Well,
here I am, reading again Hard Times.
I’ve been put in the third year again due to an administrative mistake (it will
count as the last year anyway). I was assigned that novel two years ago and
here is what I remember before reading it (again!):
-
Didn’t
like it. In fact, I think it’s the worst novel by Dickens. By a wide margin. It
turns out that he had to improve a social magazine’s sales, so he wrote a story
about the evils of capitalism… to sell more numbers of said magazine. Of such a
ludicrous paradox came an awful novel.
-
Scene
I remember better: children being taught in the first episodes what I would
call ‘science’ and the novel calls ‘facts’. I actually liked this beginning
when I was in high school and I was discovering I had no head for numbers,
physics, etc. Now, it comes out as preaching to the choir. But given Dickens’
original readers, that was probably the point. And yes, I began it in high school,
but didn’t go too far with it.
-
Characters:
I hated them all. Mr Gradgrind is the only one who is slightly likable and
maybe Louisa. And both of them loved a prissy little creature by the name of…
Sissy Jupe. Hate! I vaguely remember her always surrounded by children and
being generous and good and, well, incorruptible pure pureness in its basest
form. And she is probably supposed to represent perfect womanhood. And she’s
boring. Like pretty much everybody else in this book (someone should have told Dickens
that when he wrote this kind of ‘lovable’ heroines he was creating someone his
readers would hate forever. And another ludicrous paradox here. Not the kind
Oscar Wilde liked, those were cool).
-
Message:
something to do with factories and progress being a bad thing. I’m sorry, but
that message is totally lost on me. I know industrialisation was probably horrible
in the beginning, but I’ve always felt that now that it’s passed, it’s not such
a bad thing. I mean, there has to be a balance and all that, but what Dickens
seems to be proposing (or Ruskin, Carlyle, and the like) is more in the lines
of: ‘let’s go back in time, when we didn’t have to suffer seeing the poor
people suffer for working long hours in factories. Or worse, the precious
English countryside destroyed’. To give credit where credit is due, at least
Dickens actually worked in a factory when he was a child. But he does not
understand the working-class actual problems. He is all whimsical about the
middle-class children not having fun at school, but when he introduces a
working-class character with real problems, well then he is incapable of seeing
that this situation makes those children’s problems seem very frivolous by
comparison. Maybe that’s why he’s so melodramatic about the fate of the boy
(not really sure what happened to him, but I’m pretty sure he dies at the end).
I guess that’s the last paradox; he wrote about the effects of industrialisation
in a poor town, but he had only a slightly better idea of what they were that
his contemporaries, and ultimately he shows some fear and contempt toward his
working-class characters and only really sympathises with some of his
middle-class characters.
And that this message is not subtle, but constantly
hammered on the reader’s head only makes it worse. That happens a lot actually,
especially with environmental movies.
It is a pity, because I like some of his novels a lot.
We could have read Great Expectations
or Bleak House or something really challenging
by Dickens. But, alas! I’m in my third year again. It seems I’m not gonna learn
anything this year. Well, maybe I’ll like Hard
Times better this time. That was what I could remember. It will be nice to
compare.
(And thanks to Dickens we got Christmas! So I won’t
hate him while reading the novel. I just couldn’t).