I’ve now finished my GCSE Examiner marking (literally in the last hour or so) so I can start again, and what better day to restart than the great man’s birthday?

As you can imagine, lots and lots of commemorations and events taking place world-wide today – and Google got in on the act with a doodle. Funniest thing was probably the local news item with Peterborough staking a claim to being inspirational to Dickens himself! (Note to self – look that reference up).

Anyway, seeing Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall laying at wreath at Westminster Abbey made me make (another) mental note to add that to my list of places to visit this year as part of the pilgrimage. Quite a few others mentioned as well, they too will go on the list. (sounds familiar…)

I do wonder though how Dickens himself would have reacted to all this – would he have the grace to be embarrassed or would he use the opportunity to make a political point or (more cynically) a bit of cash>

Anyway, off to bed soon and will pick up David Copperfield from where I left off, which was around the point where David goes back to Dan Peggoty’s brother’s house – with Steerforth looming in the background – will it turn out well? will David see through him at last?

Then a bit later, there’s a worrying sequence which looks like foreshadowing when he speaks to Mr Peggity and Ham. Worrying because if the juxtaposition of talking about how Em’ly has grown up with Steerforth pitching up.

What’s interesting narratively is this; Copperfield is clearly narrating this past from the present and yet he still can’t see Steerforth for what he is.

First person narrators are notoriously unreliable in fiction anyway, but Copperfield’s narration is very unreliable when it comes to Steerforth.

On one level, the appalling treatment elsewhere in David’s youth could, even as an adult, prevent him from seeing the truth about his friend who has, after all shown David some kindness.

More worryingly perhaps is this concept; does his blinkered view here on Steerforth, Mells and Traddles mean that mean David relating his childhood travails to the reader is in any way reliable evidence of his mistreatment?

Could Murdstone actually be… right about David?

Oh and in case you didn’t read the subtext – I don’t like Steerforth.

I said I’d speak about schools today and I can’t help but notice the set up of Salem House run by Mr. Creakle, a failed businessman and a vicious man who exists purely it seems to torment David. The other masters at Salem are either caricatures like Tungay (Creakle’s echo) or put upon decent men like Mr Mell. Dickens doesn’t really develop the teachers as anything other than functions of the plot. I remember from reading Hard Times having a similar reaction. Although…not yet, don’t jump ahead. Created a new category – education for this post so another theme to track as I go.

The boys at Salem house, despite David’s misgivings, are friendly and affable although there are signs of Steerforth being something of an arch-manipulator, given how easily he gets David’s money from him for a midnight feast on first meeting him. He could turn out to be an interesting character as time goes on. How will his and David’s relationship pan out…

Overall, though I’m not sure about the validity of failed businesspeople running schools – Dickens clearly believes that schools like this are a bad idea. We’ll see as we go. Anyway, after all, it’s not like businesses run schools in this country now is it? Oh, hang on…

Initially, David’s family comprises of himself, his mother and Peggotty. This shows something of a diversion from the Victorian ideal family unit espoused by the Queen and her consort. The happiness to be embraced by a non-traditional unit is further advanced when we visit Peggotty’s brother in Yarmouth, with his non-conformist family unit of himself, his niece Em’ly, his nephew Ham and the widow of a former colleague, Mrs Gummidge. Despite Mrs Gummidges’ protestations to the contrary (because ‘everythink goes contrary’ with her) the family unit works well.

David’s own non-conformist family is a happy and stable unit until the advent of the Murdstone(s). It is narratively interesting that the re-instatement of a traditional family unit onto the Copperfields causes so much grief and heartache for the protagonist of the novel. Mr Murdstone’s sister Jane Murdstone is a grotesque character, described in terms of her bags and purse; metallic, cold and locked down emotionally. Her first lines are ironic – ‘lacks manners’ could just as easily be a declaration of herself as a commentary on David’s behaviour.

Although you can see the conflict between the Murdstones and David coming a mile off, the beating administered to David by Mr Murdstone is still shocking and restrained as it is implied rather than viscerally detailed (as might be the case today).

Which leads me to representation of schooling. As I begin teaching again tomorrow, perhaps I should leave that one until then…

For example, he uses ‘Author’, which to an extent is understandable as he’s referring to himself, but he also uses ‘Story’, ‘Volume” and ‘Narrative’: all capitalised, all seeming proper nouns.

Does Dickens see the constructed elements of the novel as ‘unique entit[ies]‘ (thanks Wikipedia) – living things rather than anything else? If so, what could that reveal about the way he sees his fiction?

Tomorrow, I’ll blog about the convoluted familial representation in the opening sections.

The masochist in me wants to hammer the heavy books, which points me at Dombey and Son, David Copperfield and Bleak House.

I said the other day that I fancied doing the semi-biographical stuff, so I’ll start with David Copperfield and follow that up with Great Expectations.

Wish me luck!

1. Approach each novel from a fresh perspective – as though I’ve not read it before (and I haven’t read all of them, so in some cases that won’t be difficult).

2. Mark my progress on the blog daily with reactions to what I’ve read and my personal reactions and feelings.

3. Comment on each story in terms of plot development and characterisation.

4. Blog anything that is relevant to either (a) what I’m currently reading or (b) anything else that fits into the scheme of things.

These may well change as I go through – we’ll see how we do.

It’s not one of Dickens’ books I’ve actually read, although I know the vague outline as do many people. It also has one of the most remembered opening lines of any of Dickens’ novels.

I’ve applied to be a giver of A Tale of Two Cities and I’ll blog if I’m successful. If indeed I am successful at becoming a giver, that’s when I’ll start reading that particular novel.  One warning to people I know; be prepared to get one of these books and what’s more you should be prepared read it with me from 23rd April. You’ve been warned.

The programme does present Dickens as a bit of a misogynist, which is a bit disappointing I suppose. What is it about the British psyche that means we have to continually run down our heroes? There are two sides to the stories about Dickens’ and Catherine’s marriage and to present only one side and that there is only one wronged party with no redress at all is a bit shameful. You can’t libel the dead I suppose.

Sorry if that sounds a bit preachy – I know Dickens is no saint – but I have a real issue with balance in documentary programming.

Gives me another focus though – marriages in the novels. What does that show us?

Just had a slice of the cake and, lets put it this way, I better not need to drive tonight.