I think Charles Dickens knew something about media, fear mongering and how the public love giving into propaganda - “for people like to be frightened, and when they can be frightened for nothing and at another man’s expense, they like it all the better.” I did not know people gathered around fires to read to each other in those times though. We need more of that to be honest.
My favorite part of this week's installment is the treatment of Mr Pickwick as a huge celebrity. Master Humphrey is bristling with energy through the whole episode. I hadn't thought there'd be so much similarity between 19th century London and our current celebrity culture. Dickens was a huge celebrity himself, of course, and he seems to take delight in sending up the fawning and the hero worship.
Master Humphrey is comically accomodating; he is gloriously low-status in the presence of a celebrated figure. I've lived for years in NYC and L.A., so I've had my share of celebrity sightings, as I'm sure the London members of our group have. So I laughed at the level of detail of practically every word, thought, and action of both Master Humphrey and Mr Pickwick in this scene. Decades later, I still recount -- in minute detail to absolutely anyone -- passing such-and-such a celebrity on the street or watching someone eat their meal in a restaurant. And not just what they were wearing but what *I* was wearing in their presence.
I disagree a bit with Chesterton's assessment of Pickwick as weaker or softer here. I think we're seeing Pickwick from Master Humphrey's perspective, and Master Humphrey sees a kind, generous celebrity who has unexpectedly favored him. And we can be sure Master Humphrey will tell any passing acquaintance all about this first encounter for the rest of his life.
I agree with Chesterton, up to a point. Mr Pickwick's appearance made me think of rock bands being exhorted by their audiences to "Play The Hits!" The danger of acquiescing is that a band ends up being a kind of tribute band to itself, and the weaker for it. I don't know whether Dickens feared becoming a weaker writer if he pandered to his audience, as it were. It seems to me that Trollope, in the Barchester Towers sequence, has an over-arching society in his mind, through which to tell any number of stories (it's interesting that the locale has been continued in a series of novels by Angela Thirkell, albeit moved to the 1930s), and that these novels are more of a portrait and an entertainment than Dickens' work. Not to say that Dickens isn't entertaining of course, but perhaps he was always searching for new surroundings, new characters, without being restricted by an existing framework. And at this point, he wasn't quite confident enough to trust his own storytelling craft. I wonder how difficult he found it to leave Mr Pickwick (and Sam Weller) behind and push on with The Old Curiosity Shop.
I love the question you're posing with "I wonder how difficult he found it to leave Mr Pickwick (and Sam Weller) behind and push on with The Old Curiosity Shop." Looking at Chesterton's analysis, maybe it was easier for Dickens to create new works and new worlds than to revisit old ones. Maybe leaving Pickwick and Weller behind (again) was easy because it meant diving further into the world of Little Nell. I don't know, but I love the question.
I also love that question! I suspect he will have been somewhat relieved to leave them behind this time, because he realised they weren't working in quite the same way – and he was excited about his new project. I think you're right to point to his confidence – he was still very early in his career at this stage.
Thank you for flagging, Anita – yes, it's definitely uncomfortable reading. I think Linda's right, that Dickens is attempting to be humorous here – laughing at the credulity of superstitious folk – especially when we read on and discover the truth – but the history of accusations of witchcraft is deeply misogynist and Dickens is unashamedly leaning in to cruel imagery and practices. We shouldn't overlook – or accept – aspects of classics with which we disagree. If they don't outweigh our enjoyment and appreciation of the work as a whole, we should acknowledge and discuss them and consider how and why a writer came to write in that way. Thank you for raising the discussion!
Thank you for bringing us this readalong @Henry Eliot, especially with the bonus of Master Humphrey’s Clock, which I, like others have said, had not been aware of before. I am greatly enjoying it so far, but must admit to looking forward to reading the book itself as I find it’s so much nicer to hold a book in my hand than to read on a screen! In preparation for this I was about to divide up my copy of the Curiosity Shop with tabs but found the schedule is behind a paywall now? Although I’d love to subscribe, our family budget has no wriggle room at the moment and I felt sure that the schedule had been open before?🤔
It is interesting that Pickwick is summoned up to inject life into Master Humphries. I didn’t realize it was a problem that needed to be solved. Certainly it wasn’t in his story outline but does show that authors will move outside the outline when it is necessary, in their minds, to do so.
I'm really enjoying the miscellany of Master Humphrey's Clock. Dickens can go any direction -- particularly any direction that will boost readership. I have a feeling I'll be a little sad when we leave Master Humphrey and his trove of stories behind.
Quilp, a "creature [who] appeared quite horrible with his monstrous head and little body" is a troubling figure in The Old Curiosity Shop. Does Dickens even present him as human at all? What actual human could eat "hard eggs, shell and all, devour[] gigantic prawns with the heads and tails on, chew[] tobacco and water-cresses at the same time and with extraordinary greediness, dr[i]nk boiling tea without winking" etc.? Or could make his way full into a room full of people talking about him without being detected? Or stay up all night lighting one cigar with another and notice every time the other inhabitant of the dark room nodded off?
Why, despite his ugliness and sinister behavior, did his wife's mother encourage her daughter to marry him? Why does his wife say that "I know that if I was to die to-morrow, Quilp could marry anybody he pleased—now that he could, I know!" It's not because she loves him. She's terrified of him. He has her trained like a domestic animal; that's why he refers to her as "well-trained Mrs Quilp."
Evidently Quilp contemplates some kind of early death for his wife and is already consumed with a pedophilic desire for Nell. He asks Nell, "How should you like to be my number two, Nelly? ... my second, my Mrs Quilp ... when Mrs Quilp the first is dead ..." And he leeringly refers to the prospects of "sweet Nell" "to be my wife, my little cherry-cheeked, red-lipped wife. Say that Mrs Quilp lives five year, or only four, you’ll be just the proper age for me."
Quilp is more demon than human, and that is a flaw in the novel.
It is no accident that Dickens's most hellish villain is a dwarf. In his early novels, Dickens sets his villains apart, not only by their behavior, but also by their physical appearance. He dehumanizes them to permit the reader to hate them with impunity. The "demoniacal" Fagin is a good example: he is "like some hideous phantom, moist from the grave, and worried by an evil spirit. … [A]s, absorbed in thought, he bit his long black nails, he disclosed among his toothless gums a few such fangs as should have been a dog’s or rat’s." (I wrote about Dickens's treatment of Jews here: https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/antisemitism-and-philosemitism-jews). Even in Pickwick, Dickens dehumanizes a minor malefactor, the "fat boy," who is the constant butt of jokes, pokes, and abuse - and who repays this by becoming a talebearer.
Unlike many other Victorian authors who sought to increase the plausibility of their villains by seeing and even sympathizing with their perspectives to some extent, Dickens invites the reader to agree with or even participate in the "otherization" of these physically grotesque characters. In Old Curiosity Shop, the unquestionably good character Kit refers to Quilp as "an uglier dwarf than can be seen anywheres for a penny." Dickens doesn't seem to see the meanness of this remark as reflecting poorly on Kit at all. And indeed, Quilp revels in this description and repeats it from time to time throughout the novel.
I think Charles Dickens knew something about media, fear mongering and how the public love giving into propaganda - “for people like to be frightened, and when they can be frightened for nothing and at another man’s expense, they like it all the better.” I did not know people gathered around fires to read to each other in those times though. We need more of that to be honest.
My favorite part of this week's installment is the treatment of Mr Pickwick as a huge celebrity. Master Humphrey is bristling with energy through the whole episode. I hadn't thought there'd be so much similarity between 19th century London and our current celebrity culture. Dickens was a huge celebrity himself, of course, and he seems to take delight in sending up the fawning and the hero worship.
Master Humphrey is comically accomodating; he is gloriously low-status in the presence of a celebrated figure. I've lived for years in NYC and L.A., so I've had my share of celebrity sightings, as I'm sure the London members of our group have. So I laughed at the level of detail of practically every word, thought, and action of both Master Humphrey and Mr Pickwick in this scene. Decades later, I still recount -- in minute detail to absolutely anyone -- passing such-and-such a celebrity on the street or watching someone eat their meal in a restaurant. And not just what they were wearing but what *I* was wearing in their presence.
I disagree a bit with Chesterton's assessment of Pickwick as weaker or softer here. I think we're seeing Pickwick from Master Humphrey's perspective, and Master Humphrey sees a kind, generous celebrity who has unexpectedly favored him. And we can be sure Master Humphrey will tell any passing acquaintance all about this first encounter for the rest of his life.
I agree with Chesterton, up to a point. Mr Pickwick's appearance made me think of rock bands being exhorted by their audiences to "Play The Hits!" The danger of acquiescing is that a band ends up being a kind of tribute band to itself, and the weaker for it. I don't know whether Dickens feared becoming a weaker writer if he pandered to his audience, as it were. It seems to me that Trollope, in the Barchester Towers sequence, has an over-arching society in his mind, through which to tell any number of stories (it's interesting that the locale has been continued in a series of novels by Angela Thirkell, albeit moved to the 1930s), and that these novels are more of a portrait and an entertainment than Dickens' work. Not to say that Dickens isn't entertaining of course, but perhaps he was always searching for new surroundings, new characters, without being restricted by an existing framework. And at this point, he wasn't quite confident enough to trust his own storytelling craft. I wonder how difficult he found it to leave Mr Pickwick (and Sam Weller) behind and push on with The Old Curiosity Shop.
I love the question you're posing with "I wonder how difficult he found it to leave Mr Pickwick (and Sam Weller) behind and push on with The Old Curiosity Shop." Looking at Chesterton's analysis, maybe it was easier for Dickens to create new works and new worlds than to revisit old ones. Maybe leaving Pickwick and Weller behind (again) was easy because it meant diving further into the world of Little Nell. I don't know, but I love the question.
I also love that question! I suspect he will have been somewhat relieved to leave them behind this time, because he realised they weren't working in quite the same way – and he was excited about his new project. I think you're right to point to his confidence – he was still very early in his career at this stage.
Another one of those swallowing moments where women readers of the classics are meant to overlook misogyny …
Thank you for flagging, Anita – yes, it's definitely uncomfortable reading. I think Linda's right, that Dickens is attempting to be humorous here – laughing at the credulity of superstitious folk – especially when we read on and discover the truth – but the history of accusations of witchcraft is deeply misogynist and Dickens is unashamedly leaning in to cruel imagery and practices. We shouldn't overlook – or accept – aspects of classics with which we disagree. If they don't outweigh our enjoyment and appreciation of the work as a whole, we should acknowledge and discuss them and consider how and why a writer came to write in that way. Thank you for raising the discussion!
Yeah... I know we're in different times, and there's also a tongue-in-cheek element here, but the boiling and roasting bit did make me cringe...
Thank you for bringing us this readalong @Henry Eliot, especially with the bonus of Master Humphrey’s Clock, which I, like others have said, had not been aware of before. I am greatly enjoying it so far, but must admit to looking forward to reading the book itself as I find it’s so much nicer to hold a book in my hand than to read on a screen! In preparation for this I was about to divide up my copy of the Curiosity Shop with tabs but found the schedule is behind a paywall now? Although I’d love to subscribe, our family budget has no wriggle room at the moment and I felt sure that the schedule had been open before?🤔
Thanks for your kind words Linda - and for flagging this! It’s now unpaywalled!
It is interesting that Pickwick is summoned up to inject life into Master Humphries. I didn’t realize it was a problem that needed to be solved. Certainly it wasn’t in his story outline but does show that authors will move outside the outline when it is necessary, in their minds, to do so.
I'm really enjoying the miscellany of Master Humphrey's Clock. Dickens can go any direction -- particularly any direction that will boost readership. I have a feeling I'll be a little sad when we leave Master Humphrey and his trove of stories behind.
Me too!
Quilp, a "creature [who] appeared quite horrible with his monstrous head and little body" is a troubling figure in The Old Curiosity Shop. Does Dickens even present him as human at all? What actual human could eat "hard eggs, shell and all, devour[] gigantic prawns with the heads and tails on, chew[] tobacco and water-cresses at the same time and with extraordinary greediness, dr[i]nk boiling tea without winking" etc.? Or could make his way full into a room full of people talking about him without being detected? Or stay up all night lighting one cigar with another and notice every time the other inhabitant of the dark room nodded off?
Why, despite his ugliness and sinister behavior, did his wife's mother encourage her daughter to marry him? Why does his wife say that "I know that if I was to die to-morrow, Quilp could marry anybody he pleased—now that he could, I know!" It's not because she loves him. She's terrified of him. He has her trained like a domestic animal; that's why he refers to her as "well-trained Mrs Quilp."
Evidently Quilp contemplates some kind of early death for his wife and is already consumed with a pedophilic desire for Nell. He asks Nell, "How should you like to be my number two, Nelly? ... my second, my Mrs Quilp ... when Mrs Quilp the first is dead ..." And he leeringly refers to the prospects of "sweet Nell" "to be my wife, my little cherry-cheeked, red-lipped wife. Say that Mrs Quilp lives five year, or only four, you’ll be just the proper age for me."
Quilp is more demon than human, and that is a flaw in the novel.
It is no accident that Dickens's most hellish villain is a dwarf. In his early novels, Dickens sets his villains apart, not only by their behavior, but also by their physical appearance. He dehumanizes them to permit the reader to hate them with impunity. The "demoniacal" Fagin is a good example: he is "like some hideous phantom, moist from the grave, and worried by an evil spirit. … [A]s, absorbed in thought, he bit his long black nails, he disclosed among his toothless gums a few such fangs as should have been a dog’s or rat’s." (I wrote about Dickens's treatment of Jews here: https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/antisemitism-and-philosemitism-jews). Even in Pickwick, Dickens dehumanizes a minor malefactor, the "fat boy," who is the constant butt of jokes, pokes, and abuse - and who repays this by becoming a talebearer.
Unlike many other Victorian authors who sought to increase the plausibility of their villains by seeing and even sympathizing with their perspectives to some extent, Dickens invites the reader to agree with or even participate in the "otherization" of these physically grotesque characters. In Old Curiosity Shop, the unquestionably good character Kit refers to Quilp as "an uglier dwarf than can be seen anywheres for a penny." Dickens doesn't seem to see the meanness of this remark as reflecting poorly on Kit at all. And indeed, Quilp revels in this description and repeats it from time to time throughout the novel.