Nickleby Chapters 1-7

[Jonathan]

In which the first seven chapters of Nickleby are discussed.

[Tristram]

The first few chapters give me the impression that NN is a book more in the vein of Pickwick Papers as its tone is lighter and less serious than that of Oliver Twist. It seems to make its point really early that this is the story of a young man (and his family) who is forced to make his way into the world - even if this young man has his first entrance into the novel in Chapter 3 -, and that this story of initiation will provide ample opportunity of episodic writing à la Pickwick.

At the same time, the writing seems very stagy to me, in nearly every sense of the word. In the second chapter, the villain Ralph Nickleby is introduced, and what paragon of an arch-fiend he is! One can clearly grasp the conventions of 19th century melodrama here when he boast in front of a business partner of how he exploits his man Newman Noggs, who has - is this mere coincidence? - the same initials as the eponymous hero. Another villain larger than life is Wackford - another brilliant name - Squeers, who also seems to be quite imbibed with his villainy. (I think these two will give us a good summer read!)

As to Nicholas himself, he also seems to be dyed in the wool of 19th century melodrama, given his early defiance of his uncle.

All that being said, I'd like to add that there is also a streak of social awareness in the tradition of Oliver Twist in the book, which seems to be very important to Dickens. I'm talking of his acerb criticism of the infamous Yorkshire schools.

That's all for now, folks ...

[Jonathan]

I am not sure if Uncle Ralph is the typical Dickensian villian. In our last read, neither Monks, the Jew, nor Sikes had any redeeming qualities. Notwithstanding, in our first read, Pickwick Papers, the author did offer Jingle, the archenemy of our beloved Pickwick, redemption, through which he somewhat cleared his dark, black past track record. So far, Uncle Ralph is painted as a stingy character, devious in business, and geared to take advantage of people such as Newmann, and to hate innocent people like Nephew Nick. However, I view him as a comical character and much of what he has said so far has been callous but true. He has also taken steps to help his brother's family although we are left with the impression that the narrator thinks he should have done more and that Ralph is doing so in a begrudging rather than benevolent spirit.

[Tristram]

Well, Ralph Nickleby can surely not be lumped together with inveterate criminals like Fagin or Sikes or a rather shadow-like villain such as Monks in that he really appears to do something for his sister-in-law and her children. At the same time, however, he warns Miss La Creevy not to give them any credit, and he is not too particular about where to place Nicholas. The narrator, as you already remarked, is not very prepossessed in favour of Ralph, neither; just consider the following passage from Chapter 3:

"... the uncle and nephew looked at each other for some seconds without speaking. The face of the old man was stern, hard-featured, and forbidding; that of the young one, open, handsome, and ingenuous. The old man's eye was keen with the twinklings of avarice and cunning; the young man's, bright with the light of intelligence and spirit. His figure was somewhat slight, but manly and well-formed; and, apart from all the grace of youth and comeliness, there was an emanation from the warm young heart in his look and bearing which kept the old man down.

However striking such a contrast as this may be to lookers-on, none ever feel it with half the keenness or acuteness of perception with which it strikes to the very soul of him whose inferiority it marks. It galled Ralph to the heart's core, and he hated Nicholas from that hour."

Here we have a very intrusive narrator, who goes to any length in order to increase the reader's loathing of Ralph. It seems as though Dickens knows that up to now, Ralph has not been extremely villainous, but nevertheless he wants the reader to feel aversion towards him. But still, you're right that he is not downright evil and fulfils his familial duties, although grudgingly.

[Tristram]

Maybe we'll get some more readers to join the discussions if we suggest some questions. Of course, these questions are merely suggestions which might trigger off further observations.

For example:

1) What is your first impression of Nicholas Nickleby? Is it more like Pickwick Papers or like Oliver Twist?

2) What do you think about the characters? Critics have reproached Dickens with having created a rather stilted hero in this novel - what is your opinion of Nicholas?

3) Do you consider Dickens's treatment of Squeers and Dotheboys Hall an adequate way of treating the infamous Yorkshire schools? What is your opinion on the humour he uses here?

4) What do you think of the two stories the travellers tell while they have to wait due to the accident? Are they in any way related to the story, or just a way for Dickens to deliver?

5) What do you make of the narrtor's voice (cf. my previous entry)?

6) Are there any great quotations you would like to share?

Please just use these questions as a kind of stepping stone into discussing this novel, and don't feel obliged to answer every one of them.

[Jonathan]

1) Through the first three chapters, I must say that I am finding this to have more of a Pickwickian feel to it. Notice I use the word feel. The elements of the plot, and the fact that this is another of Dickens' social criticisms, obviously are more in the vein of Oliver Twist. But, the comic rather than the tragic feel of this work, reminds me more of Pickwick.

[Everyman]

I didn't finish Pickwick, only got about half way through, and so far I'm only in Chapter four of NN (I've read it before, but long ago, and have very limited memory of it), but I don't get the same senses of similarity between them. Pickwick was clearly farce, certainly in the beginning, and disjointed farce at that. In NN, although he starts off in a light vein, I am feeling quite clearly that he is writing a serious book with a light touch to involve the readers. Let's not forget that he was writing in serial form; readers who bought the first installment had to be hooked quickly so that they would keep buying them. Therefore, I tend to view the first chapters of any Dickens as having the same basic task as a movie trailer, designed to get the reader or viewer to want to invest their money in this particular entertainment. Dickens has to introduce engaging and interesting characters right at the start (hence Aunt Betsey and Oliver talking of his own birth, for example), and Ralph is, it seems to me, a character who readers will find enjoyable to read about (an amiable villain is usually entertaining).

[Everyman]

Tristram wrote: "Maybe we'll get some more readers to join the discussions..."

Ten people, including you and Jonathan but not including myself, responded to the poll saying that they intended to participate in both the read and the discussion. And two others said they had read it but planned to join in the discussion. Maybe our moderator or de facto assistant moderator would like to send them private messages reminding them that the discussion is now underway?

Meanwhile, I'll send a shout out here to those intrepid folks.

Hello, Charity, Al, Scott, Meagan, Maureen, Garrett, Lucy, Martha, Gavin, Richard! Are you out there? We miss you -- please come home!

[Jonathan]

The Nickleby Portrait

[Jonathan]

Mr. Ralph Nickleby's first visit to his poor relations

[Jonathan]

The Yorkshire Schoolmaster at The Saracen's Head

[Jonathan]

This work featured a new illustrator. Here is the short bio on him from CharlesDickensPage.com:

Browne and Dickens developed an excellent working relationship and Browne took the nickname Phiz to complement Dickens' Boz. Browne would go on to illustrate Dickens' work for 23 years, ten of Dicken's novels were illustrated by Phiz. Browne's comic/satiric style of illustration did not fit well with Dickens' later, more serious, novels and after the somewhat disappointing illustrations for A Tale of Two Cities, he never worked for Dickens again.

[Chelsea]

I don't have much to add, mostly just agreeing with everyone else, but since you guys are begging for contribution, here goes.

Everyman that is exactly my impression as well.

I agree with Jonathan about Ralph. I found much of what he said to be comical. He reminds me of some grumpy old men I've known. He seems to enjoy having something to complain about. I found it amusing that he does as little as possible for others and then congratulates himself on his generosity. I do get the sense that his assistance is possibly stemming from an ulterior motive. Perhaps something underhanded is going on, or again maybe he is just doing it for kudos.

I agree with Tristram, the narrator is very intrusive. In the quotation you provided, it is clear that in addition to wanting the reader to feel an aversion to Ralph, he also very clearly wants us to feel affection for Nicholas. He is clearly marking them as hero and villain, rather than letting us discover that on our own.

I don't feel a great connection to Nicholas yet. He's been a little in the background so far. He seems to be naïve, caring, and has a bit of a temper. He's slow to realize that Squeers is not running a respectable institution, whereas Kate caught on as soon as she saw him.

[Jonathan]

During our discussion on Oliver Twist, the first few chapters, we talked about the impact that Dickens' works, specifically Twist, had on social reform. We see the same thing here. Dickens' himself indirectly noted the difference he helped bring about in the Author's Preface to a later edition:

This story was begun, within a few months after the publication of the completed "Pickwick Papers." There were, then, a good many cheap Yorkshire schools in existence. There are very few now.

Mr. Dickens used this attention grabber as the lead for his preface. Perhaps reading a little between the lines, but it certainly sounds to me as if he were saying, "There are very few now, thanks to this publication which you are about to read."

Of all the things we have talked about, I am most astonished by the reformations brought about by these fictional works. It was as if the great, popular author would aim his satirical voice at one social problem after another, and within a matter of months, Parliament in concert with society would rapidly move to change these unfortunate circumstances. It certainly adds a broader spectrum from which to appreciate literature; does it not?

[Jonathan]

First of all, thank you for joining us...

Chelsea wrote: "(Ralph) reminds me of some grumpy old men I've known. He seems to enjoy having something to complain about. I found it amusing that he does as little as possible for others and then congratulates himself on his generosity."

To me, these are the characters which make Dickens so enjoyable to read. The eccentricities which he endows them with are quality entertainment and make for characters, who, as larger than life and as unrealistic as they are, still seem to be undeniably alive. I say they are unrealistic; yet, as I pointed out about Mr. Fang in Oliver Twist, most of Dickens' characters are based on real people, which he actually developed through meticulous character studies. That is to say, he did his homework.

Let me add this: The saintly women he created have drawn harsh criticism over the years for being too good to be true. But, most of his villains are not pure evil and that's why I think they are the crown of his genius.

[Tristram]

Hello Chelsea,

I've got the same feeling as you with regard to Nicholas. He just does not connect with me, and he even comes over as a bit haughty and at the same time, foolish. Consider his full-bodied declaration to his uncle that he was ready to work and the fact that at the same time he has no qualifications or experience whatsoever. And yes, you are right in saying that it is very strange that Nicholas is not sooner able to discover what a sham Mr. Squeers and his institution are. This is a kind of naivity one would expect from a benevolent old gentleman such as Mr. Pickwick.

[Tristram]

Jonathan wrote: "During our discussion on Oliver Twist, the first few chapters, we talked about the impact that Dickens' works, specifically Twist, had on social reform. We see the same thing here. Dickens' himself..."

Dickens as a social reformer is certainly an aspect we should always keep in mind, maybe also because I think that as a young man Dickens was probably more optimistic about social reforms, but let's save that question for a rainy day.

I would certainly like to have a closer look at how Dickens undertakes to indict the Yorkshire schools, having in mind Anthony Trollope's scathing satire on Dickens in The Warden. Two loose ideas here:

One, for all the ingenuity and wit that flow into the creation of a character such as Wackford Squeers, is he not too grotesque to be taken seriously by the reader?

Two, the humour that Dickens employs in connection with Squeers can sometimes come over as quite callous itself, at least to me, who have children of my own, and cannot blithley abide cruelty against children being treated as a laughing matter, as e.g. it is done here:

"In default of a better answer to this question, the little boy screwed a couple of knuckles into each of his eyes and began to cry, wherefore Mr. Squeers knocked him off the trunk with a blow on one side of his face, and knocked him on again with a blow on the other." [Chapter 4, pp.31f.]

(I'm quoting, by the way, from the Oxford World's Classics edition from 2008.)

What do you fellow-Pickwickians out there make of all this?

[Martha]

I finished this section early this morning ... just a day late! LOL I retired the end of June and was swamped at work the last 6 weeks or so, but no longer have to deal with those issues. I see much more reading time in my future. YAY!

I'm glad to have the chance to read this with you all ... I always come away from reading your comments feeling so much smarter.

Where do I start?

I haven't read PP or OT so cannot compare NN to either.

Nicholas seems a very nice young man who, I feel, suspects Uncle Ralph just might not be acting in his best interest, but he is going along with the plan to help his mother & sister. I don't think he's fooled by Squeers (what a name!) or the Mrs., but it's too early to tell if he will rebel or try to help the boys. But if he's as naive as some think, maybe I'm just projecting my thoughts about them.

I've spent many years working with abused and neglected children so am having some trouble finding the comic aspect of any of the actions of Squeers.

I always try to think of how it must have been to read his work in serial form ... to have a section to read and then wait a month (did they come out monthly?) to read more. I know that I would have read it several times, shared it with fellow readers and discussed it at great length. Reminds me of what we do now with favorite television series, but on a weekly basis.

[Everyman]

Martha wrote: "I've spent many years working with abused and neglected children so am having some trouble finding the comic aspect of any of the actions of Squeers. "

Yes, I can understand that. As a former schoolteacher myself (and a former student in an English boarding school) I have had to read with great objectivity to avoid the need to overt violence to Squeers by burning the chapters in which he appears.

[Everyman]

Martha wrote: "I always try to think of how it must have been to read his work in serial form ... to have a section to read and then wait a month (did they come out monthly?) to read more. I know that I would have read it several times, shared it with fellow readers and discussed it at great length."

Yes, monthly. I understand that these serial publications provided a great source of conversational fodder for the long dinners, club conversations, afternoon visits, and other social occasions which occupied the time of much of the reading public. Without radio, television, movies, professional sports, bowling and bingo clubs, and such entertainments to fill the evening hours, conversation was, if my understanding of those years is accurate, much more prevalent and occupying than it tends to be today.

[Tristram]

Martha wrote: "I always try to think of how it must have been to read his work in serial form ... to have a section to read and then wait a month (did they come out monthly?) to read more. I know that I would have read it several times, shared it with fellow readers and discussed it at great length. Reminds me of what we do now with favorite television series, but on a weekly basis"

I'm sure that these monthly instalments must have given contemporaries a lot to discuss. For instance, however quaint Ralph Nickleby's machinations about the Muffin Company might seem to us, to readers in Dickens's days it was obvious that the whole aim of all the fuss made in public was to boost the demand for shares and to enable Ralph and his partners in cr... uhm business to sell their shares at high prices, without there ever being a chance of the project's itself coming off.

All this is clothed in the prolix language of the times, but on the other hand, it is very modern, too, as we have a lot of these rascals roaming free. Then also consider this short paragraph from Chapter 1:

"Speculation is a round game; the players see little or nothing of their cards at first starting; gains may be great - and so may be losses. The run of luck went against Mr. Nickleby. A mania prevailed, a bubble burst, four stockbrokers took villa residences at Florence, four hundred nobodies were ruined, and among them Mr. Nickleby. [p.5]

With speculations becoming more and more of a lure to the (upper) middle classes at that time, a passage like this must have given a lot of food for discussions to contemporaries.

[Jo]

Tristram wrote: the humour that Dickens employs in connection with Squeers can sometimes come over as quite callous itself, at least to me, who have children of my own, and cannot blithley abide cruelty against children being treated as a laughing matter, as e.g. it is done here ...

I also wondered about Dickens' use of humor in these scenes. His novels are rife with humorous characters which seem to be of two types: the bumbling, but loveable fool or the unlikeable grouch, skinflint, disciplinarian etc... (I base this on what little Dickens I've read: A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations and Bleak House) My question is, could he be making fun of Squeers, or rather is the humor meant to draw attention to Squeers inhumanity to the children? Naturally, child abuse isn't a humorous topic, and I'm quite sure Dickens didn't think it was either.
I wonder how his Victorian readers would have interpreted it?

[Jonathan]

For what it's worth, I do not think Dickens went out of his way to make Squeers' treatment of the children funny. Wackford is a humorous character, and Dickens' style is rife with satirical wit. Thus, the reader may interpret the writer's voice as comical in these scenes, but that does not mean necessarily that the writer meant it that way. For what it's worth...anyways...and only in a Pickwickian sense, of course...

[Martha]

I'm going to have to read The Pickwick Papers. Am really regretting I couldn't fit it in earlier, but another group is reading it now so I may join them.

I don't think Dickens thought the maltreatment of the children was funny either. Someone used the word grotesque to describe Squeers and that certainly fits both Mr. & Mrs., but I think of them as ludicrous as well. Dickens was such an excellent wordsmith that he made it seem comical in some ways. I doubt that anyone who read it thought the behavior was funny.

[Chelsea]

Jo wrote: "My question is, could he be making fun of Squeers, or rather is the humor meant to draw attention to Squeers inhumanity to the children? Naturally, child abuse isn't a humorous topic, and I'm quite sure Dickens didn't think it was either.
I wonder how his Victorian readers would have interpreted it?"

I agree. I think this was used more to highlight the absurdity of Squeers and draw attention to the plight of these children, rather than making jest at the abuse itself. I think it might also be a cultural thing. Using dark humor to draw attention to the absurdity of inappropriate behavior seems to be common in England (Monty Python, anyone?). Dickens obviously didn't approve of such abuse himself since Nicholas Nickleby was written as a criticism of these terrible places.

[Tristram]

On Dickens's treatment of Squeers and Yorkshire schools

I would agree with you, Martha and Jonathan, that Dickens by no means intended to make fun of the sufferings of children. In most of his novels the Inimitable points out to his readers in what ways children were the victims of certain ill-usages condoned or ignored by society - so we may take it for granted that he was anything but callous with regard to issues like these.

The question is rather how efficient certain elements of his humour are. Chelsea said that using dark humour for ulterior motives seems to be a common English thing, and using this as a premise, one will find a lot of passages that pour scathing mockery over Mr. Squeers, e.g. the frequent references to his abuse of alcohol and his coarseness, but also the conversation between him and Snawley, which exposes their respective hypocrisy, and a description like this, which is my favourite one:

"Mr. Squeers's appearance was not very prepossessing. [...;] he wore a white neckerchief with long ends, and a suit of scholastic black; but his coat sleeves being a great deal too long, and his trousers a great deal too short, he appeared ill at ease in his clothes, and as if he were in a perpetual state of astonishment at finding himself so respectable." [pp.30f.]

Especially the last sentence is so brilliant as it sums up both Mr. Squeers's hypocrisy and his coarseness. All this is satire at its best and might not have missed its point. The passage I quoted in message 17, though, might have the effect of belittling the violence the boy suffers at Squeers's hand, even though it is an hyperbole. Of course, as Jo put it, there's no real knowing how the Victorian reader would have taken this.

Having a closer look at how satire is employed with regard to Squeers and his school will probably be a promising enterprise still in the next few chapters.

[Jonathan]

The humorous description of Wackford, whose first name was probably inspired by his zeal at giving the students a wack whenever they displeased him, is what I was referring to when I said that Squeers is a comedic character, and that comedy along with Dickens' satirical wit kind of spill over into these harsher scenes and make them sound funny. By no means, does this signify that Dickens was making light of the children's plight. But, when he uses phrases like "he boxed their ears", I can see how some could read this and think otherwise, for what it's worth.

[Everyman]

I can't get my head around the idea that Dickens might have intended Squeers as a comic figure. There are perhaps a few incidents about him which are humorous, but I don't see the humor in the character, but in the circumstances.

I see him as quite clearly disgusting, and my view is that Dickens intended the audience to think of him of course not as an amiable rogue (think Jingles) but as pond scum feeding off the misery of children.

I wonder whether perhaps there was an intent to present Ralph Nickleby and Squeers as contrasting characters, different aspects of greed, the one feeding off of adults and being very successful, and the other as feeding off of children and not being so successful. Both are greedy self-centered nasty people, but I have very different views of them.

[Jonathan]

The Five Sisters of York

[Jonathan]

Nicholas starts for Yorkshire

[Jonathan]

The Five Sisters of York

I must say that I rather enjoy the short stories interjected here. This, of course, is a return to the trick Dickens used in Pickwick to tell his shorter stories inside of a cohesive novel.

I also like how the author draws us into the setting. It seems to me that story-telling was a much greater part of the early Victorian Age than it is in modern America. When they perfect time travel, one of the things on my bucket list is to go back to a small Victorian Inn, and sit near the fire listening to the old stories, maybe over some potent punch.

Another interesting thing (I wonder if anyone caught this) is that the characters in Nickleby actually sit around and discuss the story afterwards, much like we find ourselves doing here in the Pickwick Club. Since, Dickens, through his characters, interpreted this one for us, I will forego my own opinions on this little ditty and merely repeat their's:

"It is a tale of life, and life is made up of such sorrows..."

"If anything could soothe the first sharp pain of a heavy loss, it would be - with me - the reflection, that those I mourned, by being innocently happy here, and loving all about them, had prepared themselves for a purer and happier world."

"To remember happiness which cannot be restored, is pain, but of a softened kind."

I must say, though, that this story does bring up a good question, and this seems to be the moral according to the characters' discussion after it:

"What do we do to capture the wonderful memories that we are creating on our journey through life? How do those relics of the past affect us, when we make use of them?"

And, they called Dickens a sentimentalist. Bah!

[Tristram]

Jonathan wrote: "The Five Sisters of York

I must say that I rather enjoy the short stories interjected here. This, of course, is a return to the trick Dickens used in Pickwick to tell his shorter stories inside of..."

To my mind, these two inserted stories also presented the question what function they might be supposed to fulfil with regard to the novel as a whole, and I think the travellers' reactions you collected here as well as the order in which they are told may be anything but arbitrary.

Here are my two cents, of course only to be taken as Pickwickian currency and given with the knowledge that a reader's interpration might not have been intended by the author:

Once should mark that the melancholy traveller is prevailed upon to tell a story and not too keen on doing so at the beginning. His tale is rather melancholy, too, and bears on the sorrowful side of life, and then the genial traveller tells his funny story to counter-balance the effect. Now I know this might be far-fetched, but maybe Dickens wanted to assure his readers of the tone in which the whole novel is set and of the spirit in which it has to be taken. That is to say, Nicholas Nickleby deals with sorrow, sufferings and dark subject-matters, as did Oliver Twist, but on the whole it is a more light-hearted, rambunctious novel like The Pickwick Papers. Life may contain sorrows, but it is a question of attitude if you allow these sorrows to bear upon you or if you learn to deal with them and retain a more serene and easy-going outlook on life.

[Everyman]

Jonathan wrote: "The Five Sisters of York

I must say that I rather enjoy the short stories interjected here. This, of course, is a return to the trick Dickens used in Pickwick to tell his shorter stories inside of..."

Yes, it is a throwback. I didn't understand why they were inserted into Pickwick, and I frankly don't understand why they're inserted in NN.

They're okay stories, though nothing special IMO. But they don't seem to have any relationship to the history of NN other than that he is present. I looked for some implied or actual connection with any of the characters in the novel, and considered the possibility that they might be foreshadowing some events to come, but while that's possible, it doesn't seem likely. I am reluctant to think that they were just inserted as filler, but I don't see them fulfilling any other role.

If I want to read a book of short stories, I'll go read a book of short stories. (Given those that Dickens wrote, I think he does better as a novelist than as a short story writer.) In a novel, I want to get on with the events of the novel and the actions of the characters we are getting to know.

Sorry to disagree with you here, Jonathan, but I do. [g]

[Everyman]

Tristram wrote: "That is to say, Nicholas Nickleby deals with sorrow, sufferings and dark subject-matters, as did Oliver Twist, but on the whole it is a more light-hearted, rambunctious novel like The Pickwick Papers. "

I may be the only one here who doesn't consider NN to be light-hearted or rambunctious. In the first few chapters we are dealing with shysters and scoundrels who cheat innocent people like NN's father out of their money and go off to enjoy their ill gotten gains in comfort, we see death which destitutes a very nice family, we see overt blackmail by a man using his wealth not to assist his close relatives but to force a man into an evil situation because he resents the man's cheerful and happy nature. And we see a man being deliberately and intentionally cruel to young children who are entrusted to his care, abusing and virtually starving them and seeking out step-parents, guardians, and the like who simply want to get rid of children who have become inconveniences or burdens to them and burying them in a horrible, wicked place.

I have trouble seeing all this as light-hearted.

[Jonathan]

Everyman wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "The Five Sisters of York..."

I think we have had this discussion before; at least a very similar one regarding the short stories in Pickwick. I think it makes for interesting points of discussion. I find it is rather difficult to pinpoint exactly why one likes or dislikes something; for example, unrelating short stories in the middle of a novel. But, I can venture a guess as to why I find them so amusing, and I can also venture one as to why you may not, if you would be so kind as to bear with me.

It goes back to the defintion of a novel and the basic purpose for which it is read, which I think varies greatly from reader to reader. From what you say, it sounds like you do not appreciate the interruptions of the plot and are bothered by the notion that the stories do not relate to the novel's plot nor its characters. Do I understand your position correctly? Mind, this is probably an over-simplification.

This is where we differ. You seem to be rather interested in the plot, while I, on the other hand, care very little about it, but am much more interested in being a part of the world which the author has created with his words. Thus, I find that the short stories are absolutely essential to the overall work.

I have two arguments for this. First of all, consider Rubinstein's definition of "the novel", during an essay on the works of Austen:

"The novel, then, is a perpetual quest for reality, the field of its research being always the social world...

Victorian England was Dickens' field of research. In order to suck the reader further in to his reality, he sketched everyday occurences particular to his time period. Story-telling, in the absence of TV, Radio, and Video Games, was probably a favorite pastime of the English in those days. The author is simply taking a little time to sketch a scene in which the fictitious characters are taking part in an activity, in which their their counterparts from reality often indulged.

[Jonathan]

My second argument is a hypothetical example. Given this scene has been etched into the plot from the beginning, how best can our storyteller (Dickens) relate the goings on to us? Should he simply say, "Their coach broke down, so they told some stories over some punch."? That is not interesting literature. That is not a valiant attempt at seeking and finding the reality of the situation, IMO. That is the kind of dime a dozen crap that people write nowadays. Well, if that is what we were interested in, as I step up on my Pickwickian soapbox, then we would not be sitting here reading and analyzing the works of Dickens.

Our story-teller, instead, delved a little deeper into the scene, gave his readers a little bit more cud, as it were, to chew on, and gave us, his observers, a little more food, as it is, for thought and discussion. He gave us the actual stories which were told, and painted a very detailed picture of the scene with his words. Furthermore, the stories actually shed some light on some very deep philosophical questions, as I noted above.

[Martha]

You are not the only one, Everyman! While I am enjoying the book, I'm not seeing the humor in these characters ... at least not in this section. I'm over half done with the next session, but won't discuss that here.

[Tristram]

On the short stories inserted into the plot

I am still at a loss as to what to make of these two short stories, and how to relate them to the rest of the novel. My shaky hypothesis above (cf.message 32) is the best I can offer.

And whereas I agree with Jonathan that Dickens certainly makes us feel part of the scene by giving us the stories that were told to while away the waiting hours, I still have some doubts with regard to the hypothesis given in message 36. It is true that both Robert Seymour and George Cruikshank claimed that their illustrations had determined the course of the plot of the beginning of Pickwick Papers and Oliver Twist respectively, but their claims could never be proved, as far as I know, although Cruikshank's claim could account for the plot flaws in the latter novel. Nicholas Nickleby, however, was illustrated by Hablot Knight Browne, who also took over the illustrations in PP after Seymour's suicide, and - again, as far as I know - H.K. Browne has never claimed that his illustrations determined the plot of any of Dickens's novels.

That would actually mean that the road accident, and thus the story-telling, must have been an idea of Dickens's so that the story-telling cannot be explained as the Inimitable's way of dealing in a life-like way with a situation that was introduced into the story by the illustrator (i.e. his etching of the Five Sisters of York). Maybe the explanation is really that Dickens, who at the time must have been under dire pressure as he was still writing on Oliver Twist, had some older stories in his drawer and simply used them in order to meet his deadlines.

As far as I know, Nicholas Nickleby is the last instance of Dickens's inserting short stories into the plot of a novel.

[Tristram]

On the tone of the novel

Martha wrote: "You are not the only one, Everyman! While I am enjoying the book, I'm not seeing the humor in these characters ... at least not in this section. I'm over half done with the next session, but won't ..."

I am not saying that the events in NN are as inconsequential and harmless and in PP, and yet I find the narrator's voice more distanced and ironic in most parts than in OT, where he was often more melodramatic than ironic. Just check my quotations of the description of Mr. Squeers if you want to have an example of this ironic, light-hearted style. The narrator's tone even lead me to certain doubts as to the efficiency of making readers aware of the cruelties perprated by people like Squeers. With regard to tone, not so much as to subject-matter, I would consider NN closer to PP. That said, Dickens's tone changes in certain passages in Chapter 8 ...

[Jonathan]

Tristram wrote: "On the short stories inserted into the plot

I am still at a loss as to what to make of these two short stories, and how to relate them to the rest of the novel. My shaky hypothesis above (cf.messa..."

Tristram I fear that I have failed to make my hypothesis clear. When I proposed that this scene may have been "etched into the plot", I was in no way referring to the illustrations nor the illustrator. I was simply proposing that the author had this scene in mind and this is how he chose to handle it. When I said that he "sketched the scenes", I was referring to Dickens, and the older use of the term sketch which refers to a short essay on some aspect of life, not a drawing. Unlike Oliver Twist, I do not think the illustrator had much to do with the construction of this plot.

[Everyman]

Jonathan wrote: It goes back to the defintion of a novel and the basic purpose for which it is read, which I think varies greatly from reader to reader. From what you say, it sounds like you do not appreciate the interruptions of the plot and are bothered by the notion that the stories do not relate to the novel's plot nor its characters. Do I understand your position correctly? Mind, this is probably an over-simplification. "

Essentially, yes. Novels can certainly cover a lot of ground, but in the end, I want them to have an internal coherence. Where they are expansive, I want the expansiveness to have a significance to the pattern of the novel. I want there to be a reason within the scope and purpose of the novel for every incident, every description, every character. In short, I am an E.B. White style novel reader.

This doesn't mean they have to be short novels. Very long novels are fine with me as long as there is a reason for everything in them. (We have just finished The Magic Mountain in my group, and are moving on soon to War and Peace, both very long novels, but also both novels where there is a reason for everything in them.)

I don't see a purpose to these internal stories. I will consider the possibility that they are reflecting the characters of those telling them, but I'm not really persuaded by that.

There are thousands of books I will never get to before I die. In the time I do have to spend reading, I want to choose my own irrelevant digressions, not have a novelist toss them in there whether I want them or not.

[Jonathan]

Everyman wrote: "There are thousands of books I will never get to before I die. In the time I do have to spend reading, I want to choose my own irrelevant digressions, not have a novelist toss them in there whether I want them or not...."

I am still living with the hope that heaven has a complete library, where we can sit down and catch up on what we missed on earth. If I am wrong about this, I will be severely disappointed. But, yes, I see your point.

[Kim]

Hi guys! Haven't been around this week (seizures) so here's what I have to contribute about some of the things I just read. Regarding the two inserted stories according to my edition it says "Dickens seems to have inserted this (The Five Sisters of York) and the following story, The Baron of Grogzwig, as a means of filling out the second number. In a letter to Forster probably written on 15 April 1838, the day he was supposed to deliver his copy to his publishers, he writes: 'I couldn't write a line till three o'clock and have yet 5 slips to finish, and don't know what to put in them for I have reached the point I meant to leave off with'"

And regarding the lightheartedness of the novel, the introduction says that "Dickens agreement with Chapman and Hall, signed in November of 1837, stipulated that the work be 'of a similar character and of the same extent and contents in point of quantity' as Pickwick itself. However, Dickens also intended to continue the assault on flagrant social injustices that he had begun with Oliver Twist's exposure of the brutalities of the Poor Law."

Oh, and whenever someone asks me what I'll be doing in heaven I tell them if I'm not decorating for Christmas just look for me in the never ending library.

[Everyman]

Kim wrote: "Hi guys! Haven't been around this week (seizures) so here's what I have to contribute about some of the things I just read. Regarding the two inserted stories according to my edition it says "Dic..."

Great information.

Of course I would think so, since it reinforces my theory that the stories were inserted not because they fit into the story but because he had them lying around and needed some filler, but it's nice to have an expert support that theory.

Also interesting about the agreement to write something of similar character to PP. That may explain in part the differing views here as to how much NN does resemble the style of PP.

Great post. Keep it up!

[Jonathan]

Kim wrote: "Hi guys! Haven't been around this week (seizures) so here's what I have to contribute about some of the things I just read. Regarding the two inserted stories according to my edition it says "Dic..."

Great post Kim and great timing to as you wait for me to praise and rant over the short stories, and the minute after I conclude my two well thought out hypotheses and support them with stunning arguments, you offer us undeniable proof that they were mere fillers thrown at us to meet a deadline. All jokes aside, those are valuable pieces of information and it is nice to get the explanation straight from the horse's mouth: of course, in this case, the horse is Dickens and not you.

I meet this news with mixed emotions, the foremost of which is the sinking feeling that this disclosure certainly cheapens the novel for me. I justified the stories' insertion with the suggestion that this scene may have been etched into the plot beforehand, and therefore the telling of the stories added necessary details to the sketch (literary) of the scene. I must now concede my point to the illustrious Everyman who smelled the rat from the very beginning and notified us of the foul odor by declaring that the stories didn't fit. Obviously, this kind of literary sense is the product of many years of both leisurely reading and careful study. I now declare that he must be a genius, rather than a humbug, and continue to thank my lucky stars that I did not openly call him the latter, as I would no doubt would by now find myself eating that word even though it would have only been used in a Pickwickian sense.

The other attitude provoked by Kim's information is one of profound respect for the talented author, as I am quite impressed that he just so happened to have a couple of complete short stories just lying around, which came to his rescue in the nick of time, and although we have all agreed that they have nothing to do with the goings on inside of the novel, I still maintain that they are of high quality, at least somewhat entertaining, and the first one raises, if not answers some interesting philosophical questions.

[Tristram]

I'd also like to thank you, Kim, for providing the information which puts an end to all our futile musings upon the higher ends of the two short stories.

Although this truth, as many a one, is prosaic and, due to its sobering effects, even unpalatable, it does not really cheapen the novel for me because it shows what a gifted writer Dickens already was. I mean it is not too astonishing that he had two short stories in stock since, I'm afraid, there are a great many short stories biding their time in a great many people's bedside tables, but then what Jonathan said in message 31 is still true: Dickens tries to have his characters derive certain conclusions from these stories so that they are not completely hanging in mid-air. Of course, in the light of the information offered by Kim, I would no longer hold on to my lurid speculations in post 32, but I still think that these two stories share some common ground, viz. the way that people deal with the whips and scorns of time. This becomes clear when you consider the two narrators of the stories, who - this may be a weak point - have no bearing on the main plot. You don't even have to like the two stories - I for my part cannot say that I did - in order to see Dickens's craft even when, as he was serving two masters, both OT and NN, at the same time, he had to - in German we say "mit heißer Nadel nähen", i.e. to sew with a hot needle - do a hurried job.

[Debbie]

I am new to the group and so happy to have found you all. What a coincidence, that I just finished OT, as have you all. I could hardly put it down, imagining the Victorian men and women waiting so patiently for the next installment, I tried, to no avail.
My interest in Dickens personal life has been piqued, any discussions thereof would be most welcoming. I found the 'Baron...' short story very much reflective of his unhappy life as a husband, father, provider. Does anyone else see this? Or is it foreshadowing of his life to come?

[Debbie]

P.S. I am on chapter VII of NN and quickly catching up to you all.

[Jess]

hi, i am new too! i actually read nicholas nickleby in january or something like that, but it would be fun to revisit/reread it with this group--- i did not have anybody to talk to about it while i was reading it.

i think it is an absolutely great book. charming and sprawling.

[Martha]

Welcome, Debbie & Jess! Glad you've joined us!