Beste Dickensians,
In plaats van u te voorzien van mijn gebruikelijke overwegingen, wil ik op deze plaats graag het woord
laten aan een jongere generatie. U vindt teksten van een discussie-website in de VS, afkomstig van
scholieren wier leraar - Mr. R. - het boek Hard Times" heeft behandeld, daarover een quiz heeft
bedacht, en hen heeft opgedragen om aantekeningen te maken:
- 1 really actually enjoyed reading Hard Times by Charles Dickens. He seems interesting, but yet very
odd. Sometimes I wonder if this man experimented with drugs at one time or another.
- I guess you must get a lot of people like me who are trying to find an answer to a quiz question.
Could you all look into this one for me: A villain in one of Charles Dickens novels bore the same name as
one of his best friends. What was his friends name? Much appreciated, thanks for your time!
- How bout that quiz today in Mr R's class? I thought it was pretty rough, but maybe that is because I
read Part 111 on Monday at like 1:00 am. I actually didn't mind reading this book although the whole book
noting thing seemed monotonous. 1 enjoyed the unique relationships between each of the characters, and I
thought it was cool how Dickens presented new characters throughout the book.
- I liked the quiz since I didn't read part 3 at all and still got a B on it. I am the master at guessing! I hate
booknoting too. I like Hard Times, except Dickens is too wordy. How many times does he need to
describe Coketown?!?!?! I think I get the point.
- Anyway, Hard Times could have been much better if it were much shorter. I agree fully with Mallory's
"paid by the word" theory. Overall, however, the story was good. I liked Harthouse. He many have been
a manipulative scumbag, but I like reading about manipulative scumbags, they are more interesting than
boring "do gooders" like Sissy Jupe (SO BORING) or Rachael (ALSO BORING). Harthouse may have
been a jerk but he is sneaky and manipulative and you have to give him credit for that. I liked the degree
that Dicken's developed his characters. He needs to do less description of the settings and physical
description of the characters though, it is quite annoying and makes the book (As has been said by almost
everyone else) too long and wordy.
- Oh no! Am I the only one who really really hated Hard Times? This book was torture to read! And I
actually read the whole thing! I wanted to flush Hard Times down the toilet, but I wanted the booknoting
points and was afraid I would back the toilet up and flood the bathroom and my parents would yell...It's
true that Dickens is less plot and more characterization, because I could forsee what was coming a mile
away.
- Well everyone, looks like I'm the very last loser to do this assignment and type a message up on this
here messageboard. Hell, I don't think any of you are going to even see this, cuz honestly I would
probably never ever come back to this site again if I didn't have to, so...yeah. But anyways...
About Dickens writing style. I really enjoy the way he takes time to fully develop his characters, settings,
etc. I think he should take as much time as he wants, because it is in these passages and parts of the book
that we get the best of Dicken's goofy wit and poetry. His descriptions of Coketown and the characters
herein are entertaining because it's like reading poetry, and I do enjoy good poetry. There's no way you
can tell me that Dicken's wasn't a master of the written word, and what's more entertaining in a book than
witnessing a master writer's brilliant use of the English language? It is through Dickens long descriptions
and internal discussions of the surroundings and characters that we get Dickens best writing. If that makes
any sense... And honestly, who cares about the plot in a book like this. It's NOT a plot driven piece, it's
character study satire. This isn't Stephen King. Dickens wants to rip on society and raise questions and
I think he succeeds pretty well. Sure, he could have done all that and made an innovative plot, but come
on, name another character study slash satire with a better plot and writing this good. The Shawshank
Redemption and Pulp Fiction are plot driven; Dickens isn't so much, oh well. Also, I agree with John
about Harthouse. Evil people are always more interesting. A hero is only as interesting as his villain. For
instance, look at Silence of the Lambs. Who was more interesting, mild mannered FBI student Clarice or
mastermind psychologist turned evil cannibal Hannibal Lecter? That's a good point John.
Okay, well I think I'll shut up now. That's my two cents, you don't have to take it seriously. Good book, I
enjoyed it much better than A Tale of Two Cities. Alrighty, well I'm going to bed. Night folks.
Ook ik neem afscheid van u. Er moet een gat in de markt zijn voor verkorte uitgaves van zijn werken.
Met Dickensiaanse groeten!
Paul Ferdinandusse
