Talk:Charles Dickens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] comment header

we must take great exception to this entry on Charles Dickens. Here we have one of the greatest men who ever lived, who living in a time of unbridled social darwinism and cruelty, created the greatest well of sympathy and the empathy that has ever existed in the English language.

here we have fully half the entry discussing whether or not Charles Dickens is an anti-semite. I just can't believe it. Its as if Tiny Tim, Mr. Bounderby, Esther Summerson, Oliver Twist, Bob Crachet and all the other orphans, outcasts, cruel bosses, and relentless forces of society he wrote about didn't exist. An encyclopedia is supposed to summarize what a person, a thing, or his or work is in the world--yet the meat of Dickens isn't here. That is, what reading him means to ordinary people.

Stephen Leacock, the Canadian humourist, wrote that it is one thing to write about comfort and light in a world of darkness and cruelty, and another thing to provide it. He said Charles Dickens provided that comfort and refuge. This is what Dickens "means"--not some summary of a paper written in an ivory tower, which is what this seems to be. I hope the person who wrote this doesn't have a professional position, because he or she is unworthy to write about Dickens in a public way.

I am responding to the comments above -- I don't know who is the writer -- but I must say how horrified I was as a Jew and as someone who loves the writing of Dickens to learn that not just Fagin but also Uriah Heep was construed as a Jew. The power of Dickens' writing and the degree that we're moved by him makes these derogatory remarks much more damaging to a sensitive reader. Thus I was incredibly relieved to read the commentary in Wikipedia that describes a 'change of heart' recounted in Dicken's last book Our Mutual Friend.

[edit] Reaction to anti-semitism in beloved author Charles Dickens

The scourge of anti-semitism I think it’s difficult for most Americans, even Jews, to realize what anti-semitism feels like. Here's what it feels like... I’d just come back from a trip to London. I had told everyone that the highpoint of my trip was sitting in Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese Chop House at the table where Samuel Johnson had dined; on the very bench where Charles Dickens sat and viewed the world. For me, the experience was a real treasure because I love Dickens writing and when I love a writer then I feel a real close connection like he’s a friend, a dear friend. Now of course everyone knows Dickens was anti-semitic. After all he wrote about Fagan, one of the most detestable characters in literature. But I had shielded myself from this aspect of Dickens. I had not read Oliver Twist, I’d avoided Fagan. Maybe I shouldn’t have. Just a week after my trip to London, in some other reading I was doing, I came across the information that Jews in Victorian literature were referred to as “having dingy red hair” – that was sort of the epithet that clued English readers into the identity of that character. For example, the book explained, Uriah Heep in David Copperfield has ‘dingy red hair”. Learning this made me feel sick. Because we all have read David Copperfield; we’ve all hated Uriah Heep; he’s a terrible villain. I had hated him, everything about his conniving, self-serving, obsequious ways. But now I realized I was hating a Jew or, at least, Dicken’s interpretation of a Jew. I can’t begin to tell you how upsetting this was for me – I felt as if I’d been personally assaulted or wrongly condemned. I immediately thought what have Jews done to deserve this reputation; have we or do we behave in such a manner to merit being written about like that? What is wrong with us? That’s the legacy of anti-semitism; that’s how the phrase “self-hating Jew” gets coined. We begin to think they’re right – the ones who condemn us. They must be right, they are so many of them and so few of us – and the condemnation is so universal. From so many nations, in so many generations, even from my beloved friend, Charles Dickens. Then, thank Goodness for Internet, because I typed in “Charles Dickens, anti-semite” and learned from Wikipedia that Dickens had a transformation during his life and career through actual contact with a Jewish family in London (a banker who’d purchased his home) so that his final portrayal of a Jew Riah in his last book Our Mutual Friend was quite positive. Thanks Wikipedia!!

I agree, there's a disproportionate number of words in this article about anti-semitism. I propose to drastically prune the section on anti-semitism, unless there's strong feeling to the contrary. --Auximines 13:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I propose we (and by "we," I mean someone who is not me) expand the rest of the article to adjust the proportions. :) jengod 18:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
What's happened here? There have been lots of amendments and reversions over the last six months. Frankly, having "Anti-Semitism" as one oof the main category headings of a biography of Dickens is not defensible as NPOV and would verge on the libellous if he was still alive. Dickens' carelessly presented one character in a poor light, and "anti-Semitism" is being given the degree of emphasis in his biography which might be appropriate for a known Nazi symphathiser. Don't lecture or libel me please, I've been to the Holocaust Museums, but some people really need to try harder not to see everything through that prism, especially things that happened a hundred years earlier. Dickens' was an exceptionally warm hearted man, politically an advanced liberal, and a humanitarian campaigner. He lived in the era when the Rothschilds were beginning to make their way into high Society. England was one of the most tolerant countries in the World at the time, and Dickens belonged to the most liberal section of the population. There isn't a shred of evidence that he was a Jew-hater. Lots of people were grubby in those days: the poorer classes had scarcely discovered modern hygiene. What are we to make of Dickens' attitude to "Christians" on the basis of his presentation of Bill Sykes and Mr Bumble in the same novel?
The presentation of Jews in a couple of Dickens' novels is a noteworthy but very minor topic in his life - far less important than his attitude to women or to children for example. It would be more appropriately covered in a sentence in a biographical summary of this length, which should contain a link to a separate article. I would have no objection to such an article. It is just the emphasis that is being put on the topic which is grossly wrong. This is supposed to be an article about Dickens' life, not about the difficulty some Jewish readers may have with the non-explicit presentation of just a couple of characters out of hundreds in his novels,(if you accept that Uriah Heep is a Jew, and call me naive but I've read the book three times and seen two television versions and it has never registered with me), which is balanced by a different presentation of a third character in any case. At the moment this is article is severely non NPOV and reveals contributor priorities which are not encyclopaedic or literary.Philip 08:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well Pip, oh sorry Philip, as one who tried to turn a collection of short statements about Dickens into a more coherent article, I am not sure it matter too much. What spurred me to edit this and in Wiki-land generally was the disproportionate space given over to anti-semitism in an article about one of the worlds greatest authors (POV). It obviously reveals a lot about the state the world, literature and wiki editors and I tried to rebalance it by putting much more about Dickens in it but I chose in the end to not prune it. It was well researched and informative and seems to exonerate him quite well. Is Wiki in the business of producing biographies, I think it is better at recording who people are, what they have done and how they were and now are perceived. There is ample byte-space to extend the article on his treatment of his wife, his views on the victorian world or his relevance to the modern world. This talkpage and the editing history suggests that this is an article people are passionate about and feel is needed but seem a little overawed to edit, which is a shame. MeltBanana 00:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll probably add a few things to the article soon, but I don't think compensatory padding is the way to deal with NPOV emphasis in a general article. Wikepedia "articles" are supposed to be just that, not books. The guidelines state that they should generally not be more than 5,000 words. Thus subtopics sometimes need to be dealt with in a separate linked article. Hopefully Dickens will have dozens or hundreds of separate articles one day, and its fine for one of them to cover his presentation of Jews (but it should be called something like "Jews in the Novels of Charles Dickens" rather than "Charles Dickens's Anti-Semitism". I will probably move the section to its own page soon. I will also have a go at expanding other parts of the article.
Good effort on the article by the way. It seems that most of the early contributors on here were techies, and the greater depth and quality of articles on things like maths and computing than on cultural subjects reflects this bias. But I'm an English literature graduate and now that Wikipedia is becoming well known many more people with an arts background will become Wikipedians Philip 06:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just want to encourage you both to expand this article. I've been reading a lot of Dickens lately and my respect for both his talent and his humanity is skyrocketing. On the anti-semitism thing, I'm afraid there are a few sentences in Oliver Twist that are hard to explain away. It's not just the stereotyped, warts-only portrayal of Fagin, but comments that link certain of his unattractive features to "all of his race". It's great that we have his note to Mrs. Davis for balance. It's almost certain that he matured away from the bigoted assumptions in Oliver, which after all was only his second novel. Anyway, good luck with the article. Do right by old Boz. JDG 06:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does that mean that only positive comments about a Jew or any group of Jews are permissable, even if a given negative comment is true? How on earth can one write or talk realistically about any category of people if all negative comments are categorised as hate speech? I read negative and prejudiced things about British or English people on the internet most days, but I don't presume that the writers have any hateful intent. There were lots of Jewish receivers of stolen goods in 1830s London. That is simply historical fact, and it shouldn't be suppressed from the record now because mentioning it might offend some people; expecting pre-Holocaust writers to have self-censored themsleves on such a matter is ridiculous. But the reasons why there were Jewish recievers of goods were firstly that they were excluded from many other professions (the Christians fault (by the way, I'm an atheist so I'm neutral)) and secondly that they tended to have more education and business acumen than "Christians" who tried to make a living out of crime, so they could go into this "higher" branch of the business, rather than doing the breaking and entering like Bill Sykes, and that is a positve thing, after a fashion.
Are some people saying that all Jewish characters in literature must be shown in a positive light? That is an untenable demand and it certainly isn't observed by Jewish writers and film makers. Fagin's Jewishness was just thoughtless. Dickens needed a receiver of stolen goods for his plot, and in the circumstances of the time, it seemed natural to make him Jewish, but Fagin is only one of dozens of negatively presented characters in Dickens and all the others are nominally Christians. Most criminals in Nineteenth Century London were "Christian" and so are all the criminals in Dickens except one. Jewish over sensitivity to the slightest hint of negativism should be challenged, partly because it antagonises people who are teetering between being anti-semitic or not into becoming so.
I live near the centre of one of the largest centres of Judaism in the world and I have several Jewish clients. I could make various observations on the characteristics that many of them share. Like many other people, I am prone to generalisation, and I often pass remarks on all sorts of groups of people. Most of my comments about the Jews I know would be good, but if I wrote down my observations and failed to leave out the negative points that make me anti-semitic too? For example if I said that these people, who are mostly very agreeable individuals and most of whom know each other well, were bigoted when they ostracised one of their number for marrying a gentile, would that be anti-semitic? The rules for discourse about Jews should be the same as for discourse about other people. As an post-Enlightenment atheist, and despite the fact that I thoroughly understand the role that pressure against marrying out of the religion has played in preserving Judaism over the last two thousand years, I can no more approve of this behaviour on the part of my Jewish associates than I would approve of the same thing the other way round (yet in the opposite case I would have the whole weight of liberal orthodoxy behind me, even though my opinion, which would be assumed to be fundamentally different, would actually be ethically the same). Of course, many modern Jews would disapprove of those ostracising Jews too. I know some such. Is it alright for them to disapprove, but not for me? This is all wondering off topic, but it shows the extraordinary difficulty of getting people to treat remarks about Jews, both new remarks and historical ones, with some sense of balance and proportion. That is with what Wikipedia calls Neutral Point of View.
Anyway, I tried to find confirmation that Uriah Heep is supposed to be a Jew on google without success. I'm pretty sure he isn't. It seems very unlikely that a provincial solicitor would have been at that time. This Dickens site mentions that Fagan and Riah are Jews in its character section, but does not say that Uriah Heep is Charle Dickens Page.
I also found this extract from an article written by in 1939 by George Orwell, who was very left wing and conscious of Nazism at that time and a despiser of bigotry at all times:
"[Dickens] is remarkably free from the idiocy of regarding nations as individuals. He seldom even makes jokes turning on nationality. He does not exploit the comic Irishman and the comic Welshman, for instance, and not because he objects to stock characters and ready-made jokes, which obviously he does not. It is perhaps more significant that he shows no prejudice against Jews. It is true that he takes it for granted (Oliver Twist and Great Expectations) that a receiver of stolen goods will be a Jew, which at the time was probably justified. But the ‘Jew joke’, endemic in English literature until the rise of Hitler, does not appear in his books, and in Our Mutual Friend he makes a pious though not very convincing attempt to stand up for the Jews."
I'll convert the section into a separate article tomorrow and go through the non-NPOV process if it is reversed. If Dickens had presented one Norwegian negatively and one Norwegian positively in his novels, and a Norwegian Wikipedian had made "Charles Dickens' Hatred of Norwegians" one of the main headings in the article, it would have been removed straight away, not left in place for six months or more, perhaps because readers were scared of being accused of sharing his hatred of Norwegians. Of course anti-semitism is vastly more serious subject, but that's no excuse for blatant anti-anti-semitic bias in a Wikipedia article. (However it is of course appropriate and desirable for Wikipedia to have a long article on anti-Semitism, while it doesn't really need one on "Hatred of Norwegians" - although I expect there is enough material to put one together, if you know where to look for it.)
I'm not sure what in my little paragraph brought on this tide of words. I merely said that some sentences in Oliver present some problems, but overall I think my tone was clear that CD should not be tarred with the anti-semitism brush and I ended with a hope that you "do right by old Boz". I'm not one to shy away from discussion of ethnic traits. I'm a great admirer of Jewish cultural achievements and of many (most) individual Jews my path has crossed. At the same time, I believe many of them harbor a small number of common chracteristics they would do well to consciously prune down in themselves and future generations. If CDs' statements in Oliver had consisted of these mild and considered criticisms, it would be one thing. Unfortunately, they are of the rather spiteful, broad-brush type and no amount of revisionism will turn them into something else. On the upside, we see him changing and maturing, culminating in his very gracious and good note to Mrs. Davis quoted in full in the article. The alert Wikipedia reader will hopefully see this trend for the good in CDs' life and apply it to his or her own if he or she is in need of that sort of lesson. JDG 06:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't intending primarily to address you, but to have another go at the incredibly difficult task of addressing an "anti-semitism" issue in a way that can't be credibly countered with a glib "you're obviously anti-semitic yourself" type response. But you did say that there are a few sentences which can't be explained away. Well, George Orwell did. Moderately negative comments about or presentation of Jews must not be associated with Nazi-type attitudes, especially if they predate Nazism, and that is what a bold use of the word "anti-semitism" does. A sense of proportion is vital to reasoned thought, and so is historical awareness. Anti-semitism must not be allowed to claim an exemption from these fundamental rules that so many people assume to be its due.
I'll do the edit later. It seems that no-one who is attached to the "Anti-Semitism" section is watching this page at the moment, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if there isn't a fight after I change things. I can't let things stand however. Dickens is probably the second most famous writer in the English language, and this may well be one of the ten most visited cultural biographies in Wikipedia. It compromises the project that such a key article to contains such blatantly POV misplaced emphasis.
I am also thoroughly glad to see this page in much better shape. I removed many of the more preposterous allegations against Dickens, and also introduced the note about Dickens' revision of his opinion in the light of Mrs Davis, and the position he subsequently adopted in Our Mutual Friend. However, at the time I was engaged in fighting a number of other significant battles and didn't feel as though I could add (yet another) edit war to a burgeoning list. Well done! Sjc 07:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry I bunged a little of the text back in hopefully not enough to cause an edit war. I was a little disapointed that the recent round of edits were more deletions then additions and I think a quotation is a good idea as wiki is not particularly hampered by text space. To my mind the best illustration of a writers work is a quotation showing why they are read. Obviously this can be a source of arguments for a quote that best sums them up and one should be enough others should be sent to wikiquote but I think authour's biographies whould benifit from one of these each. MeltBanana 18:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You speak about Anti-Seminitsm as if it is in today's context. Dickens was in an environment where these kinds of ideas and beliefs were the norm and he lived in a setting where these beliefs were not challenged. I don't think this makes him necessarily as racist as people who have got both sides of the argument in mind. The world wasn't multicultural yet and people were naturally afraid of what they did not understand; Dickens was an old imperialist Brit, and unfortunately at that time, racism came was inherent to the an awful lot of people. BlueKangaroo 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dickens as supporter of Southern Confederacy?

Dickens is frequently quoted by apologists for the Confederacy as lending support for their cause. The following quote is often selected from (usually just the last sentence) to show the war was about the Morrill Tariff, not about slavery. (Emphasis mine)

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.… [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

It appears in All the Year Round 1861 December 28 in a follow-up article entitled Morrill Tariff.

I suspect there is a discussion before this in which Dickens might even lambaste Lincoln for NOT making the war about slavery. I also wonder if Dickens might have written something somewhat different after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.

Does anyone have a copy of the source -- and able to provide the full quote & some of what came before this? --JimWae 2005 June 30 08:38 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that the paragraph quoted is an attack on the North for being too materialistic, and by implication not concerned enough about slavery. There was a lot of scorn in 19th century England for the United States, which was seen as a vulgar, dollar-obsessed, hypocritical country, whose rhetoric about liberty and democracy was rendered absurd by slavery and corruption. In his American Notes Dickens writes one of the most scornful attacks on southern U.S. society I have ever read. 82.35.34.11 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I need to source that interpretation with more of the text--JimWae 16:55, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Unfortunately you may be out of luck. This is his collected journalism for the period and most of the pieces are in the Uncommercial traveller or are in his contributions to all the year round which is available on the web [1]. My understanding—from a comment in a book about Dickens on 'discovering' a new Dickens work—was that much of All the Year Round was un-attributed and there were several contributors to the paper. It may have been by someone else and only became attached to his name through his editorship. Also the works people tend to want from Dickens are his picturesque character sketches and not his actual journalism in which he tends to be intemperate and which date rapidly or be about forgotten matters. Unless you have an original edition of the journal or there is a major new series on his journalism you are not going to get it. MeltBanana 20:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

---

According to "The Letters of Charles Dickens", Volume Nine 1859-1861, Edited by Graham Storey, Clarendon Press – Oxford, 1997, neither article (Morrill Tariff nor American Disunion) was written by Dickens, but both by Henry Morley.

To W. H. Wills, 11 December 1861 (p537)

My Dear Wills, … It is scarcely possible to make less of Mr. Spence’s book, than Morley has done.(10)

FOOTNOTE (10)

In his “American Disunion”, AYR, 21 Dec 61, VI, 295, arguing that the “Federalist cry of anti-slavery as a casus belli is not altogether a true issue” (p.299; he only mentions [James] Spence’s book [The American Union, its Effects on National Character and Policy, with an Inquiry into Secession as a Constitutional Right, and the Causes of the Disruption] in the final paragraph, though with praise; he followed it up with “The Morrill Tariff”, 28 Dec, VI, 328, attacking the Union’s imposition of protective tariffs as the real cause of recession and quoting with approval two paragraphs from Spence’s book (p330)

--

To W. H. Wills, 1 December 1861

My Dear Wills,

…In your last, when you write of Mrs. Linton, you say nothing of the book on the American Union in Morley’s hands. I hope and trust his article will be ready for the next No. made up. There will not be the least objection to having American papers in it.

--JimWae 00:13, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

[edit] Dickens on Slavery

It seems Dickens was not unalterably opposed to slavery - or at least did not call for its immediate cessation, preferring instead the institution be reformed to improve the character of the slaves so they would be better able to handle freedom. He also supported colonization - sending freed slaves to separate lands, like Liberia. http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal4.html --JimWae 04:20, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

The source is rather unclear, and the quotes aren't necessarily even from Dickens. In any case, he was opposed to slavery in principle, and wanted to resolve the problem humanely and without a huge crisis - America failed on both counts, and is yet to resolve the long term damage, as has recently been proven. This is in any case a minor issue about Dickens - the focus on it is an example of systemic bias as with the Jewish issue above. Dickens was British not American, and the article is missing coverage of many more essential aspects of his life and work. He was a benign humanitarian to a sometimes naive degree, and looking for opportunities to disparage him on the basis of 21st century sensibilities is anachronistic and misleading. CalJW 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that Dickens has become an icon to present day secessionists & those who insist the South should have been allowed to unilaterally break a contract and be free to take all US property within their borders along with some of the US territories, and to extend slavery throughout all the Americas if they wished? See Morrill Tariff. It seems this got started because Charles Adams in When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession thought Dickens wrote everything in All The Year Round. Now there's a whole genre around it with Thomas Dilorenzo, Lew Rockwell, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is clear Dickens had a lot of control over the words that appeared in ATYR, but any clarity you can provide on Morrill Tariff would be appreciated. --JimWae 21:09, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Surely you aren't attempting to push a personal POV regarding the sourced content you don't like in the Morrill Tariff article, eh Jim? Dickens was quite explicit in his views against the Morrill Tariff. Adrian's article discusses that in great detail and shows it beyond any reasonable doubt - and half a century before Charles Adams supposedly "started" it in his 2002 book! Rangerdude 06:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Explicit? Not so far. Where does Dickens ever comment directly on the Morrill Tariff? Nobody doubts he generally agreed with Morley, and certainly it's an issue for Dickens scholars -- but to base a "historiography" of the Civil War on his meager (and still out-of-context) comments is ludicrous--JimWae 06:27, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Actually, the article by Arthur Adrian that was previously cited to you demonstrates your claims to be unfounded by way of a detailed and thorough analysis of Dickens' view on the tariff's relation to the war. This article was cited in full for you and a lengthy excerpt posted. As you apparently cannot be bothered to review reputable scholarly analysis such as Adrian's when it contradicts a personal POV, whatever bizarre agenda of fancy yours may be in this case, and as you persist in promoting your favored theories regarding Morley as if they were factual when indeed scholarly consensus does not exist I see little to be gained from pursuing this discussion with you any further. Any other editor who is interested in this subject is encouraged to read the Arthur Adrian article cited at the Morrill Tariff page. Rangerdude 06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, but please leave these disputes for articles about the U.S. This is trivial in relation to the main article about Dickens and shouldn't be mentioned in it at all. CalJW 22:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

- a first-hand source is Storey's The Letters of Charles Dickens - from which more than meager quotes are available & which I have added to the Morrill Tariff article--JimWae 07:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Museums

I've moved the museums stuff out of Dickens' life into a subhead under "Legacy". However, it seems a shame to clog up a fine literary article with all this contingent stuff, so maybe it belongs in an article of its own. Anyone have thoughts on this? JackyR 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That was a good move. I would keep it in the article for now (segmented), when it gets too long it can be forked off. Most literature articles on wikipedia contain a fair amount of stuff like that, "cultural influences". --Stbalbach 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open about his early life?

I could be wrong, but I think when Dickens first came to prominence he kept quiet about his _personal_ experience of great poverty. When he revealed the address of the blacking factory in a Chrismas game, it was the first his (new) family'd heard of it. 'Fraid I saw this in recent telly doc, so can't check, but look into? JackyR 18:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I restored the changed text he was certainly cagey about his early life and although he worked on his biography with John Forster it was not printed until after his death. What is now seen as blatent autobiographical stories were seen at the time as Dickens' amazing inventiveness. He was somewhat of a social climber, afraid of what he had pulled himself out of. The burning [2] of his personel corrispondence once he had achieved his big house and status, is a literary crime and another mark of his efforts to hide his past. MeltBanana 01:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] speech

[edit] Protecting this article

Given the high level of vandalism this article receives (Dickens seems to be every high school students bane of existence), would anyone object to a request being made for it to be protected? I think this blocks anon IPs and anyone with less than 100 edits or so. --Stbalbach 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes please. I spend time every day checking it and making sure the reverts are good. JackyR 13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, given my recent experience asking for protection for Talk:Age of Enlightenment, I doubt it would pass. They seem to only do it when there are vandal "storms" but do not consider day to day vandalism reason to protect, even when over the long term for every 10 anon edits, 9 are vandals. *sigh*. In any case, make sure you note in the edit notes "rvv" or some such so its clear when reviewing the history that it was a reversion of vandalism to help build a case.--Stbalbach 15:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Of the last 150 edits, 43 were ordinary good faith edits (23 named, 20 anon); 106 were vandalism or vandal reversion (78 vandalism, all anon; 28 reversion, all but one named). Just thought I'd keep track...JackyR 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


JackyR, you are soooo SLOW. a la Shakespeare? You're unbelievable, you know that? Is this "Wikipedia: JackyR's Encyclopedia"? I believe it says "The FREE Encyclopedia"; am I right? If you keep putting that crazy phrase on there, I'll see to it that you won't be able to edit it again, whether I get it locked or get you kicked off. zimmera 3:55 pm, 8 March 2006 (Decatur, IL)

This seems to be a reply to :
Hi, thanks for the edits to Charles Dickens. But what have you got against the comparison with Shakespeare in Dickens' first para? It's not mine, but I did find it useful. Perhaps this would be something to discuss on the article's Discussion page... Happy editing! JackyR 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Zimmera)
Cheers for the WP:CIVIL, not. Actually, I haven't reverted your edit to that phrase, so I'm not sure what the abuse is about. But I'll revert your edit if you really want me to... :-) JackyR 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

JackyR, you don't need to have that reference to Shakespeare, it's unnecessary and not entirely accurate. Sure, people would know who you're talking about with a last-name reference, but I have never heard anyone leave out the first name in reference to him. I'm sorry for coming across harsh last time. I was just a little irritated when I saw the revert. I apologize for the rude remarks, too. One question, though. What does UTC mean? zimmera 3:20 pm, 9 March, 2006

What revert? To the best of my knowledge your edit still stands (indeed, I've defended it at least once, by reverting obscenities back to your version [3]). I certainly DID revert it the first time you removed the phrase - if I remember because I wasn't sure if it was intentional (no edit summary, newbie's second edit); when you did it again, I thought, well it was meant, but other people (NOT ME) have clearly disagreed [4], so I'll try to get folk talking.
Personally, I find that phrasing objectionable (if you speak French, it's pretty weird), but the comparison useful, as when I first read "He is frequently referred to by his last name only, even on first reference", I thought, "Eh? So what?". So if you'd started a discussion, my choice would've been "(like Shakespeare)". But it's not something I feel strongly enough about to change...
And UTC? Yeah, I've always wondered about that! :-) Happy Wiki-ing! JackyR 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw the page blanked out and tried to help, then saw my revert conflicted with someone else reverting at the same time. Sorry. Maria202 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

  • <! --Charles Dickens Biography --> probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that page has Google Ad links on it, so it may not be an acceptable external link. This page notes that "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" should not be linked to, in general. Of course the term "objectionable amounts" is subjective. But I've seen people remove external links based on those sites' use of Google Adsense in the past. Hbackman 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Further comment: It appears that this user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.
A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.
Hbackman 00:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "of fecund imagination" — RFC

Constructive comments sought on improving and/or replacing "...literary monolith we know him as today, but rather as a popular entertainer of fecund imagination and comic genius". 203.198.237.30 09:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about just "...as a literary 'great' so much as a popular entertainer."? Hbackman 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANY ADVICE PLEASE?

I HOPE YOU WILL NOT MIND ME ADDING THIS.

WE NEED HELP AS WE ARE HOLDING OUR SCHOOL FETE AND HAVE DECIDED TO HAVE THE THEME AS 'DICKENS'. THE SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE DOING A PERFORMANCE OF OLIVER IN DRAMA. SO THEIR COSTUMES WILL BE ARRANGED. WE ARE HAVING A PROBLEM DECIDING HOW TO DECORATE THE STALLS ETC.. I DON'T REALLY KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HIS BOOKS TO TAKE IDEAS FROM, AND HAVE NOT GOT TIME TO READ THEM ALL AS NEED IDEAS WITHIN 3 WEEKS!

HAS ANYONE GOT ANY IDEAS PLEASE ??

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.74 (talk • contribs) 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice: don't write in capitals – it's hard to read!
Other than that, I'm from the Rochester area, where we have a major Dickens festival. A lot of the activities are just general Victoriana. People dress in Victorian costume or as specific characters from the books (I'd suggest Miss Havisham, Mr Pickwick, Scrooge, Tiny Tim, Uriah Heep, Betsey Trotwood...) - Google for these names to find more. Also, children dress as chimney sweeps (ragged clothes and lots of soot), who were sent up inside chimneys to clean them. Or you could try an informal approach to Rochester Visitor Centre (tel: 01634 843666, email: visitor.centre@medway.gov.uk), who might be able to send you brochures on our festival and perhaps give you a few ideas.
You don't say which country you're in, or what the stalls will be selling. If you tell me a little more, I might be able to help some more. For a long conversation, go to User:JackyR and hit "Email this user" in the menu on the left. Cheers, JackyR 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only statue?

How can we be sure that "the only (ever)statue of Dickens ... is located in Clark Park, Philadelphia"? That strikes me as extremely unlikely, given his reputation. JackofOz 05:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The park's website doesn't claim that at all. In fact its claim is rather more ordinary.... Clark Park is home to the world's only life-size bronze statue of author Charles Dickens and Little Nell http://www.clarkpark.info/AboutClarkPark.html --LiamE 13:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LiamE. I'll make the change. JackofOz 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More references needed

Could the major contributors to this article please include their main source material? I would like to nominate this article at WP:V0.5N (the test CD release of Wikipedia), because Dickens is clearly a huge figure in literature. Unfortunately this article wouldn't pass because of lack of refs. Please nomimate once you have some more refs, and also consider WP:GAN. Thanks, Walkerma 05:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also I take issue with the following: "Yet he also received criticism from his more rarefied readers, including George Henry Lewes, Henry James, and Virginia Woolf, who list faults such as sentimentality, unrealistic events and grotesque characters.[1] The criticisms of these high brows show the degree of resentment which Dickens's popularity and closeness to the British public caused among the literary elite. No one in touch with normal human emotions can deny the power of Dickens as a master of prose storytelling." Calling them "high brows" and psychoanalyzing the criticisms of Woolf et al seems a bit much. Also the line "no one in touch with normal human emotions" seems biased and extreme to say the least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.162.65 (talk • contribs) 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

In other articles, criticisms are not defended to the extent that the defenses occupy more room than the criticisms...why are they here? More of the criticism is given over to praise for Dickens rather than actual literary criticism. For example, why is there no mention of the frequent assertation that his florid prose was developed as a result of being paid by the word? Let's take the Criticisms section and I'll colour bits which are actually criticising Dickens' style green, with the rest in red:

"Criticisms

Dickens' fiction is often viewed as overly sentimental, as with the extended death scenes of Little Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop (1841) and young Paul Dombey in Dombey and Son (1848). In Oliver Twist, Dickens provides readers with an idealised portrait of a young boy so inherently and unrealistically "good" that his values are never subverted by either brutal orphanages or coerced involvement in a gang of young pickpockets.

These novels, as with most of his novels, also employ somewhat incredible coincidences (for example, Oliver Twist turns out to be the lost nephew of the upper class family that randomly rescues him from the dangers of the pickpocket group).Such coincidences were a staple of the eighteenth-century picaresque novels (such as Henry Fielding's Tom Jones) that Dickens enjoyed so much. So there is an intertextual aspect to this convention. However, to Dickens these were not just plot devices but an index of a Christian humanism that led him to believe that "good" wins out in the end, often in unexpected ways. Looking at this theme from a biographical context, Dickens' life, against many odds, led him from a disconsolate child forced to work long hours in a boot-blacking factory at age 12 (his father was in the Marshalsea debtor's prison) to his status as the most popular novelist in England by the age of 27."

Absymal. I'm going to stick an NPOV tag on that section. -- Dandelions 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and:

"Later Victorian novelists such as Thomas Hardy and George Gissing were influenced by Dickens, but their works display a lack or absence of religious belief and portray characters caught up by social forces (primarily via lower-class conditions) that steer them to tragic ends beyond their control" What on earth is meant by that? Try saying that there's an absence of religious belief in Tess of the D'Urbervilles, for example- it's one of the central themes of the novel. The whole section on Sorrow relies on it, as does the reason for Angel Clare leaving the country, and the punishment of Tess in the end. -- Dandelions 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well criticism is a rather ill chosen sub-heading probably added by someone who likes sectioning articles. The legacy section should have a balance throughout of what is good and bad about his works rather then a bad news section. Also the by the word claim is not true but something could be added about padding. MeltBanana 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that whole section has bugged me for a while. If you feel knowledgeable enough to do it, pls just fix that section, rather than tagging it. I suspect the problem starts with "'Dickens' fiction is often viewed as overly sentimental". Viewed by whom? If we mean modern readers, let's say that, and put it in context with other contemporary novels. If we mean Dicken's comtemporaries, a ref to criticism by one would be good. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Nell

That Little Nell's death in The Old Curiosity Shop is generally viewed as mawkishly sentimental can hardly be controversial. This is surely one of the best-known things that people say about Dickens. a google search of "Little Nell"+"mawkishly sentimental" turns up two separate essays. Beyond that, um, are people aware that there are two meanings to the term "Criticism?" john k 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Grew up with Dickens up to the eyeballs, have never heard anyone use that specific phrase. Doesn't make it untrue (Bleak House is one of my favourite heaps of slush), just that it's hardly "one of the best-known things that people say about Dickens". I'd suggest this phrase comes from a Dickens study-notes jobby, perhaps in a specific country, and is now a cliche among people who studied in that country.
All of which brings us back very nicely to: Who is saying this? Dickens' contemporaries? 2006 readers or academics? In Kenya? These are real questions - if you know, pls improve the article by answering them! Cheers, JackyR | Talk 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, wasn't meaning to say the specific phrase, necessarily, but just the idea that Little Nell's death is awful has been around at least as early as Oscar Wilde, who had a famous witticism on the subject - "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing." The passage of the death of Little Nell was famously found to be incredibly moving by contemporaries, but very soon afterwards got a reputation as sort of officially The Worst of Dickens, and this opinion has never really changed. Here is a review of a recent book which apparently featured a character called "Little Nell," in which the review author notes, as an established fact, that everyone thinks Little Nell is awful. Here is G. K. Chesterton writing on Dickens. Chesterton attempts a partial defense of Little Nell, saying:
It is not true, as is commonly said, that the Dickens pathos as pathos is bad. It is not true, as is still more commonly said, that the whole business about Little Nell is bad.

He continues:

The death of Little Nell is open certainly to the particular denial which its enemies make about it. The death of Little Neil is not pathetic. It is perhaps tragic; it is in reality ironic. Here is a very good case of the injustice to Dickens on his purely literary side. It is not that I say that Dickens achieved what he designed; it is that the critics will not see what the design was. They go on talking of the death of Little Nell as if it were a mere example of maudlin description like the death of Little Paul. As a fact it is not described at all; so it cannot be objectionable. It is not the death of Little Nell, but the life of Little Nell, that I object to.

So, Chesterton, writing in 1903, obviously believes that the death of Little Nell is widely viewed as being maudlin (and also that of Paul Dombey). He also believes that while this judgment is unfair, the character of Little Nell is still awful. Basically, the story as I understand it is that people in the 1830s really really loved Little Nell, and found her death scene to be incredibly moving. By the late 19th century, it had become common opinion that it was The Worst of Dickens, and a maudlin and mawkishly sentimental monstrosity. This latter view has tended to predominate ever since (with some partial rebellions, like Chesterton's), and can still be found in that 1998 NY Times book review as the customary view on Little Nell. Having to defend the idea that people think the Little Nell business is bad seems weird - it feels to me to be fairly close to literary "general knowledge" - I'd have thought that anyone who knows much of anything about Dickens "knows" (whether or not they've actually read The Old Curiosity Shop) that, as Chesterton says, "the whole business about Little Nell is bad." One knows this in the same way that one "knows" that Shakespeare is the greatest writer of the English language, and such similar things that one "knows" about literature without actually reading it. john k 04:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of writing for a general audience, not your peers! I came to Dickens through general knowledge and as a reader, not through "doing" him. Before reading the books, what I knew "in the same way that one "knows" that Shakespeare is the greatest writer" is that Dickens wrote about great poverty and injustice (we use Dickensian now to refer to industrial squalor and poverty), and worked to change these; that he created immortal names and characters, (Oliver, Scrooge etc) and that he could do a mean ghost story. And that he could be, ahem, verbose.
I've just tried a friend on this, and of a list of eight things he could think of about Dickens, (orphans, poverty, smoky London...), sentimentality wasn't one. He also pointed out that Dickens' best-known books (to the ordinary person) are probably "A Christmas Carol" and "Oliver Twist", from which poverty and hypocrisy are the themes that stick in the mind. Understand that I'm not denying that Dickens could write a sentimental scene when he wanted to, but behind it he is being incredibly hard-nosed (knowingly manipulating his audience).
However, you make it clear that there is a view on this in English Departments (or at least, among critics from certain times and places), so without making claims about what is "best-known" about Dickens, I have tried to integrate this info into the article a bit better. Also, the way the article was phrased was ambiguous as to whether it was describing (in fact, criticising) Dickens himself as sentimental: I've had a go at that too.
It would be great if you could check my work -- and add refs (this article failed FA status on lack of refs). Sounds like you're an Akshal Eggspert on this, so it's good to have you watch over any changes :-) JackyR | Talk 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a view of English departments, it's a widely held view which led to a famous Oscar Wilde quote. Is Wilde now an English professor? The thing was referenced in a recent Doctor Who episode, for God's sake. At any rate, most English professors now hold a much more positive view of Dickens than people a century ago did, but the death of Little Nell remains a really famous thing, and by famous, I mean "infamous for its sentimentality." Just because you and your friend don't know something doesn't mean that it's not well known. john k 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, here's a decent discussion of the basic Little Nell issue. john k 13:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Well, me and the first person I saw wasn't supposed to constitute a scientific survey. But if you will make positive statements like: "one knows this in the same way that one "knows" that Shakespeare is the greatest writer of the English language" and "one of the best-known things that people say about Dickens"... :-)

Maybe I should have stuck to my first draft of that post, which began something like: "Thank you, your info is brilliant: it's exactly answered my questions and I hope some of Dandelion's original objections. Could you integrate the info and your refs into the article?". But I decided to have bash at the first draft myself - it still needs references from you and generally would still benefit from your improvements. In particular, my new subhead of "Literary techniques" is poor and the emasculated section may now overlap with material further down.

Obviously I wrote that post v badly, as it sounded like I was disagreeing with you. In fact, you've completely made your point that there was criticism of The Old Curiosity Shop as sentimental-in-a- bad-way in the literary world in some period 1870 - ? (I daren't try to summarise further, as every time the word "people" is used unqualified, I lose a grip on who is meant... )

Please, check/fix what I've done in the article (which is what matters), and use your wonderful references to be clear when you mean "English professors now", English professors circa 1900, literary critics, the general reading public in the 1840s, 1900s, 2000s... This whole discussion arose from trying to get away from "Dickens' fiction is often viewed as overly sentimental", which was either imprecise or judgemental, depending how one took it.

I've now spent much longer on this post than on the article, which is Not Good. Argghh! JackyR | Talk 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small style issue

> He continued to maintain her in a house for the next twenty years [after 1858] until she died.

That doesn't make sense. He died in 1870 himself. How could he himself maintain her after his own death?

[edit] Ten pound note

Charles Dickens was depicted on the ten pound note for around ten years (1992-2002?). This ought to be mentioned in the article somewhere - I'm sure Shakespeare is the only other writer to be shown on British currency and there have probably been less than twenty people shown on British banknotes.


yes, he was recently replaced by Darwin, I have one in my pocket now.

[edit] Cultural depictions of Charles Dickens

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Caption oddness

Do people really acclaim Dickens for being famous, as the caption at present appears to state? I'll change that later unless someone else does first, providing no-one thinks I'm missing some other meaning of the phrase. --Chips Critic 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, on behalf of C. Dieckens.--Ed Peartree 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the whole Charles picture thing. What you have to do is delete the heading that says Charles Dickins and replace it with Charles Dickens again. I think that the vandal putup some code that disguised the real typing and made it look like Charles Dickens but said something different.

[edit] Life

The section on Dickens's life ends without stated where the bronze of Dickens is located. Can someone end this section with the appropriate location of the bronze? JJ 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It was removed by some previous vandalism. I have restored it. Stephenb (Talk) 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gad's Hill, Gads Hill, Gadshill

Which one? I though it would be out of the first 2, but I just had a look at an OS map and its the 3rd on there. Anyone know the etymology of the word? Its from a personnal name (Gad's) or named after the gadfly perhaps or a corruption of gates hill or something similar(Gads)? Is the OS wrong? Would be nice if we can get a difinitive answer and get everything agreeing. --LiamE 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a house - Gad's Hill Place, near Rochester, is now a school. See this site which also links to Multimap and the grid reference: TQ709708 (Admitedly, this site lists it as Gads Hill without the apostrophe - every other reference I can find lists it with) Stephenb (Talk) 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I am very well aware its a house, thank you. It is also the name of the locality, presumably where the house gets its name seeing as the name predates the house in English literature by many, many years. Not only is that map linked without an apostrophe, it is also clearly one word - and that happens to be an OS map and those guys don't often get things wrong. I agree that the majority of written sources go with Gad's but a fair proportion go with Gads. So we still have three choices. Without the etymology its pretty hard to decide which is correct. The site you linked only proves my point as it uses Gads, points to a site that uses Gad's (which in turn links to other sites that use either), and links a map with Gadshill as one word! --LiamE 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And just for the record the single word form seems to be the earliest record, the area being famous for highwaymen as long ago as Shakespeare's time ..."Poins! Now shall we know if Gadshill have set a match. O, if men were to be saved by merit, what hole in hell were hot enough for him? This is the most omnipotent villain that ever cried 'Stand' to a true man." - Henry IV Part 1, act 1, scene II. --LiamE 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be out of luck as regards consistency. A quick scan of some of Dickens' letters online suggest he spelt it both Gadshill and Gad's Hill although these may represent errors in transcription. For etymology, something I read suggested that it is the same as gad: a vagabond or to hang about i.e. "gad about" which is what is mainly happening in Henry IV. My guess though would be a corruption of God's Hill, god often morphing into gad. meltBanana 01:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dickens', Dicken's, Dickens's?

What is the correct possessive form of his last name? I always get confused. Mathwhiz90601 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because Dickens is a singular noun, the possessive adds the 's... so Dickens's is correct. The Dickens' form could only be used in reference to more than one Dickens owning something. QuietApocalypse 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the plural of Dickens is Dickenses, and the possessive of that would be Dickenses'. (eg. The Dickenses' house was in Soho). JackofOz 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think QuietApocalypse meant that "Dickens'" could be the possessive of the plural of "Dicken". The Wikipedia page on possessives implies that "Dickens'" could be used here if that's how it's usually spoken, but if you want to be on the safe side, I'd recommend "Dickens's". Xiner (talk, email) 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
To get the possesive form of a noun, you add an 's, but since Dickens already ends in an s, the correct possesive form would be Dickens'. Random89 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's a matter of (actually, rather recent) opinion, and "Dickens's" is just as acceptable Stephenb (Talk) 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article seems to be ravingly pro-Dickens. Its a bit too much work for me, but I think someone ought to fix it (<---the rallying cry of the extremely lazy) --Adroit Nubian 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dickens' poetry

This article is lacking Dickens' poetry. A section should be added in the Bibliography entitled "Poems" and list such works as "The Ivy Green." Xcountry99 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Free Charles Dickens ebooks for cell/mobile phones

I added an external link so wiki users can download the Charles Dickens books for free to their cheap cell/mobile phone. Hopefully this will encourage them to read his great works without having to print them on paper or being stuck on a PC for hours. Please do not treat it as spam. johnmizzi 14:50 17 Dec GMT+1

Why was the link for Cell/Mobile phone ebooks deleted? There, the ebooks are FREE and I am not even asking for tax deductible donation money!! Johnmizzi 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These questions have been answered by several administrators. Sarah Ewart 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dickens as Reformist

The bit about Dickens as reformist and its gloss in opening section is a little misleading. Sure Dickens attacked British institutions with some ferocity ie. Poor Law etc but there is no suggestion that he ever had any constructive ideas as to what to replace them with or how to reform them. Orwell's essay on this subject concludes that Dickens's very confused politics were essentially destructive, or at least his political theories never really moved beyond a call to 'be nice'. Of course, Dickens would have replaced much stuff with 'something better' but he had no clue as to what this 'something better' was. I've removed the section. Please replace if you feel this is petty/unfair.ThomCostello 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Vandalism

In the course of tracking vandalism by User:70.186.212.254, I noticed that this user changed the following paragraph, by editing the honeymoon location from Chalk, to Sandwhich. I'm not sure if this is actually vandalism, since I don't know the truth, but just wanted to point it out to anyone who may be better informed. The edits were to this passage: "On 2 April 1836, he married Catherine Thompson Hogarth (1816–1879), the daughter of George Hogarth, editor of the Evening Chronicle. After a brief honeymoon in Chalk, they set up home in Bloomsbury where they produced ten children. Their children were:" Hiberniantears 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Weller

Shouldn't something be in here about Mary Weller and how she impacted Dickens's imagination? 71.0.240.5 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HEY

♥--67.43.21.12 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)HEY ALL WHAT IS THE WORK CITED ON THIS SITE??--67.43.21.12 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)♥

[edit] Navbox

I created a navigation box for Dickens, Template:Charles Dickens, but it didn't come out the way I expected. Anyway, this would be great to tag at the bottom of this article (and those of each of his works) so the huge Bibliography section can be removed. Thoughts? Midnightdreary 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Road, Highgate

Is it true that the Dickens Museum is the only surviving house in which the author resided? There is also a blue plaque on a house in North Road in Highgate, North London that claims he once lived there. There is also a blue plaque in Tavistock Square which claims he also once lived there.--87.74.68.164 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharles_Dickens_7042.html"