What are you reading now?

[Pulcinella]

But possibly accurate? Behaviour was different then.

And maybe a reflection of his own?

[french frank]

but his depiction of marital bliss is so awfully stiff and formal

But possibly accurate? Behaviour was different then.

[smittims]

Maybe next century it won't seem so! Victorian art and achitecture used to be despised but have come back.

I don't think A Tale of Two Cities is rated very highly by Dickens fans. Hard Times is reckoned to approach the best few in quality, they being David Copperfield, Bleak House, Little Dorrit, The Old Curiosity Shop, Great Expectations and Our Mutual Friend. I'm very fond of Dombey and Son, which I re-read occasionally.

[richardfinegold]

I’m rereading A Tale of Two Cities for a book club. Third time for me, the initial being the mandatory school read at 14, but then again in my forties which I really enjoyed. I’ve just gotten to the storming of the Bastille so the pace is picking up. One impediment is the dialogue between Charles Darnay and Lucy Manette, so mawkishly Victorian. Dickens could be so excellent and catching the voice of so many of his characters, particularly the Cockney side characters, but his depiction of marital bliss is so awfully stiff and formal

[french frank]

I'm sorry you were disappointed with Hard Times; I found it enjoyable and as good as his others.

I haven't read that many Dickens novels, but Hard Times was the one I enjoyed most, probably because of its subject matter. Is it one of his best? His weakest? I've no idea.

I think one reason why 20th-century novels are more concise is that they weer first published in book form aimed at readers who had less time to sit down on long winter evenings.

There are some modern blockbusters but I suspect the length of earlier novels was because there were fewer alternative pursuits - no television, no cinema &c. I did some research on one minor Victorian and in his contract with the publisher he agreed to produce a novel in three volumes 'of the usual number of pages', which would have been about 300 pages per volume.

[smittims]

I'm sorry you were disappointed with Hard Times; I found it enjoyable and as good as his others.

I think one reason why 20th-century novels are more concise is that they weer first published in book form aimed at readers who had less time to sit down on long winter evenings. Many if not most 19th-century novels were first published in serial form, either in periodicals or in separate issues of two chapters at a time. The length was sometimes deterined bythe publisher's requiremets. For instance , The Heart of Midlothian had to be lengthened unexpectedly when Scott's publisher told him its successor had failed, and more chapters were required; Scott had to invent a new story just as he was rounding off his main plot nicely.

Despite much searching, I've never found any 20th-century novelists (since Woolf and Forster, that is) whom I regard as the equal of their predecessors. DH Lawrence, Lawrence Durrell, William Golding and others seem overrated to me. I've enjoyed Patrick Hamilton and Julian Barnes but, compared with James and Trollope,they have their limits.

[Ian Thumwood]

I have read abiut 5 Dickens novels. The better ones were excellent but then you read a book like "Hard Times" and you realise even he was capable of an off day.

I find that quite a bit of 19th century literature is dark in it's tone so the dialogue in Dickens is a relief. In my opnion., he is great simply because he gives his such great dialogue that we know who is speaking by the tone of the words within the speech marks. I have aways been attracted to great dialogue in writing and i feel it sets great writers apart from good ones. As a whole, the 20th century seemed to usher in writers who were less dense and often easier to read. I know there are writers from 2t century who are really difficult but, as a rule, i find books written in the last 100 years to be more concise.

The other point I would raise with Dickens is to contrast him with his contempories. I think he had the edge on Balzac who was also capable f creating memorable characters. If you cast your net further afield, I have been intrigued by the likes of someone like Jose Rizal who dealt with the social issues of his native Philippines. It intrigues me to see how authors were writing elsewhere in the world. He may have been the most important writer of his nation and a champion of social issues as much as Dickens and Elliot, however I feel that he was not writing on the same level as Dickens - this is coming as a Rizal fan. British writers have tended to be superior to their foriegn contemporaries in 19th century. Comments about being non-pc are ridiculous. Dicken's work will always stand the test of time even if some books are better than others.

i have finished Ian Rankin;s "Set in Darkness." I find Rankin to be a great writer and this novel is expertly plotted. In the future, there is much for critics to mull over in his novels as Rankin deals with the independence referendum and issues like Brexit. There is plenty in here to paint a vivid picture of life in Scotland in 1990s - repesent day. I would like to say that people will still read Rebus novels in 100 years time as I think Rankin is an exceptional writer. However, I wonder if the cultural references will have been totally lost by then and future readers left unable to appreciate just how salient Rankin's Rebus novels have been. When you consider this, you realise how good writers like Dickesn or Orwell are.

[richardfinegold]

Katherine Boo, behind the beautiful forevers, about an Indian underclass living in the shadows of Mumbai ultra modern airport. The writing is excellent , but the relentless description of duality and misery takes its toll on this reader

[LMcD]

'A Darker Domain' by the 'Queen of Crime', Val McDermid.

[smittims]

I'd certainly rank Dickens above Eliot and the Brontes but not necessarily higher than Austen. Yes,the length may be off-putting, but, as with Scott (and dare I add Wagner?) I think it's a mistake to try to skip bits (the opening chapters perhaps) to get to 'the real story', as I have seen recommended. One needs to give it time and read every word carefully fromthe very opening , and it will reveal its magic. .

[Ein Heldenleben]

I'm sure you're right. His stock was certainly not high when I read Eng Lit at Cambridge back in the 90s. If there were a pecking order of 19th century novelists back them he definitely came behind Eliot, James, the Bronte sisters et al.

Interesting . I would have put the low point in the 60’s when Leavis accused him of a lack of seriousness maintaining somewhat bizarrely that Hard Times was the only novel worth studying . He famously and equally bizarrely recanted in Dickens The Novelist.
At Oxford where things were less prescriptive the main barrier to studying him was the length of the books .

[Sir Velo]

Never seen a single credible article by some one who knows what they are talking about which suggests we shouldn’t read Dickens. His critical stock has never been higher and he remains the most popular classic literary fiction author in the world. Very few achieve that - mass audience and literary critical acclaim - maybe just Shakespeare and Austen . Bleak House for example is arguably the greatest English Novel - on publication it earned Dickens a record advance - running into millions in todays money. It’s still selling by the tens of thousands globally and is a key text in any academic course in the 19th century novel.

I'm sure you're right. His stock was certainly not high when I read Eng Lit at Cambridge back in the 90s. If there were a pecking order of 19th century novelists back them he definitely came behind Eliot, James, the Bronte sisters et al.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I'm not sure whether a 'balanced curiosity' would be enough to make me bother with Ayn Rand. As for 'Dickens the misogynist' it's a characteristic of the judgemental present age - and by no means just feminists - to misunderstand the lesson of history, the vast mass of human beings being prisoners of their own age, its assumptions, attitudes and behaviour, tinged with individual inclinations and experiences.

Dickens treated his first wife very badly that is true . There’s little evidence of misogyny in the novels. They have though been criticised for their rather sketchy portraits of woman . They either tend to be idealised embodiments of threatened virtue e,g, Kate Nickleby or caricatures e.g. Miss Havisham - some one who’s personality is driven by one motive. But then there are people like that . He does write some interesting female characters E.g. the ennui of Lady Dedlock in Bleak House and thinly veneered sadism of Estelle in Great Expectations.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Just about to start re-reading David Copperfield. I've never been a Dickens fan but I have enjoyed and appreciated some of his novels.

Dickens has take a lot of stick recently from feminists etc. and people who seem to be telling us he was politically incorrect by 21st centtury standards and so we shouldn''t read him. Have any of you been 'put off' a book by what you've been told about its author?

Never seen a single credible article by some one who knows what they are talking about which suggests we shouldn’t read Dickens. His critical stock has never been higher and he remains the most popular classic literary fiction author in the world. Very few achieve that - mass audience and literary critical acclaim - maybe just Shakespeare and Austen . Bleak House for example is arguably the greatest English Novel - on publication it earned Dickens a record advance - running into millions in todays money. It’s still selling by the tens of thousands globally and is a key text in any academic course in the 19th century novel.

[french frank]

Have any of you been 'put off' a book by what you've been told about its author?

I'm not sure whether a 'balanced curiosity' would be enough to make me bother with Ayn Rand. As for 'Dickens the misogynist' it's a characteristic of the judgemental present age - and by no means just feminists - to misunderstand the lesson of history, the vast mass of human beings being prisoners of their own age, its assumptions, attitudes and behaviour, tinged with individual inclinations and experiences.