All About Books discussion
Reads & Challenges Archive
>
Jean's Charles Dickens challenge 2014-2015 (and maybe a little further ...)
message 851:
by
LauraT
(new)
Jun 08, 2015 12:32PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I didn't realize that today, June 9th, is the anniversary of the death of Charles Dickens. Here's a piece from The Writer's Almanac for today, where I learned this.
It was on this day in 1870 that the novelist Charles Dickens died; he had a stroke and fell off his chair at the dinner table.
Dickens asked to be buried "in an inexpensive, unostentatious, and strictly private manner," so even though he was buried in Westminster Abbey, it was a secret funeral, early in the morning, with only 12 mourners. But the grave was left open for a week and thousands of people, all types of people, came to throw in flowers for the man whose tomb is inscribed with the words "He was a sympathiser to the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed; and by his death, one of England's greatest writers is lost to the world."
It was on this day in 1870 that the novelist Charles Dickens died; he had a stroke and fell off his chair at the dinner table.
Dickens asked to be buried "in an inexpensive, unostentatious, and strictly private manner," so even though he was buried in Westminster Abbey, it was a secret funeral, early in the morning, with only 12 mourners. But the grave was left open for a week and thousands of people, all types of people, came to throw in flowers for the man whose tomb is inscribed with the words "He was a sympathiser to the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed; and by his death, one of England's greatest writers is lost to the world."
Thanks for this Terri. Yes the wishes of writers do seem to be ignored quite often, don't they? Manuscripts, juvenilia and letters not being destroyed etc. Dickens never wanted a statue of himself either, but there are several of these around the world, and one was even put up finally here in England last year, with the approval of some of his descendants.
Hi, Jean, I hope you are well. Are you getting back on the Dickens roller coaster? Persevering with Judith Flanders, or on to Dombey & Son? Best Wishes - JohnF
Definitely John! Can't live without Dickens for long ... I had intended to have finished the Judith Flanders by now, but haven't looked at it for the past 3 weeks. Will try to finish that now, then possibly start Dombey around the end of July. Is that when you were thinking of a reread?
Sounds good - a skim re-read for me since I read it in Sep. A good but strange book, so it'll be good to hear what you think (a re-read for you, I suppose?). Very divergent views generally, I seem to remember.
John - Yes, I remember you reading Dombey and Son - and that you were happy to revisit it this summer ...Divergent views? Oh good! Sometimes that's more interesting than a book which is universally loved/hated, isn't it? I think Hard Times is another such (I seem to remember you thoroughly disliked that one) and of course The Old Curiosity Shop splits opinion massively.
Might you give up on the dry-as-dust Flanders? Go on, be a devil! Back to the fiction?
I've decided to speed up my reading of it quite a bit. It is absolutely packed with information; in many ways it's more of a reference book, and I do admire her industry. But ...
While you're doing that, I'm threequarters through The Last Chronicle of Barset, the sixth Trollope Barchester novel, having read Dr Thorne, Framley Parsonage, and The Small House at Allington in the last few months. So, back to Dickens shortly will be an interesting contrast!
Nice to see you back commentating, Jean! As always, look forward to following your read
John wrote: "While you're doing that, I'm threequarters through The Last Chronicle of Barset, the sixth Trollope Barchester novel, having read Dr Thorne, Framley Parsonage, and The Small House at Allington in t..."Oh, such fun! I need to read some more Trollope.
I am currently making my way slowly through Our Mutual Friend -- my first time reading this one!
Jean, Leslie,Yes, it's been a great pleasure to read the last four Barchester novels. My respect for Trollope, his subtle characterisation, and his treatment of the changes in society at that period (urban/rural, commerce, finance, etc, etc) has certainly gone up. And his sympathy with all characters and classes, even the bad ones. Must read the Palliser 6 soon, but I do need to spend some time reading some crime novel rubbish!
I really enjoyed Our Mutual Friend, Leslie. First time, too, and it's interesting subsequently reading reviews/criticisms: how it was not a great success at the time, and criticised later by many critics, although gaining in reputation more recently. Wonderful characters, and a reasonably convincing mystery plot, if convoluted.
It's odd that it still isn't more widely read, don't you think? Some people have said it is overlong and drags, but I think it has most of the elements of Dickens which we love. Are you enjoying it Leslie?
Jean wrote: "It's odd that it still isn't more widely read, don't you think? Some people have said it is overlong and drags, but I think it has most of the elements of Dickens which we love. Are you enjoying it..."Yes, I am but find that some of the passages are better read than listened to (I am mostly listening to the Librivox recording by Mil Nicholson). Just finished Book 1 today.
@John, I found the Palliser series not as much fun as the Barsetshire series but I know people who feel the opposite. I'll be interested in seeing which camp you fall into once you do read them :)
Leslie - I can see exactly what you mean about some passages in Our Mutual Friend being better on the page than listened to. I felt on my first acquantance with Barnaby Rudge that the prose was dull and dragged. That was entirely, I now realise, due to the fact that the only way I could access it was through a recording of the complete text, and it had been read by a regular RNIB reader whose diction always sounded as if he was inebriated and sent me to sleep! When I actually came to read it on the page (well, the kindle) a few months ago I discovered it's a very powerful book indeed and some parts actually made the hairs on the back on my neck stand up!And yet at other times I find myself thinking how obvious it is that Dickens's first love was the stage, as opposed to writing. I am currently listening to a very long dramatisation of David Copperfield at the moment (10 hours approx.) and Mr Micawber is an absolute delight! Characters such as he just act out their parts in your head as you read them, I think. They just seem to come alive on the page :)
Terri - I never responded to your earlier post about Dickens spending 10 pages describing a shabby old building - sorry!What I've noticed recently is how often a building will be personnified, and so Charles Dickens will describe a house or other building in much the same detail, giving it a personality (and frequently making the description very atmospheric too). Here's an example:
There's a character in Nicholas Nickleby called Arthur Gride. He's an old miser, a cunning and revolting manipulator, who hatches a plan to marry a beautiful young girl, Madeline Bray, the penniless daughter of a debtor, Walter Bray. It's one of the many subplots ...
The point is, when Arthur Gride was being described as a dirty, tatty, shambling, disgraceful old man, I realised that the description had segued not only into the chair he was sitting on, but also the very house he occupied! It was all of a piece. Very skilful writing, as each had their own character and personality, and weren't just described conventionally :)
I'm about three quarters through The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London by Judith Flanders now. I've been reading this off and on, as there's a wealth of information. Whereas some is fascinating some is just very monotonous though. For intance, I liked the chapter about street entertaining better than the worthier ones, such as the part about road surfaces. The chapter I've read is all about street violence, and it is quite an eyeopener. I knew things were thrown at people when they were pilloried, but I didn't know it wasn't just rotten fruit but barrowloads of excrement, slaughterhouse byproducts, dead cats and dogs ... Funny what people thought of as great entertainment in those days!
I am really enjoying all the references to Dickens' writing too - mostly details from his novels. It does add another dimension to be aware of the social history, and the traditions and conventions of the time.
Jean wrote: "Leslie - I can see exactly what you mean about some passages in Our Mutual Friend being better on the page than listened to. I felt on my first acquantance with ..."I can't blame the narrator, as I think Mil Nicholson does an excellent job. But this book has more asides where I find when listening my attention wanders -- as much as I like audiobooks, they rarely capture my complete attention the way reading a print book can. Perhaps these asides are part of the reason Our Mutual Friend didn't get as good reaction upon first publication?
Leslie - Perhaps so - thanks for the info! You've read Our Mutual Friend much more recently than I have. (I was aware that it wouldn't be the skill of the narrator in this case, as you and others have said how good Mil Nicholson is on many occasions.)
I agree that it can be easier to let your attention wander when listening. I've thought for some time that listening to the complete text can be a test of how good it is. It really shows up any flaws in the writing!
Well I've just read The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London by Judith Flanders as part of my "Reading Around Dickens" challenge. It's a very patchy read - some parts were fascinating but others really dragged. I seem to have had it on the go a long time; I really wasn't interested in that level of description of road surfacing. I kept thinking that I wished I was reading one of Dickens's novels as as I struggled through The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London.
Anyway, added my review to message 1, and my next read will be Dombey and Son. It will be such a relief to be reading the man himself :)
It was a real curate's egg, John!
Yes, I've read that thread, and you just had to be the first to use it in anger, eh? But a good use of it, of course! Well done!
Sorry - what thread and what did I use in anger? Bit flummoxed here. Am I not thinking straight? (It's late ...)
That conversation about 'a curate's egg'. In 'What have you just read', and Jon talked about seeing who could work the phrase into a conversation. About 3 hrs ago.'In anger' just meaning 'in a proper conversation'.
I hadn't seen all the fallout! How funny - thanks. Actually, I'll put here what I've just said there, so I don't lose it.Stephen Jarvis, the author of a new novel Death and Mr. Pickwick: A Novel contacted me a few months ago, just before it went to print, and asked who I would advise him sending complimentary copies to. He had enjoyed my review of The Pickwick Papers and initially said he wanted to make contact, and to widen his reading as he'd been devoted to writing the book for so long.
I suggested both Peter Ackroyd and Claire Tomalin might be helpful authors to have read his book, but it sounded as though he'd already had a falling out with Peter Ackroyd. He said he'd send one to Claire Tomalin.
He said his novel would change the whole course of how we look at The Pickwick Papers. Hmmm. A rather large claim, I thought ;) But who knows?
We had quite a series of conversations, but in the end I decided the book was just too expensive to buy on kindle, and although he joined a Goodreads group "The Pickwick Club" (who read Dickens exclusively) on my recommendation, again, he was only keen to promote his book really - and said so.
If anyone wants to follow this up, his Facebook page, devoted to his novel again, is here
I would be interested to hear anyone's views who has read the novel ...
Dombey and Son
Publication sequence for the original serial:
I – October 1846 (chapters 1–4)
II – November 1846 (chapters 5–7)
III – December 1846 (chapters 8–10)
IV – January 1847 (chapters 11–13)
V – February 1847 (chapters 14–16)
VI – March 1847 (chapters 17–19)
VII – April 1847 (chapters 20–22)
VIII – May 1847 (chapters 23–25)
IX – June 1847 (chapters 26–28)
X – July 1847 (chapters 29–31)
XI – August 1847 (chapters 32–34)
XII – September 1847 (chapters 35–38)
XIII – October 1847 (chapters 39–41)
XIV – November 1847 (chapters 42–45)
XV – December 1847 (chapters 46–48)
XVI – January 1848 (chapters 49–51)
XVII – February 1848 (chapters 52–54)
XVIII – March 1848 (chapters 55–57)
XIX-XX – April 1848 (chapters 58–62)
The novel's full title is "Dombey and Son: Dealings with the Firm of Dombey and Son: Wholesale, Retail and for Exportation". During 1844-47, the railways were just starting to be developed, and the impact this has on London life is a major aspect of the book.
Dickens was between 34 and 36 years old when writing Dombey and Son.
The first parts were written in Lausanne, Switzerland, before he returned to England, via Paris, to complete it. He also published one of his Christmas books, The Battle Of Life, was directing and acting in various theatrical productions, and set up "Urania Cottage" (for "fallen women") with his friend the philanthropist Angela Burdett-Coutts, all within the space of time when he was writing this novel. As always, he was pushing himself to the absolute maximum!
I started this a few days ago, and have just read the first 7chapters. Already I've been giggling at some of the characters who are flitting on and off the page - "Susan Nipper, Polly Toodle, Solomon Gills, Lucretia Tox, Captain Cuttle" ... I know full well that some of them will never reappear. Dickens just can't seem to stop himself inventing them! But the main one, "Paul Dombey", is there right at the start with his dour starchiness, totally besotted with his newborn son and just oblivious to his daughter "Florence".Although I've read them all, I don't have a clear memory of this one, except that it felt a bit like a lesser version of Hard Times. It's not one I would be drawn to otherwise, so I'll be interested to see how much I enjoy it. There have been some real surprises for me in my rereads so far! And it's great to see how the author develops, by reading them all in order.
Dombey and Son is Dickens's seventh novel, and it was illustrated by his great friend Hablot K. Browne, or "Phiz". Dickens was worried about how this one would sell, as he had new publishers, Bradbury and Evans. He needn't have worried! As usual it was published in monthly parts, this time between Oct 1846 - Apr 1848, and before long the installments were selling at up to 40,000 copies a month - eight times as many as his main competitor ...
Interestingly the same publisher was also publishing monthly installments of Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray, but they were only selling only 5000 copies a month at the most. Yet nowadays I think that Vanity Fair is far the more popular of the two. It just shows once again how immensely popular Dickens was - he really could do no wrong in the public's eye.
Critics consider Dombey and Son to be Dickens's first artistically mature work. It's the first one for which he planned properly with notes to outline how the novel would progress. He called these notes "mems". Apparently after this novel was published Dickens's reputation had grown so much that he was by then considered a world class author.
I loved the atmosphere of this part:"The first shock of a great earthquake had, just at that period, rent the whole neighbourhood to its centre. Traces of its course were visible on every side. Houses were knocked down; streets broken through and stopped; deep pits and trenches dug in the ground; enormous heaps of earth and clay thrown up; buildings that were undermined and shaking, propped by great beams of wood. Here, a chaos of carts, overthrown and jumbled together, lay topsy-turvy at the bottom of a steep unnatural hill; there, confused treasures of iron soaked and rusted in something that had accidentally become a pond. Everywhere were bridges that led nowhere; thoroughfares that were wholly impassable; Babel towers of chimneys, wanting half their height; temporary wooden houses and enclosures, in the most unlikely situations; carcases of ragged tenements, and fragments of unfinished walls and arches, and piles of scaffolding, and wildernesses of bricks, and giant forms of cranes, and tripods straddling above nothing. There were a hundred thousand shapes and substances of incompleteness, wildly mingled out of their places, upside down, burrowing in the earth, aspiring in the air, mouldering in the water, and unintelligible as any dream. Hot springs and fiery eruptions, the usual attendants upon earthquakes, lent their contributions of confusion to the scene. Boiling water hissed and heaved within dilapidated walls; whence, also, the glare and roar of flames came issuing forth; and mounds of ashes blocked up rights of way, and wholly changed the law and custom of the neighbourhood.
In short, the yet unfinished and unopened Railroad was in progress; and, from the very core of all this dire disorder, trailed smoothly away, upon its mighty course of civilisation and improvement."
It reminded me very much of the part in The Old Curiosity Shop, where Nell and her grandfather are wandering around the outskirts of the factory towns, and all the industrial smog and filth.
Just back into this, Jean, so I'll be skim-reading and commenting. Given it was 'planned', the structure was really curious, I thought when reading it. But that's further into the book!
To be honest I've seen little sign of planning so far - we have all the cameo roles as usual! Though he has introduced us to 3 quite different types of families:The Dombeys, with the aloof and repressed father, Polly Toodles' family who are all affection and with a vaguely dimwitted father - ie exactly the opposite - and Solomon Gill and his nephew Walter, in the middle, who seem to be (as the nursery rhyme says) "just right"!
That does seem to be carefully planned rather than just grown organically.
I've had another mental throwback to The Old Curiosity Shop now, with the frail boy, Paul, and his morbid thoughts about Mrs Pipchin. He reminds me so much of Little Nell, sitting amongst the gravestones and imagining herself among the dead ...
Both are very fanciful portrayals of children, however ill, but then we know Dickens's preoccupation with the early death of children or young people (because of his sister-in-law Mary dying at 17).
I do love his description of Mrs. Pipchin:
"This celebrated Mrs Pipchin was a marvellous ill-favoured, ill-conditioned old lady, of a stooping figure, with a mottled face, like bad marble, a hook nose, and a hard grey eye, that looked as if it might have been hammered at on an anvil without sustaining any injury. Forty years at least had elapsed since the Peruvian mines had been the death of Mr Pipchin; but his relict still wore black bombazeen, of such a lustreless, deep, dead, sombre shade, that gas itself couldn't light her up after dark, and her presence was a quencher to any number of candles. She was generally spoken of as 'a great manager' of children; and the secret of her management was, to give them everything that they didn't like, and nothing that they did - which was found to sweeten their dispositions very much. She was such a bitter old lady, that one was tempted to believe there had been some mistake in the application of the Peruvian machinery, and that all her waters of gladness and milk of human kindness, had been pumped out dry, instead of the mines.
'Well, Sir,' said Mrs Pipchin to Paul, 'how do you think you shall like me?'
'I don't think I shall like you at all,' replied Paul."
Yes, Dickens has his stock character 'obsessions', doesn't he? Unlike many people, both Nell and Dombey fils strike a chord with me.
Are we the only ones who've noticed this then John?!
You and me, the world's most perceptive Dickens scholars?
John wrote: "You and me, the world's most perceptive Dickens scholars?"Hey Hey Hey!!!!
there are some of us out here who are apprenticing Dickens students yet!!!!!!
Well I'm assuming John's comment here was a tongue-in-cheek remark about our joint enthusiasm (or some might say obsession in my case!)Thanks for commenting - you're very welcome to join in any of my reads Janice. I see you've read and given 3 of them 5*, but no reviews (links to mine are all in comment 1 by the way) so are clearly a lover of his writing too :)
Janice - me, I'm just 'umble. Jean's the expert, I'm just an interested enquirer with cotton wool in the centre of my brain. Constantly amazed at how much I enjoy Dickens, infuriating as he is!
Jean, you are right - I really don't like writing reviews - I find it hard to put into words my feelings on the book...I guess because Dickens is so well read and I'm still learning how to read him...but I do love his writing...I'm getting there.
I'm doing 3 other read-a-longs right now -- when is your next? snd which one will it be?
Janice - I do understand. With Dickens in particular, there's hardly any need for yet more commentary. Did you know there's been a "major new biography" of him roughly every decade since he died? LOL! "Learning how to read him" - Well I'd say just go with what you feel! There isn't a "right way" surely? I like to thrash out all the details, others like to skim read, one reader in this group even read one of his novels in 2 days! There's a myriad of coffee table books of Dickens, which give just short passages from favourite novels, so there really are numerous approaches. But mine is the opposite, as I said. I personally allow myself 2 months for each read (so think October for the next - which is chronological, so will be David Copperfield) - and frequently need that entire 2 months to read, research, discuss and write my thoughts. (I do read other stuff alongside ...)
And that's what my reviews are - a distillation of my personal reactions, my thoughts on what we've discussed here, and what I've researched. There's no need for them in the general plethora of Dickens material, but people in Goodreads especially have said they enjoy them, and certainly they help me to order my thoughts!
I try to explain all this in my comment 1. Perhaps you are on an app, or you would have seen that people have started to chip in about Dombey and Son already. Comments start with number 883, where I placed the list of dates for the original serial. If you get to a computer please do look at my comment 1, where I reference what I'm doing in more detail. This is not a readalong in this group's sense of the word - it's more individual than that - but you are more than welcome to come along for the ride.
Hope this helps. And do read one of the reviews I've written. You might find you agree with some of it - or have a completely different reaction! At any rate, it might help you put your own feelings into words. Talking about Dickens here with others while I'm reading a novel of his certainly helps me clarify my thoughts a lot :)
Apparently Mrs. Pipchin was based on an Elizabeth Roylance, with whom Dickens lodged when he was 12, and the rest of his family were in the Marshalsea debtor's prison. Not surprisingly Dickens had vivid and unforgettable memories of his terrible experience, which he was still keeping secret at this time.Here are Mrs. Pipchin and the young Paul Dombey (who is so frail and delicate at the time that he has to go about in a carriage, and spends most of the rest of the time sitting down). Dickens absolutely hated this illustration!
As I've mentioned before, Dickens always kept a very close eye on the illustrations, as he did with everything. He liked to "call the shots". His journals make it clear that he often specified exactly what - and how - things should be depicted. Even though he had his favourite illustrator and friend Hablot Knight Browne working on them, he still was not satisifed, and while he was still in Lausanne, Switzerland, he wrote in a letter to his mentor (and biographer, whom we've come across many times before) John Forster,
"I am really distressed by the illustration of Mrs. Pipchin and Paul. It is so frightfully and wildly wide of the mark. Good Heaven! in the commonest and most literal construction of the text, it is all wrong. She is described as an old lady, and Paul's 'miniature armchair' is mentioned more than once. He ought to be sitting in a little arm-chair down in a corner of the fireplace, staring up at her. I can't say what pain and vexation it is to be so utterly misrepresented. I would cheerfully have given a hundred pounds to have kept this illustration out of the book. He never could have got that idea of Mrs. Pipchin if he had attended to the text. Indeed I think he does better without the text; for then the notion is made easy to him in short description, and he can't help taking it in."
It seems perfectly OK and in keeping with the others to me. The only "mistake" is the size of the armchair. Mrs. Pipchin is suitably "ogreish" (as Dickens keeps decribing her) and Paul appropriately apprehensive. And what a waspish way to talk about his friend! All I can think is that Dickens's own mental image of the scene must have been particuarly strong.
We seem to have a surfeit of "oodles" in Dickens. Charity Pecksniff tries her hardest to marry Mr. Moodle in Martin Chuzzlewit.And now we have the Toodle Family (Polly Toodle, who takes the name of Richards to suit Mr Dombey).
Best of all though, there's this bit in chapter 12 of Bleak House,
"Lord Boodle ... tells Sir Leicester Dedlock with much gravity, after dinner, that he really does not see to what the present age is tending ... the limited choice of the Crown, in the formation of a new ministry, would lie between Lord Coodle and Sir Thomas Doodle — supposing it to be impossible for the Duke of Foodle to act with Goodle, which may be assumed to be the case in consequence of the breach arising out of that affair with Hoodle. Then, giving the Home Department and the leadership of the House of Commons to Joodle, the Exchequer to Koodle, the Colonies to Loodle, and the Foreign Office to Moodle, what are you to do with Noodle? You can't offer him the Presidency of the Council; that is reserved for Poodle. You can't put him in the Woods and Forests; that is hardly good enough for Quoodle. What follows? That the country is shipwrecked, lost, and gone to pieces ... because you can't provide for Noodle!"
I'm now wondering if this gave rise to the description "oodles of oodles" ...
I love that passage of Bleak House Jean! Jean wrote: "Although I've read them all, I don't have a clear memory of this one, except that it felt a bit like a lesser version of Hard Times. It's not one I would be drawn to otherwise, so I'll be interested to see how much I enjoy it. There have been some real surprises for me in my rereads so far! ..."
This surprised me as I really liked this when I read it a few years ago. I am just catching up now, so I will be interested in reading your comments as you progress! I do agree with your comments re:Vanity Fair - so interesting to see how different books fare as time passes. I often think about this with recent books which get a lot of hoopla!
Jean wrote: "There isn't a "right way" surely? I like to thrash out all the details, others like to skim read, one reader in this group even read one of his novels in 2 days! ..."
Surely I am not the only one who has devoured Dickens! I am enjoying the slower paced rereading but for the first time reads, I just can't wait to find out what will happen next!
Not at all Leslie! I was actually thinking of Alannah and Bleak House. I seem to remember she was so enthralled by it that she couldn't put it down and raced through! It is an intriguing story :) I wasn't sure I should name names - but there again it's just a style of reading as good as any other - so I think perhaps she won't mind ;)I think what you say is a fair point. Often at the end of a book I've read quickly, I want to go back to the beginning with the knowledge I have gained.
And thanks for joining in Leslie - it's always good to have your contributions - and a U.S. viewpoint :)
Jean wrote: "Apparently Mrs. Pipchin was based on an Elizabeth Roylance, with whom Dickens lodged when he was 12, and the rest of his family were in the Marshalsea debtor's prison. Not surprisingly Dickens had ..."The illustration seems OK to me too. I guess Dickens must have used a childhood memory of the scene which is why he felt so strongly about it being wrong. Perhaps all his "stock character obsessions" you and John have noticed were based on these memories as well.
Hitchcock had a similar "stock character obsession" -- the innocent man wrongfully accused or suspected of being mixed up in something. I have heard that this was based on an event in Hitchcock's childhood; whether true or not, he certainly used that scenario in many guises in his films.
Here are Dickens's own words, from a letter he wrote to John Forster, about living with Elizabeth Roylance,"The key of the house was sent back to the landlord, who was very glad to get it; and I (small Cain that I was, except that I had never done harm to any one) was handed over as a lodger to a reduced old lady, long known to our family, in Little College Street, Camden-town, who took children in to board, and had once done so at Brighton; and who, with a few alterations and embellishments, unconsciously began to sit for Mrs. Pipchin in Dombey when she took in me.
"She had a little brother and sister under her care then; somebody's natural children, who were very irregularly paid for; and a widow's little son. The two boys and I slept in the same room. My own exclusive breakfast, of a penny cottage loaf and a penny-worth of milk, I provided for myself. I kept another small loaf, and a quarter of a pound of cheese, on a particular shelf of a particular cupboard; to make my supper on when I came back at night. They made a hole in the six or seven shillings, I know well; and I was out at the blacking-warehouse all day, and had to support myself upon that money all the week. I suppose my lodging was paid for, by my father. I certainly did not pay it myself; and I certainly had no other assistance whatever (the making of my clothes, I think, excepted), from Monday morning until Saturday night. No advice, no counsel, no encouragement, no consolation, no support, from any one that I can call to mind, so help me God.
"Sundays, Fanny and I passed in the prison. I was at the academy in Tenterden Street, Hanover Square, at nine o'clock in the morning, to fetch her; and we walked back there together, at night.
"I was so young and childish, and so little qualified—how could I be otherwise?—to undertake the whole charge of my own existence, that, in going to Hungerford Stairs of a morning, I could not resist the stale pastry put out at half-price on trays at the confectioners' doors in Tottenham Court Road; and I often spent in that the money I should have kept for my dinner.
"My rescue from this kind of existence I considered quite hopeless, and abandoned as such, altogether; though I am solemnly convinced that I never, for one hour, was reconciled to it, or was otherwise than miserably unhappy. I felt keenly, however, the being so cut off from my parents, my brothers and sisters, and, when my day's work was done, going home to such a miserable blank; and that, I thought, might be corrected. One Sunday night I remonstrated with my father on this head, so pathetically, and with so many tears, that his kind nature gave way. He began to think that it was not quite right. I do believe he had never thought so before, or thought about it. It was the first remonstrance I had ever made about my lot, and perhaps it opened up a little more than I intended. A back-attic was found for me at the house of an insolvent-court agent, who lived in Lant Street in the borough, where Bob Sawyer lodged many years afterwards. A bed and bedding were sent over for me, and made up on the floor. The little window had a pleasant prospect of a timber-yard; and when I took possession of my new abode I thought it was a Paradise."
So yes, to have such a strong memory embedded probably means that it was a bit of an obsession with him! Not stock character so much as specific people! Most of the parallels we can draw are with individuals rather than types. No doubt there will be some more in Dombey and Son.
Interesting about Hitchcock ...
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...
