The Old Curiosity Club discussion
David Copperfield
>
DC, Chp. 04-06
Mod
I do think that David's childhood memories ought also to be taken with that modicum of salt since a young boy is very impressionable and some things stick with him more than others. Maybe, Miss Murdstone's iron qualities were what struck little David most, whereas an adult would simply have set her down as Puritan and hypocritical?
"Barkis is willing"Lol! I have totally forgotten that line and it made my day when I read it. :) And I love how he still insists on David conveying the message, and David wonders why Barkis can't do it himself when he will actually be in close proximity to Peggotty while David will be miles away.
I also love that David assumed that Peggotty would have had no buttons left after hugging him when she ambushed him while on the coach. :) The buttons flying off every time Peggotty hugs him is a humorous visual.
On another note, I wonder if Clara had any inkling in her heart of the type of person Mr Murdstone actually was, or was she completely taken by surprise? I mean, it seems that Peggotty had warned Clara against him, but Clara didn't want to believe her? Did Clara think that Murdstone was better than Peggotty thought he was? How could she let him treat little David like that? The whole situation makes me sick. :(
Also, I wondered this in the last section but didn't post it. Why did the Murdstones move in with Clara? Didn't he have a house of his own, and if he didn't, didn't Clara think that odd? Just seems strange for Clara to marry a man older than herself who doesn't have himself established. Didn't that raise some alarm bells?
Mod
If David remembers his childhood the way I remember mine it can't be entirely reliable. For instance, when I grew up there was an old woman living next to us. I never saw her do anything at all except sit at her kitchen window looking out at us. Most of the time you didn't notice her, but if you thought of her and looked that way, there she would be looking out her window. And not in a nice way either, in a "I'm watching to see if you let that ball hit my house than I'll call your parents" kind of way. Well, this woman had to be at least 100 years old, I was sure of it. She died about ten years ago, ten years ago I was 49, so she had to have been about 150 years old to be the age of my childhood memory. She wasn't of course, but that's what I thought when I was a child.
Another thing, I remember being in the hospital when I was a child often. That part is true, but to my mind then I was there for weeks and weeks at a time, even months perhaps, and I don't think that could be true. I think I'm remembering things from different times there as one time making me think I was there for much longer a time than I was. I can remember my first seizure being on June 6th. That's easy because it was the last day of school and ruined my summer. That's how I remember it. I was in the hospital from June 6th to my birthday. My mom was so excited to bring me home on my birthday, and there were all kinds of people there to welcome me and have my birthday party, and I wished they were all far, far away because my headache was terrible and all I wanted to do was go to bed. But my birthday is July 31st. So does that mean I was in the hospital from June 6th to July 31st all for one seizure? And why did my head hurt so much if it had been nearly two months since the first seizure? It seems to me now like it had to have been from two different seizures, but I'm remembering them as one. That's why I think David's memory may be a bit off at times.
Mod
Mod
Exactly what I was wondering. What is he doing there? She didn't seem to know him, so he's probably not from the area, so how does he know anything about her? And where is the house he was living in? I'm assuming he wasn't homeless. The same thing with his sister. What was she doing before she showed up at the door? Maybe she was homeless like her brother.
Mod
Linda and Kim
I never thought about where the Murdstone’s lived prior to moving into the Copperfield home. Good question.
We know that Murdstone attended the Copperfield’s church at least once because that is where Murdstone noticed Clara. We know that Murdstone has friends in the area. It seems his friends know something of David and his mother. After that, it gets a bit murky.
Mod
Mod
Chapter IV
I fall into disgrace
Progress of his mother's weakness under the Murdstones
Miss Murdstone
Beat's him
Bites
Shut up and dismissed
Chapter V
And am sent away from home
The carrier & Peggotty
Waiter - glass of ale - chops - pudding - himself
journey
to be left till called for
School with the boys all at home
Take care of him. He bites.
Chatper VI
I enlarge my circle of acquaintance
Mr. Creakle
return of the boys
spending him money
Steerford
Steerforth
Mod
Chapter IV
I fall into disgrace
Progress of his ..."
Thanks for the number plans Kim.
“Steerford” “Steerforth”. Interesting to see that Dickens was uncertain about the name right up to the last moment.
Mod
In the start of the novel Clara Copperfield isn't married
Peggotty isn't married. Neither is:
Mr. Peggotty
Barkis
Mr. Murstone
Miss Murdstone
Mr. Mell
His mother
Steerforth's mother
Aunt Betsey
Mrs. Gummidge
The only marriages I can think of aren't happy being Murdstone and Clara, and Mr. And Mrs. Creakle.
So where are the happily married people?
Mod
In the start of the novel Clara Copperfield isn't married
Peggotty isn't married. Neither is:
Mr...."
Let’s hope some are to come in the rest of the book.
Mary Lou- I agree with your perspective. That’s why I said “does it matter?” To me an unreliable narrator is probably different than an unreliable person. But I can see why they wouldn’t be the case for others. When I read a book like the modern memoir Educated, I believe all Tara says because it’s her experience. And in life I agree that it’s not a lie or deception to tell your POV. But there are also facts about what happened. So when we discuss a narrator, I look at things the way Triatam described. The omniscient narrator just tells the story without much bias.....usually. But a first person narrator is telling things the way they perceive them. So I guess I’m pondering if that’s simply a different way to present a story or if, because it’s only through one persons eyes, it’s more unreliable. Meaning, maybe Mr Murdstone wasn’t an evil man out to take over the house and kick David our. Maybe he did love Clara and thought he was doing what was best because he didn’t know any different. Or maybe he was exactly as David describes. But then I come back to the question- does it matter? That’s obviously the impact he made no matter his intentions. As adults we don’t have to do things the way our kids want us to, but should we be judged only on our intentions? Or the impact our actions have? So even if Mr M was trying to do good, but was so terrible to David, does hjs intention matter? Or the result of his actions? Or does none of that even matter? Should we just read David’s story and enjoy?
Mod
I too am fascinated with the whole idea of POV. Certainly, the third person gives a sense of verisimilitude. It is easier to believe a watcher than a participant.
To what extent do you think the believability of first person narrator is at least partly dependent on how much the reader likes the narrator or not? If the reader “likes” the narrator are we tempted or willing to forgive or overlook parts of his/her character? For example, I like David Copperfield but have more difficulty warming up to Pip in Great Expectations. I am putty in the hands of Jane Eyre but somewhat dislike Esther Summerson.
I often wonder if a reader is more distanced from the third person narrator we automatically check our own feelings a bit
Mod
When the firming is complete, Murdstone and his sister will unsettle them all to start out fresh again, of course. And Miss Murdstone is very good at unsettling people, I guess ;-)
Mod
To borrow a phrase from Martin Chuzzlewit, Miss Murdstone was probably waiting around the corner ...
I don't know what stories conmen tell to lead their victims up the garden path, but somehow there are always people ready to believe anything you tell them. Maybe, Murdstone told Clara that living in the countryside is so much healthier and that he would therefore hire or sell the three or four manors that run in the Murdstone family. As to their house in London, why! at the moment it is being renovated, and so there will be no point in going there and spending the season in the metropolis. If you act convincingly enough, many people - especially inexperienced (and vain) ones like Clara - will believe you.
Peter wrote: "To what extent do you think the believability of first person narrator is at least partly dependent on how much the reader likes the narrator or not? If the reader “likes” the narrator are we tempted or willing to forgive or overlook parts of his/her character?..."Excellent question, Peter. So far, I like David, but as Tristram said in another discussion, I didn't much like Pip. But it's easy to see that we surely would have liked Pip more if we'd been hearing the story from him.
OFF TOPIC - Kim wrote: "Why are there no happy marriages in this book? Come to think of it there are few marriages at all...."
Kim - I once saw something online that pointed out that there were no happy marriages in Mayberry, either. I was astounded but realized it was true. If you can't be happily married in Mayberry, is there any hope for the institution??
Kim wrote: "Dickens wrote number plans for the novel, acting as a memorandum for what had been done, and what was coming..."Oh, if only he'd had such notes for Edwin Drood!
Mod
I too am fascinated with the whole idea of POV. Certainly, the third person gives a sense of verisimilitude. It is easier to believe a watcher than a participant.
To what ext..."
Peter,
Interesting questions! I personally like the omniscient 19th century narrator a lot (because he equals a movie without intrusive camera operations), and I especially like this narrator when he tends to muse on his story from time to time or philosophize. Dickens and Trollope are great at this. Yet at the same time, a first-person-narrator is often more interesting because of that very element of subjectivity and the underlying question whether another character involved in the story would have told its events the same way. It's more like real life - we constantly have to ask ourselves whether other people see the situations we experience with them in the same way.
I do think that a reader tends to be more trustful towards a narrator they like - by that token, I, like you, have certain reservations with regard to Esther. As to Pip, he definitely is quite thankless and snobbish at a certain stage of his development - but then he is honest enough, in restrospect, to tell the truth about it.
Mod
Oh, if only he'd had such notes for Edwin Drood!"
Indeed, it would be wonderful to know the truth about Edwin - but as matters stand, part of the novel's appeal lies in its everlasting enigma, doesn't it?
Linda wrote: "Why did the Murdstones move in with Clara? Didn't he have a house of his own, and if he didn't, didn't Clara think that odd? Just seems strange for Clara to marry a man older than herself who doesn't have himself established. Didn't that raise some alarm bells?..."Excellent observation, Linda! Another one of those things that is plain to see, and yet I completely missed it. Murdstone doesn't seem like the type who would have left his own home and moved into another man's house just to make things more comfortable for Clara. Could be he'd been doing business in one of the colonies and was renting rooms upon his return. I guess that would have been common enough.
Did Dickens not think it was important enough to mention, or will it become relevant as the story goes on?
Mod
Tristram wrote: "part of the novel's appeal lies in its everlasting enigma, doesn't it?..."No.
Tristram wrote: "Maybe, this is another consequence of perspective: To David, the child, it did not matter why Mr. Murdstone moved in with them and where he came from. Murdstone probably told Clara, but to her boy,..."When is GR going to give in and add a thumbs up button, so I can acknowledge such wisdom as this without cluttering up the comments?
Tristram wrote: "because he equals a movie without intrusive camera operations), and I especially like this narrator when he tends to muse on his story from time to time or philosophize...."I must admit, I enjoy some of Dickens' editorializing.
This got me thinking about the TV show "The Office" -- can anyone think of a book that follows that kind of format? A somewhat omniscient but silent "narrator" but with characters who are aware of his presence, each able to comment periodically from his own point of view? I can't think of one, but the idea fascinates me. I'm not sure if it would work well in literature.
Mod
No."
If there is the Neverending Celestial Library I have always dreamed of, then I'm sure it will have the complete version of Edwin Drood! I will definitely read it.
Mod
I think it hardly ever works well on TV. "The Office" is the only exception I can think of right now. You could do this kind of thing in a play, but in a novel it might be tricky.
Mod
Reading this makes me blush ;-)
Mod
Can I also have a thumbs down button?
Mod
You can already read it, lots of people have finished the book. :-)
Mod
And SHE. How is SHE?’ said my aunt, sharply.
Mr. Chillip laid his head a little more on one side, and looked at my aunt like an amiable bird.
‘The baby,’ said my aunt. ‘How is she?’
‘Ma’am,’ returned Mr. Chillip, ‘I apprehended you had known. It’s a boy.’
My aunt said never a word, but took her bonnet by the strings, in the manner of a sling, aimed a blow at Mr. Chillip’s head with it, put it on bent, walked out, and never came back. She vanished like a discontented fairy; or like one of those supernatural beings, whom it was popularly supposed I was entitled to see; and never came back any more.
Then there is Miss Murdstone:
Then she looked at me, and said:
‘Is that your boy, sister-in-law?’
My mother acknowledged me.
‘Generally speaking,’ said Miss Murdstone, ‘I don’t like boys. How d’ye do, boy?’
Under these encouraging circumstances, I replied that I was very well, and that I hoped she was the same; with such an indifferent grace, that Miss Murdstone disposed of me in two words:
‘Wants manner!’
And finally, there's Steerforth:
You haven’t got a sister, have you?’ said Steerforth, yawning.
‘No,’ I answered.
‘That’s a pity,’ said Steerforth. ‘If you had had one, I should think she would have been a pretty, timid, little, bright-eyed sort of girl. I should have liked to know her. Good night, young Copperfield.’
So if David was a girl how different her life may have been!
Mod
Mod
Miss Murdstone
Kyd
Jantine wrote: "I certainly disliked Clara the more in chapter 4, because she scolded David for being a kid and missing her affection. I mean, hey, you're the one marrying and then listening to that brute instead of taking care of your child lady, it's all your own fault! It does get more clear that David is just a burden for her.."I was very angry with Clara in this section too--why have children if you are so incompetent (I know this is a stupid question, but it's what crosses my mind when the book invites me to be sympathetic to her and I fail), and also she *is* vain and selfish: nobody deserves the abuse she's getting, but she sure deserves it more than David. Anyway--Jantine's comment reminds me that before his marriage, Murdstone's friends initially identify David as "Bewitching Mrs. Copperfield's encumbrance." Ugh.
Ulysse wrote: "Mary Lou and Peter, don't give up on the idea of reading Arabian Nights! It is a wonderful book, a treasure trove of stories from the Middle-East, such an influence on countless authors, poets and thinkers, not the least of which wrote the book we are reading."
Seconded! It's been a long time since I read them, but I loved those stories.
"I found the keyhole scene with Peggotty to be extremely moving."
I love Peggotty! But I don't wish she'd run off with Barkis, even though I thought the Barkis scene was wonderful. I just don't really think he's bright enough to be a good fit for her, and he seems less interested in her anyway than in her cooking.
Tristram wrote: "Yes, Steerforth's question as to David having a sister and his reaction to David's answer surely made my hair stand on edge. There is something ghoulish in it."
Yes, it's ghoulish, and further the description of David's hypothetical sister sounds a little like David's biddable doll of a mother, and after reading all the Murdstone I can't help but see Steerforth as maybe being a Murdstone in the works and looking for someone to dominate. I can't remember how this book works out, but nothing in this chapter except his name (what can go wrong with a guy called Steerforth?) makes me confident that Steerforth is going to be a good guy, after commandeering David's money, and boasting that no master's going to boss him, and then that hint of foreboding at the end of the chapter. I get what everyone is saying about how David enjoys the celebration he pays for so maybe it's ok, especially given his (Steerforth's) upbeat name. But I really think this character could go either way.
Kim wrote: " wish Dombey and Son could meet David Copperfield, then we could marry Mr. Murdstone to Edith Granger and see what she does to him."
Yes! Edith could be the solution to so many problems. Imagine going from writing Edith Dombey to writing Clara Copperfield Murdstone. What happened there?
Tristram wrote: "Oh, I think that Mr. Murdstone does know how to charm a woman and that he can be very fascinating and captivating to an artless woman."
I don't think he bothered to charm Clara. He didn't have to. All he needed was to flatter her.
Mary Lou wrote: "If my knowledge of future novels didn't prove me wrong, I'd wonder if Dickens was finally learning that being petite and pretty, like Clara, didn't necessarily make the ideal woman. Alas, Lucie Manette and others dispel that hope. But I love that Peggoty bursts through the hedge in the same way that she bursts through the buttons on her dress. :-)"
It really does feel to me like he's working through this, in the juxtaposition of Clara and Peggotty. Although this is complicated by the class differences between them, too--and how only lower-class and/or middle-aged women seem to be stout in these novels.
Tristram wrote: "I do think that David's childhood memories ought also to be taken with that modicum of salt since a young boy is very impressionable and some things stick with him more than others."I would agree except that we have David-the-adult constantly stepping in as narrator to interpret David-the-child for us, so he isn't allowed to be unreliable because of his youth.
As to Pip, he definitely is quite thankless and snobbish at a certain stage of his development - but then he is honest enough, in restrospect, to tell the truth about it.
Yes, exactly! Similarly retrospective David is always weighing in to say "if I'd only known then..." and that kind of thing.
Kim wrote: "Mary Lou vwrote: "When is GR going to give in and add a thumbs up button...."Can I also have a thumbs down button?"
Kim's here to keep you humble, Tristram. :-)
Mod
Mod
Can I also have a thumbs down button?"
You don't know what you are asking for, Kim. I remember when Amazon still had the thumbs down button and I was writing movie reviews on the German site: There were bitter wars between some of the reviewers, and some people clearly went paranoid about those thumbs down they got. I am soooo happy we don't have that kind of thing on Goodreads :-)
Mod
Yes, she would definitely have been made fun of for her name ;-)
I find your selection of quotations quite interesting. As to Miss Murdstone's saying that she does not like boys, I am not so sure that this means she likes girls ... I don't think she likes anyone but herself, her brother and firmness.
The last quotation from Steerforth makes me feel rather happy that David is a boy - because there is some menacing, ill-boding undertone in Steerforth's words (at least, that's what I get) that I think it's not too good to be a girl with Steerforth being around.
Mod
Kyd of course"
Yes, Kyd got Mr. Murdstone way too old, didn't he?
Mod
It's interesting you should say this, Julie, because I found myself writing "Murdstone" when I wanted to write "Steerforth" once or twice, so subconsciously, I must be making some links between these two characters. Or it's just the heat outside that's throwing me into a muddle.
Mod
Can I also have a thumbs down button?"
Kim's here to keep you humble, Tristram. :-)"
We are so very 'umble ;-)
Mod
I always tell her she is one of the luckiest women in the whole wide world, and she always thanks me for reminding her ;-)
Mod
Yes, the older narrator interferes a lot with his retrospective comments in these chapters, Julie. And yet, I am in doubt whether that makes him any less unreliable - because don't we tend to gloss over certain aspects of our past when we remember them and present them more in accordance to how we expect we should have reacted to them in the light of the experience we gained since then? A very interesting question, this unreliability thing.
So, thinking about David the adult telling the story of hjs life reminds me of Dante’s Divine Comedy. He is very clear that he is Dante the narrator telling the story of Dante the pilgrim. They are 2 different characters. I’m starting to see the two “different” Davids this way. Young David did not have the knowledge and experience narrator David now has and that makes a difference in the story.
Mod
Mod
Kim wrote: "I have a question. When Clara was dumb enough to marry Murdstone he became the owner of everything. Her house went from hers, passed over ours, and right to his house. I assume everything else did ..."Her father might have written some restrictions into the marriage settlement that limited what her husband could do with her money.
If there were a restrictive marriage settlement, a divorce/separation might rewrite it to put some more liberated money under the husband's name to do what he liked with. Hence he's "paid off."
This confuses me, frankly, because my brain automatically assumes realism, in art, in literature, in relationships. I can appreciate a Monet, but it would never occur to me to paint anything that way. So I guess I'm asking for a definition of "unreliable." Different people can witness the same crime and remember it differently. Their versions aren't necessarily unreliable; they could just be seeing things from different vantage points, focusing on different things, etc. Pieces of the puzzle. So I guess my opinion is that David's memories are clear and honest, but may have missed some context, particularly due to his age. But does that make him unreliable? Particularly as he's recounting these events in later years. I don't know the answer -- just trying to make sense of it.