The Pickwick Club discussion

This is the thread to discuss what happened to the Maypole, who the stranger that was so afraid of the Warren bell might have been, what to make of Mrs. Varden's apparent moral defeat - and whatever else you might find interesting.

Please do not hesitate to contribute enthusiastically!

For a start, I would like to say that I find it extremely strange that Hugh, who must really have it in for John Willet, at whose hands he underwent so much humiliation, took the most evil pleasure in destroying the old man's source of pride and content, but still he would not hear of anybody inflicting any bodily harm on his former master.

At the same time, he displayed utter ruthlessness and a vicious desire for revenge with regard to Mr. Haredale (and his possessions) although this gentleman only scorned him once.

Should he not be more hateful towards Willet, who used to order him around and insult him in front of everybody for years and years?

I found this a horribly depressing (and disturbing) set of chapters. This mob assault on not one but two essentially decent people who had done no harm whatsoever to almost any of the rioters -- I'm actually disappointed that Dickens could have such an apparently uncritical discussion of it.

And Grip is still totally absent.

One question that has bothered me. I don't recall whether we were told the religious beliefs, if any, of Mrs. Rudge, but since her husband worked for the Haredales and Mr. Haredale has supported her and cares for her quite a bit (as shown by his attempts to find her), I wonder whether she is indeed Catholic, and if so whether that had anything to do with her strong attempts to keep Barnaby from joining the anti-Popery group.

Joy wrote: "Maybe my mother's words about me were predictive or just plain true. She said, "If I said something were black, you'd say it was dark gray just to have something to argue about." "

So that's why you disagree with my posts so often, eh? [vbg!]

Everyman wrote: "I found this a horribly depressing (and disturbing) set of chapters. This mob assault on not one but two essentially decent people who had done no harm whatsoever to almost any of the rioters -- I..."

Everyman

In much of BR I'm hearing a "shifting of the gears" in that Dickens seems to be trying to move forward in his creation of characters, settings, literary devices and dialogue. Dickens is leaving the rambles of Pickwick, the early rather character-focussed and driven novels of OT, NN and TOCS and moving towards a more intense and serious social commentary. I feel he is stumbling in BR, somewhat uncertain how to successfully accomplish this transition. The Gordon Riots are an example. Certainly they breath life into a somewhat languishing narrative, but the events are rather stark, stagy and forced. the Gordon Riots are, however, an excellent crucible for what Dickens will deliver in TTC.

We are along far enough in BR to see its flaws, but at the same time, to see how it acts as a draft for the second, and, in my estimation, far more powerful and profound stage of his career that begins with DS.

Peter wrote: "We are along far enough in BR to see its flaws, but at the same time, to see how it acts as a draft for the second, and, in my estimation, far more powerful and profound stage of his career that begins with DS. "

I agree about his gradual shift from character-driven novels to social commentary novels, though he continues to create superbly drawn and memorable characters throughout. I would say less a shift from one to the other than an addition of social commentary to his character-driven novels (GE and TTC are, as I seem them, every bit as character driven as his earlier novels). But I also agree that he is starting to move in to a richer, deeper vein of writing. Which is what makes it neat to be reading the whole corpus in sequence.

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "We are along far enough in BR to see its flaws, but at the same time, to see how it acts as a draft for the second, and, in my estimation, far more powerful and profound stage of his ..."

Everyman

Yes. Reading a novelist in order, just as following an artist or musician's evolution makes for a much richer experience.

I agree :)

Joy wrote: "DS?"

Dombey and Son.

Joy wrote: "DS?"

Hi Joy

I should not be so lazy. If Dickens can write, with a quill pen, novels that are so long, surely I could write out the title in full. Dombey and Son is one of my favourite novels. I'm sure you will enjoy it too.

I agree with you, Peter, that the second half of Dickens's career as a writer is richer and superior to the first half, and maybe Martin Chuzzlewit, one of my personal favourites, is the last novel that can be counted among those of Dickens's starting years. But on the other hand, I can also see social criticism in at least one of his earlier novels, namely Oliver Twist, where it comes in such a bitter vein that, as Jean pointed out in the Oliver Twist thread, Dickens even rewarded himself by writing the Pickwick chapters afterwards.

Even in Pickwick Papers there are some tones of social criticism if you think of the debtors' prison scenes or the infamous Mr. Stiggins.

In Nicholas Nickleby you may find a lot of exuberance and farce but also some criticism of bourgeois pretentiousness and of modern businessmen and the stock exchange.

And yet, you are right, there definitely is a change of tone, quality or whatsoever between Martin Chuzzlewit and Dombey and Son.

Tristram wrote: "I agree with you, Peter, that the second half of Dickens's career as a writer is richer and superior to the first half, and maybe Martin Chuzzlewit, one of my personal favourites, is the last novel..."

Hi Tristram

First, of course, is the fact that any Dickens is a treat to read, be it a short story or novel, be it early or late in his career. .

I realize it is somewhat general to be definite and state that with Dombey and Son Dickens had finally arrived, fully born, much like Venus in the foam. It seems to me, however, that his pre-Dombey work had parts in various places and configurations that worked well, but not the full power of all oars in the water pulling in the same direction at the same time. (character development, plot, literary devices/techniques, motif, themes).

In chapter 53 of BR Dickens comments on the riots that there was "never the sense of having gone too far to be forgiven ... the great mass never reasoned or thought at all ... ." In some ways this phrase may relate to Dickens as well. In BR Dickens may go "too far" or not far enough in some of his scenes and descriptions. I believe in later works Dickens exhibits much more control over what and how he writes.

Hopefully, at the end of BR we can discuss the novel as a whole, its wonderful strengths and its (in my mind, anyway) perceived weaknesses.

I've raced through about 100 pages in the last few days to finally catch up! Phew - I can finally breathe again. :)

Well, what can I say? What ups and downs we've had in this last set of chapters. I've gone from chuckling uncontrollably - up to and during the scenes when the drunken Sim's return to and then leaves Varden's house for good - to feeling the pain when 'seeing' the Maypole being trashed and 'witnessing' the brutality of the rioters who are so possessed with rage that they have bashed the brains out of one of Haredale's employees. What a journey!

I'm still thinking Hugh has something to do with Haredale's brother or perhaps Haredale himself. This could sound a bit out there, but I'm wondering if Hugh and Barnaby are related? Brothers even? I can't wait to get to the bottom of this mystery.

Even though Dickens is in the earlier years of his writing career, I wish I could write so visually like he does. To me, whatever I read of his, I feel like he's transported me right there and I'm in the thick (or the thin) of the action.

I definitely feel the stop/start of the riot scenes. I feel that there are still so many loose ends that I'm eager to see tied up. Mind you, that's probably got more to do with my sporadic reading pattern with this book. I'm just glad to be finally where you guys are so I can join the discussion once again!

Kate wrote: "I've raced through about 100 pages in the last few days to finally catch up! Phew - I can finally breathe again. :)

Well, what can I say? What ups and downs we've had in this last set of chapte..."

Kate:

Welcome (back). Hope school and your writing is going well. We are well into BR now, and the brewing storm of the Gordon riots has finally arrived.

Gashford's question "Can you burn nothing whole?" is a frightening prod to the mindlessness of the rioters. Dennis, Hugh and the gullible Barnaby are quite the group of three amigos, aren't they? Haredale's home may well have been an obvious target, but I was somewhat surprised that The Maypole suffered as well. Hugh, unleashed, is a furious being to behold, and obviously his years of pent-up anger, frustration and hatred have found their outlet at last.

Kate wrote: "Even though Dickens is in the earlier years of his writing career, I wish I could write so visually like he does. "

Well, yes, but I wish in these (and the next few, but no spoiler) chapters he didn't write quite so visually. I'm finding this section too much.

Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "Even though Dickens is in the earlier years of his writing career, I wish I could write so visually like he does. "

Well, yes, but I wish in these (and the next few, but no spoiler) c..."

That's an interesting comment, Everyman, because of all the fiction writing books I've read of late (I'm doing a post grad writing course), they talk about allowing the reader some space to use their own imagination.

Do you think Dickens is too visual, too often, or just needs to tone it down in certain parts? I admit, although he's my favourite author, reading his work requires more energy and concentration than most. I guess because of his visual writing style.

Have you ever read Kate Chopin's The Awakening? Her writing style changes throughout, from simply telling the story, to being more involved when we see the protagonist change. It's interesting how it seems to break up the story too. You find space to breathe when she's going through the less important but necessary parts, as she tells it in a matter of fact way.

Kate wrote: "of all the fiction writing books I've read of late (I'm doing a post grad writing course), they talk about allowing the reader some space to use their own imagination."

Nice comment. Yes, Dickens doesn't leave much to the imagination (which is partly, I think, why his books are so long).

No, I haven't read The Awakening. Sounds interesting -- I wish my TBR pile weren't already long enough to last me well into my third century.

An interesting discussion! I think that an author can give a lot of detail and yet leave a lot to the imagination. So I actually liked Dickens's description of the riots as they show a lot of insight into how such mass frenzy can come to pass - I mentioned a few quotations in the last few threads. So all in all, I would not wish for less detail here at all.

But still I'd agree with you that Dickens sometimes can have left more to the imagination. I made a case for this with regard to how obvious the Joe-Dolly relationship was from the very start, i.e. it was too obvious that Joe had a crush on Dolly. And to make sure the reader would not misread Dolly's vanity as a lack of interest in Joe, Dickens had Emma say in one of the earlier chapters that she knows that Dolly is not at all indifferent to Joe.

I personally like detailed descriptions because they give me the impression of some rich texture, of reality - cf. Middlemarch -, but details can also be made to appear ambivalent so that readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.

There is another detail that strikes me, namely in Chapter 51, which also takes up the father-son-motif to a certain extent.

I found it very remarkable how patient and self-denying Gabriel Varden remained when Simon not only insulted but even physically abused him. Does this not underline the idea that Varden can be read as a positive father figure - with the exception, probably to the respect that a good father should know what is happening before his very eyes - in contrast to a more inflexible, inhumane father such as John Willet? You see I still have it in for Willet ... although he has come to grief.

Tristram wrote: "You see I still have it in for Willet"

Yes, we do see that. Clearly!

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "You see I still have it in for Willet"

Yes, we do see that. Clearly!"


Maybe I can also explain why I have it in for Willet: He embodies a combination of character traits I have always found it hard to deal with and which are bad enough individually but which usually go together. These are a stubborn form of obtuseness, which will take no advice and make no concession. This alone is bad enough, as I said, but usually it goes hand in hand with the need to boss other people around, which is grounded on the conviction of knowing it all and which leads to contentiousness, intolerance and peevishness.

This is the stuff that tyrannical and unfair old patriarchs are made of, thick-skinned and unfeeling men that lead their wives and children dog's lives and drive them out of the house - in the best of cases ... They might even love their family but this love is weaker than their need to boss them around and their conviction of their own superiority, and maybe their pleasure in putting others down.

Have we really seen any kind of humane motion in John Willet before (view spoiler)[his eyes lose "a great, round, leaden-looking, and not at all transparent tear" each that are mentioned in Chapter 56. (hide spoiler)]?

Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "You see I still have it in for Willet"

Yes, we do see that. Clearly!"


Maybe I can also explain why I have it in for Willet: He embodies a combination of charac..."

Tristram

It will be interesting to see how Dickens will finally deal with John Willet as the novel wraps up in a few weeks.

It's a long time ago I read it last, so I forgot about John Willet's end. But there's just some few more weeks to go.

Tristram wrote: "This alone is bad enough, as I said, but usually it goes hand in hand with the need to boss other people around, which is grounded on the conviction of knowing it all and which leads to contentiousness, intolerance and peevishness."

I'm not sure that's fair. He does boss around his staff, which is his right and even obligation. But he is properly deferential to his guests, as a good landlord should be. Obviously he is a successful landlord, the Maypole having lasted for many years we're told and being sought out by your own favorite, Varden, who obviously appreciates Willet's hospitality or he would patronize one of the other public houses.

I agree that he is a bit hard on Joe, but aren't many good fathers hard on their sons because they want them to succeed? (And look what happens with Varden who doesn't control his apprentice, who sneaks out at night and forges keys illegally -- a bit more of being a good boss would have been in order there. And he is so namby-pamby with Miggs, whose salary he pays but who he is willing to let make his life miserable. That is your notion of a good role model for an employer???????)

I have to chip in here. I can't let a good heated discussion pass me by. LOL!

I have to say, I much prefer Varden over Willett, by a mile.

I agree with Tristram about Willett's personality. I don't like him and think karma has bit him on the butt for his insufferable scornfulness towards others, except his paying guests, of course! I find there is nothing amiable in his character or actions, so far, worthy of reconsideration.

However, in saying that and although I do really like Varden, I have to agree with Everyman - he is a complete doormat. It just grates me, because I don't like seeing him treated like that and not doing anything about it.

So, it has me wondering, does the juxtaposition of Varden and Willett make Varden so much more palatable (for me) than he really would be, had no such character as Varden been invented?

Both of these men are small business owners and I agree they were created by Dickens, partly at least, to act as contrasts to each other. I wonder how much of their characterization is also furthered by the fact that Willett is in a rural setting and Varden is an owner of a shop in the city.

Willett seems well suited to cater to his customers be he working in either a town or city, and I doubt if Sim (and wife/Dolly) would have such a free run over Willett, his business or his household. Varden, on the other hand, would be a very congenial host of The Maypole, but I shutter to think of Hugh's reaction to such an employer.

We all love Pickwick because he is so kind and well-meaning. While Varden and Pickwick cannot be seen as twin brothers, they certainly are closely related. How can one not love Pickwick, and, by extension, Varden?

Dickens and his pairing of opposites. Another reason to enjoy his novels.

Okay, let's put it this way. If you had the chance to visit another inn, not the Maypole, and to sit in front of the fire in a contemplative and discursive mood with pipe in one hand and a jug of good beer in the other, with one person on the other side of the fire to spend the evening talking with, would you rather it be Willet or Varden, and why?

Varden. And yes, I know Willet would probably be a more interesting host and story-teller but I'm projecting to the end of the novel ;>) Cheers!

I'd also go for Varden because

a) he is not by half as self-opinionated as Willet so that there'll probably be no bloodshed betwixt us,

b) he seems to be a very entertaining companion, and there will be no long pauses in a conversation as there would be with Willet,

c) detaining him in that inn will give him some respite from his bossy wife,

d) he has a very charming daughter, whose acquaintance might be made that way.

So, Everyman, time for you to step up to the bar, have a cold beer drawn from the tap, and cast your vote. Who will it be?

Peter wrote: "So, Everyman, time for you to step up to the bar, have a cold beer drawn from the tap, and cast your vote. Who will it be?"

Okay. Actually, it would be the elder Mr. Chester, but it would not be Varden.

a) he is not by half as self-opinionated as Willet so that there'll probably be no bloodshed betwixt us,

Right. He's an intellectual marshmallow. What's the fun of talking to a marshmallow?

b) he seems to be a very entertaining companion, and there will be no long pauses in a conversation as there would be with Willet,

You consider his conversations with his wife entertaining????? Egad. Can you quote me one interesting conversation he has with anybody?

And at the end of the day, when work or travel is done and it's time to sit quietly around the alehouse fire, I appreciate slow talk, with plenty of interludes for contemplation. Maybe it's my Quaker experience, but I cherish both the conversation and the companionable silence. It's one of the things I dislike about so many people -- they can't just SHUT UP for even a moment and let people think about what they said. Obviously knowing that what they said isn't worth even a moment's thinking about, they expect you just to shoot back without any time for THINKING about what they said. Egad, person, if you can't say something worth saying, worth your companion taking in and thinking about, it's just meaningless drivel chatter, not true conversation. But I see that you reject the very idea of enjoying a few moments of peace and quiet as respites within a conversation. You want a verbal ping-pong match, which is the last thing I want when I'm relaxing after a long day.

Willet would be a MUCH more peaceful companion to sit around in front of the fire with, puffing our pipes, sipping our beer, and from time to time exchanging remarks which aren't just throw-away chatter but are worth taking in, rolling around in the mind, and when the time is ripe responding to. Sounds like heaven.

c) detaining him in that inn will give him some respite from his bossy wife,

That's the worst excuse for wanting to converse with somebody I have ever heard of. You're clutching at straws, and very weak straws at that.

d) he has a very charming daughter, whose acquaintance might be made that way.

I'm a happily married man, and plan to stay that way for at least another 30 years. Shame on you for suggesting that I should go out of my way to seek the company of a charming young woman. Shame on you.

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "So, Everyman, time for you to step up to the bar, have a cold beer drawn from the tap, and cast your vote. Who will it be?"

Okay. Actually, it would be the elder Mr. Chester, but i..."

Everyman

It was Tristram who listed the 4 reasons for Varden, not me. Perhaps a wee too many drams before your post? lol

I too would enjoy a warm fire, a good glass of red wine (merlot if possible) and some entertaining tales and stories (long and tall or short and funny) with some good cheese and nibbles. To me Varden would make a wonderful companion.

Everyman wrote: "d) he has a very charming daughter, whose acquaintance might be made that way.

I'm a happily married man, and plan to stay that way for at least another 30 years. Shame on you for suggesting that I should go out of my way to seek the company of a charming young woman. Shame on you. "

Everyman,

shame on me? Where did I suggest that you should do such a thing as to go out of your way to seek the company of a charming young woman? You were asking a hypothetical question, and I was answering it, in a rather playful mood - as my points c and d should have suggested.

All in all, I was talking about myself, who am also a happily married man, but who do not think it a breach of the marriage vow to express my admiration for a female character in a novel - all the more so as we do not have so life-like female characters in Dickens's novels very often, but rather bloodless paragons of boredom. I've just asked my wife, and she does not feel jealous of Dolly Varden at all. So no sackcloth and ashes for me, I guess ...

Peter wrote: "It was Tristram who listed the 4 reasons for Varden, not me."

True. Sorry. Though it was you who told me to step up to the plate and make my choice.

Happily married men or not, if Willet, Varden, Chester and I were sitting in the Maypole at different tables, you'd both come sit with me. Grumps. :-}

Oh, if you two didn't show up, I'd choose Willet, he doesn't talk much and I could sit in peace and read. :-}

Kim wrote: "Oh, if you two didn't show up, I'd choose Willet, he doesn't talk much and I could sit in peace and read. :-}"

Kim

Yes, I would sit with you at The Maypole. Haven't heard from you in awhile.

Kim wrote: "Happily married men or not, if Willet, Varden, Chester and I were sitting in the Maypole at different tables, you'd both come sit with me."

Well, it's true, it would be more fun to annoy you than any of the others.

Peter wrote: "Kim wrote: "Oh, if you two didn't show up, I'd choose Willet, he doesn't talk much and I could sit in peace and read. :-}"

Kim

Yes, I would sit with you at The Maypole. Haven't heard from you in..."

Hi Peter. I haven't been on much lately. I'm having a problem with migraines that will not give up the fight, and the brightness and blinking of the computer screen doesn't help. Neither does sunlight. That's one of the reasons I like winter better, its dark more. But I just had to comment when those two grumps get going. :-}

Kim wrote: "Peter wrote: "Kim wrote: "Oh, if you two didn't show up, I'd choose Willet, he doesn't talk much and I could sit in peace and read. :-}"

Kim

Yes, I would sit with you at The Maypole. Haven't hea..."

Kim

Take care my friend.

Kim wrote: "Peter wrote: "Kim wrote: "Oh, if you two didn't show up, I'd choose Willet, he doesn't talk much and I could sit in peace and read. :-}"

Kim

Yes, I would sit with you at The Maypole. Haven't hea..."

Hi Kim,

I hope your migraines will not stay for much longer. I've got some from time to time and find it impossible to read things from computer screens then. Therefore thank you very much for offering your table to us. Of course, I'd prefer you to either Willet or Varden and I wouldn't even mind you reading. If it were Dickens you could even read it aloud.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I am finding this story too sad right now. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Willet, he doesn't deserve all this. Everything he had toiled for in tatters, he sits bound as a helpless baby. I just want to cut the ropes and free him.

The sacking of Haredale's house reeks of evil. I could almost smell the black smoke and taste it. Uncomfortably realistic.

Hilary

When Dickens is on top of his game, as, naturally, he almost always is, his writing is great. It's good to see you expanding into character likes/dislikes. As you round out to the end of the novel I hope you enjoy our discussions of who is the most evil character.

I look forward to your opinions.

Thanks Peter. I sort of want the pain to end, but then I guess there would be no point in reading if I always felt that way about tough story lines.

I know this was months ago, but I do feel as if I'm reading it alongside you all right now. Weird. I'm slightly ahead of the end of this thread - a couple of chapters - and am loving this novel! I can remember having previously said here that I didn't feel historical novels were Dickens's forte - well I now wish I could take that back as the descriptions of the riots are so powerful and intense. Yet his quirky humour is present too, in all the eccentric characters and environments. I know of no other author who can do this quite so well. This is my second reading of the novel (first was audio) and I am savouring every word.

There's a definite switch in this second part - it's far more savage, and now I realise Charles Dickens's inspired choice of a simple-minded man for his focus character - it points up the ridiculousness of both the warring factions - ie the situation itself. Not only has Lord George Gordon (who is in this story presented as a deranged leader of the rioters) been sadly misinformed by his henchmen, but just in case anyone missed that, we have what Dickens calls a "natural" at the head of the riots, and standing guard over the treasure, ready to carry the can for all misdemeanours. And Grip of course provides a perfect foil - someone for him to pour his heart out to - all his steadfastness and determination - all his hopes of making his mother proud of him. Now he and Grip are both in (view spoiler)[Newgate prison (hide spoiler)] and I want to weep for the deliberate manipulation and contrived destruction of such innocent joy in life.

We all know Charles Dickens's original title for this novel was "Gabriel Varden - The Locksmith of London", but by altering the title itself - even if he did not include any more episodes about Barnaby - he has made his readers focus more on Barnaby Rudge. Just brilliant!

It's also occurred to me that although everyone was talking about how visual the descriptions of the riots are - they are both immediate and very vivid - the detailed discussion is still on characterisation and the lingering mysteries of the plot. It's almost as if we can't bear to dissect what makes the descriptions of the riots so powerful. Like Everyman I do find them very grim.