>>24889593
He's overly verbose in a way that is now boring, >inb4 filtered
We just don't need all this random information at all moments, like this excerpt from Bleak House.

What with the bustle of dispatching Peepy and the bustle of getting
myself ready and helping Ada, I was soon quite in a glow. We found
Miss Jellyby trying to warm herself at the fire in the writingroom, which Priscilla was then lighting with a smutty parlour
candlestick, throwing the candle in to make it burn better.
Everything was just as we had left it last night and was evidently
intended to remain so. Below-stairs the dinner-cloth had not been
taken away, but had been left ready for breakfast. Crumbs, dust,
and waste-paper were all over the house. Some pewter pots and a
milk-can hung on the area railings; the door stood open; and we met
the cook round the corner coming out of a public-house, wiping her
mouth. She mentioned, as she passed us, that she had been to see
what o'clock it was.
But before we met the cook, we met Richard, who was dancing up and
down Thavies Inn to warm his feet. He was agreeably surprised to
see us stirring so soon and said he would gladly share our walk.
So he took care of Ada, and Miss Jellyby and I went first. I may
mention that Miss Jellyby had relapsed into her sulky manner and
that I really should not have thought she liked me much unless she
had told me so

>>24889604
basically this

>>24889604
>>24889609
Fair point. I know it's completely subjective but I didn't find that bad.

>>24889604
>that is now boring
i.e. boring to zoomers. Like everything that isn't an MCU movie.

>>24889604
i get what you're saying, but i hope anons don't read this and then think, 'ah, so i was right never to bother picking up Dickens.' part of the point of reading literature is to learn forms of pleasure and engagement that contemporary media doesn't train you in. with enough imagination and enough will you can come to enjoy the kind of domestic immersion Dickens is conjuring up here as much as his Victorian readers enjoyed it. anons love to talk about the inherent alienation and emptiness of modern existence but then neglect the effort required to project themselves into a time when the smallest details seemed full of human meaning.

I've only read great expectations and 200 pages of copperfield

>>24889604
>>24889609
>>24889624
Ridiculously low iq posts. Retards like you probably can't read any novel from before the year 1900. The verbosity of Dickens is written with the exact effect of grabbing the reader's attention. That people now find his style no longer has that effect is not a sign of a shift in subjective taste but undeniably a sign of lower iq and/or poorer education in today's world. The 'random information' and 'excessive details' of Dickens does the simple thing of connoting a world for us to be drawn into, not without the larger ramifications for mood and plot, the charm of which was open to virtually all classes of 19th century society, were they able to understand the words. This shows that the difficulty in enjoying him only comes down to the dull-brained and childish inhibition to merely read-many-words. Although this is all almost besides the point, since the stories and characters of Dickens justify slogging through any prose. But no, the ignoramuses don't care about the heaven-sent achievements of inimitable genius, they demand books suit THEIR idea of quality. I.e. if the words are simpler, all other questions of novelistic quality become irrelevant.

>>24889651
he's just boring bro. here in the UK every few years there's an article saying dickens would've been writing for Eastenders (a popular BBC soap opera here) if he were alive today, and if you've ever watched Eastenders you know it's just an ever-churning slop machine.

I guess you have bad taste? idk

>>24889628
I wasn't trying to intentionally choose a boring passage, literally just a random page from this PDF, the MF can write but this lack of urgency or pickawilly cavorting like we have all the time in the world to get to the heart of the matter just isn't popular today,
>see for yourself

http://www.dickens.jp/etexts/dickens/novels/bh.pdf

>>24889660
>here in the UK every few years there's an article saying dickens would've been writing for Eastenders (a popular BBC soap opera here) if he were alive today
In other words the same retarded shit plebs say about every great artist of the past.
'If Beethoven were alive today, he'd be composing video game soundtracks!'
'If Dante were alive today, he'd be writing fanfiction!'
etc.

Your intellectual lowliness is demonstrated by the fact that you take this trash seriously. You don't even seem to be aware of the virtues in Dickens' character writing, for which he is so famous. You lack the bare minimum cultural knowledge of European literature to have an opinion anyone takes seriously.

>>24889593
Dickens writes like a fag and his books are all retarded.

>>24889671
>In other words the same retarded shit plebs say about every great artist of the past.
>'If Beethoven were alive today, he'd be composing video game soundtracks!'
>'If Dante were alive today, he'd be writing fanfiction!'
except Beethoven famously *wouldn't* be composing vg soundtracks
and Dante *wouldn't* be writing fanfiction

how low IQ did you say you were, again?

>>24889671
Dickens would be writing EastEnders because he was, at heart, a populist storyteller who lived for the churn of serialized drama. His creative rhythm depended on weekly installments, cliffhangers, eccentric characters drawn in broad strokes, and socially conscious melodrama designed to keep huge audiences coming back. If you take that whole Victorian ecosystem of cheap periodicals, public readings, and mass appeal and translate it into today’s media landscape, you get exactly the world of long-running evening soaps. He wouldn’t resent it; he’d thrive in it, because serial fiction was his artistic home.

Beethoven, on the other hand, wouldn’t be composing video game soundtracks because he fundamentally refused to write music that served someone else’s architecture. Even when he technically wrote on commission, he pushed every form to its breaking point and insisted on music being the center of gravity rather than an accessory to a narrative, a visual, or a commercial product. The constraint of writing cues, loops, adaptive layers, and mood shifts on demand for someone else’s pacing would have driven him mad. He’d either try to reinvent game audio from scratch or walk away, but he wouldn’t quietly slot himself into a pipeline designed to subordinate the music to the gameplay.

And Dante absolutely would not be writing fanfic, not because he lacked the imagination, but because his whole project depended on the authority of creating a definitive cosmology rather than playing in someone else’s sandbox. He wasn’t remixing preexisting stories for fun; he was appropriating and reorganizing the entire classical and Christian universe to declare a final word on morality, politics, love, and salvation. Modern fanfic requires a posture of play, transformation, and shared ownership of the source. Dante wasn’t playing - he was legislating. He would have been writing his own towering mythos, not tagging himself onto another fandom’s canon.

>>24889651
I don't think it has some much to do with IQ but more with decreasing attention spans or, my theory, sensory overload with work emails, internet scrolling, text messages, etc. You could argue that's tied to IQ but I'd say it's just a lack of discipline and patience. Anecdotal, but when I was working long hours, which involved being in constant communication with numerous people, the last thing I wanted to do was read a verbose literature in an archaic format.

Dickens is great btw, not arguing against that.

>>24889700
>>24889700
>Dickens would be writing EastEnders because he was, at heart, a populist storyteller who lived for the churn of serialized drama.
Unbelievably moronic. Let's ignore the very obvious intellectual disparity between Dickens novels and EastEnders, which ends any debate over this retarded claim before it starts, but we can ignore it to make another point. It has been enormously common throughout history for artists and writers to draw from, or even start with popular forms of entertainment, and then intellectualise it. That in no way means that the creations of the artist or writer are therefore merely popular. This is all the more obvious with Dickens when, yes, he was influenced by things like melodrama, but he was also influenced by the great tradition of English literature. Furthermore, this whole opposition to serialisation is the result of no education on your part. Many of the greatest works of literature ever written were originally serialised, it's not a publication form that restricts or deflates intelligence. The whole test of an author in that form is if he can write so much while still maintaining high quality and unity, and authors like Dickens and Tolstoy undeniably succeeded in that. Many great architects and composers have written at the request of others, have had to churn out regular creations, and have often created towering artistic achievements doing so. Your whole cultural outlook is soaked and contaminated with unthinking notions of plebeian life. You're so stupid you don't even know how to think. Do you believe Beethoven had no melodic or formal precedents for his creations? He certainly had to work within the established forms of musical architecture. But he made it his own, just like Dickens. Some artists can work on the demand of others, some cannot. It's totally irrelevant to whether or not the artist can create works of genius.

There are so many obvious rebuttals to your claims and irrational conclusions and you can't think of them before you post. You should be ashamed of yourself for being this stupid. At the end of the day Dickens is infinitely more original than EastEnders and also more intelligent and masterful.

>>24889739
Your response is loud, but volume is not a substitute for accuracy. Declaring the debate over before it begins is not an argument. It is a theatrical gesture meant to disguise the fact that you are attacking a claim that was never made. No one said Dickens lacked intelligence or literary sophistication. The point was that his professional ecosystem was the direct ancestor of modern serial mass entertainment. Dickens was a master of weekly cliffhangers, sentimental highs and lows, sprawling interwoven storylines, and moral melodrama designed for a huge general audience. He wrote with commercial deadlines, audience feedback, and the rhythms of ongoing serial publication in mind. That is not a slight. It is a recognition of what he was brilliant at. Pointing out that EastEnders lives inside the exact same storytelling DNA is not an insult to Dickens. It is a recognition that he helped invent that narrative mode. Pretending that Dickens would never work in a popular serial form today simply because you dislike soap operas is not an argument. It is aesthetic snobbery dressed up as outrage.

Your Beethoven objection is equally off target. Yes, every composer has predecessors. Yes, many composers worked under patronage or on commission. That is not the issue. Beethoven spent his career pushing against the constraints of functional music. When he accepted commissions, he reshaped the work to suit his own sense of absolute musical purpose. He repeatedly resisted the role of a compliant craftsman who wrote to external demands. The entire development of his middle and late style demonstrates an increasingly fierce independence. Game soundtracks require submission to the architecture of someone else’s pacing, scene structure, and interactive mechanics. Beethoven’s surviving letters and compositional behavior point again and again to a personality that refused to let non musical requirements dictate musical form. The question is not whether a great artist can work on demand. The question is whether Beethoven in particular would willingly tailor his output to serve as background loops for a commercial product. All evidence suggests he would not.

As for your tone, it is remarkable that you accuse others of ignorance while relying on insult as your primary structure of reasoning. You attack points no one made, then congratulate yourself for refuting them. You insist that Dickens is superior to EastEnders, which is obvious, but superiority has nothing to do with the argument. Dickens would write in a serial melodramatic medium today because that is the exact environment in which he excelled historically. Beethoven would not compose game soundtracks because his career was defined by an escalating rejection of functional constraints. Your fury does not rescue your logic from the holes in it, and your disdain does not substitute for evidence. The points stand whether you shout at them or not.

lit niggas will circlejerk over the recognitions and its 50-page party scene but dickens is "too much"

>>24889673
Shut up, Thackeray.

>>24889593
People's tastes change over time. I mean a lot of the luster that Shakespeare once had has disappeared in the modern era, but it might return in a 100 years.
Who knows, people might be really into Charles Dickens in 50 years. You can never predict the zeitgeist.

>>24889744
>Pretending that Dickens would never work in a popular serial form today simply because you dislike soap operas is not an argument. It is aesthetic snobbery dressed up as outrage.
Lol, I did not say Dickens would never work in a popular serial form today, I said he would not be writing slop for television. Is it 'aesthetic snobbery' to recognise the enormous intellectual disparity between a Dickens novel and crappy 21st television? Is it 'aesthetic snobbery' to recognise that that would either be impossible for someone of Dickens' intelligence or involve an enormous decline of his mental life? This is just obvious. Again, you seem deprived of all awareness of Dickens' value as a writer and why he is so highly rated, since you only insist on the popular side of his writing and audience, not the fact that he felt himself to be an heir to the great English literary culture and writing also for the audience which occupies itself with that culture.

>The question is whether Beethoven in particular would willingly tailor his output to serve as background loops for a commercial product. All evidence suggests he would not.
And in the same way Dickens would not let himself be forced to write for a crappy tv show of such unoriginality. Your critiquing Dickens for his influences is really exactly tantamount to critiquing Beethoven for inheriting the musical structures of Haydn. It's just as ignorant of the genius with which he used them and made them his own.

>Dickens would write in a serial melodramatic medium today because that is the exact environment in which he excelled historically.
Lol, you've changed your argument from 'Dickens would write Eastenders' to 'Dickens would write for a serial melodramatic medium', since you had to admit that, obviously, Dickens is more intelligent than Eastenders. You've conceded your entire argument. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally dishonest or you're just too stupid to be aware of what you're saying. I already said that I'm not denying that Dickens would write for a 'serial melodramatic medium', because that's literally what he wrote for, yet you keep insisting that's what I'm disagreeing with. Very sad attempt at winning a battle no one is fighting. But in your new claim there is still a moronic logical jump involved. There is an entire world of difference between what Eastenders is doing and what Dickens was doing, to throw it under one roof as 'serial melodramatic medium' is nonsense and makes it sound like you've never read Dickens or any other novelist from the era. Did Eastenders revolutionise anything about its medium? Did it reach the peaks of its artform? We all know the answer is no. Again, your whole argument is moronic and you deserve to be insulted for it.

>>24889651
Nothing about Dickens is genius. You're just retarded. Read Sartor Resartus by Carlyle if you want to see how good 19th century prose is written. Or Thomas Browne if you want something more antique. Dickens was a shit stylist and you're doing mental gymnastics to try and justify that.

>>24889816
Dickens worsened the novel. Not revolutionize it, retard. Cue your 1000 word essay indicating your retardation

>>24889604
Certified kino. Couldn't stop reading that even with shit formatting. What a great hand for atmosphere, established with a few jots. Utterly filtered.
>inb4 but I said "inb4 filtered"!!!
filtered.

>>24889700
>He wasn’t remixing preexisting stories for fun; he was appropriating and reorganizing the entire classical and Christian universe to declare a final word on morality, politics, love, and salvation
Then he would be writing tails gets trolled

>>24889651
Sensibilities have just changed. It's such an incredibly immature perspective to attribute everything to "low IQ."

You live in postmodernity, some would say beyond postmodern even. All things are swift, all things are functional; art is increasingly reflective, more disjointed, less focused on realistic specifics and detailed portrayals or the gradual development of ordinary life, instead emphasizing the complexities of the human psyche and the multiple layers of social interactions and material circumstances. A modern reader of course is less drawn to something that outdated in its approach to storytelling and the society it portrays.

>>24889828
Thomas Carlyle, who was so inspired by A Christmas Carol as to send for a turkey and invite people in from the street to enjoy it with him. The same author that was an enormous influence on the prose style of Dickens... Again, you display an unbelievable lack of knowledge about Dickens, as if you've never read him. I suppose you must have tried to read him at one point and found yourself too stupid to continue for very long, it's the only explanation at once for both your ignorance of him and your resentment towards him.

>>24889832
Edgy contrarian take with no argument, I'm sure you'll convince many people of your literary judgements.

>>24889847
You're retarded and Dickens was shit

File: greattradition.png (162 KB, 789x535)

162 KB PNG

>>24889828
Carlyle and Dickens are both great stylists, only Carlyle is easier to get into and more immediately fun for modern ADHD readers like you and me. but at any rate, simply asserting who's good and who's bad is the lowest form of posting, so i'll do the second lowest form of posting and rely on the authority of FR Leavis.

>>24889841
Great works of literature don't become 'outdated'. Genius will always possess its attraction to the intelligent person who makes the minimal effort required to understand foreign eras and cultures. Because the value and insight gained, both of that historical period and of a great creative mind more generally speaking, is always going to outweigh the difficulty of adjusting yourself to outdated tastes. It's the reason we still read Aeschylus and Shakespeare, authors that I have no difficulty in pronouncing infinitely superior to any living writer. You don't seem to be aware that we're living in a cultural dark age with less great writing than ever before. Dickens gets closer to the eternal experiences and feelings of humans than any 'postmodern' author.

>>24889841
You're talking to a low IQ person. This retard thinks writing verbose telenovelas is equivalent to creating art. The amount of mental gymnastics dickensfags have to do to think he created art would get you a medal in the olympics, or more accurately in the paralympics.

>>24889859
Lol.
Carlyle is easier to get into than Dickens? Dickens is dead and buried. Take his cock out of your mouth, delusional retard.
>>24889860
Dickens was no genius. Just because you think that his trashy telenovelas are still good doesn't mean we have to relent.

>>24889859
>posts an irrelevant and shit critic who liked soap operas.

>>24889861
>>24889868
>>24889870
Lmao, entire argument is 'popular literature can't be great literature'. Embarrassing lack of knowledge of Western canon and 19th century culture. I mean, at least be consistent, come out and say that Tolstoy is shit because War and Peace and Anna Karenina were written in serial form.

>>24889604
>We just don't need all this random information at all moments
So many who come here very obviously don't like reading.

>>24889877
>strawmanning
Learn to read, retard. Dickens isn't popular like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. He is a writer of period pieces, closer to writers like Fenimore cooper than either of the other two.

>>24889868
>Lol.
>Carlyle is easier to get into than Dickens?
i mean yeah, wasn't that the case for you too? it's easier for a modern reader to see where the appeal lies when a maniacally funny Scottish guy is taking you on a Storm-und-Drang haunted house ride surrounded by titans and demons than when a measured, wry, affable man-of-the-world is asking to attend to the domestic worries of a lower-middle-class shopkeeper.

>>24889870
>critic who liked soap operas
something tells me you haven't read much Leavis.

File: tolstoy-portrait-web.jpg (292 KB, 618x725)

292 KB JPG

>>24889891
>I think that Charles Dickens is the greatest novel writer of the 19th century, and that his works, impressed with the true Christian spirit, have done and will continue to do a great deal of good to mankind
- Tolstoy, 1904

>>24889905
He famously had shit taste

>>24889868
If you ever tried to write anything and if you knew what art was you would quickly realize Dickens actually was a genius. Literally no one else could do what he did and no one has been able to since. People think that if some philosophy isn't grafted onto a story then it lacks artistic merit while in fact the opposite is true.

>>24889860
A GENERAL audience will always find old art oudated, retard. The common peasant from the 1800s wasn't reading Shakespeare either.

>>24889593
Dickens is quintessential normalfag literature. There is nothing provocative or rebellious about him. His books are long and his morals are widely accepted. The type of person who reads him doesn't come here. /lit/ is for the young and discontent, Dickens is for the old and tranquil.

>>24889930
>Literally no one else could do what he did and no one has been able to since.
Lol. You're so insanely retarded you have deluded yourself into thinking that Dickens did anything radical. Stop being such a kiss ass
>People think that if some philosophy isn't grafted onto a story then it lacks artistic merit while in fact the opposite is true.
You sound like a midwit. If you actually read good literature instead of wasting time with shitty soap operas, you'd know that nearly all great literature since the 20th century has primarily been aesthetic. But those writers are good for real, unlike Dickens, so philosophy can still be extracted from them. That's why a writer like Joyce is better than Nabokov, and Nabokov is a far better example of philosophy-less aestheticism than Dickens would ever be to the non-deluded.

>>24889905
>1904
Tolstoy's opinions after he turned schizo don't count

>>24889962
>Dickens is quintessential normalfag literature. There is nothing provocative or rebellious about him. His books are long and his morals are widely accepted.
Unless you're a retard who has only read 19th century telenovelas and thinks they are the limits of the world.

File: worldwont.png (1.34 MB, 1000x991)

1.34 MB PNG

>>24889962
there's something about this way of viewing literature that seems deeply, tragically wrong to me, and it seems characteristic too of the general waywardness of this board. if i hadn't just finished my shift and was feeling more lucid i'd try to articulate why. but, too briefly and too pretentiously, i'll just say that, reading Dickens, i've felt the exact same chilling night-breeze sensation of 'suddenly glimpsing it', of contact with the Outside lying beyond the petty-contemporary, as i have when reading, say, Beckett or Bataille or Kafka's Amerika (a book he wrote after obsessing over Dickens).

>>24889604
I tend to read English books in translation but I guess I'll read Dickens in English now. This is kino

>>24889989
>soulless prosefag
Welp, that explains it. Your greats could neither tell a story nor write poetry so settled for inane concoction in the middle and padded it up with gimmicks.

>>24890008
You're retarded and insecure and shit at writing. Just like your idol.

>>24889593
He says abject poverty is bad and that rich fucks have no moral center so chuddies cry and denounce him as an enemy of antisemitic hypercapitalism.

>>24889993
Smart people call that delusion and idol worship.
The sheer, palpable hilarity of you pretending to be an aesthete while pretentiously waffling over a writer like Dickens.

File: william-hogarth-finis-on-(...).jpg (914 KB, 1400x1323)

914 KB JPG

>>24890020
bear in mind i'm also gone off an edible.

more like DickHims cause this guy was a fag

>>24890012
Projecting because you're emotionally invested in something utterly false. I'll stop being now but remember I tried to help.

>>24889651
People like this guy >>24889604 are now the norm.
>* 58 percent (49 of 85 subjects) understood so little of the introduction to Bleak House that they would not be able to read the novel on their own. However, these same subjects (defined in the study as problematic readers) also believed they would have no problem reading the rest of the 900-page novel.
>* 38 percent (or 32 of the 85 subjects) could understand more vocabulary and figures of speech than the problematic readers. These competent readers, however, could interpret only about half of the literal prose in the passage.
>* Only 5 percent (4 of the 85 subjects) had a detailed, literal understanding of the first paragraphs of Bleak House.
>These are college students majoring in English.
There's no "probably" here. These people can't read Dickens. Add to this most of these guys are chuds who idolise billionaires and Dickens was a heavy critic of industrialization.

>>24890045
>you're emotionally invested in something utterly false
>projecting
The fucking irony lol

File: Beer-street-and-Gin-lane.jpg (403 KB, 1200x716)

403 KB JPG

>>24890033
reading this in the voice of an 19th century irish ancestor of nick from cum town

File: James_Joyce_by_Alex_Ehren(...).jpg (778 KB, 855x1297)

778 KB JPG

>Joyce was set, two essays to be written in Italian…one on Dickens. It was Dickens’s centennial year, but Joyce’s celebration of a writer to whom he felt little akin was reserved. He allowed Dickens’s distinction as being second only to Shakespeare in his influence upon the spoken language. On the other hand, while admitting ‘creative fury,’ he regretted a deficiency in art. As to Dickens’s touted ‘greatness of the soul,’ Joyce said the compliment was just as misguided as was the accusation of ‘claptrap.’ The brief essay ended with a suggestion that Thackeray was the superior writer.

>>24890060
Is this also a fuckup? fucking retard

>>24889833
KEK! Got’em

>>24889604
...this is overly verbose? Dude, my brain has been fried by dopamine these last few weeks thanks to the abortion that is social media and even I didn't find this boring. It's comfy and sets the atmosphere. I should've bought bleak house when I saw it at the bookstore last week

>>24890050
what are you quoting?

>>24889847
authors can admire people who are less talented than them, you know. it's not contradictory to think (for example) that faulkner is better than tolstoy even if faulkner himself thought otherwise

>>24890063
Another trvke from the eternal goat of prose

>>24889593
History isn't taught, single countries' or the course of Western Civilization's intellectual and cultural thrust either. That trickles down to literature in the 80s as the vanguard of Cold War infiltration of universities, and now Dickens may as well be Kipling for illicit anti-colonianalist purposes.

>>24889593
>>24889604
... yet hardly 'purple'-- it's perfect for narration, reading aloud (audiobooks today).

>>24889651
>description /=/ explanation /=/ explication

Contemporary readers are stuck on observation and anything making demands on spatio-visual conception in lines of thought are going to be significant obstacles to the brainrotted.

>>24889816
Film/Television's most of the way there to something like the revival of the status of Theatre (even painting and poetry) towards what Wagner aimed at. There's an embarrassment of riches in mediums to work in, diluting talent in the traditional forms. Dickens would certainly have done well as a screenwriter today, perhaps even better than as a novelist in his own day.

Dickens is anti-wanker literature. Urbanite wankers don't think he's cool like all those French faggots and jews they gravitate towards so they don't read him.

I have no interest in Victorian literature

>>24890468
So fvarking keyed...

>>24890422
Dickens was the better writer. Dickens wrote to the hearts of men while Joyce captured only his own enfeebled mind. Yes he projected it onto others, convincingly to some, but any serious person knows an artist's job is to pluck the gems from consciousness rather than dumping it wholesale onto the canvas. His spiritual conflicts are no more compelling than a man struggling over what to have for breakfast.

Jfc, I didn't realize Dickens was such a controversial author here. Then again, this place does have a habit of devolving into a contrarian edgelord perspective when given the smallest of opportunities.

>>24890487
all parts of consciousness and every spiritual conflict, no matter how trite and mundane, are beautiful. i think the disagreement here is fundamentally unresolvable but i'm glad you enjoy your dickens :)

>>24890464
Oh, and genresloppers don't have souls, so they don't read him either.

Les Frères Lumière happened, anon. Cinema.

>>24890050
I wouldnt say Dickens is overly verbose, no moreso than the average Victorian author, but he does think he's more clever than he actually is. His jokes, asides, and references are all pretty awful and flaunted proudly front and center. Subtlety was not his strong suit. Like your Bleak House study, even if those retards understood that the whole prehistoric dinosaur reference was not literal, I dont think it would ever elicit a chuckle from a modern reader. As someone who likes 19th century literature, I cant stand Dickens. I'd much rather take a gamble and read some forgotten tale from that era written by a nobody than give Great Expectations or Oliver Twist a chance.

>>24889604
you've taken one of his longest if not his longest book to make your point. try a more compact book like tale of two cities. there is little to complain about there in this respect

>>24889651
>they demand books suit THEIR idea of quality
Compare old bible verses to the new translations. It is Emily Wilson all over again. In fact, imagine Emily Wilson translating Dickens into American in 2025. I’m sure a ai could replicate it well enough. Ghastly.

File: pickwick.jpg (368 KB, 955x1000)

368 KB JPG

>>24889593
I don't know.
This >>24889604 faggot is retarded.
Dickens is an absolute joy to read. The best light reading available, for my money. Nearly every sentence has a punchline no matter how grim the subject. Simply delightful.

File: john browdie.jpg (281 KB, 1024x819)

281 KB JPG

>>24890459
Good post.

>>24889593
He's the equivalent of discussing Spielberg on /tv/.

>>24889593
I have always been curious what would happen if disaffected young men (or men generally) had discovered Dickens instead of Dostoevsky.

And The Pickwick Papers is my favorite book and i wish more people read it. It is, essentially, Dickens making fun of redditors. And the stories with in the story are such a great example of a young creative genius exploring different storytelling methods.

>>24889593
everybody likes him and knows he was really good, he's not contrarian or obscure enough

>>24890883
>I have always been curious what would happen if disaffected young men (or men generally) had discovered Dickens instead of Dostoevsky.
That would have been great. Hilarious to consider, really.

>>24889905
Nice to see a fellow Dickenschad casually rape an anti-Dickens lobotomite with a single quote. Very cool anon.

>>24890487
Shut the fuck up, retard.

>>24890508
You're talking to a retarded person. Like this retard genuinely thinks that writing 19th century telenovela is the height of art lol. As if all the other writers are in the small leagues lol. It's Dickens who is a small writer and probably the most overrated in the last 300 years

>>24889651
As opposed to suiting YOUR ridiculously low iq idea of quality? Dickens wasn't great even for his time. He successfully defrauded his way to literary fame by appealing to 19th century sensibilities. Now today a sect of hopelessly stupid anti-intellectual midwits won't let him go out of vogue, because then they'll have to acknowledge that literature can be so much more, and they don't have the intelligence for that.

>>24890487
Holy shit you're so cringe lol. You don't sound smart like you so desperately want to. You sound like a poser which is ironically in keeping with your shilling for dickens.

Looks like some jeets have logged in

>>24889651
I feel like trying to blame it on IQ or attention span is low effort bait. Look at Jane Austen who wrote in even more archaic prose than Dickens. Yes if anyone today were to read Sense and Sensibility they might have to reread passages to understand how vocabulary and sentence structure was back in the day, however, every paragraph is mostly stripped to the bare essentials, with only a little fat for humor and wit. She is a much more pleasant read than Dickens who can be all over the place at times

>>24889593

Love Dickens - multiple lovely novels, top prose, good jokes. I like the big rambling books like Bleak House and the tighter adventures like Two Cities, and a Christmas Carol is just pure pleasure. Why doesn't /mu/ have a daily specialist Scarlatti thread? Who cares, enjoy the music

>>24890977
Checked, this is it. There's nothing to argue about, and unlike Dostoevsky there's no pretentious moralising (though Dickens does moralise) or literally meism to post about. The best you can get is lamenting that Carlyle isn't more lauded.

>>24889660
No one thinks Dickens would be writing soap operas, except some retarded magazine with an audience made of retards (like (you)). Just because his books were serialised doesn't somehow make his creative process remotely similar to that of a soap writers'. Seconding the other anon's statement, you're the kind of person who sees someone accomplishing great things in the the past and projects their own mediocrity onto them because muh modernity has gotten you down.
Unrelated, but I bet you believe comicbooks and videogames and cartoons are highart.

>>24889700
>videogamespeak
Yeah, just what I thought.

>>24889651
They hated him because he told the truth. This is objectively the factual explanation for Dickens falling out of popularity. There was a study done where English majors had to read to opening few paragraphs of Bleak House and explain what happened, and most of them couldn't do it; these people thought it was about a first person narrator walking past a live dinosaur. The sad fact of the matter is that the average modern reader has less reading comprehension than the illiterate factory workers who used to gather to hear these stories read aloud. They literally can't grasp the basic English words on the page, so like the fox and the grapes they just say it was probably bad anyway.

>>24891227
>han Dickens who can be all over the place at times
>this
I get up at 6:00 AM for work, in the moments I get to read I want to ponder some of life's fucking mysteries instead of dilly dally around the page. Rather read Hamlet in a more archaic prose:

“No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with modesty enough and likelihood to lead it, as thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust, the dust is earth, of earth we make loam, and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel?”