Little Dorrit
discussion
Just a few chapters in, but I love it
date
newest »
newest »
You're right, it is an amazing book. One of his best, I think. I don't think it's spoilerish to say to anyone who is familiar with Dickens that the different characters' stories combine, diverge, connect, go off in different directions, and then connect again, but the plot of Little Dorrit is particularly intricate.
Loved this one as well! You should check out the BBC mini series when you're finished reading! Andrew Davies does a fantastic job with the screen play and it was probably the best cast series I have seen :)
Thanks, Brolie -- I didn't know BBC did this, so I'll have to get a copy. I have a BBC collection that includes Our Mutual Friend -- this is an incredible adaptation.
Brolie wrote: "You should check out the BBC mini series when you're finished reading! Andrew Davies does a fantastic job with the screen play and it was probably the best cast series I hav..."I thought it was excellent, too -- and loved most of the casting. But I felt that some of the characters were given too little attention, and that casting Freema Agyeman as Tattycoram was a mistake -- both because I have never admired her acting, and because I suspect that using a black actress in the role was supposed to be some sort of shorthand for all they decided not to tell us about her character.
I'm a Doctor Who fan, so I was excited about both Freema Agyeman and Arthur Davill (And Russell Tovey who was a guest actor). I thought she did well with the role. Matthew Macfadyen and Claire Foy both did so brilliantly as Arthur and Amy though! And Tom Courtenay did Mr Dorrit to perfection even adding his "hahs and hums".
I just completed it too. Enthralling. I am reluctantly considering an adjustment to my all-time favorite novel list --something I NEVER thought I would do--and move this up *ahead of* 'Bleak House' in my rankings. Unheard of! To beat out 'Bleak House'!? BH has been my #1 nineteenth-century favorite novel for years!But its astounding, its ridiculous how superb this Dorrit novel is. Its merits are too strong to be denied. Dorrit has several advantages 'Bleak' doesn't. More loveable, accessible characters; better central motivations; better theme; better juxtaposition of the various fates which overtake each individual figure. Plus the added great boon of HUMOR (Little Dorrit): its one of the best comic novels ever. 'Bleak House' is dramatically satisfying but undeniably grim and gloomy; has awesome foreshadowing but..whatever in it was lacking (even if I had no complaint at the time) is surely made up for in 'Dorrit'. Huzzah! Love this book!
Feliks wrote: "I just completed it too. Enthralling. I am reluctantly considering an adjustment to my all-time favorite novel list --something I NEVER thought I would do--and move this up *ahead of* 'Bleak House'..."No, no, reconsider. Not ahead of Bleak House!! [:-) I'm over 20 lifetime readings of Bleak House by now, not including the reading by David Case on Audible that is to die for. Perfect, perfect.
I think Little Dorrit is way too complicated for a miniseries; well, so was Bleak House. These novels can't be cut; they are entire alternative realities.
But the characters aren't as lovable, you must admit. And there's precious little humor in BH. LD had me laughing at loud. There's a convincing, depthful adult male character in LD; Clenman is drawn with sensitivity. Better than John Jaryndice. There's also a better romance than the slightly creepy one in BH. And the female characters in BH..well..just something cold and mechanical about them. You can't take any of them to heart as much as you can the petite Amy Dorrit! BH has 'Little Jo'--marvelous--but LD has 5 characters equally as endearing. And the climactic event in LD--memorable--whereas, I can't recall (right now) exactly what event was the culminating finale in BH. The carriage chase?
No, no, no..I am definitely leaning towards LD. At least I can nominate it as my new personal favorite CD novel; and maybe place BH on some kind of 'all-time greats of world lit' list...?
Feliks wrote: "But the characters aren't as lovable, you must admit. And there's precious little humor in BH. LD had me laughing at loud. There's a convincing, depthful adult male character in LD; Clenman is dra..."I made the mistake of reading the Death of Jo at work once; I always go to pieces, every time, and I think my co-workers thought I was having a fit.....
The climax of Bleak House? I suppose the death at the gate of the cemetery of the mother, couldn't even get inside to the grave of her ex-lover. Okay, it's not real upbeat, I admit that. And that marriage trick at the end......difficult to really rationalize that as a cute little prank of Jarndyce's.
However, Esther Summerson has always been my ideal. [:-)
Andrew Davies is a master of adapting a screen play with accuracy and he did Little Dorrit. I thought it was spot on. Only time I've been disappointed with him is with the newest three musketeers, but at least it was more accurate than the keifer sutherland one *shudder*I haven't read Bleak House yet but saw the series with Gillian Anderson and loved it.
One thing which was 'not right' in LD was the handling of Tattycoram. Its lame when people backslide. If you make a vow never to return..stick to it!
I have to say this is my least favourite Dickens book and so long and dreary. Little Dorritt gets worse and worse as a character as the book goes on!
Ugh. I had two paragraphs explaining what I hate about Little Dorrit, while at the same time loving those subtleties you all are discussing. But I don't want to kill your buzz, I just want to present the opposite opinion. And I think I hit on the core of my problem with this book - the characters are so fascinating only because we have to focus so much on them during all the nothing that happens.THE BIG QUESTION: If I hated Little Dorrit's meandering plot, will I still enjoy Our Mutual Friend? I already have a copy and I want to know if I should start it up.
Our Mutual Friend has a more clean cut plot, I would say. But I think quite a bit happens in Little Dorrit, it's got intrigue, travel, business endeavors, an assassin, thwarted love, and a collapsing house. It's just that the events are commonplace when juxtaposed with the characters. But, I will also add that this book does have a character driven plot.
My opinion: ordinarily I would suggest that someone would probably not like OMF as much as LD. But in your case--since you expressly vouch for not enjoying LD--this strikes me as so odd that I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that you feel stronger for OMF.'Our Mutual Friend' has a more clear-cut plot; yes. Things are more tightly aligned along a plane between the 'instigating event' at the beginning and the 'resolving event' at the end. But the characters and the situations they find themselves in--as they move towards each other--are just not that memorable or as vivid.
This lack shows up especially so with regard to the villainry. These baddies are just not as sharp, not as severe; not as charismatic as we usually see. Dickens usually does provide very strong villains; but not this time. One villain is conniving but weak of character; one villain starts off bad but then mysteriously turns good. The worst villain represented, could have led a virtuous life all along, except for a bad turn he once received a long time ago, turned him down the wrong path. See what I mean? Not enough force.
In addition to villains who are not quite as fearful as they could be, the heroes in this story are not quite as loveable or natural, either. You meet several characters whom you are 'just not quite sure what to make of'--its hard to determine whether you should root for them or not. Their faults and failings stem from their slovenliness, their mean stations, rather than their deliberate philosophies. One 'hero' starts off in the book as thoroughly disagreeable--cruel, creepy, self-absorbed; lazy. Yet he winds up celebrated at story's end.
Is there more action, incident, and event in OMF than in LD? Very difficult to say. Perhaps yes; but to me it wasn't the kind of action I desired. It was action which I knew wasn't crucial to the larger plot; lacking pregnancy and anticipation. Of course, OMF has wonderful atmosphere of the river-zone of London; but except for the beginning and end of the story (when the river is a direct bearing on the narrative) the middle whole of the book has a long series of unmemorable scenes taking place in multiple houses, mills, schools, bars, bedrooms, dining rooms, law offices, etc. There's a lot--a LOT--of garrulous, somewhat unsatisfying conversation in very affected 'cockney-speak' --which can try one's patience. Too much of this conversation has to do with nothing which moves the plot forward; instead; its conversation which expresses the characters and 'their longstanding dislikes for one another'. And since I've already stated the characters "lack force"--its further aggravation.
Crucial disappointment: one intricate subplot of this tale is brought to conclusion with the horrible technique of "oh we were just fooling". I hated this solution! It is a cop-out even when a writer as great as Dickens, resorts to it.
Bottom line: I don't truly know what to advise you. I came to the end of OMF with a decent level of satisfaction and was prepared to push it into my top ten list. But LD was way, way ahead of it. LD jumped right into my top 5 list.
Verity, I completely agree that the events are commonplace - for me, the book just ran out of gas, even though I liked the characters plenty. The prison was just far, far more interesting to me than anything that came after it, thematically and just in terms of plot.And Feliks, thank you so much for the detailed response. Seeing you compare the two, I'm afraid that just because I liked Cities and Expectations doesn't necessarily mean I'll like any other Dickens. Too bad. Both of those books regularly made me sit back in awe at what I'd just read, but I'm guessing I've already read Dickens at his most restrained and satisfying.
So I won't expect the world from OMF - I'll expect another variation on a theme, and just see how far I get. Here's hoping I'm pleasantly surprised!
Feliks wrote: "My opinion: ordinarily I would suggest that someone would probably not like OMF as much as LD. But in your case, since you expressly vouch for not enjoying LD, this strikes me as so odd that I woul..."I do think we have almost completely opposing opinions on these two books - that doesn't happen very often with me. After about 300 pages, I am loving Our Mutual Friend.
The dialogue is great! I can hear the cockney crystal clear in my head, it moves fast, it's quite funny, and always fits the characters who use it (Wegg, Boffins to some degree). I think Dickens had as good an ear for dialect at this point as Mark Twain.
As to the plotting, I do find it more consistent around the main event, as you say, and most everything relates to it somehow. I also find it really interesting that everyone comes in contact with everyone else in some way. The character interactions all feel snappier, more interesting, and less verbose than Little Dorrit, at least right now. The themes of money, society, and garbage, are also much clearer.
And another thing I feel differently about - the characters may be less memorable, but they're definitely more entertaining. The Boffins and Wegg are hilarious, and the chapter on Podsnappery is just fantastic. So many others are great in some way or another.
Maybe it's just good timing, but this book just really does it for me.
Well it just goes to show how two people can gain immediately differing reactions to the same work.The theme of money and garbage did not compel me: too vague and gauzy. The river motif was better; but (as I say above) not always present. It was strong when it appeared but it didn't always appear. Whereas the 'prison' motif in Dorritt was very very powerful and never far from the action.
I liked the concept of Podnsppery but did find it dragged.
Boffins: did not find them potent or cogent characters. It was hard to make out what their goals were, what their game was.
Did not like Wegg, nor did I find him humorous; as the supposed villain of the piece I found him ineffective because he was really just a blunderer and a moron. And I was disappointed in how he was eventually given his comeuppance.
The villains in 'Dorritt' are plentiful, inscrutable, malevolent, and sharply drawn. Just how they strike me. Clean, clear, forceful, cogent!
Oh well. Hey I am glad you are getting big bang for your buck!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Meagles and Arthur Clennam. And the odd Miss Wade with some very subtle threats or predictions. Then back home finding more about Clennam and his weird mother and the Flintwinchs.
I can't wait to see if Mrs. Flintwinch's dream is a foreshadowing. I absolutely love the description of Mrs. Clennam's home, the way the furniture seems to be hiding as though there are lots of secrets.
Will Rigaud resurface? Will we see Miss Wade again?
I am so glad this is a long book because it means I have many many hours of fun reading ahead of me. I've read the more well known Dickens novels: Great Expectations, Christmas Carol, David Copperfield. I remember feeling my gut twist at all the mistakes that Pip made, and liking the happy ending to David Copperfield.
I could write for hours, dear readers, but now it is time to get on with mundane life. Aren't we lucky to have amazing authors like Dickens to transport us to other worlds and times.