Dickensians! discussion

This thread is to discuss the next item in our "Dramatic Dickens" season, which is The Village Coquettes: An Operatic Burletta In Two Acts. John will be leading this read.

We will begin reading this comic farce on 1st April, for 2 weeks until 14th April.

Please allow John to comment first! Thanks 😊

The Village Coquettes is the only libretto (or play) to be written by Charles Dickens. It was published in 1836, which is early in his career.

Its musical composer, John Hullah, was at the Royal Academy with Dickens older sister, Fanny, and through her met Dickens. Thus an agreement was made for Dickens to do the writing. It was not a great success, but there were over two dozen performances. As one reviewer wrote on Goodreads, the Village Coquettes is best appreciated as a curiosity piece.

There is a rather funny story about how Dickens felt about his foray into a play. He was asked if there was a copy of The Village Coquettes in his home. Dickens replied that he did not think so, but if there was a copy, he would burn down the wing of the house where it resided.

I must admit, having read several biographies of Dickens, I don’t recall a single word about The Village Coquettes. This may have been as Dickens preferred, but this play may provide some good insight into his early writing process.

How descriptive was he? Do we have at least one memorable character? Is there anything in it that we recognize in later works? How does it read, as we must keep in mind it was partly set to music?

I would note that it was published the same year that Dickens married Catherine Hogarth. Perhaps his life as a newlywed had an impact on the creation and writing of the play?

The play is in two acts and we have a two week read. We could thus discuss the first act in the first week and finish in the second.

Thoughts and comments are most welcome.

One further comment. John Forster, who was Dickens’ close friend for years, and later his biographer, actually wrote a review of this play. It was decidedly negative, which is funny, in a way.

So here we are with some rather negative commentary before we begin. However, we should look at that in a positive sense. If we can see what made them think in this way, we can perhaps be a good judge of the work — even if we find it below standard.

This is what Forster wrote:

The plot and dialogue are totally unworthy of Boz (Dickens). Not to speak of the lack of originality which this piece presents, it has the demerit of having incidents, such as they are, most clumsily hung together. The disappointment was deeply and generally felt.

These are great introductory comments to get us going next week; thanks John!

On a practical point, can you or others share where to read it? Mine is in the complete Delphi edition on kindle.

I am reading the Nook Delphi edition. It was available on Barnes & Noble for download for only a couple of dollars.

I suspect that other e book readers can likely find it for free at a site like Gutenberg.

Oh yes, I found it on Gutenberg too 😊

As an aside, before this play, I had never heard of the word coquettes. I was familiar with the adjective coquettish, but not at all familiar with the use and form of the word coquette as a noun. Hopefully I have my grammar correct — I believe coquettish is an adjective, but perhaps the form is an adverb.

You are quite right John. I expect it's one of those French words which English people appropriated but Americans didn't. It just means a flirt, really, who tries to manipulate men.

Looking forward to the read. I like reading the bad as well as the good from a great author. It is reassuring to know even the greats aren't perfect and boosts my own self-esteem.

I started Act 1. There are songs, mostly in rhyming couplets, interspersed in the Act. The original score for these songs was lost. Subsequent productions through the years, though rare and few, tried new scores.

The songs do serve as a way of understanding the setting. As readers of a play, rather than attendees of a play, this can be helpful.

We’re in a village in 1729 and it is harvest season and beer is served.

Of the characters introduced, only Sparkins Flam seems to have a Dickens kind of name.

Given the traditional names of the other characters, this has a feel to me of Dickens putting his toes into the pond and testing the waters for names yet created.

Perhaps we may see other foreshadowing of his writing.

I read Act 1, Scene 1. John Braham, the great tenor and the manager of the St James's Theatre, hired capable singers for the play and played the part of Squire Norton himself.

The opening of the play seems picturesque with the farm wagon and workers unloading the hay. The first song ("Hail to the Merry Autumn Days") is a round, and a celebration of autumn. While we can't know what it sounds like without the music, it does have the rhyming couplets (as John pointed out) that would work well in a round.

The two young women, Lucy and Rose, are flirty with the young men. Both the higher class men and the working class men seem to want some attention from them.

Connie wrote: "I read Act 1, Scene 1. John Braham, the great tenor and the manager of the St James's Theatre, hired capable singers for the play and played the part of Squire Norton himself.

The opening of the p..."

Connie, I thought that the songs read as poetry were somewhat better than I had expected. I try to imagine them as songs. I am not very good at picking up meter, so I cannot comment on the meter.

I started Scene Two and came across the phrase “poetical cauliflower.” I did not understand the context fully and I would be interested to hear an opinion on the words.

I find the writing and perhaps the songs a bit breathless. It seems to me as if Dickens was writing on five cups of tea.

John - I love the name Sparkins Flam - he used this again in a sketch "Horatio Sparkins" - and much later we had Edmund Sparkler of course. Good thought that he might be practising his craft here.

“poetical cauliflower." made me laugh! In English a cabbage is derogatory, but perhaps since cauliflowers have florets it just implies overly florid use of language?

In Act 1 Scene 2, Dickens is playing around with names again. Flam is calling John Maddox a "mad ox" and making remarks about his country background:

"You understand, Ox, that it is my wish that you forthwith retire and graze--or in other words, that you at once, and without delay, betake yourself to the farm, or the devil, or any other place where you are in your element, and won't be in the way."

Connie wrote: "In Act 1 Scene 2, Dickens is playing around with names again. Flam is calling John Maddox a "mad ox" and making remarks about his country background:

"You understand, Ox, that it is my wish that y..."

I love the play on his name — Mad Ox.

Bionic Jean wrote: "John - I love the name Sparkins Flam - he used this again in a sketch "Horatio Sparkins" - and much later we had Edmund Sparkler of course. Good thought that he might be practising his craft here.
..."

I think perhaps an overuse of flowery language?

We certainly go from a relatively tranquil Scene 1 to the next, which seems to have words used like bullets and daggers.

John wrote: "I think perhaps an overuse of flowery language?..."

😂 I appreciate your pun here, John! And "mad ox" made me wince too Connie, as good puns always should, of course!

In about half an hour I am off to the house where Charles Dickens would shortly move to after writing this; his first house with Catherine (as you said they married the same year) at Doughty St. I know they have a poster for The Village Coquettes: An Operatic Burletta In Two Acts, so will look to see if there's anything else in the museum.

Before they moved to Doughty St. Charles Dickens was still living in chambers at Furnivals Inn, Holborn.

I've just finished Act 1 Scene 1. I'm also enjoying the poetry of the songs. How I wish we could hear the music that went with them!

I've got a couple questions, hopefully someone will know the answer.

When Jean said that In English a cabbage is derogatory, I thought back to Flam's aside where he says "the Cabbage Rose!". At the time I thought that was an odd way to describe a beautiful girl, but an I right now that he's actually insulting her??

My second question is about Martin Stokes. What is his station in life? I can't quite figure it out. He's obsequious with the Squire, but he seems to think himself above Maddox. So I'm confused. I thought Maddox and Stokes equals.

Bionic Jean wrote: "John wrote: "I think perhaps an overuse of flowery language?..."

😂 I appreciate your pun here, John! And "mad ox" made me wince too Connie, as good puns always should, of course!

In about half an..."

Jean, I would be interested to hear if anything related to this play is in that house. From one of the background documents I read, our fastidious Mr. Dickens would have had the house cleansed of The Village Coquettes: An Operatic Burletta In Two Acts.

Bridget wrote: "I've just finished Act 1 Scene 1. I'm also enjoying the poetry of the songs. How I wish we could hear the music that went with them!

I've got a couple questions, hopefully someone will know the an..."

My take, Bridget, is as your’s, roughly equals. Sometimes with just dialogue, we can discern certain things, but you know, I don’t think it is easy in a play that moves along as quickly as this one. And only two acts, which tells me there may be things we’ll never discern.

Bridget, I read it twice when I hit the words "Cabbage Rose" too. Cabbage Roses are big, beautiful, full roses, and the young woman's name is Rose. Maybe he's commenting on her figure, but he's cloaking it in flowery language. But I've never heard anyone called a Cabbage Rose either.

Jean's certainly correct about the slang English meaning of cabbage which is "a dull, stupid, or spiritless person; a person who cannot live independently, a vegetable". It's interesting that in French, "ma petite chou," literally my little cabbage, means my little sweetheart and is a term of endearment.

Martin Stokes is a small farmer, but I don't know his social status. His parts were written into the play a little later with the house actor J.P. Harley in mind. John Braham, the manager of St James's Theatre, wanted John Pritt Harley included in the play since he was talented as a comic and a singer. (Harley was the actor who also played The Strange Gentleman.)

John wrote: "From one of the background documents I read, our fastidious Mr. Dickens would have had the house cleansed of The Village Coquettes: An Operatic Burletta In Two Acts..."

He did seem to become ashamed of it didn't he, as you told us earlier, John. But perhaps that was a few years later, do you think, when he had written works he considered more valuable? I'm just glad he didn't destroy it, as some authors do!

As for my promise, it has got pushed on a bit I'm afraid, as barred doors met us - Aargh! Apparently the "extended opening days over Easter" stopped before Easter Tuesday!🙄Ah well, we went to the Foundling museum instead, where Tattycoram was raised. (Little Dorrit) Sorry!

Bionic Jean wrote: "John wrote: "From one of the background documents I read, our fastidious Mr. Dickens would have had the house cleansed of The Village Coquettes: An Operatic Burletta In Two Acts..."

He did seem to..."

Jean, yes, the question was posed late in his life, so it is understandable how he felt about an early work in a form he did not pursue.

If anyone would like to listen to an audio version of this (alas without the music as that has been lost) there is a YouTube reading here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NukOJ...

Bionic Jean wrote: "If anyone would like to listen to an audio version of this (alas without the music as that has been lost) there is a YouTube reading here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NukOJ..."

One thing I struggle with is that the dialogue can be fast and furious, and you have to pay attention to who is saying what. Attending a production would allow me to see the characters speaking and thus have a better idea of their interactions with each other. This can be an issue with any play, but it struck me more apparent here.

I agree John!

In my case l'm afraid I could not get very far as the accent put me off. I'm better on the page, but some prefer audio.

I'm surprised no amateur groups have put it on (to my knowledge) as it is light and funny, and in terms of human nature not particularly dated. New music could be written and the songs could be edited - or overdone for comic effect.

Jean, the Dickens Fellowship in Christchurch, NZ did a very amateur production in one of their meetings just for fun. Their Nov 2017 newsletter describes it. I can't provide a direct link to the newsletter, but you can google it and it opens in a document. There are many spoilers so you might want to wait until next week to read most of it, especially Forster's review.

I just came upon the newsletter by chance when I was researching "The Strange Gentleman."

Pages 13-23 A Report of their Nov meeting contains a synopsis of the play, and how they put the play on.
Pages 33-34 Introduction and history of the play
Pages 35-40 John Forster's review of the play

In 2016? What a great idea, thanks Connie.

By the way, I had to get ahead (partly to make sure it was OK for the group, and also so I can slot it in!) so I'm OK with spoilers, but others will appreciate the warning I'm sure 😊

The newletter is from Nov 2017, issue 117.

Although I have not read Ben Jonson deeply, it does strike me that he was an influence for Dickens with this play. I usually look for influences with any work and the only one who comes to my mind is Ben Jonson.

Thanks Connie.

I finished Scene Two of Act One. It ended with a little violence and a duet, which seems funny to write, in a way. The story is a bit of a jumble frankly, but if I look at it through the lens of someone sitting in an audience, it probably works well enough.

Two comments so far: I think the dialogue is fairly good and energetic. And the songs, read by me much as I read poems, are reasonably competent. I had expected worse, for sure.

I would actually prefer to read a play like this one with just the dialogue. I understand that the songs help to further the story, or to explain it, but the dialogue is fairly good at doing that.

I plant to finish Scene Three either today or tomorrow and will comment then. Onward to Act Two for next week.

I have finished Act One but will save my thoughts till next week on the full act. I was surprised by the quality of the lyrics to the first song. The combination recitative/aria of songs later in the text have some good bits but I am not a fan of this form. I wish we had music. The Librivox recording has the cast attempting to sing those parts meant to be sung with results you can imagine, given our present day perspective, but credit to them for trying. Thanks John for leading this.

I also completed Act One. The third scene basically has the notification and outrage of Old Man Benson regarding his daughter Lucy and Squire.

I find some difficulty at times with the back and forth and the outbursts. I think this is probably due to the fact that a play written like this one is best understood as performed and not read. It reminds me of trying to read a modern movie script. The mind does not always translate a script from page to scene easily. Perhaps others feel differently?

I think the plot basically is one of rumor and gossip. If it is read as a study in such things, it seems to work. Though what seems outrage — as described — for modern readers look to be funny and minuscule.

I can’t help but think that a newly-wedded Dickens, surrounded by a new family of sisters-in-laws and a father-in-law, must have found material for this play.

John wrote: "I find some difficulty at times with the back and forth and the outbursts. I think this is probably due to the fact that a play written like this one is best understood as performed and not read. It reminds me of trying to read a modern movie script. The mind does not always translate a script from page to scene easily."

I agree with you. I am having a very difficult time following along because it's written as a script. I am not fans of reading plays to begin with. I even had trouble reading "The Crucible" by Author Miller; because how the dialogue is written, it's jarring. It just stops, and then a name and what somewhat says, then all over again. I much prefer (and maybe spoiled?) by the flow of a conversation in a novel; it moves a lot more naturally.

I'm also having the hardest time keeping up with who is related to whom, because in my edition it just list names and not the relations they have. It says, "Rose (her cousin)". Who's cousin? Didn't even know Lucy was related to Old Beson until later in Act 1. I am trying, it is just taking me a while to make any sense out of this.

Laura wrote: "John wrote: "I find some difficulty at times with the back and forth and the outbursts. I think this is probably due to the fact that a play written like this one is best understood as performed an..."

I agree, Laura, about the challenges. I feel, as a reader, I have been dropped into the middle of something under way, and thus I have no connection to the characters. What are their motivations and attachments? Everyone seems one dimensional.

I don’t know if I will see any change in Act 2, but onward it is.

I finished the play which has themes of class differences and honor. It's difficult to evaluate this work without the music. A short, pleasant play like this is often a vehicle for showcasing the music and singing. It's a two-act play lasting about 1 1/2 hours with the music taking up a large part of the run time. So we cannot expect the complex plots and characters of Dickens' novels in a short play. The plot has moments of sentimental sweetness and humor, but it really needs good music to be memorable.

I read that John Forster thought that the musicians for this play at St James's Theatre were not well trained. Other sources gave better reviews, writing that John Hullah's music was good and experienced singers were hired.

Contains spoilers
https://www.englishromanticopera.org/...

Thanks Connie. This is very helpful and also excellent information. I am about half way through the Act 2. I will likely finish in a day or two.

I agree about the music aspect. I was trying to read the dialogue of this play only, at least in Act 2. I found the lyrics mostly okay, but I wanted to stay focused on the dialogue.

A question I have — how much of the play is actually outside as opposed to indoors? It has a feel, to me, of something entirely outdoors, even though I know that is not the case. I would have found pictures of the sets from more recent productions to be helpful to me, but have not seen any.

I've finished the play, and IMO Dickens wasn't at his best writing this. I really did not care for it. I do not care for reading any play or script because I find the dialogue so jarring so I already had a prejudice against this. Most likely affected my attitude while reading it. I agree with the other comments that music would have made it a lot better.

For me, it didn't even pick up until the last scene in Act 1. Act 2 was a lot better than Act 1, but it wasn't great. It took at least 60% of the play before I even started caring about the characters. Guess it's my mood that's clouded my judgement of this story/play.

I do wonder if this was written as a novella where we could understand the relationships among all the characters, and have the dialogue flow naturally, then the execution of this story would have been so much better, and enjoyable.

The lack of background and relations among one another, kept me confused for most of the play. Feel bad about saying this because I like Dickens' novels, just not his plays so much.

I found a free recording of the play on Audible which made it easier to appreciate. They didn't sing the songs but they read out the lyrics. Some of the voice actors weren't great but really enjoyed the lady that played Flam. Overall though, I didn't enjoy it that much

Laura wrote: "I've finished the play, and IMO Dickens wasn't at his best writing this. I really did not care for it. I do not care for reading any play or script because I find the dialogue so jarring so I alrea..."

Thank you, Laura, for your comments. I have struggled with this play for some of the same reasons. We do seem to have voices just dropped in on us as readers. Although this could be considered a challenge for any reading of a play, it felt to me much more apparent in this one. There was very little to go on and the two coquettes felt invisible to me, mostly.

Laura Cort wrote: "I found a free recording of the play on Audible which made it easier to appreciate. They didn't sing the songs but they read out the lyrics. Some of the voice actors weren't great but really enjoye..."

Thanks for this. I have not listened to a play in a long time. I would probably enjoy a listen to something like MacBeth, but would stick to Mr. Dickens’ novels for a listen.

I came across another new word for me in this play (in Act 2): ostler.

This is a person who takes care of the horses of the guests at an inn, according to the standard definition.

My thoughts echo the rest. I gave the work two stars and find its worth is only for scholars and devotees of Dickens or the period. What I am most curious about is the reasons Dickens had for disowning it. That he went as far as to take his name off it makes me wonder how much of the libretto was his. Perhaps others involved made changes or rewrote it.

Sam, that is an excellent point. Dickens was such a fastidious person that I could see a collaboration bothering him years later. Frankly, I wondered if someone else wrote the lyrics. I don’t think history affords us many great novelists who were reasonably competent or even interested in poetic forms. The only novelist of eminence I know who is great in both forms is Margaret Atwood.

This play is a difficult work because it needs investment in a character for the reader or theatre goer. Speaking for myself, no character in it was of much interest, and therefore an attachment to the story was wanting.

Sam wrote: "My thoughts echo the rest. I gave the work two stars and find its worth is only for scholars and devotees of Dickens or the period. What I am most curious about is the reasons Dickens had for disow..."

I mostly feel the same way Sam. I can see why it's more enjoyable if you don't come at this as authored by a great novelist, but as an example of a well crafted and satisfying farce from the time.

We do have to remember what John told us, that it was published in 1836. Charles Dickens was a presence on the London stage, but this play was anonymous, and he was invisible as an author; known only as "Boz".

The only other work which he had written which could be loosely called a novel is The Pickwick Papers (by "Boz"). Everything else was in his future, and he didn't even know yet that he would become a novelist! So it's not appropriate to compare it with those. The humour is in keeping with The Pickwick Papers, and I think a lot of the pleasure came in watching the performances - especially since the cast were often initially friends and family, and known to the audience.

Since we established that it was probably much later in his life that Charles Dickens "disowned" it, I suspect that it was when he was trying to establish himself as a literary author (i.e. around the middle period with his substantial novels such as Bleak House). We tend to forget that along with being loved by the people, and treated as a celebrity, the other side of this was some critics thinking he was too much of a dandy and not a serious "literary" writer.

So the fact that he had written something which is light and amusing, might well have been embarrassing for the respectable, later "Inimitable" writer!