The Pickwick Club discussion
Little Dorrit
>
Book I Chapters 05 - 08
date
newest »
newest »
Kim said: 'calling her the moving power in grasping at money and driving hard bargains, not to mention saying that she was the leading force behind someone possibly being grievously deceived, injured, ruined is not going to go over well with his mother even if true."Mrs. Clenham
Given the description of Mrs. Clenham, I think Arthur's comment would make her purr inside like a kitten and claw outside like a cat. There is nothing about her description that leads me to believe she would care about who she may have wronged in life. Dickens isn't permitting me that interpretation.
There is a clear and severe strain of predestination in Mrs. Clenham's religious beliefs. The saved are determined at the beginning of time, and there is nothing you can do to change that. So you devote yourself to business because succeeding at business is a sign you are graced by God, while losing at business is a sign you aren't. I doubt such a person would feel responsible for anyone she may have wronged or destroyed along the way. More likely she would think their destruction predetermined, a sign they are not saved. She would be a tool of fate not a moral agent.
There are strong, dark religious undertones in this book, and Mrs. Clenham uses guilt to great advantage.
Amy
Having said that, why the employment of Amy? What indispensable service does Amy supply to Mrs. Clenham? Are we to believe this severe woman hired Amy out of the goodness of her heart? Good Works? I rather think Mrs. Clenham has never done Good Works.
I agree Amy is unreal (or very unlikely to exist). But I don't think this is a flaw in the character like it may have been in other female characters Dickens created. I think this is quite intentional. This whole picture of 22-year-old woman with a child-like body but adult-like face who assumes great responsibilities is drawn carefully and is repeated again and again.
I think Amy is innocent, just not naive.
Arthur
That Arthur would ask his mother such a question upon first seeing her after all these years says more about the dysfunction of this family than anything about Arthur himself. His parents appear to be two overly acidic lemons who squirt their nectar on everyone whose path they cross, their child no exception, and maybe he has every right to feel used and abused and unloved and disloyal.
Arthur is a lost soul, a child and an adult who has never been permitted by either parent to think for himself or find his own way. Arthur, I think, leaves the business to save himself and find his own way before it's too late. He knows that if he works for even one day for his mother, he will be under her thumb for the remainder of his life. That guilt thing.
I like Amy more than many of Dickens' other diminutive, perfect girls. She isn't silly and coy like some of the others. I read this article about Mary Hogarth the other day (link below), and didn't know whether to send up curses or thanks for the influence she had on Dickens and his portrayal of his leading ladies. As always, I felt quite sorry for Catherine and all she had to endure as Dickens' wife.
I'm sure some of you have read Dickens biographies. It's time I did, too. David Copperfield is supposed to be somewhat biographical, and surely the Marshalsea segments of LD are drawn from his childhood experiences, as well. I'd appreciate any recommendations you may have of good (but not TOO long) Charles Dickens biographies.
Oh - and I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but the whole feeling of imprisonment was also a theme with the Meagles and their quarantine. It permeates the story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/art...
"By all accounts, living conditions in the common side were horrific. In 1639 prisoners complained that 23 women were being held in one room without space to lie down."This same description has been made of New York City tenements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and they had no locks.
So what happened to imprisoned debtors who had no money or friends with money. Who fed and clothed them? Or did they just find some corner to die in?
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "So what happened to imprisoned debtors who had no money or friends with money. Who fed and clothed them? Or did they just find some corner to die in? "Actually, I think that this is exactly what must have happened in most cases.
I fully share your observations on Mrs. Clennam and her Calvinistic grimness. In a way she reminded me of the much more caricaturistic Mrs. Snagsby, who also liked her religion rather sharp, as her husband repeatedly observed.
Maybe leaving the family business and telling his mother so on the first occasion they meet, is really a means for Arthur to escape from his mother's sinister domination. Still, I found it rather rash because Arthur has not even tried confronting his mother more relentlessly about his father's deathbed wish.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Kim said: 'calling her the moving power in grasping at money and driving hard bargains, not to mention saying that she was the leading force behind someone possibly being grievously deceived, injur..."Hi Xan
Yes, the characters we have met so far in LD do stand out. Mrs. Clennam is a rather horrific parent and whatever sinister event lurks in the background will be something shattering.
While I remain a staunch defender of Little Nell, Agnes, Florence Dombey and the like I confess to having some difficulty warming up to Amy. I'm not sure what it is, but suspect it is partly due to with the surrounding events/characters in the novel.
To me, the novel has started off so dark, so repressive, so gothic in its feel and Little Dorrit is so bright and good it's like having a flashlight shining in your eyes on a very dark night. It's too much. But, then again, it is Dickens, so flashlights of good and bad are to expected. Well see ....
Mary Lou wrote: "I like Amy more than many of Dickens' other diminutive, perfect girls. She isn't silly and coy like some of the others. I read this article about Mary Hogarth the other day (link below), and didn..."
First, thanks for the link. Dickens's relationship with Mary is certainly one to ponder. I think it goes far in explaining his constant creation of the perfect, innocent, young girl/woman.
You ask about biographies. Wow. There are many and it seems many of the biographers want to compete with Dickens in writing huge works of their own.
I guess the standard for today is Peter Ackroyd's Dickens. Massive. Scholarly. At times, for me, anyway, indigestible.
My favourite is an oldy, but goody, which is Edgar Johnson's Charles Dickens His Tragedy and Triumph. By today's standards it probably is seen as a bit thin in the depths of its scholarship but that, I think, is also its strength. Johnson likes Dickens, and while the biography is objective, it is also caring about its subject. It's format is supportive for both a reader and a critic. Johnson's approach is to write a biography of Dickens, but parallel the events of Dickens's life with a chapter analysing a specific book that fits into his life at the time of the novel's writing.
Copies of both the Ackroyd and the Johnson can be found in second hand bookshops or on line. Enjoy.
Thanks, Peter. I work in a library and will see if we carry these. I'm pretty sure I've seen Ackroyd's book there before, but it sounds a bit intimidating. :-) BTW - the Jarvis novel, Death and Mr. Pickwick, has crossed my desk a few times and is on my to-read list. Looks interesting. Too bad my to-read list is so incredibly long!
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Having said that, why the employment of Amy? What indispensable service does Amy supply to Mrs. Clenham? Are we to believe this severe woman hired Amy out of the goodness of her heart? Good Works?"That, of course, is the $32 question.
Peter wrote: "You ask about biographies. Wow. There are many and it seems many of the biographers want to compete with Dickens in writing huge works of their own.."I would actually start with Jane Smiley's biography in the Penguin Lives. It's short, entertaining, but may give you the information you want, and if not you might have a better idea what you want to read of the more weighty biographies.
Ackroyd's Dickens is, as Peter says, scholarly and huge, and if that's what you want in a bio, go for it. I got it from the library and got bogged down in the first 100 pages. Way, way more than I wanted to know, and I much preferred to spend that much time with Dickens himself.
Another book not to overlook is The Friendly Dickens. There's quite a lot of information in it presented in short sections that can be read in a few moments each. It's not scholarly or deep, but again, that's not really what I'm after personally.
Everyman wrote: "I would actually start with Jane Smiley's biography in the Penguin Lives. It's short, entertaining, but may give you the information you want, and if not you might have a better idea what you want to read of the more weighty biographies. "We had neither Ackroyd nor Johnson on the shelf, but Smiley's was there along with a few other, much heavier tomes, so I'll pick that up today. Thanks!
After a slow start to the first week's reading installment, I've found myself finally engrossed in the story during the second week's installment - this point happened when Arthur followed Little Dorrit home in order to find out more about her. At that point I could not put the book down. I'm finding myself enjoying Little Dorrit much more than Hard Times, and I'm sure it has to do with the much longer descriptions of character and place, which is what I have come to love about Dickens.
Just a couple of random thoughts before I go back and read all 61 comments here...
I've never heard of the term "Snuggery", but it totally reminded me of John Jarndyce's "Growlery" in Bleak House. :)
I'm wondering how old Tip is, I'm guessing two or three years older than Amy, so around 24 or 25? I was amazed at how many occupations he went through before finally ending up a fellow collegian. One of my favorite bits this week was when Tip told Amy that he was "off the volunteer list altogether" and then after Amy exclaimed "Oh! Don't say you are a prisoner, Tip! Don't, don't!", Tip replies "Well, I don't want to say it, but if you can't understand me without my saying it, what am I to do?"
I guess one thing that I'm a little puzzled about, though, and perhaps it has already been discussed above, but I don't quite understand how William Dorrit, the Father of Marshalsea came to the position of receiving money from people who visited the prison? Do people give him money because he is a sort of celebrity in that he has been a prisoner so long? Also, if I'm not mistaken he seems to relish in this sort of celebrity status and expect money because of it. I don't care for this at all. I'm off to read the comments above in case this has already been discussed. I know I'm already a week behind in the reading.
Kim wrote: "I don't like him at all, or Tip, or Fanny, or Mrs. Clennam, I'm starting to get the feeling I don't like anyone in the book. Except the turnkey and perhaps Amy."I'm glad I'm not alone on this point, Kim. I also did not understand why all the "taking care of" landed on Amy's shoulders. I was also surprised to learn that Little Dorrit was the youngest of Dorrit children, I would have thought she might have been the oldest daughter and so was used to taking care of the younger siblings. But I still wonder at the father, who we are told pretends that he doesn't know that Amy goes out to work in order to help support the family. In my eyes, he seems to have settled into prison as a way of having a roof over his head while not having to work, besides greeting and saying farewell to visitors and collegians at the gate while he holds his hands out for payment.
Tristram wrote: "In Birthälm, Transsylvania, the castle had a special cell where they locked up married couples that had quarrelled and were completely at odds with each other. In that cell, there was only one bed, one table, one chair, one plate, one beaker and one spoon - all of which the quarrelling couple had to share, and they were not set free before they had made up their quarrel or vowed not to fall out with each other again. "That sounds like a reality TV show in the making, Tristram!
Everyman wrote: "Does anybody really believe in Amy as even remotely realistic? Is it possible to conceive a flesh and blood person turning out the way she did given the environment she was brought up in?....She doesn't, as far as we see, ever attend church or school or have any constructive adult relationships. Realistically, how is it possible for her to turn out as she did?"Very good point, Everyman. I had wondered about her being the sibling to fall into the mothering role only because she was the youngest, but you put her upbringing and lack of role models that make her so responsible and knowing how to carry on a bit far-fetched.
Everyman wrote: "Today, wouldn't we call him a stalker? Or at least something weird and suspicious? Would you want your daughter's employer's newly arrive son spying on her, following her home, asking strangers on the street where she lived? There's something not right about this."And...another good point. I didn't think about this scene in those terms, but you're perfectly right on the point here, Everyman. Thinking about Arthur's actions in today's world makes him pretty creepy in this scene. When I read this, I was thinking that, as a reader, I wanted to know about Little Dorrit, so go ahead Arthur, spy on her for the sake of the readers.
Linda wrote: "Kim wrote: "I don't like him at all, or Tip, or Fanny, or Mrs. Clennam, I'm starting to get the feeling I don't like anyone in the book. Except the turnkey and perhaps Amy."I'm glad I'm not alone..."
First, stay tuned Linda and Kim - other characters that I like very much are still to come. :-)
As for Amy being in the role of taking care of everyone, I suppose that role naturally falls to the most responsible person in the family, regardless of age. I'm the youngest, but was my parents' caretaker - the fact that I'm a woman with two brothers may contribute to this, as well as proximity, but even if my brothers lived in the same neighborhood, I think a lot of it would have fallen to me because I saw what needed to be done and did it. I don't mean to imply that my brothers wouldn't have stepped up if I hadn't been around, but they didn't have to - just as Tip and the sister, whose name escapes me, could slack off knowing that Amy was doing all the heavy lifting. I do believe that Everyman makes an excellent point, though -- my brothers and I had good role models in our parents; Amy does not. Perhaps the Dorrits owe more to the turnkey than we might suspect.
Mary Lou wrote: "First, stay tuned Linda and Kim - other characters that I like very much are still to come."Good to know, Mary Lou. :)
As for Amy being in the role of taking care of everyone, I suppose that role naturally falls to the most responsible person in the family, regardless of age.......I don't mean to imply that my brothers wouldn't have stepped up if I hadn't been around, but they didn't have to - just as Tip and the sister, whose name escapes me, could slack off knowing that Amy was doing all the heavy lifting.
It's nice to get your perspective on this. I'm the oldest sibling, as well as the oldest among all my cousins, and certain responsibilities seem to always fall on me. I always assumed it was because I was the oldest, especially when I see certain friends and cousins who are the responsible ones tend to be the oldest in their family, although I can come up with exceptions to this rule now that I think of it.
Linda wrote: "That sounds like a reality TV show in the making, Tristram!"Perhaps we ought to really keep mum about this, or else we'll have yet another reality TV show.
Linda wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Does anybody really believe in Amy as even remotely realistic? Is it possible to conceive a flesh and blood person turning out the way she did given the environment she was brought..."This is, however, not the first time that Dickens treats us to people who are completely inexplicable with regard to their living conditions and surroundings. My most (in)famous example here is Oliver Twist, who grows up among thieves and receivers, and among poor people in a workhouse and yet not only fails to adopt their habits but also speaks an impeccable English. That's not quite realistic if you ask me. And even if you don't ask me, it isn't.
Linda wrote: "And...another good point. I didn't think about this scene in those terms, but you're perfectly right on the point here, Everyman. Thinking about Arthur's actions in today's world makes him pretty creepy in this scene. When I read this, I was thinking that, as a reader, I wanted to know about Little Dorrit, so go ahead Arthur, spy on her for the sake of the readers. "By Victorian standards, Arthur's behaviour must also have been rather strange and creepy, I'd say. But his major motive seems to be a suspicion of his mother having pulled some kind of trick to the disadvantage of the Dorrit family, and somehow or other Dickens had to join the various plot strands of the Clennam family and the Dorrits.
Linda wrote: "Mary Lou wrote: "First, stay tuned Linda and Kim - other characters that I like very much are still to come."Good to know, Mary Lou. :)
As for Amy being in the role of taking care of everyone, I..."
I wouldn't really know whether my sister or I are more responsible, but I have always lived according to the motto that if you want a thing to be done the right way and as soon as possible (if needs be), you'd better do it yourself. And if it isn't done right then, you've only yourself to blame, which is easier in that you are at least not contradicted.
What seems to be a common feature of all the Dorrits, except Amy, is a strong tendency to learned helplessness.
Tristram wrote: "By Victorian standards, Arthur's behaviour must also have been rather strange and creepy, I'd say."Touche!
But his major motive seems to be a suspicion of his mother having pulled some kind of trick to the disadvantage of the Dorrit family, and somehow or other Dickens had to join the various plot strands of the Clennam family and the Dorrits.
True, but he could have instead started to get to know Amy by opening a dialogue with her. But then, that would have meant spending more time in his mother's house, which was probably not at the top of his list, and also it would have made for a less interesting and mysterious scene for us readers.
It would also not have brought him into contact with the individual members of the Dorrit family. I somehow have the impression that while Dickens has not yet given up the omniscient narrator, he is sometimes very close to using Arthur as a focalizer - not so much in the modern sense but already to the extant that we are seeing a lot of the action through Arthur's eyes.
Perhaps Arthur considers it unwise to start up a conversation with Amy in his mother's presence. He suspects his her.
Linda wrote: "I'm finding myself enjoying Little Dorrit much more than Hard Times, and I'm sure it has to do with the much longer descriptions of character and place, which is what I have come to love about Dickens."I'm with you. I'm ecstatic to be back in London -- Coketown was, for me at least, a bummer. Even the Marshalsea seems beautiful after Coketown.
Linda wrote: "I've never heard of the term "Snuggery", but it totally reminded me of John Jarndyce's "Growlery" in Bleak House. :) ."I wondered whether Dickens had invented "Snuggery" (as he did Growlery, at least as it applied to a room, not just to sound which was a previous usage). He didn't, but it was a fairly recent term, having been used, the OED says, for the first time in 1812 in Edgeworth's Tales of Fashionable Life and for the first identified time applying it to a room in an inn in 1829.
He also used the term, by the way, in Pickwick.
Mary Lou wrote: "As for Amy being in the role of taking care of everyone, I suppose that role naturally falls to the most responsible person in the family, regardless of age. I'm the youngest, but was my parents' caretaker ."My wife is also the youngest (of four, two sisters and one brother) but she was the one her mother came to live with for her last fifteen years.
Linda wrote: " In my eyes, he [ Mr. Dorrit] seems to have settled into prison as a way of having a roof over his head while not having to work, besides greeting and saying farewell to visitors and collegians at the gate while he holds his hands out for payment.."Very much so. I would love to read a competent psychological profile of Mr. Dorrit. I would also love to read an essay comparing Mr. Dorrit, Mr. Micawber, and Harold Skimpole.
I always wonder why it took ages for everyone except Esther to see through Skimpole and why they all allowed him to sponge on them. It was so obvious what kind of game he was playing.In the case of Mr. Dorrit, maybe the prisoners regard him as some sort of lucky charm, and a little donation as a means of propitiating their fate. Others might just have felt pity for the old man. If I were Mrs. Clennam, I could nastily say that gullibility and too tender a heart might have been among the foremost reasons why these people ever got into debts.
Everyman wrote: "I wondered whether Dickens had invented "Snuggery" (as he did Growlery, at least as it applied to a room, not just to sound which was a previous usage). He didn't, but it was a fairly recent term, having been used, the OED says, for the first time in 1812 in Edgeworth's Tales of Fashionable Life and for the first identified time applying it to a room in an inn in 1829."Thanks for the info, Everyman. I have read The Pickwick Papers yet, so this was the first time I came upon the term.
Everyman wrote: "I would also love to read an essay comparing Mr. Dorrit, Mr. Micawber, and Harold Skimpole. "What a grouping that is. I shake my head at all of them. And if I never heard the name Mr. Micawber again, it would be too soon. :)
Tristram wrote: "I always wonder why it took ages for everyone except Esther to see through Skimpole and why they all allowed him to sponge on them. It was so obvious what kind of game he was playing.."I think Jarndyce was on to him from the start, but it was a charity he was willing to put up with (but not let him take from Richard and Esther; that was a clue to me that he was clued in). But Jarndyce, before Richard and Esther came, was living alone, so Skimpole was a relatively cheap companion -- didn't need to be paid, after all, just supported.
That's true: Jarndyce indeed even warned his young relatives and Esther not to support Skimpole with any money of their own, and so he must have seen through Skimpole long before. That makes one think how desperate Jarndyce must have been for company if he kept somebody like that scrounger around him.
I never could figure out the Jarndyce-Skimpole relationship. I thought I was being given contradictory signals throughout. Everyman's point about Jarndyce living alone may be key -- blinders created by the desire for companionship. Jarndyce was an enabler, and an enabler can be as fettered to the relationship as the enabled.On the other hand, Jarndyce practiced his philanthropy on a personal and individual level. While he gave money to groups, he never involved himself personally in the philanthropy of those groups. He did involve himself personally in Charlie's and Richard's lives.
Maybe, until his wards arrived, he never could say no. One thing I noticed as the story progressed is how the east wind played less of a role. He became assertive, less passive.
I'm afraid it's some time since I read this, so thanks so much for your excellent summary and all the illustrations, Kim. I just noticed in that rather pretty painting of Amy and the turnkey that Amy looks older than I thought. I keep thinking of her as in her 20s or at the very least looking very much younger than her years.So far I'm really enjoying this, even more than first time round. I have a lot of catching up to do, but certainly not from lack of interest!
And also a lot plumper than..."
It's not so much how much you eat as what you eat, and what you do after eating, that makes you plump.