Charles Dickens Books

It can be quite harmful to a great writer like Charles Dickens when you insist that one his medicore books is one of his best. This book certainly has its moments and good points, but it also has a number of flaws. The start is actually quite grand. Charles Dickens puts himself into the first few pages and finds the lost Nell. Charles Dickens helps Nell find her way home to her grandfather and in a fierce way tells him to take better care of her. (Obviously Dickens writing this knows that he is not exactly grandfather of the year or even week.) Moving on, under the impression that his grandfather is rich, Nell's brother Fred insists on his share. (We don't know yet how poor Nell and her grandfather are.) Well, in comes Daniel Quilp. He lends some money to Trent (Nell's grandfather) for a purpose that Trent does not reveal. Soon afterwards, Nell brings a letter from her grandfather asking Quilp for more money. Now Quilp is starting to suspect something is up. It is not long before he realizes that Trent has been losing all the money at gambling. Quilp is furious, and we can scarcely blame him. Well, Quilp gains possession of Trent's house and gets at least part of his money back. Well, this was a grand start, but things start to drop from here. Nell and Trent decide to flee the area. Now, this is fine, but the fact that they wander with no clear destination does not work for me. (Even Oliver Twist knew he was heading towards London when he ran away from the Sowerberrys. Do Nell and Trent plan to spend the rest of their lives running away?) Well, this is sadly not the end. Quilp meets the eccentric but benevolent Dick Swiveller and he plots to have him marry Nell. (Being that Nell is a beggar.) It would seem that Quilp has been reduced from a sharp observer who had justifiable reasons for his anger to a simple prankster. Did Quilp even have a reason to dislike Swiveller? This does not work for me. Jingle (from "Pickwick Papers") was at least after some financial benefit. But a villain who enjoys pranks with no reason would seem beneath the genius of Dickens. Well, moving on, Trent and Nell find generosity and relief from several people along the way. Nell and Trent then find sanctuary under the benevolent Mrs. Jarley who owns a wax museum. (Mrs. Jarley is a lively character who is quite likable.) Well, moving on, under Quilp's orders, Sampson Brass (a crooked lawyer) hires Dick Swiveller. (This seems to be a lot of work for the prank of getting Dick and Nell to marry.) Quilp is indeed a fascinating character, but could it be that Dickens came up with this character and then realized he couldn't really encounter the main characters Trent and Nell anymore? Did Dickens perhaps feel that Trent would be enough of a villain to Nell, and himself for that matter? That brings me to the next problem I have with this story. After finding the much needed relief and sanctuary, Trent has no problem stealing from Nell to gamble again. To be sure, gambling can be addicitive, but he doesn't even hesitate. (This is inconceivable. Does he not realize how much the gambling cost him? Has he forgotten so soon how Nell stood by him through the troubles that gambling got him into?) Well, we can at least speculate. Charles Dickens's grandfather was a compulsive gambler. And perhaps Dickens could not hold back his contempt for his real grandfather when he wrote this book. Digressing a moment, varied opinions about Fagin from "Oliver Twist" exist. Some see Fagin as an outright villain who corrupts children, some see him as heroic, and some people see him as a man who has both faults and redeeming points. (Well, Trent makes Fagin look like a saint!) Back to the subject at hand, Trent continues to steal from Nell, and he even agrees to steal from Mrs. Jarley who was so kind to them! Is the much needed sanctuary worth a few more hands of cards?! Well, Nell convinces her grandfather to flee with her before this can happen. An interesting sub plot is when Dick Swiveller befriends the abused servant girl of Sampson and Sally Brass. Well, in comes Abel. He is Trent's brother and wants to help him, if only he can find him. They look for Trent and Nell at Jarley's Wax Works, but of course they are gone. Nell and Trent find that generosity is growing more scarce, but a man does offer them a night of hospitality. They then encounter the benevolent Martin who promises to provide them with a means of income. Moving on, Quilp once more engages in a prank that seems beneath him. He plans to frame Kit for theft. We can only infer that Quilp wants revenge because Kit threatened him earlier. But again, it seems inconceivable that a man of Quilp's sharpness and shrewdness would feel so threatened by this as to engage in an action that may prove dangerous to him. Well, Kit is framed, but under nominal threats, Sampson Brass confesses and fingers Quilp. Could the intelligent and shrewd Quilp have failed to foreseen that Sampson Brass would not be so brave if things started to go bad? Well, Quilp drowns trying to escape. Nell and her grandfather die, but Dick Swiveller has a happy end as he inherits a generous amount of money and marries the servant girl. While this book certainly has its redeeming elements, it does have its flaws. And to put it on the same level as "Oliver Twist," "David Copperfield," or "Great Expectations" borders on absurd.

The Old Curiosity Shop is one of Dickens's most often-overlooked novels. A quite long (720+ pages) novel, it originally appeared in weekly segment in Dickens's short-lived journal, Master Humphrey's Clock. Appearing originally in this form in 1840, they were a huge success. In this novel format, separated from the journal, it still makes for some delightful reading, though sometimes it is clear that it was originally published in weekly portions. That is to say, the novel is largely episodic, to an even greater degree than his masterpiece, Great Expectations. Nell and her grandfather's trials and tribulations experienced during their travels through the English countryside are interspersed with parallel urban scenes involving different characters. Much of it goes along with little apparent connection to what has come before, with very little in the way of suspense and not much to speak of in terms of a traditional plot. The book's charm lies centrally with the characters and with the pathos and other emotions that their triumphs and travails evoke. There is little in the way of a theme -- no philosophizing or moralizing. These features belie the story's origin. It can make it something of a slow read at times, but the book certainly has its virtues.

These reside chiefly in, as always, the wonderful characters of Dickens. Here he, indeed, conjured up a motley crew -- from the innocent, angelic Nell to the demonic, malevolent Daniel Quilp, and everyone in-between. Like much of Dickens's work, the chief joy in reading this book comes from the pure enjoyment of reading about these delightful characters. They exist for their own sake, outside of the restrictions of the basic plot. The character of Mr. Swiveller is one of his best-loved and most-enduring characters -- and the aforementioned Quilp is a devilish, beastly fiend to rank with Iago and Cathy from John Steinbeck's East of Eden. This book's chief strengths and weaknesses being thus laid out, suffice it to say that this is not Dickens's best book, and it is not where the new Dickens reader should start; try Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities for that. It is, however, a delightful read for the Dickens fan and should definitely be picked up and read by them in time, as well as by anyone who loves character-driven literature.

How many ways can Dickens' classic story be retold? What with Muppets, comedies, musicals, and dozens of dramatic renditions, one might think that there is no fresh take on this tale.

If one thought that, though, one would be wrong.

For anyone who enjoys Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be a Redneck" style of humor, this book is a must. David Boyd's illustrations will look very familiar because he also illustrates Foxworthy's books. The text is clever, fast paced, and awfully funny to those of us who live in the South. (Hey, I just got a dead car out of my yard, so I can't be too quick to point the finger at rednecks!)

A great gift for your favorite redneck or recneck wannabe.

Laugh at all the rednecks you know and love with this dead-on parody of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. Helton and Yow's jokes and gags are perfectly illustrated by David Boyd.

Peter Gay has taken three lectures and turned them into Savage Reprisals. Each of these essays looks at a different novel from the realist genre of the nineteenth century from three different countries; Bleak House, Madame Bovary, Buddenbrooks. The essays are connected by the Peter Gay's examination of the usefulness of these books to historians and by the authors of these novels' anger against their society and the revenge they take against it within their novels. It is easy to see how these essays were brought to life as lectures but they work quite effectively as written works as well. This book will even be of interest to those who have not read the particular novels in question. The epilogue is the crowning achievment of the book and well worth the price of admission. A short, quick, fun spin through the world of novelists, historians and the nineteenth century.

Peter Gay has over the past five decades gotten a reputation as a leading moderate liberal historian, writing on Voltaire, the Enlightenment, Freud and the sexual life of the 19th century middle class. He has shown himself as a moderate, common-sense historian with Freudian interests. This book, part of the Norton Lecture Series, asks to what extent is great literature reliable history? He looks at three major realist masterpieces: "Bleak House," "Madame Bovary" and "Buddenbrooks". Why these three were chosen, instead of, say "Middlemarch," "The Sentimental Education," or "The Maias," is never made clear. Nevertheless by looking at the pyschological problems of Dickens, Flaubert and Mann, he gives a negative verdict for the first two and a more positive one for Mann. He then spends a conclusion arguing against postmodernist nihilism and then praises "The Autumn of the Patriarch."

Unfortunately, this book does not do much credit to either Gay's critical skills or his historical abilities. Indeed, it confirms the worst opinions of European liberalism as being too unimaginative to appreciate the extremes of human behavior. Gay also uses Freudian theory in its most unimaginative way, as a simplistic supporter of order who reduces all differences to someone's abnormality. For a start, Gay's understanding of the books is not all that firm. His discussion of "Bleak House" starts with the death of the non-existent character Richard Carstairs, whom he has confused with Richard Carstone. Miss Flite does not expect an imminent judgement in her endless Chancery case; in fact she confuses judgement with the Final Judgement. It is not quite true that Mrs. Snagsby thinks her husband is having an affair; she actually thinks, utterly wrongly, that Jo is his illegitimate son. Flaubert does not jump in one famous passage from 1848 to 1867, but from 1851 to 1867. The gap, from the beginning of the Second French Republic to its end, is not a minor one, either historically or in the novel. It would be mistaking a gap in American novel from 1861 to 1880, when it is actually starts from 1865.

A more serious problem is Gay's superficiality. Given the revolution in literary criticism over the past three decades it is somewhat alarming to have Gay believe that Marxist criticism ends with George Lukacs. He is prone to making sweeping statements about Dickens, such as that Gradgrind and M'Choakumchild are merely caricatures, or that Leigh Hunt wasn't really like Harold Skimpole, or that the portraits of mothers are mere lampoons. There is no evidence or argument to support these statements: just flat assertion. There is a certain psychological superficiality as well. There is an interesting discussion of Esther Summerson's and Agnes Wickfield's excessive virtue arising out of extreme guilt. But Gay ignores the fact that of the unambiguously middle-class characters in "Bleak House", almost all are horrible parents. Mrs. Guppy is merely silly and Mrs. Woodcourt slightly foolish in her Welsh nostalgia. But Skimpole, Turveydrop, Smallweed, Mrs. Jellby and Mrs. Pardiggle are uniformly repulsive. Vholes incessantly mentions his daughter and father to justify his vampiric behavior, Carstone's foolishness kills himself before his son is even born, while Mrs. Chadband is a cold surrogate mother to Esther. Ironically the one middle-class parent who truly loves her child had her out of wedlock. What would a Freudian analysis make of all this, or the distorted families of Clennam and Dorrit? But Gay has no interest.

Instead he sees Dickens governed by rage, personally irritated by the Law over an unsuccessful lawsuit, and somewhat suspicious of his mother (he does not point out that Skimpole is a more malevolent Micawber, and therefore a more malevolent version of Dickens' father). "For all his protestations to the contrary, Dickens's commitment to the Reality Principle was at best intermitten." he says patronizingly. His main complaint against Dickens is that he underestimated the reforming intentions of good liberals like Gay himself. It therefore rather severely undercuts his case that Gay says that the Second Reform Act of 1867 gave the vote to most men when, in fact, it did not. He also criticizes Dickens for ignoring reforms that were starting right when he writing the novel, as if their success was assured and didn't need Dickens' polemic. It certainly takes a certain lack of imagination to say that there were no Bounderbys, Vholes, Dedlocks, Barnacles, Mrs. Clennams, Podsnaps or Veneerings in Victorian England. Gay's discussion of Flaubert is little better, and views his anger at the bourgeoisie as phobic rage. Allowing for certain self-dramatizing moments on Flaubert's part, this strikes me as obtuse. The July Monarchy was a narrow, illiberal oligarchy, notwithstanding its "liberal" elite; the Second Empire started out as a bloody dictatorship before it ended in ignomious defeat. Here is a man who writes one of the masterpieces of world prose and instead of being honored by his country is put on trial for obscenity. A certain contempt and indignation is all too well deserved. In trying to refute Flaubert's picture of provincial Rouen, Gay notes that one man (out of 100,000) bought impressionist paintings. Well, this is certainly a step up from Abraham, who had to prove five good men so as not to have Sodom incinerated. Here one good man refutes "Madame Bovary."

i had to read this book for school. i thought it was the worst book i ever read...it was stupid boring pointless dumn...must i go on. i would not recomend this bood to ANYONE. no offense if you are a lover of charles dickens, but this book SUCKS.

thats all...you can read it if you want but be warned...it is very stupid and boring

even though it was very long. I would recommend it to those who will actually sit down and read a book.

I think this is a great American classic. It teaches us that we are all capable of goodness and can experience the beauties of love if we cut the strings that bound us, and shaped us into being people that we never wanted to really be. It touches us by showing the ugliness of hatred and unnecessary feelings of vengeance and reconfirms my feeling that you have to be true to yourself. Love those who truly love you, and don't let other people involve you in their twisted private battles of hatred and hurt.

I read this novel and i found it very interesting .Even from the title we feel the irony of the writer:there are "Great Expectations",but none of the heroes of the book can acomplish them . In fact irony in this novel may be considered a kind of intertext . The book presents a life turned upsidedown:Pip`s life changed completely from the moment he is held hills over head by the fugitive Magwitch . The main hero of the novel Pip,is a kind of prism :through his eyes we can see the action ,we see waht he sees , we understand what he understands ,from the point of view of a 5 years old boy .That is why the narrator is subjective ,as the central conscience of the novel is influenced by heroe`s emotions and opinions . The novel is also an irony of destiny : thus ,Mrs Havisham ,an excentric old woman ,half crazy , half excentric ,has a " broken heart " as she was left by her fiancee .Decided to revenge she finds herself guilty of agression against life as she uses the two childern ,Estella and Pip to acomplish her wild dark dreams .She teaches Estella to hate and hurt men ,first turning her into a frosty girl and later into an insensitive woman . The novel also presents the evolution of Pip.He is a poor boy ,but through hard work he becomes a rich man.In his evolution he was helped by his secret love for Estella ,but he is disappointed by her.In the end of the novel he prooves that he changed:when he meets Estella he doesn`t return to her .

The Bedford edition of this classic novel contains more than the typical Charles Dickens tale. In addition to the text are five excellent essays on this novel. Often Great Expectations is taught in a mundane and archaic manner. This edition allows both the student and teacher to approach the text from several twentieth century schools of thought. Peter Brooks in particular offers an excellent psychonanalytic interpretation. This text is a welcome addition to any classroom.

You can't beat Charles Dickens, and The Cricket on the Hearth is a great story. The book is surprisingly large and has a strangely homemade look to it. That adds to its charm.

When reading this book, you've I think you got to have the right mind set. Dickens' A Christmas Carol was one of those literary miracles that rarely happen. And these stories should not be judged by A Crhistmas Carol. If you can adopt that mind set (which I had to do) you will find these stories enjoyable and even inspiring.

I think one thing that comes across in all of Dickens' writing is that he sincerely loved his fellow beings--and it shows in his stories.

Also recommended: Christmas Gifts, Christmas Voices--my new favorite Christmas story.

A Dickens Christmas story is meant to be read in front of the fire with children gathered 'round. As configured in this particular ebook format you cannot do anything but sit in front of your screen and read ninety pages of nineteenth century prose. Not useful at all! This ebook would be far more usefull if, for example, you could copy or print it onto holiday paper. Since this story is in the public domain, blocking those options in this ebook is silly.

When Dickens was good, he was very very good. When he was bad, he was wordy and sappy and boring. Did you ever wonder why you never heard of the three stories in this book? Because they're so unremarkable! The title story is the best; i.e. it's the only one that's even readable. Do yourself a favor, don't read this book

Like General Breadbasket, I, too, was confused about exactly what was supposed to be happening in the bell tower. After reading NotATameLion's review and rereading certain parts of the story, I tend to think that perhaps Trotty, a la George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life", committed or thought to commit suicide. That would fit with the story in the newspaper that had so disturbed him. (Makes me wonder if that's where Capra got the idea--and the bell.) The child guide showed him what life would be like if he were not around to care for his daughter and the others, and if they thought of themselves the way their "betters" did. What makes "A Christmas Carol" great and "The Chimes" only so-so is that the former can be easily understood superficially upon the first reading, but upon rereading (and rereading again, and watching/listening to many versions of the story) it reveals multiple layers of character and story that continue to affect the reader more deeply each time. Over the years, "A Christmas Carol" has changed the way I view society and my place in it. I doubt that "The Chimes" has that power.

Toby "Trotty" Veck is a ticket-porter, an honest man, a man who hears the chimes from the local church as he goes from place to place on his errands. He relates to their rhythms, and imagines them speaking to him. He and his daughter Meg aren't the richest people in the world, and Toby feels that being in the lower classes, no good can come from him. Comments from the likes of chaps like Alderman Cute don't help much with his feelings. Toby's way of looking at things, though, is changed forever when one day he finally visits the tower of the Chimes...

Charles Dickens wrote this book in 1844, from around October to November that year apparently, for release that December as a sort of sequel to "A Christmas Carol", focused around New Years rather than Christmas Day, and on a man who is too hard on himself, rather than being hard on others like Ebenezer Scrooge. It has good moments, yeah, (I liked Toby, Meg and the setting of the scene) but I really struggled to get through this one. After Toby visits the Chimes, I got a bit confused and found things rather hard to follow. I didn't know what was going on, I didn't know where Toby was, I didn't know what Dickens was getting at. It was a bit frustrating actually. Found it pretty hard to finish.

Modern readers of Dicken's A Christmas Carol are often inoculated to what a shocking piece of literature it was in its day. Familiarity has softened its blow to the public at large. This is not so with The Chimes.

The Chimes is the second of Dickens's "Christmas Books." Written in 1844 it came a year after A Christmas Carol and a year before The Cricket on the Hearth. Not nearly as widely read as either its predecessor or its successor, The Chimes probably packs more of an emotional wallop than either story.

Set on a New Year's Eve rather than on Christmas proper, The Chimes is a story about self-respect and the consequences of our choices. The main character, Trotty Veck is an inverse of sorts to A Christmas Carol's Ebeneezer Scrooge. He is poor and thinks so little of himself that he threatens to destroy himself and his family. Only through supernatural intervention can things hope to be set right.

I first listened to this recording of The Chimes on last New Year's Eve. First of all, this recording is unabridged (even though it is currently listed as abridged.) Secondly, this particular recording is a wonderful reading of The Chimes. One could not ask for more.

The Chimes is a tale that will--as the best of Dickensian melodrama does--grip you and wring your heart. One really gets the sense of what reading Dickens must have felt like to his contemporaries.

This is powerful stuff. Give it a try.

The book was a waste of my time. Why, because I'm a guy who likes action and girls. This book was made for teachers and Soap Opra school girls.

Anyone who glances upon this text has read or is about to read this book. I have read this book and I can not express to you its true greatness, for I can relate Pip's experiences to my own life and in some amusing way found myself in him. To all the readers who are about to embark on this story, I tell you no matter what I say or any one else says on this page you have to experience this timeless masterpiece for yourself. Joseph Dion

I am currently a 15 year old in high school, taking honors english, and was just made to read the book Great Expectations. After reading "To Kill a Mockingbird", you can imagine my sadness by being forced to pick up this boring sleep enhancer. Throughout the entire book, there are about 5 points of climax, each lasting for a few pages. For a book of over 500 pages, you can see why my eyes started drooping after Chapter One. As a matter of fact, the book doesn't even pick up until page 350, and that is only a small gain. Reader beware, save yourself and go find something better to do with your time! There is still hope!

By reading this book I learned a lot about different situations. It was a good book I thought It was fun and easy to read, in the sense it was an easy reading book. It was a bout a young boy named Pip. It told his adventures throught out his life. He lived poorely with his sister and worked with a frind named Joe.I guess the book was called great expectations for a reason, it was about a boy who wanted more out of life that just what he had already had. One day he was told that some body wanted to become his benificier and support him with all his needs. Some body had wanted to bless him with his riches and make a true gentleman out of him. His first job though was to leave his home and everything he knew and to move to London. There he learned how to shop and dress like a real gentleman would. In doing this, he was very successful.He lived there for many years never to know who his benificier was. He never had much family and the he had to see the family he did have die over the years before he had much of a chance to contact them. He never did get married and he lived a long life without love. eventully he found out who his benifcier was, when he showed up on Pip's dorestep one night to reveal who he was supported by all those years. i would tell you the end, but i don't want to give it away. I thought it was a good book because I neve r read these kind of books, but this one kept my intrest and was not boaring. I would recomend this book to just about anyone. It was deffinently worth reading.

Charles Dickens Great Expectations is a wonderfully though out novel by about a boy "Pip" who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and attempts to abandon his spirtual beliefs for more materialist ones. Pip is an oprphan who is brought up by his mean sister. Pip is at the grave of his mother and father and gets an unexpected surpise and this surpise causes him to feel guilty for the next chapters in the novel. Pip is invited to play at old rich Miss Havisham's house, there he meets Estella the love of his life. She although is a cold hearted girl who breaks his heart time and time again. By the end of this novel Pip goes back to his spirtual beliefs realizing that materlist ones are not all that they are cracked up to be.

If you like Dickens, then you'll love this book. It's that simple

Why does anyone think that this book is a good one? I think it is the worst book ever written.

I had to read this dumb book for english class. It was the hardest book to understand. The use of volcabulary was astounding. He couldnt just state something, Dickens had to go and use every word in his volcabulary. It has soooooo many word that you get lost. I read the chapters over and over and never understood them. The next day my teacher would tell us what the chapters were about. Only then did i understand the book. BEWARE THIS BOOK WILL FRY YOUR BRAIN BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND IT.

Dickens wrote a great story in this book, the only problem he had was he explained the parts in a little bit too much detail. The cliff notes would be a big help in reading this great story.