Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.33 AVERAGE
3.33 AVERAGE
I can't love Dickens like I love Austen. This is probably the weakest Dickens I've read. I prefer 'David Copperfield' and 'Little Dorrit'. I am now experiencing strong cravings for Austen, but I already have a different author waiting on the library reservation shelf.
I now know that to be considered a “classic” it has to be the most god awful boring book. Most of the chapters felt like fillers and had no relevance to the story and the characters that are heavily accented are the ones that talk the most just to make it even worse. For example, “…for onny o’ th’ monny causes that carries grief to the poor man’s door, an’ there’ll be tender wi’ yo, gentle wi’ yo, comfortable wi’ yo, chrisen wi’ yo.”
Well written with many colorful characters in the Dickens way. I did not love the story but did find the lesson the story displayed. The lesson being: "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.-Proverbs 22:6
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
not gonna lie the plottwist did have my jaw on the floor just a little bit
A ver, no es un mal libro en el sentido de estilo y ritmo, pero no es una historia llamativa ni entretenida.
3.5
Filled with Dicken’s usual idiosyncratic characters and sharp wit, I found Hard Times well-crafted, engaging, and often amusing (the name M’Choakumchild alone), but didn’t love it as much as his other novels. Louisa’s self-sacrificial choice in marriage was a bit too unpalatable for me, her dynamic with her brother screaming Mill on the Floss, and not in a good way. Though I appreciated Gradgrind’s development, I felt Bounderby didn’t face enough consequences. For his part, Thomas can choke.
Filled with Dicken’s usual idiosyncratic characters and sharp wit, I found Hard Times well-crafted, engaging, and often amusing (the name M’Choakumchild alone), but didn’t love it as much as his other novels. Louisa’s self-sacrificial choice in marriage was a bit too unpalatable for me, her dynamic with her brother screaming Mill on the Floss, and not in a good way. Though I appreciated Gradgrind’s development, I felt Bounderby didn’t face enough consequences. For his part, Thomas can choke.
slow-paced
challenging
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Classism
Moderate: Death, Injury/Injury detail
Minor: Misogyny, Sexism
had to read this for my course 'The Literature of Childhood'. the narrative in this novel is very interesting but it takes me so much effort to read a 19th century novel like this. the writing style is just so unlike the styles i am used to. it's not a bad style, i quite like it actually, but it just takes 10 times longer to get through because of the old English, and i'm hardly ever as invested as i am in contemporary novels.
anyway i really liked the message in this book. i love that Sissy is the one who ends up with a successful, loving family while she was the one that represented all the 'bad' qualities like sentimentalism, sympathy, emotionality, imagination, and that Tom and Louisa grew up to be quite dysfunctional adults while their upbringing represented reason, fact, knowledge, and so on. Dickens clearly wanted to show that an upbringing like Tom's and Louisa's is not beneficial for children and I love that. this was my first Dickens novel and I actually quite liked this style. other than the fact that it takes longer to get through, i thought it was pretty funny at times, I laughed out loud a few times, and generally I just found his writing really satisfying. so yeah pretty good read!
anyway i really liked the message in this book. i love that Sissy is the one who ends up with a successful, loving family while she was the one that represented all the 'bad' qualities like sentimentalism, sympathy, emotionality, imagination, and that Tom and Louisa grew up to be quite dysfunctional adults while their upbringing represented reason, fact, knowledge, and so on. Dickens clearly wanted to show that an upbringing like Tom's and Louisa's is not beneficial for children and I love that. this was my first Dickens novel and I actually quite liked this style. other than the fact that it takes longer to get through, i thought it was pretty funny at times, I laughed out loud a few times, and generally I just found his writing really satisfying. so yeah pretty good read!