The Battle of Life (hosted by Petra)

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Petra wrote: "the ideas contained are expanded in future novels, I think ..."

What a great observation 😊

[Petra]

MN wrote: "I've really enjoyed trying to work out what he's up to - Jane Austen keeps springing to mind. I'm wary of saying more about this though - how do I flag up Austen spoilers?..."

There are spoiler tags that you can add, MN. Anyone who reads the comment would read the spoilers but they have the choice to do so.

Here is the coding for spoiler tags (remove the spaces at the first and last bracket):

< spoiler>Write your comments here.< /spoiler>

Your comment would post like this:
(view spoiler)[Write your comments here. (hide spoiler)]

[Petra]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Petra wrote: "the ideas contained are expanded in future novels, I think ..."

What a great observation 😊"


Thank you.
It warms my heart to see how this novella is the start to such bigger ideas for Dickens. It endears this piece to me.

[Kathleen]

Petra wrote: "That said, I am enjoying the writing, the way the ancient battle was the hub of battles that our characters fought within themselves to find their way to what they think is right."

Nicely put, Petra!

[Petra]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Petra wrote: "Wasn't it because of Queen Victoria's white wedding dress that the custom of white wedding dresses started? I seem to recall hearing that somewhere."

Yes, it's in our threads! 😂"

LOL.....this is where I heard it. LOL.....
This group is a treasure of information. I thank you, Jean, for this group.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I'm equally delighted to have such great people here, Petra 😊

Sometimes I wish GR was a bit more versatile, as sorting and organising things is a bit clunky ... e.g. the search field is useful, until you find there are several hundred entries for what you want. But we manage!

[Shirley (stampartiste)]

I am so amazed at the turn of events in which Dickens showed Marion to be just as strong, just as loving, and just as resolute as her sister Grace had been. Both sisters were willing to sacrifice themselves for the other. What a beautiful story this has turned out to be.

I went back and re-read the passage that Marion quoted to Grace, when Alfred admonished Dr. Jeddler "...to try sometimes to forget this battlefield, and others like it, in that broader battlefield of Life on which the sun looks every day." And "...there are quiet victories and struggles, great sacrifices of self, and noble acts of heroism... done every day in nooks and corners, and in little households, and in men's and women's hearts..."

I love how Dickens compared a one-day, over and done, military battle with the day-after-day internal battles that people endure when trying to do the right thing. This is so profound. Dickens really is a deep thinker - no wonder we all love him so much!

[Shirley (stampartiste)]

Kathleen wrote: "Petra wrote: "That said, I am enjoying the writing, the way the ancient battle was the hub of battles that our characters fought within themselves to find their way to what they think is right."

Nicely put, Petra!"

Yes, Kathleen. There were so many comments today, I didn't see this one you posted, Petra. I'm sorry I missed it the first time. My sentiments exactly!

[Sam]

Enjoying the storm of comments coming as we are coming toward an end to the discussion. I want to again salute Petra for encouraging such comments and moderating this discussion so well!

I am completely mixed on my feelings about the story. For every criticism, I have another example to praise. While I agree on not liking the characterization of Marion, Grace, and Alfred, the supporting cast was done wonderfully.
I can illustrate my feelings for this best by falling back on Dickens treatment of names. Note the Christian symbolism apparent in the names of Marion (Mary) and Grace, matched by their virtuistic characters and angelic descriptions, then please tell me why Dickens chose Alfred as the name of the third in the triangle, a pagan name that by Wikpedia is defined as "elf wisdom."

Reading Dickens can lead us to many different conclusions but mostly it is fun!

[Petra]

Bionic Jean wrote: "I'm equally delighted to have such great people here, Petra 😊

Sometimes I wish GR was a bit more versatile, as sorting and organising things is a bit clunky ... e.g. the search field is useful, u..."

I've had trouble with the search feature lately. I put in something that I'm sure we've discussed before and nothing comes up. It may be me....LOL...

[Petra]

Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "What a beautiful story this has turned out to be...."

Shirley, I agree. This story has some wonderful elements. I'm so glad we read it.

[Petra]

Sam wrote: "then please tell me why Dickens chose Alfred as the name of the third in the triangle, a pagan name that by Wikpedia is defined as "elf wisdom."."

Sam, thank you for your support throughout this read. Reading these Christmas stories with the group is a delight for me. I love reading along with the comments and ideas that are profound and numerous here.

As for Alfred's name.....thank you for the definition of the meaning. I did not know that.
I do think it fits the story in that Alfred's philosophy throughout this story is to live each day to the fullest and enjoy the beauty of each day. It was Alfred who said that it was best to forget the battlefield and enjoy the sunshine each day, in Part the First.

It's a wise elf that sees goodness and pleasure in every day, despite the bad that happens, too. :D

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Maybe it's a reference to King Alfred?

[Connie]

The ending surprised me, and I wished that the story was a little longer in leading into Marion's reveal, and told Alfred's feelings about the situation where he loved both sisters. It was a sacrifice on Marion's part, just as Grace had also sacrificed as she raised Marion. Michael seems to have matured into a man who would be a good husband in the future to the woman he loves.

Although the story does not mention Christmas, it does show the virtues of sacrifice, the caring of friends, and the love of family. I liked Shirley's expression of the characters fighting the "day-after-day internal battles" in life.

[Petra]

Connie, it would be nice to be let in on people's thoughts. I'd like to know more about what Alfred is thinking, as well as the Doctor and MIchael.
Hopefully, the last couple of segments will clear up our questions.

[Petra]

Part the Third Summary 9:

Dr. Jeddler, Aunt Martha and Alfred had stood aside, waiting patiently for the story to be told.

Aunt Martha declares that happy as she is, she is despondent about losing her companion of six years. She will live alone until Marion marries then will go live with Marion.

Dr. Jeddler says that the world is full of hearts and hugs his two daughters.

The author interjects by telling us the backstory of how the Doctor learned of Marion’s story and how his views of the serious world changed over time.
The narrator als tells how Alfred had been told the truth that very year, had met with Marion once and been promised by her that she would tell Grace everything on their birthday.

Back to the story:
Mr. Snitchey enters the orchard, going to Marion and kissing her hand joyfully and presenting Mrs. Snitchey. They speak of how happy Mr. Cragg would be today, had he lived.

Then Mr. Snitchey says that he has brought along another friend of hers today and calls for Clemency, who cautiously enters with tears in her eyes, and escorted by Britain.

Marion runs towards her and they embrace, laugh, cry together. She then embraced Mr. Snitchey and Dr. Jeddler and Brittain.

[Bridget]

I just went back and reread the part where we were told Marion was dead, and I see now it was Clemency jumping to that conclusion and Michael Warden not correcting her. To me this seems like an unnecessary complication. But it’s probably just another example of what we’ve been discussing, that the story was getting away from Dickens. It made things confusing, but it also lead to a fabulous scene where Marion is brought back to life.

[Kathleen]

Bridget wrote: "I just went back and reread the part where we were told Marion was dead, and I see now it was Clemency jumping to that conclusion and Michael Warden not correcting her. To me this seems like an unn..."

I think you're right, Bridget, but also it might have been Dickens adding drama to his story.

I liked the way he handled the change in the doctor--his sister saying that you can see in his eyes that he no longer believed in his former dismissive philosophies.

[MN]

Petra wrote: "The Night of the Return by John Leech, 1846

"

While reading Part the Second, I came across Dickens' reaction to John Leech's illustration of Marion's flight, which Petra posted (message 277): The Night of the Return.

In a letter to John Forster, written about 12 December 1846, Dickens wrote:

When I first saw it, it was with a horror and agony not to be expressed. Of course I need not tell you, my dear fellow, Warden has no business in the elopement scene. He was never there! In the first hot sweat of this surprise and novelty, I was going to implore the printing of that sheet to be stopped, and the figure taken out of the block. But when I thought of the pain this might give to our kind-hearted Leech; and that what is such a monstrous enormity to me, as never having entered my brain, may not so present itself to others, I became more composed; though the fact is wonderful to me. No doubt a great number of copies will be printed by the time this reaches you, and therefore I shall take it for granted that it stands as it is. (The Letters of Charles Dickens, vol. 4: 679).

I didn’t comment on this earlier because it’s tantamount to a spoiler.

I reread Part the Second again, and was interested to find that there is nothing concrete in that part to indicate Michael Ward is instrumental in Marion's departure. The reader merely assumes the worst of Marion. However, Dickens' letter seems to suggest that the possibility of the reader taking this line hadn’t occurred to him: '...what is such a monstrous enormity to me, as never having entered my brain, may not so present itself to others'. Given this, I can’t imagine what Dickens intended to convey, particularly in the light of reactions to Marion's disappearance in Part the Third.

Furthermore, we learn, during Marion's own account of her departure in Part the Third, that she had met Michael Ward the day before she left: 'I saw Mr Warden, and confided in his honour; charged him with my secret, on the eve of his and my departure' (section 8).

And now, I'm even more at sea over Dickens’ intentions.

[MN]

Petra wrote: "MN wrote: "I've really enjoyed trying to work out what he's up to - Jane Austen keeps springing to mind. I'm wary of saying more about this though - how do I flag up Austen spoilers?..."

There are..."
Thank you, Petra.

[MN]

Am I alone in finding Marion's cavalier attitude towards Alfred's feelings problematic; and her method of engineering his and Grace's relationship morally unacceptable?

[Connie]

MN wrote: "Am I alone in finding Marion's cavalier attitude towards Alfred's feelings problematic; and her method of engineering his and Grace's relationship morally unacceptable?"

I also felt uncomfortable about the situation. If Marion had come back and said she loved Alfred like a brother, it would have been fine. But she's set up a situation where Alfred knows he's loved by both sisters, but he's not married to his original choice. I would think that Alfred would feel manipulated. Fortunately, he seems to be a gentleman who is committed to Grace and his daughter.

[Kathleen]

I kinda thought all of them knew he loved Grace more than Marion, and this was the only way Marion could think of to let them off the hook. It certainly was manipulative, and would have been better if they just talked it out, but that was unlikely to happen!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

MN wrote: "While reading Part the Second, I came across Dickens' reaction to John Leech's illustration of Marion's flight, which Petra posted ..."

Thanks for this detailed account MN; you have saved me a post!

You'll remember that I said there was an illustration by "kind-hearted Leech" that horrified Charles Dickens, and this was it! Nowadays we would not think anything of such a ruse, but in those days they would not ever show anything which had not happened; just as Charles Dickens was extremely careful how he described it, to preserve the abiguity, and it is the readers who jump to conclusions!

It was the same in early cinema. I think Alfred Hitchock was the first to mislead, by showing a short episode of something in a film, which had not actually occurred. Shocking!

The two were quite close, ever since John Leech illustrated A Christmas Carol. As we learnt during our group read of Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens had reduced John Leech's pain after a bad injury, through his practice as a mesmerist.

[Petra]

Bridget wrote: "I just went back and reread the part where we were told Marion was dead, and I see now it was Clemency jumping to that conclusion and Michael Warden not correcting her. To me this seems like an unn..."

For me, it was the mourning clothes tha Michael was wearing in that scene that cemented Clemency's conclusion for me. I'm still confused as to why he was wearing them. Perhaps he's been through a great loss that we haven't heard about yet.

[Petra]

Kathleen wrote: "I liked the way he handled the change in the doctor--his sister saying that you can see in his eyes that he no longer believed in his former dismissive philosophies.
..."

Kathleen, losing a daughter to an elopement, then finding her safe and cared for, must have shown him that some things are important and changed his philosophy somewhat. He seems a happier, more content man as a result.

[Petra]

MN wrote: "While reading Part the Second, I came across Dickens' reaction to John Leech's illustration of Marion's flight, which Petra posted (message 277): The Night of the Return..."

Thank you, MN, for Forster's letter.

I, too, hesitated to post that picture because it gave away a potential spoiler. I was a bit surprised that an illustration would spoil the story for readers.
But we now find out that this was an interpretation that Dickens hadn't foreseen. Michael's involvement was to be a misdirection, not a fact, within the story.

Thank you for this post and John Forster's letter.

[Petra]

MN wrote: "Furthermore, we learn, during Marion's own account of her departure in Part the Third, that she had met Michael Ward the day before she left: 'I saw Mr Warden, and confided in his honour; charged him with my secret, on the eve of his and my departure.."

The timing of this action was a surprise to me.
After Michael's appearance in the lawyers' office, I thought the plan had been devised much earlier than Marion now states it was.
That means, that Marion devised this plan all by herself. That took some effort. She had to write letters to her Aunt Martha, get responses delivered to the house and keep them secret, then keep her plans to herself. She also had to time her departure carefully during the evening of Alfred's return.

If Michael wasn't in some way part of the plan, why would she arrange to meet him in the garden, at night, to tell him her secret plan?

[Petra]

MN wrote: "Am I alone in finding Marion's cavalier attitude towards Alfred's feelings problematic; and her method of engineering his and Grace's relationship morally unacceptable?"

I find the situation manipulative, too. It seems very unfair to play with people's feelings this way. We don't know, for example, what Alfred's feelings were towards Marion or Grace. We are told that Alfred & Grace were close before. But now, Alfred and Marion are close. What caused the transition, for Alfred, from Grace to Marion? There must have been a reason for the change of heart. .....yet Marion decides that his feelings need to be diverted back to Grace. That's a bold plan and one that could have very much gone wrong, with neither sister being with Alfred in the end.

[Petra]

Connie wrote: "Fortunately, he seems to be a gentleman who is committed to Grace and his daughter...."

I suppose his lack of resentment at being manipulated is part of his philosophy of "seeing the sun in every day". He's happy with his life, so things are as they should be. He's got an easy going manner about him that rolls with the punches of Life.

[Petra]

Kathleen wrote: "I kinda thought all of them knew he loved Grace more than Marion, and this was the only way Marion could think of to let them off the hook..."

In which case, why would a father allow his daughter to marry a man who was more in love with his other daughter? As you say, Kathleen, this should have at least been a discussion between two (or more) characters.
I don't know what would have come out of such a discussion. Could Alfred have lost face, so to speak, with the confession that he would marry one sister when he loved the other more, leaving him leave for his studies and not return evermore?

This is an interesting and uncomfortable situation that Dickens set up.

[Petra]

Bionic Jean wrote: "It was the same in early cinema. I think Alfred Hitchock was the first to mislead, by showing a short episode of something in a film, which had not actually occurred. Shocking!
..."

Jean, I did not know this. How interesting that Hitchcock put a false scene into one of his movie.

[Kathleen]

Petra wrote: "This is an interesting and uncomfortable situation that Dickens set up."

I think this is it exactly, Petra. I think, just as Dickens gives us so many detailed characters, his plots are full of details too that give them complexity. It may not have always set well with us, but it kept us interested!

[Bridget]

Kathleen wrote: "It may not have always set well with us, but it kept us interested!.."

That's a great way to put it Kathleen. Just look at all these comments as we reach the end of the story. I would say most of us stayed interested in the story until the end.

[Bridget]

I've been thinking about Clemency. She's maybe my favorite character in this story. She reminds me a little of Susan Nipper in Dombey and Son. It made me wonder if Clemency was a sort of sketch for Susan Nipper, the way visual artists will sometimes draw sketches before they start painting.

[Lee]

I’m still here! I am really enjoying all the different comments. I seem to be about 12:hr behind everyone as I am in the US Central time CST and I do my serious commenting in the evenings. I hope folks are still popping in with comments 6 hours from now! Yes, this story is a lot of fun even with (I think) the uneven quality up to this point.

[Petra]

Bridget wrote: "I've been thinking about Clemency. She's maybe my favorite character in this story. She reminds me a little of Susan Nipper in Dombey and Son. It made me wonder if Clemency was a sort ..."

Bridget, Clemency reminds me of Tilly Slowboy as well, from The Cricket on the Hearth.
That may make this little novella the grounding for perhaps three upcoming Dickens novels. I find that very intriguing. We're in on the ground floor to the thinking mechanisms of Dickens' mind for ideas to three upcoming books. That's a lot of ideas for such a few pages contained here.

[Petra]

Kathleen wrote: "It may not have always set well with us, but it kept us interested!.."

Kathleen and Bridget, this story has kept us interested throughout. Just look at the delightful comments throughout. Our comments are almost as long as the novella itself. That's a lot of discussion. I'm delighted at the participation and interest in this story.

[Petra]

Lee wrote: "I’m still here! I am really enjoying all the different comments. I seem to be about 12:hr behind everyone as I am in the US Central time CST and I do my serious commenting in the evenings. I hope f..."

Lee, I'm even further West than you and am the last person to comment for the day. I'm in the Pacific Standard Time zone.
It works out great for posting the summaries, as I do that at the end of my day when most (all?) are asleep and can see it when they get up.
I will always be able to comment on your posts, no matter how "behind" you may feel you are. You are not behind; you're just on time.

[Omar]

I´m having trouble reconciling the length of time Marion was away, I don't seem to find any reason for her to be away for so long.

when it seemed she had eloped with Michael, there was an explanation for her to stay out of touch (shame or death), now that we know she wasn´t with him why didn't she come back when Grace married Alfred? or when little Marion was born?

[Sam]

Well we have ended and I find my words are spent. With all the other wonderful comments, I am going to grab my chance to bow out without more to say on the story. Instead I want to thank everyone for making the group read so pleasant and to ask forgiveness if while reading I sometimes led any of you astray. I enjoy being wrong as much as right and feel that is the fun in discovering the values in these texts. If it were plain and easy it would not be fun at all. Part of the fun is also watching the moderator strive to make it all work and Petra deserves a great hand here. Not every read will be a masterpiece and a good moderator compensates for the shortcomings as Petra more than did here. And thanks too for Jean who draws the best out of everyone I think. I am not sure I will join the next read since I am a little overbooked at the moment , but will join if I can and will definitely make room for the next one after that.

[Petra]

Omar wrote: "I´m having trouble reconciling the length of time Marion was away, I don't seem to find any reason for her to be away for so long.

when it seemed she had eloped with Michael, there was an explanat..."

Omar, perhaps Marion had to stay away for her own sake? If she was truly in love with Alfred, she would need to stay away long enough to know, in her heart, that she was no longer in love with him.
Perhaps hearing the Doctor's stories of Alfred & Grace's happiness together was, at first, bittersweet to Marion, before it became sweet?

She did stay away for a long time.

[Petra]

Sam, we have the final concluding summary to read tomorrow. I hope you join us for the final comments.

[Petra]

Part the Third Summary 10: (Conclusion)

A stranger had entered the orchard and stood at the gate, without being seen by the group. There was an air of sadness about him and his eyes were downcast. Aunt Martha was the first to see him and immediately went to speak with him. She then went to Marion, telling her the stranger would like to speak with her. Marion was surprised, then timidly approached the stranger, with Aunt Martha at her side, and spoke with him.

Mr. Snitchey hands Britain an envelope with the deed to the land of The Nutmeg-Grinder in it. He is now the legal owner of the property. Clemency had lost one home due to Michael Warden and was now gaining a new home because of him. Britain states that the name of the establishment will now be The Nutmeg-Grinder and Thimble.

Michael, the stranger, comes to the group. He asks their forgiveness. He’s gotten wiser over the past six years. He has learned from his mistakes and apologizes for abusing the hospitality the Doctor gave him all those years ago. He has asked Marion for forgiveness, too. He is leaving the area in a few days, never to return and asks their forgiveness.

The author intervenes, concluding:
Michael never moved away. He never sold his house but instead opened it up with hospitality. He married the pride of the countryside, Marion.
.....or did he?.......

[Petra]

Michael Warden Recognized by Aunt Martha by Charles Green, 1912

[Petra]

Well, that's it. We've made it to the end of this story.

Tell us what you think of not only this summary, but the entire story as a whole.

Dickens is always a joy to read. What joys dd he bring with this novella?

[Sam]

Petra wrote: "Sam, we have the final concluding summary to read tomorrow. I hope you join us for the final comments."

Apologies, of course I will stay. I thought there was one more day but got turned around somehow while reading all the comments.

[Kathleen]

I loved the ending. I love that they have been living by the nutmeg grinder motto “Do as you would be done by,” and now the sporadically wise Britain wants to add the thimble motto “Forget and forgive.” Isn't that lovely! And I also enjoyed how Time, now a relatively old friend of the author, is shown "leaning easily upon his scythe."

Dickens really charmed me with this troublesome little story. Can't thank you enough for leading us through this, Petra! You did a fantastic job, and the illustrations were such a treat. Look at the countenance of both Aunt Martha and Michael in that last one--so telling.

[Connie]

This family and their friends should be fine in the future if they follow Clemency's two important mottoes. I was happy that Michael turned around his life.

My book of Dickens' Christmas books does not include illustrations so I was so happy that you treated us with so many brilliant illustrations, Petra. Thank you for all your effort in leading us through this holiday story, and your warm manner in replying to everyone's comments.

[Lee]

Bionic Jean wrote: "So now to Lee's question, "Did Dickens publish this all at once, or was it part of a serial?"

Petra is quite right, it was published all at once, on 19th December 1846. [author:Charles Dickens|239..."

Thank you, Jean! You answered all my questions. The history of how his writings came to be is so interesting. And thankfully we have John Forster to give us information that would have simply been lost.