All About Books discussion
Reads & Challenges Archive
>
Jean's Charles Dickens challenge 2014-2015 (and maybe a little further ...)
OK, for Leslie - the one you've been waiting for ...Miss Mowcher:
as depicted by Sol Eytinge - Boston 1867.
What a weird oddball character! She's often missed out of dramatisations, for reasons of space, but perhaps also because casting might present some problems given her appearance!
You know what I'm going to say, don't you? Yes, she was based on a real person - his wife Catherine's chiropodist Mrs. Jane Seymour Hill.
Here's what Charles Dickens's biographer John Forster wrote,
"Thinking a grotesque little oddity among his acquaintance to be safe from recognition, he had done what Smollett did sometimes, but never Fielding, and given way, in the first outburst of fun that had broken out around the fancy, to the temptation of copying too closely peculiarities of figure and face amounting in effect to deformity ..."
It's surprising that he didn't realise he would give offence in this, since recently a newspaper had published a scathing description of the profession as,
"the very lowest description of charlatanism." The article even went so far as to name and describe Mrs. Jane Seymour Hill as,
"the most eminent amongst female operators is a dwarf, who, on a very genteel-looking card, thus describes herself - corn-operator. This interesting little lady is one of the greatest London characters; she may be seen in all parts of the town, riding in a chaise in company with her brother, who is also a dwarf."
Still smarting from such publicity, it was presumably the last straw for Mrs. Hill to find another decription - complete this time with her "catch-phrase" "Ain't I volatile" in the pages of David Copperfield. She threatened a lawsuit, writing,
"I have suffered long and much from my personal deformities, but never before at the hands of a man so highly gifted as Charles Dickens."
Dickens was appalled at this and hurriedly backed off, apologising and saying he was "grieved and surprised beyond measure. That he had not intended her altogether."
He even offered to change what he had written, but presumably did not do so, or we would no longer be able to read about his quirky grotesque character Miss Mowcher:
Miss Mowcher, Steerforth and David by Phiz.
Jean wrote: "Nope. I do not like Mrs Markleham (Annie Strong's mother, and consequently mother-in-law to Dr. Strong) and her silly hat, "Her name was Mrs. Markleham; but our boys used to call her the Old Sold..."
She is so obviously manipulating the good Dr. Strong -- it makes Dr. Strong appear slightly foolish that he didn't notice! Annie is more sympathetic - she at least feels for the doctor even if she doesn't love him.
Jean wrote: "I'm also loving to hate - but slightly admire - Rosa Dartle (brackets here for an indignant expostulation - how can people say that Dickens's female characters are insipid? Look at this one - or ..."
I would like her more if she didn't talk in that manner -- the "I just want to know..." bit is hard to take. But now I know the book, it is more clear that she is (view spoiler)
Jean wrote: "OK, for Leslie - the one you've been waiting for ...Miss Mowcher:
as depicted by Sol Eytinge - Boston 1867.
What a weird oddball character! She's often missed out of dramatisations, for rea..."
She is indeed an oddball character!! I knew that Dickens must have based her on a real person and am glad to hear about the original :)
I prefer the first illustration to the second but neither really looks like my imagined Mowcher. I got to the second meeting with her yesterday - where are you?
Maybe around the same place? At the end of chapter 34, so will post more later.Yes, I think Mrs Markleham has no hidden depths whatsoever - except to the very naive. And Dr. Strong is just a simple soul .. much on the lines of The Warden.
Rosa Dartle's character on the other hand, has so much complexity. When David goes again to see Steerforth's mother Rosa Dartle is so (view spoiler).
I think it's all to do with the layered nuances of Steerforth's character - he's supposed to be one of those people who "charms" others into a kind of god-like reverence, yet uses them for his own ends. He does have a conscience, which rises occasionally; he blames his self-indulgent mother and not having had a father. I think all these aspects do come into play, but Dickens is making quite a study of power and charisma, which those who've never met the person, and are therefore not affected, can never understand.
Some critics think since Dickens was a Christian, this is a description of a fallen angel. Certainly this type of personality feeds into quite a lot of religions at various points in history.
I haven't progressed much in the book since I last posted (due to the holidays), so I know no specifics of Steerforth's actions or motives. Yet, unexplainably, I have harbored against him an intense dislike and mistrust from the start. Perhaps it is David's unreliability as a narrator, his youthful naïveté, and Steerforth's graced (and therefore easily abusable) position combined that gives me a sense that David is blindly following one who is taking advantage of him. Maybe this is where we get Steerforth's name. He is "steering" David "forth," which implies that he, as a driver, holds complete trust and control over his passenger, leading David wherever he wishes. Or I could just be grasping at straws.
Benjamin, I think that Dickens plants those seeds of mistrust early on. Steerforth's behavior towards that poor teacher, for example, is clearly bad though David tries hard to make allowances for him.
Yes, I agree. Steerforth can also be seen in terms of David's own development/journey - as part of the bildungsroman. At first he is a hero, then gradually he is discovered to have feet of clay. We perceive David's own development of character and loss of naivety, through his burgeoning awareness of Steerforth's complex character. The reader sees him from a different point of view - we dislike him and suspect his motives from the start. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle; by his actions Steerforth is not wholly bad, yet certainly not wholly good.I'm glad you picked up on his name, Benjamin - you're not grasping at straws at all! In David Copperfield I think Dickens is paying especial care to the names - even more than he generally has up to now. I talk a bit about this in posts 957 and also 978.
"Steer - forth" definitely has his hand on the rudder - and it isn't merely metaphorical either. I'm not not sure where you are up to yet, but I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that at one point (a few chapters in) he commissions a boat, and we learn that he is quite an accomplished boatsman himself. So I think Charles Dickens is very keen indeed that we shouldn't miss that allusion!
Hope you'll carry on enjoying this novel Benjamin. I don't think any of the plot has been revealed except under spoilers so feel free to "track back" through the posts :)
Steerforth:
I've not been able to discover whether he was based on a real person. I don't think he was - he's more of an experiment in charm, I think, and the influence a charismatic person of this type has over everyone he meets.
But we've talked about his name - "steer forth", and when he is with the Peggottys we learn that he is quite an expert sailor. When in chapter 23 (view spoiler) What's the significance here? Meaning and double meanings. Steerforth talked about David as his "property" before. Is it just the boat which is his property? Stormy weather to come perhaps.
Apparently Charles Dickens did change the character of Miss Mowcher a little in future episodes. His original intention had been for her to help in (view spoiler)Then towards the end of the novel she (view spoiler). At around the same time three quarters through the novel Charles Dickens's daughter Dora Annie was born, and called after the character in David Copperfield. The real-life Dora died after just a few months.
It's quite clever I think how Dickens managed to completely rewrite and switch about the character of Miss Mowcher. After her remonstrances of David, about not taking her at face value, with all the repetitions of "Ain't I volatile!" and eccentric behaviour, and to consider what fate she and other members of her family also affected by dwarfism might otherwise suffer, he (and we) are now left with a completely different impression of her:
"Take a word of advice, even from three foot nothing. Try not to associate bodily defects with mental, my good friend, except for a solid reason."
His mentor and biographer John Forster notes:
"That he felt nevertheless he had done wrong, and would now do anything to repair it. That he had intended to employ the character in an unpleasant way, but he would, whatever the risk or inconvenience, change it all, so that nothing but an agreeable impression should be left. The reader will remember how this was managed, and that the thirty-second chapter went far to undo what the twenty-second had done."
Dickens had a bit of a rant about the "Prerogative Office" in the next chapter. It started off as quite funny,"this Prerogative office of the diocese of Canterbury was altogether such a pestilent job, and such a pernicious absurdity, that but for it being squeezed away in a corner of St. Pauls Churchyard, which few people knew, it must have been turned completely inside out, and upside down, long ago"
but Dickens continued his complaints ad nauseum for about three pages - and then seemed to feel a bit embarrassed about it, and felt the need to justify it by saying it was "in its natural place" in the novel because its what "I" (David) was talking to Mr Spenlow about when they were walking along.
Come come Mr Dickens - who are you kidding?! Not later generations. We know full well that what we can see here are shades of what we can expect - and a far better job made of it - in Bleak House!
I have just started listening to this audiobook in my car on my work commute. I'm on chapter 4 and really enjoying the characters. I really dislike Mr Murdstone and Jane. He is so well described by Dickens!
Hi Heather - good to see you! Yes, I think he's getting near the top of his game by now, one of the middle books. I've talked a bit about Murdstone - especially about his wonderful murky murderous name ... and all the references to Jane as a gaoler with her metallic "snap" of her bag, her jangling keys, her metallic fettered jewellery ... comments on David Copperfield start at 944 when you have a moment to look. Quite a few of the charaters were based on real people :)
Heather wrote: "I have just started listening to this audiobook in my car on my work commute. I'm on chapter 4 and really enjoying the characters. I really dislike Mr Murdstone and Jane. He is so well described by..."Are you listening to the Simon Vance narration? That is the one I am listening to...
Jean, re your spoiler in post 1016: (view spoiler)
In Chapter
Jean wrote: "Dickens had a bit of a rant about the "Prerogative Office" in the next chapter. It started off as quite funny,"this Prerogative office of the diocese of Canterbury was altogether such a pestilen..."
Yes there are some shades of Bleak House a bit later on too, when he describes the practice of hirelings grabbing potential clients for proctors. I'll show my American prejudice for a minute to say perhaps the British government's practice of press-ganging served as inspiration for these practices!
I'm not sure, Leslie. It's from Librivox and I'm enjoying it. The narration is very clear
Heather wrote: "I'm not sure, Leslie. It's from Librivox and I'm enjoying it. The narration is very clear"Oh, I have one from Audible. Is yours a woman narrator? Perhaps it is Mil Nicholson; she has narrated several Dickens books for Librivox. She is one of the best Librivox narrators I have come across...
Leslie - re. my post 1016 and your 1020 - I'll come back to this when I've got that far! I keep my "currently reading" progress bar up to date, but you can't really tell from that ... I'm just up to the end of chapter 42 now.
Is there more to Heep's repulsiveness than we are being told. Or is Dickens merely prejudiced as he reports from David's naive viewpoint? Why is it OK for (view spoiler) What's the difference? Is it just that Heep drops his aitches and is repulsive?Interestingly Uriah Heep may have had a form of dystonia,
"Dystonia is a neurological movement disorder in which sustained muscle contractions cause twisting and repetitive movements or abnormal postures ... Many sufferers have continuous pain, cramping, and relentless muscle spasms due to involuntary muscle movements. Other motor symptoms are possible including lip smacking."
Heather probably knows all about this, but I wonder if they did in Dickens's day, or whether it was just something Dickens observed with his quick eye.
After reading chapter 37, as I never fail to do every time, I read this book, I wanted to knock some sense into that little noodle Dora. I was struggling to remember which other character she reminded me of. In fact it was not in Dickens at all, but in Middlemarch by George Eliot... Dr Tertius Lydgate's wife Rosamond! It looks very much as if Charles Dickens's model for the adorable Dora was his own wife, Kate, whom a friend of his described as,
"A pretty little woman, plump and fresh-coloured, with the large, heavy-lidded blue eyes so much admired by men. The nose was slightly retrousse, the forehead good, mouth small, round and red-lipped with a genial smiling expression of countenance, notwithstanding the sleepy look of the slow-moving eyes."
In Claire Tomalin's biography of Dickens, she wrote of Kate,
"She was not clever or accomplished like his sister Fanny and could never be his intellectual equal, which may have been part of her charm: foolish little women are more often presented as sexually desirable in his writing than clever, competent ones.... His decision to marry her was quickly made, and he never afterwards gave any account of what had led him to it, perhaps because he came to regard it as the worst mistake in his life."
and of course his subsequent (mis)treatment of his wife is very well documented. It's interesting to speculate on how besotted he may have been with her initially though, from these fanciful descriptions of (view spoiler)
Another parallel I could see here was Mr Dick's great literary enterprise of "the Memoir", and Dr Strong's of "the Dictionary". Both are absentminded characters; one far more eccentric than the other admittedly, but both being naive, gentle and kind. I'm now wondering if there's a prototype for this character in Dickens's own life. Perhaps again it was the kind schoolmaster he had when he was young.
Leslie, the narrator is Martin Jarvis. He has a very 'Queens English' accent which suits Dickens!
Jean wrote: "Leslie - re. my post 1016 and your 1020 - I'll come back to this when I've got that far! I keep my "currently reading" progress bar up to date, but you can't really tell from that ... I'm just up t..."My second spoiler is actually from an earlier chapter than I thought -- chap. 39. I think I am about where you are, just finished (view spoiler).
Heather, Jarvis is a very good narrator! I have listened to some of his professional narrations (from Audible & from the library). I didn't know he did some Librivox ones too - I'll have to look for them.
He's very good at Richmal Crompton's Just William stories too, oddly! But in the UK he's the master at reading all Charles Dickens's novels I think, just as Timothy West is the master for Anthony Trollope :)
Leslie - re chapter 39 - you may well be right - that had not occurred to me. Even revisiting the chapter just now I still could not see the connection. Perhaps it's something he never developed further, but could have.
Jean wrote: "Leslie - re chapter 39 - you may well be right - that had not occurred to me. Even revisiting the chapter just now I still could not see the connection. Perhaps it's something he never developed fu..."That was my feeling as well (that it was something that he didn't develop but could have).
On an unrelated note, I just rediscovered that this book isn't on the Guardian's list of 1000 novels everyone should read! They have 9 books by Dickens (I think that this might be the most by any single author on the list) but this one isn't one of them!!!
NO! How very odd! I realise that these sorts of lists are often very subjective and personally biased - but even so ... With those statistics it almost sounds as if it was forgotten!
I might not have got it from Librivox then! I thought I had but I downloaded it over a year ago so might have forgotten!
Jean wrote: "NO! How very odd! I realise that these sorts of lists are often very subjective and personally biased - but even so ... With those statistics it almost sounds as if it was forgotten!"I could understand it not being on a list which only had one book per author as Dickens has so many contenders but if you are going to include 9 you may as well put this one in & have 10!! I prefer this to Great Expectations but I know that I am in the minority in that opinion...
I am finding it harder and harder to go slowly as the story progresses. I am going to put it aside for a few days so I don't get too far ahead.
I look forward to discussing David & Dora with you!
Dora:
I came clean about my feelings about this little noodle in post 1026! She's perhaps the main character in Dickens whom he has (totally inadvertently) made many modern females dislike intensely, and I think is responsible for much of the misapprehension of those, who only have a smattering of familiarity with Charles Dickens, to think that he created "wishywashy heroines" despite all the evidence against this.
However, I shall try to think of why he wrote the character this way.
1. Clearly it's cathartic, again because of his wife. (Details in post 1026). His own life reveals that he preferred this type of young pretty woman, and the disparity in marital relationships comes into his plots time and time again. (We even have it here with Dr Strong and Annie - although with a slight twist.)
2. Plot-wise, it does point up the fact of David's naivety quite well, and his self-absorption too. It also allows for the character of Agnes to be fully fleshed out by comparison.
3. I'm also interested in the sociological implications (see under my spoiler of 1025) from both David's and Dora's points of view. Also, apart from money and education the seems to be little difference between Dora and Em'ly.
4. Does this imply a mercenary instinct - whether overt or hidden? Even if you argue that it's just being financially practical (view spoiler) how can we then reconcile this with David's being besotted?
(I've always had difficulty too with Elizabeth Bennet's passion for Fitzwilliam Darcy seeming to date from the exact moment she had her first glimpse of Pemberley ...)
5. Dora is a-dora-ble to others too. They all seem to pet her all the time and generally treat her like a child (view spoiler). Aunt Betsey calls Dora "Little Blossom" and Dora makes "a rosebud of her mouth" during one of her many pouts. She doodles and does drawings of "little nosegays" and likenesses of Jip and David instead of figures and sums (view spoiler)
So all through this, Dickens is suggesting the childish, unformed nature of Dora. The Victorian ideal husband seemed to be one who could "form/mould" his wife through his greater experience and knowledge of the world. It comes into Victorian authors time and time again, and even a little earlier with Jane Austen.
Through the use of flower references to "Little Blossom" and "rosebud" he suggests innocent potential. Because she is a child, she does not realise any serious import, and her cookery-books etc are used for drawing in rather than recording recipes - and also, ridiculously, as a stool upon which Dora's dog can perform tricks.
6. Apparently a Victorian beauty ideal consisted in a woman being silly and insipid like Dora, or intelligent, calm and reliable like Agnes. We do need to be aware of his time, his focus, and the fact that he was writing in a world that could not even imagine what the 21st Century would be like; of what we now consider to be desirable, and how we should perceive and interact with one another.
I shall nevertheless be heartily relieved when (view spoiler)!
How do you feel about her, Leslie? Or was there something else you were referring to?
I'm now reading an interesting essay by John Sutherland about whether Miss Trotwood is technically a spinster :) John Forster always refers to the character as "Mrs Trotwood" and since he was privy to Charles Dickens's thoughts as he was writing David Copperfield, he should really know ...
Jean, just come back from five nights in London with Hilary - too much to do to go on GR!So, a couple of points from above. I agree about Martin Jarvis - just brilliant, (both Dickens and Just William - he's been doing the latter for years and years, but a shame that many are abridged) and likewise Timothy West for Trollope, but just a word for Anton Lesser, that very good Shakespearean actor, who has done most of Dickens, and his Great Expectations won an award, I think. I am reading/listening to Little Dorrit at the moment, halfway through, and Lesser is absolutely brilliant with all the characters.
And I think you're a little unfair to Elizabeth Bennet in your point 5 - she just makes a joke to her sister's question about when she fell for D'Arcy by saying 'when I saw Pemberley.'
Sorry John - forgot you were sweet on Lizzie ... ;)I shall definitely keep a lookout for Anton Lesser - a fine actor. I think I once saw him in The Mystery of Edwin Drood, also in Little Dorrit, but he's not been on my radar up to now as a reader of audio versions of Charles Dickens.
Did I mention before that I think Dora is a very similar character to Rosamund Lydgate (Dr Tertius Lydgate's wife) in Middlemarch ...
Touché re Lizzie! Or is it Keira Knightley rather than Lizzie? Both, probably!To my shame, I've not read Middlemarch (not seen the BBC series either), so don't get the reference, but strangely enough when we were in Ilkley a few weeks ago (going to Betty's) we went to a lovely little independent bookshop The Grove, and Hilary bought Middlemarch for me for Xmas - one of the lovely hardback Penguin Classics they started a couple of years ago. So, I'll know what you mean in January!
At least, Dora is aware of her failings, isn't she? And a true representation, I'm sure. I've come across (and avoided) several like her in my time (another story - never to be told!).
John - Yes, she knows her limitations. And I have to admit that I do feel rather sorry for these child-like people sometimes, when they are so confused by the world. Dickens writes about them quite often - but they don't usually have this role!I look foward to your thoughts on Middlemarch :)
LOL I resisted referring to Miss KK!
LOL!Well, I'll let you get on with Dora, while I continue with the awful Flora Finching (Maria Beadnell) in Little Dorrit!
Off to Manchester for some culture (ManCity in the Champions League!)
Ah, now I do enjoy Flora's awfulness!
Jean wrote: "Dora:
I came clean about my feelings about this little noodle in post 1026! She's perhaps the main character in Dickens whom he has (totally inadvertently) made many modern females dislike int..."
Point #2: I find (view spoiler) Is it naivety or stupidity, I sometimes wonder...
Dora is clearly aware of her flaws, as John & you have mentioned. I ran across a sentiment in my reading of Brideshead Revisited that seemed apt for Dora: (view spoiler)
I find that Dora reminds me a lot of David's mother. Perhaps that old adage that men tend to marry their mothers is true here?
l have completed the novel's every wonderful page, the last 250 of which in two days, I'm afraid :)I felt that Dickens's ability to write in the first person was marvelous. At first, I was surprised, and slightly disheartened, at David's lack of complexity, but that is part of Dicken's genius. Like a real autobiographer, David seems to care very little about himself, but is instead absorbed in watching his circumstances and the other people in his life. The only part of himself he ever examines is his talent as a writer (a little author's vanity from Dickens, perhaps?).
The entire book is filled with a colorful cast of characters, each one of which is a scene stealer. Micawber's embellished speech, excessive letters, and bipolar swings of mood paint such a vivid image. (I read Crime and Punishment a few months ago, and now I am struck at the similarities between the Micawbers and Marmeladov's family. I know Dostoyevsky was a devoted admirer of Dickens, and I can't help but think that Dostoyevsky stole his characters.)
As much as I hated some of the characters, Dickens, in his vicious humor, made me delight in them far more than I did in Agnes, Dora, or Emily. Rosa Dartle's fiercely passionate tirades, Uriah Heep's writhing umbleness, the owner of the clothes shop (Oh, my lungs and liver! Oh, what, do you want? Oh, goroo, goroo!) and even Miss Murdstone's love of cruelty all had a semi-comic element to them.
If there was one thing I didn't care for (other than Dora), it would probably be the ending, not in content, but in style. It seemed unnatural to me to conclude the characters' lives one by one, knocking them off in an aisle. However, I adored nearly every moment of what I think is Charles Dickens's greatest masterpiece.
I think one reason I love this book so much is all the secondary characters, as you have remarked Benjamin.I am getting close to the end (I am trying hard to go slowly but that has translated into my reading it in spurts) -- finished Chapter 53 the other day. (view spoiler)
I agree, Leslie and think Dickens has let his narrator-as-the-older-David mask slip a little here. What he puts in the mouth of Dora actually seems to be Dickens's own thoughts about the composite character he has created, by merging a depiction of his own real-life wife Kate, and his first love Maria Beadnell. I've described Kate before, so here's:Maria Beadnell:
When Charles Dickens and Maria Beadnell first met in 1830, he fell madly in love with her. Much as we've read of David's mad passions and crushes on many young women, Charles's mind was quickly filled with romantic thoughts of everlasting love and marriage.
Maria's father was a banker, and neither of her parents approved of the relationship, considering Dickens to be too young and lacking in prospects to be considered suitable. It's unknown what Maria’s own feelings for Dickens were. Sometimes she seemed indifferent and sometimes encouraging. Perhaps she was a coquette. Later in life she claimed that she truly cared for him (but then by then of course he had become famous).
Apparently when Dickens became twenty one, in 1833, he threw himself a coming-of-age party, inviting the Beadnell family. During the evening Dickens took Maria aside, and admitted his feelings for her. However she insulted him and called him just a “boy”. Their relationship ended, and Maria Beadnell became Mrs. Henry Winter.
It would be good if the story ended there ... however, if you know the story of Little Dorrit, and the character of Flora Finching, you kind of know what happened to the two young sweethearts, Charles and Maria:
"Flora, always tall, had grown to be very broad too, and short of breath; but that was not much. Flora, whom he had left a lily, had become a peony; but that was not much. Flora, who had seemed enchanting in all she said and thought, was diffuse and silly. That was much. Flora, who had been spoiled and artless long ago, was determined to be spoiled and artless now. That was a fatal blow." – Little Dorrit
In real life, twenty-four years later Maria contacted Dickens, who was now a famous much-admired author. Despite the fact that they were both married to others, Dickens was thrilled to get her letter. It brought back memories of what he saw as his intense love for her (which looks very like a crush!) In 1855 they agreed to meet in secret, without their spouses. Maria warned Dickens that she was not the same young woman that he remembered.
Apparently he was surprised at the changes he saw. (Idiot!) And his appalled reaction resulted in the rather cruel portrayal of Flora Finching in Little Dorrit, based on Maria, as she now was. Maria pestered him, and the two met up once more for a dinner - but with their spouses. For ever after that, Dickens avoided Maria. Here she is:
Your earlier comments about Dora did make me laugh Leslie! You are a sensible woman of the 21st century, but these are a silly young couple - very much of their time. And I think Dickens is not exaggerating very much for effect, in this instance. It sounds from his own life as if he did very much care for these silly brainless pretty noodles - at least when he was young and foolish.
Nice observation that he has chosen a similar type to his mother. I think that is why Aunt Betsey was very keen not to interfere. We get a very strong suggestion from her of that - that she felt she had interfered too much before with David's own parents.
Thanks for commenting Benjamin! How very interesting that Fyodor Dostoyevsky might have nicked aspects of his characters LOL! I knew he admired Dickens ... I guess influences aren't always quite so apparent.Hope you've enjoyed or are enjoying the discussion here. Yes his "baddies" are always more appealing that the good noble characters. I think that is often true in modern fiction too.
You don't like the way he rounds up? I must admit I like the fact that Dickens always tells us exactly what happens to everybody, and usually the baddies get their just desserts, and our hero has a happy ending - usually!
Just about to start ch 53, so you are only a little ahead of me. Tomorrow I want to post a Pre-Raphaelite connection :)
Leslie - I'm just about to start ch 53, so you are only a little ahead of me. Tomorrow I want to post a Pre-Raphaelite connection :)
I love conclusiveness as well, but I felt that the manner was rather choppy; a side note, really.Isn't his revenge on his villains so satisfying? Nearer the beginning, Aunt Betsey was a perfect outlet for my frustrations in her wonderful insults against Miss Murdstone.
All About Books
Books mentioned in this topic
David Copperfield (other topics)The Cricket on the Hearth (other topics)
Pinocchio (other topics)
The Cricket on the Hearth (other topics)
The Cricket on the Hearth (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Sutherland (other topics)John Forster (other topics)
John Sutherland (other topics)
Charles Dickens (other topics)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (other topics)
More...
(brackets here for an indignant expostulation - how can people say that Dickens's female characters are insipid? Look at this one - or the embittered and disenchanted Alice Marwood in Dombey and Son - and a very similarly motivated resentful one to come, (view spoiler)[Miss Wade (hide spoiler)] in Little Dorrit. End of ranty brackets ...)
She is described - very powerfully - mostly from young David's point of view I think, as it has a very negative slant, as if her outward appearance was necessarily an indication of her character, which hopefully an older wiser David (the narrator) would not still feel.
But look at the sarcasm in her mean malicious "darts" (another wonderful punning name from Dickens!)
"'Really!' said Miss Dartle. 'Well, I don't know, now, when I have been better pleased than to hear that. It's so consoling! It's such a delight to know that, when they suffer, they don't feel! Sometimes I have been quite uneasy for that sort of people; but now I shall just dismiss the idea of them, altogether"
This serves the purpose of highlighting Steerforth's (view spoiler)[ own haughty and heartless attitude, and emphasise the reader's own slight uneasiness about the nickname "Daisy", and what it indicates as to Steerforth's attitude.
His comments to David in chapter 21 are so revealing, saying "Let's see the natives in their aboriginal condition", that the Peggottys are "not to be seen as sensitive as we are" and to David himself, that "I feel as if you were my property." (hide spoiler)]
And what a fantastic cliffhanger of forboding at the end of chapter 21 with,
(view spoiler)["Daisy, I believe you are in earnest, and are good. I wish we all were!" (hide spoiler)]