You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.8 AVERAGE
3.8 AVERAGE
A fine stepping stone of a novel in the Dickens canon.
Plot’s a bit twisted in the middle, but chugs along nicely. Fond of the early, though less memorably idiosyncratic characters here (Newman Noggs, the brothers Cheeryble, John Browdie, the timely fuckboy Mister Mantalini) and Boz sprinkles them in a little haphazardly albeit with zeal.
And the tangents! I love a great tangent but another reading may enlighten me as to the relevance of certain early digressions and tales wholly unconnected to the plot.
Mrs. Nickleby personifies tangents, and Chuck’s got us believing her scattered-brain manner results in premature prognostications, but it’s unclear whether she’s best perceived as a second banana in this comedy or a lens for reader empowerment. Maybe both. Definitely will read again.
Plot’s a bit twisted in the middle, but chugs along nicely. Fond of the early, though less memorably idiosyncratic characters here (Newman Noggs, the brothers Cheeryble, John Browdie, the timely fuckboy Mister Mantalini) and Boz sprinkles them in a little haphazardly albeit with zeal.
And the tangents! I love a great tangent but another reading may enlighten me as to the relevance of certain early digressions and tales wholly unconnected to the plot.
Mrs. Nickleby personifies tangents, and Chuck’s got us believing her scattered-brain manner results in premature prognostications, but it’s unclear whether she’s best perceived as a second banana in this comedy or a lens for reader empowerment. Maybe both. Definitely will read again.
Dickens’ greatest strength is always his characters. True, they are often flat and one-dimensional. Yet they are also funny, eccentric, grotesque, and, above all, memorable.
Here, however, none of his characters have more than a few of those qualities, and many are something worse: interchangeable. The frivolity of the Crummles’ or the Creevy’s is no different from that of the Snevellici’s or the Mantalini’s, nor is Wackford Squeers any more nefarious than Ralph Nickleby or Sir Mulberry Hawk. Occasionally, there are flickers of nuance and the possibility of reform. But like a play with additional roles tacked on for one’s friends and relatives (the sort of production that Dickens mocks), there are more players than the plot requires.
Said plot is half pastoral adventure and half sprawling social comedy—the yin and yang of Dickens—except that the former is never that adventurous and the latter never strays far from its center. As always, Dicken’s satire is biting, albeit somewhat more peripheral than usual, perhaps due to the conflict being primarily personal rather than legal or economic.
Smike, the novel’s most recognizable (and pitiable) character, is neglected by both the educational system and his author, who relegates him to a helpless servile role. Then again, the early Dickens had not yet realized how much the middle class sanctimony he disparaged infected his own worldview, so I am inclined to forgive him for this spot of blindness in light of his later, more broadly empathetic works.
This Dickens fan hates to admit it, but Nicholas Nickleby could have been considerably trimmed without losing its substance. For what it’s worth, Dickens, even at the beginning of his career, demonstrates the care and craftsmanship that put him head and shoulders above the ruck of serial writers. Yet that, like the book itself, is not a high achievement.
Here, however, none of his characters have more than a few of those qualities, and many are something worse: interchangeable. The frivolity of the Crummles’ or the Creevy’s is no different from that of the Snevellici’s or the Mantalini’s, nor is Wackford Squeers any more nefarious than Ralph Nickleby or Sir Mulberry Hawk. Occasionally, there are flickers of nuance and the possibility of reform. But like a play with additional roles tacked on for one’s friends and relatives (the sort of production that Dickens mocks), there are more players than the plot requires.
Said plot is half pastoral adventure and half sprawling social comedy—the yin and yang of Dickens—except that the former is never that adventurous and the latter never strays far from its center. As always, Dicken’s satire is biting, albeit somewhat more peripheral than usual, perhaps due to the conflict being primarily personal rather than legal or economic.
Smike, the novel’s most recognizable (and pitiable) character, is neglected by both the educational system and his author, who relegates him to a helpless servile role. Then again, the early Dickens had not yet realized how much the middle class sanctimony he disparaged infected his own worldview, so I am inclined to forgive him for this spot of blindness in light of his later, more broadly empathetic works.
This Dickens fan hates to admit it, but Nicholas Nickleby could have been considerably trimmed without losing its substance. For what it’s worth, Dickens, even at the beginning of his career, demonstrates the care and craftsmanship that put him head and shoulders above the ruck of serial writers. Yet that, like the book itself, is not a high achievement.
I love Charles, but this book dragged. The characters just weren’t terribly compelling or the plot. Occasional moments of mirth or shock, but overall not my fav.
Great story and writing style. Hilarious and touching. Took foooreeeeverrrrr to read.
adventurous
funny
slow-paced
This book took me almost a year to finish. I kept putting it down and moving on to other books.
Dickens is brilliant at describing setting and character-- they are vivid, almost jumping off the page. Where this book got me was plot. I know Nicholas Nickleby was released in monthly installments, and it was this episodic nature that bogged me down. There were stories-within stories (looking at you, scene at the inn) and Dickens never me a tangent he didn't go on. I honestly wondered at certain points if he was getting paid by the word. But it was sharp, and witty, and, slowly, the plot developed and the story pulled me in.
Charles Dickens wrote this book after seeing the horrible conditions at a Yorkshire boarding school. No one can do social commentary like he can, and this book led to changes in the running of these schools, and many of the worst were shut down. That is some powerful writing from someone in their mid-twenties.
Dickens is brilliant at describing setting and character-- they are vivid, almost jumping off the page. Where this book got me was plot. I know Nicholas Nickleby was released in monthly installments, and it was this episodic nature that bogged me down. There were stories-within stories (looking at you, scene at the inn) and Dickens never me a tangent he didn't go on. I honestly wondered at certain points if he was getting paid by the word. But it was sharp, and witty, and, slowly, the plot developed and the story pulled me in.
Charles Dickens wrote this book after seeing the horrible conditions at a Yorkshire boarding school. No one can do social commentary like he can, and this book led to changes in the running of these schools, and many of the worst were shut down. That is some powerful writing from someone in their mid-twenties.
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated