What is the problem with Dickens?

ForumWhat the Dickens...?

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.

What is the problem with Dickens?

Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.

1tomcatMurr
Bearbeitet: Mrz. 26, 2007, 11:33 am

Dickens gives me personally more pleasure page for page than any other 19th century English writer. He is wildly funny, deeply moving, always innovative, scathingly radical in his critique of his society, the inventor of more characters than anyone else since Shakespeare who have entered the folksoul of our culture, and the writer of some of the most vibrant and memorable prose in the language. His status in the canon seems safe. And yet it seems among many readers today he is not appreciated, even loathed by some.
While I can appreciate that sometimes his mawkishness is not to modern tastes, and that like any other writer with a comparable output, he has his moments of weakness, I am interested in and puzzled as to the origin for the aversion for Dickens.
Any ideas?

2LolaWalser
Mrz. 26, 2007, 12:43 pm

This takes imagining a sensibility wholly different from my own, so bear with me...

Too Many Words?

3AsYouKnow_Bob
Mrz. 26, 2007, 7:23 pm

I am interested in and puzzled as to the origin for the aversion for Dickens.

Any ideas?

That strikes me as an easy question, one with a one-word answer:

"School".

I think a lot of people have acquired a Dickens-aversion from having been forced to read David Copperfield and/or Great Expectations in school.

4uffishread
Mrz. 26, 2007, 8:43 pm

One criticism often levelled at Dickens is a restatement of G. H. Lewes' view: that his sensations never passed into ideas. He wrote characters and books with life in them but no real purpose or direction, so they become like Pickwick a series of entertaining episodes but not very real.

Certainly compared to George Eliot or most other victorian writers his books seem a stew of stories but that is a good reason to like them. I even blasphemously suggested once that the story in Dickens is not important and then I read The Mystery of Edwin Drood: I'm sorry I doubted you Mr. Dickens.

5almigwin
Mrz. 26, 2007, 10:37 pm

I find Dickens, like Italian opera, too dramatic. Everything seems exaggerated. I think the novels should all be plays. The characters are powerfully drawn but generally one dimensional. I laud his social criticism, and don't deny his genius, but I prefer Trollope. More complexity of characterization, more honesty about sexual/marital/romantic relations, and about political shenanigans in the church and the state..Admittedly less drama and less humor, but more satisfying to me.

6digifish_books
Mrz. 27, 2007, 6:14 am

Not really sure why Dickens gets a bad wrap. Although turgidly written, I still like many of his works, some of which make great dramatisations. One of my favourites was Our Mutual Friend (although I haven't read the book). I think that was a BBC production. And of course there have been countless renderings of Oliver Twist and Great Expectations.

#5 Almigwin, I like Anthony Trollope also. Maybe LT needs a forum for 'Trollopians'? ;)

7LolaWalser
Mrz. 27, 2007, 12:30 pm

Ahhhh, Dickens as Italian opera! Why, that might explain our affinity :)

I think Bob, as we know, is right: the tyranny of schooling, drubbing nollij into hard green heads, has lots to answer for.

Although, I must say I wasn't aware of much Dickens-hate going on, is that really a phenomenon? He seems so entertaining to me...

>6 digifish_books:

Hmmm, "turgid". That's like complaining the Baroque is "ornate". :) Not precisely wrong, and yet somehow misses the point... To me, Dickens is a fabulous prancing, dancing fantasist, all fire and flicker--the original 'round-the-fire storyteller, imitating voices, miming, playacting--as almigwin said, exaggerating, like an old-fashioned stage actor or a silent movie star, pulling multicoloured costumes on and off, chewing scenery like a turbine. It's THAT kind of show.

8postit Erste Nachricht
Mrz. 27, 2007, 4:28 pm

I know some readers who can't stand Dickens, either in print or in performance, though I defy anyone not to have a giggle at the Muppets Christmas Carol.

At the risk of getting a bit lit crit, having just re-read the first chapter of Oliver Twist, I wonder whether the chatty, almost facetious, voice the author adopts in presenting the tragic birth and death is dismissed too easily as indulgence. It's certainly not turgid, or even melodramatic. It's actually quite understated. I take the world-weary tone to imply that this kind of tragedy is too common to shed too many tears over. The effect on the reader, I suggest, is to make it more shocking.

9almigwin
Mrz. 27, 2007, 7:17 pm

Uffishread and G.H. Lewes's ghost:
I don't think it's fair to say that his novels had no real purpose or directon. The expose of the school in Nicholas Nickleby, the conditions in debtor's prison in Little Dorritt, the continuous bleeding of the petitioner in Chancery in Bleak House all have purpose and that is social improvement. He was a powerful social critic, much more than George Eliot. He didn't specify a different form of government or spell out changes in the law. But his exposure of the tragedies of poverty, orphanhood, dependence,exploitation, have a purpose and that is to alert the reading classes to injustices in society with a view toward correcting them.

10tomcatMurr
Mrz. 27, 2007, 8:21 pm

What a geat discussion! #7 I think you got it absolutely right: Dickens is THAT kind of a show, and even though I also agree with #8 about the world weary tone in the first chapter of OT, it's not a contradiction. Dickens can be understated AND over the top. He has an extremely wide range of voices that he switches in and out of. Actually, come to think of it, his first chapters are worth reading all on their own in themselves. Due to the serial publication of his novels in magazines, he knew that the first chapter had to grip the audience's attention and make sure they came back for more. They frequently contain his most powerful writing: Bleak House, the biting sarcasm of Chuzzlewit, the magnificent opening sentence of The Christmas Carol.

Almigwin, you said exactly what I wanted to say in answer to #4. I have a great deal of respect for Lewes, but I can't help wondering sometimes how much Lewes's and Eliot's criticism of Dickens was tinged with class snobbery: Dickens was the first genuinely popular writer, notwithstanding his lower class origins (perhaps also professional jealousy: Dickens's sales were HUGE). It seems to me that often their understanding of Dickens is hampered by a kind of critical blindess. Dickens does not write about ideas certainly, in the way that Eliot does. In Eliot's writing, you can turn to almost any page and pick out an aphorism or an idea, beautifully epxressed. There is nothing like this in Dickens. He works in a completely different way: focusing on people and their lives rather than on abstract intellectual systems.

Tolstoy's answer to the problem of how to deal with the gross injustices of his time and place was to focus on those immediately around you and to help those you can, personally and immediately, eschewing attempts at social and political reform. I think Dickens's aim was similar. He wanted his readers to open their eyes (and hearts -Dickens is sooo emotional) to what was happening around them. I think he hoped that by moving his readers to tears or laughter he would provoke a practical personal response in his readers, which, accumulated among thousands of readers, would eventually amount to an irresistable pressure for social change.
In many areas, such as school reform, working men's education, changing attitudes to prostitution the divorce laws etc he succeeded.

Bit of a long post.....

11aluvalibri
Mrz. 27, 2007, 9:47 pm

yes tomcat, a bit long, but worth each and every word of it!

12uffishread
Mrz. 27, 2007, 11:06 pm

Uffish read does is no way endorse the opinions of G.H. Lewes. I recently read Dickens: the Novelist where the Leavis's really put the boot into Lewes's ideas. Its always good to have critical heavyweights confirming your gut instinct.

13Urquhart
Apr. 7, 2007, 7:06 pm

You folks are a very hard act to follow, however, I shall endeavor to suggest an alternate perspective.

Dickens is not just disliked in our time he is decidedly detested for one simple reason. Our 21st century American culture is dominated by a preponderance of vulgarity and rudeness. It is what is popular in politics, movies and music and the masses can not get enough of it.

Dickens in David Copperfield on the other hand sculpts his characters as gentle charactertures based only lightly on real life. His lightness of joy and humor are just not matched in any author since his time. Yes, there is humor in 20th century authors but not the light, vulnerable, and gentle humor of Dickens.

The gross and vulgar of our day is just not within the sensibility of a Dickensensian novel. Our era is a time of a a proud lack of sensibility rather than a fine development of same.

But there I go with my vulgar, gross, and heavy handed rant.....rant...rant...rant...rant...rant...rant...

14Jargoneer
Apr. 7, 2007, 7:23 pm

John Mullan, who writes a weekly column in the Independent newspaper on how novels work, has some interesting things to say about Dickens. His main argument is that we shouldn't look at his novels in the way we look at a modern novels, Dickens is not a modern novelist in the way Trollope is - Dickens writing is designed to be spoken/performed, not read flat on the page. This explains why his writing lacks some of the subtleties of subsequent authors, why it appears over-the-top, etc.

15Urquhart
Apr. 7, 2007, 7:33 pm

Many thanks for your response on this. Most appreciated.

16lesezeichen
Apr. 8, 2007, 6:02 am

#5 Almigwin, I like Anthony Trollope also. Maybe LT needs a forum for 'Trollopians'? ;)

That would be greatly appreciated, I do not feel up to creating one myself but I would certainly love to join!

17almigwin
Bearbeitet: Apr. 8, 2007, 9:47 am

urquhart:
You wanted light, vulnerable, gentle humor in the 20th century.
I give you Barbara Pym, any of her books

Ivy Compton-Burnett (not so vulnerable or gentle)
but a great writer - greek tragedy in the victorian family, in dialogue with adult-voiced children, and funny. see a god and his gifts or a father and his fate

Enid Bagnold, see the squire

Muriel Spark see memento mori, the girls of slender means

margery sharp see cluny brown and the foolish gentlewoman

18almigwin
Apr. 8, 2007, 9:34 am

lesezeichen: I posted to your profile about Trollope.

19Urquhart
Apr. 8, 2007, 9:54 am

Almigwin, many thanks for your guidance. I regret to say I am illiterate when it comes to your list of authors and works. I have enjoyed cluny brown and am surprised anyone else would know of it.

Looks to me as if I have some catching up to do with the people you list.

Thanks.

20tomcatMurr
Apr. 9, 2007, 12:40 am

Urquhart, I agree so much with what you say above #13: "Our era is a time of a proud lack of sensibility".
How dumb it is that mediocrity is exalted and that excellence is denigrated as elitist. I hate it too.
I think another problem with Dickens in our culture is that he is difficult. Some of his sentences are quite long! Some of them even have multiple clauses and gerundive subjects!! Some even – and this is so terrible- contain words longer than three syllables which aren’t in my Microsoft desktop dictionary!!!!!!!!For most readers under the age of 35, say, reared on a culture where sentences are no longer than 5 or 6 words, whose attention spans have been trained to be no longer than the time allowed between adverts on TV and whose vocabulary has been given by the Simpsons, such long sentences, long words, and even long books are simply too difficult. And difficult equals bad in our culture.
Jargoneer, thanks for the Mullan link. What he says is absolutely right about Dickens’s performative use of language. Dickens himself had an extremely successful and lucrative career reading from his works, as I’m sure you know.

21digifish_books
Apr. 9, 2007, 9:00 am

#16 RE: A Trollope Group
"That would be greatly appreciated, I do not feel up to creating one myself but I would certainly love to join!"

Alas, I feel under-qualified to embark on creating such a group since I've only read The Warden and part of Barchester Towers. There is a nice Trollope site at http://www.anthonytrollope.com/ (still in beta).

22almigwin
Apr. 9, 2007, 9:38 am

21: I looked at the trollope site, but there isn't much there at the moment. I thought again about the Trollope Group and decided to spring for it since if qualifications mean having read most of his books, then I'm qualified. We'll see who posts.

23lesezeichen
Apr. 9, 2007, 11:47 am

almigwin: Yippieh, that's good news, thank you! I am rather a "Trollope beginner" myself so I did not dare.

digifish: thank you I like the approach of this site very much...

24cpg
Mai 17, 2007, 10:38 am


The two most common complaints I hear about Dickens are his wordiness and his sentimentality. Back when I was young and hadn't read much of his work, I might have agreed with the first complaint, but I strongly disagree with it now. To me, every one of Dickens' sentences is to be treasured. As for the second complaint, I'm not exactly sure what it means. Are people objecting to the fact that Dickens writes about people who love each other (and who, in many cases, seem to be loved by him as their creator)? What's wrong with that? That's one of the things that makes his stories so wonderful!

I finished reading Bleak House two nights ago, and last night I finally sat down and watched the first hour of the new BBC version. I don't have the DVD case with me at the moment, but my recollection is that the blurb on the back of it trumpets the fact that this version cuts out a lot of the sentimentality of the original. Why is that something to be proud of? (Notwithstanding this blurb and some nits I could pick, I was pretty impressed with what I watched last night, and I hope that the critical and commercial success of this version encourages more dramatizations of the classics that give them the time and budget they deserve.)

25inkdrinker
Bearbeitet: Mai 17, 2007, 11:56 am

"One criticism often levelled at Dickens is a restatement of G. H. Lewes' view: that his sensations never passed into ideas. He wrote characters and books with life in them but no real purpose or direction, so they become like Pickwick a series of entertaining episodes but not very real."

This description sounds much like TV today... Which, when I think about it is the closest equivalent in our time to what a writer like Dickens would have been for his. Because he was writing a serialized story it would have been very easy for him to tell tales within tales that didn’t always completely connect. Also, he was paid by installment and so he would want his stories to last as long as he could make them (not unlike TV producers today who might take an idea and stretch it a bit to thin at times). People were no different then than they are now… We all rush out to see the latest sequel to the sequel we saw last year and we all try to miss the next episode of our favorite TV show. People wept and were outraged when Nell died at the end of OLD CURIOSITY SHOP. Does this all make Dickens bad? NOPE. Its exactly what makes him great. He was able to take a tale that would have grown old in the hands of another very quickly and draw it out exponentially.

26LolaWalser
Mai 17, 2007, 11:56 am

Oh, is that "Bleak House" with Gillian Anderson and my darling Charles Dance as Tulkinghorne? That was wonderful.

Not to slight so many terrific actors appearing in other roles--can't remember all--but I was so moved to recognise Pauline Collins ("Upstairs, downstairs" feisty, irrepressible housemaid Sarah) in old Miss Flite.

27geneg
Mai 17, 2007, 12:04 pm

Unless I'm mistaken, and I could be - my memory ain't what it used to be, Upstairs, Downstairs is what Masterpiece Theater was called before it was Masterpiece Theater.

28LolaWalser
Mai 17, 2007, 1:19 pm

I meant this series, about an upperclass household in pre-WWI London...

29cpg
Mai 17, 2007, 2:44 pm

"School"

I wonder if there's some validity in the related answer "youth". Certainly there are precocious youths who appreciate Dickens, but even when I read A Tale of Two Cities in my early 20s, I appreciated it much more for the plot than for the language. Now that I'm in my 40s and nearing completion of the Dickens canon, I am blown away by his artistry.

I have a high-school-aged niece who is an avid reader and in gifted classes at school who was given some Austen novel as a gift because she shares the name of the heroine, but she just doesn't find it interesting. I say, give her time.

30cpg
Mai 17, 2007, 2:48 pm

Yes, Lola, the Gillian Anderson version is the one. (I guess it's really not so new.) IMDB says that its budget was 6 million pounds, which is probably tiny by modern feature film standards, but (from the looks of things) was probably a lot more than typical BBC dramas of the past had.

31geneg
Mai 17, 2007, 4:56 pm

LolaWalser,

I guess my little joke was so obscure as to not be funny at all.

Upstairs/Downstairs ran for several years in the (late sixties?) early seventies on the Public Broadcasting System here in the U. S. It was massively popular and when it concluded it's time slot was immediately taken over by Masterpiece Theater, a series made up mostly of made for British Television costume dramas based on English lit. These dramas could span anywhere from eight to close to a hundred hours presented in one or two hour chunks. This is where we in this country saw I, Claudius for the first time. Both The Pallisers and Barchester Towers were serialized on Masterpiece Theater. They just finished Bleak House. For many, many years in this country it was the classiest thing on television. It is still on. This Sunday it will present The Secret Life of Mrs. Beeton. Beginning May 27, it's summer replacement Mystery! will be on. This is another serialized costume drama, but as the name says, based on mostly British mysteries.

I just have this personal belief that if it wasn't for Upstairs/Downstairs there wouldn't be any Masterpiece Theater. Masterpiece Theater slid so effortlessly and seamlessly into the shoes left by Upstairs/Downstairs that one could think they were one and the same.

32LolaWalser
Mai 17, 2007, 5:03 pm

Oh, I see. Yes, I don;t know much about American TV... Even when I lived there I didn't have one! :)

33Urquhart
Mai 17, 2007, 8:31 pm

cpq, thanks for your comments. I believe we have a bond in our appreciation of Dickens. When you say "To me, every one of Dickens' sentences is to be treasured." I think you are entering into the realm of a true Dickens lover. I do love his Copperfield and other works and do not believe it appropriate when others want to judge him by standards to which he does not write.

"One criticism often levelled at Dickens is a restatement of G. H. Lewes' view: that his sensations never passed into ideas. He wrote characters and books with life in them but no real purpose or direction, so they become like Pickwick a series of entertaining episodes but not very real."

I think that feelings and sensations are wonder full things but for ideas I read philosophy and religion.

When I come to David Copperfield I give my self over to Dickens and just go with the flow of the feelings and joy and humor.

He is always gentle,sensitive, idealistic and never gross, vulgar, or cruel. I believe he is truly unique.

34quietprofanity
Jun. 22, 2007, 10:39 am

#33: He is always gentle,sensitive, idealistic and never gross, vulgar, or cruel.

Since I decided to read Dickens after watching the Pip parody on South Park, I wonder what this makes me ...

35Sandydog1
Mrz. 16, 2008, 11:25 am

Dickens is like Italian Opera? Please, let me try to make this analogy a bit more contemporary. Dickens is more like a Spike Lee movie!

36atimco
Apr. 3, 2008, 12:20 pm

This is my first post here — what a great group this is! I haven't read all of Dickens' works yet, but I've loved all the ones I've read (A Christmas Carol, A Tale of Two Cities, Bleak House, Pickwick Papers, David Copperfield, The Mystery of Edwin Drood, and Great Expectations).

I recently had to defend Dickens with someone who said he was simply not a good writer. It was rather hard to argue logically from such a vague accusation — what exactly didn't you like about Dickens? "Oh, he's just annoying. He's alright but not great." What?!

I would agree with those who said that our culture nowadays simply isn't geared for Dickens Appreciation. So his novels are long... what of it? Are our attention spans that short? I love losing myself in a long novel. The length of it allows for deeper submersion in that world.

37digifish_books
Apr. 3, 2008, 6:44 pm

>36 atimco: Welcome to our little Dickens corner of the LT world, wisewoman :)

38atimco
Apr. 4, 2008, 3:03 pm

Thanks digifish :-)