The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

And our long literary journey comes to its logical end as we read and discuss the final chapters of the novel David Copperfield. This time instead of basic summary and some musings, I have prepared questions. These questions should not be viewed as a way to control discussion, but more like a catalyst to stimulate a vibrant discussion. Feel free to share your thoughts in any form you like.

1. David Copperfield is widely considered a Dickens masterpiece, and some critics believe that it is his BEST novel. We have not read all his novels (YET!), but how would you rate the novel? Do you think this one is his best so far?

2. How do you feel about the presence of two Davids in the novel: a young naïve and somewhat gullible David and a more experienced, successful David? As a result, we dealt with a number of foreshadowing. Do you think they were necessary in the novel? Could a novel have been better without the foreshadowing and only with one perspective, the perspective of a child who became an adolescent, a young man, and eventually a family man?

3. Dickens is usually known for his progressive social stands. Do you still think that DC conveys the messages of social awareness and compassion despite being predominately a bildungsroman (a coming-of-age story)?

4. Dickens in this novel, as well as his previous novel, discusses love, marriages, infatuation, and happiness. What is his commentary? Do you agree with his opinion on marriage, love, and infatuation?

5. What is the role of Mr. Dick in the novel? Why does he still feature in many TV adaptations in spite of the fact that he is not the one who moves the plot forward or makes things happen in the novel?

6. Who is the most relatable character? Who is the most complex character?

7. Ignoring Miss Betsy's numerous hints (or maybe misjudging them), David seems to experience difficulties choosing his life partner. Is David metaphorically blind? Do you find it ironic that a writer who should read people and their motives better than many people is struggling with the true feelings he experiences and misinterprets Agnes' behavior for the biggest part of the novel?

8. Was the Micawbers' success in Australia logical and plot-wise justified?

With a mixture of the bittersweet, the humorous, and the happily-ever-after, Dickens concludes the “autobiography” of David Copperfield. Time passes more quickly in these few chapters than it has yet in any other segment of the novel, as David presents to us the final chapters of his journey. As I suspect we will find with Claire Tomalin’s “Charles Dickens: A Life,” the most likely reason I can surmise for “David Copperfield” being written in the first-person is the similarity to Dickens’ life itself. However, I do not think that Dickens necessarily got his fairy-tale ending. Here in the novel, the good are rewarded and the villains punished. The Murdstones are up to their usual evil corruptions, but there is a hint that they are rather ostracized and that they are receiving their mortal punishment: “However, as Mrs. Chillip says, sir, they undergo a continual punishment; for they are turned inward, to feed upon their own hearts, and their own hearts are very bad feeding” (chapter 59). Likewise, Mr. Littimer and Uriah, although model prisoners, are safely behind bars, the former thanks to Miss Mowcher’s citizen’s arrest. Uriah’s chicanery is alive and well, though he comments that “It would be better for everybody, if they got took up, and was brought here” (chapter 61). Perhaps this has a double meaning—as an obsequious comment for Mr. Creakle to hear and as an acknowledgement that he belongs there.

Meanwhile, Traddles and Sophy are at last happily married, and David and Agnes finally follow suit. Agnes remains, to the end, David’s good angel: “Until I die, my dearest sister, I shall see you always before me, pointing upward!” (chapter 60). Aunt Betsey finally gets her Betsey Trotwood, and even Mr. Micawber has done the seemingly impossible and improved himself and become a Magistrate. So all’s well that ends well, and we have this glimpse into Dickens’ life to compare to the upcoming biography, to investigate how closely they align!

Zulfiya wrote: "1. David Copperfield is widely considered a Dickens masterpiece, and some critics believe that it is his BEST novel. We have not read all his novels (YET!), but how would you rate the novel? Do you..."

Zulfiya, great questions! I'll get to them all, but I'll start with number one.

I just had this discussion with my niece. She says that "A Tale of Two Cities" is her favorite, and thinks that "David Copperfield" doesn't have meaningful depth.

For me, it is hard to pick a favorite of Dickens because I've enjoyed all of his books to date. I do have a warmer spot though for DC and the Pickwick Papers.

One of the reasons that I think DC is considered the best is that it deals with our everyday lives: love (from true love to unrequited love), family, work, and financial security. Also, the conflicts that come with life, particularly people who come into our lives with their ill intentions and destroy our happiness.

Those are the things we deal with daily so we have an immediate connection to the story and characters.

And the main characters are sympathic and likable, and while some characters have quirks, they are realistic quirks, not the exaggerated quirks that some Dickens characters have (with the exception of Uriah Heep).

Zulfiya wrote: "2. How do you feel about the presence of two Davids in the novel: a young naïve and somewhat gullible David and a more experienced, successful David? As a result, we dealt with a number of foreshadowing. Do you think they were necessary in the novel? Could a novel have been better without the foreshadowing and only with one perspective, the perspective of a child who became an adolescent, a young man, and eventually a family man?"

Overall, I think that the first-person narration was very effective, but it did give away and/or make obvious parts of the plot that I might have wanted to remain unknown a bit longer. Although some of the foreshadowing could have been left out, but the fact that it was included enhanced the credibility of the first-person narrator.

Zulfiya wrote: "3. Dickens is usually known for his progressive social stands. Do you still think that DC conveys the messages of social awareness and compassion despite being predominately a bildungsroman (a coming-of-age story)?"

As we have discussed, I feel that Dickens conveys social awareness and compassion throughout the novel via characters such as Emily, Martha, the Micawbers, and even David himself, who is saved from the tyranny of the Murdstones by Aunt Betsey.

Lynnm wrote: "I just had this discussion with my niece. She says that "A Tale of Two Cities" is her favorite, and thinks that "David Copperfield" doesn't have meaningful depth."

ATOTC has the most breathtaking beginning in BritLit; I would even go further and say in WorldLit. I did try to go this novel a go, but I got mired in some other books, so I will have to read it together with the group:-).

And the main characters are sympathic and likable, and while some characters have quirks, they are realistic quirks, not the exaggerated quirks that some Dickens characters have

They all have foibles and that is what makes them human beings, not characters. Emily is impulsive and her decision to elope is catastrophic; David trusts his sexual instincts more than his mind, Betsy Trottwood always appeals or alludes to the imaginary girl; Mr. Wickfield was an alcoholic, etc.

Sarah wrote: "As we have discussed, I feel that Dickens conveys social awareness and compassion throughout the novel via characters such as Emily, Martha, the Micawbers, and even David himself, who is saved from the tyranny of the Murdstones by Aunt Betsey."

Ditto.

His social stand is not obvious as in his previous novels, but it is omnipresent and permeates the fabric of the novel.

Compassion to Em'ly is one thing - David could relate to her as his childhood sweetheart, but compassion to Martha Endell is more of a moral choice than an emotional imperative as in case with Em'ly.

Zulfiya wrote: "Compassion to Em'ly is one one thing - David could relate to her as his childhood sweetheart, but compassion to Martha Endell is more of a moral choice than an emotional imperative as in case in Em'ly. "

Well said! :-)

Yes, his stand on social issues is muted compared to Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby, but we may care more because he gives us complex characters that we get to know. David's sufferings come because of cruel people or errors of judgment, not social conditions. The Micawbers are constantly in debt but it's treated as a comic event. We don't really know why Micawber can't get and keep a job. He certainly works hard under Uriah. David and Dora's housekeeping on a budget is also treated largely for laughs. There's a wonderful picture in my edition called "Our Housekeeping" where they are entertaining Traddles and the meal and room is in chaos.

Sarah wrote: "Well said! :-) "

Oops, and I found typos and unjustified repetitions. I do love/ hate tablets and phones:-)

Robin wrote: "Yes, his stand on social issues is muted compared to Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby, but we may care more because he gives us complex characters that we get to know. "

Dickens is widely known as an advocate for the wretched, the poor, and the fallen. This time, it is not his descriptions, but the actions of his characters that convey the same message. As a result, his advocacy is subtle but maybe even more poignant. We readers tend to relate to characters through their actions more than through the angry or passionate passages of a narrator.

I do not even want to entertain an idea what could have happened to poor Mr. Dick if Betsy Trotwood had left him in the mental hospital. That lady, together with Mr. Peggotty, is the prime example of compassion and love.

P.S. Robin, do not forget Jip on the dining table :-)

Here is the illustration in question-I hope the link works.

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illus...

Many great comments, thanks.

I do think we are seeing a lot of Dickens social stance, and that it comes out as much in his sympathy for characters of all classes, and portrayals of the hardships and unfairness wrought upon the poor-this comes across strongly in his comment on the "progressive prison" in which Heap is found (and BTW, were there such prisons in Victorian England?):

I said aside, to Traddles, I wondered whether it occurred to anybody, that there was a striking contrast between these plentiful repasts of choice quality, and the dinners, not to say of paupers, but of soldiers, sailors, labourers, the great bulk of the honest, working community; of whom not one man in five hundred ever dined half so well.

David's time in poverty as a child labourer and then as a runaway also underscores the misery and unfairness of life for so many, and seems to advocate for better treatment for children and the poor. You are right, Zulfiya, Betsy Trotwood clearly saved others from horrible fates, not just David, in contrast to what we imagine her character to be in the opening sequence!

Yes, thank you , Frances, that is the illustration and I see Jip is on the table!

I seem to remember that the idea of solitary penitence was introduced sometime in the 19th century. It was supposed to be an improvement over beatings and other cruel treatment or hard labor. The creators meant well but now we know that solitary confinement without occupation causes its own problems. And of course Uriah would have done whatever he needed to in order to ingratiate himself.

In the BBC version, Uriah is shown going as a convict to Australia on the same ship as the other travelers. There would have been a certain fitness in that, and I'm afraid he could have reinvented himself again abroad at least as well as Mr Micawber did. By the way, Dickens seems to have a more optimistic view of Australia's prospects than of America's. Although I could imagine Mr. Pegotty learning to farm, I can't imagine Micawber doing much of anything practical. It's often said that Micawber was based on Dickens' father, so maybe Dickens particularly wanted to give him a happy ending. He was a good and decent person, after all.

Haha! I wonder if Mr. Dickens had travelled to Australia as he did to America. And if this visit (or lack of visit) contributed to his opinion of prospects.

I do see Macawber prospering in Australia, though. That his verbal abilities might take him far in politics is entirely believable. Plus, the legal knowledge he'd gained.

I love that Dickens thought to include Mr. Mel at the end. I wonder if it was because his readers expressed an interest in what became of him or if CD intended Austalia as the ultimate detonation for nearly everyone in the end.

Renee wrote: "I love that Dickens thought to include Mr. Mel at the end...."

He really thought of everyone. I was just surprised that Mr. Mel named his school after Mr. Creakle's institution which should remind him of his unlucky days there.

Lynnm wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "1. David Copperfield is widely considered a Dickens masterpiece, and some critics believe that it is his BEST novel. We have not read all his novels (YET!), but how would you rate t..."

I am with Lynn on this one. I have liked all the books so far, too, but David Copperfield is the one I have liked most, followed by Pickwick Papers and Nicholas Nickleby.
I guess for me this one is maybe less extreme with regards to characters and therefore more relatable than the others. I also think that it did change the notion a little by not having an external narrator, but the protagonist himself describing his life story. Furthermore, this novel was in my opinion more plot-driven than most of his other novels so far. So that made it partially more appealing to read, though I must admit that I did like all the satirical descriptions which e.g. Martin Chuzzlewit had in it. However, the later was maybe a less relaxing read compared to this one.

Sarah wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "2. How do you feel about the presence of two Davids in the novel: a young naïve and somewhat gullible David and a more experienced, successful David? As a result, we dealt with a nu..."

It is true that you could find some hints here and there about what might happen due to him narrating this at a later stage in life, but on the other hand I do not think that they were so incredibly obvious and partially felt more like a cliffhanger, as you realized that the one or other peaceful scene might not stay that way.

Sarah wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "3. Dickens is usually known for his progressive social stands. Do you still think that DC conveys the messages of social awareness and compassion despite being predominately a bildu..."

I agree with you, Sarah. There were many social topics in this novel even though maybe not as explicitly described and depicted as in his previous novels:
- child labor
- child abuse (at home and at school)
- alcoholism
- elopement/ "fallen woman"
- law in the Doctor's Commons
- life in debts incl. King's Bench Prison
- betrayal of innocent people
- embezzlement
etc.

Zulfiya wrote: "5. What is the role of Mr. Dick in the novel? Why does he still feature in many TV adaptations in spite of the fact that he is not the one who moves the plot forward or makes things happen in the novel? ..."

That's definitely an interesting question I had not thought about. Traddles, for example, has been eliminated in adaptations, at least as far as I have seen them.
Mr. Dick's presence and relationship to Betsey reflect her actual kindness compared to her first appearance in the novel. Furthermore, he is so innocent, rather infantile, a companion to David in his younger years, a companion to Aunt Betsey, and he is somehow comical, too.
As we have already discussed, he might have ended up in a mental asylum if Aunt Betsey had not taken care of him. Maybe Dickens wanted to show that even mentally disabled people have a sense in life and make their valuable contributions to society, even if it is in a different way (another social topic). I liked, for example, very much when he copied documents for Traddles and actually helped earning money for Betsey, David and himself.

Robin wrote: "We don't really know why Micawber can't get and keep a job. "

Well, I certainly wouldn't hire him to do anything. :)

Mr. Peggotty is the hero of this book for me, with Betsy coming in second. I've read too many novels recently in which the girl who runs off with the guy (or even is raped by the guy) is treated like crap by the other characters in the book. I love how Mr. Peggotty was able to keep things in perspective, and just wanted to find his niece and make sure she was OK.

David and Agnes. Without any knowledge of the plot, I sort of assumed that Dora would end up dying so that David could marry Agnes at the end. (Morbid, I know.) As for Agnes, I had mixed feelings. She was just too nice, and so devoted to other people, and so perfect that she didn't seem like a real person to me. Hopefully she threw a little tantrum now and again off page.

I started off reading along with you guys, but ended up finishing the book back in November (for complicated reasons - I had to do a bunch of traveling and didn't want to lug that book around with me). It definitely took away from the reading experience. I'll try to not get too far ahead for the next Dickens read. :)

Lauren, we will be reading the book by C. Tomalin Charles Dickens. Because DC is the most autobiographical novel, the group decided to read one of the numerous Dickens biographies.

As soon as we finish reading it, things will be back to normal: Bleak House, Hard Times, Little Dorrit, etc :-)

I agree that Agnes is too nice. She would have gone through her whole life loving David and never telling him (though maybe Aunt Betsey would have dropped a few more hints to get them together.) It was convenient that Dora bequeathed David to Agnes, but we had hints earlier that Dora saw how Agnes was a better partner for him. Yet she also loved Agnes of course! since everyone loved Agnes.

Agnes is of the serious type like Mary in Martin Chuzzlewit, or Florence Dombey, rather than the playful type like Sophy or Dolly (is that the right name?) in Barnaby Rudge. Dolly has the coquettish nature in the beginning but matures later. Dora would probably never have changed except for her illness and would have ended up one of the foolish older women like Mrs Nickleby.

Robin wrote: "Dora would probably never have changed except for her illness and would have ended up one of the foolish older women like Mrs Nickleby. "

The mixed blessing of the miscarriage, and it is as rough as it sounds. I am not sure that maternity would have changed Dora ...

I have a friend who adores Dickens and is filial with his characters as old friends. She read the Tomalin biography when it first came out, and suggested that Dora may have been modeled on Dickens' own wife. Making Dora's fate a bit of morbid wishfulness. Again, using fiction to create a tidiness to the awkward details of his life. I'm looking forward to reading the Tomalin myself to see if I come to the same conclusion.

Renee, this is even a darker twist than we expected!