Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.02 AVERAGE
4.02 AVERAGE
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I don't think I can give Dickens any less than 4 stars - he's the Master. However, this was not my favorite book in his collection of creative works. As his contemporary critics lamented, it did start out slow. It never seems to really pick up, though. It was complex, with a host of characters including many minor ones. Much of the story you learn by witnessing dialogue between characters. All these things make it more difficult to follow. Maybe I should give it 3 stars... but it IS Dickens.
Not one of Dicken's strongest works. I didn't enjoy this one nearly as much as Bleak House or Little Dorrit.
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is a ridiculously long, complicated serial novel (originally published in 19 monthly installments) with some vivid scenes of London's nouveaux riches and its toujours pauvres. Characters are simplified like cartoon characters -- with the possible exceptions of three minor ones. Much of the dialogue is ridiculously long-winded, though in places very effective. Plotting takes bizarre implausible turns but does eventually tie almost all the threads. The book's greatest single merit is its descriptions of physical settings --the Thames, Venus's "articulation" shop, the Veneering table settings, the London streets, etc. Its most irksome features are Dickens' frequent interjections of preachments, and --far, far worse --his maudlin sentimentalizing of such a ninny as Bella Wilfer, who gets the full Dickens treatment of loving attention to the details of speech, dress and grimace.
The only characters with a little complexity are (1) Sophronia, the wife of Alfred Lammle and his accomplice in con games, but with qualms of conscience; (2) Mr. Venus, the "articulator" (he assembles miscellaneous bones to construct whole skeletons of men and beasts), who also finds he has scruples after having allowed himself to be dragged into a nefarious plot; and (3) Twemlow, a poor relative of an aristocrat, who never understands what is going on and is frightfully timid, but who acts on an independent code of honor in the end.
I was glad when Dickens finally got so enraged at one of his ineffectual characters, Eugene Wrayburn, that he broke him to pieces. It was distressing to learn later that Wrayburn had survived and was likely to recover. But Wrayburn was not the most annoying character. I would have preferred that Dickens commit some mayhem on obtuse, saccharine-sweet Bella Wilfer and shut her up -- but that was too much to hope. The author seems actually to have liked that character.
The key to Dickens' clumsiness is the medium he chose: Monthly installments over 19 months, the author keeping only a little ahead of his readers. Thus, by the time he had sickened of Wrayburn, a professional failure who becomes a stalker of a pure-hearted poor girl (daughter of a river scavenger), it was too late to go back and rewrite his story to make him more interesting or attractive; all of London (the novel-reading part of it, that is) had read those earlier chapters, and Dickens was stuck with him. The author's only recourses were either to let Wrayburn's ineffectualness continue to slow down the story, or to do him violence. The violence is stunning, and quite a bit more than would be necessary for the plot. The villain -- another stalker, more infuriated by Wrayburn's behavior than even I was — doesn't merely knock him out and try to drown him; he cudgels him, breaks his arms and wrists and cracks his skull before hurling his limp, barely pulsating body into the river. Dickens was really pissed off.
But then, to please his sentimental readers (he could hardly have had any other kind), he lets Lizzie Hexam (the stalkee) rescue him and nurse him back to life. She even marries him! And all the nasty bad guys (who all dress badly) are duly punished, and the sweet-natured good gals and guys (they're the ones who have good grooming) live happily ever after. Ugh
The only characters with a little complexity are (1) Sophronia, the wife of Alfred Lammle and his accomplice in con games, but with qualms of conscience; (2) Mr. Venus, the "articulator" (he assembles miscellaneous bones to construct whole skeletons of men and beasts), who also finds he has scruples after having allowed himself to be dragged into a nefarious plot; and (3) Twemlow, a poor relative of an aristocrat, who never understands what is going on and is frightfully timid, but who acts on an independent code of honor in the end.
I was glad when Dickens finally got so enraged at one of his ineffectual characters, Eugene Wrayburn, that he broke him to pieces. It was distressing to learn later that Wrayburn had survived and was likely to recover. But Wrayburn was not the most annoying character. I would have preferred that Dickens commit some mayhem on obtuse, saccharine-sweet Bella Wilfer and shut her up -- but that was too much to hope. The author seems actually to have liked that character.
The key to Dickens' clumsiness is the medium he chose: Monthly installments over 19 months, the author keeping only a little ahead of his readers. Thus, by the time he had sickened of Wrayburn, a professional failure who becomes a stalker of a pure-hearted poor girl (daughter of a river scavenger), it was too late to go back and rewrite his story to make him more interesting or attractive; all of London (the novel-reading part of it, that is) had read those earlier chapters, and Dickens was stuck with him. The author's only recourses were either to let Wrayburn's ineffectualness continue to slow down the story, or to do him violence. The violence is stunning, and quite a bit more than would be necessary for the plot. The villain -- another stalker, more infuriated by Wrayburn's behavior than even I was — doesn't merely knock him out and try to drown him; he cudgels him, breaks his arms and wrists and cracks his skull before hurling his limp, barely pulsating body into the river. Dickens was really pissed off.
But then, to please his sentimental readers (he could hardly have had any other kind), he lets Lizzie Hexam (the stalkee) rescue him and nurse him back to life. She even marries him! And all the nasty bad guys (who all dress badly) are duly punished, and the sweet-natured good gals and guys (they're the ones who have good grooming) live happily ever after. Ugh
dark
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
As ever, Dickens' characters are colourful with the main characters being rounded and believable and the caricatured ones amusing though I shudder a little at his portrayal of the Jew. The story is intriguing and in his own afterword her admits that this may seem improbable but he know of something of this nature acutely happening.
Was Dickens getting too clever by now? Could he story not have been told with fewer characters, with fewer interventions form the auhtor and in fewer words?
Was Dickens getting too clever by now? Could he story not have been told with fewer characters, with fewer interventions form the auhtor and in fewer words?
This is where I find ratings tricky. 3 stars in comparison to other dickens' novels that I have enjoyed more such as a tale of two cities, which I loved. Read this over the course of many months and think I lost the thread a bit. I was surprised by the rokesmith/handford/Harmon and believed boffin had become a miser. Liked the twist of the third will and comeuppance with that. Hard time with so much being a test of Bella wilfer, also not satisfied with Lizzie/wrayburn marriage.
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3450418.html
None of the characters and little of the writing particularly grabbed me. The core plot is a chap who fakes his own death and then deceives his wife about who he really is, partly to test her character, which I find utterly repulsive behaviour, presented by Dickens as moral courage and heroism. (She passes the test, of course; Dickens is reticent about what would have happened if she had not.) The lower-class couple who had accidentally become rich joyfully surrender their undeserved fortune to our hero, which again I found rather grating. There are some meandering side plots on the banks of the Thames, upstream and in London, but they seemed to me both moralising and far-fetched.
None of the characters and little of the writing particularly grabbed me. The core plot is a chap who fakes his own death and then deceives his wife about who he really is, partly to test her character, which I find utterly repulsive behaviour, presented by Dickens as moral courage and heroism. (She passes the test, of course; Dickens is reticent about what would have happened if she had not.) The lower-class couple who had accidentally become rich joyfully surrender their undeserved fortune to our hero, which again I found rather grating. There are some meandering side plots on the banks of the Thames, upstream and in London, but they seemed to me both moralising and far-fetched.
4.5⭐️
In un mese di lettura (me la sono presa comoda) non ho mai pensato per un secondo di abbandonare questo libro o di essere scoraggiata dalla mole, tanto scorreva bene. Che dire poi dei personaggi, veramente ben caratterizzati e non stereotipati, così completi che anche quelli non proprio positivi non possono che venir compresi o compatiti (tanto amore per la coppia dei Lammle che non ho potuto far altro che amare dall’inizio alla fine: si sposano ingannandosi a vicenda e pensando che l’altro sia ricco, con le persone fanno finta di amarsi e di avere chissà quanti soldi costruendosi la reputazione di voler comprare una casa meravigliosa, mente nel privato si disprezzano e si odiano. Alla fine, caduti in disgrazia per non essere riusciti a truffare nessuno, prima di lasciare il paese, picchiano a sangue il loro strozzino che infierendo sulla loro povertà porta loro via tutti gli averi. ADORO).
In un mese di lettura (me la sono presa comoda) non ho mai pensato per un secondo di abbandonare questo libro o di essere scoraggiata dalla mole, tanto scorreva bene. Che dire poi dei personaggi, veramente ben caratterizzati e non stereotipati, così completi che anche quelli non proprio positivi non possono che venir compresi o compatiti (tanto amore per la coppia dei Lammle che non ho potuto far altro che amare dall’inizio alla fine: si sposano ingannandosi a vicenda e pensando che l’altro sia ricco, con le persone fanno finta di amarsi e di avere chissà quanti soldi costruendosi la reputazione di voler comprare una casa meravigliosa, mente nel privato si disprezzano e si odiano. Alla fine, caduti in disgrazia per non essere riusciti a truffare nessuno, prima di lasciare il paese, picchiano a sangue il loro strozzino che infierendo sulla loro povertà porta loro via tutti gli averi. ADORO).