The Old Curiosity Club discussion

Good morning, Curiosities!

The moment has finally arrived when we are going to leave behind us the demoniacally sinister Quilp, his topsy-turvey assistant Tom Scott, his poor wife, who suffers from her husband as well as from her own mother, the happy-go-lucky individualist and pub-poet Dick and his Marchioness, sterling and stalwart Kit Nubbles and his vivacious family, genial Mrs. Jarly, the Jekyll-and-Hydeish Short and Codlin, the spineless grandfather and our heroine Little Nell.

It’s now time to lean back and leisurely discuss the novel in its completeness, no fear of spoilers nor of differences in taste! During the past few weeks, a lot of interesting interpretations and ideas and questions have arisen, and it is beyond me to summon them all up to my mind right now so that when I now add some thoughts to spark off discussions please feel invited to add new questions so that we can open up new paths on our map of the novel.

Here are some ideas to begin with, which I explicitly gave some bias to encourage discussion:
1) TOCS is a novel of inconsistencies: Not only are there characters that undergo quite sudden and unmotivated changes, there are also others who simply disappear from the stage whereas others pop up from nowhere. Likewise, the plotline is getting out of the author’s hands in that he has difficulties combining the Nell-strand with the whole London-strand and in building up a conflict that last throughout the whole book.
2) Considering what Quilp actually does to Little Nell and her Grandfather, his reputation is far worse than he would deserve. He seems to be a devil incarnate, a raging imp delighting in doing evil for the sake of evil, but then he does surprisingly little evil in the novel.
3) Unlike most other Dickens novels, TOCS seems to play in an arcadian or long-lost fairy-land, which makes the novel seem like a dream (with nightmarish qualities). It may also be a quasi-religious allegory, esp. the story about Little Nell, while social criticism is – on the whole – neglected.
4) Little Nell is …
5) This being one of Dickens’s earlier novels, it obviously shows marks of inexperience while at the same time the great writer of the later works is also foreshadowed. What do you consider successful and what less successful elements of TOCS?

As I said, these are just a few ideas to start with. Of course, there is still the haiku or limerick challenge for those who are good at putting things into a nutshell 😊

Now I wish everyone a fruitful discussion!

You forgot to finish number four. I assume you weren't quite sure what you wanted to say and were going to go back to it once you were done the rest of your post, then simply forgot to go finish the sentence. Little Nell is.......

I don't think of books as successful not successful, how in the world would I know if it was successful? People stand in line here for books I would never read, but I would think of those books as successful. So in TOCS the thing I hate the most far above anything else is dear Grandfather. Does that mean that Dickens failed in his making of dear Granny? Or am I supposed to feel this way about him, because then I would say that Dickens was successful in his making of old Grandpa. Successful or unsuccessful, I hated Grandfather and Quilp, and I loved Dick Swiveller and the Marchioness. Everybody else falls somewhere in the middle. Little Nell is in a place all her own, I've never come across another person like her. I wonder if I would have had a grandfather when I was a young girl, if I ever would have lost my temper and started screaming at him, breaking some of the curiosities in the shop. It would have been nice to be able to answer that question, I've never been close to having a grandfather, or grandmother for that matter, they were all dead long before I got here.

Here's your poem, it seems there was even music to go with it.

Little Nell's Funeral by Charles Dickens

And now the bell, -- the bell
She had so often heard by night and day
And listened to with solemn pleasure,
E'en as a living voice, --
Rung its remorseless toll for her,
So young, so beautiful, so good.

Decrepit age, and vigorous life,
And blooming youth, and helpless infancy,
Poured forth, -- on crutches, in the pride of strength
And health, in the full blush
Of promise, the mere dawn of life, --
To gather round her tomb. Old men were there,
Whose eyes were dim
And senses failing, --
Grandames, who might have died ten years ago,
And still been old, -- the deaf, the blind, the lame,
The palsied,
The living dead in many shapes and forms,
To see the closing of this early grave.
What was the death it would shut in,
To that which still could crawl and keep above it!

Along the crowded path they bore her now;
Pure as the new fallen snow
That covered it; whose day on earth
Had been as fleeting.
Under that porch, where she had sat when Heaven
In mercy brought her to that peaceful spot,
She passed again, and the old church
Received her in its quiet shade.

They carried her to one old nook,
Where she had many and many a time sat musing,
And laid their burden softly on the pavement.
The light streamed on it through
The colored window, -- a window where the boughs
Of trees were ever rustling
In the summer, and where the birds
Sang sweetly all day long.

One of the questions I have about TOCS is the ending. I have never given myself a good explanation as to why Dickens had the physical location of the Curiosity Shop fade away to such an extent that even Kit has trouble remembering its location so he can recall it for his children.

Then I got to thinking about the ending of Little Dorrit. At the end of that novel Arthur Clennam and Little Dorrit marry and then leave the church to enter into the busy, bustling world of London. Together they will face the world before them. I think this works for Kit as well. He needs to be seen as moving on from both Little Nell and the world she represented. Kit, his wife, and their children may carry memories of the past, but to survive they must become people of the present and future. The Old Curiosity Shop represented the past; the past is gone. It is old. The future must be faced with spirit and resolution.

What do you think?

There once was an angelic girl who was named Little Nell
Who was pursued by a devil called Quilp from Hell
But he ended up drowned by water
While Nell saved her ailing grandfather
And they both went to Heaven to dwell.

"Little Nell Is..."

Little Nell is gone.
Oh, Nell, Nell, Nell, Nell, Nell, Nell--
Oh, poor little Nell.

Single gentleman, schoolmaster gave,
with young Kit all that they could to save.
Mrs. Jarley divine,
two Miss Edwardses fine--
over all these, our Nell chose the grave.

Every curiosity in the club loved Little Nell a lot, but the Grump, only he did not.
The grump hated our Nell
No matter what season,
From winter through fall
No one quite knows the reason.
It could be perhaps that his shoes are too tight,
It could be his head isn't screwed on just right,
But I think that the most likely reason of all may be.......
Oh nevermind, I think his head isn't on right.

Julie and Kim

You have, in sports-talk, taken us to another level.

Kim wrote: "You forgot to finish number four. I assume you weren't quite sure what you wanted to say and were going to go back to it once you were done the rest of your post, then simply forgot to go finish th..."

I am sure everyone will have their own ideas as to how best complete that sentence. That‘s why I thought it a good incentive :-)

Peter wrote: "One of the questions I have about TOCS is the ending. I have never given myself a good explanation as to why Dickens had the physical location of the Curiosity Shop fade away to such an extent that..."

Now that you point out Kit‘s inability to locate the Curiosity Shop I have noticed this for the first time, and it makes me think of Paradise Lost, to be more precise, of the ending, where Adam and Eve leave paradise in a semi-downcast, semi-expectant and resolute mood, with the world being all before them, where to choose their place of rest, and so on. This is a passage Dickens even uses word for word in Edwin Drood, and maybe it is a motif that impressed him.

Kim and Julie,
And Peter,

I see that you have already written some poetry although Mr. Weller, Senior, was quite skeptical about this sort of thing. Now while I was on my way home today, I was also in a lyrical mood and suddenly, a limerick popped up in my head, and when I had finished the washing-up, there was a haiku, too.

Of course, those two poems are not in the same vein as yours, tending to be slightly more critical of the novel, but we are all among friends here, aren‘t we, and so I hope you won‘t tar and feather me, put me on a horse, face towards the horse‘s backside, and run me out of town. Remember, there is always a Pickwickian ring to poetry.

Here is the haiku:

Oh resourceful dwarf!
Not shorter than my patience
When waxy Nell sleeps.

And then there is the limerick:

There was a young girl they called Nelly
Who was so gold-perfect, I tell‘ee:
From dusk until dawn
She made people yawn
In prose that was cheesy and smelly.

Now, I‘d better run for cover ...

Tristram wrote: "And then there is the limerick:

There was a young girl they called Nelly
Who was so gold-perfect, I tell‘ee:
From dusk until dawn
She made people yawn
In prose that was cheesy and smelly.

Now, ..."

Keep running ... :-)

I couldn't think of a limerick, but here are some haikus based on scenes from the book:

Cautious Little Nell,
Sewed a gold coin in her dress,
But Grandpa cost her.

Sneaking in the woods.
Grandpa is gambling again!
What will poor Nell do?

At Quilp's dreary wharf,
Thick cigar smoke fills the air.
Don't step on a nail.

Tristram wrote: "And then there is the limerick:

There was a young girl they called Nelly
Who was so gold-perfect, I tell‘ee:
From dusk until dawn
She made people yawn
In prose that was cheesy and smelly.

Now, ..."

If you now have a desire to quit your job as a teacher of teachers and become a poet, don't do it your family needs to eat.

I finally gave in and looked to see what in the world a haiku was. I figured all you school teachers knowing what exactly it was means I would have no interest in it kept me from looking for it until now. Now that I've looked at some "haiku poems" my first thought was, I was right, my second thought was, that was stupid. By that I mean these poems I've come across:

An ocean voyage.
As waves break over the bow.
the sea welcomes me.

That's a poem? OK, here's another one:

New library or
glorious homeless shelter
the future is now.

OK, now that I was already tired of reading poems that aren't poems at all, I am ready to go on with my life when I come across a site that says it will write my haiku poems for me. Well, I have to try this of course. Now, first I have to fill in A time or year, time of day or setting, examples were summer, morning, or beach. Next, an adjective to describe that time or place. Then two singular nouns that you would not usually expect to find in the same sentence, examples were frog and chocolate. Another adjective and another verb and I was done. These are some of the brilliant haiku poems that have been written for me:

1. Huddled give away
A pretty, perfect girl smiles
out of grandfather

2.
Sunshiny meadow
A lovely, old girl cries
out of grandfather

3. Famous jammed waxworks
A rosy, ugly nell grins
despite the quilp

4.
Festive christmastide
A wild, happy reindeer sings
because of the elves

I'm sticking with what I thought in the first place, this is stupid.

Alissa wrote: "I couldn't think of a limerick, but here are some haikus based on scenes from the book:

Cautious Little Nell,
Sewed a gold coin in her dress,
But Grandpa cost her.

Sneaking in the woods.
Grandpa ..."

These are making me giggle.

Kim wrote: "I finally gave in and looked to see what in the world a haiku was. I figured all you school teachers knowing what exactly it was means I would have no interest in it kept me from looking for it unt..."

I want a link to that site, Kim. I don't yet know why I want it, but I do.

Julie wrote: "Kim wrote: "I finally gave in and looked to see what in the world a haiku was. I figured all you school teachers knowing what exactly it was means I would have no interest in it kept me from lookin..."

Here you go, have fun. :-)

https://www.poem-generator.org.uk/haiku/

Huh. It does limericks, too, but I am not going to torture you with the results there. https://www.poem-generator.org.uk/lim...

Yeah, I didn't try any of those yet. :-)

Life keeps getting in the way of my book club time, and it annoys me. But it's been a delight seeing how creative all of you are with your Haiku and limericks! I shan't try to compete, poetry never having been my strong suit.

As for the book as a whole, let's start with the cover. Why was this named The Old Curiosity Shop rather than "Little Nell" for example? So many of Dickens' other books were eponymous. Bleak House, the only other novel named for a place (if you don't count A Tale of Two Cities) is, at least, named for a location that looms large in the plot of the book.

The only thing I can think, as Peter and Tristram alluded to, is that the shop was Nell's Eden -- the place where she was once happy, but was forced to leave after encountering evil (Quilp being the snake, and Grandfather's addiction being the bite of the apple?). If Dickens was really attempting to make this metaphor and I'm not just making stuff up (which I may well be), he did it very poorly. For it to have been effective, I think the reader would have had to experienced Eden before the fall. We're told a time or two that Nell was happy there, but we certainly never witnessed it.

So why did Dickens choose the shop for the all-important title? I admit, it was a little disappointing for me that we didn't spend more time there, or see it when it may have been a viable business. Thank God we had the waxworks!

I'm sorry to say that TOCS replaces Oliver Twist as my least favorite Dickens book. As always with Dickens, there is brilliance to be found here, and characters I love (Kip and his family, Dick, the Marchioness, Mrs. Jarley). But the novel as a whole - if I may be so bold and presumptuous! - has glaring flaws. I can't blame it on Dickens as being an immature author. For heaven's sake, he had Pickwick and Nicholas Nickleby under his belt, and they were both far superior as far as having tight plots, interesting characters and, frankly, a tolerable amount of sentimentality. He went off the rails with OT and TOCS.

Twist lost me with all of the unbelievable coincidences and the convoluted plot twists (maybe that's where he came up with Oliver's name, haha!). Oliver was too good to be true, but at least he showed a temper and a backbone, and his character really wasn't a main focus of the narrative when you get right down to it. Nell, too, was off stage a good bit of the time, but when she took the spotlight, she was too angelic for my taste. I admired her loyalty (to an extent) and her forbearance, but the constant waterworks were too much, and I would have been in her corner to a greater extent if she'd - just once! - shown some anger, or even just sighed heavily, rolled her eyes, and gotten snarky. She was a teenager, after all!

The holes in the plot (why was Quilp considered evil, when all we saw of his behavior was just an obnoxious jerk? Why did everyone think Grandfather had money, when it was so obvious he was broke?), and the changes as Dickens went along (Mr. Humphrey, Fred, the Edwards sisters, etc.) were a huge distraction.

The lack of names for some of the characters (the bachelor, the single gentleman) got confusing.

And, like OT, the coincidences just kept piling up: the schoolteacher showing up in the town Nell settled in; Mr. Garland's brother also living there; Grandfather's brother befriending Mr. Garland; Quilp showing up everywhere for no apparent reason; etc.

All of this served with a big spoonful of sugar on top was just too much for me. Thank God for the Brasses, Dick, Mrs. Jinwin, and some of the other minor characters, who made TOCS worth reading!

Of course, I'd heard the stories of readers gathering at the wharf to learn of Little Nell's fate, and so I had great hopes that I, too, would love Nell and her story. I'm terribly sorry that it didn't work out that way.

On to Barnaby Rudge!

Kim wrote: "Tristram wrote: "And then there is the limerick:

There was a young girl they called Nelly
Who was so gold-perfect, I tell‘ee:
From dusk until dawn
She made people yawn
In prose that was cheesy a..."

I could still try and be a poet for a while because even though my family have to eat, they could live on TOCS for a while, it being so cheesy and so hammy to grant them a balanced diet.

Thank you, Mary Lou, for your most lucid comment on this novel! I agree with you on every single point: There are unbelievable coincidences, although, on second thought, it is not too unusual that very boring people might know each other and settle in the same very boring village, and the novel is also highly out of balance.

This brings me to your question as to why the novel is called The Old Curiosity Shop. I have a very simple answer to suggest, one that will seem almost profane and mean-spirited in the vicinity of the Paradise theory you offer. I think that the title is just a sign of how little Dickens planned his novel in advance. Maybe, he originally meant the shop to be a main setting to the story. The introduction of the old and sedentary first person narrator would suggest his. And maybe, after the first few chapters, Dickens felt that he would have to give the story wider scope, not knowing, at the time, how difficult it would be for him to keep all the different subplots together - a challenge in which he failed, obviously.

And yes, they all say that Quilp is evil, but with the exception of the stratagem against Kit, he hardly does anything really evil at all - apart from being obnoxious.

I’m not sure what else can be said that hasn’t already been said or as well put as Mary Lou’s raw and honest comments in m12 from the previous thread. I echo her sentiments wholeheartedly!

TOCS has been touted as one of Dickens’s best, for the manner in which he weaves the allegorical aspects with the more fantastical; very interesting and cleverly written,* said Queen Victoria. The serial was so well received by the public that in New York it had been documented readers stormed the wharf when the ship bearing the final installment arrived in 1841*. Sounds great, doesn’t it? These thoughts and moments left me wanting, wanting to experience the same excitement and frenzy encapsulating this novel, joining in the fun because I found this particular Dickens novel to be anything but cleverly written. Perhaps, for the time period it was; but, I didn’t think Dickens to be the masterful writer I know him to be. In the end, it felt like a patchwork piece, compiling different ideas and thoughts together with a hint of a thread. When all else failed, he had the blood and tears of dying little girl to tug on the reader’s heartstrings. The narrative felt disjointed in parts, characters and their arcs inconsistently developed; it was too experimental for what I would consider a Dickens great!

While I don’t think any one of his novels is perfect, per se, whatever the shortcomings, it was still good because it was Dickens; yet, I can’t seem to bring myself to feel the same, to see the same in TOCS. While Grandfather got the blood boiling, reading about Nell lowered my blood pressure to the point of dulled senses, she bored me to tears. The chapter leading up to Nell’s death, where we find Grandfather incoherent/coherent sitting by the fire, was a reminder of some of why I enjoy Dickens; but, the moment quickly takes a turn for the confusing... what in the world was Grandfather talking about, had Nell already died, why are we focusing on Grandfather? It’s almost as if Dickens was trying to humanize one of the contentious characters in this novel before he too was given his final ending as a means to placate the reader (me). Why wait till the very end, why Grandfather, why not just skip to the Nell melodrama? I felt quite a bit of manipulation was at play while reading TOCS; perhaps, as a last resort to continue to draw me in when Grandfather should have had the book thrown at him awhile ago. ;P

Thinking about the ending, I’m reminded of that Oscar Wilde quote,

One would have to have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without dissolving into tears...of laughter.

Now, I wasn’t laughing to tears, but in retrospect it did read to me as being super saccharine induced to the point of being silly. Kit and Dick Swiveller, while they were probably my favorite characters, in conjunction to some of the other storylines, were not memorable enough to carry the dead weight of the novel. The imbalance between a substantial storyline and the insubstantial moving parts was too great.

When rating some of the other books we have discussed, I often found myself saying how I could not ever see myself rating a Dickens novel anything less than three stars; well, I had not read TOCS at the time, and while I still love reading Dickens, I cannot seem to show this novel any genuine love. I’m giving my first 2-star rating to The Old Curiosity Shop. Had the story remained in the shop with all of its curiosities instead of veering out to the desolate London countryside, I do believe I would have read something quite different and worthy of better accolades.

Peter, Tristram, Mary Lou, Julie, Alissa, Xan and Kim, you are the best part of reading and discussing The Old Curiosity Shop. Thank you so much for the conversation! You quite literally helped me navigate through this novel successfully. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

I'll see you in our next major reading venture!

* The Old Curiosity Shop, Wikipedia page

Tristram wrote: "Good morning, Curiosities!

The moment has finally arrived when we are going to leave behind us the demoniacally sinister Quilp, his topsy-turvey assistant Tom Scott, his poor wife, who suffers fro..."

2) Considering what Quilp actually does to Little Nell and her Grandfather, his reputation is far worse than he would deserve. He seems to be a devil incarnate, a raging imp delighting in doing evil for the sake of evil, but then he does surprisingly little evil in the novel.
Tristram, we started this conversation awhile back, but I wanted to bring those same comments here in answer to your question. For me, evil is the absence of any good. It's a characteristic present in those who are void of a conscience, they have a lack of remorse. Quilp is therefore the embodiment of evil, in this novel, he checks those boxes.

Making faces at people and taunting most everybody... Yes, but he relishes in the fear and discomfort of others caused by him. In addition to what you have stated, I would also like to add that Quilp inflicts pain by physically assaulting and mentally abusing. He's a psychopath, wreaking havoc on those most vulnerable to him.

Although Quilp may not be privy to the upper echelon of evil doers; he is a real enough boogey-man to be held in contempt for committing his brutal misdeeds...he's tangible enough to consider him truly evil. Mary Lou draws a great parallel between Quilp and the snake in Eden, this makes sense to me as well as Quilp and the serpent are the orchestrators of evil.

When we read "David Copperfield" I remember a discussion similar to this one, about who was the most villainous character. I had made my list based on a character's intent to do harm. If I had to add Quilp to that list, Tristram, he would top Mr. Murdstone who landed 1st Place...for antagonizing the chained up dog alone.

Mary Lou wrote: "I can't blame it on Dickens as being an immature author. For heaven's sake, he had Pickwick and Nicholas Nickleby under his belt, and they were both far superior as far as having tight plots, interesting characters and, frankly, a tolerable amount of sentimentality."

I keep thinking about this. I didn't enjoy Nicholas N all that much more than OCS, but it's true Dickens has already done Pickwick which is delightful (and if I'm remembering, was his big hit during his life), and also Oliver Twist, which does have crazy plot issues, but not at the level of just dropping stories left and right that we see in OCS.

So I guess I want to put OCS under the two-steps forward, one step back theory of literary progress. One of my best teaching mentors used to say we should never expect anything good from students during the 7th week of a 10-week quarter. They can't write the way they did when they started the term because they are trying to master something new and different, but they haven't learned the new and different thing yet either, so they have neither their old tricks nor (yet) their new ones under command, and they can't do much at all.

I'm thinking OCS was Dickens attempting to learn new tricks--still working on learning the sustained plot that Pickwick doesn't really have, and trying to introduce some new depths of spiritual/allegorical content.

I have mentioned that I've been re-reading Great Expectations for class while reading OCS here, and today I got to the big plot twist about the great expectations, at the end of Volume 2, and it's so good it just kills me. It's operating at so many levels: there's the personal story, but it's also a breathtaking allegory about class politics and the poor working to bring ease to the rich, and the plotting is magnificent--so many of what seemed to be peripheral details all coming through at once.

There is a lot happening in GE that didn't happen in Pickwick, or did in a much smaller, far less epic way. And I tend to think Dickens had to muddle his way, badly, through books like OCS in order to get there.

Julie wrote: "Mary Lou wrote: "I can't blame it on Dickens as being an immature author. For heaven's sake, he had Pickwick and Nicholas Nickleby under his belt, and they were both far superior as far as having t..."

Hi Julie

I read your post with interest. What an interesting comment from your mentor, and so true. As we shed our old habits and learn new ones the transition is seldom smooth. Your comments helped me relate to Dickens’s growth as an author. I’m picturing Dickens churning out weekly chapters to a novel that was originally supposed to be a short work, struggling to think about what to write next, and without the time to edit, proofread, and polish his work that continually looms in front of himself.

GE is one of my favourite novels. As you know it too was written in weekly instalments but he has sure come a long way from TOCS in his writing ability.

I wish I could be in one of your classes.

Peter wrote: "I wish I could be in one of your classes."

Pretty sure I have a couple of students who would offer you their places! But we do ok.

Ami,

I fully agree with what you say about Quilp being the embodiment of general ill-will, spite and delight at the plight and terror of other people. Seeing it from this more volitionist - I don't know if the word exists, but I mean by it that "evil is as evil wants, rather than does" - perspective, there is hardly any Dickensian character who can be said to be more evil than Quilp. And if you asked his poor wife, whose death he seems to plot or at least to anticipate at times, you would definitely find a lot of corroboration for the choice of Quilp as evildoer number 1.

However, when it comes to the effects of his actions, he is rather inefficient compared with people like Mr. Merdle, Mr. Tulkinghorn, Compeyson, or Mr. Carker. Maybe someone like Merdle does not really intend evil - he does not do shady business for the pure enjoyment of it -, but he accepts it in order to gain something for himself. In other words, I would suggest that sometimes people who do not really want to do evil for the sake of doing evil, but simply accept it as a means to an end (maybe even one they consider beneficent to more people than just themselves) can cause much more evil.

In this light, Quilp is more of a bogeyman than a three-dimensional character like some of Dickens's later villains.

Julie wrote: "I'm thinking OCS was Dickens attempting to learn new tricks--still working on learning the sustained plot that Pickwick doesn't really have, and trying to introduce some new depths of spiritual/allegorical content."

Julie,

This is really a good way of looking at TOCS. I do not want to spill any beans but I might be pardoned, maybe, if I say that in BR, the plotting is more oriented towards the epic and therefore less episodic. However, we all know that in MC, Dickens is going to take a step back in that respect, recurring to more episodic and less consistent plot development. It is quite interesting to read these novels in their chronological order because this gives a reader more understanding of how Dickens matured to one of the most rewarding authors of all time.

Our discussions on TOCS and thoughts about the evilness of Quilp do point out the great value of reading an author in chronological fashion. As Other Curiosities have mentioned in recent weeks we can clearly see changes and an increasing maturity in the craft of writing in Dickens as we move forward.

For the Curiosities who have not yet read his later work you are in for some wonderful discoveries and surprises.

I was thinking about all the examples of charity in TOCS, the ordinary people who helped Nell and Grandpa. I liked that Dickens didn't preach charity directly, but instead, showed it through the characters. As Peter said in another thread, Dickens reassures the reader of the goodness of humanity. I also got the message that it's better to take a risk and trust that the universe will provide, than it is to play it safe and serve evil, like certain characters did.

I agree that Quilp was a boogeyman who didn't do much but make faces and scare people. Yes, he was a sadist who enjoyed people's pain, but he didn't have much power over our protagonists, Nell and Grandpa, once they fled the house. After that, Quilp was reduced to a phantom in Nell's dreams, and they never met again in person. I think Dickens's message is: evil is a shadow in ourselves that we have to overcome. Or, evil is intimidating, but it doesn't have any real power, if we don't allow it.

Overall, Dickens paints a positive view of the universe, where good is stronger than evil, and charity is plentiful for those who have faith in it.

I thought the Brasses were interesting, mainly because of the freakish way that Dickens portrayed them. Especially Sally.

Did you guys think the Brasses were effective villains? How do they compare to Quilp? The way Sally starved, abused, and imprisoned the Marchioness was pretty evil, and Sampson framed Kit, which landed Kit in jail.

Personally, I thought the Brasses were evil in theory, but the effect was diluted, because we never saw the consequences of their deeds. The Marchioness didn't seem to suffer much, despite the abuse she endured. She was smart and spunky with no real signs of trauma. Kit's situation was easily rectified too.

Alissa wrote: "I think Dickens's message is: evil is a shadow in ourselves that we have to overcome. Or, evil is intimidating, but it doesn't have any real power, if we don't allow it...."

It's a wonderful message, Alissa, but if it was Dickens' intent, he was incredibly subtle about it! I think it's a happy coincidence that you found a positive message that perhaps Dickens never consciously intended, or one that was made in a clumsy way.

Very good observation about the kindness of strangers. We get an idea of Dickens' opinion of "organized charity" with Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House, but he does show kind, charitable characters in all of his novels.

As to the Brasses, I'm finding it difficult to comment on them. They're despicable people, of course (especially Sally, for me. I don't have much use for people who beat and starve children.). In actions, they are worse than Quilp, but they lack the freak show look and actions that Dickens seemed to need to give the novel its carnival-like atmosphere. Perhaps if Dickens had combined the characters of Quilp and Sampson it would have made for a better villain and a tighter plot. (Though he would have had to do away with the Marchioness being Sally and Quilp's daughter, which, in my opinion, may have improved things. It was one of his many coincidences that really added nothing to the story.)

Alissa wrote: "I was thinking about all the examples of charity in TOCS, the ordinary people who helped Nell and Grandpa. I liked that Dickens didn't preach charity directly, but instead, showed it through the ch..."

Hi Alissa

Yes. I agree with you and Mary Lou. There are several random acts of kindness in OCS but they do seem to be underplayed. I also like your insight about Quilp and how evil is a shadow of ourselves.

And the Brasses. Again, you and Mary Lou echo my sentiments. Sally especially is horrid. Whether the Marchioness is or is not her daughter, Sally’s treatment of the Marchioness is horrid.

Peter wrote: "And the Brasses. Again, you and Mary Lou echo my sentiments. Sally especially is horrid. Whether the Marchioness is or is not her daughter, Sally’s treatment of the Marchioness is horrid."

I will be forever disappointed about this. Sally had so much potential as a character: the one with the brains to take over her father's business but can't because she's a girl; with her quirky demeanor and dress, and her surprise role as Dick Swiveler's beer drinking buddy. And then she turns out to be criminally mean and cruel behind the scenes. All I can think is that Dickens had very different opinions about women who didn't fit neatly in the "sweet Victorian girl" box than I do.

Alissa,

You would make a very good lawyer because you explain the deficient plotting in TOCS by pointing out that the message is that for all its fierceness, evil cannot really affect us if we do not allow it so. I really love your idea, because it is a very beautiful thought, but like Mary Lou, I think that it was probably not on Dickens's agenda at the time.

Be that as it may, in my opinion, it is the reader as well as the author who is responsible for filling a book with meaning and life - Joseph Conrad said that half of a book is with the author, the other with the reader -, and that's another reason why I like your interpretation. It makes perfect sense ex post, and shows that you have found your own place within the book!

Julie wrote: "Peter wrote: "And the Brasses. Again, you and Mary Lou echo my sentiments. Sally especially is horrid. Whether the Marchioness is or is not her daughter, Sally’s treatment of the Marchioness is hor..."

Yes, it also occurred to me that the narrator oftentimes mentions Sally's independence, her determination and her being endowed with qualities that were traditionally considered typically male. And I also agree that all this does not seem to go down very well with Dickens, who prefers his women passive, forbearing, and martyr-like. That's why he gave us so many boring heroines, but maybe that's also why his female villains (or the more tragic, sombre women in his books) are so interesting and powerful.

I'm glad you guys liked my interpretations. :-) It is fun to relate to the story personally and look for possible meanings.

I agree that Sally was an interesting character. Too bad she had to be evil. At least, we have Mrs. Jarley. She was a nice person and had her own business.

Alissa wrote: "I'm glad you guys liked my interpretations. :-) It is fun to relate to the story personally and look for possible meanings.

I agree that Sally was an interesting character. Too bad she had to be e..."

Try not to agree with Tristram too often, it isn't good for you. ;-)

Lol! Don't worry, Kim. I'm still on Team Nell. ;-)

Hello everyone,
I'm so sorry that I have been absent. Health has been an issue. I hope to get involved again, concentration permitting. I only just found out about Everyman. I had a sinking feeling about this but thank you, Tristram, Kim, and Peter for letting me know. Such a lovely man and a good friend.

Sorry you've been having problems, Hilary. Looking forward to having you back whenever you feel up to it.

Hilary,

We'll always be around when you want to start discussing Dickens again! I could have needed some support in the anti-Nell team here ;-)

I'm just going to throw my views on TOCS in here, because I read it outside the group only recently.

I'm definitely biased because this was my first Dickens book, but I thought it was wonderful. I loved some of the characters, like Quilp, Dick Swiveller, the Brasses and Mrs Jarley, and particularly the horse.

The character I disliked the most was the grandfather, oddly enough, because I always find addictions easier to understand than to forgive.

I can see what people here mean when they point out the inconsistencies and seeming lack of planning - and the lack of names for a couple of the characters irritated me (I couldn't work out if they were anonymous for a reason or not). I also got slightly confused by the collection of characters around the Garlands.

I'm a bit ashamed to say that I got on fairly well with little Nell. She wasn't the most exciting character, but was a useful sort of hook for the story (I'm not sure what the proper term for this is !).

In short, I enjoyed this a lot more than the Pickwick Papers, mainly because there was a much stronger storyline to TOCS, and I felt that the characters were much more interesting.

Whether Quilp is evil or plain obnoxious, I just loved him...