Themes & Projects

Mysteries, December 2008–January 2009

Maritime literature, January–March 2009

Melville read-through, part I, TypeeWhite-Jacket, December 2009–January 2010

Whirlwind tour of Russian literature, February–May 2010

Epistolary literature, July 2009–June 2010

Short stories


Authors

Burrowing, Aspiring, Mouldering, Unintelligible

While on my Dombey and Son journey, I’ve also been reading a bit about Bleak House. Mostly because it’s included in Nabokov’s Lectures on Literature, and I felt like flipping throught that. Before getting into things, he says, “If it were possible I would like to devote the fifty minutes of every class meeting to mute meditation, concentration, and admiration of Dickens.” That is actually how I like to read, when I’m sitting there doing it. Him too:

All we have to do when reading Bleak House is to relax and let our spines take over. Although we read with our minds, the seat of artistic delight is between the shoulder blades. That little shiver behind is quite certainly the highest form of emotion that humanity has attained when evolving pure art and pure science. Let us worship the spine and its tingle. Let us be proud of our being vertebrates, for we are vertebrates tipped at the head with a divine flame. The brain only continues the spine: the wick really goes through the whole length of the candle.

This kind of aesthetic enjoyment is so wholesome and natural that it can be hard, or even unhelpful, to talk about it. In the spirit of Rohan Maitzen’s new Index to Novel Readings, I decided to read her “chapters” on Dickens. In Fog. Mud. Smoke. Soot. Gas. Fog., she says, of the opening passage of Bleak House, “I consider it an aesthetic accomplishment self-sufficient enough to render critical commentary not just redundant, but irritating.” Her commentary, of course, is not the least bit irritating and I think captures the exclamatory admiration for the passage while at the same time saying something worth reading. It is a hard thing to do and something I hope to succeed at least a little bit at myself.

I find it interesting that in Dickens it is so often the exposition where he becomes “the enchanter” (not that I have anything against the yarn spinner or the teacher, but…*). His descriptive passages are where he is decried for filler, for being long-winded, for being boring—horrors! And it is slow, in terms of action, and not the sort of thing you find in anything like popular contemporary literature. But it’s also not slow at all, it’s practically tumbling on itself, that’s how the enchantment works, like here, in Dombey:

Everywhere were bridges that led nowhere; thoroughfares that were wholly impassable; Babel towers of chimneys, wanting half their height; temporary wooden houses and enclosures, in the most unlikely situations; carcases of ragged tenements, and fragments of unfinished walls and arches, and piles of scaffolding, and wildernesses of bricks, and giant forms of cranes, and tripods straddling above nothing. There were a hundred thousand shapes and substances of incompleteness, wildly mingled out of their places, upside down, burrowing in the earth, aspiring in the air, mouldering in the water, and unintelligible as any dream. Hot springs and fiery eruptions, the usual attendants upon earthquakes, lent their contributions of confusion to the scene. Boiling water hissed and heaved within dilapidated walls; whence, also, the glare and roar of flames came issuing forth; and mounds of ashes blocked up rights of way and wholly changed the law and custom of the neighbourhood.

In short, the yet unfinished and unopened Railway was in progress; and, from the very core of all this dire disorder, trailed smoothly away, upon its mighty course of civilisation and improvement.

And that’s for a neighborhood that, so far, we have only spent a single afternoon in. We may well return; if we do it will be to a completed railway though, and presumably a further changed Camden Town.

*“As is quite clear, the enchanter interests me more than the yarn spinner or the teacher.” —Vladimir Nabokov

“The Chimes”; in which I experience a cultural gap that is not there

“The Chimes” is one of Charles Dickens’s “other” Christmas stories—except that it is actually a New Year’s story. Wuthering Expectations has an excellent post about it, and there’s a bit of a discussion at The Valve as well.

First, let me say that while somewhat baffling it was a really fun story, and anyone familiar with “A Christmas Carol” should really read this too. The beginning of the third quarter, with the goblins, and especially the illustrations of the goblins, was my favorite. Look at these guys.
trotty-veck-among-the-bells

As Amateur Reader sums it up:

As a result of either supernatural forces or a combination of stress and indigestion, [Trotty Veck] is shown a horrible vision of the future which leads him to reform his selfish ways.

This sounds a bit, just a bit, like A Christmas Carol, published the Christmas before, with two minor changes. First, Trotty, unlike Scrooge, is poor, and second, he’s a fine fellow with no selfish ways whatsoever.

Now, before this happens, Trotty, a ticket porter, is hanging out with some of his well-to-do clients, getting lectured by his betters on how wasteful the poor are, how incorrigible, &tc., and Trotty tends to agree that they are “born Bad.” He’s clearly so overwhelmed by how Good his betters are that he can’t help but agree with them. And later, soon before bed, he reads the paper, putting him in mind of “the crimes and violences of the people”:

In this mood he came to an account (and it was not the first he had ever read) of a woman who had laid her desperate hands not only on her own life but on that of her young child. A crime so terrible, and so revolting to his soul, dilated with the love of Meg, that he let the journal drop, and fell back in his chair, appalled!

“Unnatural and cruel!” Toby cried. “Unnatural and cruel! None but people who were bad at heart, born bad, who had no business on the earth, could do such deeds. It’s too true, all I’ve heard to-day; too just, too full of proof. We’re Bad!”

Now, how did I miss, in my first reading, the fact that this, this is the very moment when the Chimes begin to “haunt him and hunt him”? But I must have done, because there I was, thinking like I do so many times (at least I am not alone), that there is an unbridgeable gap between my sense of morality and that of the author, and that while I may enjoy the story perfectly well I won’t be able to get the full force of it because who on earth thinks a poor woman must be born Bad to do away with herself and her child in a moment of desperation?

In my annoyance I practically swept the incident aside, because otherwise I was so enjoying “The Chimes” and deeply sympathizing with Trotty. (Plus, since when do I have a problem understanding Dickens, über-humanist that he was?) Of course, this left me with the problem of understanding what on earth he was being punished for. And then, finally, there it was: poor haunted Trotty is made to understand that there are circumstances in which someone he knows to have been not only born Good but who has lived a terrible virtuous life would do just what the mother in the paper did.

The idea of false consciousness has been raised at The Valve. Certainly there is some of that going on in Trotty’s interactions with Alderman Cute & Co., but his reaction to the infanticide story is visceral and certainly his own. And it is that reaction that the Chimes pick out most clearly. Is the false consciousness not that big a deal? Does the lesson of Will Fern in the future speak more to that? Is it just by chance that the vision stops dead when Meg goes to jump in the river?

Also interesting to me was the level of sexuality in the story, really orders of magnitude greater than I remember seeing with Dickens. I was almost scandalized.

[Illustration scanned by Philip A. Allingham, courtesy The Victorian Web (here's hoping they consider me educational and/or scholarly).]