Our Mutual Friend
Jul. 20th, 2013 02:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shapinglightSo, I can't settle to do any writing, and I'm going away overnight in a bit, so just a quick word about Dickens' Our Mutual Friend, which I finally finished last night, if only because it's the third book I've managed to finish this year (which, yes, I know is appalling. I used to read so much!)
Spoilers for the book within.
I enjoyed it (mostly). The cast of grotesques was well up to standard, the scenes featuring the ghastly Veneerings and their circle particularly good, and though Dickens occasionally went off into one on one of his hobbyhorses (the iniquities of workhouses in this instance), I can't fault him since I agree with him. I also applaud him for trying to make amends for Fagin with the character of Riah (though of course everyone knows about Fagin, whereas no one has ever heard of Riah), even though the character, as such characters tend to be, is rather too good to be true.
I also much enjoyed the home life of the Wilfers, and coped pretty well with the Eugene/Lizzie story. So that leaves just the 'reform of Bella' story to mention. Have to say, I had to read that one with gritted teeth. Yes, I know it's of its time etc etc, but I can't help wondering if, even in Dickens's day, anyone found the idea of three people conspiring to keep the identity of one of them a secret from another, for years, until after she'd married him and they'd had a baby, all for the sake of 'improving' her character, rather shudder-inducing. Bella was a much better character before she turned all soppy 'Dear Little Mrs Rokesmith' anyway. But oh, well, that's Dickens for you. Most of his heroines are so sickeningly good you want to slap them. At least Bella was still able to exclaim, "Oh, you ridiculous old thing! What do you mean by that? You must have been drinking!" when poring over her Complete British Housewife book, in her quest, post-wedding, to be the ideal Victorian home maker.
Anyway, I enjoyed it. Enough so that I don't necessarily feel I'm owed a Terry Pratchett for managing to finish it. But I may read one next anyway. ;)
Spoilers for the book within.
I enjoyed it (mostly). The cast of grotesques was well up to standard, the scenes featuring the ghastly Veneerings and their circle particularly good, and though Dickens occasionally went off into one on one of his hobbyhorses (the iniquities of workhouses in this instance), I can't fault him since I agree with him. I also applaud him for trying to make amends for Fagin with the character of Riah (though of course everyone knows about Fagin, whereas no one has ever heard of Riah), even though the character, as such characters tend to be, is rather too good to be true.
I also much enjoyed the home life of the Wilfers, and coped pretty well with the Eugene/Lizzie story. So that leaves just the 'reform of Bella' story to mention. Have to say, I had to read that one with gritted teeth. Yes, I know it's of its time etc etc, but I can't help wondering if, even in Dickens's day, anyone found the idea of three people conspiring to keep the identity of one of them a secret from another, for years, until after she'd married him and they'd had a baby, all for the sake of 'improving' her character, rather shudder-inducing. Bella was a much better character before she turned all soppy 'Dear Little Mrs Rokesmith' anyway. But oh, well, that's Dickens for you. Most of his heroines are so sickeningly good you want to slap them. At least Bella was still able to exclaim, "Oh, you ridiculous old thing! What do you mean by that? You must have been drinking!" when poring over her Complete British Housewife book, in her quest, post-wedding, to be the ideal Victorian home maker.
Anyway, I enjoyed it. Enough so that I don't necessarily feel I'm owed a Terry Pratchett for managing to finish it. But I may read one next anyway. ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-07-20 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-23 01:37 pm (UTC)I do wonder if anyone did say anything at the time.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-20 02:51 pm (UTC)I've got "Our Mutual Friend" sitting on my Kindle waiting for me to tackle it at some point in the far distant future. I actually like Dickens but the mental energy needed for me to start one is more than I possess at the moment.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-23 01:39 pm (UTC)Some of his female characters aren't too bad. The grotesques are always fun, at least. And Bella may have turned into one of his soppy heroines by the end of the book but at least she didn't start off that way. Where his heroines are concerned, the one I dislike the most is Lucy from A Tale of Two Cities. God, she's slappable.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-20 08:09 pm (UTC)How far have you got with your Pratchetts?
no subject
Date: 2013-07-23 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-21 12:30 pm (UTC)I find I have to make a conscious decision to ignore some of his more irritating tics - the simpering soppy women and the sickening sentimentality being 2 of the worst. But I don't care for his ugly/disabled = evil depraved trope either. Good job he can write a ripping yarn!
These days I enjoy Trollope more when I need some Victoriana - and he's less prone to verbal diarrhoea.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-23 01:43 pm (UTC)I tend to remember the TV adaptations better than the books too, though less so recently, as I haven't liked any of them, post-Bleak House. The most recent Great Expectations in particular was pretty sub par, I thought.
Re: Dickens' disabled characters being ugly/evil - OMF bucks the trend there with the character of Jenny Wren, who walks with a crutch, and yet is good and kind and has beautiful long flaxen hair.
Trollope is fun. I find his heroines annoying too. Characters like Mrs Proudie, the Bishops's wife from the Barchester books are always so much more fun.