In which members discuss the impact of Cruikshank and his plates on the novel in question

[Jonathan]

Fellow Pickwickians! I thought this one would be 1) fun 2) informative and 3) help to highlight some of the major events of the novel. This folder is for observations and discussion on the plates. The illustrator was George Cruikshank, a well respected man for his literary art. Pickwickians, place your observations here:

[Jonathan]

Henry James, author of The Ambassadors, etc., referred to Oliver Twist as "more Cruikshank's than Dickens's; it was a thing of such terribly vivid images." The great Cruikshank himself actually claimed that Oliver Twist was his idea. I don't know enough to make an informed guess as to the truth of this, but I have read in several sources that at the start of this work, the illustrations preceded the text. The same order was used in The Pickwick Papers. This way of doing things may have accounted for the erratic flow of the first nine or so chapters of Pickwick. It seems the illustrator would come up with a scene and Boz had to write about it.

Is this where the term Picaresque comes from, or does that mean something entirely different?

[Jonathan]

I have noticed a huge difference in quality between the illustrations in all of Dickens' works and those used in Vanity Fair by Thackeray, which I am also reading now. The ones used in Vanity Fair, in the Delphi Classics Illustrated version on Kindle Fire, look like a third grader made them.

[Tristram]

Jonathan wrote: "I have noticed a huge difference in quality between the illustrations in all of Dickens' works and those used in Vanity Fair by Thackeray, which I am also reading now. The ones used in Vanity Fair,..."

I think that Thackeray's illustrations might look like those produced by a third grader because, as far as I know, it was Thackeray himself who made them. At least in my edition the illustrations, actually woodgravings, were by the author himself, and being an author does not necessarily imply being a good engraver, as Thackeray proves.

[Tristram]

Jonathan wrote: "Henry James, author of The Ambassadors, etc., referred to Oliver Twist as "more Cruikshank's than Dickens's; it was a thing of such terribly vivid images." The great Cruikshank himself actually cla..."

"Picaresque" is not derived from "picture", but from the Spanish word "pícaro", which means - as my wife told me - "rascal" or, if used as an adjective, "artful" (like our friend, the Dodger), "scheming", "cunning". This is probably because the picaresque novel usually centred around the loosely-connected adventures of people not altogether following a regular path in life ;-)

[Tristram]

As far as I am concerned, of all the artists that have illustrated Dickens's novels I prefer Hablot Knight Browne, who was better known by the sobriquet of Phiz. His etchings are rich in detail and "filigran", as you would say in German.

Henry James said that Oliver Twist was more Cruikshank's than Dickens's creation - some of the engravings are definitely iconic, as e.g. Oliver asking for more -, but I actually dislike the way Cruikshank presented Oliver: Have you ever noticed that the boy's nose looks like tapir's?

However, a lot of Dickens's appeal may actually be traced back to the engravings of his novels. I mean Mr. Pickwick and Sam Weller are such graphic characters also because we have the illustrations. Which leads me on to something completely different, namely the fact that Sherlock Holmes's deerstalker and his cape are inventions of Sidney Paget's, the guy who illustrated the tales for the Strand Magazine, and not of Arthur Conan Doyle's. If I remember correctly, there's a little allusion to that in Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes", where the sleuth complains about having to wear those clothes, just because the illustrator has come up with them and people now expect HOlmes to be clad that way.

So never underestimate an engraver ;-)

[Jonathan]

Tristram wrote: "This is probably because the picaresque novel usually centred around the loosely-connected adventures of people not altogether following a regular path in life ;-) "

That is the definition that I am more familiar with, picaresque novels being characterized as lacking a central problem or well-planned plot. If I recall correctly Pickwick and Twist were classified as such, and I was just wondering if this had anything to do with the fact that they may have been developed to support the story the illustrator was trying to tell with the plates, rather than vice-versa.

[Everyman]

Jonathan wrote: "Fellow Pickwickians! I thought this one would be 1) fun 2) informative and 3) help to highlight some of the major events of the novel. This folder is for observations and discussion on the plates. ..."

Is there a site they're available to view, for those of us reading on Kindles without illustrations? (Where's Lily when we need her? [g])

[Everyman]

Tristram wrote: ""Picaresque" is not derived from "picture", but from the Spanish word "pícaro", which means - as my wife told me - "rascal" or, if used as an adjective, "artful" (like our friend, the Dodger), "scheming", "cunning". This is probably because the picaresque novel usually centred around the loosely-connected adventures of people not altogether following a regular path in life ;-) "

Correct. And usually in a picaresque novel the rascal is a cheerful rascal, someone you would look down on if you were in church but when you were at the pub would enjoy the company of. Jingle in PP was a bit picaresque, though a little too cruel in his treatment of women. But the term "amiable rogue" might be appropriate.

[Jonathan]

Everyman wrote: "Is there a site they're available to view, for those of us reading on Kindles without illustrations?"

In the next few days, maybe early next week, when I get some time, I will work on this. If anyone comes up with something in the meantime, all the better. Someone posted some pictures for The Magic Mountain discussion, which were really nice and you did not need to navigate away from GR to see it. I would like it if we could do that, but I am not sure how.

[Everyman]

Jonathan wrote: "Someone posted some pictures for The Magic Mountain discussion, which were really nice and you did not need to navigate away from GR to see it. I would like it if we could do that, but I am not sure how. "

It's quite easy, actually.

One way is to bring the image up in another window, copy the URL, and paste it into the post. That usually works fine.

Another, slightly more sophisticated, alternative is to use the HTML image code. You can see the description of how to do this if you click on the (some html is ok) link at the top of the comment box and look for the code to insert an image.

The section between the " " is the image location, which you can usually get by right clicking on an image. Try it, testing whether you have it right by liberally using the (preview) option just to the right of the post button. Frankly, I seldom use width, height, or alt, at least initially, just letting the image show in the size it naturally comes up. Only if the preview shows that it's too big or too small do I play with the width and height buttons.

[Jonathan]

Everyman wrote: "One way is to bring the image up in another window, copy the URL, and paste it into the post. That usually works fine...."

Thanks for the tips. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Pickwick Club, thanks to the advice of the illustrious gentleman Everyman here are your illustrations:

[Jonathan]

Oliver Asks for More

[Jonathan]

Oliver escapes being bound to a Sweep

[Jonathan]

Oliver plucks up a Spirit

[Jonathan]

One of the things that I like about the illustrations is that they reinforce the main events of the novel. If you wish to walk away from this novel, or any other illustrated classic, with a clear understanding and vivid remembrance of what happened, then the pictures help the reader to achieve that aim. For example, Oliver asking for more food was not only a major turning point in the book, as it were, helping to decide his immediate and long term future, it is also one of the most memorable scenes in Victorian Literature. I am sure that the plays which were adapted from this novel and came out about this time helped to imprint this on everyone's memory, but I am equally sure that Cruikshank's image was effective as well.

[Everyman]

Jonathan wrote: "One of the things that I like about the illustrations is that they reinforce the main events of the novel."

True. But the three illustrations make Oliver look like three different people. In the first, he looks like a degenerate. In the second, like an old man. In the third, like a young adult, much older than his actual years.

[Everyman]

But thanks for posting! They do add vividness to the text.

[Everyman]

The art of book illustration, at least for adults, has virtually disappeared, hasn't it? How many contemporary novels have you read which have been illustrated? It's a shame, really. The merger of a good author and a good artist is something more than either alone.

So many of the Victorian novels had illustrations. It's part of their charm, and of their value.

[Everyman]

Though, on reflection, I do wonder whether the original readers had the same attitude toward book illustrations that we have toward movies made out of books we know: "That (drawing/actor) [doesn't look at all like] [looks just like] how I envisioned (name of character)."

[Jonathan]

Mr. Brownlow lives just outside of Pentonville; Cruikshank lived in Pentonville. I doubt this is a coincidence. Perhaps, Dickens became familiar with this area through working with George. I wonder if Brownlow, the first good-intentioned person we meet in the novel, was at all based on Cruikshank...

[Jonathan]

Fellow Pickwickians, I will be adding more illustrations, when I get access to a computer, presently mine is sick with a virus and I cannot easily add the illustrations from my Kindle Fire. I apologize for the delay.

[Jonathan]

Everyman wrote: "The art of book illustration, at least for adults, has virtually disappeared, hasn't it? How many contemporary novels have you read which have been illustrated? It's a shame, really. The merger ..."

A while back, I pondered the question of whether or not a novel should be illustrated. I know there are no hard and fast rules in the liberal arts, but in my own mind these rights and wrongs of ways to do things certainly exist. I do believe there is some kind of sacred code betwixt the writer and his reader. This agreement is that the author has some things-people, places, things, and events-in his mind and he is going to relate those ideas to his audience through the medium of words. Now, the reader will take in the text, and according to his own imagination and interpretation make out what is going on in his own mind. The reader is seeing and feeling certain things as he digests the story, and is left having to fill in certain blanks that the author invariably leaves, either on purpose, or on accident, due to the limited means he has of transporting what is in his mind to those of his audience. Bringing a third person into this relationship changes the dynamics of everything. Now, we are left with the reader interpreting the illustrator's work, who has first interpreted the author's work. This may, of course, lead to severe misrepresentation and on the reader's part misinterpretation. We do have books nowadays that are illustrated, they fit into one of two categories, as I purposely play the devil's advocate here: children's books or comic books. What I mean to say is that illustrations tend to give a cartoonish feel to a book, and taken the wrong way detract from the perceived seriousness of a literary work.

That being said, all of which is true, and of the soundest reasoning possible, I wish that every great novel was illustrated. I prefer that the author communicate with the illustrator, oversee the work, and approve. I do not suggest or maintain that the author do his own artwork, each person has his own talents. Thackeray's illustrations would have looked better if they were done by my ten-year-old son in art class. Neither do I advocate having an illustrator, or a movie director for that matter, go back and rehash a dead author's work, who cannot give his feedback, opinion, criticism, or approval on the derivative work.

Most recently, as I am a writer, mostly in nonfiction, and predominantly religious essays, scripts, and sermons, I have begun working on a novel and my first thought was that it should be illustrated. But, I cannot draw as well as some first graders, so if I am going to achieve this end, it must be a collaborative work. We'll see what comes of the work, but if I have my way, I will have black and white drawings just like these in Oliver Twist. I have often used stock photos, some cartoons, and some vectors in my presentations and the essays for my newsletter. Since, I am picking them, and I am poetically licensed to do so, they add a lot to the literary works and reinforce some of what I am trying to say.

[Jonathan]

Fellow Pickwickians, I have taken the liberty of including the Illustrations in the regular discussion folders in their corresponding sections. This way there is less of a diversion, and hopefully, we can get more ideas flowing from the pictures. Thank you!