All Adaptations of Dickens’ ‘David Copperfield’

David_Copperfield_(1935_film)_poster.jpg

(poster for 1935 Hollywood version)

This is a list of all filmic David Copperfield adaptations I’m aware of. I’ve omitted stage and radio productions, but am very interested in any information you have on these, and may at some point start to look at them as well. Please comment if you know any more television or film adaptations! I suspect the list may not be very complete outside the Anglosphere.

David-Copperfield-Bartholomew.jpg

(still from 1935 Hollywood version)

Some notes:

  • There are three productions for children, including two animated versions, one of which departs radically from the plot. Two of these cut Uriah Heep.
  • There are five BBC miniseries.
  • There are eight tv miniseries, counting BBC offerings and not counting television films.
  • Not one version double-casts Uriah, though we meet him when he’s about 15 to David’s 11 (and Steerforth’s 17) and “Explosion”/the climax of the novel comes when David’s roughly 23 to Uriah’s 27 (based on Molly Katz’s timeline). At least four double-cast Steerforth (it is sometimes difficult to determine and a child actor is more likely to be ambiguously or uncredited), while the rest that include him rely on a youthful actor. Only two I can think of could be said to have a youthful Uriah: Italian 1965 and the BBC 1974 (this one reads as perhaps mid-20s throughout rather than 15). 1999 DC Uriah’s actor was 38 and 2000 DC actor’s Uriah was 33.  Italian 1965 Uriah’s actor was 30. As happens today, working-class Victorians were subjected to a variety of physical hardships that could indeed appear to age them more rapidly than their better-off contemporaries. David initially thinks Uriah older than 15, but he’s a child looking up at an older boy, and there’s a world of difference between a teenager looking old for his years and one actually being played by a 35 year old.
  • All other adaptations persistently age Uriah up to perhaps his 30s, which visually locates the problem with his desire to marry Agnes in his age rather than his class. If he looks 35 when David and Agnes are about 11, even if he still somehow looks 35 when David and Agnes are in their early 20s, a relative age has been conceptually established that does not permit the modern viewer to treat the prospect of their union as reasonable. Consider for example Austen adaptations, which almost uniformly ‘soften’ the canonical age differences between Brandon and Marianne and between Emma and Elton for a modern audience via casting, rendering Georgian marriage practices and stories concerning them acceptable to contemporary viewers. A union between Uriah and Agnes thus becomes not a problem of class and (to the extent you can separate these elements) personality, as in the novel, but of age and personality (even if age is not explicit mentioned as an issue: we have been visually cued). Class is elided in this formulation, as are the ‘there but for the grace of god’ parallels between David, Uriah and Steerforth.
  • There are six foreign language productions (counting the silent Danish version with cards). Only one (Brazil 1958) adaptation seems to have been made outside of either Europe or the Anglosphere.
  • None of them that I’ve seen seem interested in ‘Easter Egg’ nodding to other Dickens’ productions, one another, the events of the period or those of Dickens’ life. I could be wrong here! This is a casual observation.
  • All of them go with ‘David Copperfield’ as their title (unless they’ve been listed wrong where I grabbed them), choosing to use no other elements of the actual book title (The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)) (or of the 14 variant titles Dickens employed).
  • I’ll probably use this page to link to reviews of all of these as I work (it may be some time before I’m done).

Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 19.41.01.png

Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 19.41.36.png

Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 19.47.08.png

Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 19.46.03.png

Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 19.44.56.png

David and the only even slightly age-correct Uriah (possibly still a little too old-looking for 15?), Italian 1965 version

For comparison: Young Bruce in the very Dickensian Gotham, as played by 15 year old David Masouz.

Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 21.38.01.png

Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 21.37.50.png

Title (year and medium), national origin, adult actor for David if known, any other identifying information

  1. David Copperfield, consisting of ‘The Early Life of David Copperfield’, ‘Little Em’ly and David Copperfield’ and ‘The Loves of David Copperfield’, (1911 film) American, Ed Genung, 3 reels, black and white, first non-British version, probably no Uriah and possibly no Steerforth
  2. David Copperfield (1913 film) British, Len Bethel, silent, a contender for the title of first British feature film, black and white
  3. David Copperfield (1922 film) Danish, Gorm Schmidt, silent, black and white, first non-Anglosphere version, possibly no Steerforth or Emily
  4. David Copperfield (1935 film) American, Frank Lawton, Hollywood, black and white
  5. David Copperfield (1954 two-part television film? unsure) American, David Cole, black and white, possibly no Steerforth or Emily
  6. David Copperfield (1956 tv miniseries) British, Robert Hardy, BBC: first BBC miniseries, black and white
  7. David Copperfield (1958 tv miniseries), Brazilian?, Márcio Trunkl, first and only  non-continental/Anglosphere version (if indeed Brazilian), black and white
  8. David Copperfield (1965) tv miniseries) Italian, Giancarlo Giannini, black and white, watch here, filmed like “The Leopard”, very interesting, two Steerforths
  9. David Copperfield (1965 tv miniseries) French, Bernard Verley, Uriah written out of plot, ‘Le théâtre de la jeunesse’ suggests possibly for children which would make it the first children’s production, black and white
  10. David Copperfield (1966 tv miniseries) British, Ian McKellen, BBC: second BBC miniseries, black and white
  11. David Copperfield (1969 television film) British-American, Robin Phillips, first colour production (assume colour from here on out unless indicated), two Steerforths
  12. David Copperfield (1969 tv miniseries) Spanish, Paco Valladares, black and white
  13. David Copperfield (1970 tv film) British, Robin Phillips, two Steerforths
  14. David Copperfield (1974 tv miniseries) British, David Yelland, BBC: third BBC miniseries
  15. David Copperfield (1983 animated film) Australian, unclear, second production for children
  16. David Copperfield (1986 tv miniseries) British, Colin Hurley, BBC: fourth BBC miniseries, Simon Callow as Micawber (which is interesting because Callow has a good line in playing Dickens, so playing a character based off Dickens’ dad makes sense for him)
  17. David Copperfield (1993 animated musical film) American, Julian Lennon, no Uriah, Emily or Steerforth: in fact the crackiest plot changes you could possibly imagine, third production for children, watch here.                                                                                          Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 18.28.25.png

    Clara Copperfield looking as confused as I am.

              Screen Shot 2017-02-25 at 18.28.41.png            Char_12641.jpg

Murdstone looking like a budget Ratigan (I suspect this film’s entire planning meeting was  someone saying ‘like Great Mouse Detective, but awful’).

18. David Copperfield (1999 tv series) British, Ciarán McMenamin, BBC: fifth and currently final BBC miniseries, child David is Daniel Radcliffe–this is the role that got him cast as Harry Potter, two Steerforths
19. David Copperfield (2000 long tv film) Irish-American, Hugh Dancy, not good
20. David Copperfield
(2009 long tv film) Italian, Giorgio Pasotti
21. David Copperfield (2018 treatment, STILL IN DEVELOPMENT), British

UPDATE:

Per the Dickens Fellowship: “Presumably you have seen Dickens Dramatized by H Philip Bolton. Lists 2 DC films in 1912.”

Village (game review)

There’s a stack of games in our house we’ve said at some point or another that we’re probably going to sell. But before we do, I force us to play one or two more times to be sure we’re not making a terrible mistake and to try to think through why we didn’t enjoy the experience (if that’s still the case). THESE… are our stories.

pic2760568.jpg

Village is the best game we’re getting rid of in this great clearing-out effort. In some ways it’s reminiscent of several games I really like: you have a lot of in-play move options and there are several ways to score. The theme is strong and organic, affecting all the choices you can make (Though I’m not entirely sure why we’re scoring our family of villagers—perhaps it’s about the family’s prosperity over time? Ah well.). You’re never unclear on the connections between the mechanical operations and the gestalt game concept. It’s not narrative, precisely, but it’s cogent and satisfying. (The only time this strong theming is a little silly is when someone dies shortly after completing their apparent life’s work: making a single wagon. Geez, that took a lot out of you. Wheelwrights have it hard.) There are a lot of bits and bobs to keep track of, but the play experience is well-designed, and I don’t find Village clumsy to interact with. This detailed review will give you information on the actual rule system, if you want that.

So why are we getting rid of what is in many ways an appealing game? Well, for a start I dislike that we’re not building anything substantive as we play. I suppose theoretically you’re building the prosperity of the Redmeeple clan or what have you over the generations, but mostly you’re scattering meeples, collecting resources, killing off meeples like this is Small World on a micro scale, etc. etc. I don’t really know terms, but my partner says this is a worker placement game, and that she’s not sure that we like that type as much as some others.

I do know that I prefer London or Rokoko, where I feel I’m building a city/suite of dresses and deck. Village also feels slightly like Castles of Burgundy to me. I think this sense of similarity derives from the shared ‘range of actions/build a thing within a board environment’ aspect of these games, but again, all of those do have some ‘grow your x’ element that doesn’t slip away from you. I suppose your placed meeples in Village are a little like that, seeing as they retain their capabilities and/or position from round to round as long as they live, but then they keep bloody dying on you. I know it’s silly, but I’d rather not kill off my meeples: I’m instinctively a creature-coddling rather than raw tactics sort of Magic the Gathering player (though oddly in Magic I’m decent at killing my darlings). I do think I’d like this game better if it didn’t mechanically demand meepledeath, both for resource accumulation and for dumb, subterranean sentimental reasons.

I don’t ONLY like games that let you build a tableaux or whatnot, but my mind codes Village as a somewhat broken example of the breed rather than, for example, a resources-and-goals game like Takenoko.

In terms of mechanics, I do think Village has a couple of weak points that aren’t wholly located it its not being what I want it to be. I don’t think the market works all that well. Everyone should be trying to keep a green cube in readiness against the coming of a market, and some of the goods that are due to come up in trade deals (you can see these deals approaching down the pipeline) on hand (though we never get through all that many deals). However given the rather tight resources of this game, this chafes a bit. You need everything: you can’t just have green cubes and wagons lying around in case. And if someone nabs the thing you’ve also been working towards, for you’re pretty SOL. (We’ve tended to neglect the market in previous games.)

I also find traveling too much of a resource-burden. It’s important to do because it gets you resources and a significant amount of points, but you need two or three cubes (so that’s two or three goes speny in acquiring them), another to make the necessary wagon (or two turns to acquire wagon components and another to play them), and then to take a turn to travel—and none of this is factoring in the DEATH CLOCK and meeple-degradation these steps entail. Everything is a damn ordeal in this game, and it makes Village feel a little chorish rather than gamiesh at points for me.

Village can be played with two, but it flows much better with more players. It’s a fairly pleasant game for three, but we’re largely looking for games that scale more elegantly between two to more. Since our household has only two to three people at a given time (barring guests), we really only want to give space to three player games we love rather than ones we ‘oh.’ It sounds dumb, but cheap and cheerful, tiny two-player card-games get more leeway from me than this great, bulky, travel-unfriendly space-hog of a box (on par with Diplomacy, Discworld and Rokoko) that comes at a fairly substantial price-point. If Through the Ages can be confined to a respectably shelf-deep box without overhang, why not this?

I find the art annoying. Why is the score track so much sharper than the images, which seem out of focus? Why do these villagers all look misshapen? Is that dude in front of the town hall sitting on a step or standing? Why is that even a judgment call? Why do my eyes hurt a little looking at this board, like its resolution is poor? Is this a printing thing?

Lastly, and wow this is petty, I weirdly suck at Village. My partner wins every time we play scherzo, and it’s not that fun for either of us. I did much better in tonight’s three-way game. My typical move is to work the town hall and to play significantly into the church, neglecting travel and marketing to do so. This time I reversed that and did better. I was also way more kill-happy.

I feel I could get better at Village if I varied my choices a little, which is to its credit: I like games where you can experiment with play styles, learn and grow. My favourite games I still don’t feel I play perfectly: there are more facets I’ve yet to really exploit, and I can sense that there are strategies I’ve yet to develop.

Ultimately Village suffers a little due to things outside its control. It it has a high trading value on BGG, making it prime swapping material, and it’s kind of reminiscent of many other games we have (but is somewhat less pleasing than these).

VERDICT: out the door in favour of Thurn und Taxis

‘Le Havre: The Inland Port’ Review

There’s a stack of games in our house we’ve said at some point or another that we’re probably going to sell. But before we do, I force us to play one or two more times to be sure we’re not making a terrible mistake and to try to think through why we didn’t enjoy the experience (if that’s still the case). THESE… are our stories.

pic1451680.jpg

I have’t played Le Havre proper, but Le Havre: The Inland Port is, as I understand it, a short-form spin-off thereof. You’re collecting four resources on a funky little chart (which I actually kind of like—it adds a spatial thinking dimension to play) to get buildings that count as money, and that can also make you more resources and money. Once again we have a double-barrelled, awkward-exhcange-at-the-end-of-the-game resources and money system wherein ultimately only money counts (capital is truly inescapable, etc).

The course of the game is marked and controlled by a slightly confusing little sundial thing that goes around twice (sunrise, sunset!). The way this movement and the passage of time alters and controls how powerful various buildings are is fairly elegant, and I like that you get more moves as you yourself grow more powerful (as you attain more resources and buildings to make use of).

However the number of turns you play, the transitions between rounds and the number of rounds all feel somewhat arbitrary and confusing. I have to rely on my partner to tell me when to move the dial. It’s not that it’s hard to figure out where we are once I’ve counted up the number of turns we’ve had this round: it’s more that my attention wanders here. I have to make an effort to remember where we are.

This may be because the theme is *real* minimal. Some people think theme is decoration, but it’s an integral part of the game-mechanic and play experience. If the theme here was more interesting and integrated into the overall game, the narrative would make it obvious where we were at a given moment due to causal structures, or the game would keep me sufficiently interested and hooked in that I’d be calculating my next moves and hyper-aware of the limitations thereupon. Theme is not window-dressing, it is narrative and highly determinative of whether a game works/is enjoyable. Apparently I’m building some shit out of corn, fish, wood or clay. Maybe, nominally, I’m paying workers with this smoked fish or whatever, but how they they erect a building on the strength of that alone, sans wood, is a mystery to me. And why does this inland port have largely Srs Business structures and then shit like a zoo? Why this super-expensive consulate??

Along these lines, the art is bare-bones. The yellow square is bread or grain, I think? But it might as well be cured pork (The Inland Pork). People on Board Game Geek are EASY for game art, I’ll tell you that. I think they’d describe a kid’s finger painting like a William Morris print. ‘Intricate! I wept tears at its sublime beauty!’ No offence mate but some Eurogames are a step or two up from clip art? Few are Truly Fugly, but aesthetics are not that well-represented in this genre for. no. reason. Again, artists are CHEAP. Why I don’t have a full-on Pre-Raphaelite lookin’ Arthuriana game on my shelves I cannot say.

The sun dials are nice, but can get fiddly when you have too many buildings in one slot (and you will). If you stack or overlap these your partner can’t see them to use them, and that would interfere with a significant part of the game (late game especially is all about the building-renting). Always craning over to see your partner across the table’s wee businesses is a bit of a drag as-is—I often forget to do it, and thus don’t fully utilise all my opportunities.

Despite this ‘pay the other person one coin to use their building’ mechanism and some competition for buildings, it feels like there’s not much interaction between players. With a two-player you want a little more, unless you’re essentially playing a long, involving game like Through the Ages in which you’re alone with your civilisation except for how there happen to be other people there who sometimes take shit from the card row. (I know there’s a war mechanic in Ages, but it has always seemed a vast waste of time. ‘The only way to win is not to play!!’)

Strategy is a bit unclear in LH:IP. I think by playing it a few more times I could try a few ‘focuses’ /goals and see what happened, but then my partner and I already ended up with more coins than the game provided as-was. I won with 234 to her 233, and at one point a 20p piece had to come into circulation. If we did much better we’d have to raid the piggy bank. I’d be a little interested in optimising my play, but it’d be a numbers game in a sense, rather than a more meaningful strategic choice.

I *quite like* that spatial thinking element of the funky board though. I’d play something else with a similar mechanic for sure.

There are less clunky designed, more engaging quick and medium length two-player Eurogames out there (and on our own shelves), and Le Havre isn’t a port we travel to often. We’ve decided to swap it for Eight Minute Empire, which I’m looking forward to trying.

…also ‘Inland Port’ sounds silly do they mean river connected like London or…

David Copperfield: Timeline of Events

(This has been compiled and written by Molly Katz, a PhD student at Cornell. I provided only some light consulting, but we wanted to share it here as she doesn’t have a blog suited to the purpose.)

David Copperfield Timeline of Events:

All dates are based on the assumption that David is born in 1820, somewhat arbitrarily following Robert Graves in The Real David Copperfield. The ‘logical’ birth year for David is clearly 1812, Dickens’ own birth year. Graves may have used the construction of Pentonville Prison as his justification for locating David’s birth later than this. The main events of David Copperfield span 26 years, which would set David’s visit to a prison modeled on Pentonville in 1838 too early, as Pentonville opened in 1842.

Nevertheless, David stays at the Golden Cross during a visit to London. Graves’ birthdate would place this trip during 1838. According to the Penguin edition of the book, however, “Trafalgar Square was laid out between 1830 and 1841 (on the site of the King’s Mews): the Golden Cross, demolished 1827, was a famous coaching inn, the old Charing Cross (demolished 1647).” This would shift all the events of the book significantly earlier than the dates below, and support 1812 for David’s birth year.

Ultimately, given these contradictory historical benchmarks, the main value of this timeline lies in its internal consistency, NOT in its potential to align the events of David Copperfield with historical events of the Victorian period.

1770: Dr. Strong born
1780: David Copperfield Sr. born
1800: Clara Copperfield born
1807: Miss Larkins born
1811: Janet born
1812: Annie born
~1814: Steerforth born (“at least half a dozen years my senior”)
1816: Uriah born
1819: David’s parents marry
1819: Miss Mills born
September, 1819, David Copperfield Sr. dies
1820: David born (March)
~1821: Dora born
1826: Micawber son born
1827: Micawber daugher born
~1827: Uriah’s father dies, Uriah 11
~1827: Uriah goes to work for Wickfield
1829: David starts at Creakle’s, at age 8
1829: David’s brother born
1830: Comes back to school, there less than half a year
1830: Mother and brother die. Turns 10 soon after
1830: Caul auctioned off “down in our part of the country.” David present.
1830: Goes to work for Murdstone and Grinby. Reference to “his gracious majesty” during this period sets this definitively before 1837.
~1830: Dr. Strong marries Annie
~1831 (could be 1832 or even 1833): David has a birthday while still working for Murdstone and Grinby. Obliquely mentioned: he might have had more than one. “I had become, in the Murdstone and Grinby time, however short or long it may have been, so unused to the sports and games of boys”.
1832: Jack Maldon leaves for India
1837: David 17, in love with Miss Larkins
1838: David still 17 and has left school, thinking of a career. Wickfield already diminishing rapidly; cries at his desk, worst when Uriah calls him in.
1838: Steerforth at Oxford
1838: Dr. Strong retires
1838: Steerforth comes to Yarmouth with David
1838: David rents Mrs. Crupp’s room, commits to proctor as profession
1838: Uriah in London to work on becoming a partner in the firm
1838: Uriah and Agnes return to Canterbury
1838: David articled to Spenlow and Jorkins (term of articles usually two years)
1838: Very soon after he’s articled, meets Dora
1838: Barkis dies
1838: Miss Mills is “comparatively stricken in years” and almost 20 re: Dora
1838: David engaged to Dora
1838: Betsey’s fortune lost. David tries to get his articles back. Uriah now a partner, Heeps have moved into Wickfield house. Six Months still left on David’s lease w/Crupp
1838: David becomes secretary to Dr. Strong to bring in extra income
1838: Spenlow dies, Micawber becomes Uriah’s clerk. Strong family crisis takes place
1839-40: David in a new house, marriage to Dora impending. David begins writing
1841: David and Dora married
1842: David and Dora have been married about a year, Martha agrees to help in search for Emily
1842: David’s first book comes out, married a year and a half
1842: As their second year of marriage wraps up, Dora’s health seriously declines
1843: Emily recovered, “Explosion”
1843: Dora dies
1843: David plans to go abroad immediately following the Micawbers’ departure to Australia, Agnes plans to start a school
1843: Steerforth and Ham die
1843: David goes abroad
1846: David abroad a full 3 years
1846: Traddles married
1846: David returns to England around October, stays with Betsey while finishing a book, goes and sees Uriah in prison
1847: Having been home two months, David proposes to Agnes
1857: David married 10 years, more than 3 children. Mr. Peggotty comes back for a visit, shares tons of happy news from Australia.
Retrospective: unclear if this is written after 1857 or in 1857. Seems to me to be ‘in’. Traddles’ kids are getting a good education. Jack Maldon same as ever. Dr. Strong and Annie happy. Betsey now 80 years old. If it is 1857 that would mean she was born in 1777, and that she is 3 years older than David Sr.

Strozzi Review

There’s a stack of games in our house we’ve said at some point or another that we’re probably going to sell. But before we do, I force us to play one or two more times to be sure we’re not making a terrible mistake and to try to think through why we didn’t enjoy the experience (if that’s still the case). THESE… are our stories.

pic431370.jpg

What an okay game. It’s—fine. We’ve owned it perhaps four years and played it maybe as many times? I’d almost always rather play something else. I’m not even particularly bad at it, nor annoyingly overpowered so it’s not fun anymore. I’m average at Strozzi, just like Strozzi is average at being a game.

The theme (you’re a trader in the Italian renaissance!) is slightly pasted on, yey, but not egregiously so. I can feel the mechanics right clunkingly there, but I’m not sure that’s the theme’s fault. I like that because you’re a trader points and money are for once synonymous. This eliminates the dual accumulation systems that attend on so many games, whereby you spend the duration of play garnering coins that are, at the very end, either forgotten or clumsily transmuted into the real material that can enable you to win (here’s a thought—what, if any, Eurogames aren’t screamingly capitalist in their competition systems?).

I almost want to say Strozzi is both too simple and too fiddly. You’re competing to have the fastest ship and the most goods in three areas, and just the most goods in one (scrolls), but this last is a a bonus modifier: you can’t place goods-modifying ships there, and developments here are just a side effect of other ships you play. You can also acquire square tokens with big end-game bonuses (and thus there are almost penalties for not acquiring them, given that your competition will trounce you if they paid attention to having the most of x type of square and you didn’t). It behooves you to watch that ‘scroll’ modifier and your squares, and to pay more attention to goods than to ship speed, both because high levels of goods have a modifier at the end (+5 for making it this far up the ladder, etc.) and because goods levels are cumulative rather than fresh each round. You have three ship options: plus one good, plus one speed, and piracy, which allows you to steal someone else’s chosen ship right before they put it down (or claim your own ship in such a way that no one else can do that to you).

I’m not good enough at thinking about game design to quite figure out why this feels like too much and not enough at once. I’ve definitely read books that give me the same BEHOLD THE ARC OF THE PLOT! A TRY-FAIL CYCLE IS NIGH!! feeling, and not known how to respond to them or even to approach them in an editorial capacity.

If you play with three people you often find that everyone’s scored the same in a given area for a round (fastest ship, least goods; middle ship, middle goods; etc.). Strozzi cannot be played with two, and is probably best with four (someone else said five to six, which would make it better for game club play than for our three person household plus occasional guest). People do praise that it plays through in under an hour, neatly, and I agree that that’s very handy (though in practice I think with a casual group I’d probably play two half-hour card based games rather than cracking this out, or maybe Discworld Ankh Morpork, which strangely even fairly casual groups seem to love the theme and mechanic of).

There’s plenty going on in Strozzi, but it feels fairly single-layer and mechanical: just the ship push-pull, with a ‘gotcha’ modifier layer over it. There’s some competition over ships based on turn order, ship choice and piracy, and a little strategy in your choice to focus on goods over speed, and maybe to concentrate your efforts on specific goods, but you couldn’t imagine much in the way of ‘play styles’ or game-type preferences for Strozzi: this is no Castles of Burgundy, Rokoko or Race for the Galaxy. It might be more like Tokaido (a few acquisition mechanisms, some competition over place, a bonus modifier layer), but it’s less smooth, organically-themed and beautiful that Tokaido. (Strozzi is decently attractive and sturdy but not incredibly so.) I could see myself regularly wanting to play Tokaido, but not Strozzi?

This is such a cool period of history, and you could do a great trading game based around the Strozzis. It’s a little sad they have the name here and not much else.

Here’s a good comment from another review:

On the downside the theme is really dry if that sort of thing matters to you. It matters to me and thematic games and thematically interesting Euro designs are what I go for, but I really didn’t mind this at all and was able to enjoy the mental battle with my opponents.

For others it may be an issue.

Whilst the game plays with 3-6, I suspect the sweet spot is 4-5 players and that is backed up by the recommendation on the BGG game page I see now too. We played with 3 and removing 17 cards from a 29 card deck just seemed ridiculous and I felt the ‘Push Your Luck’ element was a little too chaotic with that number of cards out of play. With 6 players you are looking at some serious competition and a whopping 50% of the players won’t score anything in each of the criterion. Some groups may love that but it feels a little too harsh for my liking.

In the end this is what I would call a ‘classic Knizia’. It’s fairly dry, the math is visible for all to see but I think it is a step above other games of his that I have mixed feelings about such as Palazzo.”

I think this was another £10 offering from The Works, and that feels fair really. We sold it on for that much to the friend who played it with us, breaking even (we threw Wonderword into the bargain, so she could give it to someone she disliked/her mum for mother’s day).

Dickens’ The Battle of Life (1846)

The Battle of Life (1846)

800px-Battle_cover.jpg

Per Wiki: “Battle is the only one of the five Christmas Books that has no supernatural or explicitly religious elements. (One scene takes place at Christmas time, but it is not the final scene.) The story bears some resemblance to The Cricket on the Hearth in two respects: it has a non-urban setting, and it is resolved with a romantic twist. It is even less of a social novel than is Cricket.”

Battle is probably my least favourite of the Christmas Books, and it’s easily the one I find it most difficult to talk about. It’s not execrable, it’s just more fairy-taleish and more Christmas-pantomime in its structure, tone and characterisation than the others. Its protagonists are only allowed that ‘principal boy and girl’ level of subjectivity. In a different Dickens work Michael Warden—a rich and slightly dissolute young man who tries to seduce and run away with a young woman, is refused by her after he believes she’s consented and made to genuinely feel the shame of his actions, is compelled by her to participate in a theatrical kind of penance, and who eventually ends up, ‘off stage’, marrying this Marion after all—would be a compelling and fleshed out character, and the eucatastrophe of his ending could be deeply interesting. Length is part of what makes this story melodrama—that, and a lack of interiority. How different from Our Mutual Friend’s false identity and faked death are this story’s more ridiculous developments, really? It’s surprisingly easy to imagine this plot as serious and moving—if Dickens had given it time. But despite starting out his career in the short story format, with few exceptions Dickens can’t entirely bring his talents to bear on anything shorter than a three-volume. I imagine someone at some point or other has thought Dickens would be better for being compressed and curtailed (Graves in The Real David Copperfield, for example), but it turns out that’s entirely wrong: Dickens’ best stuff is in his ‘overflow’ (though I have some other thoughts about whether that excess is mess: I actually think Dickens is fairly micro-level meticulous, and that this often gets overlooked because of the volume, exuberance and colour of his production and imagination).

I am, it seems, not the only person to have thought something like this:

The novel’s earliest critics found flaws that emphasised its weakness when compared with other of Dickens’s popular works. The Times‘ reviewers summarise the strongest and most bitter of these attacks by way of a description that suggests the book is `intrinsically puerile and stupid,’ `a twaddling manifestation of silliness,’ and `simply ridiculous’ (Ford, 53). Later criticism, although less caustic in tone, recognises that the book’s chief fault was its attempt to tell a tale concerning the complexities of passion and self-denial in three inadequately short chapters. Harry Stone speaks for the majority of readers by referring to The Battle of Life as `a savagely reduced work that sometimes reads like a scenario, sometimes like a breathless outline’ (Stone, 132).

Breathless, no doubt, because Dickens was , at the time of writing the book, engaged on another consuming project: `I am horribly hard at work with my Christmas Book,’ he wrote to Thomas Talfourd from Lausanne where he had sequestered himself in September 1846, `which runs (rather inconveniently) in a Curricle just now, with “Dealings with the Firm of Dombey and Son” (Letters, IV, 631). Additionally, Dickens was later to admit that his subject had warranted greater development than the scope of a Christmas book would allow. But in satisfying the demand for narrative closure he was haunted by not fulfilling his intention to write what he described to John Forster as `both a love story in the common acceptation of the phrase, and a story about love’ (Letters, IV, 631). The distinction is, as I intend to argue, both exact and essential.”

(The quoted article’s pretty good, by the by, and might warrant your attention. I would say that this:

“Beyond attention to the self-sacrifice is the acknowledgment that the book is commemorative of a real sister, or sister-in-law, Mary Scott Hogarth [Figure 1], who biographers stress held an almost magnetic attraction for Dickens both before and after her death. Biographical readings of the story have to date been preoccupied with the supposedly displaced affection for Mary that the book seems to foreground. Freudian approaches make obvious connections between a story about a man who loves two sisters that was written by a man who loved two sisters. During the narrative one of the two sisters, Marion, performs the obligatory act of self-sacrifice; However, my interest lies in another, less disinterested, aspect of her behaviour, an aspect I might add that the novel avoids fully investigating: her lapse in submitting wholly to the desire of others.”

is interesting because Dickens does marry the older, steady sister, and spends David Copperfield sort of re-negotiating that choice—Agnes performs some Catherine and some Mary functions in the text, which asserts itself grandly to shore up a fictional relationship that’s not very believable, which is itself a synecdoche for real life romantic triangulations that ultimately prove difficult to sustain. David Parker’s words herein about the irreducible nature of Dickens’ affection for Mary are about the first subtle, intelligent things I’ve read on the topic. You could also say something about anabasis in re: Marion’s journey in this, couldn’t you?)

That said, Battle’s plot is not serious or moving as it stands. Two sisters have grown up with a young man, Alfred, a ward of their father, about the place. Both of them love the young man, though the older, slightly plainer sister (Grace) keeps this an absolute secret and stands back while Alfred and Marion, her younger sister, conduct their love affair. Alfred goes off on a three-year tour of foreign schools of medicine, as his now-departed dad asked his guardians to arrange for him, and the very night he returns Marion seems to elope with the aforesaid Michael Warden. It later turns out Marion did absolutely adore her fiancé Alfred, but that she left because her self-sacrificing sister did too. In leaving Marion gave Grace and Alfred time to fall in love and be happily married for a while, and herself time to get over it. So Marion pretends to have ‘eloped’ while actually off living with her aunt. At some point she slips her dad the information that she’s fine, and later on she has Warden come weirdly imply she’s died (Why? It makes sense to generate narrative drama, but not really in-world.) before making her triumphant reappearance on the scene.

The whole end of this deception, and indeed the level of the deception and the theme of stupidly selfless sisterly love, are all turn-offs for me. I’m all for sorority, but the element of the ridiculous grates on my sensibilities. Just bloody write a note. I know it’d make Grace feel bad, but shit, be adults and talk. Interestingly this is just the kind of authorial treatment of people Simon Callow draws our attention to in his biography of Dickens, noting Dickens’ decision not to tell his wife Catherine their daughter had died, but to instead soften the blow by delivering the information in stages. Dickens believes in controlling the narrative, in not telling people things it’d hurt them to know just for the sake of some objective commitment to truthfulness or communication and mutualistic decision making. It’s an interesting argument, but it runs so against contemporary thinking about respecting the agency of your loved ones by giving them all the information, letting them make decisions and supporting them in these. (I am also, incidentally, indebted to Callow for his comments on Dickens’ pantomime-logic in re: the Christmas stories.)

The ball scene in which Alfred is riding ever closer and preparations for the homecoming have been undertaken and anticipation is swelling and the crowd is dancing and Marion is slipping away has an undeniable vigour. This strong set-piece pulls on the emotional energy of something like Cinderella’s half-shod escape from the palace or the revels of the twelve dancing princesses. Or perhaps it’s an adventure story? It feels slightly Baroness Orczy or something (of course whatever Dickens was drawing on would have to be earlier—and, I hope, better (‘cleverest woman in Europe’ my ass, the whole climax of Pimpernel is literally stumbling through brambles right behind a dude for miles, hoping he doesn’t bloody turn around)). The set up of the story’s conclusion mixes, however, an irksome, tedious and unnecessary series of reveals (not a Gallifrey audios level of REVEALS, but more than enough) with this fairy-tale logic: it’s not so happy a marriage as the ones we are told the four young people will henceforth enjoy.

What Battle is a little like, perhaps, is a femme!Two Gentlemen of Verona, which also doesn’t play well for a modern audience. You’re supposed to throw over your romantic object for the sake of your same-sex companionable bond, and then it’s all right in the end: love is transferable, replaceable, assignable, and the neat hand wave of ‘time passed’ is enough to channel all these torrents of feeling to productive and sociable ends. Time heals all wounds, leaving no scars in the form of resentments and longings, making you wonder if the feelings mattered in the first place. Without having inhabited the time-lapse and the psychologies involved, the sacrifices and the growing into new directions and the thoroughly-won forgivenesses and redemptions Dickens loves to write and give audiences in a Christmas book come off thin and cheap—which is especially damaging in a Christmas book, where what you want is a rich, full, sensual experience to compliment the season.

I do love this final paragraph:

TIME—from whom I had the latter portion of this story, and with whom I have the pleasure of a personal acquaintance of some five- and-thirty years’ duration—informed me, leaning easily upon his scythe, that Michael Warden never went away again, and never sold his house, but opened it afresh, maintained a golden means of hospitality, and had a wife, the pride and honour of that countryside, whose name was Marion. But, as I have observed that Time confuses facts occasionally, I hardly know what weight to give to his authority.”

(Incidentally, how dare Dickens be so young at this point, and have already produced so much? God I hate him. But even in a bad book he still gives me so much—I’m still so happy to be in his writing. He’s hard not to be fond of, once you spend proper time with him.)

The opening of the book is strikingly bleak and interested in long-term change and the continuity of the land. It almost puts me in mind of Alan Garner (ATTN: MAUREEN). I’ll give you the whole of it, you can skim it if you like.

Once upon a time, it matters little when, and in stalwart England, it matters little where, a fierce battle was fought. It was fought upon a long summer day when the waving grass was green. Many a wild flower formed by the Almighty Hand to be a perfumed goblet for the dew, felt its enamelled cup filled high with blood that day, and shrinking dropped. Many an insect deriving its delicate colour from harmless leaves and herbs, was stained anew that day by dying men, and marked its frightened way with an unnatural track. The painted butterfly took blood into the air upon the edges of its wings. The stream ran red. The trodden ground became a quagmire, whence, from sullen pools collected in the prints of human feet and horses’ hoofs, the one prevailing hue still lowered and glimmered at the sun.

Heaven keep us from a knowledge of the sights the moon beheld upon that field, when, coming up above the black line of distant rising- ground, softened and blurred at the edge by trees, she rose into the sky and looked upon the plain, strewn with upturned faces that had once at mothers’ breasts sought mothers’ eyes, or slumbered happily. Heaven keep us from a knowledge of the secrets whispered afterwards upon the tainted wind that blew across the scene of that day’s work and that night’s death and suffering! Many a lonely moon was bright upon the battle-ground, and many a star kept mournful watch upon it, and many a wind from every quarter of the earth blew over it, before the traces of the fight were worn away.

They lurked and lingered for a long time, but survived in little things; for, Nature, far above the evil passions of men, soon recovered Her serenity, and smiled upon the guilty battle-ground as she had done before, when it was innocent. The larks sang high above it; the swallows skimmed and dipped and flitted to and fro; the shadows of the flying clouds pursued each other swiftly, over grass and corn and turnip-field and wood, and over roof and church- spire in the nestling town among the trees, away into the bright distance on the borders of the sky and earth, where the red sunsets faded. Crops were sown, and grew up, and were gathered in; the stream that had been crimsoned, turned a watermill; men whistled at the plough; gleaners and haymakers were seen in quiet groups at work; sheep and oxen pastured; boys whooped and called, in fields, to scare away the birds; smoke rose from cottage chimneys; sabbath bells rang peacefully; old people lived and died; the timid creatures of the field, and simple flowers of the bush and garden, grew and withered in their destined terms: and all upon the fierce and bloody battle-ground, where thousands upon thousands had been killed in the great fight. But, there were deep green patches in the growing corn at first, that people looked at awfully. Year after year they re-appeared; and it was known that underneath those fertile spots, heaps of men and horses lay buried, indiscriminately, enriching the ground. The husbandmen who ploughed those places, shrunk from the great worms abounding there; and the sheaves they yielded, were, for many a long year, called the Battle Sheaves, and set apart; and no one ever knew a Battle Sheaf to be among the last load at a Harvest Home. For a long time, every furrow that was turned, revealed some fragments of the fight. For a long time, there were wounded trees upon the battle- ground; and scraps of hacked and broken fence and wall, where deadly struggles had been made; and trampled parts where not a leaf or blade would grow. For a long time, no village girl would dress her hair or bosom with the sweetest flower from that field of death: and after many a year had come and gone, the berries growing there, were still believed to leave too deep a stain upon the hand that plucked them.

The Seasons in their course, however, though they passed as lightly as the summer clouds themselves, obliterated, in the lapse of time, even these remains of the old conflict; and wore away such legendary traces of it as the neighbouring people carried in their minds, until they dwindled into old wives’ tales, dimly remembered round the winter fire, and waning every year. Where the wild flowers and berries had so long remained upon the stem untouched, gardens arose, and houses were built, and children played at battles on the turf. The wounded trees had long ago made Christmas logs, and blazed and roared away. The deep green patches were no greener now than the memory of those who lay in dust below. The ploughshare still turned up from time to time some rusty bits of metal, but it was hard to say what use they had ever served, and those who found them wondered and disputed. An old dinted corselet, and a helmet, had been hanging in the church so long, that the same weak half-blind old man who tried in vain to make them out above the whitewashed arch, had marvelled at them as a baby. If the host slain upon the field, could have been for a moment reanimated in the forms in which they fell, each upon the spot that was the bed of his untimely death, gashed and ghastly soldiers would have stared in, hundreds deep, at household door and window; and would have risen on the hearths of quiet homes; and would have been the garnered store of barns and granaries; and would have started up between the cradled infant and its nurse; and would have floated with the stream, and whirled round on the mill, and crowded the orchard, and burdened the meadow, and piled the rickyard high with dying men. So altered was the battle-ground, where thousands upon thousands had been killed in the great fight.

Nowhere more altered, perhaps, about a hundred years ago, than in one little orchard attached to an old stone house with a honeysuckle porch; where, on a bright autumn morning, there were sounds of music and laughter, and where two girls danced merrily together on the grass, while some half-dozen peasant women standing on ladders, gathering the apples from the trees, stopped in their work to look down, and share their enjoyment. It was a pleasant, lively, natural scene; a beautiful day, a retired spot; and the two girls, quite unconstrained and careless, danced in the freedom and gaiety of their hearts.”

Now, that’s the type of scene Dickens almost never does, isn’t it? The martial conflict? There’s a Christmas story with one (ah, the hilariously-named Richard Doubledick), but that feels as though Dickens is mentally copy-pasting from all the other Tales of Courage and Military Brotherhood stuff he’s read. Fundamentally, Dickens can never wholeheartedly engage in the romance of empire because for all his fuzziness on some matters of history (Chesterton alleges as much, at least), he has a fundamental sense of deep time. Think of the dinosaur opening of Bleak House, which is like Ballard’s Drowned World except it deserves to exist. And here’s this, too. I suspect Dickens can’t emotionally connect to ‘the glory of battle’ because he’s too domestic. He takes the long-view. His mind is on what comes of battles: grief, a mess and eventual healing. It’s interesting that this story is set within such a powerful metaphor for healed internal wounds: it ought to be mimetic for the girls’ pain, first Grace’s and then Marion’s, but these characters are too insufficiently psychologically established to give much payout on that front. Further, this grown-over Flanders Field they live in seems so much BIGGER than Grace and Marion’s heartache. You could say that Dickens wants you to feel their problems as in conversation with the epic, ennobled and made valid because they are real human problems, but if so that kitchen sink naturalism sits awkwardly with his melodrama/fairy-tale storytelling mode.

The moral relativism and nihilism of the girls’ father is, from the beginning, undercut by his actually caring a good deal about Arthur and the girls. The story itself lovingly says as much. (I want to talk sometime about the sense of fondness for characters you can get from Dickens, and how this affects the reading experience.) This treatment is both a great call-out of a certain kind of Deep Thinker and an interesting meditation on what the contemplative life can do to people:

“Doctor Jeddler was, as I have said, a great philosopher, and the heart and mystery of his philosophy was, to look upon the world as a gigantic practical joke; as something too absurd to be considered seriously, by any rational man. His system of belief had been, in the beginning, part and parcel of the battle-ground on which he lived, as you shall presently understand.”

“The Doctor never dreamed of inquiring whether his children, or either of them, helped in any way to make the scheme [of life] a serious one. But then he was a Philosopher.”

“A kind and generous man by nature, he had stumbled, by chance, over that common Philosopher’s stone (much more easily discovered than the object of the alchemist’s researches), which sometimes trips up kind and generous men, and has the fatal property of turning gold to dross and every precious thing to poor account.”

Dr. Jeddler, in spite of his system of philosophy—which he was continually contradicting and denying in practice, but more famous philosophers have done that—could not help having as much interest in the return of his old ward and pupil as if it had been a serious event. So he sat himself down in his easy-chair again, stretched out his slippered feet once more upon the rug, read the letter over and over a great many times, and talked it over more times still.”

Knowing Dickens’ DEEP love for Shakespeare (which actually—may account for some of the melodrama/fake-death here in Battle, to be honest—perhaps we don’t talk enough perhaps about Shakespeare As Panto/Melodrama, about continuities between him and these later forms of popular theatre), maybe this is a sort of melancholy Jacques turn?

I see I’ve left a note to myself here to ‘rethink this in the morning’. Well, it’s some mornings later, and I suspect that what I meant to say is that while others may have handled the material between Shakespeare and Dickens (melancholy being a fairly popular subject) who the later had read and I have not, it feels possible to me that Dickens, who asserted that Hamlet would absolutely suck to know in life, might be playing with just that here. He could be contending with the slightly elitist contention that the unexamined life is not worth living (who has the luxury of examining their life, and what rhetorica; frameworks do we consider valid in drawing up such accounts?), and also thinking about what life lived according to ideology/the contemplative life is and does to people, in a way not many writers have. I’m sorry, this feels like a huge topic actually, and it seems I’m still having trouble coming to grips with it, so I’m going to back off from it a little.

We talk about Dickens not writing many intellectuals, by the by, but Doctor Jedder should be remembered in the lists, and also you could profitably talk about him in relation to depression (‘thinking of the old ‘un’ as well—though I’ve seen people talk about Mrs Gummidge as depressed). There’s something especially poignant at the present moment about being driven to depression by regarding the present and past with too conscientious and too intelligent an eye. This also makes me think that the ‘existential horror of the 20th century’ crowd should possibly… historically contextualise their claims to a unique modern subjectivity a little more thoroughly, because Jedder’s oppressive awareness of history feels a little like ‘intellectual reactions to the holocaust’.

I love the lawyers in this. There are almost bloody always a suite of lawyers in any given Dickens production. They roll up here named Snitchy and Craggs, “Self and Craggs”, and I’m like here we go again, those names sound evil af, I bet they are about some mischief. But no! surprisingly!

Instead, they do a bit of comedy Chatting Shit About The Amazingness of the Law:

“’With a purpose and intention in it, I was saying,’ resumed Snitchey, ‘that commands respect. Life a farce, Dr. Jeddler? With law in it?’

The Doctor laughed, and looked at Alfred.

‘Granted, if you please, that war is foolish,’ said Snitchey. ‘There we agree. For example. Here’s a smiling country,’ pointing it out with his fork, ‘once overrun by soldiers—trespassers every man of ’em—and laid waste by fire and sword. He, he, he! The idea of any man exposing himself, voluntarily, to fire and sword! Stupid, wasteful, positively ridiculous; you laugh at your fellow- creatures, you know, when you think of it! But take this smiling country as it stands. Think of the laws appertaining to real property; to the bequest and devise of real property; to the mortgage and redemption of real property; to leasehold, freehold, and copyhold estate; think,’ said Mr. Snitchey, with such great emotion that he actually smacked his lips, ‘of the complicated laws relating to title and proof of title, with all the contradictory precedents and numerous acts of parliament connected with them; think of the infinite number of ingenious and interminable chancery suits, to which this pleasant prospect may give rise; and acknowledge, Dr. Jeddler, that there is a green spot in the scheme about us! I believe,’ said Mr. Snitchey, looking at his partner, ‘that I speak for Self and Craggs?’

Mr. Craggs having signified assent, Mr. Snitchey, somewhat freshened by his recent eloquence, observed that he would take a little more beef and another cup of tea.

‘I don’t stand up for life in general,’ he added, rubbing his hands and chuckling, ‘it’s full of folly; full of something worse. Professions of trust, and confidence, and unselfishness, and all that! Bah, bah, bah! We see what they’re worth. But, you mustn’t laugh at life; you’ve got a game to play; a very serious game indeed! Everybody’s playing against you, you know, and you’re playing against them. Oh! it’s a very interesting thing. There are deep moves upon the board. You must only laugh, Dr. Jeddler, when you win—and then not much. He, he, he! And then not much,’ repeated Snitchey, rolling his head and winking his eye, as if he would have added, ‘you may do this instead!’”

But then when Warden shows up to tell them his plan for running off with Marion, they’re not into it. They’re good people and good characters and I love them.

Behold:

Snitchey and Craggs had each, in private life as in professional existence, a partner of his own. Snitchey and Crags were the best friends in the world, and had a real confidence in one another; but Mrs. Snitchey, by a dispensation not uncommon in the affairs of life, was on principle suspicious of Mr. Craggs; and Mrs. Craggs was on principle suspicious of Mr. Snitchey. ‘Your Snitcheys indeed,’ the latter lady would observe, sometimes, to Mr. Craggs; using that imaginative plural as if in disparagement of an objectionable pair of pantaloons, or other articles not possessed of a singular number; ‘I don’t see what you want with your Snitcheys, for my part. You trust a great deal too much to your Snitcheys, I think, and I hope you may never find my words come true.’ While Mrs. Snitchey would observe to Mr. Snitchey, of Craggs, ‘that if ever he was led away by man he was led away by that man, and that if ever she read a double purpose in a mortal eye, she read that purpose in Craggs’s eye.’ Notwithstanding this, however, they were all very good friends in general: and Mrs. Snitchey and Mrs. Craggs maintained a close bond of alliance against ‘the office,’ which they both considered the Blue chamber, and common enemy, full of dangerous (because unknown) machinations.

In this office, nevertheless, Snitchey and Craggs made honey for their several hives. Here, sometimes, they would linger, of a fine evening, at the window of their council-chamber overlooking the old battle-ground, and wonder (but that was generally at assize time, when much business had made them sentimental) at the folly of mankind, who couldn’t always be at peace with one another and go to law comfortably. Here, days, and weeks, and months, and years, passed over them: their calendar, the gradually diminishing number of brass nails in the leathern chairs, and the increasing bulk of papers on the tables. Here, nearly three years’ flight had thinned the one and swelled the other, since the breakfast in the orchard; when they sat together in consultation at night.”

Or:

“‘I think it will be better not to hear this, Mr. Craggs?’ said Snitchey, looking at him across the client.

‘I think not,’ said Craggs.—Both listened attentively.”

And:

‘You’ll live to see me making a good use of riches yet. Henceforth the star of my destiny is, Marion!’

‘Take care of the stairs, sir,’ replied Snitchey; ‘for she don’t shine there. Good night!’”

Then:

Mr. and Mrs. Craggs came arm in arm, but Mrs. Snitchey came alone.

‘Why, what’s become of HIM?’ inquired the Doctor [Jedder, their host].

The feather of a Bird of Paradise in Mrs. Snitchey’s turban, trembled as if the Bird of Paradise were alive again, when she said that doubtless Mr. Craggs knew. SHE was never told.

‘That nasty office,’ said Mrs. Craggs.

‘I wish it was burnt down,’ said Mrs. Snitchey.

‘He’s—he’s—there’s a little matter of business that keeps my partner rather late,’ said Mr. Craggs, looking uneasily about him.

‘Oh-h! Business. Don’t tell me!’ said Mrs. Snitchey.

‘WE know what business means,’ said Mrs. Craggs.

But their not knowing what it meant, was perhaps the reason why Mrs. Snitchey’s Bird of Paradise feather quivered so portentously, and why all the pendant bits on Mrs. Craggs’s ear-rings shook like little bells.

‘I wonder YOU could come away, Mr. Craggs,’ said his wife.

‘Mr. Craggs is fortunate, I’m sure!’ said Mrs. Snitchey.

‘That office so engrosses ’em,’ said Mrs. Craggs.

‘A person with an office has no business to be married at all,’ said Mrs. Snitchey.

Then, Mrs. Snitchey said, within herself, that that look of hers had pierced to Craggs’s soul, and he knew it; and Mrs. Craggs observed to Craggs, that ‘his Snitcheys’ were deceiving him behind his back, and he would find it out when it was too late.

At the very same moment Mrs. Craggs was oracular on the cross subject. Was it possible, she said, that Craggs could so blind himself to his Snitcheys, as not to feel his true position? Did he mean to say that he had seen his Snitcheys come into that room, and didn’t plainly see that there was reservation, cunning, treachery, in the man? Would he tell her that his very action, when he wiped his forehead and looked so stealthily about him, didn’t show that there was something weighing on the conscience of his precious Snitcheys (if he had a conscience), that wouldn’t bear the light? Did anybody but his Snitcheys come to festive entertainments like a burglar?—which, by the way, was hardly a clear illustration of the case, as he had walked in very mildly at the door. And would he still assert to her at noon-day (it being nearly midnight), that his Snitcheys were to be justified through thick and thin, against all facts, and reason, and experience?

Neither Snitchey nor Craggs openly attempted to stem the current which had thus set in, but, both were content to be carried gently along it, until its force abated. This happened at about the same time as a general movement for a country dance; when Mr. Snitchey proposed himself as a partner to Mrs. Craggs, and Mr. Craggs gallantly offered himself to Mrs. Snitchey; and after some such slight evasions as ‘why don’t you ask somebody else?’ and ‘you’ll be glad, I know, if I decline,’ and ‘I wonder you can dance out of the office’ (but this jocosely now), each lady graciously accepted, and took her place.

It was an old custom among them, indeed, to do so, and to pair off, in like manner, at dinners and suppers; for they were excellent friends, and on a footing of easy familiarity. Perhaps the false Craggs and the wicked Snitchey were a recognised fiction with the two wives, as Doe and Roe, incessantly running up and down bailiwicks, were with the two husbands: or, perhaps the ladies had instituted, and taken upon themselves, these two shares in the business, rather than be left out of it altogether. But, certain it is, that each wife went as gravely and steadily to work in her vocation as her husband did in his, and would have considered it almost impossible for the Firm to maintain a successful and respectable existence, without her laudable exertions.”

It’s such an odd and lovely eucatastrophe that they should turn out to be so good, and it renders the ending (when, after some years, Craggs has died) actually very affecting:

“Self and Craggs (deceased) took a chop here sometimes, and had it very comfortably served. Mr. Craggs, sir,’ said Snitchey, shutting his eyes tight for an instant, and opening them again, ‘was struck off the roll of life too soon.’

‘Heaven forgive me for not condoling with you,’ returned Michael Warden, passing his hand across his forehead, ‘but I’m like a man in a dream at present. I seem to want my wits. Mr. Craggs—yes – I am very sorry we have lost Mr. Craggs.’ But he looked at Clemency as he said it, and seemed to sympathise with Ben, consoling her.

‘Mr. Craggs, sir,’ observed Snitchey, ‘didn’t find life, I regret to say, as easy to have and to hold as his theory made it out, or he would have been among us now. It’s a great loss to me. He was my right arm, my right leg, my right ear, my right eye, was Mr. Craggs. I am paralytic without him. He bequeathed his share of the business to Mrs. Craggs, her executors, administrators, and assigns. His name remains in the Firm to this hour. I try, in a childish sort of a way, to make believe, sometimes, he’s alive. You may observe that I speak for Self and Craggs—deceased, sir – deceased,’ said the tender-hearted attorney, waving his pocket- handkerchief.”

It’s also almost a joke about Scrooge and Marley, or Dickens’ other shady and unfeeling lawyers who form little part of the community, and whose business relationships are not also personal relationships.

Because the protagonists are somewhat disembodied in Battle, it’s the minor characters who do all the work of appealing to you. (And I want the charm-labour component of that stressed.) The marriage of Clemency and Britain, for example, is winning in a weird way:

Though the host of the Nutmeg-Grater had a lively regard for his good-wife, it was of the old patronising kind, and she amused him mightily. Nothing would have astonished him so much, as to have known for certain from any third party, that it was she who managed the whole house, and made him, by her plain straightforward thrift, good-humour, honesty, and industry, a thriving man. So easy it is, in any degree of life (as the world very often finds it), to take those cheerful natures that never assert their merit, at their own modest valuation; and to conceive a flippant liking of people for their outward oddities and eccentricities, whose innate worth, if we would look so far, might make us blush in the comparison!

It was comfortable to Mr. Britain, to think of his own condescension in having married Clemency. She was a perpetual testimony to him of the goodness of his heart, and the kindness of his disposition; and he felt that her being an excellent wife was an illustration of the old precept that virtue is its own reward.”

Dickens doesn’t even hate Britain for this, he’s just like lol whatever men. Clemency is great throughout, like a kind of daffy Peggotty. I am apparently not alone in this opinion either: “The character of Clemency Newcome produces the most enjoyable part of the book, many feel she foreshadowed Clara Peggotty in David Copperfield.”

CHARM IN ‘BATTLE OF LIFE’

There should be some charm in the central characters, but they’re not people enough for that, and we don’t feel them as aesthetic objects either. The aforementioned lawyers and servants-cum-innkeepers charm us with their eucatastrophe, their gentle ridiculousness, their idiosyncrasy, and their inherent sensibility and worth as people.

Dickens often establishes charm via a sense of place. It may seem odd that there’s any such thing in Battle, given its apocalyptic beginning, but there’s an Inn in this, and Dickens has A Thing about inns.

The Nutmeg-Grater Inn

Dickens’ description of the Nutmeg-Grater Inn in The Battle of Life is enough to make any weary traveler yearn for such a comfortable respite:

At such a time, one little roadside Inn, snugly sheltered behind a great elm-tree with a rare seat for idlers encircling its capacious bole, addressed a cheerful front towards the traveller, as a house of entertainment ought, and tempted him with many mute but significant assurances of a comfortable welcome. The ruddy sign- board perched up in the tree, with its golden letters winking in the sun, ogled the passer-by, from among the green leaves, like a jolly face, and promised good cheer.

The horse-trough, full of clear fresh water, and the ground below it sprinkled with droppings of fragrant hay, made every horse that passed, prick up his ears. The crimson curtains in the lower rooms, and the pure white hangings in the little bed-chambers above, beckoned, Come in! with every breath of air. Upon the bright green shutters, there were golden legends about beer and ale, and neat wines, and good beds; and an affecting picture of a brown jug frothing over at the top.

Upon the window-sills were flowering plants in bright red pots, which made a lively show against the white front of the house; and in the darkness of the doorway there were streaks of light, which glanced off from the surfaces of bottles and tankards.”

So what constitutes the charm in this passage? We get colour: contrasts, glints of light in darkness, brightness offset by clean white. Ruddy, golden, green, clear, crimson, pure white, bright green, golden, brown, bright red, white, darkness, light. Other colours are implied but not specifically named: this is a dense, saturated image, like a still of Peter Jackson’s filmic Hobbiton (Tolkien of course owing more to Dickens than he was interested in directly acknowledging). Dickens often does sort of ‘filmic’ writing, and was very interested and involved in theatre throughout his life. Theatrical spectacle often ‘tells’ in his writing. Notice that this is almost starting with an establishing shot. The ‘camera’ then flicks over details: exterior, then ‘visible from the exterior’ windows, then the doorway, then glimpses of that interior. The whole passage is drawing the ‘eye’ onwards and inwards.  Entertain, encircle, address, beckon: the verbs of the passage also welcome you, the reader-traveller, in. There are emotional words: jolly, cheer, affecting. These don’t just describe, they insist on your sympathetic response.

There’s food, there are promises of comfort. There’s excess: the brown jug is ‘frothing over’. There is more than enough. ‘Excess’ is perhaps the key Dickensian affective condition: the whole universe of his writing is governed by surplus rather than scarcity. Even his misers have jewels and notes and deeds positively crammed into some chest or other. Here excess generates the feeling of welcome and charm. The commercial enterprise of the inn is demonetised. There is enough for you too, no trouble. The inn’s financial reasonableness is not mentioned: labour is everywhere, but money has ceased to exist, and the transaction is rendered invisible (you could say something there about Silvia Federici and emotional labour and the processes of rendering that work always inexplicit, which would be both pertinent in re: charm in this context and an unfair, Orwellish bad take on Dickens, who is bringing you the LABOUR as well, even here: entertainment, perched, hangings—someone did and is doing all this, and we are also told who and in what manner).

The inn is both natural and the clear and explicit product of (female) labour: ‘snugly sheltered behind a great elm-tree with a rare seat for idlers encircling its capacious bole’, ‘[t]he ruddy sign- board perched up in the tree, with its golden letters winking in the sun, ogled the passer-by, from among the green leaves’, plants in pots on the window sill. This is nature preserved but improved, encircling and sheltering the inn, which both participates in nature and the Victorians’ strict, morally-coded cleanliness, which separates man from dirt until death reunites them, and does so much of the work of class-distinction in anticipation of that eventual equalising oblivion.

Look too at this sly evocation of an English green man: ‘ogled the passer-by, from among the green leaves, like a jolly face, and promised good cheer’. The super-mundane, the canny, here touches the uncanny. There’s something dryad-like and supernatural encircled in and constituted by the man-made quotidian and the natural. Chesterton talks about the nearness of enchantment and the mundane, and it’s probable that he feels this in part due to his long association with Dickens’ work.

There are a few direct uses of the word ‘charm’ in some form or other in this piece:

“Still, Mr. Craggs, without much heeding these remarks, looked uneasily about until his eye rested on Grace, to whom he immediately presented himself.

‘Good evening, ma’am,’ said Craggs. ‘You look charmingly. Your –
Miss—your sister, Miss Marion, is she—’”

The construction strikes me as strange. Craggs is distracted, but also it’s possible this sounded more natural to a Victorian ear. ‘You look charmingly’—a transient, contingent state, how Grace looks done up for the party rather than what Grace is. An action of ‘Grace’, as well: to look Charmingly. There’s something of ‘charisma’, in the Pauline sense, about that. And it’s significant that Craggs is here not lying, exactly, but concealing information about a proposed elopement from someone it will nearly effect: in fact, trying to elicit information about it from her. ‘Charm’ always has some association with fronts, with lies. Here the compliment is itself something of a lie: Craggs possibly doesn’t think this of plainish Grace, and in the moment he’s certainly more preoccupied with worry than charmed by her appearance.

Nowhere more altered, perhaps, about a hundred years ago, than in one little orchard attached to an old stone house with a honeysuckle porch; where, on a bright autumn morning, there were sounds of music and laughter, and where two girls danced merrily together on the grass, while some half-dozen peasant women standing on ladders, gathering the apples from the trees, stopped in their work to look down, and share their enjoyment. It was a pleasant, lively, natural scene; a beautiful day, a retired spot; and the two girls, quite unconstrained and careless, danced in the freedom and gaiety of their hearts.

If there were no such thing as display in the world, my private opinion is, and I hope you agree with me, that we might get on a great deal better than we do, and might be infinitely more agreeable company than we are. It was charming to see how these girls danced. They had no spectators but the apple-pickers on the ladders. They were very glad to please them, but they danced to please themselves (or at least you would have supposed so); and you could no more help admiring, than they could help dancing. How they did dance!

Not like opera-dancers. Not at all. And not like Madame Anybody’s finished pupils. Not the least. It was not quadrille dancing, nor minuet dancing, nor even country-dance dancing. It was neither in the old style, nor the new style, nor the French style, nor the English style: though it may have been, by accident, a trifle in the Spanish style, which is a free and joyous one, I am told, deriving a delightful air of off-hand inspiration, from the chirping little castanets. As they danced among the orchard trees, and down the groves of stems and back again, and twirled each other lightly round and round, the influence of their airy motion seemed to spread and spread, in the sun-lighted scene, like an expanding circle in the water. Their streaming hair and fluttering skirts, the elastic grass beneath their feet, the boughs that rustled in the morning air—the flashing leaves, the speckled shadows on the soft green ground—the balmy wind that swept along the landscape, glad to turn the distant windmill, cheerily—everything between the two girls, and the man and team at plough upon the ridge of land, where they showed against the sky as if they were the last things in the world—seemed dancing too.”

The association of charm with music and witchcraft is coming through strongly here. I’ve heard it mentioned that this agricultural scene is more drawn from Dickens’ composition environment, rural Italy, than it is an English harvest, and that does make some sense. But the scene still has about it as much of the air of a pre or extra-Christian agricultural ritual as it does a spontaneous display. The very proto-national nature of the dance seems to suggest such pagan connections.

There’s quite a coy game going here with the idea of display. It’s not to be desired, yet Dickens is very much displaying these ‘natural’ young women in a studied way for you. The display can be simultaneously innocent and a bit sexualised: here they are amidst fecundity, in a female space, unaware of your gaze on them. (It’s surprising how often Dickens inserts himself as an authorial figure into female spaces. It often doesn’t feel sexual, voyeuristic: when he talks about his childhood experience of Scheherazade, for example (in “Christmas Tree”), he seems to identify with her, or at least to feel his place is in the harem being menaced by exterior male presences rather than out amongst the menacers.) A ‘finished’ stye of dancing would associate the girls’ action with audience and intent, with sexually appealing to men. This is here rejected, even as that’s part of the process of this passage: to interest the audience, via Grace and Marion’s sexual/marital appeal, in their sexual/marital fates.

The charm of the dance derives from the girls’ pleasure in it, their self-willed vigour. Dickens is always more drawn to passion and feeling than to sophisticated apathy and distance. It’s not about you, not even about the other women watching. Still, conviviality’s important here too, and your helplessness as the unseen spectator to resist the ‘charm’ of their dance is a proof of its power: you’ve been drawn into feeling with them, feeling for them, whether you will or no. This is also what Dickens wants for you as a reader of his text. It’s striking that Grace and Marion are both childlike here in their dance, when Grace’s mothering of Marion is about to distance them beyond the span of years that actually separates them.

I think Dickens must know, in re: “a trifle in the Spanish style, which is a free and joyous one, I am told, deriving a delightful air of off-hand inspiration, from the chirping little castanets”, that he’s talking about flamenco. Flamenco is indeed spontaneous, but the signature ‘duende’ that moves its performers to spontaneous, trace-like physical expressions is typically spoken of in a more serious fashion than this. 

Let’s look for a moment at duende (an ‘artistic and especially musical term […] derived from the duende, an elf or goblin-like Magic creature in Spanish mythology’) as an aesthetic concept:

According to Christopher Maurer, editor of “In Search of Duende”, at least four elements can be isolated in Lorca’s vision of duende: irrationality, earthiness, a heightened awareness of death, and a dash of the diabolical. The duende is an earth spirit who helps the artist see the limitations of intelligence, reminding them that “ants could eat him or that a great arsenic lobster could fall suddenly on his head”; who brings the artist face-to-face with death, and who helps them create and communicate memorable, spine-chilling art. The duende is seen, in Lorca’s lecture, as an alternative to style, to mere virtuosity, to God-given grace and charm (what Spaniards call “angel”), and to the classical, artistic norms dictated by the muse. Not that the artist simply surrenders to the duende; they have to battle it skillfully, “on the rim of the well”, in “hand-to-hand combat”. To a higher degree than the muse or the angel, the duende seizes not only the performer but also the audience, creating conditions where art can be understood spontaneously with little, if any, conscious effort. It is, in Lorca’s words, “a sort of corkscrew that can get art into the sensibility of an audience… the very dearest thing that life can offer the intellectual.” The critic Brook Zern has written, of a performance of someone with duende, “it dilates the mind’s eye, so that the intensity becomes almost unendurable… There is a quality of first-timeness, of reality so heightened and exaggerated that it becomes unreal…”.[3]

Lorca writes: “The duende, then, is a power, not a work. It is a struggle, not a thought. I have heard an old maestro of the guitar say, ‘The duende is not in the throat; the duende climbs up inside you, from the soles of the feet.’ Meaning this: it is not a question of ability, but of true, living style, of blood, of the most ancient culture, of spontaneous creation.”. He suggests, “everything that has black sounds in it, has duende. [i.e. emotional ‘darkness’] […] This ‘mysterious power which everyone senses and no philosopher explains’ is, in sum, the spirit of the earth, the same duende that scorched the heart of Nietzsche, who searched in vain for its external forms on the Rialto Bridge and in the music of Bizet, without knowing that the duende he was pursuing had leaped straight from the Greek mysteries to the dancers of Cadiz or the beheaded, Dionysian scream of Silverio’s siguiriya.” […] “The duende’s arrival always means a radical change in forms. It brings to old planes unknown feelings of freshness, with the quality of something newly created, like a miracle, and it produces an almost religious enthusiasm.” […] “All arts are capable of duende, but where it finds greatest range, naturally, is in music, dance, and spoken poetry, for these arts require a living body to interpret them, being forms that are born, die, and open their contours against an exact present.” [2]

Duende is STRONGLY identified with the uncanny, and is thus here brought into contact with the canny, the ‘angel’, charisma, the heimlich displayed by these young women. Again, we see the very strong, mutually-constituting  relationship between charm and the uncanny. It is really striking that Dickens goes here. Sure it’s an accidental misfire sort of thing, but I’m with Freud on accidents, namely in believing they’re usually pretty fucking significant. ‘Chirping little castanets’ is a sort of cricket on the hearth attempt to domesticate a visceral, sexual, pain-filled art-form. Such an unexpected relationship also serves, perhaps inadvertently, to strengthen Dicken’s association of this ancient battlefield with the current orchard.

Again, the passage is super-adjectival, and again it almost evokes Shakespearean set-pieces: I’d say this was the Branagh/Thompson Much Ado.

Look at the centrifugal motion of this passage, and the way Dickens is creating his signature expansiveness via repetition, building, moving outwards:

Not at all/Not the least

the list of styles of dancing it’s not, piling them

‘and back again, and twirled each other lightly round and round, the influence of their airy motion seemed to spread and spread’

‘the sun-lighted scene’

‘like an expanding circle in the water’

streaming hair/fluttering skirts/elastic grass beneath their feet<— things in motion, rippling out (and not even the grass is harmed, it’s bouncing back)

‘the balmy wind that swept along the landscape, glad to turn the distant windmill, cheerily—everything between the two girls, and the man and team at plough upon the ridge of land, where they showed against the sky as if they were the last things in the world—seemed dancing too.’

Again, we have conviviality: the girls’ charm charms the people watching them, the agricultural proceeding, the world. Private pleasure is irresistibly communicable.

‘Oh, bless you, nothing an’t the matter with me,’ returned Clemency – and truly too, to judge from her well-soaped face, in which there gleamed as usual the very soul of good-humour, which, ungainly as she was, made her quite engaging. Abrasions on the elbows are not generally understood, it is true, to range within that class of personal charms called beauty-spots. But, it is better, going through the world, to have the arms chafed in that narrow passage, than the temper: and Clemency’s was sound and whole as any beauty’s in the land.”

Clemency’s good-will is internal, pressing out: the world cannot get at her, cannot muffle or change her. This encysted quality is somewhat at odds with the charm of people with great sensibility (I haven’t yet exactly worked out the relationship between these forms of charm). And again, Clemency here is presented as outside the marriage market—but in fact her ‘personal charms’, her hard-working abraded elbows and good temper, are about to win her a husband. This also reminds me of a Roald Dahl passage (Dahl is also decidedly an inheritor of Dickens’):

CU0haXJWcAIiGLw.jpg