Too young and she went with the wrong fella - Little Dorrit (2009) Discussion

[–] sam_roberts1967 15 years ago

Dickens has a problem - he doesn't like the classes mixing. (I hope someone can prove me wrong). So even if Uriah Heep hadn't been a crook, Dickens wouldn't have let him marry Agnes in David Copperfield, likewise Mr Guppy could not marry Esther Summerson in Bleak House. So Amy couldn't marry Young John.

By the way, the age difference - could have been even worse. I'm told it's even more visible in the 1988 version. But that's the point, Arthur in the book thinks he's far too old for Amy.

I never loved your mind, Dewey Daniels, I never loved your mind!

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Dickens has a problem - he doesn't like the classes mixing. (I hope someone can prove me wrong).

I don't think it's as simplistic as that. He does mix classes, it's rare, but he does it. It can be seen in Oliver Twist (Rosie and Harry); Great Expectations (Bentley and Estella, and Herbert and Clara) amongst others. One of the obstacles Dickens tackles is society and class, and how the former often dictates that the latter stay rigid and true. The relationship in Oliver Twist had to endure its share of strife to get going. Dickens also had to be realistic in order for his message to get across (remember that although he was an entertainer, he witnessed first-hand the abject poverty and want in the streets of London) he needed to frame his critiques and bombastic characters in realism in order for his stories to contain the potency and power that they still do.

edit.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lukefan 15 years ago

Well yeah, Derek Jacobi was like 50-something in 1988, so he really wasn't the 40ish Arthur of the book....

I think I might like this version better, just being shown here in the U.S. So Matthew Macfadyen is closer to the book age of Arthur....

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 8 years ago

If Arthur is in his 40s and Matthew was 34 playing the role, that would be a 10 year difference between the actor's age and the character's age. Jacobi at 50 in 1988 playing Arthur's role would've been only 5 years older than the character. They probably went with Matthew because they wanted a younger actor, he and the actress playing Amy only have a 10 year difference.

reply

[–] ajgraaff 13 years ago

Read Our Mutual Friend. You will see you could not be more wrong. Lizzie Hexam is a daughter of a riverman (someone who pulls dead bodies out of the river for a living) marries a gentleman. In fact that part of the story is all about how society deals with differences in class.

Mr. Guppy could never marry Esther because he was narrow and self centered. Esther marries a man who is like her, noble and selfless.

Our Mutual Friend is a great book by the way. The mini-series is okay to.

reply

[–] CCsito 13 years ago

I have seen the last two TV adaptations of Our Mutual Friend and I would also agree about the focus on class differences between Lizzie and her lover, Eugene. There is even a hint of that between Bella and the man who is really John Rokesmith (who impersonates being a lowly clerk). I would like to see the 1958 TV version which has a very young David McCallum playing Eugene.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

but she looked about 14 in this adaptation.

No, she didn't. She looked like she was in her early twenties, and that's alright, because she's supposed to. What was wrong - if we have to gripe - is that she isn't the slight and timid figure that can be found in the novel due to malnutrition. There is an instance, when out with Maggy (after Marshalsea hours) in the streets, the latter is stopped by an old lady who scolds her and wonders what she is doing out and about in a godforsaken hour with a child. The woman reels back in horror when she sees Amy's face, as it is worn and not in keeping with her figure and realises that she is no child.

They seemed far more of a viable couple than a little wide-eyed girl and a mature man of the world.

Viable has nothing to do with it; necessity is all that matters. Little Dorrit is little mother to Maggy, she is a mother to her father and siblings, and she finally mothers Arthur back to health. Arthur is motherless in more ways than one, and Amy cannot cope without this role as she reverts back to type in Venice, she needs this role just like how William Dorrit needs his cell; she was raised and bred in captivity and she is comfortable in this role. Arthur lacks that someone who can fill in the mother role - he has never known a mother's love and takes it for granted when Amy displays it to him. He learns to recognise her feelings the difficult way, and realises that he does indeed harbour similar feelings for her. So in that sense they were both right for each other, both loved each other and both need each other.

edit.

reply

[–] McSpaniard 15 years ago

Although you say she isn't, I feel that Claire Foy was indeed a slight figure in this drama. She looked small and malnutritioned and her face was worn. So, to me (based on what you and others have said of the original Dickens work), she was right for the role...apart from the fact that she looks 14. :-p

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at the wonderfully talented Claire Foy; I'm just redressing your point that she looks like she's in her mid-teens: she doesn't - and if she does, then life has been hard to 'fourteen year old' Claire! I can see that she could pass for someone in their late teens, but a fourteen year old? I don't know.

And the comment on her being slight and timid: I don't think this one can be up for debate, surely? She towers over her brother, sister, Rigaud, Flintwich, Mrs Clennam, and at times, even Arthur seems to pale and cower in comparison. There is a reason she's forever blighted with that eponymous epithet and it seems to have been ignored for the most part in the adap.

edit.

reply

[–] sarapie 13 years ago

I can only assume you mean she towers over them figuratively, because I'm watching a scene where she is clearly shorter than her brother. And I do have to agree with the others that she does come across as slight. Perhaps not timid so much as quiet and self-deprecating. But she did give me the impression of smallness. I could easily understand her being called Little. It's as much a figurative description of how she is ignored and her real importance overlooked as a comment on her size.

Rose: How was that sentence going to end?
Tenth Doctor: Does it need saying?
Me: YES!!!!

reply

[–] JamesPeach 13 years ago

yes, you assume correctly.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 8 years ago

Although I agree that the actress looked slight and thin enough for the role, in no way does she look 14. She looks like someone in their early 20s. If she looks 14, you guys have very mature looking 14 year olds.

reply

[–] moira2244 15 years ago

I found your comment a little unusual but it sounds to me that you enjoyed the performance of the actor who played John Chivery. I've read the book several times, in fact it is one of my personal favourites and frankly I feel that the union between Amy and Arthur was very right.

The relationship between Amy and Young John is never really a serious one. On the part of John it resembles a very deep crush. He is a good person but Amy only ever has a sisterly affection for him at best. In fact when he delares himself to her fairly early on you get the distinct impression that she has been actively trying to avoid his advances and let him down easily. I think (and I may be corrected here) that the character of the devoted, lovestruck young man who suffers unrequieted love is not unusual in Dickens' work.

reply

[–] booklover181 15 years ago

Yes, I can think of several other characters like that (devoted, lovestruck young man who suffers unrequited love).

Tom Pinch (Martin Chuzzlewit) - can't quite remember the details, but I think he was in love with Mary Graham
Mr. Toots (Dombey and Son) - although he does marry Susan, and doesn't suffer from unrequited love
Lord Frederick Verisopht (Nicholas Nickleby) - to a certain extent
Mr. Guppy (Bleak House) - ditto

I agree with your whole analysis of Amy, Arthur, and John, BTW.

reply

[–] superjaneyjane 15 years ago

'Dickens has a problem - he doesn't like the classes mixing. (I hope someone can prove me wrong).'

How about Lizzie Hexam and Eugene Wrayburn in Our Mutual Friend?

"Any idiot can face a crisis, it is this day-to-day living that wears you out". Chekhov

reply

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

How about Lizzie Hexam and Eugene Wrayburn in Our Mutual Friend?

I was going to point out this example as well.

reply

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

"How about Lizzie Hexam and Eugene Wrayburn in Our Mutual Friend?"

Having mentioned that couple, I would also have included Bella Wilfer and OMF himself, John Harmon, as such an example, but then some might argue that such work was that of Dickens at his most mature and advanced understanding, in any event following Little Dorrit, and arguably does not speak to his mindset and experience at the time of writing LD.

Btw when one considers how often read other of his works are, such as Twist, Great Expectations, Tale of Two Cities, David Copperfield, both Dorrit and Our Mutual Friend are among my favorites. In fact Little Dorrit is one of my top five favorite novels ever.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Btw when one considers how often read other of his works are, such as Twist, Great Expectations, Tale of Two Cities, David Copperfield, both Dorrit and Our Mutual Friend are among my favorites. In fact Little Dorrit is one of my top five favorite novels ever.

I could kiss you!

reply

[–] horatiohornblower 15 years ago

I assumed the actress playing LD was in her mid-twenties as well, not sure how anyone could see as even being in her late teens, let alone 14. Nevertheless I thought the actress did a great job!

"Why does the Earth have colors?" - "The New World"

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Spoiler

Dickens was too much of a snob to have had his genteel heroine (who was also an "heiress" with prospects) end up with a poor working class man.
Lower class poor & uneducated married lower class poor & uneducated in Dicken's novels and in Victorian England. It's much the same today.

reply

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

Spoiler,

I am not sure why it is snobbery for Dickens to have effectively portrayed what really occurred regarding class and marriage. You acknowledge the reality yet dismiss Dickens as a snob. Your post makes no sense.

As for the age difference, it was supposed to be seen as a barrier, while not an insurmountable one. Clennam was from the beginning suspected as to his motives regarding Amy, but simultaneously legitimized his own interest in her in his own mind by referring to the age difference, while he externally and with mostly good motives insinuated himself into the life of the Dorrits, which of course ultimately made possible what we can call without too much resort to spoilers a change of circumstances. In short, the age difference acts as it was intended in the novel.

I am more troubled by some other casting choices, particularly Tattycorum as a black girl. I have just seen the first installment, and so should perhaps withhold judgment, but it is problematic - it provides for some an easy explanation of the difference in treatment when in the novel the reasons and dynamic are more ambiguous, which is central not only to her story but to an understanding of the Meagles and Clennam's relationship with them.

reply

[–] torrgran 15 years ago

Arthur was perfect for Amy, two beautiful souls. Imagine Amy being stuck with John and being tied to the Marshallsea for the rest of her days. He was even imagining his gravestone!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

re--kenny164

Dickens was true to his class but also a snob. His professional career was based on slights he attached to class and social rank (a VERY recurring theme) when at age 12 he was sent by his parents to work 10 hour days as a common laboror at Warren's Blacking Warehouse pasting labels on jars of thick shoe polish. All this to supplement his parent's entertainments and lavish lifestyle. Dicken's father was subsequently confined to debters prison for three months until bailed out by family relations. Although he inherited a modest sum of money from a grandmother he kept his son Charles toiling away at his duties. Eventually, Dickens's father condescended to provide him with an education at Wellington House Academy. In David Copperfield Dicken's "beloved indulgent" parents would have translated David's sadistic step-father and sinister sister. Charles Dickens would also have to be a villian as the "EXPOSER of societal injustices" discarded his dutiful wife and separated her from her 10 children. It seems Dickens had long resented that he had so many children to support and somehow BLAMED Catherine for this. The SNOB author also expressed resentment that his wife was not his "intellectual equal". Catherine Dickens was replaced during her marriage by Dickens's teenage mistress Ellen Ternan. When Catherine confronted her hubby over his gal pal he denied a romantic relationship (i.e. lied). Dickens then dumped Catherine and made a self-serving public defense of his actions not based on fact. Deprived of her role as mother and wife Catherine never recovered. Dickens subsequently discouraged his children from seeing their "unequal" mother Catherine, and he paired off with Ellen Ternan until his death.

Dickens exposed poverty and the laboring class conditions because he profoundly felt it beneath HIS dignity when he had to endure it. His self pity is palatable and is his one obsessive recurring theme in his novels.
There was both compassion and snobbery underneath Dicken's profitable profession: "humanitarianism". Typically, in his literary works Dickens holds fast to class and his fortune will out heroes and heroines trump and are triumphant. No Dickens heroine (however low in origins) would end up with a mere common laborer.

Strictly speaking, Little Dorrit was humble enough (raised in prison) to marry the honorable, and in every TRUE sense a gentleman: John Chivery--but Dickens would never have permitted. Even the "common laboring boy" Pip/Dickens (Great Expectations) had to transformed a "snob and gentleman" to rate the patrician Estella, though the latter was in a reality a lower class criminal's daughter. The snobbery and pride of Dickens's key characters transparently mirrored his own demons.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Where do I start? My god! What a load of rubbish! He wasn't a saint certainly in his own (married) life, and aside from his unfair treatment of Catherine Hogarth, he did all he could do better the lives of the down-trodden: his work changed lives and laws! Your view is a modernist take on his life, you attribute modern ideals and values on a Victorian man; you agree that he had to go through an awful lot as a youngster, but you berate him for the spoils he wanted too! Who doesn't? Would you begrudge him Gad's Hill? The house he idolised as a poor little boy and then went onto buy when he had the means to do so? 'I used to look at it as a wonderful Mansion (which God knows it is not) when I was a very odd little child with the first faint shadows of all my books in my head - I suppose.' You'd probably call him a snob for purchasing this, too!

You seem to begrudge his ideas, his vision, his ability to transform himself. There is an awful lot of hate in your post just because of his treatment towards Catherine Hogarth, but you don't seem to be happy to keep it to the man himself at a certain stage of his life, but smear his work whilst doing so. Your post contains the answers to your own questions, and even though myself and others have mentioned the low-high pairings in his work, you overlook it and as a result the only thing that seeps out from your post is the blind hate.

John Lennon treated his first wife and son, Julian Lennon, disgracefully, but people still accept that his work helped bridge gaps of discontent amongst a lot of people and still does to this day. Like Dickens, his work is inspirational and a benefit to all.

Look up Urania Cottage and read how many fallen woman Boz helped.

edit.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

"WHERE DO I START"!

"MY GOD"!

"WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH"!

--should be my Dickens-esq hyperbole.

I would "attribute modern ideals and values on a Victorian man."?
(This must be YOUR idea of parody--right?)
EVEN by the standards of a "Victorian man" Dickens was a pious villian in his self-serving domestic hypocrisies, snobbism, and ungentlemanly cruelty.
Truth be tell, Dickens would personify the consummate Victorian CAD.

Even allowing for your congenital Dickens hysteria and manifest "hate" for doubters where was it written that I begrudge Dickens's "ideas, his vision, and his ability to transform himself."? What I begrude (or find repulsive) is not Dickens ability to "transform" or "inspire" 19th Century elite's to "do right" by the "down-trodden" but the maudlin self pity for slights considered beneath him, his class ridden condescesions, & the slimy moral hypocrisies MOTIVATING his vision. As "Celebrator of Hearth & Home" Dickens's mantras literally became his HEEP profession as his very public letter self-justifying the dumping of the downtrodden "unequal" wife, and the mother of his ten resented children, for a teenage mistress made evident.

By the way, pontificating to his big shot equals on the evils of societal injustices was Dicken's fame and fortune schtick. The reality is the spokesman of the oppressed was a SNOT who was deeply ASHAMED to be tained by his "ungentlemanly" common laborer background.

Was Dickens a snob for purchasing his childhood fantasy the very imposing Gad's Hill? Not quiet. But wouldn't such flagrant materialism have been better served RIGOROUSLY bailing out his many profitable "victims".

Lennon and Dickens were brothers under the skin. Both were adept at creating grotesque personalities and implausible occurances.

Incidentally, it was the despised and oppressive Capitalism's Industrial Revolution that fundamentally transformed the lives of the downtrodden, NOT Dickens's self--promoting Lord Bountiful "humanitarianism". This is not to say that no good deeds were done in Catherine Dickens's oppressor's & assorted muckraker's names.

reply

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

Mary,

You were quite rightly pegged for having equated your condescending disapproval of Dickens's personal life with his overall work. It was not snobbery for him to have left his first wife, yet you call it so. It undermines your use of the term elsewhere.

Little Dorrit in particular contains a somewhat strange mix of political elements. Its quite heartfelt condemnation of the Circumlocution Office is perhaps on one level merely an indictment of bureaucratic fecklessness and incompetence, but it is also an examination of the ways in which systems of governmental regulation can simultaneously become not only impediments to economic growth but, perhaps even more damning, self perpetuating rackets filled with self serving and lazy commissars filling life long sinecures. As such in contemporary terms such critique appears in keeping with the more conservative view of government as a problem, not a solution.

But unlike you not only do I think Dickens's condemnation of the poor conditions of the working class is heartfelt, he supplemented it with a I believe rather effective condemnation of what he called Podsnappery in Our Mutual Friend, that being a direct attack on the self satisfied smug class conscience of high society and the ruling classes. Little Dorrit contains some of that, much more fully developed in Our Mutual Friend, but also balances out the indictment of the Circumlocution Office with the description of the catastrophic results that follow allowing rank speculation among the moneyed classes, leading to previously unimagined ruin.

Perhaps from a feminist perspective a focus on Dickens's own personal life might lead to condemnatory language such as you use, but a broader progressive perspective realizes that not only did Dickens describe social pathologies from a progressive perspective, his art and position allowed him to have an effect that led to social improvements.

That being the case I am afraid I cannot throw mud on such a man's image and reputation. That is not called for.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Kenny: well said!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Kenny-164

Dickens's "heartfelt condemnation of poor conditions" is not what I find repulsive with respect to his private motivations, elitism, hypocrisy and cruelty.
Amazingly, MANY people have felt heartfelt condemnation for "poor conditions" and have contributed to it's elevation in more meaningful ways than Dickens bloviated.

God forbid that ANYONE, should throw mud on the image of Catherine Dickens's despot or impune the reputation of the "champion of the oppressed" who spent his life accutely ahamed that he had ever been one of their commonplace ilk.

To reiterate: It was Capitalism's Industrial Revolution that fundamentally improved the lives of Dickens's profitable victims and critics have the temarity to condemn it's motivations and practices every day. Hitler also significantly improved the economic circumstances of his countrymen (FAR more than Dickens ever did) and I still don't respect him.
(NO, I am not making the equation that Dickens is as dastardly as Adolf Hitler.)

I have made no condemning connection per se between Dickens and his Penny Dreadfuls or his abilities to "inspire" the ruling classes to play Lord & Lady Bountifuls. Like many people I find Dickens's stories and characters quite entertaining, if sentimental, grotesque, and implausible.
Works of fiction often are but Dickens had a true gift.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

I have made no condemning connection per se between Dickens and his Penny Dreadfuls

Oh, really? Pathetic.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Dickens fanatics are indeed pathetic.

When have I condemned per se the content of Dickens's Penny Dreadfuls?
At issue was DICKENS THE VILLIAN--NOT THE VILLIANY IN HIS NOVELS.

A Dickens historical footnote.
Dickens appeared to be quite happy with his "domestic angel" Catherine Hogarth when she was young and pretty. Overwhelmed, as the wife of a famous damanding "genius", and as mother of his ten children, Catherine's sister stepped in to fill in the gaps and eventually took control of household operations. Dickens would grow weary of Catherine and his marriage, decrying the fact that he had so many children to support which he condemned as being Catherine's fault. Dickens also resented that the mother of his ten children lacked sufficient energy and dictated to the world that she was not, NOR HAD EVER BEEN, his intellectual equal. Dickens attempted to restart relations with former girl friends but sadly decided they did not live up to his romantic memories of lore, either. Life for Dickens became insufferable when he met his new domestic ideal Ellen Ternan. Surprisingly (after 10 children), it was at this juncture that Dickens decided to move out of the marital bedroom. When the dolt Catherine accused Dickens of having affairs after finding trinkets to lady friends he did what came naturally--he lied. In 1857 Dickens legally saparated from Catheine in exchange for his teenage mistress and to salvage his sacrosanct image as family patriarch conviscated his "burdensome children" from his the wife he blamed for them. The "unequal" Catherine and the muckraker of the "weak & oppressed" were never on friendly terms again.

Here is the cruix. In 1858 Dickens, the "defender guardian of hearth & home", published a self-justifying article (reeking with hypocritical pieties, cruelty, and flasehoods) to explain his actions "OF A SACREDLY PRIVATE NATURE":
"An arrangement, which involves no anger OR ILL WILL OF ANY KIND, and the whole origin, progess, and surrounding circumstances of which have been, throughout, within the knowledge of my children, is amically composed, and it's details have NOW TO BE FORGOTTEN by those concerned in it. By some means, arising out of wickedness, or out of folly, or out of inconceivable wild chance, or all three, this trouble has been the occasion of misrepresentations, mostly grossly false, most monstrous, and most cruel, involving not only me--but innocent persons dear to my heart (sister-in law/mistress). I MOST SOLEMLY DECLARE, then--and this. I do both in my name and IN MY WIFE'S NAME--that all the lately whispered rumors touching on the trouble, at which I have glanced, are abominally false. And whosoever repeats one of the these after this denial, will be willfully and as fouly as it is possible for any false witness to lie before heaven and earth." (No wonder Yegorushka identifies with Dickens.)

Dickens's statement was reprinted throughout England and he fell out with Bradbury and Evans, his publishers, because they refused to publish his tripe in Punch (of all places). To cover his ass and sham reputation Dickens went EVEN further and very publicly tossed the "unequal" mother of his ten children COMPLETELY under the bus. In Dickens final coup de grace he published a declaration in the N.Y. Tribune, which subsequently was printed in England and throughout the world. In his statement Dickens declared that it had ONLY been his sister-in-law who had held his marriage together as he beget 10 children with his upstart wife, "I will merely remark of (my wife) that some peculiarity in her character has thrown all the children on someone else. I do not know--I cannot by any stretch of fancy imagine--WHAT WOULD HAVE BECOME OF THEM, but for this aunt, (As if there was no patriarch despot father in the house.)....who has sacrificed the best part of her youth and life to them. She has remonstrated, reasoned, SUFFERED AND TOILED, again and again, to prevent a separation between Mrs. Dickens and me. Mrs. Dickens has often expressed her sense of affectionate care and devotion in her home--NEVER MORE STRONGLY THAN WITHIN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS." Unquote

The "benevolent to all" Dickens would even forbade his Inferority DOLT Wife from attending her daughter Kate's wedding.

Deprived by Dickens of both her public and private DIGNITY, and her role as wife and mother, Catherine Dickens never recovered from breakdown of her marriage. She remained, however, attached AND LOYAL to her "genius" husband and his momory until her death from cancer in 1879.
Catheine Hogarth Dickens gave the collection of love letters she had received from Dickens to her daughter Kate telling her to, "Give them to the British Museum, that the world may know he loved me once."

Charles Dickens personifies his own definition of 19th Century dishonor and villiany: a santimonious hypocrite, an oppressor of the weak, and a mercenary CAD.
Not unlike Copperfield's step-father EDWARD MURDSTONE.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

the only fanatic here is you, dear. Anyone can see that.

When have I condemned per se the content of Dickens's Penny Dreadfuls?

Ok, old hag, read your posts out loud. Perhaps you have a difficulty with that?

Charles Dickens personifies his own definition of 19th Century dishonor and villiany: a santimonious hypocrite, oppressor of the weak, and mercenary CAD.

As you have quoted Catherine Hogarth: he loved her once, but he fell out of love. Simples. Move on; you're not posting any Da Vinci code-esque revelations here, you know! I've mentioned that his treatment of his first wife was unfair, so what's the hump, lady? Yes he had a reputation to uphold, a reputation based on good deeds that were there for the greater good and his unfair treatment of Catherine would undo all this, hence the cover up.

Try and convince the world that Dickens was not perfect, and you'll get a surprise because, you know what? These are known facts, anyway! Miriam Margoyles, actress and feminist, is aware of his treatment of Catherine, but she loves his work! He wasn't perfect - a wise man once said the hardest advice to take is your own and Dickens certainly found it hard to take it regarding fidelity in his first relationship, but that doesn't discount his benevolence in every other area.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Admittedly, I have difficultly responding to your incoherent straw man posts but I will attempt again---

"YES, HE HAD A REPUTATION TO UPHOLD. A REPUTATION BASED ON GOOD DEEDS THAT WERE THE GREATER GOOD AND HIS UNFAIR TREATMENT OF CATHERINE WOULD UNDO ALL THIS, HENCE THE COVER-UP.'

Spoken like a publicist defender of "Father of the Year" John Edwards, or a shill for any slimy public scoundrel.

In truth, "The defender of hearth, home and the oppressed" Dickens had a sham puplic reputation to uphold and he was willing to "benevolently" cut his powerless and loyal wife's throat in her home and in the streets to preserve your definition of the "greater good" (i.e. his mistress & his professional ass.)
Question: How many oppressor tyrants and Dickens's villians justified their actions for a "greater good" (i.e. themselves?)
Is this the "INSPIRATION" you have gleened from the writings of your idol Charles Dickens?

"HE LOVED HER ONCE, BUT HE FELL OUT OF LOVE. SIMPLES. MOVE ON..."

Apparently, not simples. The world does not condemn people for falling out of love (pointless), it does condemn them for how they CHOOSE to proceed.
Many Victorian men of no "benevolent" public reputation fell out of love with their wives and did not dishonor themselves by behaving like CRUEL, sanctimonious hypocrites, and Murdstone cads. They did not abandon their loyal souses, deprive them of their children, exchange them for teenage mistresses, or destroy all vestiges of their private and public dignity by pontificating self-serving FALSE statements to the world press.
(READ ALOUD MY POSTS.)

"TRY AND CONVINCE THE WORLD THAT DICKENS WAS NOT PERFECT, AND YOU'LL GET A SURPRISE BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? THESE ARE KNOWN FACTS, ANYWAY!"

Not so well known to most contemporary readers & viewers.
Incidentally, it is not my intent to prove to the world that Dickens was not "whiter that white" or "perfect". It is my intent to suggest that Dickens the Man was in essence a louse without honor.
(Interesting, that you think that knowing the facts somehow gives Dickens a pass.)

"MIRIAM MARGOYLS, ACTRESS AND FEMINIST, IS AWARE OF HIS TREATMENT OF CATHERINE, BUT SHE LOVES HIS WORK!"

So what? Where is the contradiction?
Millions admired Hitler's German economy, that doesn't translate that they respected that despot.
(Please, don't waste your precious hyperbole shrieking that I think Dickens is Adolf Hitler.)

Lucky for feminist Margoyls that Dickens was not HER Lord and Master.
She might have "LOVED" his Penny Dreadfuls a whole lot less.

"A WISE MAN ONCE SAID,"THE HARDEST ADVICE TO TAKE IS YOUR OWN"--

That wise saying in NO WAY excuses "defender of the oppressed" CONSUMATE CAD Dickens.

The fact of Dickens "infidelty" was the least of his public and private cruelties & transgressions.

To reiterate, many villians present themselves as "benevolent" Lord Bountifuls and contribute to assorted good deeds & works. And why not? These endeavors proved a profitable profession for a self-promoting elitist snot like Dickens.

No more sanctimony claptrap. You're not crazed on defending Dickens's works (which have not been condemned), you're desperate to excuse THE LOUSE.

Note. Finding fault or thinking that an author's novels are not perfection does not translate that they are condemned.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

wow - the fanatic preaches on! You've really been riled, haven't you? Cad, louse? Listen to yourself, woman!

Millions admired Hitler's German economy, that doesn't translate that they respected that despot.
(Please, don't waste your precious hyperbole shrieking that I think Dickens is Adolf Hitler.)

Moron. You've somehow smuggled Hitler into this! Godwin's law lives on!

You're not convincing anyone here or anywhere else with your agenda. The treatment of his first wife was unfair - get over it. I'm enjoying this; I've really touched a nerve, haven't I?

reply

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

Yego has upset Mary.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Yego has upset Mary.

Poor Mary, quite the contrarian, isn't she? She can't back up her posts about his work and his nature, so she has a go at us 'villains' and is constantly bleating about the affair! Apparently an affair makes you an evil person!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Instead of adhominem attacks, foot stomping, and shrieks, JUST FOR ONCE, try to grasp a salient point.

1) Dickens having "just an affair" with a mistress was the LEAST of his transgressions. It was Dickens repulsive behavior adjacent and subsequent to his affair that defines him the consumate Dickens villian--without honor

Read ALOUD my last post. It details Dickens's LOUSE antics.

2) The sustained cruelty to his wife and public cover-up lying within the frame work of Dickens's professional reputation as the "Protector defender of Home, Hearth, and the OPPRESSED"--is the villiany & hypocrisy sham connection between Dickens and his works.

3) This is not a critique of Dickens's Penny Dreadfuls on their literary merits.

NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

*Every time poor Yegorushka can't logically answer the points made in my posts (i.e. Dickens's IS a Dickens's louse), or back up her own straw man arguments, she resorts to hyperbole and changes the debate.

Yegorushka would have it that Dickens's decades long repulsive marital conduct and false public statements should be seen in the light of a minor inconsequential extra marital "affair" of no contextual importance to Dickens life, his writings or reputation-- and that this has all been a plot to condemn a genius's novels.

Translation: What the "INSPIRED" Dickens sycophant Yegorushka in essence is dictating is that her idol's muckraking or his "bleating about" domestic and social villiany can be seen as being of NO REAL CONSEQUENCE in what is the larger "for the greater good" scheme of things. Using this "contrarian" mantra Yegorushka has dismissed as irrelevant all trangressions by Dickens, who's behavior was factually more egregious--point for point--than Edward Murdstone or Bentley Drummle.

So, did Dickens's shrug off Edward Murdstone's and Bentley Drummle's cruelties and villiany in his novels as inconsequencial and irrelevant?
Did Dickens's readers?

By Dickens OWN standards he was a villian.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

1) Dickens having "just an affair" with a mistress was the LEAST of his transgressions. It was Dickens repulsive behavior adjacent and subsequent to his affair that defines him the consumate Dickens villian--without honor

Did I not say he treated her unfairly? Do you have trouble reading? It was wrong of him to do what he did, but it's happened - the marriage was falling apart and was going to the dogs - it was going to end one way or the other; unfortunately for Catherine it ended the way it did.

The sustained cruelty to his wife and public cover-up lying within the frame work of Dickens's professional reputation as the "Protector defender of Home, Hearth, and the OPPRESSED"--is the villiany & hypocrisy sham connection between Dickens and his works.

For *beep* sake! Do you read at all? The 'cover up' needed to happen because he had a reputation to uphold; that reputation brought influence and power and with these commodities he helped far more people than if everything was up in the air. Think it through, woman; don't be so naive.

This is not a critique of Dickens's Penny Dreadfuls on their literary merits.

This is why you're such an irritating little bint; you know what language you're using, and when confronted, you act affronted! Such a sly little worm you are.

Every time poor Yegorushka can't logically answer the points made in my posts (i.e. Dickens's IS a Dickens's louse), or back up her own straw man arguments, she resorts to hyperbole and changes the debate.

What do you want me to say? You have no substantial evidence for the foul epithets you're flinging and yet you want me to give credence to your words by even bothering to take them on? Your very language is hyperbolic, woman. You know it, and everyone else can see it, the only thing you're trying to do is save face.

Yegorushka would have it that Dickens's decades long repulsive marital conduct and false public statements should be seen in the light of a minor inconsequential extra marital "affair" of no contextual importance to Dickens life, his writings or reputation-- and that this has all been a plot to condemn a genius's novels.

Now I know you're not reading my posts; seems as though I've really touched a nerve that you skip my comments dealing with Dickens' life and how it affected his work. I've mentioned how his work became darker, fatalistic and hopeless - he'd gone through an awful lot from a young boy to an old man and they're all reflected in his work. The man had his demons, they're in the books, too. The man had a vision and ideal that was impossible for him to live up to, but you know what? That's why they call it an ideal - it's impossible to live up to and it can only take place in fiction, and they're in his books, too. These words of wisdom helped a lot more people, and in this light his unfair treatment of Catherine pales in comparison. His work opened eyes - what you're essentially proposing is him telling everything about his private life to all and as a result they keep their eyes shut to the ills of society. What good does that do?

He loved Catherine Hogarth, you've used her quote which helps my argument; but he fell out of love. These things happen. In the grander scheme of things he comes out pretty well, because as can be seen with audiences since and now, and will be seen long after you've gone, he'll still be recognised as the tireless social campaigner and great novelist that he was and is.

Translation: What the "INSPIRED" Dickens sycophant Yegorushka in essence is dictating is that her idol's muckraking or his "bleating about" domestic and social villiany can be seen as being of NO REAL CONSEQUENCE in what is the larger "for the greater good" scheme of things. Using this "contrarian" mantra Yegorushka has dismissed as irrelevant all trangressions by Dickens, who's behavior was factually more egregious--point for point--than Edward Murdstone or Bentley Drummle.

Get a new translator. Read my posts and tell me if I've stated his treatment of Catherine Hogarth to be fair. You can hiss out all the foul epithets you want at me, the other posters, and Dickens, but the world isn't going to buy your one sided story.

edit.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

"THE MARRIAGE WAS FALLING APART AND WAS GOING TO THE DOGS--IT WAS GOING TO END ANYWAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, UNFORTUNATELY FOR CATHERINE......"

It wasn't that Dickens marriage ended it was the merciless and cruel way he chose to end it--willing to break his wife's spirit for the rest of her life to to promote a ruthless and dishonorable agenda.

"THE COVER UP NEEDED TO HAPPEN BECAUSE HE HAD A REPUTATION TO UPHOLD, THAT REPUTATION BROUGH INFLUENCE & POWER AND WITH THE COMMODITIES HE HELPED FAR MORE PEOPLE THAN IF EVERYTHING WAS UP IN THE AIR.

What a neat rationalization for lies, cover-ups and despots. If Dickens CHOSE to act like a swine he should have had the character and integrity to take the consequences for his Heep villiany instead of choosing to save his ass by taking to the streets to destroy his loyal wife's private and public dignity depriving her of her children for a mistress. Very few men have stooped so low. How people treat their primary relationships defines character.

I am not naive. In truth, the world could have survived without Dickens which it has done since his death in 1870.

Agreed, Dickens's influence did bring influence, power, profits, popularity, and a sham reputation with honors for himself.
(Sadly, world hunger, starvation, oppression, has inceased 100 fold since & despite Dickens's "Inspiring" the masses.)

"SUCH A SLY LITTLE WORM YOU ARE."

Thank you.

"YOU HAVE NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUL EPITHETS YOU FLING".

Read my April 29-30 posts if you insist on revisiting them to reference the substantial evidence of Dickens's villainy.

You have flung a few foul epithets yoursef.

"YOU KNOW IT, AND EVERYONE ELSE ELSE CAN SEE IT."

I don't know it, and how many people do you speak for?

"THE ONLY THING YOUR TRYING TO DO IS SAVE YOUR FACE."

Demonstrably, it takes one to know one.

"THE MAN HAD A VISION AND IDEAL THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO LIVE UP TO, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT AN IDEAL--IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE UP TO AND IT CAN ONLY TAKE PLACE IN FICTION."

If ideals "can only take place in fiction" what is the point of having them and what was the point of Dickens?

IF Dickens had ideals they were remarkably cut throat and self-serving ones. Dickens's fatasy "vision" may have been impossible for him to live up to (his choice), but throwing his loyal wife publicly under the bus to preserve his sham "honor" proved not beyond his reach.
A typical Dickens villian.

"HIS WORKS BECAME DARKER, FATALISTIC, AND HOPELESS."

No wonder. Maybe DEEP DOWN Dickens had a conscience.

Who cares if Dickens work became darker, fatalistic, and hopeless?
A lot of children went through hell in Victorian England and they didn't stoop to the abuses of a powerful and affluent moral arbiter author who should have known better. The only Dickens who had just cause to feel "dark, fatalistic, and real hopeless" was Dickens's discarded ball and chain Catherine
(i.e. Dora).

If you believe that Dickens's villains Murdstone and Drummle are louses, but Dickens the Man is not, then you are a hypocrite and have no credibility.
What you are really saying is that there is one standard for Dickens, and one for the rest of mankind. That's not truth or justice.

To suggest that a man who profits (fame, fortune, & popular reputation) from muckraking domestic and social oppression is entitled to be a flagerant oppresser and public liar on the grounds that there exists no legitimate connection between a man's character, his work, and his reputation is patently absurd. Baring a fanatic, who in the real world believes that?
Dickens didn't, that's why before God and Man he went public and lied his head off. (The reason you say he "HAD" to cover up.)

"THESE WORDS OF WISDOM HELPED A LOT MORE PEOPLE, AND IN THIS LIFE HIS UNFAIR TREATMENT OF CATHERINE PALES IN COMPARISON. HIS WORK OPENED EYES."

I wish they had opened your. Read your posts. So much for Dickens "INSPIRING" his flock to expose injustices and indentify with the oppressed and downtrodden.

No, I don't think Dickens's books should be burned at the stake. Because I despise Dickens the man, does not mean I am not entertained by his implausable writings and grotesque characters. I will have my eyes wide open this Sunday.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

So you're not adding anything substantial to the table? Still hyperbole after hyperbole?

at least you acknowledge this:

Maybe DEEP DOWN Dickens had a conscience.

Who cares if Dickens work became darker, fatalistic, and hopeless?
A lot of children went through hell in Victorian England and they didn't stoop to the abuses of a powerful and affluent moral arbiter author who should have known better.

Says it all here, really. Dickens went through hell; how do you know these children didn't become unwholesome when they were Dickens' age? You're judging a child to an old man?

What about his work that opened peoples' eyes to the harsh treatment and conditions of these children? People cared about his work and still do, you might not - your loss. Who cares about you, anyway? You'll still carry on to say he trampled on these kids (ooh - the villainy!), when in fact (and you do know it) he helped them.

Read my April 29-30 posts if you insist on revisiting them to reference the substantial evidence of Dickens's villainy.

There's nothing there that I've not already tackled, lady! that's your evidence? Thank god you're not a lawyer of any sort! Trying to pass of Dickens as some sort of panto villain!

I am not naive. In truth, the world could have survived without Dickens which it has done since his death in 1870.

Oh, you are most definitely naive and ignorant too. Look up the poor laws around his time and how they were changed, look at the working conditions of children at the time and how these were changed, look at how he campaigned for these and how it got changed. Look at Christmas, and how (along with Prince Albert) he did more for the way we celebrate Christmas than anyone else before or since. Look at the writers he patronised and how they were dependent on his benevolence - look at the world-class writers all over the UK and Europe he influenced, and who looked up to him, and then tell me you're not naive enough to say what you've said.

"THE ONLY THING YOUR TRYING TO DO IS SAVE YOUR FACE."

Demonstrably, it takes one to know one.

No, you really are trying to save face. I'm already getting along with people here, and don't need to resort to hyperbole to get my point across. You're embarrassed aren't you? You thought you alone knew about Dickens' life and were the first to spread it to the masses? But someone's shown you up!

I knew trying to argue with you would be fruitless and it's shown in these last few exchanges - you're just taking me round in circles with your wiki-read 'knowledge'. Give me substantial evidence for the 'villainy' (ooh, what a terrible word; Dickens' fans are afraid - oooh! ) otherwise you're just the crackpot misandrist that everyone can see you are. I knew trying to argue with you would be fruitless and it's shown here.

edit.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

More hyperbole and hysterical laughter? Desperate sounding.

"WHAT ABOUT HIS WORK THAT OPENED PEOPLE EYES TO THE HARSH TREATMENT AND CONDITIONS OF THESE CHILDREN?"

What about Dickens opening eyes to men's subjugation treatment of women, especially their own wives? No lessons learned there.

As if intelligent people didn't see with their eyes the harsh treatment of children when they hit the streets. Do you imagine that Dickens was the only do-gooder in 19th Century England? For all Dickens's "bleating" about the misconduct of men towards women (Nancy, Mrs. Copperfield, Estella, etc) demonstrably the "Great Reformer" eyes remained firmly shut as he profited handsomely exposing women's sad conditions at the hands of men Like Himself.

"YOUR STILL CARRYING ON AS TO SAY HE TRAMPLED ON THESE KIDS (OOH--THE VILLIANY), WHEN IN FACT (AND YOU KNOW IT) HE HELPED THEM."

Oh my. Still telling me what I know and still putting words in my mouth. You clearly have something more sinister than a hyperbole addiction. Do you make these things up out of whole cloth or do you halluccinate them? Where did I say that Dickens trampled on slum children? As we all know Dickens ONLY trampled on his own children. "Harsh treatment"--seperating children from their own mother.
No eyes opened there.

"THAT'S YOUR EVIDENCE? (Hysterical laughter.) TRYING TO PASS OF DICKENS AS SOME SORT OF PANTO VILLIAN." (More hysterical laughter.)

Apparently, I hit a nerve.

I have manifestly presented sufficient evidence to convince Dickens himself.
"The great reformer" went so far as to thoroughly dishonor himself instigating a decades long cover-up replete with the worldwide publication of sanctamonious lies and fabrications "Before God and Man". Dickens ignoble intent was to destroy a loyal wife too feeble too fight back in exchange for his sham reputation.
The mark of a thug Dickens's Murdstone villian to the Max.

It is not just I who has passed off Dickens as a "panto villian", but Dickens himself. Refresh you poor memory by revisting Dickens's Penny Dreadfuls (Heep, Murdstone, Bentley Drummle, etc.)

Question: For what reason was Dickens terrified of being exposed if there existed no evidence of his villiany? It makes no sense. How many times have you pointed out that this put-upon louse had to "COVER-UP" the repugnant truth to "uphold his reputation" which according to Dickens's fanatical ilk is the ONLY means to an end that matters. Truth and justice not required. Tsk.

"LOOK UP THE POOR LAWS AROUND HIS TIME AND HOW THEY CHANGED....LOOK HOW HE CAMPAIGNED FOR THESE AND HOW IT GOT CHANGED. LOOK AT CHRISTMAS, AND HOW HE DID MORE FOR THE WAY WE CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS THAN ANYONE ELSE, BEFORE OR SINCE." blaa, blaaa....& etc.

Reality check: There existed reformist politicians, authors, and do-gooders LONG before and since Dickens. The late 18th and early 19th Century were the pivotal periods for reformist change and there abounded do-gooders who sweated and toiled to improve the lives of the poor, far more than did the pen of the Lord & master of Gad's Hill. Have you not heard of, Lord Ashley, Blizard, Carlile, Doherty, Fielden, Hetherington, Hobhouse, Hunt, Oaslter, Owen, Robert Peel, Sadler, Stephens, Samuel Smith, Trollope, Abraham Whitehead, John Ward, Florence Nighingale, Gladstone, Disreli, etc. These heroes had far more to do with improving the plight of the poor than Dickens ever forgot.

Ever heard of the English Reform Movement? (Having piffle to do with Dickens.) The Great Reform Act of 1832? The 1831 and 33 Factory Act? The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act? The 1837 Registration Act?.. and so on. All done without Dickens good intentions and published blatherings. True, Dickens did bring attention to class inequality and oppression, just one of many authors and journalist who did without a second thought to fame, fortune, popularity, or self promotion.
Unfortunately, Dickens forgot the Golden Rule in his own home.
A poor example for mankind.

Dickens's influence on Christmas has proved of doubtful benefit to the celebration of Christ's birth.
(I have been to several Dickens's Fairs.)

Once again, you spin to mask sustained abominable behaviors, published lies & slanders, & Heep hypocrisies pointing to "good deeds".
i.e. One standard for Dickens, one standard for Dickens's villians.
Is this how Dickens "inspires" mankind?
Did Dickens allow for a pass for his wife oppressing villians?

Despots and oppressors are frequently doing "good deeds" when they are not abusing powerless "unequals". Do they rate cover-ups too?

It is you who holds Dickens to a modern day standard when you shrug off his repugnant hypocricies and decades long cruelty with contemporary un-Dickens like bromides such as "His marriage ended." "Get bleating over it, woman." "Move on." It all amounted to no more than an extra-marital "affair". "Of absolutely no consequence or importance." "So what?" "Nobody cares."....in finitum.
Apparently, consumate hypocrite Dickens cared VERY MUCH and for good reason.
In Victorian England gentlemen did not "end" their marriages.
Gentlemen of honor did not discard wives, seperate them from their children, or publish cover-up falsehoods in exchange for sham reputations and teenage mistresses--and Dickens damn well knew it. Translation: dishonor. Hence the cover-up. In civilized society gentlemen tolerated their marriages and the mother of their ten children. Not a difficult thing to do when one has piously acquired fame & fortune as the "protector of home, hearth and the OPPRESSED", had a large estate, a housekeeper, and plenty of servants.

Dickens's antics defined Dickens-esq oppresion and villainy.
Is it any wonder Dickens life became increasingly "dark, fatalistic, and hopeless".

A wise man once said, "What does it profit you if you gain the whole world but lose your soul."
That is the connection between Dickens and his Penny Dreadfuls.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

so, you're back, eh? You're just recycling your old posts, now. What have you brought to the table aside from your 'terrible cruelty' rants?

I've hit a nerve with you - check out the length of your posts, woman!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

It takes some length to answer the truck load of halucinations from your RECYCLED posts. Unfortunately, you don't present logical answers or questions save straw man mantras to give louse Dickens a pass on the spurious grounds that he has a "reputation to uphold" and he's your favorite iconic author of Penny Dreadfuls.

Clearly, It is I who keep a nerve.

Do you really stand by 27/7 waiting for my posts? It would seem so. Oh, my.
The mark of a true fanatic.

By the way, on the subject of England's Reform Movement (addressed in my last post)--you need to read at least one SERIOUS history book.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

I've answered your questions, but you keep on recycling the same old, same old. There is an agenda in your argument and its clear for all to see.

By the way, on the subject of England's Reform Movement (addressed in my last post)--you need to read at least one SERIOUS history book.

By the way yourself. You go and read it.

Do you really stand by 27/7 waiting for my posts? It would seem so. Oh, my.
The mark of a true fanatic.

oh, but of course, Mary, dear, Mary! It's a lark and a half seeing you so riled!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

(Hysterical Laughter) "IT'S IT'S A LARK AND A HALF SEEING YOU SO RILED! (More Hysterical Laughter).)

I could tell my posts were delighting you.

"THERE IS AN AGENDA IN YOUR ARGUMENT AND IT'S CLEAR FOR ALL TO SEE."

If opinion constitutes a sinister plot you are wrong--AGAIN.
(Are you paranoid TOO?)

I merely began by pointing out that Dickens was a snot (fact) and you went berserk.
Do you always get this riled when confronted with a logical deduction?

Incidentally, did you acquire your snobery elitism from Dickens?
i.e. That "unequals" and "inferiors" don't count and are "absolutely of no consequence" when compared to corrupt despots with "reputations to uphold" for "the greater good" in "the larger scheme of things"?
Is this how Dickens "opened" your eyes?

NO more of your Heep tripe. Demonstrably, you identify with Dickens's villians--NOT justice, truth, or the oppressed and downtrodden.

You also have protested too much. Why not just admit that Dickens was a Murdstone villian run amuck and put yourself out of your misery?

P.S.If I "recycled" it was only because of your inabilty to respond coherently in your posts. I was sincerely (naively?) holding out that you would come up with rational explantions to bolster your rabid defense of louse Dickens, and all I got was snob appeal.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

P.S.If I "recycled" it was only because of your inabilty to respond coherently in your posts. I was sincerely (naively?) holding out that you would come up with rational explantions to bolster your rabid defense of louse Dickens, and all I got was snob appeal.

Aha! So you finally admit your 'argument' is recycled! I gave rational explanations, go read them, but your sneaky and insidious language can only cause one to laugh and look back and proclaim you as a crackpot, because any other sane exchange with you causes a lengthy diatribe on 'villainy'!

Let's agree to disagree, because you clearly don't like me liking Dickens, and even though I admit he did wrong with Catherine, you still persist to push through with your laughable personal agenda.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Wishful thinking Ken.

Yego has DELIGHTED Mary--would be more like it.

In denial hypocrisy and straw man spin in defense of Murdstone & Drummle villiany from two Penny Dreadful "DICKENS INSPIRED" sycophant fanatics is just TOO irresitible to pass up.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

I've not denied anything, Mary. I've made you rather snappy and it's illustrated from the long-winded hyperbolic posts. My bait worked out pretty well, too!

Straw man? I believe you've used up all the straw, Mary!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

And Mary's LOVING it!

MORE! MORE! MORE!

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Poor Yegorushka. Reduced to maniacal laughter.

The price paid by a fantatic in denial with no where to hide.

boo hoo

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

laughter is the best medicine!

You know what? Let's leave it at that, okay? Apologies for the name-calling.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

Agreed. Laughter may be the best antidote.

Apologies: ditto.

Let's fold out tents (for now) and enjoy author Dickens tonight!

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

"WOW--THE FANATIC PREACHES ON! YOU'VE REALLY BEEN RILED, HAVEN'T YOU? CAD, LOUSE? LISTEN TO YOURSELF, WOMAN!!!!!!! (Hysterical laughter)

WOW--Demomonstrably, it is I who have touched a nerve (haven't I), and you cannot "GET OVER IT" or "MOVE ON".

"MORON."

Unfortunately, adhominem attacks aren't arguments.

sigh....

Question: Is this how Dickens fanatics Yegorushka and Kenny-165 have been INSPIRED by their "greater good" Penny Dreadful guru?
i.e. To side with, make excuses, and negate despicable villiany targeting the weak and oppressed to promote their own self-serving ends? TSK.

Even DASTARDLY Dickens's villians Edward Murdstone and Bentley Drummle did not like Dickens:

Blame their spouses for the number of children they bore them or for the expense.

Did not publicly dictate to their children and the world that their wives were "inferiors" and not their "equals".
(Actually, LOUSE Drummle did.)

Did not take teenage mistresses and leave their trinket gifts for their "intellectually unequal" wives to find in their own homes.

Did not confiscate their spouse's children and exile them into permanent EXCLUSION as wives and mothers.

Did not utilize their "unequal" powers to publish "before heaven and earth" proclamations of "a sacredly private nature" to advance cruel slanders, Heep-like hypocritical pieties, and sanctimonious falsehood, to destroy the public and private dignity of a loyal wife to cover up illicit mistresses and preserve their own sham reputations.

ALL OF THIS Murdstone and Drummle did NOT do for the "greater good" in order to promote themselves as inonic "defenders and protecters of home, hearth, and the OPPRESSED"--for fame, fortune, and reputation.

Bottom line. Dickens the Man defines the consumate Dickens villian--without honor.

Question: Did professional social & domestic muckraker Dickens ever come clean?
NO: HE LIED AND COVERED HIS COWARD'S ASS UNTIL THE END.

Did Dickens the author make excuses or negate his villian's despicable deeds for a "greater good"? NO.
Reality check: Dickens PUBLICLY EXPOSED (& destroyed) his villians for the Greater Good: i.e. JUSTICE.

As two "inspired" Dickens zealots and sycophants Yegorushka and Kenny-164 SHOULD be cheering my posts.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

look, their marriage was in trouble well before his affair and even more so during it; Catherine's sister sided with him in the argument, too.

What happened, happened. Get over it, woman. Dickens' biographers have commented on how this affected his work; his novels, if you've read any, takes a darker, pessimistic and fatalistic tone halfway through his career. The affair affected him, too - as well as the Staplehurst crash, and even then it didn't stop him in his quest for fighting for the greater good - am I pissing you off with these words? Good!

There have been many events in the life of this great man; some good, some bad - an affair does not make you evil; he fell out of love, it happens.

What I'm wondering is why you've got your knickers in such a twist? Even to the point of bringing in Hitler into this petty argument of yours.

you know what, we all know your agenda and it's obvious you're not going to change your stance any-time soon, so let's call an end to this.

edit.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

"WHERE DO I START"!

"MY GOD"!

"WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH"!

--should be my Dickens-esq hyperbole.

It is a load of rubbish and you know it; hyperbole reeks from your posts, not mine.

Even allowing for your congenital Dickens hysteria and manifest "hate" for doubters where was it written that I begrudge Dickens's "ideas, his vision, and his ability to transform himself."?

Oh, please! Read your posts! It's laced with bitterness about how his 'snob' aspect shines though his work and the lack of high-low pairings! Did we not mention a few of them? Why sidestep this?

But wouldn't such flagrant materialism have been better served RIGOROUSLY bailing out his many profitable "victims"?

So this is what it boils down to, eh? He valued money, he wrote for money a well as for his art, he was a patron to many other writers of the day (who also wrote for money, show me one who didn't and still doesn't). He spent his money and fame on worthy causes; I'm not sure what more you want him to do short of giving up everything he'd earned!

As "Celebrator of Hearth & Home" Dickens's mantras literally became his profession as his very public letter self-justifying dumping the downtrodden "unequal" mother of his ten resented children for a teenage mistress made evident.

So? she was intellectually unequal! Prove to me that this wasn't the case! Are you somehow thinking that you're revealing new information to the public? So for this act, you're begrudging his legacy? Never mind how he himself felt stifled creatively - the man was a genius and he was struggling emotionally and mentally in this relationship - one could see it was going to end badly, why are you so surprised? Are you one of those who think that their favourite artist must be whiter than white? Dickens thrived on this image in his day, but now isn't his day, is it? I mean if you're going to judge him by modern standards, why not do so, now? What about Ellen Ternan and her mother, do you spew your spleen at them too? Because they acquiesced to the relationship, too.

Would we have the rest of his catalogue if it were not for this renewed burst of energy? The man had his demons and he found solace in work, Ellen Ternan gave him impetus - Catherine Hogarth didn't; the man worked himself through ill-health all the way to death, it was the way he coped with his troubles.

Dickens was a benevolent man, but like all genius before and after, they can be pricks to their own, but he was benevolent to all. That train crash at Staplehurst is a prime example.

Lennon and Dickens were brothers under the skin. Both were adept at creating grotesque personalities and implausible occurances.

And this is bad because? I mean, did Dickens not write fiction? His work is filled with the grotesque and implausible occurances: it's Dickens!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

I will try to answer your post laced with bitterness.

"THIS IS WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO, EH?" (i.e. Dickens's $$$.)

How the enslaved Catherine Dickens's overseer spent his massive fortune gleened from "exposing the lives of the oppressed" never entered my mind until you imprudently posed the question. Never would I have suggested that the Lord and master of Gad's Hill apostate and forfeit his loot in exchange for a life spent with his many victim soulmates. That would indeed define hyperbole and hysteria.

I sidestep nothing. What has Dickens's manifest snobbery, hypocrisy and cruelty have to do with my begrudging him his "vision" (i.e. Penny Dreadfuls) or abilty to "transform himself" into the potentate of Victorian injustice? Weren't you the one who neatly pointed out that Lennon was a rotten little creep who also penned well received "inspirational" ditties?

"SO? SHE WAS INTELLECTUALLY UNEQUAL! PROVE TO ME THIS WASN'T THE CASE!..
WHY ARE YOU SO SURPRISED?"

Admittedly, you make a hearfelt case for the right of powerful men to oppress "unequal" women and separate them from their children.
The real tragedy (apparently) is that Dickens's timing was innopportune for his convenience. A pity Dickens did not discover that his "unequal" wife was disposable garbage and rated being tossed before he married and mistakenly had TEN "resented" children with her.
(Amazing. Is THIS how the "champion of the oppressed" INSPIRES his whorshippers?)

"ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE WHO THINKS THAT THEIR FAVORITE AUTHORS MUST BE WHITER THAN WHITE?"

I take it you think your favorite author is just a tad below White As The Driven Snow.

"IF YOUR GOING TO JUDGE HIM BY MODERN STANDARDS."

If I judged Dickens by modern standards I would have to give him a total pass.
I judge Dicken's by HIS own sanctimonious pieties (read his books) and by 19th Century standards which he both evoked and profited by.

"WHAT ABOUT ELLEN TERNAN AND HER MOTHER. DO YOU SPEW YOUR SPLEEN ON THEM TOO!..BECAUSE THEY ACQUIESCED TO THE RELATIONSHIP."

Quite. I would rather cut my throat then allow that Ellen Ternan and her mother should have failed to "acquiesce" to a rich and famous "struggling" genius.

"NEVER MIND HOW HE FELT STIFLED CREATIVELY. ELLEN TERNAN GAVE HIM IMPETUS--CATHERINE HOGARTH DIDN'T."

Really? Precisely, how did Dickens's marriage to the "unequal" Catherine (1836-1858) STIFLE his genius creativity?
i.e.:
Pickwick Papers (1838)
Oliver Twist (1838)
Nicholas Nickleby (1839)
A Christmas Carol (1843)
Martin Chuzzlewit (1844)
David Copperfield (1848)
Bleak House (1853)
Hard Times (1854)
Little Dorrit (1855).

Manifestly Dickens never had it so good as when his creativity was being desecrated by his marital ball and chain. Think of all the masterpieces that the world would have been denied had he never married DUD Catherine?

"DICKENS'S WAS A BENEVOLENT MAN!"

We will take your word for it that Dickens was the salt of the earth who broke his wife, denied her access to his resented 10 children, and refused to condescend to marry his mistress because of the slight it would have caused his hallowed reputation.

"HE WAS BENEVOLENT TO ALL!...THE STAPLEHURST TRAIN CRASH IS A PRIME EXAMPLE."

The Staplehurst train crash? Granted, it was heady of "a genius" to try to help the wounded and dying before rescuers arrived. Fortunately for humanity, Dickens never flinched from his own self promotion or the opportunity to exploit a good tragedy. As a result Dickens wrestled a few ghost stories out of Staplehurst and typically managed to avoid an appearance at the inquest into the crash, as it would have become known that he was traveling that day with his mistress Ellen Ternan which would have exosed his public and private hypocrisies and caused a scandal.

By the way, it was Ternan, not Catherine, who was responsible for Dickens's "breakdown" and subsequent separation from the culprit mother of his resented ten children.

I agree. Dickens authored sentamentally grotesque and implausable fictions.

reply

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

So, Mary identifies with Catherine Dickens. We get it.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

kenny: we get it, indeed!

Somehow acknowledging Dickens' benevolence and his genius is tantamount to trampling upon poor Catherine Hogarth!

reply

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

re--Kenny-164

Wasn't your whole point that Dickens's "INSPIRED" mankind (through his "masterpieces") to identify with and SIDE WITH the "oppressed and downtrodden"?

So, Kenny-164 and Yegorushka identify with Dickens many hypocrites and villians.
We get it.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

I can see where you stand on this. Hyperbole personified. I mentioned what I did to bait you out of the hole and you took it.

reply

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

It never ceases to amaze how people can come up with these personal agendas.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

It never ceases to amaze how people can come up with these personal agendas.

I don't know whom she thinks she's fooling. It's as though she's read a wiki article, and decided she's an expert on peoples' private lives (an imdb gossip trait amongst hags) and think she's some higher being come down to earth to smear the good work of others. Perhaps she's not aware that those 'penny dreadfuls' she keeps mentioning influenced the great Russian writers.

edit.

reply

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Dickens was too much of a snob to have had his genteel heroine (who was also an "heiress" with prospects) end up with a poor working class man.

Surely you jest? Dickens a snob? A man who grew up from the very streets he wrote about, and whose work opened the eyes of many to the abject poverty and trafficking of women and children in prostitution? The man whose work actually managed to change poor laws in England? A snob, indeed! Hmphh!

reply

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

Pet is another thing. I don't want to needlessly diss the actress playing Pet, but in the book I thought Pet was supposed to be shall we say somewhat more attractive.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

If Amy married John, she'd always live at Marshalsea. IMO, she deserves more--she should be able to expand beyond life in a debtor's prison. Aside from the fact that she doesn't love John and she does love Arthur, there's also the fact that Arthur can offer her more than a life behind the walls of Marshalsea.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maryborrege 15 years ago

But Monkey--

Amy makes very clear that she was very content with her purposeful life in Marshalsea, and BORED to death by her life as a "lady" of leisure.

reply

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

I doubt she would have that kind of life with Arthur, and besides, she LOVES Arthur.

Those are not the only two choices: Lady of Leisure or Life in Marshalsea. There is something in between, which, I'm sure, is what her life would be with Arthur.

reply

[–] ecbbgb 15 years ago

In either case, whether she married John or Arthur, she would most likely have been busy very soon with caring for her children -- something she clearly would have found purposeful.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gallileo60 14 years ago

Nothing wrong with the age gap...It was much more common back then...

You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..

Better Living Thru Chemistry

reply