Sorry, you must be a member of this group to do that.
The Pickwick Club discussion
Nicholas Nickleby
>
Nickleby, Chapter 59-The End
message 1:
by
Jonathan
(new)
Sep 12, 2013 08:35PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
1) The Pickwick Papers (5*)
2) Nicholas Nickleby (4*)
3) Oliver Twist (3*)
Well, my results are exactly the same as Jonathan's - although as far as The Pickwick Papers are concerned I'm forced to base my judgment on whatever I remember from the book from when I last read it - this is more than 10 years ago, I think.However, I heartily liked it because I have this thing for rambling stories that seem to have no single point but try to re-create life in all its variety and colour.
Rating just the first three---OK,
Nicholas Nickleby 5*
The Pickwick Papers 5*
Oliver Twist 5*
that's my star rating for those three books comparing them to all other books I've read and can remember (at least vaguely remember).
my rating of dickens books versus only other dickens books would be:
NN 5*
Pickwick 4*
Oliver 3*
If that doesn't make sense too bad. :} I'm back from vacation by the way.
Now Jonathan wants to know why I rate it 5 stars. Because I love it, because it makes me laugh and it makes me cry and it's silly and the coincidences are amazing. (and totally believable). NN keeps me entertained, I don't have to try to figure out what is happening in the book, Dickens answers all the questions. None of the those books where at the end I'm sitting here thinking - what in the world did that mean?- everything is taken care of by the end. Nick, Kate, Mrs. N, Mrs. La Creevy, Ralph, Crummles, Hawk, Frank, Smike, it's all wrapped up at the end. I just get to enjoy it.
Kim wrote: "Rating just the first three---OK,
Nicholas Nickleby 5*
The Pickwick Papers 5*
Oliver Twist 5*
that's my star rating for those three books comparing them to all other books I've read and can ..."
Of course, the score I gave also refers to the respective books in comparison with other Dickens books. If I had to compare them with non-Dickens, NN would fare better, although OT wouldn't.
Mod
Maybe Austen, but you don't want to branch out to far ya know!
Mod
Mod
Jonathan wrote: "Kim, my only question for you is why are you reading other books than those of Dickens? :) Maybe Austen, but you don't want to branch out to far ya know!"
Once upon a time...I used to read "A Christmas Carol" every year. (in the summer when it's hot & yucky & I miss Christmas most) and it occurred to me that I had read that book about 20 times and never read any other Dickens. (I used to read new releases, best sellers, etc.) So off to the bookstore I went grabbed a Dickens book, went home & read it and hated it. It was "A Tale Of Two Cities". I couldn't even figure out what he was talking about most of the time.
So back to the bookstore I went, grabbed another Dickens, read it and loved it. It was Nicholas Nickleby. Then I got another & another & another, till I had read them all. Then I didn't know what to read (I no longer had any interest in best sellers or new releases) so I asked a teacher I knew and he told me to read Thackeray, he's the next best thing to Dickens. (He's not). Then came Trollope & Austen & Collins & here I am now with long lists of "classics" and still reading. :} (but always still re-reading Dickens).
Oh, reading A Tale Of Two Cities was much easier the second & third time. :}
Tristram wrote: "Kim wrote: "Rating just the first three---OK,
Nicholas Nickleby 5*
The Pickwick Papers 5*
Oliver Twist 5*
that's my star rating for those three books comparing them to all other books I've r..."
Poor Oliver, and while I'm at it poor Nell (The Old Curiosity Shop is coming up).:}
Jonathan wrote: "Kim, my only question for you is why are you reading other books than those of Dickens? :) Maybe Austen, but you don't want to branch out to far ya know!"
Well, she can certainly add Hardy, Eliot, and Trollope to Dickens and Austen. Who knows, when we have finished reading all of Dickens, some year, we might go on Hardy or Trollope (Austen has her own group, but neither of the others do).
A few miscellaneous thoughts on the ending:So Dickens pulled out the old lost document ploy. It won't be the last time -- we can look for him to do it again, but I won't say what or in which book because those would be spoilers. So just wait and see him do it again.
Did even Austen in any of her books dare to have three happy weddings in such quick succession? (P&P has three, but one of them is earlier, and a disaster.) By the end I was trying hard to keep swimming through the endless flow of treacle which overflowed the pages. All the good people rewarded, all the bad people punished, no moral ambiguity whatsoever. This is not the work of a mature novelist. We are still firmly planted in the world of the romantic comedy, not in realism.
So we did after all find out whose son Smike was. Yet another absurd coincidence that without knowing it Ralph sent Nicholas to the same school in which his son, not dead after all, had been virtually imprisoned. Yet another example of many showing that we are in a world of fantasy, not realism.
Why I once gave NN five stars I have no idea. I have revised my view, and have written a review in which I drop it to three stars, and even that may be more kindness than accuracy.
Still, it was worth reading as part of a sequential reading of the novels in order to see how greatly Dickens grew into his literary maturity.
Everyman wrote: "A few miscellaneous thoughts on the ending:So Dickens pulled out the old lost document ploy. It won't be the last time -- we can look for him to do it again, but I won't say what or in which boo..."
When I read NN the first time I gave it five stars (or I would have if I were giving anything stars) and I STILL give it five stars! Come on, everybody good is rewarded, everybody bad is punished, what more could you want! Wouldn't life be great if it was really like that? (oh, except Smike). And I LOVE the coincidences. I would say now that I'm older I still give it five stars but I never get older. You're just mean. :}
Now that we're at the end I was wondering:Everything is NICELY wrapped up by the end. The good guys get good things. Nick, Kate, Frank, Madeline, Tim, Miss LaCreevy, all are married. Mrs. N, the Cheeryble's, Newman Noggs, everyone else is nice & happy. The bad guys are either death or in prison.
Even Mr. Mantalini is found living in a cellar with a scolding screaming woman doing laundry. But what happened to Mrs. Mantalini??
Next, when Dickens sat down to start writing NN do you think he knew the ending? Did he know Nick marries a girl named Madeline, Kate married Frank? Did he know Ralph dies and Smike dies and Lord V dies? Did he know the Crummles and the Kenwigs and the Mantalinis? Or did he make them up as he wrote?
Kim wrote: " Come on, everybody good is rewarded, everybody bad is punished, what more could you want! "What I could want is a little moral ambiguity, a little recognition of the reality that life just doesn't work this way. Everybody good rewarded and everybody bad punished works out for Cinderella and other fairy tales, but I look for something a bit deeper in a serious novel.
But then, I'm weird.
Kim wrote: "Next, when Dickens sat down to start writing NN do you think he knew the ending? Did he know Nick marries a girl named Madeline, Kate married Frank? Did he know Ralph dies and Smike dies and Lord V dies? Did he know the Crummles and the Kenwigs and the Mantalinis? Or did he make them up as he wrote? "Great question. I know that in his later novels he plotted things out in advance -- his notebooks from that period survive and are great fun to look at. But I suspect that NN is different. It just, for me, doesn't fit that well together; it's more a series of episodes into which at times he thrusts characters he has on the stage because he has them more than because it makes sense.
An example of why I don't think he plotted it out in advance is the duel. It's such a clumsy way of getting rid of two characters he no longer has any use for. It has no role in the plot; rather, it seems another of those polemics he plugs into the book (others being his attack on Yorkshire schools, and his complaints about theft of intellectual property.
One possible exception to the "no moral ambiguity" and "the good people get good things and the bad people get bad things" concepts is Fanny Squeers. She didn't have an evil heart, as other characters did, nor was she pure virtue, as other characters are. She is one of the most human -- perhaps the most human -- of all the characters in the book. Interestingly, we never do find out what happens to her. The other characters get their ends tied up, they get married, or they die, or they are transported, but what happens to Fanny? How does she live? She actually still has the courage at the end to remain brave and not dissolve into tears as her life falls apart around her. Do John and Tilda Browdie actually help her as he says they will? It's all left a mystery after the school dissolves and the boys all run away.
I fully agree with Everyman: Especially the duel shows that Dickens just wanted to get rid of Verisopht and Hawk because there was another major conflict that just cropped up, namely the whole Madeline Bray and Arthur Gride thing, which, by the way, was also solved in a deus ex machina way that made me wonder if Dickens had really given much thought to how he would carry this conflict on.The same goes for Kate. Suddenly we have Mr. Cheerible the younger appear, and it is so clear he will end up as Kate's husband that his initial interest in Madeline is really of no consequence. All this reminds me a bit of the ending of Monty Python's Holy Grail except that their ending is absolutely brilliant in its absurdity.
But then again, it's Dickens, and I don't read him because of his plots.
Kim, I'm just wondering how anybody could have recommended Thackeray as being the next best thing to Dickens. I mean there is Trollope, there is Eliot, there is Austen, there is the directory of Berlin, and, yes, there is Thackeray ;-)
One of the authors I wonder there is no reading group about is Joseph Conrad. I don't know if anybody here would be interested in devoting some time to him?
Kim wrote: "Even Mr. Mantalini is found living in a cellar with a scolding screaming woman doing laundry. But what happened to Mrs. Mantalini??."Is Mrs. M. not back in business again with Miss Knag as her partner?
Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: " Come on, everybody good is rewarded, everybody bad is punished, what more could you want! "What I could want is a little moral ambiguity, a little recognition of the reality that lif..."
So true, the weird part I mean. I only like weird people, the rest are boring. :}
Everyman wrote: "One possible exception to the "no moral ambiguity" and "the good people get good things and the bad people get bad things" concepts is Fanny Squeers. She didn't have an evil heart, as other charac..."I agree about Fanny. I think she could have been "saved". Made into one of the "good people" that is. She didn't seem evil to me, but then again neither did Lord Verisopht. It really bothers me that he was killed in the duel, why wasn't that horrible Mulberry Hawk killed in the duel?? I think Lord V could have ended up different, Fanny too. Maybe they could have ended up together. One of you write a story about that. :}
As for why Dickens had the duel at all, beats me, but I sure wish it would have ended different. Lord V could have become such a good, but flawed, person.
Tristram wrote: "Kim, I'm just wondering how anybody could have recommended Thackeray as being the next best thing to Dickens. I mean there is Trollope, there is Eliot, there is Austen, there is the directory of Be..."Yeah, beats me. He told me that Vanity Fair is the closest thing to Dickens I'll find. So I read it, and I don't think he is like Dickens at all. For me Trollope is closer, I love Trollope, but there's only one Dickens.
As for Conrad, sure thing I'm in. Trollope too.
Kim wrote: " I only like weird people, the rest are boring. :}"I know what you mean. But I also like people who are fairly ordinary people caught up in situations that put them in moral dilemmas, and watching them trying to work their way through or out of them. Not plain vanilla people, but people like, say, Fanny, who seemed to me a fairly ordinary girl trying to find a place in a bizarre family and setting.
I agree with what I think you're saying about not caring much for characters like Kate who are bland and, while very nice, never really have to face up to any real challenges or moral dilemmas (having an evil uncle try not all that hard to marry you off isn't all that much of an issue).
In many ways it's a shame, though, that plain ordinary life is so uninteresting in novels. But for that we have to go to the current understanding of history as really dealing as much with the ordinary, daily lives of people as with the larger than life characters who fill most of the history books.
Mod
Maybe Austen, but you don't want to branch out to far ya know!"
Once upon a time...I u..."
If there is an author as good as Dickens, (besides Austen, of course, she was wonderful), then that author is Alexandre Dumas. Their styles are nothing alike; the critics complain of Dickens plots, while Dumas gives us a doctoral worthy lesson on them with each one of his vast works, and the Inimitable relies on brilliant and colorful language to tell his realistic stories with his fantastic characters, while Dumas relies on exciting action to tell his tall tales with his realistic characters. Notwithstanding their dissimilarities, I think Dumas is the next best thing. In fact, he may just be the best thing, considering their two most famous historical novels A Tale of Two Cities and The Count of Monte Cristo, which do you think is better? I think Dickens stepped put of his forte and should have stuck with his Pickwickian type stories. Just some thoughts.
Mod
What I could want is a little moral ambiguity, a little recognition of the reality that lif..."
I can see both sides of the argument, as the self-appointed moderator should. On the one hand, I was emotionally struck by all of the good things happening to the protagonist and his friends. On the other hand, I felt that I had passed through the novel and entered a fairy tale.
As far as plot resolution is concerned this was simple (too simple), yet effective. All of the characters with unresolved issues wind up at the same place and have all of their problems solved in one fell swoop. I found myself saying, "This is why I read. Why can't life be like that? Where are the Mr. Cheerybles in life?" As much as Dickens etches a vivid portrait of some grave injustices here, dealt out, or attempted to be dealt out, by some wicked men, he has also taken the time to sketch a Utopian scene, which inspires a little hope for his readers in perhaps a less believable way. In some of his later works, he won't be so apt to give us the happy ending, maybe then our weird friend Mr. Grump, I think I share the distinction, may be happy then!
Mod
Jonathan wrote: As far as plot resolution is concerned this was simple (too simple), yet effective. All of the characters with unresolved issues wind up at the same place and have all of their problems solved in one fell swoop. I found myself saying, "This is why I read. Why can't life be like that? Yes!! Jonathan said it, this is why I read. Why can't life be like that? It certainly is why I read. Right now I'm sitting here with a horrible headache. Why, you ask. (yes, you did ask) Because on Thursday I had some stupid, annoying lump or growth, or whatever they called it cut off the top of my head and now there's stitches and a big shaved patch, which really annoys me, and it hurts. That's what real life is like and I don't want to read about it, I'll take Dickens any day.
Oh, by the way, now you guys had to read it, so there. :}
Jonathan wrote: I think Dumas is the next best thing. In fact, he may just be the best thing, considering their two most famous historical novels A Tale of Two Cities and The Count of Monte Cristo, which do you think is better? Which do I think is better? AAh, what a question! Now my immediate reaction is Dickens is better of course, no other author is better than Dickens; but I really enjoyed The Count of Monte Cristo.
It's been awhile since I read either one, I think when we get to A Tale of Two Cities I'll re-read The Count of MC along with it just to see how I feel about it then.
For some unknown reason I've never been able to sit back and think about The Count Of Monte Cristo without ending up thinking about Les Miserables. I have never figured out why.
That was a great question Jonathan. :}
As far as Alexandre Dumas is concerned, I think there were two of them, but I never work out who has written which book. To be frank, the only book I liked by them was The Count of Monte Cristo, whereas the Musketeers seemed rather boring to me. Two years ago, I started Le Collier de la reine, which I found so insipid that I did not get beyond the first 100 pages. - When it comes to French literature, my two favourites are clearly Zola and Hugo. Voilà!Therefore I'll agree with Kim and say Trollope is, in a way, the next best thing to Dickens - but I would always keep Joseph Conrad and Dostoevsky out of that competition.
Mod
Off topic:Kim wrote: "on Thursday I had some stupid, annoying lump or growth, or whatever they called it cut off the top of my head and now there's stitches and a big shaved patch, which really annoys me, and it hurts. That's what real life is like and I don't want to read about it, I'll take Dickens any day."
Sorry to hear that, but probably better that you got it removed than not. But please take my -- I'm sure all of our -- best wishes and get well soon.
Meanwhile, if you really want some it-all-works-out-for-the-best reading that has the best chance of overcoming your headache, try Wodehouse. He's my all time go-to author when I'm sick or feeling down.
Kim wrote: "It's been awhile since I read either one, I think when we get to A Tale of Two Cities I'll re-read The Count of MC along with it just to see how I feel about it then."And how about the Scarlet Pimpernel? I LOVED that book when I was a lad. Haven't read it for, what, fifty years? But still remember "that demned elusive Pimpernel."
Jonathan wrote: "What I came up with was that Nick should not have gotten his maiden in the end because for the most part he was willing to let her go on the basis of not deserving her, if you recall. "Faint heart should not have won fair lady, eh?
Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "It's been awhile since I read either one, I think when we get to A Tale of Two Cities I'll re-read The Count of MC along with it just to see how I feel about it then."And how about th..."
I loved that book!! Thanks for reminding me of it, it was so much fun!!
Everyman wrote: "Off topic:Kim wrote: "on Thursday I had some stupid, annoying lump or growth, or whatever they called it cut off the top of my head and now there's stitches and a big shaved patch, which really a..."
Thanks for the thoughts. I haven't read any Wodehouse yet, gotta go check it out. :}
Jonathan wrote: "I was thinking about an alternative ending to this one today, since Everyman was not quite pleased with the one that Dickens conjured up and I think every member of the Pickwick club has the right ..."My ending would have been:
Madeline marry Frank just because it seemed like they should be married to me.
Kate should have married the now reformed Lord V
Mrs. N marries the man over the wall, Rocky whats-his-name.
Newman Noggs marries Miss LaCreevy
Nick stays with the Crummles as an actor/writer/producer and marries the infant phenomenon.
Mod
I was sitting here thinking about authors other than Dickens, so I typed into the search the words "authors similar to Dickens" or something like that, and this is what came up on a website called tastekid (hey, don't ask me):" You say you have enjoyed reading Charles Dickens, let's see...
I think you might like some of these similar authors:
George Eliot
Elizabeth Gaskell
Mary Shelley
Robert Louis Stevenson
Mark Twain
Emily Bronte
Louisa May Alcott
Thomas Hardy
Alexandre Dumas
Jonathan Swift
Daphne Du Maurier
Charlotte Bronte
Henry James
Miguel De Cervantes
H. G. Wells
Bram Stoker
so is the tastekid, whoever that may be, right? :}
Jonathan wrote: "I take it Lord V. never died in your version, Kim? Or, is innocent Kate really a zombie lover? Plenty of Goblins we have covered so far in Dickens works, but no zombies. Maybe in A Tale we will enc..."He's not dead in my version, but I'm ok with it if you want to go zombies for the movie, I like horror movies. For the book though if we still kill off Lord V and he doesn't marry Kate I would probably have liked her to marry John Browdie, but he's already married, so now what do I do with his wife?
There are not enough eligible men in this book for my story. I need one for Kate if Lord V is dead and I didn't find one for Fanny Squeers yet. I think she may be saved with the right help.
Kim wrote: " I haven't read any Wodehouse yet, gotta go check it out. :} "Oh, my goodness, do you ever have a treat ahead of you!
I would suggest starting with the Jeeves stories. Wodehouse has a bunch of sets of characters, and some I like better than others, but Bertie and Jeeves are glorious throughout.
Here are a couple you can download free for starters.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8164
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10554
Or you can pick from his other books, listed in order of popularity of downloading, by going to the Gutenberg home page and searching on Wodehouse.
http://www.gutenberg.org/
Enjoy!
Kim wrote: "so is the tastekid, whoever that may be, right? :} "I'm not sure that I would call them that similar to Dickens, but they all wrote in the same general era as Dickens, mostly in English (Cervantes being a major exception, and I would say that Don Quixote is a far, far piece away from Dickens, who was primarily a realist), and although I love Hardy his pessimism/fatalism is totally different from Dickens, but they're all authors worth trying out.
Mod
This is an interesting sidebar, I love sidebars, what if the question shifted from looking for a similar author to looking for similar works? That may prove an interesting discussion point as we move along. Above, I used the comparison of AToTC and TCOMC. They are similar due to their settings, the fact that they are both historical novels to a large degree, there are false imprisonments resulting from tumultuous times and faulty legal systems in both, etc.
Can you think of any novels similar in plot or style to Nicholas Nickleby? Don't say Oliver Twist or David Copperfield, I mean non-Dickensian.
Jonathan wrote: "I was thinking about an alternative ending to this one today, since Everyman was not quite pleased with the one that Dickens conjured up and I think every member of the Pickwick club has the right ..."In fact, Nicholas's reasons for abstaining from Madeline when he notices that the Cheerybles take interest in her well-being can be put down ... not so much to disinterestedness, but actually to pride and personal vanity. Because: Nicholas would not want his benefactors to think that he used the trust they put into him to win the favour of the girl. In other words, he does not want to forfeit their good opinion of him, i.e. it is his concern with what others might think about him that makes him renounce Madeline.
So his love for his own reputation is stronger than his love for Madeline. However likeable this attitude seems to me, in terms of literary justice (thanks, Jonathan!) Nicholas does not really prove worthy of Madeline.
And then there is another, unsettling, question: Is there really any man that, for whatever reasons, deserves being married?
Kim wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I take it Lord V. never died in your version, Kim? Or, is innocent Kate really a zombie lover? Plenty of Goblins we have covered so far in Dickens works, but no zombies. Maybe in A..."You see how difficult it is to find a suitable husband for Kate once Lord V. is dead. By the way, Nicholas, who is quite finnicky about his own pride, would probably never have consented to his sister's marrying any man that is socially so high above the family; no, our Nick would not have that, I'm quite sure. That's why Dickens came up with Frank: He is wealthy but he is not higher in rank than the Nicklebys, who somehow make pretensions to belonging to the landed gentry (even if they've come down in the world), whereas the Cheerybles are social upstarts. And honest ones at that, so that's okay for Nicholas.
Jonathan wrote: "Can you think of any novels similar in plot or style to Nicholas Nickleby? Don't say Oliver Twist or David Copperfield, I mean non-Dickensian." Here's what tastekid said to similar NN books (sorry I couldn't help asking):
I think you might like some of these similar books:
Ronia The Robber's Daughter
Nicholas Nickleby
Little Men
Kidnapped
Much Ado About Nothing
Also, you might enjoy some of these similar movies:
Mr. Deeds Goes To Town
Impromptu
Only Yesterday
Swiss Family Robinson
North And South
Little Dorrit
Emma
And why not try some of these similar bands/artists:
Cheyenne Jackson
Cara Dillon
The High Kings
Steve Miller
That's what tastekid says, I have to think about it a little longer. The music ideas I don't get unless there is a music group named NN.
Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: " I haven't read any Wodehouse yet, gotta go check it out. :} "Oh, my goodness, do you ever have a treat ahead of you!
I would suggest starting with the Jeeves stories. Wodehouse ha..."
Thank you so much! Can't wait to start reading. :}
Right here on goodreads the list I get if I ask for books similar to NN includes:Framley Parsonage by Anthony Trollope
Waverley by Walter Scott
The Woodlanders by Thomas Hardy
Mary Barton by Elizabeth Gaskell
Daniel Deronda by George Eliot
and Armadale by Wilkie Collins
I don't remember thinking any of those were like NN though when I read them.
Kim wrote: "I don't remember thinking any of those were like NN though when I read them. "I agree. It's been a long, long time since I read Waverly, but the Woodlanders has almost nothing in similar with NN that I can see, nor has Daniel Deronda or Framley Parsonage. I've never read Mary Barton or Armadale, so can't comment on them.
But I guess first we have to decide what it is about NN that similar novels should largely match. Some of my thoughts:
1. It lacks a coherent plot, but is a series of episodes in the life of the protagonist largely unconnected to each other except by their happening to she same person. (There seem to be three main episodes: the Yorkshire school teacher, the actor and dramatist, and the confidential clerk.)
2. The characters are universally either good or bad, with no moral ambiguity.
3. There is little character development on the part of any of the main characters. They all wind up pretty much the same people, with the same values and views on life, as where they were at the start of the book.
4. What plot there is relies heavily on sometimes absurdly improbable coincidences. There is little effort to make these coincidences less than absurd by trying to provide some even remotely logical reason for their existence.
5. Several of the characters are presented as comic figures, and some of those seem to exist primarily or even solely to provide a layer of almost slapstick humor. (What other function, for example, function does Mr. Mantalini play other than to be a comic figure? Most Victorian novels have some humor, but not that heavy handed slapstick humor that he represents.)
6. The descriptive writing (mood, place) is very fine. The characters, though in some cases unrealistic, are on the whole well defined and described.
I suggest that these are some of the primary characteristics of the book, and any other novel suggested as similar to it should share at least half, and preferably more than half, of those characteristics.
What other elements or characteristics do you think distinguish this book which a similar book should share?
