Talk:Charles Dickens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Dickens is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 19, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[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 --164.116.249.9 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Italic textLindsey GOnzalez.

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)

I read my first Dickens in 7th Grade. It had a lasting impression on me as a great work of fiction. My English teacher taught me how to write essays based on the style of other authors, and I believe Dickens offers the greatest lessons. Also, anyone who critisyzes Dickens' writing as long and drawn out, must remember that Dickens was paid by the word in for his installations in the magazines which he worked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.120.65 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (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?

I found another correction. Not a big deal, but under the subcategory Rail Accident and Last Years, I found a sentence needing a bit of work: "He suffered another stroke on June 8 at Gad's Hill, after a full day's work on Edwin Drood, and five years to the day after the Staplehurst crash, on 9 June 1870, he died at home at Gad's Hill Place after suffering a stroke, after a full, interesting and varied life." ----Jarlaxle180 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ten pound note

Charles Dickens was pictured 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)

Well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.0.240.56 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Okay if you demand an answer: no. There are many influences for any writer and the critic F.R. Leavis dismisses many of them in the case of Dickens as being over simplistic views of Dickens' genius. So he had a wacky nursemaid does not mean he was fated to become a writer and her influence may have been to the detriment. but this of course is just my view, she is mentioned briefly at The Uncommercial Traveller. meltBanana 03:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mary Weller is discussed at some length in Michael Slater's work "Dickens and Women". She is important to understanding his life, but not necessarily his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.195.112 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 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)

Go get someone else to do your school project for you. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:14, 26 March 2008 (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)

Well done, I like it. What were you unhappy with? --Stephen Burnett 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and replaced the Bibliography section with it; thus far there have been no objections. Chris Buttigieg 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good and it's relatively easy to navigate. Now people can create more articles for Dickens's works and link them here. Sorry, I haven't been checking this page that often. -Midnightdreary 17:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame that it appears to have lost information - i.e. the years that the books and essays etc. were published, which gave an idea of how Dickens's career progressed. Stephenb (Talk) 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to stick them back in. -Midnightdreary 19:43, 24 April 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)

The Tavistock Sq plaque says that he lived on house on the site of the present building. The house itself is no longer there.--Pfold 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

This article doesn't seem to have an actual link to the category: Charles Dickens characters. I found the category myself by following a link to one specific character and finding the link there! I think a direct link to the category would be useful, at the bottom and perhaps also in the section on characters. Mooncow 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Chris Buttigieg 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of works by Charles Dickens

I was wondering if there is a reason no such list of his works is found on this site. I would love to see him have a complete bibliography as a stand-alone article like many lesser authors do Black Harry (T|C) 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists are considered unencylcopedic on Wikipedia. But, even so, there's a decent navigation box (if I do say so myself) near the end of the article that does, in fact, list most of his works. Hope that helps. -Midnightdreary 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but there has been a recent trend of forking bibliographies (and other list of works) from the writers main page. I was thinking that Dickens would be a good candidate for such a list. Black Harry (T|C) 03:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying... but because lists are unencyclopedic so the navbox is supposed to take its place. Even so, I don't disagree with you creating a separate article, but certainly not the main page. We can link it from here under a "see also" heading maybe. -Midnightdreary 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, though there may be works by him not listed (by no means am I Dickens expert) Black Harry 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth

Charles Dickens was not born in Landport Portsmouth as stated but in Buckland Portsmouth! His house, now a museum is in Buckland. Please correct this error.

[edit] Friendship with Edward Bulwer Lytton

It might be worth recording that Dickens was a great friend of the novelist Edward Bulwer Lytton who lived at the splendid gothic mansion Knebworth House in Hertfordshire. Lytton wrote many historical novels including the famous Last days of Pompeii. Dickens used to put on plays at Knebworth to amuse house guests. Les Gillard

Bulwer Lytton also wrote Paul Clifford, famous for its opening, "It was a dark and stormy night ..." Jhobson1 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bibliography

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), I have reinserted the bibliography for this article. There is no guideline or policy on Wikipedia which states that lists of books in author articles are "unencyclopedic." While the template is a useful item to have on Dickens related articles, the template does not take the place of a complete bibliography. A good bibliography has much more info than can be captured in any simple template (and I should add that this article's bibliography could have a lot more info--such as where the novels were first serialized--which I hope an editor will add in the near future). Best, --Alabamaboy 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this move. I also like the idea of seeing a chronology of Dickens' works. How/when his stories were first serialized would be great. There is so much more context to be had in a separate and complete bibliography. You can get an idea of exactly how Dickens became the force he became.-BillDeanCarter 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There were also a ton of books missing from the template. Not every book by Dickens has its own article, so the template as bibliography was extremely incomplete. I've added most of these into the bibliography, but if I missed anything please let me know.--Alabamaboy 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because an article for a work does not exist doesn't mean they can't be listed on the template. Dates can be added as well (what other context does the bibliography provide that can't be found in that work's own article?). Further, the Wikipedia policy on lists of works does not suggest that bibliographies are required, but just that there is a recommended uniformity about them. Further, especially based on discussions on that policy's talk page, it's really referring to articles that are solely a list of works, not sections within a main article. I contend that aesthetics (and length of article) are good reason to avoid a bibliography in this article. I'm not saying my opinion is the foremost one, I'm just throwing it out there. Can this be discussed here a bit? Even Wikipedia policies are made to be broken. --Midnightdreary 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I dislike bloated "navigational" templates that get so large they become unwieldy. The long and complete list of works belongs in the bibliography (which is important for understanding the development of the writer), and the template should be restricted to linking to existing pages. nadav (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is shocking that Charles Dickens, one of the most popular writers of the nineteenth century as well as one of the influential novelists in the English tradition does not have a complete bibliography on wikipedia. A list of an author's works is crucial to understanding his or her writing. It also alerts the reader to texts he or she may not have read before and may now be interested in reading. Moreover, the policy does now indeed encourage editors to include complete lists of works, particularly when they can be cited (and a Dickens list certainty could). I would strongly encourage the editors here to consult scholarly bibliographies and copy out a list of Dickens' works in an orderly fashion. Since his output was so prodigious, I would expect a second page to have to be created for this endeavor and a selection of that larger list placed in the main article. Like Midnightdreary, I agree that Dickens' long list of works should not be placed entirely on this page for aesthetic and length reasons. In fact, the new policy indicates that just this sort of forking is necessary when the list of works becomes long, so I am not sure what wikipedia polices we would be "breaking" here. It seems to me more like we would be fulfilling them. (A quick glance at any annotated bibliography, Midnightdreary, will reveal how much they can contribute to "contextualization." The level of detail accorded to each text is very helpful. Here is a secondary source example.) Awadewit | talk 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that link, and you make a good point with it. Might I suggest, then, that a full bibliography be included on a separate page, such as Bibliography of Charles Dickens or Works by Charles Dickens or something along those lines? That way, the bibliography can be very detailed and annotated without clogging up this great article on Charles Dickens's biography and influence, etc. This has been a worthwhile discussion, so I'm glad I brought it up. --Midnightdreary 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've now forked off most of the bibliography into its own article. All that remains here are the novels, short story collections, and selected other books. Please check it out. I do think, though, it is vital to leave some of the bibliography here so readers can get a feel for what he published without going to another article. BTW, I don't know if you've ever looked online for a good bibliography of Dickens works, but there isn't one. Wikipedia has a good chance to set the standard here (with a little more work). I'd also suggest trimming all the non-linking info from the navigation template. That way the nav template only contains links to existing or needing to exist articles. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually spent over an hour trying to find a complete Dickens bibliography online and was unsuccessful. Like the other two lists of works I have contributed to wikipedia, this would also help fill a missing piece of information on the internet. That in and of itself is a valuable enterprise. Again, I agree with the forking, since the list will be very long. Awadewit | talk 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Just so this remains a discussion rather than a conversation, I appreciate that the bibliography is included. Dickens does test any policy to its limits, so I checked what was done with the West Midlands playwright and it appears similar- and it is close the the Henry James example. My final test is what does the hypothetical reader expect from an encyclopedic article and with Dickens it must be links to his writing- everything else is secondary. From the school student researching an essay, the academic or the visitor to a festival wanting to know more. This does provide the summary that can be fleshed out in a separate article with a *full* list and critique of ever scrap of paper ever attributed- but don't reduce the information provided so far.ClemRutter 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the "Notable Works" section of the article makes the navigation box at the end of the article (which amounts to another "notable works" section) redundant? Llajwa 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template box

I agree with Nadav1 that bloated templates, such as the Dickens box are less than helpful. If the Dickens editors are wedded to the idea of a template, however, I suggest that they design one such the eighteenth-century British children's literature template. It appears as a single line at the bottom of the article (see Sarah Trimmer) and the user clicks on each individual category for further information; that click takes the user to another page with the lists of information. Awadewit | talk 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for addition

Please add [[mn:Чарльз Диккенс]] in the language list, as it is disabled for me to edit. --202.72.243.70 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox citations?

Editors have started adding influences/influenced writers to the infobox. These are uncited, and often unsupported anywhere on wikipedia (e.g., if you follow the link to the writer's WP page, Dickens is not mentioned, or is simply listed as an influence in that writers infobox, again with no citation). If the linked to article does not support the inclusion in the infobox, then please add citations to your addition, else it will have to be deleted as unverifiable, like any other info on WP. Thanks. Doctormatt 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] proposed External Link

I'd like to add a link like:

to the External Links section. This links to a list of Dickens works that you can download to read on a cell phone. I have read quite a few from this site and got a lot of value out being able to read the PD texts away from the PC.

The texts are Public Domain in the US, just like Project Gutenberg, they are packaged with the reader and available under a creative commons licence (share if (attribution, non-commercial, no derivative) ). The site is non-commercial without registration, subscription, or advertising. The texts as packaged together with the reader as a java program that runs on cell phones, this is a way for people to access the authors work that adds to the range in the existing external links (hopefully translating to more reading going on).

I checked WP:EL and the link seems appropriate:

  • What should be linked: '...should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.'
  • Links normally to be avoided: it seems only #8 might apply; 'Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content...'. The site lets you download java programs that only run on a J2ME environment, this means most/all current cell phones. So although they are limited to being read on a phone they do add an access method to all the others in the existing External Links, in the same way that LibriVox (in other author external links sections) adds a format but requires an mp3 player.

Filomath 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. My first thought is that this article has way too many external links. We must all keep in mind that external links should be kept to a minimum (the nutshell version at WP:EL). There are already a number of links to sites with free electronic editions of Dickens' works. I don't think we need to have a link to every site with a different format. I think what we have now is more than sufficient. Doctormatt 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If we included this link then it would be the only one of ten that gave people a reference to where they could get the texts to read away from their computer. I think that is a strong argument for inclusion of the link. Many of the existing nine links are only different formats all readable only on a PC or even while Internet connected. Filomath 04:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. How about, in the interest of keeping things to a minimum, remove at least one other link while adding this new one? Doctormatt 05:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

hmm, makes sense when you say it like that, but puts one in the hard position of choosing a link to drop, I don’t really want to engender any ire ... a couple of the linked sites have ads embedded in each page of the book - does this make them less 'link worthy'? Thanks for your inputs; I'll let things sit awhile to see what other comments I might get. Filomath 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT

I would support a link that makes complete works available in a format which the others don't offer, and doesn't subject the user to a lot of objectionable advertising or surplus content. Looking at the other links, I would suggest that the most dispensable is Charles Dickens' Quotes, which is a link offering a mere 37 quotes. Wikiquote is available for quotations, so this site offers nothing that is not or could not be made available internally. Also it is one of those sites that gives a very shallow view over a vast range of subjects, and I am more sympathetic to sites that limit the area and give more coverage in depth. I would say the same of Charles Dickens Biography, which offers 5 pages of biography, a dozen quotes and a very brief chronology - nothing which, in the words of WP:EL, provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. The usefulness of this link is perhaps indicated by the fact that it has been broken for at least six months, and nobody bothered to fix it until I did so this morning. --Stephen Burnett 08:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, both of those links are dispensable. Doctormatt 20:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help working it through, I added the proposed link and removed the bio link. Filomath 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

I noticed that, in the list of writers which influenced Dickens, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (the author of Don Quixote) is missing, while he had a significant influence on Dickens's first novel, The Pickwick Papers. Mr. Pickwick and Sam Weller are partly based on Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Anyone else think he should be added? -DraugenCP

If you have references, feel free to add it. Chris.B 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I added his name, and the source to the references. -DraugenCP

[edit] Uncles

I notice that Nicholas Nickleby and Edwin Drood both have villainous uncles. Does anyone know if Dickens had a bad relationship with an uncle? --teb728 03:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Realism?

User:JewishJake recently added "Realism" as Dickens's "movement." This seems surprising to me -- do others agree with this designation? I'm not a literature scholar and don't know the debates, but I would have called Thackeray an early Realist, not Dickens. Llajwa 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should require a citation on this. The link to Realism is incorrect anyway - I assume what is meant is a link to Literary realism (though that article is quite lacking: no sources (and no mention of Dickens...)). Doctormatt 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Dickens is suit would be better to remove the entry for a school or movement from that textbox altogether, rather than ask for a reference -- I don't remember ever seeing that kind of information referenced in writers' articles -- if it's up there at all, it should be because it's an accepted commonplace, like Wordsworth being a Romantic. Llajwa 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay - I removed the Realism mention. Doctormatt 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - *We* agree anyway :) -- other people can chime in if they don't. Llajwa 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

I am watching this spat from the sidelines using the Template:Lifes too short principle- but could someone tell what it is all about. Living as I do, on the route of one of his weekly strolls- I can't tell you how he said his name- RP is class dependant, age dependant, time dependant and location dependant. And anyone born in 'Cha'um' living in 'Graivsnd'would be a least bilingual. I am obviously missing something here- whats all the passion about?

Timeineurope is apparently trying to force the article to favor non-rhotic English. Rhotic and non-rhotic accents are equally valid, and the article does not need to make a choice between them. (Yes, it needs to make a choice of British vs American spelling, but it doesn’t need to choose a pronunciation.)
As explained at Phoneme#Notation, square bracket notation [ ] indicates a phonetic transcription (showing the details of pronunciation), whereas slash notation / / indicates a phonemic transcription (showing only significant differences). So the phonemic pronunciation /ɑr/ indicates the sound of ar in “bar” (however it is pronounced in a given dialect). In a rhotic dialect it might be realized as [ɑɹ]; in a non-rhotic dialect as [ɑː].
The fact that Dickens was English does not affect the way that people around the world pronounce his name. 'He' may have pronounced his name as [ˈtʃɑːlz ˈdɪkɪnz], but it is factually wrong to say that is the way to pronounce it. If the article gives a phonemic pronunciation, it is not necessary either to choose one pronunciation or to give multiple pronunciations. (For those who are not interested in IPA let me explain that in plain English: With the phonemic pronunciation that I prefer, the “ar” of “Charles” is pronounced like “are” (however the reader pronounces “are”). With the phonetic pronunciation that Timeineurope prefers, it is pronounced like “ah” (irrespective of how the reader pronounces “are”).) --teb728 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hii x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.139.107 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dickens supports estranged wife for eight years after his own death

The article states: "When Dickens separated from his wife in 1858, divorce was almost unthinkable, particularly for someone as famous as he was, and so he continued to maintain her in a house for the next 20 years until she died."

Add twenty years to 1858 and you get 1878. Yet, according to the article Dickens died in 1870. Taking the article as it is phrased, that means that Dickens was supporting for an eight year period after he was already dead.


Wouldn't it be better to say that he supported her until his own death and then provided for her in his will? Are these dates correct? Sebol van Latnorf (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racial Defamation section

The racial defamation section is bad for several reasons. First of all, provide sources when you add something like that. Second, I had to change a few sentences to not make it sound so damn POV. Third, one of the "facts" is most probably original research.--Threedots dead (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is the documentary film cited. I have just watched it and came to the Dickens page. --206.248.172.247 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)