This is my second time reading this book. I admit I tend to fall in the Dickens Fan camp. I remember when I read this in 11th grade absolutely loving it and it making me into someone who would always try to give books a chance. (I don’t remember much else about the book) So this time, when I read the first book and I didn’t really know what going on, I wondered why I liked this book so much! How did I love this in 11th grade? I was glad to hear you share in the podcast that it picks up it goes along.
I read an article last year (I’ll try to find it) discussing why millennials have a hard time with Dickens and an explanation of why his writing style is the way it is. It makes sense to me when I think of his works being published serially. It also mentioned Dickens works being read aloud and that was a strategy that my high school teacher (I’m 35 but obviously it’s stuck with me😂) to help.
I know his verbosity can be a challenge but I love his imagery. Another thing I remember about this book is the way Dickens tied in all the details at the end. I am looking forward to seeing that unfold as I don’t remember the plot very much and I’ve grown as a reader (thankfully) since my teens. I recently read a 1000 page book by an author I won’t name but I will never read again because it was about 900 pages too long. Things were hastily tied together—that’s something that,in
my experience with Dickens, he does so well.
This is my first time trying to follow along with Close Reads in (almost) real time. Looking forward to it!
Hi All, Thanks for the podcast and the comments. It is interesting to see different viewpoints and it challenges me to reread this section.
When the wine scene was discussed, it was stated "we all get it" in reference to the symbolism and future events to come. Ah, no we don't, or at least I sure didn't when I first read it!
My primary education was limited to public schools that were subpar with high levels of drop outs and limited students going onto further education. We read Tale of Two Cities and I did not make the reference to blood, and I don't think anyone else in my class did either. We needed the extra "push" to even know that sentences could have more than one meaning. (I am sure that would have been different if we had had teachers like Sean and Heidi!) I wonder if the average person in England reading this would also have needed the assistance? Yes, they would have known about the French revolution, but were they "close readers?" Or were they basic literal readers that might have needed prompts to get to a deeper reading? Or at the minimum a reassurance that they were correct in seeing another meaning?
Now that I am reading it, I can see that it is obvious and overworked and not needed for a reader that has the knowledge of history and an awareness of symbolism. But it took me to get out of my environment, attend better schools and have an exposure to other worlds before I could see this. (I am still not what I would consider a close reader...but working toward it.)
So I guess my point is that if Dickens was writing for the general public, how many would have been exposed to reading symbolism vs having limited reading skills? Maybe I am off base, so thanks for listening...I am still learning so much.
I really enjoyed all the discussion about the craft.
I started A Tale of Two Cities four years ago, got halfway, realized I had no idea what was going, went back to the beginning, and got lost all over again. So I'm looking forward to reading it with others.
I first read "A Tale of Two Cities" in high school and didn't like it at all. In fact, it kept me from reading other Dickens for a long time. Now that I have read more, I love him, so revisiting this one will be interesting.
I appreciated the discussion, and here's my hot take: Dickens writes animated films. Not a lot of subtlety. His characters are unforgettable, but often painted with broad strokes. They have a definite schtick, but sometimes not a lot else. The scenes stick in your mind. The narration is clunky. The music tells you exactly how to feel at every moment, and you are supposed to feel all the feels. There are weird jokes that the kids get (leapfrogging!) that weirdly stick with you. It's a ride. And I bring my popcorn and drink and enjoy.
It was really fun to hear all your honest thoughts here! I feel like you guys didn’t hold back and I appreciate it. AND I still love Dickens. He definitely has all those quirks you mentioned and I can see why they are annoying but they just endear me!
For example; his famous opening sentence is definitely long and confusing but when I read it I think, “well this is a fun start! Where is he going with this?” I’m laughing but also intrigued.
I do agree that he shouldn’t have mentioned the French Revolution in the wine scene, but as a new reader of classics, I was happy to know my thoughts were on the right track. Then the leap frog comment! I read that and thought “what an odd and wild comparison.” His writing definitely keeps me on my toes and now I’m reading with all your critiques in mind; as a novice but also as a critic.
I have to say that all the pearl-clutching over this episode is a little disheartening. I think the hosts are doing a great job at doing what they always do - reading closely and encouraging the rest of us. Shouldn’t that be why anyone listens to the podcast?
I loved Heidi’s image of having to “rake away the leaves” of Dickens’ prose to get at the flowers underneath. That’s such a great image! And very apt. My own opinion is that Charles Dickens himself is a character in every one of his books, and he just can’t get out of his own way. He’s too enamored with the sound of his own voice speaking his own words and so he will *never stop talking*. Thankfully this often leads to moments of true brilliance! A lifetime of intense observation lead him to some truly brilliant insights and characterizations of human nature; but I don’t know if he even realized that. It feels like in his writing he just kept Saying All The Things and left analysis - or editing - unattempted. Or up to the reader?
A suggestion for those looking for a supplemental deep dive into ATOTC by a couple of people who adore all things Dickens (one of them is the 'Owl at the Library' guy) --
wreninkpaper(dot)com -- type the title in the search engine to pull up all the deep dives and discussion threads
They spent three years doing slow reads of the entire Dickens works!
For what it's worth, I am so encouraged by reading these passionate thoughts and comments. It is a refreshing reminder of the beauty of books and ideas.
Interestingly, I just read The Betrothed in the new translation for my own podcast conversation. It has all the things that the Close Reads gang objected to here. The subscriber channel is going to read that book here next, I believe. I look forward to seeing how that conversation goes as compared to this one. To be fair, I struggled with the style some and the digressions. But I'm not the intended audience and allowances must be made. Overall, by the way, it is really worth reading.
I know people have been piling the comments on here, but I would like to say that a lot of the conversation seemed to be about what everyone thinks Dickens should have done rather than taking the novel on its own terms. There is also a definite lack of positive regard for the book. I will admit I love Dickens like I love certain family members. Sometimes their stories ramble on a bit, but they have interesting stories to tell if you give them a chance. I think this novel has earned that. In many ways my reading life was formed by 19th century novelists: French, English, and Russian. The novels are long, they weren’t edited in the same way, and they existed before Google. There are formal aspects that do not exist in modern novels, so the reader has to acclimate just like one has to acclimate to reading Homer or Shakespeare. I can understand that you collectively don’t prefer Victorian literature, but it is unfair to bash the book for being written when it was. I don’t personally like modern novels as a whole, but I have found some I enjoy thanks to this podcast. I have done my best to find what there was to admire in The Road, I would appreciate some more positivity in the discussion of A Tale of Two Cities.
I hear you. As we said, we will certainly be discussing what is great about it before moving forward. That said, I think we are reading it the way we are because we are trying to take it on its own terms. But there is a difference between taking a book on its own terms and deciphering whether the traditions of an era, say, are Inherently on a higher artistic plane. Same is true of modern novels. Most modern novels are terrible because they have the ticks of their day. Dickens has the ticks of his day but he’s still a genius. It doesn’t make the ticks less… flawed (to use a negative term), just as some modern novels will last despite the ticks of our time.
I think I’ve mentioned, but I have seen borne out in the shop what I once read: no novelist is as widely divisive as Dickens. It’s an interesting theory.
Well, the theory is borne out by the comments section of this podcast. I will agree that the beginning of the book is confusing and for that reason alone he wouldn’t be able to get it published today without major edits, but it can also be a tonic for our era’s lack of attention span. I read The Idiot last year (it was a first read) and I spent quite a bit of time wondering what kind of book it was and where it was going, so Dickens was not alone in drawing those questions out further than many modern readers are interested in going.
When I say I love Dickens, I also mean I know his foibles, but love him anyway. Some years ago I read Martin Chuzzlewit and parts of it were a slog. Every now and again he would drop in a truly beautiful passage and then we were back to the swamp, literally and figuratively.
So I have a lot of opinions about this novel. I just read it aloud to my kids (ages 12-16) this past fall. And I think one thing to keep in mind with Dickens is that he is an author who benefits from being read aloud. That's how many of his original audience would have experienced these books: gathered about the fire in a group with one person reading and others listening and commenting.
I do think Book The First is slow. I had to tell me kids: be patient, wait for it, this will all make sense eventually. (And they trusted me because we did Great Expectations the year before and they loved that.) But I'm still not sure that's not a feature instead of a bug. Dickens rewards patience and careful reading. His stories start slow and are confusing at first, but if you're patient they make sense. And they really reward re-reading. The details that you don't know what to make of the first time through are GOLD when you re-read, knowing what's coming later.
But I think even when Dickens hasn't yet given me a reason to love the characters or to understand the stakes of the story, he is already creating a mood and painting a vivid picture in my head. And I kind of agree with Heidi about the first sentence. It's not my favorite, to be honest. But I kind of feel that's a fault in me for not being a careful or patient enough reader to take the time to slow down and see what he's doing.
But anyway I was thinking about why Dickens choses to begin the novel in 1775-- and I think it's no accident that it's the year before the American Declaration of Independence, which is the spark that lights the flame of the French Revolution. I love the way Dickens hints at that, with a jab at spiritualism, which has not actually done anything to effect the course of history: "Mere messages in the earthly order of events had lately come to the English Crown and People from a congress of British subjects in America: which strange to relate, have proved more important to the human race than any communications yet received through the chickens of the Cock-lane brood."
I really do not mind the essayist Dickens intruding into the novel with his discourses. I don't really care about some kind of purity of craft or perfected form of the novel. I like an intrusive narrator and I enjoy the rough edges. I do not at all dislike the passages that David railed against. In fact, I quite like them. I like the bit where the narrator talks about humans being a mystery to each other. Especially reading the novel with younger readers who maybe haven't encountered those thoughts. I dunno musing out loud about the themes, it's just not the kind of thing that bothers me and it just doesn't seem like bad writing to me.
And I love the bit about being scared to leapfrog over Jerry's hair. It's a great bit of Dickensian characterization. Jerry's hair is almost a character in its own right in the novel and I think the sharpness of it, the unnaturalness of it is a big part of his characterization and goes along with the unnaturalness of his second, secret trade. Also I really love the fact that Mr Lorry is going to dig someone out of a grave... and the messenger who brings him the message from Tellson's bank, as we find out later in the novel, turns out to literally be a grave robber. I just realized that little bit of synchronicity. No wonder Jerry is spooked by the message he's carrying.
David, I don’t see how that follows at all. He is overwriting and filling pages— presumably with description? —and so that requires the reader to speed up rather than slow down and enjoy the scenery?
I think you’re being contrarian and not actually making an argument. I accept that Dickens isn’t to your taste. But I don’t think the things you dislike are objectively bad craft. They’re just not to your taste. It’s a matter of personal preference.
I get it that Dickens’ novels are padded and lush rather than slim and compact. There is a truth that the paid by installment serial plan of writing leads to a certain pacing and a lack of economy. My high school class had an assignment to cut Bleak House by a third. And you can definitely make his stories trimmer. I’ve done it. And yet that exercise paradoxically made me more appreciative of how the serial firm is a feature and creates writing that exists for a particular purpose: to read aloud to entertain groups of people over a long period of time. Dickens wrote to be read aloud by groups over time and when you read him like that and give up your express rations for him to be more like the more highly edited novel of today, it’s a highly rewarding experience. There is a distinct pleasure to be had in slowing down taking the time to unravel a complex sentence or paragraph, discuss what he’s doing there with the audience of eager listeners.
Likewise, it’s a pleasure to watch kids pondering the really obvious foreshadowing like the blood which he spells out for you. It might feel clumsy to a sophisticated reader, but it has a purpose and is crafted to his intended audience. It’s foreshadowing that less sophisticated readers can see and identify in the moment as they’re reading, can stop and wonder where it’s heading, can feel satisfaction in noticing. They don’t need the teacher to tell them that wine is a symbol for blood and that it’s foreshadowing the coming revolution because the book interprets itself for the reader. And that is a feature not a bug for much of the reading public.
Just one thought: even during his time, critics and other writers criticized him for his narrative sprawl and the lack of subtly in his symbolism. So I don’t think it’s purely a matter of The Victorian Thing. I just think he’s a writer who is a genius who, for his choices, sometimes invites debate.
I mean…. This is a debate for a place other than the comments section ha. But there is discussion to be had about what makes good novel writing vs good storytelling. I also think Dostoevsky, who I DEEPLY love had flaws as a novelist. I don’t think every Shakespeare play is perfect either, and some of the bits I love most are some of the more sloppy. So, sure, it could be taste, to some degree. But we are, all of us, always evolving in our tastes, and trying to merge our tastes with things that are Inherently good.
There’s more to be said on the topic, but I hope you trust we won’t just rest on our tastes, if indeed that all it is. One of the reasons we started as we did is so we can investigate that very question.
Oh, and I also developed more of an appreciation for his style when I practiced reading it out loud. There is a lot of drama in the construction of the sentences. They are difficult to read, but if you can read them well out loud, they can become very dramatically exciting. This quality might be exactly what some of you don't like, but it may also be what some people like. I know Dickens was an actor who was popular for his readings of his own works.
I was curious whether y'all just tend to dislike Victorian novelists in general. In particular, Heidi's and David's comments made me curious about their opinions on George Eliot.
I agree re reading aloud - I listened to most of his books or read them aloud to my children and they are so much easier to understand then. He loves weaving his stories using multiple strands, quite often inanimate objects become characters in his books - walls observe and judge, windows are looking at people etc. And nothing is accidental in his books, all the details play a role.
Yes! I was just saying in my own comment that Dickens feels like it was meant to be read out loud. Not only was Dickens a great performer of his own work, but also I think he wrote with the knowledge and intention that many of his readers would be sharing his serials by reading them to each other.
It's not always easy to read his sentences, sometimes they can be puzzlers and I have to read the harder ones more than once. But it's rare that I can't eventually find my way to the meaning. I can think of only twice when I was really and truly stumped.
I am back and forth with Dickens myself. I completely agree that he indulges himself too much with the melodrama, the overdone/mixed-up descriptions, the crazy syntax, and the intrusive essays. But I guess I have more of an appreciation for him than I thought because some of the passages you all were hating on are ones that I actually have a lot of affection for. I think the ambiguities in the opening paragraph are interpretively very interesting if you take them as a lens for the novel. Some of the statements that "tell" rather than show, while not strictly necessary, make me excited to see the ways that he will explore the stated theme (including the one about every human being a "secret" to every other human). And I LOVE the description of Jerry's hair. I guess I can see David's points about the messiness of the description, but I find it so hilarious and charming. Dickens' imagination is so singular and I can't help but smile at his playfulness, even at times where he is kind of losing himself. Plus, I think that that hair description is symbolically significant.
I think I am being influenced by my experience teaching this novel to 10th graders. We got a lot out of discussion out of those three passages, so I tend to appreciate them. In fact, we had so much fun with a contest trying to draw Jerry's hair. We posted the winner at the front of the classroom. It was fantastic.
Yes! Jerry's spiky hair is such a great visual and symbolic detail. It says Danger like the prickles of a hedgehog. But Dickens could have compared him to a natural thing like a hedgehog and doesn't. Instead, he compares it to a wall with spikes on it to keep people away. 'Danger: keep out!' it screams. 'Don't trespass here.' Ironic given Jerry's nighttime doings....
Thanks for this episode on what is one of my favorite books of all time. I was intrigued by your comment on Jerry Cruncher and the "Leap-Frog" passage. It set something off and I started thinking about it, and ended up writing a long response about how I think the passage actually tells us almost everything that is important about Jerry, and that Leap-Frog is a critically important theme in the book. This is the shorter version!
It reads better in the longer version, but in sum, we agree that the paragraph establishes several key points:
1. Jerry is confused; i.e., confusable.
2. Jerry is like a wall with spikes on top.
3. Like a wall with spikes on top, Jerry is hard to leap-frog over.
4. Jerry is in some sense a dangerous man.
5. Jerry’s confusion and Jerry’s wall-nature are (or at least, should be) somehow tied together.
I’d add that it also shows, or foreshadows:
1. Jerry is “confused” about the state of his affairs. He asserts that he is an “honest tradesman,” in a “line of business,” when in fact he is a criminal who exhumes and sells dead bodies – a “resurrection man.” It’s not business, it’s criminal, and he’s not honest about it, because he conceals it.
2. Jerry’s spiked wall is not seamless; it has an unprotected area, represented in the metaphor by his bald spot on top, uncovered by “spikes.”
SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!!
(Sorry my first ever post here and I don't know the etiquette - the rest of this post refers to some events from later in the book).
I would argue that Jerry's confusion, as introduced here, is central to who he is. He is confused about his work, always identifying himself as an "honest tradesman," when in fact he's a grave-robber. He's confused about his wife and her prayers, about their intention, and about his own relationship to God and prayer. And in someone whose initial job is as messenger, this is important, because delivering a clear message is fundamental to that duty.
But Jerry is also a wall. He spends the second half of the book acting as a bodyguard, "an English bulldog, [whom no one would suspect] of having any design in his head but to fly at anybody who touches his master." His lack of intellect actually helps here, because no one will suspect that he is a spy - thus the confuson and the wall-nature are tied together. Like a wall, Jerry the bodyguard protects his master, and like a bulldog with his characteristic spiked collar, Jerry has a spikey head (but with a notable bald spot).
When we say someone attempts to leap-frog another, we mean that they are trying to get ahead of them, usurp their position, jump over their place. What else is the book about, than the attempt of the Jacques to "leap-frog" over Monseigneur? They are tired of their low place and yearn to leap over their social superiors. Recalling the metaphor in question, they also, in a pivotal scene, literally leap frog over a set of walls, at the Bastille. In so doing, they leap-frog their superiors and take the lead in society.
But they never leap-frog over Jerry. As long as Jerry is present, Mr. Lorry and the Manette/Darnay family are safe. But as Dickens pointed out, Jerry's spiked-wall head has a prominent bald (i.e., spikeless) spot. And when Jerry is absent, helping Miss Pross shop, the Jacques enter the apartment and retake Darnay; and when Jerry is absent again, rearranging their carriage, Madame Defarge slips into the apartment and faces off with Miss Pross. They won't go over the spikes; the only way past the wall is to sneak over the bald spot.
As wall, Jerry proves remarkably effective, impossible to leap-frog over; but Dickens also, with the bald spot, foreshadows how he will fail in this one aspect. As with so much in this novel, Dickens gives us both sides; Jerry as invincible wall and Jerry with a bald spot; Jerry who lies about the honesty of his trade, and Jerry whose dishonest trade provides the opportunity for his honest and momentous disclosure about Cly; Jerry miserably confused about everything important, and Jerry who sees with amazing clarity and saves the day with his clear and accurate message. All this in the context of a world in which citizens are willing, in order to leap-frog their social betters, to not just jump over heads, but to slice them off.
Thanks for reading! And sorry for the long post!
(note: edited, somehow two paragraphs from the middle were transposed to the end, so I corrected that)
And all done with humor which I find the most lovable thing about Dickens! I think you cannot disconnect his earnestness from the humor and why I think he is a great craftsman.
Debbie, I agree; one if my favorite things is when the author gives us a joke, and we remember it because it’s a joke, but then when it sinks in we see there is a deeper meaning than was immediately apparent. Shakespeare does this with the gravedigger scene in Hamlet, among other places. The humor works almost like rhyme can in poetry; by keeping the text more easily in the mind, our brains can work on the interpretation in a more leisurely way, sometimes without us even realizing it.
Sure, I but that that's the reason; but just because you can point to a reason doesn't make it suit the narrative. In fact, I would argue that this kind of character work is another form of telling instead of showing through the actions, dialogue, and inner life of the character. It's a mileage thing.
I love this reading of Jerry! Especially about how he himself is a wall and a protector in the second part of the book. And about the significance of his bald spot.
Thank you Melanie. It was a challenging dive. I agree with the premise that they put forward during the show, that carefully constructed metaphor/symbolic language should be revealing of deep truths about the character and/or themes of the story, and not just the author "having fun." So it was interesting to give some thought to whether Dickens really does that there. On close inspection, I think he does, much more than I had originally guessed.
I also found it funny, which certainly is a matter of taste.
"And furthermore..." Weren't you looking for a title for a new show? 😂
This is my second time reading this book. I admit I tend to fall in the Dickens Fan camp. I remember when I read this in 11th grade absolutely loving it and it making me into someone who would always try to give books a chance. (I don’t remember much else about the book) So this time, when I read the first book and I didn’t really know what going on, I wondered why I liked this book so much! How did I love this in 11th grade? I was glad to hear you share in the podcast that it picks up it goes along.
I read an article last year (I’ll try to find it) discussing why millennials have a hard time with Dickens and an explanation of why his writing style is the way it is. It makes sense to me when I think of his works being published serially. It also mentioned Dickens works being read aloud and that was a strategy that my high school teacher (I’m 35 but obviously it’s stuck with me😂) to help.
I know his verbosity can be a challenge but I love his imagery. Another thing I remember about this book is the way Dickens tied in all the details at the end. I am looking forward to seeing that unfold as I don’t remember the plot very much and I’ve grown as a reader (thankfully) since my teens. I recently read a 1000 page book by an author I won’t name but I will never read again because it was about 900 pages too long. Things were hastily tied together—that’s something that,in
my experience with Dickens, he does so well.
This is my first time trying to follow along with Close Reads in (almost) real time. Looking forward to it!
Here is the blog I reference:
https://dickensmuseum.com/blogs/charles-dickens-museum/a-millennials-guide-to-reading-dickens-if-youre-struggling?srsltid=AfmBOor1hpAZpR08RTseJsa78Z5jY_H--Lw0Jfy47NRGbb5yult5sEAL
When will the next ep be posted?
Asap! Had to record later than normal, so we’re working on it. Sorry for the delay!
Oh no problem !
Hi All, Thanks for the podcast and the comments. It is interesting to see different viewpoints and it challenges me to reread this section.
When the wine scene was discussed, it was stated "we all get it" in reference to the symbolism and future events to come. Ah, no we don't, or at least I sure didn't when I first read it!
My primary education was limited to public schools that were subpar with high levels of drop outs and limited students going onto further education. We read Tale of Two Cities and I did not make the reference to blood, and I don't think anyone else in my class did either. We needed the extra "push" to even know that sentences could have more than one meaning. (I am sure that would have been different if we had had teachers like Sean and Heidi!) I wonder if the average person in England reading this would also have needed the assistance? Yes, they would have known about the French revolution, but were they "close readers?" Or were they basic literal readers that might have needed prompts to get to a deeper reading? Or at the minimum a reassurance that they were correct in seeing another meaning?
Now that I am reading it, I can see that it is obvious and overworked and not needed for a reader that has the knowledge of history and an awareness of symbolism. But it took me to get out of my environment, attend better schools and have an exposure to other worlds before I could see this. (I am still not what I would consider a close reader...but working toward it.)
So I guess my point is that if Dickens was writing for the general public, how many would have been exposed to reading symbolism vs having limited reading skills? Maybe I am off base, so thanks for listening...I am still learning so much.
I really enjoyed all the discussion about the craft.
I started A Tale of Two Cities four years ago, got halfway, realized I had no idea what was going, went back to the beginning, and got lost all over again. So I'm looking forward to reading it with others.
I first read "A Tale of Two Cities" in high school and didn't like it at all. In fact, it kept me from reading other Dickens for a long time. Now that I have read more, I love him, so revisiting this one will be interesting.
I appreciated the discussion, and here's my hot take: Dickens writes animated films. Not a lot of subtlety. His characters are unforgettable, but often painted with broad strokes. They have a definite schtick, but sometimes not a lot else. The scenes stick in your mind. The narration is clunky. The music tells you exactly how to feel at every moment, and you are supposed to feel all the feels. There are weird jokes that the kids get (leapfrogging!) that weirdly stick with you. It's a ride. And I bring my popcorn and drink and enjoy.
It was really fun to hear all your honest thoughts here! I feel like you guys didn’t hold back and I appreciate it. AND I still love Dickens. He definitely has all those quirks you mentioned and I can see why they are annoying but they just endear me!
For example; his famous opening sentence is definitely long and confusing but when I read it I think, “well this is a fun start! Where is he going with this?” I’m laughing but also intrigued.
I do agree that he shouldn’t have mentioned the French Revolution in the wine scene, but as a new reader of classics, I was happy to know my thoughts were on the right track. Then the leap frog comment! I read that and thought “what an odd and wild comparison.” His writing definitely keeps me on my toes and now I’m reading with all your critiques in mind; as a novice but also as a critic.
I have to say that all the pearl-clutching over this episode is a little disheartening. I think the hosts are doing a great job at doing what they always do - reading closely and encouraging the rest of us. Shouldn’t that be why anyone listens to the podcast?
I loved Heidi’s image of having to “rake away the leaves” of Dickens’ prose to get at the flowers underneath. That’s such a great image! And very apt. My own opinion is that Charles Dickens himself is a character in every one of his books, and he just can’t get out of his own way. He’s too enamored with the sound of his own voice speaking his own words and so he will *never stop talking*. Thankfully this often leads to moments of true brilliance! A lifetime of intense observation lead him to some truly brilliant insights and characterizations of human nature; but I don’t know if he even realized that. It feels like in his writing he just kept Saying All The Things and left analysis - or editing - unattempted. Or up to the reader?
A suggestion for those looking for a supplemental deep dive into ATOTC by a couple of people who adore all things Dickens (one of them is the 'Owl at the Library' guy) --
wreninkpaper(dot)com -- type the title in the search engine to pull up all the deep dives and discussion threads
They spent three years doing slow reads of the entire Dickens works!
For what it's worth, I am so encouraged by reading these passionate thoughts and comments. It is a refreshing reminder of the beauty of books and ideas.
Thanks for the link.
David's angry and exasperated expression about the passage in chapter 3 makes this as a video podcast 800x better.
Interestingly, I just read The Betrothed in the new translation for my own podcast conversation. It has all the things that the Close Reads gang objected to here. The subscriber channel is going to read that book here next, I believe. I look forward to seeing how that conversation goes as compared to this one. To be fair, I struggled with the style some and the digressions. But I'm not the intended audience and allowances must be made. Overall, by the way, it is really worth reading.
I know people have been piling the comments on here, but I would like to say that a lot of the conversation seemed to be about what everyone thinks Dickens should have done rather than taking the novel on its own terms. There is also a definite lack of positive regard for the book. I will admit I love Dickens like I love certain family members. Sometimes their stories ramble on a bit, but they have interesting stories to tell if you give them a chance. I think this novel has earned that. In many ways my reading life was formed by 19th century novelists: French, English, and Russian. The novels are long, they weren’t edited in the same way, and they existed before Google. There are formal aspects that do not exist in modern novels, so the reader has to acclimate just like one has to acclimate to reading Homer or Shakespeare. I can understand that you collectively don’t prefer Victorian literature, but it is unfair to bash the book for being written when it was. I don’t personally like modern novels as a whole, but I have found some I enjoy thanks to this podcast. I have done my best to find what there was to admire in The Road, I would appreciate some more positivity in the discussion of A Tale of Two Cities.
I hear you. As we said, we will certainly be discussing what is great about it before moving forward. That said, I think we are reading it the way we are because we are trying to take it on its own terms. But there is a difference between taking a book on its own terms and deciphering whether the traditions of an era, say, are Inherently on a higher artistic plane. Same is true of modern novels. Most modern novels are terrible because they have the ticks of their day. Dickens has the ticks of his day but he’s still a genius. It doesn’t make the ticks less… flawed (to use a negative term), just as some modern novels will last despite the ticks of our time.
I think I’ve mentioned, but I have seen borne out in the shop what I once read: no novelist is as widely divisive as Dickens. It’s an interesting theory.
Well, the theory is borne out by the comments section of this podcast. I will agree that the beginning of the book is confusing and for that reason alone he wouldn’t be able to get it published today without major edits, but it can also be a tonic for our era’s lack of attention span. I read The Idiot last year (it was a first read) and I spent quite a bit of time wondering what kind of book it was and where it was going, so Dickens was not alone in drawing those questions out further than many modern readers are interested in going.
When I say I love Dickens, I also mean I know his foibles, but love him anyway. Some years ago I read Martin Chuzzlewit and parts of it were a slog. Every now and again he would drop in a truly beautiful passage and then we were back to the swamp, literally and figuratively.
I felt the same way about The Idiot. Hardest of his novels for me to take in. It’s been 15 years, I need to try it again.
It would be interesting to reread knowing its trajectory.
Isn’t that ultimately a matter of taste, too? 😎
But for real - dickens has some absolutely lovely sentences, haunting scenes, wonderful characters, etc. I agree with that!
It is. I will not host a podcast to discuss Martin Chuzzlewit. 😆 But I do have commonplace entries for it.
I also am quite fond of Martin Chuzzlewit. Not the American section. But it's got great things. I really only struggle with Oliver Twist.
The American section has some great quotes, but it loses the momentum of the plot. Once they get back to England, it really picks up.
So I have a lot of opinions about this novel. I just read it aloud to my kids (ages 12-16) this past fall. And I think one thing to keep in mind with Dickens is that he is an author who benefits from being read aloud. That's how many of his original audience would have experienced these books: gathered about the fire in a group with one person reading and others listening and commenting.
I do think Book The First is slow. I had to tell me kids: be patient, wait for it, this will all make sense eventually. (And they trusted me because we did Great Expectations the year before and they loved that.) But I'm still not sure that's not a feature instead of a bug. Dickens rewards patience and careful reading. His stories start slow and are confusing at first, but if you're patient they make sense. And they really reward re-reading. The details that you don't know what to make of the first time through are GOLD when you re-read, knowing what's coming later.
But I think even when Dickens hasn't yet given me a reason to love the characters or to understand the stakes of the story, he is already creating a mood and painting a vivid picture in my head. And I kind of agree with Heidi about the first sentence. It's not my favorite, to be honest. But I kind of feel that's a fault in me for not being a careful or patient enough reader to take the time to slow down and see what he's doing.
But anyway I was thinking about why Dickens choses to begin the novel in 1775-- and I think it's no accident that it's the year before the American Declaration of Independence, which is the spark that lights the flame of the French Revolution. I love the way Dickens hints at that, with a jab at spiritualism, which has not actually done anything to effect the course of history: "Mere messages in the earthly order of events had lately come to the English Crown and People from a congress of British subjects in America: which strange to relate, have proved more important to the human race than any communications yet received through the chickens of the Cock-lane brood."
I really do not mind the essayist Dickens intruding into the novel with his discourses. I don't really care about some kind of purity of craft or perfected form of the novel. I like an intrusive narrator and I enjoy the rough edges. I do not at all dislike the passages that David railed against. In fact, I quite like them. I like the bit where the narrator talks about humans being a mystery to each other. Especially reading the novel with younger readers who maybe haven't encountered those thoughts. I dunno musing out loud about the themes, it's just not the kind of thing that bothers me and it just doesn't seem like bad writing to me.
And I love the bit about being scared to leapfrog over Jerry's hair. It's a great bit of Dickensian characterization. Jerry's hair is almost a character in its own right in the novel and I think the sharpness of it, the unnaturalness of it is a big part of his characterization and goes along with the unnaturalness of his second, secret trade. Also I really love the fact that Mr Lorry is going to dig someone out of a grave... and the messenger who brings him the message from Tellson's bank, as we find out later in the novel, turns out to literally be a grave robber. I just realized that little bit of synchronicity. No wonder Jerry is spooked by the message he's carrying.
I do agree, Melanie. I love the effort of unraveling all those long sentences and the reward of rereading them.
I don't think that Dickens is asking us to slow down at all. Quite the opposite. He even talked about how he would overwrite to fill pages.
David, I don’t see how that follows at all. He is overwriting and filling pages— presumably with description? —and so that requires the reader to speed up rather than slow down and enjoy the scenery?
I think you’re being contrarian and not actually making an argument. I accept that Dickens isn’t to your taste. But I don’t think the things you dislike are objectively bad craft. They’re just not to your taste. It’s a matter of personal preference.
I get it that Dickens’ novels are padded and lush rather than slim and compact. There is a truth that the paid by installment serial plan of writing leads to a certain pacing and a lack of economy. My high school class had an assignment to cut Bleak House by a third. And you can definitely make his stories trimmer. I’ve done it. And yet that exercise paradoxically made me more appreciative of how the serial firm is a feature and creates writing that exists for a particular purpose: to read aloud to entertain groups of people over a long period of time. Dickens wrote to be read aloud by groups over time and when you read him like that and give up your express rations for him to be more like the more highly edited novel of today, it’s a highly rewarding experience. There is a distinct pleasure to be had in slowing down taking the time to unravel a complex sentence or paragraph, discuss what he’s doing there with the audience of eager listeners.
Likewise, it’s a pleasure to watch kids pondering the really obvious foreshadowing like the blood which he spells out for you. It might feel clumsy to a sophisticated reader, but it has a purpose and is crafted to his intended audience. It’s foreshadowing that less sophisticated readers can see and identify in the moment as they’re reading, can stop and wonder where it’s heading, can feel satisfaction in noticing. They don’t need the teacher to tell them that wine is a symbol for blood and that it’s foreshadowing the coming revolution because the book interprets itself for the reader. And that is a feature not a bug for much of the reading public.
Can I double -like this ? Thank you Melanie!
Just one thought: even during his time, critics and other writers criticized him for his narrative sprawl and the lack of subtly in his symbolism. So I don’t think it’s purely a matter of The Victorian Thing. I just think he’s a writer who is a genius who, for his choices, sometimes invites debate.
Very true. All this makes me realize why G.K. Chesterton had an uphill job when he championed Dickens.
I mean…. This is a debate for a place other than the comments section ha. But there is discussion to be had about what makes good novel writing vs good storytelling. I also think Dostoevsky, who I DEEPLY love had flaws as a novelist. I don’t think every Shakespeare play is perfect either, and some of the bits I love most are some of the more sloppy. So, sure, it could be taste, to some degree. But we are, all of us, always evolving in our tastes, and trying to merge our tastes with things that are Inherently good.
There’s more to be said on the topic, but I hope you trust we won’t just rest on our tastes, if indeed that all it is. One of the reasons we started as we did is so we can investigate that very question.
Oh, and I also developed more of an appreciation for his style when I practiced reading it out loud. There is a lot of drama in the construction of the sentences. They are difficult to read, but if you can read them well out loud, they can become very dramatically exciting. This quality might be exactly what some of you don't like, but it may also be what some people like. I know Dickens was an actor who was popular for his readings of his own works.
I was curious whether y'all just tend to dislike Victorian novelists in general. In particular, Heidi's and David's comments made me curious about their opinions on George Eliot.
I agree re reading aloud - I listened to most of his books or read them aloud to my children and they are so much easier to understand then. He loves weaving his stories using multiple strands, quite often inanimate objects become characters in his books - walls observe and judge, windows are looking at people etc. And nothing is accidental in his books, all the details play a role.
Yes! I was just saying in my own comment that Dickens feels like it was meant to be read out loud. Not only was Dickens a great performer of his own work, but also I think he wrote with the knowledge and intention that many of his readers would be sharing his serials by reading them to each other.
It's not always easy to read his sentences, sometimes they can be puzzlers and I have to read the harder ones more than once. But it's rare that I can't eventually find my way to the meaning. I can think of only twice when I was really and truly stumped.
I am back and forth with Dickens myself. I completely agree that he indulges himself too much with the melodrama, the overdone/mixed-up descriptions, the crazy syntax, and the intrusive essays. But I guess I have more of an appreciation for him than I thought because some of the passages you all were hating on are ones that I actually have a lot of affection for. I think the ambiguities in the opening paragraph are interpretively very interesting if you take them as a lens for the novel. Some of the statements that "tell" rather than show, while not strictly necessary, make me excited to see the ways that he will explore the stated theme (including the one about every human being a "secret" to every other human). And I LOVE the description of Jerry's hair. I guess I can see David's points about the messiness of the description, but I find it so hilarious and charming. Dickens' imagination is so singular and I can't help but smile at his playfulness, even at times where he is kind of losing himself. Plus, I think that that hair description is symbolically significant.
I think I am being influenced by my experience teaching this novel to 10th graders. We got a lot out of discussion out of those three passages, so I tend to appreciate them. In fact, we had so much fun with a contest trying to draw Jerry's hair. We posted the winner at the front of the classroom. It was fantastic.
Yes! Jerry's spiky hair is such a great visual and symbolic detail. It says Danger like the prickles of a hedgehog. But Dickens could have compared him to a natural thing like a hedgehog and doesn't. Instead, he compares it to a wall with spikes on it to keep people away. 'Danger: keep out!' it screams. 'Don't trespass here.' Ironic given Jerry's nighttime doings....
Hi David, Heidi, and Sean,
Thanks for this episode on what is one of my favorite books of all time. I was intrigued by your comment on Jerry Cruncher and the "Leap-Frog" passage. It set something off and I started thinking about it, and ended up writing a long response about how I think the passage actually tells us almost everything that is important about Jerry, and that Leap-Frog is a critically important theme in the book. This is the shorter version!
It reads better in the longer version, but in sum, we agree that the paragraph establishes several key points:
1. Jerry is confused; i.e., confusable.
2. Jerry is like a wall with spikes on top.
3. Like a wall with spikes on top, Jerry is hard to leap-frog over.
4. Jerry is in some sense a dangerous man.
5. Jerry’s confusion and Jerry’s wall-nature are (or at least, should be) somehow tied together.
I’d add that it also shows, or foreshadows:
1. Jerry is “confused” about the state of his affairs. He asserts that he is an “honest tradesman,” in a “line of business,” when in fact he is a criminal who exhumes and sells dead bodies – a “resurrection man.” It’s not business, it’s criminal, and he’s not honest about it, because he conceals it.
2. Jerry’s spiked wall is not seamless; it has an unprotected area, represented in the metaphor by his bald spot on top, uncovered by “spikes.”
SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!!
(Sorry my first ever post here and I don't know the etiquette - the rest of this post refers to some events from later in the book).
I would argue that Jerry's confusion, as introduced here, is central to who he is. He is confused about his work, always identifying himself as an "honest tradesman," when in fact he's a grave-robber. He's confused about his wife and her prayers, about their intention, and about his own relationship to God and prayer. And in someone whose initial job is as messenger, this is important, because delivering a clear message is fundamental to that duty.
But Jerry is also a wall. He spends the second half of the book acting as a bodyguard, "an English bulldog, [whom no one would suspect] of having any design in his head but to fly at anybody who touches his master." His lack of intellect actually helps here, because no one will suspect that he is a spy - thus the confuson and the wall-nature are tied together. Like a wall, Jerry the bodyguard protects his master, and like a bulldog with his characteristic spiked collar, Jerry has a spikey head (but with a notable bald spot).
When we say someone attempts to leap-frog another, we mean that they are trying to get ahead of them, usurp their position, jump over their place. What else is the book about, than the attempt of the Jacques to "leap-frog" over Monseigneur? They are tired of their low place and yearn to leap over their social superiors. Recalling the metaphor in question, they also, in a pivotal scene, literally leap frog over a set of walls, at the Bastille. In so doing, they leap-frog their superiors and take the lead in society.
But they never leap-frog over Jerry. As long as Jerry is present, Mr. Lorry and the Manette/Darnay family are safe. But as Dickens pointed out, Jerry's spiked-wall head has a prominent bald (i.e., spikeless) spot. And when Jerry is absent, helping Miss Pross shop, the Jacques enter the apartment and retake Darnay; and when Jerry is absent again, rearranging their carriage, Madame Defarge slips into the apartment and faces off with Miss Pross. They won't go over the spikes; the only way past the wall is to sneak over the bald spot.
As wall, Jerry proves remarkably effective, impossible to leap-frog over; but Dickens also, with the bald spot, foreshadows how he will fail in this one aspect. As with so much in this novel, Dickens gives us both sides; Jerry as invincible wall and Jerry with a bald spot; Jerry who lies about the honesty of his trade, and Jerry whose dishonest trade provides the opportunity for his honest and momentous disclosure about Cly; Jerry miserably confused about everything important, and Jerry who sees with amazing clarity and saves the day with his clear and accurate message. All this in the context of a world in which citizens are willing, in order to leap-frog their social betters, to not just jump over heads, but to slice them off.
Thanks for reading! And sorry for the long post!
(note: edited, somehow two paragraphs from the middle were transposed to the end, so I corrected that)
And all done with humor which I find the most lovable thing about Dickens! I think you cannot disconnect his earnestness from the humor and why I think he is a great craftsman.
Debbie, I agree; one if my favorite things is when the author gives us a joke, and we remember it because it’s a joke, but then when it sinks in we see there is a deeper meaning than was immediately apparent. Shakespeare does this with the gravedigger scene in Hamlet, among other places. The humor works almost like rhyme can in poetry; by keeping the text more easily in the mind, our brains can work on the interpretation in a more leisurely way, sometimes without us even realizing it.
Plus, it’s fun!
Sure, I but that that's the reason; but just because you can point to a reason doesn't make it suit the narrative. In fact, I would argue that this kind of character work is another form of telling instead of showing through the actions, dialogue, and inner life of the character. It's a mileage thing.
Such brilliant analysis, thank you!
Thanks!
I love this reading of Jerry! Especially about how he himself is a wall and a protector in the second part of the book. And about the significance of his bald spot.
Thank you Melanie. It was a challenging dive. I agree with the premise that they put forward during the show, that carefully constructed metaphor/symbolic language should be revealing of deep truths about the character and/or themes of the story, and not just the author "having fun." So it was interesting to give some thought to whether Dickens really does that there. On close inspection, I think he does, much more than I had originally guessed.
I also found it funny, which certainly is a matter of taste.