Dickensians! discussion
Nicholas Nickleby - Group Read 6
>
Nicholas Nickleby: Chapters 24 - 36
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
She came up in ch 37, in one of Mrs Nickleby's "diversions", more LINK HERE. Sarah Biffin was the miniaturist who was born limbless and painted with her mouth:
Smithsonian Magazine
Sara wrote: "I don't mean to be too pecuniary, but I couldn't help wondering how on earth Nicholas is going to provide for his mother and sister . . . My quote would be from Nicholas' letter: 'You are an old man, and I leave you to the grave. May every recollection of your life cling to your false heart, and cast their darkness on your death-bed.'" I agree this is a powerful quote, Sara.Ch 33, Message 205 And also: "'Your brother's widow and her orphan child spurn the shelter of your roof, and shun you with disgust and loathing.':
Statements worthy of Edgar Allan Poe!
Bionic Jean wrote: "Sam wrote: "There is a looseness to the plotting and structuring that wasn't as apparent before ..."Do you mean in Oliver Twist by this, Sam? Because you may remember that he had to ..."
Bionic Jean wrote: "Sam wrote: "There is a looseness to the plotting and structuring that wasn't as apparent before ..."
Do you mean in Oliver Twist by this, Sam? Because you may remember that he had to ..."
I have to be brief, as my thoughts aren't fully fleshed and haven't the time to do so, but I want to acknowledge your post and clarify a little.
Actually, I was writing more specifically of Nicholas Nickleby seeing themes in the chapters that were fairly consistent till about the time Dickens would have finished Oliver Twist. Also I was writing on the concept the Nicholas Nickleby were parallel novels where Nicholas seems a more matured kind of Oliver. Oliver because of his age and size cannot fight back and has to depend on strangers for his rescue. Nicholas is older and of larger stature, so is capable of defending himself, but lacks the judgement to know when and how to do so effectively. He is either too passive in the face of injustice or tends to overreact.
Another continuous theme in Nicholas Nickleby was one of exploitation. That term wasn't being used in this time I believe and not knowing a suitable term of the time, I will try and define what I mean. In the early chapters of the novel there is consistent examples of characters' using or trying to use other characters for their own personal benefit. There is a difference of degree in how negatively we view those actions but there are numerous examples and Dickens really seems to be exploring the theme with all the variations he includes.
From the combination of the above, I was trying to work out whether Dickens might be working out in these novels feelings he had from his youth based on his own experiences of helplessness as a victim of exploitation as a child but that is something to discuss for another day.
What did seem unifying in Nicholas Nickleby was this kind of binary moral contrast between the exploiters and the exploited, the users and their intended victims. The novel's characters seemed to be lining up on either side providing a nice tension between the two sides that made all the episodes come together. Secondly, the novel seemed to be working as a bildungsroman where the growth might be expected when Nicholas learned to measure his reactions to injustice.
There is more to what I was thinking but I think you have the gist of my thought. The novel seems to move from a mixed thematic and episodic structure to a more full episodic structure of Pickwick Papers roughly after the confrontation between Nicholas and Mulberry Hawk. I was curious if Dickens might have received criticism over that or if their was a negative reaction to Oliver Twist that was contributing to the slight difference I am now seeing. BTW, this is not a condemnation. I see some differences and am curious to why they are being implemented.
Just a note on the above, that I am discussing here to avoid distracting from where we are at present in the novel.
Mod
"Nicholas Nickleby ... [has a] kind of binary moral contrast between the exploiters and the exploited, the users and their intended victims. The novel's characters seemed to be lining up on either side providing a nice tension between the two sides that made all the episodes come together.
Secondly, the novel seemed to be working as a bildungsroman where the growth might be expected when Nicholas learned to measure his reactions to injustice."
As for your ideas of the episodic structure, having already covered the history and reasons for that, I will just add that most critics identify two separate halves of the novel - perhaps dividing roughly where you do. I myself notice a change of tone and concerns from where the Cheerybles enter.
Before this, it is an 18th century picaresque style - very much the life and adventures of the protagonist - and written as sketches. It is how Nicholas responds to and interacts with the situations which befall him, which interests us.
But as soon as Nicholas and his family have a home, the concerns become more domestic - and even bourgeois. I feel this is a big enough change to be called a point of peripety. You might express this as the themes having more unity, and you might feel Nicholas is gaining more maturity ... these are both valid interpretations.
It's always good to hear your thoughts thank you Sam, and yes, best to keep them in the thread which started them, and which they relate to best. Later on in the novel, there may have been more points of reversal.
Mod
I am so happy to hear this, as I know that at the start it was a bit of a shock for you to find it so picaresque, without the later deeper characterisation of his middle novels - and of most later classic 19th century novels actually. I personally enjoy his writing at all stages, and like to trace how it develops.
And thank you! I'm looking forward to you catching up and reading in tandem - though I know you're gleaning as much as you possibly can 😊
Paul wrote: "Bionic Jean wrote: "Mr. Mantalini wants some money, in exchange for some bills worth £75."That's usury and loan-sharking writ large. . . . My math reckons that to be 200% interest.
from ch 34, Message 217. Thanks Paul, for doing the math for me! I had skipped over that but your explanation highlights the evil traps Ralph has set for everyone.
Thank you for your thoughts, Sam. I have not taken enough time to think about the structure as I have been just trying to catch up, but there is definitely a change in tone and focus for me and it is interesting to contemplate what is going on in Dickens' personal and literary life that might have sparked them.Jean--I see the shift, as you have stated, coming with the introduction of the Cheerybles.
Chapters 24 and 25, Nicholas and Smike in the acting company...
I sometimes use the animated GIF of this, Jon Lovitz in a "Master Thespian" skit on SNL saying ACTING! very pretentiously. For the first time in decades probably I actually went and watched the sketch. It still made me laugh!
A YouTube URL for it:
https://youtu.be/VRkZYdWCe7w?si=w5NWv...
and the Saturday Night Live air date is Feb 25, 1989 if that helps (if you have Peacock), Glenn Close and Jon Lovitz.
Anyway, that's what these chapters made me think of. :->
I'm glad Nicholas and Smike are in a good situation -- except there is plenty of book left yet.
Bionic Jean wrote: "Mr Lillyvick’s UmbrellaUmbrellas were signs of affluence in Victorian society. We’ve also noticed them regularly in Charles Dickens's writing whether novels or short stories. Usually he uses them as phallic symbols: a metaphor for sexual lust, or fertility..."
That was funny but the umbrella (if parasols are prettified umbrellas) scenes that made me laugh more were the ones where Infant Phenonemon was monkeying with hers (also green?) on the way to the canvassing stops, dropped it, made a production about it.... and especially in Chapter 18 when Kate is working at the dressmaker. An old rich Peer was engaged to a younger woman with apparently a good sense of humor, and she would poke him,
‘You naughty creature!’ said the lively lady, poking the peer with her parasol; ‘I won’t have you talk so. How dare you?’
This playful inquiry was accompanied with another poke, and another, and then the old lord caught the parasol, and wouldn’t give it up again, which induced the other lady to come to the rescue, and some very pretty sportiveness ensued.
and
'...I wouldn’t leave you behind with that pretty girl, not for half a second. I know you too well. Jane, my dear, let him go first, and we shall be quite sure of him.’
The old lord, evidently much flattered by this suspicion, bestowed a grotesque leer upon Kate as he passed, and receiving another tap with the parasol for his wickedness, tottered downstairs to the door, where his sprightly body was hoisted into the carriage by two stout footmen.
Well that is definitely connected to sexual lust.
I think it is the ~poking~ wording that really makes me chuckle.
Bridget wrote: "She reminds me so much of Mrs. Bennett from Pride and Prejudice (minus the "oh, my nerves!" complaint). I wouldn't call Mrs. Bennett a villain, but she was someone who complicated the plot for sure. Chapter 26, Is Fraught with Danger...
Mrs. Nickleby reminded me too, of Mrs. Bennet. How can these children remain so polite! Was there one scene in Pride and Prejudice where Elizabeth runs out of the room to keep herself from answering back and being rude to her mother? Maybe that was another book though, actually it doesn't sound like Elizabeth.
I was thinking, while reading Chapter 26, that these do not sound like good men, at all. For one thing they are hanging around Ralph Nickleby. Also they sound lazyand dissolute and immoral. Even if one of them did marry Kate, would they even have or keep enough money to keep a home and pay for things? Or just gamble it away, or spend it on horses and parties.
That reminds me, what is Uncle Ralph N "selling" exactly? OK he is not a "pimp" he is not selling Kate's virginity to them for a sexual experience. Would he receive a dowry if there were a marriage? Wait, isn't the woman's family supposed to pay a dowry. Would he have access to... to what? These do not seem like people of class at all. (Reaching for examples from Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope, my recent classic Red Pottage). He makes money by making loans. These two probably already owe him money! So if Kate were to marry Lord Verisopht or Pluck or Pike or Hawk then... What.
Kate would be much better off in the acting troupe or marrying a poorer (teacher, vicar, tutor, secretary, clerk) but good, moral man who cares about her, than one of these louts. But her mother doubtless would not agree.
Mod
a parasol was used to keep the sun off, and usually only by women, so yes it would be quite pretty.
The scene you describe in Madame Mantalini's is definitely all about lust! And did you catch the illustration, with Mr Lillivick hiding behind the screen with Miss Petowker? There's another case!
I've no idea who Jon Lovitz is (I am English!) but it does sound as if he is parodying the Mr Crummles-type of thespian, yes 😆
Good catch about Mrs Nickleby being similar to Mrs Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, Bonnie, even though Mrs Nickleby was based on Charles Dickens's own mother! There's lots more about her later.
And you'll find a post about dowries too, which should answer your question.
Ralph Nickleby's motivation for inviting Kate to the dinner, is correctly worked out by Sir Mulberry Hawk. If Ralph can secure this, then he has a permanent source of income by fleecing the young lord.
I am chuckling about these 'pimp' posts because, earlier today I thought to myself, "I understand what Jean's saying about things being different in the 1800s. But, they are definitely pimping Kate out! 😂Bionic Jean wrote: "Oh dear Paul, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here!
"The part of my post you have picked out was merely to correct an inappropriate terminology. It's amusing to use modern idioms occasionally, but not if they distort one's thinking, and I have given chapter and verse from a report of the time to show that it is inaccurate. Mrs Nickleby and Ralph Nickleby do not even move in those classes. It's obviously up to you whether you read it or not.
I really had hoped this was clear, and as I said was not directing the comment at anyone in particular, although I was aware only North Americans seem to use the slang. The difficulty has arisen because it is a term with a specific meaning to Victorians in London."
Bionic Jean wrote: "Chapter 29: Of the Proceedings of Nicholas, and certain Internal Divisions in the Company of Mr. Vincent Crummles"I certainly thought the nose-pulling was going to be a metaphor for something. I even wondered if there was some strange pregnancy-plot going? This is from Chapter 23, when Nicholas is first meeting the Troupe:
There was Mrs Lenville in a very limp bonnet and veil, decidedly in that way in which she would wish to be if she truly loved Mr Lenville;
Like the Lenvilles weren't actually married, and he was accusing NN of sleeping with her, or something.... Also the puppies?
On Nicholas stopping to salute them, Mr Lenville laughed a scornful laugh, and made some general remark touching the natural history of puppies. ‘Oh!’ said Nicholas, looking quietly round, ‘are you there?’
‘Slave!’ returned Mr Lenville, flourishing his right arm, and approaching Nicholas with a theatrical stride.
But, it sounds like Lenville was just jealous, and though Nicholas was wimpy, and would just agree to being humiliated publicly and have it written about in the newspaper!
Bionic Jean wrote: "But when he tries to pull his nose, Nicholas knocks Mr. Lenville down, and orders him to apologise. Lenville refuses at first, but then he is persuaded by his wife. Nicholas cautions Lenville on his jealousy, particularly since as he can now see, Nicholas has a temper."
Mod
At this time, if a gentleman referred to another young gentleman as a "puppy" it was an insult. If Nicholas were older, the insult would be "dog".
Mr Lenville wants publicity above all else, and his friend Mr Folair tells Nicholas this. Obviously if he can also come off looking good, that is even better.
Once again, I have enjoyed reading all of your thoughts and comments :) I am trying not to repeat anything that has already been mentioned, but please forgive me if I do.Nicholas and Miss Snevellicci. It is explicitly mentioned that Nicholas 'with the precedent of Miss Squeers still fresh in his memory, steadily resisted every fascination'. I think his attempting to peep into her basket somewhat undermines this statement; but I appreciate that he is learning to be a better version of himself...
I wonder if he understands how much she is interested in him, though. I actually think it's not very probable that a young man would have resisted a beautiful actress (was she maybe not that beautiful?), and that maybe the author wrote this as a kind of gestalt closure of quite a different situation... still, it could also be interpreted thus: Nicholas just doesn't consider her as a potential amorous interest because he is a gentleman and she is an actress.
Oh, the great uncle Lillyvick disappointment! (I don't know which name is funnier, this one or Pumblechook, but they both go so well with 'uncle'). So, uncle Ralph has disappointed his nephew by not caring about his female relatives; uncle L. has disappointed his nephew-in-law in another way, but it seems equally outrageous to Mr. Kenwigs. I think this is hilarious :)
I also think Ralph is very impressive as a villain! It might be that these intrusions of actual feelings and the way he smothers them make him scarier than, say, grandfather Smallweed (I remembered that 'worthy' when Ralph said he wouldn't pretend to consult with a partner).
It was harrowing to read about Kate's challenges in these installments, and to consider women's rights, or rather the absence of them, then... And to know that we're still very vulnerable in many situations even now. Everybody blames Ralph, and, of course, he's awful, but I'm afraid the same precarious situation could easily happen to a girl without such interference as his, too, and there were hints of that at the Mantalinis. That's horrible. I'm grateful there was plenty of comic relief; but these chapters were still deeply disturbing.
So, the note on which the last installment here ends is very welcome :)
Mod
Your various suggested interpretations for Nicholas and Miss Snevellicci's potential romance are all valid, I think. In the end I come down to thinking your final suggestion is the correct interpretation, and heavily implied by Dickens. Nicholas is so conscious - indeed overly concerned - of his status as a gentleman that he would consider it beneath his dignity to stoop to have a relationship with an actress. We are to see many corroborations of this - that he only ever considers his time with the actors a sort of interlude - playing at acting rather than choosing it as a profession. He's a bit of a prig still, and does not think of these people as his social equals. Fortunately as you say, he is "he is learning to be a better version of himself."
Ralph is such a chilling person, isn't he. I agree, and think the moment of self-examination and the ruthless way he pushes the thoughts aside add to his stature as a villain. Would he never do more than pause?
"I'm afraid the same precarious situation could easily happen to a girl without such interference as his, too, and there were hints of that at the Mantalinis." Yes! Such young women were easy prey, and easily manipulated or worse if they had no father or brother to champion them, weren't they?
Well, I've probably noticed the vulnerability of young girls because I was one many years ago and my daughter is the same age as Kate right now. But, come to think of it, any young person without loving and, no less importantly, well off parents is vulnerable—there's the whole Dotheboys Hall of examples. I imagine both Squeers and (sir) Hawk could successfully sue Nicholas for something analogous to grievous bodily harm (as it happens, both of them might have good reasons not to, but also both of them might be revengeful enough to try), so he's also very vulnerable just because he's young and on his own.Thank you for your answers, Jean! It's always nice to discuss Dickens with you :) And, indeed, there's so much to think about and, as a consequence, to talk about in any novel by Dickens, and maybe especially in this one, because it depicts so many little worlds.
Mod
Yes! And I often wonder what happened to the unwanted girls in similar positions to the "Do-the-boys". Sent as skivvies, I expect, or worse 😢
"so many little worlds" is a lovely description Plateresca. And the very breadth of his purview is one of the reasons I love Dickens so much.
I am so glad you are able to add your thoughts to this discussion. 😊
Well, there were the likes of Lowood Institution; I'm sure most people here will remember that this school for poor girls in 'Jane Eyre' had a real-life prototype where two of Charlotte Bronté's sisters died of tuberculosis which was basically caused by extremely poor living conditions at the place. I wonder if Mr Brocklehurst would get along with Mr Squeers...Oh, you're too kind, but thank you for your kind words :)
Mod
Dickensians!
Books mentioned in this topic
Jane Eyre (other topics)Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
Red Pottage (other topics)
Oliver Twist (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Charles Dickens (other topics)Charles Dickens (other topics)
Edgar Allan Poe (other topics)
Charles Dickens (other topics)
Fred Levit (other topics)
More...
Jean - Of all of them, I remember 2 (or 1 1/2). I remember Mrs Grudden and I remember the name Miss Biffin, but I cannot remember who she was.