Little Dorrit: Chapters 1 - 11

[Sara]

That is exactly how I use them, Elizabeth. Dickens is complex enough that I do not mind at all reading the text and then reading the summary behind it.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Robin P wrote: "But in Pickwick, most of the characters never return. You can enjoy them for that chapter and not have to remember them (with a few exceptions) ..."

True, I don't know of any "novel" with so many cameo roles. And I invariably recommend David Copperfield as a first read, despite its length, so I'm really pleased it proved so popular here :)

Martha - I've just thought that the other thing you can do, if you are wracking your brains to remember where we have heard of a character before, is to use the search field on the right (under the group's name and inset picture). You mentioned "Plornish", so I entered that and immediately got 5 posts, including the summaries for chapter 6, 9, and 12.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

All Nisa's fabulous links have now been put in comment 2, so you can get to any chapter summary for this thread as quickly as winking :)

[Sara]

Thank you, Nisa. Very nice!

[Kathleen]

Nisa,

Very well done. I’m adding my thanks.

[Kim]

I’ve been taking care of a sick cat while my husband has been doing overnight shifts with the Census, counting the homeless. Talk about the bureau of circumlocution...anyway, my hours are all upside down. The Circumlocution chapter did make me think of Bleak House and “red tape”. I became quite expert at cutting through that in the Navy, charm and persistence were key, lol.

The names are excellent, especially the Barnacles. We are about to have a heat wave, so am settling in with books in the coolest room in the house.

I know by our standards, Arthur’s age difference with Amy might be regarded as an impediment, but through much of history an established older man was considered to be a great match for a younger woman. His concern is motivated by his suspicions about his family’s “sharp” business practices which he instinctively feels are connected with the Dorrits’ misfortunes, and by a growing affection for Amy and a strong desire to help. We see this quality in Arthur manifest in many situations as the story moves forward. He is a truly good man in a sea of people who are not.

[Elizabeth A.G.]

Thank you, Nisa!! A great resource for locating all the summaries. Great job!

[Mark]

Jean, on whether Kafka was influenced by Dickens's Circumlocution Office or Court of Chancery, I think so since he loved Dickens. And even though there are bad institutions in every Dickens novel, in these later novels they take on a sort of indifferent malevolence in the way they ruin people with no real purpose behind them.

Wackford Squeers and Rigaud are bad men; but the CO and Court of Chancery can destroy people for no real reason, like a machine gone haywire. It's that lack of a reason that makes them seem modern to me as Dickens presents them. I think the first part of Little Dorrit was to be called Nobody's Fault? Maybe I have that wrong but thought I read it.

Thank goodness there are people like Amy in the novel!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Mark wrote: "I think the first part of Little Dorrit was to be called Nobody's Fault? ..."

It was an earlier name which Charles Dickens gave to this novel, Mark. I actually prefer it! You may be remembering the 1987 miniseries, where the first half was titled "Nobody's Fault", perhaps as a sort of homage.

Thanks for your take on whether Franz Kafka was influenced by Charles Dickens.

And I do agree that Charles Dickens's views of these institutions become bleaker and more savage over time. When he was a young man his diatribes were vehement and vigorous, and he pointed the finger at real examples. But later his criticisms of the processes and institutions, as you say, which are "like a machine gone haywire" seem more vicious and embittered.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Kim - "He [Arthur] is a truly good man in a sea of people who are not." I like this :)
And also Mark's "Thank goodness there are people like Amy in the novel!"

So far we have seen that Arthur Clennam is keen to help all those in need, as is Amy. Truly good people are few and far between, but we do meet a few more soon - as well as some rotters!

At this point Arthur feels protective towards Amy, and Amy is grateful for his concern. As you both probably remember, we do not hear Amy's true thoughts until much later in the book.

[Ashley]

After my foot surgery, my mom came to visit (she lives 700 miles away) to help with the kids. It was very nice, but I haven’t been keeping up with commenting. Sorry. Before we leave chapter 11 behind I want to bring up something I find very important that I don’t think was talked about. If these themes continue, this may jump toward the top of my favorite Dickens list! I love seeing these things play out.

We have seen a lot of questions about who should be in prison and why. In this chapter the theme is hit hard again. Before we know Rigaud is the guest, we see a conversation about whether he should have been released. Human nature hasn’t changed much! Today we often see sensationalized news coverage of cases like this and make up our mind about innocence or guilt based on our opinion alone, without any knowledge of the actual case and evidence (or maybe with just enough knowledge to be dangerous). That’s exactly what is going on here. The end of the chapter has a musing about whether he is to blame for his actions going forward or if society should take some blame in not allowing him to move past his past mistakes (or rid himself of false charges, if that’s the actual case). This is one of my favorite things to consider in literature. Who is to blame? What personal responsibility do we have for our actions? What responsibility does society have for the way it acts or for the laws/structure/habits/etc... that are on place? It may be a weird thing to enjoy, but I’m not looking to take blame away from myself, but rather to understand people around me, as well as the characters in books. With a degree in psychology, I am fascinated by the human mind and actions. This reminds me of Les Mis and the question of Jean Valjean’s guilt. Was he wholly to blame or were the laws maybe a part of what drove him to commit a crime? Was his poverty and the lack of ability to work his way out of the hole he was in completely his fault or could those around him have given him a leg up? That’s what I’m seeing play out here with Riguard in chapter 11 and other characters throughout the novel. And I don’t think I’m wrong to place such emphasis on it since Dickens himself wanted to call the book Nobody’s Fault. I think he wanted us to ask these questions.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ashley wrote: "This is one of my favorite things to consider in literature. Who is to blame? What personal responsibility do we have for our actions? What responsibility does society have for the way it acts or for the laws/structure/habits/etc... that are on place? ..."

Yes, I think you've hit on one of the - perhaps the the main - linking themes in the book. That's why I preferred Charles Dickens's original title, "Nobody's Fault" rather than him taking just one character out of many, and using them as the title, as he often did.

"[we] make up our mind about innocence or guilt based on our opinion alone, without any knowledge of the actual case and evidence (or maybe with just enough knowledge to be dangerous)."

We discussed this a little, after the landlady's long lecture in the inn Rigaud stayed at. He was careful to listen to everyone's opinion, so that he could make use of it some time!

The other point is where you wonder if people poverty etc. can be a causing factor, in their crimes. But Charles Dickens has given us many examples in the Marshalsea of people's loyalty to each other, them helping each other out, even raising Amy to be a good person, and worthwhile citizen.

"Was his poverty and the lack of ability to work his way out of the hole he was in completely his fault or could those around him have given him a leg up?"

Many of those hopeless cases in the Marshalsea knew they would never get out of prison in their lifetime. And there were many good people there, as well as the few hypocrites. It was like a slice across the moral compass; a mirror image of real life. The prisoners had their own sense of morality; their own moral code, and they respected someone they thought was a gentleman (even though we see they are mistaken to do so).

So Charles Dickens is telling us, no, in his opinion one's circumstances are never a reason or an excuse for not behaving well, and even in the poorest of places, we can find good hearts :)

By the way, I'm delighted you thinking you might rate Little Dorrit so highly :)

(I hope your mother's visit went well, and you are healing well too. And please don't worry - the daily chapters are an anchor, not a straitjacket!)

[Sara]

I think Dickens is showing us the inequity by giving us a man who has murdered his wife, which seems to definitely be the case, but is set free, while others who are only guilty of being impoverished are, as Jean says, in prison for life. I do not believe we are meant to doubt Rigaud's guilt or his evil nature. Even the little smuggler who shared his cell is afraid of him.

[Ashley]

I hadn’t considered their crimes (as Sarah mentions). That seems obvious now. Dickens is making a point about that for sure.

But I’m not sure I’m convinced he’s placing all the blame on the individual. I think it can be read both ways. Though I’d welcome textual “proof” if anyone feels strongly that he is making that case and wants to continue defending the idea. Definitely not necessary, but I don’t want to shut down a different view point or say I’m not open to others ideas if they feel they want to share them.

I do see the good in all places and how we can take responsibility. But I also see a system that does not allow these men or their families a fair shot. The murderer is out free and the debtor is in for life, raising his family in prison. That’s not based on their personal responsibility. I obviously do think we are responsible for our own actions and do think there is good in all places. I think it’s obvious we can make any situation good or bad based on our actions and state of mind. But it also seems as if Dickens is playing with the idea of who really is to blame instead of simply saying each individual is to blame completely for themselves. It seems he’s showing how outside forces shape some situations. That may be me seeing it through my modern lens though. But even if it is my modern lens and not what Dickens is saying, I love that he is such a brilliant writer that he is still applicable today! We are still talking about these things and we are able to see these situations in our modern world. I think that’s why we call these classics. We can learn the authors intent and we can also read to get what we need out of their writing!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ashley - Sara makes the point about Rigaud succinctly in her first sentence. As she rightly says, we are not supposed to doubt his nature. He confessed his guilt to Cavalletto way back in the first chapter; that is your textual proof.

Charles Dickens writes Rigaud in such a way that we see his excuses for his crime, although it is evident even in chapter 1 that he is either a psychopath or a sociopath: he feels no remorse. Cavalletto is terrified of him, and the chapter we have just read in another thread confirms this. That is our guide for how to read him.

I was not thinking particularly of Rigaud, but broadening this out to the general theme, as you say "who should be in prison and why". Restricting it just to Rigaud, then, think of what the landlady says. Yes, she is prejudiced by what she has heard - it is just reported, or circumstantial - and as you rightly say, people are quick to judge. But we have had Rigaud's own words to his fellow prisoner, when he was boasting about his crime, and she did not. We are able to make a judgement, but she relies on secondhand remote information. At this point Rigaud's testimony, which damns him, is what we focus on. Nobody else in the novel had that.

"it also seems as if Dickens is playing with the idea of who really is to blame instead of simply saying each individual is to blame completely for themselves. It seems he’s showing how outside forces shape some situations."

Yes, in many cases this is true. But unless we learn some back story, Rigaud's nature has clearly been signalled - rather like Bill Sikes in Oliver Twist. So far Rigaud has no moral compass whatsoever.

[Martha]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Robin P wrote: "But in Pickwick, most of the characters never return. You can enjoy them for that chapter and not have to remember them (with a few exceptions) ..."

True, I don't know of any "nove..."

Thank you, Jean - I will use this next time!

[Ashley]

Jean, your ability to recap everything is amazing. I think we are talking about different things though. I misunderstood your conclusion based on your comment before this last one. I’m looking at the broad picture and focusing not on whether a crime was committed or not (though that is important to the idea). I’m looking at where people are in life, sometimes physically, and often just “how things are going for them”. So what you are both saying feeds into what I’m reading. Rigaud is guilty of a rather horrible crime and he is set free. He isn’t in much of a prison even outside the prison walls because he doesn’t feel remorse. Then we have the Dorrits who live in prison for a rather “silly” reason. And the entire family is there for the actions of one. I’ll just focus on those to keep it short. The place we end up in life isn’t entirely our “fault”. Riguad deserves to be in prison. Mr Dorrit has served his time and deserves out. But even if he gets out, he has a reputation and no prospects for a normal life, so staying in might make sense. He doesn’t deserve that life based on his choices. So, yes Riguad is responsible for a murder, but he didn’t earn his freedom, which he has. Likewise, Mr Dorrit is responsible for some bad choices, but he doesn’t deserve a lifetime in prison and neither does his family. So I’m looking at it that way. I think Dickens is saying that there are outside forces that influence our life. Not everyone has a fair shot at freedom. We are responsible for our actions, but other things influence where we end up. The Les Mis comparison I made earlier is more complicated. Is Jean Valjean 100% responsible for stealing or did society play a part in him being so desperate that he felt the need to steal? Dickens is painting a more cut and dry picture here. He doesn’t seem to be questioning the motivation of the initial crime. But he is commenting on the outcome. So when I question responsibility in this novel, I’m talking about whether they are responsible for where they are now. These 2 are not where they deserve, so that’s the message I’m reading from Dickens. I hope that makes sense! We don’t have to keep talking about this idea unless others find it interesting too. I’m sure it will come up again and again in current chapters. I just find this theme very interesting and applicable to today (as well as every time in history I can think of). Dickens knows how to portray the human condition and paint the problems he sees in society (bureaucracy in the Circumlocution Office, problems in the justice system, etc...) and so much more.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ashley - "These 2 are not where they deserve, so that’s the message I’m reading from Dickens"

I agree, that's precisely where the novel starts. Obviously though, there are big changes to come :) Plus Charles Dickens also shows us a variety of "prisons", some physical, some self-imposed and some of the mind.

If we keep the phrase "Nobody's fault" in mind, that should help to focus. It actually has several meanings, depending on how you interpret "Nobody". It may be a straightforward description. Or there may be a character - or more than one - or a type of character, who is "Nobody".

"I’ll just focus on those to keep it short." I think you are now relating your comments to Mr Edward Dorrit, and by extension, his family, yes? "Dickens is painting a more cut and dry picture here. He doesn’t seem to be questioning the motivation of the initial crime."

I'm not sure why you think that. We have been told several times that there's a mystery, and Arthur Clennam thinks there is a connection with the Dorrits, and is determined to get to the bottom of it (taking us along as interested parties ;) ) The answer could well be to do with that.

Or if it's Rigaud you mean, then no, you're right, at this point at least Charles Dickens is not questioning Rigaud's motivation, any further than what he himself says and implies. We assume Rigaud killed his wife simply for her money, from his own testimony. And this leads us to the conclusion about him that I said earlier!

We have no idea if, or whether, these two (Edward Dorrit and Rigaud) are connected, or ever will be. It really is too early to tell.

There are so many contrasting characters, and you have picked up these opposites "I’m talking about whether they are responsible for where they are now." Yes, one should be in prison (or executed as he assumed and the law ordained) and the other ... well actually we do not yet know why he was in debt, and have been told that it is impossible to work out. But this in itself is a "silly" reason, as you say :)

Time will tell, and the novel will answer some of these points as we read on.

Oh by the way, you often reference Les Miserables but I've never read it, and only have a vague idea of the plot! Just to let you know that I may not understand your allusions ... others may well do though. Best to stick to Charles Dickens for me!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Martha - Yes sometimes I stop being fed up at what Goodreads program can't do, and discover something really helpful about it :)

[Ashley]

Yeah I think having read it before, you pick up on hints and comments that point you to where the story is going. Not having read it before, it seems to me like there is a mystery behind Mr Dorrit being in prison, but I don’t see hints that he’s to blame. I will probably see more now that I have that in mind. The way Arthur loves Amy and wants to protect her, leads me to believe the Dorrit family is innocent. They are being presented that way in my view, without the context of the bigger story. Right now it seems more cut and dry as to good and bad. It seems like the twist that I assume is coming is supposed to be a surprise to the readers. Do you remember your first read? Had you read a lot of Dickens before that? Was it a surprise to you or did you see clues or patterns in the text or based on past readings? This book was hard for me to get into and now I love it. It’s very different from what I’ve read so far (DC, OT, TOTC, Christmas Carol, Great Expectations) so I’m not expecting anything based on past readings. It’s really interesting to see how my opinion is being colored by Dickens presentation and I’m obviously not expecting what is coming. I am bothered by books that pretend to be suspenseful and then either have a really silly twist that’s not realistic, or are super obvious. This isn’t that. In fact, until your comment I wasn’t expecting a big twist. Just a building novel like the others I’ve read. Maybe you’re not saying a twist, but if Mr Dorrit ends up having done something bad I might want to call it a twist. Well see!

[Ashley]

As for Les Mis, I’m trying not to ruin the plot by saying much, but my references are not spoilers since they are the beginning of the book and I think most people are vaguely familiar with the idea that it’s a redemption novel. Jean Valjean commits a crime and is punished, but Hugo goes on to question if he is fully to blame for his actions and if the punishment fits the crime. The novel is full of other characters and stories that fit this theme, for example someone in an undesirable job- did they have a choice? Or were they forced to take care of family? Do the ends justify the means? A lot of this is coloring how I read this novel and probably add to why I’m seeing Mr Dorrit as innocent for now. He is Jean Valjean for me until we get further. He’s being punished for something he shouldn’t be punished for. But now I’m excited to see what really happened! Thanks for the teasers!

[Helen]

Ashley, this is not exactly on the topic, but hope Bionic Jean will let me make this comment. Jean Valjean acts; whether he is right or wrong, this is another story; Mr. Dorrit is a passive watcher and a dependent.

Honestly, I think Mr. Dorrit appears on the scene at this time mostly to highlight Amy's everyday courage to get her family fed.

[Ashley]

That is an excellent point. I don’t see them as the same by any means. Just a similar situation. I was trying to stay vague. But I do think that is an important distinction. This is not a book about him, so it will look different too. And I think your distinction is important to his character and will play into the rest of the story. I do have a feeling, based on Jeans comments, that he did act at some point, which is what got him here. But I’m interested to see if his character is consistent throughout (as in, was he always more passive and did whatever happen to land him in jail happen “to him” in a sense (and he just let it happen) or was he active in the choice to commit a crime) or if he became more passive in this jail life.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ashley : "Yeah I think having read it before, you pick up on hints and comments that point you to where the story is going."

The trick in writing summaries for you all in "Dickensians!", is not to for me to divulge my preconceptions - but to make sure I include the telegraphed points which Dickens intends his readers to pick up! The summaries themselves are neutral précis; I try to just paraphrase what is written.

After the summary, in a separate post, will be a few of my reactions to that chapter, and its place in what we have read so far - just as others do. It may include speculative thoughts, but only based on what we have read, and in the context of the general discussion.

The third part, is that sometimes I will include "a little more". This is always research and background material which I have collected and rewritten, with no speculation whatsoever.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ashley - "Not having read it before, it seems to me like there is a mystery behind Mr Dorrit being in prison, but I don’t see hints that he’s to blame. I will probably see more now that I have that in mind." ...

"I do have a feeling, based on Jeans comments, that he did act at some point, which is what got him here ..."

Anything you're speculating on will come from the text itself, (or my summaries). However, at this point we know very little about Mr. Edward Dorrit. He only enters the story at chapter 6. It's a little early to start to speculate about his origins, or whether he is to blame for being there (although of course, we do). Please read again this paragraph from chapter 6, and you will see that we are told that the greatest minds in the country cannot sort out the mess of his case!

" The affairs of this debtor were perplexed by a partnership, of which he knew no more than that he had invested money in it; by legal matters of assignment and settlement, conveyance here and conveyance there, suspicion of unlawful preference of creditors in this direction, and of mysterious spiriting away of property in that; and as nobody on the face of the earth could be more incapable of explaining any single item in the heap of confusion than the debtor himself, nothing comprehensible could be made of his case. To question him in detail, and endeavour to reconcile his answers; to closet him with accountants and sharp practitioners, learned in the wiles of insolvency and bankruptcy; was only to put the case out at compound interest and incomprehensibility. The irresolute fingers fluttered more and more ineffectually about the trembling lip on every such occasion, and the sharpest practitioners gave him up as a hopeless job."

The narrator never actually says this is Mr. Dorrit, but we are intended to deduce that it is. Everything else is supposition. We were told in the previous chapter (5) that there is some mystery, when Arthur visits his mother. The text of chapter 5 has the details, and this will be where your memory and surmising come from :)

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

You ask about my first read, Ashley, and from the context I think you assume that I drop hints. I really try very hard not to!

But yours is a great idea, for everyone to tell us their first readings - and would fit in well with the other thread I started at your request. Please feel free to ask anyone there.

Helen - thanks - good observations :) And of course! All I was trying to say, was that it's pointless to keep on talking to me about a French novel - or any novel - I have not read. Others who have done, may be able to answer though.

We've moved on quite a bit from chapter 11 now. But if you are joining in our read of Little Dorrit, and have yet to comment, please do! We'd love to hear your thoughts on what you've read so far.

[Piyangie]

I started and read 4 chapters. I'm thinking of reading in 20 installments as was originally published, and thankful for Jean for providing the chapter break. So far, it is the characters that I'm getting to know. I know only a few yet, and from them, I somehow feel for Arthur Clennam. He seems to have missed much of his life.

The opening of the book surprised me a little. For some reason, I get the feeling that this book is a little different from other books of Dickens that I've read - darker in tone and heavy in language.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Piyangie! Great to see you - I know you said you couldn't start until October :)

Yes, some critics do think this one has dark underpinnings - but it is also full of hope :)

Both the chapters and the installments are linked to the first comment in each thread (by our lovely member, Nisa) so please don't worry about commenting a little late. As long as you notice where we are in our daily comments, and make sure you don't "spoil" ahead events, it's fine. We look forward to your observations.

[Cynda]

Late last year I read The Pickwick Papers in which Dickens describes some aspects of debtors' prison. I am curious to find what what more Dickens has to say about debtors' prisons, so I start Little Dorrit in the next couple of days, reading and listening. I look forward to continuing to review comments posted here.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Please do add your thoughts, Cynda - but also maybe consider reading Dombey and Son for now, as we have just begun that one today, and it's nice to synchronise.

Otherwise, I look forward to your contributions here, as will others :)

[Cynda]

Oh I seem to have gotten turned around somehow. I have bought and do have in my stack this Penguin edition of Dombey and Son:
. I will start in next couple of days. Thanks for your catch Jean.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Cynda wrote: "I will start in next couple of days..."

Although we only started yesterday, we have 48 joining in, and 81 comments there for Dombey and Son already ...

[Sean]

After reading a chapter of Little Dorrit I like to re-read parts of it, specifically looking at words or word patterns, and I noticed his use of the word ‘air’ is mentioned well in excess of 100 times, but rather than the gaseous substance that surrounds the earth (dictionary definition), in Dorrit Dickens tends to have the more theatrical and figurative use, as in: an/the ‘air of ..’ ‘the air of a word’, ‘the air of a precise legal witness’, ‘an air of gallantry’, ‘an air of quiet desolation’. But he also qualifies ‘air’ with an adjective, as in a ‘triumphant air’, there’s an ‘argumentative and philosophic air’, a ‘despondent air’ and, alas, even a ‘theatrical air’. He also uses ‘air’ as a mass noun: “He had a lighted cigar in his hand, and brought with him airs of ale and tobacco smoke.” (The above extracts are not taken from any single chapter, but gathered from all parts of the novel.)

According to the OED Shakespeare is the first to use ‘air’ in this way, in fact, in spite of Dickens’ 9223 recorded quotes in the OED, none record his use of ‘air’.

But, in a kind of pleasant distraction, I discovered that out of Dickens’ 212 entries of first evidence of use of word (‘use’ not ‘meaning’), 8 include entries from Little Dorrit

1856 ’cellarous’ (a particular smell); ’conspiratorial’; ’squashed’; ’prisonous’ (it seems as though adding suffix ‘ous’ creates a neologism).

1857 ’mother-in-lawed’ (used as a verb); ’Oo him’ (the pronoun who); Pruney (used as adjective to ‘nature’); unsoftening

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

This makes me smile! Lovely - thanks Sean.

[Sara]

Terribly interesting, Sean!

[Sean]

Bionic Jean wrote: "This makes me smile! Lovely - thanks Sean."

It's gratifying to know that us men have been martyrs to being mother-in-lawed since 1857 -- in my case, that's been an utterly wonderful thing, but perhaps Dickens has another meaning ...

[Sean]

In his excellent essay on Dickens, George Orwell said that when Dickens describes an image it ‘stays with you forever’.

In chapter 2 of Little Dorrit, what with lock down and all that, Dickens moves right across the spectrum of emotions. So, after quarantine there's the ‘goodbyes’, ‘farewells’ and ‘good speeds' (had to look that up, thought is was a misprint of Godspeed - it’s not) that are said.

And in his au refoir, Arthur Clennam, alluding to Mr Meagles’s daughter ‘Pet’ and the possibility of another sibling, unwittingly causes Mr Meagles an apparent sadness, “I am afraid I have inadvertently touched upon a tender theme.” Says Clennam. It’s the loss of ‘Pet’s’ twin sister, the Meagles’ dead child.

The infant and child mortality rate in the 19c was horrendously high, and just about every family at the time was in one way or another effected. Many authors, giants like, Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Zola have written beautifully about it, but sometimes the descriptions are protracted. Not with Dickens, here, though:

“Never mind,” Says Mr Meagles, giving some assurance to Mr Clennam. “If I am grave about it, I am not at all sorrowful. It quiets me for a moment, but does not make me unhappy. Pet had a twin sister who died when we could just see her eyes—exactly like Pet’s—above the table, as she stood on tiptoe holding by it.”

There’s only about 20 or so words in the last sentence of Meagles's reply, but the imagery of a child on tiptoe, clinging fingers to edge of table, and her eyes wide open peek-a-booing over the table is, as Orwell says, eternal. Bravo, Dickens

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Bravo indeed! Thank you so much for this, Sean. I can well imagine a Victorian portrait painter making a beautiful oil painting of this exact moment, which was so poignant for the Meagleses in retrospect :)

[Lee]

Sara wrote: "I hate to say this, but ... I ran into this just the other day with someone who said War and Peace was unreadable, but then admitted he had never tried to read it himself".

This cracked me up, Sara!

😂

[Lee]

Connie wrote: "His double is not intimidated by Flintwinch because they probably grew up together, and he knows all of Flintwinch's tricks. "

Oops! Jean and Connie, a spoiler here. I am reading for first time and see no reason why the Flintwinch "double" grew up with Flintwinch! Can you edit this for spoiler? 😰
Lee 2/2024

[Lee]

Bookworman wrote: ". . . Mrs. Clennam regarding reparation and restitution. "Thus was she always balancing her bargains with the Majesty of heaven" AND "As if every action we take as human beings in our relationships is part of an accounting ledger where every interaction with others is a business deal."

This is a common theme in Christianity, that there will be a final judgement by Christ. Remember the Book of Life! "And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. . . . and all were judged according to what they had done."Rev 20: 12c-13 (NRSV).

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Lee wrote: "Oops! Jean and Connie, a spoiler here. I am reading fo..."

Oh no! Could you please say which number post this is. Lee? At the moment I can't find it. Thanks.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Lee wrote: "I am surprised no one in the reading spoke up about this. This is a common theme in Christianity, that there will be a final judgement by Christ ..."

Exactly, but the point about Mrs. Clennam is that she is a God-fearing woman, a sort of "blood-and-thunder" Christian to the exclusion of everything else, including all joy in life for herself or anyone else. Part of that is "every interaction with others is a business deal" i.e she has no room for sentiment or feelings, but lives according to her beliefs and her business acumen.

I don't see any inconsistency with what was said, Lee 🤔

[Lee]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Lee wrote: "Oops! Jean and Connie, a spoiler here. I am reading fo..."

Oh no! Could you please say which number post this is. Lee? At the moment I can't find it. Thanks."

I'm sorry. The spoiler is in message 257. I thought when I hit "reply" it would take you there. It was Ch IV "Mrs Flintwinch has a Dream".

[Lee]

I edited my comment in message 543. My point was that Mrs. Clennam was technically following Biblical precept. Dickens was showing us how such precepts can be taken to extremes, regarding our actions in life as "business transactions" with points added and subtracted.

I was just trying to point out that yes, Christians do believe that we must face judgement at the end for our lives on this earth. I would have thought Dickens believed that also, but he used that character to represent her insincere and gratuitous reasoning

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Thank for directing me to the right chapter Lee; I was able to use Nisa's links 😊

But you know, I don't now think Connie did divulge a spoiler, reading it in context. I'm thinking of what Milena wrote a couple of comments earlier. Like you, she did not know the story:

" You don’t know what’s true in it, and what comes from Affery’s imagination. I’ve been speculating quite a lot as to who “Mr Flintwinch’s twin” might really be, before writing this post. I didn’t come to any satisfactory conclusion, but keep on reading. What a terrific cliffhanger."

This is what I feel. Charles Dickens is a master of misdirection, and fooled us all in The Battle of Life. He calls this "Mrs. Flintwinch has a Dream", so what are we to believe?

Everyone here is just speculating at this point, and theorising from whatever premise they accept 😁

[Lee]

Ok, OK, I give!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Lee wrote: "My point was that Mrs. Clennam was technically following Biblical precept ..."

Yes, I see what you're saying. It is a strange choice, but perhaps Charles Dickens wants to show all sorts of hypocrisy? Mrs. Clennam delights in obeying the letter of Christian precepts, but not the loving spirit behind them.

I'm still glad I didn't know her, though!

[Lee]

😉😆

[Lee]

Bionic Jean wrote: "The Circumlocution Office is, I think, one of Dickens’s most brilliant inventions, with such an ironic name! And this description of it is one of his most accomplished satirical pieces.."

Message 430/ Ch 10. I agree completely. When this chapter seemed to drag at first (as I was expecting narrative to further the plot along and not political satire), I decided to stop and read a paragraph or two aloud. This always works for me with Dickens. It slows my reading pace down and I have to experience what he is writing.

As soon as I did this, the hilarity became obvious. It is brilliant in that it will be true as long as there are governments and bureaucracies, and in every country in the world. One of my favorite lines is:

"It being one of the principles of the Circumlocution Office never, on any account whatever, to give a straightforward answer, Mr. Barnacle said, 'Possibly.'"

Indeed! What fun this chapter was, and I think it deserves more fame in the Dickensian world!