All About Books discussion

Jean wrote: "It's already on my TBR shelf Gill! I like Simon Callow; I've read his autobiography and seen him enact Dickens' readings.

But I had no idea [book:Charles Dickens and the Great Theat..."
I don't think I'll get the copy until mid-May, but will let you know when I get it.

Thanks! I'm always interested to see whether Large Print books include the original photographs. I remember being bitterly disappointed when neither Ring of Bright Water nor Born Free: A Lioness of Two Worlds didn't have any - and yet Eric Clapton's autobiography did! Weird.

Just a few thoughts as we move from Oliver Twist to Nicholas Nickleby.

Moving on from Oliver Twist:

Dickens had been criticised for writing his novel about thieves, prostitutes and murderers; one critic writing,

"It is a hazardous experiment to exhibit to the young these enormities".

We know that he wanted to broaden the scope of fiction, without displaying the false attitudes which had gone before. The critic Humphry House said that this novel, "permanently affected the range, status and potentialities of fiction." When talking of Dickens's use of thieves and prostitutes as his characters, he commented, "In his knowledge of such things, Dickens was by no means unique; but using it in a novel, with all the heightened interest of a vivid story, he brought it home to the drawing rooms... where ignorance... might be touched. In The Newcomes, William Makepeace Thackeray made Lady Walham take "Oliver Twist" secretively to her bedroom."

Oliver Twist was a very topical novel, and Dickens was keen to describe the atrocities resulting from the amendment of the Poor Law, (as I've remarked before.) In the third year of the new law there was a severe winter, in the fourth a depression, which resulted in food becoming both scarce and highly priced in the fifth. The Poor Law became more and more unpopular, as Dickens's novel increased in popularity and began to seem almost prophetic.

Dickens's volatile passion, indignation and sarcasm in this novel - particularly in the first chapters - is due both to his youth and inexperience as a writer of novels. As we saw, this is a young man's novel, about the iniquitous social conditions of the time, but using the popular literary conventions, and liking for melodrama.

Coincidences abound, but Oliver collapsing on the steps of the house where Rose Maylie (view spoiler)[(who is revealed to be his aunt) (hide spoiler)] lives, is after all mirrored 10 years later by Charlotte Bronte, when Jane Eyre collapses on the doorstep of her unknown cousins! In our modern cynicism, we criticise such obvious convenient plot devices, but the Victorian loved them! It was very much part of their idiom of story-telling.

Yet in my opinion he improved as a writer. Humphry House, again,

"It was Dickens's first attempt at a novel proper. The sequence of the external events which befall Oliver and form the framework of the book, though improbable, is at least straightforward, organised, and fairly well proportioned; but all the subordinate matter designed to explain and account for these events is at once complicated and careless... Many conundrums are solved "off", and are then expounded to the audience in hurried, uneasy dialogue."

I suppose he does have a point. I often wonder if Dickens were still alive, would he want to rewrite some of his earlier works? But then I think, no, of course, he would want to be writing something new!

Moving towards Nicholas Nickleby:

So what are we to expect from the next? We know that prior to Nicholas Nickleby Dickens had seen advertisements in the London papers for cheap boarding schools in Yorkshire. It was stressed that there were "no holidays" from these schools. They were a convenient place to dispose of unwanted or illegitimate children. We saw that during the writing of Oliver Twist Dickens and his friend, Hablot Browne (who was to illustrate the book) travelled in secret to Yorkshire to investigate these schools in January 1838. There they met William Shaw, the headmaster of Bowes Academy. The neglect and maltreatment at this notorious school was responsible for several boys' blindness, and some died as a consequence.

I have no doubt that we will encounter Dickens's take on William Shaw, just as in Oliver Twist he based several of his characters on real people, such as Ikey Solomon (Fagin). But I'm not going to "spoil" anything! I also suspect that Dickens will find it difficult to keep his indignation and social conscience about these dreadful institutions in check.

He was writing at breakneck speed again. Oliver Twist had overlapped The Pickwick Papers by 10 months, and when he started Nicholas Nickleby, Oliver Twist was still a long way from being completed. So the writing in the early part of this novel is perhaps going to feel very familiar, having been written on the same days as the latter half of Oliver Twist. He was also, of course, doing his editing work too. When under pressure, he seemed to just take on more projects and speed them all up!

Here's the schedule for publication of Nicholas Nickleby. He was 26 to 27 during the writing of this novel. In June 1839 Dickens sat for the "Nickleby Portrait"; an engraving of this is used as the frontispiece. It is by the artist Daniel Maclise, and was commissioned by Dickens's publishers, Chapman and Hall. The last part, again, is a double issue.

I – March 1838 (chapters 1–4);
II – April 1838 (chapters 5–7);
III – May 1838 (chapters 8–10);
IV – June 1838 (chapters 11–14);
V – July 1838 (chapters 15–17);
VI – August 1838 (chapters 18–20);
VII – September 1838 (chapters 21–23);
VIII – October 1838 (chapters 24–26);
IX – November 1838 (chapters 27–29);
X – December 1838 (chapters 30–33);
XI – January 1839 (chapters 34–36);
XII – February 1839 (chapters 37–39);
XIII – March 1839 (chapters 40–42);
XIV – April 1839 (chapters 43–45);
XV – May 1839 (chapters 46–48);
XVI – June 1839 (chapters 49–51);
XVII – July 1839 (chapters 52–54);
XVIII – August 1839 (chapters 55–58);
XIX–XX – September 1839 (chapters 59–65).

I am looking forward to this, as I have never read Nicholas Nickleby (although I have seen the film version so I am familiar with the basic plot).

Hope my bits about the background helped your anticipation, Leslie :)

Which film did you see? The one from 2003 with Jamie Bell as Smike? That was a good one. I don't expect it was any of the earlier ones from 1947, 1912 or - incredibly - 1903!

I'm torn between the 2003 film and the 3 hour TV adaptation from 2002, (not the earlier one from 1977 with Nigel Havers) as that has Charles Dance as Ralph Nickleby, and he is superb. I think that one may win out...

What I would really LOVE to see, and don't have a hope of, is the eight and a half hour version! It dates from 1982 and was a joint production between the Royal Shakespeare Company and Channel 4 - being their first broadcast drama over two evenings. Trevor Nunn directed, and there are a few DVDs around, but they are very rare :(

Not sure of which film, although fairly recent as it had Nathan Lane in one of the minor roles... I might look for the 1947 movie once we are done :-)

Yes, apparently he played Vincent Crummles in the 2002 film directed by Douglas McGrath.

Now I look at the cast list for the 1947 film of Nicholas Nickleby I think I have seen it, years ago. I particularly remember James Hayter playing the Cheeryble brothers. The first "sound" version after the two previous silents. Black and white. I'll paste the cast here:

Sir Cedric Hardwicke ..... Ralph Nickleby
Stanley Holloway ..... Vincent Crummles
Derek Bond ..... Nicholas Nickleby
Mary Merrall ..... Mrs. Nickleby
Sally Ann Howes ..... Kate Nickleby
Aubrey Woods ..... Smike
Jill Balcon ..... Madeline Bray
Bernard Miles ..... Newman Noggs
Alfred Drayton ..... Wackford Squeers
Sybil Thorndyke ..... Mrs. Squeers
Vera Pearce ..... Mrs. Crummles
James Hayter ..... Ned and Charles Cheeryble
Emrys Jones ..... Frank Cheeryble
Cecil Ramage ..... Sir Mulberry Hawk
Timothy Bateson ..... Lord Verisopht
George Relph ..... Mr. Bray
Frederick Burtwell .... Sheriff Murray

But I'm coming round more to the version with Charles Dance, myself. It too was very well acted, and for such a long novel, a TV series is likely to contain more of the "meat."

Jean wrote: "Yes, apparently he played Vincent Crummles in the 2002 film directed by Douglas McGrath.

Now I look at the cast list for the 1947 film of Nicholas Nickleby I think I have seen it, y..."

Ooh Stanley Holloway! I like him :) But I think that you are probably right that the Charles Dance TV series might closer to the book. Dance is pretty good at playing bad guys - I assume that he is the wicked uncle?

Absolutely correct :) He's probably very nice in real life though :D

Started Nicholas Nickleby today :)

It seemed a bit slow to start I thought, with all the rather heavyhanded humour relating to the "United Metropolitan Improved Hot Muffin and Crumpet Baking and Punctual Delivery Company".

But as soon as Ralph Nickleby came on the scene it started to pick up, "there was something in his very wrinkles, and in his cold restless eye, which seemed to tell of cunning that would announce itself in spite of him." What a cold fish! He took against Nicholas right from the start - and the only reason seems to have been that Nicholas was young, bright and open! Miserable old skinflint! :(

Hi Jean, I would love to join in a read-along with you for Nicholas Nickleby. It is one of my favourite Dickens novels, one of the funniest certainly, despite some truly despicable characters. I have reread it twice during difficult periods in my life and it always lifts my spirits.

I was lucky enough to see the 8 hour stage presentation in Adelaide a long time ago, probably during the 80's. It was amazing!

Jean,

Glad to hear you've started.

I've slowed down so it's fresh in my mind. Finished I-VI in your helpful monthly list above (message 308).

I liked the ponderous start and laughed at the United ... Muffin ... Crumpet ... Co bit, and read it out loud to my wife!

But how much Dickens packed into the first month, chapters 1 to 4.

I've also been reading, and almost finished, Claire Tomalin's biography of Dickens. What a humbug he was: among the best of writers and among the worst of men, as another article said. Horrid, horrid to the core.

Hi Susan - how great that you are joining us too!! If you look back at my post 307 that's where I'd really starting doing some research into the book. The previous post is more about Oliver Twist.

I would love to have seen the stage presentation you mention. Presumably it's the same one I mention in comment 310?

John - Yes I only read the first 3 chapters and felt there was enough to take in in one sitting there! Usually one issue was 3 chapters, wasn't it, by the list I posted. I'll probably read 2 or 3 chapters per day, which is the way Tracey is doing it as well, I think. You've gone quiet, Tracey!

I have yet to read Claire Tomalin's biography (have read Ackroyd's and another) and also her novel Invisible Woman. But yes. I'm afraid it's clear that Dickens tended to say one thing and do another. I think his heart was in the right place; he just couldn't see the inconsistency. But it's a bit hard to understand and reconcile with his pioneering views :( Which article said that, by the way?

I started two days ago and am already up to Chapter 16 -- it is another fast read/listen for me! I am enjoying it a lot, but you are right Jean that it picks up after Ralph Nickleby comes on. I actually liked the Muffin Company scene (the humor may have been heavyhanded but it was funny!!) :)

Jean,

It was an article printed in The Atlantic (theatlantic.com) on 13 April 2010, by Christopher Hitchens, discussing who would be better to talk to - Dickens, Thackeray, or Eliot. I'm not clever enough to copy it to you, but a Google search will find it, I'm sure.

The Tomalin biography is only like earlier ones, I think, apart from the full discussion of his break-up from his wife, his behaviour in the following years, and then the story of the suppression of the true story before and after his death, indeed until the 1920s and 1930s and beyond. Fascinating.

Hi I had a couple of off days but hope to be "back on the horse" soon. :)

Oh that's two of you liking the Muffin scene - maybe I was just in the wrong mood!! I'll go back and reread it sometime then; I was probably just impatient for the "story proper" to start!

Leslie - I fully expect you to race ahead. We all go at different paces :) In fact (Tracey too) I haven't read much today - exhausted after seeing friends and then my kindle app collapsed and had to be deleted and reloaded anyway. Fingers crossed it will work tomorrow. I did encounter the wonderful Wackford Squeers though, with his

"one eye where the popular prejudice is in favour of two"

LOL! (From memory - hope it is correct.)

John - Thanks, I will google that article! And yes, I don't remember Ackroyd covering the later part of the suppression at all, so will look forward to the read :)

I'll be plodding on behind but I'm really excited! I don't actually know the story of this one; never read it or seen an adaptation, so it's completely new!

Jean, the production I saw was by the Sydney Theatre Company directed by Richard Wherrett. It would have been the RSC version though, not many plays go for 8 hours!

On the dramatic theme, Miriam Margolyes' show Dickens' Women is wonderful. Highly recommended if she reprises it.

An aside on Charles Dance - I read an interview where he said that in his character as Tywin Lannister he treats his son Tyrion so abominably that he apologises to Peter Dinklage after they shoot the scenes, lol.

It's a really great story Heather - and a couple of W..H..A..T..?! moments too :)

Susan - I love Miriam Margolyes' show and have a recording, although only audio, sadly. I particularly laugh when she coincidentally finds all the perfect heroines to be just....seventeen! When you read the books, they are indeed! (I think this was the age at which Mary Hogarth, his sister-in-law) died.

I've been dipping into a book by a Charles Dickens scholar Humphry House, and this is what he said about "The United Metropolitan Improved Hot Muffin and Crumpet Baking and Punctual Delivery Company",

"Companies are shady, promoted by a few unscrupulous people as an extension of already shady traffic. The United Metropolitan Improved Hot Muffin and Crumpet Baking and Punctual Delivery Company might well belong to the speculative rage which preceded the great crash of 1825-6, when steam-ovens, steam-laundries, and milk-and-egg companies competed with canals and railways for the public's money. The Muffin Company's benevolent propaganda about benefits to the human race, which made the men cheer, and the women weep, is admirably true to the spirit of those progressive years. But with Ralph Nickleby on the Board, neither its moral nor its financial status was much above..." and then he quotes a fraudulent company from a future novel.

It's interesting to see how Dickens's novels are so very specific and topical. We've already seen an example of that with the Poor Law amendments in Oliver Twist. Now in Nicholas Nickleby, not only do we have the very topical subject of the notorious Yorkshire Poor Schools, but also the financial shenanigans of the time, with con-artists able to make a fortune by hoodwinking the general public.

Jean wrote: "It's interesting to see how Dickens's novels are so very specific and topical..."

Which reminds me of a biblical quote "there is nothing new under the sun" because these are still topical issues in Australia with Internet scams and the horrible abuse we are currently hearing about inflicted on children in Salvation Army and other church institutions. Unfortunately I'm not sure that humans are getting any better.

it is I am glad we think alike, jean!

How true, Susan. "Human nature" was in my mind too.

Welcome, Jordan :)

Slight break while I finished Scenes and Characters from the Works of Charles Dickens / Being Eight Hundred and Sixty-six Pictures Printed From the Original Wood Blocks.

Link to my review.

Hi Jean. I have actually !!! just done a review for Our Mutual Friend, but I've no idea how to link it.

That's really great, Gill - I am pleased and will get straight on to your page to have a look!

(I can explain how to link some time if you like. It's the second "bullet point" when you click on the "some html is OK" box. But somehow I think you might be a bit busy at the moment...LOL!)

I have just picked up on your "book joist" shelf. LOL!

Just finished chapter 6. I didn't really enjoy the two stories within the story in this chapter. I find myself drifting when reading things that aren't part of the main story as I want to get on with it! I think that is why I didn't like The Pickwick Papers.

Heather - I agree, and actually found those stories rather twee. Some of the stories Dickens inserts are brilliant - he often uses ghost stories for example - but not here.

At first the melancholy traveller is reluctant to tell a story. Then the story he tells, "The Five Sisters of York", is itself a gloomy tale full of sorrow. Afterwards the happier traveller tells a funny story to counter-balance the effect.

It's been suggested that Dickens might be letting us know the tone the whole novel was going to take. "Nicholas Nickleby" is going to have sufferings and dark deeds, as did "Oliver Twist", but its spirit will be more light-hearted, like "The Pickwick Papers". Life for the "Five Sisters of York" was sad, but they did not allow such sorrow to prevent them from retaining a more serene outlook on life. And then "The Baron of Grogzwig" was a light-hearted tale in itself, to follow.

A plausible explanation, do you think? A way of excusing what were really tiresome stories which merely delayed the action? Ah... but then I fooled you with my over-analysing, because in fact that's just what they were - a delaying tactic. No hidden meaning or significance.

A little delving reveals that in fact all Dickens was doing was filling out the second installment, for April 1838 (chapters 5–7)! In a letter to Forster probably written on 15 April 1838, the day he was supposed to deliver his copy to his publishers, he wrote,

"I couldn't write a line till three o'clock and have yet 5 slips to finish, and don't know what to put in them for I have reached the point I meant to leave off with". So he did just stick in a couple of stories he had lying around, handy! LOL

NB though: My final paragraph in post 307, reading the colossal amount of work he had taken on. Perhaps we really need to cut him a bit of slack on this :)

I think you'll love the bits about the Squeers family :) I'm up to chapter 13 now.

Jean wrote: "Heather - I agree, and actually found those stories rather twee. Some of the stories Dickens inserts are brilliant - he often uses ghost stories for example - but not here.

At first the melanchol..."

Dickens yeah? Maybe..

Well analysed, Jean. I'm inclined to think he was just page filling!

I did enjoy chapters 8 and 9 much more. The Squeers are an odd family

'Course he was! But did I fool you? :D

It's so easy to look for deep meaning in things - and to come up with all sort of contorted constructs. But I tend to think that Dickens always said what he meant - or used so much hyperbole that the meaning was crystal clear. And I hope he'd appreciate my poking fun...

I found those stories boring too, but I can sympathise with someone who is writing a serial story for a magazine. This is my third reading of NN and I'd totally forgotten about the fillers.

Does anyone else besides me find Mrs Nickleby an irritating character?

Jean wrote: "'Course he was! But did I fool you? :D

It's so easy to look for deep meaning in things - and to come up with all sort of contorted constructs. But I tend to think that Dickens always said what he..."

How very deceptive of him! Another author who does the same thing is the french author Victor Hugo; his books are just filled with information that the reader would think is relevant to the story, but in reality it's just there to fill pages.

Really Charbel? How interesting! And we complain about modern authors deliberately "inflating" their novels to blockbuster size, so that their publishers can charge more for them! There's nothing new under the sun, is there?

I had too, Susan. "Quietly forgetting" might be a good tactic. But Mrs Nickleby is just a bit dim, I think. Dickens say that Ralph Nickleby easily makes her view her husband in a negative light, until,

"she had come to persuade herself that of all her husband's late creditors she was the worst used and the most to be pitied."

I'm beginning to wonder if one of the reasons she's deliberately made to appear slow, is to contrast with the devious manipulations of her brother-in-law, Ralph.

Jean wrote: "Really Charbel? How interesting! And we complain about modern authors deliberately "inflating" their novels to blockbuster size, so that their publishers can charge more for them! There's nothing n..."

I agree! Though I think in Hugo's case it wasn't so much about profits; he was attached to every word he writes.

So did Hugo insert long passages about what he was interested in himself, then, Charbel? Irrespective of whether it had anything to do with the story? Going off at a tangent, perhaps?

All of the above. But mostly it's pages and pages of background information, even for secondary characters, as well as pages and pages of endless description.

I assume the delight behind Mrs Nickelby for me is the way we know she will always go off at an irrelevant tangent, with the enjoyment of the 'anecdotes' and the language and lack of perception she shows. God bless her!

I agree that the two interpolated stories are completely irrelevant 'fairy tales'.

I'm up to chapter 54 now, nearing the denouement, so no spoilers from me. But the book is still full of enjoyable but nearly irrelevant characters and sub-plots, just like Pickwick. Once or twice, I've wanted to say 'get on with it, this is silly', only to find myself almost crying a few pages later, and laughing just after that! But a good basic plot structure, too.

Melodramatic, hammy, over the top, verbose, but compelling, with masterful use of language, and utterly BRILLIANT.

I will enjoy the discussion as it unfolds.

What a lovely tribute to Dickens, John! :)

You're probably right about Mrs Nickleby. We've all known dithery old ladies (and a few old men too) like that :D

Feel free to chat if you like, under spoilers. I know the story already, and others might too.

One thing occurs to me, and that is that despite being a long novel, one feels that a lot of the groups of characters - the acting troupe, the Kenwigses, the beneficent employers, the non-Squeers faction in Yorkshire, etc - are not seen enough. One wants to enjoy more from them. I suppose that's just the result of the serial method of production, and Dickens' fertile mind. And also maybe a reason why his characters generally don't develop enough, as some of the critics seem to say, and which has been true in Oliver Twist, and this book.

Oh wow - take a look at this,

http://www.researchers.plus.com/shaw.htm

There's no doubt that Dickens intended the headmaster Wackford Squeers to be a portrayal of William Shaw, and that Dotheboys Hall was Bowes Academy. If you've got a few minutes, take a look at the testimonies from the two young boys. How Dickens managed to write about this so entertainingly - and influenced social reform by doing so - just amazes me. The man was a genius.

And yes, John - his mind just must have been running on ahead of him all the time I guess. So many characters...

A few more chapters and I am relishing this story now we're really into it. I gave a little cheer when Nicholas (view spoiler)[finally took action against Squeers. (hide spoiler)] I was reading in my garden in the sunshine, and had already been chortling quite a bit at what had gone before...

I must admit I had forgotten the tone of this novel. Many of the speeches seem to cry out for an actor's ringing declamation on stage. You can see Dickens's love of the theatre!

But I particularly enjoy the contrasts. The tragic scenes are so much more powerful, because of the contrasting comic scenes. And who, out of the general reading population, would really have stayed with a piece of tragic literature about their contemporaries - including the poorest of them all - had it not been made so hugely entertaining?

It's a real rarity for the time, for an author to focus on the lives of such poor people. Noggs and Smike are fully developed characters, but I cannot see Dickens's contemporary, Thackeray, bothering with them. And it's even less likely that his most popular predecessor, Jane Austen would.

Well, re 'out loud', you remember some poorer people paid a penny or so to have the story read out loud to them, and a good reader could really get the laughter or tears going, as you suggest, I'm sure.

I'm reading the book but also listening to bits on Audible when walking the dogs. Alex Jennings reads superbly, and it's just as you say. The purple patches, sad and happy, come over very effectively.

Susan wrote: "I found those stories boring too, but I can sympathise with someone who is writing a serial story for a magazine. This is my third reading of NN and I'd totally forgotten about the fillers.

Does a..."

Yes, I was quite surprised by how annoyed I got with Mrs. Nickleby (she barely appears in the film!). John, I do like her long digressions into tedious details. I just was expecting her to be more of a saintly put-upon widow!

Jean, nice insight about the contrasting tragic and comic scenes.

Nice to have you back Leslie :) Hope your course is going OK.

Has anyone looked at that website about the appalling Bowes Academy I linked to in comment 349? The basis for "Dotheboys Hall"?