I think Dickens and Jarndyce in the same room would have had the dry, witty back-and-forth of those great man-children Douglas and Lancaster...but that's just me
90
“Jarndyce is one of the best and kindest human beings ever described in a novel.” Part of the magic of Bleak House and Dickens is that we believe it. John Jarndyce is probably Dickens’s favorite among those on the right side of life, always described with sincerity and good humor, whereas I feel at times the author detests Esther and fills her speech with “Estherisms” out of sadistic wit. (Dickens was only human.) For Jarndyce is as good as Esther—taking in young relations, generous to all he knows and inspiring loyalty in most of them (Skimpole the exception, what a surprise), sticking by the people he cares about when they disappoint or revolt against him (Richard) because of his own beliefs in human nature, even arranging the marriage the book leads up towards at the cost of some happiness to himself—though Dickens hints he gets even greater happiness than otherwise from Esther’s match (more later). The two differences are, first, Jarndyce will actually open his mouth to complain or argue with people (His trademark feeling of the east wind is the lightest and most prevalent form of this tendency, making his last appearance in the book where he asserts he never feels the east wind anymore very fitting.), and second, he stands outside of the plot and is only entangled in it by virtue of his name. This status as more of an observer might have made him the ideal narrator…except for Dickens’s superb Structural choice to have the second voice contrast to his in terms of Style and tone. Dickens and Jarndyce’s Bleak House would have been the back-and-forth light conversation between two friends with plenty of port wine and cigars. (Nabokov makes this point, by the way, in reference to Skimpole’s last appearance. Jarndyce finally quarrels with Skimpole upon learning how strong his influence was on Richard, and when Skimpole’s posthumous autobiography hits the shelves, Esther shuts it after reading one sentence—that Jarndyce, who propped Skimpole up for years and truly liked him, was “the Incarnation of Selfishness.” He is only selfish in denying Skimpole his fantasy life.)
Jarndyce is in some ways more of a man-child than Skimpole, for he is taken in by Skimpole’s alleged innocence…and indeed keeps faith in everyone. Since Dickens’s children are the most idealized creatures on the planet, holding on to some aspects of a child’s character while still functioning in the adult world is no bad thing. Skimpole does NOT function as an adult.
91
Esther describes Skimpole because she can only see his “shallow but pleasing wit” and “cheap but amusing charm.” Dickens would have expanded upon his “coarseness and utter dishonesty” from the get-go. I made this point before but it bears repeating. Jarndyce would have narrated the same way but been quicker on the uptake. Esther has no uptake.
Skimpole brings out “in beautiful relief the real children of the book who are little helpers, who assume the responsibilities of grown-up people, who are guardians and providers.” I feel a bit of a plagiarist for discussing all of this before remembering Nabokov made the exact same points. However, in reviewing my marked-up copy of the lectures used for this commentary, I find I marked that Esther above all exemplifies the child theme. She is one of only three characters in the novel whom we see grow from child to adult, actually all from girl to woman, and her happy ending feels deserved because she takes on the responsibilities (Has fiction ever seen better nurses, confidants, women who go along on midnight chases?) she must without ever losing her “childish” empathy and belief both in her own capacities (to the extent she believes in them) and her those of others. In superb Structural planning, Esther’s friendship helps the other two characters in their own evolution. She becomes Caddy Jellyby’s confidant, and Caddy has a needed sounding board for her struggle, ultimately successful, to break away from her mother’s philanthropy and take up a truly useful existence as a loving wife and mother. Charley Neckett, a soul as selfless as Esther, is pulled off the path to poverty when she becomes Esther’s maid. Charley, Dickens/Esther tells us in Chapter 67, marries a miller (she will never go hungry again) and finds her own domestic bliss, while her sister Emma—only a baby when we met her—takes Charley’s place as the Woodcourt maid.
Skimpole is always put in contrast to other characters. He “betrays Jo, a false child betraying a real one.” He talks of being a caged bird, but it is Richard who ends up in the cage, and Skimpole serves as a bird of prey for him. And in a very subtle point, Skimpole has medical training—he successfully diagnoses Jo—but unlike Allan Woodcourt and his endeavor to use his knowledge “to help mankind,” Skimpole “refuses to practice,” and in his one time doing so “recommends that Jo be thrown out of the house, undoubtedly to die.” Skimpole is a contrary figure. He has no interest in Chancery but gives Richard advice (horrible advice) on it anyway. He is clearly a dangerous adult instead of a simple child. And he stands in opposition to all other characters, and for all his professions of friendliness it may be that he despises them and deep-down looks forward to exploiting their weaknesses…witness his turning on Jarndyce. Skimpole even gets mixed up in the murder mystery, taking money from Mr. Bucket to run Jo out of the house. Mr. Bucket had no idea of Jo’s illness…such an action runs contrary to the nature he has in the rest of the book…and I would love to think he would have dealt Skimpole a serious punishment in an alternate version of the novel.
“The most touching pages in the book are devoted to the child theme,” beginning with Esther developing a sense of guilt from Mrs. Barbary but persevering through her orphaned state. Other adults are not as cruel to children as Skimpole is, but they misinterpret the way children take them at face value (empathy) and confuse motivations. Mrs. Barabary wants Esther to grow up with a sense of shame so she does not make the mistakes her parents made, but her constant repetition instead retards Esther’s judgment of her self-worth.
Mrs. Pardiggle visits the brickmakers and sees their dead baby. A coldhearted woman with snotty, unhappy children drops in like a publicity-hungry celebrity to take a look at squalor, then checks out and does nothing. Dickens, like his contemporaries Mill and Trollope, was too far ahead of his time.
90
“Jarndyce is one of the best and kindest human beings ever described in a novel.” Part of the magic of Bleak House and Dickens is that we believe it. John Jarndyce is probably Dickens’s favorite among those on the right side of life, always described with sincerity and good humor, whereas I feel at times the author detests Esther and fills her speech with “Estherisms” out of sadistic wit. (Dickens was only human.) For Jarndyce is as good as Esther—taking in young relations, generous to all he knows and inspiring loyalty in most of them (Skimpole the exception, what a surprise), sticking by the people he cares about when they disappoint or revolt against him (Richard) because of his own beliefs in human nature, even arranging the marriage the book leads up towards at the cost of some happiness to himself—though Dickens hints he gets even greater happiness than otherwise from Esther’s match (more later). The two differences are, first, Jarndyce will actually open his mouth to complain or argue with people (His trademark feeling of the east wind is the lightest and most prevalent form of this tendency, making his last appearance in the book where he asserts he never feels the east wind anymore very fitting.), and second, he stands outside of the plot and is only entangled in it by virtue of his name. This status as more of an observer might have made him the ideal narrator…except for Dickens’s superb Structural choice to have the second voice contrast to his in terms of Style and tone. Dickens and Jarndyce’s Bleak House would have been the back-and-forth light conversation between two friends with plenty of port wine and cigars. (Nabokov makes this point, by the way, in reference to Skimpole’s last appearance. Jarndyce finally quarrels with Skimpole upon learning how strong his influence was on Richard, and when Skimpole’s posthumous autobiography hits the shelves, Esther shuts it after reading one sentence—that Jarndyce, who propped Skimpole up for years and truly liked him, was “the Incarnation of Selfishness.” He is only selfish in denying Skimpole his fantasy life.)
Jarndyce is in some ways more of a man-child than Skimpole, for he is taken in by Skimpole’s alleged innocence…and indeed keeps faith in everyone. Since Dickens’s children are the most idealized creatures on the planet, holding on to some aspects of a child’s character while still functioning in the adult world is no bad thing. Skimpole does NOT function as an adult.
91
Esther describes Skimpole because she can only see his “shallow but pleasing wit” and “cheap but amusing charm.” Dickens would have expanded upon his “coarseness and utter dishonesty” from the get-go. I made this point before but it bears repeating. Jarndyce would have narrated the same way but been quicker on the uptake. Esther has no uptake.
Skimpole brings out “in beautiful relief the real children of the book who are little helpers, who assume the responsibilities of grown-up people, who are guardians and providers.” I feel a bit of a plagiarist for discussing all of this before remembering Nabokov made the exact same points. However, in reviewing my marked-up copy of the lectures used for this commentary, I find I marked that Esther above all exemplifies the child theme. She is one of only three characters in the novel whom we see grow from child to adult, actually all from girl to woman, and her happy ending feels deserved because she takes on the responsibilities (Has fiction ever seen better nurses, confidants, women who go along on midnight chases?) she must without ever losing her “childish” empathy and belief both in her own capacities (to the extent she believes in them) and her those of others. In superb Structural planning, Esther’s friendship helps the other two characters in their own evolution. She becomes Caddy Jellyby’s confidant, and Caddy has a needed sounding board for her struggle, ultimately successful, to break away from her mother’s philanthropy and take up a truly useful existence as a loving wife and mother. Charley Neckett, a soul as selfless as Esther, is pulled off the path to poverty when she becomes Esther’s maid. Charley, Dickens/Esther tells us in Chapter 67, marries a miller (she will never go hungry again) and finds her own domestic bliss, while her sister Emma—only a baby when we met her—takes Charley’s place as the Woodcourt maid.
Skimpole is always put in contrast to other characters. He “betrays Jo, a false child betraying a real one.” He talks of being a caged bird, but it is Richard who ends up in the cage, and Skimpole serves as a bird of prey for him. And in a very subtle point, Skimpole has medical training—he successfully diagnoses Jo—but unlike Allan Woodcourt and his endeavor to use his knowledge “to help mankind,” Skimpole “refuses to practice,” and in his one time doing so “recommends that Jo be thrown out of the house, undoubtedly to die.” Skimpole is a contrary figure. He has no interest in Chancery but gives Richard advice (horrible advice) on it anyway. He is clearly a dangerous adult instead of a simple child. And he stands in opposition to all other characters, and for all his professions of friendliness it may be that he despises them and deep-down looks forward to exploiting their weaknesses…witness his turning on Jarndyce. Skimpole even gets mixed up in the murder mystery, taking money from Mr. Bucket to run Jo out of the house. Mr. Bucket had no idea of Jo’s illness…such an action runs contrary to the nature he has in the rest of the book…and I would love to think he would have dealt Skimpole a serious punishment in an alternate version of the novel.
“The most touching pages in the book are devoted to the child theme,” beginning with Esther developing a sense of guilt from Mrs. Barbary but persevering through her orphaned state. Other adults are not as cruel to children as Skimpole is, but they misinterpret the way children take them at face value (empathy) and confuse motivations. Mrs. Barabary wants Esther to grow up with a sense of shame so she does not make the mistakes her parents made, but her constant repetition instead retards Esther’s judgment of her self-worth.
Mrs. Pardiggle visits the brickmakers and sees their dead baby. A coldhearted woman with snotty, unhappy children drops in like a publicity-hungry celebrity to take a look at squalor, then checks out and does nothing. Dickens, like his contemporaries Mill and Trollope, was too far ahead of his time.
No comments:
Post a Comment