What are you currently reading?

[Karl Henning]

Dadgummit, you remind me that I left off Pickwick!  My brother will avow that I have some 'splainin' to do . . . .

[Ken B]

More Dickens. Rereading his last completed novel, Our mutual friend.

Critics usually say that the previous book, Great Expectations, was his last great one. But I dunno, I think this has some good stuff in it. Although admittedly much bad or mediocre as well, but I run to that in his other books too. So maybe this doesn't count as a great book. It's just that the best thing in the book is so unbelievably good that it overshadows everything else.

Many Dickens's novels have usually one side-story along with the main one. This has actually two. The main one, concerning John Harmon, Boffins, the villain Silas wegg, Bella Wilfer, Mr. Venus and Betty Higden, is mainly pretty weak. In fact I could almost swear that Dickens was high when he wrote this story. There is some of that in the second storyline too, what with Lizzie and Charley Hexam looking into fire and seeing pictures in it, but at least it's not present almost all the time. John Harmon, the "our mutual friend" of the title is bland and uninteresting. The villain Silas Wegg is thoroughly tiresome with his insistence that there is something valuable hidden in giant dust heaps that Boffins inherit along with lot of money. And to make the matters worse, there is. Nicodemus Boffin aka "Golden dustman" has some interesting qualities, is pretty funny when he appears to have become miser but then Dickens, seemingly running out of time, decides to try to explain it as mere pretending. Many critics, and me too, agree that Dickens's original intention was to really make Boffin asshole, to show all the corruption money causes, which he would later repent. But like many critics said, he probably run out of time since this novel was published in twenty monthly parts and he couldn't quite fit it or something else. But I wonder, if that's the case then why did he waste space by constantly shouting about "My lords and gentlemen and honorable boards" in passages describing Betty Higden's selflessness. She is boring enough without them. Venus annoys me as well, with his catch-phrase regarding Pleasant Riderhood's refusal to marry him. Although Timothy Spall seemed to portray him more interestingly in 1998 tv serial. But that has probably more to do with Timothy Spall's acting skills than with the character himself. Easily the best part of the main story line is Bella Wilfer's characterization. Her family in general doesn't interest me that much but Bella herself is one of the most convincing female characters Dickens has created. She is no Rosa Dartle but she works well enough. My favorite part with her is when she turns pale after hearing that her husband, John Harmon, is severely accused of murder (of murdering himself, no less. It's a complicated situation). You might for the moment think that she is horrified that she possibly married a murderer. But then she shouts: "How dare they!" The build-up is perfect. You might think that anyone would respond that way after hearing their loved one being accused of something horrible. And they probably would but I think the way this works best for me at least is that at first Bella is described as mercenary gold digger, full of insecurities etc. and as, well, a jerkass. But that's mostly only on the surface. The way her inner beauty comes more and more in plain sight is described pretty convincingly. There are times when she annoys me as well but mostly she is described fine, at parts even superbly.

The second storyline of the book is easily the best. It involves Hexams, Roger "Rogue" Riderhood and his daughter Pleasant, Doll's dressmaker Jenny Wren, dissolute Eugene Wrayburn and schoolmaster Bradley Headstone. Lizzie Hexam is one of those "perfect" womans Dickens is so fond of. However she is more realistically portrayed than usually is the case with Dickens heroines. Still extremely boring character though. I can bearly read her thoughts during her rescue of Eugene Wrayburn. It tastes like diabetes. And how come she speaks perfect King's english despite being a working class woman and her father certainly doesn't talk King's English? It's like in Oliver Twist. Her brother Charley is not interesting either. He is uninterestingly portrayed selfish jerk, that's it. Their father Jesse "Gaffer Hexam", is more interesting. He is fierce and aggresssive man and petty criminal, often compared to a bird of prey but he seems to be loving father, at least towards Lizzie. Rogue Riderhood is even more likable. This might seem shocking seeing how he is easily the most evil character in the entire book and the nicest thing that can be said about him is grim admiration towards how much of a cunning bastard he is. But he is extremely funny. Some might think this just stupid but I laugh at how he thinks affidavit is "Alfred David" and at his drunken rants about how he is a honest man who gains his honest living by the sweat of his brow all the while committing more and more jerkass actions. Plus his belief that once a man has almost drowned he can never be drowned again. He is so delightful that I actually kind of hope he hadn't died in the end, even though he seemed to have it coming. One critic called Silas Wegg a delightful rascal. But I think that title belongs to Rogue here. Pleasant, Rogue's loving daughter is not half the fun her abusive father is. Go figure. Jenny Wren is often praised but I find her insufferable usually. And then easily the greatest character in the whole book, who is so unbelieavbly powerfully written that I have very hard time believing it's from the same guy who wrote something like rants to his Lords and gentlemen and honorable boards. The character who has the honor being in my avatar picture right now, portrayed by David Morrissey in 1998 tv serial. His name is Bradley Headstone. Outwardly cool and civil schoolmaster, he has incredibly powerful passionate side inside which makes him fall in love with Lizzie Hexam and ultimately trying in his jealousy to murder his rival, Eugene Wrayburn. Now you might think that this guy is eeeviiiiiilll like Riderhood. Nope. He is extremely complex and sympathetic character. Sure attempted murder is attempted murder but the situation is more complex in that he has worked hard his entire life to achieve a respectful position in society. He falls in love with a girl, girl doesn't fall in love with him but instead falls in love with a  well-bred and educated guy who constantly mocks Bradley and his lower class position and treads upon his self-respect, makes Bradley seem clumsy in his attempts to talk back to him, for the most part of the book treats Lizzie manipulatingly, knowing his power and considers even taking her by force and finally: he knows that Headstone constantly follows him around at night, believing Eugene might take him to Lizzie who has gone hiding, Eugene leads him around the London aimlessly, at times turning around and going right past him and pretending Headstone doesn't even exist, even talking about Headstone in front of him how he (Eugene) is making Headstone undergo grinding torments, in other words, sadistically torturing him. Now Eugene is not all-bad, after almost murdered by Headstone he repents and marries Lizzie,and even before that he pays for Lizzie's education but I still think one critic makes a good point in saying that although Headstone is technically the "bad half" and Eugene the "good half" of each other, Headstone still is, paradoxically, more sympathetic. Wrayburn is portrayed superbly as well but I prefer Headstone in his hauntingly convincing psychological insight he provides. Headstone is actually probably the Dickens character I most identify with. So while the second storyline isn't perfect either, the stuff that is good is so unbeliavably good that it overshadows the actual main storyline.

Finally, the third storyline, involves Society such as Lammles, Veneerings, Podsnaps, Mortimer Lightwood, Twemlow, and Fascination Fledgeby. Similar to main storyline, this is not always that interesting. Lammles are mainly forgettable and boring, except maybe getting a few chuckles out of Alfred Lammle's  "Give me your nose, sir!" shouts which also makes me think that Dickens was high when writing this. I'm not sure what to think about lawyer Lightwood. I guess he has some interesting characteristics here and there but he's bit bland character as well. Fascination Fledgeby is boring. Podsnap is mainly interesting in that he is modelled on Dickens's best friend, Forster. The satire involving him and other society members doesn't usually raise my interests.

So while Our Mutual Friend is a flawed book, the stuff that is good is usually excellent, in case of Headstone actually unbeliavably good. This is often the case in Dickens but probably in no other book as plainly visible as in this.

Oh, and did I mention that "Our mutual friend" is bad english?

Edit: After rereading Hard times I'm gonna read Pickwick and Dombey which I have never read from beginning to end.

I liked OMF and BH best.
I am not reading the comment above as OMF is on my to reread pile.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I actually forgot to mention Riah, benevolent Jew character meant as an apology for Fagin after one of Dickens's Jewish friends accused him of Anti-semitism. I agree with critics that unlike Fagin, the unforgettable diabolic yet likable character, Riah is mostly tiresome. But I guess it was still a nice gesture to try to make amends. Some critics have noted that good Jews in literature have rarely been as successful as bad ones, although to be fair at least Shakespeare's Shylock was portrayed as very complex and painfully humane and while Dickens's Fagin corrupted children at least he gave them place to stay, seemed to have pride on at least Dodger and the chapter Fagin's last night alive portrays him in pitiable light. You might argue even Barabas has at times humane moments.

[TheGSMoeller]

What's a better read, Stoker's Dracula? Or Shelley's Frankenstein?

I've never read either one, probably because of the extensive exposure to these two novels through Movies, TV and other various outputs.

[Karl Henning]

I don't think I've read the Shelley.  I should let an enthusiast speak ahead of me, but I found Dracula rather a wearisome read.

[ibanezmonster]

A superb Kanji dictionary with all 2136 Jouyou Kanji. Well worth the $25 I paid for it.

http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Kanji-Kana-Complete-Writing/dp/4805311169/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=kanji+and+kana+dictionary+tuttle

[kishnevi]

I don't think I've read the Shelley.  I should let an enthusiast speak ahead of me, but I found Dracula rather a wearisome read.

Not an enthusiast myself for either, but I would pick, ceteris paribus, Stoker.

Shelley suffered from all the defects of early 19th century gothic novels, with few of the virtues.  Stoker suffered from many of the defects of the Victorian era thriller, but has some good parts, if you can slog through the wearisome sections.  I did not find enough good parts in Frankenstein to be worth slogging through the wearisome sections. but if you don't mind the longuers of c. 1820 philosophy and sentiment,  you'll do okay by Frankenstein which was very much a work of its era.  Just be aware that by and large the cinematic versions are improvements from the viewpoint of modern story telling.

With Dracula, that is less so; almost every movie version misses something from the original, and some things never really make it into any movie. At the very least,  I've never seen a movie version which matches the power of Stoker's presentation of Renfrew and, later, the destruction of Vampire Lucy.  The one with Gary Oldman and Keanu Reeves is, I think, the one that tries to faithful to the original, and even that misses some things and adds in others (Stoker, for instance,  never goes into the subject of how Dracula himself became a vampire;  comments by Van Helsing in the book suggest that he was such an evil human,  undeadness was simply a natural result of his human career.)

So unless you have a special interest in Frankenstein,  I'd go with Dracula first.

[TheGSMoeller]

Thank you, Karl and Jeffrey, for your replies.
I actually have both on my Kindle from free downloads, and I've always been more of a Dracula fan than Frankenstein.

[kishnevi]

Minor embarrassment. 
I referred to "Renfrew"  but should have said "Renfield".
I realized the error when seeking that GMGer Renfield turns 26 today.  (Although it seems it's been a while since he's been here).

There is a real Renfrew: the Barony of Renfrew is one of the appanages dangling from the royal titles of the Prince of Wales.

[Ken B]

Thank you, Karl and Jeffrey, for your replies.
I actually have both on my Kindle from free downloads, and I've always been more of a Dracula fan than Frankenstein.

It depends. If turgid prose is your thing go for Shelley. If you prefer a good read go for Stoker. But neither is as good as its reputation alas.

[Mookalafalas]

It depends. If turgid prose is your thing go for Shelley. If you prefer a good read go for Stoker. But neither is as good as its reputation alas.

  I didn't like the Shelley much when I read it, but I kind of thought the Stoker was worse.  It's real pot-boiler type.  He has plotting, and the story moves forward (which Shelley's doesn't, so much), but it's wordy, with cliched characters and dull writing (but you do tend to keep turning the pages...). 

  Thread duty:
  I'll be reading this--
[asin]1476736553[/asin]

  I'm teaching a 15 year old boy English. He loves these books. This will be his third.  It ain't literature, but it's great for his language skills. I actually enjoy the books myself, but there isn't a fresh thought or turn of phrase to be found. Just lots of monster brains getting splattered around.  They are like fun action movies.

[Moonfish]

  I didn't like the Shelley much when I read it, but I kind of thought the Stoker was worse.  It's real pot-boiler type.  He has plotting, and the story moves forward (which Shelley's doesn't, so much), but it's wordy, with cliched characters and dull writing (but you do tend to keep turning the pages...). 

  Thread duty:
  I'll be reading this--
[asin]1476736553[/asin]

  I'm teaching a 15 year old boy English. He loves these books. This will be his third.  It ain't literature, but it's great for his language skills. I actually enjoy the books myself, but there isn't a fresh thought or turn of phrase to be found. Just lots of monster brains getting splattered around.  They are like fun action movies.

Oh that is hilarious stuff Baklavaboy!  I read the Kindle samples (for this one as well as Monster International). They seem like a violent anime and left me a bit empty afterwards. I can see how your 15 year-old student could get enchanted by reading them.  Gory fun!

In terms of Shelley and Stoker I personally very much like both of them. I remember reading Shelley (entering the book with the Frankenstein Hollywood stereotype in my mind) and becoming very attached to the story. I found it interesting and enriching on so many levels as the characters were developed by Shelley. Great settings as well! Hmm, I should revisit it soon!

[Moonfish]

It depends. If turgid prose is your thing go for Shelley. If you prefer a good read go for Stoker. But neither is as good as its reputation alas.

I thought Shelley was substantially better than its reputation. The film industry has very much ruined Shelley's work (surprise, surprise).

[Jaakko Keskinen]

You want horror, read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Or something by Poe. Although I have read only parts of Dracula and Frankenstein, I would definitely go with Dracula.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Speaking of Poe, I've gotta read Gold bug. IIRC, Stevenson admitted it influenced some of the aspects in Treasure island.

[Karl Henning]

Poe has aged very well, I think.

[Ken B]

Poe has aged very well, I think.

Yes he has. I don't like him in large doses, but individual stories work. And The Raven is a marvel.

I heard recently a modern composer's setting of Annabel Lee. Perhaps some here know it. Because I have an evil streak as wide as, well, me, I will only say I liked it better than Mennin 8. 

[Jaakko Keskinen]

And The Raven is a marvel.

And Raven was at least partly inspired by that much neglected Dickens novel, Barnaby Rudge. I believe Poe and Dick met once, during latter's first american tour in 1842.

[Mookalafalas]

When you read Poe's two mystery stories, it is clear that Conan Doyle didn't borrow from them for Holmes and Watson, but lifted them wholesale. He really deserves more credit for that. 

[Ken B]

When you read Poe's two mystery stories, it is clear that Conan Doyle didn't borrow from them for Holmes and Watson, but lifted them wholesale. He really deserves more credit for that.

Now I wouldn't tweak most posters here, but but for you Al .... OK, all credit to Doyle for the lift.