Hard Times

I'm unsure as to my feelings on this book. It's one of those books that is kinda between good and bad. I wouldn't say that it is bad. Because it isn't. Predictable, yes. But bad, no. Perhaps that's ideal, though. In theory, shouldn't all books be some what predictable? Authors shouldn't randomly introduce something or throw in a deux ex machina to finish off the story. Chekhov once said that if you introduce a gun in the first line of a play, that gun should go off by the end (hence why it's been called Chekhov's gun). Nothing should be introduced for no reason which will play by the end.

Dickens is good at that. He throw things in that either have a greater purpose (i.e. metaphor) or will play a part later. Hard Times is no exception. Unfortunately, I think that the plot seems a little muddy at first. Maybe it's not muddy, maybe the river is just too wide and doesn't narrow until too far down the stream. We're introduced to the Gradginds and Bounderby. We can tell early on that Bounderby, probably in his forties at the start of the story, is in love with Louisa Gradgrind, roughly ten at the start of the story (which makes one cringe...ew). We also meet the rest of the Gradgrinds who are so intent on learning facts and ignore the emotions that one feels. Later we meet Sissy Jupe, who lives with a traveling circus (much looked down upon by Gradgrind) who is quite the opposite of the Gradgrinds who she moves in with after her father has run off. Ok, so the story is going to be Sissy teaching the Gradgrinds about how to show emotions and truly express their feelings.

Well, that story drops and we're introduced to Stephen Blackpool, who is a simple honest man, with a drunken wife that he's trying to escape from because she keeps dragging him down. We're also introduced to Rachel, who I couldn't figure out for a while who the hell she was, and Mrs. Pegler, who was easy to figure out her role in the story.

So, basically, within a short period of time, Dickens manages to throw 12 or so characters at us, all of which are connected within 6 degrees or so, but seemingly have no real connections. For each character, he has developed a path that they are to follow throughout the course of the book. Like a well written play, none of these characters are without a purpose. Yes, some are archtypes and extremities of characterization, but each one will play a part in either the further development of the main characters or the plot...which eventually becomes clear.

The plot is, as I understand it: Bounderby (who is so proud of his raising himself out of the gutters as his parent's abandoned him) marries Louisa (ew...but agreed to do it at her brother's (Tom Jr.) behest who was to work for Bounderby and wanted to give himself leverage). Tom Jr. is in desperate need of money and frequently takes from Louisa and is an ungrateful whelp, as we are told again and again (the downside of paying an author by the word). Meanwhile, Stephen, who asked Bounderby for help to escape his crazy-ass wife, has been kicked out of the plant because, well, I don't really understand that part, but I think it was because of his dispute with Bounderby, and as with all British novels, misunderstandings occur and hilarity ensues...only nothing was really funny. So Stephen leaves in order to find work elsewhere, at which point Tom Jr. tries to help him in some way. By trying to help him, Stephen becomes accused of a crime that, if you knew him, you'd know he wouldn't commit. As this is happening, Louisa leaves Bounderby because she is miserable and the death of her mother has brought her back to Stone House (where her family lives) and Sissy helps nurse her emotions and shows her compassion. Of course more happens and there are more characters, but to the overall story arc, they're truly unimportant.

In my opinion, there was nothing truly spectacular about this novel. It was enjoyable, though predictable, and had the type of ending all good Victorian stories should: the good get what they deserve and the bad get their just desserts. As I understand it, this was written for many purposes by Dickens. A novel on the working poor and their station in life. A parable to teach us all a valuable lesson on truth, morality and justice. And a little bit of a lesson in honesty to top it all off. Would I suggest reading this book if you're not on the quest to complete all 1001 novels? Probably not. Dickens has much better books worth reading, though the descriptions are typical of Dickens, richly defined and beautiful. So if you're looking for a quick read, I'd look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a book that many people have probably not read, but is decent enough, yea, take a crack at it. But don't blame me if you don't like it.

Moral of the Story: Emotions have a place in the world and shouldn't be neglected for the hard facts; the two should combine to make the person stronger. Oh, and don't lie, it's bad.