Until now,
Little Dorrit might have been the most struggling Dickens I have ever read. If
you think it’s the thickness, no, it’s not a problem at all. It’s not the story
either—although I did have several complaints I would have made to Dickens on
it if he’s still alive. The most annoying aspect in this book for me is Dickens’
lengthy depiction around Circumlocution Office and the economics system, which
reminds us of the infamous Ponzi scheme. I know, it’s mainly on those two
subjects that Dickens wanted to criticize through Little Dorrit, but again, his
tedious description and emphasize on those subjects really bored me to death.
Little
Dorrit followed the story of the Dorrits in their two extreme conditions. In
the first stint, they lived poorly in Marshalsea debt prison—Dickens wrote it
from his own childhood experience. Amy Dorrit born and grew in this prison, and
after her mother died, she must endure not only poverty, but most of
all—especially for Mr. Dorrit the father—family’s humility. In this prison
also, Amy befriended a young man, Arthur Clennam, whose kindness and attentive
manner has stolen her heart. In the second stint, the Dorrits unexpectedly
inherited a large sum of money, which altered their faith. Leaving the prison
behind, they hastily entered the high society of London.
Beyond that,
Dickens also took us to the chronicles of the Clennams, the Merdles, the
Meagleses, the Gowans, Rigaud and Cavalletto, and of course the mysterious
Miss Wade. Their stories intertwined with each others, and through them Dickens presented
us with the dark themes of social injustice, hypocrisy, greedy, hatred and
revenge; and showed us how love and kindness were the only way to happiness.
My first
impression after finishing this book was how Mrs. Clennam reminded me of Miss
Havisham, both with their eternal passion of vengeance against love infidelity,
and both rotted in their darkness houses and hearts. And then I was thinking
how vividly Dickens wrote about their hatreds, did he experience the same
feeling himself? In the same likeness, Little Dorrit also reminds me of Little
Nell in
The Old Curiosity Shop. Both were tender, shy, grew in
poverty—which forced them to bear a bigger responsibility than what girls at
their age must bear. Both were full of love, and must take care of the elders,
and both were called ‘Little’. I think this was much influenced by Dickens’
fondness of young, delicate and innocent girls.
From the
plot I felt that, here and there, Dickens seemed to force things to suit each
other. At first the story was quite boring, again, with long description of the
Circumlocution Office—the satiric way Dickens criticized the unbearable
bureaucracy; that even they seemed to always be busy, they in fact did not do
anything but circling one task all over the office without ever gone out from
it. Fortunately nearly the end, we were entertained with the mysteries surrounded
the Clennams, which boost the plot a bit faster, although I felt it too faster
this time. There were still few things I still didn’t get after finishing it.
First of
all, what did really happen with the money Little Dorrit should inherit? Was
the money still existed when Mrs. Clennam revealed the secret? Was it kept in
Mrs. Clennam’s possession all the time? Or whether Mrs. Clennam had spent the
money? But on what? Considering on how wretched her old house was, the fact
that she could not afford to buy back the codicil from Rigaud/Blandois, and her
high pride, it’s very unlikely that she did as low as using the money herself.
And speaking about the house, don’t you think its ruining or blazing was a bit
exaggerating? And, who was the “the poor thing that kept here secretly”, whose
ghost haunted the house and whose “sounds” Affery used to hear?
And what
about the oddness of how Mr. Gilbert Clennam—uncle of Mrs. Clennam’s
husband—had made his will. After the woman with whom Arthur’s father had had adultery
died, the money must be granted to her patron’s youngest daughter or the
youngest daughter of the patron’s brother if the patron didn’t have any. Wasn’t
the plot a bit forced, do you think? Why her patron? And most of all, why the
youngest daughter? Well, it is supposed to be a tale anyway, but still….
I keep also
wondering why Little Dorrit insisted upon burning the codicil. I think Arthur
had the right to know who his mother was. Mrs. Clennam has died anyway, so
Little Dorrit won’t hurt anyone—but Arthur—if she just let Arthur read the
document. And I don’t think Arthur would have been much hurt by the secret, he
might have been angry to Mrs. Clennam for deceiving him, but still...I would
never agree on one’s hiding a truth from someone he/she loves. Or perhaps
Little Dorrit was afraid that the legacy will make her rich and unhappy? But
the one she burned was only the codicil, not the original legacy, isn’t it? Oh
well….whatever, I’m confused.
Apart from
those confusions, Little Dorrit brings us the true portrait of social and
economics of London in 19th century. From this book we came to know how
the combination of careless investment and the corrupt government would do
injustice to innocent people. Mr. Dorrit was imprisoned in Marshalsea after
failing to pay his debt. He should have not stayed there for such a long time
if the Circumlocution had done their works. Moreover, families of the prisoner
suffered much from humility and banished from the society. Even after being
released from it, the imprisonment itself left a dark trace in one’s life, as
had happened to Mr. Dorrit.
In term of
moral value, Little Dorrit taught us also that the real happiness does not come
from wealth and status, but from love. Little Dorrit never looked at her
poverty as a handicap; she always rich in love, and because of that, people
loved her.
Three and a
half stars for Little Dorrit, it’s not one of my favorites, but still….how can you
don’t love Dickens’ witty and sweet story telling?
~~~~~~~
*I read the 1996 Wordsworth Classics paperback edition*
*This book is counted for*
