Differing Opinions: Contemporary Reviews of Bleak House
Lowela Lacson, Susan Hocker, Elizabeth Phan, and Heather Shanks
Coavinses by Hablôt K. Browne (‘Phiz’)
When Bleak House, by Charles Dickens, was published in 1853, it did not go unnoticed by critics. The reviews of the period where anything but tepid in tone or opinion in regard to Dickens’ newest novel. Most notably, the critics were concerned with the structure of the novel, characterization, and, in particular, Esther as a plausible character. By singling out reviewers from different publications of the time, it is possible to see what the public in 1853 was reading about Bleak House in regard to these issues.
Structure
The contemporary reviewers of Bleak House fall into two categories when discussing its structure. There are those who like it and there are those who do not. More specifically, those who dislike the novel’s construction complain of the absence of plot and lack of connection between characters and their actions. Opposing this view are the reviewers who find the characters in Bleak House remarkably intertwined in the story, especially since it was written as a series for a literary magazine.
One of the strongest of these critics is George Brimley, who, in his article entitled “Dickens’s Bleak House” published in The Spectator in 1853, writes that “Bleak House is, even more than its predecessors, chargeable with not simple faults, but absolute want of construction”(161). He finds that the structure of Bleak House fails because there is no connection between actors and incidents. Brimley points to the interest of Richard Carstone in the Chancery case. The case only serves to draw out Carstone’s personality faults that would have been drawn out in any other interest he may have had. The Chancery case, then, is trivial for it fails to exert any real impact on the characters. Brimley also states that the main story of Esther and “the whole Dedlock set, might be eliminated from the book without damage to the great Chancery suit”(161). From the article “Characters in Bleak House” in Putnam’s Monthly in 1853, an anonymous reviewer further states that regarding the Chancery suit “the climaxes keep occurring all the way through; our overwrought expectations . . . are at last dashed . . .”(163). The incidents in the book then are unconnected with each other and although readers may expect a resolution to come at the end, there is none. Those adverse to the structure of Bleak House find that the Chancery suit, which Dickens used to bind his story, is not effective at its job. The Chancery suit only affects the characters superficially, not causing any defining changes within their personalities, and in the end, not coming to a satisfying conclusion. Brimley accuses Dickens of “indulging in stale satire at the length and expense of Chancery proceedings”(161).
Opposed to Brimley are those reviewers who rave about the structure of Bleak House. John Forster, in his review of Bleak House published in The Examiner in 1853, found that seemingly isolated actions and interests of all characters connect to progress the story through to its end. He notes, “even the fits of the little law-stationer’s servant aid directly in the chain of little things that lead indirectly to the catastrophe of Lady Dedlock’s death”(162). Henry Fothergill Chorley, in his review of Bleak House published in The Athenaeum in 1853, agreed and wrote: “Not a point is missed,--not a person left without part or share in the gradual disclosure--not a pin dropped that is not to be picked up for help or for harm to somebody”(160). Unlike Brimley and the Putnam’s Monthly reviewer, Chorley and Forster are not overly concerned with events acting on characters. Instead, they praise the genius of Dickens' interlinking all the small incidents of his actors to the main event.
Characters
While Chorley praises Dickens technical progress, he is critical of his “resolution to startle,” evidenced by exaggerated characterization and plot elements. Chorley noted that Dickens is a very capable writer and is not using the “rich cornucopia of humors at his disposal”(160). Chorley feels that Dickens’ character descriptions border on inhumane and are designed to shock and repulse rather than have any plot value. Chorley says that “he is beguiled into a cruel consideration of physical defects, from the unnatural workings of the mind; the step to the painful agonies of the body is a short one. The hideous palsy of Grandfather Smallweed, and the chattering idiocy of his wife, belongs to the coarse devices, which are losing their hold on the popular taste even at the minor theaters”(160). Dickens does not leave out any realities of diseases, autopsies, or imperfections of body or manner. Instead he amplifies them, Chorley feels, to a point bordering on over-done made grossly alive by Dickens characters.
Brimley has another view of Dickens motive. As he does not care for Dickens “love of strong effect, and the habit of seizing peculiarities and presenting them instead of characters,” he sees Dickens over the top approach as “expressly intended to be ridiculous and grotesque”(161-162). Brimley states that “many of [Dickens’] portraits excite pity, and suggest the existence of crying social sins; but of almost all we are obliged to say that they border on and frequently reach caricature, of which the essence is to catch a striking likeness by exclusively selecting and exaggerating a peculiarity that marks the man but does not represent him”(162). He views that the exaggeration of certain Characteristics makes it obvious that Dickens intends to catch the essence of a persona but not represent a real person. Brimley views “almost everybody in the book is excessively funny, that is not very wicked, or very miserable. . . . Mr. Dickens selects in his portraiture exactly what a farce-writer of equal ability and invention would select . . . an oddity of feature, a trick of gesture or of phrase. . .”(161). This tendency towards the theatrical shows off the exaggerated forms and satire, but even in its best form, Brimley feels they are too much and “rob the [the story] of its wholesome effect”(161).
Forester, an English historian, editor, and one of Dickens earliest biographers, in his review of Bleak House praises Dickens realistic characterizations, satire, and delineation of structure. In general, he liked the descriptions of Dickens characters and viewed those who found them grossly over done to be taking a rather narrow view of the novel. Forester saw the novel as a slice of true life to be taken all together:
"(t)aking the mere surface view . . . it would of course be easy to exhibit its apparent want of connection and design. . . . This subtle linking together of the deeds and interests of many people . . . is in fact truer to nature. . . . Its drawback is that it compels the use of a large number of characters . . . [whose] purpose in the narrative is not always evident until the reader can look back from the journey’s end over the ground he has traversed. . . . [The mass of characters] may now and then cause some confusion in the reader’ mind, and produce an effect like that of an over-crowded picture. But the art rather than the artist is there in fault”(162).
Forester did not find the descriptive language of ailments and diseases disturbing, but rather embraced it as part of Dickens’ attempt to show true human nature. “Nothing is repulsive; everything is large, laughable, and true; and most homely and ungainly figures become radiant with the spirit of goodness”(163). Taking the story “as a mere gallery of pictures and persons,” Forester believed “[the characters] in Bleak House finer than anything that even Mr. Dickens has yet produced . . .”(163). Even the characters that seem to get in the way, Forster accepted as another realistic point.
In one of the few contemporary American assessments of Bleak House, the anonymous reviewer for Putnam’s Monthly compliments Dickens on the convincing characterization in the novel, but comments that the over abundance of people clouded the point of the novel. He states: “In Bleak House, Dickens exhibits his greatest defects, and his greatest excellencies, as a novelist; in none of his works are the characters more strongly marked, or the plot more loosely and inartistically constructed. One-half of the personages might be ruled out without their loss being perceived . . . yet there would be no halt to the story if they were dropped by the way, as some of them are . . . ”(163). In contrast with Forster, this anonymous reviewer felt that the cast of characters was cluttered with far too many superfluous persons.
Esther
Victorian critics argue over the impact of Esther Summerson’s character and her function in the novel. Through the differing viewpoints, critics interpret Dickens’s use of Esther to reveal symbolism and the varied aspects of feminism. Through different viewpoints, critics contemplate the credibility of Esther as a believable member of society.
The central character of Bleak House, Esther Summerson, journeys through the novel searching for acceptance in society. Chorley describes Esther’s “surprisingly sweet way, little less like ordinary persons”(159). The perfection of Esther’s character disturbs the reader, separating her attributes as false. Her ability to accept situations in an accommodating manner limits Esther to a fictional role because in reality, people are emotionally swayed by situations of circumstance. Brimley describes Esther as a “heroine . . . a model of unconscious goodness; love and reaping it wherever she goes, diffusing round her an atmosphere of happiness and a sweet perfume of a pure and kindly nature. Her unconsciousness and sweet humility of disposition are so profound that scarcely a page of her autobiography is free from a record of these admirable qualities”(161). Further, critics argue that Esther exhibits the finest of feminine qualities and is an estimable lady of the Victorian period. Rather, Dickens contrasts Esther’s respectability with the narration of a self-conscious woman. Because “Esther is a perfect character with the exception that the picture of herself is unnatural”, she is unbelievable(163). Her perfection contrasts the flaws of human character and prevents readers from entirely accepting Esther as a member of society.
John Stuart Mill contrasts this claim, arguing “that Dickens’s treatment of female characters and women’s rights was “vulgar”(158). Similarly, The anonymous reviewer from Putnam’s Monthly believes that, regarding the narration in Bleak House, “nothing can be more palpable than the contrast between this estimable lady, and the manner in which she narrates it herself . . . deliberately to work to draw her own portrait in the most flattering manner”(163). Early reviewers imply that Esther’s lack of experience and uncritical nature reduces her credibility as a narrator. Chorley agrees that Esther’s perfection alters her acceptance into reality, stating that “Esther is . . . too precociously good, too perpetually self-present, and too helpful to every one around her to carry a sense of reality: --nor are her virtues made more probably by the fact that she is the chronicler of her own perfection”(161). Chesterton concludes, “Miss Summerson in some ways is a failure” (166). Individuals encountering life-changing moments would be swayed and impacted greatly, unlike Esther, whose enduring calmness and optimism restrains her to the fictional role.
The character of Esther is widely criticized for her perfection as a character, both receiving positive acclaims and negative feedback. Esther’s reserved, quiet character illustrates the role of women during the Victorian period and what little impact on society women played. Critics of Bleak House generally praise the narration and Dickens’s use of Esther’s character, which gives direction to the novel.
For more information on Charles Dickens’ Bleak House . . .
visit these web sites:
http://lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuola/CB-BH.html>
<http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian/dickens/dickenov.html>
or, check out The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals on CD ROM in the reference section on the second floor of Shield’s Library.
Works Cited
Harris, Laurie Lanzen, ed. Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Vol. 8. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1981.