Bleak House marks my 12th Dickens novel. It's been an interesting and worthwhile journey but I'll not be making a Baker's Dozen of it. I'll just have to live without the pleasures and pains of Chuzzlewit, Rudge, Curious Nell, or Drood.

As so many have claimed before, this one is near the top of the heap. I preferred both A Christmas Carol and A Tale of Two Cities, but Bleak House keeps company with David Copperfield, Nicholas Nickleby, The Pickwick Papers, and Our Mutual Friend as others that were especially satisfying. The only one I threw across the room on occasion was Dombey and Son. (If you find it on the floor, give it a good kick for me please.)

The body count for this one is higher than usual. I think I count nine who succumb before the final page. It would seem that wearing black clothing and/or roaming around aimlessly on foggy nights dramatically increases one's chances of an untimely demise. On a happier note: arranging flowers, doing needlework, or keeping house appear to have a salutary effect.

4.5 stars

if i had a big fancy mansion with a name like rich people do, this would be that name

Why do we still read Dickens in the 21st century? What does he have to offer to our times? Most readers turn to his novels for their brilliant social criticism, the universal humor and comedy that is human existence, and Dickens' reformist temper. When we come to Dickens we expect to learn, have a laugh, and maybe a good cry, too.

Many critics consider Bleak House his best work. I've been recommended this book numerous times ever since I fell in love with Great Expectations and cried over A Tale of Two Cities. Many reviewers and friends whom I trust have given this book a 5 star rating. Let's just say, my expectations were high. Maybe too high. Luckily, Bleak House isn't bleak at all, it's quite cheerful in places and full of hope and light. However, it's probably a good 300 pages too long. I hate to be the one who was to say it but Bleak House has no business being 1,000+ pages long.

I understand that it was published in a serialised format in 20 chapters over the course of one and a half years – and I acknowledge that the length might have worked better that way, but when you read Bleak House over the course of two weeks (like I did, and most modern readers will) it is bound to end up dragging and being quite boring and redundant in places.

Bleak House centres around the long-running case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Dickens’s fictional, but possible, case had begun as a simple dispute between two parties over a will, but has, at the novel's beginning, already pulled in countless defendants and remains unresolved after more than a generation. Dickens focuses on exposing the abuses of early 19th century England#s corrupt and outmoded Court of Chancery. Over the years this court had spawned a thousand useless regulations and procedures requiring so many documents and so many different types of legal personnel for every case, that the Court moved at snail's pace, if at all.

With jurisdiction over civil matters directly influencing people's personal lives, like disputes over wills, trusts, land law, and infant guardianship, Dickens found the Court of Chancery#s corrupt machinery a necessary target for moral outrage, and wrote the novel in part to attack it. Bleak House shows what happens when these systems (government, businesses, families etc.) reach the point of enriching or supporting the people who run them instead of the individual people they are supposed to serve.

Personally, I didn't find the court case at the centre of the book to be all that interesting. What makes Bleak House worthwhile are the variety of people that inhabit the novel. For example, one of the first fictional police detectives, Inspector Bucket. With his charm, his ostensibly humble demeanor, his understanding and sympathy for humanity, his doggedness, and his incisive intelligence, Bucket has been a fan-favorite from the start.

One of the most iconic scenes in the novel, and maybe all of Western literature, is the spontaneous combustion of Mr. Krook. Krook is an illiterate, grasping old man who attempts to profit from buying collections of old legal documents in the hopes he can find something he can sell or blackmail people with. Completely devoid of the milk of human kindness, dry and inhuman, Krook bursts into flame and burns down to a puddle of wax and ash that leaves black smears on the windowsills. Subjected to lots of discussion and outrage when first published, that scene is still being discussed by scholars and literature students up to this day. I just found it hilarious!

Similarly, another infamous literary character stems from Bleak House: Mrs. Jellyby – best known for letting her home fall apart, her husband and her children living unattended in squalor while she devotes all her efforts to raising funds to settle Europeans in African Borrioboola-Gha to civilize the natives. Dickens's humor shines through when it comes to her character. I don't think his intent was to shit on charity work, but rather arguing against neglecting your family while you do it. Written in a Victorian framework in which the women was supposed to be the main caretaker of the house and children, Mrs. Jellyby and her sole focus on her work and her individual purpose can be read as quite subversive from a modern standpoint, even though Dickens doesn't portray her favorably.

Bleak House is narrated by two voices, a third person narrator who speaks in the present tense, in a voice by turns melancholy, sardonic, and prophetic, and Esther Summerson. Esther is a sweet, caring, hardworking, self-effacing young woman. Naturally, I couldn't stand her. She joins the ranks of virginal and innocent Dickensian women that are nothing but male fantasy. Some may find her sticky-sweet, but I find her hypocritical, she often insists that she is humble and untalented, but then insists on being praised by everyone for her kindness and humility. Funnily enough, Nabokov seems to agree that Esther should've never narrated parts of this novel. Woo hoo!

What's brilliant about Bleak House is that it shows how different people react whilst waiting for closure – in their case: a final verdict in a court case that never seems to come.

Some people seethe continually with anger, like Mr. Gridley, the man from Shropshire. His case began 20 years ago as a simple dispute over a few hundred English pounds, with costs now mounted to many times the amount of the original suit. He just stays angry all the time, jumping up every day to petition the court and haunting lawyers' offices.

Some people go mad, like poor little Miss Flite, a woman from a working family who can no longer even remember the cause of her legal dispute. She lives in a garret and attends the court every day with a bag full of worthless documents, always expecting a judgment "very soon."

Many more people put their lives on hold, thinking life will be great and all problems solved when the lawsuit is finally won, like Richard Carstone, John Jarndyce’s ward. A likable young man, Richard was born into the Jarndyce and Jarndyce suit. He thinks he will inherit a lot of money when the case is settled, and therefore has trouble concentrating on taking up any pursuit that will prepare him to look after himself.  A likable young man, Richard was born into the Jarndyce and Jarndyce suit. He thinks he will inherit a lot of money when the case is settled, and therefore has trouble concentrating on taking up any pursuit that will prepare him to look after himself. He tries being a physician, a lawyer, and finally, a soldier, but none will do. He throws his ambitions to the wind, so he can spend more time and borrowed money trying to forward his suit.

But we also meet characters who refuse to be the victims of the justice system. John Jarndyce, the owner of the literal Bleak House, is the loving "fairy godfather" of the book, who refuses to become embroiled in the lawsuit. He draws on his other, independent means in every way he can to aid the people who have been hurt by it. He adopts three young people who were wards of the court because they were orphans of Jarndyce families involved in the suit. He offers affection and kindness to everyone within his circle and refuses to define the world based on the terms of the nightmare lawsuit.

The young physician Alan Woodcourt, whom Esther loves and admires, also does his part to offer succor to the suffering wherever he may. Other strong characters, like Mrs. Bagnet, the ex-soldier’s wife, and Mr. George, the shooting gallery owner, try to help the downtrodden.

As Bleak House poignantly shows, the damage wrought by bad systems is inhumane and far-reaching. But as much as possible, this novel suggests, life and love should not be put on hold until that day when reform is accomplished and justice is finally served. And so Dickens shows his readers: Illuminated by love, John Jarndyce's Bleak House is not bleak at all.

Read this 25 years ago. Notes as I reread.

— Bleak House on the whole is astonishing. Is it conventionally Victorian? Oh yes, but there are pages and pages here of drop-dead writing.

— It reminds me, in its deft use of characters high and low, of the novels of Martin Amis — particularly Money,  London Fields and The Information. Both writers also possess a keen grasp of the slang of their respective periods. Whereas Amis can be sparing in dialogue, Dickens is voluble almost to a fault.

— Surprising how readable the novel is after 171 years.

— Mr Skimpole is a sponge; Mr Jarndyce knows it but allows this drain on his resources since he finds Skimpole amusing. Later, we understand Skimpole’s con and how well it pays him. That he’s a child, doesn’t understand money— well, the fellow “doth protest too much, methinks.” These endless self-justifications become tiresome.

— Dickens use of patterning is often a pleasure. If it ever seems careworn though, I think it’s because he was writing this novel in serial to be published over a period of more than two years. So he’s creating mnemonic devices for his readers.

— Henry de Montherlant's famous saying "happiness writes white" seems undermined by Dickens's capacity to make happiness — and kindness — fairly sing on the page. Consider Mr Jarndyce, who is a doer of good works, and Miss Esther Summerson, whose very name radiates delight. But when Dickens pushes this pedal too hard — as he does in the scene between Mrs. Rouncewell and her son George — the result can be cloying.

— Preacher Chadband is vile with his halting oratory of pious hooey. Poor Jo, the little orphan, is blamed for being a victim, hounded for witnessing a key piece of the book’s core scandal.

"All this time, Jo . . . feels that it is in his nature to be an unimprovable reprobate . . . Though it may be, Jo, that . . . if the Chadbands, removing their own persons from the light, would but show it thee in simple reverence, would but leave it unimproved, would but regard it as being eloquent enough without their modest aid — it might hold thee awake, and thou might learn from it yet!" (p. 414)

Thus we move toward redemption. But not for Jo! His death from neglect is hideous.

Later, Jo, in a fever, is rescued by Miss Summerson, who puts him up at Bleak House, only to find he has mysteriously disappeared come morning.

——Young Richard Carstone is such a pigheaded twit. He can't be told anything. He must make his own mistakes— by taking Jarndyce & Jarndyce seriously — and he must suffer. Sad to watch, like an addict toward the end, pushed on his course by the despicable Vholes. The speaker here is Richard:

“‘Mr Vholes! If any man had told me, when I first went to John Jarndyce's house, that he was anything but the disinterested friend he seemed — that he was what he has gradually turned out to be — I could have found no words strong enough to repel the slander; I could not have defended him too ardently. So little did I know of the world! Whereas, now, I do declare to you that he becomes to me the embodiment of the suit; that, in place of its being an abstraction, it is John Jarndyce; that the more I suffer, the more indignant I am with him; that every new delay, and every new disappointment, is only a new injury from John Jarndyce's hand.'” (p. 626)

Truly, no good deed goes unpunished!

—Interesting, for all its concern about the dysfunction of Chancery, there’s almost no mention of how the great 19th century families (Dedlock et al.) made their fortunes. There is Mrs Jellyby’s colonialist monomania for Borrioboola-Gha, Africa. Then on page 699 a passing reference is made to a “large Indiaman” trading vessel. See Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea as a kind of fictional corrective.

— Mr Bucket is a detective and the soul of discretion. The last third of the novel is effected through him. He’s the narrative glue tying virtually all the characters together. Indeed, he seems almost oracular toward the close, which is suspenseful.

She (Miss Flite) nodded several times, and her face became overcast and gloomy. “Two more. I call them the Wards in Jarndyce. They are caged up with all the others. With Hope, Joy, Youth, Peace, Rest, Life, Dust, Ashes, Waste, Want, Ruin, Despair, Madness, Death, Cunning, Folly, Words, Wigs, Rags, Sheepskin, Plunder, Precedent, Jargon, Gammon, and Spinach!”

Spinach?! I dunno. Maybe she really detests spinach. I am not an eggplant person myself.

The rest of Miss Flite’s list communicates her experience of 19th Century ‘justice’ in Chancery. It begins with the joyful crescendo – Hope, Joy, Youth, Peace, Rest – no doubt what she anticipated her future would be when her case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, would be settled.

The singular word, ‘Life’ would seem to represent the turning point—when reality dawns and Miss Flite realizes there will be no quick or easy settlement. Like the rest of Life, this case will drag on, consuming her days and years. Then begins the dreadful litany which truly describes this self-perpetuating, all-consuming, soul-sucking and utterly terrible case to which she is irrevocably bound, and which is also central to this novel: Dust, Ashes, Waste, Want, Ruin, Despair, Madness, Death, Cunning, Folly, Words, Wigs, Rags, Sheepskin, Plunder, Precedent, Jargon, and Gammon. And yes, Spinach tacked on the end, presumably because it is a despised food, unless someone else can offer another suggestion?

Later, Miss Flite adds two more birds to her collection, ‘the Wards in Jarndyce’. Would they, the wards, Richard and Ada, but heed her warning about this case...

Bleak House is an amazing book! Complex, intricate, satirical, and endlessly cynical about the legal profession. Many excellent reviews have already been written about the book which I could only repeat and/or attempt to imitate, so instead, let me direct you to my favorite, that of my friend, Bionic Jean. She begins with a speculative discussion on which house is actually Bleak House and goes on to provide much fascinating historical background for many of the characters in the book. Check it out!

This was only my second read, but – God willing, should I live long enough – this book is worth at least 2 or even 3 more reads. EXCELLENT!

NOTE: Recently watched the 2005 TV rendition of this book and would give it 4 stars overall. Fine acting and an admirable job adhering to the book. Considering its complexity and length, that is no small feat. However, as they left out two of my favorite characters, (Mrs. Snagsby and Mrs. Bagnet, AKA the ‘old girl’) I have to knock off a star. In fact, they left out the entire Bagnet family, including the daughters, Quebec and Malta, and the son, Woolwich, who I loved for their names alone! While I realize those scenes did not further the plot and were included by Dickens for comic relief, their lack were a huge disappointment to me. Otherwise, lovers of the book will not be terribly disappointed with the movie. And if you are someone who has difficulty reading Dickens (and does not mind his/her endings spoiled) you might watch this first and then have an easier time getting through the book. I would still recommend the audio version if you can. That is ALWAYS the way to go with Dickens.



November 22, 2019: Last time I listened to this during the summer on my own. This time beginning it just before Thanksgiving with Dh... His comment on opening it, 'Wow! 29 CDs!' We already finished 2 last night. It is as good as I remembered it.

June 2008: When I did my Dickens' summer (2001) and listened to seven of his books in a few months, this was my favorite of that particular bunch. To me it had the best mystery, some good high comedy and it was anything but 'bleak'! It is long; it might be his longest novel, I'm not sure. If you're enjoying something, you don't mind length. If something is a torture, then it's another matter. I was crocheting and listening to a favorite author tell a fascinating story so for me, Bleak House will always conjure up memories of a very happy summer well-spent.

Oh yes! I liked the female narrator of the story very much and it was a story about navigating (fighting?!) the bureaucracies of the London/British legal system. Probably my own background and interest in the law added to my overall enjoyment of the book.

Started: 25 June 2001

"The unreal things were more substantial than the real"

Reading Dicken's gives such an insightful view to the past, his social commentary (this time the legal system) is such a fascinating yet dense read.
Also, it's nice to tick off both a mammoth novel and a classic at the same time.

There's a plethora of characters, all interesting and standout.
Whilst the novel is long, it mirrors the length of the long-running legal case in the chancery Court that underpins the narrative.

It's really complex but pays off brilliantly.
It would have been interesting to have experienced this in monthly instalments as originally serialised.

I’ve added Bleak House to my favorites list because of its wonderful cast of characters and the range of story elements -- historical fiction, romance, coming-of-age, murder mystery, satire all wrapped in this tome of a novel. And as fantastic as I found the story, I loved the BBC miniseries adaption even more.

This was not my first attempt at reading Bleak House. Years ago, I failed to finish it for a couple of reasons. It has a huge cast of characters – engaging, diverse, and well-drawn, but so many! And the first chapter is long and dry yet explains the legal case that is a theme of the story. In short, the court case concerns the division of an inheritance left by a long dead Jarndyce. The case has been unsettled for an excessive number of years because of a conflict about the documents.

That’s where the novel begins, in the frequently foggy 1830s London with the court case stalled. There are several places where much of the story happens. Bleak House’s owner is the wealthy, good-hearted John Jarndyce. He’s just become the legal guardian of three young people: Ester (20), who narrates a generous portion of the story; Richard (17), and Ada (17). Chesney Wold is the rural estate of a proud aristocratic family – Sir Leicester Dedlock (70) and Lady Honoria Dedlock (50). Residing in the town is Mr. Tulkinghorn, a power-wielding lawyer. Also in town, near the Court of Chancery, lives Krook, the owner of the rag and bottle shop (thrift store) and landlord to several minor characters.

Dicken’s often uses the type of weather to show insight about a character. I began noticing the deep fog was associated with the court case and rain with Lady Dedlock and sunny days with Ester. I most enjoyed how Dicken’s named his characters in this book. This also revealed something about the character’s nature, like the weather did. For instance, Krook and Mr. Smallweed are what their name hints. Other names had subtle humor, like that of Miss Flite who kept birds or that of Mr. Guppy who wishes to land a big fish.

There are a number of interesting sub plots involved that connect characters in unexpected ways. Some sub plots serve as social commentary like about poor parenting or neglected children. Others added subtle humor, like that of Mr. Guppy. Being a mystery fan, the detective that investigates the murder mystery really caught my attention. We discover the youthful follies of characters and learn how the consequences help to shape the overall story. There is just so much variety to Bleak House and it’s all well done that it feels like I’ve read several books instead of just the one.

As I mentioned, I had a failed attempt to read this book, and I owe my renewed interest in it to the 2005 BBC miniseries adaption of the book. The casting was exceptional! I couldn’t pick a favorite because they all were my favorites. Moreover, it helped me become familiar with the characters and gain a general sense of the story. It’s a series I could watch repeatedly. You are missing out if you’ve never seen it.

Overall, Bleak House has a gripping storyline full of intrigue and subtle humor and is not without tragedy and happiness. There’s a valid reason it is on all the reading lists.

I absolutely loved this book, I mean, how could you not love a book that reduces politics to Boodle vs Noodle and kills off a minor character via spontaneous combustion? Besides that, there is a scalding satire of the legal profession, several badly kept secrets bubbling into murderous tension, and a panoply of lovable and despicable minor characters, each with their own manner of speaking and acting. Dickens would have been a fabulous filmmaker as his camera’s eye is always peeking behind doors or over walls giving the reader a truly immersive experience, or so I felt. I loved the writing, the action, the everything in this marvelous book.

One of the better passages about politics is where Lord Boodle complains to Sir Leicester Dedlock that the new government "would lie between Lord Coodle and Sir Thomas Doodle—supposing it to be impossible for the Duke of Foodle to act with Goodle, which may be assumed to be the case in consequence of the breach arising out of that affair with Hoodle. Then, giving the Home Department and the Leadership of the House of Commons to Joodle, the Foreign Office to Moodle, what are you to do with Noodle? You can’t offer him the Presidency of the Council; that is reserved for Poodle. You can’t put him in the Woods and Forests; that is hardly good enough for Quoodle. What follows? That the country is shipwrecked, lost, and gone to pieces”. Brilliant!

The art with which Dickens weaves the stories together and again the incredible portraits and names of the myriad of characters just made this pure entertainment end-to-end. Here is a fantastic article I found about the book: https://literariness.org/2021/01/23/a...

As ever my review is going to be about the thoughts and feelings this book evoked in me and very little about the plot etc.
Having spent the first 28 days of the year thouroughly immersed in the world of Charles Dickens I want it to be known that I think he was, is and always will be the best teller of stories that ever lived. As well as creating some of the best characters, comical moments and intertwined narratives.

This story is told by 2 separate points of view. The first is an omniscient third person , the other being first person told by the heroine Esther Summerson.
I didn't quite like Esther at first, she seemed too good to be true but omy! She really redeemed herself with me as the book went on. She turned out to be quite a 'plucky' lass. :)
My favourite character was Inspector Bucket of the Detectives he in my opinion rivals Sherlock Holmes as the best truth seeker and his 'hot pursuit' with Esther in a horse and carriage across London and into the countryside on a snow lashed night and day and into the next night was thrilling.
There are FAR too many other characters to name that I loved but some of them will stay with me, like Jo the crossing sweeper whose storyline broke my heart so I sobbed and Mr George the soldier who looked after him.
There were parts of the book, that until I had input from my lovely goodreads friend Bionic Jean that I was finding dull, namely the Chancery parts dealing with the eternally on going case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Jean said "Don't you think that those parts are meant to be dull? To show how awful those things are" or words to that effect. After this I must say I just sat back and absorbed them as much as the rest of it. Thank you Jean :)
There are a lot of threads here and I really did have to be 'in' the story to keep them all straight but as ever with Mr Dickens he makes sure they are all tied up.
And talking of tied up threads there are a few climaxes to this story and many surprises.
There is also as ever much social commentary about the poor and disadvantaged of the time, how appallingly awful the chancery court system was/is and of course the children, many many children. And I will point out that there is a lot of foreshadowing in here so be vigilant ;)

I strongly advise any reader or would be reader of this book to read my friend Bionic Jeans review of it, it is absolutely wonderful.

So in closing, I've been dithering about my *rating for this one for a few days, because of my adoration for A tale of two cities but I've decided that I can have more than one favourite Dickens book and this one will get 5*, a place on my books I'm passionate shelf and be my second. Who knows I have plenty more books by him and I hopefully might find more to join those two yet.
5 magnificent *****

if you like this review, i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com

130117: this is a later later addition: as a reading project i have read several dickens this year, as follows:

this is a later addition: i watched the most recent bbc miniseries of this book. yes i guess this was 'telenovela' before tv was even created. this is certainly not a sedate, literary, treatment, but zips along. the story is there- perhaps too much brought forward- and the characters all defined, given, cast well. on the other, it is obviously made for the small screen, with much set in salons, with no expansive scenes, with even london represented in only a few streets, dark, crowded, convincing. advantage bbc, sets already there. so did it work? i do not really know. i compared it to the experience of reading, usual problem with look of this character/that character, this place/that place, usual simplified scenes, generally acted well. charles dance is great as lawyer you have to hate. gillian anderson strong as the lady. maybe if i had watched it slowly with a week between each episode, or if i had not read the book... watch if you like watching, read if you like reading...

story of this reading: i read (somewhere) that in a hundred years academics will study Stephen King in the same way we currently study Dickens. i have read a dozen King and some (8)DICKENS Charles., i was tired during some 'Indic' philosophy reading, needed a break, at the coffeehouse, so decided to read an ebook i could down immediately from the city library... had to be one available so i got a King The Long Walk and was duly diverted. when such situation arose again i decided to get a Dickens, and this was the one available...

170113 first review (not likely to ever read it again): satire is mode. you know what you are getting with Dickens, that it was bestseller of its day, that it will be long, sentimental, caricatures rather than characters, that it might work better as tv miniseries, from which is where i mostly know him, that it will be propulsive, to keep readers over the monthly chapters. brother a lawyer, i had already heard that the case of jarndyce and jarndyce is by now essential reference to convoluted, prolonged, meaningless law cases, ones that will end by dispensing judgements swallowed by court costs...

so i was ready for it. i give it a four possibly more for the extensive plot, certainly not for characters, and decide to in reading compare it to Wilkie Collins, particularly The Woman in White, and try to figure out why i liked that sensation novel more than this. i did read that twice. i was also much younger, had yet to read Swann's Way (which in comparison is all interior character and almost no exterior plot), so was perhaps impressed that a long narrative could keep my attention. i would have to say that wiw seemed to have a clear, involving, mysterious, romantic plot. this is more particularly 'urban' in having so many plots, in having characters as caricatures, in having little irony in central narrator and often even in omniscient voice... there is the great use images of London fog introducing the book but that is brief and obvious...

it is difficult for skeptical me to fully credit how wonderful our narrator is, how immediately loved and loving, in all situations, and if there are villains aside from the chancery court, these are the small, grasping, pathetic, men and women who try to benefit in less than ethical manner, from the proceedings of 'equity' and skirt 'law'... but, aside from one character defined by his fetish of irresponsibility (on the other he is also so in all circumstances), all the key characters are consistent, are exactly and remain exactly what they seem. this reduces any plot irony around direct characters. and there are a. lot. of characters. i read (somewhere) that Dicken's innovative skill was indeed 'urban' in that in a few words he could sketch identifiable types so you could just get on with the plot...

so, the plot. i do not think there is really much reason to read this but plot. in reading any 'classic' i start by trying to read the work 'cold', and only then read the preface, introduction, chronology, biography of the author- i did read about 500 pages before i decided to go back and read it in this case, but it really made no difference: there are still a. lot. of characters. and a. lot. of plot(s). so this, no less than say The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, is possibly just as well followed in visual form, in this case a long tv miniseries. this does not 'have' to be in this medium, there is no great writing, no particularly verbal techniques, no psychology that need be written- but there is 'story'. story as works in any medium. and is probably easier to take as visual rather than verbal, for though i did not skip there were more than a few moments such threatened...

for if nothing else, this is a. long. book. i suppose there are many readers for whom plot, suspense, identifiable and completely lovable characters, understandable motivations, direct psychology, are what they want to read. i have read now only three Dickens, really enjoyed the twist ending of Great Expectations but this does not happen here. i did like the vast panorama of Victorian society. i did like the plots. pitied are pitiable and of course death is reason to care. i liked the balanced ending. i was pleased the good were rewarded, the bad fail here is some unremarked irony: 'winning' the case ends with no remaining funds after court costs!. i was impressed with how he brought it all together. i can give it a four for these reasons. i enjoyed it also as historical document of not only the times but also the popular taste of the times... i do not know if i will read another of his, perhaps i will move on to what is said to be French equivalent in Zola, or move to later 'classics' such as Arnold Bennett, John Galsworthy, then the English modernists i have so far neglected...

better break from philosophy than Stephen King...

note: just got recs from efriend Richard- suggested David Copperfield, Nicholas Nickleby, so decided ok i will take those next (also ebooks so from library)...

note: i was going to rate it a three, as i have no interest in reading it again- but who are these people who read a book more than once...

more
David Copperfield
Nicholas Nickleby
A Tale of Two Cities
Little Dorrit
Our Mutual Friend
Great Expectations

Note, Jan. 30, 2023: I've just edited this review to correct a typo that resulted in two incorrect dates.

Charles Dickens ranks, in my estimation and in that of many serious students of literature, as one of the greatest fiction writers of all time. He's been a favorite writer of mine since I discovered him as a child; but there are still many of his novels that I haven't read. I'm indebted to the wonderful Goodreads group Dickensians! for the chance to take part in a very stimulating common read of this one, which I dipped into as a kid (I could remember quite a few specific lines!) but only finished for the first time this week.

At 880 pages, this is (as most of Dickens' books are!) a very long novel. It took me the better part of two months to read it. Your reading time will vary, depending on how rapidly you read and how much time you can devote to it in a typical day; but this will definitely be a relatively time-consuming read. But for me, every minute of it was time well spent! This is a tour de force of literary genius, bringing together a complex tapestry of interwoven plot strands; a gallery of not-to-be-forgotten characters; carefully crafted prose steeped in symbolism and often multilayered in meanings, humor that can be by turns jovial and cuttingly satirical, an appeal to a full panoply of human emotions in the best Romantic tradition, and serious thought content that's as relevant now as when it was written. All of these qualities are thoroughly characteristic of Dickens' style in any of his novels that I've read.

In this particular novel, the author begins with an omniscient third-person narrative strand, which is generally in present tense, a literary technique not common in the 19th century. Soon, however, he begins to alternate it with the first-person, past tense narration of a female character, Esther Summerson. She's writing in the author's present; but as we learn near the book's end, she's looking back on the main narrative from the vantage point of seven years. So the main body of the novel, when she's in her early 20s, takes place in the 1840s --and some of it well back into the 1830s, because like David Copperfield and Pip Pirrip, she gives us an early look at her formative young childhood. This is a complicated structure, but it allows for the presentation of different perspectives and the incorporation of many scenes and plot strands to which Esther isn't privy. It works well, IMO, and Dickens juggles the two strands masterfully. (Dickens famously guessed that the author of Jane Eyre was female, because he thought no male writer could voice a female narrator so convincingly; but truth be told, he was no slouch at that feat himself!)

It's been said --truly, as far as I know-- that this is literally the first novel ever written which has a detective (Mr. Bucket) as a significant character. Some would class it as prototypical mystery fiction. For my part, I view it as general fiction. Yes, there is investigation of a crime; but the crime doesn't occur until relatively close to the end of the book, and its solution doesn't occupy a whole lot of the plot. The great majority of the tale revolves around normal life in everyday situations, and the interactions of people in all ordinary walks of life, high and low. (One of Dickens' strengths is the fact that he's as concerned with, and as sympathetic to, the poor and lowly as the high and mighty.) But this is also general fiction that does embody a strong theme of secrets and mystery, identifying the perpetrator of a crime being only one of them (and not necessarily the most important!) A lot of these secrets are going to be found to revolve around Esther's origins, which are as unknown to her at the outset as they are to us, save that she's apparently born out of wedlock. (In that way, she has some commonality with Oliver Twist.)

Much of the plot revolves around a fictional long-continued court case, Jarndyce and Jarndyce, involving a contested will. This case has dragged on in the Court of Chancery for generations, enriching nobody but the lawyers at the expense of the litigants, whose involvement with the case has led many to the ruination of solvency and sanity. As many readers then and now have noted, this fictional case has countless real-life counterparts in a thoroughly rotten real-life legal system of that day, and represents Dickens' passionate cri de coeur for reform. There's also a strong note of criticism of a morally bankrupt sort of social reform that aimed at improvements in foreign countries while ignoring or only ineffectually addressing widespread grinding poverty at home. But these somewhat dated specifics are underlain by a more general serious message that calls us to kindness, unselfishness, honesty, and serious concern for others as the hallmark of our life in this world. And this message is part-and-parcel of a grounding in the Christian worldview which is apparent here in many places, and undergirds all of Dickens' work. As he wrote in a letter to one Rev. D. Macrae:
“With a deep sense of my great responsibility always upon me when I exercise my art, one of my most constant and most earnest endeavours has been to exhibit in all my good people some faint reflections of our great Master, and unostentatiously to lead the reader up to those teachings as the great source of all moral goodness. All my strongest illustrations are drawn from the New Testament; all my social abuses are shown as departures from its spirit; all my good people are humble, charitable, faithful, and forgiving.”
(This devotion to genuine Christianity, of course, also prompts the author to unsparing indignation at hypocritical and perverted forms of it.)

A final comment that needs to be made here is that any reader who takes Dickens' art at face value, and who has any perception of his actual attitudes, has to recognize that the author has the highest possible regard and admiration for Esther, and considers her an honest and essentially reliable narrator. This reader shares that estimation; most readers probably will, and would be surprised that anybody doesn't. But there is a cynical school of critical thought going back at least to Osbert Sitwell, who does the Introduction to the 1948 (and often reprinted) Oxford Illustrated Dickens printing of this book, and who dismisses her in one sneering partial sentence as "odious." (That, from a pundit who devotes several paragraphs of praise and defense to the hypocritical, self-serving leech Harold Skimpole, who actually IS all of odious!) Much of that view boils down to the theory that nobody's really humble (even if they have self-image issues from emotional abuse as kids), kind-hearted and caring about others; if someone appears to be, she's got to be faking it. (I would submit that this tells us a lot more about these theorists than it does about Esther!)

Like all of the Oxford Illustrated Dickens editions, this one is enhanced by the original black-and-white illustrations by Dickens' friend Hablot K. Browne ("Phiz") that graced the novel during its original serial publication in 1852-53 --a nice feature, though many of them aren't placed with the part of the text they're illustrating.