WORKS OF DICKENS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19758, 27 March 1934, Page 8

WORKS OF DICKENS

AN INTERESTING REVIEW ROTARY CLUB ADDRESSED Of exceptional interest to lovers of the works of Charles Dickens was an address on the celebrated author and his books, given by Mr E. Killick, at yesterday’s luncheon of the Rotary Club, over which Rotarian F. I. Washbourn presided. Mr Killick began by describing Dickens as a man intolerant of pious humbugs and a certain type of professional philanthropists and with little faith in politics or politicians, but it was not to be concluded from that that he was a cynic. On the other hand, his detractors had described him as a vulgar optimist. He had a passionate sympathy with the poor and was incensed by the apathy with which conditions were tolerated by those whose positions would have enabled them to remedy the state of affairs. He saw many abuses existing, and being aware that there was no weapon so deadly as ridicule, he used that weapon unsparingly. He was at his best as a humorist and satirist and not until his later works were there any other qualities to compare thereto. The outstanding features of his novels were the characters he portrayed. It was worth reading Dickens for these alone. Even the blase modern reader could skip a lot of “Bleak House” for the sake of making himself acquainted w'ith Mr Buckett, Mr Skimpole and Mr Chadband, to say nothing of Mr Guppy.

Life-Like Character,

Mr Killick referred to numerous wellknown Dickens characters and said that one was able to meet their prototypes every day. All had been annoyed by more than one Podsnap and Mr Pecksniff was more human than Tartuffe, or that other arch-hypocrite, Joseph Surface. “It is these everyday characters that will live forever,” said Mr Killick. “It is in them that I believe that Dickens’s claim to immortality lies. They may be exaggerated but an artist painting a picture for a public gallery generally paints it a little over life size, and every good picture emphasises the salient points of the subject rather than equal weight to every important detail, and how much more does a caricature give us a retainable impression of a person than a merely accurate but uninspired portrait.” In his more serious characters Dickens was less happy. His sentiment did not always ring true, and on sex subjects, brave as he was, he did not face facts. Dickens evidently had a high opinion of women. It may be argued that there were never such a woman as Esther Summerton. They however, represented the ideal which many men visualised in these women for whom they had a strong affection. Even when Dickens had to draw his women as bad or indifferent characters, he seemed to find a difficulty in so doing. Lady Deadlock and Edith Dombey’s actions were not quite accountable, in feet they were inexplicable and unnecessary. One felt that he had a difficulty in refraining from making all his women angelic. Madam Defarge was really the only sinister woman of the lot, and she was a character in a book that was really less representative of Dickens than any of his other works. Dickens had a theory that the criminal was different and quite distinct from other men, and so definitely divides his characters into the sheep and the goats with not altogether convincing results. “As regards the children in Dickens’s books, I am afraid I like some of his bad boys more than some of his good. I omit little Dombey and little Nell, both somewhat unreal children. Moreover, it was not quite fair of him 'always to make his good little boys weep but his bad little boys snivel." “Spineless Heroes.” Mr Killick said that he would like to remark on the somewhat spineless type of hero Dickens drew. They all seemed willing to place themselves under the wing of a patron, or to expect a rich relative to do something for them, and considered themselves heroes indeed if they struck out for themselves. That was the spirit of the age, however, due possibly to economic conditions, but in books of the period one was constantly coming across lachrymose individuals who, with one eye on the heavens and the other on their benefactor, never ceased to thank Providence for having found someone to look after them. Dickens, said Mr Killick, gave some very appetising descriptions of meals, possibly as being among the few bright spots in a dreary world. Apparently, he was a good trencherman himself and his pages were sprinkled with glowing accounts of generous meals after cold and weary journeys, the creature comforts being also ministered to by jorums of punch and blazing fires. Dickens was a temperate man but he was not a “wowser,” that was to say he did not believe in interfering with peoples’ actions for a possibly mistaken idea of what was for their good. A good deal of controversy was heard nowadays about public school education. Dickens had no experience of such an education, otherwise it might have been interesting to see how he reacted to it, but he had given some graphic descriptions of private schools, institutions which, apart from preparatory schools for our public schools, are seldom to be met with in New Zealand. Some of them were certainly of a poor standard, but whatever might have been their demerits, they taught the elements of English subjects fairly thoroughly, and though not an educated man, Dickens wrote good English—in fact some of his more exalted passages transcended mere prose. His training as a reporter no doubt was of great assistance to him. Decrying Dickens. “Although it may be natural nowadays to find it difficult to read Dickens, care should be taken in decrying him,” said Mr Killick. “Such writers as Chesterton and Bernard Shaw think highly of him and no doubt owe something to him, in the same way as Dickens himself owed something to such writers as Fielding. His contemporary, Anthony Trollope, apparently did not admire him, and Dickens and Thackeray never appeared to have been particularly intimate. These writers, however, essayed to give a more temperate description of the manners of the times in which they lived and wrote with less exuberance. Though some of his greatest characters live in his earlier novels, yet I think he showed a greater insight into and understanding of human nature in his later works. He had not written himself out, and the world suffered a great loss by his death.” Appreciation of the address was expressed by Dr. W. H. Unwin and Mr W. Harte, a visitor to the Club, and Mr Killick was accorded a vote of thanks.