The big poll: Does anyone really like Charles Dickens?

[Gob Shine Algorithm]

Hello, my name is Gob Shine Algorithm, and I want to have my hatred of Charles Dickens vindicated ...if possible. I respec the Cook and Bomb user, and will abide by the poll results.

Meditating on my hatred of Dickens, really trying to deconstruct it, an obvious starting point would be to suggest that I hate Dickens just because I was FORCED to study him at school -- but then, I was also forced to study Shakespeare, who I love. I think what remains are cool, hard facts -- at a time in history when authors in other countries were writing prototype communism novels, he was writing stories about people being servile, and the aristocracy having a right to exist per se -- like some kind of obnoxious Victorian Ayn Rand.

Then there's Dickens place in the modern world -- beloved of literature scholars and Londoncentric types (and no one else?) I notice the BBC are making a new version of Great Expectations by the creator of inexplicably popular, poor man's Boardwalk Empire Peaky Blinders, even though I'm pretty sure they already made one before inside this decade (?), and that's on top of the gazillion previous versions.

People praise his magazine serials as being the originator of the melodramatic soap-opera format. But is that really something to be proud of? I love Dallas, but I would be willing to have Mandela erase it from the timeline if it meant also being rid of F David Copperfield.

And then there's his character's stupid names. Can't get past them. a) You're either writing a serious book or you're not, and b) even if you are writing a semi-comedy, use genuinely funny names like Philomena Cunk or Champ Kind, not some theatrical, flowery names that sound like they belong in a pantomime for insane upper class children. Bellend.
 

[bgmnts]

A Christmas Carol is one of my favourite works of fiction ever, and for that I will give him a pass, having read nothing else of his.

I'm sure there are many people who revile Shakespeare as being the greatest playwright ever when there have been many other innovative playwrights since. It's probably because they're British more than anything, would be interesting if we were reading Dostoevsky or Ibsen in secondary.

[Small Potatoes]

I love Dickens, although I'm not super keen on the earlier work or some of the sickeningly schmaltzy stuff. He's a genuinely funny writer too - some of his set pieces are up there with Wodehouse for me. Even in the heavier novels, there are some great comic moments. This line in Great Expectations - "I suppose myself to be better acquainted than any living authority, with the ridgy effect of a wedding-ring, passing unsympathetically over the human countenance" - always makes me laugh. In the same novel there's that great bit where Pip fights with Herbert - the latter "pale young gentleman" prancing around, observing all the niceties of the sweet science, while the untrained and uncouth Pip almost casually kicks the shit out of him. Not exactly subtle class-antagonism satire, but ace nonetheless.

[Ignatius_S]

"People praise his magazine serials as being the originator of the melodramatic soap-opera format. But is that really something to be proud of?"

I think it's more that the serialised format was the forerunner of weekly soaps, rather than Dickens in particular. But in any case, in my experience, this is to encourage people to think about Dickens in different ways and his impact, rather than seeing soaps as a brilliant thing.

One reason for this comparison is used is to get pupils thinking about the format that Dickens was writing in, as we see them - particularly at school - as long novels and also to understand how the audiences engaged with them; e.g. waiting for the next part and talking with others what we think is going to happen.

Another reason is it illustrates  how Dickens was using his writing to change public opinion and we can use soaps to understand that. A very good example is when Mark Fowler in Eastenders became HIV-positive and his ongoing storyline, something that challenged a lot of misconceptions and had a definite social impact. Dickens was a social reformer and was using his words as weapons.

[Famous Mortimer]

Love 'Great Expectations', not read much of owt else.

[bgmnts]

"People praise his magazine serials as being the originator of the melodramatic soap-opera format. But is that really something to be proud of?"

I think it's different for television, as it's quite passive and brain rotty by design, but if Dickens and his ilk got more people reading, that is a very good thing.

Considering literacy rates skyrocketed during the 19th century, I wonder how much of that we can thank Dickens for.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

dickens is good

[frajer]

A Christmas Carol = all-time banger.

Plus he saved the 9th Doctor and Rose from the Gelth that time in Cardiff. Just a great bunch of lads.

[Ignatius_S]

I think it's different for television, as it's quite passive and brain rotty by design, but if Dickens and his ilk got more people reading, that is a very good thing.

Considering literacy rates skyrocketed during the 19th century, I wonder how much of that we can thank Dickens for.

What about radio soaps then? When The Archers started and remained so for a long time, the purpose was to educate farmers and it's widely accepted that it did. Very different to what it is today.

With Dickens, it was common practice for one family member to read a new episode out loud to the rest of the family, rather than each person on their own. Arguably listening to someone reading it is passive, so how does that fit?

Watching/hearing something is going to be different than reading, but that can get a more intense response for various reasons.

[bgmnts]

What about radio soaps then? When The Archers started and remained so for a long time, the purpose was to educate farmers and it's widely accepted that it did. Very different to what it is today.

With Dickens, it was common practice for one family member to read a new episode out loud to the rest of the family, rather than each person on their own. Arguably listening to someone reading it is passive, so how does that fit?

Watching/hearing something is going to be different than reading, but that can get a more intense response for various reasons.

Well what I was meant to say that if the serialised nature of his stories got more people into then that can only be a good thing, and knowing there was a major increase in literacy rates during his time, I would hazard a guess that people like Dickens publishing his stories in this format contributed heavily to that.

Yeah they were read aloud in pubs and at home, so lots were consuming his work aurally, but you'd have to assume that more people began to read them no? And that would have been much more difficult if they were longform prose rather than chopped up in magazine/pamphlet/whatever format.

I suppose it depends on active vs passive, I personally find it very easy to switch my brain off to television, so I assume that others do too, whereas with books and even radio, it requires more focus. Might just be me though.

[Mister Six]

Honestly don't think I've ever read any Dickens, but A Christmas Carol is genuinely a work of genius. There's a reason it's been adapted, remade and reinvented so many times without losing any of its power and charm.

Plus he did a lot to champion the causes of the poor and oppressed, and unlike JK Rowling he realised he'd done an antisemitism-dozy and amended it later in life. So all over I think he's a good egg. A++++ still won't read though.

[Mister Six]

I suppose it depends on active vs passive, I personally find it very easy to switch my brain off to television, so I assume that others do too, whereas with books and even radio, it requires more focus. Might just be me though.

Depends on the quality of the TV. The good stuff requires active engagement and doesn't spell everything out for you.

[bgmnts]

Depends on the quality of the TV. The good stuff requires active engagement and doesn't spell everything out for you.

Definitely, but you'd rarely say that of a soap or serialised entertainment I'd argue.

[Pranet]

Shamefully I've never read any of his fiction. His books seem very long. That has put me off.

I did read some of his essays- Night Walks- which were interesting but I found them annoying.

I did quite like that film of David Copperfield that came out a few years ago.

These are my largely uninformed opinions on Charles Dickens.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Love 'Great Expectations', not read much of owt else.

I'm the same, and only read it as I studied it at university, there was a two week period where I had to read it and Middlemarch and really enjoyed the former but struggled with the latter.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

Charles DickHEAD more like, right gang?

[Mister Six]

Definitely, but you'd rarely say that of a soap or serialised entertainment I'd argue.

Oh, true.

[timebug]

We were force fed Mr D's work at our school and I have always avoided it like the plague ever since!

[Dr Rock]

Put me down as another who only likes Great Expectations.

[buttgammon]

I don't know what it is about Great Expectations but I'm someone else who dislikes Dickens with that as the only exception. I taught Hard Times a couple of years ago, which was a really interesting experience, but I also felt that was more a reflection on how great the students were rather than anything intrinsic to the book (which is a bit silly really).

As far as 19th century English realism goes, Middlemarch blows Dickens out of the water and is also funnier and more humane than his writing, despite not trying anywhere near as hard to be either of those things.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

I like his books but got a bit fed up of main characters falling badly ill just before their fortunes take an upward turn near the end.

[Vodkafone]

Bleak House and Little Dorrit I thought were both excellent, it probably helps that I'm keen on London history. If I've read any others I've forgotten them.

[Bad Ambassador]

People who've taken against Dickens tend to have been put off when they were at school. There's a weird misconception that because Oliver Twist has a child protagonist that it's a children's book, even though it includes anti-Semitism, rape, murder and execution. His books are at least as complex as Shakespeare and probably shouldn't be taught below A-level really.

I decided to read Bleak House in my early 20s and loved it, and have read most of them since then. Very left-wing for its day, and pretty progressive even by modern standards.

Shamefully I've never read any of his fiction. His books seem very long. That has put me off.

A Christmas Carol is the best place to start. It's relatively short, you know the story so you won't get confused over what's happening, as can be the case in some of his other work, and that lets you enjoy the prose and emotion of the work.

[Mr Vegetables]

I find most of it a real slog, except for Chapter One of Bleak House. That's one of the most evocative things I can remember reading, anywhere

[daf]

I've been doggedly reading one chapter every Sunday morning (the most Victorian day of the week) for a few years now - on my Fourth Dickens by this crackpot method :

Pickwick Papers - really a load of random scenes strung together like a road trip. Too long though, and not a patch on the brilliant 1952 film featuring James Hayter as Pickwick and Nigel Patrick as a scene-stealing Mr Jingle.

The Old Curiosity Shop - Clearly making it up as he was going along. The title is a case in point - hardly anything about a Curiosity shop. Should have called it 'Little Nell', the soppy twat!

A Tale of Two Cities - Oh Jesus Christ - a real bloody chore. So poorly written I kept mixing the three main male characters up right up to the end (one was French, other two English, I think?). Dialogue seemed to go on for several pages without a break - possibly meant to be funny, but I hated it - absolute SHIT!

Oliver Twist - Finally a good one. MILES better than the Tale of Two Cities bollocks - proper page turner!

[Vodkafone]

I've been doggedly reading one chapter every Sunday morning (the most Victorian day of the week) for a few years now - on my Fourth Dickens by this crackpot method :

Pickwick Papers - really a load of random scenes strung together like a road trip. Too long though, and not a patch on the brilliant 1952 film featuring James Hayter as Pickwick and Nigel Patrick as a scene-stealing Mr Jingle.

The Old Curiosity Shop - Clearly making it up as he was going along. The title is a case in point - hardly anything about a Curiosity shop. Should have called it 'Little Nell', the soppy twat!

A Tale of Two Cities - Oh Jesus Christ - a real bloody chore. So poorly written I kept mixing the three main male characters up right up to the end (one was French, other two English, I think?). Dialogue seemed to go on for several pages without a break - possibly meant to be funny, but I hated it - absolute SHIT!

Oliver Twist - Finally a good one. MILES better than the Tale of Two Cities bollocks - proper page turner!

An admirable endeavour. A mate once read Pepys' diaries, one corresponding daily entry at a time. I lack the gumption for that sort of thing.

[Dayraven]

Clearly making it up as he was going along.

The Old Curiosity Shop had a messy start — Dickens was publishing a weekly periodical written entirely by him which was supposed to contain a miscellany of shorter works, and when that needed a boost he extended The Old Curiosity Shop from a short story into a novel.

Some of his other novels have signs that they were still being written while instalments were being published, but The Old Curiosity Shop is the one that never really gets over that.