The Artful Dickens: The Tricks and Ploys of the Great Novelist

by John Mullan

Bloomsbury presents The Artful Dickens by John Mullan, read by Jonathan Oliver.

'This is a marvellous, endlessly illuminating book ... It doesn’t go on the shelf alongside other critics; it goes on the shelf alongside Dickens' Howard Jacobson
___________________

Discover the tricks of a literary master in this essential guide to the fictional world of Charles Dickens.

From Pickwick to Scrooge, Copperfield to Twist, how did Dickens find the perfect names for his characters?

What was Dickens's favourite way of killing his characters?

When is a Dickens character most likely to see a ghost?

Why is Dickens’s trickery only fully realised when his novels are read aloud?

In thirteen entertaining and wonderfully insightful essays, John Mullan explores the literary machinations of Dickens’s eccentric genius, from his delight in clichés to his rendering of smells and his outrageous use of coincidences. A treat for all lovers of Dickens, this essential companion puts his audacity, originality and brilliance on full display.

'Brilliantly sharp ... Mullan makes us see that Charles Dickens was one of the most artful, which is to say skilled, writers the world has ever seen' Mail on Sunday

'Put it on your Christmas list and spend the post-goose collapse reading the good bits aloud' Laura Freeman

'Even if you know a lot about Dickens you will find revelations in this book, and if you know nothing about him it will be the perfect appetiser' The Times, The best paperbacks of 2021

Genres: Nonfiction, Books About Books, Writing, Literary Criticism, Literature, History, Essays

Audible Audio

First published January 1, 2020

About the author

John Mullan is a Professor of English at University College London. He was General Editor of the Pickering & Chatto series Lives of the Great Romantics by Their Contemporaries, and Associate Editor for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. A regular radio broadcaster and literary journalist, he writes on contemporary fiction for the Guardian and was a judge for the 2009 Man Booker Prize. John is a specialist in eighteenth-century literature.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Katie Lumsden · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved this one - it's a thorough, complex analysis of my favourite author's work, full of little details and clever thoughts. A real joy to read. (Note: it is full of spoilers for all of Dickens's books.)

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are a Dickens fan, this is a fascinating collection of essays to dip into. I've been pretty much obsessed for 50 years, on and off, since discovering Oliver Twist at the age of 10, and have read all the novels multiple times, so it was perfect reading for me.

I'm not sure, though, if it would appeal so much to anyone who has only read one or two of the books. Mullan clearly assumes readers will know all the novels and jumps around between them at sometimes bewildering speed. He is also happy to include spoilers - so if you are currently reading/about to read a Dickens novel and don't already know the major plot twists, this is not the book for you.

Mullan looks at all sorts of aspects of Dickens's writing - ranging from where he found the names for his characters to his evocative use of smells, love of lists, and the interest in ghosts running through his novels.

Some of the most rewarding sections. though, look at his famously "Inimitable" style - including his use of the present tense, an experimental element which he pioneered, and his love of clichés, used in anything but a clichéd way.

[Plateresca · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Making the rules as he went along, he was full of tricks and ploys.'

In this book, John Mullan draws our attention to the ways in which Dickens was innovative as compared to other authors, Victorian and not only. For instance:

'Dickens was the first novelist to make smell a narrative device.'

Mullan makes a point such as this, and then produces numerous examples from Dickens's many novels. So here is the main drawback of the book: it is, by necessity, choke-full of spoilers. As I was reading the book, I was thinking whether it would be possible to somehow produce it with spoiler tags, but this would have complicated the production enormously. As it is, it's a very interesting read, but important plot points of various novels are revealed all the time, so if you hate spoilers, you can only read this when you've read all of Dickens's novels and remember them all very well... Which would somewhat limit the audience of the book.
I, personally, do not mind spoilers that much, because I either remember those plot points anyway, or, if I've forgotten them, I will likely forget them again before the next rereading :)

Some more examples of Dickens's uniqueness, according to John Mullan:

'Dickens is the English novel's greatest name-monger.'

'It is his interest in highlighting coincidences, rarher than smuggling them into rhe narrative, that singles him out from his contemporary novelists.'

'You can hear Dickens trying out his gift for idiolect, like the comic vocalist he once aspired to be.'

'By the time of Dombey and Son, many of Dickens's readers had got used to their author being there in his narrative, exclaiming at his characters as if he had chanced upon them rather than invented them.'

'Slipping into the future would become one of his distinctive tricks, used with increasing audacity as his plotting developed through his career.'

'The print setters wondered if some of what he seemed to have written was proper English.'

'The technique of listing may seem elementary, but Dickens gives it subtle psychological powers.'

This has definitely enhanced my understanding and enjoyment of Dickens :)

[Elizabeth]

I am going to leave this book unrated because I think my struggles with it are mine and not the book's. I adored John Mullan's book on Jane Austen and he is such a fun and insightful speaker when I watch him on YouTube. Contrasting my experience of reading What Matters in Jane Austen? gave me a clue as to how to think about this book.

And that is that I know Jane Austen's novels So Much Better than Dickens' novels. Austen was one of my earliest 19th century literary loves so she's in my bones in a way that Dickens isn't (yet). I read my first Dickens novel (David Copperfield) in 2019, so it's been just five years since I've made Dickens' acquaintance. I've since read all but one half of his full-length novels (working on The Old Curiosity Shop now!) but I don't feel that I know Dickens' plots and characters anywhere near as well as Austen's. I think this did affect my ability to soak in the nuances of this book. I didn't have as many a-ha moments as I did with his book on Jane Austen.

I think this is partially due to the sheer volume of Dickens' output. Some characters I don't remember at all. Some plot points I don't remember at all. Plus one of John Mullan's points is that Dickens was a rule breaker. He simply ignored the rules of 'good' fiction and sometimes blatantly broke them. I think this puts Dickens on a Shakespearean level of genius, but it does make it more difficult for me--a rule follower and lover of order--to wrap my mind around the enormity of Dickens' craft.

I also think that Victorian novels may actually be harder for a modern reader to grasp than Jane Austen. (I say Jane Austen as opposed to the Regency period because I think there is something particularly lucid about her plots and characters.) There is a lot more to apprehend in a Victorian novel so I do think it's helpful to read a lot of Victorian literature, learn about the time period, and re-read Vic Lit to understand what is unique in the nitty gritty of the craft of Dickens' writing. It's easy to enjoy his novels, but I think picking up on the nuance of them does take more knowledge, dedication, and skill.

In that sense, John Mullan's book is invaluable. He shows brilliantly his absolute encyclopedic knowledge of Dickens. Mullan has an enviable ability to pick up on patterns of language, characterization, etc. from which he can draw out why an author is so good at his or her craft. From that perspective this book is five stars! I'd love to revisit this book in 10 years' time when I've had that much more time to re-read Dickens and to read him closely and not just for plot.

[Laurel Hicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent notes on the style Dickens created in his novels. It’s best read after reading the books.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. That’s how I describe my reading of A Tale of Two Cities, and most Dickens novels.

Sections include some of the most inventive, beautiful, musical and rapturous prose ever written in English, bringing to me tears of wonder and envy. Other sections are so banal, misogynistic, idiotic and contrived that they bring to me tears of hatred.

And they are both laying in front of you, in one book. I’ve often thought that I’d love someone to identify the really good chapters and I’d gladly read them and skip the rest. I don’t care about context or plot or storyline. When Dickens is good, he’s that good.

So the Artful Dickens caught my eye. This might, in part, be what I’m looking for. For those who love the art of prose – the turn of a phrase the twist of a figure – this is a good book to peruse. It includes many wonderful examples – in brief – of Dickens wonderful prose.

The first and last chapters are particularly excellent. The middle chapters are fine for hard core Dickens lovers. To me, they dragged a bit. By the 57th example of Dickens using a smell in his novels, I’d already gotten the point.

But it is an easy-to-read, pleasurable romp through the unique talent of Dickens. (Though, I think, Dickens isn’t as unique as the author believes. But that’s a minor quibble.)

If you hate literary criticism like this:

“Because this balancing act militates against the totalizing logic of ideology, it offers an alternative to the reification of self by unsettling such primary binary oppositions as those that hold between subject and object, reading and author.”

But you enjoy critiques that cite examples and discuss craft, this is the book for you.

For Dickens readers, this might be a nice aside. For the rest, it is a good introduction, but it is not a must-read.

[Harri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a nonfiction book about Charlies Dickens, and his novels. It's about why Dickens' books were and are so loved, and how creative and clever he was as a writer, even though critics often have a lot of negatives to say about his novels. The book is made up of thirteen different essays, each one focused on a different topic. The book is predominantly engaging, although occasionally a little dry. It's a lot more academic than I had expected from reading the blurb. There's a close analysis of his books, lots of quotes, comparisons to other novelists of the time, and quotes from his drafts and notes that show his writing process. It also includes his own words about his writing, from a collection of his letters. At times, it's like seeing into his mind even though he's been dead for so long. It's really quite fascinating. The book is extensively referenced, as well.

The book has some tantalising insights into Dickens' mind and how he worked and wrote. It shows how he developed as a writer over the course of his career, from his very first novel to his final unfinished work. He was creative and inventive, constantly improving his methods and exploring new techniques. This book opened my eyes to some of the more fantastical elements of his works. There are also discussions on his clever use of cliches, his innovative uses of language, and how he chose the names for his incredibly memorable characters.

I have read a fair number of Dickens' novels. I found the parts of this book that talked about books I had already read the most interesting, but also, reading about books I haven't yet read made me excited to read them. This is not really a book to dip in and out of for trivia, more something to absorb and think about. It's probably most interesting to people who are big Dickens fans, or who are interested in literature.

[Melinda Nankivell · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting look into the writing style of Dickens, with chapters dedicated to such topics as Naming, Drowning, Ghosts, etc.

[Michael Reilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mullens sets out to answer the most puzzling question about Dickens.

He starts the introduction by asking, "What's so good about Dickens?"

He explains that "While it is common to hear Dickens called 'our greatest novelist', it is easy to find even those who acknowledge his status telling us what is bad about his novels. They are sentimental, melodramatic, sermonizing. His characters are grotesque, or monstrous, or two-dimensional."

Mullens refuses to settle for the lazy answer that Dickens is just "a great storyteller" or a "great comic author". He explains in detail the techniques, approaches and tricks that Dickens used as an artist to create the effects that readers love.

For example, Mullens explains that most great writers pride themselves on avoiding clichés. Jane Austen wouldn't be caught dead with one. Dickens embraced them and used them with twists and in new settings to make them new. Mullens gives multiple examples. In "Bleak House", Sir Leicester Dedlock is introduced. "His family is as old as the hills and infinitely more respectable. He has a general opinion that the world might get on without hills, but would be done up without Dedlocks"

The opening paragraph of "The Christmas Carol" ends with "Old Marley was as dead as a doornail." Mullen shows from the original manuscript how carefully Dickens picked that cliché. The next paragraph of the story is about the oddness of the cliché. It ends with "You will therefore allow me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a doornail."

Mullins explains that Dickens has the despicable Jonas Chuzzlewit speak in clichés because "A rogue likes to cling to a cliché."

Mullens is doing what the best literary criticism does. He leads us to appreciate how the author creates his effects. He has a discussion on Dickens' use of "as if" to introduce a flight of fancy, as in "as if a passing fairy had hiccoughed and had previously been to a wine-vault"

Mullens illustrates Dicken's genius with voices. He creates distinctive tones, rhythms and vocabularies for each character. He surveys the subjects which Dickens kept revisiting. Ghosts and drowning keep showing up in the novels. Dickens used smells, particularly the smells of the London, to tell stories.

I kept finding myself surprised by the subtle things Mullens noticed even in novels I had read multiple times. This is a great appreciation of a great novelist. It is at odds with much modern criticism which frequently seems to be designed to show that the critic is smarter than the author.

One minor quibble. Mullins is addicted to claiming that "Only Dickens would...." or "More than any other author, Dickens would...." It sounds like defensive special pleading.

[Alicia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book for Dickens fans, but also those interested in furthering their understanding of writing techniques of which Dickens was a pioneer of many still in use today.

I have read all of Dickens but it needed John Mullans to point out to me Dickens' smell obsession. The chapter on how he developed his characters' names is also a good read. Mullans provides many examples and excerpts to remind you of what you may have forgotten in your readings. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

On another note, for those fans of the critic John Sutherland, author of many similar erudite and entertaining books on books and writing (with an expert focus on the 19th century), John Mullan now fills his previous title (JS is now 'emeritus') of Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College, London.

[مروة الجزائري · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is one of my top favorite literary criticism books.
Read in 2023 and re-read in March 2024.
وقراءة تأمليّة جديدة عام 2025
الظل الذي يكتب:حين يتكلّم النص بلغتين… ويظلّ حيًّا
بقلم: مروة الجزائري
لا أحد يكتب كتابًا وحده.
ثمّة دائمًا أثر سابق، صوتٌ آخر، تردّد لغوي يسبق يد الكاتب — حتى في النصوص التي تدّعى أصالة.
فما بالك حين تكون مهمتك أن تكتب ما كُتب من قبل، بلغة ليست لغتك، وبزمن لم تختره، وبصوتٍ عليك أن تُعيد خلقه دون أن تُلغيه؟
هذا هو مأزق الترجمة، وفرادتها أيضًا.
وهو ما تلتقطه كيت بريغز في كتابها «هذا الفن الصغير» — عمل لا يُصنّف في دراسات الترجمة، بل ينسفها من الداخل. بريغز، التي ترجمت عملين من أبرز كتب رولان بارت المتأخرة، لا تشرح الترجمة بل تمارسها على الورق: تتردّد، تُخطئ، تتراجع، تعيد، وتكتب. لكن ليس من الصفر — بل من العتبة التي تركها المؤلف.
لا تكتب عن الترجمة كحرفة وظيفية، بل كممارسة وجودية: كيف نُعيد خلق صوت لا يشبهنا؟ كيف نعيد قول ما قد قيل، دون أن نخون، ودون أن نُكرّر؟
وهنا يتقاطع سؤال بريغز مع أسئلتي، ولا سيّما عندما تصف الترجمة بأنها كتابة مؤجلة: لا تبدأ من البياض، بل من أثر سابق، من شيء كان موجودًا سلفًا، علينا أن نعيد تكوينه كما لو كان يولد الآن، بلغتنا. تقول إن الترجمة ليست فعلًا تابعًا، بل شكلًا من «الكتابة الثانية» — كتابة لا تقلّ خيالًا، ولا جرأة، ولا مسؤولية.
تتأمل بريغز في لحظة مفصلية حين يقرأ القارئ رواية ألمانية تُحكى بالفرنسية وتُقرأ بالإنجليزية، ويتعامل مع النص بوصفه أصليًّا. هذا الاتفاق الضمني، كما تسميه، هو نوع من الخيانة الصامتة: نحن نقبل الترجمة، لكن نتجاهل المترجم. نقرأ بعيونه، ثم ننكر وجوده.
وهنا تتسلّل المفارقة التي أعرفها عن كثب: لا أحرّر النص من لغته فحسب، بل من وحدته أيضًا، لأمنحه ازدواجًا خصبًا — أن يتكلّم مرتين، ويُفهم بطريقتين، ويحتفظ، رغم كل انزياح، بجوهره المتعدّد.
بريغز لا تكتفي بالتأمل، بل تُدخلنا إلى طقسها اليومي: كيف استعانت بنصوص بارت وتسجيلاته، وكيف ظلّلت المواضع المربكة في ملف الوورد، حتى صار النص «حقل زهور صفراء» — صورة أعرفها جيّدًا. وأنا بدوري، أعيش بين قصاصات الملاحظات، والتعديلات المعلّقة، والهوامش المكتظة. لا أنفك أعدّل وأغيّر، أستبدل وأُعيد، حتى اللحظة الأخيرة — وحتى ما بعدها.
ما تفعله بريغز هو انقلاب ناعم على المفاضلة التقليدية بين «الأصل» و«النسخة»، بين «الفن الكبير» و«الفن الصغير». تستدعي وصف بورتر للترجمة بهذا المصطلح الأخير — عنوان الكتاب نفسه — ثم تُفكّكه بوصفه تمييزًا زائفًا لا يقيس القيمة، بل يعكس سلطة: كأنما الإبداع لا يُحسب إلا إذا وُلد من الصفر، وكأنما النسخة لا يمكن أن تكون حياة ثانية، بل ظلًّا تابعًا.
في هذا السياق، تُعيد بريغز الاعتبار للترجمة كفعلٍ خلاق، لا إعادة جمل بل إعادة هندسة: للاقتصاد الإيقاعي، للبياضات، وللمساحات الصامتة.
وحين تصف الترجمة بأنها «فنّ اتخاذ القرار داخل اللايقين»، وجدتُني أومئ دون أن أشعر. الترجمة ليست فنّ الدقّة كما يتصوّرها البعض، بل تمرين على المفاضلة بين خيارات كلّها منقوصة. أن تختار وتخسر. أن تُنقذ صورة، وتتنازل عن إيقاع. كلّ سطر ترجمتُه، كان مفاوضة بين ما أودّ قوله، وما ينبغي أن يُقال.
وهنا تمامًا، يسكن ذلك التوتّر النبيل الذي يجعل الترجمة أكثر من تقنية، وأقلّ من كتابة حرّة: إنها كتابة معلّقة، تُعيد قول ما قيل، لكن بنبرة أخرى، وزمنٍ آخر، ونفَسٍ لا يُرى.
ولعلّ أجمل ما في هذا الكتاب أنَّه لا يخجل من «بطء الترجمة» — بل يحتفي به.
تصف بريغز كيف كانت تعود إلى جملها مرارًا: تتشكك، تتراجع، تمحو، ثم تُعيد المحاولة، كما لو أن الترجمة شكلٌ من أشكال «العيش داخل اللغة». فنحن لا نراقب اللغة من بعيد، بل نُقيم فيها: بجسدنا وسمعنا ومزاجنا. فالترجمة ليست فعلاً عقليًّا فحسب، بل تجربة جسدية أيضًا — الأصوات المتداخلة، الحذف، التكرار، التوتّر البطيء، والأصابع التي لا تكتب فقط، بل تفكّر أيضًا.
أتذكّر استعارة بريغز التي هزّتني: الترجمة كـ«محاكاة الطقس». تقول إن الهدف ليس نقل المعنى فقط، بل إعادة استحضار الأثر الذي تتركه الجملة — كما يترك النسيم أثره على ورقة. استعارة بهذه الرهافة لم أصادفها من قبل، ومع ذلك بدت مألوفة: هكذا أريد أن أترجم.
وحين تُثير سؤال الإيقاع الغريب في الترجمة، تفتح بابًا مهملًا في الدراسات التقليدية: هل يمكن لترجمة أن تُحدث اختلالًا في زمن الكاتب نفسه؟ تنقل عن إليزابيث بروس أن توقيت نشر الترجمة — بتأخره أو تزامنه — قد يُعيد تشكيل استقبال المؤلف، وربما يُعيد ترتيب مفاهيمه لدى قارئ جديد.
تصبح الترجمة، إذًا، لا مجرّد «نسخة»، بل لحظة جديدة من عمر الفكرة.
أستعيد هنا صوت بول ريكور — لا كمجرد استشهاد، بل كظلّ يرافقني منذ بدأتُ الترجمة. الترجمة، كما وصفها، «مفاوضة مستحيلة بين لغتين».
لطالما شعرت أن كل جملة أترجمها تمرّ بجسدي قبل أن تمرّ بلغتي. وأن المفاوضة ليست بين كلمات، بل بين ذاتين: أنا، والمؤلف الذي لا أعرفه، لكنّي أستحضره من جديد بلغتي.
وكما ريكور، يستحضرني أمبرتو إيكو حين سخر من وهم التماثل، واقترح بدلاً منه مفهوم «توازن الخسائر». عبارة بدت تقنية في أول الأمر، ثم تحوّلت إلى مبدأ أخلاقي:
فكل ترجمة، في جوهرها، مساومة نبيلة — أن تخسر شيئًا لتُنقذ آخر. أن تتنازل عن ظلّ، لتُبقي على الصوت.
ومن أكثر لحظات الكتاب استقرارًا في ذاكرتي، استدعاء بريغز العميق لمفهوم «اللياقة» عند رولان بارت، الذي تعيد تأويله لا بوصفه خُلقًا للمؤلف، بل للمترجم أيضًا.
ترفض أن يُختزل المترجم إلى «وسيط شفاف»، وتطالب بأن يُرى، بأن يُعترف به، بأن يُمنح حضوره في النص لا أن يُطرد منه. وحين تقول: «كل مرة يُقلّصني فيها خطاب الآخر إلى حالة عامة تابعة لتصنيف شامل... أشعر أن ذلك خرق لمبدأ اللياقة» — شعرتُ أنها تنطق عمّا عجزتُ عن قوله مرارًا.
وتُفكك بريغز، بسلاسة لا تخلو من السخرية، أوهام الأصالة؛ تسرد موقفًا داخل صف جامعي، وُزّعت فيه على الطلاب نصّين: أصلي وترجمة، لكنها عكست مواضعهما دون أن تخبرهم. ما حدث أن الطلاب بدأوا في انتقاد «الترجمة»، التي كانت في الحقيقة هي «الأصل». هذا الموقف الطريف يُضيء هشاشة المفاهيم التي نحملها عن النص «الأصلي»، ويكشف عن تحيّز وجداني نخبأه تحت مسمى الذوق أو النقد.
ومن بين أقسى المفارقات التي تلتقطها بريغز، تلك التي تسميها «وهم العلاقة الأحادية»: نحن نقرأ نيتشة أو بارت أو كالفينو أو ساراماغو، ونشعر كما لو أنهم يخاطبوننا مباشرة. ونتناسى — عن وعي — أن ثمّة مترجمًا صنع هذه الصلة ومدَّ هذا الجسر، هذا القرب، هذا الإيهام. تقول: «المترجم لا يكتب كتابًا جديدًا فقط، بل يصنع مع القارئ عهدًا ضمنيًا بالتصديق». وما أصعب أن يُنسى من أتاح لحظة القراءة أصلاً.
وهنا، تتقدّم بريغز نحو سؤالها الأهم: لماذا نُنكر على الترجمة كونها كتابة؟ ولماذا لا نسمح لها بأن تُوقّع مثل الكتابة الأولى؟ في ختام الكتاب، تعلن ما يشبه المانيفستو: «الترجمة ليست عن الكمال، بل عن تحمّل مسؤولية كل كلمة». عبارةٌ قصيرة، لكنها تختصر ما ظلت تحفره صفحات طويلة: أن تكون مترجمًا لا يعني أن تكون ظلًّا، بل أن تكون شاهدًا ومشاركًا ومسؤولًا.
أقف عند هذه الفكرة طويلًا. لأن الترجمة، في تجربتي، لم تكن أبدًا إعادة قول فقط، بل إعادة إقامة داخل لغة غريبة. كل ترجمة خضتها كانت سكنًا مؤقتًا، كنتُ أختبر فيه نفسي: ما الذي أؤمن به فعلًا؟ ما الذي أسمح له أن يمرّ عبر لغتي دون أن يُشوّه معناها أو يخدش ذاتي؟ ما الذي يُمكن أن أستبقيه دون خيانة النص أو خيانة نفسي؟ الترجمة ليست مهنة، بل مسار طويل من إعادة التعرّف على الذات، من خلال الآخر.
وهكذا، لا يتوقّف كتاب «هذا الفن الصغير» عند التنظير أو التوثيق، بل يتجاوزهما إلى بناء وعي مختلف بالترجمة؛ وعيٍ يرى فيها إحساسًا لا أداة، وممارسة جوهرية في الكتابة لا هامشًا تابعًا لها.
ليست الترجمة استنساخًا، بل استدعاء لصوت سابق وإعادة إنطاقه بزمن جديد. لا تبدأ من البياض، بل من الأثر الباهت، من ذلك الحنين الذي يُقيم في الكلمات حين تُنقَل ولا تُنتزع.
«كل قراءة لنص مترجَم»، كما تقول بريغز، «هي دومًا قراءة لمترجم، حتى وإن غاب اسمه».
وهذا ما يُعيدني إلى البداية:
الكتاب لا يُكتب، بل يعود في لغة أخرى — لا تكرارًا، بل استئنافًا لما لم يكتمل.

[Julia Rubtsova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Великолепная книга!

[Janet Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have a confession to make: prior to picking up this book, the only Dickens I'd read was A Christmas Carol and selected extracts from Great Expectations (this confession is even more egregious considering I was an English teacher for 12 years). So it's a testament to Mullan's writing that, shortly after finishing The Artful Dickens, I picked up Bleak House - a copy of which has been sitting on my bookshelves for nigh on 20 years - and began reading. Mullan's literary criticism is always warm and generous, never less than fascinating, and while I wouldn't recommend other Dickens novices read this, for anyone who knows Dickens well, it will be a delight.

[Jude Brigley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This a fabulous book.it is so good on The great writer’s style. He certainly knows his Dickens. Reading it was like having a chat with a fellow enthusiast. Highly recommended for Dickens fans. My family always had the complete set of Dickens on their shelves.I was very lucky.

[Rosamund · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a joy if you relish Dickens and have read a good proportion of his works. If so you will be nodding and smiling and asking yourself why you haven't spotted the tricks and techniques Mullan points out. Don't pick it up if you are a Dickens neophyte.

[Jamie Bowen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful collection of essays looking into the writings of Charles Dickens, some great insight.

[Tina Panik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Creative, insightful, and engaging, this analysis brings vibrancy to Dickens’ work.

[Kathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Detailed and thorough. Enlightening. Sometimes containing laugh out loud moments and a joy to read. Prior knowledge of at least some of Dickens’s works is highly recommended.

[Spencer Lynch · Rating 4 out of 5]

On a recent trip to the Charles Dickens museum in London, I picked up this book. I was informed by the girl at the desk that the author had popped in earlier that day. From my understanding, he wasn’t giving a paid lecture. He was just hanging around. Imagine that conversation:

John Mullan: Hey

Girl at desk: Hi.

John Mullan: See that book over there?

Girl at desk: Yeah?

John Mullan: I wrote that.

Joking aside, it is a nice book. I had five hours to kill in the airport, and read most of it in a single sitting. Mullan illuminates his points by comparison with other Victorian writers. Some of the things Dickens did were truly weird, things a creative writing teacher would advise against. Not many academics can write breezy reads: Mullan can. It’s the kind of analysis you don’t get anymore in English Literature courses. Intra-textual, instead of extra-textual.

As If

Dickens is a big fan of the phrase “as if”. For him, it is a door to some kind of fantastic analogy. The most iconic example is of course the dazzling opening of Bleak House:

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.

His use of the term is unique. Henry James and George Eliot used it too, but in less imaginative ways. From Portrait of a Lady:

“I displease you very much” said Caspar Goodwood gloomily; not as if to provoke her to compassions for a man conscious of this blighting fact, but as if to set it well before himself, so that he might endeavour to act with his eyes upon it.”

Dickens is famous for exposing social inequality of Victorian London. He is a famous realist. Yet, what makes his novels so much fun to read is their surreal qualities. As if you’re on crack or something.

Humor

Dickens is funny. Maybe a modern reader is not going to laugh out loud. But a 21st century fan surely finds his arch voice entertaining; he is at the very least good company. For some, he didn’t have anything else going for him. Iris Murdoch wrote to a friend:

Having a great phase of reading Dickens - gosh he is good - though so careless. But so beautifully funny - as well as other things. Oh to achieve the purely funny!

Damning with faint praise. Yet, comedy, and exaggeration in particular, can be a tool of illumination. It can get the point across. I have a family member who is prone to self-pity. I used to do this bit, I’d put on a croaky old-timer voice, and declare “I wasn’t allowed indoors until I was 27!” An exaggeration, but it gets at a truth. Dickens created characters at the extremes of cruelty and kindness, of physical extremes too. A critic may call it “caricature” but if you recognize people from your own life, it’s probably because his characters are slightly worse than those people.

Let’s apply the tool of exaggeration to Dickens himself. If I wanted to teach students about his penchant for the phrase “as if”, I would make up ridiculous examples, so that they were in no doubt what I was getting at. I would put up on a projector screen this fake paragraph:

Mr Fiddlethumbs was more bored than he had ever been in his entire existence, as if his brain had been cracked like eggs and tossed onto a frying pan and the chef forget all about it and poor Fiddlethumb’s brain disintegrated into embers that the maid then had to sweep up and toss on top of the pile of horse-shit that stood outside the house.

I might then tell them that Henry James once wrote:

Mr Oldtree saw Mrs Oaktable stare at the wall, as if she thought it was a good wall.

Using caricature also allows Dickens to explore unpleasant areas of humanity without disturbing readers. Many of his most evil characters are also entertaining. This may because of some bizarre physical attributes like the dwarf Quilp, or an odd speech pattern, a la Uriah Heep. A child could laugh at those characters without understanding the dark implications.

Speaking of children, Dickens even makes child abuse funny. George Gissing noted this paradox when it came to the cruel headmaster Mr Squeers:

Dickens…had so irresistible a comic genius that it carried him beyond the gentle humor which most Englishmen possess to the absolute grotesque reality. Squeers, for instance, when he sips the wretched dilution which he has prepared for his starved and shivering little pupils, smacks his lips and cries: “Here’s richness!” It is savage comedy.

JK Rowling took the torch from Dickens in this respect. The fact that the Dursleys are so silly disguises the horrific nature of their actions. If it wasn’t funny, it would be unbearable.

Connective Tissue

At the museum, I took a picture of Dicken's writing desk. I also took a picture of me, smiling next to the desk, but I thought I looked terrible, so I deleted it.

On this desk, Dickens wrote his masterpieces. More importantly, he may have planned them. Dickens thought in terms of connection, coincidence, somehow finding a way to tie his vast worlds together. A useful prompt for an aspiring writer is to ask themselves: can I think up of a connection between this character and that?

I’m less interested in old friends stumbling upon each other in the unlikeliest places, than in how Dickens finds connection, off-stage as it were, through backstory. The most famous example of this is the reveal - spoiler alert - that the convict Magwitch is the father of Pip’s crush, Estelle. It is of course, ridiculous. My guess is that Dickens began with character, and plot came in as a way to justify the character’s existence. One of his mem’s may have read: OK, I have this really cool character, he’s a convict, and this other really cool character, who’s an embittered bride raising a protege to hate all men…hmm…can they be cousins or something…no, wait, I’ve got it…

His tendency towards fancy makes such coincidences easier to stomach. If the setting was a wholly realistic one, it would be incongruous. I’m not a Henry James expert - he’s getting a hard time in this article - but I doubt these unlikely things occur in his universe. Yet, when the story is already replete with references to dinosaurs and strange men telling ghost tales that have nothing to do with the main plot, it’s okay.

I am currently writing a novel in which the main character tries to learn more about his father through reading the man’s self-published novel. Characters in the novel turn out to be based on real people his father knew back in the day. I find myself knitting relationships together, forging connections that are of course, convenient to the plot. I am God, creating order.

Miscellaneous

Some of the tricks that Mullan highlights are unique to the serialization form. Dickens needed to give characters distinctive traits, so that readers would remember them months later. In the Pickwick Papers, Alfred Jingle speaks in a halting manner:

Terrible place - dangerous work - other day - five children - mother - tall lady, eating sandwiches - forgot the arch - crash - knock - children look round - mother’s head off - sandwich in her hand - no mouth to put it in - head of a family off - shocking, shocking

Jingle falls out of the story. Then later on, Pickwick and the contemporary reader, recognizes him in a crowded room, from that distinctive speech pattern.

Other tags can still be used today. Dickens liked to give characters a “telltale phrase”. Fagin’s was “my dear”. Mrs Plornish from Little Dorrit: “not to deceive you”. You know the Uriah Heep one. This again is a comic tool. I am a big fan of the guardian football weekly podcast. It's become a running joke that regular contributor Troy Townsend uses the phrase “to be honest” a lot. Dickens was a frustrated mimic. If you want to mimic somebody, the most obvious thing to copy is their accent and speech inflection. That's difficult in print. A telltale phrase is the next best thing.

One of the most common myths about good writing is that repetition is to be avoided. Tell that to Charlie boy:

Mr and Mrs Veneering were brand-new people in a brand-new house in a brand-new quarter of London. Everything about the Veneering was spick and span new. All their furniture was new, all their friends were new, all their servants were new, their plate was new, their carriage was new, their harness was new, their horses were new, their pictures were new, they themselves were new, they were as newly married as was lawfully compatible with their having a brand-new baby, and if they had set up a great-grandfather, he would have come home in matting from the Pantechion, without a scratch up on him, French polished to the crown of his head.

If you're going to do it, make sure you overdo it. Moderate repetition may seem clunky, excessive repetition is clearly deliberate. It also has the effect of making the author’s presence clearly known. Some aim for transparency in their prose, not Dickens. It is a blatant intrusion, and takes a braver writer than I to pull it off.

Word of warning

What worked for Dickens may not work for you or me. It would be ludicrous to insert Dicken’s techniques into our own work and expect the same results. As skill develops, a writer learns to size up the requirements of a specific scene. We can observe the great writers, we cannot reproduce them.

If you like my writing, you can more, all for free, right here: https://substack.com/@spencerlynch?ut...

[Hans Sandberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's such a pleasure to listen to, yes, this is a book you should listen to, at least in the first round. And it makes you understand why Dickens was such a captivating author.

[K.J. Charles]

A thoroughly enjoyable read for any Dickens fan, taking a deep dive into his technical tricks and quirks across the oeuvre to see how he gets his effects. Excellently specific and sharp; I rolled around in this with great pleasure.

[Julie Stielstra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dickens lovers, rejoice. This is a delicious wallow in everything we love about CD: names, idiolect, comedy / tragedy / poignancy, with the added pleasure of a literary guide looking hard at just how he pulled it all off in how he chose, ordered, and played with words, and sharing the secrets with us. I've read nearly all of Dickens multiple times, and Mullan managed to startle me with his observations. For example: I'm used to the writers' workshops, writing coaches, and literary advisors commanding us to "Use active verbs!" Yes, well, let's look at the opening page of Bleak House, the famous London fog. 384 words, and not a single finite verb. Really?! I pulled my copy off the shelf... yep. CD is not "describing London, he is plunging us into it." I had actually noticed the switching back and forth between present and past tenses in the same novel, but Mullan points out that not only had that never been done before Dickens, but that readers and critics at the time *didn't even notice it.* He was that good.

Chapters detail CD's use of curious comparative phrases ("as if...") to throw a new angle on a character or situation. Dickens relied a lot on the sense of smell for description (Alice McDermot in her recent What About the Baby? complains writers rarely do this - she should read this chapter!). The chapter on Dickens's famous character-names goes on too long, perhaps becoming too much of a prosy list (from which he omits any mention of my cat's name, Smike); similarly, the chapter on Speaking is rambling and covers territory we fans probably know well already. He is at his best when he shows us Dickens "breaking the rules": re-using cliches, changing tenses, inventing new (and yet perfect!) words, and simply playing with sentences, expressions, conventions, and expectations that result in somersaulting imagery, laughter, tension, comedy, horror, and tears. Readers who already know Dickens well will likely get the most out of all of it, recognizing our favorites, enlightened in new ways to familiar parts. Best of all, Mullan equipped this reader with some heightened awareness of techniques that I can apply to anything else I read, not just Dickens.

For readers less familiar with Dickens, Mullan's surefooted scamper across multiple massive novels, plots, and people may be a bit dizzying, and often jumps from one to another without apparent order. It may be confusing to sort out the Pickwicks, Podsnaps, and Pecksniffs, Grangers and Gradgrinds, Carker and Quilp - like being at a really big party where you only know a few people. But it's still a great party. Thanks to John Mullan for inviting us.

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't praise this work high enough. Chapter after chapter, in entertaining and intelligent prose that I suspect Dickens himself would have enjoyed, John Mullan shows how Dickens broke the rules of writing, made up new ones, and created novels that to this day are exemplars of the form. It's catnip for Dickens fans, accessible to those who haven't yet read him (but who will want to after reading this) and what's more, it's an absolute master class in fiction writing. As I read, I took some notes for the conversation I'd be having at the Adelaide Festival (just passed) and some for myself, to aid me in the novel I'm currently writing. Six stars.

[Hazel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a professionally written and researched book about Dickens. I think it would be great for anyone studying his writings. I felt you needed to know about his books before reading this as a background knowledge would be desirable.

Thakssk to Netgalley and Bloomsbury for the ARC.

[Louise (Bookmarks and Stages blog) Cannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever since I saw A Christmas Carol and Oliver when I was in my teenage years and in my adult years, saw a one man show of two short stories by Dickens and stage show about Charles Dickens by the great actor - Simon Callow, I have found him to be fascinating and been entertained by some of his works. Now, John Mullan has written about him too in The Artful Dickens... This book would be good for authors, lovers of Dickens and scholars. It is one for dipping in and out of, more than anything, or can be a bit heavy. It is non-the-less a valuable book to include in people's Dicken's collections as it is insightful.

The Artful Dickens is an incredibly indepth study, not just about him and his life about his books and elements of the man himself. Each chapter is used as different themes, whether it is smells, speech, humour, characters or writing, including changes in tenses.
It demonstrates how daring Dickens was when he wrote and changed the "shape" of writing, from what was perhaps fashionable at the time. The book demonstrates many features of the phraseology and much more, by using relevant segments of his well-known books, which are explored in great detail, but, as far as I can see, not giving spoilers as such; although this is a book that is probably best read, if you are at least a bit familiar with Dicken's works beforehand. It would then make much more sense to the reader.
I shows that Charles Dickens was a daring writer in a sense and liked to break the rules. Tying into this is an indepth look into naming characters, coincidences and even a section on "Enjoying Cliches". For the section on cliches, he also takes a look at what Martin Amis said about them and how Austen and Flaubert used language; as well as how cliches are and can be used. It very nicely then goes onto the spoken word. The book flows seemlessly from on subject to another, as bit by bit each book is examined to such a great deal of depth, disected and written. The research and the thought process, seems immense!

Interestingly and quite astonishingly, but true, Dickens is still influencing post-modern writers (and Ian McEwan's book - Enduring Love is used as an example), in his so-called "unconventional narration" and how he liked to "break the rules". The book demonstrates there is a lot to be gained by Dickens and that he did leave a legacy, in that sense, as well as his books.

Mullan then goes onto write about the smells, and let's face it, there would have been plenty of those in Dicken's time and not always pleasant ones; he insightfully links many to Dicken's books, but also to what Dicken's had said to friends, such as Wilkie Collins. Then examines the changes in tenses, starting with Edward Drood, before looking at the paranormal in a few books, but most famously - A Christmas Carol, which is always pleasing to read or hear anything about. It's more than just the books though as he takes a study of Dicken's life within the realms of ghosts in a surprising way.

I like that there is an examination of humour as there is plenty of that, with a mix of pathos in the likes of The Pickwick Papers. Mullen examines, quite acutely just how Dicken's manages to make people smile and/or laugh in so many of his books.

[Lois · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an intensely well researched book on the writings of Dickens. I am amazed at how many elements of the writing are gone into here, and in such detail.

While I'm sure that anyone reading the book is already a Dickens fan, or at least a Dickens reader, I will say that this book also casually gives up a lot of spoilers to do with the novels in its descriptions of events in the books.

There are 13 main tops discussed. Some are more familiar than others, such as (and especially), names of characters that Dickens uses, and how he comes up with them. But some topics are a surprise. Those include things like Smelling, Changing Tenses, Knowing About Sex, and others. In each, the author gives examples from Dickens' writings, and often mentions other authors who used the same type, or similar, techniques, and also gives examples from them.

I think my favorite topics were Naming, Using Coincidences, and Breaking The Rules. The characters are my favorite parts of the writing, maybe even over the plot lines, so I always love hearing about how they came about. And anyone familiar with Dickens will know how much coincidence plays into his stories. There is often something or someone in the beginning of the book who will surely come back and be a part of the mystery or solution or something big, later on. And by breaking the rules, Dickens forges his own path, rather than just doing what is popular or right at the time. Some disagreed with this, but it's what makes him what he still is today to many.

In writing the book, the author spent time with the original manuscripts, indicating many parts of the books where changes were made as Dickens wrote. Additions, cancellations, and rewrites show the original thoughts and the progress made as he went along, with some things heavily crossed out and replacement copy written above or off to the side, wherever it would fit.

Its all a fascinating look into the works of my favorite author, and why he is that to so many to this day.

[Jean-Claude Rijckeghem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hoogleraar literatuur John Mullan vraagt zich af waarom de romans van Charles Dickens nog steeds lezers fascineren en wat er dan zo goed aan is. Hij stelt de vraag omdat critici Dickens (1812-1870) vaak wegzetten als een melodramatisch humorist en niet zozeer als een groot schrijver. Maar als we zijn teksten onder de loep nemen, zo argumenteert Mullan, blijkt hoe ingenieus zijn manier van vertellen wel is.
Mullans boek is onderverdeeld in 13 essays. Ze zijn niet allemaal even boeiend maar sommigen zijn heerlijk. Zo schrijft Mullan over Dickens' gebruik van de constructie ‘as if’: Mrs Crummles in Nicholas Nickleby liep ‘over de stoep alsof ze op weg was naar haar onmiddellijke executie’, en Mr Merdle in Little Dorrit keek ‘over de handpalmen van zijn beide handen alsof hij zijn eigen toekomst voorspelde’. As If. Deze twee kleine woorden, legt Mullan uit, vormen een complex middel waarmee Dickens zijn personages van buitenaf kan bekijken en ons doet begrijpen hoe zij zichzelf zien. Het getuigt ook van zijn enorme verbeelding en zin voor humor.
Met dezelfde behendigheid laat Mullan zien hoe Dickens geuren – geparfumeerde zeep, lampolie, muffe tabak, stro – inzet om het reukorgaan, opnieuw voor het eerst in literaire fictie, om te vormen tot “een narratief middel”. De meest ‘gedurfde’ van zijn narratieve trucs die zelden of nooit door critici werd opgemerkt, is de manier waarop Dickens' de verleden tijd met de tegenwoordige tijd laat afwisselen, om het drama intenser te maken. Vandaag is dat courant maar destijds heel vernieuwend.
Ook grappig om te lezen hoe Dickens het cliché niet mijdt maar het juist gebruikt en benadrukt. Zo schrijft hij in A Christmas Carol: “Old Marley was as dead as a doornail” en wijdt hij een hele alinea aan de uitdrukking en benadrukt hij daarmee hoe dood Marley wel was. Want het is Marley die later komt spoken...
In essay na essay toont Mullan wat voor een literair goochelaar Dickens wel was. Mullans essays zijn in feite een nieuwe, heel bruikbare handleiding voor het (her)lezen van Dickens.

[Todd Hogan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating deep-dive into Charles Dickens' writing style. He has always been recognized as a humorous writer, a writer who exploits emotions, and a writer of great imagination and observation, but this book explores what a stunningly original and experimental writer he was.

Dickens broke a lot of the rules of writing in pursuit of exciting, funny, and intriguing narration. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on how Dickens experimented with changing tenses in a novel, sometimes changing tenses in a single chapter. It's obvious in Bleak House, where the Omniscient Voice is presented in present tense, usually in bunches of four chapters, and past tense in the first person narration of character Esther Summerson, again in bunches of four chapters each.

Dickens was unafraid to use coincidences, make lists to explain characters, and choosing silly names. He had some unusual tics as well. He included drowning in nearly every novel; he liked ghosts; he noted smells, and he was not reticent to allow the narrator to jump ahead to posit a foretelling of what will happen later.

Okay, I admit to being a fan of Dickens, and enjoy his crazy novels. This book helped me to enjoy his writing even more.

[DaniLanglie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This collection of essays about Dickens's work did give me some new things to notice in his writing, although I did find the essays themselves a little uneven. I really loved the one where he talked about Dickens's use of past and present tense, and the last chapter about the way he generally breaks the rules of good/sophisticated prose to great effect. Those essays really solidified and enhanced my understanding of this great author's craft. Some of the others were... well, the essays were basically just lists of examples, like Mullan had noticed "hey, Dickens sure does seem to have a preoccupation with drowning" and then lists every time drowning comes up in the texts, without really seeming to have a conclusion about how he writes about drowning in an interesting way.

So, a bit of a mixed bag, but I'm glad I read this! I have a couple more Dickens novels that I haven't read yet (dude was prolific as fuck) and I'm excited to get to them in the coming years. I think this book of essays in particular is going to enhance my experience to Bleak House - lots of good stuff about that novel in here.

[John Kinkade · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was hoping for more, though I'm really not the intended audience. It feels to me like this book comes from a very British place where somehow the academics seem unsure that it's OK to say that Dickens is great. I like the idea behind the book that he'll explain what Dickens does that's different and awesome, but I'm not buying most of the arguments (the last chapter, on repetition might be the one I find weakest: it's like he has no familiarity with ideas of classical rhetoric that would explain a lot of Dickens choices for a language that he was focused on having people hear, not just read). Moments of good insights, so lots of dog-eared pages, and an impressive marshaling of evidence from every novel (plus some Eliot and Defoe and others!), but by the end I think we're better off reading Dickens + some more traditional scholarship. (Note, though: I will never get over the idea that T. S. Eliot might have used "he do the police in different voices" as the title for the Waste Land. How close to that could he really have been?)