The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

The thread is now open to discuss the next section of the novel. Please join us, contribute, and enjoy the discussion.

In my opinion, this section was somewhat disjointed, but I believed it can be explained by the fact that we are reading the second part of the novel, and Dickens is trying to pick up the loose plot lines.

I have a strong suspicion that we have said goodbye to the Crummleses. And it was not only goodbye to the most eccentric, but good-natured people; it was also a certain sign of financial stability for Nicholas. Remember how many and what gifts he bought for every member of the family. The Crummleses are going to conquer the New World. Dickens never liked America (you can see it in his later novels), but even in this, relatively optimistic, novel he still manages to needle the USA.
I should like this one to have a turn for juvenile tragedy; I understand they want something of that sort in America very much.
Dickens also physically kills Lord Verisopht, who failed to forge and amplify the malicious side of his personality and fell victim to his ‘mentor’ Sir Mulberry Hawk. What a waste; he could have become one more Cheeryble, but instead stayed loyal to his senior friend.
And I believe we all read the clues about the most tragic character of this book, Smike. He is suffering from ‘the total agony of being [hopelessly] in love’, but he is also suffering from a widespread killer in the Victorian England, pneumonia consumption (An apt observation, Robin. My mind was elsewhere this morning). You can hardly ever find a more poetic description of this disease in world literature.

There is a dread disease which so prepares its victim, as it were, for death; which so refines it of its grosser aspect, and throws around familiar looks unearthly indications of the coming change; a dread disease, in which the struggle between soul and body is so gradual, quiet, and solemn, and the result so sure, that day by day, and grain by grain, the mortal part wastes and withers away, so that the spirit grows light and sanguine with its lightening load, and, feeling immortality at hand, deems it but a new term of mortal life; a disease in which death and life are so strangely blended, that death takes the glow and hue of life, and life the gaunt and grisly form of death; a disease which medicine never cured, wealth never warded off, or poverty could boast exemption from; which sometimes moves in giant strides, and sometimes at a tardy sluggish pace, but, slow or quick, is ever sure and certain.

Isn't it tuberculosis/consumption? That was the romantic disease where people wasted away in so many novels and operas.
"Disjointed" is a good word for this section. It contains comedy, tragedy, romance, mystery. The tragic duel contrasts with the absurd reappearance of the gentleman in small clothes.

That's what I meant. It is TB, but I typed the name of another respiratory disease for no reason. Thank you, Robin. I am going to correct my post. I apologize again for my Freudian slip; I assume it is my secret desire to keep Smike alive.

Just to remind you Dickensian folks that the poll is now open for the May-June group read. Please vote only if you intend to take part:-

http://www.goodreads.com/poll/list/37...

Thanks for the hint, Madge!

As Zulfiya stated, these chapters seem a little disconnected.
Interesting is that we are finding another young woman caught in an evil web designed by old men and among them her own father. How sad is that after we just thought that Kate was rescued. Will Nicholas be able to prevent this marriage and evil plot that also includes his uncle who does not even know much about Nicholas's interests in Madeleine.

I was a little surprised to meet the Crummles's again and I am not sure what Dickens's reasons were for that. Did he feel obliged to let them appear again and officially show them out of the novel, so there is no hope on the reader's side that they will come back again in the last quarter of the book? As you said, Zulfiya, it is at least nice to have some proof of Nicholas's improved financial situation. It also shows his kind nature again, as this is also a nice way to thank them for the chances and short-term home they provided to him and Smike.
What I found a little strange in this section was the discussion Nicholas was having about writers and playwrights. Was there any case in Dickens's life that made him lead this kind of discussion or did I miss anything? (I Read Most of it today, but was not feeling very well and extremely tired, so might have missed something.)
Mrs. Nickleby seems to remain more or less the same character throughout the novel. It's probably hard to change at her age, but with mentioning Frank as a possible suitor for Kate and her reaction on her neighbour's intrusion, she just remains the same comical caricature to me.


I hope I have not exaggerated with my comments here. I have followed the discussions in the suggestions for the next group read section, but was a little intimidated and maybe also a little annoyed by them, as I do this for relaxation and do not need similar discussions as those I am having at work every day. So at least, I would like to keep our Nicholas Nickleby discussion going, even if work and other issues in life (e.g. I was fighting with ants in my kitchen over the last 24 h) force their ways forward sometimes.

I forgot to say something about the lord's tragic death. It seems almost that in this side plot Dickens lets the evil part survive. Lord Frederick was about to realize more and more in what kind of situation he actually was and regretted the things that had occurred more and more. And then he has to die by the hand of Mulberry, who has been "exploiting" him in a financial, but also psychological way. Is in the end evil stronger?

I haven't forgotten Nicholas Nickleby. Got behind because of work, and I chatted (argued?) too much about the next main read. :-( I will be on later or early tomorrow.

Hedi wrote: "As Zulfiya stated, these chapters seem a little disconnected.
Interesting is that we are finding another young woman caught in an evil web designed by old men and among them her own father. How sa..."

Concerning Dickens, I think this chapter shows some elements of professional jealousy and contempt towards his peers (Some writers secretly believe that drama is somewhat inferior, especially if we speak about traveling theater companies:-)) Just a thought.

Ants make me mad, too. It is surprisingly hot this March, and the ants, bugs, bumblebees, and even wasps are back to life and to their old tricks:-)

Zulfiya, related to Dickens and his peers, I was wondering whether there might have been such a concrete incidence, esp. as many of Dickens's works were published as a series in magazines over a period of time. It would have been easy to take part of the plot and make a play out of it. Another thing that came into my mind are the rumors about Shakespeare not having written all his works himself, though i do not know whether these discussions existed back then already. After we discussed earlier that Dickens himself was close to theatre, I just wondered what made him to bring this discussion up here. Maybe I am just seeking too much here. I should probably go to sleep now;-) BTW I have not seen any ant any more this evening. :-)

I have searched a little about plagiarism in the 19th century and found that there were a lot of copyright issues, esp. between English writers and America. One of the most complaining writers seems to have been Dickens. So that might have been also partly the background for Nicholas's little debate. it also probably did not "sell" America to Dickens.

Hedi wrote: "I have searched a little about plagiarism in the 19th century and found that there were a lot of copyright issues, esp. between English writers and America. One of the most complaining writers seem..."

Excellent info, Hedi. Thank you so much for your research. To the best of my knowledge, Dickens never liked the USA, and his negative feelings are blatantly and boldly expressed in his later novels.

Zulfiya, Dickens visited the US in 1842 for the first time, but did not particularly please the Americans as he spoke against slavery.

I am writing through the mobile app, but I have not figured out how you can reply to comments there.

A few thoughts:

1) I adore the Cheerybles even more. The way brother Charles got so upset when he was telling Nicholas about Madelaine's plight.

2) I also loved the way Nicholas justified not telling the Charles that he was the one who Charles should worry about loving Madelaine rather than Frank.

3) The brillance of Dickens' writing style comes through in the conversation between Nicholas and Mr. Bray; the way Bray goes back and forth contradicting himself.

4) Gride is one creepy dude. Can you imagine being a young girl, having to marry that? Yikes.

5) And how a father could do that to his daughter is reprehensible.

6) I'm glad that Kate and Frank are getting together - they both seem "good" and therefore a good match. But I feel bad for Smike. And I must be in a matching mood, because I thought that Miss LaCreevy and Tim might have something there. :-)

7) Poor Lord Frederick. He realized too late that he wasted his life, and allowed a smuck like Sir Mulberry to manipulate him. Sad that he was killed.

Hedi wrote: "I have searched a little about plagiarism in the 19th century and found that there were a lot of copyright issues, esp. between English writers and America. One of the most complaining writers seem..."

I remember Madge writing that Dickens was plagiarized in America. Not surprised that it bothered him. But it did seem out of place, having Nicholas go on a rant on the issue. And didn't Nicholas himself rework other author's texts during his time with the Crummles?

Hedi wrote: "I forgot to say something about the lord's tragic death. It seems almost that in this side plot Dickens lets the evil part survive. Lord Frederick was about to realize more and more in what kind of situation he actually was and regretted the things that had occurred more and more. And then he has to die by the hand of Mulberry, who has been "exploiting" him in a financial, but also psychological way. Is in the end evil stronger? "

It may be. Evil doesn't have to play by the rules; good does. So evil has the upper hand.

People claim that good overcomes evil, but that rarely seems to be the case.

Hi Lynnm, I thought the same about Gride. I have already started the next chapters and he is not getting less creepy.
To me it is incomprehensible how a father can do that to his daughter.

Related to Tim and Miss LaCreevy, I had that impression, too, but had kind of forgotten about it again, it is kind of funny. It is almost as if there are potential happy endings on the side....

.... and yes you are right, sadly, it seems as if evil keeps the upper hand in life, but at least you can still hope for the good to succeed, otherwise it does not feel really worth living ... at least not if you try to belong to the good...

Sorry, i have been lately a little on the depressed and life-questioning side.... So my question about evil over good was more of a rhetorical one. How you read and what you discover in a book always depends on your own thoughts, situation and mood, thinking now of the discussion about reading pace that has been going on in the other thread.

I believe plays and other unauthorized versions of Picwick were prevalent because it had been so popular but Dickens hadnt written any more. I assumed that was what he was referring to.