Celebrating Dickens – Wrap Up & Giveaway Winner

After a month having enjoyable moments with Dickens, I must sadly end February by wrapping up our event Celebrating Dickens. I thank all of you who have participated in reading, watching and posting all about Dickens. Several of us also participated in Me and Dickens meme, sharing how Dickens has affected our lives, and few others have also joined me in Character Thursdays featuring characters from Dickens books. I hope you have enjoyed Celebrating Dickens as much as I have. There are 35 posts in the linky, you are welcomed to visit other participants and read their thoughts about Dickens books or characters.

And now….it’s time to announce the winner of my giveaway. I used Random to pick the winner from your posts in Master Post linky, and the lucky one is…

Post no. 29, which belongs to...

C.J. from ebookclassics

Congratulations to C.J. , you can choose one classics book at max. $10 from The Book Depository, I will contact you soon to get your data.

Thanks again for your excitements in celebrating one of my favorite authors, Charles Dickens. Now I am looking forward to another event of my most favorite author: Emile Zola, in April: Zoladdiction, would you like to join too? :)

Candide by Voltaire

Candide is a philosophical story set around the world in 18^th century. It depicted a young man who lived in a paradise-like country of Westphalia. He was brought up by a Baron, and fell in love with the Baron’s daughter, the fair Cunégonde. Candide was educated by a philosopher called Pangloss. Pangloss believed that all in the world is created for the best, so even if there are evil and catatstrophe, they are meant to lead mankind to something better at the end. With this philosophy stick on his brain, Candide took his journey around the world after being kicked out by the Baron for seducing Cunégonde.

Having been experiencing real life, the innocent Candide was confronted with so many unfortunate events, evil, corrupt men, greed, and deception. All those times he was bewildered at the evils and injustices, and started questioning whether Pangloss had taught him wrong. Candide even held to his believe in “pure nature is good” principle, although he had just escaped of being eaten by the Oreillons, thanks to Pangloss’ principle.

As a novella, Candide is very uniquely written by Voltaire. If you have ever read Baudolino by Umberto Eco, you will see a style similarity with Candide. Both Candide and Baudolino involved in not only one historical event, but hopping to many of them through some comical and absurd incidents. Like Baudolino, Candide also sailed to many countries, met historical important persons, and presented with many cultures and religions during his journey to unite with Cunégonde. But only at El Dorado that Candide found only happiness and beauty. He was even be made richer than any Kings on earth because all soil and pebbles in El Dorado were made from gold and other precious stones (for outsider) but were treated as just soil and pebbles.

I think it is clear that Voltaire wanted to criticize Leibniz’ theory of “all is for the best”. This German philosopher believed that all is for the best because God is perfect, so everything He created must be perfect. I thought about this long after I finished this novella—and am still thinking about it when I am writing this post. My thought is split in two reasoning. In one way I agree with Voltaire that men should not take his life for granted by expecting that at the end everything should turn to good; we must work hard for it. But on the other hand, I agree at some points—at some points only—with Leibniz’ theory too, that God always provides the best for us, He wants to give us only the best, but only if we truly believe in Him and want it.

So what is best is, I think, if we do our best, and let God do the rest. In a way Candide (or Voltaire) was right, we must work to gain happiness. But we must also realize that we do not know what is best for ourselves, and in that case, we must trust God that He will give us what is best.

And before I end this review, here is one passage that has intrigued me, it’s a discussion between Martin (one of Candide’s philosopher and friend) and Candide, of course at the same topic of the optimistic. Candide was asking Martin whether he believed that men have always done evils.

M: “Do you believe that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they have found them?”

C: “Yes, without doubt.”

M: “Well, then, if hawks have always had the same character, why should you imagine that men may have changed theirs?”

C: “Oh! There is a vast deal of difference, for free will—“

There Voltaire ended the discussion abruptly, but I disagree with Martin. He believed that evil was men’s character, and that was—just like in hawks—their nature; and that the world has been created to ‘plague us to death’. I believe that since God is good and perfect, He created us good, and meant us for the best. However, God grants us the free will—as Candide was about to mention in that discussion—to make the choice ourselves, to be good or evil. Men do have both good and evil in them, but we also have the free will to make choices.

I granted three stars for Candide as a story with all the funny comical adventures, and a half star for making me drown to a deep reflection about life. Thank you Voltaire!

~~~~~

*I read ebook from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted for*

 34^th book for The Classics Club Project

2^nd book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

5^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge2013

Arthur Clennam in Little Dorrit

Arthur Clennam is the main male protagonist in Little Dorrit. I choose him to be featured in Character Thursday this week instead of Little Dorrit herself, because I found an interesting aspect in his personality. Brought up by the contrast combination of an iron-woman mother and a weak father in a dark and gloomy house full of hatred and revenge atmosphere had affected Arthur’s character as a man. I imagined petit Arthur as an unhappy and brooding child, constantly feeling unsafe and unsure, afraid at every action that his mother would scold him.

Fortunately his father took him when he has grown up to China to work as an apprentice in their family business. I imagine, being away from that horrible house and his strict and loveless mother, and lived in a loving surrounding of his father, has altered his personality to be much better. When he returned to England after his father died, Arthur has become a tender and loving person, though his day-dreamer and shyness aspects were still there—which I suspect as the result of his mother oppressive way of bringing him up.

What I like from Arthur is his sensitiveness towards injustice. Bringing home a remembrance token from his father to his mother, he insisted to be informed whether their family had been done any injustice to others while doing business in the past; that he would like to repair that if any. Arthur showed that manner too in Dorrit’s imprisonment. He was the originator of Pancks’ investigation in the case, which led to the revealing of Dorrit’s unexpected fortune.

Matthew MacFadyen as Arthur Clennam
in BBC miniseries

What I doesn’t like from Arthur is his over-sensitiveness—or may I say melancholy?—thoughts of himself. After being rejected by Minnie (Pet) Meagles, he considered himself too old for love—and he was only forty!—and although he felt something special towards Amy Dorrit, he pushed aside the idea of love, and assured himself that it was a feeling of protection, or even more a fatherly affection to a child—which led him to call Amy as ‘my child’. Oh Arthur…how foolish you were!

All in all, I learn from Arthur Clennam’s story that one’s character was much influenced by how he/she had been brought up. Unhappy characters usually come from unhappy atmosphere in their home. Even if they have experienced much better life conditions after that, small fragments of the unfortunate past might still exist in who they are today.

The Mystery of Edwin Drood

Of all Dickens’ novel I haven’t yet read, The Mystery of Edwin Drood is perhaps one I’ve been looking forward the most. Edwin Drood is the first and the last of Dickens; the first mystery novel he’s ever written, and also the last novel we’d ever read from him. But the most interesting aspect of Edwin Drood is because Dickens was in the middle of writing it when he died. Moreover, on his last days on earth, Dickens’ mood was very dark and gloomy. The Staplehurst train accident that gave him a near-death experience seemed haunted him until he died. Dickens’ health was also getting worse at that time. Those were the circumstances that much affected Dickens when he started writing Edwin Drood.

From the beginning the dark and hopeless atmosphere has appeared between the lines. Remarks of death, the cold tombs, and the dark crypt can be found quite often. The dark soul of Jasper—beaten by the power of opium, and his mad love to Rosa—was vividly portrait by Dickens. Shortly, Dickens’ usual melancholy and sense of humor we have been familiar with, faded in this particular work.

Edwin Drood was a cheerful and easy going young man. Being an orphan, his uncle Jasper—an opium addict—has been his most close relative and friend. Edwin was betrothed to Rosa Bud—daughter of his late father’s friend—and now it’s time for realizing their marriage. Edwin came to Cloisterham—a cathedral town—but there he was welcomed with a dark atmosphere. There were his uncle who secretly madly in love with his fiancée and acted strangely towards him; there were also orphan temperamental twin of Neville and Helena Landless. One day Neville chaffed him of being indifferent to his fiancée in an offensive manner that ignited a quarrel.

Approaching the day of their marriage, Edwin and Rosa met secretly and decided that they were better befriending than being husband and wife. Edwin has been carrying a diamond ring he got from Rosa’s guardian on the day of the meeting, however as the marriage was cancelled, he was about to wait for Mr. Grewgious’ visit to return it. Meanwhile, before he could inform Jasper about the marriage cancellation, he took a stroll with Neville on the night of Christmas Eve. Then he was mysteriously gone. Either he voluntarily disappeared or being murdered, his body was never found. And now, in the middle of the mystery, Dickens died without ever finishing the book, and thus left the mystery unsolved forever.

From the beginning it seems that Dickens brought us to take Jasper as the suspect of the crime. We never knew whether Dickens had intended to “kill” Edwin Drood, or made him disappeared. Some critics suggest that as the book title is The Mystery of Edwin Drood, Drood might have not been dead, or otherwise there won’t be any mystery left about him. Makes sense, but anyway, it was quite obvious that Edwin Drood was set to be murdered. By who? And with what motive?

Everything concerning Jasper was dark, mysterious and suspicious, and he has a strong motive to kill Edwin. As I am discussing in this interactive post, his big interest in the cathedral crypt and Durdles’ set of keys and their night adventure was very suspicious. He even fainted when Mr. Grewgious told him about the marriage cancellation—shocked from realizing that he had killed his beloved nephew in vain?

So I was questioning myself, if Dickens wanted this to be a mystery, surely he would conceal the truth and spread false signs here and there to mislead us. Was that the case here? Was Jasper’s mysterious conducts meant as a distraction to conceal the real crime? Once again, the only one who can answer these never-ending questions could not satisfy us, and left us forever in wonder.

And what about the motive? I can figure out two motives at least, of love and of greediness. If love was it, the suspect would be either Jasper or Neville—yes, in mystery we should always think of the most impossible, right? But if it was greediness, how about the diamond ring Edwin had got from Mr. Grewgious? If it was the case, than we could suspect Bazzard, for except Mr. Gewgious and Edwin, he was the only one knew the existing of the ring. Considering that the story—when Dickens left it—was still in the middle stage, anything can happen, and that someone who has been previously behind the curtain could turn out to be someone with important role.

Well, we can go on and on with our analysis, but all would be in vain because we would never know the truth. I guess, even Dickens have not known where this story would end when he died, as he never created a fixed plot before writing this particular story. I read elsewhere that Dickens just wrote the story and thought about the details in progress.

Finally, I can only say that although this won’t be my most favorite of Dickens’; I still felt his personal emotions involved in the story, as if I could feel his despair, his struggles, his agony, and his fear of death—or should I say the intuition that death was approaching?—in most of the lines in this unfinished book. The Mystery of Edwin Drood, I think, is one of the most precious legacies Charles Dickens has left us. Four and a half stars I grant for this book.

~~~~~

*I read the 2005 Dover Thrift Editions paperback*

*This book is counted for*

5^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

33^rd book for The Classics Club Project

4^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013
2nd book for 2013 TBRR Pile Mystery Reading Challenge

Let’s Discuss On The Mystery of Edwin Drood!

When a mystery tale failed to reveal its mystery, it will open an unlimited room for discussion. The Mystery of Edwin Drood qualifies this. I have just finished it yesterday for Celebrating Dickens, and now have a lot of unanswered questions, and have been playing ‘detective’ to try to answer it. I think it would be fun too to hear other’s theories and ideas on it too. So, if you have read this last and unfinished novel of Dickens, let’s have a discussion on The Mystery of Edwin Drood through this post. For you who haven’t read it, you better skip this post, as it will give you many spoilers! You can still join us later when you have read the book though...

The rules:

• Everyone is invited here, whether or not you are participating in Celebrating Dickens.
• We will have the discussion via comment box.
• I will start one or two topics, then you can post your own idea, response or theory upon it by replying the comment.
• If you want to discuss something apart from my topic, you can start it by posting a new comment.
• It will be better if you give title to your comments to help others get to the subject easier.
• To follow the discussions, you can “subscribe by mail” all comments in this post (just click the link below the comment box).
• There have been a lot of theories on this from Dickens’ critics, but I invite you to have your own imagery of the story.

So….let’s imagine and discuss!

Little Dorrit

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 19^th 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*

4^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

2^nd book for Back To The Classics 2013

32^nd book for The Classics Club Project

1^st book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

3^rd book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge2013

Miss Wade in Little Dorrit

Although not the most influencing characters, Miss Wade is one of the most intriguing characters I found in Little Dorrit. She could not be included in the protagonists or antagonist group, as she was just an unhappy and indifferent young woman who added ‘colors’ to this book’s main story and theme.

From her first appearance on board the ship that brought Arthur Clennam to England, I have noticed something special in Miss Wade. She was described as ‘a handsome young Englishwoman, travelling, quite alone, who had a proud observant face, and had either withdrawn herself from the rest or been avoided by the rest.’ She was a stern woman, anti-social and liked to spend times in her solitary; she seemed to be having a severe hatred in herself, and always regarded the world with bitterness.

It was later on revealed that Miss Wade was an unfortunate human being. From her confession letter to Arthur Clennam, we began to understand why she appeared to be mysterious; and despite of her haughty manner, no one knew who she really was, and what social status or level she possessed. Miss Wade turned out to be born as an orphan. Since childhood she was treated differently; girls of her age with whom she lived with began to patronize her; and people conciliated her in insolent pity and superiority—just because she was an orphan.

Maxine Peake in the BBC mini series

Miss Wade has a deep love towards another girl whom she lived with; but she treated her just like others. Sometimes she seemed to be sweet to her, but other times she often deliberately hurt her too by making her jealous. In a little coincident, Miss Wade heard her friend told someone that Miss Wade was a child with an ‘unhappy temper’.

Further more when she was a young woman, she fell in love with a young man. They have been engaged and were certain to get married, when Miss Wade felt that the guy’s family wanted her to be submissive to the family. Once again Miss Wade felt she was being dominated by others, and this enraged her. The marriage was cancelled, and Miss Wade had a bitter hatred towards her lover.

I think her strong will and determination came first from the lack of love she experienced in her childhood. Not having parental affection, she searched for it in her friends—and that’s why when she liked one of the girls, she loved her immensely. However she was disappointed by others’ superiority towards her, including her dear friend. It was the disappointment from her best friend which terribly hurt her. And unfortunately she lived among the society who highly praised social status at that time, that she was assumed and treated as a woman of lower class, despite of her educated and cultured manner.

From her story, I learned that before we judge others, we ought to find out their background first, it’s more often than not, one’s character or moral was cultivated from his/her childhood social culture and education.