The Pickwick Club discussion

60 views
The Proud Future of the Pickwick Club

Comments Showing 1-50 of 72 (72 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
As one of the proud and humble moderators of the great and powerful Pickwick Club, I do hereby move that we begin using this topic forum to discuss the bright and wonderful future of the distinguished Pickwick Club.


message 2: by Jenine (new)

Jenine (_jenine) Good idea Jonathan!


message 3: by Jonathan (last edited Jan 28, 2017 12:20PM) (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
My fellow Pickwickians, there is a dark cloud hanging over us. It is a grave emergency, I dare say, and we must act now or forever live to regret the consequences of our own inaction. This is a trial that we can persevere through if we all stick together in a way that would make Uncle Elmer proud. I believe that we are able to meet this seemingly insuperable challenge. I believe that we can overcome the prodigious obstacle in our midst. I know that we must do so for the hopeful future of this distinguished club and the future good of all mankind. We must come together right now and decide the most important question facing our lives and times. What will we do after we find Mr. Drood? The future is coming fast like a roar of thunder imminently proceeding on the heels of a bright flash of lightning. We can see that the beaming light at the end of our once interminable tunnel is at hand. Our mutual friend, Edwin Drood, is now approaching us as quickly as we are approaching him. What now? What is left in our great crusade of joy, our valiant and noble expedition? Where should this proud and distinguished group journey off to next?


message 4: by Lynne (new)

Lynne Pennington (bluemoonladylynne) That's easy----start over!!! There are no doubt many of us that mounted the coach partway through the journey and would like to see how things have changed in the previous haunts of the Pickwick Club. I, for one, am counting on it!!!


message 5: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 2034 comments There was some previous discussion of this question, though I can't recall in what thread it took place.

There was a suggestion (blushing modestly) that we start again by repeating the process of reading all the novels, but interspersing them with novels or other works which Dickens himself is known to have read or is likely to have read. We also might want to select a good biography and read that between Drood and the re-reading of Pickwick.

There have also been suggestions that we pick another author of Dickensian vintage and read most or all of their works before we come back to Dickens. Hardy and Trollope were mentioned, as I recall.


message 6: by Peter (new)

Peter Simple answer. We are Pickwickians. We start over.


message 7: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
I love the notion of starting over, especially with The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club, because we were small back then, and there was very little discussion of that work.

I love the notion of exhausting the works of another great novelist; Dickens collaborated on several works with Wilkie Collins. I read The Woman in White; I did not like it, but it could have been Wilkie's ineptitude at writing as a woman. His other novels might very well be fine, assuming Dickens had good taste. I think Hardy would take years. But, we could compile a list of Dickens contemporaries, whether he read them or not, and simply choose works as they are nominated.

My top priority is to read all of Dickens shorter works, as well as his travel books. I am also interested in A Child's History of England and the Life of our Lord--two books that Dickens wrote to read to his kids, if I am not mistaken.

That is the only deal-breaker for me. The Christmas Short Stories can be left for December reads as far as I am concerned. This will give me something to look forward to all year long!! I think Tristram and I have created a custom of this, which he, Kim, and E-man faithfully carried on for the few years I was away from GR. This tradition should continue as far as I am concerned.


message 8: by Jonathan (last edited Jan 28, 2017 11:03PM) (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
Pickwickian Procedural Rule # 1 -

The ultimate conclusion of everything that is to be discussed here - it has been determined - will be determined the old-fashioned way--that is to say, old-fashioned in the Pickwickian sense merely; now, we say "merely" not in any diminutive sense of the word, but in the grandest and most generous understanding of the word, the Pickwickian sense being the self-same sense, in which our great forefathers used the remarkable phrase, those forefathers being, of course, The Pickwick Club, of whom we are the proud progeny--that is to say, that it has been determined that all future decisions will be determined via the grand, old, tried and true, beloved and bemoaned, belabored and betokened, democratic and corrupt process of polling. And now, to those of you who objected to my fitting use of the term "ultimate conclusion" as though it were some sort of double-talk, of repetitive mumbo jumbo, or of something else equally undesirable to the modern ear, allow me to point out there have been a myriad of conclusions reached, derived, come to, or somehow or other arrived at that were nothing even close to ultimate. By way of illustration, please consider the U.S. Constitution. Was the Constitution the ultimate conclusion to the Constitutional Convention? There are 27 pieces of evidence that would suggest a negative answer. Thus, if I rightfully claim that any decision or conclusion reached by the aforementioned polling process is ultimately ultimate, then please understand, my dear fellow Pickwickians, that what is done is not to be amended, changed, altered, or to have any other such nonsense done to it that would preclude the sacred polling process from deserving the title of "the way we reach the ultimate conclusion". To better understand this process, I would warn you in advance, that one should familiarize oneself with the infallible and ingenious Electoral College. This is to say that your vote is not for the particular decision which you select, but you are actually voting for an imaginary elector, who will show up somewhere, someday, and furtively place a like-minded vote in your stead. Instead of the Connecticut compromise, we shall call this the Indiana compromise, since that is the home state of the bold and cunning individual who began this undertaking so many winters ago. I can see that many Pickwickians have been put to sleep by this greatest and humblest of speeches, so I will most graciously recapitulate the primordial, most prized, and most highly regarded rule for our procedures from here on out:

Pickwickian Procedural Rule #1 - The ultimate conclusion of our discussions here will be determined by the democratic and corrupt system of polling!

There are to be no ifs, ands, or buts about this, unless, of course, there are ifs, ands, or buts, and in that case we will talk this out. Of course, any changes to this rule must be done according to Rule #1 and therefore I do not see any way out of it.

Thank you, Pickwickians!


message 9: by Jonathan (last edited Jan 29, 2017 12:05AM) (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
Here are the nominations so far:

1) Start over, rereading in order. (3)

2) Read his short stories before moving on. (Two complete collections, plus 25 unread individual stories; 11 of those are Christmas stories)

3) One Christmas novella left (The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain)

4) 5 primary nonfiction works left (American Notes; Pictures from Italy; The Life of our Lord; A Child's History of England; The Uncommercial Traveler)

5) A biography. (I have a beautiful edition of John Forster's, which my Dad bought me and I want to read. Also, one by his daughter Mamie Dickens)

6) Read some novels by Dickens' contemporaries. (Trollope, Collins, Hardy mentioned)

Let me know your interest in each of these. Please reference the number(s) in which you are interested. Then, I will compile 4-5 different plans and we will take it to a vote.


message 10: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
An almost complete bibliography by the numbers:

15 novels.
17 loose short stories (Non Christmas).
11 Christmas short stories.
6 Christmas novellas.
5 major nonfiction works.
3 short story collections (Sketches by Boz; Master Huphrey's Clock; Reprinted Pieces)
2 Contemporary biographies. (There are more later ones I know.)


message 11: by Jonathan (last edited Jan 29, 2017 12:22AM) (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
Here is plan A+:

1) We reread the major works in order, which include the 5 major nonfiction works, 3 short story collections, 2 contemporary biographies, and a partridge in a pear tree, for a total of 25 works. (We should probably start with a biography though, because it will inform the discussions during our re-readings of the novels.)

2) In between each major work, we read one short story (probably allot one week).

3) The Christmas works are treated separately and read in December. I would prefer to focus on the unread Christmas works first, then begin rereading the others.

4) We allow for side-reads of his contemporary writers during the major works.

I would like for each Pickwickian to either second this or provide a spuriously superior plan!


message 12: by Jenine (new)

Jenine (_jenine) I like plan A+!
It gives another chance for those who didn't join the group at the time, or those who didn't read the book at all.

When re-reading a book, you understand points you never understood or even noticed... The group discussion will become more exciting and beneficial!


message 13: by Jenine (new)

Jenine (_jenine) There is something we can do... We can discuss the differences between the Old English and this English.
We can also use some of those Old words!


message 14: by Tristram (new)

Tristram Shandy A Good Morning to all the Merry Pickwickians,

first of all I'd like to thank Jonathan for having systematized all the options that we can take after finishing Edwin Drood. It's good to have them in a comprehensive list before us so that we can choose what we want to do. I would also want to second Everyman and the proposal he made in Posting No 5, viz. that we could start re-reading the novels and intersperse them with works by authors that Dickens might have read. Such writers could include Dickens's contemporaries, e.g. still renowned writers like Collins, Gaskell, George Eliot, Trollope, Hardy, but also other writers whose fame has somewhat faded (often not deservedly), such as M.E. Braddon, Charles Reade or Mrs. Wood. Of course, we could also have at look at passages from the Arabian Nights (Dickens loved these tales), or at earlier writers who influenced Dickens, like Fielding, Smollett, Sterne or Cervantes. We'd have a lot of possibilities here.

Therefore I suggest that Everyman's proposal be added to the list made by Jonathan as item (7).

At the moment, it seems to me that reading the remainder of Dickens's novels, interspersing them with shorter tales (e.g. from the Sketches), having our annual Christmas novella and rounding it all off with Pickwick Papers again will at least take us through the year and maybe even well into 2018. So maybe we might even have time enough for each of us who wants to vote for one procedure to briefly give the reasons why they think this the best choice.

As to polls, we should make a certain qualification in that we only count the votes of people who have taken part in at least one group read by actively joining our discussions. At first sight, this might seem like establishing a two-class system but we often had polls that were influenced by members who never afterwards joined our discussions, and I cannot see a good reason why the non-joiners should determine the way we do things in the Pickwick Club.

I am sure that the true Pickwickian spirit will help us arrive at the most convenient procedure.


message 15: by Bionic Jean (last edited Jan 29, 2017 04:28AM) (new)

Bionic Jean (bionicjean) Ooops cross-posted - sorry! Well, since all is proceeding in an orderly fashion, I'll come back later to add my bit. I will add a gentle reminder though, since the mistake has now been made twice, that Thomas Hardy is not a contemporary of Charles Dickens in any literary sense, since his first novel Desperate Remedies was published in 1871 - a year after Charles Dickens died!

And broadly speaking I echo Peter's "We are Pickwickians!"


message 16: by Tristram (new)

Tristram Shandy Yes, Jean - you are, of course, right about Hardy. Then we might cross him from the list, maybe with the exception of Desperate Remedies, which sounds to me like a book that was inspired by the kind of writing Dickens and Collins did.


message 17: by Xan (new)

Xan  Shadowflutter (shadowflutter) I like plan A+ in message 11 with Tristram's Everyman's addition mentioned in message 14.


message 18: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
Tristram wrote: "Therefore I suggest that Everyman's proposal be added to the list made by Jonathan as item (7).."

As Jean noted we have time to sort this out. My idea in part 4 of plan A+ was to offer such works as side reads. If we did one AFTER each Dickens work, I think we have an 8 year plan!!! If we do them WITH each Dickens work, we could cover his oeuvre in 4 years. That is what we must decide. Do we want B.A.s or PhDs in Dickens, I guess, is the question? Shakespeare was wrong. It is not whether to be or not; it is which to be...


message 19: by Abigail (new)

Abigail Shepherd (abiwriting) | 1 comments I like plan A+ as I'm fairly new to this club and, though I've read most of Dickens' works, I would welcome the opportunity to reread and discuss them with my fellow Pickwickians.


message 20: by Mary Lou (last edited Jan 29, 2017 05:28AM) (new)

Mary Lou | 392 comments My head is swimming from all the posts!

I've not yet read The Old Curiosity Shop, Barnaby, or Nicholas Nickleby and I would dearly love to do that with this group. There are also other authors/books I'd like to check off my list: Gaskell; The Moonstone by Collins; Hardy, etc. - so I kind of like the idea of mixing it up a bit, but keeping Dickens as our main focus. I have mixed feelings about the idea of reading a biography of Dickens - the more I learn about the private lives of authors and artists I enjoy, the less I seem to enjoy them, and what I already know about Dickens doesn't bode well for a cordial relationship between us. :-(

I guess all of that falls into place with Jonathan's Plan A+ for the most part. Having said that, I'll throw another idea into the works, just to muck things up a bit. Is anyone else interested in reading any contemporary works inspired by Dickens? Not the zombie genre - necessarily ;-) - but, for example, I have Death and Mr. Pickwick on my to-read list, as well as a "sequel" to GE called Jack Maggs. Might we consider reading some like that following the reading of the books on which they're based?

In thinking of other authors, here's a list I found of the top 10 non-Dickens books for Dickens lovers. Even if we don't read them as a group, you might want to add some of them to your lists.

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/02...


message 21: by Helle (new)

Helle | 1 comments I say a resounding YEA to plan A+ as put forth by the distinguished Jonathan.


message 22: by Gregg (new)

Gregg | 6 comments Second A+. Finest of plans. Late to the discussion. Apologies; unavoidable. Lady in a carriage, husband addled over liquor hunting, home early, rushed exit on my part. Capital idea, the rereading.


message 23: by Tristram (new)

Tristram Shandy Gregg wrote: "Second A+. Finest of plans. Late to the discussion. Apologies; unavoidable. Lady in a carriage, husband addled over liquor hunting, home early, rushed exit on my part. Capital idea, the rereading."

That's Mr. Jingle, isn't it?


message 24: by Tristram (new)

Tristram Shandy From my point of view, I don't see it as a problem to spend years on going through the Dickens oeuvre because the longer it takes the less urgent the question of what to do next will become.

Reading Dickens and books by his contemporaries simultaneously might cause a problem for some of us in that if you have too many irons in the fire you might not be able to work on them all. I can rarely handle more than three or four books at the same time.


message 25: by Peter (new)

Peter Tristram wrote: "From my point of view, I don't see it as a problem to spend years on going through the Dickens oeuvre because the longer it takes the less urgent the question of what to do next will become.

Read..."


I agree with both of Tristram's points in Message 25.


message 26: by Natalie (new)

Natalie Tyler (doulton) I would prefer that this group stick to Dickens. The name of the group both premises and promises Dickens.

I love rereading. I love the slow way you are approaching GE (I am new here). I have been admiring the way this group has sustained itself. If you look, there are groups dedicated to Hardy and to Trollope that have died away. There are several Classics groups that pay ample attention to the 19th century.

Dickens has long, chewy works and rereading them should be an everfresh reenlightenment. I love the way you have chosen to take a slow and deep look at GE instead of racing through it in one month.


message 27: by Mary Lou (new)

Mary Lou | 392 comments Natalie wrote: " There are several Classics groups that pay ample attention to the 19th century. ."

Natalie has a good point.

Tristram wrote: "I can rarely handle more than three or four books at the same time."

I'm tempted to say, "show off!" but that would be rude. Instead, I'll just say, "over-achiever!"


message 28: by Bionic Jean (new)

Bionic Jean (bionicjean) Er - what were you about to say Hilary?


message 29: by Hilary (new)

Hilary (agapoyesoun) Please could a moderator delete my earlier aborted attempt to comment? I shall not attempt a garbled repeat but just say that I'm glad that this idea has returned as originally broached by Everyman. So, thanks Jonathan.

I'm not entering into discussion, as suggested by Jean, my fellow GMTer. I only wish to say that your list is super, Jonathan, with Everyman's additional clause. I do like the idea of a biography, though I understand Mary Lou's aversion. I have Claire Tomalin's 'The Invisible Woman', which is as yet unread ...

What a shame Hardy is not a contemporary of Dickens, Jean, though I'd be inclined to overlook that, simply as I love the little I've read of him. I also love Trollope, but I'm limpingly muddling through some of his novels in another group. The others that you mentioned, Tristram, those that I know, are also more than acceptable in my mind.


message 30: by Hilary (new)

Hilary (agapoyesoun) Oh yes, I'm not a great fan of Dickens's sketches etc., though I can see that they might be read for completeness.


message 31: by Hilary (new)

Hilary (agapoyesoun) Thanks Jean. I hope I've managed to say something. My previous non-comment does give the impression that I had a TIA or something similar. Apologies. I keep on doing that as the phone screen is so small and I'm so clumsy!


message 32: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
Mary Lou wrote: Tristram wrote: "I can rarely handle more than three or four books at the same time."

I'm tempted to say, "show off!" but that would be rude. Instead, I'll just say, "over-achiever!"


You can call him that in a Pickwickian sense. You can even call him a humbug in a Pickwickian sense. But, if you want to go further, we must refer to rule #1 and have a poll to see if it is acceptable or not.


message 33: by Lynne (new)

Lynne Pennington (bluemoonladylynne) I like plan A+ except for point 4 (more on that in a minute) with E-Man's addendum. As for reading contemporaries---that might be reinventing the wheel. The Victorians group already does that, as well as groups dedicated to specific authors, such as Trollope. There is also a group dedicated to much of the same time period as Dickens. The Victorians has been Hardy-heavy the past few years, IMHO, including an upcoming read in February. I agree with those who advocate sticking to Dickens and maybe adding some of his shorter fiction and non-fiction. Excuse me, the coach is leaving and I must mount!


message 34: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
The unveiling of Plan B:

1) We reread the major works in order, which include the 5 major nonfiction works, 3 short story collections, 2 contemporary biographies, and a partridge in a pear tree, for a total of 25 works. (We should probably start with a biography though, because it will inform the discussions during our re-readings of the novels.)

2) In between each major work, we read one short story (probably allot one week).

***3) We read other author's novels as major group reads in between, which would place a space of 2-3 months between the major Dickens works.

4) The Christmas works are treated separately and read in December. I would prefer to focus on the unread Christmas works first, then begin rereading the others.


message 35: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
If I understand this correctly, our major point of disagreement is whether to read other authors along side Dickens, or to give them their own space in between major Dickens reads. Is this correct?


message 36: by Lynne (new)

Lynne Pennington (bluemoonladylynne) Don't like Plan B. If we do that, I will skip the in-betweens and just check back in for Dickens. I can get other authors elsewhere, and while the discussion may lack the aplomb of the Pickwickians, there are still some rollicking good discussions out there!


message 37: by Suki (new)

Suki St Charles (goodreadscomsuki_stcharles) I like Plan A+. If we do decide to explore any of his contemporaries, I think it might be interesting to explore his feud (not sure if that's exactly the right term for it!) with Poe.


message 38: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
Natalie wrote: "I would prefer that this group stick to Dickens. The name of the group both premises and promises Dickens."

For the most part, I am in agreement with you, but they have been clamoring for other authors long before I stepped in and tried to bring this to a vote. This is why I am pushing for other authors to be used as side-reads. There are some Dickens novels, that I do not wish to reread such as Oliver Twist, which I have read several times. I think there are others who may feel this way. But, I must refer to Rule #1, and go with the ultimate conclusion at which we will eventually arrive.

For instance, what if we did a Trollope project and read one of his sagas in order? I think that should put a smile on your face.


message 39: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
Suki wrote: "I like Plan A+. If we do decide to explore any of his contemporaries, I think it might be interesting to explore his feud (not sure if that's exactly the right term for it!) with Poe."

I think we have decided to include other authors. The question of the day is whether to do them as side-reads or major-reads, which would require leaving off Dickens for a 2-3 month interval between his major works. Poe influenced Dickens. Dickens critiqued Poe's work. I vote Poe should be acceptable.


message 40: by Lynne (new)

Lynne Pennington (bluemoonladylynne) There is a Trollope project in progress, I believe. Natalie would know? And if you don't want to re-read Oliver, I am sure others do. There are many of us who missed it the first time around here, even if we have read it before. The fact that you have read it so often would mean you could certainly still discuss it with fluency! Besides, by the time we got to it in a year or two, you might be ready again to skim it at least. It could also be read in a different way---I am enjoying the slow pace of GE greatly. Gives Kim time to find all those terrific pics!


message 41: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Moran | 666 comments Mod
This is the poll I envision. Does this cover everything? If not, please let me know:

* We should include other authors as side reads. (4 year plan)
* We should include other authors as major reads. (8 year plan)
* We should not include other authors.
* I do not participate in discussions, so I should not be voting in the first place.

(If we choose to include other authors, we can have a later poll on which authors/books to include.)


message 42: by Natalie (last edited Jan 29, 2017 12:50PM) (new)

Natalie Tyler (doulton) I know that there are at least two Trollope projects out there.

I think that Dickens will always generate a lot of interest and that newcomers to Good Reads will always be around.

I think that if this group, which seems so ideal to me at present adds other authors, you might lose people who are here to read Dickens and/or poach people who are trying to make a viable go of groups such as (in no particular order) "The (mostly) dead writer's society," "VIctorians!", "The Constant Reader," "Reader's Review: Literature from 1800-1910", "Classics and the Western Canon"--only to name a few.

The "Reader's Review" has a Trollope Project and I would not interfere with it myself.

What I think this group might consider doing is having more reads based on the current GE model: a very nice, slow read where individual words and nuances can be examined.

I think part of the issue is the owner-ship of real-estate, to be crass. If you look at Good Reads as a giant monopoly board ideally moderators of the "serious" book groups (by which I mean classics, just to be clear) willingly share the "real estate" on the premise that a normal person can only be dedicatedly active to two or three groups.

You guys OWN Dickens--that is like the London monopoly game where you own Mayfair and Park Lane. Maybe the Victorians! groups "owns" Leicester Square and Piccadilly. And maybe the "Literature from 1800-1910" "owns" Regent Street and Bond Street.

So I wonder (as a rather new member of these groups) if you pay attention to other, overlapping groups? Or do you want the most members? Or do you want the most active members?

Jonathan's poll leaves out the idea of sticking with Dickens. I think that should be an option here.


message 43: by Suki (new)

Suki St Charles (goodreadscomsuki_stcharles) Lynne wrote: "There is a Trollope project in progress, I believe. Natalie would know? And if you don't want to re-read Oliver, I am sure others do. There are many of us who missed it the first time around here, ..."

I really want to read Trollope, and I know of three separate reading projects, but I keep finding them 3-4 books in, when it's just too late to play catch-up!


message 44: by Lynne (new)

Lynne Pennington (bluemoonladylynne) Natalie wrote: "I know that there are at least two Trollope projects out there.

I think that Dickens will always generate a lot of interest and that newcomers to Good Reads will always be around.

I think that if..."


What she said! Natalie, you put it so much better than I did and so very clearly. Thank you!


message 45: by Emily (new)

Emily (redhotemilyjane) | 1 comments If we are done with books by Mr. Dickens and, for whatever reason, did not to reread his books, we could:

1. Read books about the man himself (fiction or nonfiction)
2. Read books about authors whose work he published/mentored, e.g. Wilkie Collins and Elizabeth Gaskell.
3. If we have not read his nonfiction, maybe we could give that a shot? His nonfiction, op-ed pieces, and travel writing are every bit as good as his novels.

Going forward, I promise that I will lurk less and participate more. Especially when it comes to Drood, about which I have very definite opinions about what happened to the title character.


message 46: by Tristram (new)

Tristram Shandy Peter,

yes, the true strength lies in slowness.

After what Nathalie and Peter said, I could also support the idea of reading other authors in buddy or side reads.

We might also consider the possibility of deciding from case to case what other Dickens world we can read in between the novels in their chronological order.


message 47: by Kim (new)

Kim Natalie wrote: "I know that there are at least two Trollope projects out there.

I think that Dickens will always generate a lot of interest and that newcomers to Good Reads will always be around.

I think that if..."


Here is what I think, well, some of what I think:

I totally agree with Tristram in his posts 14 and 25. I also totally agree with post 5 from Everyman. Agreeing with these two is a bit unsettling, but it has happened. I love Peter's post 6:

Simple answer. We are Pickwickians. We start over.

Natalie's post had me smiling especially this:

So I wonder (as a rather new member of these groups) if you pay attention to other, overlapping groups? Or do you want the most members? Or do you want the most active members?

Speaking for one of the moderators (that's me) I don't pay attention to other groups. I am a member of more than one but I've found over the last year or so that I simply don't feel well enough to keep up with them, and if I had to pick only one it was this one. As to the most members, absolutely not. I pay no attention to the number of members, there are probably a few hundred - I haven't checked in a long, long time - and a few hundred people aren't joining our little family here. I care about you that are right here, not numbers or names.

And Jean, your post was wonderful. I think I'll go and read it again, it made me smile.

Ok, I'm starting to feel a little grumpy and the feeling is overwhelming me today, I think I'll go play some hymns and chorus's to get my mind back to where it should be. And take a headache pill of course.


message 48: by Noor (new)

Noor Al-Shanti I just joined this group a couple of weeks ago and haven't really had a chance to comment on anything. I also dislike Great Expectations. So I thought to myself that I would just wait until you guys got back around to discussing some of his books I do like (Nicholas Nicleby for example). I just assumed that was how it was done! lol

So my vote is for starting over... if I even get one, that is ... >.>


message 49: by Kim (new)

Kim Noor wrote: "I just joined this group a couple of weeks ago and haven't really had a chance to comment on anything. I also dislike Great Expectations. So I thought to myself that I would just wait until you guy..."

Hi Noor! I can't remember if I welcomed you to our group before, but I'm doing it now! Also, Nicholas Nickleby is my very favorite except for................A Christmas Carol. Once you get to know me you'll know why ACC is my favorite. :-)


message 50: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 2034 comments Jonathan wrote: "I think Tristram and I have created a custom of this, which he, Kim, and E-man faithfully carried on ..."

Hey, leave me OUT of that totally. ALL the blame goes to Tristram and, especially, Kim. I had nothing to do with the disgusting Christmas Story tradition and the diversion of our attention from good reading to potboilers of the most insipid stamp. I do not read the Christmas Stories, I do not follow the threads for the Christmas Stories, I want nothing to do with the Christmas stories other than lamenting the stupidity of the last few pages of A Christmas Carol when a good and noble man, Scrooge, is made to look like an idiot marshmallow. Yuck.


« previous 1
back to top