Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We’re winding down toward the end of the book, but the action certainly isn’t winding down. Things are happening! Two chapters, two deaths, from opposite ends of the social spectrum. Our who-dun-it of wondering who Esther’s parents were has been replaced by a real who-dun-it of who killed the lawyer. (As a former lawyer, I have to protest that killing lawyers is a very, very bad thing!) But do we really believe that George did it?

Since the arrest ended a monthly section, original readers would be left for a month to discuss, did he or didn’t he? We have a week for the same discussion, so have at it!

And another little mystery – Esther wonders why has Ada’s spirit changed? And in the next chapter we learn: because she has been a wife for two months, and had hidden it from everyone. We knew that she loved Richard, but did anybody see this secret marriage coming? What do we think of Richard now, that with no money in hand, no work or willingness to take on a career, and his only apparent hope a legacy that may never arrive, he has taken on the financial burden of a wife and, given the absence of meaningful birth control at the time, probably a child before too long?

Mr. Bucket comes now almost as a replacement for Tulkinghorn, doesn’t he?, in investigating Lady Dedlock’s actions and motives. Whoever killed Tulkinghorn, she isn’t free from scrutiny. BTW, what a wonderful paragraph: “Contrast enough between Mr. Tulkinghorn shut up in his dark carriage and Mr. Bucket shut up in HIS. Between the immeasurable track of space beyond the little wound that has thrown the one into the fixed sleep which jolts so heavily over the stones of the streets, and the narrow track of blood which keeps the other in the watchful state expressed in every hair of his head! But it is all one to both; neither is troubled about that.” But Chapter 53, the end of this episode, is so full of pregnant suggestiveness that having to wait yet another month to learn what is on Mr. Bucket’s mind must have really challenged those readers.

In these chapters, Jo finally dies of illness.

It may be time to start a discussion of infection, disease, and sickness in Bleak House. Disease both of individuals, of institutions, and of society at large.

We have many instances of it throughout the book, starting in Chapter 1 with the pestilential London fog, and with the Court of Chancery, in the densest of the fog, “which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire.” We have sickness of body, of mind, and of society. How, it may be worth asking, do the illnesses of the characters relate to the illnesses of the broader society?

I'm fascinated that there is no discussion of this section yet. So much happening! Have people not read to this point yet? Is it getting too overwhelming to comment on? Nobody has any opinion on who killed Tulkinghorn? On Jo's death? On Mr. Bucket? On Ada and Richard's marriage?

Well, I'll weigh in since no one else has. Ada and Richard's wedding took me completely by surprise, even though I was expecting them to marry eventually. I was also surprised they waited so long to reveal it. Getting married in secret is one thing, but then waiting a couple of months before telling Esther and Jarndyce? Really?
I think Richard comes off better than Ada; he shows that he can care for something besides the case, even if his thinking towards her is tied up in the case. As for Ada, she seems to be as blind as ever to the situation, which doesn't hold much hope for her being a positive influence on his life.
It looks quite clear that Lady Dedlock killed Tulkinhorn. I don't think George is the kind of person to frame her; I don't even think George would know if there was a person matching his description. But I don't know how the truth will come out, as the case against George seems so strong. As to who would send Bucket the incriminating letters, I'm not sure who would be in that position to know about lady Dedlock, nor have sufficient motive to want to bring her down in this way.

And, is George's mother in Lincolnshire, Mrs Rouncewell? She did have two sons, did she not? Knowing how Dickens's characters are all interconnected, I wouldn't be surprised.

I remember when I first read this, I was torn between Hortense and Lady Dedlock as the murderer. Both hated Tulkinghorn, both are rather desperate for their own reasons. I also thought it was a cool symmetry what with Lady Dedlock having disguised herself once with her maid's clothes. One masquerading as the other. Is it happening again? I found that so intriguing!!

And Jo, that poor boy...worn out by starvation, worn out by illness, worn out by life itself. What a sorrow. I cry every time. And wanting to be buried with the only father figure he has ever known. Is it any wonder how he responded to that part of the Lord's Prayer. One senses he wasn't responding to God the Father, which art in Heaven, but rather his father (figure) who was now in heaven.

Lots happened in this section, but what I'm still hung up on is the "engagement" between Esther and Jarndyce. Esther says that nothing has changed between them since the letter, except for her location at the dining room table. Even the absurdly patient Esther seems a bit disappointed with the situation. This doesn't seem like a real proposal to me - it seems like an act of charity on Jarndyce's part. It's not sitting well with me.

Paula wrote: "I remember when I first read this, I was torn between Hortense and Lady Dedlock as the murderer. Both hated Tulkinghorn, both are rather desperate for their own reasons. I also thought it was a coo..."

Tulkinghorn was getting more and more reprehensible at the end. It was almost as if he was enjoying torturing Lady Dedlock with his "I have this information that will ruin your life and I can divulge it at any time muh hah hah..." It's not like I approve of murder, but I'm not at all upset that somebody offed him. My knee-jerk reaction was that Lady Dedlock was the culprit, but I am intrigued by the Hortense possibility.

I agree Lauren. I think Tulkinghorn was definitely enjoying being in a position of power over Lady Dedlock. I'm not sorry he's gone.

So is Esther a suspect? She was out that night wasn't she? She went back to look up at Richard and Ada's window and was seen by witnesses. Also, the accused says he passed someone of her shape and build that night and she gets a cold shiver on hearing this.

The reason I didn't comment sooner was that so much happened and I didn't know where to start.

David wrote: "And, is George's mother in Lincolnshire, Mrs Rouncewell? She did have two sons, did she not? Knowing how Dickens's characters are all interconnected, I wouldn't be surprised."

I too thought of Mrs Rouncewell. Also, did we ever find out what she was doing in Tulkinghorns office that one time.

As to the possibility of Hortense, I remember when she had that confrontation with Tulkinghorn he was doing this thing with taunting her with the key to his wine cellar. Not sure exactly how that would fit in to the crime if it was her, but dickens spent a fair bit of effort on his description on the dangling of the key in front of her.

Everyman @1 wrote: We knew that she loved Richard, but did anybody see this secret marriage coming? What do we think of Richard now, that with no money in hand, no work or willingness to take on a career, and his only apparent hope a legacy that may never arrive, he has taken on the financial burden of a wife and, given the absence of meaningful birth control at the time, probably a child before too long?

Sadly, when she announced the marriage I didn't particularly care. I only began to care when Everyman spelt it out so clearly. She has given up a lot. She only married him, if I read correctly, so that he would take her money. Somehow he thought it dishonorable to take her money, but did not see the dishonor in tying himself to her. What a horrid thing.

PS I have been camping for 2 days.

David @4 wrote: I think Richard comes off better than Ada; he shows that he can care for something besides the case, even if his thinking towards her is tied up in the case
I disagree, unless you mean that he cared about his own honor? If he truelly care he would have just taken her money, not drag her down with him. She is married to him, she can never escape. She was pretty and could have married well and lived quite well, instead she is tied to a man to has no idea how to look after money, and no income other than a fantastical hope of winning a courtcase one day.

Everyman @3 wrote: Nobody has any opinion on who killed Tulkinghorn? On Jo's death

Did Lady Dedlock kill Tulkinghorn is the big question. Everything is pointing to her, but did she, would she, would Dickens have her is the easier question - and I don't think he would.

While these twists and turns are wonderfully written, unfortunately Dickens has a reputation for always serving his characters well - even Jo ended up with more than a street urchin could expect.

David @5 wrote: And, is George's mother in Lincolnshire, Mrs Rouncewell? She did have two sons, did she not? Knowing how Dickens's characters are all interconnected, I wouldn't be surprised.
Oh I was wondering who it could be. I always thought it was the dead captain. Now I have to rethink it all in my head. Why are they estranged?

Paula @ 6 wrote: One masquerading as the other. Is it happening again? I found that so intriguing!!
Are you suggesting that it was Hortense that did it, dressed up as Lady Dedlock? She still has to come back into the picture I think.

Lauren @9 wrote: Tulkinghorn was getting more and more reprehensible at the end. It was almost as if he was enjoying torturing Lady Dedlock
I feel fooled, I thought Tulkinghorn had shown a touch of fondness for Lady Dedlock but I was so wrong.

Lauren @ 8 wrote: I'm still hung up on is the "engagement" between Esther and Jarndyce. Esther says that nothing has changed between them since the letter, except for her location at the dining room table. Even the absurdly patient Esther seems a bit disappointed with the situation. This doesn't seem like a real proposal to me - it seems like an act of charity on Jarndyce's part. It's not sitting well with me.

I don't think charity, I think he knows a good thing when he sees it, and Esther is a good thing. He also knows that she has no other prospects, so he is not holding her back by marrying her (though we are all secretly gunning for the other guy - so memorable that I can't even recall his name!).

It is nice to see her a little disappointed though. This is not a romantic match at all.

Everyman wrote: "I'm fascinated that there is no discussion of this section yet. So much happening! Have people not read to this point yet? Is it getting too overwhelming to comment on? Nobody has any opinion o..."

Some people are probably trying to catch up, but then there are probably others like me who couldn't wait and finished the book early. Now I'm not sure what I can say without giving away the conclusion.

Jeremy wrote: "Some people are probably trying to catch up, but then there are probably others like me who couldn't wait and finished the book early"

I just finished Oliver Twist. I needed some more Dickens to tide me over between weeks. It was good, but it is such a difference experience reading without a group. I read faster, and I have no idea what happened to Dodger. I must have skimmed past that bit.

ETA. Kind of surprised how much I am enjoying Dickens, I would almost say that I liked his writing. If you had asked me at the beginning I would have told a different story.

David wrote: "Well, I'll weigh in since no one else has. Ada and Richard's wedding took me completely by surprise, even though I was expecting them to marry eventually. I was also surprised they waited so long t..."
I agree with you David about Ada & Richard's marriage, but am not so on board with Lady Dedlock being the murderer. It's just TOO neat & Dickens' is definitely not neat with all the twists & connections in his writing. But I also agree I don't think it is in George's character to have murdered the man. And he has grown in esteem in my eyes for his "grace" under these circumstances of accusation & arrest.
Back to Richard & Ada's marriage, for me just one more example of Richard's poor judgment & self-centeredness, to take on a wife when he has no income. Her adoration of him comes at too steep a cost, I'm afraid.

I shed a tear for little Jo.

Lauren wrote: " It's not like I approve of murder, but I'm not at all upset that somebody offed him [Tulkinghorn]."

I don't think you're alone in that. He definitely became creepier as the book went on. Is it unreasonable to suggest that single minded devotion to one cause (protecting Sir L) dessicated any sense of humanity that might have been left in him? Was a man killed, or the shell of a man?

Cass wrote: "David @4 wrote: I think Richard comes off better than Ada; he shows that he can care for something besides the case, even if his thinking towards her is tied up in the case
I disagree, unless you m..."

I have to disagree too. She is foolish to tie herself, as you say for life, to a man with such an overwhelming obsession who is clearly not in a position to support a wife. This is not a young woman who has been brought up in hardship and can accept making a life in the equivalent of Tom's-all-alone for life; she has been brought up in comfort and privilege, and while playing poor wife may be exciting for awhile, it will soon pall and she will become unhappy and then resentful -- there is only so far that love can take one.

I don't see how this can turn out well.

Chris wrote: "I shed a tear for little Jo. "

Only one? [g]

I would love to have the time to really dig into BH and write a thesis on the role of Jo in the book. He is a thread connecting many of the characters; he winds up in almost every significant location in the book; he is a witness to many of the important events in the book; he evokes perhaps as much emotional connection from the reader as anybody else in the story; he is desperately poor, basically homeless, yet he seems to have, until his final illness, a core of honesty and a work ethic which I can't imagine having been commonplace in his day and age.

I think he deserves a lot more attention, but I don't see that I can give it in the framework of this soon to be over discussion. Too bad.

Why didn't she join him straight away after they were married? Surely that would have been the appropriate thing to do.

I think they both know the marriage was only so he could take her money, and it was best if she stayed where the mistrusted Jarndyce can pay her way.

I mean, there is a lot of criticism about Jarndyce marrying Esther, but at least he can. Meanwhile Richard has married a woman that he cannot support, and has no scruples about letting the very man that he despises look after her.

He doesn't trust Jarndyce, that is why he has got his own lawyer to suck all his money away, but he is happy to have Jarndyce pay for his wife's upkeep. Gah.

I will stop going on, I maintain that Dickens is very faithful to his readers, more so than any other writer, Carstone's life will not change much from what he has.

Everyman wrote: "I think he deserves a lot more attention, but I don't see that I can give it in the framework of this soon to be over discussion. Too bad.
."

Because he is Esther.

Jo is Esther in the "this could have been her". Jo and Esther have all the same qualities, yet one has been elevated and one dies on a mattress on the floor of a stranger's house.

To be honest, my overriding thoughts about this week was that it was a little bland, maybe I am still excited about last week, maybe I am ready for the final push toward the end.

I have got it!!!

I had this little idea while doing the dishes... because the book is winding up and some of these theories have to come to a close.

Hortense killed Tulkinghorn, and she was the one that sent the note to Bucket. She is framing Lady Dedlock... killing two birds with one stone (because she despises Tulkinghorn as well).

She dressed herself up to look like Lady Dedlock, which wouldn't be hard given that she was her ladies maid, she would know the hairstyle, the clothing (of which she would have been given the old outfits), even her manner of walking. She would know her habits, she could have been watching for the Lady to be without an alibi.

There it is. My theory courtesy of a sink of dirty dishes (which I must go and finish now - who knows what further theories may come because they are done!).

Everyman wrote: "Chris wrote: "I shed a tear for little Jo. "

Only one? [g]

I would love to have the time to really dig into BH and write a thesis on the role of Jo in the book. He is a thread connecting many of..."

I agree. Is there time after the read is over to recap and talk more about Jo? He was key to the story, a huge part of its heart and, what with all the other things going on it would be nice to give him the time he deserves. Jo gives B.H. a depth it wouldn't have had without him. What do you think?

Cass wrote: "Why didn't she join him straight away after they were married? Surely that would have been the appropriate thing to do."

He was still in the army then, wasn't he? I'm not sure whether he was of high enough rank to be allowed to live outside of the barracks. But certainly he couldn't support her in an apartment, since he was already in debt and Vholes was demanding more money, and he was an even higher priority for Richard than Ada was, wasn't he?

Cass wrote: "I have got it!!!

I had this little idea while doing the dishes... because the book is winding up and some of these theories have to come to a close.

Hortense killed Tulkinghorn, and she was the o..."

This read would not be as much fun without you Cass!

Paula wrote: "Is there time after the read is over to recap and talk more about Jo?"

The discussions stay open forever. We could talk about him here, or if people wanted I could start a separate thread for him -- we don't normally do theme threads in our discussions, but it's always possible.

Everyman wrote: "Paula wrote: "Is there time after the read is over to recap and talk more about Jo?"

The discussions stay open forever. We could talk about him here, or if people wanted I could start a separate ..."

I would love a separate thread for him..,so much to talk about.

Everyman wrote: "Cass wrote: "Why didn't she join him straight away after they were married? Surely that would have been the appropriate thing to do."

He was still in the army then, wasn't he? "

Okay, I thought this happened after the army, while he has been living in the apartment near Vholes.

Oh I did like when Vholes tried to get money out of the doctor. Did I read that correctly? Vholes seemed to be giving him his usual line but the doctor basically said that he didn't care.

Paula wrote: "This read would not be as much fun without you Cass! "

Ha. I am glad you are enjoying. I am having so much fun reading this with a group too. I would not have enjoyed it anywhere near as much had I been reading it alone.

While I like Lady D or Hortense better as a suspect for Tulkinghorn's murder, what about Mr. Guppy as a suspect? Perhaps he's realised that Tulkinghorn and he are after the same information wanted to elminiate the competition. Perhaps he perceives that if Mr. Tulkinghorn reveals all about Lady D that it could hurt Esther and while he doesn't want to marry her anymore he doesn't want her to get hurt. Or since he's no longer interested in Esther he's given up his quest for information regarding JvJ (to perhaps explain why he's not really been around in the last few bits)?

I think Mr Guppy has done his bit, aside from a possible cut to him being happily married to a woman that is occasionally prettier but far from being as worthy as Esther.

He was chasing the information for Esther, now he is back to being very much like what Tulkinghorn has become.

Or more simply put... Guppy is to show us what Tulkinghorn may have been like in his youth.

Cass wrote: "I would not have enjoyed it anywhere near as much had I been reading it alone...."

I'd have never gotten it read -- in fact, my CD stack still has 10 of 30 to go!

And Jo! Oh, poor Jo! I seriously hoped that he would survive and have a happy ending. But considering the poverty that he grew up with and the little hope that he had for the future, perhaps his death was a happy ending. He died in relative comfort and wasn't starving or thirsty or freezing.

Tiffany wrote: "...But considering the poverty that he grew up with and the little hope that he had for the future, perhaps his death was a happy ending...."

If Esther really had so little love until she was twelve as is implied in her godmother's infamous admonition to her, how feasible is her story of goodness and adult love, given what we know today about the importance of love during formative years? I want to believe it, but a passage that caused me to stop and consider is here: (view spoiler)[

"Dickens characteristically resorts to fantasy whenever his sharp eye for human suffering has uncovered more than he can bear to contemplate. His detailed realistic observation stops short at the borders of despair. The resolution of the Esther plot is only one case in point. There are two other significant instances of a resort to fantasy in the book, the first of which also involves Esther. I have tried to show how psychologically plausible Dickens's portrait is, but there is one crucial fact this analysis has ignored: that a child brought up in a totally loveless home, as Esther was, is almost surely doomed to grow up unable to love anyone. Yet Esther is an open, affectionate, thoroughly responsive person. Here Dickens's realism comes into conflict with his desire to present his victims as purely victimized. The portrait of the bitter Miss Wade in Little Dorrit suggests that he knew how unlovable a person who had never been loved could be; but Miss Wade is a minor character, not the heroine of the novel, and we are not asked to waste very much sympathy on her. Esther, on the other hand, is an example of Dickens's myth of the innocent child, whose goodness must be absolute. Her harsh upbringing can leave her incomplete and vulnerable, but not selfish or corrupt. Dickens's vision of society depends on the idea of victimization, on the absolute separation of the oppressors from the oppressed. [Not certain I can agree at all with this statement, nor even that it accurately reflects the critic elsewhere. The sentence seems to need to be held in the flow of the discussion.] That the oppressed can go on to become oppressors in their turn is an example of the sort of pessimistic conclusion his fantasy exists to deny." Alex Zwerdling, p55, Charles Dickens's Bleak House (hide spoiler)]

What I think is of interest to us here as modern readers is our ability (or inability) as humans to respond to conditions in our communities and in society where love is lacking in early childhood -- whether for the individual's well-being or also for the health of community. All of this is part of why I question how loveless, despite her cruelty, was the care of Esther's godmother/aunt, who after all seems to have foregone her own life for this child, and whose back story we know not from her perspective. (Unless I have missed something or there is still more to come.)

Tiffany wrote: "And Jo! Oh, poor Jo! I seriously hoped that he would survive and have a happy ending..."

Yes, me too! And I thought the chapter title was a spoiler: "Joe's Will". Were the chapter titles present in the original installments?

It could be that her awareness of her godmother's attitude only came upon reflection (as she wrote the diary).

I speak from personal experience, I had a rather loveless childhood (at least as far as my mother was concerned) and it wasn't until my late 20s that I began to see it for what it was. When I was a child it was simply the way that it was.

Also, I think, as I observed how my (younger) siblings reacted under the same treatment, that you can come out of it in one of two main ways... either you become your mother or you become the opposite of her.

I like to think that I managed to glean bits from good people (guardians, far away relatives that I occasionally saw) that I was able to begin a process of reflection (in my early 20s).

So I find the story of Esther incredibly realistic, at a young age she went to the boarding school where she was able to demonstrate to children what she lacked. Her memories were recent and she could help them, this in turn taught her a great deal about the type of person that she wanted to become. From her godmother she would have learnt many good things - including an ability to commit to a path and remain on it.

Paula wrote: "I remember when I first read this, I was torn between Hortense and Lady Dedlock as the murderer. Both hated Tulkinghorn, both are rather desperate for their own reasons. I also thought it was a coo..."

My money's on Hortense. If she doesn't find some way to take revenge, this would be rather like a loaded pistol never firing.

E :) wrote: "...And I thought the chapter title was a spoiler: "Jo's Will". Were the chapter titles present in the original installments? ..."

Yes, they were. Do recognize that "Will" need not be "Last Will and Testament," -- in fact, I hardly expected such from Jo and had in my mind the meaning of "will" in the sense of "determined" or "determination." But, when does foreshadowing become "spoiler" even if you interpret as you did? And what is "spoiled"? A belief or hope Jo will live and thrive?

Lily wrote: "E :) wrote: "...And I thought the chapter title was a spoiler: "Jo's Will". Were the chapter titles present in the original installments? ..."

Yes, they were. Do recognize that "Will" need not be..."

That's true, "will" could be taken a different way. When I saw the chapter title I immediately thought, "so, this is where Joe dies," even before reading the text. I just felt that this was a shame and wondered whether the chapter titles were intended. (I tend to skip introductions and excerpts from dust jackets for this reason; I'd rather not have the plot revealed before it's intended.)

You raise a good question regarding foreshadowing vs. giving away ("spoiling") the plot. I'm not sure that I have a strong answer there -- I can only say that it's difficult to separate the two, and that perhaps what is "too much" all comes down to preference. I suppose prefer only subtle foreshadowing.

Lily wrote: What I think is of interest to us here as modern readers is our ability (or inability) as humans to respond to conditions in our communities and in society where love is lacking in early childhood -- whether for the individual's well-being or also for the health of community..."

This is intriguing. I don't know enough about early childhood psychology to form an opinion. Do the theories suggest that children are incapable of self-soothing in loveless environments? In the novel, Esther seemed to do this. Her play with the doll seemed a substitute (and avenue) for affection.

E :) wrote: "...Do the theories suggest that children are incapable of self-soothing in loveless environments? In the novel, Esther seemed to do this. Her play with the doll seemed a substitute (and avenue) for affection...."

I certainly have no expertise on childhood psychology (at least professional -- parenthood does bring a few credentials, perhaps). I do know that there is considerable concern relative to criminal behavior arising out of extremely circumscribed circumstances. An affecting piece of recent fiction on the topic to me was Rene Denfeld's The Enchanted. Prior to writing the novel, Ms. Denfeld had been an investigative reporter on/for death row prisoners. The circumstances she fictionalized were depraved relative to the ones Dickens describes.

I think you make a good point -- the doll provided a healthy outlet, in many ways, for Esther. In fiction, a first person narrator is often assumed to be inherently "unreliable", in the sense of being only able to see and relate his/her perspective. Personally, I think that is applicable to BH and Esther. Although I have no doubt of the traumatic effect of her godmother's words on her twelfth birthday throughout Esther's life, I think we see evidence that those were not the "whole story." (I suspect more than a few of us know at least one phrase or episode that has stung us deeply for, at minimum, substantial periods of our lives.)

I just realized that I am also reminded of this review, which I wrote back in 2011:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... Esther managed to seek those tiny droplets -- as did Jo? The tidbits offer hope, but not necessarily success?

But you are talking about the rule, not the exceptions. As a general rule if a person is subjected to certain conditions they may result in demonstrating certain behaviours but this does not mean that every person subjected to those circumstances will respond in that way.

Dickens has made that clear, the book is predominantly about underprivileged, neglected, and ill-used people. Some of them turn into scum, and others into the Esthers and Jos.

If the argument is that Esther could not have been subjected to such harsh treatment and still turned out okay*, then I think it is a very flawed one.

*I wouldn't describe her as perfectly okay either, she has hang-ups and the potential to become a bit of a doormat - she slaves away for everybody - I read this as a deep-rooted problem.

Cass wrote: "Or more simply put... Guppy is to show us what Tulkinghorn may have been like in his youth. "

Hmmm. Somehow I can never imagine even a quite young Tulkinghorn making offering marriage to an apparently orphan girl of unknown parents with no money. Can you?