Dickensians! discussion

Sam wrote: "As usual Jean is catching me using my lazy melodramatic prose ..."

Oh not at all Sam; I'm really enjoying your lead of this one, thank you!

But there are some myths about Dickens, such as "he was paid by the word" and the one you sort of suggested "he exaggerated the conditions" so I was just clarifying. It looks as if these comments were made at the time too ... as Lee says, it's only human nature 🙄

Thanks for explaining in more detail, though 😊

Kathleen wrote: "This reminded me of Orwell too, but of his later depiction of the situation in the 1930's, Down and Out in Paris and London"

It's actually the same essay, Katheen, which he wrote in 1927 and shortened slightly to incorporate it into his later book Down and Out in Paris and London. I explain it in my review LINK HERE

(You might remember us reading the longer essay as a group read, in another group.)

Sam, FYI there's a discrepancy between the schedule you laid out in message 4 for today, and your summary in message 50.

There is something very sad about the woman. We humans are typically curious, and she "had no curiosity or interest." We look at others' faces and/or eyes while we are interacting with each other, and she "looked dreamily at the black sky" and "never looked at me or my companion."

I have some issues with Dickens' outlook and statements, here:
- "gaunt with want, and foul with dirt; but not naturally ugly." We have definitely seen in Oliver Twist, characters whose ugly dispositions are mirrored in their outer forms (Fagin in particular). And, it is sad to say, we tend to feel more sympathetically attracted to people who fall in line with our cultural standards of beauty. But if he'd left this sentence off at "dirt" it would have been less off-putting for me.
- He can't take the woman at her own word that she's had nothing to eat that day. She even feels she needs to bare her neck to drive home the point that she is, indeed, gaunt with starvation, in the face of Dickens' disbelief.

Beth wrote: "Sam, FYI there's a discrepancy between the schedule you laid out in message 4 for today, and your summary in message 50."

Yes my apologies if that causes anyone any difficulty. I was busy early today and preoccupied with the Giller Prize and Baillie-Gifford Prize longlists thus I posted very late for UK readers. I have some business tomorrow and Friday and feared I would be posting late again, so I combined today and tomorrow's summary with the intention of posting the last summary late tomorrow so everyone has time to read it. When I initially posted my schedule, I was not considering the time difference enough and was scheduling to provide little cliff-hangers while trying to milk the time allotted. But the readings scheduled for today and tomorrow work better when read in one sitting I think. Feel free to follow the earlier schedule if you are more comfortable. I just wanted to insure that no one was feeling squeezed for time on Friday when I post my summary.

Sam, I hope you are not feeling pressured ... we are all happy to wait!

"I feel completely drained after trying to summarize today's reading."

I recognise this feeling ...

Life throws things we don't expect at us sometimes. And I'm sorry if you felt "got at" when I said Dickens didn't exaggerate. That wasn't my intention at all!

Beth, I do understand what you mean about not liking the phrase "not naturally ugly" - it gave me pause when I first read it, and I had the same reaction you did of not liking it. I think it's the use of the word "ugly".

Then I thought about it more, and realized what Dickens is using an unexpected phrase (not naturally ugly - instead of beautiful underneath) to address directly how his readers tend to react to a homeless person or a tramp. Most people with money, jobs, and homes are afraid or repulsed by the homeless because they are so dirty. But he's looking at this woman and seeing the beauty beneath the dirt, and he's addressing what everyone else sees as "ugly".

The other phrase that caught my attention was when the woman said, "Look at me!". It speaks to how everyone ignores the homeless, never looking at them, as we go about our days. But it's also ironic, because she wouldn't look at Dickens and his companion, and yet she's pleading for them to look at her.

Bionic Jean wrote: "Sam, I hope you are not feeling pressured ... we are all happy to wait!

"I feel completely drained after trying to summarize today's reading."

I recognise this feeling ...

Life throws things w..."

No to both comments. No I wasn't feeling pressure. I was trying to be more considerate of out UK members or those in time zones where day begins even earlier. I usually am in bed by by dusk or even earlier in summer. If I post in late afternoon our UK members may not get to it till the following day. I figured I would be more considerate.

And you don't have to be worried about my feeling being got at. I welcome the criticism and correction. It is the only way I understand that something I wrote didn't make sense or come across as I meant it.

No worries, Sam. I understand what's going on now. I will stay with the initial schedule, even though it ends with a line that makes me even more dissatisfied with Dickens' approach to the woman...

Beth wrote: "No worries, Sam. I understand what's going on now. I will stay with the initial schedule, even though it ends with a line that makes me even more dissatisfied with Dickens' approach to the woman..."

That will be something to discuss. I hope you post your opinion on that.

We know from the next sentence that (view spoiler)[Dickens gives her a shilling himself (hide spoiler)], but before that I was left wondering why he was shouting at her. The "For God's" in the sentence "For God's sake get it then!" is in small caps in my edition, which enhanced that effect.

That's a relief Sam 😊

Off-topic (view spoiler)[Timing a post is a bit hit and miss. Once when someone said they never saw the daily posts before everyone else had, I tried to arrange to post early one day and late the next, so all time zones were catered for, but a lot of people told me not to because it would just be so difficult to keep to! So I try to keep it within about 12 hours, and it seems to work. (hide spoiler)]

I felt that the woman didn't look at Dickens and spoke in a dull way because she was so beat down by life that she was close to giving up. People's minds just don't function normally when they are starving or haven't slept much for many days.

(It's off-topic, but that why there are breakfast and lunch programs in the schools now for poor students. The teachers found the children were so hungry that they couldn't think, and couldn't learn.)

Posting time: I think that discussion leaders are putting so much time and effort into this that of course we are just thankful for the effort and ready to adapt. As it happened, I myself missed a day and it was convenient for me that the material of two days was blended into one post. I think Beth's point was, it wasn't marked, which made it a bit confusing. But then, of course, this being such a short piece, it's not like we're utterly lost now :)

Exaggeration: oh yes, it's an old debate. Off the top of my head, Chesterton said, '... exaggeration is almost the definition of art—and it is entirely the definition of Dickens’s art.' My personal opinion is, - well, in a film, an actor performs the part of a thief - but that doesn't mean there are no thieves in real life. I mean, the realities of life are true in Dickens's novels; but the characters are fictional - some traits are emphasized over others, or the traits of several people are merged in one character etc (I'm not pretending I'm saying something radically new here, just thinking out loud).

So as this is a piece of journalism, Dickens is sticking to the facts and not adding any literary enhancements, accents, etc - hence the very plain language which we've noticed at once. (Well, rather, he's trying not to, - he still uses repetition, for instance, and that's an effective rhetoric device).

On the other hand, the characters from 'Oliver Twist' that Sam has mentioned are often intentionally dishonest or cruel to those in need; the master of the workhouse in this piece is likely doing what he can, and, as Sam said, the point is to expose the system, not punish this individual for what he cannot change on his own anyway.

What an unearthly feeling to today's section, in addition to the earlier sadness. Of course, this is feeling is brought forth, and enhanced, with Dickens' language.

"She . . . melted away into the miserable night, in the strangest manner I ever saw."

"In every one, interest and curiosity were as extinct as in the first. They were all dull and languid."

"the five apparitions"

(et al.)

These people are nearly as homogenous once their faces are exposed, as they were as bundles of rags heaped against the workhouse. Their personalities and responses have become a kind of emptiness or void--there's no spark of shame at their condition, no anger, no sorrow. Two of them are sisters, but without any support from community or family, they've become identical to the rest. They've stayed together, at least.

The crowd that forms is somewhat less homogenous in its behavior, with a few eager faces among them. It's by no means like the ravening mobs of "respectable folk" we see in Oliver Twist. In fact, they are unsettlingly quiet, just as the women were: ". . . they opened a way for us in profound silence, and let us go."

As Beth pointed out, I was going off schedule a bit yesterday in an attempt to compensate for time differences between the U.S. and the U.K. since I would be posting late yesterday and today. I got done a little earlier today than I expected and so I shall comment a bit more on yesterday's reading and will add the last summary afterwards, a little later today, so anyone following the schedule can access it earlier tomorrow. Then I will return tomorrow with two concluding posts with my thoughts on this piece as a whole.

But before I get on about the essay, I wanted to clarify for Jean and anyone wondering about my feeling drained after yesterday's reading. I noted a bit of concern from Jean about feeling pressured and I didn't exactly follow what she meant till today. So let me repeat. I wasn't physically or mentally drained; I felt emotionally drained from seeing how skillful Dickens is in this essay. When we study an author's work closely (a good author, presumably) we see the details that make that author great, details that we often when just reading for pleasure pass by without much notice, except for the sense of pleasure that the author intends us. We feel the effect the author wants but don't notice how carefully the author structured things to provide what it is effected. I believe I noticed a bit of the effort Dickens exercised in structuring this essay, and I find that effort, expended on what I consider a throwaway essay, something unintended for posterity, something that would be crinkled and tossed in the trash, doubtfully remembered for much longer than till the next issue was published--I find that effort extremely moving and something that should be recognized and commended, especially given the topic.

IMO, the success of this editorial as an example of literary excellence pivots off the passage we read yesterday, Dickens' actual interaction with the bundles. When I initially read this piece and I read the paragraph where Dickens introduced the five individuals on the street, before the casual ward, in the rain, I admired the atmospheric description of the bundles, thinking that Dickens was employing that more ornate language in a piece almost devoid of such language, otherwise, was to demonstrate he was Dickens, to show the readers his authenticity by giving them prose in his style. Beyond that he gets the reader's attention with the clever use of beehives and sphinxes.

But the language has another role. It dehumanizes the people. At the risk of aggravating those of you who are language purists, I am going to use an adjective as a verb-- Dickens inanimates them! He takes away their life, their individuality, their humanity in his prose and instead draws them as bundles, as dead bodies, as lifeless.

It also sets up Dickens the author in the passage we read yesterday to reanimate these bundles through interaction. He gets to bring them back to life, to resurrect them, so to speak. But Dickens pulls another twist and his interaction with the bundles is a bit bumpy. As Beth mentioned, the things aren't smooth and there are good reasons for that. While speaking, when compared, Dickens and the woman bundle are like aliens to each other. They live in two separate realities. I am still trying to parse how Dickens meant for readers to take things in this interaction with the woman. The sexist remark is the only thing in this essay I would change and it stands out when you read it. The condescending, patronizing attitude is I think very much intended, as is the woman's seemingly ungrateful, uncaring responses. I love the interplay. So I am going to consider the sexist remark to be accidental for the moment and continue comparing attitudes. Dickens is I think representing the attitude of the public as he perceives them. There is a sense of superiority, but also the desire to help as long as one isn't too put out in doing so. They have assumptive prejudices which Dickens shows are dissipated when engaged with the woman.

(I love where Dickens, instead of accepting her remark as truth that she hasn't eaten, contradicts, "Come on," and prompts her only real active behavior where she opens her neck covering and says "Look at me! There is defiance in that action, but also a sense of life, and humiliation and vulnerability and strength. I think we like her more for that remark.)

I also like in parallel contrast to Dickens interaction with the manager the lack of recognition from her. Dickens the altruist gains no reward from her behavior towards him, no acknowledgement even, and I think that is also intended. One gets the sense she would have behaved the same toward a policeman rousting her. My guess is she represents the reality of homelessness as perceived by Dickens through his observation and experience.

What he does get is an overwhelming sense of apathy. There is a feeling that these people are on the brink, almost not caring whether they live or die and her behavior reflects as stated the consequences of life on the street. I find that Dickens the author in choosing this interaction as opposed to a more melodramatic reality increases the verisimilitude of the scene and instead of provoking sympathy, I think the scene stimulates awareness.

Enough from me. I will add my summary a little later and keep that word apathy in mind for tomorrow.

This needs some serious editing but I have run out of energy so I am posting as is.

Beth wrote: "I have some issues with Dickens' outlook and statements, here:
- "gaunt with want, and foul with dirt; but not naturally ugly."

Beth I think your reaction to Dickens' description of the woman is exactly what he intended. You are disturbed and a bit offended. So am I.

Yet the honesty of the words cannot be denied. Have any of us stood next to a homeless person on a city street without feeling revulsion and a bit of horror overriding our sense of pity? His expression "not naturally ugly" is actually a gesture to recognize that she has some basic natural humanity still within her.

Is he clearly designating these forgotten women as "deserving" or "undeserving" poor, as expressed in the Poor Law of 1834?

Who exactly is he blaming for this situation?

Yes, Sam, excellent point about Dickens coming in actual physical contact with the poor he is writing about! ". . . the success of this editorial as an example of literary excellence pivots off the passage we read yesterday, Dickens' actual interaction with the bundles."

Charles Dickens has instant authority with the reader because he was there. He spoke to the women, he spoke to the Master of the Workhouse, he interacted with the crowd of people as well as another bystander like himself. Charles Dickens is not moralizing here from a soapbox: he is standing among the hopeless poor!

Sam, I didn’t realize my posts would come AFTER your summary for tomorrow. I wonder if my 2 posts can be deleted by you and moved to FOLLOW your summary?

Maybe it doesn’t really matter? Apologies! Lee

I was a little lost, too, Lee, because I knew I'd read your posts 68 and 69 a day or two ago. 🤔

Summary #5.

This is the last summary and I will try to make it as short as its subject. It is the next day and Dickens companion has written him that all five homeless stayed with him that night, all "five ragged bundles," stayed in his bed. Dickens wonders whether to write a letter to a newspaper but decides to put in his own Household Words, "an exact account of what they had seen," He also decided to wait till after Christmas so there would be "no heat or haste." The mention of waiting till after Christmas is curious since this would have been an ideal piece for a Christmas Number I would think.

Dickens then attacks those "unreasonable denizens," of a reasonable school, those who would put forth arguments citing statistics, economic theory, and politics "beyond all bounds of sense," and that claim in those arguments that their data is correct and applicable in all cases taking precedent over arguments of social reformers. (I am taking a guess here that Dickens is lashing out against those that would use these so called "scientific" solutions to social problems such as poverty, or crime. The name that comes to mind is Thomas Malthus whose would argue that population growth would inevitably lead to hunger and that population control would be a solution to poverty, not social welfare which would lead to inflation. I have limited education in the ideas of Malthus and am only guessing that he might be the target of Dickens' attack, so I will say no more on him, but I believe Dickens is aiming his barb at an individual with a similar approach to social problem solving. I stumbled over Dickens words in this paragraph and may not be interpreting that sentence correctly. Feel free to make it clearer if you can.)

The essay ends with this odd statement and alternative. Dickens attacks those that use science insanely and calls on people who respect, The New Testament ( "Do unto others as you would have done to you,") and are troubled enough by the idea of the poor on our streets to act on behalf of those poor.


Without disparaging those indispensable sciences in their
sanity, I utterly renounce and abominate them in their insanity; and I address people with a respect for the spirit of the New Testament, who do mind such things, and who think them infamous in our streets.

And unfortunately, my long-windedness has taken up far more space then Dickens concise prose and probably explained him all wrong as well. Over to you!

A note on the history of British Newspapers and the editorial in the first half of the nineteenth century.

While reading "A Nightly Scene in London, I became interested in the rapid growth of publications and literacy in London during the first part of the century preceding the essay and contributing factors to that growth. Some of the factors leading to this rapid growth were:

Increased population-- London's population rose from around one million people in 1800 to over two million by 1850.

Increased literacy-- In 1800 around 40 percent of males and 60 percent of females in England and Wales were illiterate. By 1840 this had decreased to 33 percent of
men and 50 percent of women, and, by 1870, these rates had dropped further still to 20 percent of men and 25 percent of women.(Lloyd, Amy J.: “Education, Literacy and the Reading Public.” British Library
Newspapers. Detroit: Gale, 2007.)

Better technology-- ...the Koenig Steam press was introduced to The Times in November 1814, producing 1,000 sheets per hour. The new machinery meant that the paper could go to press later but still contain more recent news than other dailies. In 1827, the installation of the Applegarth press meant that production could be raised to 4,000 impressions per hour. (King, Ed: "British Newspapers 1800-1860." British Library Newspapers. Detroit: Gale, 2007.) quoted from (Black, Jeremy. The Eighteenth Century British Press. In: The Encyclopaedia of the British Press, 1422-1992. Edited by Dennis Griffiths. London: Macmillan, 1992 p.74) Improvements in transportaion (rail) and communication (telegraphy) also contributed.

Reduction of various taxes. Stamp, paper, and advertising taxes at their height in 1815 were slashed in the 1830's and all completely removed by 1860. (King, Ed: "British Newspapers 1800-1860." British Library Newspapers. Detroit: Gale, 2007.)

All of the above had a positive effect on the rapid growth of newspapers and periodicals. The importance of this to the essay is that Charles Dickens is blooming at just the right time in this Renaissance and like many others takes advantage of these glory days in publishing to become a publisher himself and publish the many essays, stories, and serials we love. But on top of that, the time also allowed him to take risks by publishing editorials. Publishing an editorial opinion is always a bit risky for an editor, for one risks alienating the very customers of one's paper if they aren't in agreement with one's opinions on the subject. So publishing on a controversial subject (and social provisions for the poor is always controversial when it comes to who is to pay) is not necessarily a good idea for the financial success of the periodical. In reading "A Nightly Scene in London," we can see evidence that the author was aware of this as he is careful to phrase certain bits in a way that they would not alienate the whole. But I think the times also encouraged Dickens to take such risks in expressing opinions on which he felt strongly.

There is a quote I like from the too often maligned Edward Bulwer Lytton that I not only feel echoes the period but may have inspired Dickens in his editorializing. I have not been able too locate it in its original source but take from. King, Ed: "British Newspapers 1800-1860." British Library Newspapers. Detroit: Gale, 2007.

'[The] newspaper is the chronicle of civilization, the common reservoir into which every stream pours its living waters, and at which every man may come and drink: it is the newspaper which gives liberty its practical life, its constant observation, its perpetual vigilance, its unrelaxing activity. It is a daily and a sleepless watchman, that reports to you every danger which menaces the institutions of your country, and its interest at home and abroad. It informs legislation of public opinion, and it informs the people of the acts of leglislation; thus keeping that constant sympathy, that good understanding between people and leglislators, which conduces to the maintenance of order and prevents the stern necessity for revolution.'

Thanks for all the interesting information about the publishing industry and literacy, Sam. We are lucky that the stars aligned for Dickens as a publisher since he may have pursued acting if he failed to earn a living as a writer/publisher.

Plateresca wrote: "Dickens is sticking to the facts and not adding any literary enhancements, accents, etc - hence the very plain language which we've noticed at once. (Well, rather, he's trying not to, - he still uses repetition, for instance, and that's an effective rhetoric device). ..."

Yes! Good point. As Connie said, Charles Dickens so nearly became an actor. There was one crucial audition as a young man, which he had had to miss, because he had lost his voice! The acting urge is very strong in all his fictional works - we constantly see the melodrama. But in a journalistic piece like this, he would use repetitionand rhetoric as you say, just as public speakers and politician do, to get the best effect. This piece was half way through his career, so he was quite an expert at it by now.

Sam - Your thoughtful and informative posts are much appreciated 😊

I liked the metaphorical "the five ragged bundles had been upon his bed all night": a sight that troubled Dickens' companion well after their evening together had ended.

Sam wrote: "Publishing an editorial opinion is always a bit risky for an editor, for one risks alienating the very customers of one's paper if they aren't in agreement with one's opinions on the subject."

I took a college course on journalism, and one of the few things I remember from it is our instructor telling us that newspapers also took risks of alienating paid advertisers with its editorial content. In both time periods (my class was well over a century after this essay was written, though I hope I wouldn't need to clarify that 😄), the periodical has to keep the providers of its major revenue streams in mind.

Thank you for your detailed commentary, Sam. I appreciate getting information over and above a straightforward interpretation of the text--though as we've seen in talking about rhetorical devices in this piece, that is helpful, too.

It is time to rest discussion of this essay for me and to prep for the next big read, Laurence Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman I want to thank Jean for hosting and everyone for commenting on and hopefully enjoying as much as I, "A Nightly Scene in London. "

I was going to ramble on even longer for I have a host of thoughts spawned from reading this essay that went unsaid. For example the wonderful way that Dickens manages to imbue his bundles with dignity by in his interaction with them or how that whole scene of Dickens and the bundles gives off the atmospheric sense of transcendence as one rereads it over and over. And I so wish someone with a better background in Christian readings was here to clarify some religious allusions. But that all can be discussed another time.

My last thoughts relate to the last section and as I said, I find it hard to parse with multiple interpretations coming to mind. As Plateresca noted, I encouraged everyone to attend to how Dickens was aiming somewhere above those directly involved in his blame for what is happening with the poor and Lee G is also asking who exactly is Dickens blaming. As I mentioned in the summary, I think Dickens is coming down on those who would misuse scientific authority to argue a political tenet that either harmed or denied help to fellow man. I tried to use Malthusian population control as an example but projecting a little forward in time others would misemploy Darwinian, "survival of the fittest," theory in solutions to social problems which would be equally abominable and let us not mention later use of eugenics which is probably the most horrifying misapplication of all. I think Dickens is making it clear that he is renouncing those that would employ such ideas, but in contrast I see the editorial is not just about blame. It is very much of hope.

I address people with a respect for the spirit of the New
Testament, who do mind such things, and who think them infamous in our streets.

I very much hear hope in those last words where Dickens is calling on those that feel compassion for bundles in the street and that feel the allowance of this situation in London is infamous or to step back in the essay to the words of the stone mason, Dickens is calling on those who would agree, "This is an awful sight, sir," said he, "in a Christian country!"

I think Dickens is calling on his readers to care, and that is his exhortation. I feel the enemy in Dickens eyes is apathy and indifference. I think his answer is that people should look around them, see the poverty and injustice, and instead of exhibiting indifference, show compassion the spirit of the New Testament and from that would come positive action in correcting the problem. Quite the idealist is Dickens in some ways, is my opinion and I find it one of his most endearing qualities.

Thanks everyone again for participating. Join you all soon for Sterne.

Sam, I’d like to have another day for comments to come in if that is OK with you. It was 110F at my house today in Austin, Texas & I was busy keeping wildlife and plants alive. I do have some thoughts not yet expressed and yes - questions about how easily Dickens let his readers go with just a reminder that there was a “New Testament” out there they might want to consider.

Lee G wrote: "Sam, I’d like to have another day for comments to come in if that is OK with you. It was 110F at my house today in Austin, Texas & I was busy keeping wildlife and plants alive. I do have some thoug..."

Yes, please feel free to comment what you will on this editorial or its relation to other materials. The topic was not to close till 9/ 11 and I don't think Jean will lock it till then. I would be very interested in what you have to say, Lee.

Beth wrote: "I liked the metaphorical "the five ragged bundles had been upon his bed all night": a sight that troubled Dickens' companion well after their evening together had ended."
Beth, I also thought this was metaphorical, but this made me pause a bit - I guess this was the desired effect.

Sam wrote: "I was going to ramble on even longer"
Oh, please do ramble on a bit longer! I'd love to read more of your thoughts on this. We have plenty of time before the next read.

Lee, I know it's such a nightmare to keep plants et al alive with these temperatures! Wish you all strength.

Indeed, Lee - this read officially continues until 11th, and won't be moved to its permanent spot in the short reads folder until 15th, when the next one starts. Things are beginning nicely there, but I never like Goodreads' attidude when it invites us to say we are "done with" a book!

So we have a flexible changeover, thinking of both works for a few days.

Everyone - the official dates are always both on the home page and on our group shelves, as well as at the start of the thread. The upcoming read is in the folder "upcoming reads", with its dates.

Beth - We always have "information over and above a straightforward interpretation of the text" in "Dickensians!" It's one of our strengths; even in short reads our leaders do a lot of research. For some new members there might seem to be rather too much of this (such as when I post a dozen posts relating to one chapter to start the day 🙄) but as long as it is separated out, it works. After all, everyone is able to scroll - and certainly some of us, like you, appreciate it and read every word. (I hope you too will lead a summer read for us next year.)

Sam's was quite thoughtful and full of reflections, 😊 which were most interesting, especially since it continued the discussions we had during Oliver Twist on the Poor Laws, Thomas Robert Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and other Utilitarians, and relating it specifically to this essay. Charles Dickens's continuing condemnation of these "well-fed philosophers" indicates how he was still reacting to the English law's practical application of these principles, even so many years later when he wrote this essay.

Sam summed it up perfectly: "I think Dickens is calling on his readers to care, and that is his exhortation. I feel the enemy in Dickens eyes is apathy and indifference."

Sam - Thank you so much for your excellent lead of this one, and also for hosting the focused after-discussion at present. Our discussions of reads are never locked, by the way! I view them as valuable resources for future readers, and have found that people do return to add welcome comments. An essay such as this would likely be neglected by many readers who enjoy reading the works of Charles Dickens, had you not brought it to our attention 😊

Plateresca-- Sorry, no more new material from me on this editorial for now, though I will try to address any comments made by others. I like to read books from various longlists for book prizes and two of my favorites, the Giller Prize and the Baillie-Gifford Prize have just with numerous books I need time to read. I will be along for future discussions led by others and I am certain I will find something to add.

Jean-- Thanks again for letting me contribute. I lucked in in finding a piece I loved and that lent itself to this type of explication. But the true pleasure is in sharing comments on a wonderful piece that is not as well known I think. Thanks everyone again.

I fell out of the discussion for a while, as I know sometimes happens to all of us. I have just finished Dickens' article which left me in tears, an effect which Dickens regularly pulls off with me. And I read through all the posts, which are excellent as always.

Thank you so much, Sam, for choosing this piece, which I otherwise may never have had the pleasure of reading. This piece gets at the heart of how Dickens has changed the way I view my own, modern world. I think it started with young David Copperfield's (view spoiler)[ journey to Aunt Betsy, (hide spoiler)] and has only been strengthened with each new novel or article of his that I read. Now every time I see homeless people, I think of what Mr. Dickens tried to teach us about "apathy and indifference" as Sam so eloquently reminded us. I'm not sure that I've made any real difference in a homeless person's life, in fact I am certain that I could do much more to ease their suffering. But thanks to Mr. Dickens, I always try to treat them with respect and dignity, and I am never afraid of them.

I also lost out on much of the discussion due to an unexpected event, but I also finished the piece tonight and read the marvelous information provided by Sam and the comments by others.

One of Dickens' strengths is his genuine concern for his fellow man--all of them, including those that others seem to have no problem ignoring. It is sad to say that this problem, in many ways, is with us still, and we can all certainly take a tip from Mr. Dickens in remembering how we would wish to be treated in their circumstances.

Sam - Your comment in contrast I see the editorial is not just about blame. It is very much of hope. is so true. Too often we waste our time in seeking someone to blame instead of doing the small things we might do ourselves to help alleviate the situation. Another lesson from Dickens--point out where things (and thinking) have gone wrong, but be ready to help where you can.

Thanks to Sam for his interesting commentaries! I agree with Sara that we can all benefit from Charles Dickens’s examples of how to treat our fellow men and women. I decided not to write anything too deep about Dickens’s faith as I need to do more research, but basically scholars agree that he was a Christian whose faith and actions were guided by Jesus Christ and His teachings in the four Gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

And in this editorial, which Charles Dickens writes without attempting to preach or quote scripture, we find that the Beatitudes figure prominently. The Sermon on the Mount deals abundantly with concern and love for the poor, and indeed promises hope for a brighter future to the suffering indigent.

You will find The Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12 and also in Luke 6:20-23. They are quite beautiful, and I encourage everyone to read them again and see how closely Dickens attempts to follow them.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”.
MT 5:3-5 (KJV)

Keep in mind that Dickens wrote a book for his children in which he constructs a harmony of the Gospels, The Life of Our Lord: Written for His Children During the Years 1846 to 1849.

We can observe how Christianity and the precepts of Jesus are reflected in both A Nightly Scene as well as in his novels. Christian love, in my opinion, animates all of Dickens’s social vision.

Thanks everyone for the added comments and the kind words. I think Lee's post referencing the Beatitudes makes a perfect ending.

Thank you, Sam, for introducing us to this excellent editorial work and for your thoughtful comments.

Thank you, Sam, for leading this discussion, and thank you, everybody, for your comments :)

This thread will be moved to its permanent home with the other short reads tomorrow. What an excellent experience and resource it is. Thanks Sam!