’m a moving on, sir.”

“Let me lay here quiet, and not be chivied no more,” falters Jo; “and be so kind
any person as is a passin nigh where I used fur to sweep, as jist to say to Mr
Sangsby that Jo, wot he known once, is a moving on right forards with his
duty, and I’ll be wery thankful. I’d be more thankful than I am aready, if it wos
any ways possible for an unfortnet to be it.”

[wessexgirl]

I think where I part company with some of the other posters here is that I don't read for solely aesthetic reasons. Yes, I plan to be a critic/professor, and yes, I enjoy reading things from the perspective of: "It's not what it's about, it's how it's about". I like to learn the tropes and tricks of storytelling, to analyze how it's done, to see who is the most streamlined, who does it the cleanest, the best, with the most beauty. All of that is well and good and firing off in one corner of my head while reading, and I can and do (and do enjoy) writing papers entirely in that mode. But I am not just a critic, I am also a full human, who sees art not just as a game of aesthetic beauty but also potentially of spiritual and ethical beauty, who turns to art not just for intellectual stimulation but also for comfort--and comfort not in a beach-read way but in a very wholesome fulfilling way that stays with you not just for the few days after you've turned the last page but also for the rest of your life. I have a need inside of me for a well-told story that makes me feel. Some would stick up their nose at that sort of popular indulgence, but I feel sorry for the person who is so removed that he can't allow himself to really feel a story anymore. Dickens is one of those authors that really makes me feel. And I can write long papers about his structure and the political implications and his use of language till the cows come home, and I can enjoy it too. But it's not the reason why I'm a reader. Dickens scratches a very human itch, an itch I have no desire to deaden by numbing with any more of an injection of theory than is necessary for illumination. I believe at the end of the day that writers write not for critics to understand and deconstruct, but to communicate with another person. It is fun to study how communication takes place, and identify the unity and take pleasure in the turn of a phrase, but that's not always the same as hearing somebody. Dickens is a writer I hear. I hope I have not come off as naive and youthfully arrogant, just sincere and diplomatic is all I intended. When I said something similar on another forum the whole board started calling me "pretentious".

I think you've put it very well Mopey. And I think what you're saying is how I feel too. I also enjoy all the intellectual study and deconstruction of literature, but as you say, writers don't write for critics, they write for their readers, to communicate something, and we can analyse structure and style "until the cows come home". But does a piece of literature "speak" to you. I think there's no doubt that Dickens does that, as his longevity and status has proved. If it didn't, he would be one of the many forgotten Victorian novelists by now. You don't sound pretentious at all.

[Lady Marian]

I have a few problems with Dickens, myself. None of them, however, involve his being difficult.

I'm not sure leveling the charge of erudition or complexity against an author is really a valid criticism.

Hear, hear! Dickens' vocabulary and sentence construction may seem too much to us now, but if he tried to say the exact same things in modern vernacular English (or American), it would have taken him five times as long.

But then there are some of us adoring fans who just love the language despite the headaches it causes.

[londa]

By todays standards, yes he uses a whole lot of words. I read them and don't try to make much meaning out of the long descriptive parts. There are many parts that set a mood and I can just read them quickly without straining myself to understand every little bit. I keep a character list, and synopsis print out from the internet tucked in the book for details I've missed. He is actually quite funny, and dramatic. Maybe you would like them more after watching a movie based on one.

[MissScarlett]

I don't think a person has to like Dickens to love literature. He can't be everyone's cup of tea. But he was a master writer.

[hellzchocolate]

I always thought he was paid by the word for his novels... They were posted a chapter at a time on a newspaper and they paid him by the word which makes the novels so unbearably long and repetitive or well that's what i learned in english class.

[optimisticnad]

I think where I part company with some of the other posters here is that I don't read for solely aesthetic reasons. Yes, I plan to be a critic/professor, and yes, I enjoy reading things from the perspective of: "It's not what it's about, it's how it's about". I like to learn the tropes and tricks of storytelling, to analyze how it's done, to see who is the most streamlined, who does it the cleanest, the best, with the most beauty. All of that is well and good and firing off in one corner of my head while reading, and I can and do (and do enjoy) writing papers entirely in that mode. But I am not just a critic, I am also a full human, who sees art not just as a game of aesthetic beauty but also potentially of spiritual and ethical beauty, who turns to art not just for intellectual stimulation but also for comfort--and comfort not in a beach-read way but in a very wholesome fulfilling way that stays with you not just for the few days after you've turned the last page but also for the rest of your life. I have a need inside of me for a well-told story that makes me feel. Some would stick up their nose at that sort of popular indulgence, but I feel sorry for the person who is so removed that he can't allow himself to really feel a story anymore. Dickens is one of those authors that really makes me feel. And I can write long papers about his structure and the political implications and his use of language till the cows come home, and I can enjoy it too. But it's not the reason why I'm a reader. Dickens scratches a very human itch, an itch I have no desire to deaden by numbing with any more of an injection of theory than is necessary for illumination. I believe at the end of the day that writers write not for critics to understand and deconstruct, but to communicate with another person. It is fun to study how communication takes place, and identify the unity and take pleasure in the turn of a phrase, but that's not always the same as hearing somebody. Dickens is a writer I hear. I hope I have not come off as naive and youthfully arrogant, just sincere and diplomatic is all I intended. When I said something similar on another forum the whole board started calling me "pretentious".

Is there no 'applause' icon here?

I think majority of us are like you, we're after well-told stories which make us not only think but feel.

You don't sound 'pretentious' here, I've not read the other post you mention so I can't comment on that. But here you've eloquently explained what so many of us feel but struggle to express.

Still think his work his boring..

I could substitute that word over and over, doesn't change the fact.

Well argued.

I don't think a person has to like Dickens to love literature. He can't be everyone's cup of tea. But he was a master writer.

I couldn't have said it better myslelf. I haven't read all of his novels but I love the ones I have read. He most definitely is not everyone's cup of tea, he tends to 'whine' on a little too much, he wrote far more than necessary, some of his characters are so saintly you just want to However he is a 'master writer', there is hardly anyone out there who can match his caricatures, his complex plots and his outstanding vocabulary. After Shakespeare he is arguably the greatest English writer, all these people can't be wrong.

[prendrelemick]

He is the best of authors, he is the worst of authors. He shows wisdom and foolishness.

He has written some of my favourite books, and favourite passages, and some I've found to be unreadable self indulgent nonsense.

[Skadifirst]

Hi. I'm new as of today because I was looking up the titles of some Dickens and ended up here. I'll admit it's been a hoot so far.
Poor Fox wrote Does anyone else here find his stuff hard to read? His sentences seem to be un-necessarily complex. Also he uses a lot of words that, even though I know the meaning, make it hard for me to connect and understand what he's saying, if that makes any sense. It gets to the point where I put the book down and can't finish it.

Then she gets answered by someone, wait let me look.....Oh MayNever that uses his big and all grown up vocab. that's more confusing than ANYTHING Dickens ever wrote - I have a few problems with Dickens, myself. None of them, however, involve his being difficult.

I'm not sure leveling the charge of erudition or complexity against an author is really a valid criticism.
I can't quit laughing about this, and i will try my best not to a level a charge of erudition and DEFINITLY not complexity against you.
Then we get into he wasn't poetic enough, and then the ......I yes, love literature, it doesn't mean I MUST love Dickens. Honey, he's dead, doesn't care and of course you don't. This board couldn't hold the list of so called 'classics' that put me to sleep.
Uh, gee, how to explain Dickens without going overboard, becoming complex, yada, blech?
Does he seem to romanticise his characters in books that should have been 'more compelling, harder edged;' for the time? Hardly, for two reasons. He LIVED a lot of those characters, and if he didn't want to dredge up a more PAINFUL image than some of you can get, well, maybe it's because he left a little of his (and his characters) life horror to your imagination. It was supposed to be fiction right? Although so much of it was painfully autobiographical. Secondly, I don't believe, and this is just my opinion as a psychologist, and what I've read about him, that he EVER really lost his fear of poverty, starvation, and other delights available in Victorian times. To criticise to harshly seems to me to have been entirely too scary for him. He was popular, and PAID, and fed. Some of his things were better than others. Depending on your taste. I think that can be said of any author at any time or anyone who produces any product for money.
Read him and enjoy him. Or if you don't like his style why read him?
Just read!!!!!
Cheryl

[bluosean]

Yeah. The first replyer completely missed the point of the post (probably, 'didnt care' is a better way to put it than 'missed'). It just got worse from there. This happens a lot though. I'll admit that I say what I want to say in cases like this too. It was a question not a criticism. Fox was asking for help. This time though ill try to be helpful. I don't really know what to say if you find Dickens difficult to read. Usuall books are difficult to read because the reader is disinterested. Interest in a topic can take you a long way (even as far a looking up every other word and asking questions on forums--I don't mean that as a joke). Try reading A Christmas Caroll. It's a great Dickens book and short. Should not be too hard to get through. If you like it than you can try Oliver Twist. If you don't you should probably try a different author.

[isidro]

I find there are two kinds of readers in this world, though I may be putting this in an overly shallow manner. There are those who enjoy Dickens and there are those who like Hemingway and the two rarely, in my experience, meet. Their writing styles are so phenomenally different that it seems nearly impossibly to harbor equal affection for both. You might guess by my writing that I am a Dickens fan and avid reader. Dickens writes that way because he likes to bask in the beauty of language so his prose often reads much like poetry. Some people do not like it and find it overly ornate, and that is fine. I would suggest The Old Man and the Sea in that case. But others love that aspect of Dickens and read his work expressly for that reason. It's just a matter of taste, I suppose.

[Alexander III]

I find there are two kinds of readers in this world, though I may be putting this in an overly shallow manner. There are those who enjoy Dickens and there are those who like Hemingway and the two rarely, in my experience, meet. Their writing styles are so phenomenally different that it seems nearly impossibly to harbor equal affection for both. You might guess by my writing that I am a Dickens fan and avid reader. Dickens writes that way because he likes to bask in the beauty of language so his prose often reads much like poetry. Some people do not like it and find it overly ornate, and that is fine. I would suggest The Old Man and the Sea in that case. But others love that aspect of Dickens and read his work expressly for that reason. It's just a matter of taste, I suppose.

I love both Dickens and Hemingway