The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Martin Chuzzlewit
Dickens Project
>
Martin Chuzzlewit, Final Thoughts
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Zulfiya
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 21, 2013 10:20PM
This is the thread to discuss your overall impressions and ideas about this novel, its characters, topicality, and other thoughts that come to our mind when we look back at this chunky novel.
reply
|
flag
I had to re-evaluate the novel. As the outcome of this discussion, I downgraded it from five to four stars. I first read it when I was 26, and I was naive and impressionable (like everybody else); thus, the impressions were quite positive. I then used to live in Russia, and American adventures were not so painfully perceived. There were, up to a point, irrelevant. I did, in fact, understand their bitter and vitriolic nature, but I did not understand the target. The current residence made me acutely aware how painful it is for the US citizens to read this part of the novel (Surprisingly, there are still many things in the USA - I can only judge about the South- that could be easy targets for modern European writers). There are some other issues with the novel that made me change my mind about the novel - its unevenness when it comes to narrating the events on both sides of the pond. The meek and eternally good Maries and Ruths have become too ubiquitous in the novels despite their insignificant presence in the books.
On the other hand, characters like Jonas (and the darkness of his human soul) and Merry, who learns what is good and what is bad in the hard way are the most intriguing characters.
Mrs. Gamp is possibly my most favorite eccentric character Dickens has ever created. She is not only bigger than life, but her corpulence is physically palpable, and her gin-enriched breath permeates the pages of his picaresque literary adventure.
Mod
Interestingly, I didn't find his caricatures of America to be much worse than his caricatures of England in this novel-in both countries there was greed and dishonesty and disregard of life as well as those who would help their fellow humans. There also seemed to be little change or development in most of his characters-the two Martin Chuzzlewits and Mercy being the exceptions (and I rather think he overdid it on Mercy-hard to believe anyone who had started out so unpleasant when treated reasonably well by her father would become so good under such abuse).
Overall I am enjoying the Dickens read, but this would not be one of my favourites so far.
Mod
Even the Anglo Bengalee company is a false front. Just a week or so ago in the NY Times there was an expose of a company that was supposedly providing preschool education to disabled children, with government funds, and they were embezzling most of the money. The thing that struck me was the mention that parents and officials were so impressed by the beautiful office and quality promotional materials that they didn't ask many questions - same scam as Montague carried out.
Frances wrote: "Overall I found the characterizations too broad after a while-the good people were angelic, the villains were evil incarnate, the fools were absolutely ridiculous and it became a bit wearing. I fel..."I think I know how you feel about Dickens's characters. Gaskell's characters are very refined (in the meaning well-fleshed out and have their weak and strong sides) and nuanced while Dickens's characters are somewhat blunt and very categoric. He definitely becomes more sophisticated in his later novels, but we are not discussing his later books; we are discussing Martin Chuzzlewit, and in this novel, they are often white and black. Fringe characters, on the other hand, are more interesting. Maybe, just maybe, Dickens did not feel obligated that he would have to win the hearts of the readers who would root for the good guys; thus, he had more realistic, although quirky people in his second-tier.
Robin wrote: "A note in my edition talks about the double characters. Montague Tigg becomes Tigg Montague, Moddle is attracted to Cherry because she reminds him of Merry. Old Martin plays the part of a dotard to..."The change of the name was a memory trigger. I immediately recalled Sarah Woodruff who later became Sarah Roughwood in The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles.
As far as Dickens's social criticism, it is still amazing how most of the targets for his bitter, vitriolic critical arrows are still in full swing and prospering. Spurious businesses and ponzi schemes, domestic violence, hypocrisy, plagiarism, etc.
I enjoyed this novel much more than I thought I would. I probably wouldn't have read it without the Dickens project, but I'm really glad I did. I read a chapter per day and it became my nightly treat. Some random observations:
*Martin Chuzzlewit starts out as a great comic novel and then turns into something darker. It is one of Dickens most cynical novels. Pecksniff is at first presented as a comic character and then revealed to be an evil, evil man (at least in my opinion),
*Dickens made the lead character unlikable. Of course, Young Martin changes by the end of the novel, but he still spends the first half being rude and unpleasant to Pinch and Mark Tapley and pretty much everybody else. Honestly, I never really cared for Martin or what happened to him.
*The American parts of the novel are not that bad. They really aren't any more critical of American society and manners than Mark Twain.
*Dickens outdid himself with character names. Who could every forget Chevy Slyme and Sairey Gamp.
*Dickens is getting better with women characters. He still has Mary and Ruth, but the Pecksniff girls, especially Merry, were actually pretty well-rounded characters. And of course, no one could surpass Sairey Gamp.
*I don't want to put in any spoilers, but there are some plot points that we will see again in later novels.
*I'm still a little mad at Dickens over Tom Pinch's fate. Tom deserved better.
Amanda wrote: "I enjoyed this novel much more than I thought I would. I probably wouldn't have read it without the Dickens project, but I'm really glad I did. I read a chapter per day and it became my nightly tre..."Amanda, I really like your observation how the novel develops as if it is a character. I also think that Tom deserved a better fate. But was there any woman in this novel that could be equal to him in kindness and softness?
P.S. Although I am slightly exhausted after re-reading this novel, I am secretly looking forward to other, more mature novels.
I am very impressed by American readers' tolerance of Dickens' criticism of America, which cause quite a stir at the time. He was, however, smarting from Americans being able to read his novels without paying copyright dues. His larger than life characters were, I think, part of his satirical style, his way of luring people into reading about the social conditions he wished to publicise. He also acted these characters out on stage, something still being done today:-http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A...
Such a mess! Sorry I had just almost finished a long review and clicked on enter - I thought - and then the web page changed and I lost everything... :-( IT drives me crazy when such a thing happens. I do not believe I will be able to recall everything again, but here's the attempt:I rated the novel with 4 stars. I would not count this to Dickens's best novels, but to me it was intriguing with regards to his satirical reflection of hypocrisy, greediness, falsehoods and deceit, which we unfortunately encounter still far too often in our world today, best example his Robin's case she had read in the NYT.
I was sometimes a little angry when realizing similar behavior in my surroundings while reading the novel. It just made me wish for a better world, which is probably just too naïve. ;-)
Even though his female characters were as plain as usual, I think he at least tried to make the Pecksniff sisters a little more believable. Furthermore, I would say that young Martin is probably the first of his characters who seemed to undergo a certain change in character, not very drastic, but a certain development of his character cannot be denied.
With regards to Dickens's description of the USA, I do understand him a little, as a Dutch having grown up in Germany, having lived in the USA and currently living in Sweden. It is not always easy abroad and it is sometimes easier to complain about the bad things than focusing on the good things. This fosters prejudice of course.
Overall I do not think that he was so much harder on the Americans than he was on his English co-citizens. He was actually reflecting both sides with each other, e.g. the company of Eden and the Anglo-Bengalee Company. The scenes in the USA were especially interesting to me, as I was reading a novel about the early Swedish immigrants at the same time. They also arrived in New York (just a few years after Martin Chuzzlewit) and proceeded to the Minnesota Territory via Chicago and the Mississippi River. There were some parallels with regards to the hardships these immigrants faced, e.g. cholera.
However, I was little disappointed that Dickens did not describe e.g. New York in a more detailed way as a contrast to old London.
I am with you, Zulfiya, I got a little exhausted, too, but I am looking forward to the more mature novels. I have never read Dombey and Son and am already curious to know whether this novel will lead to Dickens's growth as a mature author or do we have to wait till David Copperfield. ;-)
I have to admit this is my least favorite of the few Dickens novels I have read thus far. At one point, I threw the book down in frustration as I could find no characters I really cared about. It was an act if the will to try and finish. The second half picked up and I caught back up with you. I didn't expect this downturn after BR.
Hedi wrote: "With regards to Dickens's description of the USA, I do understand him a little, as a Dutch having grown up in Germany, having lived in the USA and currently living in Sweden. It is not always easy abroad and it is sometimes easier to complain about the bad things than focusing on the good things. This fosters prejudice of course."Hedi, I love your multicultural background. I am sure it actually heightens the verbal perception of any text and enriches the interpretation.
Christopher wrote: "I have to admit this is my least favorite of the few Dickens novels I have read thus far. At one point, I threw the book down in frustration as I could find no characters I really cared about. It w..."And again, Christopher. I understand your frustrations. The novel is not based on human drama, and it is driven by sarcasm and criticism. I hope you will find our next read more emotionally powerful. It is about broken hearts, family allegiance, parental love and other ideas readers find attractive.
One of the things that I find so fascinating about Dickens is his genius for creating timeless characters. I think that it's interesting that his most memorable characters are often the "villains" of the novels. For instance, Seth Pecksniff; the novel is about the title character, Martin Chuzzlewit, but Pecksniff steals the show in a manner of speaking, and it is his surname that has found its way into dictionaries and common parlance. The same could be said of Ebenezer Scrooge and Bill Sykes, to name a few others. I wonder if Dickens intended this or if the characters just took on a life of their own!
Sadly, because I had a very busy semester, I couldn't keep up with the reading schedule. But I am still reading the book amd should be done in time to read and participate in the next Dickens read. I felt bad that I couldn't keep up with this one because I do love this Dickens project.
when do we start the next
Christopher wrote: "I have to admit this is my least favorite of the few Dickens novels I have read thus far. At one point, I threw the book down in frustration as I could find no characters I really cared about. It w..."I believe Martin Chuzzlewit is regarded as Dickens' least successful novel. This is interesting to me because it is very cynical with hardly any likable characters as Zulifya and Christopher pointed out.
Dickens is routinely criticized (I include myself in this number) for being too sentimental, but I will freely admit to being bitterly disappointed when Tom Pinch did not receive a happy ending. Tom's fate is probably more realistic, but I was reading a Dickens' novel, therefore I wanted good to triumph and evil to be vanquished.
Lynnm wrote: "Sadly, because I had a very busy semester, I couldn't keep up with the reading schedule. But I am still reading the book amd should be done in time to read and participate in the next Dickens read..."Lynnm, I am so happy you are back. I know how you feel. Right now I am sitting in my office room in the quagmire of reports and essays:-)
Amanda wrote: "Christopher wrote: "I have to admit this is my least favorite of the few Dickens novels I have read thus far. At one point, I threw the book down in frustration as I could find no characters I real..."Amanda, I think it was possibly the realistic end for Tom, but as you said, knowing Dickens I stilled hoped for a literary miracle:-)
Christopher wrote: "when do we start the next"Christopher, I plan to post the schedule later this week and start the next read May, 27
Finally finished the novel. I'm sure everyone has moved on, but I'll still post my thoughts. :-)I think I liked it better than most people here. Dickens always exaggerates his characters, but I love the way he completely understands human nature and is able to explore/satirize those characteristics in his novels.
Most of the topics in his novels are still relevant to today. For example, Tigg/Montague and his Ponzi scheme. There needs to be a movement in university level English departments to get Dickens back as a "must" course.
At first I was annoyed with his characterization of the U.S., but as others have said, he does the same with England. Dickens is an equal opportunity critic. And he made some relevant points - obviously slavery was horrific. And some of his points are still true today (we're number 1!!!), and others, not at all (all the men having military titles - now they throw around business titles).
But I did wish that he was more even handed about the U.S. Many of the people who came here were able to have opportunities never imagined in their old countries. Or even if they didn't, their children did. Plus, NYC was fascinating at that time. Very rough, much like London, but in a far different way. I would have liked to see how Dickens would have treated NYC if he hadn't been so intent on making the U.S. seem as bad as he possibly could.
I loved Tom Pinch. Loved him, loved him. Not as much as Sam Weller. No one could be as beloved to me as Sam. I would have liked to see Tom find a nice woman, but I don't think that would have been realistic. And he seemed happy with Ruth's children and playing the organ.
And had tears in my eyes when John and Ruth became engaged.
Couldn't stand any of the Pecksniffs, which means that Dickens did his job well in constructing them. And Jonas was truly a villain, and I think, a realistic villain.
Lynnm, great that you have been able to finish the novel, too. :-) I also liked Tom Pinch and Ruth's happy ending and was rather disgusted by Pecksniff.
Lynnm wrote: "Finally finished the novel. "My heart ached for Tom, but let's be honest -it is the most realistic end. Virtue is not always rewarded, and he is an unbelievably nice man, myopic, short-sighted, but kind, giving, loving, and making the life of so many people happier.
I also think that Jonas was a literary success. He was a villain not only in actions but in his mindset as well. Dickens showed human darkness with the amazing depth and insight.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
The French Lieutenant’s Woman (other topics)Barnaby Rudge (other topics)
