All About Books discussion

Yes! I constantly want to cheer when I read wonderful speeches like that! Or little jibes :D He is a master of the sarcastic epithet!

There's a connection between David Copperfield and the Pre-Raphalite Brotherhood.

Are they known outside this country, I wonder. A founding member was William Morris, who is quite famous world-wide I think, and another leading member of the movement was William Holman Hunt. He painted works such as "The Light of the World" - an image which is reproduced to be hung on Sunday Schools' walls throughout the country. We also see it on Christmas cards and bookmarks etc. It's probably his most famous work. Here it is:

Quite a lot of Pre-Raphaelite paintings are on permanent display at the Tate Britain Art Gallery, and one I know well from there by William Holman Hunt is called The Awakening Conscience. You can imagine how surprised I was to learnt that the inspiration for this painting was none other than Little Em'ly from David Copperfield! Here is is:




Hunt had the idea while reading David Copperfield of making the conversion of a fallen woman a literal illustration of "The Light of the World." He was so deeply touched by (view spoiler)[ Dan Peggotty's long search for little Emily, (hide spoiler)] that he went exploring different haunts of "fallen girls" himself to find a suitable location to paint.

However, he decided not to illustrate any particular scene in the novel:

"While cogitating on the broad intention, I reflected that the instinctive eluding of pursuit by the erring one would not coincide with the willing conversion and instantaneous resolve for a higher life which it was necessary to emphasise".

He did not think it would be psychologically accurate, since he thought that such basic changes had to come from deep within one. He wanted to convey a specific moment - and also the idea that God works in mysterious ways.

What we see here is the irony of making (view spoiler)[ the girl's seducer, Steerforth, unintentionally and unknowingly being the means of her salvation. Both of them are singing Moore's "Oft in the Stilly Night". Emily is startled by this into suddenly thinking of her childhood home - which (view spoiler)[David reports later, when she had been found, she tells Peggotty she never went a day without remembering and thinking of (hide spoiler)]. With this thought we see the moment in the painting where she suddenly leaps up, and:

"breaks away from her gilded cage with a startled holy resolve, while her shallow companion still sings on, ignorantly intensifying her repentant purpose". (hide spoiler)]

Jean wrote: "Quite a lot of Pre-Raphaelite paintings are on permanent display at the Tate Britain Art Gallery, and one I know well from there by William Holman Hunt is called The Awakening Conscience. You can i..."

Beautiful Jean!! Thanks for sharing this.

Regarding this scene - (view spoiler)[I have the impression that Steerforth never really understood Emily's thinking or morals. This picture represents that ignorance so well! (hide spoiler)]

It does! I agree. And it perfectly captures a moment in time ... a realisation. I'm amazed I never knew the story behind this painting. Perhaps it's written on a tiny little card next to the painting in the Gallery, as they sometimes are.

Earlier I mentioned an interesting essay by John Sutherland about whether Miss Trotwood was technically a spinster. John Forster always refers to the character as "Mrs Trotwood" and since, as we know, he was privy to Charles Dickens's thoughts as he was writing David Copperfield, he should really know. Here is my review of the book, which contains several "literary conundrums".

Now I've read chapter 54 again though, where Aunt Betsey "comes clean"to David, I really think I must add an edit to it! I don't get the impression that she is dissembling here, but that she is perfectly straightforward. And all the way through we've had this tempting thread of mystery dangled in front of us, and the explanation, when it comes, is really just a bit of a let-down. (I explain both John Sutherland 's theories and Charles Dickens's eventual explanation in the review itself, so won't repeat them here.)

It seems more likely to me than anything, that Aunt Betsey's husband was a sort of potential back-up plot. He was a flexible non-character who could be expanded as Dickens saw fit- or treated as a loose end which he could just tie up - as he has done.

Dickens seemed to like to leave himself a bit of "wiggle room" :D

I wonder if that "wiggle room" comes from the fact that he wrote in installments. Perhaps if he wrote the way authors do now, those flexible characters would have been editted (edited?) out before publication...

I couldn't restrain myself so I have finished up too. I had forgotten a lot of the little details of the ending, I found.

Off to read your review :)

Yes, I think it's due in a large part to that. Also when people criticise him for switching about between charcters a lot, I think, well he has to keep so-and-so in the public's mind. It's no muse not mentioning someone for 10 chapters if that means his readers have to remember the existence of a sub-plot's character in the back of their mind for 4 months!

I just have 4 chapters to go. These last few are mostly to do with tying up ends aren't they, although there's some nice tension about Agnes up to the point when I am :)

I've really enjoyed the earlier ones though.

In Chapter 51, which describes (view spoiler)[Dan Peggotty's plan to emigrate to Australia with Little Em'ly, I found myself wondering if she is actually pregnant with Steerforth's child. Dickens would not be able to give more than the merest hint of this of course. It's happened before...

1. When Dora became ill, the reason for it was referred to in a very oblique way. Chapter 48 suggests a miscarriage:

"I had hoped that lighter hands than mine would help to mould her character, and that a baby-smile upon her breast might change my child-wife to a woman. It was not to be. The spirit fluttered for a moment on the threshold of its little prison, and, unconscious of captivity, took wing."

Maybe the older David narrating the book, is very vague here because it had been a double tragedy for him. Not only did he lose his first child but he then went on to also lose his wife, who could not recover from thuis premature childbirth.

2. Now we find an even vaguer reference to what used to be called Little Em'ly's "interesting condition", which I think I've always missed up to now! It's in chapter 51:

”'It was a gleam of light upon me, Trot,' said my aunt, drying her eyes, 'when I formed the resolution of being godmother to your sister Betsey Trotwood, who disappointed me; but, next to that, hardly anything would have given me greater pleasure, than to be godmother to that good young creature's baby!'

Mr. Peggotty nodded his understanding of my aunt's feelings, but could not trust himself with any verbal reference to the subject of her commendation."

I've always assumed that by "good young creature" she meant David's own mother, but the syntax and context only make sense if it is understood to be Little Em'ly

Also later on, we have another broad hint, when Dan Peggotty tells David:

"'Em'ly,' he continued, 'will keep along with me—poor child, she's sore in need of peace and rest!—until such time as we goes upon our voyage. She'll work at them clothes, as must be made; and I hope her troubles will begin to seem longer ago than they was, when she finds herself once more by her rough but loving uncle.'"

Pregnancy wear? Certainly it would give impetus to their sudden flight to Australia, if there was an imminent danger of discovery that she was to have a child out of wedlock. Not only would it be a fresh start for them, but there would be no chance whatsoever of meeting anyone she knew. (hide spoiler)]

I was a bit taken aback by the bit in the review about Mr. Dick. So I am looking back in the text-- Mr. Dick is a distant relation of Miss Trotwood. In the conversation with David in which she first explains his presence (in Chap. 14), it is implied (though not stated outright) that she heard about Mr. Dick's incarceration in an asylum through family gossip - NOT through seeing him in the asylum herself. Here is the most relevant part:

" 'So I stepped in,' said my aunt, 'and made him an offer. I said, "Your brother's sane -- a great deal more sane than you are, or ever will be, it is to be hoped. Let him have his little income, and come and live with me. I am not afraid of him, I am not proud, I am ready to take care of him, and shall not ill-treat him as some people (besides the asylum-folks) have done." After a good deal of squabbling,' said my aunt, 'I got him; ..."

So this was a matter settled by the family; the court had nothing to do with it. As for her changing his name, she does that with David himself! And later with Peggotty too. That, I think, is just her personality :)

As for Aunt Betsy's husband - don't you think (view spoiler)[that part of the hold he had over her was emotional? I think she still loved him at least a little bit, even though he had turned out to be a wrong 'un. I think she was more afraid that her softer feelings of pity & tenderness might be revealed than she was of his threats. (hide spoiler)]

I love chapter 52, with Micawber's (view spoiler)[ unveiling and denunciation of Heep as an outright villain" (hide spoiler)]. It's chapters like this which make me want to stand up and cheer :D How could you not love the drama and theatricality?! If I hadn't known it was coming, I'm not sure there would have been enough hints to tell me. The Micawber relationship is so odd, that his seeming distant from his wife could have been for any number of reasons!

I do love Micawber's over-elaboration, pomposity and wordiness! I think non-native English-speaking readers of Dickens must find him a bit of a trial though, unlesss they are exceptionally fluent.

Actually I'm finding what I called the "hints" - and the forboding - very marked in this novel. I suppose that shows how well planned the main features were.

Chapter 55 I found incredibly powerful and kept having to stop to breathe! (view spoiler)[The description of the storm and its build-up (hide spoiler)]went on so long - over several pages. Yet I felt it was totally gripping. The drama of the description really took hold of me, it was so overwhelming. I cannot remember feeling such intensity and vividness in his writing since the horrific descriptions of the riots in Barnaby Rudge.

Jean wrote: "In Chapter 51, which describes..."

Wow, I completely missed that! But you make a convincing case. Though (view spoiler)[I thought Aunt Betsy was referring to Dora, you are correct in that it really only makes sense for it to be Little Em'ly. As for "them clothes", pregnancy wear perhaps and also baby clothes. (hide spoiler)]

Jean wrote: "I love chapter 52, with Micawber's [spoilers removed]. It's chapters like this which make me want to stand up and cheer :D How could you not love the drama and theatricality?! If I hadn't known it ..."

Chapter 52 is one of the highlights of the whole novel -- I love it too!

Leslie - "it is implied (though not stated outright) that she heard about Mr. Dick's incarceration in an asylum through family gossip - NOT through seeing him in the asylum herself." Yes it certainly looks that way!

I was precising John Sutherland's argument, (not mine) and it does look as if he conveniently forgot that bit!

I have noticed with all his examinations of the texts, that he sometimes explores even remote possibilities, some of which don't seem very likely at all! Perhaps he's over-selective with his information so as to present a stronger case.

For instance he suggested that Aunt Betsey may not always have been telling the truth - but indulging in a little fantasy - that she hoped her husband had died abroad rather than having sure knowledge of it. Or even confabulating, as older people can do. I think he was considering whether she might be an unreliable narrator of events to David, whether about her husband or Mr. Dick. But I personally see nothing to indicate that we should not believe what she said - I think Dickens was consistent with this in the end.

And yes, I agree, she had a soft heart :) I do like the idea John Sutherland suggested might have been deliberately set in our minds though, that her husband might have been a bigamist, out to get her money from the start - an out and out bounder :D

Incidentally, some of John Sutherland's essays are more convincing than others, but they're all entertaining :)

Re chapter 51, yes, it's the first time it has struck me too! The first reference was easily missed and the second - well, she was working as a seamstress at Mr Omer's, so I think the more likely interpretation had escaped me. And yes, the other type too of course!

Jean, I just ran across this quote by Eudora Welty:

She reads Dickens in the spirit in which she would have eloped with him.

Instantly made me think of you. :)

Chapter 14 and I've just been reintroduced to the wonderful Miss Trotwood. She makes me laugh so much. Mr Dick is funny as well. I really enjoyed her interactions with the Murdstones!

Heather wrote: "Chapter 14 and I've just been reintroduced to the wonderful Miss Trotwood. She makes me laugh so much. Mr Dick is funny as well. I really enjoyed her interactions with the Murdstones!"

Aunt Betsey is a wonderful character! I was not surprised that "after some squabbling", she got her way about Mr. Dick -- she isn't the type to give in!

And you can just feel little David's satisfaction with how the interview with the Murdstones went.

Heather - Yes, they are wonderful aren't they? For the real-life Betsey Trotwood, complete with her hectoring of donkeys, see my post 997. And for the real-life Mr Dick see post 983 (you have probably seen that painting in the Tate - it's surprisingly small).

Terri - LOL!

I finished David Copperfield on Friday - have made far too many notes to form a review. It looks like it had better be one of my "stream of consciousness" ones :D

I've read the First Chirp of The Cricket on the Hearth

Jean, I too have turned to Dickens for some holiday reading -- in my case, The Chimes. Though actually there isn't much Christmas in The Chimes other than the sentiment involved. The action mostly takes place on New Year's...

Leslie - I'm going through them in order, as he wrote them, at the rate of one a year - as he published them. So last year I reviewed The Chimes

Here's Jean's review

There's more in it than I'd thought the first time I read it, and put it down as a sentimental piece of its time. Much more biting social comment than I'm finding in The Cricket on the Hearth, for instance, though both contain lots of sprites and goblins ;)

Has anyone compared the audiobook version of The Cricket on the Hearth, narrated by Jim Dale? It seems it cuts off the very last paragraph of the story, that was present in two ebook versions I found online. Does anyone know if it's a version thing? Or if it is just an oversight? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

It sounds like an oversight to me Tom. It may be an editing mistake, or a personal (bad?) editing choice since the final paragraph is very whimsical. The first version of The Cricket on the Hearth was in book form straightaway, unlike the novels which went through various incarnations after their initial serialisation, so although it was often performed on stage, the text of the novella itself probably didn't vary.

In my review link here, I do happen to include the very last sentences, so you can see what I mean. I also explain the book's history a bit, which might help.

I loved my reread of this one and gave it ★★★★

And I personally think the final sentences are just perfect, adding to the dream-like quality of the entire piece.

Jean wrote: "It sounds like an oversight to me Tom. It may be an editing mistake, or a personal (bad?) editing choice since the final paragraph is very whimsical. The first version of.."

I've not read it. It reminds me of Collodi's Pinocchio

How, Laura? (I've read both.) Or since you say you haven't read it, did you mean by my review? Sorry I don't quite understand you ...

Jean wrote: "It sounds like an oversight to me Tom. It may be an editing mistake, or a personal (bad?) editing choice since the final paragraph is very whimsical. The first version of [book:The Cricket on the H..."

Actually to my mind, (view spoiler)[the last paragraph made me think of Tackleton as being the narrator of the story. He dreams of what he doesn't have (the spirit of the hearth, having killed all the crickets), and that he is redeemed (brought back to the hearth) at the end of his dream. (hide spoiler)]

Goodness what a revolutionary and interesting idea!
(view spoiler)[ But since Tackleton is redeemed in the end, why would he have killed "all" the crickets? And I can only understood one cricket as being "in fairy form" the other sprites being house fairies. There are no other live crickets around as it is referred to in the singular all through. So, sadly, I don't think it's what Dickens intended. Unless you think the entire piece is a metaphor. (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[The implication is that every hearth should have a cricket, and Tackleton has had several crickets (chances at human contact/closeness) which he has killed. He says as much in the book. Then he is brought into the realm of human interaction/kindness in his dream but overcoming himself after having been rejected by May. He could have been bitter and alone, but he chose to take the higher road.

The dream ends with a particular interest and appreciation of Dot - a subconscious desire to have a mate/love in his life, perhaps? And a cricket chirps on the hearth - unlike Scrooge, whose fate is decided at the end of the story, we're left with the question of what will Tackleton do? Will he kill yet another cricket, or has his dream inspired him to change himself? It may not be what Dickens intended, but I rather like it. (hide spoiler)]

I like it too - the whole thing as a metaphor. So a fairy story on one level and this subconscious alternative. It certainly explains the (view spoiler)[ Scrooge-like conversion at the end. But ... there are many parts of the story which Tackleton would not have access to so he can't be the narrator. Oh. Shame. (hide spoiler)]

I've just shared my review again Tom, if you want to read some of the background to the story.

(view spoiler)[Well, I think the story is Tackleton's dream, so it could be anything he or his subconscious dictates.

I've read A Christmas Carol, Cricket on the Hearth, and The Chimes so far and to me, each presents a redemption story, though in different ways. I'd go on, but I don't know if you've read The Chimes (though I realize it's likely you've read all of the so-called Christmas stories.) (hide spoiler)]

I think I read the review, but I don't see where you've shared it again.

Sorry Tom - I was thinking we were friends so that it would come up on your notifications. Here's Jean's review of "The Chimes" and link here for the one of "Cricket". No, it doesn't look as if you have read either (unless you didn't click "like".)

In fact I've reviewed all the first three Christmas stories and many of the novels in chronological order. (There are links in comment 1 of this thread, where I explain what I'm doing.) And I'll send you a friend request.

Yes, certainly all three can be called redemption stories, although he uses very different ways of persuading, doesn't he :D

Indeed. (view spoiler)[In A Christmas Carol, we're shown what redemption (in the form of caring about other human beings) what looks like, even if it is thrust upon him. In The Cricket on the Hearth, (in my view, based on my previous comments), Mr. Tackleton is at a crossroads, he must choose which path he'll take. In The Chimes, Dickens now personalizes the outcome, and make the reader decide for him/herself which ending they would prefer. The unspoken part though is that if you prefer the happy ending, you (the reader) have to work for it - that is, redeem yourself. (hide spoiler)]

Yes, I agree that is a main message although I always feel that it is very hard on poor Trotty Veck.

Yes, but functioning as intended I think.

Jean, I've moved this into the 2016 Personal Challenge folder, since it is ongoing.

Gill - Actually I'd prefer you to archive it with 2015 please, if that's OK, as I don't intend to post any more in this thread. That's why I didn't alter the year in the title.

My intention was to only comment here until the end of the year, as I had said it was a 2-year challenge (2014-2015), but I couldn't leave Tom's interesting observations hanging! That's why I added the "and maybe a little further...".

Comment 1 with all the links is all up to date to the end of 2015, and the only thing missing now is to link here to Jean's review of David Copperfield.

If you could leave this thread open rather than lock it, that would be nice, but of course it is entirely up to you and the other mods. Thanks. And thanks to everyone who has commented on here alongside me. It's been a lot of fun :)

Feel free to message or friend me to find out my further Dickens plans!

Done!

Thanks Gill :)