During my father’s last year of life we discussed many
things. Of course, art and literature were always high on the list of our
favorite topics, and we returned again and again to the issues of paintings and
books. Roy (my father) was perhaps the most widely read person I ever knew. He
read every genre of fiction and non-fiction and relished in every kind of
literature. Among Roy’s favourite authors was, not surprisingly, Charles
Dickens. I believe that he felt a kinship to Dickens because of that writer’s early
experiences of English poverty and his honest portrayal of working-class
characters. Roy was particularly fond of David Copperfield because he
identified with the autobiographical story in which Copperfield was gradually
raised out of poverty to relative comfort but never lost his sense of identity
and his connection to ‘regular’ people.
The one Dickens novel that Roy could never seem to get on
with was Pickwick Papers. This was Dickens first novel and though it is still
masterful in many ways, it certainly lacks some of the polish of his most
renowned works. Many modern readers don’t realize that Dickens’ major novels,
from Pickwick Papers onward, appeared first in the form of serials, chapters
being regularly published in a magazine. The serial form of the novel has
advantages and disadvantages for the author. On the one hand, the author of a
serial novel is able to adapt his or her story and characters as s/he goes
according to feedback received from readers. On the other hand, the author is
unable to go back to an earlier chapter and change events or characters in
order to create a better story. Thus for most serial authors in the 18th
and 19th centuries, planning was essential, one had to have the
basic story worked out ahead of time so that there was no chance of writing
yourself into a corner, so to speak. It is fairly clear when you read Pickwick
Papers and compare it to one of Dickens’ later and more effective novels, he
didn’t work out a complex storyline in advance. Instead, Pickwick Papers reads
a bit like Don Quixote, a series of events connected by character but not by a
plot per se. And Pickwick Papers also lacks the kind of unifying theme and
remarkable humor that a great novel like Don Quixote has. However, the prose of
Dickens’ first novel cannot, generally speaking, be faulted. Even in his
twenties, Dickens had already perfected his skills as a constructor of
effective syntax and flowing prose. And one can, in Pickwick Papers, already
observe the skill of characterization that would become the hallmark of Dickens
novels. However, in terms of plot and depth of character interest, Pickwick
Papers is a youthful work when we compare it to Dickens’ later novels. I am
sure like many artists, in his later years Dickens probably looked back on his
early work and was struck by how many things he could have done differently and
more effectively.
But despite these kinds of criticisms (and they are by no
means controversial), Pickwick Papers is still an enjoyable read, and even
though it was Dickens’ first major work, it still stands above many of his
contemporaries in its light-hearted, humorous style and endearing humanity of
its characterizations. If you take a list of Dickens contemporaries who are
still widely read and well-known like Austin, Gaskell, Eliot, Ainsworth, the
Bronte sisters, Thackeray, etc, Dickens stands out as unique because of his
cast of colorful characters and the humorous ways in which they seem to come
alive.
Before Roy passed away we spoke of Pickwick Papers while I
was reading to him from David Copperfield. He regretted never having read
Dickens’ first novel and I idly promised him that I would read it at some
point. Having now fulfilled that promise, I think I know why Roy was never able
to get through Pickwick Papers. I believe now that it was the rather stuffy,
formal, slightly righteous attitude of the primary character that put Roy off.
Many of Dickens’ title characters or primary characters, from Nicholas Nickleby
to Barnaby Rudge to Pip in Great Expectations, are working-class or, at the
very least, flawed and human in their nature. Samuel Pickwick, on the other
hand is a wealthy and rather stuffy character who also lacks the dynamic
narrative nature of most of Dickens’ other main characters. Pickwick is more of
a caricature than a character and it was, I think, this aspect of the novel
that prevented my father from reading and enjoying the novel.
But to be honest, my dad had something of a chip on his
shoulder about being working-class and he despised the middle and upper-classes
of British society. Though I understand my father’s feelings in this regard, I
was not raised in England and was not forced to endure derision from people who
thought that they were, simply by luck of birth, superior to me. Due to my own politics
and experience, I still find many of the sensibilities of the English middle
and upper-classes nauseating and offensive, but it was never a personal thing
for me like it was for my dad. So I think I know where Roy was coming from when
he failed to enjoy Pickwick Papers, but I could look past Samuel Pickwick’s
formality in a way that he probably couldn’t.
Because it was his first novel, Pickwick Papers will always
enjoy a unique status in the Dickens oeuvre. And it is obviously an important 19th
century work of English literature. More importantly, the flaws of the novel
only really come to light when you compare it to Dickens’ later novels.
Regardless of the literary issues (or in my father’s case personal issues) I
encourage people to take some time to read it, for it still offers hours of
enjoyment.
