We are now ready to tackle Dickens. We are now ready to cudgel Dickens. We are now ready to stew Dickens.
Actually there will be none of that here. Actually I plagiarized that from Nabokov's lecture on Dickens substituting cudgel and stew for embrace and bask for Nabokov was awed by Dickens' writing. Dickens' greatness was, to Nabokov, as an "enchanter." Just so. Le mot juste there by Nabokov. Dickens was a "good" storyteller, a "good" moralist but a "superb" enchanter, Nabokov says. His descriptive writing, of scenes, of characters, sends a "shiver," Nabokov's word also, up and down the spine. Indeed, one could pick the fictional Lady Dedlock out of a lineup, so complete is Dickens' description of her. I could see, feel, hear, and smell the carriage ride up Shooter's Hill in A Tale of Two Cities. I have never experienced the transport of senses that Dickens provides with any other writer. He was "tipped at the head with a divine flame." He is, to moi, the finest writer of prose in the English language, the most supple of all languages.
So what bone is there to pick with Dickens? Only these, in context quite beside the point of his transcendence.
His strength in character drawing was also his weakness for he therefore drew so many characters into his romances that the reader (and one gets the impression, Dickens himself) loses track of them. I have previously truly cudgeled Dickens for the absurd Dora Spenlow character in David Copperfield. Dickens seems to have cudgeled himself for Dora also for he killed her off before long.
Dickens wrote his novels in installment. Did you know that? That is why his chapters so frequently end on a "Be here next time!" Batman note. That is also why Dickens' books are frequently so long. He did not have the whole book in his head when he began writing. He developed it between installments. It makes for a disjointed whole. The medium of magazine installment meant that Dickens could not self-edit. Once he wrote in Dora Spenlow, if he came to think that a mistake, he could not excise her out. She had already been published! The medium also effected Dickens' message. I disagree with Nabokov that Dickens is a "good" storyteller. The installment format caused him to add layer upon layer upon layer to the story so as to make it not one story but several separate stories, tangentially connected, and to add in absurdities: "spontaneous combustion."
His strength as descriptive writer was at the expense of a wordy unwieldiness. Hemingway was a great descriptive writer although not Dickens' equal and was great with a spare writing style. Eh, English vs American, different time periods...But. The King James Bible was also written by Englishmen. Hemingway got his spare style from the KJV! I would not subtract one word of Dickens' scene or character description but I would take a blunt edged axe to his stories. He could have done more with less. Bleak House could have been two or three or four novels rather than the bloated 800 page thing it was. It would have been improved by the chopping and the reader would have had more of Dickens' books to read.
Actually there will be none of that here. Actually I plagiarized that from Nabokov's lecture on Dickens substituting cudgel and stew for embrace and bask for Nabokov was awed by Dickens' writing. Dickens' greatness was, to Nabokov, as an "enchanter." Just so. Le mot juste there by Nabokov. Dickens was a "good" storyteller, a "good" moralist but a "superb" enchanter, Nabokov says. His descriptive writing, of scenes, of characters, sends a "shiver," Nabokov's word also, up and down the spine. Indeed, one could pick the fictional Lady Dedlock out of a lineup, so complete is Dickens' description of her. I could see, feel, hear, and smell the carriage ride up Shooter's Hill in A Tale of Two Cities. I have never experienced the transport of senses that Dickens provides with any other writer. He was "tipped at the head with a divine flame." He is, to moi, the finest writer of prose in the English language, the most supple of all languages.
So what bone is there to pick with Dickens? Only these, in context quite beside the point of his transcendence.
His strength in character drawing was also his weakness for he therefore drew so many characters into his romances that the reader (and one gets the impression, Dickens himself) loses track of them. I have previously truly cudgeled Dickens for the absurd Dora Spenlow character in David Copperfield. Dickens seems to have cudgeled himself for Dora also for he killed her off before long.
Dickens wrote his novels in installment. Did you know that? That is why his chapters so frequently end on a "Be here next time!" Batman note. That is also why Dickens' books are frequently so long. He did not have the whole book in his head when he began writing. He developed it between installments. It makes for a disjointed whole. The medium of magazine installment meant that Dickens could not self-edit. Once he wrote in Dora Spenlow, if he came to think that a mistake, he could not excise her out. She had already been published! The medium also effected Dickens' message. I disagree with Nabokov that Dickens is a "good" storyteller. The installment format caused him to add layer upon layer upon layer to the story so as to make it not one story but several separate stories, tangentially connected, and to add in absurdities: "spontaneous combustion."
His strength as descriptive writer was at the expense of a wordy unwieldiness. Hemingway was a great descriptive writer although not Dickens' equal and was great with a spare writing style. Eh, English vs American, different time periods...But. The King James Bible was also written by Englishmen. Hemingway got his spare style from the KJV! I would not subtract one word of Dickens' scene or character description but I would take a blunt edged axe to his stories. He could have done more with less. Bleak House could have been two or three or four novels rather than the bloated 800 page thing it was. It would have been improved by the chopping and the reader would have had more of Dickens' books to read.
