The Pickwick Club discussion
Nicholas Nickleby
>
Nickleby, Chapters 21-26
message 1:
by
Jonathan
(new)
Jul 25, 2013 07:44PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
In Chapter 22, on p.277, I came across a very amusing little sentence, when the landlord of the inn Nicholas and Smike stop at tells them about Mr. Crummles and says, when Nicholas utters his apprehensions on intruding upon Mr. Crummles, "He'll like your way of talking."I found this very funny because, as I have already said quite a lot of times, I find Nicholas's way of talking very stilted and typical of cheap 19th century melodrama. So what have we got here then? Is it an ironic little side blow on the narrator's part against a protagonist whom he finds it difficult to warm up with? Or is it simply some joke made by the landlord? Or does it not mean anything at all?
Jonathan once asked what we think of the short little introductions going with each chapter and if they did not give too much information away. I must say that I actually enjoy them, especially when they use puns such as the text for Chapter 22: "Madame Mantalini finds herself in a Situation of some Difficulty, and Miss Nickleby finds herself in no situation at all"
I must furthermore say that I thoroughly enjoy the Crummles family and their company of actors. They are incredibly likeable.And yet, we have another instance of Nicholas's social pride as well as his tendency to talk like a ham,"'It's not in my nature [...] to resist any entreaty, unless it is to do something positively wrong; and, beyond a feeling of pride, I know nothing which should prevent my doing this. I know nobody here, and nobody knows me. So be it then. I yield.'" One should certainly think that a man talking like this would not find it too difficult to come up with a melodrama for the Crummleses in two days.
There is also another instance of Nicholas's unwise behaviour to women, when he pays exaggerated compliments to Miss Snevellicci:
"'But really,'said Miss Snevellicci, 'my darling Led, who lives with me here, was taken so very ill in the night that I thought she would have expired in my arms.'
'Such a fate is almost to be envied,' returned Nicholas, 'but I am very sorry to hear it nevertheless.'
'What a creature you are to flatter!' said Miss Snevellicci, buttoning her glove in much confusion.
'If it be flattery to admire your charms and accomplishments,' rejoined Nicholas, laying his hand upon the scrap-book, 'you have better specimens of it here.'" [Chp. 24, p.309]
Considering that Nicholas in his hearts of hearts must be inclined to look down on these actors, his flatteries are rather condescending and seem like a joke at Miss Snevellicci's expense. Apart from that this conversation takes place in the semi-privacy of the lady's lodgings - with only Mis Ledrock next door, if I'm not mistaken - so that his verbal homage to Miss S. can easily get him into trouble again. - Will this young man ever learn?
Mod
That's the best one so far...
Tristram wrote: "In Chapter 22, on p.277, I came across a very amusing little sentence, when the landlord of the inn Nicholas and Smike stop at tells them about Mr. Crummles and says, when Nicholas utters his appre..."That has been one of my favorite lines of the novel, actually. It made me chuckle.
Mod
I took this to mean that Nicholas was a better speaker than what Crummles was probably accustomed to, being, as he was, a gentleman, at least in his upbringing. I didn't quite find that the innkeeper was referring to a queer manner of speaking.
Mod
As for the theatre group, those chapters have been my least favorite so far. I feel as if it is too melodramatic. I've been considering if maybe Dickens overdid the section. They didn't appeal to me. However, part of this might be that I much prefer Kate to her brother. I do not find NN worthy of much attention, although this could change. I often find myself changing opinions of characters by the end of the novel. The best example is my feelings for the prisoner in "Great Expectations." By the end, I pitied and believed him to be a good-hearted man, but in the beginning he was a terrifying criminal. For me, Kate has been easier to identify with and her circumstances have come across harsher than those of her brother. The scene at the dinner with Ralph struck a chord with me. Mrs. Knagg, (love the names, the play on the word "nag"), Ralph and Hawk seem much more insidious and evil. It's as if they have no reason to dislike Kate and so it is more heartbreaking that such a nice, young woman is being treated so poorly.
Whereas Nicholas at times acts impertinent and is quite rude. He isn't very nice to Fanny Squeers or Ralph, although I admire his audacity in standing up to his only relative and choosing to make his own way.
Unfortunately, I am slightly angry that he does so little for his mother and sister. He basically goes on with his life completely self-absorbed with little care or attention to them. He seems to care more about Smike than his own family. This is one of many reasons I do not care for him, and my dislike brings me back to the idea that if a theme of the novel is social classes, then is Dickens making a point with his characcterization of NN. I think it can be argued that NN may not be worth the role of title character. If so, is Dickens saying that the higher classes are not worthy of the attention they get? They didn't earn the attention, it's a matter of birth and one doesn't choose their parents. In fact, perhaps my preference for Kate, could be a statement about the position of women in 19th century London society.
I absolutely love the theater chapters. (sorry Nicole)The description of the play Nicholas sees in Chapter 24 makes me laugh every time I read it. And the description of the trip to the wedding in Chapter 25. I like the line "The bridesmaids were quite covered with artificial flowers, and the phenomenon, in particular, was rendered almost invisible by the portable arbour in which she was enshrined."
Speaking of the infant phenomenon, according to my notes both she and her father were also based on real people:
"It seems likely that Dickens modeled Vincent Crummles and his daughter Miss Ninetta Crummles on the actor-manager T.D. Davenport and his daughter Jean. 'Infant phenomena' were a regular feature of many theatrical shows during the early decades of the nineteenth century. Davenport and his daughter appeared on the Portsmouth stage in March 1837, and playbills announced that the nine-year-old prodigy would play a variety of parts, including Shylock, Little Pickle and Hector Earsplitter, sing songs ranging from 'Since Now I'm Doom'd' to 'I'm a Brisk and Sprightly Lad Just Come Home from Sea' and dance both sailor's hornpipes and Highland flings."
As for Nicholas, I don't dislike him, in fact for me he gets better as the book goes. But he does go around saying the "dumbest" things, things that if he said to me I would be rolling my eyes and walking away, but he's no worse than people I know now. And if I was his mother, I would have told him to go get a job when he got out of school in the first place. His uncle Ralph did when he got out of school, so why didn't he?
I must also say that the theatre chapters are one of the highlights for me. You really notice Dickens's enthusiasm for the stage in his good-natured mockeries. Together with Newman, and Mrs. Nickleby, Mr. Crummles is one of my favourite characters so far.Have you also noticed that the infant phenomenon is never given a word of dialogue by Dickens? Considering her domineering presence on stage I find this rather odd. Is it just a coincidence, or does Dickens want to make some point here?
Nicole wrote: "As for the theatre group, those chapters have been my least favorite so far. I feel as if it is too melodramatic. "I tend to agree with you. This verges into slapstick, whereas the novel up to this point has been much more realistic-melodramatic.
I suspect that those who like the Pickwick Papers a lot will like the theatrical scenes, and vice-versa.
This relates to a point I'll make in a separate post.
Nicole wrote: "Unfortunately, I am slightly angry that he [Nicholas] does so little for his mother and sister. He basically goes on with his life completely self-absorbed with little care or attention to them. He seems to care more about Smike than his own family. "Again, I agree with you.
Usually, when I get as far into a novel as we are into NN, I have some idea what the author's overall intention is and what sort of novel he or she is writing. With NN, I have no idea what Dickens is doing or why he's doing it. Nicholas himself is not a well developed person. I don't have a good picture of him or what he is like, which is unusual for my experience of Dickens. He is to much of a flitter. He starts out with no real intention to do anything. He agrees to try teaching, with no apparent aptitude for it or training for it, which annoys me as a former teacher who thinks it requires a bit more than just the ability to read and write. As Nicole noted, he seems to have more of a concern for Smike, whom he has just met, than he has for his mother and sister, whom he is quite happy to leave on their own in London and go off to who knows what. He thinks he can be a sailor, which is absurd. He thinks he can be an actor and playwright, which is equally absurd. I suppose as things go on he'll spend some time as a horse trainer, a stained glass window designer, or who knows what.
The only thing that seems consistent about him so for in these first 20+ chapters is that he has a great deal of personal interest in a young man and absolutely none in any young woman.
Everyman wrote: "Usually, when I get as far into a novel as we are into NN, I have some idea what the author's overall intention is and what sort of novel he or she is writing. With NN, I have no idea what Dickens..."Yes, we don't really know in what direction the novel is heading as there does not seem to be any main conflict and as Dickens is constantly introducing new characters and dropping them from the stage with equal alacrity. But then this is a picaresque novel in the vein of Pickwick Papers ...
I completely share your dissatisfaction with Nicholas, who seems to be rather feckless and spoilt a young man. It is preposterous to go and just do some teaching or to go aboard a ship and want to be a sailor. I quite like your job suggestions for Nicholas and would want to add two ideas of my own: Nicholas could become a lions' dentist or the governor of an island. This could even be the subject of a fun thread - suggesting new lines of trade for Nicholas ...
All in all, however, Nicholas appears rather spoilt, as I already said. However, he is ready to send a large portion of his earnings to his family.
I do, though, think that Nicholas has already shown some interest in a young woman. Remember the scene in the job office when the unknown beauty enters and Nicholas reacts with his usual indignation to the clerk's nudge-nudge-nudges.
Tristram wrote: "All in all, however, Nicholas appears rather spoilt, as I already said. However, he is ready to send a large portion of his earnings to his family."Unfortunately, a large portion of nothing is nothing.
I am crawling out of this dark corner where I lurk and admit (and I am ashamed to say) that I have again fallen WAY behind on my reading and have no hope of catching up to take part in the discussion. Now I will return to my dark corner and read everyone else's posts. Sigh.
Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "All in all, however, Nicholas appears rather spoilt, as I already said. However, he is ready to send a large portion of his earnings to his family."Unfortunately, a large portion..."
Yes, but if nothing is given in the spirit of generosity, should we not take it for what it is? ;-)
Mary Ellen wrote: "I am crawling out of this dark corner where I lurk and admit (and I am ashamed to say) that I have again fallen WAY behind on my reading and have no hope of catching up to take part in the discussi..."Even if you have fallen behind, there is still the opportunity to post your observations on what you have already read, because group members get notified when postings have been added in older threads. So don't feel obliged to stay in your dark corner, Mary Ellen ;-)
Mod
I was starting to think about this a few days ago. While I was moving, I had some time to reflect, as I had very little time to read. I blame the serialization and the fact that Dickens was writing for commercial purposes. That's the problem, IMO. He has a certain number of installments in mind, and is working out the story to meet deadlines and length requirements.
Another way of looking at this is that most of the early English novels are about a person's life. Oliver Twist was the plot of Oliver Twist, etc. I have not read Tom Jones (sorry Tristram), but I expect we should find the same thing there. In fact, any book named after a character is usually not so much plot-based as it is a fictional biography. We could say the life of NN is the plot of this text.
Mod
The problem is we have a chameleon-like character, who changes to fit what the author wants to do in the serials. Essentially, it seems we are coming to the conclusion that we have character molded to fit the plot, and a plot that is said character's life, and thus, we get a neverending circle. Over the years, the critics have said that plots were Dickens weak point, so we shouldn't be surprised.
If not for the plot, or a pressing problem to be solved, why should we read NN?
Mod
Only in A Tale of Two Cities have I found myself absorbed in a Dickens' plot. Truth be told, I think any book this long would be hard-pressed to stick to a main topic. Victorian novels seem to have a broader scope, anyways. They encompass a character's life, or a county's society, etc.
I like Dickens because of the language. He is not overly wordy, like Eliot. Yet, he is not ridiculously simple like Hemingway. Like Shakespeare, he has an easily identifiable voice, which adds to the lure of his works.
I also like his comedic scenes, and the narrator's sarcastic comments on the characters' actions.
I am curious to hear what others think....
One idea that strikes me as odd is that Dickens, a resourceful young man who certainly knew his onions and his way about life, should come up with such a feckless hero as Nicholas - a young man who has no practical sense whatsoever.
Jonathan wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Usually, when I get as far into a novel as we are into NN, I have some idea what the author's overall intention is and what sort of novel he or sh..."I must say that I hardly read Dickens for his plots, but for his immortal characters and for his brilliant language, and mentioning him along with a genius like Shakespeare makes definitely sense to me. That said, I would not really agree with your harsh view on Hemingway, feeling that the scarcity of language Hemingway employs mirrors a certain outlook on life. Reading him is like watching a movie, by the way.
Poor Nicholas, you guys are always picking on him!! He does get better (slightly) as the book goes on. As for Dickens, I love his plots, I love his language, I really love all the characters in his novels, I love his comedic scenes, and especially I love his sarcasm.Anyway, what I really want to know is, where in the world are we supposed to be in this book? I'm way past chapter 26 and I lost count of which chapter we're at. Mainly because I wasn't counting--I hate math. (sorry Everyman if you were a math teacher).
Mod
I think somewhere around Chapter 35. There is a reading schedule, but it seems the discussion is lagging behind it about a week.
TEveryman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "All in all, however, Nicholas appears rather spoilt, as I already said. However, he is ready to send a large portion of his earnings to his family."Unfortunately, a large portion..."
Yes, but if nothing is given in the spirit of generosity, should we not take it for what it is? ;-) "
In the spirit of generosity, I'm giving you 10% of what I made in the stock market today.
Wait, I had a loss of $104.75. So you owe me. Please send me a check for $10.47 in appreciation of my generosity to you.
Jonathan wrote: "We could say the life of NN is the plot of this text. "Well, yes, but of course NN's life is whatever Dickens says it is. He's not writing biography, but fiction. Unless he's an early inventor of fiction of the absurd, or of the philosophy of nihilism, there should be some consistency, some point to the life he is creating. At least, so I believe.
Jonathan wrote: "I also like his comedic scenes, and the narrator's sarcastic comments on the characters' actions."
Which was fine for Sketches by Boz and the Pickwick Papers, which weren't supposed to be novels.
Jonathan wrote: "Truth be told, I think any book this long would be hard-pressed to stick to a main topic. Victorian novels seem to have a broader scope, anyways. They encompass a character's life, or a county's society, etc. "That opens up a wonderful area for discussion. I agree with you that Victorian novels tend to have a broader scope than modern novels, but I decidedly don't agree as a general rule that they don't stick to a main topic. I think of long novels such as Barchester Towers, Middlemarch, Anna Karenina, Orley Farm, Vanity Fair, even Bleak House, and while they all do have an expanded view of society, they also all, in my opinion, do hang together as well structured novels and not simply as a sequence of largely unrelated episodes strung together.
I guess my major complaint so far is that there is no coherent reason why Nicholas jumps from one thing to another, nor, as far as I can see, does he have a character which makes sense of these changes. I just don't think that real people behave the way he does. And for me, a successful character in a novel may surprise us with the choices he or she makes, but those choices are, or turn out to be, consistent with the character's basic human nature, and major changes in that character are justified by some event or events. Here, there's nothing I can see in Nicholas's character which explains why he goes from teaching in Yorkshire almost directly into throwing himself without any preparation or consideration into an attempt to become a seaman. (Compare with Ishmael, who also transitions from teacher to seaman, but for whom the reasons for the transition are laid out for us and the preparations he makes are sensible and intelligent.)
All that said, I agree with those who really like Dickens's writing,his settings, his ability to create distinct and interesting characters (excluding, so far, Nicholas, who for me is the least interesting major character in the book), and his vivid presentation of life in mid-Victorian England.
Mod
At least to some extent, this is autobiographical. Dickens did have to find a way to catapult himself back to the genteel status, which his father had forfeited. Looking back at the first twenty or so years of Dickens life, it is easy to see where the idea for this project came from, that the major conflict was similar to his personal struggles, and that he is, therefore, writing from an area of his expertise (by first-hand experience). Perhaps, we can enjoy the novel from that standpoint. I dislike Nicholas less than I disliked Oliver. At least, the former has a few quirks.
Mod
Well, yes, but of course NN's life is whatever Dickens says it is. He's not writing biography, but fiction. Unless he's a..."
This is a point that I had planned on bringing up, but apparently, I went off on some kind of rabbit-trail, and only THOUGHT that I did so. Here is what I was thinking:
Why is Nicholas' life supposed to be interesting? How is this novel supposed to affect the reader? Is NN the character supposed to be some kind of a hero, whose fictional existence is designed to inspire inside of, or teach something to, those who meet him through the medium of these pages?
There are not any clear cut answers to these questions, through the first 26 chapters. Nicholas is not Dantes or Beowulf or Telemachus or Odysseus or anyone who can be considered a great literary hero. If NN, the novel, was supposed to be saying something, I think Dickens got that out in the first few chapters at the boys' school.
My point is that although the hero who lends his name to the work kind of sucks, and although Dickens' social satire didn't make it very far into the work, it is still entertaining to read. I am still enjoying it, even though. I am, not because I am so interested in what happens or what the author is trying to say, but in the unique, and inimitable way in which he is going to say it. I don't even care if it is much ado about NOTHING, because that might very well be how this turns out.
I am reading Disgrace and The Count of Monte Cristo to find out what happens, because they are exciting stories. I am reading NN because Dickens cheers me up with his characters and his wit. No author was great at everything.
Mod
This is the problem with deadlines, hungry bellies, and writing for a living. It is no longer artwork, but simply work.
Jonathan wrote: "Why is Nicholas' life supposed to be interesting? How is this novel supposed to affect the reader? Is NN the character supposed to be some kind of a hero, whose fictional existence is designed to inspire inside of, or teach something to, those who meet him through the medium of these pages?"Well, let me ask it this way. Does anybody here really CARE what happens to Nicholas? If he were killed in a fire in the theater, which happened often enough in those days, would anybody here really regret his death any more than they would regret the death of any character in literature?
For myself, I'm finding it hard to keep turning these pages instead of those of other books that I am in the process of reading in parallel, because I really don't have any feeling for any of the characters except Kate. And to a lesser extent Miss La Creevy. Other than those, Dickens has failed to excite my interest to any degree.
Who does anybody else care about?
Jonathan wrote: "I am still enjoying it, even though. I am, not because I am so interested in what happens or what the author is trying to say, but in the unique, and inimitable way in which he is going to say it. I don't even care if it is much ado about NOTHING, because that might very well be how this turns out. "Ah. For me, Dickens is still finding his way, and his strengths as a writer. I much prefer some of his later writing, where I think he has mastered himself more than in these early works. They have a slight interest in encouraging me to look for the signs of the mature Dickens to come, but I don't see the hand of the master so far in NN.
Sorry I seem to be so negative in my posts so far. I'll shut up for awhile and let those who enjoy the book do so without my gloom pervading things.
Mod
Everyman, I hope you are not going to "shut up for awhile" because, as Jonathan said, it is different viewpoints that enliven discussions, and Dickens, for all his superiority to many other a writer, is not perfect. [But then, who is?] - It was also in this spirit of fair-minded controversy that I kept on discussing the putting-literature-on-the-screen-bit in yonder thread, so I hope I didn't come over as bloody-minded; this was not my intention. I quite like controversy if it concentrates on the matter at hand and does not get personal.I would also agree with you that NN does not have the greatness of Dickens's later novels. Yet I do enjoy the novel (more than I did OT) because of the exuberant imagination Dickens lets loose on the reader, because of his witty language, his humour, and maybe also because I like the vignette style of 18th century literature (Henry Fielding).
I am agreeing with Everyman. I am not very interested in NN, but am finding myself more interested in his sister. I also keep rewarding myself with reading Shakespeare for finishing my NN chapter for the day.
Kellie wrote: "I also keep rewarding myself with reading Shakespeare for finishing my NN chapter for the day. "If I weren't already happily married (30+ years), I would have to ask you for a date, based in large part on that comment but also because you gave Tess and Austen five stars.
But if you agree with me, I'm curious why you gave NN five stars?
Mod
Jonathan wrote: "Kellie, I should think you would reward yourself for reading Shakespeare with some Dickens. But, that's just me."Hmmm. Maybe some Dickens (Bleak House, The Old Curiosity Shop) and some Shakespeare (Timon of Athens comes to mind as one that would justify rewarding oneself for having gotten through), but when it comes to NN, I'm on Kellie's side.
Mod
I'm with Ralph in one respect: I don't care a lot about Nicholas [except when Kim is within hearing ;-)], but I must say that I feel very impressed with Kate.
First of all, I'm within hearing.Second, definitely reward yourself with Dickens, Bleak House, David Copperfield, The Old Curiosity Shop, Our Mutual Friend, Dombey & Son, Little Dorrit and of course Nicholas Nickleby.
Kate does not get to teach school, act, run around the countryside, beat people up, etc. so Nicholas definitely has a more interesting life.
And Everyman, I think you also rated Nicholas Nickleby five stars unless I'm seeing things!!!:-}
Oh, I've also been married 30+ years if you count both marriages together.:-}
Kim wrote: "And Everyman, I think you also rated Nicholas Nickleby five stars unless I'm seeing things!!!:-}"That was my younger, less mature self. [g]
Mod
From Chapter 26:'Suppose,' said Sir Mulberry, pausing with a morsel on the point of his fork, 'suppose we go back to the subject of little Nickleby, eh?'
'Which little Nickleby; the money-lender or the ga-a-l?' asked Lord Verisopht.
'You take me, I see,' replied Sir Mulberry. 'The girl, of course.'
'You promised me you'd find her out,' said Lord Verisopht.
'So I did,' rejoined his friend; 'but I have thought further of the matter since then. You distrust me in the business—you shall find her out yourself.'
'Na-ay,' remonstrated Lord Verisopht.
'But I say yes,' returned his friend. 'You shall find her out yourself. Don't think that I mean, when you can—I know as well as you that if I did, you could never get sight of her without me. No. I say you shall find her out—SHALL—and I'll put you in the way.'
Two things. One I'll ask here since it's from Chapter 26, the other I'll post in the next section.
One: based only on what you read up to this point, not basing it on things yet to come, what does he mean by "find her out?" I don't understand that phrase in this context, or what Dickens is driving at.
Mod
My 5 start rating was an accident, I am going to correct that now.
I wonder why my tastes didn't change as I matured? I loved Nicholas Nickleby twenty years ago (yes 5 stars) and I love it today. Oh, I know I never matured. As long as there's hair color I'll never get older. :}
