Frances Isabelle Lockwood Brundage (1854–1937) was an American illustrator. Her illustrations are best remembered for their sentimental, tender portrayal of children, with large, expressive eyes, cherubic faces, and endearing expressions. Her style, instantly recognisable, helped establish the archetype of the innocent, rosy-cheeked child that became synonymous with turn-of-the-century greeting cards, storybooks, and postcards.

I was watching the BBC adaptation of BH recently and there were a multitude of characters who I had pictured / judged SO differently than they were portrayed and it got me thinking about this and wondering what other Dickens enthusiasts think.

Which one is the most messed up, do you think (not just 'fathers', but primary male relatives like the grandfather in Old Curiosity Shop)? Feel free to expound on several. What gets me is - was this really the ideal in Victorian England, or is Dickens just letting his own fantasy run free?

It's hard for me to imagine a world where the behavior of daughters would be expected to be such as he portrays them.

Am I the only one who doesn't buy the excuse that (I hardly remember their names, sorry) pegotty's sister's husband (the one she run away with) had abondonned her? Ok, we know he supposedly isn't a good guy, we've known that since David's Salem house days (because of the foreshadowing dropped when he first met the guy) but I just don't buy it. Maybe he did it to protect her? I just had a feeling the two really loved each other, just from what I heard. This is just a feeling, though.

Edit: the guy in question is Steerforth. The one I called "Pegotty's sister" is Emily

Reading Dickens is special. But reading Household, 1873, with columns and illustrations is really engaging. Only $30 NZ.

Hii!

Lately I have been trying to read other authors but to be honest I kinda keep coming back to Dickens.

I read A tale of two cities and I fell in love with the story and I will probably forever cry for Sydney Carton.

I also read Great Expectations, great book, it resonated a lot with my own life experiences. When I didn't like Pip, I realize what I did not like about him, it was what I didn't like about myself...enough say

So now Im looking for my next book of this author, so I wanted to know if you have any recommendations. Maybe you could tell me which one is your favourite (apart from the ones I mentioned) and a little reason of why (no spoilers please)

Btw...sorry for my English and grammar, it isn't my first language :))

Thanks in advance

Another post-read reflection

Overall a funny book with some dark moments throughout and you can feel his tension between the comedy of Pickwick Papers and later darkness of say, Little Dorrit. The plot seems to only get notably serious towards the end with Gride's marriage to Bray and the torment of Smike.

Until then it feels just like a series of set pieces. All good but quite disconnected - i.e. teachning in Yorkshire, then in a theatre troupe, then back to defend Kate and work with the Cheeryble twins and Tim Linkinwater. Nothing wrong with that itself but it definitely felt episodic as a result.

The chapter where Newman Noggs leads NN to the wrong girls - "Bobster, I remembered it by Lobster" - is hilarious. I love when CD writes these comedy chapters for nothing other than the joke. But because he delivers it with the same depth of writing as all the other chapters, you never see it coming.

Mrs Nickleby is also a wonderful character and well observed (via CD's own mothers I have read), especially her slipping from thinking the neighbour is not mad for throwing vegetables over the wall, to being definitely mad for taking a shine to Mrs La Creevy, is brilliant. Her digressions are a lot funnier than other characters that CD does this too, such a Flora Finching in LD.

Browdie's Yorkshireisms are hard to read at time but worth the struggle and I like how he goes from an enemy to a friend and saves Smike by the end.

Speaking of Smike, when he died I found it very contrived and a bit abrupt. But then when he's revealed as Ralph's son and therefore NN's cousin, even though that also is highly contrived, it suddenly felt quite weighty and the final lines of NN's children tending Smike's grave felt very moving. A surprising ending!

I liked the flirting scenes in the theatre troupe and NN's general hot-headedness as a youthful guy looking for honour and action.

CD really could write very hard-to-read scenes of child neglect and so on, with the descriptions of the school in Yorkshire and the treatment of the children very grim indeed. It was hard not to wish ill on the Squeeres even if 7 years' transportation does sound very harsh by modern standards.

Compared with Tulkinghorn and the Smallweeds, I actually hate Skimpole the most.
His hypocrisy, his affectation, the way he dresses up his greed and selfishness as childish innocence, and his complete lack of responsibility — all while expecting everyone to admire him as a dear, innocent child.
Every time he smugly praises himself, I almost feel physically sick.
Tulkinghorn is obviously sinister and calculating. He uses people’s secrets to gain power over them. But somehow, I find Skimpole’s hypocrisy even more repulsive.
I really can’t stand people who disguise their selfishness as virtue.

Very near the end of NN that seems a fairly overt reference to s*x which I found utterly scandalous. Context is NN has just become engaged to Madeline Bray. Usually sex is never mentioned at all or even alluded to I find but this seems fairly obvious?

I’m listening to Bleak House for the second time, and suddenly I feel like it might actually be my favourite Dickens novel of all the ones I’ve read.
What really surprised me was Sir Leicester. When Lady Dedlock runs away, and I listened to the way he reacted to everything, I suddenly saw him completely differently. This proud, arrogant man who had always seemed almost hollow to me suddenly became incredibly gentle, loving and deeply human. I actually found myself feeling so sorry for him.
Maybe that’s the magic of Dickens. He can make you suddenly care deeply about a character you never thought you would

What I don't understand is the fact that, according to Claire Tomalin's biography, Dickens discussed the plot of Edwin Drood with John Forster as he was writing it. So there's a chance that Forster -- his best friend and biographer -- knew a lot about the plot. I wonder why he didn't finish the book for Dickens? I get that he was devastated when Dickens died, but he was able to recover enough to write a multi-volume biography of Dickens. It would've been an even greater tribute to his friend.

I've read many novels. I found a Christmas Carol pain in the ass. The prose is very subtle and interpretive.

Hello folks, thanks again to those who helped persuade me to give this another go. I've started it and am enjoying it, it is better than I remembered; it's not as solemn as I thought, there's a subtle current of fun running through it that I somehow missed the first time. But, I think crucially, I first watched the 1999 telly version which has enabled me to stay across the convoluted story and large number of characters without losing patience; I can attend to the details because I'm clear about the main lines. I'm not a fan of multiple story lines, I think it's something writers do when the central idea isn't strong enough - not, at least, for the length of book they wanted to write. Dickens did here have 2 pretty good ideas, albeit one of them very contrived, but neither of them would have made a long book so he combined them and threw in the totally superfluous Silas Wegg, Venus, etc.

I believe in the Unities, and I still think the mark of his best books - Pickwick, Chuzzlewit, DC, Great Expectations - is that they're both more focused and more fun. In DC, for example, Copperfield is in every single scene (naturally, as it's first-person); in Pickwick, either Pickwick himself is, or some deputy of his. Admittedly OMF does represent a step up in realism, particularly in his portrayal of the heroines whom he had always tended to idealise. But really - is realism what we want from him? Tolstoy said that the purpose of the novelist is to make the reader love life. No writer has more of that power than Dickens, and it's at least partly because he sometimes sees with rose-tinted glasses.

Just thought I'd share my experience - don't expect to convince anyone who thinks differently!

PS what a great character Lavinia is! :) I love her

Just finished Chapter 19, the end of part 1. I want to avoid spoilers by delving into this book in wikis or such.

How old is Pip when he leaves for London and to Mr Jaggers office to kick off the next phase of his life?

A relatively little-read Dickens - it doesn't even have its own flair on here! I read it once a long time ago, didn't particularly enjoy it, but am wondering whether it's time to give it another go - maybe cos I'm now about the age D was when he wrote it.

Anyone want to give it their endorsement?...if you like it please briefly tell me why.

Edit: well, you guys talked me into it! I'm gonna order a copy and give it another try. There's another reason for doing so that I don't think anyone has mentioned: the light it sheds on Dickens' thoughts and feelings in the rather mysterious last phase of his life.

I (28M) have only just, in the last two years, fell in love with reading. Particularly the classics.

I “read” Oliver Twist in high school and barely committed to it, skimming through most chapters and sparknotes’ing a lot of it to get through that year’s literature class. However, over a decade later when my partner (28F) and I decided to start a two person book club, my first instinct was to start with Dickens. Having read no other Dickens, besides my botched and lazy attempt at OT, something about GE really called out to me. I was in a Barnes & Noble trying to find the perfect Dickens for us to begin our literary journey together, and after reading the summary of GE, I knew that was the book for us.

What a beautiful adventure Great Expectations was. I am so glad to have read it now, in my twenties. It’s such an amazing coming-of-age story with themes of broken promises, misfortune and heartbreak that younger me would’ve never been able to conceptualize or appreciate. It’s my all time favorite book now, and honestly I feel like it has changed my perspective on my own station in life for the best.

Now we are reading David Copperfield. She is roughly forty pages ahead of me, I am around page 830. I have enjoyed DC in spurts. Not as much as I enjoyed GE. As colorful and zany of a character as Mr. Micawber is, his dialogue can be a chore to get through. While I’ve expanded my lexicon considerably, it’s tedious (at best) to read a Micawber scene. This is kind of my main hold-up with DC. I understand what I am reading, and I enjoy the story, but it feels like this is one of Dickens’ most prolix and verbose works, Micawber being the main offender. I understand that is a large part of his character: intelligent, eloquent, but never succinct. An example of a highly intelligent and capable man whose financial mismanagement is his and his family’s biggest enemy, but he very much is long winded. My question to you all: is it true that David Copperfield is one of Dickens’ more laborious reads? Am I setting myself up for failure if I want to attempt Oliver Twist again after this? Is Nickelby as prolix as DC? Is there a universally agreed “easiest” Dickens novel to read? Did any of you feel the same as I did with Mr. Micawber on their first read of DC? I appreciate any responses. Thanks friends!

Hello! I am asking for a bit of help. I am a college student studying Bleak House for a Thesis currently (enjoying it a lot) and have run into a wall when it comes to researching who Jo is based on. I can see many people say George Ruby, but when going back to the article in which Dickens writes about him, he spells the name "Rugby" (the examiner  12 January 1850 publication) so I guess my question is, what historical source led to "George"? And is it "Ruby" or "Rugby"? I fear my ignorance of the historical context has made this hard for me to investigate and discern where and what to look for to find out about the case Dickens was writing of regarding George Ruby, and would love any advice or pointers anyone can give me to track down some more concrete information. All the articles I have found saying Jo was based on George Ruby haven't given me any clues to getting more information on him, and some claims that he went to Australia, but only secondhand articles saying such things rather than drawing from older sources like letters from Dickens or his associates on the matter.

I am super excited to find out more if I can! I've really come to love Jo's character and would be thrilled to find out more about who he was based on!

If anyone can help it would be much appreciated! thank you!

Anybody have any they felt strongly about, good or bad? I've started several lately and been disappointed by the writing. In your comment, if you wouldn't mind saying a bit about what you liked/disliked about the book.

(I read a lot of random diaries that are on Project Gutenberg, as well - those are probably the best to really tell you what life was like, but you gotta wade through A LOT of stuff to find one that's even legible, let alone complete.)

Thanks in advance!

Read page 1, Pip’s reference to his Mother as “Georgiana, wife of the above” made me laugh, because, that etched into a tombstone is like “who else would she be the wife of”.

I’m reading the Everyman’s Library edition I bought about 20yrs ago, with the fancy ribbon.

I just finished my summer read, The Count of Monte Cristo, which I thought was great but the ending was meh.