Lit Crit, Hublet Style

HA! Let's hear "Middlemarch" now!

True enough, but who in Victorian literature wasn't an ass? Holmes and Quatermain, maybe, but the characters in 'serious' books were either obvious or dreary, or both.

In Trollope's novels, there are plenty of asses (though rarely any really evil SOB's), but there are many noble characters, some of whom are always very down on their luck, indeed.

Believe it or not, the Victorian novel is a major area of ignorance for me. Somehow I got through all those years of English classes without taking a Victorian Novels course, and I'm not strongly drawn to those books even now. Never read Middlemarch, and even my Dickens reading has been sparse.

But I do like Trollope.

Hublet, If you feel a need to read Dickens, read Pratchett instead; same strengths, used better. Dickens comes across as a sneering, copper-bottomed bastard who holds his characters in contempt and was all-too-obviously paid by the word.

I'm so glad to see the comment from PersonFromPorlock about Dickens getting paid by the word. You see, a few decades ago, when I was in junior high, we spent huge amounts of time dissecting every word in Great Expectations. And, being the way I was, I managed to annoy the teacher greatly by pointing out that Dickens was paid by the word and was desperately trying to pay his bills. He didn't spend weeks sweating over the perfection of every word. He had to crank out the work and make money. A year or two later, with a different English teacher, I got into trouble again, as the teacher asked "Why does Dickens say 'It was the best of times, etc.', rather than just 'it was a mixed up time?'" I answered quickly "Because he was paid by the word!" and once again found myself in the literature class doghouse. It's nice to know, after all these years, that I'm not the only one who sees that aspect of Dickens.