The Sinking of the RMS Titanic and other ships.

[Adam Went]

Jeff:

I've not had the change to read The Old Curiosity Shop as yet, though I do have the complete collection of Dickens' work, so i'm sure i'll get to it at some point. The death of Little Nell was actually the main focus of the criticism that I mentioned in my previous post.

As unbelievable as it might sound, I think we could safely say that Dickens never wrote a BAD novel as such, but like any author, actor, artist, whatever - some work is going to be stronger than others in the eyes of most.

Dickens certainly matured as a writer, culminating in his later, darker works such as Bleak House.

Also, unsure if you were aware of it or not, but since you mention Ikey Solomons as Fagin, recent research has also found that The Artful Dodger was also based on a real person, who was transported to Australia for his mischief. I wish I still had the link to the story as it really was fascinating, but certainly keep an eye out for anything related to that.

Louisa:

Yes, very good point!
"David Copperfield" alone features Mealy Potatoes, for instance.
Not to mention Wilkins Micawber, Uriah Heep, Ham Peggotty, Miss Mowcher, Mr. Creakle, etc etc....

Cheers,
Adam.

[louisa]

Dickens should also be congratulated for finding such weird, unique and appropriate names for his characters.

[Mayerling]

Phil and Jeff:

No misunderstandings intended, i'm sure, but it is difficult to find anything but praise for a writer like Dickens - perhaps even a little envy - when you consider the amount of hugely successful books he has to his name which are re-produced again and again and again even now.

It's not the first time there's been criticism of some sort for his work - i've had associates ridicule "The Old Curiousity Shop" before, for instance.


Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Phil and Adam,

Actually, if I was to make a case for the weakest of Dickens' novels, it would be THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP, but even that has some good points: they do not include that business with dear Little Nell and her improvident grandfather. But only Dickens would have created another interesting villain, and this time a Dwarf like Quilp. Also the business of Sampson and Sally Brass was interesting as was Dick Swiveller. But it is a padded novel - Dickens had been writing MASTER HUMPHREY'S CLOCK, which was to be a set of novellas or long tales, and had Mr. Pickwick and the Wellers among the characters. But he ended up with THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP and BARNABY RUDGE (his first hstorical novel) at full length. Nobody really cared about Master Humphrey afterward. Then he took his American trip, write AMERICAN NOTES, and regains his footing with MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT.

Actually - if we can create another thread like the World War 2 one - we should discuss and his contemporaries and their interest (and use) of true crimes in their books. The best known examples with Dickens is he Jewish child criminal trainer Ikey Solomon becoming Fagin, and later the murderess Maria Manning becoming Madame Hortene in BLEAK HOUSE. Other authors were also influenced one way or another.

Jeff

[Adam Went]

Phil and Jeff:

No misunderstandings intended, i'm sure, but it is difficult to find anything but praise for a writer like Dickens - perhaps even a little envy - when you consider the amount of hugely successful books he has to his name which are re-produced again and again and again even now.

It's not the first time there's been criticism of some sort for his work - i've had associates ridicule "The Old Curiousity Shop" before, for instance.

Each and every writer has their own influences and style, and for Dickens there's no doubt that he was heavily influenced by people and events in his early life. There have been assertions previously that "David Copperfield" is actually a biographical work, but I would disagree with that - it may contain similar elements to Dickens' life, but it's certainly not biographical as such.

It's no similar to if one of us went to write a novel, that we would likely be influenced by previous events in our life or try to emulate our own favourite authors.

Finally I think it's also important to remember that some of Dickens' "novels" were actually published in monthly or bit-by-bit instalments in popular literature magazines and newspapers of the day, and the instalments were sometimes influenced by public taste and the wish to please his readership, which is understandable. Oliver Twist, for instance - in my opinion one of the greatest works of all time, and a real slap in the face for early Victorian morals and ethics if ever there was one - was originally published over a lengthy period of time, in periodic instalments.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mayerling]

Hi Phil,

Actually I think what happened (at least with me). Initially (in keeping with the "Titanic and other shipwreck" thread, you and the others were discussng the melodramatic posing of people in the 19th and early 20th Centuries that led to many instances of vivid last moments and such (Captain Smith yelling through his megaphone, "Be Britih my men!" as the main deck is awash with water). This was supposed to be impressed on the public's mind to comfort them in the wake of the tragedies - that the fine sailor and his crew happened to die bravely (like British men were supposed to). Had the quote (for some reason) been "Be Bulgarians!!" the English speaking public would have been confused (the Bulgarians might have liked it). At roughly the same time the final entries of Captain Scott's records (in April 1912 these were in the tent with his body and those of Wilson and Bowers), were there to tell the world "if we had lived we would have had a story to tell England that would have warmed...for God Sakes take care of our people!" . Earlier Scott recorded what to me was the bravest incident of that doomed trek - Captain Lawrence Oates leaving the tent with an injury that was delaying the chances for the others, with a statement, "I shall only be out for awhile!". Melodrama true - but it hits properly.

Hell even killers can do it, and again in that March - April period of 1912. That month saw the trial of Frederick Seddon and his wifefor the murder (by arsenic poisoning) of Eliza Barrows. That trial is always as a singular example of trial as theater because Attorney General Rufus Isaacs cross-examined Seddon. Edgar Lustgarten (in one of his radio descripion that he later collected and published in THE MURDER AND THE TRIAL) pointed out that Mrs. Seddon was tried on the same evidence, and acquitted - and that Seddon's ego got into his way and he insisted (despite the pleas of his barrister Marshall Hall) to go into the witness box. Seddon could come across as a bully and as hearless. He answered Isaacs questions "correctly", but said damaging things none-the-less: "You have made me out a monster to have done that - to count the money as she was dying....Besides I would have had all day to do it!" So he got convicted (probably justly, although Lustgarten was troubled by what happened slighly). At the end of that trial, Seddon made a famous statement regarding being a Mason and the Justice on the case also being a prominent Mason. Justice Bucknill was terribly shaken by the statemen, and pronounced the death sentence in tears, hoping that Seddon would prepare himself well before the end. That too illusrates this.

This spirit is found throughout the period from 1820 - 1935 or so. Other examples occur - some good ones (Charlie Peace confessing in the death house to killing Officer Nicholas C-ck, and enabling the wrongfully convicted William Habron to be released) and some fightening ones (Henry Fowler turning on his fellow "Muswell Hill" killer, but informer, Albert Milsom in the defenders box at the Old Bailey and making it a shambles - forcing a dozen policeman to seperate the men and subdue Fowler).

Yes it was a standard that attracted the public. I don't think we have it anymore - but I can be wrong. Why, after all, do people still debate the words of Neil Armstrong on the moon to ths day?

Jeff

[Phil H]

Why is there an underlying sense in these recent posts that seems to assume Dickens has to be defended, as though someone had criticised him??

There is no need to defend Dickens - his works stand for themselves.

I think the problem is that you don't understand my use of the term "melodrama" in relation to his work.

Melodrama is a "style", and approach to story telling that was in vogue when Dickens was young. It influenced him and is widely recognised as having done so. For instance he had a much loved toy theatre as a boy and is known to have loved the play "The Miller and His Men" quoting from it later in his correspondence.

Melodrama was still popular and around as late as the end of the C19th - 20 years after Dickens death - many of Irving's plays were essentially melodrama - The Bells, for instance. This was what Bernard Shaw did not like and why he wrote his plays the way he did.

Dickens did not like Jane Austen's works much at all, because they focussed too much on the internals rather than actions. Thackeray disliked Dickens as old-fashioned.

Now Dickens developed and was experimental in his work - Hard Times and Pickwick could not be more different - he maintained his serial approach to writing, but the plots of his novels became much more holistic and rounded with time (Bleak House). Yet Dickens can also be shown to - in his early days - have been much closer in style to then fashionable authers like Harrison Ainsworth (a friend whom Dickens later eclipsed). Ainsworth is without doubt melodramatic (Rookwood, Jack Shepherd).

But all this is irrelevant to the thread - my reference to Dickens was simply intended to explain my use of the melodrama in relation to Capt Smith's possible actions.

Suffice to say I admire Dickens and enjoy his works (though not uncritically and with an attempt to understand his drivers, the influences on him and his relation to the literature and society around him when he lived and worked), but please please don't mistake literary criticism for denigration - the two are wholly distinct.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

The best novel to show the impact of Victorian melodrama on Dickens was his third, NICHOLAS NICKLEBY, wherein he had fun with Mr. Vincent Crummles and his traveling players (his daughter, "the infant prodegy" for example, who was by now about 20). He even adds some descriptions of the melodramas they are in. Back in the 1970s when Roger Rees and a British cast put on a four night NICKLEBY as a play (later it was made into a video taped television production) they added a ridiculous version of ROMEO AND JULIET that was given a happy ending (Paris was only knocked out; Romeo and Juliet are able to live together, Benvolio becomes Benvolia to pair off with either a recovering Mercutio or Paris). Actually the happy endings for Shakespeare was an 18th Century abberation.

Because of the failures of Victorian fiction writing, few of the great novelists were able to avoid what George Orwell called "the awful Victorian plot" with hidden identities, stolen heirs, and wills that change situations. One Victorian who tackled this the right way was a dramatist - indeed the main Victorian dramatist (prior to Shaw, Wilde, and Pinero) whose works are still on the stage - Gilbert. He made fun of it. Look at PINAFORE, or THE GONDOLIERS or RUDDYGORE/RUDDIGORE to see what he twisted out of these sickly plots (they to figure out how Ralph Rackstraw and Captain Corcoran can have been babies at the same time to be mixed up by Little Buttercup, when Corcoran is Buttercup's age and Ralph Josephine's age to pair off at the end!). Or in RUDDYGORE where Mad Margaret is definitely loopy, but her husband controls her by using the term "Basingstoke" (which was a prominent insane asylum. Suddenly she quiets down.

Dickens had humor too, and a growing sense of realism. In DOMBEY AND SON, he broke forever the melodramatic crap about the seducer controlling the scene of the seduction of the virtuous wife. The creepy and evil John Carker has made his overtures to the second Mrs Paul Dombey, to the point she really hates him. Suddenly she seems willing to give in. Carker arrives at the place of rendevouz feeling another triumph is about to be his, only to find her very calm and quiet. He can't quite understand it, until he hears some voices down below. She informs that she told her husband that Carker was trying to force her to make love with him, and her husband is coming upstairs. Until then "the fate worse than death" scene always went against the woman involved (see EAST LYNNE, even Pinero's SECOND MRS. TANQUERAY can't avoid the stain of her moral "lapse"). For the first time it is the seducer who is trapped - Carker has to flee through a window while Paul Dombey enters the apartment. Actually (to add to Dickens dismantling of this melodramatic claptap) Mrs. Dombey does not really like her husband, and is secretly that he has been humiliated here. First rate work Charlie.

Jeff

[Adam Went]

Phil, Louisa:

Unfortunately we often find that whenever somebody is greatly successful in a field of their choice, there are those who wish to disparage them and their work - indeed, Dickens was occasionally criticised by even his fellow Victorian authors, such as Oscar Wilde - and it is often difficult to say whether the criticism is relevant or simply borne out of jealousy.

Dickens' work is wide ranging but it generally does have a social insight element of some sort intertwined within it. At the moment, actually, I am reading "David Copperfield", being about 900 pages through the more than 1,000 page long novel, and the one which Dickens regarded as his personal favourite. He deals with many different issues within it, I think it's unfair to lump him or his work in any particular category.

There's no doubt that the power of expression and the eccentricities of some of his characters are what make his stories what they were, but the same can be said for other characters and other writers from the same area too - look at Sherlock Holmes and his eccentricities - it should take nothing away from the brilliance of the writer.

I am with Louisa in her views on Dickens. One of few authors, modern or historic, who I would happily read each and every day.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil H]

Try seeing Shakespeare in performance, louisa.

He wrote to be staged not read. Indeed, only one full copy of his plays may ever have existed - the players simply got their parts and cues. The plays were also constantly changed and adapted - hence the differing versions that have come down to us.

If you don't have a theatre near you, then there are some terrific film adaptations - Branagh's "Much Ado"; Polanski's "Macbeth"; Oliveiers "Richard III" - they might let you see how funny and how gripping the plays can be.

Phil

[louisa]

People love to analyse others don't they?

Charles Dickens is one of the only writers (of the classics) that I can read and understand. Possibly because I left school at 15. I think that anyone who is able to read can relate to Dickens' characters and storylines because they're easy to follow.

Now Shakespeare - no way would I be able to read any of his stuff. This could be due to the fact that I may be just too much of an ignoramous to appreciate it.

Dickens loved walking (maybe in order to observe people - and their habits - more closely) and it seems that anywhere he stopped on his travels now has a restaurant, hotel or pub named after him.

[Phil H]

Not convinced about the Dickens comparison - some of his work, yes, perhaps, but he also often expressed some pretty unconventional (at least at that time) views on social and moral issues in his work.

I am talking about the impact of melodrama on his work.

Dickens first success was before Victoria came to the throne, he died 31 years before she did.

His novels are nothing like the work of writers like Austen, or later authors like James, in that Dickens is concerned with the outward (costume, appearance, mannerisms, eccentricities), not the psychological or inner workings of his characters.

I am not saying that he did not develop as a writer, write better structured novels later and have a concern with current issues, but the influence of the theatre of the early C19th (Macready - his friend - and others) on his work is, I think, generally agreed. Don't forget Dickens also ACTED in melodramas - and was highly regarded.

So please don't think I am being critical of a writer I admire (though not so much his character) - I am simply seeking to define melodrama as I understand it.

Some recent authors on Dickens do question quite how relevant some of his writings were - he was ant-aristocratic, but not in sympathy with working men on mass (though responsive to individuals). He was no proto-socialist!

Phil

[Adam Went]

Louisa:

Saw an interview with the girls out of "Downton Abbey" not so long ago where they were saying that they had a new appreciation for Edwardian era women, having to wear their outfits for the filming. So you might be on to something!

Phil:

Not convinced about the Dickens comparison - some of his work, yes, perhaps, but he also often expressed some pretty unconventional (at least at that time) views on social and moral issues in his work.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mayerling]

Since Smith was knowledgeable regarding steam propulsion, perhaps he hoped to find work at the Lima Locomotive Works, the Cadillac of locomotives. ALCO and Baldwin were the Ford and the Chevy.

Hi Stan,

Maybe he had a love for Lima beans. Or he waned to be near Peru, Indiana because he heard of a talented piano and song writer named Cole Porter (remember that Wallace Hartley's band knew "Alexander's Ragtime Band" by Irving Berlin).

Jeff

[louisa]

I never know if Stan is being serious or not.

[sdreid]

Since Smith was knowledgeable regarding steam propulsion, perhaps he hoped to find work at the Lima Locomotive Works, the Cadillac of locomotives. ALCO and Baldwin were the Ford and the Chevy.