alexandral | Rant about Dickens

Entry tags:

Rant about Dickens

This is just a rant, but I just can’t curb my feelings. **

The rant stems form the watching ”Our mutual friend” - very well-made adaptation, lovely actors, settings, and altogether great 8 hours of watching.. Truly, the dramatization was really good!

Nonetheless, I just must say that I don’t like Dickens. I feel very weird saying it. His first book I have read was “Oliver Twist” . It was saccharine, sentimental and had little boys dying. Was a string-pulling sort of book for me. I have also read “Nickolas Nickelby” and this book made the same impression – saccharine plus dying. I found this book and “David Kopperfield” also very long and **gasp** boring. I haven’t finished “David Copperfield”. If I don’t like the book, I usually quickly look at the ending to get to know what happened and leave it. I never can read a book I am not interested in **Feels very guilty**

I have watched few TV series made from the Dickens books, but it is not really fare to make an impression about the book writer from the series..

I am torn and wrong, but I don’t like:

1. There seem to be same types of characters in every book : Poor but saint girl, Old childless couple of saints, dying boy, Scheming underworld characters…
2. The stores are far-fetched – lost children, false identities, inheritances..
3. There is always somebody dying FOR A VERY LONG PEROID of book-time from consumption, or wounds..
4. Too much saccharine
5. Too long

UPDATE This all said,

dangermousie just reminded me (thank you!!) that The Pickwick Papers Is Dickens's book too. AND - I ABSOLUTELY ADORE THE PICKWICK PAPERS, but again, this book is a little different from the rest ;)

I am dissatisfied with myself , I AM A BAD-TASTED person who doesn’t appreciate one of the greatest English writers O WOE! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME??????????

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There is nothing wrong with you.

I adore Dickens for his really complcated and delightful secondary characters, for a truly spectacular gift of description and language and even for some amazing primary characters (the leads from Great Expectations, Nicholas, Eugene from OMF), and his burning sense of social justice but for a lot of people of good taste (including my husband) the other characteristics of his work: sentimentality, plot coincidences, etc outweigh the things I mentioned above.

This said, Our Mutual Friend is my favorite Dickens book bar none, and much as I love the adaptation (and I do) it doesn't even come close. The book Eugene Wrayburn is one of my Top Fictional Crushes of all time.

And I don't find the desease thing as surprising any more, because in the Victorian times so many people died of so many horrible and not so horrible deseases, sickly people were a lot more common (I will never forget an introduction to my copy of Nicholas Nickleby where the writer said that when Miss Fanny Squeers admires Nicholas' straight legs, it would be something out of the common way because so many people had rickets, especially in such a plays as Dotheboys).

Also, I suggest trying The Pickwick Papers as even people who don't like Dickens often like this one: there is no melodrama, just prodigious fun.

In a way, I think it's a pity Oliver Twist is his best known book because I think it's his weakest. He hasn't yet learned to balance melodrama and social issues (though of course many people think he never had and I think you'd be one of the number, but I do think it's balanced better in his later books). But whenever I find too much fault with the admittedly oversentimental OT I think about how he was writing about very real, very horrible conditions and his books were a social crusade as much as literature and resulted in some good changes and I don't feel as against OT as I normally do (I think despite the layer of sentiment, OT is an incredibly angry book actually).

As to David Copperfield, it's another one of his I don't care for. I love Steerforth the doomed bad boy and the screwed up Rosa but grown up Davvy isn't my thing.

P.S. Re: length. Length is one of the things I love about Dickens and other Victorian authors, it allows me to absorb into his world. I think pace might be more of a problem if you don't like the leisurely way he tells his story.

And as to coincidence, it's obviously a literary contrivance to a degree but society used to be much smaller back then.

The best thing about Dickens never comes across in adaptations actually, because IMO it's his gorgeous use of language. He is one of the few authors with whom I can actually just open a book randomly and read a few sentences slowly and just fall in love with them.

Sorry for the length, but Dickens is one of my faves.

Thank you! Because i have this easy-persuaded mind, i feel like giving "Our Mutual Friend" a try too (i loved Eugene Wrayburn **sigh**. You know , i thought that he is going to die, and definitely would have never forgiven it to Dickens).

The best thing about Dickens never comes across in adaptations actually, because IMO it's his gorgeous use of language

This is very true!. His wit and descriptions are amazing! **has to be fare**

You have just reminded me that The Pickwick Papers is Dickens book too! How could i forget! This i a totally and absolutely GREATEST thing. I MUST read it in English now ( i have read it in Russian translation)! Sam Weller was my first and forever fictional crush!

I don't like Stephen King - this opinion has brought me near to tar & feathering on several occasions ... ::shrug:: But guess what, Stephen King doesn't care and neither does Charles Dickens and the world did NOT end. There are millions of things to read out there, you sampled and can move on without GUILT. Truly. It's OKAY.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

** Feels better **

I don't like Stephen King too. Actually , i went through Steven King perion once, but - not anymore ;)

I have similar feelings which is why I frequently enjoy the BBC adaptions more than the novel itself. In fact Dickens is one of those authors where I definitely find it easier to have watched the 'movie version' first before reading the novel. Another reason why I like the adaptions more is that they tend to make the characters a little more realistic.

I'm glad you enjoyed Our Mutual Friend - although for me, Eugene wasn't my favourite probably because I find Paul McGann a little creepy. I actually really like Steven Mackintosh's character. I think his romance with Bella is adorable because I love seeing the way she changes. She starts out as being so unlikeable and bratty but in the end she ends up being very lovable and loyal and I like it. I also think Anna Friel is very sweet so that helps.

Keeley Hawes is very pretty but Lizzie Hexam was always too sainty for me and for some reason I found Eugene a bit stalkerish :P

I won't say I dislike Dickens, I'll just say that the reasons I like him are not the usual reasons I like a novel. For other authors if they repeated the same plotline or made their books so long and difficult to follow, I would ditch it in an instant but with Dickens I'll persevere. Part of it is the 'time' he evokes. I find his writing very evocative. I found David Copperfield the most boring book in the world, but books like Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby with their portrayal of impoverished, orphaned children is just so stark and description that I find it fascinating. The way Dickens writes - it's so obvious that that he had a social conscience and cared about the fate of the 'dregs' of society - I find that fascinating as well.

In terms of this summary of yours:

1. There seem to be same types of characters in every book : Poor but saint girl, Old childless couple of saints, dying boy, Scheming underworld characters…
2. The stores are far-fetched – lost children, false identities, inheritances..
3. There is always somebody dying FOR A VERY LONG PEROID of book-time from consumption, or wounds..
4. Too much saccharine
5. Too long

Agreed but it's a bit of how they wrote at the time. I just finished reading North & South and they have the rather saintly hero and heroine, the dying mother and blah blah. A problem I have with Dickens (and it's not really a fair one) is his characterisation of women. They're always rather weak pathetic creatures and it's unfair to judge him with 21st century eyes - but that's why I liked the updated 'bbc adaptions' more ;)

Glad you enjoyed OMF in spite of your dislike of Dickens. Did you watch Nickleby yet? My very shallow reasons for loving that are tied up with James D'Arcy ;)

actually really like Steven Mackintosh's character. I think his romance with Bella is adorable because I love seeing the way she changes. She starts out as being so unlikeable and bratty but in the end she ends up being very lovable and loyal and I like it. I also think Anna Friel is very sweet so that helps.

O, they were lovely too, but I have this strange feeling about Steven Mackintosh that I have seen him somewhere and he was playing some “weak” type of a guy and this impression is forever stuck. ** woes her prejudices ** There is nothing really weak about John, but it just my poor head? I really liked them, especially their romance, it had some of the lovely BBC drama quality where she looks at him and he looks at her and this alone makes my poor heart melt ;). (I am a shipper I guess). I adored Bella, she was LOVELY and one of the best Dickens’s female characters, Because completely agree on:

Keeley Hawes is very pretty but Lizzie Hexam was always too sainty for me

But, Eugene **laughs ** and for some reason I found Eugene a bit stalkerish :P I thought he was rather sweet ;)

Agreed but it's a bit of how they wrote at the time. I just finished reading North & South and they have the rather saintly hero and heroine, the dying mother and blah blah.

Yes, in a way this is all true. BUT – 19’th century was a century of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and Pushkin. Where Dostoyevsky had his share of early works resembling very much Oliver Twist, his latest ones are just mind-blowing for me ( and he is particular good at strong female characters IMHO).

I may be should try to read Dickens again ;)

I haven't watched "Nicholas Nickleby" yet, but i am half-sure i have seen it after your post. Some things i have watched when my language wasn't very good are a little "foggy" for me, but when i looked at the pictures, i remembered. James D'Arcy looks lovely ;)

What did you think about "North and South" - the book, about the things they have changed in TV? My least favourite (i really quite dislike this one, REALLY) is the fact that they made Mr. Thornton beat his employee in the film, where he just shouted at him in the book. I just can not see a magistrate beating his employee in those times, and not Mr. Thornton.

**Shoud sleep. My eyes are closing **

I rarely read anything considered a "classic". I'm so uninformed when it comes to great historical works. Of course, when I was younger, I read a few of the greats - like the "Secret Garden" and "Oliver Twist" - but you do that when you're younger and your parents have just given the books to you as gifts.

But I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with that or you or me :).

I do love classics, actually , but just can't put my head around Dickens ;)

Hi - I don't know whether you'll get to see this comment, as the site seems dormant, but as you like The Pickwick Papers, you might be interested in taking a look at my new novel Death and Mr Pickwick, which tells the story behind the creation of The Pickwick Papers. You can find out more at: www.deathandmrpickwick.com where I can also be contacted.

Best wishes

Stephen Jarvis

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Rant about Dickens

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

The Pickwick Papers and a Forthcoming Novel