Vladimir Nabokov urged students at Cornell to appreciate Bleak House as art, and to appreciate Charles Dickens as artist, "enchanter." As a storyteller, Nabokov said of Dickens:
At its worse, Bleak House reveals the storyteller stumbling now and then...
That is so true on both counts and may have been said with equal force of David Copperfield. One could not tell either book as a story, there are multiple stories in each and Dickens does stumble in telling them all in one book. The shame of it is that there are several real good books in the subplots of each with memorably drawn characters ready for prime time. The shame of it is that Dickens could have been a great storyteller! The Steerforth-Rosa Dartle-somebody else triangle in David Copperfield: that's a whole book. A great story and a seperate, thinner book. Instead, we are introduced to Steerforth and Rosa early on and then poof! they're gone for hundreds of pages. The Smallweed family in Bleak House: Oh my God, three of my favorite characters, hilariously drawn by Dickens. There is no reason they needed to be interwoven with Jarndyce and Jarndyce. None. At all.
For most readers, then and now, Dickens was so popular because of his characters. Then and now, chances are when you give an example to a friend to explain why you like Bleak House or David Copperfield, you will tell them about your favorite characters. You can't tell them the story, there is no coherent story, you tell them your favorite scene.
Dickens knew this and my hunch is that he wrote in as many different characters as he could think of and the story be damned.
At its worse, Bleak House reveals the storyteller stumbling now and then...
That is so true on both counts and may have been said with equal force of David Copperfield. One could not tell either book as a story, there are multiple stories in each and Dickens does stumble in telling them all in one book. The shame of it is that there are several real good books in the subplots of each with memorably drawn characters ready for prime time. The shame of it is that Dickens could have been a great storyteller! The Steerforth-Rosa Dartle-somebody else triangle in David Copperfield: that's a whole book. A great story and a seperate, thinner book. Instead, we are introduced to Steerforth and Rosa early on and then poof! they're gone for hundreds of pages. The Smallweed family in Bleak House: Oh my God, three of my favorite characters, hilariously drawn by Dickens. There is no reason they needed to be interwoven with Jarndyce and Jarndyce. None. At all.
For most readers, then and now, Dickens was so popular because of his characters. Then and now, chances are when you give an example to a friend to explain why you like Bleak House or David Copperfield, you will tell them about your favorite characters. You can't tell them the story, there is no coherent story, you tell them your favorite scene.
Dickens knew this and my hunch is that he wrote in as many different characters as he could think of and the story be damned.
