The Old Curiosity Club discussion
Our Mutual Friend
>
OMF, Book 3, Chp. 05 - 07
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Bionic Jean
(new)
Aug 27, 2017 03:32PM
I remember not being very impressed, so have never "counted" it along with his other great novels. But I was only a callow youth at the time of reading, so am looking forward to reading it again with wise friends here :)
reply
|
flag
Jean wrote: "Peter wrote: "OMF enters into a new and deeper level of irony, and, I would argue, anger..."I can certainly see indications of that, despite all the humour. And I too think that he uses his indiv..."
I am with you on this, Jean, and let me tell you why... I read an article recently (I'll find it and post) stating Dickens received quite a bit of backlash regarding his depiction of Fagin ("OT" a few of you have drawn great comparisons between he and Riah) as the stereotypical and cruel Jew. It was said, when writing for Riah in "OMF," although some stereotypes were carried over, his character was given a touch of benevolence, and it was a means of redemption from the critics in his last act (his last book written in entirety). So, you may be on to something about Dickens's trend "with the dissatisfaction of human nature and behavior..." It's been a while since I've read "OT," considering what has been said about Fagin in these threads, does Dickens take his portrayal of Jews too far? If he did receive criticism for being antisemitic, I do wonder how Riah the kind Shylock is a show of atonement for Dickens when Jewish stereotypes continue to be propogated in this novel?
As a modern reader of this novel, the depiction of Jews from one novel to another is not a matter of reliability in the characters because they happen to be portrayed evil in one book and kind in another. If anything, these are the very examples of human nature, people capable of being both good and bad.
Ami wrote: "Jean wrote: "Peter wrote: "OMF enters into a new and deeper level of irony, and, I would argue, anger..."I can certainly see indications of that, despite all the humour. And I too think that he u..."
I have read quite a bit by other writers who uniformly say that Riah was a response to criticism of Fagin.
I wonder how often Dickens read reviews of his works -- my guess, with lack of anything else other than an honest hunch -- was that yes he did and very closely, too.
Ami wrote: "As a modern reader of this novel, the depiction of Jews from one novel to another is not a matter of reliability in the characters because they happen to be portrayed evil in one book and kind in another. If anything, these are the very examples of human nature, people capable of being both good and bad ..."Hi Ami, I think this final paragraph is spot on! This is perhaps why Dickens was so surprised at the backlash to Fagin, if he himself was not antisemitic. We now are hopefully past reacting badly to one depiction in one novel and taking it as a stereotype - or even an archetype - but then even we modern readers can still be overly concerned with "political correctness".
From the reading we did of Oliver Twist (which I'd read several times before) I do remember being surprised at the beginning, and wondered why the popular criticism of him was so vitriolic, for this kindly old man", as I thought Dickens portrayed him as trying to do his best by the homeless boys who would otherwise be destitute - even though his moral code was ... different! Loyalty among thieves and all that. But as the novel proceeded ... well that must be a conversation we will no doubt have during our next "Curious" read :)
I am still hoping Kim may come up with some wonderful bit of research which shows, as Peter said, a Dickens letter that clearly states that X was based on Y or other reliable and definitive proof that X is Y such as a trusted objective third person account" for one of the myriad characters in Our Mutual Friend. I'm missing all the clues and semi-secret references! Is the only one really to be Podsnap, supposedly based on his friend John Forster? Oh here's a thought... Perhaps with that rather cruel depiction, he realised that this time he had gone too far, in making fun of a friend who had been nothing but loyal to him throughout everything.
Mod
When we meet him the first time, we don't, as far as I can remember, get any concrete information as to his age, but we are told:
"Wegg was a knotty man, and a close-grained, with a face carved out of very hard material, that had just as much play of expression as a watchman’s rattle. When he laughed, certain jerks occurred in it, and the rattle sprung. Sooth to say, he was so wooden a man that he seemed to have taken his wooden leg naturally, and rather suggested to the fanciful observer, that he might be expected—if his development received no untimely check—to be completely set up with a pair of wooden legs in about six months."
In a way, this sounds like an older man, maybe someone in his fifties? But maybe, it's not so much age as a life of hardship and privation that has dried up his face and turned it into something woodlike. As to whether he believes his fancies or not, I would tend towards thinking that he does, as it says in Chapter 5 of Book the First:
"He had not only settled it with himself in course of time, that he was errand-goer by appointment to the house at the corner (though he received such commissions not half a dozen times in a year, and then only as some servant’s deputy), but also that he was one of the house’s retainers and owed vassalage to it and was bound to leal and loyal interest in it. For this reason, he always spoke of it as ‘Our House,’ and, though his knowledge of its affairs was mostly speculative and all wrong, claimed to be in its confidence. On similar grounds he never beheld an inmate at any one of its windows but he touched his hat. Yet, he knew so little about the inmates that he gave them names of his own invention: as ‘Miss Elizabeth’, ‘Master George’, ‘Aunt Jane’, ‘Uncle Parker ‘—having no authority whatever for any such designations, but particularly the last—to which, as a natural consequence, he stuck with great obstinacy."
It looks as if the story of the House and its Inhabitants and his supposed connection with it gave him a sense of importance and whiled away the hours of his standing in the corner selling his goods - and now the same delusions serve him to fire his ire against Mr Boffin, and to justify, in his eyes, any villainy he is about to undertake against Mr Boffin.
Mod
Well, we'll find out, to an extent, with Drood. I read it not too long ago, but don't recall any institution or ..."
In his depiction of the rivalry between Wrayburn and Headstone, I always thought I could spot some social comment, i.e. on class disctinctions and the rigidity with which they worked. Speaking in terms of devoting one's life to an earnest occupation, Headstone is definitely the more deserving of the two men, and yet Wrayburn manages to put him to shame. Simultaneously, Headstone is not the classical Dickens villain in that we can clearly sense the suffering and anguish at the bottom of Headstone's emotional plight. We do not find such a psychologically believable Dickens character in any of his earlier novels, I'd say.
Tristram, thanks for looking into the possible age of Wegg, and I agree that those quotations (the first one in particular is wonderful!) make him sound 50's-ish - maybe middle aged to old. Although of course such an age is a mere Spring chicken nowadays (!) at that time, it would mean he was quite old in years as well as having a weathered appearance. To have invented that whole back story also makes me think he needed a decade or so to establish it to himself and others.
It is clear that Headstone and Wrayburn are from totally different classes. It seems very unlikely to me that Dickens would "side" with the arrogant dilettante Wrayburn! Yes, I think there is definitely social comment here, and for all Headstone's latent aggression and chips on his shoulder, I feel terribly sorry for him and admire how far he has come. Wrayburn I despise, as someone who is intelligent but misuses his advantages. I could be wrong, and some readers (possibly not here) do seem to like Wrayburn as a "bad boy" romantic lead, but I do feel that Dickens is directing me towards holding this jaundiced opinion of Wrayburn.
Tristram wrote: "We do not find such a psychologically believable Dickens character in any of his earlier novels, I'd say."The one that comes closest, for me, is Miss Wade in 'Little Dorrit'.
Mod
I don't know about the decade, Jean - he seems not over-slow when it comes to dropping into poetry and other gambols of the imagination ;-)
Mod
The one that comes closest, for me, is Miss Wade in 'Little Dorrit'."
Yes, Miss Wade is definitely a character of similar ambivalence and psychological depth. I also found Mrs Clennam not quite the usual Dickens villain in that in the midst of her stern course of revenge she tried to make sure that Little Dorrit did have a chance to earn a living. And remember, Dickens even lets Mrs Lammle experience a pang of conscience at the thought of sacrificing Georgiana ... his characters are growing more ambivalent ...
Saying that, there are still enough rather "flat" characters around, e.g. Lizzie, who is even above resenting being slighted by her ungrateful brother.
Tristram wrote: "It is probably the very similarity between herself and Bella that Mrs Lammle thinks she can spot which makes her so relentless and disdainful towards her prospective victim. Seems as though, in her heart of hearts, Mrs Lammle does not harbour a very high opinion of herself. ..."I believe Mrs. Lammle is very realistic about her own character and motivations, and I think she has a pretty good eye for spotting other misses on the make, but I wonder if her disdain for Bella doesn't stem from the difference in their circumstances. Since she had nothing, she sees her own mercenary marriage as a matter of survival. As Jane herself said, "a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife," and who better for this moneyed man to share his wealth with than a woman of breeding and beauty, but not necessarily wealth? It was Mrs. Lammle's misfortune that she misgauged her prey and was taken in herself. Unlike Mrs. Lammle, Bella's mercenary approach is not prompted by survival--she has admitted that she has expectations from the Boffins.
I also wonder if Mrs. Lammle is not hostile to Bella because she considers Bella and the Boffins her social inferiors, and resents Bella's good fortune. In her thoughts, she refers to Bella as being "puffed up by the doting folly of a dustman" (460). Bella is a social nonentity who has been jumped up to Mrs. Lammle's circle by the sponsorship of the Boffins, who are also only part of that circle by virtue of their sudden wealth. Mrs. Lammle, forever tied to the unpleasant and impoverished Alfred, sees this little nobody giving herself airs as she plans to snag herself a wealthy husband, but comfortably circumstanced even if she doesn't. I think Mrs. Lammle envies this undeserved (in her opinion) good fortune for Bella.
And Tristram, I smile every time I run across reference to "the worm of the hour and the minion of fortune"--I love them, too! I'm just looking for an excuse to use them on someone. ;)
I agree that Mr. Boffin's personality shift is sudden and "unforeshadowed". I can see even such a happy, generous person as Boffin becoming overwhelmed by the demands made on him upon inheriting a large fortune or becoming fearful of making mistakes and losing it, but it just seems it would have a more gradual onset. It especially seems strange that he would go directly to idolizing misers whose behavior can only be seen as crazy by normal people. I do think it does provide a negative example to Bella of the dangers of greed and obsession with money. It also seems that Dickens is setting up for the ending. I would assume that Harmon/Rokesmith will, at some point, have his true identity revealed, at which time he will either resume control of his own fortune or Boffin will confess that he has somehow lost it. Bella, radiant with love and having learned her lesson, will happily renounce money for love, and the happy couple, along with the newly impoverished (and contented, Boffin also having learned his lesson) Boffins, will live happily ever after. Just speculation!
Mod
We had our grandchildren staying with us the last two weeks, probably why my headache is so bad all day today I can hardly concentrate on anything. Anyway, one evening my sister watched them because it was the night our group sings at a nursing home. This got the kids asking me what a nursing home was and I told them something like it is a home where people go who can't take care of themselves. This only brought the question of why couldn't they and I told them most of the people there are old and not in very good shape. After this I got this comment from my 8 year old grandson, "wow, even older than you?" Yes, even older than me. He didn't look like he believed me.
Mod
Don't think it just happens to you, Kim! Even I, who am doubtless in the Prime of Life, and that Everlastingly, am sometimes put down to a biblical age by some superficial and uncouth 5-year-olds who say they are friends of my daughter.
Saying that, I remember that our neighbour once asked me how old I thought he was. I was about 8 years old and did not hesitate to say: "You must be about eighty." Okay, he was taller than I, had grey hair and a grey beard. To me, at the time, these were the insignia of an octogenarian.
Mod
Cindy, the quotation you mention sums up Mrs Lammle's envy and her feeling of life being kinder to "those upstarts" than to her - does her husband Alfred not sometimes refer to themselves as "people of merit"? - pretty well. This forebodes even worse for poor Bella, I think, because as soon as envy prompts the actions of one's enemies, there's no telling what they might not find it in themselves to do. Most famous literary example: Billy Budd, Sailor.
Tristram wrote: "Don't think it just happens to you, Kim!."My coworkers threw me a "grandma shower" and a young man whose wife is expecting stopped in and said he'd heard there was a baby shower, and who was it for? When everyone pointed at me, he immediately said, without thought or hesitation, "You're old!" I felt compelled to smack him. Though it may be considered workplace violence, no jury consisting of any woman would ever convict me.
Mod
Don't think it just happens to you, Kim! Even I, who am doubtless in the Prime of Life, and that Everlastingly, am someti..."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150...
Mod
Don't think it just happens to you, Kim! Even I, who am doubtless in the Prime of Life, and that Everlas..."
That depresses me a bit, Kim, because I gather that my chances on the Nobel Prize are getting slimmer and slimmer. In fact, I seem to have run out of chances there.
Mod
My coworkers threw me a "grandma shower" and a young man whose wife is expecting stopped in and said he'd heard there was a baby shower,..."
That's a bit like a story my wife told me yesterday. One of her co-workers has got a daughter, has her because she's hers, and that daughter is 29 years old and has been living together with her boyfriend for about 10 years or so. A few days ago, she phoned her mother to tell her that her boyfriend had proposed to her and that she had accepted, and the mother's reaction was an incredulous "Whyyyyyyyy?"
The daughter's reaction was sort of ... well, you can guess.
Tristram wrote: "the mother's reaction was an incredulous "Whyyyyyyyy?"..."The mom was undoubtedly anticipating bills and Bridezilla. ;-) Having been through one daughter's wedding, I'll have no problem if the next one elopes.
Mod
It's striking that in the first seven chapters of Book the Third three characters have changed significantly. Mr Boffin has turned into a greedy miser-wannabe. The recently repentant Mrs Lammle has turned back into a duplicitous swindler. Mr Venus, the once benign half of Wegg & Venus, has showed an interest in forced dismemberment.
Mod
The same goes for Mrs Lammle: Remember that she has a husband who intimidates her, and also remember that she is not really a nice person but a woman who wants to make her cut. It's just that she pitied Georgiana so much - something that will not happen in Bella's case.
As to Mr Venus's change, I'm a bit at a loss, and I can't understand why Wegg let him in on his plan in the first place. The reason he gives (somebody to help him on the premises) is, at best, threadbare. I don't think it too much in Mr Wegg's nature to let anyone in on what he is doing.
Mod
I agree. Oh, wait a minute, I didn't notice it was a post from Tristram. In that case, I disagree. :-)
Mod
The Old Curiosity Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Billy Budd, Sailor (other topics)Our Mutual Friend (other topics)
Oliver Twist (other topics)
Nicholas Nickleby (other topics)
Northanger Abbey (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Forster (other topics)Jane Austen (other topics)
F. Somner Merryweather (other topics)
