The Pickwick Club discussion

Dear Fellow-Pickwickians,

here you may enter your thoughts, ideas, favourite quotations and so on with regard to the next five chapters.

I like this book so much that I can hardly wait to read further on.

I loved all the speculation among the Maypole patrons about the anticipated duel between Chester and Haredale, whether it would be swords or pistols, who would kill who, etc. And the almost disappointment when it didn't come off and they found both contestants emerge alive and unscathed from the meeting.

I especially liked Dickens's way of describing John Willet's way of carefully observing Mr. Chester when talking to him in order to make sure he does not "unexpectedly drop down faint or dead from some internal wound". This is rather in keeping with Willet's slow intellect.

On fathers and sons

This motif is ubiquitous in Chapters 10 to 15, and it can also be seen in the light of Dickens's attitude to the Gordon Riots as such as a rebellion against (paternal) authority.

First of all there is John Willet's opinion of Hugh, whom he regards as uneducated, wild and little better than an animal since he never had a father who bothered to develop his faculties.

"'... That chap, I was a saying, though he has all his faculties about him, somewheres or another, bottled up and corked down, has no more imagination than Barnaby has. And why hasn’t he?’

The three friends shook their heads at each other; saying by that action, without the trouble of opening their lips, ‘Do you observe what a philosophical mind our friend has?’

‘Why hasn’t he?’ said John, gently striking the table with his open hand. ‘Because they was never drawed out of him when he was a boy. That’s why. What would any of us have been, if our fathers hadn’t drawed our faculties out of us? What would my boy Joe have been, if I hadn’t drawed his faculties out of him?—Do you mind what I’m a saying of, gentlemen?’

‘Ah! we mind you,’ cried Parkes. ‘Go on improving of us, Johnny.’

‘Consequently, then,’ said Mr Willet, ‘that chap, whose mother was hung when he was a little boy, along with six others, for passing bad notes—and it’s a blessed thing to think how many people are hung in batches every six weeks for that, and such like offences, as showing how wide awake our government is—that chap that was then turned loose, and had to mind cows, and frighten birds away, and what not, for a few pence to live on, and so got on by degrees to mind horses, and to sleep in course of time in lofts and litter, instead of under haystacks and hedges, till at last he come to be hostler at the Maypole for his board and lodging and a annual trifle—that chap that can’t read nor write, and has never had much to do with anything but animals, and has never lived in any way but like the animals he has lived among, is a animal. And,’ said Mr Willet, arriving at his logical conclusion, ‘is to be treated accordingly.’" (Chapter 11)

Or consider what Willet says about Hugh to Mr. Chester,

"'‘He’s quite a animal, sir,’ John whispered in his ear with dignity. ‘You’ll excuse him, I’m sure. If he has any soul at all, sir, it must be such a very small one, that it don’t signify what he does or doesn’t in that way. Good night, sir!’ (Chapter 12)

Not only does Dickens use this blockheaded old tyrant to perform a side blow against the death penalty, which Dickens loathed, but he also points out that Hugh is a case of parental neglect - and that people like Willet consequently regard him as sub-human.

Then there is Mr. Chester, who calmly tells his son that he regarded him as a burden when he was a child and that he would not have taken him up as a young man if he had not met his expectations with regard to outward appearance and manners. Mr. Chester furthermore regards his son as a means to an end, i.e. he wants to marry him off to a rich heiress for his own, Mr. Chester's, sake. This is another case of a son's abuse at the hands of his father - next to the humiliations Joe Willet has to endure from his numskull of a father.

Then there is Mr. Haredale, who sees a father-son-relationship as a fateful connection in that he cannot imagine young Chester being different from his treacherous and underhanded father.

The only positive father figure so far is Gabriel Varden, who understands Joe's plight although the only advice he can give his young friend is to keep a stiff upper lip and to endure his tyrannical father. Ironically this positive father figure is nurturing a snake at his bosom: Sim, who as his apprentice can somehow be seen as a substitute for a son, harbours a grudge against him and all other masters and abuses his position to provide himself and his fellow "knights" with keys.

I think this father-son motif shows that Barnaby Rudge is superior to all the Dickens novels we have read so far in that it is more carefully planned and that it consequently has a consistent subtext.

Tristram wrote: "This is rather in keeping with Willet's slow intellect. "

Slow manner. I'm not so sure about slow intellect. I have a lot of appreciation for him.

Tristram wrote: "...next to the humiliations Joe Willet has to endure from his numskull of a father

....

The only positive father figure so far is Gabriel Varden, "

We differ strongly here. I do not see John Willet as a numbskull at all. He is a true blue Englishman of his age through and through. He may speak slowly, but that's because he thinks things through before he speaks. Better that than the ethically vacuous fast talking Mr. Chester.

Willet is a successful businessman, he keeps the peace in his establishment (not so easy to do in an alcohol-soaked environment of contentions locals), he has his head screwed on right.

He is certainly every bit as much a positive figure as Varden (who I like a lot, but whose guidance to his daughter I have to question.)

Tristram wrote: "On fathers and sons

This motif is ubiquitous in Chapters 10 to 15, and it can also be seen in the light of Dickens's attitude to the Gordon Riots as such as a rebellion against (paternal) authorit..."

The Chester/Haredale character development is truly effective. Just consider their different personalities, their physicality, their attitudes and what great use of language. There is no other writer who can write with such incisive detail.

Next we get the Haredale/son conversation and again Dickens shows his unique ability to create distinctive characters and characteristics.

As for Hugh it's early yet. As part of the large Maypole grouping of characters his early function seems to be to act as a counterpoint to other characters. Perhaps later actions will speak louder than other's words.

Tristram wrote: "On fathers and sons

This motif is ubiquitous in Chapters 10 to 15, and it can also be seen in the light of Dickens's attitude to the Gordon Riots as such as a rebellion against (paternal) authorit..."

Tristram

I like your introductory comments about how the Gordon Riots can be mirrored by a rebellion against (parental) authority in BR. Dickens has a special ability to run parallels and contrasts among various characters, settings and plot events. In the OCS there were, for example, graveyards, dying students, wax-figures and a host of other literary devices that kept whispering "Nell, Nell... ."

And it may be useful to note that the most irresponsible person to pass through the Maypole (excepting perhaps the stranger of whose identify we are still in ignorance) is Mr. Chester, who as an educated man and at one point apparently reasonably wealthy man should have been setting the standard of proper conduct. However, it is the rustics at the Maypole who offer the better example of manhood.

I'll write one big post to you all here, rather than reply to each comment.

Firstly, I have to say I'm loving the imagery of The Warren, Temple and it's surrounding. He writes such a vivid picture.

Not only am I 'seeing' what's going on in the Maypole, I'm smelling and tasting it too. His descriptive use of the senses takes it up a level again. Amazing. I also had to look up what a can of flip was. If you didn't already know, it's a drink of heated, sweetened beer and spirit.

I laughed so many times with the conversations between John Willet and friends in the Maypole. They certainly polarise would could have been a nasty situation between Mr Chester and Haredale. Some of the quotes I love are:

“’It’s as plain, returned Solomon, ‘as the nose on Parkes’s face’ – Mr Parkes, who had a large nose, rubbed it, and looked as if he considered this a personal allusion.”

“A shade passed over Mr Willet’s face as he thought of broken windows and disabled furniture, but bethinking himself that one of the parties would probably be left alive to pay the damage, he brightened up again.”

I also love the scene where John Willet almost sets Chesters' wig on fire, as Willet holds up the candle a little too close whilst surveying the man in disbelief, who he presumed should have been injured after the anticipated duel.

The relationships between different generations, including the family patriarch and his successor, are a microcosm of society. In other words, it reflects the same issues that we find in general, including the context of employer and employee. At one level we see it between Gabriel and Sim, and from a societal perspective, through the 'Knights' movement. It seems to be the young v the older. For example, Staggs attitude towards Sim, Sim's relationship with Gabriel, John v Joe, the oldies of the Maypole v Hugh, etc, etc. I'm thinking that the generational relationships could perhaps be foreshadowing for the divide that is to come in society.

Hmmm... I think that covers all I need to say. I'm slightly distracted by Federer and Murray atm...

Joy wrote: "I need to make a list of the characters (or get it from Wikipedia) ..."

Scroll down on this page for a list of the principal characters.
http://www.charlesdickenspage.com/rud...

Edit: but beware of spoilers in the upper sections of the page!

Everyman wrote: "And it may be useful to note that the most irresponsible person to pass through the Maypole (excepting perhaps the stranger of whose identify we are still in ignorance) is Mr. Chester, who as an ed..."

Everyman: I agree completely. Your comment got me thinking too. It is very hard to come up with a list, even a short one, of Dickens' characters who are aristocrats, wealthy, privileged or even from the professional classes (doctors, lawyers etc) who can claim to get a full stamp of approval from Dickens.

Joy wrote: "I need to make a list of the characters (or get it from Wikipedia) bc I have a hard time keeping track. There are so many and it's hard to know which are the important ones. Going back and re-liste..."

Hi Joy

Don't worry too much about losing track of the characters. Everyman's suggestion is great. My Dickens Companion by Hardwick has been very, very well thumbed through the years.

An anecdote you may enjoy is about Edgar Johnson who wrote Charles Dickens Tragedy and Triumph. His students and colleagues would go through all of Dickens novels, short stories, plays and ephemera to find obscure, very briefly mentioned characters to try and stump him. To the best of my knowledge he was never stumped. He could place and explain any character. I've never met anyone in my life who could come even close.

Joy , in this story I'd say all the characters are important. And relax. It is so long that you will get to know everyone. Not to mention, reading it a second time is great because it seems enriched.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "...next to the humiliations Joe Willet has to endure from his numskull of a father

The only positive father figure so far is Gabriel Varden, "

We differ strongly here. I d..."

It's good to see you two finally disagreeing with each other. That means one of you is actually right for once and that you also agree with me. :-}

I agree with Tristram. I think Varden is the only positive character out of the older ones. Like OCS and Grandpa, I think John Willet appears harmless, but his stance towards his son and others can't be beneficial for them. With everyone,, he sees himself superior of mind and moral standing, which Dickens satirises splendidly.

Kim wrote: It's good to see you two finally disagreeing with each other. That means one of you is actually right for once and that you also agree with me. :-} "

If you tell us which one of us you agree with, we'll know which one of us is wrong.

:-/

Kate wrote: "I agree with Tristram. I think Varden is the only positive character out of the older ones. Like OCS and Grandpa, I think John Willet appears harmless, but his stance towards his son and others can't be beneficial for them..."

Judging by the standards of the time, not our standards today, I don't see that John Willet's stance toward his son isn't beneficial. Joe has to learn to live in a very patriarchal, class-centered world, which I think his father is training him for. Also, it's likely that the only good work he will find as an adult is following in his father's footsteps, but it seems that he perhaps isn't taking his free apprenticeship as seriously as he should.

As for Varden, he may look like a sensitive father and husband by today's standards, but I think the original readers would have seen him as inept and a poor excuse for a man. He is bullied by his wife and by his wife's servant, and he has no control over his apprentice, who is committing crimes right under his nose and using his tools and materials by providing keys to other apprentices. How is this a better example than John Willet?

Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "I agree with Tristram. I think Varden is the only positive character out of the older ones. Like OCS and Grandpa, I think John Willet appears harmless, but his stance towards his son a..."

I agree with you about the difference in standards but when you take tone into consideration, Gabriel seems to be the one who Dickens wishes the audience to see in a more positive light.

I don't really dislike John Willet. I just think he's a windbag. He wants to be popular, he wants to be important, and he is when he's among his small circle of people, and he's proud of it. He seems to think he is more intelligent than others, and among the people at the Maypole maybe he is. And he doesn't seem to feel like what he's doing is wrong, he's trying to raise Joe the right way, the way he was raised, even if it isn't the nicest way he could go about it. When talking about Hugh and how he has all his faculties "bottled up and corked down" and has no imagination he says:

'Why hasn't he?' said John, gently striking the table with his open hand. 'Because they was never drawed out of him when he was a boy. That's why. What would any of us have been, if our fathers hadn't drawed our faculties out of us? What would my boy Joe have been, if I hadn't drawed his faculties out of him?--

So he seems to think he is doing what is right for Joe. There are often in the novels I read a working class man who starts out poor and by hard work becomes a man with a family much better off than when he was a child, usually by eventually owning his own business. Often then he doesn't want his children to struggle the way he did, they are going to be "better" than a merchant or a baker or a banker; so he teaches them they are "too good" to work and it is almost always a disaster. In this case his father seems to be preparing him for the work he will be doing in the future, but I do think he could be more kind while doing it.

Mr. Chester appears to me to be one of those men who is brought up to do absolutely nothing because he was just too good to work. So he spends his life sitting doing nothing but being waited on, the problem with him seems to be he no longer has the money to support his annoying lifestyle. He is by far the worst of the three fathers we've read about so far to me.

Kate wrote: "I agree with you about the difference in standards but when you take tone into consideration, Gabriel seems to be the one who Dickens wishes the audience to see in a more positive light. "

I can't disagree with that.

Maybe a demonstration of the theory that the author knows less about his characters than the reader does? [g]

Joy wrote: "I definitely agree with Kim about Mr Chester. He is so far the character I'm going to love loathing."

But loathing with a twinkle in your eye, maybe? I agree he's awful. But still, is there any character in the book you would rather spend an evening's conversation with as long as you didn't have any other relationship with him? He's certainly amusing, when you aren't the one injured by his humor, and a good conversationalist, when you are able to be interested but disinterested in what he says, isn't he?

Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "I agree with you about the difference in standards but when you take tone into consideration, Gabriel seems to be the one who Dickens wishes the audience to see in a more positive ligh..."

True. It also relates to the conversation we had during ACC about Dickens leaving things open to interpretation. For example, Scrooge and our thoughts on how he became to be the way he was.

Kim wrote: "I don't really dislike John Willet. I just think he's a windbag. He wants to be popular, he wants to be important, and he is when he's among his small circle of people, and he's proud of it. He ..."

For sure. The example John Willett is trying to bring Joe up to be self efficient and his own person, even if he seems a little harsh. Besides from that, I think John Willett is very much an entertaining character.

On the other hand, when it comes to fathering, Mr Chester (who I find the worst of characters too) has left Edward to his own devices. Plus, he's so selfish to expect his son to marry for his own purposes. Urgh! Vile man.

Kim wrote: "I don't really dislike John Willet. I just think he's a windbag. He wants to be popular, he wants to be important, ..."

Well, yes, but it is the role of an innkeeper to seek to be popular -- unpopular innkeepers don't last long -- and he was indeed important to anybody who came to the inn cold and hungry. It wasn't like today where there are bars or motels every few blocks in the city; he had an important establishment providing important and needed services. So he's entitled to consider himself important because he is. And it's very wise for him to seek to be popular and get along with everybody.

Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "I don't really dislike John Willet. I just think he's a windbag. He wants to be popular, he wants to be important, ..."

Well, yes, but it is the role of an innkeeper to seek to be po..."

I was so excited when I saw the earlier post of yours that says "I can't disagree with that". I thought for once you finally agree with me, then I realized you were answering Kate not me. Grump. :-}

Kim wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "I don't really dislike John Willet. I just think he's a windbag. He wants to be popular, he wants to be important, ..."

Well, yes, but it is the role of an innkeeper..."

Why would you want a grump to agree with you? I would think that would be the last thing you would want.

I'd like to say some words in defence of our beloved locksmith Gabriel because I do not think that he is really as inapt as our fellow-Pickwickian Everyman makes him out to be: First of all, he shows great determination and prowess in his encounter with the mysterious stranger when they first meet on the dark and lonesome highway so that even the stranger is somehow intimidated. That is surely manly.

Then he is well aware of at least some of Sim's secrets, for example Sim's proclivity to eavesdrop on conversations between Dolly and her father. So even if he does not see everything that is going on, he is not completely blind.

Thirdly, as to his lenience towards Mrs. V., this is probably because he loves her and she has not always been like that. The text implies that the family's rise to well-being has made her develop her moods, and so there must have been a time when she was a fair wife to him. Humouring her inconstant and fickle ways is a sign of Gabriel's generosity and kindness of heart. And that's why he also puts up with Miggs - not for fear of Miggs but for his wife's sake.

Tristram wrote: "I'd like to say some words in defence of our beloved locksmith Gabrielckian Everyman makes him out to be: First of all, he sho..."

Are you sure you aren't a defense lawyer? You sound as though you should be representing Justin Bieber; you could make him out to be an angel! [g]

Tristram wrote: "First of all, he shows great determination and prowess in his encounter with the mysterious stranger when they first meet on the dark and lonesome highway so that even the stranger is somehow intimidated. That is surely manly."

Or stupid.

Tristram wrote: "Then he is well aware of at least some of Sim's secrets, for example Sim's proclivity to eavesdrop on conversations between Dolly and her father."

It would be surprising if an apprentice living in the same house with his master's family didn't eavesdrop from time to time.

Equating that with knowing about his criminal actions is like saying that the NSA wasn't completely blind about Snowden's character because they knew he had a habit of swiping office pens from time to time.

Tristram wrote: "Humouring her inconstant and fickle ways is a sign of Gabriel's generosity and kindness of heart."

I suppose that's one way of putting it. Though I think he would have a happier home if he showed just a little bit of the backbone you praise him for showing in the confrontation with the stranger.

Okay, actually I do like Gabriel and approve of him. But I still disagree with your assertion way back, which started all this train of thought, where you said he was "the only positive father figure so far."

It's necessary to point out his negative aspects in order for you to realize that he's not any more saintly or better than Willet, but that they both deserve our appreciation.

But if you're going to keep being prejudiced in his favor, I'm going to keep poking holes in his character. [g]

Everyman wrote: "I agree he's awful. But still, is there any character in the book you would rather spend an evening's conversation with as long as you didn't have any other relationship with him?"


I would probably pick Gabriel Varden to spend an evening's conversation with, but I'd like it to be at the Maypole. I like the description of the Maypole, I'd prefer no smoking inside of it though. Also, I'd prefer if his wife and daughter stayed at home. His wife I wouldn't want to spend one minute with, his daughter spends a little too much time wondering how many men may be in love with her and checking her appearance in the mirror.

I'd actually like to spend an evening's conversation with John Willet, at the Maypole of course! I'm sure he'd be very entertaining. However, I think I'd spend my time laughing at him rather than with him. LOL.

Kim wrote: "Everyman wrote: "I agree he's awful. But still, is there any character in the book you would rather spend an evening's conversation with as long as you didn't have any other relationship with him?"..."

Hmm, taking the smoking out of the Maypole would definitely ruin the atmosphere. Ahhhh, those long-stemmed pipe and the austere English baccy ... I would also choose Gabriel to spend an evening with - provided that it won't be within the circle of his family. Saying that, I must at this point declare my admiration for Dolly, whom is described so aptly by Dickens as a coquettish belle that I could not help developing a crush on her when I read the book for the first time some twenty years ago.

Kate wrote: "I'd actually like to spend an evening's conversation with John Willet, at the Maypole of course! I'm sure he'd be very entertaining. However, I think I'd spend my time laughing at him rather than w..."

If you engage in a conversation with John Willet, you would have to do all the talking and he would be mad at you for interrupting him.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "First of all, he shows great determination and prowess in his encounter with the mysterious stranger when they first meet on the dark and lonesome highway so that even the stranger..."

I think it was anything of stupid in Gabriel to show some self-assertion in his encounter with the stranger because after all, Gabriel is a very sturdy man and not unarmed - he carried his hammer - and a less self-confident behaviour might have failed to intimidate the stranger and maybe even led him to do some harm to Gabriel.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Humouring her inconstant and fickle ways is a sign of Gabriel's generosity and kindness of heart."

I suppose that's one way of putting it. Though I think he would have a happier ..."

I really don't know if his home were any happier if he chose to show more spine. I think most married men have developed their strategies for dealing with their wives' idiosyncrasies - and vice-versa, of course. Although I partly agree with you that his situation should be taken in hand by himself, e.g. by finding some reason for dismissing Miggs. I'm sure Mrs. V. would be a lot more agreeable, were it not for that mean-spirited servant.

When in Chapter 11 John Willet and his cronies while away the time waiting for the mortal duel between the two gentlemen, they talk about the bloodstain in Mr. Haredale's house, a gruesome relic of the murder, and say that it will not come out, which leads Solomon Daisy to the gleeful remark that after the duel

"... we shall have one of these stains upon the floor that never come out."

It is interesting how much he identifies with the Maypole in order to say "we", but it is also interesting to find this "blood stain that never comes out" motif in here. Probably Oscar Wilde got his inspiration for the Canterville Ghost from Dickens?

I found a very engaging passage in which Mr. Chester summarizes his outlook on life, and which is a masterful example of how Dickens has this character betray his nihilistic amorality in his own words,

"The world is a lively place enough, in which we must accommodate ourselves to circumstances, sail with the stream as glibly as we can, be content to take froth for substance, the surface for the depth, the counterfeit for the real coin. I wonder no philosopher has ever established that our globe itself is hollow. It should be, if Nature is consistent in her works."

One feels reminded of Macbeth's famous monologue of life being a tale told by an idiot there.

Tristram wrote: "blood stain that never comes out" motif in here. Probably Oscar Wilde got his inspiration for the Canterville Ghost from Dickens?"


I had heard (or read) that line before other than Dickens but couldn't remember where. I thought maybe a Poe story, or a Alfred Hitchcock movie.

Tristram wrote: "Ahhhh, those long-stemmed pipe and the austere English baccy"

Ahhhh, that lung cancer.

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Ahhhh, those long-stemmed pipe and the austere English baccy"

Ahhhh, that lung cancer."

If I could be absolutely sure of not getting cancer by not smoking, I'd stop it right away. But I know quite some people who never smoked and got lung cancer, and hardly any smokers who did. The problem with statistics is that they do not tell you at all what is going to happen to you personally ;-)

Tristram wrote: "Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Ahhhh, those long-stemmed pipe and the austere English baccy"

Ahhhh, that lung cancer."

If I could be absolutely sure of not getting cancer by not smoking, I'd stop i..."

No, they don't tell you what is going to happen to you personally, but if there is more of a chance of getting cancer by smoking and you don't need to smoke like you do breathe or eat, then quit doing it. You probably won't die riding a motorcycle without a helmet on either, but just wear the stupid helmet just in case. There's not a big chance of me having a seizure and falling down the stairs or drowning in a bathtub if I don't take my medicine, but I still take it just in case. Grump. :-}

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Ahhhh, those long-stemmed pipe and the austere English baccy"

Ahhhh, that lung cancer."

Now who's the grump?

Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Ahhhh, those long-stemmed pipe and the austere English baccy"

Ahhhh, that lung cancer."

Now who's the grump?"


Shouldn't you be getting ready for the game? You will be the only person I know who wants Seattle to win, that is if you are cheering on your home team. Grump.

Kim wrote: "Shouldn't you be getting ready for the game? "

What game?

Everyman wrote: "Kim wrote: "Shouldn't you be getting ready for the game? "

What game?"

Nevermind. It was awful anyway. :-}