Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.33 AVERAGE
3.33 AVERAGE
1.5 stars.
I definitely hard a bit of a hard time reading this particular Dickens novel, pun fully intended. Although I enjoy Dickens as a writer, I am well aware that his particular writing quirks and his tendency to ramble can be a little difficult at times. However, I did feel that Dickens really did outdo himself in this particular novel, and made it very hard for me to enjoy it.
I would try to sum up what Hard Times is about but... well, I honestly don't know how. What really struck me was the lack of any particularly strong plot in this book. Now, this is not always a negative thing. There are quite a few books I have enjoyed in the past that have not really had particularly strong plot lines, but they have always had excellent, strong characters that I wanted to read about. Unfortunately, Hard Times also lacked these.
I really disliked almost all the characters in this novel, and the ones that I wasn't opposed to seemed somewhat flat and lifeless - not something I have ever really encountered in a Dickens novel! I absolutely hated the character of Josiah Bounderby - I found this 'self-made man' to be vacuous and self-obsessed, and every time he began to go on one of his rants of having brought himself up out of the gutter, I couldn't help but sigh and inwardly roll my eyes at him. He really was an utter bore. I found Mrs Sparsit to be a real busy-body whose characteristics were also somewhat tiresome, and it really didn't help that she was very often in Bounderby's company within the pages. I liked Rachael's character well enough, but she was very often absent from anything going on, and Louisa was very frustrating at times, particularly when pandering to her idiotic and selfish brother Tom. The list goes on.
Another thing that I didn't really like about this novel was the fact that Dickens wrote dialects for some of the characters. This doesn't usually bother me in a book, but I didn't really feel that Dickens did a very good job of this. Although I liked and sympathised with the character of Stephen Blackpool, I found is frustrating to read his dialogue because most of the time it was very difficult to follow what he was saying. I couldn't even really discern a particular accent from him! I also hated the way Mr Sleary was written - he clearly had some form of speech impediment, possibly some kind of lisp, but again it made it very trying to read the dialogue written down.
Overall, I didn't hate this novel. There were some chapters that were more interesting than others, and there are books that I have disliked more. However, I definitely will not be reading this again, and wouldn't really recommend it to anyone, particularly if you are looking to get into Dickens. Try something like Oliver Twist instead!
I definitely hard a bit of a hard time reading this particular Dickens novel, pun fully intended. Although I enjoy Dickens as a writer, I am well aware that his particular writing quirks and his tendency to ramble can be a little difficult at times. However, I did feel that Dickens really did outdo himself in this particular novel, and made it very hard for me to enjoy it.
I would try to sum up what Hard Times is about but... well, I honestly don't know how. What really struck me was the lack of any particularly strong plot in this book. Now, this is not always a negative thing. There are quite a few books I have enjoyed in the past that have not really had particularly strong plot lines, but they have always had excellent, strong characters that I wanted to read about. Unfortunately, Hard Times also lacked these.
I really disliked almost all the characters in this novel, and the ones that I wasn't opposed to seemed somewhat flat and lifeless - not something I have ever really encountered in a Dickens novel! I absolutely hated the character of Josiah Bounderby - I found this 'self-made man' to be vacuous and self-obsessed, and every time he began to go on one of his rants of having brought himself up out of the gutter, I couldn't help but sigh and inwardly roll my eyes at him. He really was an utter bore. I found Mrs Sparsit to be a real busy-body whose characteristics were also somewhat tiresome, and it really didn't help that she was very often in Bounderby's company within the pages. I liked Rachael's character well enough, but she was very often absent from anything going on, and Louisa was very frustrating at times, particularly when pandering to her idiotic and selfish brother Tom. The list goes on.
Another thing that I didn't really like about this novel was the fact that Dickens wrote dialects for some of the characters. This doesn't usually bother me in a book, but I didn't really feel that Dickens did a very good job of this. Although I liked and sympathised with the character of Stephen Blackpool, I found is frustrating to read his dialogue because most of the time it was very difficult to follow what he was saying. I couldn't even really discern a particular accent from him! I also hated the way Mr Sleary was written - he clearly had some form of speech impediment, possibly some kind of lisp, but again it made it very trying to read the dialogue written down.
Overall, I didn't hate this novel. There were some chapters that were more interesting than others, and there are books that I have disliked more. However, I definitely will not be reading this again, and wouldn't really recommend it to anyone, particularly if you are looking to get into Dickens. Try something like Oliver Twist instead!
Dickens mai decepciona.
La moralina final ara grinyola una mica però això és absolutament perdonable.
La moralina final ara grinyola una mica però això és absolutament perdonable.
Closer to a 4.5/5, but definitely on the positive side of that.
When I started reading this book, I really didn't expect to like it much. Yes, it had some quirky characters, but the dynamic between Tom and Louisa in the early chapters made me a little uncomfortable, and I was way too upset about what a piece of trash Stephen Blackpool's wife was.
Somewhere around Book Two, that feeling was completely gone. The snark of Mrs. Sparsit, the "mystery" of the bank robbery (I mean, we all know who did it, but nobody in the book would openly admit that conclusion), the mental instability of Louisa and Tom as they grew into poorly adapted adults...it all added up into a story that I had a hard time putting down. Dickens has a knack for exploring the human psyche, and his character's emotional reactions, for the most part, feel very real. You can't help but have some sympathy for everyone (except Bounderby, he sucks), even Tom, with his descent into the world of drinking and gambling and subsequent denouncement of his sister.
One last tiny thing, which people may or may not care about: there is a scene near the end where a character is depicted wearing blackface as a sort of disguise, acting as a "servant" in a circus performance. Obviously, back in Dickens' time, that wasn't considered a bad thing or out of the ordinary, but it still feels a little icky to read it.
(This is not the best review I've ever written; it's mostly a jumble of observations, but I just finished the book about 30 minutes ago and haven't had time to fully develop all my ideas. Might edit this to add more at a later date.)
When I started reading this book, I really didn't expect to like it much. Yes, it had some quirky characters, but the dynamic between Tom and Louisa in the early chapters made me a little uncomfortable, and I was way too upset about what a piece of trash Stephen Blackpool's wife was.
Somewhere around Book Two, that feeling was completely gone. The snark of Mrs. Sparsit, the "mystery" of the bank robbery (I mean, we all know who did it, but nobody in the book would openly admit that conclusion), the mental instability of Louisa and Tom as they grew into poorly adapted adults...it all added up into a story that I had a hard time putting down. Dickens has a knack for exploring the human psyche, and his character's emotional reactions, for the most part, feel very real. You can't help but have some sympathy for everyone (except Bounderby, he sucks), even Tom, with his descent into the world of drinking and gambling and subsequent denouncement of his sister.
One last tiny thing, which people may or may not care about: there is a scene near the end where a character is depicted wearing blackface as a sort of disguise, acting as a "servant" in a circus performance. Obviously, back in Dickens' time, that wasn't considered a bad thing or out of the ordinary, but it still feels a little icky to read it.
(This is not the best review I've ever written; it's mostly a jumble of observations, but I just finished the book about 30 minutes ago and haven't had time to fully develop all my ideas. Might edit this to add more at a later date.)
Hard Times is to Dickens novels as A Comedy of Errors is to Shakespeare plays. It's a solid example of the genre, with all the requisite components--a sweet and virtuous orphan, the drama of someone's uncertain parentage, moralizing, a lovable character with a speech impediment, a treatise on the plight of the underclass, sly asides to the reader, and more moralizing. It's very good, if you love Dickens (which I do), but it probably shouldn't be counted among his greatest works.
Hard Times is Dickens' critique of the Industrial Revolution, a backlash against the philosophy of Utilitarianism and hyper-rationality that came with it, and an impassioned defense of the Novel as a way to enrich the spiritual lives of the people. I was originally assigned this book in a seminar on "practical wisdom," a philosophy that aims for a nuanced and emotional approach to making ethical judgments, rather than a rigid rules-based model of morality.
Hard Times is Dickens' critique of the Industrial Revolution, a backlash against the philosophy of Utilitarianism and hyper-rationality that came with it, and an impassioned defense of the Novel as a way to enrich the spiritual lives of the people. I was originally assigned this book in a seminar on "practical wisdom," a philosophy that aims for a nuanced and emotional approach to making ethical judgments, rather than a rigid rules-based model of morality.
This was a fairly decent read. A bit irritating when he wrote dialog that he intended to sound like the characters spoke. But, the information was relevant and there was a bit of wit about the writing. It may have been a bit more relevant in its day from a political viewpoint, but today it seems a tad weak. He has written better works than this.
A well written book with a good plot, but not a kind of book that I normally should have read..
challenging
dark
hopeful
reflective
sad
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
Just couldn't connect with this one for whatever reason. It felt far too short to develop any of the characters past a few defining characteristics; though this is considered one of Dickens' best, I much prefer Christmas Carol from his shorter works...