I loved all of Dickens, so, there's no question that I don't like this book, only it took me the longest to warm up to. Actually, it was the only one that NEEDED "warming up to", all the rest I practically inhaled.

"The Pickwick papers". Maybe I missed "the" love story (I read him most at age 11-15), maybe it took some maturing of humour to enjoy the silly old gents, but that's the one that took some time to appreciate.

I am still trying to come to terms with The Pickwick Papers. My university supervisor was always trying to convince me it was the greatest thing Dickens ever wrote. I think it was the only thing we disagreed about.

Message edited by its author, Mar 27, 2007, 3:28am.

It's... different from most his other books, is it not? I seem to remember it was his first one, or the first serial--anyway, somehow it seems like the "one of these things is not like the rest" item.

It was his first novel, yes, but not his first published book, which was the sketches by boz.
W.H. Auden, one of the best critics of Dickens I know, says it's a mistake to give Pickwick to kids. His argument, very roughly summmarized, is that Dickens is an especially Edenic writer (he looks back to a vanished golden age) and that children are essentially Edenic beings. Pickwick is an Edenic character, so it takes an adult sensibility to appreciate him. Auden was disappointed by Pickwick when he read him as a child, but loved him as an adult.
I also was disappointed with Pickwick when I read him at about 12, but loved it when I read it years later in my late twenties. Seems like many of us have the same experience of Pickwick.

I don't like Pickwick (too picaresque) and I really dislike The Old Curiosity Shop. Apart from that, Nicholas Nickleby doesn't thrill me and I'm a bit 'meh' for A Tale of two Cities. But taken as a totality, Dickens is probably my favourite English writer from the entire 19th century.

My least favourite was A Tale of Two Cities (unabridged) purely because we were forced to read it at school. I was in first year high school (aged 12) and it was the first book we did in English and the teacher was the grumpy headmistress ;P I didn't understand most of it and hid at the back of the class hoping the teacher wouldn't asked me about the book, lol :D

I may have to cast another vote for Pickwick, though it’s been quite a while since I have read it, so I would like to give it another chance, someday.

It seems that the common thread most everyone in the world shares is a dislike for some book because they had to read it in school. Although, every now and than it works out: I protested with much verve when I was forced to read Great Expectations in school; and I was a bit ashamed to admit, after all of my protesting, that I really liked it.

And digifish_books, regardless of the subject, I was usually in the back hoping the teacher wouldn’t call on me. ;-)

With Pickwick, I picked it up and abandoned several times during my first Dickens all-read season--I started reading Dickens quite young, 11 or so--I believe I saw the movie "Oliver Twist" even earlier... And god knows how many versions of The Christmas Carol we knew... While there was still other Dickens to read, I'd only try Pickwick here and there between other books, then I finally read it--I must have been past twenty... and to my surprise it went down as easily as the rest!

The only Dickens covered in school--elementary, no Dickens in high school--was "Oliver Twist" and "David Copperfield".

I'm one of those people who don't "get" being turned away from literature by school, because I've always read maniacally, far beyond and above the call of duty. Oh, there was plenty of stuff I didn't like (I remember choking down "For whom the bell tolls" with disgust), but somehow even the "not liking" or pure hate was interesting, made me think about the whys and wherefores...

#9-This isn't a Dickens question, but why did you have to choke down For Whom the Bell Tolls? When I was living in Puerto Rico in the early 50's, I read it in Spanish. It sounded a lot better in Spanish than in English, and the distance from the Spanish Civil War was not that great. The defense of the Spanish Republic seemed heroic to me at the time.

Hemingway makes me laugh. AT him, not with him. :)

In the plus column, let it be noted that I liked the Nick Adams stories (if that's the character in "Across the river..."), and "Old man and the sea". Furthermore, no doubt that his heart was in the right place concerning Spain (even Cuba!)

But he tells me nothing worthwhile, I disagree with many of his attitudes, and I strongly dislike his style. Truth be told, I haven't touched him in twenty years, but I fear he can appear only more, not less ridiculous.

I should add that when it comes to Spain, my introduction to the subject of Franco and the civil war were memoirs and other writings of some of the Yugoslav and French antifascists who fought in the International Brigades, so the context in which I read Hemingway was different from that of an American. Now I wonder what Spaniards think of him--it never occurred to me to ask.

It's interesting what you say about Hemingway sounding better in Spanish. I can just about see it--his stodgy gruffness blending with Spanish humorlessness and formality. Besides, he was drawn to that culture--if I knew more about him I'd speculate if first came affinity or influence...

Sorry if this is too long (a un-Dickensian digression for sure!)--you started me thinking...

#11-Who were the yugoslav and french anti-fascists that you read to learn about the civil war? I read the novel the cypresses believe in god by gironella and a history of the war. I don't remember the author (my books are in ny and I'm not).

Message edited by its author, Mar 30, 2007, 1:22am.

#11-It was Hugh Thomas's book The Spanish Civil War .

Message edited by its author, Mar 30, 2007, 1:23am.

Oh, dear, it was so long ago I'd really have to dig to recall precisely--it wasn't "directed" reading, more or less random exploration of my parents' and grandparents' libraries--but, Malraux and Koca Popovic for certain.

No touchstone for the latter... And I'm not sure I'm allowed to enter my parents' books as mine... :)

There were several others, but I'd have to look for the actual books to retrieve info.

I think Hemingway was a silly old fraud. You can read more about what I think about him on my blog, Spurious Quotation #4. I'm always deeply suspicious of writers who have an obsession with guns, and of men who need the feel of a gun in their hand to be confident in their masculinity.....

Getting back to Dickens, however, I think my least favourite is Hard Times, as this is his most didactic work. Dickens had a tendency to didacticism, and when he indulges himself in it, his writing deteriorates, IMO. Hard Times was written with uncharacteristic economy and with a specific purpose in mind: D wanted to makes sustained and thought- through attack on Utilitarianism, which he despised. However, I find that the prose lacks the verve and energy of his other books, the wild humour is missing, the darkness is missing, there are no sick passions, LolaWalser!!. It's a little too allegorical.

So, digifishbooks, have you reread ATOTC since your school days? Or has it put you off it for life?

Message edited by its author, Mar 30, 2007, 10:06pm.

Definitely The Old Curiosity Shop. I did finish it but it was a real struggle. Neither the characters nor the settings had any appeal for me at all. If there was a plot beyond Quilp chasing Nell (but why?) I missed it.

>17 As much as I'm a reformed Dickens fan, I don't think I'll even attempt The Old Curiosity Shop it sounds too creepy & depressing!

>15 tomcatMurr ~ huge apologies for my six-month delay in responding to your question....! No, I've never tried to re-read ATOTC, maybe one day I'll give it another chance.... I seem to be too busy working through the ones I've never read such as Our Mutual Friend and Bleak House. I recently bought Hard Times, Little Dorrit and Oliver Twist. Not sure which to go with next....

Hard Times disappointed.

By Dickens' standards it is practically a short story. Only a bout a dozen characters and a very simple single plot. Part of it centred on an attempted seduction - and Dickens just could not do sexuality. The characters are one dimensional which is not uncommon in Dickens but normally he invests enough brio to hide it. 'Bitzer' is just 'Uriah Heep' in another guise, but too pale even to repel like Uriah.

Of course there are compensations. Dickens was incapable of writing anything totally bad. But the best bit is in the first few pages - Gradgrind's 'teach these children nothing but facts' monologue. A real comic tour-de-force. From there I thought it was downhill.

Message edited by its author, Jan 24, 2008, 2:10am.

Hard Times is my least favourite, for the reasons cited in #15. Unfortunately, it was also the first Dickens I read, and it put me off his books for several years

I have to agree with what others here have said about Hard Times being a disappointment. Its definitely not up to the usual standards we've come to expect from Dickens! And the only likeable character is Sissy Jupe.

I don't know, maybe I'm not a discriminating enough reader or something, but I rather enjoyed the simplicity of Hard Times.

My least favorite Dickens must be The Old Curiosity Shop. I thought Little Nell, Ragged Dick, and the Little Match Girl were all essentially the same story, except in the case of the female protagonists it didn't work out so well in the end, but they all three had no end of pluck. Pluck is just an alternative spelling for sappy in my book. Sappy, sappy, sappy.

Barnaby Rudge without a doubt, I've tried a dozen times and only managed to get through it once.

The Old Curiosity Shop is worth reading for Dick Swiveller alone, not to mention Jarley's Waxworks and the Punch and Judy men. I agree Little Nell is rather irritating but you don't have to spend much time on her.

Am surprised that some earlier posts picked on Pickwick. Surely it has its moments, Sam Weller among them. It was Nicholas Nickleby that damaged me. Worse than the earnestness were the jokes. You could kick it across the room but this brick would hurt your toe.

Well, I'll have to put in the two I can't seem to finish: Pickwick Papers and Hard Times. The latter book lives up to its name!

The Auntie and I are of one mind about Barnaby Rudge. I've read him only once. Having recently read somebody else praise *BR* to the skies, I expect I'll get back to him sometime in the next five years or so --------
(And Old Curiosity Shop was my first Dickens, so it holds a special place in my heart. ("Codlin's the friend; not Short.")

A Tale of Two Cities. Despite that opening line. It just didn't didn't seem as real, as closely observed or as clever as the other works I've read.

Message edited by its author, May 27, 2009, 2:11pm.

Re #25: "Hard Times. The latter book lives up to its name!"

Oh, but it's so short, and it has real beauty in parts. I love the character of Stephen Blackpool, and the style of the denouement is unforgettable.

Barnaby Rudge. Every time I picked it up it felt like a chore. Although I guess I didn't read it in the best of circumstances - I'd just finished Les Miserables, which was one of the best books I'd ever read and kept me so riveted I couldn't put it down, and prior to that I'd read Dombey and Son, which I really think is Dickens's best work. So coming off two masterpieces and onto Barnaby Rudge was just... difficult.

When it comes to Hard Times stick to the facts, forego the emotion and stick to the facts.

#30 Hahaha love it.

Sometimes it can be hard to judge facts, though, no? From my perspective, the fact is that Hard Times is a horrible, boring book.

I don't expect everyone to agree, however!

I've just got back from holiday and took Barnaby Rudge with me to give it another go. It wasn't *quite* as bad as I remembered, I finished it quite easily, but it gave little of the satisfaction that I get from other Dickens.

I wonder if that was down to the fact that the two characters who are most meant to hold one's interest - Barnaby and Dolly Varden - just don't work for modern readers. Reading around it appears that Dickens' main interest in the book was the civil unrest but without decent characters, the description isn't enough to hold the interest. At least it wasn't for me.

Any Barnaby fans here?

the two characters who are most meant to hold one's interest - Barnaby and Dolly Varden - just don't work for modern readers.

I haven't read Barnaby Rudge yet, so I'm curious as to what prompted that feeling toward this particular Dicken's novel. If you think your response would be a spoiler for some people, please feel free to reply in a comment on my profile.

(I'm happy to see that some people defend Hard Times. I also find a lot to praise in it - and won't so everybody can relax.)

LizzieD, I'm anxious to hear your defence of Hard Times. It's not my favourite at all, but I know it is very popular. I'd hate to think I was missing out on anything by Dickens.

Auntie, (if I might be so bold to call you so), I'm a big fan of Barnaby Rudge And I agree with your remark about the weakness of Barnaby and Dolly as central characters. BR is a comparatively early work of Dickens, and I think the central characters are rather weakened by the wider focus of the novel. (It's in many ways the least claustrophobic of Dicken's novels - after Pickwick of course) These two characters do represent the eternal Dickens tropes of the handicapped person and the socially helpless yet endowed-with-great-inner-strength young woman.

What I like especially about the book, are the peripheral scenes in the Maypole Inn, the apprentices, the Varden family, especially Mrs Varden, and Miss Miggs (lol one of my all time favourite Dickens characters), and of course the descriptions of the riots.

I don't think it's much of a spoiler - Barnaby is one of those literary mad people, all high-falutin' language and unconvincing motivation and no real evidence of being doolally tap. His motivation for joining the riots is paper thin, so is his eventual fate. Dolly is one of Dickens' perennial child-women, all coy flirtatiousness, a sort of proto-Dora. Maybe it's my inner adult-woman but I find her deeply irritating in a way that Dora isn't.

I agree that Miggs and Mrs Varden are fun, and so is Sim but they are mere raisins in a stodgy bun. Father Willet is merely annoying and what the hell Hugh is supposed to be, I do not know.

I'll admit it wasn't as bad as I remembered it, but not a patch on other early novels like Pickwick or even Nicholas Nickleby for which I have an irrational fondness probably born of seeing the Royal Shakespeare Company doing it live. Where is the equivalent of "The Bloody Drinker's Burial" or Miss Squeers' letter or Mr and Mrs Mantalini? Mad things included sheerly because they are fun.

I have a lot of time for Hard Times - "the people mutht be amuthed" and there is a unity to it that Rudge lacks, a sense of forward momentum. Although the characters are Dickens characters and therefore combine artificiality with a weird realism of their own, there have a hard kernel of truth that people like Sir John Chester and Dennis lack. It also has a vivid sense of place I didn't get from Rudge.

YMMV of course.

Message edited by its author, Jul 13, 2009, 2:50pm.

I will vote for any of the popular stories involving empty-headed females or cute kids, such as The Old Curiosity Shop and David Copperfield.

Supposedly, Dickens wanted to call Barnaby Rudge “Gabriel Varden”. The book is far more readable if you do not assume Barnaby is the main character. “John Chester” is a gloriously spiteful caricature of Lord Chesterfield and the description of rioters burning budgies (parakeets) will stay with me forever. Mr Haredale summed up the book for me in his comment to Chester, “Men of your capacity plot in secrecy and safety, and leave exposed posts to the duller wits.” Despite what G K Chesterton said in his critical review, we all know the Chesters of this world.

Hard Times was my least favourite until I boned up on the politicians and philosophers of the time and was able to map the characters to real people and political theories. Then it all made sense and moved way up the ranks.

The original title was "Gabriel Varden: Locksmith of Old London" - not that I think the book is about him either - tho I don't suppose calling it "A lot of barmy people burn things" would have worked.

I agree that the story of the actual riots and the burning of the Maypole are the best bits, they do not IMO make up for the rest. And the father and son dynamics don't really work either.

I like Hard Times and at one time knew who the real life Mr McChoakumchild was - do you remember by any chance since I haven't been able to find out since?

I'm gonna have to point to David Copperfield so far. I've been stalled half way through that for a year now. It just strikes me as a series of scenes with no *story* behind them. I don't need a plot, mind you; I read plenty of things without plot. But I do need something to tie it into a whole, aside from 'little David is the unluckiest person on the planet, only he doesn't necessarily know it'. Shrug.