Bleak House Week 1 - Chapters 1-7

[Everyman]

There may be more than meets the eye in Esther's rescuing Peepy from his predicament. If so, what might it be?

[Silver]

Everyman wrote: "We haven't talked yet about Mrs. Jellyby and her house and family. There is lots to talk about her.

First, of course, is Mrs. Jellyby's preoccupation with children in Africa at the expense of pay..."

For the most part I just laugh at her, but I do feel sympathetic towards her children and think it is quite an unfortunate situation particularly when one of her kids I cannot recall which off the top of my head, expressed how much she hated Africa.

To me Mrs. Jellby came across as rather absurd. On the one hand I think it is possible that there are individuals which may be so focused on helping others they may be neglectful of their own home, but at the same time I think Mrs. Jellby is a very extreme example to the point where she does become quite commercial.

While essentially it is sexist, on the other hand it was the expectation and convention of the Victorian age that women were the primary (if not sole) caregivers of children. In a modern novel there might be more criticism of the father not stepping up to take care of the children.

[Mary]

(#1) I also thought the fog was an analogy for the state of the chancery court case. Along with the mud and mire of those who are involved in the case.

Chris wrote: "I also felt the fog not only makes one think of London but could symbolize the curtain that is to rise on the story, the denseness of the story, the opening lack of clarity that is presented by the unknown details of the J v.J case, the parentage of Esther, or the connectedness of the various & diverse characters to each other etc."
This is an interesting way of looking at it!

There was a lot of movement in the first several chapters. The Dedlocks are going to Paris, Then there is Esther, first she is at her home where she grew up, then we move with her to Reading , then to London, then to the Jellyby’s, finally to Bleak House. At each spot, I wanted to know more about the place, but we are whisked away to another location. By the time we got to Bleak House I felt rather relieved at last to be home. I appreciate the way Dickens’s made this short journey feel between the contrast of the movement and the relief of the stationary home. I also wonder if there is any significance between this movement and the contrast with the slow moving glacial system of the court.

Paula wrote: (#63) "To me, Miss Flyte's caged birds are a metaphor for all the individuals ensnared (in Limbo?) in J vs. J. This is reinforced (to me) by her plan to release them on the day of Judgment."

I too loved all the bird metaphor and wonder where that will take us. I also love the villainous cat, I thought, representative of the court/law preying on those unfortunate caught up in the case.

Mrs. Jellyby is out of the ordinary. Yes, the expectations are that she takes care of the kids and house but she does not and I find that difference interesting. Is the daughters dissatisfaction a commentary on her behavior? Sometimes chaos is a good thing in life. I like the contrast between her and Esther.

[Laurel]

Chesterton calls Skimpole "the dark underside of Micawber."

[Catherine]

I've finally been able to start reading and think I may have read this before. But, I don't remember most of it, so it's like a first reading again. Just bits and pieces come through. I'm only in the third chapter, but am moving fairly quickly through. I have kept up with all your comments and find that reading the chapter after reading your comments is wonderful! A bit earlier someone noted that Dickens loved the theater and much of his writing sounds like it was written for the ear. I have to agree with this. The sentence fragments, the wonderfully thick descriptions, and sarcasm really lend themselves to being heard.

[Sue]

I have not read all the comments fully yet but finally am reading some as heretofore I feared I would read comments that would contain spoilers of events of which I had not yet read (starting chapter 6 now). My impression of Bleak House thus far: I love Dickens use of language and he paints with words so well as to both characters and settings. It is dense but delightfully full of witticisms (even the title to Chapter 4 is humorous yet telling:"telescopic philanthropy"). I did not mind the jump of characters and POV and look forward to how the fog of JvJ and the characters become clearer..but right now, I am just enjoying the ride. It makes me think that my next reads (from my large pile of "to reads" ) may be Claire Tomalin's "Charles Dickens, A Life" and "The Great Filth; The War Against Disease in Victorian England" by Stephen Halliday (the latter being a book I picked up in London). I do understand the darkness of the smog was indeed a….particularity of the time/place..to use the parlance of the time! ("London particular" being a bit of a euphemism, I do note! ha!) (i.e. pea soup fog/ black fog/ killer fog)

[Paula]

Everyman wrote: "We haven't talked yet about Mrs. Jellyby and her house and family. There is lots to talk about her."

She is a very interesting character and I don't consider her to be absurd at all. I think she is a perfect representation (admittedly, slightly satirical) of "philanthropists" who can only be interested or engaged in those pursuits if their missions are more global. Theirs is a more romanticized vision of philanthropy. They want something that seems somehow more impressive. So, as far as the squalid, starving people dying on their own streets are concerned,where's the romance, the vision, the large-scale impressiveness of helping the little homeless starving boy just outside your window? Somehow, to them, "making a difference" doesn't seem to have the same ring to it when it comes to spreading a little compassion on a domestic versus a foreign front.

That being said, to me, Mrs. Jellyby is more than just some do-gooder dreamer whose fantasies are foreign rather than domestic.

I think if I asked my daughter (who is a psychologist) to do a mental status exam on Mrs. Jellyby, she would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.

Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

•Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

•Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

•Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

•Requires excessive admiration

•Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

•Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

•Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

•Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

*********************
Do see any that cannot be applied to Mrs. Jellyby? Mrs. Jellyby's pathology goes beyond just not paying attention to her children. She is an abusive parent. Her children are filthy, starving, sick, wounded.

Her husband is a weak, pathetic excuse of a father, but that's a different conversation :).

In another discussion group, someone mentioned that Mrs Jellyby doesn't look after herself either - meaning, her dress, hygiene and nutrition are substandard as well. I don't agree. Mrs. Jellyby takes care of herself very well. She is totally focused on satisfying her own needs and desires. She is doing exactly what she wants to do. And, in order to attain what she wants, she is willing to turn away from anything or anyone else. Including her moral responsibilities. If you tried to talk about moral codes with a person with NPD, they would have no idea what you were talking about. They aren't wired that way. People aren't really people to them; that is, because of their complete lack of empathy, they are unable to attribute feelings, wants and needs to other people.

Notice something about Mrs. Jellyby's African project. Does anyone get the impression that she is in any way concerned or caring about the people who will be settling there? No. They are simply chess pieces on her gameboard. She doesn't care about the pieces. She cares about the game. She loves the attention, the letters, people streaming in and out,the sense of being in the middle of a big project. It salves that enormous ego. This is really brought home later in the book when more comes to light regarding the African project and we see how blithely she handles it - with not a care in the world.

She's an awful, destructive person masquerading in the body of a harmless looking, slightly vague and distracted, middle-aged woman.

[Paula]

Everyman wrote: "There may be more than meets the eye in Esther's rescuing Peepy from his predicament. If so, what might it be?"

Well, on the surface, I would say that Esther feels this strong sense of compassion because Peepy is a forgotten child, as was Esther. But then, the Jellyby house is full of children, so this is a good question.

She chooses this one, the tiniest one, to hold, and rock and tuck into her bed. Maybe I'm over-analyzing a bit, but it's almost like, when she cares for Peepy, she has her Dolly back again.

[Chris]

Mrs. Jellyby: yes I'm put off by her obsession with her charitable work essentially neglecting her children. At that point in history, I don't think men were concerned with or expected to be concerned with their children's upbringing. So although it may be disappointing in this day to know a family with a father would allow such neglect, it seems to be in keeping with that time period.
Skimpole: haven't we all known people like Skimpole who are so charming that one looks the other way IRT their "misdeeds"? Unfortunate but true I think... One would hope to see the light and not be taken advantage of, and John J is distressed when he finds out that his wards have given S. money and warns against helping out S. in this way again.

[Sue]

Eman wrote: The nearest thing I can think is that since she just buried her godmother, she had in her mind that this was the way to end a life. But she didn't like the godmother, and so burying in a grave is something she saw done with a person she didn't really care for -- so why do it with the most precious object in her life, make that parallel with her godmother? >>>
I see your point and pondered on the same. As the Godmother did not converse with Esther , she substituted Dolly as her companion. The perfect substitute who does listen and cares. Generally a doll serves the child as a means to role play/ or pretend/practice "real life" as one readies for it and learns of its ways…the doll may serve as one's other "self "or as a significant (pretend or otherwise ) other. When the Godmother died and was buried, the doll burial may have served as a means of sorts to come to grips with that reality via play. Also she is moving on to a new life..albeit I never thought to bury my own dolls..but can perhaps glean the connection if one was in Esther's limited and unloved situation as a means of wrapping one's mind around a difficult situation and a means of moving on.

[Zippy]

Paula wrote: "I think if I asked my daughter (who is a psychologist) to do a mental status exam on Mrs. Jellyby, she would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder."

Great post, Paula! It's almost as if Dickens was reading from the same textbook as you! Can you also diagnose Skimpole?

[Everyman]

Violette wrote: " I also love the villainous cat, I thought, representative of the court/law preying on those unfortunate caught up in the case. "

I had missed that aspect of the cat. But you're right, she is the [other] Chancellor's cat, and it is simply her nature to do damage, not by intentional villainy but simply because that's the way life is.

[Everyman]

Paula wrote: "I think [Mrs. Jellyby] is a perfect representation (admittedly, slightly satirical) of "philanthropists" who can only be interested or engaged in those pursuits if their missions are more global"

Fascinating post. Yes, for many people it gives them a much better glow of self-congratulation to "save the children" in Africa or the Philippines than in downtown Chicago or Manchester.

[Everyman]

Paula wrote: " Maybe I'm over-analyzing a bit, but it's almost like, when she cares for Peepy, she has her Dolly back again. "

A nice point. I like it.

[Paula]

Thanks Zippy! I have a lot of thoughts about Skimpole, but that will come later. There is a lot of Skimpole to come :).

[Paula]

"Violette wrote: " I also love the villainous cat, I thought, representative of the court/law preying on those unfortunate caught up in the case. "

That cat creeps me out...and I have two cats that I adore.

[Audrey]

Wow. I go away for a weekend, and there are so many interesting points that I don't quite know where to start.

Violette, I love your point about the motion of the first few chapters. I had never thought about it that way, but the final coming-to-rest at Bleak House does, in fact, feel like a homecoming to us, as well as to Esther. Plus, now that I think of it, it supports the characterization, as well. When you think about the characters we've met up until that point, it's really not a pretty picture. We go at a breakneck pace from Esther's horrible godmother to the denizens of chancery court, Mr. Krook, poor Miss Flite, the Jellybys, lawyers Kenge and Tulkinghorn, and the Dedlocks. With only a few exceptions, everyone we've met is either cruel, sleazy, downtrodden, or mad--some all at once. It really makes you appreciate Mr. Jarndyce when you finally meet him.

[Audrey]

Laurele: "Chesterton calls Skimpole 'the dark underside of Micawber.'"

Interesting. Especially since, if I remember right, Mr. Micawber is supposed to have been inspired by Dickens's father.

[Audrey]

As for Mrs. Jellyby, I see her as more of a satirical portrait that a realistic one--a sort of one-person embodiment of everything that Dickens saw as being wrong with charitable work in general and ladies' charitable work in particular. The sad thing is that this phenomenon has by no means died out. I spent two years living in a Catholic worker house, and I must say that I recognize her type. Narcissism and social justice work go together with startling frequency. We used to get large youth volunteer groups, many of which were led by Mrs. Jellyby types. They'd sit across from me at dinner and rhapsodize about how much social justice work they'd done and how many teens they had awakened social consciences in. They accomplished almost nothing, and much of what they did accomplish was so poorly done that we had to do it over again once they'd left. Worst of all, though, was the way they treated the guests. It got so bad that I had to write a specific list of rules on what they could and couldn't talk about with guests: one group leader had actually given his charges the assignment of asking guests about why they were homeless and what that was like. It was meant to be educational, but was, of course, incredibly invasive and disrespectful. Only the Mrs. Jellybys of the world would even contemplate such a thing.

Also, notice how Mrs. Jellyby is so sure that she knows exactly what's best for Borrioboola-Gha. She hasn't bothered to ask the inhabitants what it is that they need. Clearly, what they need is coffee. Again, this is still a huge problem. Back before my Catholic worker days, I worked at a tiny school, where my principal was constantly in a state of nerves over the fact that he could get hundreds of dollars to replace all our computers or build greenhouses--but no one was willing to donate money for the electric bill.

[Everyman]

Audrey wrote: "...She hasn't bothered to ask the inhabitants what it is that they need. Clearly, what they need is coffee...."

Actually, what they need is English settlers to come in and hire them to grow coffee. At least, maybe pay them. That isn't clear, is it? But what is clear is who would own the trees, and the profit from them.

[Theresa]

I agree with Viiolette #103, Mrs Jellyby is out of the ordinary. That is her essential nature. I don't think she is brilliant (although it is possible she may believe herself to have a higher calling) nor even tragic. From what we have seen so far, I feel she is just a little out of the ordinary and doesn't seem to have the discipline to pull herself back to the dreary and mundane duties of the home. She just doesn't care for housework and nurturing. I think we learn a lot about Esther from what she says to Mr Jarndyce about the duties of the home: "It is right to begin with the obligations of home, sir; and that, perhaps, while those are overlooked and neglected, no other duties can possibly be substituted for them." But Mr Jarndyce doesn't seem to find fault with her habits, so it says something about him too.

As to Skimpole, as soon as I read "Give him the papers, conversation, music, mutton, coffee, landscape fruit in the season, a few sheets of Bristol-board, and a little claret, and he asked for no more" he won me over. I can easily relate to that frame of mind - a cup of coffee and something to read, and I'm happy. Life is good. I also think the fact that he is not covetous makes him a very easy person to trust.

[Jeremy]

Theresa wrote: "As to Skimpole, as soon as I read "Give him the papers, conversation, music, mutton, coffee, landscape fruit in the season, a few sheets of Bristol-board, and a little claret, and he asked for no more" he won me over. I can easily relate to that frame of mind - a cup of coffee and something to read, and I'm happy. Life is good. I also think the fact that he is not covetous makes him a very easy person to trust.
"

It's good for conversation when someone identifies with a character who isn't generally liked. It opens up an opportunity to really dig into a character. I had a friend who said he identified with Harry from Updike's Rabbit novels. It took some work, but I was able to talk him out of that position. I won't try to talk anyone out of liking Skimpole, but I would like to point a couple of things out.

First, in spite of what he says about his modest tastes, according to the text he's constantly running up debt. Maybe more will be revealed later, but his appetites may be larger than he lets on. Second, the list of things he asks for really isn't that modest. Food was an important topic in many 19th century novels. Skimpole stating that he wants mutton, coffee, wine, and fruit is another way of saying "I want a comfortable life (maybe a privileged one?)" and he doesn't expect to work for it. He's demanding substantially more than a novel and a cup of coffee.

Food and hunger are important problems in 19th century society. Major societal shifts were wreaking havoc on the food supply. I'm sure this idea has been discussed in this group before, but here are two very accessible articles on the topic.

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/b...

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/h...

[[deleted user]]

Regarding Mrs Jellyby and her philanthropic efforts while neglecting her own children, I was reminded of a thought experiment conducted by Princeton philosopher Peter Singer. It is summarized in the first paragraphs of this longer article by him. Basically, the issue is how much would we sacrifice to save a drowning child in front of us compared to one far away.

http://newint.org/features/1997/04/05...

Zeke

[Paula]

Audrey wrote: "As for Mrs. Jellyby, I see her as more of a satirical portrait than a realistic one--a sort of one-person embodiment of everything that Dickens saw as being wrong with charitable work in general".

I agree. Dickens was a genius at taking an idea/concept and shaping a character to embody it. With regard to Mrs. Jellyby's "telescopic philanthropy", Dickens wanted to emphasize a tendency, when doing charitable works, for the grand gesture, with the lens focused so far afield, that she was blind to tragedies occuring right under her nose. To emphasize that, he used Mrs. Jellyby's neglect of her own children to portray her blindess - and its harmful consequences. Of course, Mrs. Jellyby isn't the only character who portrays the concept of "telescopic philanthropy". There are certainly others.

And, as with so many of his other characters, this worked beautifully. A reader might not be sensitized to this type of selective charity without that personal element built into it.

In using satire, Dickens painted a portrait of this type of philanthropist (and we all have met her type more than once I suspect), but cut an additional facet into that diamond. The result? We have a social issue brilliantly brought to life, through a character whose personality has been delicately distorted in order to bring the issue into sharp relief.

Mrs Jellyby is transformed into a character that the reader will sit up, startled, and take notice of. She goes from being what could have been a rather silly, slightly self-absorbed,absurd woman, to someone devoid of true empathy and charity; someone so totally focused on her own self-aggrandizement, that she would, as Zeke cited, attempt to save the drowning child far away as opposed to the one drowning right in front of her.

That being said, we know that Mrs. Jellyby would never throw herself into the water to save anyone. She would direct attention to the drowning child far away - perhaps writing a letter or two, or delegating the job to one of her circle :). And as for the one drowning a few feet away? I envision her saying someone like: "Oh that one? Never mind him. He'll be alright until we can get to him. He just needs to paddle a little harder, show some spirit!".

[Chris]

BRAVO Paula on your posts about Mrs. Jellyby !! I also had an "aha" moment on your birds metaphor, that completely eluded me, but makes absolute sense when reading your post.

[Paula]

Chris wrote: "BRAVO Paula on your posts about Mrs. Jellyby !! I also had an "aha" moment on your birds metaphor, that completely eluded me, but makes absolute sense when reading your post."

You are so nice, thank you!

[Theresa]

Jeremy wrote: "Theresa wrote: "As to Skimpole, as soon as I read "Give him the papers, conversation, music, mutton, coffee, landscape fruit in the season, a few sheets of Bristol-board, and a little claret, and h..."

I've read as far as the incident with accepting money from the youngsters. It was quite base of him yet at the same time he makes them feel good about themselves. You are right about the list of needs being not quite as modest as I first thought. No doubt I will grow to dislike him over time, but I think I can understand why Mr J likes having him around.

[Theresa]

Also, at this point I don't see the evil in Mrs Jellyby. It seems she could become tragically blind but it is also possible something could happen in the next few chapters that jolts her sense of motherhood, which may be stronger than we thought. In some ways she reminds me of Margaret Thatcher, who disdained motherhood and the domestic life. Anyway, I do agree with Eman that there is some sexism going on vis a vis our expectations around her for not being able to willing to do it all. She may turn out to be evil, but at this point she just seems resentful about her domestic duties.

[Lily]

@66Everyman wrote: "Enough explanation? [g] ..."

Yes, indeed, thank you! (As the leader providing prompts in the writing class would say: "Go deeper," which is what you did.)

As for Hardy's Jude a few weeks ago (another board), with Bleak House I feel up against a barrier. Like Kyle (@52), I don't find Dickens an easy fit for my reading proclivities. So I've taken Feliks's advice and gone looking for reputable criticism to help me see what I do not. (Although I probably do like Nabokov better than Feliks -- at least his commentaries on literature. Would have loved to hear his Cornell lectures, although not certain I would have liked the associated work as a student.) First of all, I don't like characters that I perceive are such caricatures that they don't seem worthy of empathy or are such paragons of virtue that they must have defied Augustinian concepts of the nature of humankind. One plausible insight I encountered was that in this period when Darwinism was challenging (religious) beliefs, an evangelical fervor existed as middle classes attempted to justify their worthiness a la the aristocracy and sought to find stable answers or positions in such times of flux. It was further suggested that Dickens did not necessarily share those needs for fixed or black/white positions. Nonetheless, he often used extreme images (b/w) to tell his stories. The further suggestion was that imagery, not satire, not social commentary, not theater or drama, is at the center of the gifts of art Dickens has bequeathed us. Don't know if I agree, but has me thinking.

That browsing this afternoon has taken me into spoiler territory, of course. But I think I can still appropriately foreshadow that the doll imagery will reappear. Whether it will address the significance of "burial," I'm not certain. But burial does seem to me a powerful image of ritual, dignity and mourning extended to that little stand-in for human friendship. Not sure Esther might have chosen it, but Dickens might. On second thought, may fit Esther's character, too, as her creator was developing it and "dug deeper"?

[Genni]

When I was reading chapter 6, Jarndyce's obvious obsession with wind and the direction of the wind caused me to look at my footnotes. When Ester and Ada are discussing this fascination they state that "this caprice about the wind was a fiction". My footnotes state that three titles Dickens considered for this novel were: "The East Wind", "The Solitary House where the Wind Howled", and "Bleak House and the East Wind". To me, none of these titles are as catchy as "Bleak House", but it definitely causes me to look more for insights in the wind and not just in the fog. :-)

[Lily]

Okay, now that Week 1 discussion may be moving on, let me slip in some of the illustrations that accompanied the original publication, a frequent aspect of Victorian novel reading so largely absent with modern publications.

This is the cover used for each monthly publication:



Image scan, caption, and commentary by Philip V. Allingham

http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian...

[Lily]

Excerpt on illustrations from Michael Steig's Web Book:

"The illustrations for Bleak House are far more uneven in quality than those for the three preceding novels. Most of the comic plates — with a few important exceptions — are technically weak, even sloppy, and many of those which feature the novel's protagonist, Esther Summerson, are relatively uninteresting, though usually done with care. Mrs. Leavis finds Browne's work here "disappointing" because the illustrator 'does nothing to actualize the Chancery fog,' and there 'is little in the way of background and almost no interesting detail,' and she decides that in any case illustrations for this novel and those that follow 'would have been unnecessary but for the habit of having illustrations,' because of the extent to which Dickens' own art had matured (Leavis, pp. 359-60.). Further, she finds those illustrations which do make use of emblematic detail to be inappropriate to Dickens' art, since the 'Hogarthian satiric mode' is no longer Dickens' (Leavis, p. 165.). Yet Bleak House contains some of Browne's finest and most complex work in that Hogarthian mode, fully appropriate to Dickens' own effects. Both in combination with and transcending this model the illustrator employs the dark plate technique to convey graphically what is for the Dickens novels a new intensity of darkness. Some of this intensity is retained in the illustrations for Little Dorrit, but in other ways Browne's work for that novel definitely shows a falling-off which is then almost embarrassingly apparent in his last collaborative effort with Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities. [131/132]

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illus... ALERT: This site definitely contains spoilers!

I read the two sections of the paragraph above that Steig questions the views of Leavis. ("Yet Bleak House contains some of Browne's finest and most complex work in that Hogarthian mode, fully appropriate to Dickens' own effects.") Others of you?

[Lily]

More from Steig, specifically on the wrapper design above:

"The complexity of Dickens' conception, the many interweaving plot strands and symbolic and thematic parallels of the text, is reflected in some respects from the outset in the complexity of Browne's emblematic conception in the Bleak House monthly cover. Because this design includes a number of identifiable characters, Browne must have had quite explicit directions, or at least some explanation of Dickens' purposes. The novelist had completed the first number by mid-December 1851, and so could have shown Browne the manuscript (chapters 1-4) well before it was published in March 1852; it is conceivable that Browne saw in addition at least a portion of the second number — which was already in proof, with the illustrations completed, by 7 March — before he finished work on the wrapper design (Johnson, 2: 750.). But three of the vignettes involving specific characters could not have been derived from a reading of the first six chapters, and this together with the fact that the vignettes are connected both visually and in relation to the plot indicates that Dickens explained his intentions in some detail...."

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illus... ALERT: Following text/description definitely contains spoilers! (Were Victorian readers less concerned about "spoilers" than many of the current generation of readers, given that the wrapper illustration from the initial publication provided strong visual clues?)

[Chris]

Genni wrote: "When I was reading chapter 6, Jarndyce's obvious obsession with wind and the direction of the wind caused me to look at my footnotes. When Ester and Ada are discussing this fascination they state t..."

I took Jarndyce's statements on the East Wind as his way of saying "I don't want to talk about it" or an indication of troubles. An East Wind brings bad weather often which in the day was also associated with illness.

[Lily]

I'm going to try to put the frontispiece/title page as in the 1853 edition in this post and as they have appeared in a subsequent edition in the next post. I am fascinated how a minor change, which seems logical prima facie, subverts thematic linkages with the text of the original.

For larger version: http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian...

[Lily]

New Oxford Illustrated Dickens

Larger version: http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian...

[Lily]

Commentary by Landow from Victorian web on the above:

"On the whole, the New Oxford Illustrated Dickens plates for Bleak House are quite good, but those in the original often seem darker and slightly more dramatic, something particularly apparent when one compares the modern frontispiece and title-page with the 1853 version: Even though my copy of the Bradbury & Evans edition shows a lot of foxing on the frontispiece-title-page spread, the illustration of Chesney Wold has much more intensity. In addition, Oxford chose to insert an image of the Rev. Chadband printed in brown ink that has been abstracted from 'Mr. Chadband "Improving" a Tough Subject,' a plate that appears halfway through the novel. Chadband, one of Dickens's mocking portraits of Evangelical clergymen, has only an incidental role in the novel, and although his image makes a nice decoration on the title-page, the two-page spread no longer has the thematic contrast of the original, which contrasts Jo, the crossing-sweeping boy who is always told to 'move on' with Chesney Wold. — an arrangement that juxtaposes two of the main settngs of the novel...."

Link: (view spoiler)[http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian... (hide spoiler)]

[Lily]

Readers here may also find it interesting to compare the "dark plate etching" above of Chesney Wold (Bleak House) with its sketch:

http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian...



Image scan by Philip V. Allingham.

Dark plate etching was a technique used by Phiz ((Hablot K. Browne) to conjure the bleak atmosphere of the novel in his illustrations. Not every illustration uses this technique.

Another dark plate version is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleak_Ho...

[Audrey]

I don't think I would characterize a series of caricatures as a spoiler. It seems to me that they play more the role of a teaser, to pique interest in the novel by providing a sampling of the characters and situations to come. Several of the scenes depicted are quite colorful (the one where a man is brandishing what appears to be a club comes to mind). A particularly careful studier of the pictures could probably even figure out who was in them. But you can't tell exactly what's going on. It seems to me rather similar to a movie trailer, where you see actual scenes from the movie, but you see only enough to make you want to watch the whole thing.

[Paula]

Susanna wrote: "Theresa wrote:"at this point I don't see the evil in Mrs Jellyby "

I agree. I see Mrs. Jellyby as obsessed with her Africa work, rather than evil. In the same vein, Miss Flite is obsessed with her..."

I don't associate that word with Mrs. Jellyby. Everyone has an interpretation of what that word means and i try not to use it because its such a subjective term. To me, for someone to be called evil would involve an intent to do harm and almost an enjoyment in inflicting that harm. I don't think Mrs. Jellyby has enough awareness of other people to merit that title. She operates in her own little bubble. Neglect can be abusive but I wouldn't call it evil. But again, I don't like the word because every third person, if asked, would have a different definition for it.

[Paula]

Lily wrote: "Readers here may also find it interesting to compare the "dark plate etching" above of Chesney Wold (Bleak House) with its sketch:

http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian......."

Thank you for sharing these :)

[Lily]

Audrey wrote: "...It seems to me rather similar to a movie trailer, where you see actual scenes from the movie, but you see only enough to make you want to watch the whole thing...."

Audrey, I suspect that is a very apt description of the role these little drawings provided. Still, I found fascinating that there may even be artist's interpretations of the text here.

I found myself stumbling over our rather dual use of "caricature" here -- both for these little sketches, sometimes also called "cartoons," and for the elaborate, even satirical or stereotypical, depiction in text with which Dickens portrays some of his characters.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: I found myself stumbling over our rather dual use of "caricature" here -- both for these little sketches, sometimes also called "cartoons," and for the elaborate, even satirical or stereotypical, depiction in text with which Dickens portrays some of his characters.


I have read through this week's reading and next. I confess I am having a difficult time getting into the book and am near abandoning the effort. Still, I have read with interest the many comments people have made and I am impressed at how much people seem to be getting out of it.

Lily's comment above crystallized for me the difficulty I am having. Although some of the characters (Mrs Jellyby for example) and situations (the never ending law suit) do remind me of contemporary things I observe, for the most part every thing seems caricature or stereotype. I like satire as much as the next person, but this seems satire disguised as versimo. Consequently, I am finding it unsatisfying.

I am sure this is my deficiency and not Dickens's.

[Lily]

Zeke wrote: "Although some of the characters (Mrs Jellyby for example) and situations (the never ending law suit) do remind me of contemporary things I observe, for the most part every thing seems caricature or stereotype. I like satire as much as the next person, but this seems satire disguised as verismo. Consequently, I am finding it unsatisfying...."

Zeke -- thx for the new word for my vocabulary! Boy, did you hit that one on the head as far as I am concerned about Dickens, specifically Bleak House. Now, an interesting question for both of us -- why is such unsatisfying to us?

[Paula]

Interesting discussion! Personally, I have always found the illustrations to be at odds with the darker themes Dickens was gravitating toward and I think I read somewhere that, after A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens and Browne parted ways.

Satire is a tricky device to employ because the "audience" is definitely going to react. That's the whole purpose of using it - to make people react. But satire can be like cilantro. Some people love the flavor, but others, like me (whose taste buds react differently to it), only taste soap. It doesn't make me deficient, it's just not how my taste buds are wired. I need a different way of enhancing the flavor of that food.

I obviously don't have a problem with Dickens and how he approaches his themes. I enjoy him sometimes hiding his "pills" in a meatball (like we do when we have to give kids or pets their medicine) and then turning right around and throwing it on the plate in full view. He switches it around all the time. In one sentence, his dagger cuts so lightly you might read over it without even noticing it; other times, he puts on big boots and clomps around. He gets in there, kicks up a lot of dust and sometimes makes a mess. I like that. He makes me think about things while reaching me on an emotional level at the same time.

Of course, I was an opera singer. Boy, do I know how to go with things. Think about it - musicals and operas... where people are standing on a stage and singing about how they are dying or singing for 15 minutes standing over a person with a dagger in hand, telling that person he/she is going to kill them - in about 7 minutes. I mean really, you get that much notice that someone is going to stab you, you aren't waiting around for it to happen. I can't tell you how many times I died of TB on stage while singing an incredibly difficult aria. Because come on, someone with TB can barely breathe.

Really, it shouldn't work, right? But it does - for some people. Others can't stand this type of entertainment because the whole idea of it seems stupid to them.

Some readers won't read fiction because they think it's stupid or a waste of time.

I have my own preferences. As a general rule, I don't like historical fiction. If it's going to skate that close to history, I would prefer to read the straight history without all the pretend conversations.

I don't like romance novels. It doesn't mean I'm incapable of romance :), it just means that I don't enjoy the genre.

I like some fantasy and science fiction, as long as it's well done. Of course, this is in accordance with my personal definition of what is well done.

I don't like Wuthering Heights. There, I said it. I have read it at least 6 times in my life. I don't like it any better at age 59 than I did at age 15. I think the writing is overwrought, the plot boring and the characters one-dimensional. Other readers heart that book in a big way. And don't get me started on Jane Eyre. With me, the Brontes give it the old college try, but they couldn't pull me in even if they brought in a tow truck.

At the end of the day, in fiction, we have to be able to suspend disbelief and go with the story. Not all books or writers can reach our sweet spot. With Dickens, he grabs me and pulls me right into his world. It's chemistry. Like that boyfriend you adore, but your friends and parents have no idea what you see in him.

But what I love about these groups is hearing intelligent people give insightful opinions that differ from my own. It makes me think more deeply about what I do and don't like. And this makes me, hopefully, a better and more insightful reader.

[Lily]

Paula wrote: "Interesting discussion! Personally, I have always found the illustrations to be at odds with the darker themes Dickens was gravitating toward and I think I read somewhere that, after A Tale of Two ..."

Like most writer/illustrator relationships, the Boz/Phiz one did apparently have its complications. I haven't decided how much I want to understand it, but skimming parts of this online book by Michael Steig have been providing interesting (to me, at least) perspectives on the use, or non-use, of illustrations in Victorian novels:

Dickens and Phiz by Michael Steig
http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian...

Chapter 6 deals specifically with BH. The very first paragraph does speak to the complexity (mixed bag!?) of assessing Phiz's work for BH:
http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian...

To repeat a quotation from the background resources (@8):

"Browne and Dickens developed an excellent working relationship and Browne took the nickname Phiz to complement Dickens' Boz. Browne would go on to illustrate Dickens' work for 23 years, ten of Dicken's novels were illustrated by Phiz. Browne's comic/satiric style of illustration did not fit well with Dickens' later, more serious, novels and after the somewhat disappointing illustrations for A Tale of Two Cities, he never worked for Dickens again.

Phiz and Emblematic Detail
"In the background of many of the Phiz illustrations of Dickens' novels the illustrator introduces details that help to interpret what is happening in the story. Some of these emblematic details are rather obvious and some are more subtle. Michael Steig, in his book Dickens and Phiz, argues effectively that, although Dickens gave detailed instructions as to the content of the illustrations, many of the emblematic details in the illustrations were added by Phiz on his own."

Another view, which may or may not be accurate to a scholar's satisfaction (I don't know enough to judge.):

"This close working relationship with his illustrators is important to readers of Dickens today. The illustrations give us a glimpse of the characters as Dickens described them to the illustrator and approved when the drawing was finished. Film makers still use the illustrations as a basis for characterization, costume, and set design in the dramatization of Dickens' works. Indeed, the scenes selected by Dickens to be illustrated provide the reader with what he considered key scenes needing emphasis."

http://charlesdickenspage.com/illustr...

[Lily]

Paula -- I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying your passionate engagement with Bleak House. You provide one very articulate window into relating to the writings of Dickens. But Donna Tartt's menagerie of characters and how she depicts them in The Goldfinch is more to my druthers, as troublesome as many aspects of that tale can be.

[Lily]

@51 Mark wrote: "...From Chapter 1, I found myself stopping my reading to copy this text on to my legal pad (I could have used one of the Lord Chancellor's clerks)..."

Mark -- do you use the Kindle app? I have it on my PC and it has become my "Lord Chancellor's clerk" for copying texts I want to pull off into my own notes. (You don't need a Kindle to get the app and the classics are generally available at no cost.)

You championed this one, i.e., BH. Am watching for your posts!?! (And for some of the others who rallied to the read?) Since Cass read/is reading(?) To2C Down-under and it was apparently part of what drew you to BH, perhaps a word or two of comparison/contrast at your point in this BH journey? Nabokov shares your sensitivity to the language Dickens uses, e.g., ("dismal" - N calls it) alliteration like "Chizzle, Mizzle, and Drizzle" or "shirking and sharking" of the lawyers versus the "slipping and sliding" of the pedestrians in the mud.

[Lily]

Okay, about enough of this for today, but let me slip in one of the illustrations for this week's sectioin:



Scanned by George P. Landow. See comments and associated text here:

http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian...

In the associated text we get the bird symbols in words: youth/lark, hope/linnet, beauty/goldfinch, along with the bird theme: song, wings, flight. But no caged birds in the illustration.

[Chris]

I am reading the B & N classics edition and the original illustrations are in the book. Adds great flavor!