The Old Curiosity Club discussion

Dear Fellow Curiosities,

Before we embark on our journey into No Thoroughfare – which sounds like an odd metaphor to me, as I am coming to think on it –, I’d like to open this final thread for Hard Times with a view to encouraging you to give your opinion on this shortest of Dickens’s novels. You may, of course, comment on anything you found interesting, noteworthy or incomprehensible, but here are some suggestions to spark discussion:

Hard Times is the only novel by Dickens that focuses on industrial conditions in 19th century England, and it is often compared with Mrs. Gaskell’s North and South, which was also published in the same periodical under Dickens’s guidance. Do you think that Dickens did a good job at portraying the life of workers and mill-owners and the ongoing strife between them? The novel was published in 1854, a time which also saw the Chartist movement, a strife for political power and social improvement in favour of the working population. Did the novel give you any real insight into the questions of the time or do you think that Dickens simplified matters and failed to address the right questions? What do you say about Stephen Blackpool as a representative of the working classes, and of Mr. Bounderby as a representative of the factory owners? And what do you make of Rachel?

What do you think of the novel as such? In what ways is it a typical Dickens novel, in what ways may it fall out of this category? Where was there any evidence of the mature writer Dickens, whose handwriting we saw in Bleak House, Dombey and Son or David Copperfield? What about Dickens’s humour? Was it any way different from what you like about him? Was the canvas too small for the painting he intended?

If you take a look at Louisa, does she remind you of any of the Dickens heroines we have come to know so far? And do you find her development – and that of her father – believable?

What endings would you have written for the individual characters if Dickens had handed his quill over to you?

Among all the novels you have read so far in this this group, where would you range Hard Times, and why?

These are, as I said, just suggestions that might help you sort out your overall thoughts with regard to Hard Times, a novel that indeed gave me some hard times on some of its pages. Feel free to share your ideas!

This is my 3rd reading of Hard Times and it's become more disappointing with each reading. I remember liking it pretty well when I read it back in my teen/young adult years. Of course, I'd yet to read most of Dickens' other novels at that point, with the possible exception of Great Expectations or David Copperfield.

I missed Dickens' humor and warmth. Perhaps the first time I read it, I didn't yet realize he was capable of it, so didn't expect it. I'd not yet experienced the Wemmicks, the Plornishes, the Bagnets, etc. Knowing Dickens had characters and scenes like those in his arsenal made me really miss them this time.

Life's calling, and I must answer. More later.

This was my 2nd reading of Hard Times. I could hardly remember anything of my first reading, and now I think I kind of suppressed the memories? It was absolutely not as good as his other works, and I missed getting invested in the story and characters so much! They were all so ... bland mostly. There was so much depth they never would reach. It was like the whole novel has been clinging too much to the Gradgrindstone (I keep that one, I love it!), forgetting those bits that make a story good instead of summing up what happened. I am sure we have all been spoiled by Dickens' other works up until now, but still, I was disappointed.

This was my third reading of Hard Times, the first one dating back to when I was 19 or 20 and really had difficulty understanding what Stephen Blackpool was saying all the time. I did not enjoy it half as much as I enjoyed the three novels we read before this one, but on the other hand, I enjoyed it a little bit more than I did last time. This is probably due to my now seeing Louisa in a line with other interesting Dickens ladies like Edith Dombey or Caddy Jellyby. There seems to be a certain type - the discontented woman who is ill-used by certain movements in society - I never once before noticed in Dickens.

Louisa is a victim of utilitarian education and of a father who does not show the love he feels for her.

Caddy is a victim of a mother entangled in do-good-ism (or philanthropy), and who probably does not even love her.

Edith is a victim of a mother who is a calculating schemer, a procuress and who may represent aristocracy with its view to making a good match.

All three women are malcontents - but I fear that Dickens would suggest a rather patriarchal remedy to their plights, namely letting them marry a man they love and letting them slip into the role of the good housewife, which would fill them up completely and to their utmost satisfaction. What do you think?

Yes, I feel Louisa is the one really interesting character in the novel. Mrs. Sparsit could have been too, and I liked the bit of comic relief she showed - but it was not enough to make her really funny, and too much to make her as interesting as Louisa.

I like the term "patriarchal remedy", Tristram. Dickens and the heroines you mentioned were definitely progressive for their time (though some might say the women were just discontented or ungrateful), but sometimes patriarchal remedies were the best they could hope for.

When a discussion of Dickens women comes up, I can't help but think of those I find most compelling, particularly Miss Wade, who is a fascinating psychological study. In fact, so many of the women in Little Dorrit are well-written and well-rounded, including Tattycoram, Fanny, Mrs. Meagles, Mrs. Clennam, Flora... nearly all of them, frankly, except Amy. As for the stereotype Tristram cites, I wonder if Pet Meagles will fit the bill, though she's much more passive than Edith, Louisa, and Caddy. Perhaps there's another group of Dickens women where she would better fit, but that's a discussion for another day. Let's keep an eye out as we read Dorrit, though.

I've been thinking about alternate endings, and I've decided that the endings are not what I would necessarily change. If I had had Dickens' ear, I'd have suggested he lighten up on the phonetic dialog, be a lot more subtle with Stephen, and show the reader some motivation and depth in the characters. Why was Gradgrind so eminently practical, but so quick to see its flaws when presented with them? Why did Rachael ask Stephen to stay out of Union business, and why did he make that promise? Why was Mrs. Sparsit so invested in Bounderby's private affairs, when she shook her fist and called him a noodle behind his back? I have no idea what made these characters tick.

Tristram wrote: "Dear Fellow Curiosities,

Before we embark on our journey into No Thoroughfare – which sounds like an odd metaphor to me, as I am coming to think on it –, I’d like to open this final thread for Har..."

Tristram

Well, you did ask our opinion. HT finds itself in my bottom three favourites, the other two positions taken by BR and MC.

I keep telling myself that part of the reason must be because BH was so massive and intricate Dickens needed a rest, a mental holiday. On a more practical level, I think the weekly format demanded a different approach, and HT delivered that format. Within that format we find fewer characters, less space to present and evolve a story line, metaphor, description and voice. Then, I remember that GE was written in a weekly format. So there goes that theory.

Perhaps part of the reason for the softness of HT is Dickens just did not have the rhythm and ability to pull off a successful industrial novel. When we compare HT with its contemporary novel North and South HT diminishes even more. To add insult to injury (so to speak) is the fact that both novels were originally published in Household Words. While this is not a Gaskell site, I urge everyone to put North and South on their “to be read someday” list.

You ask if the canvas was “too small” in HT. I think we should celebrate that is was a small canvas. At 800 plus pages HT would have been a total disaster.

Mary Lou wrote: "This is my 3rd reading of Hard Times and it's become more disappointing with each reading. I remember liking it pretty well when I read it back in my teen/young adult years. Of course, I'd yet to r..."

Hi Mary Lou

I too missed the humour, the iconic characters, and the delicious descriptions that Dickens generally offers us.

My mind is all a muddle trying to figure out what went wrong. I reread some of the critics who praise HT as being one of Dickens’s best novels. Their arguments moved my mind a bit, but not enough to ever recommend anyone start their reading adventure with Dickens by selecting HT.

I agree with you about the missing “why” questions. There is too much left unsaid, understated, or overly thrust at us - like Stephen - to make this novel a satisfying read.

At the risk of appearing to make a shameful appeal to your reading priorities I would like to suggest some of the Curiosities track down a copy of “The Other Dickens” and join me in November.

One should never simply believe that a writer’s private life transfers directly into their public written words. That would be a mistake. The Other Dickens offers us a look at how Dickens viewed his wife - and, by extension - females in general. I think the biography also may help unlock part of the mystery of female characters such as Caddy, Edith Dombey, Louisa and others.

Dickens’s novels have a deeper meaning and offer richer revelations when we have a look at how he treated his wife Catherine.

Mary Lou wrote: "When a discussion of Dickens women comes up, I can't help but think of those I find most compelling, particularly Miss Wade, who is a fascinating psychological study. In fact, so many of the women in Little Dorrit are well-written and well-rounded, including Tattycoram, Fanny, Mrs. Meagles, Mrs. Clennam, Flora... nearly all of them, frankly, except Amy. As for the stereotype Tristram cites, I wonder if Pet Meagles will fit the bill, though she's much more passive than Edith, Louisa, and Caddy. Perhaps there's another group of Dickens women where she would better fit, but that's a discussion for another day. Let's keep an eye out as we read Dorrit, though."

I find this a bunch of very interesting questions, and we should definitely earmark your suggestions for when we are going to read Little Dorrit next year!

Like you, I would have advised Dickens to give Stephen a more readable pronunciation and maybe to make him a little bit less tame, e.g. by allowing him to put down his foot against his drunkard of a wife or, still more interesting, by having him waver in the question whether he should stay true to his promise to Rachel or whether he should not join the union after all.

Speaking of the promise, it is definitely one of the big flaws of the novel that we are not filled in with any background information as to its origins. It seems that Dickens just did not like the idea of workers standing up for their rights and not just meekly standing there cap-in-hand and that he transferred his dislike to Rachel without making himself a little bit clearer about it. On the other hand, I really liked Dickens's not giving us more information about Mrs. Sparsit's motives because this allowed us to come up with our own conclusions. Ha, you see how difficult it is to please all readers!

Peter wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Dear Fellow Curiosities,

Before we embark on our journey into No Thoroughfare – which sounds like an odd metaphor to me, as I am coming to think on it –, I’d like to open this fin..."

I think that HT is my least favourite Dickens novel apart from ... you know which one ;-)

Maybe, at the time he was writing it, Dickens was just not used to spinning his yarn on a weekly basis and with a view to writing a much shorter novel. Saying that, he improved a lot in TOTC and GE. All in all, I have the impression that unlike Mrs. Gaskell, Dickens could not emancipate himself so well from his own views as to understand the workers' situation from their own point of view, and that's why he makes the novel a morality tale rather than a social novel with a much broader scope of viewpoints.

I found it a welcome easy read after Bleak House, but a lot less satisfying because of that. I didn't dislike it, I just took it as a relative short story compared to the others.
Stephen was a very frustrating character, but then Dickens seems to like to throw in bland characters like Little Nell that are there just to have things happen to them. Almost as wallpaper.
I had to agree about his strong accent - I come from the north of England and I couldn't understand a word of what he saying. Whether it was Southerner's idea of a Northern accent, or whether it was exaggerated for effect I don't know, but I do struggle with a lot of Dickens's working class cockney accents as well.
But overall I enjoyed reading it, although I found Bounderby's wooing of Louisa a bit creepy when she was younger. Maybe that was more acceptable in Victorian times.
I'd rate Hard Times as "different" rather than disappointing, but I'm a bit unsure why Dickens would go from the heights and complexities of Bleak House to a relatively thin follow-up in size, story and characterisation.

David - thanks for your assessment as an Englishman of the accents. I wondered if a native would be more comfortable with them. I thought I might be less put off by an author writing American regional accents than readers from other countries, but maybe it just depends on the skill of the author, and how heavy-handed it is.

Rankings are hard, and I'm a stickler for the "words have meanings" thing, so does "best" mean my favorite, or the one I think is the most well-written, for example.

I can say with certainty that my views have changed (for better or for worse!) after having read and discussed the novels with all of you.

If I divide Dickens into three groups - masterpieces, good, and, well... lacking, based on just my personal enjoyment, I think Hard Times has moved into the "lacking" group, joined by The Old Curiosity Shop and, more controversial, Oliver Twist, and A Tale of Two Cities (though I've only read the latter once and not with the group, so perhaps you'll show me where I'm wrong there).

Peter wrote: "At the risk of appearing to make a shameful appeal to your reading priorities I would like to suggest some of the Curiosities track down a copy of “The Other Dickens” and join me in November."

I tracked down a copy and read it last weekend, because it's the only copy available in every single library in my country, so I really have to hand it in again in time. So I will nog be reading along per sé, but I might chime in at times :-)

Jantine wrote: "Peter wrote: "At the risk of appearing to make a shameful appeal to your reading priorities I would like to suggest some of the Curiosities track down a copy of “The Other Dickens” and join me in N..."

Yes, I have my copy in hand and am also looking forward to this.

I still like Hard Times. I don't mind its narrative efficiency (though I agree Rachel's inexplicable opposition to unionism is a flaw). I enjoy the Bounderby-Gradgrind relationship very much: to me they are both good characters even though they are caricatures. Dickens is good at caricature and the opposition between the two men points out very well that some people in power cause problems out of selfishness and depravity and others out of ill-informed good intentions and maybe more confidence in themselves than they really ought to have: but then when society tells you that you should be running things, more often than not you will agree with it.

I also liked Harthouse as a character and felt Louisa's "fall" was so beautifully plotted with Sparsit looking on like a gargoyle and lots of great atmospheric thunderstorms.

I do think the Stephen story was a failure. I would have to include Dickens among the men who are told they ought to be running things so they do, even if they maybe would know better if they thought about it. He was running the pop-culture literary world at this point and probably thought it was his job to say something about class struggle, but it's just not what his work does all that well. His territory is the individual heart and will if you ask me. No wonder he couldn't do trade unionism justice. But he did publish Gaskell, so points to him.

Julie wrote: "His territory is the individual heart and will if you ask me. No wonder he couldn't do trade unionism justice."

That's a very good way of putting it, Julie. I have been asking myself why Hard Times so obviously falls short of the compexity we find in North and South in some memorable chapters, and it is probably this: With Dickens, it all boils down, sooner or later, to the inner fight of a character between an ethically sound decision and giving in to a temptation. Naturally, this bi-polar thinking lends itself much more to moralizing or to gripping psychological portraits, as in the case of Headstone, Jonas Chuzzlewit or, in some situations, David Copperfield - but not so much whenever right or wrong are not so clearly charted out because of differing social interests. In that respect, Dickens remains very dramatic, but also rather naive.

Mary Lou wrote: "David - thanks for your assessment as an Englishman of the accents. I wondered if a native would be more comfortable with them. I thought I might be less put off by an author writing American regio..."

I like the word “lacking.” It has the feel of disappointment rather than a harsher tone that could be used. Naturally, I would not place OCS in the category, but agree with you in terms of HT.

Peter wrote: "Mary Lou wrote: "David - thanks for your assessment as an Englishman of the accents. I wondered if a native would be more comfortable with them. I thought I might be less put off by an author writi..."

"Lacking" is a very good word here because it implies that even a bad Dickens novel still has a lot to go for it. It is only lacking with respect to what we normally expect from Dickens, isn't it?

Peter wrote: "I like the word “lacking.” It has the feel of disappointment rather than a harsher tone that could be used. Naturally, I would not place OCS in the category, but agree with you in terms of HT."

I agree - most are masterpieces and only a couple seem to me to be below that standard and suffer in comparison.
Personally, I love The Old Curiosity Shop and it is probably my favourite (even though I know it isn't the "best"). Mainly because it was the first that I read but also because it has my two favourite Dickens characters in - Quilp and Whisker the pony.
My least favourite is Pickwick Papers mainly because it is so rambling, and I find the lack of interesting female characters in particular frustrating. It's still an enjoyable read though, but just seems to be more dated than any of his others.

David,

I like the idea of Whisker the pony as a favourite character. He is surely a most memorable quadruped.

I find a lot to like in Pickwick Papers, probably because I also like Henry Fielding and Tobias Smollett, but I can understand that the rambling structure and the non-existence of a real story is not to everyone's liking.

Yes - Whisker is a favorite of mine, as well. :-)

Dickens had quite a hand for animal characters: I also liked Bill Sikes's dog, not so much as a dog but as a literary creation.