The Old Curiosity Club discussion

Since John made the suggestion of opening a general thread for each of the four books of OMF, I'll hereby do it for Book I. It might not be necessary for Book IV, though, because then we might just discuss the novel wholesale.

I was wondering about the title "The Cup and the Lip" and tried to find examples of how this proverb is illustrated by several plot elements. Doing so, I came up with these:

a) John Harmon dies, maybe in a murder, on the eve of coming into his father's property;

b) Bella Wilfer is disappointed in that her marriage to John Harmon does not come off and she will not marry into the Harmon fortune - instead, she has to go into mourning for a man whom she has never met and becomes the laughing-stock of the neighbourhood;

c) Rogue Riderhood goes emptyhanded when he finds that the person he informs on in connection with the Harmon murder has died;

d) the Lammles soon find that, each of them being a mere soldier of fortune, they have also married one.

Any other examples?

Thanks Tristram for creating this thread.

I was struck by the last scene in Chapter 17 -- Wegg peering under bedsteads.

The opening chapter had something "under" as well, in this case the river. And although Wegg was climbing ladders too, in order to find "something" -- the image of him peering under a bed is the last image I took with me.

And it did bring me back, in a way, to the first chapter.

And let's not forget - this will appeal to Peter - in the final chapter, Wegg hopping up and down stairs with his wooden leg is compared to a bird. The early bird gets the worm - whatever the worm might be in Wegg's imagination.

Yes. Lots of birds. In Chapter and section titles, in people's names. As noted elsewhere, how can you but help smiling at a small person with the last name "Wren."

Now, I think of it ... might this novel have the most people who are directly compared to or named after birds?

A non-scientific conclusion I drew recently. I don't know if anyone would agree, or wish to comment, but it came to my mind recently.

For literary critics and professors: Bleak House remains the preferred Dickens; considered by them to be his best work.

For the general reader, in a popular vein: several contenders, but let's go with A Christmas Carol.

For the ordinary but devoted Dickens reader: I am finding OMF to be the favorite (several authors list it as their favorite) and some you tube material says "favorite."

John wrote: "A non-scientific conclusion I drew recently. I don't know if anyone would agree, or wish to comment, but it came to my mind recently.

For literary critics and professors: Bleak House remains the p..."

Same with music. Casual listeners might choose "Yesterday" or "Hey Jude" as their favorite Beatles song, but I've always seen "In My Life" chosen as the favorite in polls of devoted fans. I daresay critics would choose something like "A Day in the Life".

As for Dickens, I'd go with Bleak House or Our Mutual Friend, but I'd have a hard time choosing between the two (Little Dorrit a close 3rd). A Christmas Carol is brilliant, but sometimes feel like I can recite it by heart, so it's just not as interesting or challenging anymore. But (in my opinion) ACC is a flawless story, whereas the longer novels all contain some things that nag at me a bit.

Tristram wrote: "Since John made the suggestion of opening a general thread for each of the four books of OMF, I'll hereby do it for Book I. It might not be necessary for Book IV, though, because then we might just..."

I can't think of any others. Those are four excellent examples!

Mary Lou wrote: "John wrote: "A non-scientific conclusion I drew recently. I don't know if anyone would agree, or wish to comment, but it came to my mind recently.

For literary critics and professors: Bleak House ..."

Very true. I also find "flawless" to be quite apt for ACC. It is pitch-perfect.

I have not read enough Dickens to be able to form an opinion yet on my favorite. Except for ACC, my last completed Dickens work was GE, and that was almost 40 years ago. OMF and then Drood will restart the cycle for me and eventually I can make a judgment. It seems far off, though.

Agree, agree on ACC. I haven't read all Dickens' books, but I am also favoring Drood. If finished, it might have beat out BH.

Another thumbs up to ACC as being pitch perfect.

As for the greatest of Dickens's novels my vote goes to Bleak House.

Now, how about the catagory of most underrated? For that novel I'm firmly in the corner of Dombey and Son.

Dare I admit I have a novel I dislike? Well, that honour goes to Martin Chezzlewit.

Mary Lou wrote: "As for Dickens, I'd go with Bleak House or Our Mutual Friend, but I'd have a hard time choosing between the two ."

I'm still waiting to see why OMF is so highly regarded.

So far:

It has no coherent (or even incoherent) plot.

It has no truly memorable character, in the vein of Mr. Micawber, Pickwick, Pip, Miss Havisham, etc. Jenny Wren might become such, but isn't yet.

It has no great social message, such as Bleak House to Chancery or Nicholas Nickelby to education or A Tale of Two Cities to selflessness.

I'll keep looking, though. If Mary Lou really thinks it's the near equal of Bleak House, it's obvious that I'm not seeing everything there is to see in it. So I'll just have to try harder.

Peter wrote: "Another thumbs up to ACC as being pitch perfect.."

The first 90%, yes.

But then Dickens ruined it with that Little Nell level soppy saccharine sweet ending, turning a potential masterpiece into sentimental popular dreck.

Everyman wrote: "Mary Lou wrote: "As for Dickens, I'd go with Bleak House or Our Mutual Friend, but I'd have a hard time choosing between the two ."

I'm still waiting to see why OMF is so highly regarded.

So far:..."

This has been the case for me. When I read GE for the first time, I easily got attached to Pip, Joe Gargery -- and in a way to Mrs. Gargery and Uncle Pumblechook. Can't seem to do the same with any character in OMF. Someone feel too "wooden" (with apologies to Silas).

I wonder if reading GE at the age of 17 and reading OMF at the age of 55 has something to do with that.

Bleak House is my personal favourite, with Our Mutual Friend close at its heels. I can draw a lot of honey from the scenes involving Silas Wegg and Mr Boffin, and I think both the Lammles and Bradley Headstone interesting characters.

As to the most underrated novel, I definitely agree with you, John: It is Dombey and Son, and I must confess that I had been underrating it as well before we re-read it in the Pickwick Club (the forerunner of the Old Curiosity Club, for those who are new to the group).

The novel I enjoyed least was clearly The Old Curiosity Shop, and I put down my reasons in my book review.

By the way, we had a poll on our favourite Dickens novel in the old Club. Would anybody enjoy some such poll?

Tristram wrote: "By the way, we had a poll on our favourite Dickens novel in the old Club. Would anybody enjoy some such poll?"

Yes, I would.

Everyman wrote: "I'm still waiting to see why OMF is so highly regarded...."

It may be shallow, but I'm happy to have a story with "no great social message" - Sometimes I just want to escape, without being lectured. Not everything has to be Relevant. (Though we're already seeing some commentary in OMF on poor houses, substance abuse, and political campaigns.)

And remember - "favorite" doesn't necessarily mean "best". Sometimes one might just connect with a character, or relate to a plot line, for example, even if a book (or movie, or song) might not be the best crafted.

Like Peter - Martin Chuzzlewit is among my least favorite. It was hard to follow the characters, and this proud American was a bit put off by Dickens' negative portrayal of the US, especially as those scenes seemed almost superfluous to the plot.

Though I haven't read it in years - make that decades - Oliver Twist was another I didn't care for. I should read it again and reevaluate, but I think of it as being exceedingly cruel and violent. I don't remember any light or whimsy, and I prefer to have that balance. So I'd open the nominations for the most over-rated with that one.

John wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Mary Lou wrote: "As for Dickens, I'd go with Bleak House or Our Mutual Friend, but I'd have a hard time choosing between the two ."

I'm still waiting to see why OMF is so highly r..."

For me, reading most books separate by years - or decades- is like reading two entirely different books. It seems that good books get better with age while mediocre books turn sour.

Mary Lou wrote: "And remember - "favorite" doesn't necessarily mean "best".."

Good point.

Mary Lou wrote: "And remember - "favorite" doesn't necessarily mean "best".
...
and this proud American..."

If you're a proud American, how come you put the period outside the quotation mark after best instead of inside it?

Tristram puts it outside, which is what the English do. Americans put it inside.

Don't ask me why.

And I hope you're not offended by my little chide! [g]

Everyman wrote: "If you're a proud American, how come you put the period outside the quotation mark after..."

You're the first person who's ever questioned me about that, Everyman! I put the period where it makes sense - inside if it's part of a quote, outside if it's not. I feel sure many people think I'm doing it wrong, but I've gotten over it. :-)

I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to getting bored out of my gourd. It's definitely quite a different beast compared to "GE," which read to me to be more concise and cleverly packaged. "OMF", so far quite disheveled with its over abundance of characters in relation to its "everything but the kitchen sink" style narrative overshadows whatever morsels have been given to me regarding a steady plot line. It's still so fractured up until this point, taking the plot line to a granular level, where it ceases to exist at times. I will admit, i do sometimes forget we are trying to figure out what happened to John Harmon; a character I don't know much about, even now; he is a character with whom I have a bare bones connection. I do wonder if the overzealous number of characters and maybe even the sub plots are a distraction from a lackluster plot line? The narrative reads to me to be contrived compared to "GE," or the first half of "DC."

What is exciting, however, is that the encircling sub plots and their associated characters "do," a few of them (the Boffins, the Hexams, Bella Wilfur, John Rokesmith, Wegg, and Eugene Wrayburn), create the beginnings of what is an intriguing story, with everybody else (thus far) being amiss. I may have a better pulse on the novel after Book II, I think, having a little more to go on at that point. Regardless, no matter how cumbersome some of Book 1 can be, it's still Dickens, and it's the Curiosity Club members...The latter being the motivation for me to continue reading. :)

I am loving the many references to birds in this novel, even if some of them have been "bird of prey" associations; for Peter's sake, of course. :P

Ami wrote: "Regardless, no matter how cumbersome some of Book 1 can be, it's still Dickens, and it's the Curiosity Club members...The latter being the motivation for me to continue reading. :)."

The latter point for sure. Even when Dickens disappoints, Tristram and Kim with their introductions never do, and the other Curiosities make even the mundane worth reading.

Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to getting bored out of my gourd. It's definitely quite a different..."

Thank you Ami for remembering the birds. The book may well become an even a larger aviary as we read further. I was, of course, overjoyed with the introduction of Jenny Wren.

GE was so densely packed compared to OMF. Like you, the rambling is getting a bit frustrating. I'm waiting for an ignition point.

Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to getting bored out of my gourd. It's definitely quite..."

The big difference I have found between GE and OMF (so far) is that the characters introduced in GE -- I more readily identified with on a personal level.

Not to say that there is not some interesting characters in OMF, but with some of them it is difficult (probably in part due to the story line and some of Dickens' apparent overarching themes) to get your hands around.

Makes me wonder if there is a distinction between early and late novels on the pressing of social themes.

Mary Lou wrote: "Everyman wrote: "If you're a proud American, how come you put the period outside the quotation mark after..."

You're the first person who's ever questioned me about that, Everyman! I put the perio..."

I think I do exactly the same, Mary Lou. I've never paid attention to it. One difference I always try to alert my students about is that in English you introduce direct speech with a comma and not with a colon, like you do in German.

Everyman wrote: "Ami wrote: "Regardless, no matter how cumbersome some of Book 1 can be, it's still Dickens, and it's the Curiosity Club members...The latter being the motivation for me to continue reading. :)."

T..."

:-)

I like the darkness and the grim atmosphere as well as the biting satire that hover about OMF, and like Bleak House it really creates a major microcosm of characters, social strata and themes. That's probably why I would rank those two novels highest. If the writing style attracts me, I don't really need a plot.

John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to getting bored out of my gourd. It's de..."

Not to say that there is not some interesting characters in OMF, but with some of them it is difficult (probably in part due to the story line and some of Dickens' apparent overarching themes) to get your hands around.
Considering the characters with whom we are acquainted with at this point, Dickens has introduced them to us with a light brush stroke of description. It's their repeated presence in Book 1 that has conveyed more to me than their initial introduction to the novel. This, I think, is another difference compared to "GE," where characters were fleshed out from the start, and their continued presence in the novel an enhancement to their strong foundation.

Perhaps, there is something to be said about the subtlety with which Dickens portrays his multiple characters. Perhaps, the reader isn't supposed to latch onto any one character at this juncture, appreciating the lot as a whole for whatever reasoning. Maybe there will be an after effect, realizing much later how connected we may be to certain characters we weren't earlier aware...Considering the building of Book 1, this may be a possibility?

Makes me wonder if there is a distinction between early and late novels on the pressing of social themes.
It's possible. I've only read "David Copperfield" and "Great Expectations" with this group; like I said earlier, "OMF" stylistically reads to be a different beast all together. :) As far as a distinction between pressing social themes in earlier and later novels, I believe there can be a consistency found in the division between social classes theme for Dickens, or his depiction of the treatment of children; both are prevalent in most, if not all of his novels. If there is a distinction between earlier and later novels, could it be that there is a difference in the use of language in these latter novels...A repetition of "key" words in passages that builds on newly created rhythm while reading?

Tristram wrote: "I like the darkness and the grim atmosphere as well as the biting satire that hover about OMF, and like Bleak House it really creates a major microcosm of characters, social strata and themes. That..."

Yes, the air of suspense is quite gripping, and reading it in serial form (as best we can) only adds fuel to the fire! Book 1, if anything, has brought attention to the fact that not everything is as it appears...Most everybody is sitting on something, knowingly or unbeknownst to them.

Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to getting bored out of my g..."

Hi Amy

Your comments on earlier vs later novels is interesting. Just imagine Mr Pickwick in OMF. Not even Sam could ease his way.

I agree with your comments of how Dickens treatment of children and the highlighting of the different social classes runs through all of Dickens. The later novels have a more somber, bitter edge. The later novels also have the advantage of being written later in his career.

Now, that's a brilliant comment of mine, wasn't it? What I mean is the youthful exuberance and over-the-top antics of the earlier characters seem to be replaced with dark, brooding versions of earlier characterizations. Dickens "sadder" somehow. Is this mood part of his own declining health? Is it reflexive of his emotional state, his separation from Catherine Dickens, his secret life with Ellen Terran? I feel it is all the above.

Tristram wrote: "T..." :-)

I put them where I remember them. So it could be outside the quotation mark or inside, it's all when it occurs to me to do it. The same goes for commas, I'm sure if I listened to teachers I would learn the correct way of using all this stuff. But I don't...,""..,..

Tristram wrote: "The novel I enjoyed least was clearly The Old Curiosity Shop, and I put down my reasons in my book review."

Grump.

Everyman wrote: "But then Dickens ruined it with that Little Nell level soppy saccharine sweet ending, turning a potential masterpiece into sentimental popular dreck."

That just got you two grumps. Sorry Tristram.

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "T..." :-)

I put them where I remember them. So it could be outside the quotation mark or inside, it's all when it occurs to me to do it. The same goes for commas, I'm sure if I l..."

Kim

I would not ever dream of changing one thing about your style. :-))

Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to getting bored..."

Peter, I'm going to make it a point to read a Dickens biography after "OMF." It'll be a good time to do so, since the group will be full circle, both ending and starting again with his novels. Thank you for the unintentional push in this direction considering the last part of your post because I too would like to know...Why things became so dark in his novels?

"Tristram wrote: "The novel I enjoyed least was clearly The Old Curiosity Shop, and I put down my reasons in my book review."

I saw you gave TOCS 2 stars, Tristram. My question is, is this on the Dickens scale or the general scale? I tend to rate Dickens based on his other works - a 2 star Dickens is still infinitely better than a four star somebody else. :-)

Peter wrote: "What I mean is the youthful exuberance and over-the-top antics of the earlier characters seem to be replaced with dark, brooding versions of earlier characterizations. Dickens "sadder" somehow. Is this mood part of his own declining health? Is it reflexive of his emotional state, his separation from Catherine Dickens, his secret life with Ellen Terran? I feel it is all the above...."

I agree. It could also represent that youthful crusading zeal being replaced by a slight cynicism. Most young people eagerly tackle their causes, convinced that they are going to change the world. Perhaps, years later, his zeal still burns strong, but the years have taught him that change is not that easy or quick to effect.

Cindy wrote: " youthful crusading zeal being replaced by a slight cynicism..."

I think most of us of "a certain age" can relate to this. I wonder if Dickens realized the platform he had, and how much he really did influence opinions.

I'd be willing to bet that part of it was also just mid-life crisis. No matter how successful one is, the time comes when one realizes that life hasn't gone quite as planned, and now time is running out. (Dear God - how depressing!) The end of his marriage, the affair, and (I hope) the guilt that he realized that perhaps he hadn't handled things in a stand-up sort of way must have all been weighing on him, subconsciously, at least.

Ami wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to..."

I have two bios of Dickens. One by Claire Tomalin and one by Jane Smiley. I finished Tomalin's book and am reading Smiley's now. Smiley's is more of a close reading of the books, while Tomalin's follows the more traditional biographical route. I obtained both of these books because they were available on my Nook.

A really helpful book is Norrie Epstein's The Friendly Dickens, which is kind of a fun romp through his life, work, productions, and legacy. It is not available on e-reader, but can be purchased pretty cheaply in paperback.

Tristram wrote: "If the writing style attracts me, I don't really need a plot. ."

For a shorter work, I would agree. But for a work as long as OMF, I need a plot to tie things together and make sense of the character interactions. Right now we have these characters all going off in different directions and different sets and very little, other perhaps than the death of John Harmon, to tie them together (and the Veneerings and Lammles have very little to do with that side of the story).

Kim wrote: "TI put them where I remember them. So it could be outside the quotation mark or inside, it's all when it occurs to me to do it. ."

You do realize, however, that you cause a pang of physical pain to grammarians when you misplace your periods or commas. It forces the reader to stop and pull out the red pencil and circle the error for correction, mentally at least if not physically.

Ami wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by curiosity to..."

I happened to recall a third book I can recommend -- by George Gissing. Available cheaply or for free. Written about 30 years after Dickens passed, it is a nice study of the man's work with a post modernist feel to it rather than a Victorian feel to it. Writing is fluid and superb.

Ami wrote: "Why things became so dark in his novels? "

Because he himself, with growing age and wisdom, became more enlightened?

Mary Lou wrote: ""Tristram wrote: "The novel I enjoyed least was clearly The Old Curiosity Shop, and I put down my reasons in my book review."

I saw you gave TOCS 2 stars, Tristram. My qusestion is, is this on the..."

Mary Lou,

I generally rate a book within the context of the other books of its kind I know. So Dickens is always rated with respect to Dickens. Otherwise five stars would be too few to mark the superiority of Dickens over, let's say, Collins and Braddon. Both wrote good novels, but they are never on a par with Dickens's novels. Even a novel like OCS is more crafted than many a Braddon novel, but I cannot rank them all two or three stars because when I'm in a Braddon mood, I really do love and enjoy her novels. The same goes for, for example, Lucky Luke comics, which I also rate 4 or 5 stars; and yet I'd never think them on the same level with Charles the Great :-)

Tristram wrote: "I generally rate a book within the context of the other books of its kind I know."

I assumed as much, but knowing the antipathy OCS among several members at the group, I felt compelled to confirm.

(By the way, you showed great restraint in not correcting my typo. Rest assured, after significant cringing on my part upon noticing it, the original has been corrected!)

John wrote: "Ami wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by ..."

John wrote: "Ami wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between being piqued by ..."

Thank you so much for the suggestions, John. I actually referenced "your" discussion with Peter and Mary Lou (I think?) in another thread. I'm happy to see a condensed list of bios in the two posts in here. Thank you again.

Mary Lou wrote: "Tristram wrote: "I generally rate a book within the context of the other books of its kind I know."

I assumed as much, but knowing the antipathy OCS among several members at the group, I felt comp..."

I'd rather regard the odd typo now and then as a sign of our not conversing with machines but humans.

Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "TI put them where I remember them. So it could be outside the quotation mark or inside, it's all when it occurs to me to do it. ."

You do realize, however, that you cause a pang of phy..."

Well start correcting them and send them back to me they all look fine to me no matter where I may put whatever I put where I'm trying to think of more to say in one sentence without any punctuation at all but I'm out of words.

Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Ami wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "John wrote: "Peter wrote: "Ami wrote: "I have both liked and disliked Book 1 equally, the narrative has me sitting at the intersection between bei..."

You're very welcome, Ami.

I tend to like reading anywhere from three to six books at the same time. I don't know how helpful it is to me, but I like to alternate among books and I always enjoy well-written biographies.