Charles Dickens: Part Two

By G.K. Chesterton

A critical study of Dickens, intended "as a general justification of that author, and of the whole of the gigantesque English humour of which he was the last and not the least gigantic survival."

• Language: English
• Publisher: Start Classics
• Release date: Feb 18, 2014
• ISBN: 9781609773472

G.K. Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton (1874–1936) was an English writer, philosopher and critic known for his creative wordplay. Born in London, Chesterton attended St. Paul’s School before enrolling in the Slade School of Fine Art at University College. His professional writing career began as a freelance critic where he focused on art and literature. He then ventured into fiction with his novels The Napoleon of Notting Hill and The Man Who Was Thursday as well as a series of stories featuring Father Brown.

Book preview

CHAPTER I

THE DICKENS PERIOD

Much of our modern difficulty, in religion and other things, arises merely from this: that we confuse the word indefinable with the word vague. If some one speaks of a spiritual fact as indefinable we promptly picture something misty, a cloud with indeterminate edges. But this is an error even in commonplace logic. The thing that cannot be defined is the first thing; the primary fact. It is our arms and legs, our pots and pans, that are indefinable. The indefinable is the indisputable. The man next door is indefinable, because he is too actual to be defined. And there are some to whom spiritual things have the same fierce and practical proximity; some to whom God is too actual to be defined.

But there is a third class of primary terms. There are popular expressions which every one uses and no one can explain; which the wise man will accept and reverence, as he reverences desire or darkness or any elemental thing. The prigs of the debating club will demand that he should define his terms. And, being a wise man, he will flatly refuse. This first inexplicable term is the most important term of all. The word that has no definition is the word that has no substitute. If a man falls back again and again on some such word as vulgar or manly, do not suppose that the word means nothing because he cannot say what it means. If he could say what the word means he would say what it means instead of saying the word. When the Game Chicken (that fine thinker) kept on saying to Mr. Toots, It's mean. That's what it is-- it's mean, he was using language in the wisest possible way. For what else could he say? There is no word for mean except mean. A man must be very mean himself before he comes to defining meanness. Precisely because the word is indefinable, the word is indispensable.

In everyday talk, or in any of our journals, we may find the loose but important phrase, Why have we no great men to-day? Why have we no great men like Thackeray, or Carlyle, or Dickens? Do not let us dismiss this expression, because it appears loose or arbitrary. Great does mean something, and the test of its actuality is to be found by noting how instinctively and decisively we do apply it to some men and not to others; above all, how instinctively and decisively we do apply it to four or five men in the Victorian era, four or five men of whom Dickens was not the least. The term is found to fit a definite thing. Whatever the word great means, Dickens was what it means. Even the fastidious and unhappy who cannot read his books without a continuous critical exasperation, would use the word of him without stopping to think. They feel that Dickens is a great writer even if he is not a good writer. He is treated as a classic; that is, as a king who may now be deserted, but who cannot now be dethroned. The atmosphere of this word clings to him; and the curious thing is that we cannot get it to cling to any of the men of our own generation. Great is the first adjective which the most supercilious modern critic would apply to Dickens. And great is the last adjective that the most supercilious modern critic would apply to himself We dare not claim to be great men, even when we claim to be superior to them.

Is there, then, any vital meaning in this idea of greatness or in our laments over its absence in our own time? Some people say, indeed, that this sense of mass is but a mirage of distance, and that men always think dead men great and live men small. They seem to think that the law of perspective in the mental world is the precise opposite to the law of perspective in the physical world. They think that figures grow larger as they walk away. But this theory cannot be made to correspond with the facts. We do not lack great men in our own day because we decline to look for them in our own day; on the contrary, we are looking for them all day long. We are not, as a matter of fact, mere examples of those who stone the prophets and leave it to their posterity to build their sepulchres. If the world would only produce our perfect prophet, solemn, searching, universal, nothing would give us keener pleasure than to build his sepulchre. In our eagerness we might even bury him alive. Nor is it true that the great men of the Victorian era were not called great in their own time. By many they were called great from the first. Charlotte Brontë held this heroic language about Thackeray. Ruskin held it about Carlyle. A definite school regarded Dickens as a great man from the first days of his fame: Dickens certainly belonged to this school.

In reply to this question, Why have we no great men to-day? many modern explanations are offered. Advertisement, cigarette-smoking, the decay of religion, the decay of agriculture, too much humanitarianism, too little humanitarianism, the fact that people are educated insufficiently, the fact that they are educated at all, all these are reasons given. If I give my own explanation, it is not for its intrinsic value; it is because my answer to the question, Why have we no great men? is a short way of stating the deepest and most catastrophic difference between the age in which we live and the early nineteenth century; the age under the shadow of the French Revolution, the age in which Dickens was born.

The soundest of the Dickens critics, a man of genius, Mr. George Gissing, opens his criticism by remarking that the world in which Dickens grew up was a hard and cruel world. He notes its gross feeding, its fierce sports, its fighting and foul humour, and all this he summarises in the words hard and cruel. It is curious how different are the impressions of men. To me this old English world seems infinitely less hard and cruel than the world described in Gissing's own novels. Coarse external customs are merely relative, and easily assimilated. A man soon learnt to harden his hands and harden his head. Faced with the world of Gissing, he can do little but harden his heart. But the fundamental difference between the beginning of the nineteenth century and the end of it is a difference simple but enormous. The first period was full of evil things, but it was full of hope. The second period, the fin de siécle, was even full (in some sense) of good things. But it was occupied in asking what was the good of good things. Joy itself became joyless; and the fighting of Cobbett was happier than the feasting of Walter Pater. The men of Cobbett's day were sturdy enough to endure and inflict brutality; but they were also sturdy enough to alter it. This hard and cruel age was, after all, the age of reform. The gibbet stood up black above them; but it was black against the dawn.

This dawn, against which the gibbet and all the old cruelties stood out so black and clear, was the developing idea of liberalism, the French Revolution. It was a clear and a happy philosophy. And only against such philosophies do evils appear evident at all. The optimist is a better reformer than the pessimist; and the man who believes life to be excellent is the man who alters it most. It seems a paradox, yet the reason of it is very plain. The pessimist can be enraged at evil. But only the optimist can be surprised at it. From the reformer is required a simplicity of surprise. He must have the faculty of a violent and virgin astonishment. It is not enough that he should think injustice distressing; he must think injustice absurd, an anomaly in existence, a matter less for tears than for a shattering laughter. On the other hand, the pessimists at the end of the century could hardly curse even the blackest thing; for they could hardly see it against its black and eternal background. Nothing was bad, because everything was bad. Life in prison was infamous--like life anywhere else. The fires of persecution were vile--like the stars. We perpetually find this paradox of a contented discontent. Dr. Johnson takes too sad a view of humanity, but he is also too satisfied a Conservative. Rousseau takes too rosy a view of humanity, but he causes a revolution. Swift is angry, but a Tory. Shelley is happy, and a rebel. Dickens, the optimist, satirises the Fleet, and the Fleet is gone. Gissing, the pessimist, satirises Suburbia, and Suburbia remains.

Mr. Gissing's error, then, about the early Dickens period we may put thus: in calling it hard and cruel he omits the wind of hope and humanity that was blowing through it. It may have been full of inhuman institutions, but it was full of humanitarian people. And this humanitarianism was very much the better (in my view) because it was a rough and even rowdy humanitarianism. It was free from all the faults that cling to the name. It was, if you will, a coarse humanitarianism. It was a shouting, fighting, drinking philanthropy--a noble thing. But, in any case, this atmosphere was the atmosphere of the Revolution; and its main idea was the idea of human equality. I am not concerned here to defend the egalitarian idea against the solemn and babyish attacks made upon it by the rich and learned of to-day. I am merely concerned to state one of its practical consequences. One of the actual and certain consequences of the idea that all men are equal is immediately to produce very great men. I would say superior men, only that the hero thinks of himself as great, but not as superior. This has been hidden from us of late by a foolish worship of sinister and exceptional men, men without comrade-ship, or any infectious virtue. This type of Cæsar does exist. There is a

Reviews for Charles Dickens

[jennifertapir · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Picked this up in London - had been promising myself to spend a bit of time on Dickens over the next few months.

[jbd1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A good winter read, but I feel like it must have worked better as originally published in monthly installments. As a novel, it feels bloated and overstuffed, with far too many characters and subplots gumming up the works. The satire on the legal machinations is excellent, however.

[lynnb_64 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Loved it.I haven't read a classic novel for a while, so I found it slow going for the 50 pages or so. But once I became used to the writing style, it turned into a page turner. Dickens is such a wonderful author with a sharp sense of humour and a way of describing society's structures and people that I really enjoy reading. In this novel, he writes a lot from a woman's perspective and displays a sympathy and understanding that I think was far beyond the norm for his time. A great story that explores themes of obsession, of living in the present without focusing too much on either the past or the future and all the many relationships that make up our lives.

[nog_5 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I knocked off a half star because of that absurdity concerning spontaneous combustion.

[therebelprince · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Dickens' 17th important work, his 9th novel, his 1st utter masterpiece. Bleak House is gorgeous, powerful, and diffuse in a way that signals we're on to the author's third act, in which the vibrant characters and internal examination he had been trialling begin to come together. Apparently, as he got to the end of this novel, Dickens was finding his life and its burdensome pile of commitments to be a little much, but perhaps it was because he was giving more than ever to his work. Lady Dedlock and Esther both provide dimensional (well, at least bordering on two-dimensions, which is something for this guy) portraits into this maudlin world. The social satire of the Jarndyce case is barbed in a different way to Dickens' anger on the treatment of the poor: it is a more tongue-in-cheek satire about the inanities of humankind. Richard and Ada aren't exactly fountains of great depth, but their actions still contribute their detail to the many facets that make up this unified whole. While I think that Dorrit and Great Expectations are also masterpieces (and I haven't yet read Our Mutual Friend), Bleak House is absolutely the most Dickensian of CD's achievements.

[justagirlwithabook · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I had to read this one as part of my required reading for a history of publishing class that I took in college. The history of this book itself and how it was published was incredibly interesting, aside from the fact that the book is great. It's crazy to think that Dickens wrote the majority of his well known works in increments and adapted his writing according to the reactions of the audiences. Bleak House was beautifully atmospheric and, in classic Dickensian style, has all sorts of characters that are intertwined in ways that they don't realize until all loose ends gets tied. Highly recommend (even though the page count is incredibly intimidating).

[ariadnearanea · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

My favourite Dickens novel. :)

[charlie68_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Masterpiece!

[amerynth · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

After running out of renewals (twice!) before I opened the book, I finally just went out and purchased Charles Dickens' "Bleak House." (I check out too many long books from the library at once.) I did enjoy reading "Bleak House" but I'm pretty sure I'll never read it again -- it definitely wasn't my favorite novel by Dickens.The novel, published serially, tells the story of a variety of characters mainly associated with the Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce lawsuit -- a battle over a succession of wills that has dragged on so long, the original parties are deceased. As the lawsuit winds it way slowly through court, those who might benefit from its conclusion continue on with their lives in London.I mostly liked the story, even though the characters weren't the strongest. Dickens' way of neatly wrapping things up at the end of the story always irks me and this book was no exception. There are a few twists in the book that were unexpected, which pushed this up to a 3.5 rating for me, rather than a 3.

[benuathanasia · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Wow. Does this book EVER end? It's occasionally humorous, but none of it really reached out to me or made me invested in the characters or events.

[m.belljackson · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The only way I can comprehend the length of this book is that it was serialized...?Not only is the plot way overdrawn, but it is predictable and pointless, unless you care about Chancery.The characters are either way too precious and good or utterly stupidly unbearable.It's hard to believe that the same man wrote A TALE OF TWO CITIES.

[garykbookworm · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of his best!!

[kristelh_15 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Charles Dickens 9th novel, written as a serial was a bit slow on the upstart but over all an enjoyable book once into a bit. A lot of characters that slowly come to light and how they are interconnected. This is the story of Chancery (or equity law courts) which is part of the legal system. The court system is eating away at the inheritance of those who were to benefit. There are a lot of characters and a lot of subplots. This is supposedly the author's best book though I still hold A Tale of Two Cities as my favorite. Uniqueness/Legacy of Bleak House: it is different than the other Dickens that I have read. It is told both by a third-person omniscient narrator and a first-person narrator (Esther Summerson). Some consider this a mistake. Legacy: 3 Plot: 4 Characterization: (perhaps too many) but they all came together: 4. Esther is a bit over Victorian but appropriate to the time I guess. 4 Readability: 3 Achievement: 5 Style: 3 Rating: 3.625

[brakketh-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I can certainly see how this critique of the legal system in existence at the time is worthy of the 'classic' label, unfortunately I found this a very challenging read until the murder- mystery section of the novel (approximately the second half). Glad I kept with this novel and am looking forward to reading further Dickens.

[pepperedmoth · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

When I was young, I loved several things in my books: I loved my passionate fondness for the characters, to the point of believing them almost real, certainly having existences and thoughts and lives beyond the page. I loved how a good story made the world vanish, and for the space of a few hours (or however long I found to hole up with my book) I was entirely outside my own existence.

I especially loved and dreaded the end of a perfect book, when I would often feel a bittersweet longing to continue onwards with the characters, a regret that their adventures had come to an end, and a satisfaction of a journey well completed. In the best of books, I felt that I, too, had accomplished and learned something important in the journey.

In childhood, the best and most satisfactory example of this was the end of The Lord of the Rings, when Frodo and many of his companions sail off into the West, leaving others behind. Like Sam, I always felt sadly bereaved, left behind, but the better for having been there.

In adulthood, this feeling has, unfortunately, rarely come.

Today, I finished Bleak House, and found it again.

Bleak House, if approached in the style of high-school English where one must say what it is ABOUT, in some literary way, is ABOUT the corruptions of the English legal system in the 1840's when Dickens was writing it.

Of course, since Americans are reading and enjoying it 150 years later, that turns out to be the least of what it is ABOUT. And also of course, since it is Dickens, the ride is much more entertaining and involved than such a dry explanation would imply.

Bleak House is part social commentary, part mystery, part comedy of manners, part wonderful story, and part portrayal of human behavior when caught up in corruption.

Dickens is of course, and famously, a caricaturist, but I find that in Bleak House his caricatures are written with a lighter touch, and show more clearly the human truth behind them. They certainly seem more human than the characters in Great Expectations or Oliver Twist, which I remember loathing in high school.

There are genuinely good characters here (Jarndyce the benevolent guardian and Woodcourt the generous physician are but two examples). Their goodness seems real and possible (well, perhaps except for Esther [the narrator and protagonist] herself, who is a bit much). There are very few truly evil characters here, and none of those are a cartoon of evil, as Fagin is. No, this evil is believable and palpable and present today (Tulkinghorn, the manipulative lawyer). Better, there are characters with a delightful moral ambiguity.

There were bits of humanity here that made me wince in recognition: Mrs. Jellyby, the dedicated activist, who spends every particle of her soul in misguided missions overseas, while her entire family goes to wrack and ruin around her. Mrs. Jellyby was, in fact, the only character I found much connection to, as her shortcomings are also mine (and my church's, I sometimes worry). Skimpole was a caricature, but a caricature of a tendency I've seen at work more subtly, but quite often- an amoral renunciation of responsibility.

But more than anything, Bleak House was a great story that caught my fancy, made me sad to leave, and from which I came away feeling richer than I had started- and savored that bittersweet regret.

Time well spent, every minute.

[tess_i_am48 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Critics say this is Dickens' best and most complicated work. I would agree! There are so many sub plots and so many characters that one needs to be on their toes while reading this book. Was it worth it? YES! This Dickens novel tells of the injustices of the 19th century legal system in England. It has the makings of a great soap opera: drug use, affairs, illegitimate children, stalking, murder, and spontaneous combustion! [Bleak House] is told both by an unidentified, third-person narrator and a first-person narrator. The third person narrator tells the story in the present and Esther Summerson tells the story in the past, which may be confusing. [Bleak House] is a not an easy read, but well worth the effort.

[qofd · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This was my first Dickens ever and I now suspect will not be my last. I thoroughly enjoyed this story although the abundance of interwoven characters led me to have to write them all down so I could keep track of who was who. The many twists and turns in the tale were unexpected and made for compelling reading. Dickens descriptions of people are amusing and priceless: "Mrs Guppy, occupying the parlours and having indeed been visibly in danger of cracking herself like a nut in the front-parlour door by peeping out before she was asked for"

[anniejanicki · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This book is the closest Dickens ever got to writing a Jane Austen novel. Read the story of Ada's and Esther's and Caddy's romantic escapades, and tell me that is not Austen-esque. But Dickens, thank goodness for him, shows us life outside the domestic circle also. It's fascinating to watch as he takes a lot of what appear to be unconnected events and characters in the beginning, and ties them all together seamlessly. Dickens is a great believer in the saying, "There is no such thing as coincidence." The characters in this book are wonderful. Well, perhaps I should've said, 'there are wonderful characters in this book'. Characters who seemed wholly unsympathetic will move you to tears by the end, if you are the sort who can be moved to tears by an old Victorian novel (and not just because you've already read 600 pages and there are 160 more to go - actually, by the time I'd gotten to page 600 in Bleak House, I had begun to be a little sorry that it WOULD end - that's how good it was). Bucket is a fascinating detective. I believe Agatha Christie must have modeled Poirot on him. The only characters who I felt lacked verisimilitude were Guster and Jo. Perhaps Dickens didn't spend enough time with the poor - or maybe it's just that their slang isn't our slang. But I felt they were overly pitiable and affected. I understand he was trying to prove a social point. It was still heavy handed. There are a few others who could have obligingly dropped dead/exited stage left at any point and I wouldn't have minded at all. Jo and Guster would be exempt from that sentiment. They were very central to the action. But Volumnia? Who would miss her? Still, she had her part. It is a sad fact of Sir Leicester's life that, without Lady Dedlock, this is what is left to him - these are the people who are supposed to be his social peers and friends. But that ought not to detract from the overall excellence of the book. Guppy is hilarious, Mr. Jarndyce quite lovable, Skimpole hateful. I thought it was interesting what a different take the BBC had on some of these characters. Mr. Jarndyce, for one, is a much more tragic figure in the miniseries. Richard is much less likeable on the screen as well - possibly because in this, the original book, it does seem as though he really tries to give Mr. Jarndyce's ideas a fair trial, and to find a profession, and give it his all. But it just isn't in him, and there is always Skimpole around to spoil everything, little by little, unnoticed by everyone except us, the readers of the book.The ending was also a point in its favor. I won't say much about that, since reviews are ostensibly for people who have not read the book in question. But you should certainly read this book. Don't be put off by the name. It's my favorite Dickens book by far - and I didn't expect to like any Dickens novel better than Great Expectations. More full of mystery than GE, more emotionally affecting than A Christmas Carol, the obligatory crazy French person so you won't miss A Tale of Two Cities - obviously a must for the Dickens fan. And, as I said, full of romance - a little Austenesque.

[mattries37315 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

There are many curses that people place upon themselves and their descendants, some are the rest of their actions and others by their indecisions complicated by bureaucratic failures then sometimes it’s both. Charles Dickens shows the effects of both in his 1853 novel Bleak House not only on his main characters but also on secondary characters who are just unlucky to interaction with the afflicted persons.Sir Leicester Dedlock and his wife Honoria live on his estate at Chesney Wold. Unknown to Sir Leicester, before she married, Lady Dedlock had a lover, Captain Hawdon, and had a daughter by him. Lady Dedlock believes her daughter is dead. The daughter, Esther Summerson, is in fact alive and is raised by Miss Barbary, Lady Dedlock's sister, who does not acknowledge their relationship. After Miss Barbary dies, John Jarndyce becomes Esther's guardian and assigns the Chancery lawyer "Conversation" Kenge to take charge of her future. After attending school for six years, Esther moves in with him at Bleak House. Jarndyce simultaneously assumes custody of two other wards, Richard Carstone and Ada Clare (who are both his and one another's distant cousins). They are beneficiaries in one of the wills at issue in Jarndyce and Jarndyce; their guardian is a beneficiary under another will, and the two wills conflict. Richard and Ada soon fall in love, but though Mr. Jarndyce does not oppose the match, he stipulates that Richard must first choose a profession. Richard first tries a career in medicine, and Esther meets Allan Woodcourt, a physician, at the house of Richard's tutor. When Richard mentions the prospect of gaining from the resolution of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, John Jarndyce beseeches him never to put faith in what he calls ‘the family curse’. Richard disregards this advice and his subsequent career endeavors fails as a result of his growing obsession while his personal relationship with Jarndyce deteriorates. Lady Dedlock is also a beneficiary under one of the wills and while looking at an affidavit by the family solicitor, Mr. Tulkinghorn, she recognizes the handwriting on the copy and almost faints, which Tulkinghorn notices and investigates. He traces the copyist, a pauper known only as "Nemo", in London. Nemo has recently died, and the only person to identify him is a street-sweeper, a poor homeless boy named Jo, who lives in a particularly grim and poverty-stricken part of the city known as Tom-All-Alone's. Lady Dedlock investigates while disguised as her maid, Mademoiselle Hortense. Lady Dedlock pays Jo to take her to Nemo's grave. Meanwhile, Tulkinghorn is concerned Lady Dedlock's secret could threaten the interests of Sir Leicester and watches her constantly, even enlisting her maid to spy on her. He also enlists Inspector Bucket to run Jo out of town, to eliminate any loose ends that might connect Nemo to the Dedlocks. Esther and Lady Dedlock see each other at church and talks at Chesney Wold without recognizing their connection. Later, Lady Dedlock does discover that Esther is her child. However, Esther has become sick (possibly with smallpox, since it severely disfigures her) after nursing the homeless boy Jo. Lady Dedlock waits until Esther has recovered before telling her the truth. Though Esther and Lady Dedlock are happy to be reunited, Lady Dedlock tells Esther they must never acknowledge their connection again. Meanwhile Richard and Ada have secretly married, and Ada is pregnant. Esther has her own romance when Woodcourt returns to England, having survived a shipwreck, and continues to seek her company despite her disfigurement. Unfortunately, Esther has already agreed to marry her guardian, John Jarndyce, who sees Woodcourt is a better match for her and sets not only Woodcourt with good professional prospects and sets the two of them up for an engagement. Hortense and Tulkinghorn discover the truth about Lady Dedlock's past. After a confrontation with Tulkinghorn, Lady Dedlock flees her home, leaving a note apologizing for her conduct. Tulkinghorn dismisses Hortense, who is no longer of any use to him. Feeling abandoned and betrayed, Hortense kills Tulkinghorn and seeks to frame Lady Dedlock for his murder. Sir Leicester, discovering his lawyer's death and his wife's flight, suffers a catastrophic stroke, but he manages to communicate that he forgives his wife and wants her to return. Inspector Bucket, who has previously investigated several matters related to Jarndyce and Jarndyce, accepts Sir Leicester's commission to find first Tulkinghorn’s murderer and then Lady Dedlock. He quickly arrests Hortense but fails to find Lady Dedlock before she dies of exposure at the cemetery of her former lover, Captain Hawdon. A new will is found for Jarndyce and Jarndyce that benefits Richard and Ada, but the costs of litigation have entirely consumed the estate bring the case to an end. Richard collapses and Woodcourt diagnoses him as being in the last stages of tuberculosis and he dies before the birth of his namesake son. John Jarndyce takes in Ada and her child, a boy whom she names Richard. Esther and Woodcourt marry and live in a Yorkshire house which Jarndyce gives to them. The couple later raise two daughters.The above synopsis only covers the main plot, but expertly woven throughout are two subplots surrounding Caddy Jellyby and Mr. George Rouncewell who interact with the main characters at various times throughout the novel. Dickens masterfully crafts the cast of characters and the plot in an engaging and intriguing serious of plots that make the book a complete whole thus showing why his work is considered among the greatest of literature. Yet Dickens is also a bit too wordy resulting in scenes taking longer than they should and making some readers like myself, to start skimming through places in the later half of the book when a character that likes to spout off begins having a soliloquy of some indeterminable length at the expense of missing something connected to the slowly culminating climax.Bleak House turns out to show Charles Dickens at his best as well as showing off what might be his one little flaw. The interesting characters and multilayered narrative keep the reader engaged throughout the book even as they must sometimes endure Dickens wordiness that might drown them in unnecessary prose. Though over 900 pages, a reader should not feel intimidated given that many Dickens books are an extraordinary length and the reader keeps on being engaged throughout their reading experience so that length does not matter.

[dmsteyn · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The review will follow, but first, an illuminating interlude:All:God save your majesty!Cade:I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eatand drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.Dick:The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.Cade:Nay, that I mean to do.Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2Shakespeare was, of course, not really against all lawyers per se. Nor, despite appearances to the contrary, was Dickens. Bleak House, based on Dickens's experience as a law clerk and on litigation concerning the copyright of his early books, is often considered his greatest novel. Much of the plot of the book is concerned with the Chancery case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, and how it impacts all the characters involved in the book. I enjoyed the book immensely, but not without a few caveats, which I will get to.Recently, I read in a (South African) newspaper that one of our local literary doyennes said on a panel that 'children need to stop reading Charles Dickens'. My first thought was, well, that must be out of context. Yes, there are problems with Dickens, especially socio-political ones, but one cannot deny that, at his best, he was a great writer. I for one read him as a child and, though I only understood him as a child, I still loved his ability to weave a story. Now, although I have put away some childish things, I still admit to a deep, abiding passion for Dickens, who is more than merely a great plotter. Bleak House has again proved to me that beyond a doubt.I will not get into the story much - it is much too labyrinthine to summarise adequately, and as it is also a bit of a mystery, I would not want to give away some of the plot. Rather, I will mention a few of the characters that I found particularly interesting, and some incidents which elucidate Dickens's methods. Dickens writes the story in alternating chapters of anonymous third person narration and first person narration. The third person narration is more terse and to the point, but it also has lively imagery and telling moments of detail. Here, for instance, is the famous opening of the book:London. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.The terseness beautifully captures both the hidebound, rule-governed atmosphere of the Chancery court, and the dismal quality of the weather. The Megalosaurus - a humorous touch! - also indicates the 'dinosaurs' one finds in the courts.The first person narration is from the point of view of one Esther Summerson. Dickens is often accused of being unable to write realistic female characters: they are either angels or devils. Esther is certainly on the side of the angels, but she is more complicated than that. Her narration is usually straightforward and candid, but at times she can even be a bit unreliable. Here is the opening of her first paragraph:I have a great deal of difficulty in beginning to write my portion of these pages, for I know I am not clever. I always knew that. I can remember, when I was a very little girl indeed, I used to say to my doll, when we were alone together, 'Now Dolly, I am not clever, you know very well, and you must be patient with me, like a dear!'Esther protests too much, methinks. Through the course of the story, we will see that she is quite shrewd.Dickens beautifully ties together these two narratives, introducing such memorable characters as Richard Carstone and Ada, the 'wards in Jarndyce', mad Miss Flite, who haunts the Chancery courts, and Harold Skimpole. Ah, Harold Skimpole! What a character! Supposedly based on Leigh Hunt, Harold is 'a child' in the matters of money, human relationships and society - or so he claims. He is quite charming, in his way, but he mercilessly sponges off all the characters who are of a noble persuasion. And then there is John Jarndyce, whom Nabokov called 'the best and kindest man ever to appear in a novel'. He is such an endearing, humane character, that he puts the lie to suggestions that Dickens can only write grotesque caricatures.I do not usually show much emotion when reading books - I tend to think that tears can be evidence of cheap emotional exploitation - but this book really touched a deep chord in my heart, and I admit to sometimes wiping away an errant drop of salty moisture. Dickens is not saying that the law is inherently bad - on the contrary, he has some very humane legal characters in his fiction. Rather, he shows how the impersonal, mechanical application of the law, without consideration of human frailty, can lead to a grinding down of people and their hopes.I will miss the friends with whom Mr Dickens has acquainted me. Lovely is the thought that, in the days to come, in the years that wait, I will be able to revisit this brave company of souls.Oh, and I didn't even mention the Spontaneous Human Combustion!

[nmhale_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Charles Dickens merges the cold and impersonal world of legal proceedings with the passionate and tumultuous emotions of human affairs in this, one of his many acclaimed works, Bleak House.

[tess_w · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Critics say this is Dickens' best and most complicated work. I would agree! There are so many sub plots and so many characters that one needs to be on their toes while reading this book. Was it worth it? YES! This Dickens novel tells of the injustices of the 19th century legal system in England. It has the makings of a great soap opera: drug use, affairs, illegitimate children, stalking, murder, and spontaneous combustion! [Bleak House] is told both by an unidentified, third-person narrator and a first-person narrator. The third person narrator tells the story in the present and Esther Summerson tells the story in the past, which may be confusing. [Bleak House] is a not an easy read, but well worth the effort.

[candyschultz · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I am not well read in Dickens but Bleak House will remain for me his best book ever. It was a perfect book to read over the holidays and I wish I had. Almost as long as War and Peace, thankfully it does not have as many characters and they are easier to follow. That said, after my month-long hiatus, I did have some work to remember certain people.The book has two main plots, one being the interminable legal wrangling over a very old will. I do not begin to understand chancery and don't want to be enlightened. Bleak House makes lawyers look worse than ever. The chancery negotiations involve everyone in the book, however lightly. There is a second, subplot, which also involves pretty much everyone in the book. This second plot is typically Dickensian, involving a long lost parent and/or child. He seems to like that storyline.The inhabitants of Bleak House (which is anything but bleak) are the people both plots revolve around. The narrative moves back and forth between Esther Summerson and the author. This gives two perspectives on some of the events. We follow Esther from birth to marriage and motherhood. Along the way she brings order out of the chaos of many people's lives with the help of her guardian. Another main character is Lady Dedlock, also peripherally affected by the chancery dispute. There are many deaths, murders and even a case of 'spontaneous combustion'. There is an end, finally, to the chancery suit and I will not spoil that for you. It is one of the funniest things I have read in Dickens. Dickens does a fine job of pointing out the ridiculousness of the legal system in Britain at that period, not to mention all the carnage it caused.At any rate, I cannot rate Bleak House too highly. It was impossible to put down, except for the flu. It makes me want to break out some more Dickens very soon

[cecrow · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is a more serious work than what came before from Dickens, still speckled with his humour but layered with more pointed social commentary. The sentimentality is not excessive and his wonderful characterizations are as strong as ever. Mr. Tulkinghorn is wonderfully mysterious and imposing. Mrs. Bagnet may very well be the best of all possible women, but don't tell her so because discipline must be maintained. I didn't like Skimpole from his first scene and found him annoying throughout, but I believe I was intended to. This novel features probably the most complicated relationships I've encountered in Dickens yet. Some lead around in circles, where characters on opposite sides have no (immediate) knowledge of each other but are connected in more than one way. There's a May-December romance that felt troubling, but it is employed very lightly.The London depicted this time is less romantic, darker and dirtier, its streets filled with what is generously called mud, and an emphasis on the 'London particular': a dense fog that is actually the product of London's thick coal-burning miasma. Dickens has it gather thickest at the Chancery, the centre of all legal goings-on and a focus for the main theme. The plot for once is fully under his control, even as he tasks himself with alternating between first and third person. A parentage mystery is set up set up early and evolves gradually, and there's a murder mystery towards the end. Right in the middle we are treated to the famous spontaneous combustion incident. I might have wished for a stronger merge between the Dedlocks' story and the Jarndyce legal insanity. Esther is the lynchpin but she is not a unifier, and these two threads are not truly sewn together.Bleak House sounds like a gloomy place but in fact it's an attractive setting, a mansion so full of marvellous rooms and hallways joining in puzzling ways that I wish I might explore it. This practically applies to the novel itself: an off-putting title and page count at first blush, but worth delving into. Dickens is at full power here and it is one of his best.

[kaethe_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Weirdly, this was my first Dickens, except Christmas Carol, Loved it then, still love it best. I saw a funny reference the other day to someone who thought Jarndyce v. Jardyce was a real case, and how smug that made me. No story that includes spontaneous human combustion can be to dull, though, can it?

2001/01/05

[memccauley6 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I could easily write many negative things about this novel. For starters it is LONG. It is more a social and political commentary than a novel. The story follows many interconnected subplots told from the point of view of a third person narrator - or from the first person viewpoint of Esther Summerson, whose voice is not the least bit believable. (Biting the inside of my cheek to refrain from making snarky Mary Sue comments) The subplots are all tied up too neatly at the end.

Did I mention how long it is?

Nevertheless, it kept me interested enough to finish reading it. (Well, almost. After a certain character died, I read the remaining 8% out of sheer stubbornness) Despite the lack of character development, I found myself sympathizing with many of the characters and caring what happened to them.

[kale.dyer · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I can certainly see how this critique of the legal system in existence at the time is worthy of the 'classic' label, unfortunately I found this a very challenging read until the murder- mystery section of the novel (approximately the second half). Glad I kept with this novel and am looking forward to reading further Dickens.

[anniehidalgo · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This book is the closest Dickens ever got to writing a Jane Austen novel. Read the story of Ada's and Esther's and Caddy's romantic escapades, and tell me that is not Austen-esque. But Dickens, thank goodness for him, shows us life outside the domestic circle also. It's fascinating to watch as he takes a lot of what appear to be unconnected events and characters in the beginning, and ties them all together seamlessly. Dickens is a great believer in the saying, "There is no such thing as coincidence." The characters in this book are wonderful. Well, perhaps I should've said, 'there are wonderful characters in this book'. Characters who seemed wholly unsympathetic will move you to tears by the end, if you are the sort who can be moved to tears by an old Victorian novel (and not just because you've already read 600 pages and there are 160 more to go - actually, by the time I'd gotten to page 600 in Bleak House, I had begun to be a little sorry that it WOULD end - that's how good it was). Bucket is a fascinating detective. I believe Agatha Christie must have modeled Poirot on him. The only characters who I felt lacked verisimilitude were Guster and Jo. Perhaps Dickens didn't spend enough time with the poor - or maybe it's just that their slang isn't our slang. But I felt they were overly pitiable and affected. I understand he was trying to prove a social point. It was still heavy handed. There are a few others who could have obligingly dropped dead/exited stage left at any point and I wouldn't have minded at all. Jo and Guster would be exempt from that sentiment. They were very central to the action. But Volumnia? Who would miss her? Still, she had her part. It is a sad fact of Sir Leicester's life that, without Lady Dedlock, this is what is left to him - these are the people who are supposed to be his social peers and friends. But that ought not to detract from the overall excellence of the book. Guppy is hilarious, Mr. Jarndyce quite lovable, Skimpole hateful. I thought it was interesting what a different take the BBC had on some of these characters. Mr. Jarndyce, for one, is a much more tragic figure in the miniseries. Richard is much less likeable on the screen as well - possibly because in this, the original book, it does seem as though he really tries to give Mr. Jarndyce's ideas a fair trial, and to find a profession, and give it his all. But it just isn't in him, and there is always Skimpole around to spoil everything, little by little, unnoticed by everyone except us, the readers of the book.The ending was also a point in its favor. I won't say much about that, since reviews are ostensibly for people who have not read the book in question. But you should certainly read this book. Don't be put off by the name. It's my favorite Dickens book by far - and I didn't expect to like any Dickens novel better than Great Expectations. More full of mystery than GE, more emotionally affecting than A Christmas Carol, the obligatory crazy French person so you won't miss A Tale of Two Cities - obviously a must for the Dickens fan. And, as I said, full of romance - a little Austenesque.

[stacy_chambers-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Probably my favorite Dickens novel I've read to date. A friend of mine was surprised because there's "a WHOLE CHAPTER ON MUD." But I think Dickens makes some astute and far-reaching social commentary in this, something he was really starting to hone with Hard Times.

[jmoncton_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

At All Ears, we often recommend that children both read along with a book as they listen to the audio version - it helps them comprehend and retain more from the book. Recently, some of our adult customers mentioned that they also do this. I decided to give this a try with Bleak House by Charles Dickens. One reason I chose this book is that I love reading Dickens - his books are funny and such wonderful social commentary. And they are incredibly long - I've heard that he was paid by the word (he must have been very wealthy). I had an audio version of Bleak House narrated by Robert Whitfield (aka Simon Vance), one of my favorite narrators. Since it was a dilemma which I would enjoy more, listening or reading this book and I wanted to finish it quickly (relatively), I decided to do both. What a great experience! Vance's wide variety of accents and voices made the characters come alive. And taking time to read chapters allowed me to better understand all of the intricate plot twists and numberous characters in this long (33 hours/889 pages) book. This is my favorite Dickens book (so far). It had just the right combination of satire, mystery, and epic novel. And hats off to Simon Vance - phenomenal narration!