The GMG Pickwick Club

[Elgarian]

Ironic how I'm part of the Pickwick club, yet I never have actually read Pickwick all the way through.

Well, it's full of flaws, of course (I have big flaws too, but my Grandma still loved me.) It started out in such a 'conventional' way, as words to run alongside the etchings of a popular artist; then it became a success in itself, with accompanying etchings from Phiz; then Dickens started to twist the emphasis of the tale away from the comic towards something more serious and moralistic etc. So it isn't in any way a classic example of what a great novel should be because it lacks a sense of overarching unity. But when push comes to shove, you can't help loving the things you love, and it's stuck with me as a valued companion for a big chunk of my life.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

then Dickens started to twist the emphasis of the tale away from the comic towards something more serious and moralistic etc.

Aye, though even then I've heard that there is a pretty big leap from Pickwick's mostly gentle humor to biting satire of Oliver Twist (I actually started my Dickens journey with that novel).

[Jaakko Keskinen]

it lacks a sense of overarching unity.

Yes, it wasn't until Dombey that Dickens began to systematically plan his novels ahead. Before that, it was picaresque, kind of improvisation, instead of solid plot and goal from the beginning. In some cases, the plot wasn't very strong even in his more mature novels (as much as I love Little Dorrit, that inheritance mumbo jumbo was stupid, just stupid, with a capital S) and Dickens tends to rely more on fortunate coincidences and secret inheritances rather than clever plot development. But it doesn't matter because Dickens creates capital characters, shows remarkable atmosphere handling, handles humor with great, even exaggerated satire and is tremendously "quotable" author, with several witty lines or philosophical remarks.

[Elgarian]

Aye, though even then I've heard that there is a pretty big leap from Pickwick's mostly gentle humor to biting satire of Oliver Twist.

Yes, but that's alright because it's a different book with a different aim. When you pick up Pickwick you go on for ages thinking, oh yes, this is a fun book; then much, much later you think 'Hang on, this isn't what I bargained for!' A bit like laughing with your favourite comedian for half an hour and then finding him delivering a sad moral homily for the final 15 minutes. But of course the book is what it is, and you take it for what it is, or leave it. I chose to take it.

It's the kind of situation that causes me to remind myself from time to time of Paul McCartney's response to criticism of the Beatles White album - you know, of being too long, or too uneven in quality, or self-indulgent, or whatever. His response: 'It's the Beatles White album. Shut up.'
Same with Pickwick, really.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Btw, I am not implying Pickwick is going to suck when I read it. Anything that launched 24-year old author to such a fame cannot be a bad book, right?  I was merely commenting on Pickwick's "early installment weirdness".

[Karl Henning]

Well, it's full of flaws, of course (I have big flaws too, but my Grandma still loved me.) It started out in such a 'conventional' way, as words to run alongside the etchings of a popular artist; then it became a success in itself, with accompanying etchings from Phiz; then Dickens started to twist the emphasis of the tale away from the comic towards something more serious and moralistic etc. So it isn't in any way a classic example of what a great novel should be because it lacks a sense of overarching unity. But when push comes to shove, you can't help loving the things you love, and it's stuck with me as a valued companion for a big chunk of my life.

When (with an eye to what I might read next) I asked my brother which Dickens work was his favorite, right away he said Pickwick.  Much as he likes practically all the Dickens he has read, when Kurt got the end of Pickwick, he felt the pang of good friends having passed out of his life.

[Elgarian]

When (with an eye to what I might read next) I asked my brother which Dickens work was his favorite, right away he said Pickwick.  Much as he likes practically all the Dickens he has read, when Kurt got the end of Pickwick, he felt the pang of good friends having passed out of his life.

Yes, that's pretty much how I saw it too; except, I'm delighted to say, they stayed pretty close.

My Top Pickwickian Tip: If you read it, Karl, make sure you get an edition with all the illustrations (mostly by Phiz, with a few by Seymour at the start). A whole dimension will be missing if you don't.

[Bogey]

Well, it's full of flaws, of course (I have big flaws too, but my Grandma still loved me.)

It's the kind of situation that causes me to remind myself from time to time of Paul McCartney's response to criticism of the Beatles White album - you know, of being too long, or too uneven in quality, or self-indulgent, or whatever. His response: 'It's the Beatles White album. Shut up.'

I'm just trying to figure out which quote I enjoyed more.

[Elgarian]

All this chat has inspired me to take my Pickwick off the shelf again, and I wondered if anyone would mind if I indulged myself by posting a few photos? Flashing back to my earlier post about the search for a nice edition, I ought to say that it took me many years to stumble across a nice early edition that was an affordable bargain, and this is the one I eventually settled for. It's an 1887 edition, with a nice 19th-century feel to it. Of course by this date the original etched plates were long worn to a frazzle, and these I think must be lithographed facsimiles of the originals. They're of very high quality; as long as you don't take a magnifying glass to them, they're good enough to give the feeling of the actual etchings.

So it's not a first edition, and not even published in Dickens's lifetime, so there's a lot of itch still to scratch - but still it's a Chapman & Hall publication, and it has lovely crisp crinkly 19th-century paper, and it's a smashing thing to have.

[aligreto]

Very nice indeed; a lovely asset to have on your shelf 

[Bogey]

All this chat has inspired me to take my Pickwick off the shelf again, and I wondered if anyone would mind if I indulged myself by posting a few photos? Flashing back to my earlier post about the search for a nice edition, I ought to say that it took me many years to stumble across a nice early edition that was an affordable bargain, and this is the one I eventually settled for. It's an 1887 edition, with a nice 19th-century feel to it. Of course by this date the original etched plates were long worn to a frazzle, and these I think must be lithographed facsimiles of the originals. They're of very high quality; as long as you don't take a magnifying glass to them, they're good enough to give the feeling of the actual etchings.

So it's not a first edition, and not even published in Dickens's lifetime, so there's a lot of itch still to scratch - but still it's a Chapman & Hall publication, and it has lovely crisp crinkly 19th-century paper, and it's a smashing thing to have.

Wow!  Very nice.  Funny, at work today I decided to read Pickwick again during my lunches....on my iPad Kindle App!  Would have been cool to have Dickens see both of these formats happening at once.

[kishnevi]

Yes, that's pretty much how I saw it too; except, I'm delighted to say, they stayed pretty close.

My Top Pickwickian Tip: If you read it, Karl, make sure you get an edition with all the illustrations (mostly by Phiz, with a few by Seymour at the start). A whole dimension will be missing if you don't.

My copy is a stout paperback from the Everyman's Library with not merely  the original illustrations, but four samples of Browne/Phiz's revisions to some of his earlier engravings.

[Elgarian]

Wow!  Very nice.  Funny, at work today I decided to read Pickwick again during my lunches....on my iPad Kindle App! Would have been cool to have Dickens see both of these formats happening at once.

Do you get the pictures on that, Bill?

[aligreto]

I have recently finished reading Nicholas Nickleby. It took me quite a long time to finish it not because it is a very long book [which it undoubtedly is] but simply because I did not find it compulsive reading. I found myself putting the book down and not returning to it for a few days at a time. Although there were obvious allusions to social justice issues I felt that this aspect was not as hard hitting as in other novels by Dickens. I also felt that the plot was not very strong nor was the character development particularly in-depth. These issues are all relative of course when compared with his obviously greater works but one particular gripe that I have with the book is the two Cheeryble brothers who assume an almost fairy godfather status.
The impression that I am left with after my read is a relatively light hearted read of a not too credible set of circumstances and personages all of whom live an existence with an almost predetermined outcome and a happy ever after conclusion with the obvious exception of poor Smike who was the token casualty after all of the bad guys got their just deserts.
Am I being a bit too harsh here?

[Bogey]

I have recently finished reading Nicholas Nickleby. It took me quite a long time to finish it not because it is a very long book [which it undoubtedly is] but simply because I did not find it compulsive reading. I found myself putting the book down and not returning to it for a few days at a time. Although there were obvious allusions to social justice issues I felt that this aspect was not as hard hitting as in other novels by Dickens. I also felt that the plot was not very strong nor was the character development particularly in-depth. These issues are all relative of course when compared with his obviously greater works but one particular gripe that I have with the book is the two Cheeryble brothers who assume an almost fairy godfather status.
The impression that I am left with after my read is a relatively light hearted read of a not too credible set of circumstances and personages all of whom live an existence with an almost predetermined outcome and a happy ever after conclusion with the obvious exception of poor Smike who was the token casualty after all of the bad guys got their just deserts.
Am I being a bit too harsh here?

Not really.  I have yet to finish this one, but am able to pick it up a year later and read some of it.  Help me out, but I do not remember the settings being described in the detail that Dickens sometimes affords them.  Is my memory correct on this?

[lisa needs braces]

I remember reading that one and enjoying it. It was all so very lighthearted. And do I remember correctly...the main character's mother was hilariously long-winded? That made me laugh every time.

[lisa needs braces]

The 2002 film is a decent flick. It changes some things around but all in all it's one of the better Dickens cinematic adaptations.

[aligreto]

Not really.  I have yet to finish this one, but am able to pick it up a year later and read some of it.  Help me out, but I do not remember the settings being described in the detail that Dickens sometimes affords them.  Is my memory correct on this?

Your memory is fine in this regard. That, in fact, is one of the points of issue with the novel; a good deal of editing would have done no harm. I understand the periodical nature of the publication of the Dickens novels from a commercial point of view, but when the novel is presented as a single edition the flow is inhibited [IMHO] by its very length.

[aligreto]

I remember reading that one and enjoying it. It was all so very lighthearted. And do I remember correctly...the main character's mother was hilariously long-winded? That made me laugh every time.

You are certainly correct there. Just to reiterate my point she was one of my bugbears; her monologues got me irritated after a while and I found myself skipping over almost a whole page at a time! Yes it was character building technique but, for me, it was over elaborately done and ultimately ineffective for me as it just made her character tiresome and I just wanted to ignore her! Funny the way something can have such opposite effects on two people; part of the joy of Art I suppose. 

[Jaakko Keskinen]

but one particular gripe that I have with the book is the two Cheeryble brothers who assume an almost fairy godfather status.

Yes and the eleventh-hour-appearance of their nephew who serves no other purpose than to be husband to Kate. Apparently even back when this book was serialized, it bugged the critics, which made Dickens defend this coincidence in the novel itself by having Tim Linkinwater to contemplate on it in chapter 43. I agree, the plot is a mess. I enjoy Mrs. Nickleby but it bothers me a bit how cruel it was of Dickens to base the character on his own mother. Tragi-comically, Charles's mother apparently didn't recognize herself and asked him whether he thought there ever could be such a woman in existence. Dickens made fun of this in a letter to his friend. His novels are remarkably full of bad or incompetent mothers. His mother problem run deep.