I have little to say about these books. I enjoyed going through the drama. They contain the joys of the story and narrative. Reading them non-stop had a binge quality to them. Little to think after reading. Because things pretty much resolve themselves neatly through the books. Plotlines coincide conveniently. And Dickens closes each and every open end for you. So very little to reflect or wonder about as you close the book. In that sense, easy reads.
(I must add here that 'David Copperfield' was a spur of the moment choice while I was struggling through Ishiguro’s ‘The Unconsoled’. My mind clutched quickly to Dicken’s narrative clarity. Will go back to 'The Unconsoled' soon. Having recently looked up the internet around the book, I find I am not the only one to digress.)
Back to Dickens. 'Bleak House' is about a disputed will, and its ramifications on different people where the eventual costs eat up the estate, and about Esther – a child born out of wedlock and the course her life takes. 'David Copperfield' is an autobiographical narrative of DC’s life, from a fatherless birth, to a fairy-tale-esque bad stepfather, eventually an orphan who grows up to become a writer, and the key characters shaping him – episodes inspired from Dickens’ life.
Apart from the joy of the story, one of the other things that engaged me was the portrayal of London and Britain of Dickens' time. Being able to contemplate other times, other cultures is one of the key pleasures of reading. I have grown up in a culture which is different from Britain's, hence not fully equipped in the cultural sub-text or shorthand for the way life that happens in Dickens' London (mid-late nineteenth century), and its social mores and protocols. The books serve as a commentary on the society of that times. Too far removed from our time and age to have a social context right now. (Such as some of the issues around women- although there is a long way to go yet, one would think that a fair bit has been covered from Dickens’ times).
The other thing with his books is the character cast. The plot and drama aside, one comes away with a memory of all these sharply defined portrayals. Both books have a huge array of characters, all with some defining characteristics. Memorable for the extremes in their behaviour. Be it Mrs Jellyby and Mr Skimpole in 'Bleak House' or Mr. Micawbre and Uriah Heep in 'David Copperfield'. May be they are memorable for the caricature-ish quality to them – sharpened and sharpened on one extreme or dimension of their personality. The interesting thing is that most characters in his books stay very true to their definition. Unlike life. One can perhaps pick them out from their dialogue even if you don’t know who was talking. Each one has these few identifiable traits. The complexity, if any, is not in the characters per se, it is in the number of them, and the scope and the length of the books.
It was interesting to read them one after the other. Bleak House is a mix of narrative styles – first person in Esther’s narrative and a general author narration. Rounds up everything nicely. But DC is first person. And is quite a reflection on how first person narratives work. The world view is the narrator’s. People are good or bad basis how they behave vis-à-vis the narrator. Interesting dilemma for the author. The narrator should see and still don't see too soon.
There are still quite a few Dickens books I wish to read. And of course so much else I wish to read. It took me some time getting through these two. One can just wonder at how he wrote these for the serialised versions. (there is a bit in David Copperfield about his hard work, determination and perseverance, about how he goes through stuff one after the other and just keeps at it - which might have autobiographical reference). Seems like he spent time (1) making a plan and outline of chapters and (2) then just saw them through. Easy for people to do 1. Guess it is the 2 that determines where one lands.