Bleak House – Pheckless Philanthropy

As always, I continue to cast my own values and priorities into what I read, and Bleak House is no exception.  There is a lot going on – weather, doubles, confusion, intrigue, etc…, but what I am continually drawn to are the comparisons Dickens makes between profitable and useful philanthropy and the sort of  ineffectual and impractical type we see with Mrs. Jellyby.

The Victorian Era saw a boom in philanthropic projects.  Here is a great article outlining some of the efforts at the time – http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/victorian-giving/

Dickens himself was involved in several projects designed to help those in need; Urania Cottage is probably his most famous.  Dickens worked to help those in his “backyard” rather than spending his efforts helping those in distant lands.  Mr. Jarndyce is a great example of the kind of philanthropy that Dickens would have respected.  He has given of himself to help Esther, Ada and Richard, and now Charley and what’s left of her small family. I am not naïve enough to think that all these individuals aren’t somehow connected (I’m wise to Mr. Dickens’ tricks); however, there is a spirit of giving and sincerity represented here that is ENTIRELY missing in characters like Mrs. Jellyby.

Mrs. Jellyby’s family is falling down around her ears, and she is blindly devoted to some random cause in Africa which has nothing to do with benefiting her own family. Her own children are hungry and half-clothed; she has driven her husband into bankruptcy; and now, she has refused her blessing to her own child! She disgusts me, just as I think Dickens intends her to disgust me.  She is a shining example (one I am sure Mr. Dickens knew well) of an individual immersing himself in a distant cause when his own world could use his help.  London of the time was in desperate need of benefactors, much more so than distant causes which attracted a great deal of attention like cotton gins in Nigeria.      

There, of course, is Mrs. Pardiggle’s type of philanthropy which is so full of “moral determination” that it is brutal and demanding of those she seeks to help.  Mrs. Pardiggle dragged her own children (resentful and miserable) all over creation and exposed them to no telling what horrors; however, she never brought anything with her on her charity visits.  This is highlighted in her visit to the brick-maker’s cottage.  Pardiggle barges in and insinuates herself into the little house, but she offers them nothing tangible – only scolding and chiding remarks.  This contrasts sharply with Esther and Ada’s visit the following day during which they brought food for the family and comfort for the mother whose child was dead.  Esther and Ada, like their guardian, offer something tangible and useful in a time of crisis for those in need.

The characters of Bleak House are proving to be as telling as Dickens’ other characters.  I am beginning to enjoy it more and more… I just wish Dickens would stop introducing new characters and plot lines… we are half way through the book for pity’s sake!  Come on, Mr. D – give me a break!

Really… Was Charles the only royal available for the Westminster Ceremony?

First of all, Dickens would have HATED the whole thing.  He didn’t want any statues, public ceremonies, mass acknowledgements, or anything.  His goal was to have his work stand on its own merits – not tied down to its writer.  I was really impressed with Google’s doodle on his birthday.  They focused entirely on his works by integrating the characters into their doodle with no reference to anything from Dickens’ biography.  Well done, Google.   

Upon seeing the celebrations at Westminster Abbey, one of my first thoughts was whether Dickens have liked Prince Charles or hated him.   Would he have been pleased that Charles was the one to place the wreath or would he have wondered if Charles was just the only one available?  Would Dickens have felt insulted that Charles was the best of the royals he could get- where was William, after all?  He’s the one everybody loves. 

 

 *source BBC News – “World celebrates 200th anniversary of Dickens’ birth”

As for Charles himself, I don’t think Dickens would have thought much of his position – particularly now that the monarchy is just for show.  He didn’t think much of Victoria’s position when she was a real queen, so a “decorative” member of the monarchy would have been a joke to him.  However, he may have felt some kinship with Charles based on his personal relationships.  Charles carried on an affair with Camilla (whom I personally hate), and Dickens, of course, carried on an affair with Ellen Ternan (granted she was younger and waaayyy better looking than Camilla), but both men seemed to have followed their hears in the moment.  I’m not sure that Dickens and Prince Charles would have been BFFs, but Dickens might have had to acknowledge a gruding kinship between the two.

Dickens – here we come!

Just started twitter and wordpress accts for a graduate class on Dickens – Yipee!