The Pickwick Club discussion

Dear Fellow Pickwickians,

we have finally come to the core of the novel, i.e. to where the riots begin: I'm sure there is a lot to comment on and to discuss here.

For a start, I'd like to give a quotation that really made me laugh out loud for something like a minute at the breakfast table yesterday. It is the scene when Mr. Haredale wants to offer Hugh a drink, and it goes like this,

"'Stay,' said Mr. Haredale. 'Will this man drink?'
'Drink! He'd drink the Thames up, if it was strong enough, sir,' replied John Willet." (p.330)

It is quite noteworthy that for all the slowness of spirit Dickens never tires to impute to the landlord, he surely comes up with some gems of wit from time to time.

I roll with laughter alot when reading dickens. Sim with the paper cup stuck to his head. Arms akimbo!! His wonderful legs. I rolled!

When joe gets settled into the lion for the night after leaving home for good there is a mention that he is alert for his dad to come fetch him. It's a moment that is small and subtle. Never expounded on really but gives so much depth to the characters. His father treats him like a child but won't act like a child's father. Inside joe expects his dad to come because that is what a dad would do for a child. But john W is accountable for nothing, in his own mind. Poor joe is so lost. He's a bit tougher than I expected, though. Dolly adding insult to injury. He still walked away head held high.

Joy wrote: "Ugh, Dolly is about as empty headed as could be in this section.

Loved the part about the notice of Joe's disappearance in the Maypole, especially the part about his height. Having an 18yo myself..."

Hello Joy,

this is really a heart-rending passage, poor Joe going to see Dolly in order to get some encouraging remark from her, and she behaving like a heartless coquettish goose. It surely reminded me of a situation of my earlier years, when I was a promising young lad ;-) but there are strings in the human heart that had better not be wibrated ;-)

Christine wrote: "I roll with laughter alot when reading dickens. Sim with the paper cup stuck to his head. Arms akimbo!! His wonderful legs. I rolled!"

I wonder if the paper hat was not something that apprentices had to wear at that time? Normally Kim is able to dig out appropriate information from the depths of the Net ...

It's also interesting to note, I think, that Dickens seems to want to present Lord George more as the victim of his own delusions and of the evil, conniving machinations of his secretary than of base political ambition. Gashford, on the contrary, is revolting from the word go - even his outward appearance leaves no doubts in the matter.

John Grueby seems to be a good-hearted man, who is torn between loyalty towards his master and abhorrence at the political enterprise his master has engaged in.

Tristram wrote: "I wonder if the paper hat was not something that apprentices had to wear at that time? Normally Kim is able to dig out appropriate information from the depths of the Net ......"

This one wasn't easy, here you go:


The Rise of the Paper Hats


Today, paper hats are most often worn for a bit of fun at parties, or are made for a child by parent or grandparent for some make-believe playtime. But during the Regency, paper hats were regularly worn by working men in a number of trades. In fact, the wearing of such hats had only begun a few years before the Prince of Wales became Regent. It was during that second decade of the nineteenth century that the use of these hats became much more widespread among an expanding number of craftsmen and tradesmen. But these hats were not worn for fun, they had a much more serious purpose. It should be noted that the wearing of these hats seems to have been confined to English working men.

When paper hats were for work, not play …



There is some evidence that paper hats were first worn in the last few years of the eighteenth century, quite probably by men working in the carpentry trades, almost certainly in London. By the turn of the nineteenth century, they had become common headwear for men in a number of trades which involved a high level of manual labor, and their use was expanding across the country. By the Regency, these paper hats were worn by men working not only in the carpentry and woodworking trades, but also by paper-stainers, chandlers, braziers, glass blowers, house painters, printers and paper-makers, among others.

There were a couple of reasons why craftsmen and tradesmen chose to wear these paper hats. For carpenters, house painters and paper-stainers, these paper hats protected their hair from sawdust and paint spatters. This was especially important at a time when people did not, could not, wash their hair every day. Printers, glass blowers, and brasiers, among others, worked with tools and equipment in which no one would ever want to get their hair entangled. During an era when many men still wore their hair fairly long, the risk of an accident while working with their hair loose was quite high. Their hair could be tucked up inside their paper hat where it would be out of the way and safe from danger. Paper was also absorbent, which was a convenient feature in these paper hats, since the bands, which were usually of multiple layers, could absorb a signifcant amount of persperation for those working in a warm workshop. By the Regency, the wearing of these paper hats may have also become something of a status symbol, or a hallmark of their trade, for these craftsmen.

Though paper was still fairly expensive during the Regency, prices were lower than they had been in the eighteenth century since more parts of the paper-making process were becoming mechanized. Despite the fact that paper was no longer a very labor-intensive, fully hand-made product, it was still made almost completely of linen rags until several decades after the Regency came to a close. Paper made of 100% linen is extremely strong and flexible, therefore hats made from it would be quite sturdy and could be worn for some time, depending upon the care taken of them. Linen paper was also very absorbent and remained strong even when wet, making it an ideal material from which to make protective hats for hard-working craftsmen and tradesmen.

Some craftsmen may have folded their own paper hats. However, there is tantalizing evidence that these special hats were available for sale, ready-made, but only from certain hat-makers, and probably quietly, on the side. There are no advertizements in period newspapers which have been found from hatters offering paper hats for sale. However, there are a few advertisements from upscale hat-makers in which they specifically state, "No Paper Hats Sold." The suggestion is that these paper hats were only sold to manual laborers of the lower classes, probably by a few hatters known to them. Therefore, those hatters had no need to advertize their paper wares since the working men who needed them knew where to go to get their hats. More than likely, it was by word of mouth that these craftsmen and tradesmen directed those new to their trades to the few hatters which provided paper hats. Those hat-makers who did make paper hats chose not to advertize them for fear of alienating their higher class customers, who might then have taken their trade elsewhere.

Guiness World Records tells us:

The most people wearing paper hats simultaneously is 1,155 and was achieved by MSSL Mideast (FZE) in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, on 22 February 2013.

The 1,155 participants wore the paper hats for 15 minues and 8 seconds. :-}

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "I wonder if the paper hat was not something that apprentices had to wear at that time? Normally Kim is able to dig out appropriate information from the depths of the Net ......"

T..."

Kim

My hat (oh my, here it comes) is off to you for finding this information. I love all your esoteric facts. ;)

*groan*

But oh my! I feel extremely informed now. And to think I probably would have assumed it was a dunce's cap or something...

Jean wrote: "*groan*

But oh my! I feel extremely informed now. And to think I probably would have assumed it was a dunce's cap or something..."

Blame it all on Tristram, he's the one that "dared" me to find it. :-}

Well, here we are at last with Lord Gordon riding onto the scene. Perhaps the action will heat up soon. It's too bad that Joe Willet, one of the good guys, has left the plot for now, but I doubt if Dickens is finished with him yet.

Hugh seems to be stepping up to the front more, and with Lord Gordon having Hugh say "what a hard master you are" it seems Dickens is setting the stage for something grand.

I enjoy looking for patterns and inter-text similarities. It could be just me but I found the Lord Gordon - Hugh situation within the context of BR starting to evolve like the Caliban scenes in Shakespeare's The Tempest. Lord Gordon arrives on the scene, lures the strong but somewhat simple local resident from his long time master with sweet talk, strong liquor and empty promises, and then unleashes him upon the established order of society. The storm clouds are gathering now.

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "I wonder if the paper hat was not something that apprentices had to wear at that time? Normally Kim is able to dig out appropriate information from the depths of the Net ......"

T..."


Thanks a lot, Kim! You are a treasure-finding treasure!

Peter wrote: "Well, here we are at last with Lord Gordon riding onto the scene. Perhaps the action will heat up soon. It's too bad that Joe Willet, one of the good guys, has left the plot for now, but I doubt ..."

Although one should be careful not to fully blame Lord Gordon himself for this sort of rebel-rousing. After all, he seems to be under the spell of that crafty secretary with the protruding - Dickens inimitably uses the adjective "beetling" at least once - brow, who urges him on whenever he expresses doubts.

I think the link to Shakespeare can be made since Dickens with all his interest in matters thespian and theatrical would surely have known him by rote.

Tristram wrote: "Peter wrote: "Well, here we are at last with Lord Gordon riding onto the scene. Perhaps the action will heat up soon. It's too bad that Joe Willet, one of the good guys, has left the plot for now..."

Yes. Lord Gordon's secretary is being crafted to be a nasty piece of work.

Tristram wrote: "It's also interesting to note, I think, that Dickens seems to want to present Lord George more as the victim of his own delusions and of the evil, conniving machinations of his secretary than of ba..."


That Gashford is going to be horrible and should be introduced to Lord Chester and Sim quickly. They can form some sort of obnoxious people club.

Dickens can't do too much surprising with Gordon. Lord Gordon , being a real person , was if fact an idiot. A real doofus .He has a blind eye with regards to what his recruiters are up to. They are enlisting uneducated illiterate persons who don't even know what Gordon is talking about. All they know is that they are going to kick ass for what ever their individual beefs are. There's no rhyme or reason. Villagers with pitch forks and anger. That's it.

Christine wrote: "Dickens can't do too much surprising with Gordon. Lord Gordon , being a real person , was if fact an idiot. A real doofus .He has a blind eye with regards to what his recruiters are up to. They ar..."

Hi Christine

Don't you think that in the past, as well as in the present, individuals who form into groups and then form into mobs become caught up in the moment, somewhat swept up with the primal energy a mob seems to generate. When the individual's intelligence is swamped by the mob's psyche, individual people often act in unusual and uncharacteristic ways.

Whether a person means to or not, "group think" replaces logic. I would like to think I'm a rather calm rational person, but confess that yesterday the Olympic hockey game between Canada and the USA turned me (momentarily) rather rabid. ;>) I was just sitting on my couch at home, but yelling and jumping up and down. Fortunately, all our neighbours were , too.

I would venture that 100% of the time the mob rallies with sheer primal angst. Everyone on a different page! Human nature. My husband is a poster child for it. If someone is riled up about something he jumps in and within three sentences he is all heated up , going on and on about something else that has him pissed. He thinks he's on the same page , though!!! He'd have fit right into this book!

I am a nauseatingly easy going person. Happy ALL THE TIME. 3 yrs ago my house burned to the ground. That didn't even dampen my spirits.

Mob mentality. Cleansing the hive. Makes me think of Quatermass And The Pit by Nigel Kneale (much under-rated SF writer.)

Christine wrote: "I would venture that 100% of the time the mob rallies with sheer primal angst. Everyone on a different page! Human nature. My husband is a poster child for it. If someone is riled up about somethin..."

Christine

I wish I could have a wee bit of your eternal optimism. I try, but stumble too often.

I have to confess that my demeanor is genetic or natural. I have been this way my whole life . My mother will attest to that. I don't try. Perhaps you can implement that theory. When you get heated up with an issue say to yourself, "I just don't have any time to try to form those thoughts! I will switch my brain to something enriching or fun. I should clean out that closet and give to the poor. Reclaim my spaces. Or something productive. " There is so much stuff in a brain you can just change it up. Or you can come to the realization that no one really cares about what bugs you. People do what they do etc no matter what you think. So , give the hell up. Smile. And infect people with that. Very catchy and free and easy.

Disclaimer.


Happy and positive are not to be confused with being particularly moral or Pius or what have you. I have been described as insensitive and harsh. And my level of self confidence prevents me from being humble. I'm proud of that.

Here's one of my favorite parts from Chapter 31 when the sergeant is trying to recruit Joe:

"It was all drinking, he said, except that there were frequent intervals of eating and love-making. A battle was the finest thing in the world--when your side won it-- and Englishmen always did that."

This from Chapter 33 is my very favorite kind of weather:

"One wintry evening, early in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty, a keen north wind arose as it grew dark, and night came on with black and dismal looks. A bitter storm of sleet, sharp, dense, and icy-cold, swept the wet streets, and rattled on the trembling windows."

Peter wrote: "Hugh seems to be stepping up to the front more, and with Lord Gordon having Hugh say "what a hard master you are" it seems Dickens is setting the stage for something grand."

With Lord Gordon and Hugh prominent in this revolt, its failure is a forgone conclusion.

Kim wrote: "...Despite the fact that paper was no longer a very labor-intensive, fully hand-made product, it was still made almost completely of linen rags.."

This is the key. They weren't paper hats as we know paper today. They were more like the paper of paper money, which is still made largely of rags. Considering how well paper money stands up to handling, it's not surprising that a hat made of linen fiber paper would hold up well, and easy enough to fold and make.

Peter wrote: "I was just sitting on my couch at home, but yelling and jumping up and down."

Oh, Peter, say it isn't so! For a Canadian to act that way? Are you really a transported American at heart??

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "I was just sitting on my couch at home, but yelling and jumping up and down."

Oh, Peter, say it isn't so! For a Canadian to act that way? Are you really a transported American at ..."

Somewhere, deep inside all true Canadians, resides a hockey gene. Of course, being a good Canadian, immediately after jumping up and down on the couch, I apologized to the couch, to the rug the couch sits on, and to the TV.

Peter wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "I was just sitting on my couch at home, but yelling and jumping up and down."

Oh, Peter, say it isn't so! For a Canadian to act that way? Are you really a transpo..."

Which team were you cheering for anyway? :-}

Kim wrote: "Peter wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "I was just sitting on my couch at home, but yelling and jumping up and down."

Oh, Peter, say it isn't so! For a Canadian to act that way? Are you re..."

Hi Kim

I cheered, naturally, for Canada. ;>)

Gold metals for both Canada's men's and women's hockey and gold metals for both men's and women's curling. It's all about the ice. Ice and winter. With all this cold weather and ice up here, not to mention the North Pole, I'm surprised you don't come north for a vacation in the winter. Perhaps someday ...

I hate to break up this hockey/curling lovefest (especially since curling is my favorite winter sport to watch; I just love the combination of athleticism and strategy), but back to BR:

In Chapter 33 Solomon tells about hearing "that voice" and almost running into " the man (the murdered man???) he met at night outside the church, and then when Willet in Chapter 34 decides to go tell Mr. Haredale about it, and as he was leaving "John saw with wonder (as he often afterwards related), that he was very pale, and that his face had changed so much and grown so haggard since their entrance, that he almost seemed another man."

What are we supposed to make of this? Who was this man (I refuse to believe it was a ghost), and why was Haredale so upset by being told about it?

Everyman wrote: "I hate to break up this hockey/curling lovefest (especially since curling is my favorite winter sport to watch; I just love the combination of athleticism and strategy), but back to BR:

In Chapter..."

No more ice.

Ghosts are generally from one's past. Marley is a fine Dickens example. Ghosts are from the time that was. I'm thinking, if the Dickens ACC pattern is repeated, that the present, and the future of some of our characters in BR are very close to having their lives rocked. Ah, a subtle curling word for my neighbour ;>)

Peter wrote: " Ah, a subtle curling word for my neighbour ;>) "

You had to slide that in, didn't you? Now it's your in-turn. [g]

In Chapter 33 Solomon says of this "man":

It was bare-headed to the storm. It turned its face without stopping, and fixed its eyes on mine. It was a ghost-- a spirit.'

also John Willet then says:

'Gentlemen,' said Mr Willet after a long pause, 'you needn't ask. The likeness of a murdered man. This is the 19th of March.'

So of course it was a ghost, what's the matter with ghosts, don't you like them? My question is which murdered man is it the first Mr. Haredale or Mr. Rudge?

I was amused to find in the same chapter that Mr. Parkes already has a ghost in his family:

... who quoted a great many precedents to show that bad weather was the very time for such appearances; and Mr Parkes (who had had a ghost in his family, by the mother's side) argued the matter with so much ingenuity and force of illustration, that John was only saved from having to retract his opinion by the opportune appearance of supper....

I would throw in some comment about sweeping ice or some such thing but I can't think of any. :-}

Kim wrote: "So of course it was a ghost, what's the matter with ghosts, don't you like them? "

It's not a matter of liking, but of how far I'm willing to suspend disbelief.

But perhaps it matters more to the text that those at the Maypole, and probably Mr. Haredale, believe in them.

But I'll be looking to see whether a more corporeal explanation comes forth at some point in the book.

Since Barnaby Rudge was lost sight of for good and all—and that's five years ago

Since the book is named after Barnaby, and we really haven't seen much of him yet, I have to assume that he will re-emerge at some point. But there sure is a lot happening without involving the title character.

Everyman wrote: "Since Barnaby Rudge was lost sight of for good and all—and that's five years ago

Since the book is named after Barnaby, and we really haven't seen much of him yet, I have to assume that he will re..."

It is funny you should say that, Everyman, because last night when I finished this week's assignment I thought exactly the same. So it's probably true that grumpy men think alike :-) But no worries! Barnaby will reappear, although I must say I think the title a misnomer.

Was it not Kim pointed out that originally the title should have been "Gabriel Varden, locksmith of London"? However, I do not think that Varden is the main character of this tale. There hardly seems to be a main character maincharacterish enough to lay a justified claim to be the eponymous hero.

I always think that about Adam Bede by George Eliot . The book should really have been called "Hettie Sorrel"! In fact there are probably quite a few novels where we would challenge the title character's right to it!

It is probably also to do with the fact that Dickens's earlier works were often not carefully planned and developed as he wrote them. So he was unable to change the title when he saw that the focus of the novel drifted away from the eponymous hero eventually. The infamous ;-) TOCS is also a good example of this as it hardly plays a role in the story at all.

Yes, he did quite well with Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby really, which both came earlier than either of those.

I do take the point though, Tristram, as he was actually trying to do something very new to him with Barnaby Rudge. It must have been a constant source of frustration to him that he was frequently writing to monthly deadlines with maybe only a sketchy plan in his mind of where the plot would go.

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: " Ah, a subtle curling word for my neighbour ;>) "

You had to slide that in, didn't you? Now it's your in-turn. [g]"

Everyman

No more curling talk or we will both be hacked up and then swept away.

Jean wrote: "I always think that about Adam Bede by George Eliot . The book should really have been called "Hettie Sorrel"! In fact there are probably quite a few novels where we wo..."

That might make a fun parlor game. "What's a better title for [name of book].

Peter wrote: "Everyman

No more curling talk or we will both be hacked up and then swept away. "

Okay. I agree it should end.

I find myself agreeing with both Everyman and Tristram once again. It's unfortunate, but true. As Everyman pointed out we haven't seen much of the title character lately, in fact until he mentioned it I had mostly forgotten there was a Barnaby. So it seems like the book should be named after someone else, but as Tristram said there doesn't seem to be a main character maincharacterish enough to have the book named after them. Although I do have my doubts whether maincharacterish is a word. :-}

So my suggestions for renaming the novel would be:

"The Maypole" it seems to be the one place at least that's in the novel fairly often, I think just about everyone in the book has been in it at one time or another; or.....

"Fathers and Sons" and yes I know I'm stealing the title, but we talk more about Chester and Edward or Joe and John Willet than anyone else.

Thinking of stealing titles, "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest" is taken yet that is still the title of my diary. :-}

Kim wrote: "Although I do have my doubts whether maincharacterish is a word. :-} "

Now as I come to think about it, of course it's no proper word. It should be maincharacteresque.

Alternative titles for the novel could also be,

"The Chester-Haredale Feud", and for a film one could probably get Kevin Costner to star in it because he did so in "Hatfields and McCoys";

or still, more ambiguously and thus more apt to cover more of the conflicts, "Families at War";

"The Mysterious Stranger" would be taken from Mark Twain, but since Dickens's novel was published earlier, it would be Twain who would have stolen the title then ;-)

Tristram wrote: "Alternative titles for the novel could also be,

"The Chester-Haredale Feud", and for a film one could probably get Kevin Costner to star in it because he did so in "Hatfields and McCoys";

or stil..."

Nice alternatives Tristram

Kim wrote: "I find myself agreeing with both Everyman and Tristram once again. It's unfortunate, but true. As Everyman pointed out we haven't seen much of the title character lately, in fact until he mention..."

I'm liking this renaming idea. Should we backdate the idea to PP or just start now?

Peter, Tristram, Kim, Everyman - Good idea for a new thread, maybe? I think some titles may need a little more thought than the time a parlour game might give you. Maybe prospective titles could even be voted on?

I'd be tempted to include other great novels though, as I think some of Dickens's can't be improved on, especially if one includes the subheading. What about Dickens's original title of,

"David Copperfield or The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (which he never meant to publish on any account)"

Hmm. Maybe it could be limited to Dickens after all then :D