The Pickwick Club discussion
The Old Curiosity Shop
>
OCS Chapters 1-7
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Ah, Christi..."
Becky Sharp and Dick Swiveller would have made an interesting couple.
Mod
I hate reality tv. Dickens' novels with his too perfect heros and heroines and his too nefarious villains are truer to life than that junk. But, I like Pawn Stars. So, it is easy to say it is my favorite, because it is the only one I like.
Mod
'You look very pretty to-day, Nelly, charmingly pretty. Are you tired,
Nelly?'
'No, sir. I'm in a hurry to get..."
We find out later Nell is 14. I know this is not the Elizabethan era, but I do think women married younger than they tend to now. I'm not sayin'; I'm just sayin'. It's not as sick as it would be considered now.
Mod
Now, since the advent of the formalists, one has to write questions which cannot be answered in order to be considered good.
Mod
I prefer his middle works if I have to pick a Dickens era. The early stuff like Twist and Nickleby were poorly organized. (I know you love coincidences and so did Dickens.) The later stuff is too dark and he wrote stuff to "be great" I think in the end. He was working on his legacy.
Mod
I say this without the least bit of sarcasm: It is great to have a Dickens proselyte in the group. It helps.
Jonathan wrote: "We find out later Nell is 14. I know this is not the Elizabethan era, but I do think women married younger than they tend to now. I'm not sayin'; I'm just sayin'. It's not as sick as it would be considered now. "According to the following website
http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/eli...
in the Elizabethan age, it was legal for boys to get married at 14, for girls to do so at 12 - but it also says that it was not usual nor even traditional for people to get married at that early age. Usually men would not get married before their 21st year.
I know that you always have to be careful deriving information from websites, but this one looks quite trustworthy to me, and I don't feel like rushing off to the university library just now ;-)
However, the average age of marriage in the 19th century was surprisingly high, almost like nowadays. I am referring to Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1866-1918: Arbeitswelt und Bürgergeist, pp. 20ff. - a renowned historian -, who points out that in the second half of the 19th century the age of marriage for men fell from 28,8 (1871) to 27,9 (1910), for women from 26,3 (1871) to 25,3 (1910). All these are average values, irrespective of social classes, religion etc., and based on statistics for the German Kaiserreich. However, I would think it highly likely that the figures are not too different for Great Britain at that time, seeing that culturally the differences between these two countries are not overwhelming.
So to think of a 14-year old as a wife, as Quilp obviously does - and mind you, writing about marriage also implied something else for a Victorian reading public, as it was the only way at that time to hint at it - must have been gross and revolting to the readers. No doubt, as the author intended it to be.
I still find it difficult to care about Nell in any way because she is too perfect. A Becky Sharp or a Lizzy Greystock are women that set my heart a-pounding ;-)
I love dickens lesser know works. when I began to read dickens I read the familiar stories . when I got to the stories that had never hit the Hollywood circuit hard I was blown away. domby and son, Barnaby rudge, little dorrit... characters like Silas weg, Mr toots, panks, grip the raven ... NO ONE but dickens has ever created such wonderful images.
I live for dick swivaller in this story. he's the best of this mess.
rules or no rules , I believe there was too much of people ( men ) doing what iever they want back then.
Jonathan wrote: "In my list of characters in my Reader's Digest edition"Way to go--- thanks for posting everything at one time so it's hard for me to keep up with what you said. :-)
There's a Reader's Digest edition? Hope it's not condensed, my mom used to get the "Reader's Digest Condensed Novels" in the mail every month, there was something like five novels in each one, a lot of them the classics. Or let's say tiny bits of 5 novels, I hated them.
Jonathan wrote: "Becky Sharp and Dick Swiveller would have made an interesting couple...."
Ugh...Becky Sharp. Becky Sharp and Quilp would have made a nice couple. Or her and Lord V.
Mod
Way to go--- thanks for posting everything at one time so it's hard for me to keep up with what you said. :-)
There's a Re..."
Give me more credit than that. I would not read a condensed or abridged novel. Please! Especially, not a Dickens.
As far as my multiple posts, you are welcome.
Mod
..."
Ugh...Becky Sharp. Becky Sharp and Quilp would have made a nice couple. Or her and Lord V."
Becky Sharp did some nice things. Lord V. I could go with, but I prefer Dick Swiveller: a match made in literary heaven.
Mod
I say this without the least bit of sarcasm: It is great to have a Dickens proselyte in the group. It helps. "
Thanks for using another word that I had to go look up, I'm getting ..."
When you get to the word crazy, don't be surprised to see your picture there. They like to give examples.
Jonathan wrote: "I would think that Swiveller was right up your alley, what with your hopeless quest for moral ambiguity inside of a Dickens novel. He is the most interesting character so far in my book. I enjoyed watching him navigate the scene in which he was supposed to be breaking things off with Sophy Wackles. He certainly struggles with some moral questions there in addition to his own jealousy."I didn't see it as wrestling with moral questions, but as who would provide the best, most enjoyable future life for him, without any concern over whether either woman would benefit from being married to him. Seemed to me totally egocentric and self-interest driven. No moral ambiguity there that I saw.
If you still think there was, I'll go back and re-read it, but that's my memory of the episode.
Jonathan wrote: "Becky Sharp and Dick Swiveller would have made an interesting couple. "Indeed!
Kim wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "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 mor..."I posted a site in the Resources section which has all the illustrations on one page, enlargeable, so that might save you the labor of inserting them all. Or not, if you enjoy doing it.
Fascinating discussion, everybody, and I too have been gripped by the musty mysteriousness of it all at the beginning, rather than the interminable account (sorry - but it has to be said!) of the Nickleby family at the start of the previous novel. And yes, the same questions of Who? Why? What? were running thought my mind - plus the odd break at the end of chapter 3, for which I now understand the reason :)
But what was decided about the illustrations? Did you decide not to include them, Jonathan?
I've tried to find the link you mentioned in the "Resources section" thread Everyman, but it doesn't seem to be there.
I note that the illustration at the beginning of the novel is very similar to one at the end, (view spoiler) I am wondering if the narrator of the first 3 chapters is intended to have a "psychic" aspect. This part is so much more like his ghost stories - the humour starts at chapter 4.
This part in particular,
"I had her image, without any effort of imagination, surrounded and beset by everything that was so foreign to its nature...she seemed to exist in a kind of allegory, and having these shapes about her, ...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."
seems very portentous.
I hope you enjoy your read through the novel Jean. It will be fun (?) to watch all of us ramble around with our comments as you read along.If my memory serves me, there were the usual wide swings of comments and insights. I confess to have really enjoyed the book ... much more actually than our present read. I never got hooked by Martin Chuzzlewit ... person or novel.
Oh that is hopeful Peter! (And thanks for commenting.) I must admit I had remembered thinking it was one of his weaker novels, last time through, but on the other hand I have completely revised my opinion of The Pickwick Papers, so who knows!
Mr. Swiveller seeks to gain attention
Chapter 2
Yay! Thank you Kim! Do you know anything about the frontispiece, which I have in my reprint of the first edition? It's evidently one by "Phiz", as I can see the initials "HKB" at the bottom, and seems to tell the whole story. There's an hourglass prominent in it with scenes around it.
I can't find it anywhere else on the Net either.
I've found what he says is all of them on the David Perdue page, but that one's missing!
Jean wrote: "Yay! Thank you Kim! Do you know anything about the frontispiece, which I have in my reprint of the first edition? It's evidently one by "Phiz", as I can see the initials "HKB" at the bottom, and ..."
Yes, the only place I can find that allows me to download TOCS illustrations is the David Perdue page, and on that page the frontispiece is missing and also one illustration in Chapter 4 called "Quilp in a Smoking Humor". For some reason they aren't on the Perdue page and no other page I see them on will let me download them. I'm still looking though.
Dick Swiveller? You found something in him to love? Can you explain to me wh..."
I would think that Swiveller was right up your alley, what with your hopeless quest for moral ambiguity inside of a Dickens novel. He is the most interesting character so far in my book. I enjoyed watching him navigate the scene in which he was supposed to be breaking things off with Sophy Wackles. He certainly struggles with some moral questions there in addition to his own jealousy. He is not an outright devil. Just what we have been looking for.