Group Side Read - The Life of Charles Dickens : Volume II by John Forster

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ah, OK thanks Petra. I'll amend it. So basically John Forster talks about all 5 Christmas books.

Just in case anyone is not sure, there are 5 actual "Christmas books" by Charles Dickens. All the rest are his Christmas stories

Since colloquially the "books" are known as stories, just as novels are known as stories, this can cause a lot of confusion.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Petra wrote: "I like how Dickens got his start on Dombey and Son..."

That's a memorable bit for me too!

What a find I enjoy most, and what sticks in my mind from this biography, is the parts Charles Dickens wrote - all those letters to his friend. John Forster's part just seems to facilitate these, for me.

[Sue]

Someday I will get to this. I have it on my kindle but just haven’t had the time to devote to it. It sounds so interesting. The good thing is that I plan to read with this group for the foreseeable future!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Yes, these threads will still be here, and actually everyone is at different points in this read, with plenty yet to start.

Just pick it up whenever you fancy it Sue! We'd love to hear your thoughts :)

[Petra]

I always come back to this book. Bleak House has slowed down my reading of it, but I have not put it aside.

I am in the 1846 chapter. Dickens tells a story of 4 sisters living in Switzerland who have always wanted to move to Italy for the better climate. But they have "the books" which they inherited from their father. These are an obstacle for them.
Two sisters have already passed away; the remaining two are elderly.
"The books" that consist of about 50 volumes. Dickens has never seen any of the titles and he says "the whole library will be sold by auction here, when they are both dead, for about a napoleon; and some young woman will carry it home in two journeys with a basket".

How sad that for the sake of hanging on to possessions one doesn't live the life one would prefer and longs for.

I hope these ladies did see Italy before they died.

[Sara]

I also find that very sad, Petra. People often realize too late (or never at all) that things sometimes possess you instead of the other way around.

[Petra]

I have finished this volume. Although it took me some time to finish it, I enjoyed this slow meander through Charles Dickens' life in these years.

I truly like how Forster's love and respect for Dickens keeps coming through. Although his writing can at times be dry, his love for his friend is never that; it's alive and steady.

The excerpts from Dickens' letters, with his thoughts, ideas, frustrations, continue to be my favourite parts.

The ending came quite suddenly for me. I have the complete work as one volume on my ereader, so wasn't sure where Volume 2 ended.......then it did.

I look forward to when we start reading Volume 3. I hope for a few weeks break but then I'll be ready to dive in.

[[deleted user]]

Petra wrote: "I have finished this volume. Although it took me some time to finish it, I enjoyed this slow meander through Charles Dickens' life in these years.

I truly like how Forster's love and respect for ..."

Yay! I'm so glad you enjoyed it. I agree, it's obvious on every page how much Forster genuinely cared for Dickens. I would love to see a movie about their decades long friendship, sort of how a movie was made about Dickens and Ellen Ternan (which I've not seen, undecided about it).

And yes, I love being able to read Dickens' letters!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Petra wrote: "I hope for a few weeks break but then I'll be ready to dive in ..."

Yes, hopefully more of the group will be ready some time in the summer :) Also, with there being some spoilers for Bleak House, it seemed best to leave it for a while.

We can read all the rest of The Letters of Charles Dickens Vol. 1, 1833-1856 edited by Mamie Dickens and Georgina Hogarth (that's just the first volume!) but once I'd got used to John Forster's rather dry style, I liked the personal ones to him being linked together.

[Sara]

I left this unfinished almost midway. I really need to get back to it, because I also enjoy the friendship, the little personal aspects of Dickens' character, and his letters (of course). I won't be ready for Volume III before the end of summer, I'm sure, but I do very much enjoy all the wonderful comments as we go.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I think with a book like this, even if we don't have a set timetable, it's good to feel you are reading it along with others :)

[[deleted user]]

I wonder if Forster's writing style in these biographies reflects his personality. It's interesting to think about, because Dickens was so vivid and full of life and a ball of constant activity. Forster seems to be controlled and reserved. I wonder if that's one reason why they got along so well - Forster could rein Dickens in, and Dickens could get Forster to loosen up a bit when it was time for some fun.

The only other thing I know about Forster as a person is that Dickens based Mr Podsnap from Our Mutual Friend on him. But I don't know how much of Forster Dickens put into Podsnap. I wish I did, because Podsnap is quite a character!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

It's a true portrait Cozy_Pug and as with Leigh Hunt and Harold Skimpole, amazing that his friend did not take offence. Imagine using your friends like that, after all John Forster had done for him :(

I think your theories about why they got on are probably correct. John Forster must have been a placid sort of chap, and to have had the patience of a saint!

[[deleted user]]

Bionic Jean wrote: "It's a true portrait Cozy_Pug and as with Leigh Hunt and Harold Skimpole, amazing that his friend did not take offence. Imagine using your friends like that, after all [author:John ..."

Oh wow, thanks for the Podsnap info. I don't think Podsnap was as awful as Skimpole, I found Podsnap kind of funny. Especially his mannerisms. But yes, Forster must've been a well of understanding and patience with Dickens. I had hoped Forster would talk about Dickens basing Podsnap on him in the bios, but he didn't. He had quite a bit to say about the Leigh Hunt/Skimpole characterization though (Vol. III).

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Cozy_Pug wrote: "I had hoped Forster would talk about Dickens basing Podsnap on him in the bios, but he didn't..."

Exactly! That silence tells us a lot. It's said that John Forster never mentioned it to anyone, but he can't have been oblivious. He was either very discreet, or internally (I suspect) rather hurt. Perhaps he thought that if he admitted he knew, he would then have to tackle Charles Dickens about it, and it would be the end of a beautiful friendship. As you know, Charles Dickens fell out with nearly everyone eventually!

No, I agree, Podsnap wasn't as awful as Skimpole, but he was ridiculous - a figure of fun - so I think it was a shabby thing to do :( Others who weren't his friends had threatened to sue him for less!

[Sara]

I think Forster recognized Dickens' genius and we will make a lot of allowances for true genius when we find it. I couldn't help thinking about how Oxford, Miss is on the map because it was Faulkner's hometown, but the people of Oxford hated him, reviled him, because he put all their secrets into his books for the whole world to see. Well, all those people are now gone, but the characters and the secrets live on forever. Maybe Forster was one of those rare people who could realize that Dickens wasn't writing it to hurt his feelings, he was writing it because it was how he knew to put important things about life on paper. It gave, Forster, in many ways, an immortality he could not have achieved otherwise.

BTW, I might have tolerated being Podsnap, but I think I would have hated knowing I was Skimpole.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Sara wrote: "Maybe Forster was one of those rare people who could realize that Dickens wasn't writing it to hurt his feelings, he was writing it because it was how he knew to put important things about life on paper ..."

You're probably right Sara, and very generous. He must have been far seeing though, as John Forster was a well-respected writer in his day, and far better known that he is now.

(You won't be surprised that I had to google "Oxford Miss" to find the "issippi" ... :/ )

[Sara]

LOL. Sorry, Jean.

I think Wilkie Collins (and probably most of the other writers) thought of themselves as being on par with Dickens. But, taking nothing at all from Forster's own achievements, I think Forster was different. I think he did recognize that Dickens had a genius that was a step above. I get that from the way he writes about him in the biography (and seriously, would anyone devote three volumes to a man they did not see as having some greater significance?) Maybe I am wrong, and he was just praising a friend, but I think that would be an essay or an eulogy, and this is so much more. This is Sandburg writing about Lincoln. Of course, maybe he only came to believe that after Dickens was gone, but it seems significant to me that he remembered so much of their discussions in detail and kept all of his many letters. Just some thoughts I was having, I might be way off-track.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I totally agree about John Forster Sara (though I'm having to take the bit about "Sandburg writing about Lincoln" on trust, as it's my bedtime, and no time to google Sandburg).

On the other hand, Charles Dickens was so much more of a celebrity than any other author, that I think they must have envied his popularity, even if some considered themselves more literary in the early days. Anthony Trollope rather waspishly called Charles Dickens "Mr. Popular Sentiment" in The Warden. He can't have liked that much! But Charles Dickens had the people's hearts :)

[[deleted user]]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Cozy_Pug wrote: "I had hoped Forster would talk about Dickens basing Podsnap on him in the bios, but he didn't..."

Exactly! That silence tells us a lot. It's said that John Forster ..."

I respect Forster for his silence. I of course want to know all the things, but it's proper that he kept some things private. I hope his feelings weren't hurt, I much prefer imagining him grumbling about it then doing that Podsnap arm motion to brush the whole thing away from him :D

[[deleted user]]

Sara wrote: "I think Forster recognized Dickens' genius and we will make a lot of allowances for true genius when we find it. I couldn't help thinking about how Oxford, Miss is on the map because it was Faulkne..."

That's an interesting point about Forster making allowances for Dickens' genius. I think Dickens defended himself for the Skimpole situation by saying he found traits in Leigh Hunt's character too perfect and irresistible to not use him in a story. But he got carried away and it was so much like Hunt that everyone in their circle knew it. Forster told Dickens he needed to tone down the Skimpole/Hunt similarities, which he did, but not enough. Apparently even Forster could only reason so far with Dickens.

I'm a bad southerner because I've never read Faulkner lol. I always felt like he may be a bit too gritty for my taste. But super interesting about Oxford - I didn't know that at all.

You and I talked about this briefly when I read Vanity Fair earlier this year - Thackeray believed he was just as good a writer as Dickens. Well, no actually, he's not. I also don't think he was as popular as Dickens then or at any time since.

I would argue the same for any British author of Dickens' era - no one had his talent, no one had his popularity, no one was loved by the public at large as he was. Think of how many Dickensian characters and ideas are a part of popular culture, even today. That's not true for other authors of his time.

I absolutely believe Forster recognized that Dickens was unique as an author and wanted to preserve his life story carefully and honestly. I think he was as fascinated by Dickens as we are. Dickens chose Forster to write his biography; he knew he could trust Forster to do it right (the way Dickens wanted it done lol) - reveal what it was ok to reveal and conceal what Dickens wanted to conceal.

[Sara]

Great point about Thackeray, Cozy. Popularity isn't always a good yardstick for what will endure. Thackeray was popular, I think, but the only book of his that I know anyone reads now is Vanity Fair. Jacquelyn Susann was very popular when her novels were released, but they are not read now, and when they are, they are laughed at.

I really hadn't considered that Forster was chosen by Dickens to write his biography. I can understand, though. I have a friend who knows everything there is to know about me, having been my BFF since the 7th grade. I dare say she is the only person I would trust to write my life story...she would know EXACTLY what to leave out. lol.

Interesting about Trollope, Jean. I love his books, but I would think his attitude about Dickens was probably jealousy. One thing we can all agree on, no doubt, is that Dickens was a complicated man.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Cozy_Pug wrote: "Thackeray believed he was just as good a writer as Dickens. Well, no actually, he's not. I also don't think he was as popular as Dickens then or at any time since"

I too think he can't shine a light to Charles Dickens :) But aside from that, yes, you're right and he was nowhere near as popular as Charles Dickens even in his day.

We probably all agree that Vanity Fair is William Makepeace Thackeray's most popular novel now, and well worth reading. (I'm trying to be fair to William Makepeace Thackeray here!) But when it was written, each monthly installment of Vanity Fair only ever sold 5000 copies at the most. At the same time, 1848, Charles Dickens was publishing his novel Dombey and Son, which was also being serialised by the same publisher. Before long the episodes of Dombey and Son were selling 40,000 copies per month - eight times as many!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Sara wrote: "I really hadn't considered that Forster was chosen by Dickens to write his biography ..."

Oh yes! Charles Dickens made it a very clear stipulation. I think John Forster mentioned it in the first part, quoting a letter from Charles Dickens which said so. It's ironic that since John Forster's posthumously published biography, there has been a "major biography" of Charles Dickens heralded every decade since his death! He was just as adamant about only authorising John Forster as his biographer, as he was in his will which stipulated "no statue of me" etc. Yet who can proscribe these things? After a while even the moral imperative dies, and we can clearly see the evidence.

Mamie Dickens stayed loyal to her father's wishes, and said that she never ever read any biography of her father except that by John Forster. It was clearly a point of principle, as she must surely have been tempted!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Cozy_Pug wrote: "I respect Forster for his silence. I of course want to know all the things, but it's proper that he kept some things private ..."

My emotions and ethics largely agree, but I always find this a tricky question! In a way it seems much worse to write a warts and all biography of someone during their lifetime. And there's the question of separating the author/artist/composer etc., from the works they created. I believe that is right in principle, but sometimes it helps to know their circumstances and beliefs.

I chose this bio for us all to read first, because so often it is ignored at the expense of the latest fashionable one. That's a mistake, because John Forster's biography: a work by Charles Dickens's friend and mentor, who advised him all his life, is by definition unique and valuable.

It is an exact parallel to The Life of Charlotte Brontë by her friend Elizabeth Gaskell, in its omissions, except that there Elizabeth Gaskell was further hampered by having Parson Brontë (Charlotte's father) as a further censor. But this doesn't mean that Elizabeth Gaskell's biography isn't worth reading, even though we have a plethora of other biographical books about "the Brontës". Others have lifted facts from Elizabeth Gaskell, just as later biographers used John Forster's huge biography of Charles Dickens as a resource, but these authors' own friends had a unique perspective.

The latest biography about an historical figure is not necessarily the best, despite what the publishers and promoters say!

[Petra]

I come back to so many posts here. It's wonderful.

I did not know that about Thackeray's opinion. While I enjoyed Vanity Fair, it is not at par with Dickens' writing, I feel. Dickens has a depth of humanity that is difficult to reach. He is almost like a psychologist in his insight into human emotions, motives and experiences. It seems quite ahead of his time to me.
That said, each author who is still being read after 200 years is a darn good author. Those books said something and somehow still continue to do so.

With biographies, its a difficult balance of what to expose and what to keep hidden. Sometimes, while reading Forster's biography, I think he may have left out too much. There's a lot about Dickens' energy and his writing, but not much else. The man had sides we aren't seeing here, although here we get a very personal biography due to their close friendship. I really enjoy when Forster slips in a story about Dickens responding to a situation or a person, outside of his writing. It shows a man with feeling and warmth. It's nice to get to know the person beyond what they are famous for, so I do like these insights.
However, we all have those times that we'd like to keep out of the public eye and I agree that this need of privacy should be respected. Forster did a good job in this. He kept his friend's privacy.
I realize that these two thoughts overlap. It's a hard thing to settle, even in my own mind.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Petra, I feel exactly the same tussle in my mind!

I suppose to have managed to keep the friendship alive and true, shows that John Forster was a remarkable man. If he could swallow what to many would have seemed like insults in his lifetime, (e.g. the portrayal of himself as a laughable figure) then he was exceptionally loyal. He would not feel he wanted to present a picture of his friend that Charles Dickens himself would not have wished.

I've just remembered something else. Do you remember when we all read David Copperfield, we found some passages which were verbatim from Charles Dickens's unpublished autobiography? Yet Charles Dickens had already been friends with John Forster for years, and asked his opinion of all aspects of his writing: John Forster having seen the first drafts before anyone else ... but he still had not showed him these autobiographical fragments of which Charles Dickens was so ashamed. It was such a gesture of trust when Charles Dickens would not want to let him down.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Who is reading this part? I'm just approaching the end of this section at the moment.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I've finished the middle section of The Life of Charles Dickens : Volume II by John Forster now, and think it has to have ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

LINK HERE for my review, if anyone would like to read it. I'm not sure I'll be reading the third part straight off though ... maybe next time we're between reads.

Is anyone else on this section?