The Pickwick Club discussion

Dear Fellow-Pickwickians,

the novel is now drawing to a close, and we see most of the evil plots thwarted and their originators imprisoned. The time has come to start thinking about the novel as a whole, and if you want to cast your vote on who is the most despicable villain in the book - I've created a poll that should be open for a whole week.

As usual, this is the place to write down your comments, ideas, favourite quotations and whatever else.

I was wondering what people thought of the narrator's voice and Dickens' own voice, in the story? Do you think the two can be separated? Do you think it changes depending on character or situation?

What, I wonder, is the point in having Sir John Chester turn out to be Hugh's father.

Kate,

I've always found it difficult to make a distinction between an omniscient narrator's voice and the voice of the author him- or herself. It's, of course, more self-evident, if the author uses a focalizer, but in the case of omniscient narrators, who would draw a line here? Especially in Dickens's early novels, I'd say that the author and the narrator are pretty much in unison on what they are saying. For example, consider the scathing irony against workhouses and the Poor Law we get in Oliver Twist: It is quite clear that we hear Dickens's own indignation in the narrator's ridicule and derision. Apart from that, Dickens hardly leaves any doubt as to what we have to think of characters like Little Nell (of course, what you do think is an entirely different matter) or Barnaby, the Vardens, Lord George and so on, and so on. I see a fair consistency between the author's viewpoint and that of the narrator here ... only in his later novels does this change, I think.

Everyman wrote: "What, I wonder, is the point in having Sir John Chester turn out to be Hugh's father."

Everyman,

maybe this surprise, which does not come as so much of a surprise at all - remember when Chester spent some time pondering the sleeping Hugh's features -, has a symbolical meaning. It should at least have one because plot-wise this coincidence that does not even uncover any mystery within the story is such a contrived coincidence that it makes every reader cringe with embarrassment.

I'd read into this connection Dickens's criticism of society in that it is people like Chester, at the upper end of the social ladder, that lack responsibility for the lower classes and therefore lend a hand in their brutalization. Mr. Chester is even a Member of Parliament and as such would have it in his hand to contribute to abolish grievances like too frequent a use of the death penalty etc., and his callousness of not wielding his power wisely is one of the reasons why people harden and lose their regard for society and their neighbours.

I agree - it's easy to conflate the two. And in many cases the omniscient narrator is expressing the author's views, so they are the same. It is also easily confused when there are different viewpoint characters, but it should still be possible to analyse and to see if there's a differentiation. I confess I find it difficult to think of examples though! In series books, the omniscient narrator is often different from the author I suppose.

But Oliver Twist is a perfect example of the author sharing his views in a scathing and passionate way. An example of "persuasive" literature. I'll be interested to hear how far you all think Dickens has travelled (or progressed?) towards taking a step back from the action. (It's a while since I read this one.)

Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: "What, I wonder, is the point in having Sir John Chester turn out to be Hugh's father."

Everyman,

maybe this surprise, which does not come as so much of a surprise at all - rememb..."

I like that Chester is Hugh's father. It isn't an unbelievable coincidence at all, just a case of like father like son, besides I like coincidences. Who else could have been such a bad father to end up with Hugh the way he is? Maybe Gashford or Dennis. Oh, its coming to me....Chester is Hugh's father andSim's father; Gashford is Chester's long lost brother, Dennis is their half-brother that they never knew about, and Miggs is his illegitimate daughter. There did I get them all? How's that for coincidence? :-}

Tristram wrote: "Kate,

I've always found it difficult to make a distinction between an omniscient narrator's voice and the voice of the author him- or herself. It's, of course, more self-evident, if the author use..."

Hi Tristram

Author's voice is something that I think most people find hard to fathom (especially since they can't get past it being more than just writing style), but simply put, I think you can identify their voice (and even personality perhaps) through the tone they use in relation to the themes, characters, storyline, etc.

Whichever type of narrator they use or narrator personae they create, I think their personal attitude can never be completely avoided. Clearly, Dickens doesn't use a personae since his voice and his narrator seem to be very closely linked, however, I'll be interested to contemplate voice more as we go along with each novel.

In his earlier pieces, I think it is clear to see what his personal stance is on each topic, based on how the narrator's tone changes depending on which character he's focusing on. With Barnaby Rudge I think you can tell where Dickens' sympathies lie, based on his tone. I think I've mentioned it before, but I always notice that if Dickens isn't keen on a character or their behaviour at that time, he describes them or the scene satirically. Simply put, he makes them look foolish. I think this gives a fair idea about the types of people and causes that Dickens supported. Although, being the famous novelist he is, we already know that, but I think it is an interesting test to try with lessor known authors then to find out about them after reading some of their work.

It's all interesting stuff. I'm glad I can at least have a good conversation with you guys about this kind of thing. It goes over the head of most high school students. :(

Jean wrote: "I agree - it's easy to conflate the two. And in many cases the omniscient narrator is expressing the author's views, so they are the same. It is also easily confused when there are different viewpo..."

Hi Jean

Yes, it'll be interesting, as you say, to see if Dickens can distance his own voice from that of his narrator as we move onto his later novels. As I said to Tristram, it is impossible for the author to totally bury their own voice. I personally think tone is the best way to identify the author's voice in any piece, to detect where their sympathies lie or that their personality is like. I'm currently doing a post graduate writing course and they say you need wisdom and life experience to know who you are before you can write successfully in your own voice. Maybe we will see this development of wisdom with Dickens as we go along. It'll be interesting finding out!

Yes, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to read all the novels in order (even though I'd already read them all before.) They vary so much! I thought it would be interesting to analyse the development of the writer. It also prevented me reading my favourites over and over again! LOL

I'm so glad I did, because this time I appreciated The Pickwick Papers far more :)

And when I found this group (while you were away, I think, Kate) it was just so strange that you were all doing the same thing as I am, just a little in front though.

Jean wrote: "Yes, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to read all the novels in order (even though I'd already read them all before.) They vary so much! I thought it would be interesting to analyse the devel..."

I agree Jean, it's definitely good to have that chance to read Dickens along with people who appreciate him too. I haven't read all his books. I've been guilty of rereading my favourites too, so I can't wait to have that goal under my belt - to read all of Dickens' novels. I only joined the website back in November, so I have to fit PP & NN in somewhere along the way too!

As to PP, Kate, we had the idea of reading that one as soon as we have finished The Mystery of Edwin Drood because Dickens's first novel was a group read when hardly anyone of our present company had joined the group.

About the narrator's vs the author's voice, one example of how the two seem to conflate, as Jean said, seems to me the beginning of Chapter 29, where the narrator muses on the state of mind of worldly people - here, I take it, Dickens was voicing some sentiment of his own, or at least what he would have his readers assume to be his own attitude.

Or remember the scene when Varden is hammering along merrily? I think that it is Dickens himself here who expresses his admiration of and sympathy for this character.

It is very difficult, though, to find a passage in Barnaby Rudge, where the narrator is at cross-purposes with the author. Do omniscient narrators ever differ from their author's attitudes?

Joy wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Do omniscient narrators ever differ from their author's attitudes?"

I wondered that recently when I read Barbara Kingsolver's Flight Behavior. Throughout the book ..."

Hi Tristram and Joy

I do think that any narrator (or character, since the narrator is a character too) can differ from the attitudes of the author. I've heard it said that those authors who narrate in their own voice find the story flat or boring. If they take on a narrator personae, they can give themselves an ego that can make the story more interesting. If their narrator goes against the author's beliefs, then this creates more opportunity to put the characters in situations which create more tension. More often than not, the narrator/character will learn the hard way and the outcome will move inline with the author's expectations, values and beliefs.

As you point out Joy, in Flight Behavior, it can be difficult to tell what the author's stance is. However, I think that you have to look at the tone with which the story is told and you can only do this by looking at the narrator. Are they serious, humorous, sarcastic, etc?

The story might go against the grain of what you would expect, knowing the author's beliefs, however, perhaps they are asking the audience to look at something, but from a different perspective. Joy, your book sounds like an example of social commentary. Perhaps the author is trying to sway the audience by giving them a sense of direction of how to approach the climate change problem, but in a way she envisages as better? Hence those characters who supposedly make the right decision, still face disaster, because the author doesn't see that as the best option.

At the end of the day, the author is always going to come through, at varying degrees. You can't write without allowing your personality and attitudes to come through. I might be hard to pick some of them out, especially when they seem to contradict themselves, but I think there's always an ulterior motive with writers, even if they don't realise it themselves at the time of writing.

Hmm... reading that back I hope I make sense!

Tristram wrote: "As to PP, Kate, we had the idea of reading that one as soon as we have finished The Mystery of Edwin Drood because Dickens's first novel was a group read when hardly anyone of our present company h..."

I'm glad to hear you'll be reading PP again and I can join in!

Tristram wrote: "As to PP, Kate, we had the idea of reading that one as soon as we have finished The Mystery of Edwin Drood because Dickens's first novel was a group read when hardly anyone of our present company h..."

I should point out too, that I do agree with you that Dickens comes through as the narrator from time to time. Perhaps, as we've said before, it might be because he is still early in his writing career at this time?

I was just reading some of the letters Dickens wrote to George Cattermole about the illustrations for Barnaby, thought I'd share some:

Devonshire Terrace, Wednesday Evening, July 28th, 1841.


My dear George,

Can you do for me by Saturday evening—I know the time is short, but I think the subject will suit you, and I am greatly pressed—a party of rioters (with Hugh and Simon Tappertit conspicuous among them) in old John Willet's bar, turning the liquor taps to their own advantage, smashing bottles, cutting down the grove of lemons, sitting astride on casks, drinking out of the best punch-bowls, eating the great cheese, smoking sacred pipes, etc. etc.; John Willet, fallen backward in his chair, regarding them[46] with a stupid horror, and quite alone among them, with none of The Maypole customers at his back.

It's in your way, and you'll do it a hundred times better than I can suggest it to you, I know.

Faithfully always.

Broadstairs, Friday, August 6th, 1841.


My dear George,

Here is a subject for the next number; the next to that I hope to send you the MS. of very early in the week, as the best opportunities of illustration are all coming off now, and we are in the thick of the story.

The rioters went, sir, from John Willet's bar (where you saw them to such good purpose) straight to The Warren, which house they plundered, sacked, burned, pulled down as much of as they could, and greatly damaged and destroyed. They are supposed to have left it about half an hour. It is night, and the ruins are here and there flaming and smoking. I want—if you understand—to show one of the turrets laid open—the turret where the alarm-bell is, mentioned in No. 1; and among the ruins (at some height if possible) Mr. Haredale just clutching our friend, the mysterious file, who is passing over them like a spirit; Solomon Daisy, if you can introduce him, looking on from the ground below.

Please to observe that the M. F. wears a large cloak and a slouched hat. This is important, because Browne will have him in the same number, and he has not changed his dress meanwhile. Mr. Haredale is supposed to have come down here on horseback, pell-mell; to be excited to the last degree. I think it will make a queer picturesque thing in your hands. I have told Chapman and Hall that[47] you may like to have a block of a peculiar shape for it. One of them will be with you almost as soon as you receive this.

We are very anxious to know that our cousin is out of her trouble, and you free from your anxiety. Mind you write when it comes off. And when she is quite comfortable come down here for a day or two, like a bachelor, as you will be. It will do you a world of good. Think of that.

Always, dear Cattermole,
Heartily yours.


P.S.—When you have done the subject, I wish you'd write me one line and tell me how, that I may be sure we agree. Loves from Kate.

Broadstairs, August 19th, 1841.


My dear George,

When Hugh and a small body of the rioters cut off from The Warren beckoned to their pals, they forced into a very remarkable postchaise Dolly Varden and Emma Haredale, and bore them away with all possible rapidity; one of their company driving, and the rest running beside the chaise, climbing up behind, sitting on the top, lighting the way with their torches, etc. etc. If you can express the women inside without showing them—as by a fluttering veil, a delicate arm, or so forth appearing at the half-closed window—so much the better. Mr. Tappertit stands on the steps, which are partly down, and, hanging on to the window with one hand and extending the other with great majesty, addresses a few words of encouragement to the driver and attendants. Hugh sits upon the bar in front; the driver sitting postilion-wise, and turns round to look through the window behind him at the little doves within. The gentlemen behind are also anxious to catch a glimpse of the ladies. One of those who are running at the side may be gently rebuked for his curiosity by the cudgel of Hugh. So they cut away, sir, as fast as they can.

Always faithfully.


P.S.—John Willet's bar is noble.

We take it for granted that cousin and baby are hearty. Our loves to them.

Sir John talks of his son, Hugh in Ch 75: Extremely distressing to be the parent of such an uncouth creature! Still, I gave him very good advice: I told him he would certainly be hanged: .......Oh what an absolute charmer J. Chester is! What a guy!