Charles Dickens: A critical studyChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Charles Dickens: A critical study
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870
Now, I have dwelt on this strong point of Scott because it is the best
illustration of the one weak point of Dickens. Dickens had little or
none of this sense of the concealed sublimity of every separate man.
Dickens’s sense of democracy was entirely of the other kind; it rested
on the other of the two supports of which I have spoken. It rested on
the sense that all men were wildly interesting and wildly varied. When
a Dickens character becomes excited he becomes more and more himself.
He does not, like the Scott beggar, turn more and more into man. As
he rises he grows more and more into a gargoyle or grotesque. He does
not, like the fine speaker in Scott, grow more classical as he grows
more passionate, more universal as he grows more intense. The thing
can only be illustrated by a special case. Dickens did more than once,
of course, make one of his quaint or humble characters assert himself
in a serious crisis or defy the powerful. There is, for instance, the
quite admirable scene in which Susan Nipper (one of the greatest of
Dickens’s achievements) faces and rebukes Mr. Dombey. But it is still
true (and quite appropriate in its own place and manner) that Susan
Nipper remains a purely comic character throughout her speech, and
even grows more comic as she goes on. She is more serious than usual
in her meaning, but not more serious in her style. Dickens keeps the
natural diction of Nipper, but makes her grow more Nipperish as she
grows more warm. But Scott keeps the natural diction of Bailie Jarvie,
but insensibly sobers and uplifts that style until it reaches a plain
and appropriate eloquence. This plain and appropriate eloquence was
(except in a few places at the end of “Pickwick”) almost unknown to
Dickens. Whenever he made comic characters talk sentiment comically,
as in the instance of Susan, it was a success, but an avowedly
extravagant success. Whenever he made comic characters talk sentiment
seriously it was an extravagant failure. Humour was his medium; his
only way of approaching emotion. Wherever you do not get humour, you
get unconscious humour.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account