The Old Curiosity Club discussion

Act Two

Vendale Makes Love


We begin this act with Vendale and Bintley at an impasse. There appears to be no way forward in their pursuit of Walter Wilding’s request in his will. The other issue that plagued Vendale was how to make his feelings towards Marguerite known. Her uncle Obenreizer is a rather shadowy, elusive man who continually hovers over her life. Nevertheless, Vendale resolves to give Marguerite a gift on New Year’s to show his affection. Obenreizer is aware of the modest gift and seems pleased. I think it fair to say Marguerite is even more pleased.

What’s your opinion of Obenreizer? Do you find him, like me, to be portrayed in a somewhat jaundiced manner? Madame Dor is another rather strange character. She seems to spend all her time repairing Obenreizer’s gloves and socks. What’s that all about? Vendale wants to be alone with Marguerite, but how to manoeuvre her out of the room? Love will find a way. Especially in Dickens. ;-)

I pause here. As I read into this novel I am finding it disjointed, unconnected, and presenting more than a few instances that I find more suited to a stage set than a novel. Which do you think came first, the script for the theatrical production or the pages of a novel? What is your reasoning? How much do you think it would matter?

Vendale tells Marguerite he loves her. Marguerite says she loves Vendale. At this moment they hear Obenreizer returning. When he learns about the proposal Obenreizer objects on the grounds Vendale is socially superior to Marguerite. That said, he will agree to the marriage when Vendale’s yearly income is £3000 per year. The interplay between Vendale and Obenreizer is polite, but terse. Obenreizer appears to be a schemer. Did you find any places in this section where you found Obenreizer to be less than honourable?


Vendale makes Mischief

It is evident that the focus of the novel is shifting towards the relationship between Vendale and Marguerite. Also suggested is the conflict and mystery that seems to surround Obenreizer. Vendale now takes an increasing interest in the business due to the fact that success in business will lead to more profit, and, with more profit, will come Marguerite’s hand in marriage.

All seems to be well until Joey Ladle the Cellarman brings to Vendale’s attention the fact that the accounts of the firm are not accurate. Apparently there is an irregularity in the accounts with Defresnier and Co. of Switzerland. Initially, Vendale does not see the error as important but Ladle sounds a warning that one error can lead to other much more serious errors. And so Vendale writes a letter to the Swiss firm and asks for a reconciliation of either the champagne or £500. To me, £500 is a large sum of money, especially for a man who is attempting to raise his yearly income so he can marry. What do you think?

In terms of the blossoming romance between Vendale and Marguerite he and Obenreizer come to an agreement that there must be a third person in the room during the courtship. That duty is taken up by Madame Dor who offers Vendale a wink. Ah, that’s promising. Then we jump back to the letter in response to Vendale’s request for a reconciliation. Wait a minute! I’m finding the plot too fragmented, too irregular. Does this bother you as well?

Vendale learns that the problem seems to be a fraudulent receipt. When Obenreizer hears that Vendale is aware of the situation he reacts strangely. Vendale wonders if he has been too suspicious of Obenreizer in the past. Vendale receives another letter from Defresnier that states they have a suspicion as to who the thief is, but they refuse to identify the person. They ask Vendale to forward the suspicious receipt to them in Switzerland. Vendale decides the best course of action and safety of the receipt is to take the receipt to Switzerland himself. He decides to take Obenreizer as his travelling companion. Marguerite warns Vendale not to travel with Obenreizer. She fears he intends to harm Vendale. He ignores Marguerite’s warning. The last words are Marguerite’s plea for Vendale not to go.

Thoughts

Vendale and Marguerite are the story’s love interest. What is your opinion of them?

Madame Dor is an interesting character. The wink suggests she is on the lover’s side. Do you trust her?

Obenreizer is portrayed as a somewhat unreliable and untrustworthy person. Still, he could be a red herring to throw us off the trail. Do you trust him? Do you trust the cellarman?

What might be the purpose of moving the action of the novel from England to Switzerland?


.

I've been fighting for days to keep myself from coming here and posting an incredulous, "Oh, come ON!" I can only assume that Obenreizer is, as Peter suggested, a red herring. Two masterful authors like Dickens and Collins couldn't possibly write something so obvious as this criminal activity seems to be -- to everyone, that is, but Vendale. Could he really be so obtuse? I've come to the conclusion that it's so maddeningly obvious that Obenreizer is responsible for the fraudulent invoices that he surely must be a red herring.

Even if the reader makes that assumption, though, why is Vendale putting his trust in someone when all those red flags are waving directly in front of him? Marguerite comes right out and says, "He is merciless; he is revengeful; he is as secret as the grave. Don’t go with him, George—don’t go with him!... Don't go!" Her warning couldn't have been less subtle, yet Vendale dismisses it.

I'm not sure what to think about Madame Dor, but I tend to think she's a false friend, and can't be trusted. We don't know enough about her yet.

As 21st century readers, what do we make of the business transaction that this engagement has become? Perhaps the rationale and the negotiating were not as unusual at the time, though they seem terribly cold and unromantic now. But they don't make me like or trust Obenreizer -- or Vendale, for that matter. Poor Marguerite is nothing but a commodity.

I’m finding the plot too fragmented, too irregular. Does this bother you as well?

I haven't really been bothered by this. We seem to have quite a few threads for a shorter work, but assume that Dickens will, as usual, tie them all together for us by the end. For now, the identity of the first Walter seems to be all but forgotten. As does the foreshadowing provided by Joey Ladle. And we haven't seen Sally as much as serve a cup of tea since her initial revelation. Admittedly, a story this short might have benefited had these threads not been so segregated. Now we're heading for Switzerland and, perhaps, some new threads and additional characters. And, hopefully, a few answers instead of more questions.

Sorry folks, I seem to be one week ahead here. My last comments had to do with this weeks reading so I will refrain from comments here since I have read ahead. I guess because the first week had to do with Hard Times which I did not read, this time.

Hi Mary Lou

Obenreizer. Can he not be the black hat when all the signals are madly flashing? What to make of Marguerite’s warning? Can we trust her judgement?

You are right about the differences between the 19C and today’s world. Our eyes and minds accept what we do and how we think and act because we are in that moment. What is said in a novel written in 2021 anticipates that its readers will understand contemporary references. Just imagine how puzzled readers in the year 2150 will be when they read a novel published next week.

Bobbie wrote: "Sorry folks, I seem to be one week ahead here. My last comments had to do with this weeks reading so I will refrain from comments here since I have read ahead. I guess because the first week had to..."

Bobbie

No worries. Jump in anytime. I often lose count of where I am. My habit is to prepare my commentaries a couple of weeks before they are posted. Way too often I find in re-reading them before they are posted I have included spoilers. Worse, I often miss removing a spoiler. :-)

The discussion between Vendale and Obenreizer reminded me of the biblical story of Jacob who wanted to marry Rachel - and had to work for his father in law to be for seven years, for lodging and food only, before he was allowed to do so. He then ended up marrying her sister through a ploy of his FIL and that sister, and to marry the right sister too he had to work for another seven years basically for free. I totally see Obenreizer do stuff like the FIL. Although with how this all ended I think he might try to dispose of Vendale in another way instead.

Jantine

Wow! I totally missed that interesting connection. Thanks. There certainly is a possible link between the novel and the Bible.

Do you think the novel has more intertexual references with the Bible?

Peter, because of your question I am now thinking that there probably are ... But this is the only one that so blatantly stuck out to me.

As to the question whether the novel came before the play or vice-versa, I dimly remember having read somewhere that the play indeed preceded the novel by a few weeks or months. I think this shows in some text passages, especially when Marguerite talks like a ham, which she does in this week's instalment but much more in the one that I am going to post next week. You can often hear the tenor of melodrama in much of the dialogue, which makes it rather stilted.

As yet, I cannot make head or tail of Madame Dor, but I tend to think that she is a rather phlegmatic person and is content with really falling asleep during the interviews between Vendale and Marguerite; and she may even dimly sympathize with the two lovers.

There are definitely some unevennesses in the plot: I completely forgot about the existence of Sally Goldstring, and maybe after she got the action into motion, Dickens and Collins forgot about her, too.