The Pickwick Club discussion
The Old Curiosity Shop
>
OCS Chapters 1-7
I was a bit curious when the narrator said, early in Chapter 2, "I walked past the house, and took several turns in the street, with that kind of hesitation which is natural to a man who is conscious that the visit he is about to pay is unexpected, and may not be very acceptable. However, as the door of the shop was shut, and it did not appear likely that I should be recognized by those within, if I continued merely to pass up and down before it, I soon conquered this irresolution, and found myself in the Curiosity Dealer's warehouse. "Is the warehouse different from the house? There was no mention of a warehouse in chapter 1, unless I missed it, and why would he feel free to just enter it without being invited or let in? After all, later in the chapter Fred goes to the street door and lets Dick in, so clearly there's a door to this warehouse. And when Nell and Quilp appear at the start of Chapter 3, Nell goes into her room, which implies that they're in the shop itself that we saw in the first chapter. So I'm confused by what this warehouse reference is to. Is there some meaning here, or is it just carelessness on Dickens's part?
It's been many, many years since I last read TOCS, and I have forgotten all but the barest outline of the story. So I look forward to rediscovering the answers to some questions:Where does the grandfather go at night?
Is he really rich, or not?
What is the relationship between the grandfather and Quilp, and what is it that Nell carries back and forth?
Are there any redeeming features at all about Quilp, or is he pure evil?
At least Dickens has done a much better job with TOCS than he did with NN about making me interested in reading on. In NN it was a chore. For the time being, at least, in TOCS it's an anticipatory pleasure.
Everyman wrote: "I gather from a commentary that he started this novel as a sketch for his weekly "Master Humphrey's Clock," which was apparently to be based on brief sketches, but after he had gotten through the first three chapters he decided to turn into a full novel. But rather than just rewrite the first chapters, he went for this strange transition. "As far as I know, OCS, even in its novel form, still continued to be published in Master Humphrey's Clock, maybe also with a view to riveting readers to subsequent numbers of this magazine. As a consequence Dickens could not restart the plot by writing it from a different perspective. This is one of the drawbacks of the instalment publishing, i.e. the author cannot go back and make changes in prior chapters but has to carry on from what he has written.
Dickens surely could have changed this awkward beginning for later editions of the novel, but maybe he just didn't because he was too busy with new projects that would promise more money?
TOCS did run the entire time in Master Humphrey's Clock, and originally it was only supposed to be a short story. I believe every thing in Master Humphrey's Clock was going to be short stories. It seems that the first edition was a great success, but sales fell off when the public realized there was no new novel so Dickens began TOCS and it began being published in the fourth edition. Of Master Humphrey himself George Gissing says:
He imagined a solitary old man living in an old house in an old suburb of London and cherishing above all things an old clock, which is associated with the recollections of his whole life. Presently, the recluse, known as Master Humphrey, makes friends with two or three other eccentrics, who meet in his house late at night for converse and story-telling, or rather reading, the members of this little circle being supposed to pen narratives which lie stored until wanted within the case of the old clock. Of course Dickens had in mind the eighteenth-century essayists, and their more or less ingenious methods of giving coherence to a literary miscellany; Master Humphrey was to deliver himself meditatively on all manner of subjects, and, "From his clock-side in the chimney-corner," do what, at a much later time, Dickens did so very much better in his Uncommercial Traveller.
As to why Master Humphrey just "disappears" Dickens said this:
"Master Humphrey was originally supposed to be the narrator of the story. As it was constructed from the beginning, however, with a view to separate publication when completed, his demise has not involved the necessity of any alteration."
This is true about it first being published in serial form, but I don't quite understand how this could apply when he published it in book form. Maybe he just didn't feel like it. Or as Tristram says maybe he was too busy.
Kim wrote: "Of Master Humphrey himself George Gissing says:..."Interesting. Thanks for posting.
Oh, the warehouse vs. the shop I never even noticed before. But now I am confused. I re-read the first chapter and I found the warehouse, or the shop being called the warehouse in it. But when I went on the internet to find the same paragraph and paste it here, I can't find it. There are three paragraphs in my book that I haven't located on the internet, they come right before the last paragraph and here they are:We are so much in the habit of allowing impressions to be made upon us by external objects, which should be produced by refection alone, but which, without such visible aids, often escape us, that I am not sure I should have been so thoroughly possessed by this one subject, but for the heaps of fantastic things I had seen huddled together in the curiosity-dealer's warehouse. These, crowding on my mind, in connection with the child, and gathering round her, as it were, brought her condition palpably before me. 'I had her image, without any effort of imagination, surrounded and beset by everything that was so foreign to its nature, and furthest removed from the sympathies of her sex and age. If these helps to my fancy had all been wanting, and I had been forced to imagine her in a common chamber, with nothing unusual or uncouth in it's appearance, it is very probable that I should have been less impressed with her solitary state. As it was she seemed to exist in a kind of allegory, and having these shapes about her, claimed my interest so strongly, that (as I have already remarked) I could not dismiss her from my recollection, do what I would.
'It would be a curious speculation' said I after some restless turns across and across the room, ' to imagine her in her future life holding her solitary way among a crowd of wild grotesque companions, the only pure, fresh, youthful object among the throng. It would be curious to find -'
I checked myself here, for the theme was carrying me along with it at a great pace, and I already saw before me a region on which I was little disposed to enter. I agreed with myself that this was idle musing, and resolved to go to bed, and court forgetfulness.
Now why is this part not in the copies I find on the internet? And if it's because Dickens cut them out when re-writing for the book edition, then why didn't he cut out Master Humphrey altogether?
Kim wrote: "Oh, the warehouse vs. the shop I never even noticed before. But now I am confused. I re-read the first chapter and I found the warehouse, or the shop being called the warehouse in it. But when I..."Those paragraphs are in my Wordsworth Classics copy, but you're right, they're not in the Gutenberg copy, on which most online copies of books are based.
Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "Oh, the warehouse vs. the shop I never even noticed before. But now I am confused. I re-read the first chapter and I found the warehouse, or the shop being called the warehouse in it...."It still doesn't clear up my confusion as to whether TOCS is a shop or a warehouse or both. I'll have to keep looking. :-}
Kim wrote: "Oh, the warehouse vs. the shop I never even noticed before. But now I am confused. I re-read the first chapter and I found the warehouse, or the shop being called the warehouse in it. But when I..."Thanks for bringing these paragraphs to notice - I am reading an old copy that was published by A.L.Burt Company - no date, but most of these were said to be published between 1890-1928.
This referred text is missing - makes me wonder what other text has been omitted by the publisher (since Dickens died in 1870).
Quirks59m wrote: "This referred text is missing - makes me wonder what other text has been omitted by the publisher (since Dickens died in 1870)."I'm wondering that too. I wonder why they would have cut that at all or any text for that matter? Now I feel like comparing two copies together as I read.
Some great questions, comments and concerns so far, and I am also unable to puzzle my way through to any definitive answer on home/warehouse. I imagine, that to an extent, we as 20/21 C readers must accept the vagrancies that occurred so frequently in the serialized publication form of novels. Once the individual part was published, there was no chance to correct the error(s) before the next printing/edition of the book. Frequently, words, phrases, and many other variants were missed and left unattended.Such is the joy and agony of 19C serial publication. For fun, go to ABE (American Book Exchange) on the net and plug in a Dickens novel. The value of the first editions, first issues, first states varies wildly at times directly due to errors/omissions in proofreading and publication. That said, can you imagine getting Dickens' handwritten MS and having to typeset and print it under pressure.
Oh to be wealthy and own one of those wonderful novels.
so far I feel like I am reading an early version of dombey and son. I am not suggesting that it is. just keeps coming to mind. hmmmkip-sloppy. OCS-midshipman. quilp-weg.
so far I am curious about the narrator. he seems to be a writer or painter ( he says that faces seen in the night are better suited for his "purposes?". that sounds artistic). or as I feel so far, he could be jack the ripper or the like. he implies that he does this a lot. yet he suddenly becomes obsessed with Nell. there would be other kids running about in those days. hmmm. I don't like him at all. it is suggested that he is trustworthy but he takes her out of the way to manipulate her for his curiosity. then he waits out side in the rain etc. CREEPY. in ch2 the N go back to the shop feeling he may not be welcome. I'm not sure why. unless he is a serial killer as he impresses me.
Nell is undefined to me as well. she has a supposed good judge of character. re old man who took her an unfamiliar way. she never got nervous. "oh. this is not the way to my house" etc. but she easily and finitly deems kip a threat on a word. unlike D's other works, I feel that this plot is driving the characters vs characters driving the plot.
I am SMITTEN with dick swivaller. he's so rock n roll.
kit I mean. I am not a typer type. this is my first attempt at written conversation. ordinarily I talk. please bear with me. I may have to learn to spell the vast treasures in my vocabulary. and that could lead to a brain file. in an organized fashion. I love dickens!
Christine wrote: "kit I mean. I am not a typer type. this is my first attempt at written conversation. ordinarily I talk. please bear with me. ..."Consider yourself borne with. Happily. What you have to say is much more important than how you spell it (though spellcheck is always there to help).
Christine wrote: "so far I am curious about the narrator. he seems to be a writer or painter ( he says that faces seen in the night are better suited for his "purposes?". "Hi Christine. These are some of the things I know about the narrator. Master Humphrey's Clock was a weekly serial that contained both short stories and two novels (The Old Curiosity Shop and Barnaby Rudge). Some of the short stories act as frame stories to the novels.
Originally the idea of the story was that Master Humphrey was reading it aloud to a group of his friends, gathered at his house around the grandfather clock in which he kept his manuscripts. When the novel begins, it is told in the first person, with Master Humphrey the narrator. However, Dickens soon changed his mind about how to tell the story, and abandoned the first-person narrator after chapter three.
In the first edition of Master Humphrey's Clock Master Humphrey says this about himself:
I am not a churlish old man. Friendless I can never be, for all mankind are my kindred, and I am on ill terms with no one member of my great family. But for many years I have led a lonely, solitary life;—what wound I sought to heal, what sorrow to forget, originally, matters not now; it is sufficient that retirement has become a habit with me, and that I am unwilling to break the spell which for so long a time has shed its quiet influence upon my home and heart......
When I first came to live here, which was many years ago, the neighbours were curious to know who I was, and whence I came, and why I lived so much alone. As time went on, and they still remained unsatisfied on
these points, I became the centre of a popular ferment, extending for half a mile round, and in one direction for a full mile. Various rumours were circulated to my prejudice. I was a spy, an infidel, a conjurer, a kidnapper of children, a refugee, a priest, a monster. Mothers caught up their infants and ran into their houses as I passed; men eyed me
spitefully, and muttered threats and curses. I was the object of suspicion and distrust—ay, of downright hatred too. But when in course of time they found I did no harm, but, on the contrary, inclined towards them despite their unjust usage, they began to relent. I found my footsteps no longer dogged, as they had often been before, and observed that the women and children no longer retreated, but would stand and gaze at me as I passed their doors. I took this for a good omen, and waited patiently for better times. By degrees I began to make friends among these humble folks; and though they were yet shy of speaking, would give them ‘good day,’ and so pass on. In a little time, those whom I had thus accosted would make a point of coming to their doors and windows at the usual hour, and nod or courtesy to me; children,
too, came timidly within my reach, and ran away quite scared when I patted their heads and bade them be good at school. These little people soon grew more familiar. From exchanging mere words of course with my
older neighbours, I gradually became their friend and adviser, the depositary of their cares and sorrows, and sometimes, it may be, the reliever, in my small way, of their distresses. And now I never walk
abroad but pleasant recognitions and smiling faces wait on Master Humphrey..........
Thanks Kim for this information. And welcome Christine. We are all gathered round, albeit our computers not a fireside, to enjoy Dickens.My copy of OCS contains reproductions of the illustrations. I really enjoy them and they were certainly scrutinized by Dickens before inclusion in any of his novels. Do many of you pause, as I do, to consider the illustrations?
Peter wrote: "Do many of you pause, as I do, to consider the illustrations? "Absolutely. I enjoy them, but also, as a sort of mental exercise, I look to see how well the illustrations match the text, and where they might go wrong.
Peter wrote: "Thanks Kim for this information. And welcome Christine. We are all gathered round, albeit our computers not a fireside, to enjoy Dickens.My copy of OCS contains reproductions of the illustratio..."
I think that even if Dickens's style is extremely vivid, part of the power of his characters and certain scenes described in his novels are derived from the illustrations. Consider Mr. Pickwick, for example, whose picture in my mind is certainly due to the illustrations that show him as a portly, bespectacled gentleman.
It was probably similar with Sherlock Holmes and the illustrations in the Strand Magazine. Maybe you know Billy Wilder's film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, where Holmes complains that he has to wear the deerstalker and that cape because the public expect it of him - and Watson says that it was not really his fault as the chronicler of the stories but it was the idea of the Strand Magazine illustrator.
Mod
thank you Kim. I did not pick up that the N is Humphrey. good a story tell. I feel better. although I still find him creepy. I have read this book before but this time I am reading it in a different frame of mind. giveing quarter to all characters and learning from you good folk about the authorship. I am not even giving spoilers to myself. previously I have been sooooooo in love with dick that everyone else is just there at times. in this weeks reading he showed up again... I giggled and my heart went pitter pat.
I too love thrift shops. I worked at one for 7 years.I am disappointed that the shop in our story is not more involved. we were given a brief tour and the stuff is carted off. I wanted to shop some more. damn that quilp.
Mrs quilp is very interesting to me. an example of how human nature is timeless. people in abusive relationships are notorious to date for believing their tormentor is dangerously desirable to others. the scene with Mrs q at the ladies luncheon was so tangable. I could picture it word for word in an episode of breaking bad or CSI or the like. she believing they could be entranced by her hubby. they are like, "girl! hell no! I got a good lawyer.". but she loves him??...
dickens was very in observant with regards to women. I know about his issues with his mom but even so. he was ahead of his time as to his views on woman.
I assume that Nell is the main character. that being said , there via not much to her. I feel she is a thin flat character. I don't think about her or worry about her. frankly I forget all about her when she is gone. I hope she gets more interesting. grandpop has Alzheimer's I gather. or is he dying or embarrassment? people ,especially women, died of embarrassment a lot back then. in books anyway. why is that? no more. you can humiliate yourself like there is no tomorrow in 2013 ... and there will be a tomorrow. doesn't even cause a sniffle.
Jonathan wrote: "I hope we get further insight into what Old Pops sells there."Old Pops????? That's hardly a respectful way to speak of Nell's grandfather, is it? (I went to law school in my 40s, became close friends of a guy also going long after college but in his case about ten years younger than me, we started calling each other Pops and Sonny. But never Old Pops!)
But as to seeing more of what is sold there, well, you may find out more about that in the next set of chapters.
Christine wrote: "...previously I have been sooooooo in love with dick that everyone else is just there at times.f..."Dick Swiveller? You found something in him to love? Can you explain to me what makes him loveable? I found him pretty disgusting, though not on Quilp's level. But that he would dare to think of courting sweet Nell just for her grandfather's money ... how low can one go?
But maybe there's more there that I haven't seen which you can educate me about.
Christine wrote: "I assume that Nell is the main character. that being said , there via not much to her. I feel she is a thin flat character."I agree about flat, though I think she becomes less thin in the next set of chapters where we see her concern for her grandfather more fully. But so far I agree that she is like maple syrup, sweet but without much substance to her.
Everyman wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I hope we get further insight into what Old Pops sells there."Old Pops????? That's hardly a respectful way to speak of Nell's grandfather, is it? (I went to law school in my 40..."
Ok. So, everyman and his crew may not be old or poppin' <3
But... Grandpop is loosing it. And becoming a burden. No offended to him personally, but it would be best if he develops into compost. .
Christine wrote: "I have been sooooooo in love with dick that everyone else is just there at times. in this weeks reading he showed up again... I giggled and my heart went pitter pat."Ah, Christine, perhaps you agree with Thackeray, who declared that he "never read the Nelly part more than once; whereas I have Dick Swiveller and the Marchioness by heart."
Everyman wrote: "Christine wrote: "...previously I have been sooooooo in love with dick that everyone else is just there at times.f..."Dick Swiveller? You found something in him to love? Can you explain to me wh..."
Dick is not taking this Nell thing seriously. He is humoring a friend. He thinks Nell is a little kid. Besides he wants Sophie wackles. He's just a young lush. He's got time to straiten out. His list of debts vs roads to travel shows potential. Dick is a rock n roll style bad boy. I think he would be a good time.
Everyman wrote: "we started calling each other Pops and Sonny. But never Old Pops!)"OK, I will. That was a long time ago, now you're Old Pops.
Ah, Christi..."yes! I do agree. Is that William makepeace?I have read a few of his books. I liked Barry Lyndon.
Well pics are cleared up! Thanks. It was driving me crazy. I disregarded some of them because I didnt know who was who. But now I know. Its a crap shoot!
Jonathan wrote: "I love the setting here. Every week I visit at least one or two thrift stores, which are basically the "poor man's curiosity shop". My favorite reality show is Pawn Stars. I hope we get further ins..."Your favorite reality show is Pawn Stars? You can actually pick a favorite from the 50,000 reality shows that are on TV each week? Good for you.
It's antique shops around here. That's where I buy a lot of my books, you find them up on third floors or down in basements. :}
Mrs. Quilp is a puzzle to me. I can understand deluding herself that her husband is something wonderful once she's married to him. I suppose she has to do that to convince herself that there's a good reason she married him. But, why in the world did she marry him in the first place? I cannot imagine what would have made a sane person agree to marry him. Yet she seems to be perfectly sane so far. Although to me she'd be more sane if she'd kill the guy.Then there's her mother who actually seemed to have encouraged her to marry him. Insanity might run in the family.
I think she Mrs Q should eliminate her "problem" too. he is awful. she on the other hand is typical. many women are attracted to that type of man. although disfunctional, his actions are intense and passionate. it is common to respond to passionate aggression as if it were love. the idea of measuring love by how much pain one can take in a relationship is even more common. she probably had bad examples of love growing up. she will be fine I think. especially if he dies.
pawn stars is OK. not much to look at though. they are ugly people. I think hardcore pawn is better. the customers are better and the staff is not so ... sweaty looking.
Peter wrote: "That said, can you imagine getting Dickens' handwritten MS and having to typeset and print it under pressure."I have read (or tried to) enough samples of Dickens handwriting to know that no matter how much time I had I would never have figured out what he wrote. He could have been a doctor. :}
Quilp is repulsive, just think of Chapter 6 when he has this conversation with Nell:'You look very pretty to-day, Nelly, charmingly pretty. Are you tired,
Nelly?'
'No, sir. I'm in a hurry to get back, for he will be anxious while I am
away.'
'There's no hurry, little Nell, no hurry at all,' said Quilp. 'How
should you like to be my number two, Nelly?'
'To be what, sir?'
'My number two, Nelly, my second, my Mrs Quilp,' said the dwarf.
The child looked frightened, but seemed not to understand him, which Mr
Quilp observing, hastened to make his meaning more distinctly.
'To be Mrs Quilp the second, when Mrs Quilp the first is dead, sweet
Nell,' said Quilp, wrinkling up his eyes and luring her towards him
with his bent forefinger, 'to be my wife, my little cherry-cheeked,
red-lipped wife. Say that Mrs Quilp lives five year, or only four,
you'll be just the proper age for me. Ha ha! Be a good girl, Nelly, a
very good girl, and see if one of these days you don't come to be Mrs
Quilp of Tower Hill.'
Ugh, keep him away from children. And adults. I'll take Dick for Nell any day if Quilp is our other choice.
Kim, you are so right. It's early in the novel. Dickens will have us all in a mob against Quilp soon enough! Dickens really is the master of evoking powerful feelings, either pro or con, for his characters.
Peter wrote: "Kim, you are so right. It's early in the novel. Dickens will have us all in a mob against Quilp soon enough! Dickens really is the master of evoking powerful feelings, either pro or con, for his..."Oh, and there's so many more horrible Quilp moments coming up in the next chapters. He's so creepy. :-}
So, at this point we have Nell surrounded by a menagerie of questionable males:An elderly narrator who "helps" Nell to find her way home, taking her on a long circuitous route that will keep her lost right up to the last minute thereby allowing him to spend more time with her o.O.
Grandfather who uses her as a means to meander on about his plans and intentions as well as to goad a stranger who has the audacity to question his habit of sending her out in the middle of the night through the streets of London.
A dissolute spendthrift brother and his oblivious friend.
An evil dwarf. (Dickens tendency towards all manner of stereotypes is probably the largest cross for admirers to bear)*
And her champion, a fellow who stuffs a whole sandwich in his mouth between random bouts of laughter.
*I do want to point out to anyone who might not know: Dickens late work makes it evident that he developed enormously as an artist and as a moral being over the years. Honestly, it might have been kinder to all of us if we had started with the late work and moved back through to the early stuff.
Margaret wrote: "*I do want to point out to anyone who might not know: Dickens late work makes it evident that he developed enormously as an artist and as a moral being over the years. Honestly, it might have been kinder to all of us if we had started with the late work and moved back through to the early stuff. "I do agree, and I think most modern critics would, that his later work is his best work. But I also think it's interesting to look at his development over time, and also to contemplate what it was that made his early works so popular. Were tastes different in his day than in ours?
Everyman wrote: "I do agree, and I think most modern critics would, that his later work is his best work. But I also think it's interesting to look at his development over time, and also to contemplate what it was that made his early works so popular. Were tastes different in his day than in ours?"Sorry to disagree with you (ok no I'm not) but I like his earlier work as much as his later work. My favorites are A Christmas Carol, Nicholas Nickleby, and Bleak House. And Dombey & Son, and David Copperfield and Little Dorrit. So I'd say I have early, middle and later works covered. And my least favorite is Hard Times which is from 1854 after almost all of those other works. So I say no, tastes weren't different in his day, just certain people's are. So there. :-}
Ah, Chapter 7, finally some humor, things have seemed so dark so far. But this chapter gave me some smiling moments. We have this said about Dick's "apartments":By a like pleasant fiction his single
chamber was always mentioned in a plural number. In its disengaged
times, the tobacconist had announced it in his window as 'apartments'
for a single gentleman, and Mr Swiveller, following up the hint, never
failed to speak of it as his rooms, his lodgings, or his chambers,
conveying to his hearers a notion of indefinite space, and leaving
their imaginations to wander through long suites of lofty halls, at
pleasure.
And Dick's conversation with Nell's brother Fred has gems like this:
'You saw my sister Nell?'
'What about her?' returned Dick.
'She has a pretty face, has she not?'
'Why, certainly,' replied Dick. 'I must say for her that there's not
any very strong family likeness between her and you.'
and later,
'I don't mean marrying her now'--returned the brother angrily; 'say in
two year's time, in three, in four. Does the old man look like a
long-liver?'
'He don't look like it,' said Dick shaking his head, 'but these old
people--there's no trusting them, Fred. There's an aunt of mine down in
Dorsetshire that was going to die when I was eight years old, and
hasn't kept her word yet. They're so aggravating, so unprincipled, so
spiteful--unless there's apoplexy in the family, Fred, you can't
calculate upon 'em, and even then they deceive you just as often as
not.'
When we were kids there was an old woman who lived next door to us. She sat in her kitchen looking out the window every moment of the day as far as we as kids could tell. No matter when we went outside, what game we were playing, there she was sitting looking out the window watching us. Never in all those years did she say a word. She was about 100 years old to my 8 year old eyes. She died 40 years later. :-}
And now back to Dick and Fred:
'Look at the worst side of the question then,' said Trent as steadily
as before, and keeping his eyes upon his friend. 'Suppose he lives.'
'To be sure,' said Dick. 'There's the rub.'
'I say,' resumed his friend, 'suppose he lives, and I persuaded, or if
the word sounds more feasible, forced Nell to a secret marriage with
you. What do you think would come of that?'
'A family and an annual income of nothing, to keep 'em on,' said
Richard Swiveller after some reflection.
So I'm a Dick Swiveller fan just because he gives me something to smile about.
Everyman wrote: "Margaret wrote: "*I do want to point out to anyone who might not know: Dickens late work makes it evident that he developed enormously as an artist and as a moral being over the years. Honestly, it might have been kinder to all of us if we had started with the late work and moved back through to the early stuff. "I do agree, and I think most modern critics would, that his later work is his best work. But I also think it's interesting to look at his development over time, and also to contemplate what it was that made his early works so popular. Were tastes different in his day than in ours? ."
On the whole, I agree with you, Margaret, that the later Dickens is more complex and thoughtful than the early Dickens - although Pickwick Papers still ranges among my favourite books, and I have come out of our last group read with a better opinion on NN than I had after re-reading it donkey's years ago. Still, Bleak House, Little Dorrit, Great Expectations and Our Mutual Friend are difficult to beat ... I think this is simply because Dickens grew older and wiser - the reason Conrad never came up with cardbox cartoons à la Quilp was that he started writing later in life, I'd say -, but also because Dickens's later works are much more carefully planned. OT, for example, was started when PP was still something Dickens had to finish, and even NN followed closely on OT's heels. It's quite clear that under these circumstances plots become slipshod and characters resemble Punch and Judy characters. I mean ... look at Quilp and Nell ...
Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Margaret wrote: "*I do want to point out to anyone who might not know: Dickens late work makes it evident that he developed enormously as an artist and as a moral being over the ye..."I also agree that Dickens' later works shows much more command and control of plot, character and style. Still, there is much to recommend the earlier works, as hyper-melodramatic as they might be. I find that Ch 15, for example, is brilliant. It pulls out all the stops, and yet it always creates a lump in my throat when I read it. So melodramatic - every word, every image, every paragraph makes the reader wait, and wait, and then wait some more. And I do so willingly.
I'll stick to his early works myself I happen to love Dickens first novels. I like the characters, I like the plots, I like the endings, and I especially like the craziness of people like Mrs. Nickleby. Oh wait, I love his later novels too, I read them all over and over. :-}
Mod
Where does the g..."
I wholeheartedly agree with the interest aroused by the mysterious aura of the novel. I cannot think of anything early on in Nicholas Nickleby that gave the reader a purpose for reading on like this. Later in the book, what with the allusion to Ralph's big secret, there was, but Dickens progressed in his ability to grab a reader's attention here unlike anything we have seen before (in the first three works).
Mod
I found the disconnect from ..."
I have been MIA for 2 weeks, but keeping up with the read, so this question may already have been answered, but as for my two cents, Dickens covered this in the author's preface:
"Master Humphrey (before his devotion to the bread and butter business) was originally supposed to be the narrator of the story. As it was constructed from the beginning, however, with a view to separate publication when completed, his demise has not involved the necessity of any alteration."
In my list of characters in my Reader's Digest edition it simply names him as THE SINGLE GENTLEMAN, a lodger at Sampson Brass's house and narrator of the story. This single gentleman, I guess, is Master Humphrey.
Mod
My copy of OCS contains reproductions of the illustratio..."
I was copying all of the illustrations into the discussions. No one was making a fuss over them, so I stopped, but I can do so for this discussion, if you think it will give us more to talk about.
Mod
Old Pops????? That's hardly a respectful way to speak of Nell's grandfather, is it? (I went to law school in my 40..."
I was assuming the grandfather was WELL over 40 or I never would have included the contentious adjective.
I found the disconnect from Chapter 3 to Chapter 4 disconcerting. He seems to give no logical reason for moving from the point of view of the first person old man as narrator to a third person narrator.
I gather from a commentary that he started this novel as a sketch for his weekly "Master Humphrey's Clock," which was apparently to be based on brief sketches, but after he had gotten through the first three chapters he decided to turn into a full novel. But rather than just rewrite the first chapters, he went for this strange transition.
I do wonder whether we will ever run across the narrator of the first three chapters later in the book, or whether, having fulfilled the role of getting the train of the narrative underway and out of the station, he disappears for good. (If you know the answer, please don't tell us! I prefer to wonder.)