Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1John
Following are quotes concerning Charles Dickens from the Commonplace Book of George Gissing. Based on this, admittedly limited sample, it would seem that Gissing did not always hold Dickens in the highest regard.
Nothing in literature affects me so powerfully as certain passages in Homer. The Hector & Andromache, the scene where the horse addresses Achilles, the mourning of Andromache, etc, always bring trears, howsoever often I read them. Shakespeare not often affects me in that way. Modern pathos has for the most part lost its power over me. Dickens, almost entirely. I don't think the death of Col. Newcome would be to me now what it once was. The Mucklebackits, however, are still strong.
Without doubt, Dickens at first intended the change to miserliness in Mr.Boffin for a perfectly real one. I should not wonder if the murmurings of the imbecile public induced him to alter his plan, or perhaps he himself shrank from the worthier course. In either case, the instance illustrates Dickens's grave defect.
Dickens's protest against moral restrictions...
I am constantly astonished to think of the small use Dickens made of his vast opportunities; in the matter of observation among the lower classes. The explanation of course is, that he did not conceive of a work of fiction as anything but a romance. The details which would to me be most precious, he left aside as unsuitable, because unattractive to the multituude of novel-readers.
To realize the inferiority of Dickens to Thackeray, it is enough to compare Major Bagstock with Major Pendennis, & Toots with Foker. I don't know how the books stand as to relative date, but the characters in Dombey might be intended to rival those in Pendennis, & in any case the result of such comparison is ludicrously against Dickens. (I find that Dombey was published first.)
Two biographies have a supreme attraction for me, & yet always excite me to dicontent & misery,---Forster's "Dickens", and Daudet's "Trente Ans de Paris". The happiness of these stories at once delights me and wrings my heart.
Nothing in literature affects me so powerfully as certain passages in Homer. The Hector & Andromache, the scene where the horse addresses Achilles, the mourning of Andromache, etc, always bring trears, howsoever often I read them. Shakespeare not often affects me in that way. Modern pathos has for the most part lost its power over me. Dickens, almost entirely. I don't think the death of Col. Newcome would be to me now what it once was. The Mucklebackits, however, are still strong.
Without doubt, Dickens at first intended the change to miserliness in Mr.Boffin for a perfectly real one. I should not wonder if the murmurings of the imbecile public induced him to alter his plan, or perhaps he himself shrank from the worthier course. In either case, the instance illustrates Dickens's grave defect.
Dickens's protest against moral restrictions...
I am constantly astonished to think of the small use Dickens made of his vast opportunities; in the matter of observation among the lower classes. The explanation of course is, that he did not conceive of a work of fiction as anything but a romance. The details which would to me be most precious, he left aside as unsuitable, because unattractive to the multituude of novel-readers.
To realize the inferiority of Dickens to Thackeray, it is enough to compare Major Bagstock with Major Pendennis, & Toots with Foker. I don't know how the books stand as to relative date, but the characters in Dombey might be intended to rival those in Pendennis, & in any case the result of such comparison is ludicrously against Dickens. (I find that Dombey was published first.)
Two biographies have a supreme attraction for me, & yet always excite me to dicontent & misery,---Forster's "Dickens", and Daudet's "Trente Ans de Paris". The happiness of these stories at once delights me and wrings my heart.
2tomcatMurr
Oh this is really interesting (I'm a bit confused as to what is Gissing's opinion, and what is your opinion on Gissing...) about what he says here about the change to Mr Boffin! Had this occured earlier in his career, I would have agreed. Reading the pre-Dombey works, I often have the sense that Dickens is improvising, writing on the hoof (perhaps according to market demand). There's often the sense that Dickens is simply following the story as it evolves.Beginning with Dombey, hower, there is lots of evidence to suggest that Dickens took more care with planning the structure of the story. By this time in his career (Our Mutual Friend was his last finished novel) Dickens had evolved into such a sophisticated craftsman that even a fellow craftsman like Gissing was taken in!
Thanks for posting this.
Thanks for posting this.
