1 star

With each Dickens book I read, I question more and more whether I should keep reading him. It is possible that it is simply his older works that don’t suit my tastes - and I certainly hope this is true - but my experience so far hasn’t been positive.

One of the strongest reasons for my dislike of his writing is the manner in which he depicts women. Especially in this novel, most of the female characters fit into a demeaning stereotype. The wives are either presented as embittered by marriage, resentful, manipulative and vindictive, or young, naive and obliging. The latter, as embodied by Dolly and Emma, is also accompanied by constant emphasis on physical attractiveness. It was quite frustrating to read.

The novel was also way too long for me. I was really bored and felt like the premise of the plot (the anti-Catholic riots) wasn’t written as powerfully as it could have been. Perhaps this is due to my expectations, but I didn’t find the characters’ motivations were developed enough or the build up to the events to be effective. Despite Dickens providing some insight into the pervasiveness of violence, which can infect any individual, the plot mostly felt like a convenience so he could demonise some characters. I would have liked the motivations behind their participation in the riots to have been more explicitly explored.

Unfortunately I really didn’t enjoy this book. Perhaps I’m learning not to put much hope into Dickens’ older works.

The first of Dickens' two historical novels, the other being A Tale of Two Cities. Not an easy read for me. My main criticism is the large number of villains in this book. There are endless chapters about bad people scheming, lying, plotting and hurting others. The good people weren't given enough room for me to thoroughly enjoy this book.

Granted, the Gordon Riots of 1780 were a violent and dark episode, but somehow Dickens did this better in A Tale of Two Cities, set during the French Revolution. Both books contain impressively written mob scenes that bring the chaos, horror and violence alive.

This was a good and informative read.

This was my second time reading Barnaby Rudge, which is probably Charles Dickens' least regarded novel. It is a historical novel set in the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots of 1780, one of the two historical novels Dickens wrote (the other, of course, being A Tale of Two Cities).

Dickens had achieved super-stardom with a series of hits (The Pickwick Papers, Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby, and The Old Curiosity Shop) when he published Barnaby Rudge which was a comparative flop in its own time and remains so today. Most all of those other books were written rapidly under the deadline pressures of monthly installments. In contrast, Barnaby Rudge (originally provisionally titled Gabriel Vardon after another character) was written and reworked over several years as Dickens aspired to something more important than his earlier novels, something in the spirit of Walter Scott that went beyond mere entertainment.

There is, indeed, a certain amount of cringe in Barnaby Rudge--with the biggest cringe being the title character himself, an "idiot" in the words that Dickens uses who barely understands the world around him and gets swept up in a gullible fashion by whatever trickster or mob wants to use him--even if he is ultimately simple and good hearted. Also cringe are some of the absurd (and in fact unnecessary coincidences) and the heavy-handed way in which it metes out the moral fates that each character deserves.

But Barnaby Rudge also has some extraordinary historical scenes that capture the way that mobs can be instigated, grow, and the chaos that they--and their suppression--can engender. And how individuals get swept up on either side of them. It also has a number of memorable characters and comic scenes (not least Simon Tappertit, a journeyman locksmith who fancies himself a Napoleonic-like head of a group of journeymen). And some of the usual forbidden and inevitable romances that are perfectly charming.

All told, Barnaby Rudge is certainly not close to the best of Dickens but it is not the worst (sorry Hard Times) and perfectly good in its own right. But if you haven't read much Dickens there are about ten to thirteen other books you'll want to read before this one.

I am one few people who think this book is one of Charlie's best books It is not popular but My next book my other top one is Pickwick Papers his first book

Originally published on my blog here in November 1999.

Barnaby Rudge was originally planned as Dickens' first novel. The success of The Pickwick Papers and his development of the serial publication of novels in his magazines - as opposed to the two or three volumes of contemporary practice - meant that writing a novel about the Gordon riots was delayed for some years. And yet Barnaby Rudge still reads like a very early work.

The influence of Scott - novels like The Heart of Mid-Lothian - is fairly obvious, and this is one thing which marks out the novel as the work of a young writer. Later Dickens reads like no one but himself.

The character of Barnaby is a nice idea, imperfectly realised. A simpleton possessed of a benevolent, trusting attitude to the world around him, he is an easy prey for those who want to involve him in the riots as a sort of figurehead to hide the extent of their own involvement. The parallels with Lord George Gordon, whose naive extreme anti-Catholicism sparked off the riots, is a nice touch: the Gordon family at this time were famous for having less than common sense, even for madness. But Barnaby is not convincing; he is rather sentimentalised (to a modern reader, Dickens' greatest fault), and attempts to create humour through his character do not really come off.

Barnaby Rudge is interesting because we can see in it where Dickens started from, and because the riots themselves are a dramatic subject.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

This quotation is, of course, definitely not from Barnaby Rudge, but it does summarize, very effectively, the reading experience of Barnaby Rudge.

BR is the first of two historical novels by Charles Dickens, and is certainly not as fine a novel as A Tale of Two Cities, which is where the famous quotation, above, does, of course, come. While BR is both the title of the novel, and one of the characters in the novel, one should hope for a strong central character, as we find in Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby or David Copperfield. Such is not the case. I'm not sure who, if anyone, was meant to be the central character. Indeed, the phrase "not sure" sums up my opinion of much of the characterization, plot, motifs, action and use of dramatic devices in Barnaby Rudge. Why then, give this novel 4 stars?

The reason, for lovers of Dickens, at least myself, is that this is the novel where we see the young Dickens who wrote the loveable Pickwick, the sympathetic Oliver and the engaging Nicolas begin to clearly and obviously shift focus from a primarily character and plot driven novel to a far more mature and theme driven work of art. No, the riots are not as well controlled as the events in Tale of Two Cities, no the love interest and characters of Dolly and Joe cannot compare to Charles/Sidney and Lucie, and certainly the plot of BR does not hold its seams like the plot structure of Bleak House. But what is important about this novel is that the reader sees Dickens at the instant where he steps forward from the ranks of Victorian writers who are good and popular to being in command of the first rank of the great Victorian novelists.

Enjoy this book for the brilliant use of pathetic fallacy; enjoy meeting Mr. Chester, for he will evolve into the Marquis in TTC; enjoy the use of pairings of sons and fathers in BR for this and other concepts introduced in BR will become major themes in Dickens later major works.

In Barnaby Rudge you see the future of Dickens' power in its fledged state. That is why Barnaby Rudge must be read.

Very powerful - a fantastic read. I'd forgotten so much from my last reading that it was like reading it for the first time again.

Barnaby Rudge is a historical novel set in the eighteenth century, and deals with the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots of 1780. Chesterton's commentary on the choice of this historical period is interesting. Dickens’s two historical novels, writes Chesterton, are both tales of the revolutions, of eighteenth-century revolutions. The theme of A tale of Two Cities is the French Revolution. The theme of Barnaby Rudge are the Gordon Riots. Maybe Dickens chose those two periods of history because "they both belonged to the time in which a mob could rise", whether for the republic or for "ignorant and obscurantist Protestantism".

The first part of the novel focuses on the stories of the various characters, some of which are real masterful Dickensian creations. The second part focuses on the Gordon Riots, and tells the story of what happens to the characters during the riots. Barnaby is a picturesque character who has a raven for a pet. The son of a “complicated” family, he lives in London and gets involved in the Gordon Riots despite himself, like a Georgian Forrest Gump, a leaf in the wind of history.

I cannot say that the novel was quite absorbing, though. There are some powerful pages, but on the whole I had the impression that Dickens didn’t develop the characters and the story the way they deserved. The reason might be that Dickens was working very much at the time when he wrote Barnaby Rudge. However, writes Chesterton, "it is a curious tribute to the quite curious greatness of Dickens that in this period of youthful strain we do not feel the strain but feel only the Youth".

Quite enjoyable, and much better than I was expecting, as well as/in spite of being one of the least "Dickensian" of his books that I have read (being a huge fan of that mode), with not nearly the standard or expected amount of hyperbolic characters, descriptions of city life, etc.—perhaps A Tale of Two Cities is its only real sibling in CD's ouevre? For this does come across more as a straight-realist historical novel in that veign, with only the occasional nods back to Pickwick & Co or anticipation of the much more complex majesties of Bleak House or Great Expectations to come. Recommended, though, for completeists and casual CD readers alike.

With Sean Barrett's narration and the Wordsworth Classics edition I'm tackling Charles Dickens' first historical novel, the one no one knows about.

Considering that my first Dickens was A Tale of Two Cities, which led to my happy travels through the rest of his books, I'm interested to see how this early historical compares.

I love the way it begins with a dark night, a mysterious stranger, a ghost story told by the tavern fire, a kindly locksmith, a murder, and Barnaby Rudge who is (as G.K. Chesterton put it) an idiot. These politically correct days we'd say "mentally challenged." I have to say I was startled by what seems like a bold move, to have such a person as the titular character.

At about 2/3 of the way through the book I'm struck by the power of Dickens' writing as the mob surges through London and nearby villages. We follow Barnaby, Gabriel V., and various others, including a mysterious one-armed man. (Ok, we already know who that one-armed man is, but it isn't Dickens' fault. We've just seen that trick used a lot since his time.)

This is a fascinating look not only at the anti-Catholic riots that I'd never heard of before, but at Dickens' emerging mastery of his art. Having read his books "backwards" I can see how A Tale of Two Cities will later emerge as such a powerful book from the hand that wrote this melange of the gothic and historical fiction.

One thing is clear. Dickens hates revolutions, at least of the mob rule sort. After reading both A Tale of Two Cities and this book, one can see why.

All the elements were there, but somehow the Dickens magic was missing. Still worth a read of course, highlights being the sinister hangman Dennis, Miggs and the riot descriptions.

This is a historical novel that weaves together the personal and the political in fascinating, if sometimes unwieldy, ways. Set against the backdrop of the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots of 1780, the story follows amongst others the simple-minded Barnaby and his pet raven Grip as they become unwittingly entangled in one of London's most violent upheavals.
Like in his other historical novel A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens vividly depicts mob and how quickly civilized society can descend into chaos. The characters are quintessentially Dickensian – there’s a hangman, a blind man, an honest locksmith and a charming country inn. The titular Barnaby is one of literature's most poignant innocent figures, while his companion Grip (who inspired Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven") provides much-needed comic relief.
The plot does meander at times with multiple subplots vying for attention. The pacing is uneven, and the historical elements sometimes overshadow the personal narratives. Despite these flaws it is still a Dickens’ novel.