The Pickwick Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
General Archives
>
In which members discuss their favorite Dickens character
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jonathan
(new)
Feb 19, 2013 10:53AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I'd say I've actually got two favourite characters. One is Mrs. Gamp from "Martin Chuzzlewit", and the other one is Silas Wegg from "Our Mutual Friend".I really like them for their vivid imagination which helps them apparently to partly believe in their own fabrications. Take Mrs. Harris, for example, who serves to illustrate the moral merits of Mrs. Gamp, and who is described so vividly that this chimera has more life in her than even some of the heroes of Dickens's other novels. And then Mrs. Gamp's verbal outbursts are sheer poetry.
The same goes for Silas Wegg - even the name is brilliantly redolent of his wooden leg -, when he works himself up into moral indignation at the person he is going to double-deal, calling him quasi-Shakespearean names like "minion of fortune" or "worm of the hour". Mr. Wegg has taken me in to the point that I even find his exit from the novel a bit too hard.
Adam wrote: "Betsy Trotwood from David Copperfield is another great character."She is definitely not as flat as a lot of Dickens's female characters. Without wanting to seem disrespectful of the Inimitable, I think that creating female characters is one of Dickens's two major weaknesses. But Betsy Trotwood is quite a memorable character, esp. her donkeyphobia and her tough shell.
edit: I should qualify my criticism by saying that this weakness of Dickens's is mainly the case when it comes to positive female characters. There are counter-examples, though. I think that Florence Dombey is quite a realistic character, as far as I remember, and surely Mrs. Nickleby is a woman to remember. Wasn't she modelled on Dickens's own mother to a certain degree?
Times were anything but easy for women in that period, I'd say. I mean that's probably also a reason why Mary Anne Evans chose to write under a male name. I think that Anthony Trollope's female characters are quite three-dimensional, though. He also manages to show the restraints under which women had to live at that time.
Yes, or take westerns, for example. I hardly ever read them, but I'm a dyed-in-the-wool western movie fan, and I cannot for the life of me think of a female director who had ever made a western. But then probably the whole genre does not interest women very much.Maybe a writer should choose a pen name that is so obviously artificial that people may think, "I don't know if the author is a man or a woman, but I don't care, either."
Mod
Mod
Jonathan wrote: "I don't know if you could call Pip ungrateful towards Magwitch, maybe towards Old Joe. He certainly went out of his way to save Magwitch at the end, even risking his own life."Yes, but - I am not sure if I remember correctly -, was Pip's motive in rescuing Magwitch not partly fuelled by his shame of having a benefactor that used to be a criminal? It's by and by that his attitude becomes more friendly towards Magwitch, isn't it? I remember that reading "Great Expectations" I felt very warmly with Magwitch because at first Pip did everything to avoid him. - The film adaptation I like best is the one from 1989, where Magwitch is played by Anthony Hopkins, and here you really feel for him.
Talking about favorite characters, I'd also add Mr. Guppy, who is an interesting mixture of naivity and cleverness. Well, the list would become quite long actually.
Mod
Ye..."
That would be an interesting movie to see. I just always thought of Pip as a kind, generous guy, notwithstanding his readiness to leave behind his family in order to become a gentleman. He was blatantly ungrateful to Joe, and for a time wanted to keep him at arm's length. But, I think he learned his lesson by the end. Life is a thorough teacher.
In this adaptation of the novel, which was actually produced by Disney studios (I've just checked because I had my doubts), Pip comes over as quite snobbish and superficial a fellow after his rise to fortune - but then eventually he changes. I especially like this movie version because it has Anthony Hopkins and it also has Jean Simmons as Miss Havisham. I found that quite fitting since Jean Simmons played Estella in David Lean's film, which must have been one of the first attempts to adapt the novel for the the screen. And then, Jean Simmons is one of the all-time Top Ten actresses for me.
Adam wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Maybe a writer should choose a pen name that is so obviously artificial that people may think, "I don't know if the author is a man or a woman, but I don't care, either." "I know..."
Maybe the name is not mysterious enough ;-) That said, with a mysterious name one is also bound to write mysterious fiction ...
Mod
Did you read Great Expectations? There is much lost in transmutation from pen and paper to the silver screen. I forget the character's name, but Pip thought that he received what would have been his friend's inheritance, the friend being a relative of Miss Havisham, and to make good on it, he spent a lot of his own money to set him up in business, a business that Pip ultimately went to work for when his expectations fell through. I thought this was a great act of generosity on his part, and although he had his flaws, I think the good definitely outweighed the bad.
Yes, I read "Great Expectations", it's one of my favourite Dickens novels, and Pip's resolution to set Herbert (I think his name was) up in life is also rendered in the film. I'd also agree with you in saying that in Pip the good outweighed the flawed character traits for otherwise he would not have been susceptible to the idea that something is going awry with him and he'd never have changed.What you said about a lot being lost in transmutation from pen and paper to the silver screen is also something I would second you on. Although I'm a fervent lover of film - especially of Westerns and film noir -, so much so that I can hardly say which of the two forms of fiction I value more, the book or the film, I have often been utterly disappointed in film adaptations of literery works. This goes especially for Dickens because he is so rich in atmosphere and characters and his imagination is so exuberant that any director will have a hard time catching the spirit of a Dickens novel. Nevertheless, some directors managed quite well, especially when they have got the opportunity to make a mini-series and not just a film of 90 or 120 minutes. But still, Dickens is more for reading (even aloud) than for watching, I'd say.
Mod
I have read most of Austen's novels, excluding Sense and Sensibility, but I have watched that movie twice (with Hugh Grant). I can certainly say that I remember a lot of the characters and events from the ones I have read, but have almost no recollection of S & S other than what happens at the end. I cannot even name the characters in that one. That's why I prefer the books to the movies.
I know exactly what you mean because I, too, normally have difficulty remembering the names of film characters, sometimes even when watching the film. I think this is also because when we see a film we rely on recognizing the actor's face whenever he should turn up again, so we don't pay enough attention to his name.Generally I think we have so many personal pictures and ideas of our own, e.g. as to what Mr. Pickwick should look like etc. that we are often disappointed in the film. That's why I normally prefer films that are not based on books I know.
Mod
Try this Jane Eyre if you haven't seen it: http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Eyre-Saman... It's hard to pack a such a long book into a 90-120 min movie but I thought they did an adequate job.Keira Knightly as Anna Karenina ........ ugh! *** making gagging noises ****
I didn't mind this Anna Karenina http://www.amazon.com/Tolstoys-Anna-K... but I hadn't read the book at the time, so I might change my mind if I saw it again.
Keira Knightly as Anna Karenina is indeed something it would take ages to get used to, I'd say.When it comes to film adaptations, I could recommend this one of "Bleak House": http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bleak-House-D...
It's, of course, hardly as brilliant as the novel, but as it is a mini series they managed to live up to quite a lot of the original novel - even if they introduced characters like a clerk of Mr. Tulkinghorn's, which was probably because otherwise there would have had to be voice-over to let us know about Tulkinghorn's plans.
Still, if I had the choice between the book and the film, I'd readily go for the film.
Mod
Mod
The best of Dickens is his description of people .I love the way his characters become real without necessarily being realistic. But my favorite character is and always would be Samuel Weller in The Pickwick Papers.But Kit of The Old Curiosity Shop comes a close second.
I'm reading Martin Chuzzlewit and I really like Tom Pinch. Pecksniff is a wonderful character as well, but wonderful in that he fulfills his function; I would like to take him and strangle him. However, like many of Dicken's women, Miss Pinch I find strangely irritating. The Misses Pecksniff, on the other hand, while I don't like them per se, they are at least more believable and "human", probably due to a good dose of character faults!
Mod
I really liked Tom Pinch too. Not, as much as Mark Tapley, though. He was quirky, funny, and a very generous and loyal character.
Was it not Miss Pinch made the pudding? I remember that scene as written in a way that, even if a little corny, shows great affection and delight on the author's part, and it would not surprise me if Miss Pinch, or at least her making the pudding, was based on some fond memories of the Inimitable's. It could be discussed, though, if there are any lifelike heroines in Dickens at all. One might argue that considering the time the novels were written at, women were expected to behave like foils of men's idealized wishes, but then if I look at women in Anthony Trollope's novels I generally find them to be more real. But that is neither here nor there, and maybe this would deserve a thread of its own?
I will formally admit here that I am sensitive to how Dickens portrays his women characters. When I read about Miss Pinch teasing and smiling and generally playing around, I thought, "oh no, not again. Not another simpering, perfect, yet flat, woman." However now that I've read further I see that she has sense and warmth and at least a little depth to her. So yes, my first observations were an over-reaction on my part, but an understandable over-reaction based on some of Dickens' women characters. And you are certainly correct ........ a discussion about Dickens' heroines deserves a thread of its own. Now I just have to read more Dickens novels to be able to participate!
Mod
There are some comments that Dickens makes about women in the Pickwick Papers that shed some light the way he views the softer sex. I have made note of them, and when I come across them, during our Pickwick discussion I will also share them here to see what you ladies think. Stay tuned!
Jonathan wrote: "There are some comments that Dickens makes about women in the Pickwick Papers that shed some light the way he views the softer sex. I have made note of them, and when I come across them, during our Pickwick discussion I will also share them here to see what you ladies think. Stay tuned! ..."That would be so interesting! I'm stalled on PP, trying to catch up on my other reads but I'm intending to finish it as soon as I am able.
Adam wrote: "You have to remember that women were expected to behave much like Dickens portrays them in Victorian times, which makes it all the more fascinating when he produces an exception like Betsy Trotwood...."Hmmm ...... I'm not so sure about this. Keep in mind, my knowledge of Dickens' works is limited (4 books), but some of the women characters he has introduced me to are nearly perfect. I believe this is what bothers me, not that they were meant to stay home and support/nurture a family. I often get the impression that he didn't know women enough to portray them well. Also, in the other Victorian novels that I've read, I don't usually see a female that reminds me of Dickens' portrayals of females. But I'm generalizing, of course. I'm actually fascinated to hear Jonathan's thoughts from his reading of The Pickwick Papers.
Adam wrote: "If you want to see strong women in Dickens, look to the lower classes. Nancy (in Oliver Twist) was a fireball, though it got her killed. ..."
SPOILER! I didn't know she died so I'm going to endeavour to forget it. ;-)
Adam wrote: "You have to remember that women were expected to behave much like Dickens portrays them in Victorian times, which makes it all the more fascinating when he produces an exception like Betsy Trotwood.Strong women tended to be quietly strong, holding the family together and doing whatever was necessary to protect their husband's reputation, in the case of 'respectable' women. A woman might run an infirm husband's business, but he would be perceived as the person in control."
This is true, but it's also a bit ironic when we consider that Victoria was a very powerful woman, and her husband was clearly NOT in charge of the monarchy. It somehow didn't seem to occur to the Victorians that, even with the example of the Queen before them, they should respect the abilities and intelligence of women generally.
I think the role society had in store for Victorian woman is one thing, but another thing is an author's awareness of, and / or compliance with it. Although I consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool and fooproof Dickens worshipper, yet I find his heroines very often hard to stomach - with the possible exceptions that Adam named -, and I think that Dickens was, all in all, uncritical of the Victorian ideal of womanhood, and what it meant for a woman to be made to conform to this social ideal. Or, to say the least, he did not really see this as a problem. Plus, he had a tendency to sentimentalism, which probably becomes most obvious in the worst Dickens scene ever - the death of Little Nell -, and this tendency maybe also influenced the way he described women.I have never read Conrad's Chance, but I hope I will one day, because apparently it deals with exactly the question of woman in Victorian society. Again, Trollope is another good example of a male writer who seemed to be aware of many problems women had to cope with in those days.
Tristram wrote: "I think the role society had in store for Victorian woman is one thing, but another thing is an author's awareness of, and / or compliance with it."Well, yes. But I think we have to be careful not to judge past writers by present day standards. For example, today we would certainly approve of an author who wrote both male and female characters who were strong and independent. But suppose in 200 years that there was a massive change in social values, that women had become dominant, that males were expected to be totally subservient and dependent. Then should readers of that time condemn present day authors for their insensitivity to the value of female dominance and say, critically of contemporary authors, "I think the role society had in store for 20th century males is one thing, but another thing is an author's awareness of, and / or compliance with it." Suggesting clearly that to allow male characters to have had independent thoughts or lives was a gross violation of proper social values and relationships.
Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "I think the role society had in store for Victorian woman is one thing, but another thing is an author's awareness of, and / or compliance with it."Well, yes. But I think we hav..."
I am afraid my shorthand way of expressing my opinion might have led to my being misunderstood to some degree. I totally agree with you, Everyman, that we owe a writer the fairness of considering the social circumstances and ethic values of the time when he or she was writing a text. I think it very juvenile and even bigoted in the average PC-inspired hotspur to blame an author of the past for not writing according to the tastes and beliefs of modern man, or woman.
What I wanted to say is that even granted this reservation, there were writers, contemporaries of Dickens', who had a slightly more differentiated view on gender roles.
Looking at and appreciating a book, I start from the author's point of view - if I can acquire the necessary knowledge -, but I also try to think about what a certain book might mean to me and my time.
I hope the misunderstanding got cleared up now because I'd hate to be taken for a narrow-minded PC bigot.
Tristram wrote: "What I wanted to say is that even granted this reservation, there were writers, contemporaries of Dickens', who had a slightly more differentiated view on gender roles.Pickwick was written while Dickens was still fairly young, and not that long distant from the shoe blacking factory life. He was only 24 at the time. And his view of women was affected, according to Angus Wilson, by his mother being actively involved in getting him sent back to the blacking factory. "I never afterwards forgot, I never shall forget, I never can forget, that my mother was warm for my being sent back". His mother's failure to request his return to the family was, according to Wilson, a factor in his dissatisfied attitude towards women.
He also didn't have the luxury of a university education where he might have been exposed to more liberal values.
It's true that some agitation of women's rights was underway -- Mary Wollstonecraft wrote "Vindication of the Rights of Women" in 1792 -- but it wasn't very far advanced. The English Women's Journal didn't start publication until 1858, 22 years after Pickwick first appeared. Emmeline Pankhurst wasn't even born yet. As late as 1867, the Second Reform Bill opened the franchise to more Englishmen -- but still only Englishmen, not English women. So I wonder how aware a young, 24 year old non-formally-educated writer writing his first novel in 1836 should have been of the still nascent women's movement. Not to mention that, still having to establish a reputation, he would have done himself no good alienating his core readership which still strongly accepted traditional gender roles.
I hope the misunderstanding got cleared up now because I'd hate to be taken for a narrow-minded PC bigot.
"
That was never even a glimmer of an issue in my mind.
Adam wrote: "Cleo wrote: "SPOILER!"Sorry! The story is so well-known through various film versions that I have mistakenly assumed that everyone knows certain points. Mea culpa!"
Can a plot element from an entirely different book used to discuss aspects of our current read be justifiably considered a spoiler? I hope not. I do this often, relating other books to what we're reading. Just in this afternoon's posts I have done it several times. I revealed that Iago is a villain. I revealed an element of Middlemarch. Jonathan and I disclosed aspects of Vanity Fair. I mentioned the relative desirability of Satan and God in Milton's Paradise Lost. And that's only in the past hour or so.
If references to plot elements of other books are to be considered spoilers and thus banished, I fear that this will become a much less interesting discussion group. I would hope, rather, that the concept of spoilers will be taken to mean only spoilers for the text actively under discussion.
So for my money, Adam, you were perfectly justified in using an event from another book in your discussion of this one. Personally, I don't see that you had anything to apologize for.
(One possible aspect may be that since we are planning to read all of Dickens in sequence, discussion of other, as yet unread, Dickens novels might all be considered spoilers. But in that case, much of the "Favorite Characters" and "Favorite Novels" threads would have to be censored. But it's really up to Jonathan, as founder and moderator, to define what does and doesn't constitute an improper spoiler for this board.)
Everyman wrote: "Can a plot element from an entirely different book used to discuss aspects of our current read be justifiably considered a spoiler? I hope not. I do this often, relating other books to what we're reading. Just in this afternoon's posts I have done it several times. I revealed that Iago is a villain. I revealed an element of Middlemarch. Jonathan and I disclosed aspects of Vanity Fair. I mentioned the relative desirability of Satan and God in Milton's Paradise Lost. And that's only in the past hour or so. ..."
Since the novel mentioned is our next read it would be preferable not to know EXACTLY what happens to certain characters; if you were reading Othello with a group and revealed that Iago was a villain, this revelation might be fine with most of the readers but if you revealed that he died at the end of the play right before the group commenced the book, that would be another thing entirely and I'm certain you'd get some feedback. While many people in this group have obviously read a number of Dickens' novels, there are also some who are being exposed to them for the first time and would really like the introduction to be "pure" or at least as "pure" as it can be. I think all groups need to be sensitive to this. And after all, the handy "spoiler" feature is not difficult to use. This would be an easier solution and would let members browse the threads instead of having to avoid threads because they are concerned that the plot would be revealed.
In any case, this was not a big deal for me as I thought I indicated by the joke and the smiley face at the end of my sentence. I regret that it's become one.
ETA: And thanks for the apology, Adam. Though I didn't require it or expect it, it was certainly kind of you.
Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "What I wanted to say is that even granted this reservation, there were writers, contemporaries of Dickens', who had a slightly more differentiated view on gender roles.Pickwick w..."
Yes, you're definitely right in saying that one should consider Dickens's youth - both his years and his life experience. Even Pickwick Papers makes reference to his childhood traumata (or is it "traumas" in English?), the whole prison episodes probably being fuelled by his memories of how his father was sent into the Marshalsea prison. But I think early in the novel, with the entrance of Sam Weller, there is even a little allusion to Warren's Blacking Warehouse. So all this must have weighed heavily on Dickens's mind. - But are you saying that his loss of trust in his mother, who wanted him to return to Warren's, made him even somewhat misogynist?
I have once read that the character of Mrs. Nickleby, who is not such a perfect mother figure by half as one might expect, was to some degree modelled on Dickens's own mother, which makes her, though strictly speaking a caricature, one of the more interesting female characters in Dickens's novels.
All this leads me to a new question: Are there any paragons of motherhood in Dickens at all? There are mild and loving mothers, as in Dombey and Son, but they surely can't boast longevity.
I hope the misunderstanding got cleared up now because I'd hate to be taken for a narrow-minded PC bigot.
"
That was never even a glimmer of an issue in my mind.
Thanks, Everyman. That's a weight off my mind.
Cleo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Can a plot element from an entirely different book used to discuss aspects of our current read be justifiably considered a spoiler? I hope not. I do this often, relating other book..."I would still think that even if you know about certain plot elements, the books we are discussing here cannot be spoiled. ;-)
That said, I can understand anybody who wants to discover a novel on their own. So all in all it's a tough question, because discussing books also involves making references, and in the heat of the moment one might forget to mark the odd spoiler.
I hope, though, that this question will not evolve into a major argument and create too much dissent and too many hard feelings. Also writing reviews on Amazon.de, I really enjoy the civilized tone and the friendly manners that I have found to be characteristic of discussions here. Commentaries on Amazon.de all too often bristling with hostility and obstructed by misunderstandings. So don't let's have any of this in the Pickwick Club, and let's instead find a solution. :-)
Mod
That's a good point. Once on hear, someone spilled the beans on the villain of an Agatha Christie Mystery that I haven't read yet, and it kind of spoiled it for me. Of course, it was in a discussion on a different book, and the commentator had a point. Notwithstanding, I now knew the ending of the book I was planning to read.
I should say that these boards here are for those of us who have read a lot of Dickens and therefore should be acquainted with at least the well known characters and events. The event which Adam brought up is well-known; I have not read that book, yet I have read about that part. But, I can see how it spoils at least a part of the book for someone unacquainted with the fact.
Here is my opinion on spoilers for this group specifically. During our group reads, do not include major events of Dickens books which we have not read. Treat Dickens 15.5 novels and his shorter works as if they are one long, big read, and that we have not got to those parts yet. But, in these discussion boards, those who are discussing Favorite Novels and Favorite Characters there is obviously much more leeway. I think we should still label spoilers that will reveal an ending or a climax. To summarize, here is my opinion, please let me know if you guys agree or not, or have anything to add or subtract.
1) Group Reads - Unread novels of the group are to be treated with discretion. Do not reveal major events, endings or climaxes without labelling them as spoilers.
2) Favorite Discussions - Assume that most people have read the work you are talking about, but be considerate not to spoil the entire book for someone. Label MAJOR SPOILERS only.
If everyone agrees I can send it mass email and then everyone will be on the same page.
Mod
Cleo, I am unsure how big of an event this was. However, we should all learn to use the spoiler feature and include deaths, births, marriages, murders, the identity of murderers, and endings in spoilers. I agree.
Mod
Oh yeah, it would take a mighty clever scheme to ruin a Dickens novel.
I hope, though, that this question will not evolve into a major argument and create too much dissent and too many hard feelings...So don't let's have any of this in the Pickwick Club, and let's instead find a solution. :-}
When we argue and call each other names and accuse each other of hypocrisy and things of that nature, I should think that we come to the conclusion that we did so in a Pickwickian sense and there is no harm and no foul, as the illustrious gentelman after whom this group is named taught us, in the opening scene of the book which bears his name. And, if you must call someone a name, then you must call them a "humbug", but only if you think that their delicate feelings can take it. If not, it is best to conduct oneself as a gentleman or a lady, whichever the case may be.
Tristram wrote: "Commentaries on Amazon.de all too often bristling with hostility and obstructed by misunderstandings...."So you are saying that Germans are outspoken?? *** BIG WINK *** I spent a summer in German and have a few German friends so I have learned to appreciate and enjoy their candidness, however, I can see how conversations could get heated.
Jonathan wrote: "Cleo, I am unsure how big of an event this was. . ..."It was unfortunate that I didn't get to post before Eman and let Adam know that it wasn't a big deal. I feel somewhat that this character thread has degenerated (or perhaps digressed is a better word) into a discussion of how spoilers should be applied, to a listing of spoiler rules, which to me take away from the spirit of the thread. And I feel at least partly to blame for that, so sorry .... :-( Hopefully now we can get back to discussing the wonderful characters of Dickens' worlds!
Jonathan wrote: "I should think that we come to the conclusion that we did so in a Pickwickian sense and there is no harm and no foul, as the illustrious gentelman after whom this group is named taught us, in the opening scene of the book which bears his name. And, if you must call someone a name, then you must call them a "humbug", but only if you think that their delicate feelings can take it..."
LOL! Great, Jonathan!
Tristram wrote: "But are you saying that his loss of trust in his mother, who wanted him to return to Warren's, made him even somewhat misogynist?"I'm not saying that. But Angus Wilson is. I don't know enough to agree or disagree with him.
Jonathan wrote: "Everyman wrote: "One possible aspect may be that since we are planning to read all of Dickens in sequence, discussion of other, as yet unread, Dickens novels might all be considered spoilers. But i..."Suits me. What the specific rules are aren't as important to me as knowing what they are.
Since you didn't mention them, I'm assuming that referring to non-Dickens works in a discussion is fine, even if they reveal what would be spoilers for those who haven't read them.
Jonathan wrote: "When we argue and call each other names and accuse each other of hypocrisy and things of that nature, I should think that we come to the conclusion that we did so in a Pickwickian sense and there is no harm and no foul, as the illustrious gentelman after whom this group is named taught us, in the opening scene of the book which bears his name. And, if you must call someone a name, then you must call them a "humbug", but only if you think that their delicate feelings can take it. If not, it is best to conduct oneself as a gentleman or a lady, whichever the case may be. "These words greatly redound to your honour as an M.P.C. ;-)
Cleo wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Commentaries on Amazon.de all too often bristling with hostility and obstructed by misunderstandings...."So you are saying that Germans are outspoken?? *** BIG WINK *** I spent..."
As far as I know, we Germans do have a reputation for being outspoken in comparison with other nationalities. You may even call it bluntness, as I'm sometimes inclined to do it. An interesting thing is that when you translate German requests and everyday smalltalk phrases into English word by word, this would sound very impolite and rude to a Englishperson's ears. Indeed this is a problem quite a few Germans have when they are abroad - they don't know that English requires more "please"s, "would"s, "could"s etc. than German.
Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "But are you saying that his loss of trust in his mother, who wanted him to return to Warren's, made him even somewhat misogynist?"I'm not saying that. But Angus Wilson is. I do..."
That's an idea that never occurred to me before. Maybe bearing this in mind, it would be all the more interesting to have a look a how Dickens depicts mothers in his novels.
Jonathan wrote: "1) Group Reads - Unread novels of the group are to be treated with discretion. Do not reveal major events, endings or climaxes without labelling them as spoilers.2) Favorite Discussions - Assume that most people have read the work you are talking about, but be considerate not to spoil the entire book for someone. Label MAJOR SPOILERS only. "
I would certainly agree to these suggestions.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
