Dickens never seemed to understand why people might feel resentful about being treated as freaks or grotesques. While Quilp does clearly resent it, Dickens does not use his embitterment (to the point of evil) as a lesson on the evil effects of creating freak shows. He creates them himself in almost every novel -- in Pickwick, it's the fat boy, who is dehumanized and treated as an object. Later, it's characters like Mrs. Gamp.
You’re right, Claire – especially in these early novels – although Dickens did become more sensitive to this later on – he redeems another dwarf, Miss Mowcher, in David Copperfield, who was based on a real character – and he included the positive portrait of Mr Riah in Our Mutual Friend, to counter balance the anti-semitic depiction of Fagin in Oliver Twist. But yes – in this novel, he is acting more like a ringmaster at a freak show.
Riah is a freak of another kind: the product of philosemitism. Dickens didn't understand Jewish culture any more than he understood fat people, or dwarves, etc. And after being brought up short by a Jewish woman, he veered from antisemitism (Oliver Twist) to philosemitism (Our Mutual Friend). I wrote about his inability to write Jewish characters as just ordinary people here: https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/antisemitism-and-philosemitism-jews
I find that you and I have much the same preferences in literature ... I'm about to comment on Anna K.
It's a great tale. Dickens is so the master of sucking us in... And in that sense, you feel that the original Master Humphrey's Clock framework was never going to work. It was always going to be too snippety, whereas he needs a really huge canvas to develop his characters and themes.
That scene at the Jolly Sandboys was completely surreal...
And I always look forward to the appearance of Whisker, so I'm wishing him a long and cantankerous pony life.
This was a delight - so much to enjoy. I'm also starting to make links to other Dickens' works.
But first: when Codlin and Short started, was anybody else reminded of the fox and the cat in 'Pinocchio' (the Disney version)?
The woman in the carriage: I read that differently. I assumed she was an older woman (mother or grandmother), surrounded by young people. I always think the best of people...
The similarities to other works: long walk (David Copperfield), child in danger (Oliver Twist), run into actors (Nicholas Nickleby), child taken in by good people (Oliver Twist / David Copperfield). Kit feels like a respectable version of the Artful Dodger, and all the shenanigans are bringing Ralph Nickleby to mind.
I'm not complaining, I'm interested in how the themes play out differently.
I've got the Folio Society edition which has different - but equally brilliant - illustrations (especially Quilp with the dog).
At this point - although I'm sure we'll find out later - I'm intrigued by the novel's title. So, why does it take its name from the shop? What is the significance? I'm starting to make wild guesses.
I loved the expression (about Quilp) "this unknown piece of ugliness". I may try to popularised it. -
Thanks so much Bren – as ever! – great thoughts. That fox and cat comparison is brilliant! And I completely agree about the familiar themes in other Dickens novels. And good point about the title – but remember he chose it before he started writing – it was originally the title of what was going to be a short episode in Master Humphrey's Clock, but then grew into a novel. I wonder if he felt a bit lumbered with it! Although I suppose you could argue that the novel is a kind of curiosity shop, showcasing a variety of grotesque characters and situations . . . All best! (And do share a snap of the Quilp and dog illustration in your Folio edition, if you can!)
Thank you, Henry, for introducing the idea of The Old Curiosity Shop as allegory. Looking at the novel through that lens makes a big difference for me.
As I've been reading Anna Karenina before and during Curiosity Shop, I've been struck by how every aspect of the novel holds to the spine of Anna's story. Levin and Kitty are obvious counterpoints, but even tangents like the peasant farmers and the spa trip illuminate some aspect of Anna's life -- or show something important missing in it. With The Old Curiosity Shop, I've been feeling that the many adventures and characters in Little Nell's travels make the book feel episodic. And these episodes, while they often directly involve Little Nell, don't always provide illumination or counterpoint.
Your discussion of allegory is making me read the novel in a new way. These two novels can each go many places, but Tolstoy and Dickens don't need to have the same intentions. I'm reading now to find the allegorical significance in each new place The Old Curiosity Shop takes us.
And just as I'm finding that reading Anna Karenina influences my reading of Dickens, I had the same experience with The Summer Book. These are both novels with a granddaughter and grandparent. By chance -- or by your design -- The Summer Book provides its own counterpoint to Little Nell. Would that Nell were sharing her journey with a grandparent with as much vitality as Sophia's! Reading The Summer Book made me feel more keenly for Little Nell and the many responsibilities she shoulders.
The two weeks of reading these three novels was particularly satisfying.
This is wonderful Alan! How brilliant to weave together the three books we’ve been reading this month. I like your contrast of the realist Anna Karenina and the allegorical Old Curiosity Shop – and the two grandparent-grandchild relationships are very striking. Thank you for such a thoughtful comment!
Dickens never seemed to understand why people might feel resentful about being treated as freaks or grotesques. While Quilp does clearly resent it, Dickens does not use his embitterment (to the point of evil) as a lesson on the evil effects of creating freak shows. He creates them himself in almost every novel -- in Pickwick, it's the fat boy, who is dehumanized and treated as an object. Later, it's characters like Mrs. Gamp.
You’re right, Claire – especially in these early novels – although Dickens did become more sensitive to this later on – he redeems another dwarf, Miss Mowcher, in David Copperfield, who was based on a real character – and he included the positive portrait of Mr Riah in Our Mutual Friend, to counter balance the anti-semitic depiction of Fagin in Oliver Twist. But yes – in this novel, he is acting more like a ringmaster at a freak show.
Riah is a freak of another kind: the product of philosemitism. Dickens didn't understand Jewish culture any more than he understood fat people, or dwarves, etc. And after being brought up short by a Jewish woman, he veered from antisemitism (Oliver Twist) to philosemitism (Our Mutual Friend). I wrote about his inability to write Jewish characters as just ordinary people here: https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/antisemitism-and-philosemitism-jews
I find that you and I have much the same preferences in literature ... I'm about to comment on Anna K.
Fascinating post, Claire – thank you for sharing!
It's a great tale. Dickens is so the master of sucking us in... And in that sense, you feel that the original Master Humphrey's Clock framework was never going to work. It was always going to be too snippety, whereas he needs a really huge canvas to develop his characters and themes.
That scene at the Jolly Sandboys was completely surreal...
And I always look forward to the appearance of Whisker, so I'm wishing him a long and cantankerous pony life.
Whisker is brilliant, isn’t he? I completely agree – I love that phrase about the huge canvas Dickens needed.
I also like “naughty Whisker.” Dickens has given him quite a personality
This was a delight - so much to enjoy. I'm also starting to make links to other Dickens' works.
But first: when Codlin and Short started, was anybody else reminded of the fox and the cat in 'Pinocchio' (the Disney version)?
The woman in the carriage: I read that differently. I assumed she was an older woman (mother or grandmother), surrounded by young people. I always think the best of people...
The similarities to other works: long walk (David Copperfield), child in danger (Oliver Twist), run into actors (Nicholas Nickleby), child taken in by good people (Oliver Twist / David Copperfield). Kit feels like a respectable version of the Artful Dodger, and all the shenanigans are bringing Ralph Nickleby to mind.
I'm not complaining, I'm interested in how the themes play out differently.
I've got the Folio Society edition which has different - but equally brilliant - illustrations (especially Quilp with the dog).
At this point - although I'm sure we'll find out later - I'm intrigued by the novel's title. So, why does it take its name from the shop? What is the significance? I'm starting to make wild guesses.
I loved the expression (about Quilp) "this unknown piece of ugliness". I may try to popularised it. -
Thanks so much Bren – as ever! – great thoughts. That fox and cat comparison is brilliant! And I completely agree about the familiar themes in other Dickens novels. And good point about the title – but remember he chose it before he started writing – it was originally the title of what was going to be a short episode in Master Humphrey's Clock, but then grew into a novel. I wonder if he felt a bit lumbered with it! Although I suppose you could argue that the novel is a kind of curiosity shop, showcasing a variety of grotesque characters and situations . . . All best! (And do share a snap of the Quilp and dog illustration in your Folio edition, if you can!)
Thank you, Henry, for introducing the idea of The Old Curiosity Shop as allegory. Looking at the novel through that lens makes a big difference for me.
As I've been reading Anna Karenina before and during Curiosity Shop, I've been struck by how every aspect of the novel holds to the spine of Anna's story. Levin and Kitty are obvious counterpoints, but even tangents like the peasant farmers and the spa trip illuminate some aspect of Anna's life -- or show something important missing in it. With The Old Curiosity Shop, I've been feeling that the many adventures and characters in Little Nell's travels make the book feel episodic. And these episodes, while they often directly involve Little Nell, don't always provide illumination or counterpoint.
Your discussion of allegory is making me read the novel in a new way. These two novels can each go many places, but Tolstoy and Dickens don't need to have the same intentions. I'm reading now to find the allegorical significance in each new place The Old Curiosity Shop takes us.
And just as I'm finding that reading Anna Karenina influences my reading of Dickens, I had the same experience with The Summer Book. These are both novels with a granddaughter and grandparent. By chance -- or by your design -- The Summer Book provides its own counterpoint to Little Nell. Would that Nell were sharing her journey with a grandparent with as much vitality as Sophia's! Reading The Summer Book made me feel more keenly for Little Nell and the many responsibilities she shoulders.
The two weeks of reading these three novels was particularly satisfying.
This is wonderful Alan! How brilliant to weave together the three books we’ve been reading this month. I like your contrast of the realist Anna Karenina and the allegorical Old Curiosity Shop – and the two grandparent-grandchild relationships are very striking. Thank you for such a thoughtful comment!
Quilp reminds me of Iago - harm for harm”s sake.
Here's Quilp and the dog. It's got real life to it.
(I couldn't attach it in a reply to the reply, but that's Substack for you!)
Wow – that’s brilliant! Thanks Bren. Who’s the illustrator?
It's by Charles Keeping.
Thanks Bren!