Victorians! discussion

Alternately... Which Victorian novel have you always wanted to read but feel intimidated by? And why?

It might be the size or the reputation. Or a bad review from a friend. But sometimes we put off reading novels that intrigue us for quite some time before jumping in.

So... What was/is that book? What put you off? What did you think once you took the plunge? (If, in fact, you've done so.) ;-)

Bleak House by Charles Dickens.
I saw part of an adaptation on the TV several years ago and became intrigued, even got as far as buying the paperback. I think the size of paperback daunted me and I never got round to reading it. Currently watching (and loving) the BBC series Dickensian, I have become interested in a variety of Dickens' characters and Bleak House is 'calling to me' again ...

Good one! BH is one of my favorites but it is quite the door stopper. :D

Helen_in_the_uk wrote: "Bleak House by Charles Dickens.
I saw part of an adaptation on the TV several years ago and became intrigued, even got as far as buying the paperback. I think the size of paperback daunted me and I..."

For me, Middlemarch will remain the novel that serves as doorstop. Bleak House is one of my favourite novels. It's got to the point with me that I'm almost afraid to try to complete Middlemarch in case I like it and then have nothing to complain about any more.

Right now, David Copperfield is still daunting me, even though I'm "supposed to" have it read for a discussion a week from Tuesday. It isn't "hard" to read, the story is reasonably interesting, it is supposedly a window into Dickens himself. Still, as I frequently do with Dickens, I find him tedious. All those marvelous characters too often devolve into caricatures for me. And the plot incidents into little didactic anecdotes. So, I will keep listening and reading and we will see how far I get. This is one that it feels as if it would be nice to say one has read. (I did appreciate Bleak House and A Tale of Two Cities. I'd read ToTC again, but will probably use other sources instead to better understand the dynamics of the French Revolution and English politics.)

Peter -- I still can't say I have honestly read Middlemarch, although I have started several times and one time skimmed it thoroughly enough that I could perhaps claim having read it -- and probably do, I'd have to check my bookshelf ;-0. But, like Eugene Onegin and War and Peace, it strikes me as one of those books that I will only be able to claim as really having read after at least the next thorough time through or perhaps the time after that. (Somehow, I have found those repeat reads particularly rewarding for Russian novels, even though the stories come through on a first read. The repeats provide a chance to watch the characters unfold.) I do think Middlemarch is probably worth the effort, based even just on its reputation, but I don't happen to "like" several of the characters, and I have had a hard time getting past that barrier with this particular book, I guess because I hoped for likable women characters from George Eliot. Once, when I asked a reader why he viewed it so highly, the answer I got was because it contains so much of life, from marriage to taxes to work to .... We all know Woolf's famous quotation: “one of the few English novels written for grown-up people.”

See: Paris Review, August 8, 2013
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/20...
This does confirm that it may be okay to be irritated with Dorothea. Still, how/why did a woman as strong as Eliot write a girl/woman so self deceptive and naive about herself? (Not interested in the family jewels -- but, oh, maybe this one...[the most beautiful of them all.].. (view spoiler)[ "Duplicitous prig" or "sanctimonious brat" were my harsh reactions. (hide spoiler)]) Perhaps it would help if I read more of Eliot's bio.

"George Eliot" by Virginia Woolf
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/wome...

I've managed to get through the sprawling The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe, which provided wonderful background to understanding the Gothic novel, but Walpole's The Castle of Otranto continues to haunt my TBR. (Both a little earlier than Victorian, of course.)

A few other Victorian predecessor novels, each doorstops, have made their way to my bookshelves but not to being read: Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady and Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded by Samuel Richardson. Or Fielding's The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. (I have seen the movie and dabbled within this book.) Or The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne. Each, like Otranto, I'd expect to provide insight into what followed. All belong to days before so many media to sap our reading time.

Dostoyevsky, although I have read him, I have never been able to successfully crack. Then, the French, like Balzac and Zola, that I didn't manage to fit in when they were broached here on Goodreads.

Peter wrote: "Helen_in_the_uk wrote: "Bleak House by Charles Dickens.
I saw part of an adaptation on the TV several years ago and became intrigued, even got as far as buying the paperback. I think the size of pa..."

I thought Middlemarch was incredibly boring and none of the characters could hold my interest for long. I had to read it quickly to return it to the library on time, and if it hadn't been for that motivation I would never have got through it. It was way too serious for me.

I've always found War and Peace quite daunting, and I don't know why. I have read many, many doorstoppers in my time, even including Anna Karenina, but somehow I have never plucked up the courage to read W&P. I am enjoying BBC's adaptation of it, on air at the moment, but still I think it will remain quite a bit down on my to-read list for quite some time.

Nina wrote: "I've always found War and Peace quite daunting, and I don't know why. I have read many, many doorstoppers in my time..."

The first time is, I think. (Quite daunting, that is) I read it (I was in my early sixties) the first time in the accompaniment of an accomplished moderator, at that time on Barnes and Noble, who asked her readers to choose a character to follow. That was very useful and has heavily flavored my two subsequent reads. At that time, a reader in Australia was also doing a one-year read of W&P and creating a daily blog. It was very good. (Looking quickly now, I don't find it. But B&N has deleted much, so I don't know if I could go back to those archives to find it either. I may have found it on the last Western Canon read and can go looking if anyone is interested enough. Or I may have it in some record of mine.) Criticism by R.F. Christian also has been of great use to me -- one of the few in English (most are apparently still in Russian). He documents how Tolstoy changed the plot and the characters several times as he wrote the novel. In subsequent reads, I have especially enjoyed those character developments and relationships. They become like family members whose quirks one can almost predict. I am still one who slides over much of the material that takes apart the progress of the war, which many history buffs enjoy attacking or endorsing or both.

I think this is my preferred film version (I have not yet seen BBC's new production.):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and...

Helen_in_the_uk wrote: "Bleak House by Charles Dickens.
I saw part of an adaptation on the TV several years ago and became intrigued, even got as far as buying the paperback. I think the size of paperback daunted me and I..."

I read that book for one of my English courses, and I was also intimidated by the size. But the characters and the writing style were so compelling, that I just zipped through the whole thing. And I agree, the BBC adaptation is amazing!

Middlemarch is a daunting book. I started four times before I finally finished it and I am so pleased I persevered because I love it now. Watching the BBC adaptation helped too in this case. Additionally, it was one of the novels I studied (Nineteenth-century Novel) and I'm still in awe at Eliot's mastery.

There are plenty of Victorian novels I find daunting, many cited here. I'd love to try Bleak House, although I always get worried about Dickens. I didn't like Great Expectations but really enjoyed Dombey and Son. Others on my list are Crime and Punishment and War and Peace

Interesting that Fyodor Dostoyevsky has been mentioned a few times. I was recommended Crime and Punishment in my early twenties, loved it and went on a massive Dostoyevsky binge, reading The Brothers Karamazov, The House of the Dead, The Gambler and others in quick succession.

He must have spoken to my soul at the time, because I haven't read anything of his since then!

Honoré de Balzac and Émile Zola are wonderful authors whom I was lucky enough to study at university so they've never been particularly daunting to me.

Thomas Hardy though...... I failed to enjoy Under the Greenwood Tree which has further put me off trying any of his "harder" novels. Maybe, like Dostoyevsky, he will speak to me at a particular time in life which I simply haven't reached yet ;-)

It might almost be easier to list the books that don't intimidate me. :P

But I think War and Peace holds top place in the intimidation list. (Are we calling any book from the Victorian era a Victorian novel for the purposes of this? Because, strictly speaking... Russian writers aren't really Victorian...)

Middlemarch was worrying me, but I have started reading it now and I'm finding it quite enjoyable in bite sized chunks. A chapter or two per day. Each sentence has so much to offer, that I haven't even considered if I care for the characters or not. I care for the words, and the voice of the author/narrator.

I started reading Crime and Punishment at too early an age, 14 or 15, and I ended up just drifting away to read other things. I'm not that intimidated by it, but I keep putting it off for some reason.

Thomas Hardy and Henry James somehow got entangled in my mind. I found Henry James so utterly boring and somehow this has transferred to Thomas Hardy. That, plus I've read so many places that Tess of the D'Ubervilles is really heavy reading and terribly bleak, so I have just sort of tried to purge all thought of Hardy from my mind. Actually, maybe Hardy deserves first place in the intimidation list.

Leni wrote: "Are we calling any book from the Victorian era a Victorian novel for the purposes of this? Because, strictly speaking... Russian writers aren't really Victorian..."

You're absolutely right, Leni - the focus of this group especially for group reads is British Victorian (ie: works from 1837-1901 published in, or very strongly related to, Great Britain). What we've been discussing is 19th Century literature in general, which is fine for this discussion. Unfortunately, we couldn't read Flaubert or Tolstoy as a group read here, though there are many excellent groups on Goodreads which do!

Pip wrote: "Leni wrote: "Are we calling any book from the Victorian era a Victorian novel for the purposes of this? Because, strictly speaking... Russian writers aren't really Victorian..."

You're absolutely ..."

They might make a good buddy read?

Leni wrote: "It might almost be easier to list the books that don't intimidate me. :P"

Me too! My first thought on seeing this question was, "...all of them?"

But, I mean, I found Middlemarch super daunting - it doesn't really get going until like 400 pages in, so you really have to have a lot of faith, or stubbornness - and that's now my favorite book ever. That helped me develop some faith in Victorian novels, as baggy as they often are.

I'm a little daunted by Lady Audley's Secret, which I plan to start with y'all in a few days; it's quite long, so if I don't like it it'll be a little bit of a haul. I'm maybe scarred by The Mysteries of Udolpho, which is long and bad and feels somewhat related in that I've never read the author before and they're both scary (I guess?). But I'm excited for it! It's about time I educated myself more about sensation novels.

Cool question, and hi everyone - I haven't been here in a while but I'm returning to the fold for Braddon.

Alex wrote: "Leni wrote: "It might almost be easier to list the books that don't intimidate me. :P"

Me too! My first thought on seeing this question was, "...all of them?"

But, I mean, I found Middlemarch sup..."

Welcome back Alex. I look forward to your posts

Good to see you around again, Alex! And don't worry about getting into Lady Audley (that sounds rude....); Gothic lit had come a long way since Udolpho ;-)

Pip wrote: "Thomas Hardy though...... I failed to enjoy Under the Greenwood Tree which has further put me off trying any of his "harder" novels..."

I have come to like Hardy quite much, even the awful Jude . I had to read that one (second go) in the accompaniment of the best and most diverse criticism I could find about Sue Brideshead. With that help, it has become a cornerstone read in my reading oeuvre, although not a particularly fond or well-liked one.

But, I was introduced to Tess via an out-and-out online disagreement among us on a B&N board many years ago. Today I would rank it among one of the "best" books I've read -- for its affirmation of a woman's soul. Courageous. Its subtitle is so much on target. My own assessment of Tess has become both more ambiguous and even stronger across the years. (One of the people I originally argued vehemently against did help me see less rigidly, as well as some scholars who have traced Hardy's evolution of the words he chose across editions. (view spoiler)[ He argued seduction, I argued rape. (hide spoiler)]) Today, I am fascinated when I scan the reactions of new readers. I have also discussed it in my f2f book group. Ahead of its time and probably helped shift attitudes across the decades. Worth having the Norton edition around when reading it.

But I was disappointed with UtGWT. I thought it would be fun to encounter a "lighter" Hardy. For me, it just wasn't him at his strengths.

Preeeeetty sure Hardy was on your side re. that Tess debate, Lily.

I love Hardy. I think he has a wonderful feel for cinematic scenes - the climax of Tess, for example. I don't find him as daunting as lots of other Victorian authors. But for me the primary daunt factor in Victorian books is their length; they're rarely super difficult. (Except you, Henry James.)

Lily wrote: "But I was disappointed with UtGWT. I thought it would be fun to encounter a "lighter" Hardy. For me, it just wasn't him at his strengths."

I agree wholeheartedly. Tess is one of the best reading experiences I've ever had. There is so much to discuss in it, the writing is beautiful, the characters leap from the page, and what happens to Tess.... I won't spoil anything, but man did it bring out my inner feminist!

UtGWT felt like he was writing against the grain, it just wasn't Hardy for me. So Pip, don't let UtGWT put you off, Hardy will only get better from there.

Alex wrote: "1) Preeeeetty sure Hardy was on your side re. that Tess debate, Lily.

2) (Except you, Henry James.) ..."

1) Well, ... humans are complicated, and Hardy seemed to recognize that....

2) Henry James sort of leaves the Victorian era, but he apparently carried so much personal ... that what he wrote got too convoluted -- at least, that's my way overly simplistic reaction. Wings of the Dove drove me almost mad, just figuring out the antecedents of his pronouns, let alone the story. But Portrait of a Lady finally seemed to help me crack the veneer. James understood too much for his time, too. Not that any of us can ever really understand enough.

I've read War and Peace, and Middlemarch. I can't say I was intimidated by either, but did have a dislike of Middlemarch. I was told it would most likely become a favorite, which didn't happen. I have struggled through reading some titles that were not enjoyable for me.

For me, it was Dickens. All of Dickens. I didn't encounter him during High School, in spite of my Honors classes. And my dad had a thing about him. He must have had a bad experience or something, but he painted a portrait that made quite an impact. To the point where I wormed my way around Hard Times, which was assigned in college. (Actually, I'm glad about that. I found it to be wretched when I finally got around to reading it decades later. It would have been the nail in the coffin of my Dickensophobia.)

Post college, I worked in a bookstore for awhile, and there met a woman with whom I am still close friends. SHE was a reader like no one else I'd ever met and she loved chunky novels. Dostoyevsky, Dumas, and Dickens. She convinced me to try The Pickwick Papers, which is hilarious and filled with ghost stories and great characters. Who knew? (Well, lots of people, as it turns out.)

She's also the person who convinced me to read War & Peace, because she loved it so. (It's really easy reading, btw. There's just a lot of it.)

When I was in high school one of the assigned readings was The Return of the Native. Although I did not understand fully much of the novel, I was moved by Hardy’s wild romantic vision. In college, then, I embarked on a Hardy binge and read the remaining novels but for one, The Mayor of Casterbridge. I had lent my copy to a friend and he returned it years later. By that time, I had forced my way through the unremitting bleakness and gloom of Jude the Obscure and decided to avoid any further Hardy fiction. That was almost fifty years ago and I have kept to my decision.

Not daunted by any, it's just getting to all of them! Same goes for fiction / literature of other eras and places. Admittedly, some projects, like the five-volume classic Chinese novel The Story of the Stone, are major commitments.

Martin, funny, I just started Return of the Native this morning. I love how cinematic Hardy is. This will be my...fifth by him. I can see how Jude might be a bit much for some folks though, yeesh.

Patrick - man, I gotta tell you, the ancient Chinese classics have just stopped me cold. They're so, so long. I want to be a guy who's read them, but I don't want to be a guy who's reading them.

I'm two volumes into The Story of the Stone, and it's just fantastic.

Alex, I read Return of the Native when I was 16 and basically interested in plot. I was totally nonplussed by the extended description of Egdon Heath that opened the book before any of the human characters had been introduced. I did not appreciate what you so aptly characterize as the cinematic sweep of Hardy nor the fact that the Heath was the character that determined so much of the novel. But even though I did not understand or like this aspect then, it is a tribute to the hold that it took on my imagination so that I still remember it fifty years later.

Haha, Martin, yes to both things. That opening really sets the tone, and it's beautiful and visual and you're totally right that the heath is like a main character here. BUT....it's also suuuuuper boooooring. It goes on for like a trillion pages.