1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars
Bleak Read!, Dec 2 2010
I've read other Dickens novels and found them -- even with their inevitable digressions -- to hang together much better than this one. The introduction of comical but irrelevant characters really becomes wearing after a while. And Esther Summerson has got to be one of the sappiest characters of world literature. Although she narrates half the novel, she seems to have no desires of her own but has in mind only the welfare of everyone else. I think she must represent Dickens' ideal of what a Victorian woman should be: self-effacing, subservient, and endowed with endless patience.
Your patience, though, will be sorely tested if you decide to wade through the novel's 850-some pages. However, the first chapter IS wonderful and worth reading if you read nothing else in this novel. His skewering of the legal system is priceless.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5.0 out of 5 stars
the novel and the BBC broadcast....., May 7 2012
This truly was, and remains, a monumental task; both for the reader and the author. Charles Dickens, with his classical style of creating characters that literally jump off the page and into your psyche, outdid himself with this critically favored tale. For the reader the task is no less a challenge; a 1000+ page story that meanders from site to site, characters that slip in and out of the tale in a few pages to a plotline that is fully engrossing and universally symbolic of our past and present social ills.
The BBC presentation actually did some things better than even Mr. Dickens did himself. Esther, the protagonist of the tale, is depicted in a more highly realistic manner. She is a somber, less than educated survivor who, while welcoming the protection provided by Bleak House, does not extol on its every detail as done through the printed text. In the book, however, and because of the 1st person singular that is represented through Esther, her personality is portrayed as one of complete loving, caring and giving. While Dickens was attempting to establish the theme of 'universal goodness' he seemed to stretch the symbolic cord to its breaking point. Any person coming from a background similar to Esther's rearing by Miss Barbary would not be 'pure goodness' but would, at best, portray BBC's more cynical and realistic characterization of her. Harold Skimpole, likewise, was depicted in a more realistic manner in the filmed production. No, his characterization remains the same but the persons around him are less forgiving and accepting of his selfishness and irresponsibility as depicted by Mr. Dickens.
But, the remaining characters of the novel, without a doubt are some of the most colorful and unforgettable that the reader will ever encounter. Grandfather Smallweed, who has to be physically 'shaken up' periodically, is the greediest and most opportunistic of mankind. Mr. Snagsby tolerates more marital abuse than any character previously encountered. The Reverend Mr. Chadband portrays all of the repetitive liturgical nonsense the Dickens has railed about in other novels and Jo, the parentless child of the street, represents man's pathetic but inevitable inhumanity to even is most vulnerable.
My suggestion? Read the text and then view the BBC eight hour production. Knowing in advance the various twists and turns of the story, the televised characters can be fully appreciated for all their eccentricities and foibles............
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
Why Only Four Stars?, April 21 2004
Let's get a few obvious truths out of the way: 1. Charles Dickens is a writer of almost unparalled talent who could write just about anything he wanted and write it so well that he could avoid insulting the intelligentsia while still managing to entertain the masses around the world. 2. While storytelling techniques haven't changed so much over the years, the expectations of modern readers are very different from those of the Victorians. 3. Dickens wrote what he wanted to write, to entertain the readership, to make money, for his own personal enjoyment and to comment on the harsh realities of his world.
While I cannot deny that "Bleak House" is a work of genius, my review (presumptuous as it is for me to review Dickens at all) is that of a modern reader with different expectations than those who read his work 150 years ago. While I can appreciate his genius and talent, I don't have to find CONSTANT enjoyment in reading his works, which I do not.
When I was young, my father would entertain me by asking me to write down a number between 1 and 9. From my awkward 6-year-old scribbling he would cleverly draw a face, a different face every time. This amazed and entertained me. Similarly, I think you could give Dickens a few human characteristics, (say something like "a tall thin man who wears glasses and has a big nose. He smokes a pipe and stays up late reading hunting magazines") and from this skeleton he could create a detailed and interesting character, complete with verbal idiosyncracies, facial tics and unique mannerisms, an appropriate home and friends, and a complete biography. And he could do it in an instant. But like my father's caricatures, Dickens' characters are mere cartoons next to portraits of everyday reality. You don't expect to ever meet anyone like Mrs. Jellyby, Mr. Skimpole or Mr. Bucket. But you remember them nevertheless. Still, they are nothing like real people. Esther Summerson should be in heaven at this moment, because she has never so much as lost her temper. Ditto for John Jarndyce, Ada and Allen Woodcourt. They're saints. Meanwhile, Grandfather Smallweed should be in hell, because he has never had anything but selfish motives for so little as waking up in the morning.
But while you won't find too much reality or moral ambiguity in Dickens' works, that doesn't make his work less enjoyable. He creates so many characters that you're bound to like some while you hate others or are simply bored by a few. But somehow, in the vast gallery he creates, they are all different from one another, and instantly recognizable.
Some of my favorites in Bleak House are Mr. Turveydrop, Gridley, Mrs. Pardiggle, Boythorn, Mr. Skimpole and especially Reverand Chadband. To me, at least, the pompous preacher is a laugh riot. But the minor characters hardly serve a purpose at all. Charley, Jo, the Snagsbys, don't have to be part of the story, they're just there because Dickens likes to introduce us to people. He's very good at it. Unfortunately, I don't feel the same enjoyment when reading about the major characters. While I'm interested in what happens to Richard and Ada, Esther Summerson and Allen Woodcourt, the Jarndyces and the Dedlocks, they're just not as fun to read about as some of the minor characters. But reading a Dickens novel has been compared to attending a large dinner party and being introduced to a few dozen guests. You're bound to meet people you like and people you don't like. And we all choose uniquely.
But to my modern and cynical sensibilities, Dickens is first of all way too melodramatic. Understandable, I think, because that which shocked Victorian-era Londoners hardly raises an eyebrow among today's urban-dwelling Americans. Illigitemacy? Please, it's everywhere. Poverty? Suicide? Shocking? Hardly. There is also too much coincidence in his plots for my tastes, not to mention over-the-top pathos. The death of Jo, the crossing sweeper, for instance, leaves me cold. I feel absolutely nothing because it is so overdone. Ditto for Krook's death. I read it and yawned. Dickens' characters are seldom gray or morally ambiguous. And they behave predictably as a result.
But all those criticisms aside, I still managed to enjoy "Bleak House" a great deal. I just feel like he could have been less verbose. He didn't need 50 or so characters and nearly 900 pages to tell this story. He introduces characters who speak a few lines then disappear forever. And though he does it well, he describes things endlessly. The brilliant opening, for instance, could be reduced (in ideas at least) to "It's a foggy and muddy November in London, and the weather reflects the ongoings within the Court of Chancery." But of course, that hardly contains any interest at all. The beginning, by the way, truly is magnificent writing, but to what end? It's just too much FOR MY TASTES.
Read it, by all means, read it. You'll even enjoy huge portions of it. But don't expect never to be bored or confused by the lengthy convoluted sentences and SAT vocabulary where one-syllable words will do. Dickens is a genius, no doubt about it. And people will be reading his books 1,000 years from now. But how many of us read Shakespeare for pure enjoyment? Similarly, 1,000 years from now, Dickens will be an academic chore, not enjoyment. Luckily, that's still a ways off and you can still enjoy his works today without worrying about 1,000 years from now.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No