Happy Birthday, Mr Dickens!
Here are some of his keen insights into a nation with no systematic approach to dealing with poverty, of which, he was a sharp social critic...
"I never knew how bad she was, till the fever came upon her, and then her bones were starting through the skin. There was neither fire nor candle; she died in the dark – in the dark. She couldn’t even see her children’s faces, though we heard her gasping out their names.
I begged for her in the streets, and they sent me to prison. When I came back, she was dying; and all the blood in my heart has dried up, for they starved her to death. I swear it before the God that saw it,– they starved her!"
~from "Oliver Twist"
From these cities they would go on again, by the roads of vines and olives, through squalid villages, where there was not a hovel without a gap in its filthy walls, not a window with a whole inch of glass or paper; where there seemed to be nothing to support life, nothing to eat, nothing to make, nothing to grow, nothing to hope, nothing to do but die.
~from "Little Dorrit"
They carried him very gently along the fields, and down the lanes, and over the wide landscape; Rachael always holding the hand in hers. Very few whispers broke the mournful silence. It was soon a funeral procession. The star had shown him where to find the God of the poor; and through humility, and sorrow, and forgiveness, he had gone to his Redeemer’s rest.
~from "Hard Times"
They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.
Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.
`Spirit. are they yours.' Scrooge could say no more.
`They are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon them. `And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. `Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end.'
`Have they no refuge or resource.' cried Scrooge.
`Are there no prisons.' said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. `Are there no workhouses.' The bell struck twelve.
~from "A Christmas Carol"
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Charles Dickens
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Dickens could write with such passion and insight because he came from poverty. His father had been imprisoned for debt; Dickens had spent some time working in a blacking factory as a young teenager.
Yet, there was also a boyish, puckish quality. During his one tour of the US, which resulted more in mutual misunderstanding and recrimination than anything, he was described by one Baltimore newspaper as a "dandy", not exactly a term of endearment for one supposed to be a serious author. Dickens, however, spent much of his life alternately worrying over money despite having wealthy supporters and benefactors and enjoying the kinds of diversions and merriment usually associated with children. There is much boyish humor in his works, which leavens the works, keeps them from being too maudlin. Oscar Wilde was quite wrong when he quipped that "One cannot read about the death of Little Nell without laughing." Nell's death is tragic precisely because the scenes that surround it are so human, as was the author.
Dickens is perhaps my favorite author. I have most of his works in my humble library. He was not a perfect man by any standard, and indeed was guilty of some of the things he mocked in his novels.
For instance, he sent three of his sons from a young age to English boarding schools in France, where they remained for six years. He was not the best of husbands, treating his wife somewhat callously, and I believe he had a mistress. He was very much like Mrs. Jellyby from Bleak House in the manner in which he spent time serving others while his own went neglected.
But as to the ongoing theme about poverty running through so many of his stories, he speaks far less of government providing than he does of personal greed of the individual and his apathy toward the needy. Scrooge was not a government employee, for example, and the story in which he appeared spoke to the need of each of us to think of our fellow man, not a nation's "systematic approach to dealing with poverty". This is the same misconception some have regarding Jesus' teachings regarding dealing with the poor among us.
I read Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations in high school and wasn't a fan. I remember thinking that Dickens didn't understand the importance of brevity.
Ah, John Farrier, most of Dickens' works were serialized before collected in a single volume. He was paid by the word. Like Dune, for which Frank Herbert received a half-cent a word at the old Analog science fiction magazine, the books were long so Dickens could make money.
Well, I guess it would all depend on how well you like the effusion of words. Certainly, an author can tell a story in 100 words or 10,000. If the 10,000 is done with admirable flourish and poetry and excitement and joy, then it's worthwhile to wade through. If not, then we would probably just rather read the shortened version.
For me, Little Women and Wuthering Heights are not worth the effort to plod through. Just tell me that there are some women who are sad and things get worse and then everyone dies and end of story. But for me, the Dickens I have read have all been worth it.
Geoffrey, I'm sure that John may be familiar with the circumstances and, Dickens' capitalizing on capitalism notwithstanding, he just didn't find the stories worth the effort...
Marshall...
the story in which he appeared spoke to the need of each of us to think of our fellow man, not a nation's "systematic approach to dealing with poverty". This is the same misconception some have regarding Jesus' teachings regarding dealing with the poor among us.
You don't think Dickens and/or Jesus would have liked to see some systemic changes, Marshall? I'd suggest you read more thoroughly.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. I don't find it convincing, having read both Dickens and Jesus a good bit.
Well, Dune is, perhaps, the heaviest lifting I gave up as not worth the effort. Just . . . ugh.
Dostoevsky, though, was also wordy, working under similar conditions, yet I enjoy reading him as well as Dickens.
If you want to test your patience, read A Suitable Boy, which did for India what Dickens did for mid-19th century Britain.
I only mentioned the provenance of Dickens' verbosity by way of clarity. Worth the work? Usually.
Yes, I knew that Dickens got paid by the word, and it certainly showed.
The Doctor loves Dickens and called him a genius. But then he's seven hundred years old and probably more patient than I am.
Your mileage may vary. I enjoyed Richard Adams's thousand-page novel Maia, which some critics found unreadable and far too long.
Yeeks. I suppose The Lord of the Rings, which is roughly the same length, was originally intended as a single volume, but fantasy epics tend to leave me . . . brrrr.
Dan,
It's blatantly clear that Jesus thought only of the individual's intentions and the actions that corresponded to them. In other words, He was, without a doubt, focused on what a Dan Trabue does with his money and how he cares for the poor and needy, with absolutely no word on what any government should do. The poor is our concern, as in "each of us individually". This is also the message of A Christmas Carol, with "our" being each one of us, not any one of us being forced to do so by people who don't want to increase their own wealth to redistribute, who then vote for such things and sit back feeling good about themselves for making others do the heavy lifting.
As always, Marshall, you are welcome to your opinion, no matter how poorly reasoned I might find it.
I don't much mind that you and yours regard my opinions as poorly reasoned. I just think it would be nice to see what passes for better reasoning from you all. For example, where in Scripture does Jesus even hint at systemic changes in gov't in any way at all? Or Dickens? I'm going by what is actually in the texts in question. What are YOU using?
Read up on the Jubilee and Sabbath rules as found in the OT and referenced in the NT. These were systematic ways of dealing with poverty at a national level.
Jesus said he came to establish a new realm, one with Good News specifically for the poor, with release for the captives, healing for the sick, the day of God's good favor.
Read up on that for starters...
I don't suppose it would be possible to have a civil discussion about the beauty of Dickens, or literature in general? Is that too much to ask?
Oh, by the way, that IS in the biblical texts in question.
I'm actually interested in hearing more from John Farrier about the possible virtues of Maia. I'm not saying I'm ready to dismiss it out of hand. I have read seven, I think, of the Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time volumes. My main complaint isn't the fantasy business or the length. In Jordan's case, it would be nice to be a tad less repetitive, and I do mean repetitive. I have very much enjoyed the ones I've read so far, I have the whole series (except the final one, which had to be edited by his son because Jordan passed away before the final copy was ready), and will return to it at some point when other things don't feel quite so pressing.
In the meanwhile, this book has been very important to me for over two decades now, and I return to it every once in a while, even though I have whole chapters committed to memory. It isn't Dickens, but it is great stuff.
One more try here. Susanna Clark's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is a marvelous book, full of darkness, that wonderful dry British wit, and something I admire most, I think: a way to write the most horrifying scenes imaginable with a kind of detachment that still never lets the reader forget just how frightening the events being portrayed really are.
It's another long read, and written in the style of those serialized novels from the 19th century that adds a measure of verisimilitude to the narrative. My oldest sister and I are in a protracted disagreement on this book and Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian. I dislike the latter so much I couldn't finish it; she hates Jonathan Strange and loves The Historian.
I had the opposite reaction, sortof. I liked the Historian okay (not as good as I'd hoped, but I liked it), but couldn't finish Strange, which I went into thinking it looked pretty cool.
Go figure...
I think what bugged me most about The Historian was something so small it would probably be insignificant to most people.
Adverbs in the dialogue attribution, what are known as "Swifties", after "Tom Swift". Things like, "I ran all the way here!" he said breathlessly, or, "I've missed you," she said achingly. Once or twice, OK; the book is filled with them to the point of distraction, at least for me.
"It wasn't that bad," he said explanatorily.
On the subject of historical novels, I read Patrick O'Brian's first Jack Aubrey/Stephen Maturin novel, Master and Commander, and keep putting off getting the next several in the series. Really good stuff there, right down to the dialogue being closer to the way people at the time spoke.
"I don't suppose it would be possible to have a civil discussion about the beauty of Dickens..."
I was speaking of Dickens. Or is it that only bad interpretations of his works can be mentioned without a contrary view?
Geoffrey seems to believe my comments are off topic, but I don't see as the post entitled "Charles Dickens" invites comments about literature in general and still be on topic.
Dan,
I asked for examples from any of the books in question and you invite me to read them for myself, which I've done often. I have not seen any indication that it contains what you think it does, so I was asking for you to point me to those pages, chapters, verses, passages, whatever that provide your information that supports your view.
As one who dismisses OT stories as "epic storytelling", I fail to see how offering those about Jubilee laws would count as proof of anything. If they are part of the epic storytelling, how can I be sure they were actually established and not just some authors way of explaining his impressions of actual events?
I may have improperly inferred from you comments that you thought Dickens (and then Christ) was looking for governmental systems to address poverty, so please enlighten me as to whether or not you use "national" and "governmental" interchangeably.
Regardless of your response, my original statement stands, that both Jesus and Charles Dickens were speaking of the individual's sense of charity and not some governmental law to force charity out of the population that wouldn't otherwise provide it.
"Regardless of your response, my original statement stands, that both Jesus and Charles Dickens were speaking of the individual's sense of charity and not some governmental law to force charity out of the population that wouldn't otherwise provide it."
Face-palming so hard I leave a mark.
"Face-palming so hard I leave a mark."
It's called "slapping yourself" and it's about time.
Then there is the tricentennial of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s birth - June 28, 1712.
I don’t suppose any of you…. probably not.
I have not read Rousseau since college. What of him? Is there some relation between his writings and Dickens that makes you raise the point? Or just the celebration of the bicentenial/tricential of each?
I do dig me at least some Rousseau quotes/ideas (others, not as much), although I'm not as familiar with him.
MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they...
~From The Social Contract
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
~From Discourse on Inequality
I reckon I've forgotten more from my Philosophy classes than I've remembered...
Post a Comment