The Pickwick Club discussion

Dear Pickwickians,

we are finally here - having read our way through the novel as a whole, we are free to discuss it without being afraid of using spoilers.

During the last few weeks, there has always been the question if the first person narration was a wise choice or if it encumbered the author's way through the events he describes. I would even see the discussion of David's character, especially his tendency towards passive behaviour, as being linked with this question. Personally, I have come to calling the protagonist "Dithering David" but this may have something to do with the first person narration. Just consider what would have happened if David had interfered with Rosa Dartle and Little Emily: It would have spoiled the dramatic effect completely - and yet his waiting in the wings makes him unsympathetic, at least to me.

Then there is the question of David's infatuation with James Steerforth. Why does David seem to hold Steerforth in such high esteem even after his graceless behaviour towards the Peggottys?

We might also want to discuss to what extant David Copperfield can be read as an autobiographic novel. In this context, David's marriage with Dora might be an interesting detail. The characters of Dora, Agnes and Emily might also be interesting with regard to Dickens's attitude towards women. We ought not to forget that Dickens's colleagues Wilkie Collins and Thomas Hardy, for instance, were capable of creating more interesting female characters whereas Dickens often idealized femininity - does this word exist? - in the shape of self-denial, understanding and caring.

And yes, there is the funny idea of voting for the most odious character in the novel.

There might also be other questions and topics. So feel free to post them here.

I will keep myself in the background for two days or so and see where the journey is taking us ;-)

Well, here we go. The use of names, specifically, names that others used to refer to David. Tristram's "Dithering David" will start us off, and be the only name not used by Dickens in the novel. Naturally, if any other Pickwickians have their own pet name for David ...

We have David, Daisy, Trotwood, Trot, Young Innocence, silly boy, Master/Mister Copperfield, David Murdstone, Copperful, David Copperrfield (sic) Doady, Blue Beard and Mas'r Davy. I may have missed a few. Please feel free to add your own.

By mixing and matching we can see that most of the "pet" names come from Dora, the master/mister Copperfield is Uriah Heep's form of address depending on the place in the novel. Heep's insistence on calling the adult David Master Copperfield shines a great light on Heep's opinion and true feelings towards David. The use of David's last name at school and his travels to and from school reveals his status as being somewhat homeless even when he has a step-father.

Trotwood can perhaps suggest that his Aunt Betsey initially wanted David to be a female, but obviously she did love David very much. Mas'r Davy is Mr. Peggotty's form of address and suggests to me both a form of respect and a view that David is, and will always be, a child/young man to be respected and loved.

I can't recall any one character in the novels we have read or will read who has so many different ways of being addressed.

I fell in love with David Copperfield, the young child, as he navigated himself through many terrible burdensome obstacles. It was was wonderful to read about this kid freeing himself from the oppressive shackles of the Murdstones and into the kind loving embraces of both Miss Betsey and Mr. DIck... He was safe and this gave me solace. I felt a future full of promise for David. What I didn't foresee was that there would be a gross misappropriation of balance in the character, David Copperfield....What David achieves externally, e.g., friends, family, wealth, and acclaim; outweighs the development of his character internally, for me. As a respectable gentleman, David Copperfield still has a tendency to display the very same personality traits I took displeasure in when he was a child; the difference being, it was excusable as a child because his character was still under development. Now, I've said this before in a thread but I'll say it again... I had an expectation for David's character; for him to be well rounded, rich in character, and not just in assets. Instead, 'Dithering David' (very funny) transpires, and the part he plays in the last quarter of this novel left me underwhelmed and saddened.

If David had interfered with Rosa Dartle and Little Emily, well, then he would have been seen as a "man" of action...A "man" of his word...A "man" who stood up for his friend, when she could not, as she was being persecuted by the wicked tongue of a jilted outsider. I don't think David "finally" taking a stand for somebody, who was being tyrannized by a stronger character, that there would be a loss for dramatic flare. On the contrary, it would have added to the fire. Standing witness to the cruelty inflicted on a young Traddles by Mr. Creakle, the humiliation of Mr. Mell by both Creakle and Steerforth, and his very own de-feminization by Steerforth, these are all too common an occurrence for David; had he taken a stand for his friend and first love, Emily, it wouldn't be anything less than a fireworks display on the 4th of July because it would have been a redeeming moment for the character of David Copperfield.

This brings me to my next point...Whether, or not, David Copperfield is an unreliable narrator? When this question was first asked, I didn't quite understand it (I may still not, so I apologize ahead of time :) ); but as I continued to read along, I couldn't stop thinking about it...I was plagued by it. David Copperfield is a fictitious autobiography. This being said, whether or not David as the narrator is reliable...What does it matter? He's telling me, the reader, about his life..."His" life...Who would I be to say David's not being completely truthful on certain events? In the end, even if he was not, it's "still" his truth; no matter what type of package it is being delivered in. I can see this novel being read as an autobiography; a fictitious one at that, but an autobiography of David Copperfield, whoever he may have been. I never felt implored by David to believe in his story which I think is telling of an unreliable narrator. There were a few instances where David's recollection of the Murdstones was in question, but aspects of this argument are redeemed in the end as we come to understand Mr. Murdstone's new wife is suffering the same fate as Clara once did. Considering all of the awful circumstances he is witness to as a child and adult, instances where he stood idle versus throwing a poker into the fire, David doesn't paint himself to be any better than what he is...Wouldn't this be telling of his reliability? David Copperfield, as I've come to understand him, is a successful yet flawed character in the end, and this is very human. How can he get any more honest about his life than shedding this type of light on himself?

I found David Copperfield difficult to rate. It started out as a 5 star rating for me and then fell as I progressed further in the novel. It's obvious by now through the other threads, I am not a fan of Mr. Micawber towards the latter end (I tried, Hillary...I did), David either-Micawber is too robust, and David not robust enough. I know...I know...Goldilocks syndrome. I felt cheated with most of the characters either dying (Ham, i was not expecting this kind of ending for him), or shipping themselves off to Australia. The visit from Mr. Peggoty in the end, summarizing the status of those who left England seemed like it was some sort of device used to save time from delving into their stories any further- Which I'm grateful for, but still. Wilkie Collins used a similar approach but with newspapers, or pamphlets, in some of his novels/short stories to save time introducing or axing characters, I think, as well. The pace of the novel, I was thrown off by. Is this par for the course with Dickens...To start off with a bang, slow down, slow down even more, and then boom it's done? I ended up rating David Copperfield with 3-stars; although I didn't continue loving the main character or some of the secondary characters, and the pacing tripped me up a bit, I do love Charles Dickens! He's every juxtaposition rolled up into one big ball; his writing style weighs heavy on mind, and his themes consisting of love, sorrow and joy, impact my soul...It's always an emotional rollercoaster, and I am a glutton for it.

As an aside, but it should really be a priority...This is my first official read, from beginning to end, with The Pickwickians. The vast amounts of information, insights, the obscene magnitude in knowledge and scope about Dickens, Victorian literature, etc., it's honestly one of the most comprehensive discussions I've ever attempted to take part in. Tristram, Kim, Peter, Everyman, Linda, Vanessa, Hillary and everybody else, I must say, "thank you" to each and every one of you for adding so many rich layers to my experience while reading David Copperfield. Truly, hands down, one of the best group of people to read with...Thank you!

Ami, what a great summary. You voiced so many of my own feelings towards the book. I too started off with a 5 star rating in my head as I absolutely fell in love with David's innocent observations. However, like you said, things started to slow down a bit and for me there was way too much Micawber story for my liking. I ended up giving DC 4 stars.

Tristram, I only started to notice the limits of first person narration when you brought it up, I think the first time during the Emily/Rosa scene was where I was really taking notice. As to your question of why David holds Steerforth in such high regard even after the consequences of Steerforth's actions are realized - I wonder if it has to to with us, the readers, being able to travel back to James' mother and Rosa and observe what state they are in their lives at this point. If David had felt betrayed by Steerforth, felt angered by his actions, would David have had the desire to break the news of Steerforth's death to his mother? Probably not, he would have left it to a messenger or someone else.

An aside to Ami's aside... :) Ami, this is the second Dickens I have read with this group and it is definitely one of the most enjoyable group of people to read with, with a great mix of information, discussion, and humor. I will definitely be continuing my Dickens journey after the Bleak House reading is complete (since I just read that one last year).

Ami

I think your comment "How can [David] get any more honest about his life than shedding this type of light on himself" is the critical point of our discussion. You have crystalized the question of the effectiveness of the first person narrator perfectly. DC begins with "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anyone else, these pages must show." David never makes any claim to being a hero, never bullies his way into our reading consciousness, and seems to be open, honest and willing to shed a light on those around him. I guess we could do a long dissertation on "what makes a hero" but that is not necessary. Traddles raises himself to a position of respect in his professional life and love in his home. He is a good man. Ham is a man who has truly loved and lost, but he never loses his peer's respect nor does he hesitate to risk, and ultimately sacrifice, his life for the man who effectively ruined his own. Would Ham have entered the stormy water to save Steerforth if he knew who clung to the ship? I believe the answer is yes. Mr. Peggotty's home is a refuge from the storms of life, and whoever finds their way to his door is welcome in, to both his home and to his heart. Traddles, Ham and Mr. Peggotty all are, to me, more heroic than David, but that is because David, as the first person narrator allows them to be so.

As a person, I don't like David. I would not want or choose his as a friend. But in the world of a novel readers have much scope, don't we?

And who is to say that the hero of the novel should be male? Aunt Betsey takes David into her home and her heart. Mr. Dick is equally welcome to her world as well. Even in the depths of her financial crisis she ensures that David and Mr. Dick are looked after, that they will always have a home. Regardless of her husband's long shadow cast upon her, Aunt Betsey will grant him respect at the time of his death.

And then there is Agnes. She too is heroic. Agnes's love and defense of her father, her refusal to even consider the horrid Heep's advances towards her for a second, her Penelope-like patience as she awaits David's Odyssey to find his own way to her heart and his true home. Her story with David is much like Penelope's to Odysseus, but Agnes is the hero, not the wandering David.

I want to thank you for your kind words about me and the Pickwick Club. I have been a member for about two years and have found a home here with friends who share my passion for reading and for Dickens.

Your comments are always thoughtful and reflective. I hope you find a home here as I have.

Linda wrote: "Ami, what a great summary. You voiced so many of my own feelings towards the book. I too started off with a 5 star rating in my head as I absolutely fell in love with David's innocent observation..."

Bleak House will be bleaker without your comments but please drop by once in a while to say hello.

On the "Creep-o-Meter my vote goes to the donkey breath scene.

For worst person, I vote for Steerforth. He physically scarred Rosa, cost a teacher a job at school, befriended David for his own selfish comforts and needs (food and midnight reading) took advantage of Emily with lies and falsehoods and then when he tired of Emily tried to pawn her off on his servant. There must be a special place for him somewhere very unpleasant.

Rosa was certainly mean-spirited and spiteful, but she never physically harmed Little Em'ly. No doubt her vitriolic words could and no doubt did scare Emily, but Rosa was scarred too, both physically and emotionally by Steerforth and will suffer until the day she dies.

Peter wrote: "Bleak House will be bleaker without your comments but please drop by once in a while to say hello."

I will definitely stop by. I can't stay away from the Pickwickians for that long!

Peter wrote: "On the "Creep-o-Meter my vote goes to the donkey breath scene.

For worst person, I vote for Steerforth."

Well, I did have Heep at the top of the, well, heap, for the cupping nostril scene and all the creepy writhing. But, you do present compelling evidence for Steerforth in being the worst villain, Peter.

Peter wrote: "Well, here we go. The use of names, specifically, names that others used to refer to David. Tristram's "Dithering David" will start us off, and be the only name not used by Dickens in the novel. ..."

What an impressive list of names, Peter, and what insightful comments on who uses which name for whatever reason. I found Uriah Heep's constant use of "Master" quite telling in that it showed that Uriah's humility was just a mask and that behind it he tried to master David, whom he despised and envied, and to make him smart under the sense of the power Uriah was wielding over the Wickfields.

"Blue Beard" comes from Mr. Spenlow, doesn't it? And who called David "Young Innocence" - was it Steerforth? If so, it could be seen as a hint at Steerforth's actually envying David his innocence and his benevolence but it could also be read as some kind of mockery. After all, Steerforth was double-crossing his friend by bringing sorrow into the family David introduced him to.

Ami, I actually had the same reading experience you describe at the beginning of message 3: I strongly felt for little David as a child, how he was beaten and browbeaten by the Murdstones, how he was helpless with regard to his mother's position, how his childhood paradise was destroyed and how he had to contend for himself as a factory worker. I felt relieved when he finally arrived at his aunt's house and better prospects were ahead of him. Dickens here successfully blends the adult and the child perspective, imbuing these chapters with a richness in detail and wonder that carry the stamp "childhood", for are not our childhood memories like a garden that has both its threatening shadowy nooks but also its sunshiny meadows? I really rooted for David and also winced at his inexperience in dealing with imposing waiters and gruff coachmen. Later, however, I could not help thinking that David was very slow at growing up and asserting himself and that most of his actions were anything by manly. Okay, saying that I might also add that I am an inveterate fan of the Western movie and the "There are some things a man cannot ride around" principle ;-)

Which brings me on to your next point, that of the unreliable narrator. Here you have made a very strong point: David does not come off too well in the eyes of the reader the longer the story goes since he remains passive and fails to interfere where interference would be necessary. In connection with the first sentence of the novel - thanks to Peter for pointing it out here! - it seems to become clear that David is not interested in making himself the hero of his life although, and one should not forget that, his biography is an excellent example of Victorian respectability, which might have redeemed and justified him in the eyes of many Victorian readers. After all, he is a renowned author, affluent, a father to a large family and he leads a respectable family life. At the same time, he is also just a mirror in which other characters are reflected - Peter puts it more nicely in his message 5: He leaves room for the other characters to develop and to act - but I still feel that he should have interfered in some situations. However, his actions and his behaviour are so ordinary and he does not even try to justify this - with the exception of the Rosa/Emily scene, where he says he feels that it would be better to wait for Mr. Peggotty - that one can hardly say that he is trying to influence the reader in his favour.

At the moment, my rating of this novel would be 4 stars but I'm still waiting and seeing where the discussion will lead us to.

The two creepiest scenes for me have to do with Uriah Heep: One is the pony scene, which is even weirder than the Pony Remark in "Seinfeld", and the other one the scene in which David watches Uriah asleep in his living-room, which he feels to be contaminated by the presence of that ungainly youngster.

The most odious character on my personal scale, on the other hand, is Steerforth. Peter has already listed all the villainies that Steerforth is guilty of. Admittedly, Uriah Heep is a very strong competitor for the title of the most odious character, too, since his actions are also entirely egoistic and he even seems to commit villainies for the sake of being villainous, i.e. he takes pleasure in creating mischief, and he not only does so to enrich himself but to make other people feel his power. This may be explained, not excused, by the way he was brought up, by people in charge of him insisting on his showing humility and servility. In the end he not only noticed that the strategy of being humble would not merely enable him to pull the wool over people's eyes and to enrich himself, but his education has also instilled him with a thirst for revenge on "his betters".

Steerforth, however, comes from a privileged family and is endowed with various talents and gifts. He could have used them instead of leading the life of a profligate, and his determination to manipulate people does not result from being looked down upon and despised as a child. He merely wants to enjoy himself and he even double-crosses his best friend David. At the same time, he seems to feel some kind of remorse but not enough to make him abstain from his selfish plans which include the ruin of a decent family. That's why I loathe Steerforth more than Uriah. I would even put Mr. Murdstone on the same level with Steerforth - although there is one passage that hints at Murdstone's own childhood. Nevertheless, it is possible not to make the same mistake with one's own children that have been made with oneself as a child.

Thank you all for your nice words about this group. I'm with you, Peter: It has become part of my family, and never have I felt so much at home in a virtual discussion group as I do here.

Tristram wrote: "Peter wrote: "Well, here we go. The use of names, specifically, names that others used to refer to David. Tristram's "Dithering David" will start us off, and be the only name not used by Dickens ..."

It is Dora who calls David Blue Beard. Perhaps I should have included the adjective she uses before the title. Dora calls David a "naughty Blue Beard" during one of their conversations. It is, I imagine, Dora being coy and cute.

On the subject of names Aunt Betsey calls Dora "Little Blossom" which suggests Dora's youthful, still unformed self. In chapter 41 David tries to "encourage" Dora to mature by commenting "you are not a child" to which Dora replies "don't find fault with me" and then makes "a rosebud of her mouth." Dora also like drawing "little nosegays and likenesses" in her account books.

To me, David being called a "Blue Beard" suggests David's more worldly experiences than Dora but the addition of the word "naughty" makes the name playful. Dora, being referred to a young flower, her turning her mouth into the shape of a rosebud and her drawing of flowers in the account book shows her innocence. Both David and Dora are childlike and innocent. It was fun to track the interplay of people and the names they were given.

I am still hunting for the reference to the name "Young Innocence" for David :-( ... stay tuned

Tristram wrote: "Blue Beard" comes from Mr. Spenlow, doesn't it? And who called David "Young Innocence" - was it Steerforth?"

I just came across the Young Innocence comment just earlier today putting the book away. It is from Chapter 32 and Miss Mowcher says it, although I think she told David that's what Littimer called him.

"May the Father of all Evil confound him,' said the little woman, holding up her forefinger between me and her sparkling eyes, 'and ten times more confound that wicked servant; but I believed it was YOU who had a boyish passion for her!'

'I?' I repeated.

'Child, child! In the name of blind ill-fortune,' cried Miss Mowcher, wringing her hands impatiently, as she went to and fro again upon the fender, 'why did you praise her so, and blush, and look disturbed?'

I could not conceal from myself that I had done this, though for a reason very different from her supposition.

'What did I know?' said Miss Mowcher, taking out her handkerchief again, and giving one little stamp on the ground whenever, at short intervals, she applied it to her eyes with both hands at once. 'He was crossing you and wheedling you, I saw; and you were soft wax in his hands, I saw. Had I left the room a minute, when his man told me that "Young Innocence" (so he called you, and you may call him "Old Guilt" all the days of your life) had set his heart upon her, and she was giddy and liked him, but his master was resolved that no harm should come of it—more for your sake than for hers—and that that was their business here? How could I BUT believe him? I saw Steerforth soothe and please you by his praise of her! You were the first to mention her name. You owned to an old admiration of her. You were hot and cold, and red and white, all at once when I spoke to you of her. What could I think—what DID I think—but that you were a young libertine in everything but experience, and had fallen into hands that had experience enough, and could manage you (having the fancy) for your own good? Oh! oh! oh! They were afraid of my finding out the truth,' exclaimed Miss Mowcher, getting off the fender, and trotting up and down the kitchen with her two short arms distressfully lifted up, 'because I am a sharp little thing—I need be, to get through the world at all!—and they deceived me altogether, and I gave the poor unfortunate girl a letter, which I fully believe was the beginning of her ever speaking to Littimer, who was left behind on purpose!'

And I also want to say thank you to all of you for your kind words. It is a wonderful group of people.... well there are one or two grumps.....:-)

Tristram wrote: "It has become part of my family, and never have I felt so much at home in a virtual discussion group as I do here."

If your family gets any bigger you're going to need a larger house. :-)

Tristram wrote: "Just consider what would have happened if David had interfered with Rosa Dartle and Little Emily: It would have spoiled the dramatic effect completely - and yet his waiting in the wings makes him unsympathetic, at least to me."

I was thinking about this scene and got to wondering why David had to be there at all. Couldn't Martha have been there - she seems like she would have hid from just about anybody especially a person like Rosa - then she could have gone and told David what Rosa had said. It would have made more sense to me than David just standing there listening. Without going back and looking it up again however, did we really need the scene at all? Couldn't Martha just have gone and got David and Mr. Peggotty and Emily would have been alone when they got there.

As to creepiest, I don't know there's a whole bunch I didn't like in no particular order, the Murdstones brother or sister, Uriah, Steerforth, Rosa, the school teacher (I can't remember his name) or Mrs. Strong's mother.( I can't remember her name either).

I liked Traddles the most. I also liked Aunt Betsey and the Micawbers, husband and wife, mainly because they were kind to David when he was a young boy all alone in that factory. And I liked David, his early life and Dickens early life were so similar and so many things in the book sounded just like letters he wrote - mostly to John Forster - about his own childhood, that David and Dickens got so linked in my mind I couldn't dislike David.

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Blue Beard" comes from Mr. Spenlow, doesn't it? And who called David "Young Innocence" - was it Steerforth?"

I just came across the Young Innocence comment just earlier today putt..."

Thanks for tracking down the name Kim. I had gone through the book and could not find the reference again. Then I started to think I just made it up or imagined it. Once again, you have saved the day.

Many of your great closing comments resonate for me...

Beginning (at the beginning) with whether David is the hero of his own life, his failure to rescue Emily is the most dramatic example of leaving it to someone else, but his failure to Agnes troubles me more. She's his great love (even if it takes years to figure it out), and the only one who rises above Steerforth in David's affections/worship. She even makes David doubt Steerforth. Yet David abandons her, and her father, for years (?) in the prison that Uriah Heep makes of their home.

Then Agnes herself, as I've said, doesn't feel believable to me. She doesn't even have some residual resentment toward David's inaction? We've discussed how in some respects, David is not very likable, yet Agnes, who knows him best, wants him for a husband. She's a wonderful guardian angel, but I wished her more down to earth.

David's growth appears mostly about learning to discipline his heart, the phrase that haunts him through his first marriage. I think it was Jane who suggested that Dora might represent, not (only) Dickens' first love, but his wife. This echoed for me, wondering if Dora's death might have been wishful thinking by Dickens, especially after reading his callous comments about his children. If he could wish a son dead...

Aunt Betsey was my favourite character, covering a spectrum of qualities, from stubbornness and faith, to regret and resilience. And she made me laugh!

Ham broke my heart. In answer to Peter's question, I too think he would have gone in, even if he knew it was Steerforth hanging on the mast. It was suicide, without the sin. No second chances for his character. I suppose it's realistic that things don't turn out well for all the good guys, but heartbreaking all the same.

The only other Dickens novel I've read is Bleak House, which I preferred. But DC was full of surprises, right from its very powerful beginning -- I wasn't expecting to find a child's narration so gripping. And I feel this novel, despite any criticism, is still a phenomenal feat of weaving together multiple characters and plot lines, over decades! It was engaging, thought-provoking and fun to read it with everyone here.

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "It has become part of my family, and never have I felt so much at home in a virtual discussion group as I do here."

If your family gets any bigger you're going to need a larger h..."

No more moving house for me, please! The last time it took me ages to unpack and rearrange my books!

The sobriquet of "Young Innocence" coming from Littimer, it is clearly meant to deride David's lack of perception with regard to Steerforth's foul play. It fits well with Littimer's attitude towards David, which I'd call one of respectful haughtiness: His outward respectability and sureness of himself always daunts David and makes him feel younger than he is, which seems to be a general problem of his.

I'd also say that my favourite character is Traddles: unassuming and yet down-to-earth, modest and yet able to pave his way to success with hard work, caring, sensible and also brave when it is necessary, e.g. when he is the only one to criticize Steerforth for what he did to Mr. Mell.

My favourite character with a view to depth, credibility and quality as a literary creation, however, is Miss Dartle: She is neither good nor evil, or if she is the latter, her evil is explained in credible psychological terms. Together with Edith, she is one of Dickens's few believable and interesting female characters. Agnes, on the other hand, seems more like a projection of what Dickens expected of a woman, i.e. mainly self-denying love. Otherwise - as Vanessa remarked - she would not have been so patient with David but she would have sensed the grossness of his leaving her and her father in the clutches of Uriah Heep.

As to Kim's question why David had to be there with Martha listening in on Miss Dartle torturing Emily, I think this is one of the instances in which the first person perspective was a limitation to the story. If Martha had told David about it - I think the technical theatre term is teichoscopy, i.e. reporting some off-screen action to people on the stage -, the effect would not have been as dramatic because the report would have been coated in Martha's words and, at the same time, been less immediate. That is why David always has to be on the scene when something interesting happens; another example is his going to the beach during the terrible storm, something which a scaredy-cat like him would hardly have done.

You voiced so many of my own feelings towards the book. I too started off with a 5 star rating in my head as I absolutely fell in love with David's innocent observations. However, like you said, things started to slow down a bit and for me there was way too much Micawber story for my liking.
Oh, how interesting...You're rating began to falter as well? I'm glad to have shared your thoughts, Linda!

DC begins with "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anyone else, these pages must show." David never makes any claim to being a hero, never bullies his way into our reading consciousness, and seems to be open, honest and willing to shed a light on those around him.
Glad you brought this back to the beginning, since it completely escaped me. You're correct, David does not claim to be the hero; so, it goes hand in hand with his character's deficit in morality and virtue.

Bleak House will be bleaker without your comments but please drop by once in a while to say hello.
Oh, boy. What am I in for next week? LoL! I will miss you, Linda!

For worst person, I vote for Steerforth.M
I will base my answer for the title "Worst Person" in David Copperfield on the character's intent to hurt and cause harm. My list is as follows: (1)Uriah Heep, (2)Mr. and Miss Murdstone, (3)Rosa Dartle, and (4) James Steerforth.

Uriah Heep, from day one had an odd and ominous air about him. From the cupping of the horse's nostrils when we first meet him to this consistent plotting to better his circumstances; Uriah Heep's intentions may have been honorable, but his approach is deplorable. He lacks a conscience, and this is what I find most sinister about him.

The Murdstones as a whole, also lack a conscience. The scene where David is being led upstairs by Mr. Murdstone to punish him (I think), a glimmer of a smirk begins to appear on Mr. Murdstone's face-How heinous?

Rosa Dartle, her vitriol is barbed with daggers ready to do harm. Yes, she's jilted, but she insists on exuding this hurt in the form of hate and nasty, and God save whoever was on the receiving end of her diatribe. Poor Emily was brought to her knees as Miss Dartle went on the attack, Mrs. Steerforth was left verklempt, and Littmer even cowers when in the presence of her sharp tongue.

James Steerforth, is a selfish and self absorbed human being. He grew up not having any repercussions to any of his misdeeds. I think James had the ability to have anything he wanted, and at whatever cost, but I don't think he approached any of those instances with malice...He didn't intend to hurt people, it was just the side effect of his selfishness. Steerforth, often enough expresses vulnerabilities in his character, proof a conscience exists within him. I found this aspect of his personality redeeming.

On the flip side of the "Worst Person" title, I think the "Best Person" title would go to Traddles first and Miss Betsey second...Two people who really had an integral hand in David's success, and both were the loveliest and entertaining throughout.

Ami: I enjoyed reading your comments. I have never been able to come to terms with David. Do I find him credible? Do I like him as a (fictional) person? I give 5 stars to most of Dickens, with the exception of MC. I wish someone else would have written that novel. lol

Bleak House will not be bleak. No worries.

Lindsay wrote: "My Pet Peeve of the book was Dickens constant use of the word "umble" whenever Uriah Heep and his mother were in the scene..."

Oooh..."Pet Peeve" of the book. That's a fun one. I do agree that the word "umble" got used quite extensively.

Perhaps at the end of each Dickens from here on out, we could have a final list containing favorite character, worst villain, pet peeve, favorite nickname, etc. I'm sure we can come up with some great categories to have in the back of our heads while reading.

Linda wrote: "Lindsay wrote: "My Pet Peeve of the book was Dickens constant use of the word "umble" whenever Uriah Heep and his mother were in the scene..."

Oooh..."Pet Peeve" of the book. That's a fun one. I..."

That would be fun. There may be differing categories each read. Oh, the possibilities ...

Peter, I like your Creep-o-Meter. And agree that Uriah breathing into the pony's nostrils was off the scale! I had some trouble with the question of who was most odious though, because that word gives me a sense of repugnance, and whenever I read about Uriah, I continued to have difficulty separating his physical repulsiveness from his scheming. The idea that his writhing could be a disease, however, stuck.

For the worst character, I agree with you and Tristram. Steerforth, for the reasons mentioned, and for his chill factor. Ami, it's interesting to look at it from the point of intent to do harm. I suppose, for me, Steerforth's lack of compassion overrides this. He doesn't feel others' suffering. He could sleep easily before ruining Emily, her family, his own family, and his friendship with David. He has glimmers of a conscience, but ignores it. And I'm not so sure he didn't intend harm. He's ruled by pleasure, and the power of his own charm. I think his character embodies the corrupting, destructive element of power.

The other villains, in comparison, are wrapped up in their own suffering, and at least have motivation (albeit twisted) for hurting others. I also found Rosa Dartle the most interesting, complex character in this regard. Although I didn't like her, I felt sad for her trapped situation, and where it could lead.

Linda wrote: "Perhaps at the end of each Dickens from here on out, we could have a final list containing favorite character, worst villain, pet peeve, favorite nickname, etc. I'm sure we can come up with some great categories to have in the back of our heads while reading."

I've made a note of it, as Cpt. Cuttle would have said. Thanks for pointing it out, Linda!

I completely agree with your analysis of the villains' motivations and their intent to do harm, Ami, and yet my conclusion would be a different one. It is exactly because Steerforth seems to have slight feelings of regret and the ability to glimpse his plans in a different light - I am referring to the last conversation between him and Doady - that his villainy to me seems more odious than that of Uriah and any other character in the novel. I feel that he even pities himself for his own egoism here in yielding to his temptations rather than withstanding them. I mean he knows that he is going to do something terribly wrong, and he accepts it with a sigh instead of just going back to London and not doing it. Plus, he has all sorts of accomplishments and social advantages but he does not use them to a higher and but prefers to play the prodigal son and entirely live for his pleasure. That is the peak of ruthlessness to me.

The second villain in line would be Creakle to me, together with the Murdstones, for they are a pack of sadistic and hypocritical hounds.

Uriah Heep is bad enough but at least he seems to be fond of and grateful towards his mother. That is not a lot as it can be said of quite a lot of evil people probably but it is different from Steerforth, who is only fond of himself. Then Uriah did not have any of the advantages Steerforth had, and he might have become a less bitter, hateful and underhanded person if he had had a proper education. Who knows?

My pet peeve is similar to Lindsay's but it is not the word "umble" I took a dislike for but rather the narrator's endless repetitions of the words "respectable" and "respectability" in connection with Littimer. Here he clearly overdid it.