Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We're at the halfway point in the book and things are happening.

I'll do summaries soon, just back from the mainland and no time now, but I'm not going to summarize Chapter 29. Too important a chapter to summarize, a cliffhanger if there ever was one. Dickens is certainly highly suggestive, but is he definitive? Is what he's suggesting really what is the actual case? Or will he sneak in a twist somehow????

Have fun.

Chapter 29 brings some major revelations. But one is entitled to ask, I think, what Dickens is saying and not saying, and whether the implications are true or not.

So I'm issuing a sort of friendly challenge to first time readers who haven't read far enough ahead to know the answers.

1. What exactly do you now think is the relationship among the characters which are discussed by Guppy and Lady Dedlock?

2. How confident are you that you are right about your conclusion? Is it possible that Dickens is throwing out a red herring? Or are you pretty confident that you understand correctly what the history is of these characters?

3. If you had been an original reader and had to wait a month before getting the next chapters, would you see this as a great cliff-hanger that makes you eager to grab the next episode to find out what really happened, or would you feel that now you know, and just wonder where Dickens can go now?

This is all fun and games -- nobody will be graded on their answers and whether they turn out to be right or wrong. I'm just interested in how this chapter is viewed by first time readers.

Episode 9, published in November, 1852, included four instead of the usual three chapters.

Chapter 26 opens with one of those delightful comments on the inhabitants of Leicester Square, its residents “skulking more or less under false names, false hair, false titles, false jewellery, and false histories,” those who call themselves gentlemen who are more evil and criminal than those who wind up in Newgate prison. Personally, I find these narratorial interludes one of the richer parts of Dickens generally, and Bleak House in particular, where I find Dickens at his peak.
But onward to the story. Mr. George and Phil arise, and during breakfast discuss the country (and Phil mentions the marshes, which will be a recognized reference to Dickens’s readers in his day and today to any readers of Great Expectations.) We learn of Phil’s history as a tinker – will this become relevant in time? – and how he and “commander” met.
But into this quiet morning at home comes Grandfather Smallweed. It must be a visit of major importance to stir him from his home and hearth, and it takes some time for him to sidle into the point of his visit, which starts with a brief mention of loans to Richard Carstone (the debt that Esther was so concerned about earlier), but soon passes on to Captain Hawdon. A lawyer (can we guess who??) claims to believe that Hawdon is alive and wants something in his handwriting t verify that. (Hmmm. Where have we come across handwriting before?) Eventually Mr. George selects some letters and is prepared to go with Smallweed to see who wants them and why before he is willing to hand them over. And so off they go.

Chapter 28 continues this episode with their journey ending at Mr. Tulkinghorn’s office which, before T arrives, Mr. George examines, taking note of deed boxes with Sir Leicester Dedlock’s name on them. Mr. Tulkinghorn arrives, and we have some verbal fencing during which Mr. George may feel smothered but seems to acquit himself just fine. T and S have a private colloquy during which S advocates but T rejects the use of violence to obtain the papers G is carrying, and even though S promises to “screw him” and make him give them up, George leaves the office with the papers still safely in pocket.
George works his way to a musician’s shop, where he is greeted with the delightful “George, I never see you but I wish you was a hundred mile away.” Ah, what a nice welcome! But George is nonetheless clearly a well known friend of the Bagnet family, and once Mrs. Bagnet is finished washing greens, they consult. And Mr Bagnet (naturally through his wife) offers advice that would be good for anyone in any quandary to follow: “to do nothing in the dark, to be a party to nothing underhanded or mysterious, and never to put his foot where he cannot see the ground.” And so George tells Tulkinghorn no, and home to bed.
Personally, I enjoyed Mrs. Bagnet and would like to see more of her, but I fear she may have played her small part and been shunted off the stage. But we’ll see.

From the energetic Mr. George we move in chapter 28 to Sir Leicester and his ancient family curse, the gout. We are apparently back in fall, as we were at the start of the book (how many year have passed, I wonder?) where the waters are out on the land and the cold and damp prevail. There is a party at Chesney Wold of some of Sir L’s multitudinous poor relations, during which we hear of Sir L’s dismay at the country’s going to pieces. And that very evening he must have an interview with a former son of his housekeeper who has, egad and horrors, been invited to stand for Parliament. What is the country coming to? And this man seeks for his son the hand of that Rosa of whom Lady D has become so fond, and proposes – comparing Chesney Wold and a factory! – to take Rosa and have her further educated, giving the absolute insult that a girl educated well enough to be of service to Lady D and in a school sponsored by Sir L is not well enough educated to be the wife of a housekeeper’s grandson. Can the foundations get any more shaken?
Of course he is dismissed. But Lady D finds that Rosa really is ready to be in love, and she will make her happy “if I can make anybody happy on this earth.” Is she thinking of Rosa? Or is she perhaps thinking more of herself?
Oh, Sir Leicester, it is time for you to weep for what is becoming of your country.

I'm not going to summarize Chapter 29 and the visit of the odious Guppy because I don't want to inflict my own interpretation of events on the group. But I will ask who thinks that Guppy will eventually prevail in his desire to marry Esther?

Why is Guppy odious? He's certainly not as shady as Tulkinghorn. I dislike Skimpole more than Guppy. Since you asked, it seems like we've received enough hints to figure out Esther ends up with the doctor. Esther's conversation with the mom was a give away. Plus, there's been too deliberate an attempt to shroud him in mystery. So, I speculate Guppy fails in his quest for Esther. I think by this point in the story we've received enough clues to put the pieces of the rest of the story together too. (And these aren't spoilers - I haven't read ahead). After reading chapter 29 it's obvious Lady Dedlock had a relationship with Nemo and gave the resulting child, Esther, to her sister. Esther probably gets a settlement from the lawsuit that will finally be settled. Her and Woodcourt live happily ever after. Now for 500 pages of resolution...

Jeremy wrote: "Why is Guppy odious? He's certainly not as shady as Tulkinghorn. I dislike Skimpole more than Guppy. Since you asked, it seems like we've received enough hints to figure out Esther ends up with th..."

You're too optimistic, Jeremy. I agree that this is what Dickens wants his readers to think at this stage, but I'm not sure it will actually fall out like that. One thing that I think is crucial: we haven't successfully identified Nemo as Captain Hawdon, the all-important letters that will allow us to do so are either missing, burnt up in mysterious circumstances, or safe in the hands of recalcitrant captains who refuse to give them over. And yet by now everyone (I mean characters in the book — but I suspect most readers as well) is convinced Nemo is Hawdon.

One question: both Guppy and Tulkinghorn are after the letters. Who will get them eventually?

Actually, I think I'm too cynical. I want there to be more plot twists and not hundreds of pages of tying up loose ends. I'd be pleasantly surprised if I was wrong about Esther. But I don't think I'm wrong. However, unless this is a much better "mystery" than Great Expectations, we already know how the main plot wraps up. Hopefully the last half of the book doesn't drag. Here's what I'd like to see in the remainder of the book: Mr. Turveydrop (with great deportment, of course) dies, leaving the young Turveydrops to their own happily ever after. Mr. Smallweed is financially ruined. George is prosperous. Tulkinghorn is disgraced. Lady Dedlock is reconciled to Esther. Charley, after receiving an education from Esther, becomes governess for Mr. Jellyby since Mrs. Jellyby has finally left for Africa, never to be heard from again. Richard and Ada end up together after all.

Most of those wishes are sentimental, and since I don't think Dickens is particularly sentimental, they won't happen. But, I'm confident that Esther ends up with some sort of financial settlement and the doctor.

Jeremy @4 wrote: "Why is Guppy odious? He's certainly not as shady as Tulkinghorn. I dislike Skimpole more than Guppy."

Guppy is indeed odious, but I don't find Tulkinghorn to be shady. He is purusing something, he knows even more than he is yet letting on (I think), but given he is a solicitor I find it all within the bounds of his job. Skimpole is a deadbeat, I am going to be so disapointed if he turns out to be anything else.


Summarising what Jeremy (@4) has said, Lady Dedlock and Captain Hawdon (Nemo) had a child (Esther Hawdon/Summerson). The child was secreted away by Lady Dedlock's sister who was told that the child died in childbirth.

However I disagree with David (@5) "You're too optimistic, Jeremy. I agree that this is what Dickens wants his readers to think at this stage, but I'm not sure it will actually fall out like that." because Dickens always has the happy ending. He always lets the two most worthy characters come together in the end. We get lots of shocks and revelations along the way, but at the end of the day the book will be exactly what we hoped...Esther will marry the man she loves and inherit lots of money...

David wrote (@4): "One thing that I think is crucial: we haven't successfully identified Nemo as Captain Hawdon, the all-important letters that will allow us to do so are either missing, burnt up in mysterious circumstances, or safe in the hands of recalcitrant captains who refuse to give them over. And yet by now everyone (I mean characters in the book — but I suspect most readers as well) is convinced Nemo is Hawdon."

Do you have a deeper theory?

The burnt letters were in the handwriting of a lady, presumably Lady Dedlock (or her sister?). So it may have been in the interests of some parties to the Jarndyce case to have them burnt (as the addition of Esther would add a further party to the case). I still has suspicians that Nemo was murdered, so perhaps the same person is responsible.

At this stage I agree that there is more to unravel, but 500 pages isn't much given that Dickens spends over half the novel talking about figures that are not integral to the plot (e.g. Turveydrop). So I am fairly set upon the truth about Esther being revealed to the readers (and to a few characters), the next part of the story will be about if and how Esther is able to discover this.

Who wants Esther to know, and who doesn't. Funny, I don't think Lady Dedlock is overly interested in revealing herself. She is a lady afterall, and this child is the product of an affair (or where they married secretly).

Jeremy wrote @4: "Here's what I'd like to see in the remainder of the book: Mr. Turveydrop (with great deportment, of course) dies, leaving the young Turveydrops to their own happily ever after. Mr. Smallweed is financially ruined. George is prosperous. Tulkinghorn is disgraced. Lady Dedlock is reconciled to Esther. Charley, after receiving an education from Esther, becomes governess for Mr. Jellyby since Mrs. Jellyby has finally left for Africa, never to be heard from again. Richard and Ada end up together after all."

lol, this is brilliant. I agree on with you on most points. I would see Tulkinghorn continue on in his usual way, Lady Dedlock removed (dead or else some plot twist) to get her out of the way so Esther can inherit and marry her beloved Doctor... though I kind of want to see the doctor snubbed just so that his mother can seethe at a well-contented and very worthy woman getting away.

On that note, we haven't heard from the french ladiesmaid for a while. Will she has some dirt to dish, or is her bit over?

I am shocked to find that I have caught up with the group. I enjoyed this section, particular the first couple of chapters.

I did love the description of Mr George and Phil and it struck me as a sad lot in life as well.

They live in their workplace and roll up their bedding in the morning. They wash outside under a tap, and eat in a small room. It reminds me very much of the slums of India, the way the small workshops become places to sleep and live as bedrolls are rolled out of a nighttime.

I did love the image of the two of them. Mr George typifying the army/navy type, strutting around half naked (to be truthful I imagined him doing the entire washing scene fully naked, that was the attitude he displayed), attacking his hair, grooming himself. Like his saw the cold water (this is winter in England afterall) as a means to fortify himself for the day.

I loved the relationship that they have (such a contrast to a similiar relationship in Turveydrop and son).

Further down I am impressed at Mr George. He put the letter in his breastpocket and went to visit Tulkinghorn. He wanted only a good honest explanation. In fact if Tulkinghorn or Smallweed (what was Smallweed getting out of it?) had simply be able to give an honest explanation then the letter would have been handed over. Again, why was Smallweed even in the room during the conversation. I get the impression that he was doing all of this for a finder's fee, but surely that would warrant more being in the waiting room while the George and Tulkinghorn conversed in the office. Gosh, George even made the comment about feeling smothered... Could Tulkinghorn really be unable to read a situation and work it to his advantage... the letter was right there in his office!

Absolutely loved Mr Rouncewell (the housekeeper's son), I loved his explanations and I loved that Lady Dedlock took offense.

Why did Guppy go to visit Lady Dedlock? She had nothing to offer him, and why would he want to show her the letters? He doesn't have enough information yet and risks coming up against enemies who may want the secret hidden (he does not yet know if Lady Dedlock is fully aware of the situation).

Was he going there just to read her face?

If I were him, and I were in love with Esther, and I was hoping this would get her to have feelings toward me.... then I would go to Esther. I would present the information to her, I would offer my services to her.

What does it mean when Lady Dedlock says, about her sister that she "Renounced me and my name". I am very curious about this exchange.

The bit with Esther getting sick was kind of dumb, unless there is more to it. Even her comment about being blind... I mean the narrative is being written by Esther, so kind of kills any suspense about all of that.

Was the whole purpose of all of that just to get Jo to see Esther in full garb and misidentify her as Lady Dedlock? Seems like a lot of effort to go to if that was the case.

Finally.. I watched a documentary a long long time ago about "spontaneous human combustion" and it left me very scared for a long time. (I was in my early teens at the time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontane...

Cass wrote: "The burnt letters were in the handwriting of a lady, presumably Lady Dedlock (or her sister?). So it may have been in the interests of some parties to the Jarndyce case to have them burnt (as the addition of Esther would add a further party to the case). I still has suspicians that Nemo was murdered, so perhaps the same person is responsible."

But who was responsible? I don't think many people at this stage knew of the letters, or that Nemo was potentially the same as Captain Hawdon. Guppy and Tulkinghorn seem to know by this stage, but Guppy had other plans to get his hands on the letters and was in any case in the building with Weevle/Jobling. I don't think Tulkinghorn is likely either – if anything it would be in his interest as a lawyer to add an extra party to the suit. Captain George might have worked it out from what he has been told, but he seems to want to stay out of the business, unless that is a feint. He was however owed money by Hawdon so that is potential motive for uncovering the letters. I still think each of those can be discounted, as they would have wanted to posses the letters, not destroy them.

That leaves one person, Lady Dedlock. She knows by this stage who Nemo was, and where he lived, thanks to Guppy and Jo. If she wrote the letters, she would have already known about them and presumably taken steps to retrieve them. If, on the other hand, the letters were from her sister, she might have only guessed as to their existence after Guppy's revelations, which would also have given her ample motive for destroying them.

Cass wrote: "Who wants Esther to know, and who doesn't. Funny, I don't think Lady Dedlock is overly interested in revealing herself. She is a lady afterall, and this child is the product of an affair (or where they married secretly)."

I hadn't considered that possibility, just assumed she had an affair with Hawdon. If, on the other had, she had married him before marrying Sir Leicester, that would mean her marriage would be invalid and she would lose her place at Chesney Wold as Lady Dedlock if it were ever discovered. That would give her all the more motive for destroying the letters, in case they could incriminate her.

Cass wrote: "Why did Guppy go to visit Lady Dedlock? She had nothing to offer him, and why would he want to show her the letters? He doesn't have enough information yet and risks coming up against enemies who m..."

He is in a race against Tulkinghorn to find out this information, so this may have led him to to take a risky course of action which he would not have in other circumstances.

Cass wrote: "What does it mean when Lady Dedlock says, about her sister that she "Renounced me and my name". I am very curious about this exchange. "

Presumably, she broke off all contact with Lady Dedlock and changed her name. I don't remember finding out what Esther's godmother's name was, but it can't have been Dedlock, or else Esther would have put two and two together before now.

David wrote: "Cass wrote: "Why did Guppy go to visit Lady Dedlock? She had nothing to offer him, and why would he want to show her the letters? He doesn't have enough information yet and risks coming up against ..."

Yes, I didn't realise that they are kind of opposing each other in the race to find out the truth.

So Tulkinghorn is trying to find everything out in order to do what is best for Lady Dedlock, and Guppy is trying to do what is best for Esther.

Can someone remind me of the lawyers involved in the Jarndyce case. Where do Guppy and Tulkinghorn fit in (I am hesitant to Google the names for fear of spoilers).

Found this in Chap7. about Guppy "...They are lawyers. He says he is not in Mr Tulkinghorn's office, but is sure he may make use of Mr Tulkinghorn's name, if necessary"

@David made a good point. Is Tulkinghorn prioritising Lady Dedlock's case or his making money from the case. Because they would create two different motives. My inclination is that he wants to look after her case, not to add more people to the case.

What about the coolness that Lady Dedlock shows when she is interested... ie the handwriting (we now know why she recognised it), and her coolness toward Guppy. It hides a lot, and she is very good at it.

Is Mr George the uncle of the young Rouncewell (Watt - the one in love with Rosa)

Just flipping back, in chapter 7 "...I am glad to see you, Watt!" says Mrs Rouncewell. "You are a fine young fellow. You are like your poor uncle George. Ah!" Mrs Rouncewell's hands unquiet, as usual, on this reference."

David wrote: "Cass wrote: "What does it mean when Lady Dedlock says, about her sister that she "Renounced me and my name". I am very curious about this exchange. "

Presumably, she broke off all contact with La..."

Miss Barbary was the godmother. I am guessing that Barbary is the false name. What was Mrs Dedlock's maiden name?

ETA:
More on Miss Barbary. My current presumption is that Lady Dedlock had a child (Esther) to Hawdon. Miss Barbary has declared that the child died, but then has broken ties with her sister, and changed her name in order to ensure the child was raised.

Miss Barbary has told Esther about the blight on her birth, and clearly things she has some sort of pennance to pay for whatever happened.

BUT, what I don't get about this theory is why the sister would have given up everything, broken ties and secreted the child away... was this just so that her sister, Lady Dedlock, would be back with a shot at the big leagues? Was Lady Dedlock (or Esther's mother) willing to give up everything and marry Hawdon, but her sister decided to ensure that that would not happen???

I mean Lady Dedlock (or Esther's mother) must have had to hide that pregnancy, which requires a few people to know about it.

"Can someone remind me of the lawyers involved in the Jarndyce case...."

Mr. Tulkinghorn is Sir Leicester's lawyer, so he presumably represents Lady Dedlock's interest in Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Mr. Guppy works for Kenge and Carboys, which represents Mr. Jarndyce.

I believe that the first chapter of the book states that more or less every law office in London represents someone or other in Jarndyce anc Jarndyce.

I don't think Mr. Tulkinghorn represents Lady Dedlock's interests. I think he's looking for the information, because he's nosy. He has this reputation as the repository of secrets for England's entire landed genry, and I think he must relish the power that that gives him. I can't imagine that it could possibly be in Lady Dedlock's interest for him to uncover her secret. If he's working for anyone, it's Sir Leicester, but I have my suspicions about that, as well.

I can't shake the feeling that someone who really wanted all of this to be kept a secret would not have had Hortense in on it. She's clearly a dangerous woman and clearly hates Lady Dedlock with all her being. She would do anything to ruin her with a shameful secret. Moreover, bribery would be no use. It seems to me that she's such a spiteful person that no possible financial settlement would be worth it to her. She doesn't want money. She wants Lady Dedlock destroyed. And Mr. Tulkinghorn has given her some clues.

Audrey wrote: "Mr. Guppy works for Kenge and Carboys, which represents Mr. Jarndyce." and also Sir Leicester's neighbour Mr Boythorn, so Guppy and Tulkinghorn are rivals in more sense that one.

Cass wrote: "Miss Barbary was the godmother. I am guessing that Barbary is the false name. What was Mrs Dedlock's maiden name?"

Ah yes, I remember now. For some reason I thought that Miss Barbary was Rachel (now Chadband) but I don't think we are ever told her maiden name.

It would be kind of cool to have (and we should have made it at the start) and ongoing family-tree, representing what we know at various parts of the book.

I am tempted to make one to be honest.

Jeremy wrote: "Why is Guppy odious? He's certainly not as shady as Tulkinghorn. "

No, he's not shady. But even though Esther has clearly told him that she's not interested in him, he pries into her private affairs, he is trying almost, in my opinion, moral blackmail, he pursues a woman who clearly doesn't want to be pursued, he is willing to seriously unsettle her life for his personal selfish reasons, he uses confidential information obtained through his legal office to try to worm out her secrets. It's sneaky, it's slimy, and it's odious.

Cass wrote: "It would be kind of cool to have (and we should have made it at the start) and ongoing family-tree, representing what we know at various parts of the book.

I am tempted to make one to be honest."

Go ahead. As long as it doesn't contain spoilers, it would be a good addition to the discussion.

Audrey wrote: "I don't think Mr. Tulkinghorn represents Lady Dedlock's interests. "

He absolutely doesn't. He represents Sir Leicester's interests, which may or may not be Lady Dedlock's. Indeed he suspects, I think, that their interests are quite different.

Everyman wrote: "Audrey wrote: "I don't think Mr. Tulkinghorn represents Lady Dedlock's interests. "

He absolutely doesn't. He represents Sir Leicester's interests, which may or may not be Lady Dedlock's. Indeed he suspects, I think, that their interests are quite different. which may or may not be Lady Dedlock's. Indeed ..."

Oh good distinction.

Well, some men are willing to climb the highest mountain, swim the deepest ocean, or make a grand sacrifice for the woman they love. Guppy isn't equipped for that, so he uses his training - blackmail, persistence and deceit - all in the name of love! Though I can't really defend Guppy, I'd rather be associated with him than Tulkinghorn, Smallweed, Turveydrop or Skimpole - because so far he's only guilty of pursuing something noble in an ignoble way.

David wrote: [Guppy] is in a race against Tulkinghorn to find out this information, so this may have led him to to take a risky course of action which he would not have in other circumstances..."

Perhaps I missed the answers to these questions but: Are Guppy and Mr. Tulkinghorn aware that they are after the same information? (Or is Guppy just using Mr. Tulkinghorn's name because it's convenient?) And why are they spending so much time going after this information? Is merely to add more people to the case in order to gain more money? Or do they more sinister (or for the optimist - noble) reasons for going after this information?

Everyman wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "Why is Guppy odious? He's certainly not as shady as Tulkinghorn. "

No, he's not shady...It's sneaky, it's slimy, and it's odious. "

Agreed! That being said, why has Dickens spent so much time making Tulkinghorn feel like the more evil of two; i.e., via frequent references to ravens/crows? This is assuming one has to decide who is worse.

Clearly I'm in the minority, if not all alone concerning Guppy. I think by the end we'll see he was the least offensive of the "bad" characters.

Tiffany: "That being said, why has Dickens spent so much time making Tulkinghorn feel like the more evil of two; i.e., via frequent references to ravens/crows? This is assuming one has to decide who is worse."

I think it's because odious is different from evil. Mr. Guppy is odious: he's slimy and unprinicpalled. He manipulated his friend's straitened financial circumstances as a way to get a hold of letters he wanted--by getting that friend to live in a thoroughly depressing room where someone had died. I think emotional blackmail is a very apt description of what he intends to do with the information once he gets it. Moreover, a few chapters back, he stalked Esther all over London. The reaction I have to him is disgust.

I don't react to Mr. Tulkinghorn with visceral disgust, but that doesn't keep me from feeling like he's the more evil (and certainly the more dangerous) of the two--partially because he's able to hide all of his heartlessness and slimy acts underneath his gentlemanly exterior. He won't extort the letter from Mr. George. He's above that, as a respectable lawyer. Let Mr. Smallweed do it if he feels like it. But, of course, he knows that Mr. Smallweed will. He's insinuated enough to make sure it will happen without having to drop his facade of respectability. He accomplishes the same results, if not even more, by different and more gentlemanly means. But he has more sinister reasons uncovering the information.

For me, it's a lot like the difference between a Disney villain and that villain's henchmen. Guppy is to Tulkinghorn as Flotsam and Jetsam are to the sea witch, or as the bat with the peg leg is to Rattigan, or as the hyenas are to Scar.

To bring up something completely unrelated, I really enjoyed Mr. Rouncewell's talk with the Dedlocks. Did anyone else get the impression that he wasn't really trying get them to say yes? I don't think there was any way he could have phrased himself to Sir Leicester that wouldn't have caused offence. At the same time, it seemed to me like he chose the most tactless way he could possibly have though of. He went out of his way to phrase the whole thing in terms of his son being too good for Rosa.

Really, I have to say that he and Sir Leicester are more of a match than either one of them realizes. They're both obsessed with position and status. The only difference is how they believe that status should be obtained. Personally, I have to admit to being a little annoyed at Mr. Rouncewell during the whole scene. Who does he think he is, forcing Rosa to go to a school of his choosing for two years (during which she's barely allowed to talk to the man she loves) before she can be "good enough" for his son?

Cass wrote: "So Tulkinghorn is trying to find everything out in order to do what is best for Lady Dedlock,"

Tulkinghorn is trying to do what is best for Sir Leicester. Lady Dedlock is a threat to Sir Leicester's standing in society; if her past should come out he would have to repudiate her to minimize the damage. The letters will help to enforce Lady Dedlock's silence. But Tulkinghorn reckons without two factors (I think it would be possible to say at this stage) -- what Sir Leicester's wishes, and feelings toward Lady Dedlock, actually are, and whether Lady Dedlock is as timid and complacent as Tulkinghorn supposes her to be.

When Krook's cinders are discovered there are some burnt papers with him. Are we not to conclude that the letters were destroyed so?

Cass wrote: "BUT, what I don't get about this theory is why the sister would have given up everything, broken ties and secreted the child away... was this just so that her sister, Lady Dedlock, would be back with a shot at the big leagues? Was Lady Dedlock (or Esther's mother) willing to give up everything and marry Hawdon, but her sister decided to ensure that that would not happen???"

Aside from the sister's own character, which is not a lovely one, it would be expected that she should put family reputation above the happiness of anyone else. It isn't necessary to look any farther than the fact that Hawdon had not married the mother of his child.

I mean Lady Dedlock (or Esther's mother) must have had to hide that pregnancy, which requires a few people to know about it."

Lady Dedlock was not yet Lady Dedlock and the matter would have been a good deal easier to keep secret.

Everyman wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "Why is Guppy odious? He's certainly not as shady as Tulkinghorn. "

No, he's not shady. But even though Esther has clearly told him that she's not interested in him, he pries into h..."

Totally agree!! He makes my skin crawl and although I think Dickens could have given him an oilier name to describe him, I suppose a small insignificant fish is pretty good. My image of a guppy though is one of tiny & innocent of which he is certainly NOT!!

Charles wrote: "When Krook's cinders are discovered there are some burnt papers with him. Are we not to conclude that the letters were destroyed so? "

That's the impression I came away with. And spontaneous combustion?... Isn't it possible and likely that Lady Dedlock sent someone to knock off Krook and burn the papers? I wonder why Guppy never suspects her?

Chris wrote: "Totally agree!! He makes my skin crawl and although I think Dickens could have given him an oilier name to describe him, I suppose a small insignificant fish is pretty good. My image of a guppy though is one of tiny & innocent of which he is certainly NOT!! "

While it's too early to say much, one of the always-interesting features of Dickens, and perhaps in BH especially, is how every character serves a purpose in unwinding and then concluding the tale without regard to their character, odiousness, or whatever. I take Dickens to be asserting, despite his clear-headed portrayal of many unlovely people, that all deserve some consideration. No one is irrelevant, useless, or dispensable. Dickens can be treacly, but under it is something else, embodied by his Guppies and Smallweeds and Chadbands and the others.

Jeremy wrote: "And spontaneous combustion?... Isn't it possible and likely that Lady Dedlock sent someone to knock off Krook and burn the papers? I wonder why Guppy never suspects her?"

The idea of spontaneous human combustion was taken seriously at the time. There is no need to implicate Lady Dedlock or look further for reasons. Guppy does not (view spoiler)[and understands, as we will, that it is not in Lady Dedlock's character to behave in that way. Her lot is remorse and bereavement, not revenge. (hide spoiler)]

Charles: "The letters will help to enforce Lady Dedlock's silence."

I have to disagree with that. Lady Dedlock strikes me as the kind of person who would be more likely to keep silence without Tulkinghorn's meddling. She's hidden this for years, and she's given no sign of wanting to confess now. On the contrary, she's gone to some lengths to hide it all. Sure, she couldn't resist the temptation to go to the grave, but she went in disguise and in the company of an essentially nameless street urchin. I see no reason to worry that she will say anything at all.

On the other hand, she's clearly a very haughty and stubborn woman. If she starts to feel cornered, there's no telling what she would do. I could even see her letting everything out herself, just to deprive someone of else the satisfaction. If Tulkinghorn really wants it kept secret, his wisest course is to leave well enough alone.

That's part of why I don't buy the idea that he's actuated in any way by a desire to keep the affair a secret. He's got ulterior motives in all of this, or he wouldn't be doing it in the first place. He's too good a judge of character not to know that leaving it alone is the best guarantee of secrecy.

Audrey wrote: "Charles: "The letters will help to enforce Lady Dedlock's silence."

I have to disagree with that. Lady Dedlock strikes me as the kind of person who would be more likely to keep silence without Tu..."

Yes, but until now she has not known of the presence of her lover nor the survival of her daughter. I would say that she is not haughty but dignified, appropriate to her station, and that what appears as haughtiness is actually protected vulnerability. Her breakdown after Guppy's departure supports this, as will events to come.

Audrey wrote: "On the other hand, she's clearly a very haughty and stubborn woman. If she starts to feel cornered, there's no telling what she would do. I could even see her letting everything out herself, just to deprive someone of else the satisfaction. If Tulkinghorn really wants it kept secret, his wisest course is to leave well enough alone."

I can't reply to this without a spoiler, so will only discourage any hasty judgment of Lady Dedlock's character. As for Tulkinghorn, he has no interest as such in preserving secrets. His only motivation has to do with what advantages him, and after himself, Sir Leicester. If giving away the secret would advance his position, he would do it. At present he feels that he can serve himself better by remaining behind the arras.

Charles wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "And spontaneous combustion?... Isn't it possible and likely that Lady Dedlock sent someone to knock off Krook and burn the papers? I wonder why Guppy never suspects her?"

The idea of spontaneous human combustion was taken seriously at the time. There is no need to implicate Lady Dedlock or look further for reasons. Guppy does not"

Not only that (and I'm aware that this information would not have been available to those reading the serial publication of Bleak House), but Dickens's defence of spontaneous combustion, in the preface written for the first publication in book form, strongly suggests that there will be no further explanation of Krook's death. If foul play was involved, then Krook's combustion would, by definition, not be spontaneous.

Charles wrote: "Lady Dedlock was not yet Lady Dedlock and the matter would have been a good deal easier to keep secret. "

We don't know that, but if the affair was after her marriage, it would have been difficult to keep secret, so the likelihood is that it was before.

Tiffany wrote: "Perhaps I missed the answers to these questions but: Are Guppy and Mr. Tulkinghorn aware that they are after the same information? "

I don't think they are, but it is entirely possible they have worked it out.

A lot of hints happening here. I am starting to be a bit wary of reading too much.

Audrey @36 wrote: "To bring up something completely unrelated, I really enjoyed Mr. Rouncewell's talk with the Dedlocks. ...He went out of his way to phrase the whole thing in terms of his son being too good for Rosa...

Really, I have to say that he and Sir Leicester"

I disagree with your take on Mr Rouncewell. I really like him. He was open an honest about motivations, and practical in a solution. ie. "My boy likes your maid, but marrying a maid is not the done thing, but it is an acceptable action for me to have her educated a bit to raise her up a bit - hope you don't mind".

I mean, social status and class are real things and these people behave very differently (just like someone from Western Sydney behaves differently to someone from Armidale or Pennant Hills). To put it simply the higher up you go the more expectation there is that you have some sort of education, that you speak in a more prestigious dialect, that you behave in a certain manner, that you have knowledge of certain topics etc. A few years at a finishing school (which is equivical to what he is talking about) he quite a kind thing to do in order to ensure she fits in well with the family, and in turn raises children who became lawyers and doctors, rather than servants.