The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Greetings,

This week we are discussing the next five chapters, and because this is a novel that is not comparable to other Dickens novels in its size, it seems that we have already put a serious dent on it.

The opposition of "Facts" vs "Fancy" continues as Dickens discloses his true colors - he is the supporter of both of them.
Mr. Sleary with his lisp declares something that potentially can reconcile the two sides of this debate - he asks us to make the best of it, not the worst, but to be honest it was veeeeery hard to for me to figure it out "Make the betht of uth, not the wurtht." . At least, Dickens again shows his compassion and progressive ideas as he gives his most insignificant character the opportunity to express the words of wisdom.

2. In chapter 7 we meet Mrs. Sparsit. Why do you think Dickens devotes a whole chapter to this character sketch? How does she fit into the ongoing fight "Fight" vs. "Fancy"?

3. The next chapter gives us an insight into the world of Gradgrind siblings. Are they a lost cause? What is Tom's idea of 'revenge'?

4. Dickens also shows the working class family, and in the final chapter we read this week, we are taken away from the Gradgrinds and are introduced to Stephen Blackpool. He is a man who is married to a loose woman/ an alcoholic (it is inconclusive or maybe both) and is unable to marry again and live happily.
I was actually very impressed by this chapter because the problems of these two characters are very modern, and I was surprised to find this type of a dysfunctional family in the Victorian fiction where women are either paragons of beauty, love, patience, and domesticity or they are comical like Mrs. Gamp from MC, or utterly malicious and bigger-than-life, like Mrs. Squeers in NN and Sarah Brass in TOCS.

What are your thoughts about this chapter? Is Dickens again holding a progressive and enlightening torch for the humanity to show and expose malignant social diseases?


My dear DP participants.
Please bear with me for a couple of upcoming weeks. We are very close to the date of the official home closing, and we are transitioning between the two houses. It is a little bit of a hassle, but I am persevering with my reading projects. I might be slow responding or commenting, but I am still with you and enjoy reading all your comments.

Zulfiya wrote: "In chapter 7 we meet Mrs. Sparsit. Why do you think Dickens devotes a whole chapter to this character sketch? How does she fit into the ongoing fight "Fight" vs. "Fancy"? ..."

Mrs. Sparsit is like a counterpoint to Bounderby: born into gentility, she has gone down in the world while Bounderby has been making his way up. On first sight she seems a placid and unshakeable sort of character with her "mournful dignity" and stately humility. Bounderby obviously values her but I suspect chiefly because she serves to set off his own achievements.

I find her quite an intriguing character but it's not clear why Dickens invests so much time in describing her. As yet she's a bit of a mystery, unlike Bounderby whom Dickens has already made clear is a bad 'un with "a moral infection of clap-trap in him." While Mrs Sparsit appears to respect Bounderby, I feel there is more to come out. The last sentence of chapter 7 - she "got behind her eyebrows and meditated in the gloom of that retreat, all the evening", makes me wonder if she'll have a bigger part to play.

I agree with you, Zulfiya, about chapter 10 when Stephen Blackpool comes home to find his drunken wife. This was a very effective and realistic episode.

We saw in earlier books that characters were called by multiple names by those around them. Sissy calls herself by that nickname and that's what her father calls her, Mr Sleary calls her "Thethila" and at the utilitarian school she is just plain Jupe.

Louisa gets very interested in Sissy's life, not just the exotic circus elements but the real love between her and her father (obviously not there in the Gradgrind household). It's almost as if, denied any exposure to novels or other fictions, Louisa gets the same vicarious pleasure from Sissy's life as others get from the emotions in books or plays.

Zulfiya wrote: "We are very close to the date of the official home closing, and we are transitioning between the two houses. It is a little bit of a hassle, but I am persevering with my reading projects...."

Firstly, good luck with your house move. Having just been through that myself, I know the amount of time and energy it takes!

This is only my second ever Dickens novel, and the first with this group. I was just getting into the characters of Sissy, Gradgrind etc and we are suddenly transported to a completely different story, which I found a little confusing.

Back with the Gradgrinds, I can see that Sissy is probably going to have a very profound effect on those within the household. I was surprised at Gradgrind's dislike of the library - surely he would support people's access to the knowledge in books, even if only the reference or fact-based ones. Also, doesn't most learning occur when someone 'wonders' how something works and then seeks the answer. Surely, without some 'wondering' no one would ever find the answers that become the facts.

It is ironic that the people who run/support the factories don't believe in "wondering." It is because of scientific discovery - which is based on making observations, connections, evaluation, analysis, but at it's heart, someone who says that we don't know everything and 'wonders' about something particular - that is the catalyst behind the Industrial Revolution. Of course, that type of "wondering" is okay, but storytelling isn't the 'right' type of "wondering."

One of my favorite lines was: "They wondered about human nature, human passions, human hopes and fears, the struggles and sorrows, the lives and deaths of common men and women!"

Wrong kind of "wondering"! One must only wonder about things that will ultimately make money for a small group of people.

Some of my other favorite parts:

Jupe's answers in school. My favorite line there was "I thought it must be just as hard upon those who were starved, whether the others were a million, or a million million."

Another favorite line: "In the last close nook of this great exhausted receiver, where the chimneys, for want of air to make a draught, were built in an immense variety of stunted and crooked shapes, as though every house put out a sign of the kind of people who might be expected to be born in it."

It is a very social novel, maybe even more than any previous novels by Dickens. If in his previous novels, he showed certain characters in distress, but in this novel, he tends to make general statements.

Zulfiya wrote: "My dear DP participants.
Please bear with me for a couple of upcoming weeks. We are very close to the date of the official home closing, and we are transitioning between the two houses. It is a little bit of a hassle, but I am persevering with my reading projects. I might be slow responding or commenting, but I am still with you and enjoy reading all your comments. ..."

Zulfiya, I wish you good luck with everything. Let us know if you need any help with setting up the threads or anything else that comes into your mind.

I have just a few comments to add. I agree with one of the previous posts (I've forgotten by whom) that this novel is very much like Gaskell's "North and South." The further I read, the more similarities I notice.

Another aspect I noticed was the heading of the three books within the novel: Sowing, Reaping, Garnering. Book One establishes the foundation, and "what a man sows, so shall he reap." I believe that Gradgrind's rearing of Louisa and Tom will come back to bite him, so to speak, and that the novel will become progressively darker. Perhaps Sissy Jupe offers the only thread of light and hope in the narrative.

Emma wrote: The last sentence of chapter 7 - she "got behind her eyebrows and meditated in the gloom of that retreat, all the evening", makes me wonder if she'll have a bigger part to play.

I felt as if she was plotting against Bounderby in some way. I read their situation as Bounderby has her in his home primarily for the pleasure of crowing over how far he has risen and she has fallen in life, and while she agrees with him about her privileged upbringing (which sounds far too grand for her likely early station) she must find it humiliating to have it constantly thrown in her face.

Emma wrote: "I agree with you, Zulfiya, about chapter 10 when Stephen Blackpool comes home to find his drunken wife. This was a very effective and realistic episode."

It is indeed. It strikes me as one of the poignant scenes I read in his novels - so melancholic, depressive, and unavoidable.

Lynnm wrote: "Some of my other favorite parts:

Jupe's answers in school. My favorite line there was "I thought it must be just as hard upon those who were starved, whether the others were a million, or a millio..."

I liked that one, too, Lynnm. :-)

Sarah wrote: "Another aspect I noticed was the heading of the three books within the novel: Sowing, Reaping, Garnering. Book One establishes the foundation, and "what a man sows, so shall he reap." I believe that Gradgrind's rearing of Louisa and Tom will come back to bite him, so to speak, and that the novel will become progressively darker. Perhaps Sissy Jupe offers the only thread of light and hope in the narrative. ..."

Good point, Sarah.

I think I cannot add that much to your comments.

I thought that Mr. Bounderby's interest in Louisa was a little creepy. Someone mentioned that she was 15, so maybe already a young little woman, but anyway creepy...
Tom seems to have recognized this "sympathy".
He also seems quite desperate about his life and his family. It is sad to see a young person this way.

It seems that there are already hints of several social issues, but not in an exaggerated way, and as was mentioned above, these issues still exist, less in our neighbourhoods, more in developing countries.

Still catching up. These are my thoughts so far...

1) I agree with whomever said that young Tom Gradgrind seems desperate to leave the upbringing he seems to recognize as twisted. I do worry though that while he has some apparent affection for Louisa, he doesn't seem to scruple about using her to smooth his way with Bounderby. Will that bring him to pressure her into something later?

2) There's definitely something more to Mrs. Sparsit. Perhaps she's hatching a plot (as someone else suggested). Or she's actually Bounderby's mistress. I'd say she wasn't really "high born" except that there's local family history which proves her previous position. It would have been a kick, though, if Bounderby was covering a posh background while she was covering a low one. Thereby engaging in "fact" which was actually "fantasy." That being said, I guess Bounderby's bluster seems overdone to me. I just don't trust the guy.

3) The scene with Stephen Blackpool and his wife was truly painful. An excellent example of the power behind Dickens's talent. Yes, it seemed quite "modern." A testament to the enduring devastation of addiction and despair.

4) I love Robin's observation that Louisa is getting vicarious lessons in what love and affection are by listening to Sissy's descriptions.

5) I suspect the reason Gradgrind doesn't approve of libraries is that he wants to teach HIS facts, without being questioned or challenged. There is no wondering, because they are not encouraging their students to THINK. They are not creating innovators and problem solvers, but automatons who will placidly fit into the mechanism of society.

Renee, the idea of turning out automatons that you mentioned goes well with the workers being called Hands. That is all the companies are interested in is the hands of the workers, not their brains, hearts, stomachs, or souls.

And the way the schoolchildren are identified only by numbers!

Renee wrote: "5) I suspect the reason Gradgrind doesn't approve of libraries is that he wants to teach HIS facts, without being questioned or challenged. There is no wondering, because they are not encouraging their students to THINK. They are not creating innovators and problem solvers, but automatons who will placidly fit into the mechanism of society...."

Excellent point.

There's a certain cruelty in disallowing fanciful thought in childhood.