Dickensians! discussion
This topic is about
Pears' centenary edition of Charles Dickens' Christmas books
Novellas and Collaborative Works
>
The Battle of Life (hosted by Petra)
Sam wrote: "With the last part of the first section we are back to the triangle of Alfred, Marion, and Grace. My lasting impression is of Alfred looking at Marion, Marion, looking at Grace, and Grace beatifica..."Sam, I am also a bit leery about the two sisters. They seem too perfect, in their ways. Marion's constant looking at Grace is, as I've mentioned, a bit uncomfortable.
"I had kind of hoped we would get a ghost of a soldier from the battlefield jump out of an apple tree looking for his lost head which the family would then restore to him for Christmas but that is another story."
LOL! I was also hoping for a ghost from the battlefield.....but, alas, this isn't one of those stories by Dickens. Kind of a shame, really. The opening pages left a lot of room to include ghosts.
Gem wrote: "Thank you and intro done."Gem, it's wonderful to have you commenting here.
Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "The holidays have put me behind commenting, but I have thoroughly enjoyed this story, and everyone's comments are helping me see things I didn't catch before...."
Shirley, the Holidays have put many of us a bit behind. It's a wonderful time of year and I'm glad we all had a good family time. We're now ready to congregate here again and I am looking forward to our continued discussion.
Part the Second by Richard Doyle 1846
Part the Second Summary 1:The offices of Snitchey and Craggs were located on the old battlefield. They ran a small, tight office; waging their own battles with the law, bringing up their own clouds of smoke and fireworks.
The office was conveniently situated in the marketplace. The rooms contained leather chairs, some missing some brass nails, a print of a wigged judge and piles & piles of paper. Paper piles were on the tables, in the closets, in every nook and cranny. There were rows and rows of boxes of records lining the walls.
Snitchey and Cragg were good friends and colleagues. But each of their wives was suspicious of the other partner. Mrs. Snitchey was wary of Mr. Cragg, while Mrs. Crag was wary of Mr. Snitchey. But despite this wariness, the four were good friends and the wives had a bond of alliance against the office, as they didn’t understand what went on there.
Three years had passed since the breakfast with the Doctor in the orchard. Snitchey and Cragg were in their office with a haggard looking man, about 30 years of age. He was sloppily dressed but the clothes were well made and good looking. One of the boxes, with the name Michael Warden Esquire on it, was opened and it’s contents strewn about the desks. Mr. Snitchey picked up each sheet of paper and looked at each piece carefully, shook his head, then passed the paper to Mr. Craggs, who also shook his head before placing the paper back on the desk. The man in the room is said Michael Warden and his affairs were in bad order.
Snitchey and Craggs by John Leech, 1846
Michael Warden at the Office of Mssrs. Snitchey and Craggs by Charles Green, 1912
I completely agree with Sam's comment about Clemency:"The bit about whether she could read that invokes the thimble and nutmeg-grater and then leads to where Dickens can insert some Xmas content with "Forgive and Forget," followed by the golden rule was great writing."
And about the farewell scene, I agree there's something going on under the surface. Like Connie mentioned, I too was thinking about Dickens' sister-in-law Mary Hogarth. When I read about the impact her death had on him, it seemed he had more regard for his sister-in-law than his wife, and I got that impression here too. Perhaps Dickens was playing out his own emotions through Alfred's focus on Grace?
I like Shirley's thoughts on the departure, what I can't seem to reconcile is that so far Alfred seems more in tune with Grace, he even comunicates more with her than with Marion, as if He has never thought of her as a woman, which makes me wonder why Dr. Jedler hasn´t uttered a word of a possible union for Grace (judging by the standards of the time).reading Dickens is always a delight but doing so with this group adds a whole other realm of possibilities! such as the members predictions or the bits of information that I would surely have missed on my own.
I just wanted to comment on Dickens writing in today's section. When he describes the Offices of Snitchey and Craggs he makes the places and furniture seem like they are people "an old back room upstairs . . . which seemed to be knitting its brows gloomily in the consideration of tangled points of law" and also the leather chairs with "great google-eyed brass nails". This is one of my favorite aspects of Dickens writing. He does it often with furniture and such, and I always love it.
Mod
Petra wrote: "Breakfast in Dr. Jeddler's Orchard by Charles Green, 1912"These wonderful drawings help me to place this story in the 17th century, which is rather unusual for Dickens. Most of his novels are contemporary. And as an American, even though it might seem silly, in my mind's eye I picture the American Revolution and the fight against the British.
The only clue I noticed for the time of The Battle Of Life Illustrated was in Ch.1, where he dates the setting in the orchard as "perhaps a hundred years ago"
Did I miss any other clues than the drawings and this one time reference?
Kathleen wrote: ",,,,, it seemed he had more regard for his sister-in-law than his wife, and I got that impression here too. Perhaps Dickens was playing out his own emotions through Alfred's focus on Grace?..."That's an interesting speculation, Kathleen. I hadn't thought of Dickens bringing his personal life into this story.
That's a sad commentary on Marion's future life with him.
Bridget wrote: "I just wanted to comment on Dickens writing in today's section. When he describes the Offices of Snitchey and Craggs he makes the places and furniture seem like they are people "an old back room upstairs . . . which seemed to be knitting its brows gloomily in the consideration of tangled points of law" and "leather chairs with "great google-eyed brass nails" .."Bridget, I also love when Dickens describes furniture and surroundings as characters. It really brings the nonanimate items into the story in a living, breathing way.
Omar wrote: reading Dickens is always a delight but doing so with this group adds a whole other realm of possibilities! such as the members predictions or the bits of information that I would surely have missed on my own...."
Omar, I agree that this group is a amazing at bringing up tidbits that I missed and that have added so much to my enjoyment and understanding of the story.
Lee G wrote: "The only clue I noticed for the time of The Battle Of Life Illustrated was in Ch.1, where he dates the setting in the orchard as "perhaps a hundred years ago"Did I miss any other clues than the drawings and this one time reference? ..."
Lee, I think you are correct. The only reference to time seems to be the "perhaps a hundred years ago" and the opening lines of "Once upon a time, it matters litte when".
It puts this story into the realm of "fairy tale", in a way. The story is part of our past....in a way.
I'm wondering what happened in the three years that has transpired. Alfred will have been studying.
Is Marion still looking into Grace's eyes? (kidding. LOL)
We meet a new character now. Michael Warden. The fool has gone through his inheritance, it seems, and done so quickly. He's still young. What's going to become of him now? How does he fit into our story?
This opening is interesting. After the many avenues Dickens used in Part The First with false directions, he's now throwing another element into the fire.
Petra wrote: "I have not been able to log on to Goodreads all day. It looks like more people may have had that issue. I hope you can all log on tomorrow."Jan 1 was awful -- I gave up. Now it is Jan 3 & I'm catching up.
Petra wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "Just a note on the last section, I stumbled at Britain's "serving as a sort of man Miles to the Doctor’s Friar Bacon." I wasn't familiar with that reference, and had to look it up...."Petra or Bionic Jean Is there a literary term we can use when the author refers to something so dated that a modern reader is lost? I see the positives: Miles and Friar Bacon is an excellent example of something we had to research in order to make any sense at all of the reference. We learn something about the author's environment and consciousness.
But in another sense these breaks in comprehension are not good. Such moments disrupt the reader's focus. The narrative is interrupted and the communication between author and reader momentarily broken. It is also irritating, but when we are reading novels 200 years or more old, this "hiccup" happens quite often.
I suppose you could say that the serious reader does not let such moments stop him: we research, examine and often enlighten ourselves by the work. Still -- it can be annoying to have the narrative interrupted.
I don't know how a novelist of any time period could possibly avoid such things - we can't see the future. Thanks to Petra and everyone else for smoothing out these stumbles.
Lee wrote: "Jan 1 was awful -- I gave up. Now it is Jan 3 & I'm catching up...."I hope this doesn't happen again. Fingers crossed.
Lee wrote: "Petra or Bionic Jean Is there a literary term we can use when the author refers to something so dated that a modern reader is lost? ..."Lee, I am unaware of such a term. Perhaps Bionic Jean will know.
I don't feel taken out of the story when this happens. I think these moments are important to us to show us how much the world has changed. We are so used to our world as we exist in it. It is, afterall, all we know. It's these moments you mention that take us out of our world and show us that, although people may be the same, their worlds and, therefore, their outlooks could be very different.
It's a big reason that I am against sanitizing older books to make them fit our world. We lose that change of Time.
Part the Second Summary 2:All of Michael’s resources have been lost, spent, wasted, pawned, borrowed and sold. There is nothing left. Michael is being advised that he is not safe anywhere in the United Kingdom.
But, Snitchey tells him that not all is truly lost. With a little bit of nursing there may be hope. Michael latches on to this hope and asks for details. How long before his fortunes could be restored through this nursing? Snitchey estimates six to seven years, however, Michael must go abroad for that time so that any terms in the investments were assured to be adhered to and Michael could not tamper in them. They would give him an allowance of a few hundred pounds a year for his expenses.
Michael now tells the lawyers that he’s not only deep in debt but also deep in love. The lady he is in love with is Marion Jeddler.
The lawyers argue that she’s engaged to be married. Michael insists that a woman can change her mind. He has been living in the Doctor’s house for the past six weeks where he has been recuperating from injuries of broken ribs & collar bone.
Michael claims to want to change his ways and this includes marrying Marion and taking her away with him. He reminds the lawyers that he’s doing nothing illegal. Alfred Heathfield isn’t is friend, Marion won’t be forced against her will and a love affair is not the concerns of lawyers.
I was interested by the way the second part opens with another battle field - or perhaps more accurately, Dickens takes up Snitchey's argument in part 1 that going to law has taken the place of going to battle. However, rather than representing legal processes as eliminating physical combat, Dickens' description represents them as the outcome of transposing physical combat into a different arena. Many of the grimmer elements of the battle of part 1 remain, including the combatants’ bewilderment over, and damage from, tactics deployed by those directing the action from a safe vantage point.
Petra wrote: "I'm wondering what happened in the three years that has transpired. ."I was wondering that too, Petra. We still don't what Alfred has been up to, but Michael and Marion have been thrown into a situation where they spent much time together. Perhaps her feelings for Alfred have changed? It appears there is a new battle to commence on this hallowed ground. A battle for love.
I thought it funny that S&C's first reaction to the mere possibility that Marion would break her engagement was to think of legal cases that involved such details. They are true lawyers to the heart! And Michael's response was wonderful "the general precedent is in a much larger volume than any of your law books". Two men in love with the same woman . . . countless books and poems have been written about that. Helen of Troy comes to mind . . . how long did that war last? I think it was 10 years, but I can't remember.
Nice little touch in having the wifes distrust the husband's patrner and puntuate by having Mrs. Craggs call her husband's partner Snitcheys.
It is interesting how the battle continues to be the centerpoint of our story. There may be no individual ghosts but the battle itself seems to be omnipresent. MN, your point of the batle continuing to bewilder and damage the combatants is well taken. Thanks for that viewpoint. There continues to be battles through Life,
Bridget, we have an appointment to go to but when I get home again, I'll have a look to see if the length of the battle was mentioned. I don't recall that it was but may have forgotten that detail.
It is possible that Alfred met someone else, too, during his three years of study in the big city.
I do worry a bit about Marion's future. Michael is a bit of a wild card. He's frittered away a fortune already. Can he be trusted with Marion's welfare? I hope she hasn't fallen in love with a man who will bring her unhappiness.
Sam, I found the wife's distrust of each other entertaining. Dickens does comedy well.
No worries Petra, I looked it up (the very very least I could do, you don’t need extra tasks while being an excellent leader). According to Wikipedia, the Trojan war lasted 10 years. The Trojan war isn’t really pertinent to this story. I think it was top of mind for me because of the bloody battle of a bygone era that Dickens describes in the beginning.
How Dickens changes tempo in this story! First, we have the brutal battlefield, followed by the idyllic lives lead by the Jeddler household, and now Dickens places a fox in the henhouse to wreak havoc on a peaceful family. The fox is how I view Michael Warden. I do not like him at all! He is a selfish ne'er-do-well who would prey upon Marion's innocence and take her away to lead an uncertain life for which she is ill equipped. I hope Grace is able to successfully intervene! (I seem to remember a similar circumstance in one of the books we read together, but I can't remember which one or who the characters were.)
Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "How Dickens changes tempo in this story! First, we have the brutal battlefield, followed by the idyllic lives lead by the Jeddler household, and now Dickens places a fox in the henhouse to wreak ha..."The situation reminded me of "Bleak House" when Richard (view spoiler) Marion seems so young and inexperienced, and Michael may have his eye on her father's estate.
I didn’t catch this (suspicion of the new character) at all! I was glad he entered the scene to save Marion from a loveless marriage. If fact, I was thinking the story was disappointingly predictable for Dickens. But you could be wrong!
Connie wrote: "The situation reminded me of "Bleak House" when Richard (view spoiler) Marion seems so young and inexperienced, and Michael may have his eye on her father's estate…."Yes, Connie! I agree. I also thought of Richard when reading this. So much of this story is beginning to sound like maybe a precursor to Bleak House? (But I don’t know which story Dickens wrote first.)
Was there a similar situation where a young woman was lured to London on pretext of a marriage that didn’t materialize? Was it in David Copperfield? Or am I thinking The Woman in White (Wilkie Collins)? It’s driving me crazy that I can’t remember. LOL
Lee wrote: "I didn’t catch this (suspicion of the new character) at all! I was glad he entered the scene to save Marion from a loveless marriage. If fact, I was thinking the story was disappointingly predictab..."I definitely (and hopefully) could be wrong, Lee. I never seem to guess it right. Dickens is predictably unpredictable!
Bridget wrote: "No worries Petra, I looked it up (the very very least I could do, you don’t need extra tasks while being an excellent leader). According to Wikipedia, the Trojan war lasted 10 years. The Trojan war..."Thanks, Bridget. My curiosity gets peaked, so I don't mind having a look back (most times.....sometimes I don't bother).
Looking back, the battle of this story lasted one day but the healing of the land took many years (unspecified).
Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "How Dickens changes tempo in this story! First, we have the brutal battlefield, followed by the idyllic lives lead by the Jeddler household, and now Dickens places a fox in the henhouse to wreak ha..."Shirley, I imagine Michael's presence will introduce some conflict into the Doctor's household.
Perhaps it's for the best? Marion doesn't seem as fixated on Alfred as Marion indicates she is. Marion herself has never said she loved Alfred. I've been questioning how the engagement occurred in the first place, myself. I image Marion is conflicted, too.
Perhaps, Michael's presence will make Marion consider where her heart lies and where she'd be happy? Does she love Alfred? Or not?
If she goes for Michael, will he be a true and loving choice for her. She's an innocent girl from a quiet, protected home.
Michael seems a poor choice. He's broke, he's squandered one fortune (gambling? women? drink?). He's despondent now, when he's broke, but was he the life of the party when he was going through the money? Just what kind of person is Michael? Could this situation truly make him tow the line? Or not?
So many questions.
Connie wrote: "The situation reminded me of "Bleak House" when Richard (view spoiler) Marion seems so young and inexperienced, and Michael may have his eye on her father's estate. ..."Connie, that is a good comparison.
Good call!
The Battle of Life was published January 1, 1846.
Bleak House was published January 1, 1853.
The Battle of Life may have been a precursor for Bleak House. Perhaps this story inspired the other.
Interesting that both were published on January 1.
Lee wrote: "I didn’t catch this (suspicion of the new character) at all! I was glad he entered the scene to save Marion from a loveless marriage. If fact, I was thinking the story was disappointingly predictable for Dickens...."Oooh, Dickens is never predictable. He is very good, though, at pretending to be predictable so that we are startled & surprised by his unpredictability.
The start of Part The Second is really throwing some interesting twists into the game plan for our characters.
Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "Was there a similar situation where a young woman was lured to London on pretext of a marriage that didn’t materialize? Was it in David Copperfield? Or am I thinking The Woman in White (Wilkie Coll..."Shirley, I have an inkling of such a scene, too. But, for the life of me, I cannot remember more than that.
I'm afraid I'm no help at all. LOL...
Part the Second Summary 3:Snitchey and Craggs are upset, claiming that Marion dotes on Alfred.
Michael claims that during his time at the Doctor’s house, he saw signs of the opposite. Grace tried to enforce the bond of love between Marion and Alfred, but Marion seemed to avoid mentioning Alfred. Michael continues to make a case that Marion may have fallen in love with him (Michael), as he had in her, during his time at the house; that she may have been too young at the time of the engagement (to Alfred) to be fully committed and that she may be too familiar with Alfred’s ways due to their being raised closely together.
Snitchey can see that Michael could present a charming picture to a young woman, with his handsome face and well dressed figure. He suspected that Michael could be full of purpose if he set his mind to it (although he’s never done that yet).
Michael reiterates that he’s not asking them for advice on love, just their help with his finances. He intends to run away with Marion because having her by his side in exile would be better than being in exile alone. He will alter his life and make up for any faults.
He will not ask the Doctor for his daughter’s hand because he wouldn’t give it. He plans to rescue Marion from a marriage she does not want. The day will come that Michael’s house & property will be returned to him and then Marion will be a rich lady. Richer with him in ten years time than she would be with Alfred. He argues that he has as much right to Marion’s hand as Alfred has and its up to her to choose.
Snitchey and Cragg tell Michael that he has a week, preferably less, before he must leave town. Michael states he’ll leave in a month. The lawyers advise against this delay, but Michael is adamant that he will stay that long. Michael then takes his leave of the offices.
The lawyers discuss the situation. They agree that on the day of the breakfast, there was something odd in how Marion & Alfred parted. They’ve also noted that Marion seems to have become more determined lately, becoming more like her stronger sister. Perhaps this was a sign. They conclude that they must stay out of this affair. They can do nothing.
"'Now, observe, Snitchey,' he continued, rising and taking him by the button, 'and Craggs,' taking him by the button also. by E. A. Abbey, 1876
"I Think it is Better Not to Hear this, Mr. Craggs?" by Fred Barnard, 1878
Michael Warden Leaving his Lawyers by Harry Furniss, 1910
Michael Warden Leaving his Lawyers by Charles Green, 1912
Seems I got stuck on names this read but had a good smile at Dickens use of irony in naming Michael, "Warden".Staying with humor, this also got me:
‘I think it will be better not to hear this, Mr. Craggs?’ said Snitchey, looking at him across the client.
‘I think not,’ said Craggs.—Both listened attentively.
On a more serious note, I totally agree with you Petra on updating works. I don't mind if they are update in some form for some readers for whatever reason but there must always be an available copy of the original for study.
Shirley, maybe you are thinking of Pride and Prejudice, there is a plot thread that involves a wolf in sheeps clothing that has the capacity to corrupt, hope I am vague enough not spoil anything for those who haven´t read it but still be of useregarding Mr. Warden, he arises suspicion but then appears willing to heed the lawyer's advice, so I'm undecided on him, Love can be a transformative force, lets hope it proves just that for him.
Sam instead of updating works, I'm in favor of annotated editions, If a work is updated we can gloss over the curious pieces of information groups like this can clarify.
Sam, I agree. I am enjoying the humor stuck between the lines of this story. The section you pointed out had me chuckling, too.
Omar, I was impressed with Michael that he was so adamant about making his case to Marion. He seems very determined, I must say. I'm now on the fence about him and his intentions. I'm just not sure whether his strong words mean he's in love with Marion or her fortune.
About the pictures for this segment, I had to laugh that the four pictures were actually two sets of twins! A.E. Abbey's and Fred Barnard's illustrations are remarkably alike, as are Harry Furniss' and Charles Green's.
I don't really like how Michael looks in Fred Barnard's illustration, so my favorite of these two is A.E. Abbey's. With the candle shining at the side, Abbey's picture looks warmer, too.
Of the two of Michael leaving the lawyers, I like Harry Furniss' a lot more than Charles Green's. Harry has given some life to the scene by having Michael in action, I find. Michael gives the impression of choosing his own way.
In Charles Green's illustration, Michael looks like he's standing still and continuing to listen to the lawyers, which gives the impression (to me) that he's not as convicted to his actions and may still be convinced otherwise.
It never ocurred to be Warden could be a gold digger but it makes so much sense, having that in mind would make it easier for him to agree to the lawyer's terms.
Dickensians!
Books mentioned in this topic
Bleak House (other topics)Nicholas Nickleby (other topics)
Barnaby Rudge (other topics)
Bleak House (other topics)
A Tale of Two Cities (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Leech (other topics)Charles Dickens (other topics)
John Forster (other topics)
Charles Dickens (other topics)
John Leech (other topics)
More...
Kathleen, my pleasure. I enjoy looking up these odd inclusions. I'd forgotten to go back and look this one up, so am thankful for your reminder.