Rating: 
Summary: This house is not so bleak as you might think...
Review: I must confess that "David Copperfield" is still my favorite Dickens novel. However, I must also add that "Bleak House" comes close. Here we see Dickens the moralist at the height of his powers. Although the courts and the law as it then exist are his targets, he also takes on professional reformers and the tradition bound aristocracy (whose day was drawing to a close when "Bleak House" was composed). Society is what Dickens is showing us, with all its failings. This is supposedly one of the "dark" novels, but I do not agree with that characterization. While there is pathos (during the death of one particular character), this appears to be justified. Of all the novels that Dickens has written, this has the most unusual structure. He jumps back between third person narrative and first person (that person being Esther Summerson). As usual it is not Dickens main characters that are the most memorable, but Dickens great comic creations. Here I must confess to a certain anticipation whenever Mrs. Jelleby, always mindful of Africa, came on the scene. If you like Dickens, I would suggest reading this after "David Copperfield" and "Great Expectations."
Rating: 
Summary: Why?
Review: I really don't understand all of the five star reviews for this dreary tome. I have never in my life been driven to Cliff's Notes before Bleak House. Yes, I understand this is a satire, yes I understand the plot is intricate, yes I understand this is supposed to be a classic. No, I am not stupid--I have an MA and will be starting a JD this fall. In fact, this book is on my reading list for law school. Anyway, some criticism. Dicken's point is that he hates the Chancery system. Therefore, by the second paragraph each new character is introduced, each character has to have a long, repetitive speech about how much they hate the Chancery system. This gets dull rather quickly. The characters themselves are pretty "stock". We have the fallen woman, the rich uncle, the lazy nephew, the kindhearted young woman, etc. Yawn. I put the book down after three characters had committed suicide. I suggest you check this yawner out from the library rather than buy it. Read and buy other classics--this one is best left in the dustbin.
Rating:
Summary: My Favorite Dickens Novel...So Far, Anyway!
Review: I've only read eight of Dickens's novels so far, but this is by far my favorite. It's so very rich! It did seem to take a bit longer to read than _Little Dorrit_ or _The Pickwick Papers_, but I think that may be because the novel is so rich that it demands to be savoured rather than devoured quickly. My favorite character? Ah, that's a tough one, but I think it has to be Lady Dedlock. In addition to possessing a really great name, she is a really tragic figure. However, when Dickens first introduces her into the narrative, it's a little difficult to be sympathetic to her. I still felt a sympathetic connection to her; I don't know why. Esther Summerson was a queer little bird. Her need to make everyone happy all the time--typical "Angel in the House" behavior, I know--was a little grating at times. I did like her though; I wanted to see her happy at the end of the novel. I really like the way Dickens structured this novel. He alternated between a first-person narrator, Esther Summerson, and a third-person point-of-view, with some quite interesting results. At any rate, if you're a fan of Dickens, then this book is a must-read. If you're not a fan of Dickens, then you've probably only read _Great Expectations_, and that for a class! I highly recommend this novel as one of his best!
Rating:
Summary: Dickens' best, in my opinion
Review: Impossible to summarize the plot, but a satisfying concoction of sentiment, mystery, legal satire, and Victorian excess. I read it the summer before I started law school, which is as good a time as any to tackle this novel. If you don't enjoy this one, you may as well skip any other Dickens novels...this is as good as it gets.
Rating:
Summary: Dark, compelling, and quite unique
Review: It opens with one of the finest descriptive passages in literature - a depiction of the London fog and dirt. And, out of this seemingly primeval slime, the characters emerge. We are made aware of a court case, Jarndyce v Jarndyce, which has dragged on for years, and about which no-one knows all the details, but which destroys everyone it touches. There is plenty of documentation, but no-one has the time to go through it all. And many of these documents are in the hands of Krook, who cannot read. Here, it seems to me, are foreshadowings of 20th century expressionism, and the seeds of Kafka's "The Trial" and "The Castle". The characters range from the heights of aristocracy - Sir Leicester Dedlock who is never bored, as he can always "contemplate his own greatness" - to the illiterate boy Jo, who has always lived on the streets, and who knows "nothink". We are invited to find connections between them, as everything is connected to everything else. The tone is dark, menacing, and tragic. There is no shortage of humour or exuberance: Skimpole and Chadband, for instance, are among Dickens' finest comic creations. But they do not lighten the darkness: quite the contrary. And neither can human goodness set things right: Esther's orderliness cannot impose order on the larger scheme of things, and neither can Jarndyce's benevolence prevent tragedy. The scope of this novel is huge, but each new set of characters seems to introduce us to yet another circle of Inferno. The quality of the prose is astonishing, and the structure and organization of such masses of material masterly. And the novel also has a certain poetry to it, as in Richard Carstone's dying words: "I shall begin the world." Certainly, Dickens has created a world here that is a grotesque but nonetheless recognizable distortion of our own, and has animated it with his unique vitality and imaginative power. It is, without doubt, one of the world's greatest novels.
Rating: 
Summary: Why Only Four Stars?
Review: Let's get a few obvious truths out of the way: 1. Charles Dickens is a writer of almost unparalled talent who could write just about anything he wanted and write it so well that he could avoid insulting the intelligentsia while still managing to entertain the masses around the world. 2. While storytelling techniques haven't changed so much over the years, the expectations of modern readers are very different from those of the Victorians. 3. Dickens wrote what he wanted to write, to entertain the readership, to make money, for his own personal enjoyment and to comment on the harsh realities of his world. While I cannot deny that "Bleak House" is a work of genius, my review (presumptuous as it is for me to review Dickens at all) is that of a modern reader with different expectations than those who read his work 150 years ago. While I can appreciate his genius and talent, I don't have to find CONSTANT enjoyment in reading his works, which I do not. When I was young, my father would entertain me by asking me to write down a number between 1 and 9. From my awkward 6-year-old scribbling he would cleverly draw a face, a different face every time. This amazed and entertained me. Similarly, I think you could give Dickens a few human characteristics, (say something like "a tall thin man who wears glasses and has a big nose. He smokes a pipe and stays up late reading hunting magazines") and from this skeleton he could create a detailed and interesting character, complete with verbal idiosyncracies, facial tics and unique mannerisms, an appropriate home and friends, and a complete biography. And he could do it in an instant. But like my father's caricatures, Dickens' characters are mere cartoons next to portraits of everyday reality. You don't expect to ever meet anyone like Mrs. Jellyby, Mr. Skimpole or Mr. Bucket. But you remember them nevertheless. Still, they are nothing like real people. Esther Summerson should be in heaven at this moment, because she has never so much as lost her temper. Ditto for John Jarndyce, Ada and Allen Woodcourt. They're saints. Meanwhile, Grandfather Smallweed should be in hell, because he has never had anything but selfish motives for so little as waking up in the morning. But while you won't find too much reality or moral ambiguity in Dickens' works, that doesn't make his work less enjoyable. He creates so many characters that you're bound to like some while you hate others or are simply bored by a few. But somehow, in the vast gallery he creates, they are all different from one another, and instantly recognizable. Some of my favorites in Bleak House are Mr. Turveydrop, Gridley, Mrs. Pardiggle, Boythorn, Mr. Skimpole and especially Reverand Chadband. To me, at least, the pompous preacher is a laugh riot. But the minor characters hardly serve a purpose at all. Charley, Jo, the Snagsbys, don't have to be part of the story, they're just there because Dickens likes to introduce us to people. He's very good at it. Unfortunately, I don't feel the same enjoyment when reading about the major characters. While I'm interested in what happens to Richard and Ada, Esther Summerson and Allen Woodcourt, the Jarndyces and the Dedlocks, they're just not as fun to read about as some of the minor characters. But reading a Dickens novel has been compared to attending a large dinner party and being introduced to a few dozen guests. You're bound to meet people you like and people you don't like. And we all choose uniquely. But to my modern and cynical sensibilities, Dickens is first of all way too melodramatic. Understandable, I think, because that which shocked Victorian-era Londoners hardly raises an eyebrow among today's urban-dwelling Americans. Illigitemacy? Please, it's everywhere. Poverty? Suicide? Shocking? Hardly. There is also too much coincidence in his plots for my tastes, not to mention over-the-top pathos. The death of Jo, the crossing sweeper, for instance, leaves me cold. I feel absolutely nothing because it is so overdone. Ditto for Krook's death. I read it and yawned. Dickens' characters are seldom gray or morally ambiguous. And they behave predictably as a result. But all those criticisms aside, I still managed to enjoy "Bleak House" a great deal. I just feel like he could have been less verbose. He didn't need 50 or so characters and nearly 900 pages to tell this story. He introduces characters who speak a few lines then disappear forever. And though he does it well, he describes things endlessly. The brilliant opening, for instance, could be reduced (in ideas at least) to "It's a foggy and muddy November in London, and the weather reflects the ongoings within the Court of Chancery." But of course, that hardly contains any interest at all. The beginning, by the way, truly is magnificent writing, but to what end? It's just too much FOR MY TASTES. Read it, by all means, read it. You'll even enjoy huge portions of it. But don't expect never to be bored or confused by the lengthy convoluted sentences and SAT vocabulary where one-syllable words will do. Dickens is a genius, no doubt about it. And people will be reading his books 1,000 years from now. But how many of us read Shakespeare for pure enjoyment? Similarly, 1,000 years from now, Dickens will be an academic chore, not enjoyment. Luckily, that's still a ways off and you can still enjoy his works today without worrying about 1,000 years from now.
Rating:
Summary: Why Only Four Stars?
Review: Let's get a few obvious truths out of the way: 1. Charles Dickens is a writer of almost unparalled talent who could write just about anything he wanted and write it so well that he could avoid insulting the intelligentsia while still managing to entertain the masses around the world. 2. While storytelling techniques haven't changed so much over the years, the expectations of modern readers are very different from those of the Victorians. 3. Dickens wrote what he wanted to write, to entertain the readership, to make money, for his own personal enjoyment and to comment on the harsh realities of his world. While I cannot deny that "Bleak House" is a work of genius, my review (presumptuous as it is for me to review Dickens at all) is that of a modern reader with different expectations than those who read his work 150 years ago. While I can appreciate his genius and talent, I don't have to find CONSTANT enjoyment in reading his works, which I do not. When I was young, my father would entertain me by asking me to write down a number between 1 and 9. From my awkward 6-year-old scribbling he would cleverly draw a face, a different face every time. This amazed and entertained me. Similarly, I think you could give Dickens a few human characteristics, (say something like "a tall thin man who wears glasses and has a big nose. He smokes a pipe and stays up late reading hunting magazines") and from this skeleton he could create a detailed and interesting character, complete with verbal idiosyncracies, facial tics and unique mannerisms, an appropriate home and friends, and a complete biography. And he could do it in an instant. But like my father's caricatures, Dickens' characters are mere cartoons next to portraits of everyday reality. You don't expect to ever meet anyone like Mrs. Jellyby, Mr. Skimpole or Mr. Bucket. But you remember them nevertheless. Still, they are nothing like real people. Esther Summerson should be in heaven at this moment, because she has never so much as lost her temper. Ditto for John Jarndyce, Ada and Allen Woodcourt. They're saints. Meanwhile, Grandfather Smallweed should be in hell, because he has never had anything but selfish motives for so little as waking up in the morning. But while you won't find too much reality or moral ambiguity in Dickens' works, that doesn't make his work less enjoyable. He creates so many characters that you're bound to like some while you hate others or are simply bored by a few. But somehow, in the vast gallery he creates, they are all different from one another, and instantly recognizable. Some of my favorites in Bleak House are Mr. Turveydrop, Gridley, Mrs. Pardiggle, Boythorn, Mr. Skimpole and especially Reverand Chadband. To me, at least, the pompous preacher is a laugh riot. But the minor characters hardly serve a purpose at all. Charley, Jo, the Snagsbys, don't have to be part of the story, they're just there because Dickens likes to introduce us to people. He's very good at it. Unfortunately, I don't feel the same enjoyment when reading about the major characters. While I'm interested in what happens to Richard and Ada, Esther Summerson and Allen Woodcourt, the Jarndyces and the Dedlocks, they're just not as fun to read about as some of the minor characters. But reading a Dickens novel has been compared to attending a large dinner party and being introduced to a few dozen guests. You're bound to meet people you like and people you don't like. And we all choose uniquely. But to my modern and cynical sensibilities, Dickens is first of all way too melodramatic. Understandable, I think, because that which shocked Victorian-era Londoners hardly raises an eyebrow among today's urban-dwelling Americans. Illigitemacy? Please, it's everywhere. Poverty? Suicide? Shocking? Hardly. There is also too much coincidence in his plots for my tastes, not to mention over-the-top pathos. The death of Jo, the crossing sweeper, for instance, leaves me cold. I feel absolutely nothing because it is so overdone. Ditto for Krook's death. I read it and yawned. Dickens' characters are seldom gray or morally ambiguous. And they behave predictably as a result. But all those criticisms aside, I still managed to enjoy "Bleak House" a great deal. I just feel like he could have been less verbose. He didn't need 50 or so characters and nearly 900 pages to tell this story. He introduces characters who speak a few lines then disappear forever. And though he does it well, he describes things endlessly. The brilliant opening, for instance, could be reduced (in ideas at least) to "It's a foggy and muddy November in London, and the weather reflects the ongoings within the Court of Chancery." But of course, that hardly contains any interest at all. The beginning, by the way, truly is magnificent writing, but to what end? It's just too much FOR MY TASTES. Read it, by all means, read it. You'll even enjoy huge portions of it. But don't expect never to be bored or confused by the lengthy convoluted sentences and SAT vocabulary where one-syllable words will do. Dickens is a genius, no doubt about it. And people will be reading his books 1,000 years from now. But how many of us read Shakespeare for pure enjoyment? Similarly, 1,000 years from now, Dickens will be an academic chore, not enjoyment. Luckily, that's still a ways off and you can still enjoy his works today without worrying about 1,000 years from now.
Rating:
Summary: My favorite Dickens ever
Review: Reading "Bleak House" was an immense pleasure. The reader is plunged into a Dickensian world full of heros, villians, satire, love, adventure, social commentary, humor, and much much more. This book shows Dickens as the premiere English writer of the 19th century.
Rating:
Summary: A very worthwhile torture.
Review: Reading Bleak House was one of the hardest but most worthwhile tasks I have understaken in a long time. I am happy it was an assignment, or else I might not have made myself finish it. This would have been a big mistake. Bleak House is an amazing Victorian story of life in London, for the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. The multitude of characters can be difficult to keep up with, but each one is a piece in an elaborate jigsaw puzzle that only makes sense together. Without even one of the myriad of minor characters, Bleak House could not be the same. The novel alternates between the first person narrative, told by orphan girl Esther, and a third person omniscient narrator. Honestly, I enjoyed Esther's parts more, but the entire thing was moving and endearing. Many moments brought me to tears. Others annoyed and angered me to no end. Some parts were very humorous. And by the time I got to the end, I realized the value of this wonderful novel, which is beyond words.
Rating:
Summary: The Great Principle of English Law: Make Business
Review: The one great priciple of English Law according to Dickens is to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Only when viewed by this light does the legal system become a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze we are apt to think it. Let the public clearly perceive that its grand principle (Dickens says), "is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble." Obtaining a decision in Court was likely to be frustratingly slow and expensive as Dickens discovered in 1844 when he launched suits against five piratical publishers for breach of copyright. As he complained in a letter, "I was really treated as if I were the robber instead of the robbed." Although Dickens won the suit, it cost him more than any damages he was able to collect and he resolved never again to become involved in dealing with Chancery, remarking bitterly in 1846 that "it is better to suffer a great wrong than to have recourse to the much greater wrong of the law." Ultimately, he got his revenge, as writers often do, by publishing in 1852, Bleak House, his novel, about, among other things, the law's delay, and the human consequences thereof. The story evolves around the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, a law suit which in the course of time became so complicated that no man alive knew what it meant. The parties to it understood it least and the only way it could end, it did end: consumed in costs. Along the way to this pitiable end, the reader gets to know some wonderful characters who do amazing and interesting things, in an authentically described landscape of a polluted nineteenth century London. If you haven't experienced this great classic yet, I advise you to do so. You are in for a great treat.
|
