It is so readable. I laughed aloud on the train today. it was the bit where Mr Pickwick is commandered by the newspaper man, Mr Pott. He makes him listen to some of his leaders.
The paragraph begins:
"We have ,in vain, pored over the leaves of Mr Pickwick's notebook..."
This is just sheer brilliance of wit. How did he do it?
I am sure that , when I read this in my youth, I missed out the stories which occur as Mr Pickwick meets people, who recount their histories to him. I now find them fascinating in their observation of life in those times. I can only gasp at such powers of observation.

I agree, this was an excellent first choice, I too am thoroughly enjoying the re-read. Even as a fresh faced young man, our Dickens had seen a little of life and understood human nature. He saw people as they really were, accepting both their strengths and weaknesses. He must have drawn on real life experiences for some of these fascinating characters.

It will be very interesting to compare notes on how his outlook on life affected his later work, once we've made a start on The Christmas Carol.

His choice of surnames really amuses me. Very imaginative.

babymoo, the surnames are wonderful, aren't they?

I know exactly what ren33 means about laughing aloud! Last night, I was reading Pickwick Papers, and I just started laughing out loud! I've never read it before, and I'm having a fine time. When I got to hapter XV, I thought, well...I'll get a start on the next chapters, but I've gotten so interesed in finding out what could possibly happen next, that I've read half the book.

This is really a fine first selection for our book club.

I know this is premature, but I'd love to know (when we near the end), who is everyone's favorite character and why. I think I've already found mine.

Happy Reading!

I enjoy the creativity of his choice of surnames. Everyone else from his time to the present seem to use the same old names all the time, or if they stray from the ordinary, they aren't very creative about it. His are memorable.

I've got a bit of catching up to do compared to the rest of you, but something interested me in chapter 9 while I was reading last evening.

Jingle might have been a bit of a scoundrel, but his generosity is quite beyond belief! The guinea he tipped the chap to delay those in hot pursuit I find really quite incredible.

A guinea was one pound and one shilling (£1.05 in today's decimalized currency), and for 10 minutes "work" that's £6.30 per hour - well above our minimum national wage in the UK today more than 175 years later. I should think that back then it would probably have been enough for a downpayment on a house!

How does this equate to those of you in other countries?

I don't think that it's been mentioned in our group before that these individual yarns were originally written for inclusion in a monthly magazine which, I would imagine, only the middle and upper classes could afford to buy.

Through personal experience Dickens obviously had quite an affinity with those the upper classes would have looked down on as the 'dregs of society'. As Jingle could probably have secured the fellow's services for as little as a penny, what point do you suppose Dickens was trying to make to the upper crust of his day?

I'm not much of an historian, but weren't we going through an economic depression in England during 1825?

After a very quick poke about I found the following which gives some idea of comparison:

Information taken from The English: A Social History, 1066-1945 by Christopher Hibbert, copyright 1987.

Wages Per Year:

£11 - 14 - Housemaid, 1850's and 1860's
£12 - 22 - Housemaid in 1894
£11 - 17 - Cooks, 1850's and 1860's
£20 - Singer at the Canterbury Music Hall
£18 - Lady's-maid, 1865
£12 - Scullery Maid, 1865
£17 - Nurse-maids
£40 - Coachman, 1865
£60 - Valet, 1865, 70 Pounds in 1894

(and at the other end of the scale)

Duke of Bedford - £300,000 (about $90 million US)
Duke of Westminster - £250,000 (just from London properties)


Costs in the 1850's

Seat in the body of the Canterbury hall, a popular tavern concert room - 6 pence
Seat in the gallery of the Canterbury - 9 pence

Costs in the 1860's

Gallery seat at South London Palace of Varieties in Lambeth - 3 pence; balcony and stalls - 1 shilling
Good seat plus a five-course meal at the Oxford Music Hall - 2 shillings, 6 pence
Flat rate fare for the City and South London railway in 1890 - 2 pence


Not a brilliant example at short notice I'm afraid, but it gives us something to work on, and perhaps one of you could come up with some better statistics.

Izzi, that is really fascinating isn't it? What an amazing difference between rich and poor. It certainly makes Alfred Jingle's bribe huge.
Do we ever hear where Mr. Pickwick's wealth comes from BTW? He seems quite the 'Gentleman of means'"
I love the bit with Mrs Bardell, when she mistakes his intentions. It is so plausible.
Oh I am soo enjoying this!
Is anyone finding the language difficult? (Again, thanks, Izzi for the online glossary )
I am finding the character list in the front of my copy useful too.

Initially I started reading the English version of the Pickwick Papers, but - even though I have a copy of the "Notes on Dickens' Pickwick Papers" to give some historical and etymological background - it is just too hard for me to read. So now I'm reading the Dutch translation, but since my version was translated in the 1920's it's ancient Dutch.... I'm doing fine so far though!

I am so embarrased. When my 800 page copy of the Pickwick Papers came in, I was in the middle of reading the American Heritage History of the (U.S.) Civil War. I didn't want to put it down but finally did because I was getting behind with Pickwick. But now I haven't found much time to read and have only read the first 7 chapters. However, I am enjoying it a lot more than I thought I would. I am finding some of the terminology making my inner-adolescent giggle. I intend to persevere so I may still be on Pickwick while you are on Scrooge but I will finish. See you in January *lol*

Hmmm Well, what do other members think? Shall we kick Die Hard out of the Pickwick Papers Club if she doesn't reach the required chapter in time? We have to think this over.
Seriously, I am sure it won't matter. Let's have some feed back now. Who is our favourite character so far. Is it all keeping your interest up? Opinions anyone?

For me, without a shadow of a doubt, my favourite character just has to be Sam Weller. As I read he is still a bootboy at the White Hart Inn (I'm lagging behind too DieHard ), but I know this character of old, and his true qualities haven't even begun to shine through yet.

I won't go into too much detail at present because it might spoil the story lines for others. I think that possibly he's got to be one of my favourites of all of Dickens' creations.

Who do you think Dickens himself would have chosen from The Pickwick Papers? Perhaps that's something to look into towards the end of the book, as certain parallels from his real life existence come into play later.

Who's yours Ren?? and what about the rest of you??

Yes, for the moment it is Weller too. he is so cheerful resourceful and facetious! How wonderfully he is drawn. Dickens just had to have known him.(Quote:"Ask number twenty-two if he'll 'ave 'em now or wait till he gets 'em..!)
But I adore Pickwick himself, what a lovable , generous person. I think I have grown much more gradually to love him, over the times of reading it. He sort of creeps into your heart.
I probably repeat myself here but I always gasp at the brilliance of wit . For example:
When Mr Pott reads some of his (it is implied SO subtly) , tedious writings to Mr Pickwick , the comment :
"We have in vain pored over the leaves of Mr Pickwick's notebook, in the hope of meeting with a general summary of these beautiful compositions. We have every reason to believe that he was perfectly enraptured with the vigour and freshness of the style; indeed Mr Winkle has recorded the fact that his eyes were closed, as if with excess of pleasure, during the whole time of their perusal..."
I just love that irony!

Izzi, this is so interesting, because Sam Weller is my favorite character, too. I'm on Chapter XXIX, and I think Sam's character, and the misadventures with the rascally Alfred Jingle are what keeps me reading the book straight through.
Do you ever get the idea that for all Mr. Pickwick's learning, it's Sam that has the commonsense of the pair?


I think the book really has read much faster, and easier, as I went along. It gets better and better.


I feel dense for asking, but one thing that has gone over my head entirely is the inscription on the stone Mr. Pickwick finds in Chapter XI. What does Mr. Pickwick (and Seventeen learned Socities!) believe it represents?

Also, up to Chapter XIV, what is your favorite incident that the Pickwickians has been involved with? I loved the elections between the Blues and the Buffs. We had some hotly disputed off-year elections here this November, and it looks like some of the candidates would have fit right in the elections in Eatanswill.

Also, the book really is two books, isn't it? The adventures of Pickwick and his friends are one, and then there are the tales told to them by people they meet. I find they these stories are fine reads, too. They could comprise a book of short stories on their own.

My favorite incident to this point is the deception of Rachael and Tupman by Mr. Jingle. I thought it, as many other parts of the book, had a very contemporary feel to it. My favorite line in the book so far:

Mr. Wardle's lawyer, Mr. Perker, says upon meeting Sam, "This is a curious old house of yours." Sam's reply is my favorite: "If you'd sent word you was a coming, we'd ha' had it repaired." I love sarcasm, I guess it's just the kind of guy I am.

In reply to:

---

I feel dense for asking, but one thing that has gone over my head entirely is the inscription on the stone Mr. Pickwick finds in Chapter XI. What does Mr. Pickwick (and Seventeen learned Socities!) believe it represents?

---

I don't think we're ever told what Pickwick and the great scholars actually think of it. We must conclude, I think, that they regard it as an incredibly ancient and abstruse inscription which the greatest minds of the age will have to struggle long and hard to decipher.

The pre-Victorian and early Victorian age was a great period for the formation of learned societies. A quick glance at Whitaker's Almanack shows the Royal Society of Literature (1820), the Celtic Society (1820), the Royal Zoological Society of London (1826), the Royal Geographical Society (1830), the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1831), the Royal Statistical Society (1834) and others.

I think Dickens is just having a bit of fun at the expense of scholarship, as he does in the first chapter with the mention of Pickwick's obviously ludicrous "Speculations on the Source of the Hampstead Ponds, with some Observations on the Theory of Tittlebats".

We'd like to think that Dickens, as a "great man", would have appreciated the value of the learned societies' work. But, as a young man at least, he seems to have found it rather comic, or at least a good source of comic material.

Linda the excerpt you are refering to is this one in Chapter XI.

I agree with you Tom that Dickens was just having his usual gentle joke at the expense of the seemingly learned scholars of his day, but after a little research I believe Dickens was sufficiently enough educated to know that some were mistaken in their beliefs.

In the text we are told that an expert dismissed the find as totally insignificant, but that the Pickwickians weren't having any of it preferring to believe that they had in their possesion a truly exceptional find of great importance.

The episode refers to the fact that the gravestone epitaph (for that was all it was) in Old English should have read BILL STUMPSES MARK, (later it would have been shortened to BILL STUMPS'S MARK) but the stonemason, being an ordinary working class chap, carved out the words as he heard them,
BIL STUMPS HIS MARK.

The following excerpt taken from The Australian National University website mailbag, the editor explains Dickens' joke in the episode.

............

PERPLEXING APOSTROPHE

My query ... is about the use of the apostrophe to show possession, e.g. 'John's book' ... Why is it used? Surely it can't indicate the omission of a letter as in 'it's' for 'it is'?

John Davies
Qld

That's exactly what it does indicate. Now before you protest that your name 'John' is complete in 'John's book' and that no letter has been omitted, let me shove in my historical oar. Had you lived in the Old English period, the possessive would have been shown by the addition of-es to your name. So 'John's book' would have been 'Johnes boc'. The same would have been the case in the Middle English period. Scribes, who developed a kind of shorthand to save space (parchment was expensive), used an apostrophe-like sign to mark the omission of the e, hence they'd have written 'Johnes boc' as 'John's boc'. Grammarians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who did not know their Old and Middle English puzzled their little heads mightily over formulations such as 'John's book'. Apostrophes, they knew, indicated omission: but what was omitted here? They came up with the crackpot solution that John's book was really 'John his book', the apostrophe indicating the omission of the hi of his. That's why we find Dickens giving us the mysterious inscription in The Pickwick Papers 'BILL STUMPS HIS MARK'. I wonder how these grammarians got over the problem of, for example, Mary's book since the formulation 'Mary her book' has no 's' in it at all. I suppose they felt that Mary, being merely female, had no right to possess a book in the first place, let alone mystify male grammarians manlily pondering possessives. Ed.

.......


I just love "Ed's" remarks about Mary!!

Thanks, Tom and izzi. I was afraid there was something, an incident perhaps, that I was missing here. Frankly, I am amazed at how humorous Dickens could be. You know, this reminds me a little of Mark Twain's books.

As I was reading about the elections in Eatanswill I was wondering about one thing. What kind of people had the right to vote in Dickens' time? If anyone could give an explanation it would be greatly appreciated!

While finding out what I could from a site about Dickens time, I found this . (I will put what I found about the right to vote in a while.)This was an eye-opener . It is from a time line:
London, England: Charles Dickens was, and still is, criticized for the number of children's deaths in his novels. Well. Dicken's biographer Peter Ackroyd notes that in 1839 almost half of London's funerals were for children under 10. The average age of death in London was 27 - 22 for the working class. Ackroyd reports: "London's air reeked of the putrescence of decomposing bodies erupting through the surface of overcrowed graveyards, and the stench of human excrement. It puddled in gutters in the middle of muddy streets, and in "cess lakes" scattered through congested neighborhoods, such as the one where 2,850 people lived in 95 dilapidated houses. Families of eight in a single room were not unusual. Brown water, for washing and cooking, came unfiltered from the Thames.
My History is a bit vague, and someone may be able to fill us in , but I think the Corn Laws were completed, or nearly, which meant that others (apart from landed gentry) were able to vote . This would include merchants etc (I think) But I know that at the time of the Pickwick Papers and the election recorded in there, not all tax payers had the right. That wasn't passed until the 1860's I think (you will note lots of "I think"s!) . Help!!

The first Reform Act was brought in during 1832 which gave every man who owned property to the value of £10 or more the right to vote, effectively putting a stop to the "rotten borough" voting of previous years.

Lord John Russell, son of the 6th Duke of Bedford and grandfather to Bertrand Russell was largely responsible for pushing the 1832 Reform Act through the Commons. I think I am right in that Dickens dedicated one of his books to Russell, but I don't know which one I'm afraid.

Here's a little more information about The Reform Act - 1832

As you are probably aware, in England women didn't have the right to vote until 1918, and that was only for those over 30. Voting rights eventually became extended to women over 21 in 1928 and then later dropped to 18.


......

Edited to provide a more informative link

I've been giving the 'BIL STUMPS HIS MARK' episode a little thought and I might've been mistaken in my earlier assumption that the ancient script was a gravestone, carved by a stonemason. On re-reading the chapter last evening I realised that at first we are told that the man who sold the stone said that it was there before anyone in the village had been born. Later we are informed that Blotton said he had met the man who sold the stone to Pickwick and that he'd said he'd scratched it out himself.

I was wondering why Dickens chose that particular phrase and it dawned on me that this was possibly a clever play on words. 'Stumps' being another way of saying tricked or conned and a 'mark' is a gullible fool. In this case poor old Pickwick, who thought he was so very clever in spotting an important find where so many scholars had walked over the spot and missed it before. In fact, now I wonder how many other similar stones he'd sold to other learned gents.

I may be reading more into this than was intended, but the more I think about it the more I'm inclined to think that the phrase was deliberate. I can just imagine Dickens enjoying having a little poke at his readers. He was effectively saying that even though this simple fellow couldn't even spell his own name correctly he was easily able to outwit those he had tricked.

It sounds very plausible Izzi. Thanks for the History lesson, I really needed it! I never really thought about that episode and it just proves what a good idea this is.

That is a very interesting way of looking at that, izzi! I never thought of it that way. Well, I just wizzed right on through without stopping to think of it. Shame on me!

How is everyone else getting on with it. Dobrov, did you find a copy? Heather? Are you all enjoying it?
I must confess I am having great fun. I am reading far more into it than at my last reading which must be quite a few years ago!
I agree about the clever names (can't remember who commented) Don't you love Count Smalltork? LOL!