The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

The new Dickens adventure begins today! This week, we are discussing the first five chapters.

1. Bleak House is one of the most innovative and 'modern' novels by Dickens.Have you noticed anything new and different from the usual narrative voice?

2. How do you deal with temporal discrepancy: present - past in the novel? Which of the two is edgier and which is more peaceful and serene?

3. Do you think Esther Summerson is telling us the story of her past or is she the immediate witness of the events?

4. Taking into account her past, do you think her last name is a 'speaking name'?

5. Why do you think Esther buried her doll before she left her godmother's house?

6. Why did her godmother conceal the fact that she was her aunt?

7. Have you noticed any new social issues that Dickens likes to shed light on that are usually either ignored, shunned, or even condemned by the Victorian society?


8. “Fog everywhere. Fog up the river where it flows among green airs and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping, and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city.... Chance people on the bridges peeping over the parapets into a nether sky of fog, with fog all round them, as if they were up in a balloon and hanging in the misty clouds". Do you think Dickens poeticizing the fog or is he using fog as a metaphor or a symbol?

Post away, my dear friends. Do not forget to share our favorite quotes if you have any.

A few noteworthy thoughts that I have noticed in this introductory section include the symbolic fog that pervades both London and the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Chancery. Both are shrouded in mystery, as is Esther Summerson’s parentage. The fact that Esther buries her beloved doll before leaving her now-deceased aunt’s house seems to symbolize her burying her past life and moving on to a new future. As for the Jellybys, I find them both amusing and pitiably pathetic. For all of Mrs. Jellyby’s supposed charity toward Africa, she neglects her own children and husband, so much so that Caddy wishes she (Caddy) were dead. The old lady and Mr. Krook both add to the disarray of the story so far; are they merely harmless and eccentric, or do they contain sinister motives? The mystery and gloom of the novel’s opening ushers in an aura of foreboding that is intriguing.

I thought the opening scene is written in a very modern manner, with all the partial sentences. I agree that the fog and gloom symbolizes the world of law. Esther is struck by how dark it is in London, both inside and outside.

The Jellybys are a bit like the Micawbers or the engineer's family in Dombey (the son was called Boiler but I've forgotten their last name!) There are lots of kids and no organization. However, the children in those families were loved, where these are so neglected they cling to strangers. Dickens wasn't above ridiculing those on the more liberal side, whose personal behavior didn't always match their stated values. I saw the family as comic and enjoyed those scenes. It seems a lot of detail for a place where the protagonists just spend the night, but knowing Dickens, I'm sure that family will return.

So far Esther doesn't seem as sickly sweet as most of Dickens' heroines. I think this is the first time we've had a first-person account by a girl, which makes a difference.

I agree, Robin. I really like Ester. She is kind and generous, and the children flock to her, but somehow she seems more real than the typical Dickensian good girl. Perhaps because she does some of the narrating and we can see her thoughts to a degree.

I am angry with myself for not having read Bleak House before. What a great book. I will type more when I get to the big-girl computer tonight; however, I can say this morning that I do not like Mrs Jellby. Charity begins at home and her neglect of the children is maddening. Honestly, she is so wrapped in Africa and her good deeds there, I am surprised she had the time to "raise a leg" to engage with Mr Jellyby to produce the children.

Sarah wrote: " For all of Mrs. Jellyby’s supposed charity toward Africa, she neglects her own children and husband, so much so that Caddy wishes she (Caddy) were dead. "

She is quiet eccentric, and do not forget Mr. Jellyby. Esther had problems recognizing him because his voice and his presence were hardly noticeable.

Robin wrote: "I think this is the first time we've had a first-person account by a girl, which makes a difference. "

Good point, Robin! DC was the first novel with the first-person account in the Dickens heritage, and this time, he goes even further, giving a personal voice to Esther.

And I also found the present-tense frame for the unknown omniscient narrator very modern and visionary for his time.

Wanda wrote: "Charity begins at home and her neglect of the children is maddening. Honestly, she is so wrapped in Africa and her good deeds there, I am surprised she had the time to "raise a leg" to engage with Mr Jellyby to produce the children.
"

That's the point, isn't it? And quite an exemplary one!

I've really been enjoying the book. According to the notes in my book, Mrs. Jellby is modeled after a woman Dickens knew who put all her efforts into charity work and neglected her household and children.

I love the fact that Chancery has an O.E.D. definition of a "certainty of cost and loss of property".

There seems to be a focus of dreariness and also death in Chapter 1. It mentions soot the size of snowflakes and the death of the sun. Fog adds even more to this dank picture of London. Add in the wards and Esther not knowing anything about London, and everything truly seems shrouded in mystery and dreariness. They didn't even have to stay with the Jellyby's to have us feel that, but of course, that household adds to this picture.

It's interesting to note that Chancery had jurisdiction over the insane and disputed property. Ironic, in fact, since being stuck in Chancery made many go insane. Odd how it goes on and on literally through generations with no outcome. It appears to end when the money runs out, and not before. I must say I loved the fact that the expert on Jarndyce and Jarndyce's name is Mr. Tangle.

While Chancery and London seem hopeless and dreary (bleak one might say), the wards appear to be young, hopeful, and beautiful as a foil to London itself and Chancery in particular.

Lady Dedlock seems out of place until you learn that she, too, is a party in Jarndyce. The mystery associated with that is hinted at by her fainting upon seeing the handwriting on a particular law document. Something more is clearly happening here.

I like Esther, but feel very sorry for her. Her parentage is unknown to her, but the reader might guess that it is an illegitimate one based on the fact that no one will talk about it, and even her "godmother" is not an accurate title for the woman caring for her. Also, she seems completely isolated and uncared for emotionally. Her only friend is her doll. By burying the doll, I think she was trying to grow up as she felt she was expected to do or perhaps leaving her friend where she felt the friend belonged. After all, Esther has no sense of belonging so that would be really important to her.

Fog, dirt, and chaos is found again with the Jellyby's adding the murkiness of the situation. Not only representing mystery and the never ending slog of Chancery, but our characters' futures as well. They have no idea who Jarndyce is or even their new guardian. I must admit to enjoying the humor found in the Jellyby's chaos (the missing kettle), although my heart goes out to the children. Mr. Jellyby is an adult, and therefore, has some choices. He chooses to stay in such a strange environment while the children have no choice.

The older lady living never Chancery calls Krook (hmmm, interesting name) crazy while, she too appears crazy but does not appear to realize this. The birds break my heart as she has captured them and they die over and over again. Again a symbol for the never ending process of Chancery.

The narration has been interesting to me. While I think Esther's narration appears to be more peaceful, we need to look below the surface to see that she is facing the bleakness that the other narrator seems to bring to the surface. In addition, I think it might be Dickens way of showing us just how limited and restricted Esther's life has been, and thus her viewpoint.

Deborah wrote: "While I think Esther's narration appears to be more peaceful, "

I agree - hers is much more peaceful and she does have a feeling of perspective. She is telling the story, and she knows what she wants to tell us. It becomes especially obvious in the second section of this novel (chapters 6-9).

Renee wrote: "She is kind and generous, and the children flock to her, but somehow she seems more real than the typical Dickensian good girl."

She is obviously a very sweet girl, but because it is a personal narrative, we do get a better perspective what she is and how she feels.
Besides, it struck me today that she is much older than usual Dickens heroines - eighteen/twenty. If my memory serves me right, in the second or third chapter , Esther tells us that she worked for six years in as a tutor/instructor/mentor/teacher, so she must be in her early twenties, and her vision of the world is more mature than the one of a typical Dickens girl we have 'encountered' so far in his novels.

Quite lovely to return to Mr. Dickens, like resuming a conversation with an old friend.

The first two chapters, however - until Esther's narrative - didn't read like a Dickens novel. It definitely is a turning point from the previous novels. Although the Esther narrative does return to the usual Dickens tone...and dislike of the legal profession. (Lawyers at the time must have disliked him just as much as he disliked them!).

The notes in my B&N book connected Esther's name to the Esther in the Bible, who saves her people. A bit of foreshadowing, I'm sure.

At first I was worried that Esther would be the typical, annoyingly good, female heroine. But she seems strong, and took charge a couple of times in Chapters 4 and 5, particularly when she was at Mrs. Jellyby's.

As a side note, I've read that Brits get annoyed that Americans think that London is foggy. Well, no wonder Americans - and I'm sure people from other countries as well - think London is foggy: Dickens shrouds the city in fog, Conan Doyle did as well in one of the Sherlock stories. They need to blame their own writers! :-)

Lynnm wrote: "The notes in my B&N book connected Esther's name to the Esther in the Bible, who saves her people. A bit of foreshadowing, I'm sure."

The thought that Esther might be a reference to the biblical heroine did occur to me; it's good to know that this was Dickens' intention! :-)

About the fog, at the time with all the wood and coal fires, London had a particular kind of smog which is not as bad today. Here's a link about it
http://vichist.blogspot.com/2006/11/l...

Also London is farther north than we might think which causes darkness to begin by 3-4pm in winter, especially in closed-in streets with little access to sunlight.

Very good link. I thought that London fog belonged to much remote times! Paris as well had this type of problem untile the 1960s, but because a different type of weather and less industries, it was not as bad.

Robin wrote: "About the fog, at the time with all the wood and coal fires, London had a particular kind of smog which is not as bad today. Here's a link about it
http://vichist.blogspot.com/2006/11/l......"

Thanks for the link, Robin.

I thought that it might be smog rather than true fog.

Hi Zulifya! Great discussion questions. By pure coincidence I started buddy watching the BBC version and reading the book at the same time, along with another Goodreads friend. It's turning into a rather fun study of the art of film adaptation, so anyone who want to sample both is welcome to join in. https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

Meanwhile, since one cannot get too many insights into Bleak House, I'm looking forward to joining the discussion here, too. I completely missed that bit about Esther burying her doll! Now going back to read it I'm not sure what to think. At first I thought that she was leaving her childhood behind, but I don't think it's that simple. I think on one level she is trying to bury herself--the child of whom her horrible godmother said: "It would have been far better, little Esther, that you had had no birthday; that you had never been born."

Oooh. That's great insight. I didn't think of that.

Hana wrote: "Meanwhile, since one cannot get too many insights into Bleak House, I'm looking forward to joining the discussion here, too. I completely missed that bit about Esther burying her doll! Now going back to read it I'm not sure what to think. At first I thought that she was leaving her childhood behind, but I don't think it's that simple. I think on one level she is trying to bury herself--the child of whom her horrible godmother said: "It would have been far better, little Esther, that you had had no birthday; that you had never been born."
"

I was surprised that she buried her doll, and then thought it was merely a device by Dickens to reinforce that the idea that her old, unhappy life was ending, and there was a new beginning in sight, with no need for the doll as her only friend.

But I like your interpretation better.

Hana wrote: "Now going back to read it I'm not sure what to think. At first I thought that she was leaving her childhood behind, but I don't think it's that simple. I think on one level she is trying to bury herself--the child of whom her horrible godmother said: "It would have been far better, little Esther, that you had had no birthday; that you had never been born."

Thank you for the link. The discussions are quite lively. I listened to the recent BBC radio show and watched the same TV show and liked them A LOT.

As for the doll, I first paid attention to this fact many years ago when I read the novel for the first time and virtually 'fell in love' with the novel. It does have a modernish 'literary flavor' with different temporal flows and unusual symbolism, The doll is definitely quite symbolic, and during my first read, I found some sexual innuendos associated with this doll because the fact of burring it was so freakish, but now having read the interpretations of my friends here, I do agree with your ideas and theirs.

Mrs. Jellaby makes me think about what it means to be charitable. It's probably even easier today than it was in her day to do 'telescopic philanthropy'. Just think about all those 'feel good' charities that pop up all the time on the web: 'click here and donate', etc. How much really goes to the people who need help? How about the old man next door who can't get to the grocery store?

More thought on burying Esther--I am so struck by how no one calls her by her name. Her last name is not real and even when she finds her way to something like home, they all seem to call her by names like 'Dame Durden' or 'Little Woman'. I really hate that. It's like she doesn't really exist as a person.

Good thinking, Hanna.

I see two explanations here. Like with his previous novel, DC, David acquires a number of names because he is changing, and he is going through the process of self-identification.
On the other hand, Esther's origin is dubious, to say the least, so she is NOBODY; thus, so many names to avoid using her real name.

Great comments of all! Sorry I am behind as foreseen and not having the chance of being online very much these days.
I just wanted to add some of my notes when reading these first chapters:

- the beginning was really unexpected with regards to the style. Did Dickens use this type of telegram style to raise the tension? His description of the fog seemed to me a little dark and miserable, but somehow poetic. Is it also a way to question the industrialization with its dirt and social issues?

- the fog was a metaphor also for Dickens's "beloved" lawyers. Lynn mentioned them already. Dickens describes all these cases as costly nonsense / waste of time and money

- the names are as usual very interesting:
1 Lady Dedlock - has this to do with wedlock? She says she is bored to death
2 Mr Tulkinghorn - is he a "talking horn"? He informs the Dedlocks about the latest news on the case
3 Sheen (shine) and Gloss (glossy) for the merchants/ sales people
4 Blaze and Sparkle for the jewelers

- Dickens alludes again (as e.g. in D&S) to fairy-tales:
1 broomstick for Mrs Rachael
2 sleeping beauties/ knights
3 children in the wood (maybe Hansel and Gretel)
4 old woman who reminds you of a witch
5 Little Red Riding Hood
6 Puss in Boots
7 cat as the wolf from the old saying (is Little Red Riding Hood meant here?)

- you have all said much about Mrs Jellyby already, so I will only add a few little things:
1 the relationship of her with her husband seemed very modern and emancipated, as she is the center. Her husband is completely in the background and only known for being her husband and not for having his own personality. He even acts like that and keeps quiet.
2 the charity work included the preparation for migration, in this case Africa, similar to Dickens's charity work that resulted in several emigrations to Australia.
3 the house of the Jellybys also makes a rather dark impression as it is messy, dirty, cold, decaying etc. Is this also a metaphor for society?


Sorry for the many comments in a rather unstructured manner, but typing on an iPod is not the ideal , though at the moment my only way of commenting.

OoooH Hedi! Dedlock and wedlock--that's excellent. Bet you are right. So many great ideas to ponder.

But speaking of wedlock, I tend to think that Mrs. Jellaby is abusive, rather than emancipated.

Hana, you could call Mrs Jellyby also abusive that is right, but I had written down my comment before I had read the rest.
Nowadays you still have many women who are defined by her husbands. In this case the husband was described and seemed to be defined by his strong wife. That stood out for me as very progressive.
Dickens loved the sweet girly type of woman. So this was definitely new. Maybe he wanted to show what happens when a woman gets too many ideas of her own - she neglects her family and the household. His companion in charity work did not have family if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, I cannot look that up at the moment. His wife on the other hand was not able to take care of all the kids and the household.

Trying to catch up, I just finished reading this section. It took me a bit to get going as the first narrative was a bit different from what I was expecting - it is choppy yet descriptive, and there is something about this narrative that required my full attention. This being my first Dickens, I was afraid the entire book was going to be this way. It's interesting to note from the comments above that this is a different style of writing than Dickens normally adheres to.

Esther's narrative really pulled me into the story and I enjoyed experiencing the darkness and griminess of London as Esther experiences it for the first time. I felt bad for Esther as a girl, and her only friend in the world was her Dolly to whom she could confide in. One of my favorite (albeit sad) lines:

Imperfect as my understanding of my sorrow was, I knew that I had brought no joy, at any time, to anybody's heart, and that I was no one upon earth what Dolly was to me.

I was saddened when Esther buried her Dolly, but took it as a sign that she felt she would not need Dolly in the way she had before - serving as her only friend. So although it was sad on the surface, in my heart I felt it was a step forward for Esther in moving on from a dreary lonely life to one which would be quite different.

Mrs. Jellyby and her household were quite the characters. I also liked how Esther took charge of poor Peepy, as someone else has already mentioned. And speaking of names, I envision Peepy as a scurrying filthy little child so all one ever notices of him are his peeping eyes. I laughed at his astonishment at being washed up by Esther, and then liked the description of him "going snugly to sleep as soon as it was over."

And those poor birds in the old woman's flat! Just waiting for the day until they are free, only to live out all their days caged up. They are free only when they are dead. Not a good omen for the new wards of the suit.

Hedi wrote: "I just wanted to add some of my notes when reading these first chapters"

I absolutely LOVE your thoughts, Hedi. Is it your first read? That is the only explanations I can find because your outlook is so fresh and no sharp that you picked up wonderful clues.

I especially like your observations about last names - you know very well that Dickens enjoys playing with last names, but in this novel, his word play is very subtle.

Mrs. Jellyby is a laughing stock, but as you said, she also reflects the changes that England underwent: migration and feminine emancipation (this one was very gradual, but I think Dickens 'smells' the whiffs of change in the air)

Linda wrote: "Esther's narrative really pulled me into the story and I enjoyed experiencing the darkness and griminess of London as Esther experiences it for the first time."

Linda, we have been trying to read all Dickens novels chronologically, and you are absolutely right - this is his darkest and bleakest so far. Even Oliver Twist with its underworld was not as bleak as Bleak House.

Linda wrote: "Imperfect as my understanding of my sorrow was, I knew that I had brought no joy, at any time, to anybody's heart, and that I was no one upon earth what Dolly was to me."

Esther's narrative in the beginning often reminds me of Jane Eyre. JE was published in 1847, and BH in 1852/1853 because it was published in installments. It feels like Dickens really was familiar with JE because the mood, the tone, and the atmosphere are uncannily similar.

Zulfiya wrote: "Esther's narrative in the beginning often reminds me of Jane Eyre. JE was published in 1847, and BH in 1852/1853 because it was published in installments. It feels like Dickens really was familiar with JE because the mood, the tone, and the atmosphere are uncannily similar. "

Thanks for pointing out the dates of publication for Jane Eyre and Bleak House. I read Jane Eyre a few years ago and absolutely loved it. It immediately ranked among my favorite books.

Yes, thanks for alerting us to this, Zulfiya! I, too, love Jane Eyre!

Terrific opening chapters. Everything is so mysterious! I feel as if the fog and the grime and the caged birds have created a labyrinth to go with the twisting a and turnings of the long long legal case. I love the Hansel and Gretel analogy because these three innocents seem so likely to become lost in the "fog" of the case.

The Deadlock connection is interesting, but I can't get a handle on Lady D yet. Is she in danger from the fashionable world? Right now, she seems pretty cold.

And I also wonder what's going on with the legal handwriting. (Isn't that what David, Macawber, and Uriah Heep did in DAvid Cooperfield?)

Thank you, Heidi. The NAMES are just wonderful! As always, but somehow always such a treat.

Hello everyone;
I'm coming late to the discussion however I've enjoyed all your posts. I was also very struck by the parallels between JE and Esther, although fortunately for Esther she seems to have landed in a good school. Assuming she IS illegitimate, would this not mean that she cannot inherit and so wouldn't be one of the potential heirs?

Zulfiya, thanks for your compliments. It is my first read, and I am a little irritated/ confused/ surprised about Dickens's way of writing. So maybe I am trying to look at as many clues as possible. However, this will probably change now, as I have to catch up. I have not been able to read further than chapter 7 so far. :-(

Hedi wrote: "Nowadays you still have many women who are defined by her husbands. In this case the husband was described and seemed to be defined by his strong wife. That stood out for me as very progressive...."

Just went quickly thru the notes here as Bleak House is being read by another board and I intend to draw their attention to the excellent discussion that is here. I did have a strong reaction to the idea Mrs. J /Mr. J is a "progressive representation," however, that brought me to this comment -- woman as shrew or as dominant is a very old literary trope. It has even been viewed as one of the patrimonial ways of controlling women and expressing disapproval of freedom for them. So, more than one way to interpret....

Thank you for giving a positive opinion, Lily. the discussion was indeed very stimulating.

As for the Js,it is always intriguing to discuss the social trends and how the same facts are interpreted differently through the prism of time.

Zulfiya wrote: "Thank you for giving a positive opinion, Lily. the discussion was indeed very stimulating...."

Zulfiya -- one aspect I particularly enjoyed in skimming these passages was your comparisons with fiction writing techniques that we tend to associate with modern and postmodern authors.

Personally, I have a very hard time reading Dickens. Your comments help me understand perhaps part of why -- some of the same attributes of fantasy and exaggeration that turn me off on some modern authors as well? Still figuring it out. I understand that his writing is great; that doesn't mean I enjoy it as much as some other things. Understanding "how" to read it can be valuable, and also to gain hints of why others enjoy him so much.