Scan barcode
blindedbynature's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
2.75
daja57's review against another edition
4.0
The first problem that a modern reader is likely to encounter with Copperfield is its length. It's about 360,000 words, about four or five times as long as a typical modern novel (although, to be fair, it's only about half as long as the Bible); the Audible audiobook lasts 34.5 hours. A lot happens, but there are also some awfully long passages. Most people quail at the long descriptions but they seemed proportionate to me (and sometimes brilliant). What I found difficult was the extended speeches, often very melodramatic, particularly when a character becomes distressed. Dickensian characters don't have stiff upper lips.
There are an awful lot of characters. I recently advised a fledgling novelist to reduce the number of characters in her draft novel because (a) it is difficult for the reader to keep track of multiple characters and (b) it is difficult for the author to create distinct and properly rounded characters if a new one pops up every so often. To be fair to Dickens, when you are writing what is in effect a whole life, there must inevitably be a lot of characters: one's early playmates, schoolfriends, early romantic attachments, workmates etc. To be fair to Dickens again, many of the characters he introduces reappear later in the book (although sometimes, as with the final appearances of Creakle, Heep and Littimer, these have the appearance of being rather forced and moralistic tying up of loose ends). To be fair to Dickens a third time, he introduces each character with a few sentences which make them instantly memorable; his characters often have a quirk or a catchphrase which he repeats in order to evoke them each time they appear. But, on the other hand, he fails, in my opinion, to create many fully rounded characters. Most of his characters, vivid though they may be, are caricatures. They're one dimensional. They never surprise the reader. Heep is a villain from start to end, Dora is a child-wife, Ham is the salt of the earth. These aren't people, they're puppets. Perhaps the only character who felt real was Rosa Dartle, though she's not so much a character as a way of using irony to point out the falseness and hypocrisy in other people, and in the (melodramatic) end she too was revealed as just another mask.
So I feel justified in what I told the new novelist. Dickens is extraordinary in that he can create characters that stick with you (by his tricks of quirk and catchphrase) but even he can't create a multiplicity of three-dimensional characters.
It's great fun, it's entertaining, but fundamentally, for me, this novel fails as a work of literature because Dickens fails to ask why his characters are as they are. For all his social campaigning (against workhouses in Oliver Twist, against abusive schools in Nicholas Nickleby, against abusive schools, and the Doctors' Commons, and the solitary system in prisons in Copperfield etc) Dickens accepted the basic Victorian social divide between the classes. Thus our hero retains his dignity despite becoming a poor labourer ("I worked, from morning until night, with common men and boys, a shabby child." (Ch 11), there being no suggestion that DC himself is 'common')and a homeless (Dickens uses the word "houseless") tramp, because he is of good birth; he is rescued by his aunt who lives on her investments. Steerforth may be a cad but he is a gentleman and therefore David ultimately forgives him. Peggoty and Barkis and Ham and the other picturesque members of the working servant classes are tolerated because they know their place. Heep, on the other hand, commits the unforgivable sin of resenting his lower class birth and wanting to better himself (He does have a couple of pages in which he talks about his low birth and how being "umble" was his way to rise but Dickens seems to have cut him no slack on this account.)
(This reminds me of Oliver Twist. The eponymous hero is an orphan who grows up in a workhouse. One would have expected him to have been brutalised. But Dickens, in an introduction to the novel, explained that he wanted to write a story which showed that those of gentle birth would, despite their circumstances, retain their innate nobility and in so doing he created one of the most unbelievable title characters in literature.)
David Copperfield is a pantomime with goodies and baddies.
But the scenery is brilliant. He can describe something so that you are immediately in the picture.
Rather too long; otherwise very entertaining with a huge cast of eccentric and memorable, but not very credible, characters.
There are an awful lot of characters. I recently advised a fledgling novelist to reduce the number of characters in her draft novel because (a) it is difficult for the reader to keep track of multiple characters and (b) it is difficult for the author to create distinct and properly rounded characters if a new one pops up every so often. To be fair to Dickens, when you are writing what is in effect a whole life, there must inevitably be a lot of characters: one's early playmates, schoolfriends, early romantic attachments, workmates etc. To be fair to Dickens again, many of the characters he introduces reappear later in the book (although sometimes, as with the final appearances of Creakle, Heep and Littimer, these have the appearance of being rather forced and moralistic tying up of loose ends). To be fair to Dickens a third time, he introduces each character with a few sentences which make them instantly memorable; his characters often have a quirk or a catchphrase which he repeats in order to evoke them each time they appear. But, on the other hand, he fails, in my opinion, to create many fully rounded characters. Most of his characters, vivid though they may be, are caricatures. They're one dimensional. They never surprise the reader. Heep is a villain from start to end, Dora is a child-wife, Ham is the salt of the earth. These aren't people, they're puppets. Perhaps the only character who felt real was Rosa Dartle, though she's not so much a character as a way of using irony to point out the falseness and hypocrisy in other people, and in the (melodramatic) end she too was revealed as just another mask.
So I feel justified in what I told the new novelist. Dickens is extraordinary in that he can create characters that stick with you (by his tricks of quirk and catchphrase) but even he can't create a multiplicity of three-dimensional characters.
It's great fun, it's entertaining, but fundamentally, for me, this novel fails as a work of literature because Dickens fails to ask why his characters are as they are. For all his social campaigning (against workhouses in Oliver Twist, against abusive schools in Nicholas Nickleby, against abusive schools, and the Doctors' Commons, and the solitary system in prisons in Copperfield etc) Dickens accepted the basic Victorian social divide between the classes. Thus our hero retains his dignity despite becoming a poor labourer ("I worked, from morning until night, with common men and boys, a shabby child." (Ch 11), there being no suggestion that DC himself is 'common')and a homeless (Dickens uses the word "houseless") tramp, because he is of good birth; he is rescued by his aunt who lives on her investments. Steerforth may be a cad but he is a gentleman and therefore David ultimately forgives him. Peggoty and Barkis and Ham and the other picturesque members of the working servant classes are tolerated because they know their place. Heep, on the other hand, commits the unforgivable sin of resenting his lower class birth and wanting to better himself (He does have a couple of pages in which he talks about his low birth and how being "umble" was his way to rise but Dickens seems to have cut him no slack on this account.)
(This reminds me of Oliver Twist. The eponymous hero is an orphan who grows up in a workhouse. One would have expected him to have been brutalised. But Dickens, in an introduction to the novel, explained that he wanted to write a story which showed that those of gentle birth would, despite their circumstances, retain their innate nobility and in so doing he created one of the most unbelievable title characters in literature.)
David Copperfield is a pantomime with goodies and baddies.
But the scenery is brilliant. He can describe something so that you are immediately in the picture.
Rather too long; otherwise very entertaining with a huge cast of eccentric and memorable, but not very credible, characters.
3huskies79's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
funny
inspiring
medium-paced
5.0
dunnadam's review against another edition
3.0
I enjoyed this book a lot at first and as time went on my enjoyment lessened, I had problems with the characters, and I found it difficult to limp to the end.
The book starts off well with David's childhood and a similar situation to my own, which I wasn't expecting, where his mother remarries and household difficulties ensue. This being Dickens there are lots of great and peculiar characters, I enjoyed the Aunt yelling the donkeys off the lawn and the man always borrowing money and ending up in debtor's prison. The description is exquisite as in this scene where David's new step-father's sister is introduced for the first time:
"She brought with her two uncompromising hard black boxes, with her initials on the lids in hard brass nails. When she paid the coachman she took her money out of a hard steel purse, and she kept the purse in a very jail of a bag which hung upon her arm by a heavy chain, and shut up like a bite. I had never, at that time, seen such a metallic lady altogether as Miss Murdstone was."
Perfect, vivid, one paragraph and you know the score.
As David ages I liked him less. He seemed entitled, he looked down on people, he made very poor decisions. Dickens too took some short-cuts, when his marriage isn't working Dickens kills the wife off which I howled at. Also the crux of the novel resolves around a scandal that I didn't really understand. Why was the affair so hush-hush, I would have run off with Steerforth myself. At least for a long weekend.
Certain references in the book are opaque and I had to occasionally consult a guide. Other than the many references to her at night I don't know how anyone knew Martha was a prostitute, I don't know how anyone knew Dora was even pregnant, let alone that she had a miscarriage. Speaking of the guide I was hoping the one I used would have more references to the insolvency system of the period to help me understand the context, but no. It also had some spoilers I didn't want.
Not my favourite Dickens, it seemed in places contrived.
The book starts off well with David's childhood and a similar situation to my own, which I wasn't expecting, where his mother remarries and household difficulties ensue. This being Dickens there are lots of great and peculiar characters, I enjoyed the Aunt yelling the donkeys off the lawn and the man always borrowing money and ending up in debtor's prison. The description is exquisite as in this scene where David's new step-father's sister is introduced for the first time:
"She brought with her two uncompromising hard black boxes, with her initials on the lids in hard brass nails. When she paid the coachman she took her money out of a hard steel purse, and she kept the purse in a very jail of a bag which hung upon her arm by a heavy chain, and shut up like a bite. I had never, at that time, seen such a metallic lady altogether as Miss Murdstone was."
Perfect, vivid, one paragraph and you know the score.
As David ages I liked him less. He seemed entitled, he looked down on people, he made very poor decisions. Dickens too took some short-cuts, when his marriage isn't working Dickens kills the wife off which I howled at. Also the crux of the novel resolves around a scandal that I didn't really understand. Why was the affair so hush-hush, I would have run off with Steerforth myself. At least for a long weekend.
Certain references in the book are opaque and I had to occasionally consult a guide. Other than the many references to her at night I don't know how anyone knew Martha was a prostitute, I don't know how anyone knew Dora was even pregnant, let alone that she had a miscarriage. Speaking of the guide I was hoping the one I used would have more references to the insolvency system of the period to help me understand the context, but no. It also had some spoilers I didn't want.
Not my favourite Dickens, it seemed in places contrived.
lisa_and_her_books's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
michael070's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
italorebelo's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
sad
medium-paced
4.75
kimba13's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0