David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens
David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens
I saw a cadaverous face appear at a small window on the ground floor(in a little round tower that formed one side of the house), and quickly disappear. The low arched door then opened, and the face came out. It was quite as cadaverous as it had looked in the window, though in the grain of it there was that tinge of red which is sometimes to be observed in the skins of red-haired people. It belonged to a red-haired person--a youth of fifteen, as I take it now, but looking much older--whose hair was cropped as close as the closest stubble, who had hardly any eyebrows and no eyelashes, and eyes of a red-brown, so unsheltered and unshaded, that I remember wondering how he went to sleep. He was high-shouldered and bony; dressed in decent black, with a white wisp of a neckcloth; buttoned up to the throat, and had a long, lank skeleton hand, which particularly attracted my attention, as he stood at the pony's head, rubbing his chin with it, and looking up at us in the chaise.
"Is Mr. Wickfield at home, Uriah Heep?" said my aunt.
Ah, Dickens! A man on everybody's top ten list of greatest British 19th century authors, number one on a lot of lists, and frequently listed among the top ten authors of all time. And David Copperfield is on all the top ten lists of Dickens novels, often vying with Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities for the number one spot, and therefore guaranteeing that the three together are the most likely Dickens books to be thrust on American school children too young to appreciate them and therefore making them despised by people who grow up to love Lawyers Suck (Bleak House). Business Sucks (Hard Times) The Royal Shakespeare Company is an International Treasure (Nicholas Nickleby) and Wait--You Mean Fagin ISN'T A Lovable Old Buffoon After All? (Oliver Twist). I hated the Dickens "Big Three" in my youth too, and then went back later to give them a second look and found they were better than I remembered.
The genius of Dickens novels is the supporting cast. All of the plots meander into and out of strange places; most or all of the protagonists are colorless everymen who are used mainly as devices to connect the secondary characters (and Copperfield is no exception, even though he in particular is supposed to be a stand-in for the youthful Dickens himself), and the themes and morals are about as controversial these days as those of the average Disney movie, despite the existence of Republican assholes who will insist on calling Dickens "controversial" and argue that, for example, Ebeneezer Scrooge is a good guy until the rotten old Socialist ghosts turn him into a woolly liberal.
But oh, those supporting characters! In David Copperfield, we get such household names as the odious Murdstones, the formidable Aunt Betsy, the willing Barkis, the delightful Tommy Traddles, the insipid Dora, and the practical, awesome Agnes Wickfield. But even they pale beside three characters who utterly, utterly dominate the novel: Steerforth, Micawber and Uriah Heep.
Steerforth is Copperfield's morally ambiguous childhood friend. He is very witty and charming, but turns out to have feet of clay, thoughtlessly causing harm to others. Micawber is also witty and charming while obliviously unworldly and optimistic, letting his dependents become endangered by his mounting debts as he hopes that "something will turn up", and yet is portrayed as unambiguously a good man. Compare and contrast with the character of Skimpole in Bleak House, who has the same charms and flaws and is considered a villain (the ultimat Ayn Rand villain, in fact, as he sponges off the goodness of others while pointedly doing nothing productive and chiding his benefactors for their alleged selfishness. If Republicans actually read fiction, Skimpole would be much more famous in the Fox noise machine as the archetype of the bad liberal). Did Dickens change his mind in his old age?
And then there's Uriah Heep, whose first appearance I chose for my representative quote. Heep is a prime example of Dickens's talent fo creating epic characters. Look closely at his actions for most of the book, and there's not much to find fault with. He simply does what modern Americans who read Horatio Alger are taught to do. He comes from humble origins, knows his place, and strives to better himself by becoming indispensible to his employer. And yet, everything about him is creepy, from his intense stares to his oily handshake to the cringing servility and contemptiple smallness under which he hides his ambition. The ability to make something larger than life out of one so small is what makes Dickens deservedly one of the great authors of western civilization. Highly recommended.
I saw a cadaverous face appear at a small window on the ground floor(in a little round tower that formed one side of the house), and quickly disappear. The low arched door then opened, and the face came out. It was quite as cadaverous as it had looked in the window, though in the grain of it there was that tinge of red which is sometimes to be observed in the skins of red-haired people. It belonged to a red-haired person--a youth of fifteen, as I take it now, but looking much older--whose hair was cropped as close as the closest stubble, who had hardly any eyebrows and no eyelashes, and eyes of a red-brown, so unsheltered and unshaded, that I remember wondering how he went to sleep. He was high-shouldered and bony; dressed in decent black, with a white wisp of a neckcloth; buttoned up to the throat, and had a long, lank skeleton hand, which particularly attracted my attention, as he stood at the pony's head, rubbing his chin with it, and looking up at us in the chaise.
"Is Mr. Wickfield at home, Uriah Heep?" said my aunt.
Ah, Dickens! A man on everybody's top ten list of greatest British 19th century authors, number one on a lot of lists, and frequently listed among the top ten authors of all time. And David Copperfield is on all the top ten lists of Dickens novels, often vying with Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities for the number one spot, and therefore guaranteeing that the three together are the most likely Dickens books to be thrust on American school children too young to appreciate them and therefore making them despised by people who grow up to love Lawyers Suck (Bleak House). Business Sucks (Hard Times) The Royal Shakespeare Company is an International Treasure (Nicholas Nickleby) and Wait--You Mean Fagin ISN'T A Lovable Old Buffoon After All? (Oliver Twist). I hated the Dickens "Big Three" in my youth too, and then went back later to give them a second look and found they were better than I remembered.
The genius of Dickens novels is the supporting cast. All of the plots meander into and out of strange places; most or all of the protagonists are colorless everymen who are used mainly as devices to connect the secondary characters (and Copperfield is no exception, even though he in particular is supposed to be a stand-in for the youthful Dickens himself), and the themes and morals are about as controversial these days as those of the average Disney movie, despite the existence of Republican assholes who will insist on calling Dickens "controversial" and argue that, for example, Ebeneezer Scrooge is a good guy until the rotten old Socialist ghosts turn him into a woolly liberal.
But oh, those supporting characters! In David Copperfield, we get such household names as the odious Murdstones, the formidable Aunt Betsy, the willing Barkis, the delightful Tommy Traddles, the insipid Dora, and the practical, awesome Agnes Wickfield. But even they pale beside three characters who utterly, utterly dominate the novel: Steerforth, Micawber and Uriah Heep.
Steerforth is Copperfield's morally ambiguous childhood friend. He is very witty and charming, but turns out to have feet of clay, thoughtlessly causing harm to others. Micawber is also witty and charming while obliviously unworldly and optimistic, letting his dependents become endangered by his mounting debts as he hopes that "something will turn up", and yet is portrayed as unambiguously a good man. Compare and contrast with the character of Skimpole in Bleak House, who has the same charms and flaws and is considered a villain (the ultimat Ayn Rand villain, in fact, as he sponges off the goodness of others while pointedly doing nothing productive and chiding his benefactors for their alleged selfishness. If Republicans actually read fiction, Skimpole would be much more famous in the Fox noise machine as the archetype of the bad liberal). Did Dickens change his mind in his old age?
And then there's Uriah Heep, whose first appearance I chose for my representative quote. Heep is a prime example of Dickens's talent fo creating epic characters. Look closely at his actions for most of the book, and there's not much to find fault with. He simply does what modern Americans who read Horatio Alger are taught to do. He comes from humble origins, knows his place, and strives to better himself by becoming indispensible to his employer. And yet, everything about him is creepy, from his intense stares to his oily handshake to the cringing servility and contemptiple smallness under which he hides his ambition. The ability to make something larger than life out of one so small is what makes Dickens deservedly one of the great authors of western civilization. Highly recommended.