Charles Dickens wrote books of literature in an attempt to convey the physical and moral environment—mostly the corruption of the environment—of historic times through the actions of fictitious characters. Many people have read his books and loved them. Most of these admirers lived either during Dickens’s time or during the years after the 1940’s. They described him with phrases like, “The Greatest writer of his time”, “Far more then a great entertainer, a great comic writer”, and “A genius of his art”. After Dickens’ death, however, his literature was critically analyzed and deemed too flippant and wordy. No one could take his seemingly careless writing seriously. He, as “A genius of his art”, was replaced by Russian counterparts who, ironically, admired him and imitated some of his techniques. Was Charles Dickens really an over-rated writer who deserves to disappear from the list of great literary prodigies? Should we raise our eyebrows at his works and discard them as wasted time and effort?
Eighteenth century poet/writer, George Meredith, wrote, “Not much of Dickens will live, because it has so little correspondence to life...If his novels are read at all in the future, people will wonder what we saw in them, save some possible element of fun meaninglessness to them.” Meredith seemed to hold the view that reading Dickens’ writing was a pointless exercise. He thought that though Dickens’ books possessed a hint of attractive entertainment, they did not teach anything meaningful about human nature. Essentially, they were meaningless and wordy. One of Dickens’ books, “A Tale of Two Cities”, portrays this type of writing. Containing excess description and an ample amount words to describe simple, unimportant things, it proceeds to strain the mind to the point of explosion. The wordiness raises a question regarding Dickens’s literary purpose. Why does he persistently hammer scenes into the reader’s head when his audience probably understood them several paragraphs earlier? There does not seem to be any real answer, except that he had a great fascination for words, scenes, and human action. The last fascination appears to hint towards Dickens’s interest in the psychology of man as he attempted to show us, in a way that we can understand, what the human is like by nature and why he thinks what he thinks.
Dickens’s wordiness was only one reason people disliked him. He was also criticized for his sense of humor and sarcasm. Frowned upon by many, his satire was discounted as nothing more then pointless babble. For some reason, the Critics could not take Dickens seriously. Their view of his writing and its significance was drastically altered because they could not help but scoff at what they thought should have been a serious matter: content and theme. It was wrong of them to judge so quickly, however. Dickens had, as a writer, the right to intersperse some humorous material amongst the many serious, real-life events within his novels. It was the critics’ job to go to the context of the humor in question and determine if it was appropriate. Was Charles Dickens having fun at the expense of someone else? Or was he using a valid form of satire to mock the corrupt Governmental laws and human actions of his time? If the latter was the case—which it seems to be—then his form of literary humor should have been admired, not criticized.
Another aspect of Dickens’s writing that roused conflict is his Characters. “As his eyes rested on a short, slight, pretty figure, a quantity of golden hair, a pair of blue eyes that met his own with an inquiring look, and a forehead with a singular capacity (Remembering how young and smooth it was) of lifting itself into an expression that was not quite one of perplexity, or wonder, or alarm, or merely of a bright fixed attention.” As the description of the lady in the above sentence goes on for a paragraph, the reader will begin to formulate a mental picture of her. He may even begin to have an opinion of what the young woman in the story is like by nature. This opinion is the result of great skill on Dickens’ part. With mere ink and paper he essentially captures, so well, the very essence of human character. He describes each person with such care and moves them about there business in such a way that he creates a personal attachment between them and his readers. His books are not like most books of the twenty-first century. They are so much deeper with their character and human intent. There is no doubt that Dickens’ readers can relate the characters they read about to people they see in every day life.
Dickens’ writing is a true master piece of literature. His ability to describe a scene so well draws the reader into a whole other world where corruption is unveiled through satirical humor and human nature is critiqued with in-depth Character development. How can someone read such a book as “A Tale of Two Cities” and yet discount it as pointless rambling? It is the essence of good writing. By being so informative it leaves the reader enriched with a better knowledge of who he is by nature as a person. It also leaves no doubt in his mind that he has just read a true work of art: A tale with so many different themes, characters, and lessons woven together that it forms a beautiful tapestry of life. Charles Dickens, then, is not a babbling buffoon as some would think. He is a true writer whose talent is expressed in every word he writes.
