To get one thing out of the way: I love Dickens. First and foremost, his work is highly entertaining, almost pulpy, demonstrating a mastery over form and content rarely seen anywhere. There's a wicked glee to be found in his satire, but never one that strays into cruelty; Dickens is just as capable of pathos and sentiment if he wishes to be. His style is similarly perfected: unafraid to experiment, but aware of the importance and primacy of accessibility and plot, equally comfortable with grim naturalism and merry caricature, with contorted coincidence and easy freedom. Unlike later authors, who adopt more 'low-brow' genres such as the detective story (of which one of Bleak House's many subplots is an important forerunner) and brutalising them to breaking point with conceit and intellect, Dickens fully inhabits and understands his medium: his genius comes in his ability to transcend generic constraints even as he perfects them. Never is there a sense that he is straining to show off his, presumably considerable, intelligence, never a sense that he is trying to be clever. There is great joy in reading Bleak House in the mastery of craft, a mastery that is at once unpretentious and capable of vast popular appeal.
More
rare in the case of my tastes, perhaps, than the enjoyment of
something with vast popular appeal is the emotive appeal of Bleak
House.
I'm not normally someone to respond to texts with more than sneering
irony or vague nostalgia, but Dickens managed to whip me into line,
joyous at marriages, weepy at deaths, and even filled with moral
indignation at the severe injustices on display. Again, this is
response is atypical for me: I usually consider works with an
insistent social or moral message tedious or one-dimensional, or at
the very least try to ignore the obvious meaning for a more studied
response. The reasons for this lie, I suspect, in part with the very
length of the novel, which requires, and justifies, a significant
emotional investment. Prolonged familiarity allows the reader to
breed a more meaningful affection or scorn for Dickens's characters,
thus resulting in a greater payoff.
The
obvious reason for my engagement, of course, is Dickens's writing
itself. His ability to create highly memorable characters, and endow
them with vitality, individuality and distinctive patterns of
expression is clearly a significant factor – although Bleak
House
seems somewhat weaker in this regard than much of Dickens's canon,
given the relative blandness of Esther, Ada and Mr Jarndyce – but
the impeccable structuring of the novel is certainly worth
consideration. Dickens's use of a dual narrative structure, with the
duties of the narrator shared between Esther and some unnamed
omniscient, allows for variation to gain emphasis due to its
incongruity – when the unnamed narrator offers praise, or Esther
offers criticism, one knows it is significant and affecting.
The
centrality of the Chancery to the narratives of all the characters is
perhaps more of a masterstroke: not only does it allow for a neater
and less contrived conclusion, but it gives the novel a greater sense
of overall cohesion. What makes this cohesion the more impressive is
that Dickens managed it when writing episodically. While the novel's
manner of publication shows, with shifts of narrative perspective and
cliffhangers abounding every few chapters, they are far from
detrimental to Bleak
House's
success – indeed, they make the process of reading such a tome far
easier and more accessible.
Despite
these varying strands of Dickens's genius, the central achievement of
Bleak
House
is that it is vastly entertaining and compelling for the best part of
nine-hundred pages. Dickens demonstrates his variety while retaining
consistency and coherence. It seems almost impossible to express just
how good he is.
No comments:
Post a Comment