David Copperfield Dickensalong

[Piggywaspushed]

Hello All

Inspired by the Bleak House readalong, I have decided this might be the year to tackle David Copperfield.

Those of us who did BH read it obediently in Dickens' instalments ,which wasn't to everyone's taste! We had a chat at the end of each month. It took 18 months and I think we had three stalwarts left at the end.

DC was published as follows (note different months!):

• I – May 1849 (chapters 1–3);
• II – June 1849 (chapters 4–6);
• III – July 1849 (chapters 7–9);
• IV – August 1849 (chapters 10–12);
• V – September 1849 (chapters 13–15);
• VI – October 1849 (chapters 16–18);
• VII – November 1849 (chapters 19–21);
• VIII – December 1849 (chapters 22–24);
• IX – January 1850 (chapters 25–27);
• X – February 1850 (chapters 28–31);
• XI – March 1850 (chapters 32–34);
• XII – April 1850 (chapters 35–37);
• XIII – May 1850 (chapters 38–40);
• XIV – June 1850 (chapters 41–43);
• XV – July 1850 (chapters 44–46);
• XVI – August 1850 (chapters 47–50);
• XVII – September 1850 (chapters 51–53);
• XVIII – October 1850 (chapters 54–57);
• XIX-XX – November 1850 (chapters 58–64).

I am happy to negotiate reading faster so that we tackle three instalments at a time? Thus , the first would be Chapter 1 -9 and we would be finished in the summer.

What does everyone think?

Should be I agree with Piggy re Uriah. Not with Uriah.

I am very umble biblio very umble.

The horrible Uriah has spotted Mr Wickfield's problems with the bottle and wormed his way into the business, I assumed. Maybe with the threat of besmirching his good name if he protests? I'd imagine a respectable Victorian businessman would be desperate to avoid being outed as a hopeless lush (and the effects on Agnes's prospects in life wouldn't be great either).

The ever so umble Uriah will clearly stop at nothing. Slimy little git!

Coming late today and don't have much to add.
Dora is annoying me too, she is so wet, like a generic caricature of a Victorian young "'lady". You just want to shake David and say Noooooo.

I do find some sections very easy to read and some sections so dense I can barely make out what is going on (maybe i am just tired when I read bit), but I am glad some people on here are missing things too.

Was anyone else chilled to hear Mr Murdstone is getting married again? - to a young girl 'just of age" I wondered if that could be Em'ly but why would he want to marry her as she had no money, so I think I am wrong there.

The Micawbers annoy me a bit too. Great characters but people are way too tolerant of them. The are the CFs of the novel. I can see an AIBU written about them

Are we going to CH46 next?

Oh, I forgot Mr Murdstone came back. Isn't he just vile!!

We are reading up to end of Chapter 46 for June 1st

Yes, he is just a creep, I wish David wasn't so polite to him.

I'm interested in what Piggy says about the presentation of women. I know it's for comic effect as much as anything but Dora is so witless. Especially since Agnes - who must be approximately the same age as DC? - is a model of wisdom and good judgment, and he knows it...he's always paying tribute to how highly he values her. But he seems to think of her more as though she were a parent than a prospective partner, almost always deferring to what she thinks.

I was also thinking that to modern readers, Miss Trotwood is an enormously appealing character - particularly given the compassionate way she cares for Mr Dick. But I wonder how 19thc readers saw her. Would they feel the same? Would she appear more of an eccentric? OK, the donkeys...that is eccentric, but we might not raise an eyebrow so much now at an unmarried middle-aged woman with strong opinions (although yes, sexism is still alive and well....). I love her, though - she's one of the best things in the book, for me.

I think there I such fondness for BT in the book that it can only suggest Dickens fully intended his Victorian readers to love her too. She's a bit of a fore runner of some of the remarkable suffragettes who were often quite eccentric and 'domineering' for want of a better word.

These awfully mature young women appear in quite a few of Victorian novels : Bleak House and Middlemarch , for example. They had a lot of caring responsibilities, were married off to much older men and basically ran households. It must have been so stifling. The relative freedom girls like Dora had makes them seem childlike. I guess we have to remember they really are young! What age is Dora at the moment? 19?

Yes, really young - and infantilised. You're right, Piggy, eg the beautiful young Dorothea in Middlemarch marries the dreary, dry-as-dust Casaubon and devotes herself to a submissive life of serving his needs

It's very polarised with the love interests in DC, isn't it? I think Dickens had a lot of trouble creating fully-rounded young female characters. Arguably George Eliot, being a woman, was capable of considerably more subtlety (I do love Middlemarch).

I found an interesting research paper about Betsey T on the internet arguing that she was written as an interweaving of traditionally 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits, and this is what makes her such a successful character. She's nurturing and caring towards the people she loves but magnificently indifferent to everyone else, and doesn't give a fig what the world at large thinks of her.

She's irascible and I love her. I think it an interesting idea that only a woman could put Murdstone, Uriah Heep and that awful landlady woman in their places!

Well, that was an exciting section! I've noticed before with Dickens that he will meander around for a while in frankly quite a boring fashion, and you realise afterwards that he's been quietly dropping loose threads everywhere which he later gathers up in satisfyingly dramatic fashion.

Interesting the conversation about the infantalisation of women - I was thinking this about "Little Em'ly" who is spoken about as a child despite being a woman with a job who can walk home through deserted marshes at night. Her engagement to Ham felt very uncomfortable within this context (as everyone in the family insisted on referring to her as though she was about 7 years old) and as for her running off to have illicit sex with Steerforth..... well.....

Did everyone see that coming? You could see signposted from the beginning that Steerforth would betray David by taking something that he cared about in an act of patrician privilege - and the Peggoty family are so lovely that they were obviously going to be the victims of some kind of outrage. Dickens is clever in making Steerforth such an attractive rogue, showing us clearly how much and why David loves him while at the same time ensuring that the reader knows that he's a wrong'un.

I felt very uncomfortable with Miss Mowcher in her first appearance so was very glad to see her brought back in such a different fashion. "Take a word of advice, even from three foot nothing. Try not to associate bodily defects with mental, my good friend, except for a solid reason" . Between her and Mr Dick (who has grown on me slowly and was wonderful in this latest section), Dickens is proving to have laudably progressive views on disability rights.

I am going to go back up the thread and read some of the interesting comments posted previously - I think someone said that Dickens had based the Micawbers on his own parents which would explain maybe why they are such ambivalent characters - I don't think there's any doubt that Dickens means them to be absolutely awful, despite being strangely loveable. It's like writing them on the page is therapy for him in dealing with the feelings he must have had as a boy.

Also very interesting point about wide variety of marital relationships portrayed here, most of them unsuccessful or unhappy in some way. The Dr Strong/Annie/Jack is, again, extremely, uncomfortable, and interestingly Dickens gives voice to the concerns about the propriety of the marriage via Annie's mother who mentions the fact that Dr Strong has known Annie since she was a young girl.

I'm going to keep away from reading context or literary criticism until I finish the book as I am reading it for the plot! But definitely some issues there where I will be very interested to understand more about social norms of the time and how the characters were viewed by contemporary readers.

Actually Keith, now you come to mention it, how often have we heard Em'ly herself speaking, as opposed to others talking about her? Hardly ever, iirc.

Ooh, the plot just diverged from the film version earlier this year. I wasn't expecting that. I'd better wait before I say more [bites tongue].

I haven’t seen the film yet. It’s out on DVD quite soon but I might wait now until I’ve finished the book, especially if the plot is different!

The film is good, but yes, we're not far off finishing the book now. It's felt like a proper journey with young Davey.

Definitely not going anywhere near the film before finishing the book. (Though clearly I'm intrigued to know what you're talking about biblio.
I've read up to the end of Chapter 41 so far.

Will heroically refrain from hints, now.

I'm kind of losing the plot with this this month. I've forgotten who half of the people are. I'd forgotten all about the Strongs, I haven't a clue who Miss Mills is, I'm ploughing on because I don't want to let the team down but if I wasn't reading with you I would just give up and never read to the end, and never feel I've missed anything worthwhile.

Nearly there, Knit,* keep going! I think I would have given up at certain points without this thread, but I know I will be glad to have read it.

I've struggled a bit with all the characters, especially the minor ones, who turn up briefly then 500 pages later turn up again and I'm expected to remember everything they did (I'm looking at you Miss Mowcher)

Beware of looking up character lists as well- they should come with spoiler warnings.

I haven't even started this month yet.

I started a different and very long classic yesterday (Pamela) and regretting it slightly. I'm a third in and don't see how much further the shrieking hysterics can go plot wise.

Pamela was the one featured in that BBC documentary on the novel, wasn't it?