The Pickwick Club discussion
Nicholas Nickleby
>
Nickleby, Chapter 59-The End
Mod
This seems to be Dickens forte. His most harshly criticized work is A Tale of Two Cities, in which he had a concise well-developed plot, but according to the experts, the characters were plain and undeveloped. Here, in his earlier works, he spends his time developing the characters and pretty much adapts the plot to the characters. It seems like everyone wants the best of both worlds and sometimes that is too laborious both to read and to write. Does his loose-fitted plot work here? If so, then the fact that it is not going to win any awards or earn any commendation does not necessarily detract from the work as a whole. If it does not work well here, which in my opinion it does not, the plot is so haphazardly strewn together, then, in this case, it does detract from the work as a whole.
I did not find the lack of a plot to be a problem in The Pickwick Papers, but until the very end, I did not find this book very interesting. If we would have had to read more than a chapter a day, I would have fallen greatly behind. I appreciate Dickens' colorful descriptions and elegant language, but this story kind of sucked.
The characters in the Pickwick Papers were more memorable; they had some idiosyncracies which are unforgettable. The humor there worked better. Nickleby actually calls for a stronger, more tightly woven plot, and Dickens failed to deliver that. I think the installment writing played a big role in this dilemma. Also, he was still a young man at the time, and was probably thrown into being a professional writer a few years too early.
Mod
This also was a big problem for me. Not so much with the good characters, besides his standard "too-good-to-be-true" heroine, the protaganist here does have some character flaws, beginning with an explosive temper. However, the Cheerybles are, like Kate, "too-good-to-be-true". This type of fiction I liken to a fable and not a myth. (Sorry Chesterton.) They are stock characters who always do the right thing; in fact, they don't just do the right thing, they go out of their way to make everyone's life perfect, whether that person deserves it or not. A little too over-the-top for me.
Gride, Uncle Ralph, and Squeers are so thoroughly evil that it makes them boring to read. There are no surprises here. The Cheerybles and their counterparts are way too predictable. This does not make for very interesting literature.
"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..."
This was another problem for me. Dickens does not offer his villains any redemption here. The Cheerybles, of course, offer Uncle Ralph some sympathy and some mercy, but he shrugs it off. It is not that I think he necessarily should have become a better person, but it would have been more interesting to see one of these characters change in one or more ways due to their several experiences. It didn't happen, and this was yet another opportunity missed for the author to either entertain us better, or say something meaningful with this work.
Jonathan wrote: "Everyman wrote: "2. The characters are universally either good or bad, with no moral ambiguity."This also was a big problem for me. Not so much with the good characters, besides his standard "too..."
You're both mean. I still give it five stars.:}
Mod
I think the coincidences are absurd. Of course, Smike turns out to be Nicholas' cousin. Of course, Nick meets Frank a day before he is supposed and he just so happens to be trying to kick the crap out of someone for the same reason that Nicholas tried to on the night that he just so happened to run into Sir Mulberry, despite everyone's efforts to the contrary.
In this, Dickens shows a serious lack of planning and imagination. If he had planned the plot better, then these scenes could have fallen into place. If he employed his imagination a little more effectively, then he could have come up with better explanations to appease the skeptic reader.
I usually do not agree so much with you, Everyman, but I am coming over to your side a little bit in these observations.
Mod
This is really why Dickens is my favorite author. I really loved Pickwick, Chuzzlewit, Great Expectations, Copperfield, and Little Dorrit. I try not to let the child-like handling of the coincidences and plot design bother me too much. For interesting plots, I read Dumas. For great satirical descriptions, and colorfully described characters and settings, I reach for Dickens. I do believe Dickens strengths outshined his weaknesses, moreso on down the line as he matured as an author. Unfortunately, he lost some of his boyish charm in his later, darker works.
From George Gissing's The Immortal Dickens:To feel the author's vigorous originality we must turn to the figures which are nowadays commonly spoken of as grotesques -- to Squeers and Newman Noggs, to Mr. Crummles and Tim Linkinwater arid Mr. Kenwigs. These, however grotesque, are living persons, and I think they live not merely by the imaginative power of the novelist; one and all of them Dickens may very well have met. To insist upon the "unreality" of such pictures is to evince slight acquaintance with the life of the lower middle-class, or very imperfect observation. What may be reasonably objected to them is this: that Dickens does not show us the whole man, only certain of his more peculiar aspects. But whatever is given has been truly observed and faithfully rendered in the spirit of the artist. Nay, these figures could not be so amusing, so delightful, but for their genuine humanity. Mr. Squeers, no doubt, had moments when he was not quite the Squeers we know; Mr. Mantalini was not at all times so vivacious, so choice in speech; but our author has shown us these persons on the side that took his fancy, and very wisely abstains from any efforts to complete the portrait.
For an instance of Dickens's ripest humour, maturest work, thus early in his career, turn to Chap. XXXVI: "Private and Confidential; Relating to Family Matters." In plain terms it describes the confinement of Mrs. Kenwigs, from the domestic point of view, and nothing of its kind in English fiction is more masterly.
As always, there is mingled with the writing worthy of being called humorous a good deal of sheer farce; sometimes of indifferent quality, as in the chapter relating to the Muffin and Crumpet Company, and the scene between Mr. Gregsbury and his constituents. Farcical, but in the best sense, is Mr. Mantalini, some of whose utterances show amazing resources of comic inventiveness.
Jonathan wrote: "Everyman wrote: "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 eve..."As for Dickens very believable coincidences John Forster, Dickens's close friend and biographer, wrote:
"On the coincidences, resemblances, and surprises of life, Dickens liked especially to dwell, and few things moved his fancy so pleasantly. The world, he would say, was so much smaller than we thought; we were all so connected by fate without knowing it; people supposed to be far apart were so constantly elbowing each other; and to-morrow bore so close a resemblance to nothing half so much as yesterday."
Kim wrote: "I totally agree with your thoughts, sort of, but where you find..."You must be either a politician or in public relations! [vbg]
Such different tastes we have. I find books without moral ambiguity to be neither realistic (which I think you might agree with) nor interesting (which I think you decidedly disagree with).
Kim wrote: "You're both mean. I still give it five stars.:} "Teacher, she called me mean. That's not kind. [little tear trickling down cheek]
Jonathan wrote: "I usually do not agree so much with you, Everyman, but I am coming over to your side a little bit in these observations. "Stick around. I'll convert you yet! [g]
Kim wrote: "From George Gissing's The Immortal Dickens:... Squeers and Newman Noggs, to Mr. Crummles and Tim Linkinwater arid Mr. Kenwigs. These, however grotesque, are living persons, and I think they live not merely by the imaginative power of the novelist; one and all of them Dickens may very well have met. To insist upon the "unreality" of such pictures is to evince slight acquaintance with the life of the lower middle-class, or very imperfect observation. ...our author has shown us these persons on the side that took his fancy, and very wisely abstains from any efforts to complete the portrait.
"
Interesting thought. I'm not sure I agree with him, but I also think that if there is a better side to, say, Squeers, I expect the author to make me aware of it. When Gissing says "Mr. Squeers, no doubt, had moments when he was not quite the Squeers we know" I would ask him "what makes you think so? What evidence other than completely unsubstantiated hope makes you claim this?"
I think it is not only a reader's right but responsibility to read between the lines of a text, but in this case I think Gissing is not reading between Dickens's lines, but inventing a whole substitute text to read between the lines of. I don't see where in the book he finds any basis to see a soft side of Squeers, or a cruel side of the Cheerybles, or an intellectual side of Mrs. N.
Everyman wrote: "Teacher, she called me mean. That's not kind. [little tear trickling down cheek]"I called you both mean. Go tell the teacher I just called you mean again. Poor Nick. I wonder what I'd be worse at being a politician or being in public relations. Or for that matter being a teacher. It's probably best if I just stay out of the way. :-}
Kim wrote: "It's probably best if I just stay out of the way. :-} "Oh, no. Not that. Life without you would be much duller.
Mod
This made me laugh. I gave it four. I try not to agree with him, because he is mean. But, in this case, Mr. Grumpy and Mr. Mean happens to be right.
Mod
... Squeers and Newman Noggs, to Mr. Crummles and Tim Linkinwater arid Mr. Kenwigs. These, however grotesque, are living persons, and I thin..."
According to Forster, all of these characters would be considered FLAT, since they are all one-dimensional and they never change, even though they are somewhat well-developed. Although, I do think that is to broad of a term. Dickens spent a lot of time on them, but it was basically repetition. Ralph kept on doing mean things. The Cheerybles kept on doing nice things. Yeah, they were all pretty flat, stock characters if you will.
Sorry, Kim. You are nice. Does that make you a flat character? : )
Mod
Jonathan wrote: "Where is Tristram when you need him?"Most likely changing nappies and crooning lullabies ;-) So I missed your very interesting discussion, but reading your entries after the heat had died down gave me the opportunity to find out better where I am standing, and I'd say somewhere in the middle, but tending more towards Kim than to you or Everyman.
Maybe I can explain myself better by using Everyman's brilliant list about what makes NN so special; we should not forget that Everyman was just trying to outline the special features of the novel and not to list up why the book sucked, i.e. these are neutral points.
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.
This is definitely true, but this is typical of quite a bunch of classics starting with Don Quixote and going as far as Thackeray's Barry Lyndon. What this picaresque style usually does is speed up things and give the reader the impression that there is a lot happening. However, I'd say that usually the credibility of the characters is suffering from such an approach because readers might expect them to behave the same way, consistently, in different situations. In a way this kind of writing is plot-centred but at the same time the events seem to contribute to defining the characters. This becomes obvious when you think of all the scrapes Don Quixote gets into because of his delusions. In NN many events seem, for instance, to give Nicholas an opportunity to show his irascible temper and his pride, or Squeers to show his brutishness and his sly hypocrisy.
Which brings us to Everyman's second point:2. The characters are universally either good or bad, with no moral ambiguity.
Given that the events in NN are rather simple evil plans concocted by Ralph to achieve his aims - one wonders how anyone coming up with so easy schemes can be successful in the long run -, which are thwarted (one of my favourite English words) by Nick, moral ambiguity would be difficult to introduce by Dickens as it would definitely slow down the events. Consider, for instance, a Ralph who has some streak of good in him: He would probably hesitate and ask himself if he really should act the way he does. This would provide pages of interior monologue, but that is not what NN is about. The author himself says that his primary aim is to entertain. Even today the most successful stories written / filmed with a view to entertain people use this kind of good-and-evil-patterning.
I think Everyman is right in that if you get too much of it you quickly lose interest - I'd rather turn to the complex inner lives of Conrad's or Dostoevsky's characters then -, but on the other hand this patterning, along with the happy ending in which everyone gets what they deserve soothes my nerves and pours the mellow whisky of moral satisfaction over my jaded soul.
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.I should have mentioned that in connection with the second point but there are some slight instances of a certain ambiguity, e.g. when Ralph seems moved by Kate, or at the end when, overwhelmed with the terrible truth of how he has actually hounded down his own son, he commits suicide. But apart from that, there are certainly not any character changes. I would also agree with Everyman in saying that George Gissing's reasoning is not very convincing: Nowhere in the novel do I find a sympathetic Squeers - one can only make guesses about his marital and familial life, though -, and nowhere do I find any selfishness in these annoying Cheeryble brothers. They are flat characters, and I wonder how one can try to make them seem multi-faceted by intellectual legerdemain. - There are other Dickens novels in which characters do change, but NN is not too much interested in the complexity of the human mind and psyche.
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.One might indeed argue that this feature is a hallmark of a writer's helplessness when it comes to planning his stories. And yet there is such a thing as the "coincidentality" of the tragic, which makes Oedipus, for instance, slay his father and marry his mother - of all people there are to slay (there were a good many in ye olden days) and to marry. Whereas we seem to be more accepting towards this kind of thing in connection with tragedy, we don't like it in a novel that lays claim to a certain closeness to real life. But then there are such coincidences in real life.
The next point is indeed typical of much of Dickens: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.)
Unlike Everyman, however, I consider this a great strength of Dickens's - as much as I like the infinitely finer and subtler humour of Anthony Trollope. This is indeed what makes his characters so unforgettable and endearing and imbues then - in many cases - with a life of their own. Take Oliver Twist, for example, a character who has none of the typical Dickensian quirks and mannerisms: He is as flat as the tyres of a tricycle misappropriated by a circus elephant. But on the other hand, take Mr. Squeers, the one-dimensional villain schoolmaster. It is his constant attempts at creating a respectable appearance, e.g. how he revels in the fatness of his son or how he expresses indignation at the sadness and despair of the boys he torments, among other mannerisms that makes him unforgettable and anything but flat in the strongest sense of the word.
I've already more than once expressed my admiration of how Dickens had his imagination run wild when rendering the effusions of Mrs. Nickleby's conversation; similarly brilliant is the crazy neighbour. - I daresay it is not so easy to write such prose, and I would not at all regard it as heavy-handed. This is part of Dickens's uniqueness.
And finally:6. The descriptive writing (mood, place) is very fine. The characters, though in some cases unrealistic, are on the whole well defined and described.
A good example of Dickens's mastery of description is how he depicts the house in which Arthur Gride resides - everything in there mirrors the tight-fistedness and distrust of its owner. Or remember the coach trip into Yorkshire, where we can really feel the cold and fatigue besetting the passengers. - Dickens will be getting better and better at that as can be seen from Bleak House, Little Dorrit and other great novels of later years.
This was really a great list, Everyman, because it puts in a nutshell the Nicklebyishness of the novel - I won't say Dickensianism, because Dickens constantly changed his ways from novel to novel. Thanks for chiselling it out of the block of the novel, Everyman!While I was commenting on your points, I noticed that I was halfway between adding some thoughts to yours and giving my two cents on how I like this special feature or not so that my musings might have grown somewhat murky.
So, to make matters clearer, here is what I like about Dickens in general: Everyman's points 5 and 6.
Here's what I like about NN: 1, 2 and even 3.
And here's what I - knowing, as a married man, that pleasure and pain are all too often alloyed - begrudgingly accept for the pleasure of reading Dickens: point 4.
All in all, I consider NN a fine and pleasurable novel (something that Messrs Collins and Thackeray could only dream of writing), which at the same time is not on a par with Dickens's true masterpieces (e.g. GE, BH, OMF, MC).
Jonathan wrote: "Kim wrote: "You're both mean. I still give it five stars..."This made me laugh. I gave it four. I try not to agree with him, because he is mean. But, in this case, Mr. Grumpy and Mr. Mean happens..."
OK, FIRST of all, no you’re not right. It hasn’t been easy for me, but as I tell my kids, I always manage to be right.:-}
Jonathan wrote:" The Cheerybles kept on doing nice things. Yeah, they were all pretty flat, stock characters if you will. Sorry, Kim. You are nice. Does that make you a flat character?"
Next, yes I am a flat character. I always try to be nice, often fail, you guys are a true test of my incredible niceness. :} Oh yeah, and in case you didn’t get the first post, I’m right too.
Jonathan wrote: "Help! Everyman has turned me into a Dickens basher. Where is Tristram when you need him?"Yeah, where is Tristram when you need him?
Tristram wrote: "It lacks a coherent plot...This is definitely true, but this is typical of quite a bunch of classicsLife lacks a coherent plot. Yesterday I went to church, watched a NASCAR race, painted Christmas ornaments, talked to my husband’s mother, argued with you guys, watched the Eagles loose a football game, the day before I bought the Byers Choice Charles Dickens caroler, today I’m going to the neurologist then stopping at Boscov’s to see if the Lemax Christmas houses are out yet. What is a coherent plot about any of this?
Tristram wrote: "Which brings us to Everyman's second point:2. The characters are universally either good or bad, with no moral ambiguity.
Given that the events in NN are rather simple evil plans concocted by Ra..."
The characters are good or bad. Good I like good people I don’t like bad people. It’s easy. Besides Lord V wasn’t. The Kenwigs seemed a little of both to me. Crummles seemed mostly good but gave his daughter gin all the time to keep her small, or some such thing. What’s-her-name that Kate briefly worked for who laid on the sofa being “sick” all the time and her husband seemed a little of both. So there.
Tristram wrote: "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 s..."They wind up pretty much the same people. So do we. You’re the ones that want it to be real. No one really changes that much. Again, so there.
Oh, except I have way more gray hair than I did when I was 25 and have to color it once a month. :}
Tristram wrote: "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 logica..."As for coincidences obviously I have to repeat:
As for Dickens very believable coincidences John Forster, Dickens's close friend and biographer, wrote:
"On the coincidences, resemblances, and surprises of life, Dickens liked especially to dwell, and few things moved his fancy so pleasantly. The world, he would say, was so much smaller than we thought; we were all so connected by fate without knowing it; people supposed to be far apart were so constantly elbowing each other; and to-morrow bore so close a resemblance to nothing half so much as yesterday."
Tristram wrote: "The next point is indeed typical of much of Dickens: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 alm..."
Everyman says some of the characters are only comic figures, Tristram says that is one of Dickens great strengths. FINALLY you’re both right. Get Jonathan to agree with you and you’ll all be right at once. :}
Tristram wrote: Most likely changing nappies and crooning lullabies ;-) So I missed your very interesting discussion, but reading your entries after the heat..."
Boy or girl?
Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: Most likely changing nappies and crooning lullabies ;-) So I missed your very interesting discussion, but reading your entries after the heat..."
Boy or girl?"
A girl, and a fastidious one at that ;-)
Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Which brings us to Everyman's second point:2. The characters are universally either good or bad, with no moral ambiguity.
Given that the events in NN are rather simple evil plan..."
Your are right, Kim (although I guess you already know ;-)): There are definitely some characters in between, as Lord V. but still in his case one senses that Dickens had rather have it a question of yes or no in that he had Verisopht die because of his lack of perception and his weakness. His only redemption would have been to completely change his ways and emulate the Cheeryble with regard to boring goodness. - In fact, I think this good-bad-pattern has something to do with the strictly moralistic subtext of Dickens's novels. He does not want to accept that even a Cheeryble can have a got up on the wrong side of the bed. - Another example is Wemmick from GE, in whom there are two sides, completely separated from each other.
Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "It lacks a coherent plot...This is definitely true, but this is typical of quite a bunch of classicsLife lacks a coherent plot. Yesterday I went to church, watched a NASCAR race..."
Yes, but life itself is hardly interesting ... Well, mine isn't ... Simply recording life would not make a real story - that's why the French cinema, or Ulysses, are so utterly and miserably boring. A story needs conflict and events that are meaningful and related to each other.
Mind, I'm not saying that NN is boring - far be it from me -, but people accustomed to the straight story line may find it so.
Oh, I just wanted to tell you guys quick, although I'm pretty sure you already know this; but I am always kidding you. Well not about being grumpy and wrong because you are, but I say it in a warm, loving way. :} I'm always smiling when I read what you say, and remember that it is almost impossible to make me really mad or to hurt my feelings. :} OK, I'll be back with another thought I have, and I have to jump over to sketches, but my doctor appointment is calling. :}
Jonathan wrote: "Help! Everyman has turned me into a Dickens basher. Where is Tristram when you need him?"He he he [evil chuckle]
Kim wrote: "Life lacks a coherent plot. Yesterday I went to church, watched a NASCAR race, painted Christmas ornaments, talked to my husband’s mother, argued with you guys, watched the Eagles loose a football game, the day before I bought the Byers Choice Charles Dickens caroler, today I’m going to the neurologist then stopping at Boscov’s to see if the Lemax Christmas houses are out yet. What is a coherent plot about any of this?"
Two comments.
First, if novels are nothing but echoes of life, what's the point of them? I think they need a purpose beyond that. Otherwise, they're just newspapers or blogs.
Second, I would bet that your life has some intentional plot, whether it is working out or not. I assume that you are working toward some things, whether they be marriage-related, child-related, health-related, career-related, money-related, hobby-related, or whatever. I suspect that you have some idea of where you want to be in your life at some point or points in the future, and while your daily life may look like a series of squiggles on the page, I suspect that the squiggles are generally moving toward one or more coherent purposes.
That's plot. That's life.
Kim wrote: " I like good people I don’t like bad people. "I don't disagree. And when it comes to real live people, I would much rather deal with the good people than the bad people.
But when it comes to reading, perhaps regrettably but also truthfully, I find the bad people (or I should more accurately say people acting, for the moment, badly, whether they are really bad people) more interesting to read about.
In Paradise Lost, Satan is much more interesting than God.
In the Iliad, Achilles is more interesting to read about than Hector.
In NN, Ralph is more interesting than the Cheerybles. Not that I would rather deal with Ralph in real life; I wouldn't. But the Cheerybles, after a while, bore me, they're so predictable. Ralph keeps coming up with new schemes that are more interesting, to me, to read about than the niceness of the Cheerybles. Sure, I want Ralph to fail. That's part of the fun. But to want to watch him fail requires that he do something bad.
Kim wrote: "I like good people I don’t like bad people....Life lacks a coherent plot."Do you really want to read a book entirely about good people doing nice things to each other at random, with no apparent plot and the events being basically unrelated to each other, like your day yesterday? Would that be the ideal novel in your view?
Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "I like good people I don’t like bad people....Life lacks a coherent plot."Do you really want to read a book entirely about good people doing nice things to each other at random, with ..."
It depends on my mood. I read Dickens because he makes me happy. He makes me smile. And he's awesome too. But if I'm having another horrible day, I can pick up A Christmas Carol and read the first line and I'm happier.
If Zola or Balzac or Hardy were happy and nice and cheerful, that would be weird.
As for the no apparent plot thing certain people keep whining about, it depends on who is writing it. Dickens keeps me so amused and there are so many awesome people in his books that I love whatever plot there is, unlike mean people who are way too picky.
If I were reading, oh I don't know, a mystery like Agatha Christie, a plot would help.
The ideal novel is A Christmas Carol, but...it's too short. NN, but...I think Lord V & Fanny should have been saved. Bleak House, but....too many lawyers in it.:}
Kim wrote: "The ideal novel is A Christmas Carol,..."Whereas for me, I hate the Christmas Carol. I didn't mind it the first three times I read it, even though it was so sicky sweet it made my toes curl, but it gets repeated so often every Christmas that I've come to hate it. I will most definitely NOT read it this Christmas, when I see it's on our calendar (even though I'm not sure it fits there in our principle of reading the novels in sequence).
Or, maybe I'll read it just so I can post totally negative annoying posts about it. [g]
Well, I must say that I can't get enough of the wonderful Christmas Carol, which - like Capra's Wonderful Life - is a Christmas must with me. Therefore, I'm looking forward to reading it with you.But I also want to support Everyman's idea of coming up with totally negative annoying posts - only I will do this with regard to TOCS. I wouldn't go so far as to reread this treacly treat, though.
It is 84 days until Christmas.That's the big plot for my life by the way, to protect Christmas from all the whiners of the world. That includes any and all Christmas writings by Dickens. I spoke about it at church once. They're the "it's too"people and they seem to flock to me. Then they start the conversation with "Oh Christmas, it's too commercial...it's too hectic...it's too stressful...it's too terrible the way stores decorate so early." So bring it on, but be warned, I'll fight to the death. In fact, go to this website and see for yourself what you're in for:-}....
http://www.abc27.com/out&about
then scroll down to December 7, 2012 "Crazy about Christmas". If that doesn't work just look for it, I'm pretty sure it's there somewhere.
However, I am considering not arguing during the reading of "A Christmas Carol" because I find that I am dealing with crazy people.
A certain person rates NN correctly as 5 stars and then spends the entire time posting as he calls them "negative annoying posts" about it.
He also says "What I could want is a little moral ambiguity, a little recognition of the reality that life just doesn't work this way." I take that to mean he wants the novel to be like real life, but when I correctly (of course) point out how it is like real life he says: "First,if novels are nothing but echoes of life, what's the point of them? I think they need a purpose beyond that. Otherwise, they're just newspapers or blogs." Hmm.
Now a certain other person when we were talking about how cool it is that all the good people get good things (as it should be says):"This is why I read. Why can't life be like that? Where are the Mr. Cheerybles in life?"
He also says: " was thinking about an alternative ending to this one today, since Everyman was not quite pleased with the one that Dickens conjured up:. Which I take to mean he likes the ending just fine. But now...
During the never ending plot discussion he says:
"If it does not work well here, which in my opinion it does not, the plot is so haphazardly strewn together, then, in this case, it does detract from the work as a whole."
And during the good & bad people conversation NOW it's:
"This also was a big problem for me." and...
"Gride,Uncle Ralph, and Squeers are so thoroughly evil that it makes them boring to read. There are no surprises here. The Cheerybles and their counterparts are way too predictable. This does not make for very interesting literature."
Now keep in mind earlier he wanted to know where all the Cheerybles in life are.
Therefore I can only come to one conclusion:
I am arguing with crazy people and must give up and let them win the argument (even though they are wrong).
Tristram, you're still ok, but be careful, there seems to be some sort of strange anti-Dickens disease going around. :-}
Kim wrote: "It is 84 days until Christmas.That's the big plot for my life by the way, to protect Christmas from all the whiners of the world.."
I love Christmas. It's the big deal in our family, and always has been. When I was a child, for example, our family hosted a Christmas carol party for the whole neighborhood where we sang all the old English Carols (my father was English). My mother was adamant that we sing all the verses to all the carols because she said they were stories and who in their right minds just reads the first few paragraphs of a story? So we sang verses most people have never heard of. When I was very young we had to sit out in the hall and watch the singing (and the after-singing non-alcoholic partying -- ours was a dry household) until we fell asleep to the sweet music and were carried off to bed.
My wife loves decorating the house for Christmas, so we have a huge tree (fortunately we have a 20+ foot high ceiling in the living room) and decorations hung all over the house and covering every surface. With four generations living on the property we have a massive present opening; the grandkids are at the perfect age to appreciate Christmas.
You won't have any need to protect Christmas from me. If we only had audio in Goodreads I would sing you a carol every day from Thanksgiving to Christmas.
Kim wrote: "It is 84 days until Christmas. ..."That link doesn't work for me. Gives me a page not found.
Kim wrote: "A certain person rates NN correctly as 5 stars and then spends the entire time posting as he calls them "negative annoying posts" about it."I read this in the context of your post where you said "Oh, I just wanted to tell you guys quick, although I'm pretty sure you already know this; but I am always kidding you."
So actually you love me.
And I love you back.
Could you let me know when the reading of Christmas Carol begins? Thanks
I totally agree with your thoughts, sort of, but where you find them a negative, I think they are all positive:
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 the same person."
That seems like a perfectly fine plot to me, my life is a series of episodes largely unconnected except they happen to me, most of them annoying by the way.
2. "The characters are universally either good or bad, with no moral ambiguity."
Good, life is easier that way. Books too.
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."
I’ve changed since I was Nick’s age, but it’s been thirty years, Nick hasn’t had thirty years yet. Besides, again good, it’s easier that way.
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."
One of my favorite things about Dickens his coincidences, if his books were more like real life I’d go find someone who wrote more like Dickens.
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."
True.
6. "The descriptive writing (mood, place) is very fine. The characters, though in some cases unrealistic, are on the whole well defined and described."
True.
I also agree that for another novel to be considered as similar it should have at least half of these characteristics. However, I can’t think of one that does. I’ve been pondering this for a week now and I’m not coming up with one. For me Trollope is the closest to Dickens I can think of so far, but none of his remind me of NN. And there are many authors I love, but they aren’t like Dickens, Zola for example. I love his writing, but he sure missed on those happy endings, so did Hardy. :-} I’m still thinking though. Because remember, I'm not just looking for an author like Dickens, but a book like NN. :}