The Old Curiosity Club discussion

Chapter 1

Another Thing Needful

“[Mr Gradgrind] spoke in a subdued and troubled voice, very different from his usual dictatorial manner; and was often at a loss for words.”

The last chapter is is certainly a cliff-hanger. Where does Dickens go after leaving Louisa collapsed at her father’s feet?

When Louisa awakens from her “torpor” she finds herself in her old room. She is very weak but does notice her little sister in the room. I find the setting of this chapter interesting. Louisa is back in her childhood room, the place she occupied while being raised in the Gradgrind manner. Now, her younger sister is in the same room. Dickens tells us immediately that it was Sissy who brought Louisa to her old bedroom and stayed with her. Louisa comments on the “beaming face” that Jane has, to which Jane replies “I am sure it must be Sissy’s doing.” Can we see this setting as suggestive of Louisa being reborn, Jane as representing the young Louisa, and Sissy as being the agent of a new order of emotions and care within Gradgrind’s home? Sissy is the person who made Louisa’s room “so cheerful, and gave it [a] look of welcome.

When Louisa’s father enters the room “his hand, usually steady, trembled in hers.” Her father states that “the ground on which I stand has ceased to be solid.” For Gradgrind, the shock has been “very heavy indeed.” For Louisa, “[s]he had suffered the wreck of her whole life upon the rock.” At this point in the chapter, and the novel, I find myself drawn to be sympathetic towards Thomas Gradgrind. His whole system of raising a child and creating a fortress of a social and educational system is vaporizing before his eyes. We see no hesitation in Gradgrind as he admits he is wrong. As he states to his daughter “I come to the conclusion that I cannot but mistrust myself.” Wow! What a keystone comment. The mistrust of his past. Upon what rock will he build his future? Will he be able to build a future for himself and help his daughter find stability in her life? For Gradgrind, he knows that the head is not “all-sufficient.” A person needs a heart as well.

Gradgrind’s mind slowly emerges into the light. At one point he tells his daughter that “I have a misgiving that some change may have been slowly working about me in this house, by mere love and gratitude; that what the Head has left undone and could not do, the Heart may have been doing silently. Can it be so?” Both Louisa and her father weep at what has occurred.

And Sissy. She seems to have been relegated to the second line for much of the novel. As we move into the reconciliation of the Gradgrind family I think Sissy’s presence and value will become increasing valuable. Louisa attempts to dismiss Sissy to return to Jane. I think Louisa is having pangs of guilt because of the way they parted after the wedding. Sissy pledges to care for Louisa and to “never tire of trying.”

As the chapter moves to its conclusion, Louisa twice innumerates her faults to Sissy and asks if such faults and characteristics “repel” Sissy. Twice Sissy says no. Now, the final sentences of this chapter may appear to be (or are?) heavy-handed. Louisa falls on her knees and “clinging to this stroller’s hold looked up at her almost with veneration.” Louisa asks to lay her head upon the “loving heart” of Sissy. The last sentence of this chapter are Sissy’s words: “O lay it here, cried Sissy. Lay it here, my dear.”

Thoughts

Both Mr Gradgrind and Louisa have a catharsis in this chapter. Did you find their change of character believable?

Chapter 2

Very Ridiculous

“The only reparation that remains with you is to leave here immediately and finally. … I ask you to depart from this place tonight, under an obligation never to return to it.”


Mr James Harthouse is a curious case. Did he really love Louisa? I think not. Was his affection completely feigned? I don’t think so. How would you characterize the relationship of Harthouse towards Louisa, and Louisa’s feelings towards Harthouse?

Harthouse can’t decide or even make a conjecture where Louisa might be. The whelp is of no help. What is it that the whelp is good for or capable of in this novel? Perhaps we shall see soon. After Harthouse discusses Louisa’s whereabouts with Tom, Dickens says that Harthouse “disembarrassed himself” from Tom. What a great phrase. Harthouse decides that whatever happened to Louisa necessitates him to remain and “confront his fortune, whatever it was.” Did you find this a bit odd? Does Harthouse really have an affection for Louisa or does he simply not fear or worry about the truth about Louisa and himself becoming public knowledge? While he waits further developments, he decides to have dinner. Is he a fool or just cool? Evidently, he saw that “indifference was the genuine high-breeding.”

After dinner he is informed that there is someone to see him. He hurries off only to discover a very plainly dressed but very pretty young lady. It is Sissy. Through the detailed description of Sissy, Dickens is able to signal her physical appearance. When we combine Sissy’s emotional maturity and strength from the previous chapter with this physical description of her we realize that Dickens is presenting to us a confident, strong, and compassionate young lady. Sissy is no longer a child.

Sissy’s message to Harthouse is short and simple: “You may be sure, sir, you will never see her again as long as you live.” Harthouse continues to spin his words, to project an attitude of bemused indifference to Sissy, but any and all of his comments are useless. He frets that those who put him in his position in Coketown will not be amused. Harthouse weighs his options and finally exclaims to Sissy “I must not only regard myself as being in a very ridiculous position, it being vanquished at all points. Will you allow me the privilege of remembering my enemy’s name?”

Defeated, Harthouse writes a note to Bounderby announcing his retirement from that part of the country and one to Gradgrind. Then Harthouse “left the tall chimneys of Coketown behind and was in a railway carriage, tearing and glaring over the dark landscape.”

Did you notice how Harthouse left the stage? Very seldom do we see Dickens use a train in any of his novels. Both here, and with Carker from Dombey and Son, Dickens employs a train as a destructive force that carries evil men into darkened landscapes. Do you think this is a coincidence or is there perhaps a deeper symbolic or metaphoric meaning at play here?

Chapter 3

Very Decided

Gradgrind to Bounderby: “Let me entreat you, for your sake and for hers, to be more quiet.”


Humour. Where is it in this novel? To this point I have searched for chapters, paragraphs, even sentences that are humourous. My search has been rather futile. I did enjoy Mr Sparsit shaking her mitten at Bounderby’s portrait, but think that is an exception which proves my point. Now, in this chapter, I find some humour, but must qualify that by pointing it out we may interpret the “humour” with some feeling of discomfort. On occasion, Bounderby is physically aggressive towards Mrs Sparsit. A nineteenth century reader and a twenty-first century reader may well have very different opinions on humour. Please tell us your opinions.

The chapter begins with a rather ill Mr Sparsit chasing after Bounderby. When she tracks him down she “exploded the combustibles with which she was charged” (has there ever been a better description of a sneeze?) and then faints. Bounderby shakes her off and leaves her on the floor. He then screws her thumbs, smites her hands, pores water on her face and puts salt in her mouth. Next, Bounderby puts her on a train, and then crammed her into a coach and took her to Gradgrind’s home.

Bounderby tells Gradgrind that Mrs Sparsit has something to say. Sparsit is unable to speak due to her cold. Bounderby then “seized her by the arm and shook her.” Does Dickens intend this part of the chapter as humourous? How are we to interpret Bounderby’s physicality?

Bounderby’s bursts of indignation are met with a calm and subdued Gradgrind. Both men are focussed on Louisa, but their focus on her are from entirely different perspectives. Gradgrind tells Bounderby that Louisa is safe and sound with him. Louisa’s virtue is intact. Gradgrind asks for Bounderby’s help in seeking to repair “what is amiss.” I’m not surprised that Bounderby cannot see beyond his nose or find his way out of a cabbage patch or ditch. A ditch is, in my estimation, exactly where he belongs … but I digress.

Mr Gradgrind suggests that it would be in his daughter’s best interest to remain at Stone Lodge with him, Jane, and Sissy. What words Bounderby had earlier spoken to Stephen Blackpool return to haunt his as they are spoken to him by Mr Gradgrind. A chill came over me when Bounderby said about Louisa to her father “I know what I took her for, as well as you do. Never you mind what I took her for; that’s my look-out.”

Bounderby ends his babbling bluster with the ultimatum that if Louisa does not return to his home by noon tomorrow he will send all her belongings to Stone Lodge where she can stay in the future. Louisa does not return to Bounderby, and Bounderby takes up a bachelor’s life.

I’m glad this chapter is over. I felt like entering the novel and giving Bounderby a tainted cabbage for dinner.

Chapter 4

Lost

Mr Gradgrind: Do you believe [Stephen Blackpool] to be implicated?
Louisa: I think I have believed it, father, though with great difficulty. I do not believe it now.”


This chapter begins with a renewed focus on the bank robbery. A “few weeks” have passed since Bounderby resumed his bachelorhood. We learn that the bank robbery is utmost in his mind. The police are baffled and have no real leads. The whereabouts of Stephen Blackpool and the mysterious old lady remain a mystery. In order to stir the pot Bounderby creates a wanted poster which describes Stephen. Our Bounderby is not with guile. He has the broadsheet distributed at night so that it “should strike upon the sight of the whole population at one blow.”

The slimy Slackbridge uses the broadsheet to further demean Stephen’s character. In a speech of biblical proportions Slackbridge paints a picture of Stephen as a devil. I find it interesting how this portrayal of a Stephen contrasts to the way Dickens has portrayed Stephen. Something must be forthcoming soon in the story of Stephen.

Next, we learn from Sissy that Bounderby, Louisa’s brother Tom, and Rachael want to see Louisa. I think we are nearing a crisis of some magnitude. Rachael asks if Louisa has ever seen her before. Louisa answers yes. Rachael then asks Louisa to state where she was and who was present. Louisa states that she was at the house where Stephen Blackpool lodged on the night he was discharged. Louisa states that her brother was with her. Also in the room was an old lady who stayed in a dark corner. Louisa says she went to Blackpool’s for compassionate reasons because she wanted to help him. Louisa states she offered Stephen money but he only accepted two pounds in gold. Rachael breaks down in tears.

In this part of the chapter I think Dickens is pointing out the huge chasm that exists between the working class and the more affluent of society. Neither segment of society understands the other. Louisa and Rachael are interesting characters to compare and contrast. To what extent do you have sympathy for them? Can such a gap of understanding ever be breached?

Rachael says that once she read all the mistruths about Stephen in the poster she went to the bank in an attempt to clear Stephen’s name. Rachael states that when Stephen learns how his character has been sullied by the poster he will return to Coketown to clear his name within a couple of days. When Rachael spoke to Bounderby he did not believe a word. That is why Louisa has been sought. Rachael explains that Stephen has been forced to adopt an alias in order to get work. With the factory owners against him as well as the workers what else could he do? Rachael then asks what is perhaps the key question of the novel. She says “can a man have no soul of his own, no mind of his own?” Wow! What a question to settle into the heart of this novel. What is the nature of a man? Is it to be independent and free-thinking or is it to be part of a massive system? Think of Bitzer’s definition of a horse. Recall that the workers in the factories are reduced to simply being called “hands.” The utilitarian world seeks order and conformity; the world of the imagination thirsts for creativity for the self and empathy for others.

Let's take a look at Rachael and Louisa. Louisa says to Rachael “you will not distrust me one day, when you know me better.” To that, Rachael responds “it goes against me … to mistrust any one. … I ask your pardon for having done you an injury.” Here, I think, we see how the chasm between the classes may be lessened. Yes, it’s a novel, and a novel by Dickens, but I also think in this conversation we see a reworking of one of the essential motifs found in A Christmas Carol. It is not until our hearts and minds are transformed by circumstances that we will be able to understand each other.

Sissy asks if Stephen is aware that suspicion is on him partly because he had been repeatedly seen outside the bank. The days pass and Stephen does not return to Coketown. As the chapter comes to a conclusion some wonder if Rachael’s letter had warned Stephen from returning to Coketown. Louisa’s brother Tom becomes bolder in casting doubt on Stephen’s character.

Thoughts

In my summary of this chapter I did not point out how we continue to watch Gradgrind’s softening and his gentler nature emerging. What are your thoughts of how Dickens is now portraying Gradgrind? Is it believable?

Chapter 5

Found

“‘My dear Josiah!’ cried Mrs Pegler, trembling. ‘My darling boy.’”


So, where is Stephen? “The smoke-serpents we’re indifferent who was lost or found, who turned out bad or good … The monotony was unbroken.” I found this phrase very interesting. The factories of Coketown are compared to “smoke-serpents.” The smoke that arises from the factory chimneys is compared to a serpent. Does Dickens intend for us to see the factories of Coketown as evil places? I think so. If so, then are we to take Stephen and Rachael to be the angelic presence within Coketown? As the next few sentences in the chapter unfold, we see that Sissy is spends time with Rachael. In their conversation we see how appreciative Rachael is of Sissy. If we hesitated earlier about how to define or characterize Sissy, we now have our answer. Sissy brings the news that everyone up at Stone Lodge believe Stephen will be freed from suspicion “sooner or later.” Rachael, for her part, tells Sissy that she has lingering doubts and mistrusts someone who she is unable to identify yet.

Where is Stephen?

Sissy and Rachael go for a walk in the night air. They make plans to go for a walk on Sunday in order to “strengthen Rachael for the coming week. As they walk the come across Bounderby’s house. At that moment Mrs Sparsit pulls up in a coach and drags out none other than the old lady who stood each year in front of Bounderby’s house. All this bustle attracted a crowd. Yes, it is Mrs Pegler who is in the clutches of Mrs Sparsit and she demands that Bounderby come downstairs to see the captured old lady. Ah, do you recall several of the earlier descriptions of Mrs Sparsit as a bird of prey with “hawk’s eyes.” Well, who she is caught turns out to be none other than Bounderby’s own mother.

There reunion is rather awkward. Bounderby wants to know why Mrs Sparsit did not “knock [his mother’s] cap off, or her tooth out, or scratch her, or do something or other to her.” Mrs Pegler tells her son she has always kept a low profile and admired him from afar. She reveals the true backstory of Bounderby which is completely opposite to what Bounderby’s bluster has perpetrated for years. In fact, we learn that Bounderby has been paying his mother £30 a year to stay away. For his part, Bounderby refuses to offer any acceptable explanation except to say his mother certainly would not rob his bank. As the gathered neighbours leave Bounderby’s house he knows his bluster and bravado, his bullying nature and his fake history have all blown up in his face.

Louisa, Sissy, and Mr Bounderby return to Stone Lodge. Louisa is troubled. Now, no one believes that Stephen Blackpool robbed Bounderby’s bank. But if not Stephen, then who? Both Sissy and Louisa suspect the thief is Tom.

But where is Stephen?

It's been one of those weeks, and I haven't even read this week's chapters yet. Hopefully I can start playing catch-up tomorrow, but I didn't want you to think I'd given up. I'll check back in soon. :-)

Peter wrote: "Humour. Where is it in this novel? To this point I have searched for chapters, paragraphs, even sentences that are humourous. My search has been rather futile. I did enjoy Mr Sparsit shaking her mitten at Bounderby’s portrait, but think that is an exception which proves my point. ”

I enjoy Sparsit, not just shaking her mitten at Bounderby, but also repeatedly getting her comeuppance for trying to ingratiate herself with him, either by exposing his wife (not appreciated) or bringing in his mother. She's a terrible calculator, isn't she? So petty, and perpetually getting what she deserves.

Peter wrote: "In my summary of this chapter I did not point out how we continue to watch Gradgrind’s softening and his gentler nature emerging. What are your thoughts of how Dickens is now portraying Gradgrind? Is it believable?”

I said before I thought it happened too fast, but now I'm not so sure. A crisis like Louisa's "fall" could change a person--and given the cataclysmic nature of the event maybe it's not surprising to see the turnaround in response also be fast.

In real life, however, I would expect an occasional relapse.

Mary Lou wrote: "It's been one of those weeks, and I haven't even read this week's chapters yet. Hopefully I can start playing catch-up tomorrow, but I didn't want you to think I'd given up. I'll check back in soon..."

Mary Lou

Yes, one of those weeks. Take care. It’s good to know you are still out there.

Julie wrote: "Peter wrote: "In my summary of this chapter I did not point out how we continue to watch Gradgrind’s softening and his gentler nature emerging. What are your thoughts of how Dickens is now portrayi..."

Hi Julie

Generally, by this time in a novel, I have a reasonable grasp on a character. I confess that I still do not feel comfortable with my take on Mrs Sparsit. I keep thinking that I am missing something, but I don’t know what it is I’m looking for which is a big problem.

Mary Lou, somehow your post didn't show up on my screen before! Hope you're doing ok!

Peter wrote: "Generally, by this time in a novel, I have a reasonable grasp on a character. I confess that I still do not feel comfortable with my take on Mrs Sparsit. I keep thinking that I am missing something, but I don’t know what it is I’m looking for which is a big problem..."


She reminds me a little of Rosa Dartle, if Miss Dartle were a comic rather than a tragic/dramatic figure. I think she is kind of in love with Bounderby but not really in love with him as a person (who other than his mother could be?) but rather as taken as he is himself with his boasting and self-dramatization. She likes the energy and spite he brings to the room. She is correct she would have been a better wife to him than Louisa, because she's all in for his stories and Louisa sees through them.

Also I wonder if Dickens is going somewhere with the idea of decayed and useless gentility in the Industrial Age. It's interesting that as much as Sparsit admires Bounderby, he doesn't return it in kind.

Julie wrote: "Hope you're doing ok!"

All's well, thanks. Just one of those busy times when reading has taken a back seat to other things. But I was able to read all five chapters yesterday, and am all caught up. :-)

Re: humour - yes! As I read these chapters, I realized how close to the end of the novel we are, and wondered where Dickens' warm humour has been hiding. There are some amusing moments (e.g. those Julie and Peter mentioned with Mrs. Sparsit) but what little wit we've been treated to in Hard Times has been biting and cynical. It's a flaw in this novel, and we're probably too far along to hope that there will be any warm humour in the remainder of the book. Too bad.

Harthouse is one of Dickens' more interesting characters, I think. It's a shame he couldn't have been fleshed out a bit more. Was he in love with Louisa? No. I think she was more of an experiment for him. He makes me think of Leopold and Loeb - bright, bored students who planned a murder just to see if they could get away with it. Harthouse was bored and decided to pursue Louisa just as a project to pass the time, giving no thought to her feelings, or even realizing, let alone caring, that he was messing with people's lives. Then Sissy comes along, with her quiet confidence and unwavering commitment to right vs. wrong. Harthouse (I keep starting to type "Steerforth" and having to correct myself!) has never encountered anyone like Sissy before, and, like Gradgrind, the foundation beneath him is suddenly like shifting sand. Neither of them know how to react to this phenomenon.

I've always thought of Gradgrind as being more misguided than cruel, and his transformation confirms that. Like Julie, I think such a case in real life would be less ... linear? But the transformation is believable for me. Gradgrind reminds me of a quote I liked from novelist Sarah Blake: “I am old. And tired of the terrible clarity of the young.” He's reached that point so many of us get to as we mature, when we realize everything in life isn't as black and white as we once assumed. For most of us, that realization dawns gradually, but Gradgrind's revelation was more jarring. Poor Mrs. Gradgrind died before she could benefit from this change. One wonders what that relationship might have looked like going forward. Alas, we shall never know.

Poor Mrs. Pegler! Bounderby is not only a liar, but a cad. So much for the fourth commandment!

And I almost (but not quite) felt sorry for Mrs. Sparsit. Regardless of her motives (still unknown but surely nefarious) she worked so diligently to track down Mrs. Pegler and bring her to Mr. Bounderby. Imagine her shock when that backfired! And worse, when she inadvertently outed Bounderby as a, well... a bounder.

What makes me laugh, though, is the idea that everyone who happened to be on the street to witness the kerfuffle felt fully entitled to walk right in to Bounderby's home for some free entertainment. I think there was a similar scene in Martin Chuzzlewit, wasn't there? I can't imagine just barging in to a private residence to watch someone's (now public) humiliation. But I guess in the days before television, we grabbed whatever entertainment we could find! :-)

As for Bounderby, no pity here. His treatment of Louisa, his mother, and to some extent Stephen (guilty until proven innocent!) has eliminated any possibility of mercy.

So, where IS Stephen? Did he make a break for it? Has Tom or someone else murdered him? Is he making his way back to Coketown? I feel sure that Rachael and Louisa's trust in him won't be misplaced, which leaves us with his murder, his return, or whatever's behind door #4.

Interesting observation about the train, Peter. I did notice that the train has had a more prevalent role in this novel, but hadn't made that connection with the black hats being the ones to exit their stories that way.

I agree Mary Lou, Stephen would surely not run for whatever lies in store for him in Coketown. He is way too meek for that, and would rather be hanged for robbing the bank directly than hurt Rachael's trust. At least, he would the way he was before he left the scene.

And I too see Gradgrind's turning point as not cruel, but more misguided, and just like that it was totally clear that his favourite child has a very hard time because of what he did wrong. So I too did not find it that unbelievable, although a bit too linear.

Julie wrote: "Peter wrote: "Humour. Where is it in this novel? To this point I have searched for chapters, paragraphs, even sentences that are humourous. My search has been rather futile. I did enjoy Mr Sparsit ..."

I didn't remember that Mrs. Sparsit played such a crucial role in the story, and I must say that I honestly wonder how she was able to trace down Mrs. Pegler. To me that does not really look very plausible, but I nevertheless enjoyed the moment of Mr. Bounderby's date with reality and Mrs. Sparsit's double shipwreck. She is a thwarted thwarter.

Julie wrote: "Peter wrote: "Generally, by this time in a novel, I have a reasonable grasp on a character. I confess that I still do not feel comfortable with my take on Mrs Sparsit. I keep thinking that I am mis..."

I am not so sure if Mrs. Sparsit really admires Mr. Bounderby. She may not see through all of his lies, especially the image of a selfmade man he likes to construct of himself, but I do not think that she takes him very seriously because she is quite good at manipulating him and to a certain extent, though not all in all, he is like putty in her hands. I have the feeling that she is full of resentment against him for having a position in society she feels herself entitled to, and she enjoys the idea of bringing him down - at least since he has married Louisa.

Saying that, I also think that she would have married Mr. Bounderby, but only to improve her own social position.

As I am very busy right now, I also had to catch up with this week's five chapters yesterday. I will post the recaps on the final chapters on Sunday at the latest, though - never fear ;-)

Mary Lou wrote: "Julie wrote: "Hope you're doing ok!"

All's well, thanks. Just one of those busy times when reading has taken a back seat to other things. But I was able to read all five chapters yesterday, and am..."

Hi Mary Lou

Yes. I like your quotation. Very little in life is clear cut. I cannot recall the person who said it first but to complement your quotation one that I recall goes somewhat like “the young think they know all the answers; the old are not even sure what the right questions are.”

As for Gradgrind being more “misguided than cruel” I see your point. The evening that Louisa comes to him creates a momentous change in his outlook and world view. I believe such a drastic change is very believable. It is easier, perhaps, to think that change comes in more incremental steps. That said, I doubt if most people have not experienced or suffered through an event that has not changed their outlook on life.

Dickens portrays Gradgrind’s change not only in what he says but in the manner and tone of his voice when he speaks. One hopes that what Mrs Gradgrind was never to see or experience will be invested in the future lives of Louisa, Jane, and yes, Sissy too.

Mary Lou wrote: "Poor Mrs. Pegler! Bounderby is not only a liar, but a cad. So much for the fourth commandment!

And I almost (but not quite) felt sorry for Mrs. Sparsit. Regardless of her motives (still unknown b..."

Mary Lou and Jantine

Ah, door 4. Dickens does like to have four doors of choice doesn’t he?

Tristram wrote: "Julie wrote: "Peter wrote: "Generally, by this time in a novel, I have a reasonable grasp on a character. I confess that I still do not feel comfortable with my take on Mrs Sparsit. I keep thinking..."


The Sparsit - Bounderby relationship remains a muddle to me. Thanks for giving me your perspective.

I can’t recall ever being so confused about a pair of characters in all of Dickens. Bounderby’s false hype about his past I get. Many people create an alternate reality about themselves. When he and Sparsit are mixed together, however, I just throw my hands up in despair.