All About Books discussion
Reads & Challenges Archive
>
Jean's Charles Dickens challenge 2014-2015 (and maybe a little further ...)
Jean - hope you don't mind me adding this for recent 'commenters':The novels of Charles Dickens were first published at the dates and in the form indicated below:
Pickwick Papers — Monthly numbers, April 1836 to November 1837
NOTE: JEAN HAS SHOWN FROM DICKENS' LETTERS THAT PUBLICATION STARTED ON 31 MARCH RATHER THAN APRIL
Oliver Twist — Monthly serial in Bentley's Miscellany February 1837 to April 1839 (24 installments)
Nicholas Nickleby — Monthly numbers, April 1838 to October 1839
The Old Curiosity Shop — Weekly serial in Master Humphrey's Clock, April 2S, 1840, to February 6,1841
Barnaby Rudge — Weekly serial in Master Humphrey's Clock, February 13, 184l, to November 27,1841
Martin Chuzzlewit — Monthly numbers, January 1843 to July 1844
Dombey and Son — Monthly numbers, October 1846 to April 1848
David Copperfield — Monthly numbers, May 1849 to November 1850
Bleak House — Monthly numbers, March 1852 to September 1853
Hard Times — Weekly serial in Household Words, April 1, 1854, to August 12, 1854
Little Dorrit — Monthly numbers, December 1855 to June I857
A Tale of Two Cities — Weekly serial in All the Year Round, April 30, 1859, to November 26, 1859
Great Expectations — Weekly serial in All the Year Round, December 1, 1860 to August 3, 1861
Our Mutual Friend — Monthly numbers, May 1864 to November 1865
The Mystery of Edwin Drood — Monthly numbers, April 1870 to September 1870 (six of twelve numbers completed)
Victorian Web Overview Charles Dickens Contents Next section in print publication
Last Modified January 2000
Very useful list! Thanks John!People approach these threads in two ways, don't they, either final comment first or first comment first. The trouble with amending the first comment is that if a comment disappears then all the references to subsequent numbers are wrong. And adding on the end means that in 15 pages plus it soon gets lost. Snags with both. I'll add something though, as these are both interesting lists :)
Yes, and apps vary too. On my phone it's always oldest first - good for this thread - and on computer and tablets it's newest first - good for chat! I suppose one puts/adds key info at the beginning. I assume thread owners can do that?
Well, if you are the first person to post, then you can edit your first message, just as anyone can edit any message they posted. That's what I'm doing with this thread. Anything I've set up subsequently, for instance in the RFP group, I've "reserved" a few slots at the beginning for extra info, but at the time I set this up, I didn't realise that would be needed. I assumed I'd be able to insert extra posts, which I think is what you mean, but I don't think there's any way of doing that. If you're on a computer though you can select whether to see the first posts first, or click "newest", and you can make that the default. Not much use if you regularly use an app though.
Thank you for that new (to me) info. I have a books thread in RFP which you set up for me, and which I will shortly use. I'll use the info there. Ta.
As the Pickwick dates differed from those I quoted in my review, I am now busily checking all the dates you quote from the Victorian Web overview. The first one differs depending on where you look it up! AAAARGH! Looks like I will have to go back to the horse's mouth. Sometimes I despair of the internet with all its erroneous information :(
Provisionally fairly sure it is March 1836-Oct 1837, as I'd found before. I've been looking at his letters.
John - Nailed it! Message 42, which details all the dates, and my review are both correct. Pickwick dates in your message 706 needs editing (if possible please) to show March rather than April. The timing is:10th February 1836 - Publisher's offer
16th February - Dickens accepted the offer
31st March - First number published.
Subsequent numbers published as per my list in message 42.
At this rate I will I will only be able to check one date a day! Is the Victorian Web overview usually reliable, John? Perhaps this is the only mistake and it was intended as a rather feeble April Fool? :/
Jean - I've made the change above as you request. Looking at various websites, some say March 30 rather than 31, and others say April. All secondary sources, of course. Also, would Dickens definitely be correct? Does installment one have a date on it, I wonder, and could it have rolled off the presses on 31st, for sale on 1 April?
You'll have to hop into your time machine to find out that final point John! Otherwise I'll go with Dickens, unless we can find a photograph of the first issue and it shows a different date. He was an expert at obfuscation as we know ;) Thanks.
A PhD for someone in this area, maybe. You up for it?
John wrote: "Jean - you asked me to copy this to you.A Dickens of a list
For some time now I've been wanting to know what the comparative lengths are of Dickens's novels. Your guess is as good as mine as to ..."
Very interesting! I find it also interesting that my favorites are at either end of the list ("David Copperfield", "Bleak House" and "Little Dorrit" at the high end and "Oliver Twist" and "Tale of Two Cities" at the low end"). My impression would have put Pickwick Papers higher and David Copperfield lower...
Leslie - maybe not surprising that favourites seem shorter than one thinks, or would wish! And vice versa for 'not favourites'!
John - My final thought refers back to my comment 42. There you can find a complete schedule of The Pickwick Papers, so if the first issue had been pushed on a day as per one of your speculations, John, wouldn't that have skewed the entire list?I realise that since yours is a copy of a list from the Victorian web, it's not appropriate to "alter" it, so if you want to leave it as the original, that's fine. (I've noticed your amendment, thanks). I'm just hoping there are no more discrepancies as I go through it ...
As with many "facts" about Dickens, the objective truth may be lost in the annals of time. From the introduction by Mamie Dickens and Georgina Hogarth (respectively daughter and sister-in-law, as you know) of 1879,
"We find some difficulty in being quite accurate in the arrangement of letters up to the end of 1839, for he had a careless habit in those days about dating his letters, very frequently putting only the day of the week on which he wrote, curiously in contrast with the habit of his later life, when his dates were always of the very fullest."
So thanks for your kind suggestion, but I'll pass on that one! Would rather read more of his stuff! LOL!
Leslie - I think I tend to prefer the longer ones - no, the middle period ones - no I like them all! Oh dear :(
(edited to include the reference to the list)
It's just been announced today that the desk at which Charles Dickens wrote Great Expectations and The Mystery of Edwin Drood has been "saved for the nation". It is now in one of the Charles Dickens museums - the one at one of his homes in Doughty Street, Holborn. Link here
The thing is ... he wasn't living there then! This is where he lived when he was much younger, finishing The Pickwick Papers and also writing Oliver Twist! So the image they show of the desk in situ never actually happened.
Martin Chuzzlewit:I – January 1843 (chapters 1–3)
II – February 1843 (chapters 4–5)
III – March 1843 (chapters 6–8)
IV – April 1843 (chapters 9–10)
V – May 1843 (chapters 11–12)
VI – June 1843 (chapters 13–15)
VII – July 1843 (chapters 16–17)
VIII – August 1843 (chapters 18–20)
IX – September 1843 (chapters 21–23)
X – October 1843 (chapters 24–26)
XI – November 1843 (chapters 27–29)
XII – December 1843 (chapters 30–32)
XIII – January 1844 (chapters 33–35)
XIV – February 1844 (chapters 36–38)
XV – March 1844 (chapters 39–41)
XVI – April 1844 (chapters 42–44)
XVII – May 1844 (chapters 45–47)
XVIII – June 1844 (chapters 48–50)
XIX-XX – July 1844 (chapters 51–54)
I've amended message 1 to add the dates of publication as I read the novels. So here seems a good place to put the complete publication dates for the next one :)
So useful, Jean, including the signposts from comment 1 to other interesting comments by number. Thank you.
Is anyone else going to be reading this one with me?
I'll skim-read one of the 19 issues per day, to remind myself, as you go on, so I can appreciate your views. I have my Penguin paperback in front of me, with the delightful Phiz illustrations. Lovely!
That's great! Thanks John :) Maybe I won't be talking into the air then ;)Benjamin - I have noticed you are steadily working your way through my reviews of Dickens. Thank you very much - and do feel free to continue to comment here, or after a review. I know some folk are reticent but we're all friends here :)
Thanks, Jean. Yeah, I've been stalking your reviews :) I'm a history buff, so I love how you give such a detailed account of everything from the setting of Victorian England to an explanation of character names. It's also good to know how great the books ahead of me will be.
A history buff is definitely welcome here! Hope you enjoy your future Dickens reads, Benjamin. Pop in here any time ...
Jean wrote: "Is anyone else going to be reading this one with me?"I will follow along but not rereading this one, as I only read it a few years ago.
The original title for Martin Chuzzlewit was:"The
Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit
His relatives, friends, and enemies.
Comprising all
His Wills and His Ways,
With an Historical record of what he did
and what he didn't;
Shewing moreover who inherited the Family Plate,
who came in for the Silver spoons,
and who for the Wooden Ladles.
The whole forming a complete key
to the House of Chuzzlewit."
By the time it was published in book form it was simply called "The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit"
Some of the chapter titles are equally long. Chapter 4's title takes up a whole page on my kindle!
Were the long chapter headings given in the periodic numbers/issues as well as in the first book form, do you know, Jean? If so, it was a form of contents page giving incentive to buy the issue after inspection, maybe? Whetting the appetite.Sorry about the clumsy sentence!
I've assumed so, since the tendency was to shorten things when published as a book, but can't be sure. And yes - good observation - to whet the appetite probably :)I laughed out loud at his sarcastic comments regarding the ancient family of Chuzzlewit. Then loved all the personification at the beginning of chapter 2. All the elements of Nature being so cheery and optimistic just for a moment, but then,
"The sun went down beneath the long dark lines of hill and cloud which piled up in the west an airy city, wall heaped on wall, and battlement on battlement; the light was all withdrawn; the shining church turned cold and dark; the stream forgot to smile; the birds were silent; and the gloom of winter dwelt on everything."
I feel almost sure this must be foreshadowing the feel and tone of the novel to come, and all the dark elements we are to expect. Oh - and I love the introduction we get to that oily Mr Pecksniff, where the impish wind knocks him over making him look ridiculous :D
Jean wrote: "The original title for Martin Chuzzlewit was:"The
Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit
His relatives, friends, and enemies.
Comprising all
His Wills and His Ways,
With an Histor..."
Haha, this is hilarious!
The oily hypocrite
Mr Pecksniff
was based on a real person, Samuel Carter Hall. Samuel Carter Hall was an Irish-born Victorian journalist who edited "The Art Journal" and was widely satirised. He made Old Masters (such as Raphael or Titian's paintings) virtually unsaleable, by exposing the profits that custom-houses were earning by importing them. By doing this, he hoped to support modern British art by promoting young artists and attacking the market for unreliable Old Masters. However, he was deeply unsympathetic to the Pre-Raphaelites, and published several attacks upon the movement. Here's a description of him by Julian Hawthorne,"Hall was a genuine comedy figure. Such oily and voluble sanctimoniousness needed no modification to be fitted to appear before the footlights in satirical drama. He might be called an ingenuous hypocrite, an artless humbug, a veracious liar, so obviously were the traits indicated innate and organic in him rather than acquired ... His indecency and falsehood were in his soul, but not in his consciousness; so that he paraded them at the very moment that he was claiming for himself all that was their opposite."
And here are some quotes about Mr Pecksniff which delighted me :)
"When I say we, my dear ... I mean mankind in general; the human race, considered as a body, and not as individuals. There is nothing personal in morality, my love."
So as he gives his daughters Charity and Mercy a lecture, he sermonises using abstract principles, thus cleverly distancing himself from any moral responsibility!
And here, he's doing what he's so expert at - sanctimoniously pretending he's providing for others, whilst in actuality making sure of his own comfort. This seems to me to be a direct comparison with the observation made of Samuel Carter Hall,
"And how,' asked Mr Pecksniff, drawing off his gloves and warming his hands before the fire, as benevolently as if they were somebody else's, not his; 'and how is he now?"
"Who is with him now,' ruminated Mr Pecksniff, warming his back (as he had warmed his hands) as if it were a widow's back, or an orphan's back, or an enemy's back, or a back that any less excellent man would have suffered to be cold. 'Oh dear me, dear me!"
Jean,Managed to read the first 1.5 numbers (chapters 1-4) today, despite the presence this week of son and granddaughters. Read in Chatsworth Gardens while they were in the playground!
I can't skim-read, it's too good. How full of joie de vivre. It raised my spirits. The wind and all the nature scene-setting, the Blue Dragon, the Chuzzlewit clan, Chevy/Tigg, John Westlake/Pinch. So much brilliant, deliberate scene/plot setting, while just delightful writing. And above all, Pecksniff and his daughters.
A real mystery writer. So, now reading MC and Bleak House side-by-side. Bring it on.
John - you have put a big smile on my face :) Yes, the beginning of this one is so very funny! It's always such a relief to be reading Dickens again!Yet I've just been reading about Charles Dickens's precarious situation when he started writing Martin Chuzzlewit. He was 30 when he started writing the novel, and given his responsibilities, I don't know how he could write with such a light touch. Apparently the sales were much lower than expected, and it was a worrying time for him. He'd borrowed money to finance his American trip the year before (1842), and he and Kate were expecting child number 5.
It's apparently also the first novel which he planned in advance, and he had his hero Martin go off to America, in the sixth installment, to try to stimulate a bit more interest.
This is really surprising to me, as it's easily among the funniest and most smoothly written so far! I wonder what it was that his readers were wanting, and that they found lacking.
Back to read a bit more. I can't keep away from these wonderful characters - and those names Montague Tigg, Chevy Slyme, Mr and Mrs Spottletoe, Tom Pinch, Charity and Mercy (Cherry and Merry) Pecksniff ...
You can just imagine Dickens sitting down at his desk (THAT desk?) smiling as those first chapters flowed, can't you? Perhaps forgetting his travails for those hours?
I'm really enjoying the passages about Montague Tigg and Chevy Slyme (what wonderful names!) Here's Montague Tigg pontificating,"I understand your mistake, and I am not offended. Why? Because it's complimentary. You suppose I would set myself up for Chevy Slyme. Sir, if there is a man on earth whom a gentleman would feel proud and honoured to be mistaken for, that man is my friend Slyme. For he is, without an exception, the highest-minded, the most independent-spirited, most original, spiritual, classical, talented, the most thoroughly Shakspearian, if not Miltonic, and at the same time the most disgustingly-unappreciated dog I know. But, sir, I have not the vanity to attempt to pass for Slyme. Any other man in the wide world, I am equal to; but Slyme is, I frankly confess, a great many cuts above me. Therefore you are wrong."
It's not at all clear why Tigg, such a shabby mockery of a gentleman is feigning such admiration for his companion, Slyme, a drunk, self-important and self-loathing, embittered man.
When Mark Tapley describes Tigg, he says,
"And I think Mrs Lupin lets him and his friend off very easy in not charging 'em double prices for being a disgrace to the Dragon. That's my opinion. I wouldn't have any such Peter the Wild Boy as him in my house, sir, not if I was paid race-week prices for it."
Here's a bit about Peter the Wild Boy:
"Peter the Wild Boy was a mentally handicapped boy from Hanover in northern Germany who was found in 1725 living wild in the woods near Hamelin, the town of Pied Piper legend. The boy, of unknown parentage, had been living an entirely feral existence for an unknown length of time, surviving by eating forest grass and leaves; he walked on all fours, exhibited uncivilized behaviour and could not be taught to speak a language. Peter was found in the Hertswold Forest by a party of hunters led by George I while on a visit to his Hanover homeland and brought to Great Britain in 1726. He is now believed to have suffered from the very rare genetic disorder Pitt-Hopkins Syndrome... Jean-Jacques Rousseau called Peter ‘the noble savage’, man ‘unspoilt’ by society and civilisation. Daniel Defoe addressed the subject in his pamphlet 'Mere Nature Delineated', published in 1726. He described Peter as an ‘object of pity’ but cast doubt on the story of his origins, dismissing it as a ‘Fib’"
I hadn't realized that the reference 'Peter the Wild Boy' was to a real person -- I had just thought it was an expression. Very interesting Jean! Speaking of 'wild boys', I saw an interesting French film (Truffault I think) based on a true story about a wild boy found living in the woods in France and the struggle to "tame" him, teach him table manners, speech, etc. I think it was called "The Wild Child".
Back to Dickens -- I love that quote about Slyme (especially the penultimate sentence)!
Leslie - Yes there's a lot of subtlety in the relationship between these two, isn't there? Sometimes Dickens is clearly referring to stories or people who were well known at the time, and now more or less forgotten. And at others, as you say, it's easy to miss even the fact that it's a reference! I don't know of the film you mention though.
When one of the characters mistakenly suggests "oysters" instead of sirens or mermaids it's just funny, but sometimes the jokes pass by without being noticed, I think. Such as this, when Mr. Pecksniff assures Martin Chuzzlewit and Tom Pinch,
"There is no mystery; all is free and open. Unlike the young man in the Eastern tale - who is described as a one-eyed almanac, if I am not mistaken, Mr Pinch? -'
'A one-eyed calender, I think, sir,' faltered Tom."
Apparently there's a meaning of "calender" which I didn't know, that of meaning "a dancing dervish who begs". So perhaps Pecksniff has not only mistaken the word "almanac" for this meaning of "calendar", but also presumably chosen the grander word of the two in keeping with his self-aggrandisement. So so many levels it's possible to probe ...
Jean wrote: "Leslie - Yes there's a lot of subtlety in the relationship between these two, isn't there? Sometimes Dickens is clearly referring to stories or people who were well known at the time, and now mor..."
This reminds me of a family story about me and my brother. We were exposed to Flanders & Swann at an early age (as I mentioned in another thread) and once we were singing "Sounding Brass" in the car. There is a bit that goes:
S: I've got a Mini Cooper
F: A what?
S: A Mini Cooper
F: Oh yes, I've got one in my boot!
Well, Andy & I had no idea what a Mini Cooper was nor that in England, a boot was a car trunk so we sang:
"Oh yes, I've got one in my shoe" :)
After Mom & Dad stopped laughing, they explained it to us.
But it just goes to show that people do sometimes unconsciously choose a synonym for what they thought the meaning of a word was.
LOL! I hate to think what you two made of "Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers"!
Ho ho! The words "Pecksniffian" and Pecksniffery" are in the dictionary! He's certainly one of the most odious characters I've come across yet in Dickens. "Sanctimonious, officious, hypocritical, pretentious and condescending, affecting high moral standards, hypocritically benevolent."
Jean wrote: "Ho ho! The words "Pecksniffian" and Pecksniffery" are in the dictionary! He's certainly one of the most odious characters I've come across yet in Dickens. "Sanctimonious, officious, hypocritical,..."
Off to look in my dictionary! But I do agree he is odious. I don't know if he is worse than Uriah Heep though...
Ooooh yes! But he hadn't created him yet! Maybe Pecksniff was festering along nicely in the back of his mind all through Dombey and Son, and then reached new depths of obsequiousness and depravity 5 years later, culminating in the Uriah Heap of David Copperfield.
I can't think of any descriptive words deriving from his name.
I'm mulling over who the title actually refers to. The senior or the junior Martin. It sounds like the senior, and originally I think Dickens meant it to be so, as he had no idea how the novel was going to develop. John Forster notes,"Title and even story had been undetermined while we travelled" and "Beginning so hurriedly as at last he did, altering his course at the opening and seeing little as yet of the main track of his design,"
He even fiddled about with the main character's name, trying out Sweezleden, Sweezleback, Sweezlewag, Chuzzletoe, Chuzzleboy, Chubblewig, and Chuzzlewig
By the third number he'd decided it would be partly about "old Martin's plot to degrade and punish Pecksniff," but this was all writing on the hoof, as usual!
I'd always assumed the younger, just because he is more in the action, especially in America. But based on no evidence.How far have you reached, Jean? I've just finished chapter 10, but don't want to spoil. Are you much further? I keep meaning to remember and quote descriptive phrases or passages, but there are so many! Some writers struggle for just a few of these delights. Dickens drips with them!
Also now half way in Bleak House. Even better!
I think we all assume it's the younger, because that's who the novel concentrates on, and who readers are ususally interested in, not the old codgers. Mainly it is about Martin junior's journey, his personal and moral development, just as Nicholas Nickleby was. But the complete title (in message 731) seems much more to refer to Martin senior. And John Forster (who was there at the time) says,"All which latter portion of the title was of course dropped as the work became modified, in its progress, by changes at first not contemplated"
So it sounds to me as if Dickens himself changed his mind. Martin senior plays an important role in the novel anyway. He's a pivotal character in a way as it is his money which starts the whole thing off. And his temperament is irresistible - a really quirky so-and-so!
I'm just about to start chapter 18. I'm reserving judgement about the American scenes so far. Part of me think they're just too over-blown to be funny. Did you enjoy them, John? I'm wondering if Dickens's anger at events such as copyright infringement is leading to him overstating his case. I have to admit I'm looking forward to the next chapter and getting back to the Chuzzlewits!I'll try to update my status each time so you can easily see where I am.
I'm sure you're right: senior was the intended title name. On the hoof changes as often. And senior, as you say is key towards the end too.
I like the titles of the American newspapers, The"Sewer", "Stabber", "Family Spy", "Private Listener", "Peeper" and so on.And this is a very droll observation which could probably be applied to the citizens of various countries,
"'You have come to visit our country, sir, at a season of great commercial depression,' said the major.
'At an alarming crisis,' said the colonel.
'At a period of unprecedented stagnation,' said Mr Jefferson Brick.
'I am sorry to hear that,' returned Martin. 'It's not likely to last, I hope?'
Martin knew nothing about America, or he would have known perfectly well that if its individual citizens, to a man, are to be believed, it always IS depressed, and always IS stagnated, and always IS at an alarming crisis, and never was otherwise; though as a body they are ready to make oath upon the Evangelists at any hour of the day or night, that it is the most thriving and prosperous of all countries on the habitable globe."
But the depiction of Colonel Diver is so embittered. And the Norris family! What is their purpose? It seems to be solely so that Dickens can say how hypocritical all Americans are, and that even those who claim to be abolitionists are just as bigoted and racist as all the others.
He really seems to have it in for Americans. They have no table manners, they spit freely, they are coarse, bullies, blackmailers, out to defraud ... I am hoping that when we return we meet some more noble representatives! Yes, we had some very unpleasant greedy egotistical characters in the Chuzzlewit family, but it wasn't quite so unremitting. We also had Tom Pinch, his sister Ruth, Mary, Mark Tapley - in fact quite a few well-meaning characters now I think of it.
All About Books
Books mentioned in this topic
David Copperfield (other topics)The Cricket on the Hearth (other topics)
Pinocchio (other topics)
The Cricket on the Hearth (other topics)
The Cricket on the Hearth (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Sutherland (other topics)John Forster (other topics)
John Sutherland (other topics)
Charles Dickens (other topics)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (other topics)
More...
I found this list quite interesting in that it was listed in order of longest to incomplete...
I'll definitely review the 1st message in this thread and I'll def let you know when I get started.
Thank you for opening this. There is only 1 other friend that I know who loves Dickens like I do...'KIN' priceless!