Customer Reviews

Penguin Classics Bleak House

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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............

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.

Nothing in Dickens prepares us for the greatness of Bleak House, asserts Norrie Epstein in the superb Penguin book, The Friendly Dickens. I couldn't agree with Epstein more. That writer even goes on, amazingly, to describe this novel as "the jewel in the crown of 19th century English literature." Wow! I guess that's liking something!

My own opinion is that, if Dickens had never written anything else, he would still have deserved his final resting place beneath the floor of Westminster Abbey. I returned to Dickens at a stage in my life when I have time now to do so, having read nothing by him since the three required novels of my high-school days. It's an understatement to say that I enjoyed it hugely.

Bleak House, while not a very well-known Dickens novel, is frequently described as his greatest. Now in his early 40s, he seems to me to have reached the height of his creative genius, the peak of his writing and imaginative power. Time and again throughout Bleak House, I found myself stopping, backing up, and re-reading a sentence or a paragraph, and reveling in delight at the almost miraculous language, the imagery and the command and the brilliance of a first-class craftsman.

In a book of almost 1000 pages, we meet a large number of characters, from the pathetic to the unbearable, to the elevated and the admirable. As elsewhere, Dickens has characters' names do much of his work for him--names such as Lady Dedlock, Mr Smallweed and Mr Krook are a treat. The Penguin Classics version I bought from Amazon is clean and readable, with notes at the back for difficult or unusual references. This edition includes the original 1852/53 sketches as illustrations throughout the text, and we are even shown where Dickens started and ended the installments to be mailed to those lucky subscribers each month. Pages of Dickens's working and planning notes are thrown in at the back for good measure.

So read it and enjoy it; the 19th Century novel doesn't come any better than this--rank heresy, I know, from someone who grew up only two miles from Haworth Parsonage. As expected from Dickens, we are treated to a social and economic history lesson as part of the ride--again a treat for someone who specialized in economic history at the London School of Economics--in a novel apparently set in the late 1830s, and mostly in London (but only mostly).

(If the book isn't enough for you, a DVD version of the Bleak House serial that has just run on BBC television in the UK will be available after Feb28/06 at an attractive Amazon price, and can be pre-ordered already--I know it because I've done it.)
Ken Greenwood

good? Dickens may be a venerated classical writer, but unless one is fascinated by books of this period, or by Dickens' writings, there is little to be satisfied in reading this book. I'm sorry, but Dickens' "Bleak House" is like a poorly done soap opera - it goes on and on, in interminable detail and description, and one comes to believe it will never end! There are whole chpaters where nothing happens yet, if you skip ahead, you may miss one important detail. It is, quite frankly, boring! The reader practically falls asleep reading and often even misses the interesting segments because their minds have been numbed by previous pages of undirected rambling. For this book to appeal to the average reader, it needs to be revised or abridged, so that the reader does not get bogged down in so much trivial detail. Yes, I know,this is Dickens,the great Dickens, but a reader cannot love a book based on the author's name. Yes, Dickens is important in an historical sense and the details are important to 1)understanding the society of the time, 2)seeing the metaphors created by well described scenes, 3)illuminating the pretensions that are satarized, etc. and there are parts that do have an important meaning for the book - the long description in the opening chapter of the London fog (as representative of the "fog" in the legal system of the day, is valuable and well-written and even keeps the reader interested), but others are superfluous and tedious - detailed descriptions of the horses in the stables on a rainy day at Chesney Wold. If one thinks to read this book to better understand the historical times, one would be more informed and entertained with a history text. You have to be patient if you want to read this book, and you have to have a large block of time set aside to read it. I do not wish to disparage Dickens, but I cannot agree that it is a fascinating book for the average reader (and I do not refer to the "average" reader as a primitive, thrill seeker looking only for sex and violence, I refer to readers as intelligent persons who enjoy reading and appreciate good literature). "Bleak House" has great litrary value but as an enjoyable read, it just does not make the grade.

I loved this book, for the following reasons. First, in Dicken's usual fashion, he makes his characters memorable. There is no character that Dickens does not take the time to make an intricate work of art. The criticism that these characters are "stock" seems ridiculous to me, since very few authors could create "stock" characters as memorable and lively as what Dickens does.
Secondly, this book has an amazingly intricate plot that Dickens somehow manages to keep under control. In some of Dickens' novels he loses control of the narrative and has to introduce last-minute characters and wildly hilarious coincidences in order to resolve the plot. Not the case here. Dickens does not have to resort to any desperate last-minute tricks to tie his plot strands together. However, there is so many plot strands to track, that if you read this book lazily, you will surely be lost already in the first 200 pages. So pay attention!
Thirdly, Dickens' satire of the court of Chancery and human foibles in general remains timeless, as it is in most of his novels I have read. Even though this novel is firmly set in the 19th century, I found myself recognizing today's situations in it. Not so much has changed, after all.
So why only four stars? Ultimately, I think Dickens could have served his purpose better with a less complex novel. Some of the stories which are told serve only as filler, and are a little tiring to work through. Also, sometimes Dickens' characters' behaviour is a little unbelievable, thinking especially of some characters' insane affection for one another.
However, I highly recommend this book. Dickens' style takes some getting used to, but it's well worth the effort.

How to describe the story? I leave to better reviewers than I. A long and complicated tale about a dispute over a will and a family inheritance that destroys most of the litigants, either to madness or death, leaving it all to the bloodsucking attorneys.

There are many many unusual characters in the book and you have to pay close attention (or better yet, keep notes), as in the end the author brings everything full circle and not a character is wasted, and ends up playing a part in the tale. It's just amazing how Dickens slowly tells his story, like peeling an onion. Layer after layer is slowly revealed one after another until it all pulls together in the end. I haven't seen another author do this quite as good since reading Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo (unabridged version of course).

Definitely one not to be missed, and I would hope it's required reading at law school, but I seriously doubt that.

How can I possibly put into words how marvelous this book is?

Charles Dickens proves himself to be the master of descriptions in this literary piece. Wonderful, expansive metaphors and similes - I often found myself rereading paragraphs just to savor them. And the word usage! Keep a dictionary close at hand, and I promise your vocabulary will be increased by the time you complete "Bleak House."

At sixty seven chapters long, this novel is no short piece. I found that I could not read it when I was drowsy, because there are little details that need to be picked up on. I recommend reading a chapter summary (cliffnotes.com) after each one, just to make sure that you do not overlook something very important (just beware of those damn spoilers).

This book shows Dickens' contempt for the Chancery court, overzealous philanthropists, and many other attributes of society that he just could not resist throwing barbs at. Even the minor characters are elaborated on, and soon you will find yourself liking and admiring them - and being unbelievably crushed when terrible things befall those poor souls. I was amazed at how seamlessly Dickens could shift moods. At times his descriptions would make Poe shine with glee.

There are some chapters that are a bit tedious, but not unbearable. Speed read what you can not stand, because the excellent parts in this novel more than make up for anything that is not attention grabbing. Bear in mind that in the Victorian era, television and other immediate forms of entertainment did not exist, and Dickens' audience had a desire to sit down and have every little detail regaled to them, as with most literary pieces.

Not a single person in this book goes without their own personality, habits, and essence - no one is one dimensional at all. Esther, the selfless heroine, actually reminded me a great deal of Lewis Carroll's character Alice Liddle, in Alice in Wonderland - perhaps because she seemed so self-punishing but well intentioned. It seems that every character highlights the traits in the next.... The constant contrasts between everyone makes for a wonderful literary creation.

Be patient with this novel - be willing to give it time to develop, and enjoy its beautiful prose and subplots - and I promise you will not be disappointed.

This book is without a doubt as relevant now as it was when Dickens wrote it. In fact, its probably more so. As G.K. Chesterton said, when Dickens wrote this book, he had grown up. We have the civil courtroom as it really is, a grinding machine that breaks lives underneath it every day. We see the lawyers who feed off of all this human misery, and encourage their clients to wreck their lives while piously portraying themselves as upholders of the law.
Of course, this book is about a lot more than just the law. One of the most amusing subplots involves various women involved in charity. As the character Mr. Jarndyce says, there are two kinds of people who do charitable work. Some accomplish a great deal, and make very little noise, and some make a great deal of noise, and accomplish nothing. Of course, most of the ones in this book are of the second catagory. The most memorable by far is Mrs. Jellybee, who obsesses over a colony in Africa while her own family falls apart around her. It's exactly like people today, who want to save the whales or free Tibet while people in their own neighborhoods starve.
The characters in this book are excellent, and far more realistic than in most of Dickens's works. Mr. Jarndyce is the heroic father figure, but he is a real one, who tried to be kind and guide his family but can only watch helplessly while his nephew slowly destroys himself trying to overcome the court, which of course is impossible.
Many people have had trouble with the character of Esther Summerson, and her relentless goodness and self-effacement. I think she is a fantastic character, and is Dickens's way of reinforcing the message of the book, that you need to find happiness in your own life, and things like lawsuits do nothing but destroy happiness and should be avoided. No one changes the world in this book. They just help those that they can and try to go on with their own lives. That's why this book shows a more mature view of Dickens. This is great reading for anyone, especially anyone involved in the law. Five Stars for this book!!

Ada Clair and Richard Carstone come to live as wards of John Jarndyce at Bleak House, a manor in the English country side. Their governess is Esther Summerston, an orphan, who in the course of the novel gets three proposals of marriage. Quite an accomplishment for a modest unassuming Victorian maiden. One prospective suitor is a bit pesky, another too old and the third, well...you can imagine how perplexing this attention can all be for mild mannered Esther. As Richard Carstone matriculates to his majority he and Ada come to profess their love for one another. At the same time, Richard becomes preoccupied with a contested will, the infamous Jarndyce v Jarndyce which has wended its way through chancery for...could it be...decades? His zeal to win is reinforced by spendthrift man-child Harold Skimpole and a lawyer named Boythorn. Oh, there is intrigue aplenty here. Another lawyer seems to thrive on putting the screws to folks. Barrister Talkinghorn brings down the arrogant Lady Deadlock with his discovery of a child born out of wedlock. Instrumental in the unraveling of her mystery is a poor street urchin, Little Jo, whose life and fate are the stuff of nightmares. The mistreatment he receives make me shudder. Well, Dickens has in Bleak House quite a study in greed, primarily the greed of lawyers whose fees dry up the goods when petitioners come to chancery. It is a somber slow paced book well crafted and rewarding to the patient 21st century reader. For the instant, just add water types, skim the book, skip the slow laborious places...