The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This is the thread to discuss the next chapters in our Dickensthon. This week we are discussing chapters 39-42 .

Slowly but surely we are coming to the end of this epic novel with many characters, many locations, two trans-Atlantic travels, murder mystery, and more.
Again in this novel, Dickens shows there are no fringe characters: all of them have their roles and 'have their exists and their entrances' in his show. This time we return back to the world of the Pinches. One can only wonder what makes Dickens, who has an amazing talent to create a panoply of memorable and distinguishable characters, to create replicas of young, immature, naive, angel-like, and nauseatingly boring ladies. Ruth is just one of the many. 'Pleasant little Ruth! Cheerful, tidy, bustling, quiet little Ruth!' To make the clean breast of it, I was gnashing my teeth when I read these lines. One can only speculate whether this image encapsulates the ideal feminine image for Dickens, otherwise it is hard to explain his passion for portraying insipid and boring young ladies over and over again (Rosa in Oliver Twist, Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop, Madeline in Nicholas Nickleby, Emma in Barnaby Rudge, and now Ruth and, up to a point, Mary Graham). And I know that the list will be updated after we read other novels. Ruth's life, as well as lives of so many - but not all – will possibly end in 'happily ever after' after John Westlock seemed to be mesmerized by little Ruth. On the other hand, do we prefer good guys marry bad girls?
The question of Tom's unknown beneficiary/employer is also a salient topic in these chapters. Martin Chuzzlewit would be my guess because he has that feeling of lurking somewhere behind the curtains throughout the novel, and he is the only one who has the clout and influence to change the lives of people.
As far as the character development, Jonas Chuzzlewit is the one who really fascinates me. I am indeed aware that he is one of the most despicable characters in the novel: nearly certainly killed once and possibly is going to kill again, but this transformation from a cunning and unpleasant young man into an abusive husband and potentially a serial killer is fascinating. It is one of the darkest Dickens characters who killed not because of poverty or necessity but because social context cultivated his horrible inclinations. I also have to admit that the context when his intention to murder Montague was revealed was quite trite – a dark and stormy night that harbors many dangers.
Actually, I already 'miss' Seth Pecksniff – he is definitely a comic relief character and one of the most picaresque personae in literature. I hope Dickens's eye will focus on his theatrics again in the next section because he is the prime evil that should be exposed and punished.

Commentaries


Chapter 39

1. chiffonier: a small cupboard

2. black shorts: black knee-breeches

3. wafer-stamp: used for sealing letters

4. the Temple: a favorite Dickens location, lying between Fleet Street and the Thames, home of the Inns of Courts


Chapter 40

1. packet-boat: ferry, mail-boat

2. Ankworks: Antwerp

3. three-pair backs: third-floor rooms at the back

4. apostrophised the vessel: addressed as if it were alive


Chapter 41

1. Your bosom's lord: 'Mt bosom's lord sits lightly on his throne', Romeo and Juliet, v, i, 3

2. an apothecary: in Romeo and Juliet, v, ii. The part is played by Smike in Crummels's production in Nicholas Nickleby, Chapter 25

3. a very ostrich: ostriches were proverbial for their tough digestions.

Chapter 42

1. It may lighten and storm: unidentified song, attributed by some to Dickens.

The characters who were far flung in America & London begin to reassemble, the threads of the plot are tightening up! I like how you explained that no characters are without a role. It's not laziness that leads to the interrelation of characters in ways we might feel unrealistic, it's actually careful planning.
Don't worry, I've read a little farther and Pecksniff returns in exceptional Pecksniffian fashion. (that adjective is actually in my dictionary.)

Robin wrote: "The characters who were far flung in America & London begin to reassemble, the threads of the plot are tightening up! I like how you explained that no characters are without a role. It's not lazine..."

I agree with you - the scene is set for the final pattern. All the characters are finally reassembled and regrouped, and there is a puppeteer, and not a malevolent one, that moves them and puts them all together. Now is it Chuzzlewit or the Providence or Dickens:-) Well, I am moving tangentially into the field of postmodernity here:-)

The four chapters in this section are permeated with a haunting, frightening air. Tom’s peculiar new job and unknown employer lend a mystical aura to the story, and the description of the Temple as “ghostly,” coupled with the penetrating fog and gloomy atmosphere of the place, add to the ethereal quality. Dickens’ memorable descriptions, such as “and what manner of man that other was, became a full-blown flower of wonder in the garden of Tom’s fancy, which never faded or got trodden down” (chapter 40), contribute so much to the scenes and, as was mentioned before, are almost cinematic. I can’t help but wonder who Tom’s benefactor is and what role the eccentric Mr. Fip plays; the situation is akin to Mark’s providential pairing with young Martin, except that in this case the identity of the saving agent is not yet revealed.

Tom’s connection to Jonas is, on the other hand, thoroughly disturbing. His chance encounter with Jonas on the ship has again put him in a bad position with the dangerous fellow, and Jonas’ preoccupation with murderous schemes obviously bodes very ill for those whom he sees as threats. Dickens still holds out in providing the details of Jonas’ crime, but it is quite clear that he murdered his father somehow and now intends to do in Montague to keep his secret safe. However, Nadgett is aware of the situation too, which could put a hole in Jonas’ fiendish plans. Montague’s conscience and his fear of Jonas cause him to have morbid fantasies, and these are not unfounded, as he is nearly murdered by Jonas’ startling the horses and again when Jonas appears at his bedside, which neatly coalesces with his dream. Even though Montague is not a saint by any stretch of the imagination, I find myself feeling somewhat sorry for him; I don’t think that he deserves to be murdered, at any rate. I am worried for Tom’s ultimate well-being also, especially when he is achieving success and happiness in his new-found independence. I anxiously await what will transpire next!

Sarah wrote: "Dickens still holds out in providing the details of Jonas’ crime, but it is quite clear that he murdered his father somehow and now intends to do in Montague to keep his secret safe."

We do not indeed know, but it is obviously a poison. I find it far from accidental that among those numerous hints, Montague actually mentions an apothecary who sold poison to Romeo.

I totally agree with you, Sarah - these are the chapters with the a certain stirring feeling of final revelations.

Zulfiya, I agree about the poison. Wasn't there a little bottle of medicine on the mantelpiece which Anthony used to take? Maybe it was not the "right" medicine in it.

I am also thinking that the old Martin might be the mysterious benefactor of Tom Pinch and that there might be a merry attachment between Ruth and John Westlock. I read your comment, Zulfiya, and saw my own thoughts reflected in them. :-)

Jonas is really a cruel character and I am curious whether there will be some kind of explanation for his doings (as in Oliver Twist Monk had his reasons for conspiracy and crime) or whether this is just his character.

Well, I can hardly wait to read on. Hopefully, I will have some time during the next weekend.

Hedi wrote: "Jonas is really a cruel character and I am curious whether there will be some kind of explanation for his doings (as in Oliver Twist Monk had his reasons for conspiracy and crime) or whether this is just his character."

Jonas's malevolence intrigues me too. Is he nefarious because there is something that moves him or is he villainous for the sake of being evil. I wonder whether Dickens will give any justification for this behavior (childhood trauma, revenge, his father was an abusive man, or an annoying man, something at least)

I think in the 19th century there is much less Psychology or asking why someone is evil and more just a sense that someone is inherently bad. I don't expect we will get any explanation of why Jonas is the way he is, in the same way that you can get angelic creatures (such as Mary or Ruth or Tom) who have come from a background of hardship and parental absence.

The coincidences start to wear a bit thin (Tom and Ruth wandering down to the wharf and coincidentally coming to stand between Mrs Gamp and Nadgett, watching the boat which Jonas and Merry are boarding) but it is fun to see all the characters coming together again for some grand denouement.

Frances wrote: "I think in the 19th century there is much less Psychology or asking why someone is evil and more just a sense that someone is inherently bad. I don't expect we will get any explanation of why Jonas..."

What an intensive catch-up, Francis! I agree with you that the nineteenth century literature does not usually answer the psychological questions. Psychology and psychoanalysis as a science received a major scientific boost only in 1890s, but for a person of the twenty-first century the answers are important. So I will be looking for a clue without a hope to get it.

Zulfiya wrote: "Frances wrote: "I think in the 19th century there is much less Psychology or asking why someone is evil and more just a sense that someone is inherently bad. I don't expect we will get any explanat..."

Thanks-it's good to be back on track!