Dickens' Bleak House
TRACYWIN
I find myself in the unenviable position of having to read and study Bleak
House without benefit of classroom discussion. I'm preparing for a
comprehensive literature exam at the masters level and would appreciate
any suggestions on how best to approach the novel from those who have
slugged through it. Thanks.
Tracy Mayes (TRAC...@aol.com)
John Wilkinson
An attitude adjustment might help. "Bleak House" is a wonderful book.
Try reading it for enjoyment.
--
John Wilkinson
David M. Einstein
TRACYWIN wrote:
>
> I find myself in the unenviable position of having to read and study Bleak
> House without benefit of classroom discussion. I'm preparing for a
> comprehensive literature exam at the masters level and would appreciate
> any suggestions on how best to approach the novel from those who have
> slugged through it. Thanks.
> Tracy Mayes (TRAC...@aol.com)
If you are saying that you are faced with the dismal prospect of
studying for a comprehensive exam without the benefit of classroom
discussion let me apologize in advance for any rudeness. If you the find the
prospect of reading Bleak House without classroom discussion unenviable, then
I am probably intentionally rude, but also somewhat baffled.
Although I found Esther and J.J. a bit too cloying, and there
were a handful or so of plot twists that stretched my relatively flexible
credulity a bit too far, I don’t think that Bleak House was at all difficult or
unenjoyable to read.
On the generic criticism fornt, I found Nabokov’s commentary on Bleak House in
his lectures on literature useful, and you will probably find a large amount of
helpful information at http://lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/CD-alt.html. I would
be extremely surprised if there were not piles of feminist criticism on the web as
well, as Esther, Ada and Lady Dedlock would seem to give them ample opportunity to
pillory that old patriarch C.D.
About a year ago the slowly expiring Joe Green dismissed
me as an overly optimistic fool for saying that I thought that Bloom was
overstating his case when he said that literary academics no longer read
for the love of reading. As someone who feels compelled to read
books without the benefit of classroom discussion, I am curious as to why
someone would study literature for any other reason than to lock ones self
up in a room full of books.
Deinst
Donald Phillipson
TRACYWIN (trac...@aol.com) writes:
> I find myself in the unenviable position of having to read and study Bleak
> House without benefit of classroom discussion [ for MA comprehensives.]
Ask yourself why tens of thousands of Dickens's contemporaries were glad
to buy it and read it without coercion. Then, if needed, think just how
few novels there are that attempt to deal with either work or economics,
let alone succeed, and prepare an exam answer on whether this matters and why.
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Mary D. Brown
trac...@aol.com (TRACYWIN) wrote:
>I find myself in the unenviable position of having to read and study Bleak
>House without benefit of classroom discussion. I'm preparing for a
>comprehensive literature exam at the masters level and would appreciate
>any suggestions on how best to approach the novel from those who have
>slugged through it. Thanks.
>Tracy Mayes (TRAC...@aol.com)
Just read the book. You'll see right away what's going on. Being
subtle is not one of Dickens's strong points.
Mary D. Brown
Henry Churchyard
In article <31BE53...@world.std.com>,
David M. Einstein <Dei...@world.std.com> wrote:
> I don't think that Bleak House was at all difficult or unenjoyable to read.
If you like to read about people being scarred by plague, freezing to
death, and undergoing spontaneous combustion. ;-) <-- NOTE SMILEY HERE
> I would be extremely surprised if there were not piles of feminist
> criticism on the web as well, as Esther, Ada and Lady Dedlock would
> seem to give them ample opportunity to pillory that old patriarch C.D.
Esther's not utterly absurd as a character, but as a narrator, "she"
often sounds a bit too much like a certain Charles Dickens, especially
in descriptive metaphors, etc. (Dickens has a highly specialized and
particular style that's not necessarily bad, but he just can't
throttle it down when assuming other personas). The portrayal of Lady
Dedlock also isn't that bad in herself, but her preordained fate (She
Had Some Nookie-Nookie Outside Marriage So She Must Die) is
unbelievably pathetically lame as plotting.
The truth is that Dickens had great difficulty over the years in
portraying young marriageable females as anything other than shallow
clichés ("David Copperfield" is dreadful: Dora, Agnes, Emily, Martha
all ridiculous stereotypes) -- not only that he couldn't manage
realism, but that he couldn't even manage a vigorous caricature (as he
did with older women such as Aunt Betsy Trotwood or the "old girl" --
can't remember her name now -- in _Bleak House_). But his later
novels (Hard Times, and especially Our Mutual Friend and Little
Dorrit) are much improved in that respect (I bet I'm one of the few
people whose favorite Dickens novel is _Little Dorrit_, though I
haven't read all of them yet, only about 7 or 8).
--
"If `bout,' Edmund," returned Mrs. Sparkler, || chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
"is the slang term for indisposition, he has. If it is not, I am unable to
give an opinion on the barbarous language you address to Edward's sister."
xan...@kublikan.edu
In article <4pnaav$e...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
(Henry Churchyard) wrote:
> > I don't think that Bleak House was at all difficult or unenjoyable to read.
>
> If you like to read about people being scarred by plague, freezing to
> death, and undergoing spontaneous combustion. ;-) <-- NOTE SMILEY HERE
I think the first chapter of Bleak House is wonderful. Right in the same
league with the last paragraph of The Dead.
> -- not only that he couldn't manage
> realism, but that he couldn't even manage a vigorous caricature (as he
> did with older women such as Aunt Betsy Trotwood or the "old girl" --
> can't remember her name now -- in _Bleak House_). But his later
> novels (Hard Times, and especially Our Mutual Friend and Little
> Dorrit) are much improved in that respect (I bet I'm one of the few
> people whose favorite Dickens novel is _Little Dorrit_, though I
> haven't read all of them yet, only about 7 or 8).
I will here insert a vigorous dissent to the idea that Dickens wrote
caricatures. Putting aside the cliched females, Dickens actually drew
people directly from life. I know this sounds off the wall, but
nevertheless, tis true, tis true. Not my idea, but Chesterton's. And
here's how it can be seen to be true: just start looking at people as if
they were characters from a Dickens novel. What happens is that you see
them *exactly* that way. It is astounding.
Xany
****
Chicago is the place to make you appreciate at every turn the opportunity that chaos affords. [John Dewey]
Peter Wilton
In article <4pnaav$e...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, Henry Churchyard
<chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> writes
>The truth is that Dickens had great difficulty over the years in
>portraying young marriageable females as anything other than shallow
>clichés ("David Copperfield" is dreadful: Dora, Agnes, Emily, Martha
>realism, but that he couldn't even manage a vigorous caricature (as he
>did with older women such as Aunt Betsy Trotwood or the "old girl" --
>can't remember her name now -- in _Bleak House_). But his later
>novels (Hard Times, and especially Our Mutual Friend and Little
>Dorrit) are much improved in that respect (I bet I'm one of the few
>people whose favorite Dickens novel is _Little Dorrit_, though I
>haven't read all of them yet, only about 7 or 8).
With regard to Dickens' Women, it is worth trying to get the BBC Radio
Collection audio cassette of a broadcast programme. It was a live
theatrical performance of a one woman show by a UK actress and feminist,
entitled, surprisingly enough, "Dickens' Women". If you ever had a
twentieth century difficulty with the portrayal of nineteenth century
women by a nineteenth century novelist, not only will this put it in a
twentieth century perspective, you will learn why Dickens is extremely
funny too! And you will understand the reason for the characterisation
of Dora and other apparently unbelievables...
--
Peter Wilton
EDWARD ROBERT CHAMPION
In article <4pmong$8...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Mary D. Brown <bat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>trac...@aol.com (TRACYWIN) wrote:
>
>Just read the book. You'll see right away what's going on. Being
>subtle is not one of Dickens's strong points.
>
theatrical and melodramatic writer, filling his pages with broad
caricatures and high drama. In my view, this is when he's at his best.
When he's writing about frivolous things such as marriage instead of the
horrors of selfishness and greed, he tends to falter.
In his early novels, Dickens never was really concerned with plot. He
would create several characters and continue on with them until he had
run out of ideas, allowing the plot to write itself by having characters
run into each other by coincidence. Consequentially, IMHO, his
early works for the most part have abrupt, unsatisfying endings.
However, he was more succinct and clear in his later years and
eventually produced masterpieces (_A Tale of Two Cities_, _David
Copperfield_) that didn't ramble as aimlessly (yet enjoyably) as his
earlier novels and focused more on how precisely the action of the
characters shaped the premise and the plot.
My two bits,
--
-Edward Champion "Political speech and writing are largely the defense
edc...@sfsu.edu of the indefensible." - George Orwell
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - GB Shaw
-Michael Moore FAQ Compiler, Filmmaker, Writer, Guitar Player, Artist
Peter Wilton
In article <4pscd3$4...@news.csus.edu>, EDWARD ROBERT CHAMPION
<edc...@apollo.sfsu.edu> writes
>Consequentially, IMHO, his
>early works for the most part have abrupt, unsatisfying endings.
>However, he was more succinct and clear in his later years and
>eventually produced masterpieces (_A Tale of Two Cities_, _David
>Copperfield_) that didn't ramble as aimlessly (yet enjoyably) as his
>earlier novels
Well, of course, he was writing for magazines which serialised his work.
That is, one part of a novel was being written even as he wrote another
part. The Leavis study of "great" literature was invented after the
normal way of publishing a novel was in book form, all at once. Perhaps
not all writers, not even great ones, necessarily thought they were
creating a great "symphonic form" at the time.
--
Peter Wilton
Larry Rosenhein
trac...@aol.com (TRACYWIN) wrote:
>
> I find myself in the unenviable position of having to read and study Bleak
> House without benefit of classroom discussion. I'm preparing for a
> comprehensive literature exam at the masters level and would appreciate
> any suggestions on how best to approach the novel from those who have
> slugged through it. Thanks.
As it happens, I'm reading Bleak House right now; and while there
are books I've slogged through, this is not one of them. (In fact
I'm reading on a strong recommendation made in this group a couple of
years ago.) I'm an amateur reader and have no idea what comprehensive
masters exams are like (thank God) but here are a couple of thoughts
that have occurred to me, 50 pages short of the end:
I'd understood that BH was Dickens' statement about the
terrible legal jungle existing in Britain at the time (though parts
still seem oddly relevant today in the U.S.). Several characters are
driven to madness, ruin or despair by it, although the best rise
above it somehow. (Somehow? Well, it helps to have enough money not
to worry about it.) But while Dickens gets in some good shots,
the centerpiece of the plot really has nothing to do with this. Is
the book properly focused? Does it qualify as a 'social reform' kind
of book? Was it seen so at the time? (Judging from the short
preface, Dickens rasied a few hackles with the novel (as it was
serialized, I guess), but in this preface gives as good as he gets.)
Do coincidences bother? I think they did bother me when I
was younger and a--not to put too fine a point on it, as Mr. Snagsby
would say--less sophisticated reader, when mainly what one expects
from a story is verisimilitude. But now I'm in awe of what it must
take to juggle all these characters and fit them into a scheme where
(almost) every character who is introduced matters. Is it a statement
in the "we're all connected" vein, or is it simple virtuousity,
especially considering that it was written in installments. I was
reminded of Michaelangelo who is said to have worked without models or
measurements but just saw the whole thing in his head and started
chipping away.
For someone who occupies such a central role, Mr. Jarndyce
never really took shape for me.
Isn't Esther just too good? Too selfless, I mean, to be an
interesting character, or even a character at all in the novelistic
sense?
The narration alternates between a heavily ironic third person
and an ingenuous first person. Surprising, to me, for a book of this
time. Is this alternating narration a first (excluding epistolary
novels)? When was The Moonstone published in relation to BH? Any
guesses as to what Dickens saw as the purpose of this method? (Now
that sounds like an examination question to me.)
Once I finish, I'm looking forward to seeing what Nabokov
("Lectures on Literature") has to say. That might be a good (though
perhaps not standard) substitute for your classroom discussion.
--Larry Rosenhein
Richard H Clancey
I hasten to correct the impression that the lady, whose name I
don't recall, who was accused of engaging in "nookie-nookie" outside
of marriage and had to be killed off, most pointedly did not so
engage, as she makes very clear in her final dramatic speech.
The character, and I really apologize for not recalling her
name, was one of the better ones drawn by Dickens, and a far cry from
not only the saccharine "Good Girls" of his earlier work, but also
from Agnes of David Copperfield, the epitome of the mature woman who
makes a better wife than Dumb Dora.
However, the poster was correct in pointing out that the mere
contemplation of adultery did, in Dickens' mind, or was it only in his
publisher's mind, require that the woman be punished. It is certainly
a weakness in Dickens that he couldn't just deal directly with
sexuality in a matter of fact way. It really was a shame that he
couldn't simply point out that Nancy in Oliver Twist was a prostitute,
and leave it at that, but those were the times and the literary
conventions.
So maybe it's even worse that the poor character wasn't even
allowed some n-n before being punished for it, and then have somebody
who's trying to defend her forget her name, but I just wanted to make
the point that with Bleak House we do begin to get some hints about
Dickens' ability to create a mature female character finally.
xan...@kublikan.edu
> However, the poster was correct in pointing out that the mere
> contemplation of adultery did, in Dickens' mind, or was it only in his
> publisher's mind, require that the woman be punished.
I'd say that it was his readers' minds. Remember, we are dealing here not
only with a Great Writer but a Great Marketer. But I didn't see it
portrayed as "punishment." I thought it was "injustice." Could be wrong -
it's been many years since I read BH.
> It is certainly
> a weakness in Dickens that he couldn't just deal directly with
> sexuality in a matter of fact way. It really was a shame that he
> couldn't simply point out that Nancy in Oliver Twist was a prostitute,
> and leave it at that, but those were the times and the literary
> conventions.
Which means that it is not properly characterized as a "weakness," in my
view. At least not a weakness in "Dickens." Maybe a weakness in
Victorian Literature. On the other hand, "your strengths are your
weaknesses," so maybe it is actually a strength that sexuality was not
dealt with in a matter of fact way. In fact, as I think about it, maybe
it was a virtue, that allowed Dickens to portray Nancy as a person rather
than a prostitute. (But I never read OT - much as I like Dickens I never
cared for OT, DC, or GE. I was forced to read the last 2 in school but
avoided the first.)
Xany
****
Mary D. Brown
edc...@apollo.sfsu.edu (EDWARD ROBERT CHAMPION) wrote:
>In article <4pmong$8...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Mary D. Brown <bat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>trac...@aol.com (TRACYWIN) wrote:
>>
>>Just read the book. You'll see right away what's going on. Being
>>subtle is not one of Dickens's strong points.
>>
>But that's why he's so great!!! Dickens is essentially a highly
>theatrical and melodramatic writer, filling his pages with broad
>caricatures and high drama. In my view, this is when he's at his best.
Edward, I couldn't agree more! And that's exactly my point for the
original poster--don't get too hung up in the academic literary
criticism thing, just read the book and let it be itself.
Mary D. Brown
-----
"A room without books is like a body without a soul."
--Cicero
Henry Churchyard
In article <Dt38K...@world.std.com>,
Richard H Clancey <r...@world.std.com> wrote:
> I hasten to correct the impression that the lady, whose name I don't
> recall, who was accused of engaging in "nookie-nookie" outside of marriage
> and had to be killed off, most pointedly did not so engage, as she makes
> very clear in her final dramatic speech. The character, and I really
> apologize for not recalling her name, was one of the better ones drawn by
> Dickens, and a far cry from not only the saccharine "Good Girls" of his
> earlier work, but also from Agnes of David Copperfield, who makes a better
> wife than Dumb Dora. However, the poster was correct in pointing out that
> the mere contemplation of adultery did, in Dickens' mind, or was it only in
> his publisher's mind, require that the woman be punished. So maybe it's
> even worse that the poor character wasn't even allowed some n-n before
> being punished for it, but I just wanted to make the point that with Bleak
> House we do begin to get some hints about Dickens' ability to create a
> mature female character finally.
I'm not sure which character you're referring to (Emily in _David
Copperfield_ does NOT die, but she is not allowed a marriage, just as
Louisa Gradgrind Bounderby is not allowed a remarriage in _Hard Times_),
but I was talking about Lady Dedlock of _Bleak House_, who IS among the
extramarital nookie-nookie-ites. As I said in my previous posting, I
think _Our Mutual Friend_ and _Little Dorrit_ are the most successful of
all the ones I've read in their portrayal of younger women characters.
> It is certainly a weakness in Dickens that he couldn't just deal
> directly with sexuality in a matter of fact way.
I certainly didn't wish that Dickens had dealt with sexuality "in a
matter of fact way" -- in fact that's one thing I _don't_ like about
many 20th-century authors; this is not really a "matter of fact" kind
of thing, unless you subscribe to the "glass of water" theory of early
20th-century leftists.
What I do wish that he had been able to manage, prior to the last stage
of his career, is to write about non-comic young women characters as
something other than somewhat simplistic two-dimensional projections of
his stereotypical fantasies about the Angel in the House, the Bad Woman,
the Good Woman Seduced and Betrayed (but who nevertheless, because she's
had extramarital sex, must die, or at the absolute minimum must lead a
penitent life and never marry -- I also object to such simplistic fates,
determined by their sexual experience, for the female characters).
--
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh | "If `bout,' Edmund," returned Mrs. Spark-
ler, "is the slang term for indisposition, he has. If it is not, I am unable
David M. Einstein
Richard H Clancey wrote:
>
> I hasten to correct the impression that the lady, whose name I
> don't recall, who was accused of engaging in "nookie-nookie" outside
> of marriage and had to be killed off, most pointedly did not so
> engage, as she makes very clear in her final dramatic speech.
>
I think that her decision to reenact (or preenact) 'Lassie Come Home' is
somewhat silly, and uncharacteristic, but definitely intended.
"... there is no escape but in death. Hunted, she flies. The complication
of her shame, her dread, remorse, and misery, overwhelms her at its height;
and even her strength of self reliance is overturned and whirled away, like
a leaf before a mighty wind."
This seems to me to be about as unambiguous as possible.
> The character, and I really apologize for not recalling her
> name, was one of the better ones drawn by Dickens, and a far cry from
> not only the saccharine "Good Girls" of his earlier work, but also
> from Agnes of David Copperfield, the epitome of the mature woman who
> makes a better wife than Dumb Dora.
>
What irks me most (and impresses me as well) about the characterization
of Lady Dedlock is that one gets the strongest images of her indirectly from other
characters reactions to her. The direct descriptions seem flat and stereotypical
in comparison. That the characterization of Mrs Bagnet ("the old girl") is similarly
indirect is emphasized by the fact that we only remember Mr Bagnet's appelation, and not
her name.
>
> So maybe it's even worse that the poor character wasn't even
> allowed some n-n before being punished for it, and then have somebody
> who's trying to defend her forget her name, but I just wanted to make
> the point that with Bleak House we do begin to get some hints about
> Dickens' ability to create a mature female character finally.
Ok, now I am very confused. Although Esther possesses wagonloads
of christian goodness, she definitely wasn't allowed a virgin birth.
David M. Einstein
Larry Rosenhein wrote:
> The narration alternates between a heavily ironic third person
> and an ingenuous first person.
Esther's narrative is by no means irony free, and as has been mentioned,
sounds a whole lot like Dickens. Most of the truly marvelous skewerings, Mrs Jellyby
and Pardigle, Mr Tuveydrop and Skimpole, are accomplished through Esther's cheerful
deadpan.
Out of curiosity, did Leigh Hunt ever comment on his less than flattering
caricature?
Peter Wilton
In article <xanidu-1606...@lucky119.nuts.nwu.edu>,
xan...@kublikan.edu writes
>> It is certainly
>> a weakness in Dickens that he couldn't just deal directly with
>> couldn't simply point out that Nancy in Oliver Twist was a prostitute,
>> and leave it at that, but those were the times and the literary
>> conventions.
>
>Which means that it is not properly characterized as a "weakness," in my
>view. At least not a weakness in "Dickens." Maybe a weakness in
>Victorian Literature. On the other hand, "your strengths are your
>weaknesses," so maybe it is actually a strength that sexuality was not
>dealt with in a matter of fact way. In fact, as I think about it, maybe
>it was a virtue, that allowed Dickens to portray Nancy as a person rather
>than a prostitute. (But I never read OT - much as I like Dickens I never
>cared for OT, DC, or GE. I was forced to read the last 2 in school but
>avoided the first.)
>
>Xany
>****
to speak about sexuality in a "modern" way, prefiguring D. H. Lawrence,
was probably Thomas Hardy in Jude the Obscure, and look at the rumpus
that caused, as late as 1895. Some say it so upset him, that that was
why he never published anything other than poems thereafter, though some
say novels were his bread and butter, and poetry was what he really
wanted to do. But compare the British scene with the continent, and
note how much more explicit e.g. Stendhal, Zola could be.
--
Peter Wilton
Peter Wilton
In article <Dt24...@onyx.indstate.edu>, Larry Rosenhein
<chr...@scifac.indstate.edu> writes
>As it happens, I'm reading Bleak House right now; and while there
>are books I've slogged through, this is not one of them. (In fact
>I'm reading on a strong recommendation made in this group a couple of
>years ago.)
I have to say that, although I've read many Dickens with great pleasure
and no slog (Copperfield, Chuzzlewit, Pickwick, Expectations, Nickelby
etc.), I have had to stop Bleak House and give it a rest.
--
Peter Wilton
Larry Rosenhein
chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) wrote:
>
t The portrayal of Lady
> Dedlock also isn't that bad in herself, but her preordained fate (She
> Had Some Nookie-Nookie Outside Marriage So She Must Die) is
> unbelievably pathetically lame as plotting.
I feel sure this was not Dickens' real opinion of Lady Dedlock. The
book extolls charity and even her daughter--who is never wrong--
instantly forgives her for her indiscretion. As far as I can make out,
the reason she must die is to show the power that lawyers had over the
great as well as the small. Whether it is the phlegmatic Mr.
Tulkinghorn or the creepy Mr. Vholes, they bring ruin to the people
they ostensibly serve. Do you get the feeling that Dickens would have
found our "lawyer jokes" of today pretty hilarious?
>
> The truth is that Dickens had great difficulty over the years in
> portraying young marriageable females as anything other than shallow
> clichés ("David Copperfield" is dreadful: Dora, Agnes, Emily, Martha
> all ridiculous stereotypes) -- not only that he couldn't manage
> realism, but that he couldn't even manage a vigorous caricature (as he
> did with older women such as Aunt Betsy Trotwood or the "old girl" --
> can't remember her name now -- in _Bleak House_).
I'd like to disagree with this--but I can't. Yet so many of the
minor female characters in Bleak House are so vivid!
But his later
> novels (Hard Times, and especially Our Mutual Friend and Little
> Dorrit) are much improved in that respect (I bet I'm one of the few
> people whose favorite Dickens novel is _Little Dorrit_,
Oh, great. Another few thousand pages to add to my reading list.
--Larry Rosenhein
EDWARD ROBERT CHAMPION
In article <xanidu-1606...@lucky119.nuts.nwu.edu>,
<xan...@kublikan.edu> wrote:
>
>> It is certainly
>> a weakness in Dickens that he couldn't just deal directly with
>> sexuality in a matter of fact way. It really was a shame that he
>> couldn't simply point out that Nancy in Oliver Twist was a prostitute,
>> and leave it at that, but those were the times and the literary
>> conventions.
>
>Which means that it is not properly characterized as a "weakness," in my
>view. At least not a weakness in "Dickens." Maybe a weakness in
>Victorian Literature. On the other hand, "your strengths are your
>weaknesses," so maybe it is actually a strength that sexuality was not
>dealt with in a matter of fact way. In fact, as I think about it, maybe
>it was a virtue, that allowed Dickens to portray Nancy as a person rather
>than a prostitute. (But I never read OT - much as I like Dickens I never
>cared for OT, DC, or GE. I was forced to read the last 2 in school but
>avoided the first.)
>
character anyway. She was a poor girl manipulated by Fagin into the
criminal underworld and she was desparately trying to prevent poor Oliver
from being sucked in. This is what I found fascinating about her
character. I personally like the subtlety Dickens employed through the
sexual undertones, allowing the reader's imagination to fill in the details.
My two pence,