Classics and the Western Canon discussion

So. The final chapters. Everything either wrapped up or not going to be wrapped up.

Jeremy can now uncork the volcano which I know has been bubbling inside of him to discuss how satisfactory or unsatisfactory the wrapping up is. Do you feel that J&J resolves, or does it just peter out? Are you satisfied or disappointed? What about JJ turning Esther over to Woodcourt? It's a bit, uh, controlling isn't it, his just assuming that she wants to marry him instead of JJ? Is it noble on his part, or manipulative, or silly? Did he ever love her, or was it all just a dream that wasn't going to work out?

And what will become of Ada, now a mother. Will she remarry? What will she live on, now that Richard has wasted away all her money?

But in addition to the wrapping up, let's see whether we can now tackle a few questions.

What are the major themes that you think the books is centered around? Laurel said, if I quote her closely enough, hope. (Was that right, Laurel?) What else do you see?

Illness and sickness play a major role in the book. Why? What is the importance of illness, and why is it so prevalent?

Some have called Jarndyce a Prospero creation -- pulling strings, controlling the action like a spider in a web. Fair characterization? Unfair to him, or to Prospero?

One criticism of Dickens has been that he has very little character development. That characters are who they are throughout the book and don't learn or change or develop as they proceed through the events of the book. Do you agree with this, or disagree, or both? Are there any characters in which you see meaningful character development as the book develops, and if so who and what changes/development do you see in them?

There are more babies in this book than I recall from other Dickens books. Esther as a baby, of course. Jenny, the brickmaker's wife's baby. Liz's baby (which Jenny now loves also). Miss Melvilleson's baby (who only makes a cameo appearance, but is still mentioned). Caddy's baby. Ada's baby. And Esther has two girls. Why so many babies?

The book starts in fog, and implacable weather is a feature of much of the book. But it's been awhile since we had a major fog or bad weather mention, isn't it? Has the fog played its role to completion, or is it just left hanging?

Many, many other questions. But we have time. This thread will of course remain open forever, and if we find it productive to keep this discussion going, let's.

Hope is a thing with feathers, and we have certainly had our share of feathered friends. Related to hope, I see a gambling theme, especially with Richard, whose gambling on winning great wealth with Jarndyce and Jarndyce cost him his time, any thought of a career, and the happiness of his true love.

Well it was a bit of an anti-climax for me. I felt a few characters had been overlooked (My beloved Boythorn).

I absolutely adored when Mr Guppy renewed his proposal to Esther. I actually felt that Jarndyce treated him poorly.

I loved the speech that Guppy made. He was honest about his change in character, he saw the amazing character that Esther had and realised that it was worth striving for.

Yes, he put his foot in his mouth by telling her she was still a bit unworthy - but that only reminded me of the first proposal that Mr Darcy made to Elizabeth Bennet, and he remains an adored character.

I just felt that Mr Guppy redeemed himself, at least in my eyes.

What about the other half of the letter to Esther by Lady D? I thought Esther said that she hadn't recorded all of the letter? Did I miss the other half?

Also, I was really looking forward to hearing more about the history between Lady D and Nemo.

Tiffany wrote: "What about the other half of the letter to Esther by Lady D? I thought Esther said that she hadn't recorded all of the letter? Did I miss the other half?"

Yes, and No. I think you are right, but pretty sure we are never told about the rest of the letter. There are a lot of seemingly important things that are just mentioned in passing, like Richard's death. Apart from a throwaway phrase that Richard junior was born just after, we are not told anything about it.

It seems impossible to me that a person like Jarndyce would presume to hand Esther off to Woodcourt, and equally impossible that Esther would go along so quietly. But in the context of the novel it works. It's like we're not reading about ordinary humans here--they never suffer pride, folly, spite, lust, or any of the universal weakness of humanity. They are images of our aspirations, what we want ourselves to be.

To be honest, I think she was a fool. What a good satisfactory life at Bleak House. I would have stayed with Jarndyce.

Interesting that Jarndyce mentioned that he had planned to marry her since she was a very young child.

Everyman wrote: "So. The final chapters. Everything either wrapped up or not going to be wrapped up.

Jeremy can now uncork the volcano which I know has been bubbling inside of him to discuss how satisfactory or..."

Haha! It's true; after I read the last chapter it was hard not to comment on how many plot lines were left unresolved. Surely Dickens could have devoted a few pages to telling Lady D and the Captain's story. When did Lady D meet Sir L? For me, the story begins in a literal fog and ends in a metaphorical fog concerning Lady D's life.

And then there's Skimpole. Chesterton wrote he thought Dickens was inconsistent when he had Skimpole accept the bribe. However, I think that incident is in line with Skimpole's diary entry. Skimpole claiming that most men are selfish, including his benefactor Jarndyce, casts him in an entirely differently light. Between accepting the bribe, leeching off of Richard, and slandering Jarndyce I think Skimpole is shown to be a shrewd and calculating character. I know many will disagree, but I think the "childlikeness" was largely an act. It seems Esther was beginning to think so too as the novel progressed.

@3 Cass - I really read this section differently. Prior to this incident others commented that they found Guppy odious. I was never in agreement with that interpretation. I saw him as more of a comic and pitiable character. This scene confirmed my opinion. Jarndyce treats him like the ridiculous character he is.

@8 Cass - I was hoping someone else would catch this. If we go back to the carriage ride to the school Esther attended we have what I believe is the first meeting between Esther and Jarndyce, though Esther didn't know it at the time. He must have been at least in his 40s, possibly 50s at the time. And Esther was 12? Assuming (and granted it's a big assumption) this is when he considered a possible marriage to Esther, then by today's standards he's strange, if not perverted. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for his time period. Even so, this revelation made me uncomfortable.

Interesting that Dickens would write that into the story. It reminds me strongly of The Tale of Genji which features a similar theme of the hero 'adopting' an orphan whom he later marries. Although I'm curious as to what Dickens thought of romantic love, e.g. the kind of which is in Austen or more modern day romances.

Jeremy wrote: "Between accepting the bribe, leeching off of Richard, and slandering Jarndyce I think Skimpole is shown to be a shrewd and calculating character. I know many will disagree, but I think the "childlikeness" was largely an act."

I think it was largely an act, too, but I don't see it as shrewd and calculating. Rather, I think it showed a certain learned helplessness, that at some point and for some reason he had become overpowered by the world, and this was his escape and coping mechanism at finding some way to not have to deal with the harsh realities of making a living.

Jeremy wrote: " He must have been at least in his 40s, possibly 50s at the time. And Esther was 12? Assuming (and granted it's a big assumption) this is when he considered a possible marriage to Esther, then by today's standards he's strange, if not perverted. "

By today's standards, yes. But in the Victorian era, particularly among the upper classes, arranged marriages were still common, and at least in the novelistic world, and I suspect that in this it reflects a high degree of reality, there are situations where children almost from infancy are "intended" for each other.

What I don't understand is why Jarndyce hadn't found a wife quite a while ago. He seems to have all the qualifications; he's wealthy, he's kind, he's competent, he's not disgusting looking, he doesn't seem to have any disabilities that would turn off women he might have proposed to while in his 20s, 30s, or 40s. Why is he still single?

But that he identified a vulnerable (in that she had no family, no money, no apparent prospects) young woman in whom he had a financial interest and identified her as prospective wife material doesn't really bother me a lot in the context of the era, though it certainly would in today's environment of marriage for romantic love.

Tiffany wrote: "Interesting that Dickens would write that into the story. It reminds me strongly of The Tale of Genji which features a similar theme of the hero 'adopting' an orphan whom he later marri..."

Not the most elegant of sources, but it may add perspective to recall this out of the biography of Dickens:

"She may have resembled a child - at that time she was 26 and Dickens 53 - but she was a woman who had bewitched the ageing writer and would tear his marriage asunder. Ellen Ternan was her name and, in short, she was Dickens' big secret.

"It is only in recent years, in our own times, that the full extent of Dickens' 13-year intimate relationship with Ellen Ternan has become known."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/art...

Now, 26 or 18 (when they probably met) are different than 12. But are there feelings out of his own life that Dickens is writing in the Esther/Jarndyce story?

In the week 5 thread there are a few posts wondering about Esther's blindness. It seems almost thrown away, but is there a deeper message here about blindness generally running throughout the book? (Somewhat related to fog? In fog, we are in virtual blindness, aren't we?)

Who in the book might be considered to be blind to what?

Well Tulkinghorn, despite his shrewd insights, had quite a large blind spot when it came to women.

Lily wrote: "But are there feelings out of his own life that Dickens is writing in the Esther/Jarndyce story?"

I wonder. I think it very likely that the ambivalent way Dickens treats marriage in his works has a lot to do with the somewhat unhappy circumstances of his own married life.

Everyman wrote: "There are more babies in this book than I recall from other Dickens books. Esther as a baby, of course. Jenny, the brickmaker's wife's baby. Liz's baby (which Jenny now loves also). Miss Melvilleson's baby (who only makes a cameo appearance, but is still mentioned). Caddy's baby. Ada's baby. And Esther has two girls. Why so many babies?"

Was I the only one to have the feeling that I wanted to read a Bleak House II and find out what happened to all these children when they were grown up?

Running is, I think, a sort of theme in the book. That bizarre scene with Hortense, taking off her shoes and running through the field must have had some meaning. In the end we see Lady D considering running then choosing not to, then ultimately deciding to run out in the cold. Jo is caught running when he is on his own death march (even though he hasn't done anything wrong, it just is an instinct). In our time, people get great satisfaction from the sport of running (I personally hate it, I prefer hiking up hills), it satisfies some deep psychological need. When Lady D was first confronted, I was so hoping she would have taken the decision to run but she was convinced not to. Similarly, when Hortense was arrested, I was so wishing she would have lost it and not fallen under Bucket's grip.

As to Mr J's retraction of his engagement to Esther, I think he is ultimately The Great Patriarch in the novel. He is a father figure to Esther and quite literally 'gives her away' to her future husband. He asks Ada to refer to him as her guardian from now on. Where Sir Dedlock was an old style Great Patriarch that system of aristocratic privilage is shown to be built on a rather vulnerable foundation. Mr J (who also comes by his money through fortune) has built himself a little family on the bonds of love. He is a confirmed bachelor but he will be a good father figure for Richard's son and a good guardian to Ada as well as a good father in law (guardian-in-law?) to woodcourt (I couldn't help wondering if Mr J and the elder Mrs Woodcourt might not have a secret liking for each other, but that, as David says, is Bleak House II). I like this little cobbled together family. I like how good people (remember the scene with Guster and o?) find each other in a hostile world.

Everyman wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "Between accepting the bribe, leeching off of Richard, and slandering Jarndyce I think Skimpole is shown to be a shrewd and calculating character. I know many will disagree, but I thi..."

True, calculating isn't the right word. Fake is more accurate.

skimpole is blind to his own love of money. When he takes the bribe, it is shown that his first and last attachment and loyalty is to money. He doesn't need it (as he did when Richard and Esther saved him from arrest). He says that money is foreign to him, that he knows or understands nothing about it (or words to that effect) but in the end it is shown to be the primary relationship in his life. Sad.

Theresa wrote: "That bizarre scene with Hortense, taking off her shoes and running through the field must have had some meaning. "

I took that to mean that she, admitting to herself that she had been replaced, was casting off the trappings of a lady's maid. But I have no idea whether that's a fair interpretation. It's just what struck me at the time.

I think the contrast between Esther's starting out in life and Lady Dedlock's is interesting. Their lives are both affected by the shadow of Esther's birth, but the ways they've reacted to it are so different. Lady Dedlock kept that whole history a secret for years, and doing so meant that any random discoverer of that secret had the power to destroy her life. As it turns out, that secret wouldn't have had to be as catastrophic as she feared it would be or as her flight made it. If she'd trusted her relationship with Sir Leicester more, they could still have had a life together.

Esther is dealing with the same problem. I don't know enough about Victorian society to know how the social stigma of being illegitimate compared to the stigma of having an illegitimate child. (Does anyone know the answer to this?) Presumably, Esther would be in a slightly better position, though certainly not an enviable one. In contrast to Lady Dedlock, though, Esther starts her married life with everything in the open--at least among family. Mr. Jarndyce makes sure that even the judgmental Mrs. Woodcourt accepts the situation gracefully. No future blackmailer could possibly terrify her the way Tulkinghorn, et al terrified Lady Dedlock: Esther's husband already knows the worst, and he's decided her personal merits outweigh social considerations. Public airing of her illegitimacy would no doubt be unpleasant, but she doesn't have to fear that it would destroy her life.

Of course, the other big difference between the two lies in their aspirations. Esther won't be trying to be the brightest star in the fashionable world. She has friends who really care about her, rather than acquaintances who are happy to spread malicious gossip the moment something goes wrong in her life. And that's just as important. Perhaps it's part of why being illegitimate is so much less of a shadow for Esther.

Theresa wrote: "skimpole is blind to his own love of money. When he takes the bribe, it is shown that his first and last attachment and loyalty is to money. He doesn't need it (as he did when Richard and Esther ..."

Amen.

Audrey wrote: "I think the contrast between Esther's starting out in life and Lady Dedlock's is interesting. Their lives are both affected by the shadow of Esther's birth, but the ways they've reacted to it are ..."

Nice analysis. I agree that Esther's lack of need for high social respectability is very important to her future happiness. She is comfortable with who she is, which is not always a common trait.

Jeremy @9 wrote: "@3 Cass - I really read this section differently. Prior to this incident others commented that they found Guppy odious. I was never in agreement with that interpretation. I saw him as more of a comic and pitiable character. This scene confirmed my opinion. Jarndyce treats him like the ridiculous character he is."

But Guppy wasn't ridiculous. He was a man, a real man with goals and ambitions. We laugh at him as if Dickens gave us some comic relief, but life is not like that. In life these people have feelings. So take the next step and try to view it all from Mr Guppy's viewpoint.

He fell in love with Esther, and at that stage in her life she had not been loved by men. Yet he could see something about her. He didn't fall in love with Ada (who was the more beautiful) but he loved Esther so much that he proposed to her.

He was rejected, and it was foolish of him to make an offer so quickly to such a sensible girl.

He responds by trying to woo her using the tools that he has... He is a law clerk and has some skills in figuring things out. He sets to work trying to determine who Esther's family is. He does this for her, not for himself. He would have married her when nobody else would. Everybody else worried about lineage, but he loved her.

He spends a lot of time, and puts himself forward to Lady Dedlock to the point of impertinence in order to solve this mystery for her (Esther).

After Esther's sickness... when even she cannot bear the sight of herself, when even she believes she is unlovable, when she believes her only good attribute is gone.... She visits Mr Guppy on an unrelated matter, but he thinks it is to accept his proposal. He is excited, his mother is excited. When he sees her for the first time he panics, he backs out of his offer and clumsily embarrasses himself in his quest to get a legal confirmation that no offer ever existed. Clumsy because it is a lie, and later he talks about the offer and admits that it did exist - As a law clerk he was aware that this verbal affidavit was a lie and would not hold up in court, but he was panicking.

Mr Guppy is not a strong character, he is young and has all the rudeness and obnoxiousness of youth.

Later, unbeknownst to us, he begins to change. He realises that Esther is something special, even without her beauty. In fact he admires her behaviour so much that he admits his desire to be more like her. How true an admission is that. It was a better proposal of love and admiration than either Jarndyce or Woodcourt offered. He loved her so much that he knew he had to become a better person for her sake.

He was still foolish, he bought his mother and friend, really thinking she would say yes. I think now he thought he was offering himself to a woman who had no other choices, but I think he was doing it full of love and admiration. Jarndyce did the exact same thing - his offer to Esther was because he thought she would receive no other.

Honestly, I thought it was horrible the way Jarndyce treated him. Mr Guppy was never ever on par with Esther, but I admired him for seeing that she was the cream of the crop, even Mrs Woodcourt's mother couldn't see it.

Theresa wrote: "Running is, I think, a sort of theme in the book. That bizarre scene with Hortense, taking off her shoes and running through the field must have had some meaning. "

It did have meaning. She had decided she wanted revenge on Lady Dedlock. She took off her shoes and did that so the memory would become a strong one (she mentioned that later), something that she would not forget.

Here is the part where she explains herself to Esther:

From CHAPTER XXIII: "She {Hortense} looked at me {Esther} more intently as she took it, and seemed to take note, with her momentary touch, of every vein in it. "I fear I surprised you, mademoiselle, on the day of the storm?" she said with a parting curtsy.

I confessed that she had surprised us all.

"I took an oath, mademoiselle," she said, smiling, "and I wanted to stamp it on my mind so that I might keep it faithfully. And I will! Adieu, mademoiselle!" "


The sole purpose of walking across the wet grass without shoes was so that she would not forget her resolve to get revenge on Lady Dedlock.

Cass wrote: "Jeremy @9 wrote: "@3 Cass - I really read this section differently. Prior to this incident others commented that they found Guppy odious. I was never in agreement with that interpretation. I saw hi..."

I liked Guppy. When he freaked out after seeing Esther's face it was kind of funny but not unlike someone who has fallen in love with a woman's facebook profile picture and then is shocked when he meets the real person. After awhile he remembered what it was about Esther that attracted him. I felt that his mother's way of laughing at him and his subsequent need to distance himself from that might have added to his apparent inability to form good reciprocal relationships with women.

And Mr J appears to be in a position to be sued by Esther for breaking off the engagement. He appears to be extremely wealthy if he can afford to buy her a new house so she is giving up some serious wealth. I think they could have had a good marriage, they are kindred spirits, despite their age difference. Of course she loves Woodcourt so Mr J is in no danger of being named in a lawsuit.

Theresa wrote: "And Mr J appears to be in a position to be sued by Esther for breaking off the engagement. He appears to be extremely wealthy if he can afford to buy her a new house so she is giving up some serio..."

Maybe Mr Guppy would be her lawyer.

I do agree, I thought her and Jarndyce made a pretty good match. I don't think we really got to know Woodcourt well enough in the books, other than he was the true philanthropist of the book.

Of all the male characters, I think I liked Mr George Rouncewell best.

Skimpole was a sort of ne'r do well who was in a position to play "beta male" to Mr J's role of being an 'alpha male' (for want of a better description). Very wealthy men sometimes have these sorts of people around them because they enjoy their company, need a companion, or other reasons. But you have to be loyal and be willing to be number two, to be a sidekick of sorts. Skimpole was doing fine until he went against Mr Js will and sold out Jo (and later dissed Mr Js reputation in a book, after Mr J cut him off. Ironically, Dickens is also trashing the reputation of the person he modeled skimpole on but that is another story).

Back to George Rouncewell, he too is a a n'er do well but he is more humane to Jo, to his assistant Phil, is an honest man and a good loyal friend (unlike Bucket), son, and brother. His military career has taught him to put his ego aside and so he is able to play "beta male" to Sir Dedlock's role as 'alpha male'.

For female characters I think I liked Charley best. I am glad it all ended well for her.

Yes, I think Jandyce saw that Esther had an emotional attraction for Woodcourt (and vice versa) and so he stepped aside as he saw that this would make her happiest (perhaps he did not want her pining (secretly) for "what could have been" like her mother )…It is also a possible sign of true love for her…trying to find what would make her happiest as opposed to his own happiness (which always seems a bit secondary to him) (albeit J & E surely would have been content together). And now he has Ada and her son to keep him company and this makes for a most comfortable and agreeable setting for all involved. Ada's funds has all dissipated by Richard…but she finds the security of a home nonetheless along with the friendship and help of J.

As for Skimpole…he doth protest his lack of adultness too much, me thinks. I suspect he is a weak but clever sort who fearful of the real world, hides from responsibility via his self exhorted helplessness which fossilizes over time into reality from his never having tried to make his own way (except by the good graces of others and luck and oft by skin of his teeth). He is very suboptimal and unendearing especially when one realizes he has a family! Good grief.

Guppy provides some comical relief: he makes some very bad blunders but all out of '"love" (and then honest panic). He at least has no true ill intent but perhaps also suffers from a bit of narcissism perhaps (e.g. considering himself quite the catch! LOL)

Also, illness likely had prevalence in Bleak House as it had prevalence in England at that time due to over crowding/population explosion in the cities during the Victorian era without corresponding sanitary measures to protect the public.

At that time, miasma (considered as air with sickness in it/ generally associated with stench) was considered the culprit as opposed to oft the true culprit..the polluted water (e.g. typhoid & cholera). It took a long time for the government to actually get its act together and spend money and direct appropriate measures to react to this new reality of that time. Conditions were truly horrid in many places in London..with poorer areas having their cellars being essentially cess pools and in general a very poor sewer situation over all (lack of coordination, etc.) and in time when bird droppings took the place of …other "fertilizer" so to speak (and as city grew, farms were a further trek to reach)(also the new use of water closets watered down the "fertilizer" making it unmarketable)…the night soil men no longer were incentivized to remove people's night waste so to sell to farmers ( also when"water closets" became the new thing…such drained into the Thames river exacerbating water borne disease as the Thames released into tributaries (drinking water) at times/ this until Joseph Bazalgette engineered a diversionary pipe system after the "Great Stink*" of 1858 (thereby greatly reducing cholera and other water borne disease). Parliament having rebuilt next to the Thames was suddenly greatly motivated*. Other alleviating measures (e.g. separating and filtering) were incorporated over time during the 1800s as well.

Furthermore, people were highly suspicious in general as to that new cow pox vaccine (for small pox). I tried to (unsuccessfully)post an illustration from those days depicting people growing little cow heads out of their bodies evidencing what many feared from the cow pox vaccine.

This is a general synopsis of my reading thus far of "The Great Filth. The War Against Disease in Victorian England" by Stephan Halliday.

Everyman wrote: "In the week 5 thread there are a few posts wondering about Esther's blindness. It seems almost thrown away, but is there a deeper message here about blindness generally running throughout the book..."

I like the thought of blindness as a theme in this book. As Eman points out fog can create a level of visual blindness regarding the world around us. Sue talked about how long it took for the government to clean up the city - a type of blindness to the health of the citizen. Mrs. Pardiggle was blind to what those who could use her help really needed. Mrs. Jellyby is blind to her family. Skimpole is blind to the realities of the world (whether willfully or not is debatable). Even Mr. Turveydrop is blind to the strain that his attitude puts on his son.

On the other hand, I don't think Chancery is blind to what they are doing, which stealing money, but they are hoping that others are blind to their activities.

I suppose I could even stretch this blind argument to how Dickens ended the story. Since we rarely know the whole story about many things and even if we think we do we may remember things differently than someone else who had the same experience. So in an sense we are all blind to a certain amount of what is going on around us. And based on this, perhaps Dickens ended his story deliberately without presenting us everything we would want to know.

Having said that about the way Dickens ended the story, the ending still reads to me like Dickens was contracted for a set number of installments and then realised he was running out of space he tied up what he considered were the important ends.

Cass wrote: "Jeremy @9 wrote: "@3 Cass - I really read this section differently. Prior to this incident others commented that they found Guppy odious. I was never in agreement with that interpretation. I saw hi..."

I won't belabor this any further, but it is fun to have a serious disagreement about a character. You've acknowledged many of Guppy's flaws, but let me see if I can reconstruct from memory his dealings with Esther.

He sees her at Bleak House and without a courtship or any real knowledge of who she is proposes to her - ridiculous.

He then plans on using the letters to blackmail Lady D into persuading Esther to marry him - here I would agree with those who don't like Guppy - this was a disgusting move, regardless of the motive.

He sees Esther after her illness and quickly tries to distance himself from her. He talks about "circumstances beyond his control," meaning of course her illness. Here he shows his shallowness. In the same scene he runs back and forth down the street torn between a desire to make it clear there is no engagement and on the other hand not wanting to appear un-chivalrous in his treatment of Esther. He is comically ridiculous here.

Finally, he comes to Bleak House to renew his offer. Not once has he considered whether Esther wants to marry him. He has sent her no letters, tokens of affection, or even paid a friendly visit. Yet he thinks Esther will accept him. Ridiculously oblivious. Throughout his dealings with Esther he behaves as though he would be doing her a favor to marry her. Jarndyce finally decides he's heard enough and puts Guppy in his place. To his credit, at least Guppy didn't behave as poorly as his mother as he left.

I will agree that I felt pity for Guppy and was surprised by Jarndyce's harshness, but ultimately I think it was deserved.

I'm working on a more comprehensive analysis, so I won't say too much here, but Guppy was blinded by his own pride. He clearly thought he was superior to Esther, which in a strictly material sense he may have been. But unlike Jarndyce and Woodcourt he wasn't in a position to see just how superior to him in terms of virtue she was.

Lastly, I don't see how we can call his feelings for Esther love. He never knew her! A crush, an infatuation? Yes. Love? I don't think so.

(Please forgive any typos - it's 2 am here. I woke up for a glass of water, checked my phone and saw the comments about Guppy, and knew I wouldn't be able to sleep until I responded).

I do agree. Mr Guppy was flawed, and he always unworthy of Esther. He did not have a good character, or morals.

My argument is that his love of Esther was the best thing he had ever done. His final recognition of her attributes, and his desire to improve were redeeming. They were not enough to make him good enough for her, but he demonstrated considerable growth in character Yes, his proposal was still full of insults, but I am not saying he was worthy of her... just that he had grown in character because of his love for her.

We never do find out the details of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce suit, do we? Like who died, how big the estate was, what was the status of the contested will(s), who were the potential heirs (besides Richard and JJ)?

Roger wrote: "We never do find out the details of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce suit, do we? Like who died, how big the estate was, what was the status of the contested will(s), who were the potential heirs (besides ..."

Makes one wonder how acceptable a novel with similar themes about judicial injustice would be today without more detail about the case or cases at hand. Did Dickens get by without such for his purposes?

Jeremy wrote: "...it is fun to have a serious disagreement about a character...."

As I recall, Guppy became interested in Esther because she resembled Lady Dedlock's portrait, which he had observed on a visit to Chesney Wold! Sounds like opportunism to me.

Sue wrote: "As for Skimpole…he doth protest his lack of adultness too much, me thinks"

The same line came to mind when I was thinking about Skimpole.

Roger wrote: "We never do find out the details of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce suit, do we? Like who died, how big the estate was, what was the status of the contested will(s), who were the potential heirs (besides ..."

I think someone said in week nine that JvJ was the powder keg waiting to go off (or something close to that). Instead, the whole case sort of fizzled. My impression was that the will provided an excuse to go ahead and wrap up the case. The lawyers did an excellent job of bleeding the estate dry. There really wasn't much need to continue the case. Apparently Dickens felt an anti-climax was the best way to show how asinine the whole chancery court was.

Cass wrote: "Jeremy @9 wrote: "He [Guppy] fell in love with Esther, and at that stage in her life she had not been loved by men. ..."

That's a nice impassioned defense of Guppy. But let's keep in mind, if I recall correctly, that he fell in love with her after seeing her only once, as she was getting out of the coach and being escorted to the Jellybys. He says almost nothing to her, though what he says is by way of compliment ("The fog is very dense indeed!" said I. "Not that it affects you, though, I'm sure," said Mr. Guppy, putting up the steps. "On the contrary, it seems to do you good, miss, judging from your appearance." )

The next time we see him is his visit to Chesney Wold, where he sees the portrait of Lady D which reminds him vividly of somebody he has met.

Then nothing until we meet him at Bleak House where he has come to call on Mr. Boythorne, who is staying there, and takes advantage of this official visit for a bit of private business with Esther, "without prejudice."

With just that minimal contact with her, as far as we know (and Esther would have said something, I'm sure, if there had been more contact between them) he now "adores" her. That's a pretty thin acquaintance on which to expect that young woman you've barely met and don't really know at all should look favorably on leaving comfortable Bleak House, Mr. Jarndyce, Ada, and Richard, and go live in "lodgings at Penton Place, Pentonville" on two pounds a week.

This at a time when Richard can spend eight pounds on "neat waistcoat and buttons" when he goes into the Kenge and Carboy office. How comfortable will Esther be on two pounds a week???

Roger wrote: "We never do find out the details of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce suit, do we?"

We find out that there were two competing wills, and the fight was about which will was the valid one -- we learn that under both wills Ada and Richard are supposed to come into some money, but more under one will than under the other. And then we find out that after all of that, there is a new will that is clearly valid and supersedes the others, and that takes care of it, except that of course now there's no money left to distribute under this will, some sixty to seventy thousand pounds have all gone to the lawyers. (Or maybe more; that was the cost at the beginning of the book, but the case kept coming up and costs kept mounting up.)

Two other quick points on how happy Esther would be to live as Mr. Guppy's wife on two pounds a week:

One, when Richard gets an advance from Mr. Kenge, it's for ten pounds. So in that one advance gets five weeks worth of Guppy's earnings. And then he says that a post-chaise trip from London to Bleak House and back is worth four pounds.

No wonder Esther isn't impressed with Mr. Guppy's suit!

Lots of people fall in love at first sight. Were Romeo's feelings for Juliet inauthentic?

Jeremy says (msg 35): He then plans on using the letters to blackmail Lady D into persuading Esther to marry him - here I would agree with those who don't like Guppy - this was a disgusting move, regardless of the motive.

I never did know what exactly he was going to do with the letters. If he was going to blackmail Lady D then that is indeed quite odious. There was a lot going on in the novel that Dickens didn't tell us about so when I cam across behavior that puzzled me I was never sure if I missed it in the reading or if Dickens was just holding back on explaining. I thought he was just getting the letters to give to Esther to protect her or Lady D from having them exposed.

36 Cass says : My argument is that his love of Esther was the best thing he had ever done. His final recognition of her attributes, and his desire to improve were redeeming.

Agreed. I think this also extends to Mr J - he becomes a better person because of his charity and relationship with Esther. It changes him and he no longer feels lonely or in need of amusing diversions such as his friendship with Skimpole might have provided for him. In a sense he grows up along with Esther. Charming.

Everyman raised some good questions about the weather, babies, and other topics. Hopefully someone does a deep analysis of them and shares it with the group. What I like to do, when possible, is explore the religious content of a novel. What follows is more than an off-the-cuff remark, but less than a well thought out analysis. Even as I was proofreading what I wrote I saw areas that need improvement. I hope someone else finds this useful, but if not then it was helpful for me. Writing always brings new connections you may not have initially seen and forces you to think about the novel in deeper way than if you'd simply read it. What follows is long. If you have no interest in religion you'll probably just want to skip past my post to whatever follows afterwards.


There are a number of approaches one can take when analyzing Bleak House. The most obvious is to see Dickens as a social reformer using his artistic ability to effect necessary changes in England. It has been well noted how Dickens and other writers of his generation influenced reform movements in the mid-1800s. What has received comparatively less attention is the moral framework from which Dickens criticized and satirized corrupt institutions. As can be seen in Bleak House, Dickens’s worldview is thoroughly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, if not explicitly, then at least implicitly. Dickens’s characters, both moral and immoral, embody the virtues and vices presented in Scripture, especially the Sermon on the Mount.

At first glance this may seem like a surprising statement. After all, Dickens is not remembered for his personal piety and his novels are generally less religious than those of many of his contemporaries. Elizabeth Gaskill and Thomas Hardy both included more explicit discussions of religion in their novels North and South and Tess respectively. Even the alleged atheist George Eliot includes a sympathetic religious character in Camden Farebrother in Middlemarch. In contrast, overt references to religion are almost entirely absent in Bleak House. There are occasional mentions of prayer and church attendance, especially in relation to Esther, but on the surface religion does not play much of a role in the novel. However, when one looks beyond the words of the characters and examines their actions, many of the characters and their stories are shown to be heavily influenced by the Bible.

The clearest example of this is found in George’s story. George leaves his mother and wanders about in the world. He serves honorably in the military, but he is ashamed of his lack of material progress and eventually cuts ties with his family. Even when he returns to London he does not visit his mother because he believes himself to be unworthy of her affection. Eventually Mrs. Bagnet brings about the reunion and George’s mother receives him with open arms. As happy as George is, he is still unsure how his brother will receive him. Up to this point George’s story reflects that of the Prodigal Son as told in Luke 15:11-32. Like the Prodigal, George felt he was unworthy to return home as a son. In the Gospel story the older son is indignant that the Prodigal is welcomed home on joyous terms. In the novel Dickens deviates from the parable and has the older son embrace the wayward brother. George’s story, in essence, is a retelling of the Prodigal Son story with a happier ending. George’s parallels with Biblical characters do not end there though. Like Joseph in the Jewish Bible, George is falsely imprisoned. Joseph is able to tell his brothers that what they meant for harm, God intended for good. One can imagine that George would be able to say the same to Detective Bucket after his reconciliation with his family.

Another character who has Biblical roots is Esther. The most obvious Biblical connection is her name. Esther is one of the few characters in Bleak House who has a name found in the Bible. Like her scriptural namesake, Esther was an orphan. Esther 2:7 recounts that the Biblical Esther was raised by a guardian, her uncle, because her parents were dead. The Esther of Bleak House knew little about her parents and was also raised by guardians. In the Bible Esther is a mediator and advocate for her people. The Esther of Bleak House fills the same role. Esther attempts to bring about a reconciliation between Richard and John. Elsewhere she tries to bridge the communication gap between Mrs. and Ms. Jellyby. Lastly, she approaches Skimpole and acts as an advocate for Richard. Unfortunately, unlike the Biblical Esther, most of Esther Hawdon’s efforts fail.

Esther is, however, quite successful in other areas. She is one of the most compassionate characters in the novel. She is a benefactor to Jo and Jenny. She is a friend and confidant to Ada and Caddy. She is a companion to John. She shows tenderness to Ms. Flite. In all that she does Esther remains humble. She is the embodiment of Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others.” (Mt. 6:1-2, ESV)

How starkly Esther contrasts to Mrs. Jellyby and Mrs. Pardiggle in the novel! Dickens could not be clearer in setting up the unfavorable comparison of those who loudly broadcast their philanthropy and characters like Esther, Woodcourt, Jarndyce, and even Snagsby who quietly and humbly go about their business, “not letting their left hand know what the right hand is doing” (Mt: 6:4).

If Mrs. Jellyby and Mrs. Pardiggle are hypocrites, then compared with Mr. Chadband they are sinners of a venial sort. Chadband is the worst kind of hypocrite – one who is so full of pride that he is oblivious to the harm he is doing, trying to remove a speck of sawdust from his neighbor’s eye while ignoring the plank in his own. Chadband’s character seems to be drawn directly from the negative characterizations of the Pharisees found in the Gospels. In Matthew 25:1-7 Jesus tells the crowd that the Pharisees issue difficult demands that they do not do themselves. They love to be seen by others. And they love to have the place of honor at feasts. Later Jesus calls them blind guides straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. How perfectly this description fits Chadband, especially as he castigates Jo for the poor child’s alleged faults yet does nothing to help him.

If the last time Chadband had appeared in the novel was in the Snagsby home then he could be safely labeled a Pharisee. However, Chadband’s appearance before Sir Leicester shows him to be something more (or less) than a self-righteous hypocrite. That he was willing to resort to extortion and blackmail reveals that he was one of the most reprehensible characters in the novel.

If Chadband has a rival for the title of most morally corrupt character in the novel it is Mr. Smallweed. Smallweed has made Mammon his god with the result that he is a blight to everything he comes in contact with. Jesus asked, “What good is it for a man to gain the world and yet forfeit his soul?” Smallweed sold his soul for much less than the world.

As can be seen, the world Dickens creates in Bleak House is one in which virtue counts and is rewarded. The corrupt are exposed, or as the Bible phrases it, what is done in darkness is brought into the light. In spite of the lack of direct Biblical quotations or outwardly religious characters, Bleak House is in fact a deeply religious novel.

Roger wrote: "We never do find out the details of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce suit, do we? Like who died, how big the estate was, what was the status of the contested will(s), who were the potential heirs (besides ..."

It doesn't matter. It's all part of the fog. The thing that matters is that the only winners are the lawyers.

Jeremy wrote: "Everyman raised some good questions about the weather, babies, and other topics. Hopefully someone does a deep analysis of them and shares it with the group. What I like to do, when possible, is ..."

Excellent, Jeremy. You read novels the way I do.

Jeremy wrote: "Everyman raised some good questions about the weather, babies, and other topics. Hopefully someone does a deep analysis of them and shares it with the group. What I like to do, when possible, is ..."

That was interesting to read. One question: if virtue counts, why does Jo die even before he can learn how to pray? I got the impression that Jo's honesty was not rewarded, and that dying even before learning to finish a prayer, his soul would not be saved. Thoughts?

Theresa wrote: "...I got the impression that Jo's honesty was not rewarded, and that dying even before learning to finish a prayer, his soul would not be saved...."

At the risk of being New Age'y, let's please leave that judgement to God rather than man!