All About Books discussion
Reads & Challenges Archive
>
Jean's Charles Dickens challenge 2014-2015 (and maybe a little further ...)
message 801:
by
Bionic Jean
(new)
Apr 28, 2015 11:31AM
Ah! *duh!*
reply
|
flag
Are you posting her (invisible) portrait now, John?
As you said, duh! It seems that a happy face emoticon (?) deletes everything following it.So, happy face in response to your duh.
I was trying to ask, before moving on from MC:
How do you rate MC in the six read so far? My answer was, not first, not last but solidly in with the pack. And I love them all, of course.
And, if you didn't read any of them for five years, which one would you be itching to read first? My answer was that my choice seems to change as soon as I make it, but that Pickwick might be the one because of its joie de vivre. But it could be ... And it could be .... Maybe The Old Curiosity Shop is the most mysterious? But ......
Really? I didn't know that. My knowledge of emoticons is pretty primitive though.So many difficult questions ... I have yet to write up my review, and am struggling whether to rate it 4* or 5* (I haven't yet succumbed to half stars) so that gives you some idea of how highly I rate it. I can see a decided improvement in this one.
Which one to reread first after five years? Impossible to say - as you found yourself! I'd already sort of decided to read lots of his short stories, letters and miscellaneous papers (thank you John!) after the novels ... then if I'm still around I'll probably do it all again from the start!
So far I've mostly been surprised by the ones general readers don't usually bother to read, ie Barnaby Rudge and Martin Chuzzlewit, so maybe I'd be tempted to read them again first after five years, as I'll have forgotten them most again (if you see what I mean.)
On the other hand I'm easily sucked in by a good story. I seem to have read Oliver Twist lots of times. But it really isn't anything like his best-written novel. And I feel that his best novels are still to come, as I'm pretty sure they're the middle ones :)
Ask me again at the end of the sequence! I'll tell you what though. Next time I would start with Sketches by Boz before The Pickwick Papers. I did toy with the idea initially of working through chronologically, so I could try to read all his published short stories interspersed in order too, but I came to the conclusion before that that would be a bit tricky.
Thank you.Yes, I think the answer is to start from the beginning.
Oliver Twist is, for me, a kind of apprentice work compared to the others, with lots of excellent passages, but 'thin', but still brilliant.
I've not read Sketches by Boz, so I think I'll read those after EdwinD.
Happy Dickens novels interlude!
I have the 1994 BBC miniseries of
Martin Chuzzlewit
on DVD. I've only watched it once, when it was initially broadcast, and remember it being excellent. Here are the main players:
Emma Chambers ... Charity Pecksniff
Julia Sawalha ... Mercy Pecksniff
Keith Allen ... Jonas Chuzzlewit
Philip Franks ... Tom Pinch
Tom Wilkinson ... Seth Pecksniff
Paul Scofield ... Old Martin Chuzzlewit / Anthony Chuzzlewit
Peter Wingfield ... John Westlock
Pauline Turner ... Mary Graham
Ben Walden ... Young Martin Chuzzlewit
Steve Nicolson ... Mark Tapley
Pete Postlethwaite ... Tigg Montague
Paul Francis ... Bailey
Maggie Steed ... Mrs. Todgers
Lynda Bellingham ... Mrs. Lupin
John Padden ... Augustus Moddle
Stephen Mapes ... Lewsome
John Mills ... Mr. Chuffey
Elizabeth Spriggs ... Mrs. Gamp
Graham Stark ... Nadgett
Joan Sims ... Betsy Prig
Robin Hooper ... Mr. Jinkins
Cornelia Hayes O'Herlihy ... Ruth Pinch
Sam Kelly ... Mr. Mould
Julian Fellowes ... Dr. Jobling
David Bradley ... David Crimple
Peter-Hugo Daly ... Chevy Slyme
Colin McCormack ... Bullamy
Nicholas Smith ... Mr. Spottletoe
Lex Neale ... Grand Nephew
Nancy Nevinson ... Deaf Cousin
Philippa Urquhart ... Widow
Roger Ashton-Griffiths ... George Chuzzlewit
Ted Maynard ... General Diver
William Roberts ... Mr. Scadder
I'm looking forward to watching it again now :)
What a cast. Envy, envy! I saw it when it came out, but not since. I'll be interested to hear how they did the Eden scenes, which I don't remember at all.I'll be doing the same with the Bleak House BBC version from 2006 shortly, and Little Dorrit from 2009 later in the year when I've read it again. They were both brilliant, I remember.
Yes, they're a bit vague in my mind too! Clearly they must have though, as the characters are there. Try your library John? Both brilliant, yes I agree, and both series (2005 and 2008) had very good predecessors too!
The 1985 adaptation of Bleak House had Diana Rigg as Lady Dedlock, Denholm Elliott as John Jarndyce, Suzanne Burden as Esther Summerson, Robin Bailey as Sir Leicester Dedlock, Philip Franks as Richard Carstone...
The 1988 adaptation of Little Dorrit included Derek Jacobi as Arthur Clennam, Alec Guinness as Mr Dorrit, Joan Greenwood as Mrs Clennam, Max Wall as Flintwinch, Patricia Hayes as Afferery, Miriam Margolyes as Flora Finching ...
The best people clearly want to star in a Dickens adaptation ;)
Thank you, Jean, I'll certainly be searching the library, Amazon, and second-hand shops for some of these. Having read the source books, it's always fascinating, as well as satisfying (sometimes) to see the different adaptations, isn't it?I do love Philip Franks. He reads audiobooks beautifully, as well, of course.
It is indeed. They adapt them so well usually :) And you'd probably find you recognise other actors in the casts too.
Here is my review of Martin Chuzzlewit.I can't believe how much I had to miss out to make it fit. You could write a whole book about this one!
John has said,"Great review as usual, Jean, but I continue to be puzzled by your disappointment with the criticisms of the Americans.
The American Good Samaritan Mr Bevan is an entirely good character, and he refers to the good rural people he springs from.
Can Dickens not be as (unfairly) rude to branches of society abroad as (unfairly) to branches of society at home? It seems to be an intrinsic part of the plot, sending MC jun to Eden and his redemption.
His subsequent apologies smack more of sales wisdom than truth!"
Yes, Mr Bevan is a goodie. There are a few such, although some others do consider this novel to be anti-American. David Perdue refers to him as a, "Boston doctor whom Martin and Mark meet at Pawkins' Boarding House in New York and one of the few positive characters they meet in the America."
You seem to not have picked up on my careful wording. From my review, linked to above,
"where the humour - at least for this reader - seems to lose its masterly touch. There are a couple of chapters which seem more to be Dickens venting some of his ill feelings for his dislike of the United States."
I've underlined two qualifications there. And I go on,
"Dickens took note, and the later American episodes, in the ironically named "Eden", contain both good and bad characters, well portrayed rather than mere grotesque parodies."
This is in addition to the subsequent apologies which Dickens himself insisted on always being printed to accompany the book, to which you do refer. Of course it is matter of conjecture whether this is what you call "sales wisdom" or what he attributes it to, his second trip there. Have you any reason to doubt the latter stated reason which he gives?
I do agree that the modified attitudes of later American chapters, to which I refer in my review (and in a long earlier post in response to yours, above) may have been due to tact, or a wish for more commercial success, as I have suggested in my review.
Yes, I personally think setting those scenes in America rather than an English "wilderness" was the making of the book. Fortuitous circumstances indeed, to lead to this masterpiece! I have noticed that others sometimes disagree with this though, and wish he had stayed on English soil.
Of course he can be just as rude to those abroad! I think I said earlier here (as well as the example I gave in my review) that it's the writing I'm taking exception to mostly - the inclusion of an entire family for no other purpose than to proselytise - and then forget them for the entire novel.
So I return to the question to you, John. May I not be critical of what I have clearly stated as a "couple of chapters" out of the entire 64, which the author himself says he regrets, and for which I have said are in my opinion not enough to downgrade my overall rating?
I have to say, I'm beginning to think you have a preconceived idea of my final conclusion, based on my first thoughts which I mentioned here, when I was initially reading about Martin and Mark's landing in America, rather than my later more considered view, placing everything in context, and when I wrote my review. Do remember, it's the first of the six so far which I have personally rated 5*.
Jean, if I didn't recognise the fact you are the best reviewer I've come across in Goodreads, and the best judge of Dickens, I wouldn't bother, or want, to try to nag away at views that puzzle me. So the facts that, for you, the humour loses its touch, and two chapters show Dickens venting his dislike, and that these views are the opposite of mine, makes me try to wonder why. Particularly as you rate the book so very highly.
The fact that Dickens is always venting his dislike, in all books, very often with characters and plot-lines that could easily be omitted, makes it difficult to see what the problem with those chapters is.
But I'm annoying you, so I withdraw from this dialogue.
It's interesting to wonder whether it's the length of my reply, or my underlining you refer to there ... but I agree, it may be as well to draw a line under this part of the discussion (*pun intended*) since I honestly don't know how I can state my view any more clearly! Thank you for the lovely compliment :) Are you going to "like" that review then, or is that a step too far? ;) I personally click "like" on all sorts of reviews - if I think they are well argued - even though I may violently disagree with their stance. Horridly crude system :(
I do value your input, John - on Dickens especially - so I wouldn't ever want you to avoid saying in which ways you disagree! So often it's considering another's perspective which makes us reconsider our earlier view of a book. And of course, having said that, there's always a possibility that on a third reading, I might enjoy even those couple of chapters! Who knows?
Just 'liked' it! As I did, of course. Is there a league table and competition?Moving on, I'm 35% through Great Expectations, a first read. And I've never seen a film or TV version either. So it's quite new.
Best Regards - John
Really John? How extraordinary! I would have thought Great Expectations is one of the most often adapted. It must be a 5* read. What a treat you have in store!! It just gets better and better as the story unfolds :)Afterwards, be sure to watch the old black and white David Lean classic film - marvellous!
And as to your question, yes, there is a sort of league table, done by country. (UK for us, rather than England.)
Under one's profile picture in small letters it says "best reviewers" (among other things - but that's the one I watch). If you get to the top 99 in your country, it gives you a rating there by week, month, 12 months and all time (click on "best reviewers" to see.) Then it tells you at the top of that page with the top 99 people, what the statistic is actually for. I reckon "best reviewer" is the most meaningful one out of the reviews category, because it says, "People who wrote reviews that got the most votes on Goodreads this week"/month/year/all time, if you click on the relevant heading.
If it's a competition, I think it must just be for the kudos :) It does give one a nice warm feeling.
Ohhhhh ... of course!!! With your background this is just your cup of tea :D
LOL! Just been browsing the best and top. So, I see you are a 'player', as they say.Do some people avoid liking reviews of people they think are rivals?
Oh I've no idea John! I'm sure you could work out a way of doing a statistical analysis to find out though. Actually I hadn't thought I'd ever get into the top 99 because my reviews are so long. Since they only need to be 50 words to "qualify", I assumed some people would write loads of short ones. This post is over 50 words for a start! :DOnly a "player" by default. It's an automatic thing which comes up.
EDIT - Actually, you'd need to be incredibly devious to influence figures in that way. Most of the Goodreads readers aren't in the same country as you are, therefore not in "competition" with you. Even one's friends are not usually (you are a rarity ;) ) So I can't believe many readers here would bother to go to the trouble of checking that out first!
John wrote: "Moving on, I'm 35% through Great Expectations, a first read. And I've never seen a film or TV version either. So it's quite new..."I find that so surprising John! So many people think that is Dickens' finest novel (not me though). I agree with Jean's recommendation of the Lean film version if you decide to watch an adaptation once you finish the book. There was a more recent film version but it wasn't as good as Lean's in my opinion.
I recently acquired the audiobook of Great Expectations for free so I am feeling a slight pull to join you, but I will put that off as I would rather listen to Our Mutual Friend next.
I am now reading The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London by Judith Flanders as part of my project to read around Charles Dickens.
Jean, well, congratulations on being #31, anyway!Jean and Leslie - thanks for your comments re Great E. Not having come up against it was just one of those things, so apart from knowing it started with an escaped criminal, and having Miss Havisham as a disappointed fiancée, all the usual panoply of wonderful characters are new to me. I've met the London characters, and Pip has just met Estella on her return from abroad and on her way to Richmond. I'm imagining that Estella has been developed by Miss H to break Pip's heart, and that Miss H is not the benefactor.
But, I don't want to know!
At the moment I like it very much, but think Dickens is probably not at his most magical in first-person narratives, as with David Copperfield.
Leslie, for me it's Great E, then Little Dorrit, Our Mutual Friend, and Edwin Drood, then I'll have read all the novels in two years. What a lucky boy!
Jean, I bought the Flanders book from Amazon/Kindle a few weeks ago. It starts well, so I will enjoy it, but may be after the novels.
I really enjoyed Great Expectations, John. I think it was the first Dickens I felt truly absorbed by and wanted to keep reading. It still took me a couple of months to read but I enjoyed it a lot!
Re The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London ... I think you may well enjoy it, John. It is a little dry and textbookish for me, and I do keep wishing I was reading Dickens, for his entertainment value and lively writing, whenever she quotes him! It is absolutely packed with information, however.What Judith Flanders is trying to do, is to provide the backdrop to Charles Dickens's novels in great detail. So whenever she can she will give an example from his writing, followed by the precise location, or legal position, or social history etc.
I envy you coming to Great Expectations for the first time, John, and wouldn't dream of spoiling it for you :) I think Leslie and I are just amazed that you haven't come across one of the myriad adaptations! I've seen it on stage, two films, several TV adaptations, two radio adaptations, complete audio reading, abridged audios readings ... and these are just off the top of my head!
Heather - I think it's a great one to have started with. That one or David Copperfield :)
Heather - thank you, I certainly am enjoying it, and I find that the more Dickens I read, the quicker I read. I suppose it's about getting on the same wavelength. Most books seem to flow better in the second half, for the same reason, I think.
Jean, you're right - dry and text bookish suits me very well!As for having missed Great E, we all have these odd gaps, I guess. In a film context, I've never seen Dr Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia despite being bullied to do so by various people.
I suppose it a good thing to have great works to look forward to. Proust sometime - I've had a nice edition staring at me from my shelves for years!
Of course I waste lots of my life going to football matches (40+ per year) and cricket matches (30+ per year)! Proper culture!
I like this which I've just read,"There was even a trade in used tea leaves. In most households, after the tea had been made, the leaves were rinsed, dried and sprinkled on the carpets before sweeping, to help collect the dust. Once this had been done, some charwomen sold the leaves to unscrupulous dealers who mixed them with new tea leaves, selling the tea at bargain prices. It was these very women and their kind who were most likely to purchase the lowest-priced tea, and who were drinking what they had lately swept up." Priceless!
Mostly I've been reading about the clearance of the slums though, which is a horrific catalogue of suffering. It's all very well to "clear" the area - but those people had nowhere to go. The rich didn't seem to even know of the poor's existence sometimes - toll gates kept one side apart from another, even though they were in close proximity. I'd no idea that there were so many tolls in that century - well over a hundred. There are a mere handful today. And how ironic that questions were raised in Parliament three times about reducing the number - and then the number soared because it was to the Corporation of London's benefit.
After the details I read about Smithfield market yesterday where "cruelty was standard", this is turning into a very grim read indeed :(
Mod
Greg - That is my one problem with the book though, that it is jampacked with statistics, well-researched and worthy, but a bit hard to take in and retain. The sort of book you feel you should be taking notes on.As a Dickens fanatic and someone who's been local to London and working there for decades, you'd think I'd be fascinated with all the detailed back-history. But I have found parts of this book tiresome. At the beginning, as the previous book I'd read had been by Charles Dickens himself, I was itching to have his entertaining voice, rather than such a dry textbook approach. I remember putting my ereader down in disgust, very close to giving up on it after a dozen pages on macadam road surfacing ...
Just because something has an incredible amount of detail, has been well researched and the author has spent a lot of time putting together quite a complete account, does not mean it is a pleasure to read, flowing well, or even of interest to many people. BUT ...
I found I wanted to stick with it just by simply reading faster! Instead of savouring every word, as I do with Dickens, I slow down for the bits in this book which interest me.
For instance, I am finding an explanation of Dickens' vernacular fascinating. I've always loved the way he revels in pronunciation, and invents specific idiolects for eg Sairey Gamp (Mrs Gamp in Martin Chuzzlewit). Like many others, I had assumed he had simply made a mistake in transposing the "v"s and "w"s eg. in Sam Weller (The Pickwick Papers) - but was always puzzled about this as Dickens knew London intimately. Now I realise that some modes of speech and slang were only used for about a decade, it all makes sense!
The graveyards are a real eyeopener. They are such restful and peaceful places now, but this book does give you a little insight into the stench and putrefaction there was. The piling up of bodies until what started as a pit ended up above peoples' heads. The cesspits under people's houses with cellars packed (literally) full of human excrement. Flushing toilets being hailed as a wonderful new invention - despite the fact that they flushed into the river Thames - the source of all the water they used.
Although I knew of Joseph Bazalgette, who was reponsible for putting in the sewer system, I'd never realised the immense vision and difference his innovations made. Forget putting Jane Austen on our new English banknotes, I'm for putting him on them. What a hero!
Mod
I read some about sanitation during the Victorian Era way back when I took Victorian lit classes in college. From the little I've read, I agree with you - Bazalgette does deserve the banknote! :)
Non-fiction isn't usually my thing, but I did love some of the Victorian era essays I read back then. My overall impression was of a time of great change, for good and ill. If I recall correctly, there was even a whole book by a gentleman who argued that fossils were put into the ground as a temptation to test belief in the divine order? Even nonsense like that was fairly fascinating to read as a curiosity. And then on the side of science people like Thomas Henry Huxley. So many colorful personalities all around. One of my favorites when I was steeped in the period was John Ruskin, a charming mix of perfect good sense and total nonsense all elucidated in a delightfully eccentric (some might say florid) writing style. Well I've gone off topic, haven't I?!
Jean wrote: "I like this which I've just read,"There was even a trade in used tea leaves. In most households, after the tea had been made, the leaves were rinsed, dried and sprinkled on the carpets before swe..."
There was, unfortunately, a huge trade in adulterated foodstuffs in those times, which meant that people had to test things like flour for contamination with all sorts of things, like alum or chalk. It was why the Quakers did so well in the food business; they could be trusted not to sell corrupted products.
I don't like dry books either Jean, they make reading such a chore!
I remember finding out quite a lot about John Ruskin when visiting his house in the Lake District, "Brantwood" link here. Actually it looks best at a great distance, with the lake prominent, as it's quite isolated ...But when we first went around there seemed to be so many similarities with what I liked - even Chris commented on it! Not only his taste in Art but also little details such as shells, stones, peacock feathers ... it was a really weird feeling!
And yes he was one eccentric guy! Hope I'm not similar in that way ;)
Paul - yes I'm trying to remember what someone else said about the Quakers. Now the temperance movement are completely teetotal, ie have total abstinence from alcoholic drink, but at first they did not not advocate abstinence but moderation. "beer remained a staple part of the British diet, and the early movement was very much a reaction against the problems caused by the spread of cheap spirits in the 18th century - in particular in the notorious gin-houses, which boasted that you could be “drunk for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence”.
and there was some connection whereby the Quakers provided good quality beer, but I'm a bit vague as to details.
Can't resist it ... though I know it could never have happened ...
Jean wrote: "Can't resist it ... though I know it could never have happened ..."
Ha ha, that's brilliant, Jean! Must read that book soon!!
Mod
LOL!! Thanks for the cartoon Jean :-)
Apparently the BBC are filming a new Dickens drama called "Dickensian" - 20 episodes with a cast including Caroline Quentin, Peter Firth, Pauline Collins and Stephen Rea.The plan is for "Dickensian" to bring together some of the writer's best-loved characters such as Scrooge, Fagin and Miss Havisham, as their lives interweave in 19th Century London.
Rea, who plays Inspector Bucket from Bleak House, has said, "Dickensian is the most beautiful re-working of the world of Dickens that you could ever imagine. The characters take on a fresh life, and any actor would be mad not to accept the challenge these great scripts offer." And Collins, who plays Martin Chuzzlewit's Mrs Gamp, has said, "You don't need to know Dickens' novels to fall in love with the stories we're telling. It's going to be a real treat to watch.""
I'm quite excited :)
That sounds great, Jean. I will keep an eye out for that. Thanks for sharing
It could be the best of series, it could be the worst of series ......
John wrote: "It could be the best of series, it could be the worst of series ......"LOL!
Ha ha ha! Indeed - it could be dire. I don't like what I've heard of the radio series "Bleak Expectations", but some people must as it's gone to 5 series now!
John wrote: "It could be the best of series, it could be the worst of series ......"Yes, I'm excited, but apprehensive too!
Mod
In reading Kafka on the Shore last night, a book written in 2002 by a Japanese novelist, I had the pleasure of coming across a Charles Dickens reference:
A shabby, miserable sort of building. The kind where shabby people spend one shabby day after another doing their shabby work. The kind of fallen-from-grace sort of building you find in any city, the kind Charles Dickens could spend ten pages describing.
I love the universality of Dickens' appeal!
A shabby, miserable sort of building. The kind where shabby people spend one shabby day after another doing their shabby work. The kind of fallen-from-grace sort of building you find in any city, the kind Charles Dickens could spend ten pages describing.
I love the universality of Dickens' appeal!
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...
