Dickens The Novelist

by F.R. Leavis, Q.D. Leavis

In The Great Tradition, published in 1948, F. R. Leavis seemed to rate the work of Charles Dickens - with the exception of Hard Times - as lacking the seriousness and formal control of the true masters of English fiction. By 1970, when Dickens the Novelist was published on the first centenary of the writer's death, Leavis and his lifelong collaborator Q. D. (Queenie) Leavis, had changed their minds. 'Our purpose', they wrote, 'is to enforce as unanswerably as possible the conviction that Dickens was one of the greatest of creative writers ...' In seven typically robust and uncompromising chapters, the Leavises grapple with the evaluation of a writer who was then still open to dismissal as a mere entertainer, a caricaturist not worthy of discussion in the same breath as Henry James. Q. D. Leavis shows, for example, how deeply influential David Copperfield was on the work of Tolstoy, and explores the symbolic richness of the nightmare world of Bleak House. F. R. Leavis reprints his famous essay on Hard Times, with its moral critique of utilitarianism, and reveals the imaginative influence of Blake on Little Dorrit. Q. D. Leavis contributes a pathbreaking chapter on the importance of Dickens's illustrators to the effect of his work.

Genres: Literary Criticism

392 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Frank Raymond "F.R." Leavis, CH was an English literary critic of the early-to-mid-twentieth century. He taught for much of his career at Downing College, Cambridge but often latterly at the University of York.

Reviews

[Nick Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first heard of F.R. Leavis during the last year or two of school when my English teacher would drop his name into the mix, but I gained an interest a couple of years later when I read the film critic Robin Wood who famously (and infamously) drew upon Leavis. Through my early twenties I picked up a number of Penguin editions of Leavis’s work. I had two very different responses to them. First, at a time when I was beginning to appreciate George Eliot, Henry James and Joseph Conrad, Leavis’s enthusiasm for their importance reinforced my enthusiasm – and therefore Leavis had an impact on my literary tastes. Second, Leavis didn’t really influence the way I thought about these writers. He reassured me that these writers were good while not giving me any reasons to support that view. And around that time I had a friend who had studied English literature at York University when Leavis was a visiting professor and the department was deeply Leavisite: although my friend said listening to Leavis reading T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets during a seminar was one of the highlights of his student expereince, overall he was very down on the Leavisite method: he claimed that the students had to show they were open to the texts and had to illustrate their sensibility: my friend implied this was very easy to fake. I’ve had this book about Dickens sitting on my bookshelves for years, but had never got around to reading it...until now. After an introduction there are six chapters on the six novels that are taken to be Dickens’ most important work: Dombey and Son, David Copperfield, Bleak House, Hard Times, Little Dorritt and Great Expectations – I don’t share the same level of enthusiasm for Hard Times, but otherwise I agree with the evaluation. Leavis writes in his normal pugnacious way: he denounces those who don’t take Dickens seriously: this emphasises the importance of literature, of its centrality to a healthy culture, of its moral seriousness (key Leavisite ideas), but it has the danger of sounding shrill, almost hysterical – and the attitude is strange when we remember that 20 years before in The Great Tradition Leavis was almost dismissive of Dickens, certainly did not take him with the seriousness that he does in this new study: of course everyone is allowed to change their minds, but he does not mention his change of heart which makes his angry denunciations of those who are blind to Dickens seem slightly self-righteous. The first chapter on Dombey and Son is what I expected from Leavis: it is deeply sympathetic to the work, enthusiastic, constantly quotes long passages to illustrate the brilliance...it is many years since I have read Dombey and Son and I remember it as brilliant and uneven: Leavis’s response emphasised the brilliance but didn’t explain the unevenness...in fact, it didn’t even explain the brilliance, it just constantly enthused about it. But the second chapter on David Copperfield was different: the sense of enthusiasm was still there, but it responded to the text in a more detailed way: it pinpointed themes and considered the implications of themes rather than just celebrating them... And now I have to interrupt myself and point out that this book is not just by F.R. Leavis, but also by his wife Q.D. Leavis and the strongest chapters, those on David Copperfield, Bleak House and Great Expectations are by Q.D. The difference between them is that F.R. doesn’t give the reader any room to disagree with him – if you don’t share the sense of enthusiasm there is little to be gained – but there is room to disagree with Q.D. and engage with her understandings of the text: even if we do not agree with her the engagement can suggest new ideas and responses to Dickens. And yet, when I came to the last chapter written by F.R. it began to win me over: literary criticism tends to pull themes or stylistic elements out of a text to examine them as though they are abstract entities: F.R.’s method tends to navigate the text, the criticism paralleling the process of reading, the critic and reader moving through the text rather than dipping in to make a scholarly point – the Leavisite method allows us to ‘feel’ the text, I’m just not convinced it adds much to our understanding. The final chapter is a fine study by Q.D. of the role of the illustrations in Dickens’ work: it made me think I should replace my editions of Dickens that don’t have the original illustrations with editions that do. (I will, however, mention a passage in Q.D.’s study of Great Expectations that made me uneasy: she rails against the young who cannot appreciate Dickens – this just seems to be the complaints of one from the older generation who responded in horror to 1960s youth and the new attitudes of that decade...and it seems strangely defeatist for an educator.)

[Kay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leavis Brilliant on Dickens

I love Leavis because Leavis loves Dickens. Deeply insightful analyses of the major works. I think he short changes Our Mutual friend but otherwise I have no complaints.

[Lysergius · Rating 3 out of 5]

Useful background, though the Leavis' ideas are less popular today.

[JerryDeanHalleck · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dated, turgid. Boring.