UPDATE: two people at least from the US can’t make it tomorrow because of Mother’s Day. I suggest we postpone to the same time next week. This also allows anyone who wants it some extra reading time!
I’m opening the discussion thread today ahead of the book club tomorrow evening about David Copperfield (19.00 UK time). Let us know what you thought of the book and any questions or observations you have! I plan to talk about the novel as Dickens’ fictionalised autobiography and the meaning of the word “hero” in the opening line, referring to Thomas Carlyle.
In Chapter 1, Miss Betsey storms out of the house after she finds out that the baby is a boy. (I just love when she hits the doctor.) What reasons does the narrator give for her leaving like that? It seems drastic and she doesn't come back into the story for a long time. Earlier, Miss Betsey says that she intends on helping her goddaughter, Betsey Trotwood Copperfield, to avoid making the mistakes that she made as a younger woman. Perhaps that is enough of a reason? Miss Betsey realizes that she won't be able to fulfill her promise to guide a young lady through to adulthood.
She's angry there was no girl. She hates men because of her dark secret and she wanted to be godmother to the imaginary sister. She's a comic and kind-hearted forerunner to Miss Havisham.
I see, so the hating men is enough to smack the doctor with a bonnet and storm out. I wonder: Does it have anything to do with class? That Miss Betsey feels she is above David's mom, and that David's dad married beneath himself.
Yes she didn't like the mother but it was a joke about the girl and a way of introducing her for effect (think of that opening in Tom Sawyer to see its generic element) and then holding her in reserve for the marvellous Dover road epsiode.
if David Copperfield is Dickens in some important sense--if the story is autobiographical--can we infer that Dickens thought pretty highly of himself? ha! I guess that isn't a stretch for an artist think highly of himself.
early in the book I would say yes. But as the book progresses Dickens is showing Copperfield in some ways in a less perfect light. Even as Copperfield is becoming famous as an author he is bumbling about in the dark...his love for Agnes, his confusion about what the other characters in his life mean to him, his child-wife's hold over him, and how he slowly re-asses Steerforth.
Well the early part is very autobiographical like the glass bottle factory. The later part is more imagined. So yes they are broth authors but Copperfield is way less successful. Dickens was the single biggest seller of nineteenth century, including his first novel, perhaps his biggest success. Dora is based on an ex girlfriend and Agnes is possibly a sort of wish fulfilment because of his own failing marriage, but she has an important moral role in the story too. And of course the whole point of this genre is to show the growth of the individual through trials and learnings.
this book is pregnant with morality. it feels like it dropped out of some hidden pocket of the bible.
some of it is preached right at us but some of this "teaching" is understated. one lesson seems to be something like "the heart requires discipline, development, training". More understated is the way that Copperfield doesn't see himself, his actions, especially concerning Dora, as mistaken like the people around him and the readers do. The lesson is something like: it is hard to know yourself, maybe even impossible.
When Copperfield is young he seems to be angelic and beset with horrible circumstance after horrible circumstance. As he gets older, his adult mistakes start to look more glaring to us. His Aunt then reveals that her husband hounds her for money. Even Betsey once possessed an undisciplined heart! She is such a rock but even she needed to pass through some big time mistakes in her early life.
Absolutely! It’s a Bildungsroman and that’s some thing dickens comes back to with a vengeance in Great Expectations. I’d add to what it said that this is the great novel of the Victorian self made man.
on the self made man, Copperfield observes about Traddles..."I felt I was in England again, and really was quite cast down on Traddle's account. There seemed to be no hope for him. I meekly ordered a bit of fish and a steak, and stood before the fire musing on his obscurity."
Chapter 9. Rarely does my heart skip a beat like it did when DC was sitting with Mr Omer and his brood while his mom's coffin was being made across the yard. Young David had just found out that his little brother was dead too. Both of these awful realizations arrive and he--ever observant--notes:
"The work being now finished, the two girls, whose names I had not heard, brushed the shreds and threads from their dresses, and went into the shop to put that to rights, and wait for customers."
It's that 'shreds and threads' part that got me. The image of their brushing them off as they stand up from work. The Common Reader post (Creative Non-fiction's moral mistake) about Samuel Johnson's imperative applies to this moment in the story. "Reformation is necessary and despair is criminal." This is an absolute low point for young David. Yet Dickens is not despairing. He is gentle and intelligent even as the grief pours off the page.
haha whoops. Not sure if Dickens was a Ruskinite, doubt it, but Copperfield is definitely Wordsworth inspired. Dickens is part of a generation of Carlyle devotees who were moving beyond Romanticism----hence the manner of Steerforth's death, very Shelley
I just noticed the connection between the first line of the book and a moment just a few pages later when David's mother faints and is revived either by Miss Betsey or on her own.
The book opens with the narrator wondering whether or not he will be the hero in his own story. Then, when Clara faints, the narrator says, "When she came to herself, or when Miss Betsey had restored her, whichever it was, she found the latter standing at the window."
This connects mother and son in a light but profound way. And perhaps does a nice job of placing Miss Betsey in a protective position concerning future David.
I just read a summary of the novel (I have another 100 pages or so to go). I don't think I picked up on the fact that Uriah Heep was responsible for Miss Betsey's financial woes. It is difficult for me to keep track of the details involved in Uriah's evil spell over Wickfield. But still captivating, i would say. My only complaint is that like a classic villain, Uriah explains his Evil Plot to David. I might have liked it better without that. But then again we would be deprived of many of Uriah's eccentricities.
Often it would be read aloud. The instalment would be read by a member of the family. That makes it easier to keep track of those details, I think, which are more submerged in the sort of reading that we do. It’s fun to read aloud especially if you can be dramatic about it!
"When my thoughts go back, now, to that slow agony of my youth, I wonder how much of the histories I invented for such people hangs like a mist of fancy over well-remembered facts!"
I vote yes to that! But I don't want to set the club behind if I am the minority. I still have some more to go with book too so the extra time would be nice.
I had a hard time with the character of Dora. She was infuriatingly imbecile, and yet I wonder if she is intended to be the epitome of alluring girlish charm? Or, is she just annoying? The foolish or self-destructive behaviour of other characters fitted into the story, but Dora stuck out like a cartoonish character.
I agree, she’s bloody irritating. Partly Dickens was criticising rich girls who were not brought up to be useful. Partly he often writes daft submissive women, as in Martin Chuzzlewit, the last but one novel before this. Partly he was writing about an old flame he never got over. Her death is deeply unconvincing also.
Agreed about Dora. She is infuriating, annoying. But this observation opens the possibility for a paradox with Dickens. All his characters are cartoonish. Even DC! It seems to be in the Dickens DNA. So, I don't defend Dickens but perhaps I would like to defend his method. There is a power to it. Almost every page has something remarkable on it despite the cartoonish aspect.
Two people at least can’t join tomorrow because of Mother’s Day in the US so I propose we postpone until the same time next week!
In Chapter 1, Miss Betsey storms out of the house after she finds out that the baby is a boy. (I just love when she hits the doctor.) What reasons does the narrator give for her leaving like that? It seems drastic and she doesn't come back into the story for a long time. Earlier, Miss Betsey says that she intends on helping her goddaughter, Betsey Trotwood Copperfield, to avoid making the mistakes that she made as a younger woman. Perhaps that is enough of a reason? Miss Betsey realizes that she won't be able to fulfill her promise to guide a young lady through to adulthood.
She's angry there was no girl. She hates men because of her dark secret and she wanted to be godmother to the imaginary sister. She's a comic and kind-hearted forerunner to Miss Havisham.
I see, so the hating men is enough to smack the doctor with a bonnet and storm out. I wonder: Does it have anything to do with class? That Miss Betsey feels she is above David's mom, and that David's dad married beneath himself.
Yes she didn't like the mother but it was a joke about the girl and a way of introducing her for effect (think of that opening in Tom Sawyer to see its generic element) and then holding her in reserve for the marvellous Dover road epsiode.
if David Copperfield is Dickens in some important sense--if the story is autobiographical--can we infer that Dickens thought pretty highly of himself? ha! I guess that isn't a stretch for an artist think highly of himself.
early in the book I would say yes. But as the book progresses Dickens is showing Copperfield in some ways in a less perfect light. Even as Copperfield is becoming famous as an author he is bumbling about in the dark...his love for Agnes, his confusion about what the other characters in his life mean to him, his child-wife's hold over him, and how he slowly re-asses Steerforth.
Well the early part is very autobiographical like the glass bottle factory. The later part is more imagined. So yes they are broth authors but Copperfield is way less successful. Dickens was the single biggest seller of nineteenth century, including his first novel, perhaps his biggest success. Dora is based on an ex girlfriend and Agnes is possibly a sort of wish fulfilment because of his own failing marriage, but she has an important moral role in the story too. And of course the whole point of this genre is to show the growth of the individual through trials and learnings.
this book is pregnant with morality. it feels like it dropped out of some hidden pocket of the bible.
some of it is preached right at us but some of this "teaching" is understated. one lesson seems to be something like "the heart requires discipline, development, training". More understated is the way that Copperfield doesn't see himself, his actions, especially concerning Dora, as mistaken like the people around him and the readers do. The lesson is something like: it is hard to know yourself, maybe even impossible.
When Copperfield is young he seems to be angelic and beset with horrible circumstance after horrible circumstance. As he gets older, his adult mistakes start to look more glaring to us. His Aunt then reveals that her husband hounds her for money. Even Betsey once possessed an undisciplined heart! She is such a rock but even she needed to pass through some big time mistakes in her early life.
Absolutely! It’s a Bildungsroman and that’s some thing dickens comes back to with a vengeance in Great Expectations. I’d add to what it said that this is the great novel of the Victorian self made man.
on the self made man, Copperfield observes about Traddles..."I felt I was in England again, and really was quite cast down on Traddle's account. There seemed to be no hope for him. I meekly ordered a bit of fish and a steak, and stood before the fire musing on his obscurity."
Yes! Traddles is the shadow of David like Steerforth. In their middle, David makes a sort of golden mean.
Chapter 9. Rarely does my heart skip a beat like it did when DC was sitting with Mr Omer and his brood while his mom's coffin was being made across the yard. Young David had just found out that his little brother was dead too. Both of these awful realizations arrive and he--ever observant--notes:
"The work being now finished, the two girls, whose names I had not heard, brushed the shreds and threads from their dresses, and went into the shop to put that to rights, and wait for customers."
It's that 'shreds and threads' part that got me. The image of their brushing them off as they stand up from work. The Common Reader post (Creative Non-fiction's moral mistake) about Samuel Johnson's imperative applies to this moment in the story. "Reformation is necessary and despair is criminal." This is an absolute low point for young David. Yet Dickens is not despairing. He is gentle and intelligent even as the grief pours off the page.
Great stuff. It’s lovely social comedy too--life goes on, in the usual idiom, “put that to rights”.
Chapter LVIII..."I sought out Nature, never sought in vain..."
Wordsworth. But is it not also Ruskin's injunction coming back to haunt us again?
Remind us?
haha! you mentioned it when we were discussing The Windhover.
To observe nature closely.
haha whoops. Not sure if Dickens was a Ruskinite, doubt it, but Copperfield is definitely Wordsworth inspired. Dickens is part of a generation of Carlyle devotees who were moving beyond Romanticism----hence the manner of Steerforth's death, very Shelley
I just noticed the connection between the first line of the book and a moment just a few pages later when David's mother faints and is revived either by Miss Betsey or on her own.
The book opens with the narrator wondering whether or not he will be the hero in his own story. Then, when Clara faints, the narrator says, "When she came to herself, or when Miss Betsey had restored her, whichever it was, she found the latter standing at the window."
This connects mother and son in a light but profound way. And perhaps does a nice job of placing Miss Betsey in a protective position concerning future David.
Nice!
I just read a summary of the novel (I have another 100 pages or so to go). I don't think I picked up on the fact that Uriah Heep was responsible for Miss Betsey's financial woes. It is difficult for me to keep track of the details involved in Uriah's evil spell over Wickfield. But still captivating, i would say. My only complaint is that like a classic villain, Uriah explains his Evil Plot to David. I might have liked it better without that. But then again we would be deprived of many of Uriah's eccentricities.
Often it would be read aloud. The instalment would be read by a member of the family. That makes it easier to keep track of those details, I think, which are more submerged in the sort of reading that we do. It’s fun to read aloud especially if you can be dramatic about it!
I read the first chapter out loud to my kids last night. They fell asleep pretty quickly. But it was fun!
The dream! I read the boy some Christmas Carol (bit with the chains etc)---he nearly fell off the chair!
nice. how old is he?
5. They have a book of dickens for kids but I thought some of the real deal was in order!
"When my thoughts go back, now, to that slow agony of my youth, I wonder how much of the histories I invented for such people hangs like a mist of fancy over well-remembered facts!"
Key quote!
I can't make it tomorrow, it's Mother's Day.
Barkis is willin', in other words. But my own dear Peggotty takes precedence.
I will miss seeing you all!
Agh I hadn’t realised. Someone else has this problem too. Perhaps we should postpone?
I vote yes to that! But I don't want to set the club behind if I am the minority. I still have some more to go with book too so the extra time would be nice.
I had a hard time with the character of Dora. She was infuriatingly imbecile, and yet I wonder if she is intended to be the epitome of alluring girlish charm? Or, is she just annoying? The foolish or self-destructive behaviour of other characters fitted into the story, but Dora stuck out like a cartoonish character.
I agree, she’s bloody irritating. Partly Dickens was criticising rich girls who were not brought up to be useful. Partly he often writes daft submissive women, as in Martin Chuzzlewit, the last but one novel before this. Partly he was writing about an old flame he never got over. Her death is deeply unconvincing also.
Agreed about Dora. She is infuriating, annoying. But this observation opens the possibility for a paradox with Dickens. All his characters are cartoonish. Even DC! It seems to be in the Dickens DNA. So, I don't defend Dickens but perhaps I would like to defend his method. There is a power to it. Almost every page has something remarkable on it despite the cartoonish aspect.
He definitely writes cartoonish but Dora is just too far!