Shall we read "Great Expectations"?

[Impenitent]

I know how that feels and that is why I wanted to let you know that I am reading everything that you post here, and with great pleasure! Please don't stop.

[truehobbit]

Cerin, it's not lack of interest - I think the nice thing with posting on a scholarly-type board like this is that none of the serious topics ever really 'move on' - you could post here next year and it would still be of interest.

Maybe once you've finished we can go back to my final analysis and compare how we read the book.

I found I was uncomfortable with the attack on Mrs. Gargery. It reminded me of the ubiquitous device in movies today, wherein our hatred for an odious villain is cultivated through a movie so that we can cheer when they come to an ignominious and bloody end. I wondered if I was supposed to feel glad that Mrs. Gargery had been thus subdued?

It didn't seem like that to me for a moment . Probably because even though Mrs Gargery is a terrible shrew, Dickens, IMO, at no point 'cultivates hatred for an odious villain' when it comes to her.
And certainly we are, I think, not supposed to cheer for the attack on her - I was a bit shocked to even read the suggestion.
So, no, I think you were not supposed to feel glad, quite the contrary.
I think one odd thing about Dickens is that in spite of his larger-than-life painting of people and events, everything still remains 'human', i.e. there's two (or more) sides to everything. Yes, the attack on Mrs Gargery meant a decisive change in Pip and Joe's lives, one without which they would not have been able to develop the way they do, but that doesn't mean that the attack isn't shown as every bit an ignominious crime.

Honestly, it is one priceless vignette after another. Is Dickens always this funny?

Yes, I think he is. That's typical Dickens.

I wonder if it is especially hard to translate Dickens? It seems much of the subtlety -- and what subtle observations and wit! -- would be lost.

Dickens translates exceedingly well, at least into German, I think. Little of his wit is directly wordplay, apart from the names, and (as I have noted about this book in particular) his narrative style can be very clumsy. This was only the second book of his I've read in English rather than German, and I must say I'm not convinced it needs reading in the original. (By comparison, Austen's elegance suffers a bit, IMO - you just can't be as precise and brief at the same time in German.)

[Pearly Di]

Jaggers makes me queasy. He treats Pip and the others as though they are lab specimens. Is he up to something?

Brilliant description of Jaggers. 'Lab specimens' sums it right up. I think I can say that without giving anything away! - it really is how he is.

I reread Great Expectations a couple of years ago and greatly enjoyed it. I think it's Dickens's most grown-up novel.

Not that I've read any of his other novels for about 20 years.

But it's a brilliant book.

No Dora type women in it either.

[Cerin]

Thank you, Imp.

Maybe once you've finished we can go back to my final analysis and compare how we read the book.

That would be lovely, hobby!

I was a bit shocked to even read the suggestion.

I know. I was shocked and uncomfortable when it brushed the edges of my thoughts. Watching too many dumb movies, I guess!

Little of his wit is directly wordplay, apart from the names, and (as I have noted about this book in particular) his narrative style can be very clumsy. This was only the second book of his I've read in English rather than German, and I must say I'm not convinced it needs reading in the original.

How interesting! I think he's incredibly deft with the language -- like an accomplished chef who skins and bones a whole fish with a few graceful flicks of a knife -- not at all clumsy (but perhaps I'm not quite grasping what you mean by 'narrative style'). If his book were a shop, I'd picture it cluttered and busting at the seams with curiosities spilling off the shelves and tucked into every corner. Perhaps it's that quality of being packed so full, that relates to the idea of a clumsy narrative?


Hi, Di!

How interesting, that you find this the most grown-up Dickens book. Perhaps I'll understand that better as I go along.

*wonders what sort of annoying female Dora is*

[truehobbit]

Dora is a character from David Copperfield, and about the blondest blonde you can imagine.

Di, I don't know if that's what you mean, but I have repeatedly mentioned how different I found Great Expectations from the other Dickens novels I've read, mostly in the way he treats his main character. Yes, I think, "grown-up" is what you could call this different treatment.

Perhaps it's that quality of being packed so full, that relates to the idea of a clumsy narrative?

Possibly. I think his sentences are often somewhat ill-structured (i.e. clumsy) and it's not always clear (at least to me) why he chooses the structure he does. There were just too many sentences I had to read two or three times to understand them, which could have been put much more elegantly quite easily, and I didn't see why he chose to construct them as he did, so normally re-reading was with more of a 'doh'-effect than an 'aha!'-effect at the end.
Certainly nothing (for me) in there to read again slowly just to savour the language 'like honey in your mouth'.

(ETA: I guess I shouldn't have called it 'narrative style' though, as his way of narrating, i.e. of unfolding the plot etc, is quite masterly - just 'prose' or 'style' might have been better. )

[Cerin]

and about the blondest blonde you can imagine.

Oh, I see.

I think his sentences are often somewhat ill-structured (i.e. clumsy) and it's not always clear (at least to me) why he chooses the structure he does. There were just too many sentences I had to read two or three times to understand them, which could have been put much more elegantly quite easily, and I didn't see why he chose to construct them as he did,

Perhaps it was just a matter of publishing deadlines. I think Dickens wrote for serial publication in magazines at least some of the time -- not sure if it's so for GE, but that would indicate he wouldn't have a leisurely, Tolkienesque amount of time to refine. And then, I believe he was also paid by the word for at least some of his work, which would have made elegance less profitable.

Certainly nothing (for me) in there to read again slowly just to savour the language 'like honey in your mouth'.

When I've been rereading, it's not been for honey in the mouth, so to speak, but either when a description or observation strikes me as exceptionally powerful or astute (quite often), or to re-trace the path to a final deft twist that puts the cap on a humorous passage. So I'd agree it's not the beauty of the writing that is exceptional, but its potency and wit.


Now I've read through the visit with Estella and subsequent conversation back at Barnard's with Herbert. Bless his soul, Herbert seems to realize the potential grief Pip would be in for in a life with Estella and tries to talk him out of the idea; which at the same time does offer an explanation of Miss Havisham's possible motivation in pairing them (to make Pip miserable), but everything seems oddly out of whack at the moment. The meeting with Estella was so weird. Of course, everything about that place is weird, but her strange, unsolicited confessions about lacking a heart, Miss Havisham's emotional outburst, that mortifying (if precisely and deservedly aimed) scene with the tailor's assistant! And what's with that weird Avenger guy? I need a dose of normalcy, where something just is what it is. But I gather that's hard to find in London, at least in Pip's London. Well, I guess Herbert is what he is. Thank goodness for Herbert!

Could it really be that someone in Pip's position (albeit, an unusual position, to have risen so suddenly) would be expected not to visit his family?! Or is that just warped Estella/Pip addled by Estella-vision?

[Pearly Di]

How interesting! I think he's incredibly deft with the language -- like an accomplished chef who skins and bones a whole fish with a few graceful flicks of a knife -- not at all clumsy (but perhaps I'm not quite grasping what you mean by 'narrative style'). If his book were a shop, I'd picture it cluttered and busting at the seams with curiosities spilling off the shelves and tucked into every corner. Perhaps it's that quality of being packed so full, that relates to the idea of a clumsy narrative?

What a fantastic description of Dickens's skill as an author.

I regard a Dickens novel like a big chocolate box, crammed full with goodies. Rich ones, dark ones, vanilla ones ... and all sorts of surprises. His way with language is delicious.

How interesting, that you find this the most grown-up Dickens book. Perhaps I'll understand that better as I go along.

GE strikes me as being a work of great maturity, Cerin, because I think it deals with fundamental issues of identity, ambition and illusion - it deals with the gap between how we perceive ourselves to be and how we really are. I think that Pip's journey of self-discovery is the road we all must travel.

I think Dickens is a very great writer. One of my favourite novels is 'Little Dorrit', which paints a vast canvas of London life and the murkier side of the City. Dickens would have had plenty to write about in contemporary Britain, with his anger against social injustice, corruption in high places and child abuse.

Little Dorrit herself is a woman-child ... annoyingly typical of Victorian writers in their portrayal of female sexuality.

*wonders what sort of annoying female Dora is*

Oh, Dora is David Copperfield's first wife.

She's aged around 17, going on 12.

[truehobbit]

I think Dickens wrote for serial publication in magazines at least some of the time -- not sure if it's so for GE, but that would indicate he wouldn't have a leisurely, Tolkienesque amount of time to refine. And then, I believe he was also paid by the word for at least some of his work, which would have made elegance less profitable

Yes, I'd expect that to be the reason, too.

When I've been rereading, it's not been for honey in the mouth, so to speak, but either when a description or observation strikes me as exceptionally powerful or astute (quite often), or to re-trace the path to a final deft twist that puts the cap on a humorous passage. So I'd agree it's not the beauty of the writing that is exceptional, but its potency and wit.

Oh, yes, I agree with that. But why should there be anything difficult to render in another language in that? Depending on how much languages (or the cultures they come from) have in common, an astute or powerful description or observation will be just as astute and powerful in any other language, because most often it's not primarily the language itself that makes it powerful, but the author's idea.
Your description of Jaggers looking on Pip as a 'lab rat' for example, would work in any language, provided it knows the concept of lab rats.

that mortifying (if precisely and deservedly aimed) scene with the tailor's assistant! And what's with that weird Avenger guy?

I think both these characters are there to depict the weakness of Pip's character.

Thank goodness for Herbert!

Yes.

[Cerin]

But why should there be anything difficult to render in another language in that?

That's just it -- I don't know! Having only one language, I'm not in the position to ever assess a translation as far as how well it captures the essence of the original. I recall a quote on the back of one of my college translations that said something to the effect that the very best translation is like the wrong side of a tapestry -- you can get the general effect but not the subtlety of color or design. Perhaps that's an overly pessimistic view?

[Cerin]

Pip has gone to meet Estella's coach upon her arrival in London, and they've spent some time together.

Four times on my count now, the author has made the most delicate and ephemeral reference to something in Pip's perception of Estella, like the hint of a scent carried on a breeze. I must say, it has me completely at a loss. I've progressed from, 'Hmmm', to 'Huh?', to 'What the heck?', to 'Give me a break, already!' I really don't have a clue what he could be referring to. I suppose I should go back and look them all up (but I probably won't).

Estella strikes me as phenomenally odd. She doesn't seem to dislike Pip. I don't think she's still being deliberately cruel. It's almost as though she's acutely aware of herself as damaged goods in a detached sort of way -- like someone who's had extensive psychotherapy. Maybe that's what she was really doing in France?



I've been struggling all along with the idea of Pip's feelings as love, rather than obsession. That is, I would have labeled them obsession up to this point. I guess that's a topic in itself.

[vison]

Keep going, Cerin.

Bleak House next . . . .

Victorian authors were rather wordy, indeed partly because they were paid by the page. And in Dickens' case, love of words.

[Cerin]

Hi, vison!

I thought you were going to hold my hand through a Trollope next?

[vison]

Hi, vison!

I thought you were going to hold my hand through a Trollope next?

Um, did I?

Well, that's even better!!!!

Nice to see you.

[Cerin]

Well, it's not as though we made formal plans.

Just a passing remark somewhere, as I recall you enthusing about Trollope.

It's always wonderful to see you.

[Impenitent]

I vote for Trollope! I'll even go buy the book new (rather than lurking in my local secondhand store hoping one of the missing titles comes in).

Vison, name the day and the book and I'll be there! (One of the Barchester ones, please?!)

[Cerin]

Imp, I got such a laugh from the thought of you lurking at your local secondhand! 'Lurk' just isn't a word I would have associated with you.

(I'm picturing a very stylized lurk, with heels, a belted Burberry and cool shades.)

[Impenitent]

Not the Burbury; that shop is always over-heated, possibly for the two cats who live in the window.

[vison]

Then we ought to begin with The Warden. It is, perhaps, the least of those marvellous books, but since it's the beginning, we ought to begin there.

I saw parts of the fabulous BBC adaptation of the Barchester books and Donald Pleasance played Septimus Harding. He looked EXACTLY like I pictured Mr. Harding.

And Alan Rickman played Mr. Slope!!!!!!!!!!

But, oh, I can hardly wait for Lily Dale!!!!

[Primula Baggins]

Allllllan Riiiiiickmannnn. . . .

<slaps self>

Anything. Anything is fine.

[vison]

Oh, Prim, Rickman was amazing as Slope. He was oily and greasy and icky and insinuating and yet . . . he was still a little bit sexy.

The woman who played Mrs. Proudie was super, too. Well, they all were. I secretly think they went into another Time Realm and actually found the characters Trollope created and filmed their lives.

I saw only bits of it. And only bits of the BBC version of The Pallisers. Susan whats-her-name played Lady Glencora and again, you would think they found the "real" Lady Glen.

Hm. I am going to see if these 2 series are available on DVD.

Only, jeez. When would I find the time to watch them?