Victorians! discussion

Happy New Year, Victorians! Welcome to the first read of 2017!
As you know, we are starting the year with The Old Curiosity Shop by Charles Dickens. We will do about 12 chapters each week for the next 6 weeks.

This week, we are covering chapters 1-12, in which Mr. Dickens introduces all of the major characters and sets up the background for the rest of the story. Below are some questions on which you may comment or you may comment on anything which the events of these chapters bring to mind. Please be conscious of spoilers as you comment.

1) Who is the Narrator and what is his place in the story thus far?
2) What are your impressions of the characters as they are introduced: Nell & her grandfather, Fred Trent & Dick Swiveler, Daniel Quilp, Betsy Quilp and her mother, Christopher Nubbles (Kit)
3) In what ways does Quilp mistreat his wife?
4) What is the mystery of the Trent family fortune? (If we can call it that)
5) What is the Nubble family like?
6) By what is Quilp motivated to behave as he does?
7) For what reasons do Nell and her grandfather to leave the Old Curiosity Shop at the end of this section?

Happy Reading!

I actually recently did an essay at school based on independent reading about the way Quilp treats his wife, by comparing and contrasting it to the relationship of Nancy and Sikes. I found the relationship between Quilp and his wife particularly interesting in light of listening to Rob and Helen on the Archers (if any of you listen to that...) I found Quilp's abuse one of the most interesting parts of the whole novel (I have read it all but no spoilers...), mainly because of how accepting Mrs Quilp is of her torment. She does not try and retaliate, and part of her suffering is almost a result of her own passivity, in my opinion (constantly being described as "timid). Likewise, the character of Mrs Jiniwin for me almost represents the modern readers voice, advocating for emancipation. The fact that she is pretty much the only character to defend Mrs Quilp and the only arguably feminist voice is almost tragic, representing how victorian society is accepting of the wife's position almost as a 'slave' to the desires of Quilp (possibly both sexually and socially.) What was particularly interesting to me as well is Dickens's own view about women. There is a case made by many scholars that Dickens was himself sexist and rather sexually immoral as well (one needs to look no further than his affair with Nelly Tarnan, who was about the same time as his daughter at the time...) There is also an argument to say that all female characters in a dickens novel fall into three categories. In light of this, it really changes my perception into how Dickens is wanting us to read into the Quilp's abusive relationship. From this, one really needs to think about whether or not one should approach this text from a feminist approach- by doing so, we are projecting our modern thoughts onto a victorian text. For victorian readers, Betsy Quilp's 'abuse' is not as troublesome to the modern reader.

One of the things I miss about being a student is the opportunity to do those kinds of essays. Would you describe Betsy as someone who accepted the abuse because of her love for Quilp or her fear of him? In what ways is this relationship different from that of Bill and Nancy from Oliver Twist? (They were written only a few years apart.) Do you think that these portrayals show an awareness of the mental as well as physical cruelty in these relationships?

Happy New Year everyone! Starting our year with Dickens will be great.

The first chapters of OCS offers much to enjoy. Is there any other novelist who can serve up such a cast array of interesting, weirdly strange and totally fascinating characters. Chapter 3 begins with the description of Quilp. How could anyone not enjoy Dickens in full flight!

With Nell and her grandfather Dickens gives us another side of character development. Our introduction to Nell's grandfather both tells us much and, at the same time, reveals nothing. Where does he go? What does he do? We know Dickens will tell us in due time. The fact that the novel was published in parts makes us appreciate even more the technique of making the reader wait, not just for the next chapter, but the next instalment.

James wrote: "The fact that she is pretty much the only character to defend Mrs Quilp and the only arguably feminist voice is almost tragic, representing how victorian society is accepting of the wife's position almost as a 'slave' to the desires of Quilp (possibly both sexually and socially.) ."

I wonder whether Mrs Quilp really does represent Victorian society. Did Dickens intend her to be an accurate portrait of at least one form of socially acceptable husband-wife relationship? Or was he, as I rather think, highlighting with implied condemnation a manner of relationship which most of his readers would have viewed with disgust?

The first few chapters, of the first person narrator, were, I thought, rather weird when put in context of the following chapters. Why does Dickens start out this way? Are we intended to assume that the omniscient narrator who takes over in chapter four is the same person who was the first person narrator for chapters 1-3? It seems to me unlikely, given that the Chapter 1-3 narrator knew nothing of these characters until he (presumably he, but are we actually ever told??) led Little Nell home, but the narrator of chapters 4 on seems to have information about their backgrounds which the city walker wouldn't have known?

James wrote: "I actually recently did an essay at school based on independent reading about the way Quilp treats his wife, by comparing and contrasting it to the relationship of Nancy and Sikes. I found the rela..."

I agree with you that Quilp marriage is rather strange, uneasy and perplexing to say the least. I see also the connections between Nancy and Sikes and the Quilps. I think, however, that we must remember there are pitfalls into reading too much forward in history. A Victorian reader would not see the issues of marriage, marriage abuse, and the roles of women in the novels of the 19C, and especially the earlier decades of the 19C which OT and OCS are found as we do today. It was not until decades later that divorce laws were anywhere near our 21C understanding. Indeed, it was only with an act of Parliament that divorces could be granted in early Victorian times, and so only the affluent few could afford them. To me, I always need to shake my head but realize that when you are living in a time period you often accept the way it is because that's the way it is.

I'm certain Quilp had no desire to effect a companionate marriage with his wife. I agree with you that Dickens's own life faulters under the microscope of the 21C. Indeed, the death of his sister-in-law Mary and Dickens's subsequent actions ( or inactions as he missed his deadline for submission of material only in this instance) continue to create discussion. Fascinating material to consider.

Everyman wrote: "Or was he, as I rather think, highlighting with implied condemnation a manner of relationship which most of his readers would have viewed with disgust?"

I was thinking in this direction as well. Now Quilp is a thoroughly reprehensible character. The fact that he is married surprised me - who would want him? But Dickens did choose to have a wife for him, so what kind of a relationship would that be? It could only be an abusive one. When we meet Betsy Quilp she has surrendered much of her personality and dignity to the abuse. But she is still very much aware of right and wrong, even if she doesn't stand up for herself or others like Nell out of self-preservation.

"and Mrs Quilp, who was afflicted beyond measure by the recollection of the part she had just acted, shut herself up in her chamber, and smothering her head in the bed-clothes bemoaned her fault more bitterly than many less tender-hearted persons would have mourned a much greater offence; for, in the majority of cases, conscience is an elastic and very flexible article, which will bear a deal of stretching and adapt itself to a great variety of circumstances. Some people by prudent management and leaving it off piece by piece like a flannel waistcoat in warm weather, even contrive, in time, to dispense with it altogether; but there be others who can assume the garment and throw it off at pleasure; and this, being the greatest and most convenient improvement, is the one most in vogue."

Another thing that particularly interested me is the fact that Dickens originally intended the whole novel to be only a short story, and this resulted in the narrator (who is meant to be, according to my researches Master Humphrey, the main character behind the publication of The Old Curiosity Shop appeared in- "Master Humphrey's clock",) being dropped after two chapters. This reminds me how serialised Dickens writing is, and how ever changing it is. This makes it even more remarkable that even through his serialised format, he ends up with a fully coherent novel at the end of it (and the various plot holes like the switching of the narrator only makes his novels more charming.) For me, the switch in speaker was a sensible one, although it did feel rather awkward in the way Dickens tried to do it, but the omniscient narrator really does allow Dickens more scope in terms of the story, and trying to maintain with the Master Humphrey would have felt very forced and restricted in terms of the number of characters and settings he would able to introduce.

I have just begun OCS and approaching it much differently than I did the first time. The guidance here is helpful in terms of things to notice and look for. I started this novel once before---I adore Dickens and was surprised when I didn't like this one. I am now reading with an eye as to why. So far, I think that Nell and her grandfather were a real turn-off for me. I just did not like either of the people I supposed to be the main characters. I am reading a different version this time, Penguin I think, and in the intro found out that many people actually divide the novel into the Nell part and the other characters part. So I am determined to hang in there this time and hold my nose and read through Nell! Is it true that she may have been modeled on Dickens' sister-in-law who died and whom he obviously had a weird relationship with?

Lynne wrote: "I have just begun OCS and approaching it much differently than I did the first time. The guidance here is helpful in terms of things to notice and look for. I started this novel once before---I ado..."

Hi Lynne

There is much commentary and speculation about how much Dickens's sister-in-law Mary Hogarth influenced his writing, and which of his female characters may reflect back on Mary. I think it fair to say that Dickens mourned Mary's passing deeply and continued throughout his life to reflect on her fondly. Speculation also exists on how closely Mary could be tied to The Battle of Life.

I am using the Penguin version as well. It contains great endnotes, doesn't it?

The beginning and ending material is great---problem is, now I have yet another list of books and resources to look for! I haven't read a biography of Dickens for moons, and probably should remedy that. Has anyone read the Ackroyd bio and is it any good?

Lynne wrote: "The beginning and ending material is great---problem is, now I have yet another list of books and resources to look for! I haven't read a biography of Dickens for moons, and probably should remedy ..."

The Ackroyd is massive and thorough. The Edgar Johnson bio is much older but very readable.

Peter wrote: "Lynne wrote: "The beginning and ending material is great---problem is, now I have yet another list of books and resources to look for! I haven't read a biography of Dickens for moons, and probably ..."

Thanks!

I recently read Charles Dickens by Claire Tomalin. She made some really interesting points and I found it a fairly compelling read.

Lynne wrote: "I have just begun OCS and approaching it much differently than I did the first time. The guidance here is helpful in terms of things to notice and look for. I started this novel once before---I ado..."

From what I've read, Dickens intended to keep Little Nell completely innocent and sweet (perhaps annoyingly so to the modern reader) in juxtaposition to those around her. In the next section, I plan to suggest we talk about this as a literary device. Hopefully, "holding your nose and reading through Nell" will pay off by the end of chapter 24.

Everyman wrote: "The first few chapters, of the first person narrator, were, I thought, rather weird when put in context of the following chapters. Why does Dickens start out this way? Are we intended to assume tha..."

This bothered me as I read these first chapters. I decided to chalk it up to the way in which Dickens was publishing at the time. That maybe it took him awhile to get into the narrative style that he wanted for this story, but couldn't go back and edit because the earlier chapters were already published. I have no basis for this interpretation. It's just what I imagine may have happened.

As it is, I keep wondering if the original narrator (Master Humphrey?) will turn up again in the story.

I don't think the Narrator pops up again. I sort of had the idea that when he was ushered out, it sounded as if it was permanent---I don't have the text in front of me, but something to the effect of him no longer being needed was written, and that from then on the characters could speak for themselves.
As for the Quilps! Quilp, to me, is almost a caricature of all things disgusting and evil---a true "goblin". On one hand he is ugly and repellent. On the other, it has been suggested that he was almost charismatic, in that some people seemed drawn to him. Why did Mrs Quilp succumb to him? Supposedly her mother had input (Did she think Quilp was rich? Money was the accepted reason for many women to end up with abusive men.) Then you get into the whole discussion of exactly what was considered abuse among the Victorians? The landowners in Parliament refused for years to allow imports of grain, choosing instead to let their tenants and the city people starve. It was a society that in many ways was more cruel than charitable. Yes there were charitable people, but also a great many who thought the poor and downtrodden deserved their lot. To me, Mrs Quilp is the very epitome of an abused woman by our definitions. Abuse in Victorian times would have been a different thing---I am certain verbal abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse would often have been considered normal behavior.

I have already mentioned how little Nell and her grandfather appear to me. I like Kit very much and was glad he tucked into Quilp's acolyte! Can't say about Fred yet. We don't know much. But his buddy Swiveller is going to be a good character, I have a feeling. There seems to be something redeeming in Dick. His "romance" with Sophie Wackles is quite amusing. Much needed comic relief among the nastiness of Quilp and even the cluelessness of Grandfather Trent. Nell is pure spun sugar, and too much sugar is not good for us!!

Lynne wrote: "As for the Quilps! Quilp, to me, is almost a caricature of all things disgusting and evil---a true "goblin". On one hand he is ugly and repellent."

Are we offended by Dickens choosing to make a dwarf this evil? Stereotyping, or perhaps I should rather say playing to the prejudices of his audience?

Lynne wrote: "I am certain verbal abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse would often have been considered normal behavior. "

Well, perhaps not normal -- I haven't seen any suggestion in my genealogical research into my English relatives that such behavior was normal among them -- but I would agree that it would probably not have been generally seen as abnormal or unacceptable.

Everyman wrote: "Lynne wrote: "As for the Quilps! Quilp, to me, is almost a caricature of all things disgusting and evil---a true "goblin". On one hand he is ugly and repellent."

Are we offended by Dickens choosin..."

I didn't understand that Quilp was technically a dwarf, but just short and oddly put together. The Victorians lived in a world in which "oddities" of all kinds were fascinating, so they definitely would not have been offended. I feel like it is an instance of us not being able to impose our current feelings on the story.

Everyman wrote: "Lynne wrote: "I am certain verbal abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse would often have been considered normal behavior. "

Well, perhaps not normal -- I haven't seen any suggestion in my ge..."

The problem with genealogy as a study is that it is hard to get to personalities of your forebears. You can get names and dates back to a certain point, but unless you are one of the lucky few who had family members that kept journals or diaries or even wrote about their lives in some other way, I don't think we can get a good idea of the "real people". You may be one of the lucky ones. But the other thing I have to keep reminding myself of, is that so many folks could not read and/or write. So to know who and what they were like, unless someone else wrote about them, is pretty much conjecture, and becomes more so the further back we go.

In Victorian times, the upper and even middle-classes were not only literate, but great letter writers. I would love to have some letters from even my great aunts and uncles or great-grandparents. Either they didn't write them, or didn't save them. I am pretty sure the masses of poor in the cities at that time were not great writers.

Lynne wrote: "You may be one of the lucky ones. ."

I am in that regard. Many of my family kept journals, and there are family letters which have been copied and circulated among the family members who are interested (ours is a large extended family: we tended to run to families in the 8-12 children size; my paternal grandmother was one of 12 children and her husband was also one of 12, which was not atypical, and they were a close family so lots of letters). And there are published biographies of at least a dozen of the family and there are meeting records -- both sides are fairly well known Quaker families -- so the bunch of us who do genealogical work have a lot of material to work with and exchange it freely.

Everyman wrote: "Lynne wrote: "You may be one of the lucky ones. ."

I am in that regard. Many of my family kept journals, and there are family letters which have been copied and circulated among the family members..."

You are fortunate in having all that information about your family. I am German on both sides and my mother's family has actually traced their ancestors back to something like the 800's. But it is all names and dates---no one seems to have stood out or been famous (or infamous!) My grandmother was one of 12. On my dad's side families were small---many of his aunts and uncles never married at all, and those who did tended to have only one or two kids. Interesting since they were a pretty wealthy crew---maybe they just didn't want it all divided up! My godmother ended up with a serious pile of cash----and left most of it to a maid who had only been in the house for about 6 months!

Quilp, while repugnant, is a fascinating character study. We, the readers, seem mystified that Betsy would have married him, yet, as Lynne said, he is described as having a charisma when he chooses. He has skillfully gotten several of the other characters into positions of dependency or vulnerability so he must be quite good at masking what seems to be a sadistic personality.

Are there similarities between Nell and Betsy that would make Quilp pursue them both? Was Betsy once as innocent? Can we make a correlation between Nell's selfless devotion to her grandfather and Betsy's devotion to her husband?

I agree that Dick Swiveler's love life seems a necessary relief from the Trents and the Quilps!

Renee wrote: "Quilp, while repugnant, is a fascinating character study. ."

He is indeed. I do wonder what a trained psychologist would make of him. Wonder whether anyone ever made a PhD thesis of him.

Renee wrote: "Are there similarities between Nell and Betsy that would make Quilp pursue them both? "

Both are willing to be totally dedicated to the comfort of a man. Of course, from Betsy that may not be voluntary, and from Nell it may not be transferable, but I suspect Quilp thinks he could turn Nell into another Betsy.

Some thoughts on the first 12 chapters.
- Nell's age - she is 14. Dickens consistently refers to her as "the child," which implies a younger girl, but 14 is right on the cusp of womanhood, which explains Quilp's intense interest in her. He anticipates making her his second wife in 4-5 years. Fred schemes to marry her off quicker than that, and Kit's mother suspects Kit of being in love with "the child" as well. Infantilizing Nell adds to the overall creepiness of the book for me, especially when Quilp takes over her bedroom!
- Quilp is a money lender, among other things, which puts him in the same camp as Shylock--another stereotypical villain. It will be interesting to see if there are other parallels to Merchant of Venice as the story unfolds.
- Mrs. Jinwin certainly sold off her daughter to Quilp in my reading of the marriage. And she is a mighty hypocrite as well--talking big but retreating to let her daughter be bullied by Quilp. Of course, to be fair, she bartered on her daughter's attractiveness probably because she had no other way to live, and is as dependent on Quilp as is her daughter. It wasn't easy being a woman in Victorian London.
- Kit is an absolute sweetie, and I have no idea why Nell didn't pack up her grandfather and go to live with his family as he suggested.
- Dick Swiveller and Fred Trent are basically dumb and dumber.
- Did Quilp really lend the grandfather pots of money thinking he was investing it? Seems like a big plot point to swallow, but okay!
- I'm waiting to hear Nell's mother's story--seems there's some mystery there.

I sort of read OCS decades ago, but really only skimmed it, and I don't remember much about how it works. Interestingly, I'm actually liking it this time around.

Jane wrote: "Some thoughts on the first 12 chapters.
- Nell's age - she is 14. Dickens consistently refers to her as "the child," which implies a younger girl, but 14 is right on the cusp of womanhood, which e..."

Yes. Nell is a very interesting character. You are right to point out that her age and the possibility of her marriage in the Victorian time would be looked upon much differently than today. Quilp is a very odious person, but is developed by Dickens in such a way that makes Quilp's creepiness one of great interest and curiosity to the readers.

The novel seems, in its early stages, to be taking multiple views on the state, nature and institution of marriage. It will be interesting to trace the arc of this thread in the story.

Jane wrote: "Some thoughts on the first 12 chapters.
- Nell's age - she is 14. Dickens consistently refers to her as "the child," which implies a younger girl, but 14 is right on the cusp of womanhood, which e..."

It's always interesting to me how a book changes because I have changed. I bring my own experience of the world or tolerance or knowledge of the time it was written or information about the author to what I read, making the story a different experience every time I lay eyes on it.

Your words about Nell's age make me wonder about Dickens purpose. You've made a very good point. For me, 14 is still the age of childhood, but, as you say, it was once the cusp of womanhood (and in earlier times would have been marriagible age). So is Dickens referring to her internal age?? Is he making one of his "statements" about how HE believes the age of 14 should be viewed? Is he projecting his feelings for his sister-in-law? (I wonder how old she was when she died. I got the impression she was a younger sister.) ... I'm not expecting an answer. I'm just musing aloud.

Peter wrote, The novel seems, in its early stages, to be taking multiple views on the state, nature and institution of marriage. It will be interesting to trace the arc of this thread in the story.

Three great themes to watch!

I'm also fascinated to visit this as one of Dickens earlier works. Two of my favorites are David Copperfield and Bleak House, both from late in his writing career. It's so interesting to me to see how his technique has matured.

Referring to Nell as "the child" may be quite accurate in light of the times. The onset of sexual maturity for girls has to do with body weight, and I once read somewhere that just a few generations ago on average the first menstrual cycle used to be around the age of 16. So for a girl growing up in poor circumstances with poor nutrition I envision her to be small in stature. She very well may look more like a ten year-old today. You can still encounter this in developing countries.

Jane wrote: "Some thoughts on the first 12 chapters.
- Nell's age - she is 14....Infantilizing Nell adds to the overall creepiness of the book for me, especially when Quilp takes over her bedroom!..."

Yes, she does seem younger the way he writes her. Much younger.

Lynne wrote: "I didn't understand that Quilp was technically a dwarf, but just short and oddly put together. "

Well, Dickens repeatedly describes him as an actual dwarf.

The first time we meet him, at the start of Chapter 3, Dickens first says "so low in stature as to be quite a dwarf," and next "the dwarf (if we may call him so)," but from then he refers to him simply as "the dwarf.

‘Ah!’ said the dwarf,
‘And that?’ said the dwarf,
‘And that?’ inquired the dwarf,
‘Meaning me?’ returned the dwarf. ‘Quilp is my name.
The dwarf nodded.

Searched on "dwarf" in the Gutenberg edition, and Dickens uses the term 214 times throughout the book.

Whether by this he means an actual dwarf, or from the first two comments means very short but not technically a dwarf, I couldn't say, but I got so used to him calling Quilp the dwarf that I assumed in the end he was one.

Jane wrote: "Kit is an absolute sweetie, and I have no idea why Nell didn't pack up her grandfather and go to live with his family as he suggested.."

I think maybe two reasons. One, not wanting to have to live permanently on charity. But two, I think more likely, he knew Quilp would find him and harass him perpetually. And three, whatever he goes off to do at night that is obviously something not good he would not get away from if he stayed there in London.

I wish it were because he didn't want to imposed on a widow already struggling to feed three children, but I don't think he thinks about other people that much. He's really a pretty selfish person.

Everyman wrote: "Renee wrote: "Quilp, while repugnant, is a fascinating character study. ."

He is indeed. I do wonder what a trained psychologist would make of him. Wonder whether anyone ever made a PhD thesis of ..."

I am sure if they did, you will ferret it out!

Kerstin wrote: "Referring to Nell as "the child" may be quite accurate in light of the times. The onset of sexual maturity for girls has to do with body weight, and I once read somewhere that just a few generation..."

Good points all. Also, if Dickens intended her to be the epitome of innocence and yet a viable player in the novel, she would have to be what we might call a young adult. I also see her as looking more like 10 than 14. D could have made her 10, but then she would be outside the proper age range for men to be ogling.

The discussion of Nell and proper marriage age, etc puts me in mind of the arguments that have raged regarding the true age of Pocahontas. The time of she and Capt John Smith was 200 years earlier, but what was considered marriageable was much the same. Historians have put her at anywhere from 10 to 15, all stating their reasons. But the fact is, we don't know.

Jane wrote: "Some thoughts on the first 12 chapters.
- Nell's age - she is 14. Dickens consistently refers to her as "the child," which implies a younger girl, but 14 is right on the cusp of womanhood, which e..."

Yes, I think Quilp taking over Nell's bedroom was definitely Dickens making some sort of statement, and definitely a creepy one. Was Quilp hoping she would stumble in during the night?

Also, we haven't talked much about Mrs Jiniwin, who certainly did marry her daughter off for financial security. But that is something else to remember about the Victorians----what was considered by many to be a "good marriage" had nothing to do with love or good behavior. If a husband was a decent provider, that was often all that was required. And it certainly seems that whatever else we might say of Quilp, he does put food on the table.

Or rather shrimps and cresses!

Everyman wrote: "Lynne wrote: "I didn't understand that Quilp was technically a dwarf, but just short and oddly put together. "

Well, Dickens repeatedly describes him as an actual dwarf.

The first time we meet h..."

Everyman

Thanks for the number count of the use of "dwarf" in the novel. We are also discussing the age of Nell so I have a question/favour to ask. Can your device tell us how many times Dickens used the word "child" in OCS? Where I'm going with this is as follows. The word "dwarf" is clearly linked in most (almost all?) incidences to Quilp. To me, it seems that the same can be said of the word "child" as being associated with Nell.

Quilp is consistently portrayed as ugly and odious whereas Nell is portrayed as the opposite. She is beautiful, innocent and pure. On the surface, we as readers have a simple character contrast. I feel Dickens's motivation may go deeper than that simple comparison. While "no spoilers" must be obeyed, I think it would be interesting to track the development of these two characters with a close stylistic eye.

Thanks.

Peter wrote: "Can your device tell us how many times Dickens used the word "child" in OCS? Where I'm going with this is as follows. The word "dwarf" is clearly linked in most (almost all?) incidences to Quilp. To me, it seems that the same can be said of the word "child" as being associated with Nell."

child occurs 662 times. (It doesn't search just on the word, so it also finds children, childish, childhood, etc., but still, child is used a LOT. I can't do a comparison of how many times it occurs in connection with Nell, that's beyond the simple search engine, but a quick look didn't find it used in connection with any other figure, thought I expect there are probably children who will show up in future chapters. Still, I think it's pretty safe to say that Dickens uses child as descriptive of Nell very often.

Maiden is only used twice, neither in connection with Nell. Maid is used 11 times, again none connected with Nell. Young woman is used three times twice descriptive of Mrs. Quilp, once otherwise in a chapter we haven't gotten to yet. Virgin is used five times, none in connection with Nell, which seems to suggest that maybe Dickens isn't thinking of her as sexually mature yet, but that's pure speculation. Can't think of any other terms that seem worth trying.

Peter wrote: "While "no spoilers" must be obeyed, I think it would be interesting to track the development of these two characters with a close stylistic eye. ."

I look forward to your updating this tracking with each week's reading.

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "While "no spoilers" must be obeyed, I think it would be interesting to track the development of these two characters with a close stylistic eye. ."

I look forward to your updating th..."

Everyman. Thank you.

As you know, I tend to zero in on some aspect of a novel - person, word, image etc. - and follow it through, hoping to find a pattern or a meaning beyond the mere words. Quilp and Nell seem like polar opposites so far. My question will be why, beyond the obvious, did Dickens write those characters as he did?

Dickens doesn't give us too much information as to the background of Nell and her grandfather. As the book unfolds these scanty pieces are not very satisfying, or did I miss something?

The grandfather gambles what little he has away on the premise that he wanted to provide for his granddaughter once he's gone. Yet when one looks at their lives in the beginning of the book, the basic necessities, while very modest, are taken care of. From what is implied, he owns his shop, he is not leasing. We know nothing of his life up until then, but he must have made sound decisions and kept his livelihood until he decided that for Nell keeping the shop after him isn't good enough. Is it really just a case of wanting to leave a larger legacy?

We also don't know much about Nell's mother's circumstances other than that she died in poverty. Why were her circumstances reduced that could shed some light into the grandfather's thought processes?

Kerstin wrote: "We know nothing of his life up until then, but he must have made sound decisions and kept his livelihood until he decided that for Nell keeping the shop after him isn't good enough. "

Well, it seems that maybe he had been borrowing from Quilp for some time; that would suggest that it wasn't income from the shop that was supporting them, but the loans against it, which of course meant eating away the capital until he had no value left, and was bankrupt. It seems that the gambling started shortly after Frederick was sent off to sea, but I'm not sure when that was. But by then, he had gone through all his income and savings.