The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Martin Chuzzlewit
Dickens Project
>
Martin Chuzzlewit, Chapters 43 - 45
date
newest »
newest »
“What's Pecksniff, who's Pecksniff, where's Pecksniff, that he's to be so much considered?” These are the words of Mark Tapley that epitomize most of the section for this week. Pecksniff is like Figaro, being ubiquitous both in his presence and his influence. Now as we know, both Mark and Martin are safely back on their home ground, but they do not receive the warm welcome; to be more exact, they do, but the home-welcoming party is provided by Mrs. Lupin, not by the man we expect to be. The figure of Mr. Chuzzlewit, Sr. is quite a mysterious one. The author does create a veritable feeling that he is just a puppet in the hands of Seth Pecksniff who seems to be pulling the strings quite successfully, but there is a certain feeling of 'but'. There is something different in the behavior of Mr. Chuzzlewit. It is as if he is participating in the experiment rather than being a guinea pig. His aloofness and taciturnity might sound like he is truly alienated from Martin, but are in fact telltale signs of his awareness. It might be only the case of wishful thinking because otherwise Martin's prospects are quite bleak. On the other hand, Pecksniff has exposed his true self with the utmost clarity. His righteousness, his duplicity, his arrogance and pretense are brilliantly showcased in this chapter. The text in the chapter does have a feeling of theatricality, but I think this was an intentional move.
Martin's prospects for a better future might even become bleaker after Jonas and Seth are trying to pursue their goals. They might not like the individual goals of each other, but because ultimately their aim is self-gain, I am sure that they will be able to negotiate the terms and synchronize their efforts. Unfortunately, evil always has the potential to converge. Martin and his very few friends have to act quickly if they want to counteract.
The final chapter is a very predictable one. Dickens obviously is trying to tie all the loose ends in the novel, and because his disposition is much more optimistic in the earlier years of his career, every decent character should be rewarded. Among those rewarded individuals are Ruth Pinch and John Westlock.
After this section, we have only two more sections to read, but there are still many unanswered questions and many unresolved issues: Charity's potential matrimonial happiness, the murder mystery, Martin and his relationships with his grandfather and Mary, Thomas Pinch's mysterious employer, and hopefully the demise of Seth Pecksniff.
Commentary Chapter 45
1. Temple Bar: the gate to the City of London; it divided the Strand from Fleet Street until its removal in 1878. The heads of executed traitors were displayed upon it until the late eighteenth century.
2. Enchanted lamp: like Aladdin's in the story 'Aladdin or the Wonderful Lamp' in the Arabian Nights.
3. Tessellated: mosaic.
As has been noted, the novel is coming to a close and the various ends are being slowly drawn together. Dickens’ descriptions, particularly those concerning nature, continue to delight me, especially when they serve as transitions: “and when the lightning gleamed it showed the tearful leaves shivering and cowering together at the window, and tapping at it urgently as if beseeching to be sheltered from the dismal night” (chapter 43). Given the events of the previous chapters, this desperate atmosphere seems fitting and harkens back to those in danger of Jonas’ wrath. At this point, I am not surprised by the conduct of most of the characters. The following quotations sums up Pecksniff’s continued arrogance and deplorable character: “It was a special quality, among the many admirable qualities possessed by Mr. Pecksniff, that the more he was found out, the more hypocrisy he practiced” (chapter 44). I am glad, however, that he does not seem to be making progress in his advances toward Mary, and I was happy to read how Mark correctly analyzed Pecksniff’s nature and was able to foil him somewhat, which helped to make him more human and less saintly and unrealistic (unlike Ruth Pinch!). I have no doubt that young Martin will be successful in attaining honest work with Tom’s help.
However, I do wonder about old Martin Chuzzlewit: “How many people are there in the world, who, for no better reason, uphold their Pecksniffs to the last and abandon virtuous men, when Pecksniffs breathe upon them!” I would like to attribute his blind devotion, comparable to that of Old Chuffey, to old age and encroaching senility, but he does maintain his kind treatment toward Mary and—thank goodness—does not press her to marry Pecksniff. I found the fact that he never broke eye contact with Pecksniff during his grandson’s speech disconcerting; it is almost as though Pecksniff holds him under a trance and has so far brainwashed him that he is a mere puppet in Pecksniff’s hands. I hope that he comes to his senses, as Tom did, because I don’t believe that he is truly a bad person.
As for Jonas, Dickens seems to enjoy using Shakespeare to elucidate his antics. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that the ink in the pen which Jonas used to sign the papers making Pecksniff a proprietor in the Anglo-Bengalee Company appeared to be blood red; it reminded me of the following quotation from “Macbeth,” Act II, scene two, lines 56-61: “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood/ Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather/ The multitudinous seas incarnadine,/ Making the green one red.” I must admit that I am anticipating the exposure of both Pecksniff and Jonas, and I too wonder about the source of Jonas’ villainous nature. Also, I assume that John Westlock knows something more about Jonas (recalling his attachment to the mysterious patient earlier) because he warns Tom to disentangle himself from any connection with the man.
Sarah wrote: "I was particularly intrigued by the fact that the ink in the pen which Jonas used to sign the papers making Pecksniff a proprietor in the Anglo-Bengalee Company appeared to be blood red; it reminded me of the following quotation from “Macbeth,” Act II, scene two, lines 56-61."It reminded me of Dr. Faustus who signed the contract with Satan in blood.
It is equally true that Dickens often alludes to Shakespeare in his works. In all our previous reads, we always found several allusions to the Bard's plays as well as numerous citations.
Mod
I am also intrigued by the increasing warmth of the relationship between Mark Tapley and Mrs Lupin. My initial sense was that Mrs Lupin would be about 40 years old and Mark in his early 20's so I was surprised by the pairing, but then I realize that I might have the ages completely wrong. How did others view this pair? I agree with others comments about the rather saccharine sweetness of the heroines Mary and Ruth, and the delicious unpleasantness of the Pecksniff women, Mrs Todgers or Mrs Gamp so perhaps Mrs Lupin is our most agreeable and realistic female character-a strong, independent and good natured woman with the proverbial heart of gold.
Frances wrote: "My initial sense was that Mrs Lupin would be about 40 years old and Mark in his early 20's so I was surprised by the pairing, but then I realize that I might have the ages completely wrong. How did others view this pair? "I sincerely thought that she was a middle-aged woman, but actually her age was never mentioned. I think this assumption is based on the fact that she is a widow which might lead us to believe that she is in her forties or even fifties, but in fact you can be a widow when you are young. I wonder whether Dickens used the trick of stereotyping or if it was a decision he took when he decided to wrap things up nicely and happily for his beloved characters.
I actually suspected that she might have fallen in love with Tom when she gave him money before he left the Pecksniffs. Oh, well. Authors are unpredictable. :-)
I finished a while ago and since I didn't take notes I haven't wanted to comment much for fear of unwittingly posting a spoiler. I did want to say that I agree with the comment about Mary and Ruth being a little too saccharine. Dickens does such a great job of creating lively and memorable characters but for some reason his "good" characters all seem the same. They're all so sweet and trusting and seem to have no flaws or singular traits. They're practically interchangeable. They serve well enough as archetypes but I do wish Dickens had allowed them to have a few foibles and imperfections because they really aren't believable at all. Which is odd because many of his comic characters are totally ludicrous and over the top, yet even they bear more resemblance to actual living persons than the Ruth and Tom type characters. I've actually met people who were just as odd as Mrs Gamp or young Bailey but I've never met anyone who was completely flawless.
I have fallen behind and still in the twenties. I have to admit, I just don't like this book much. I have devoured other works of Dickens. What is it? I don't know, but maybe I just don't care about the characters. There is no Barnaby here, no Oliver. And he keeps introducing more characters and I'm bored with them. I hate to put it down after investing 25 chapters, but I don't know if I'll ever catch up to you. Right now, frankly I'd rather read drudge... :(
Jennifer wrote: " I did want to say that I agree with the comment about Mary and Ruth being a little too saccharine. Dickens does such a great job of creating lively and memorable characters but for some reason his "good" characters all seem the same. They're all so sweet and trusting and seem to have no flaws or singular traits. They're practically interchangeable. They serve well enough as archetypes but I do wish Dickens had allowed them to have a few foibles and imperfections because they really aren't believable at all. Which is odd because many of his comic characters are totally ludicrous and over the top"Honestly, Jennifer, I do find them monotonous and, as you said, saccharine. They will get somewhat better in his later novels; otherwise, it is a drudge to read about the same plastic doll-like characters.
Amazingly, Dickens does create memorable characters, but they are all eccentric and quirky, and that what makes them so peculiar. Mrs. Gamp is one of those singular characters in this novel.
We are coming to the end of this novel, so soon you will be able to comment freely without any spoilers:-) I also plan to open one thread for a general, overall discussion of this novel.
Christopher wrote: "I have fallen behind and still in the twenties. I have to admit, I just don't like this book much. I have devoured other works of Dickens. What is it? I don't know, but maybe I just don't care abou..."Christopher, I know how you feel. There is no heart-wrenching drama going on. Both Oliver and Barnaby were innocent victims that were doomed to suffer. They were also melodramatic characters, and they provoked the sentimental attachment.
This novel is more like a collection of picaresque sketches where social and personal vices are exposed. Besides, its setting is so diverse that you do not feel personally attached to any of his characters. But I am sure it does have its redeeming chapters and passages. One of them is in the penultimate section. It is an amazing exploration of human darkness. But, hush, kindly disregard my previous sentence because it contains spoilers.:-)
You might like our next read, Dombey and Son. Paul might grasp your heart!
Mod
Even though Tom does finally stand up for himself and Ruth everything that happens in London is through the agency of others. I would have liked to hear more from Mercy, sad as her story is. I wonder if she is being punished for not being a sweet nonentity like Ruth and Mary.
Robin wrote: "I would have liked to hear more from Mercy, sad as her story is. I wonder if she is being punished for not being a sweet nonentity like Ruth and Mary. "An excellent point about Mercy. Somehow, despite her numerous faults and vices, she is more interesting and even more likeable than Ruth and Mary. Do you think we, readers, are always fascinated by human suffering? Or is it what shapes and molds us as human beings?
Zulfiya wrote: "Robin wrote: "I would have liked to hear more from Mercy, sad as her story is. I wonder if she is being punished for not being a sweet nonentity like Ruth and Mary. "An excellent point about Merc..."
As Jennifer mentioned above, the characters who experience suffering and who are flawed are much more interesting and I, for one, find them easier to relate to than the saintly and idyllic ones. It is also often the case, in life and in literature, that the people who experience the most trials are the ones who are best able to empathize with others.
Please posts your thoughts and comments below.