According to some Little Dorrit is "one of the most significant works of the 19th Century".
14 de octubre de 2011
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
Wilkie Collins
Quiénes somos
- EOIGoya_Inglés
- El Departamento de Inglés de a Escuela Oficial de Idiomas (EOI) "Goya" se suma con este proyecto de blog, con el blog de teatro y con su página de vídeos en YouTube a la explotación de las nuevas tecnologías como parte de la enseñanza de idiomas en la enseñanza pública en Madrid. Un cálido agradecimiento a CMF, sin cuya colaboración esto no sería posible.
Concurso 2007-08
524 comentarios:
«El más antiguo ‹Más antiguo 401 – 524 de 524Good afternoon:
I quite agree with the last post, except about two or three facts. I don't think that Arthur is afraid of Young John, or I cannot see why she thinks he is a menace to him, I cannot see his disapointment. Altough Arthur probably is insecure whith women, despite his success with Flora.
I think that Flora knows that Arthur is not going to come back whith her, but even so, she likes to thing that it could be possible. And I think that a woman like her, didn't have much things to to in Great Britain during that period, but go back to their parent's house. She is not young, she is not extremely beautiful, she is not an educated person. Of course, she could have married again, but I suspect that was not very well regarded. At less, she is rich and widow, which gives her more liberty than other women of those times had. If she had been, for example, French, she could had had a lover, altough it was not positive, it was not as badly regarded as in other countries; if she were Spanish, she could have became a nun. And I think that's all, not a great deal of options...
Good afternoon:
I quite agree with the last post, except about two or three facts. I don't think that Arthur is afraid of Young John, or I cannot see why she thinks he is a menace to him, I cannot see his disapointment. Altough Arthur probably is insecure whith women, despite his success with Flora.
I think that Flora knows that Arthur is not going to come back whith her, but even so, she likes to thing that it could be possible. And I think that a woman like her, didn't have much things to to in Great Britain during that period, but go back to their parent's house. She is not young, she is not extremely beautiful, she is not an educated person. Of course, she could have married again, but I suspect that was not very well regarded. At less, she is rich and widow, which gives her more liberty than other women of those times had. If she had been, for example, French, she could had had a lover, altough it was not positive, it was not as badly regarded as in other countries; if she were Spanish, she could have became a nun. And I think that's all, not a great deal of options...
Good afternoon:
I quite agree with the last post, except about two or three facts. I don't think that Arthur is afraid of Young John, or I cannot see why she thinks he is a menace to him, I cannot see his disapointment. Altough Arthur probably is insecure whith women, despite his success with Flora.
I think that Flora knows that Arthur is not going to come back whith her, but even so, she likes to thing that it could be possible. And I think that a woman like her, didn't have much things to to in Great Britain during that period, but go back to their parent's house. She is not young, she is not extremely beautiful, she is not an educated person. Of course, she could have married again, but I suspect that was not very well regarded. At less, she is rich and widow, which gives her more liberty than other women of those times had. If she had been, for example, French, she could had had a lover, altough it was not positive, it was not as badly regarded as in other countries; if she were Spanish, she could have became a nun. And I think that's all, not a great deal of options...
I partly disagree with you, Carmen, though I thank you for your understanding. I only disagree when you say that most of the "hunters", as you cleverly describe them, go on the pull on nights out, while the "innocent preys" go out with any further intention than having a laugh and a gin ´n tonic. But, in my opinion, women are hunters too... You say that women would never admit they are going out with the ultimate idea of starting a relationship, which means that that is their actual intention, even though they don´t admit it! So, who is then the "hunter"? The man that only thinks about having sex, or the woman that seeks... something else, even though she doesn´t admit it? Isn´t the hunter really the hunted?
Sorry to all for my mistakes, it happens to me because my fingers go faster than my brain, ;-)
To finish the little tale of mine, after crossing some mails between my ex and me to close some matters unresolved , we have come to the conclusion that the better for avoiding this annoying situations is to end our frienship relation, not before having discussed all the pending questions of each other which we had inside. therefore it proves that a relation of friendship between a woman and a man it´s even more difficult to get by when they have been going out previously.
The end of chapter 24 of little dorrit has left me a feeling of doubt, is she realizing that she is falling in love with Mr. clennam? and thus it could explain her way on acting? who knows. :-o
Dear Fernando, I don´t really understand what has happened, but I completely agree with you that friendship between men and woman does not exist.
Poor Little Dorrit! She is suffering a lot seeing that her dreams can’t be achieved. She had been happy looking fondly at a warm light in a high window and had danced under the starts, without feeling the cold wind in a chilly night, but the caresses of love. She had walked on the iron bridge with the idea of letting fly her imagination and feeling the illusion of living her lovely dream.
But the inexorable fate imposes its rule and she has to suffer alone the bitterness of her frustration before the impossibility of achieving her happiness. We saw her shame when her father asked for money to Mr Clennam; then, she did not feel worthy of Mr Clennam friendship and told him that Marshalsea was her home; and now, in chapter XXIV, she finds it very clear that she only can enter in Flora and Mr Clennam world as a maid. So she has just discovered that her natural place is the little garret of Marshalsea, the only place where she feels sure, the only site where she can stay crying to vent her melancholy.
Amy had to be very happy, being the first day of her new job and having been treated very well by Flora; however, she got very disappointed and frustrated because she awoke from her lovely dream and she discovered that it was gone for ever.
In this very sad moment, only Maggy accompanied her; only Maggy shared her tears; only Maggy heard her story, though without understanding the full meaning of it, because it reflected an emotion that she never had felt: the loss of a deeply felt love, which mark will never be erased.
Good morning:
I think I haven't undertood very weel your history, Fernando, but I think you said you have an exgirlfriend who is using the social nets to tell bad things about you. That's why I don't like them. How lousy! How unfeminine! How mean! I can hardly believe that, I think I could never do something like that, and believe, I could do it, if I would want. To ruin the reputation of someone who has been very unkind to me, by telling her secrets. But you know? I don't do it. You know why? Because I am better than her. And I have understood that she doesn't deserve not a single moment of my atention, not even in revenge.
I quite agree with your commentary, Isidro. Amy feels lonely, and feels she is not fit for any place, and has no one, but her father, and I don't know if I would want to have a father like this, if I were her, and poor Maggy who can not do much for her.
I mean, "well".
María, I see and have a point that we are seeking, to a certain extent when we go out, too. But women, and here is the difference, or at least Spanish women, contradict me if I´m wrong, will not go out to find a partener for a night, whereas a man would, we like a more "permanent" basis.
Fernando, I think that a relationship of friendship can happen sometimes between men and women, for example when the relationship has been going on for a long time, take two people who have been married for, say, 50 years, they are bound to be friends. As to a newly made relationship, that would be more difficult, there is always an interest, an attraction in friendship as well, this interest need not be mercenary, it could be positive, but interest, attraction towards the other (not physical, mental for eg), is always present.
I think little Dorrit is suddenly aware that Arthur could become involved with another woman and this sudden awareness makes her melancholic.
I´ve liked your postposition o the participle "matters unresolved"
Isidro, a very nice reflection, Yes, when we worry, when we are sad, we go back into our seclusion, we feel protected there. That´s why nuns in cloisters are so have!!! such a relief not to be in contact with treason, unkindness, selfishness, pride, such a paradise to think about good things all the time, and to be ordered to be good!!!I think we should go there regularly, why don´t we organize a weekend all of us? any support, folks?
Rosa, you are so clever to be in control of your feelings and what´s more of your prospective action towards those who have hurt you!!! I´m going to try and learn from you, because after all you are RIGHT such a waste to take revenge...but I always remember "drive him fast to his tomb, Jacques" and it is bliss when you take revenge!! Folks, should I be worried?
Good night:
Oh, it's better not to take me as an example, because, in fact, I consider myself a very passionate and resentful person. And, in fact, I am fed up of having bad experiences because I did what I thought was the rigth thing. But, you see, at the end the truth is always known. And, at the end, you could feel like Edmond Dantés, and think that you have spent your time in vain, trying to fill your live with revenge, and missing many other things, while your heart was empty. Vengeance can provide some satisfaction, but never relief. Who was Jacques?
I have seen that in one of those magazines about history which are sold, there is, this month, an issue about Charles Dickens. I can not remmember if it was Clio, La aventura de la historia, Historia y vida, or which, but I'll try to see it tomorrow, and I will tell.
Carmen, I agree with you. I think that it is very difficult for a man to marry a woman of a lower class. However it is not impossible; because in XIX century all married women had no own status and their position in society depended on their husband’s; thus, when a woman of a high family got married lost her family’s status and acquired the status of his husband. So, in XIX century, married women were totally dependent of their husband and they had not legal personality or ability, for example, to buy and to sell goods, without the consent of their husbands. In consequence, men had the possibility of doing what they wanted because their status didn't depend on the one of their wives. However, the marriage of women with a man of a lower class implied for them a loss of status, and therefore, in this case, it was advantageous for them to remain single, instead of getting married with a man of a lower class.
In spite of this, we know that most of men married women of their own class, because to marry a woman of lower class was frowned, but we know as well that some men did not care about the gossips and married according with their feelings. The condition to do it was that they didn’t depend from the economic point of view of parents, because in this case the parents never would give their consent.
In the case of Mr Clennam, he can do what he want, because he doesn’t need his mother’s consent. And we have seen his loneliness and helplessness when he was truthful with Mr Meagles in chaper II; remember that he said that he was such a waif anywhere, and that he was liable to be drifted where any current may set. So, Mr Clennam being in the situation of letting drag anywhere, he is more willing to be dragged by Little Dorrit than by anyone else in the present circumstances.
Flora knows this possibility, because she has seen Mr Clennam affection to Little Dorrit when they have talked of her; you know that women have the intuition of perceiving this things. And she want to have Little Dorrit near her, because this is the best way of controlling the situation.
So, everyone sees reality of different way: Little Dorrit is sunk because she believe that she has no possibilities; Flora sees that Mr Clennam feels affection for Little Dorrit and she also knows that a man in love can do crazy things; and Mr Clennam doesn’t sleep thinking of Little Dorrit and of himself being an old man.
At the end, it will happen what Dickens should decide. So, why not to let all possibilities open?
Flora is a strange woman. In spite of her age she wants to conquer her youthful love and she does not accept the possibility of Mr clenam having another lover. She is acting like a jealous teenager. She talks to Little Dorrit with the only purpose that Little Dorrit know she has been in love to Mr Clenam. What would Clenam think if he knew all the details about the meeting? I think that Flora's jealousy will finish betraying her. So great is the harm that jealousy can do.
Once more time we can see Little Dorrit is very ingenuous. It seems to me as if she did not know tbe badness of human heart. Furthermore she feels lonely and sad and hardly does somebody notice Little Dorrit's feelings; only Maggy is aware but she cannot do anything.
On the other hand, I would like to point out that I am afraid of Mr Clenam's business. I hope it be a good idea and it be succesful.
Flora is a strange woman. In spite of her age she wants to conquer her youthful love and she does not accept the possibility of Mr clenam having another lover. She is acting like a jealous teenager. She talks to Little Dorrit with the only purpose that Little Dorrit know she has been in love to Mr Clenam. What would Clenam think if he knew all the details about the meeting? I think that Flora's jealousy will finish betraying her. So great is the harm that jealousy can do.
Once more time we can see Little Dorrit is very ingenuous. It seems to me as if she did not know tbe badness of human heart. Furthermore she feels lonely and sad and hardly does somebody notice Little Dorrit's feelings; only Maggy is aware but she cannot do anything.
On the other hand, I would like to point out that I am afraid of Mr Clenam's business. I hope it be a good idea and it be succesful.
This is the fourth time I write this!!!!
Revenge... Yes... It is difficult to choose. We doubt whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of the outragious Fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by oposing end them...
I guess that we should turn over the page... But, to revenge and succeed is... bloody satisfactory!In addition, why should we put into practise the virtue of forgiveness when the other doesn´t think s/he should be forgiven for any reason? when the guilty doesn´t admit the guilt? Sometimes a bloody deed is needed...
How scary!
Jacques is a character in 'A tale of two cities'. "Drive him fast to his tomb" is THE QUOTE, almost a motto, the leit motiv of some people´s lives... as well as "to be or not to be...". night night, María
Well, it seems it works now, but only if I am 'anonimous', like the film.Don´t think I intended to plagiarize Shakespeare because I didn´t use inverted comas!
Good night:
Yes, but could you feel well with yourself knowing that you have done something wrong? Knowing that, perhaps, you are as evil as the person who made you an unjust deed, that you have beahaved like him, or her? To be like the same thing that you hate? Wouldn't you think about the consecuences? And, I tell you, I am a rancorous person, I forgive, but not forget...
Well, I am afraid I will have to read The Tale of Two Cities.
You are very right Rosa... Revenge is a very bad thing... But people are not saints! We need people to know what other people are like. Revenge doesn´t imply here killing someone, but trying to "force" people to see, to find out people. Maybe the forcing is not a very good thing either, but at least, if you succeed and put up a little bit of justice, you may be able to sleep and... even forget about it. In this light sense, it is even better to be avenging than rencorous. DOn´t you think?
Definetely, you must read A tale of two cities. It is a gorgeous story with a very interesting roaming male protagonist...
Of course, it doesn't involve to kill people, but you can do very unforgivable things even so. Look what has happened to Fernando, I couldn't do anything like this and respect myself anylonger, My mom says always that rancorous people, like me or my father, are always bittered.
Good nigth.
What Fernando´s ex has done is not revenge. She has done it because she is hurt because an ex of hers has forgotten her. She feels that her self-esteem is at stake and thus becomes a bitch! She is not going to get anything, good or bad, out of her action, and she knows it. Hers is a desperate movement with which she just wants to ridiculise him because she´s felt that she herself has been ridiculised when dropped and forgotten! What kind of justice does she seek after the pressumed "revenge"? None! So she is not being avenging, in my opinion she is just being mean and making a fool of herself for not seeing that the game is over.
I bet for a happy end of Little Dorrit, through the triumph of love, in a world where nothing good seemed to be possible, because Dickens did not like the Victorian society in which he lived, nor the one of the late eighteenth century which excesses reported in "A tale of two cities". And he believed that a better society was possible and that, despite the difficulties, the love could succeed. That's what happens in "A Tale of Two Cities" and I hope that it will happen on Little Dorrit. Don’t you think so?
In my view, Dickens shows the Victorian world in all its crudity; but his willing is to overcome the stifling atmosphere of that time; to break the chains of ignorance, lies and hypocrisy; and to get redemption eliminating the mask of a world full of jobbery and snobbery. Therefore I think that his claim of unjust and inhuman situations would be meaningless if he didn’t leave open a door to the hope that a better world is possible.
And one of the topic of XIX century that needed to be exceeded was the situation of women, reduced in that time to the mere condition of objects, without social visibility or legal personality, without personal entity; merely reduced to admit their position of subordination, and patiently waiting a man that accepted to give them protection, and that allowed them to realize their natural function as mothers.
So, in a time when the thought about the liberation of women had a certain relevance, I wouldn’t be surprised if a man as lucid as Dickens made possible the social rise of an innocent honesty and intelligent woman that, in spite of living in a world dominated by hypocrisy and deceit, lives willingly in prison to take care of her father.
Yes, Isidro, I quite agree with you. In my opinion, what I have read of Little Dorrit, shows that Dickens was a conservative man (he was not a revolutionary, in my opinion, as it could be, for one Bernard Shaw). But also, he was very critic with his time and country, and told with a great deal of irony and criticism about the thinks that he disliked. He loved, and knew them very well, but he knew that they were not perfect, and, therefor, he had to tell it.
Have a nice day.
Revenge is a thing of pleasure!!! we may not like to admit this but it gives pleasure. however revenge is not sth all humans are capble of, you need strength and power to aieve it, and guts to actually take the said revenge.
Dickens, though he stuck to rules in his life, was quite a revolutionary
Good morning:
I have just listened this very interesting interview to a Spanish man (Ricardo Mena Cuevas) who has written a book about the Oxfordian Theory. This very remarkable, because we don't have many books in Spanish about English litterature. To our shame, I must say that the main expert in Lorca is an American (Ian Gibson), and so do are the main experts in Velázaquez and Murillo (Jonathan Brown and Peter Cherry).
I hope you would find it interesting.
http://elplanetadeloslibros.com/html/audio-215-edward-de-vere.htm
I quite agree with Isidro about the situation of women in XIX Century in England. I have recently watched Bleak House and Sense & Sensibility BBC miniseries and they show women social situation perfectly well. Being a strikingly marvellous story and utterly worth watching it (terrific performances and remarkable adaptation), Bleak House presents one of the main characters and also my very favourite, Lady Dedlock (starring Gillian Anderson), as a woman with a hidden secret. In her youth, she was an indomitable girl, who fell in love with a Captain with neither fortune nor breeding. The result of their torrid romance was a baby who was taken away from her mother in order to protect her reputation. Later on, thinking her baby was dead, the woman decided to marry Sir Leicester Dedlock (despite not loving him) and, by means of this attachment, turned into Lady Dedlock, mistress of a great English manor house, Chesney Wold. Thus, while her secret be not discovered, her reputation and social status are safe. Here we perceive at that time women were not free to marry the men they really love, neither it was possible to have a young affair with the man you like. (Quite different from nowadays, when the bigger number of lovers you have or you have had, the more popular you are).
On the contrary, Sense & Sensibility shows three very well-breed girls that, after losing their whole fortune and their huge and beautiful manor house and, consequently their social status, have to move to a humble cottage in the middle of nowhere. There, they cannot do anything but wait someone to come and expect to receive friends and relatives’ help and compassion. There is nothing they can do in order to improve their situation but marry well.
Good morning.
Maria, I quite agree with you with the theory of her not having taken into account(my ex)instead of in her revenge way of acting because she realizes that our return is impossible.
Guts for revenge? dear Carmen you sometimes scares me with this thougts, It seems as if revenge was a virtue instead of a sin or a fault, therefore a can´t justifie this kind of action by the simple principle that revenge is deserved or authorized, by any means i will agree with that thougt, sorry Carmen. Does Anybody support this theory?
Revenge could be a virtue of nobility. In 'Hamlet', it was honourable and noble that Hamlet took revenge for his father's death by killing the murderer, and, as Carmen says, you have to have the guts. Hamlet didn't have the guts... and doubt; it took him a very long time to eventually kill him, though he died as well, and... everybody! Taking revenge is a DIFFICULT task, but it could be necessary not to let some people get away with it.
I know and I am sorry that this is not a Christian attitude, which teaches us not to respond to an "agressor" with violence but to turn the other cheek. But that is... IMPOSSIBLE! So, provided violence is not involved, why shouldn't we try to bring some justice to our lives?
Fernando, I don't understand the first sentence, but I am glad that you "quite agree" with me!
I meant "but doubts" or "and doubted", sorry
Revenge suggests the difficulty of forgiving. When you are hurt because someone has hurt you, you can only think about your sorrow and you cannot relay on that person. The more you try to overcome these feelings the more reasons you find to take revenge, at least in my opinion. Do not you think the same? Even if that person has asked your forgiveness; it is not easy.
On tle other hand I think that the best thing you can do is to make an effort to forget your sorrow and to forgive because what do you win when you take revenge? maybe you have a happy feeling for a while but do you recover that thing in which you have been betrayed?
Good nigth:
Well, Fernando, I just can't understand how a person like you, who seems quite likeable has had anything to do whith a woman like this! Of course, there are always more than a single version of the story (watch the film Rashomon if you want to know more about this), and we only know yours. I have told already what I think about revenge. I quite agree whith María and Beatriz, the examples provided by them are very good, in my opinion. Hamlet had to killed his mother and uncle because they had had something terrible, not only betray his king and relative and husband. To kill a king meant to betray your own country. They were other times, and priorities were different. And Hamlet, in my opinion, didn't want to take revenge, but he had to do that, because his own life was in danger. And I think he didn't feel very happy when he achieved his purpose.
The magazine I talked about was La aventura de la historia, and the dossier, Charles Dickens, el defensor de los humillados: de taquígrafo a bestseller. I have the magazine between my hands, I will read it and I will tell you my opinion.
Good nigth.
I just finished chapter XXV, "Conspirations and Others" and I would like to point out how nicely Dickens describes the way English people feel about foreigners and how they never blend easy with them, even if they are in foreing countries. It takes him two long paragraphs to explain that fact and I enjoyed them very much.
I agree with you that Hamlet didn't want to fulfil his task. Moreover, his father didn't actually tell him to avenge his death! He only said "Remember me". Hamlet saw the injustice of the situation and thought that it was high time someone stopped it... Anyway, it is also true that we should try to forgive and turn the page, but when the same story happens once and again... No, we have to stop them!!!
I should like that paragraph! It is very true that the English don't like mixing with foreigners (it's very hard indeed to be included!), but I don't really know why! I should have guessed that Dickens had a clue...
I was wrong. Hamlet's father did tell Hamlet to revenge. "So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear". Anyway, it did not really matter to support my point whether the ghost told him to revenge or not, but I was doubting... and checked, to find out that I was wrong!
Good morning:
I quite agree with the last post. Mr Pancks wants to do something and he requires the help of the people he knows. And they agree! I think this is one of the thinks that shows that Dickens was very concerned about human goodness. But all the scene is quite misterious, and it is not clear what they are going to to. And the mentioned a stillborn baby... very disturbing. I understand it couldn't be Pet's sister.
Yes, the way in which the inhabitants of Bleeding Yard Heart treats Mr Baptiste is a bit humiliating, like if he was a baby, or a savage from the South Seas. But, at the end, they like him, and they try to help him, I suppose this is other token of the human goodness. I think that the way in which Dickens describes the English behaviour to foreigners is not only for the English, but valid for many other people, Spanish included, specially the not educated people.
What does Pancks want? He is a misterious man. I hope he discover something good for Dorrit's family. If I were Little Dorrit I would be afraid of him. Since they have met at Flora's house he is everywhere where Little Dorrit is: he appears at Marshalsea, he appears in Mrs Clenam's house when she is working there...; even Maggie is aware of his presence.
Sorry. I don’n know which is the problem, but I only can see the first 200 comments of the blog. So, I'm posting mine without having read your last comments and not knowing whether it will be seen on the blog, to see if the counter works.
In my view, the appropriate behaviour of a human being must be submitted to the law that reason imposes. Revenge is, in itself, something contemptible because it is something that goes against reason, and therefore it degrades human nature. However, revenge can give you great satisfaction when you are dominated by instinct, because the satisfaction of instinct is always a source of pleasure.
So, revenge only can be seen as something positive when we are being located on the worst side of human nature; then, we only see immediate satisfaction short term, without thinking on the degradation that such behaviour implies in personal dignity.
However, there are certain situations in which some people are living dramatic situations that can lead them to commit unjust or degrading actions if the force of passion or feeling gets cancel reason. In this case, we can be benign in our judgments, knowing that they suffered great stress; but, even themselves, when they should recover the use of reason, will feel remorse of conscience as an unavoidable result. For example, we can understand that a father, after having seen his son die, blinded by a strong instinctive reaction, should kill his murderer. But, when people develop revengeful behaviours by minors motives they show themselves as mean and despicable people.
When we see that people treat us inappropriately, we must realize that their behaviours can not deteriorate our dignity but theirs. And, in consequence, we must avoid to fall in taking revenge, which would put us in the same level of degradation. However, this does not mean that we should not put all the facts straight and do all necessary reasoning to make it clear which side is right. But without crossing the line of reason, because in that case, we would find ourselves splashing in the same quagmire than the others.
I have the same problem that Isidro.
I have the same problem as Isidro, but I can see the comments on my phone (I don´t know why) but, I have to go to the "make your comment box" and then click on the place where you can see "más reciente" and then, I could see the most recent comments.
Well, I could do it once, I don´t know if I´m able to do it again!!(In order to try to solve this problem I´m going to send this information in an email to all the students I have their email)
About the revenge´s issue, I quite agree with Carmen, when she says that revenge gives you a sense of pleasure, but as Isidro have said, at last, you would feel guilty and as bad as the one who makes you hurted.
I try to avoid revenge because I´m sure, as someone has said before, that time puts everyone in their place and you never know who you are going to work with, for example. I mean, I avoid revenge so as not to get problems. I hate problems!!
Good day!
I don´t know if someone of the lost ones can read this, but even so I´ll try to help you, you need to click on" mas reciente" twice, in order to forward to the next 200 messages and the subsequent 43, at least till now, becasuse there is a total of 443 and only 200 at one time can be posted.
Regarding to the chapter XXVI "nobody´s state of mind" I want to say that it has caused me an uneasyness about how haughty people deprecate people who "supossedly" are behind them. At least, we can see Arthur acting againt unjustice comments about the Meagles and other considerations like democracy and common sense.
Talking about vengeance, I think, as Rosa does, that is an utter waste of time and energy. What you have already lost is lost forever. In the case you have been discussing lately, the only outcome of a woman taking revenge on her ex-boyfriend is to enlarge the distance and differences in their relationship, that is to make things worse. However, I find a situation, in which it is worth, if not exactly taking revenge, calling for justice. For instance, I am currently reading a British novel, ‘Arthur and George’, written by this-year-Man-Booker-Prize-winner Julian Barnes, that tells us a story of a man that, despite being innocent, was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for an offence that he had never committed. His reputation as a solicitor in Birmingham, as well as his family’s was harmed forever by the outrage. Right now, I do not know the story’s denouement but I think this wretched man will try really hard to reveal the truth and for public justice and official acquittal. He has already lost three years of his life in prison and his notoriety and credibility as a honourable man (the worst you can lose), but he can at least endeavour to prove his innocence and re-establish some of his former reputation.
Nowadays, we have recently read in the papers about the Dominique Strauss Kahn’s affair with that hotel-woman-cleaner. I personally think that outrage has been a conspiracy to keep the executive out of the IMF and the next French elections. Maybe I be wrong but I reckon it has been used his fame of being a womanizer in order to unleash this public indecency. This could be another case of injustice that deserves to be cleared up, because this scandal has put an end to his ambitious professional career.
It seems to be that I have not understood the passage of the game of card of chapter XXV. I had thought that the game was interrupted because Young John had not money to participate in it; but the last they in class, I was said that the game was not about money. Can anyone explain what was the game about? If the game was not about money, why it was suspended when Young John said that he could not afford to pay his own charges? Wy Mr Pancks, “looking, not without some pity, at Young John, slowly and thoughtfully twisted up his canvas bag as if he were wringing its neck”? I had thought that he was very upset and frustrated because he had lost the possibility of recovering at least some of money spent on the banquet. But, if it is not the reason of his annoyance, what could it be?
In my opinion, Young John is very naif, and he is not gifted to business, therefore he has failed in his projects. We have seen that he is doing some mysterious works to Mr Pancks, being his mother who profits of it. We also see that, ironically, his only virtue is his tender love rejected and deeply felt by him, in a way that he seems to have become dejected forever. Therefore, Mr Rugg praised his feeling as a sign of sympathy, when he greeted him. What other thing could he do if Young John had not any other known virtue, and he had been introduced as the young man that loved Little Dorrit? But do you think that it is not a a great misfortune that a person that has been rejected, declare his disposition to serve Miss Dorrit forever? Don’t you thing that it is completely inadvisable and even unhealthy?
Finally, I think that other comic event occurred during the toast, when Miss Rugg looking at Young John, could not avoid splutting some drops of rum and water around and had to withdraw the meeting hastily. Don’t you think that this start could be the beginning of a good friendship between her and Young John that should lead to a happy ending for both.
Fernando, that is how I am posting now, by using the historial.
Thank you.
How interesting! Isidro, you are very right. Taking revenge is not praiseworthy and equals us with indignity; it is also the perversion of feeling, which rushes into act (and act defines man to himself), that makes us 'sinners', conscious sinners! So what we need to do is take care of our own feelings!!! We are too vulnerable, too weak!!
We need to avoid taking revenge, true, but, as Laura says, we need to call for justice and not to let people get away with it, which should not be... sinful.
Hi Litle Family,
here I'm again, after a long time without writing, I will try to do it more often.
First of all Isidro, you're right about the misunderstanding of that passage in chapter XXV: Panks, having read his notes, writes some extracts on litle pieces of paper taken from his note-book "and held them like a hand at cards" pag.320 last line, second paragraph.
What are they doing is to deliver the adresses of the places where they should go to investigate on Dorrit Family.
This part of the novel is connected to chapter XXIII, pag 295-97, in which Clennam and Pancks speak about Amy's Family and eventually make an arrangement: Each one would tell the other any information that would enlighten anything concerning the Dorrit's. Panks told Arthur he would do some researchs. As he couldn't do it alone, he hires Young Chivery and Mr. Rugg.
The canvas bag is Pank's purse, he gives money to the others in order to pay the expenses of the journeys to the previously delivered places.
What Young John regrets is not only has he no money but also
has no time enough to go by foot.
Isidro, I hope my explanations could vanish your doubts.
Finally, in chapter XXV, Mr. Rugg admires and envies the luxury of Young Chivery's feelings because he belongs "to a profession in which that luxury is sometimes denied us". John is an example of fidelity and honestity that "I should like to put in the witness box, to humanize the minds of..."
Is Mr. Rugg speaking clear or is he trying to win his confidence as a possible husband for Anastasia?
Let's see.....
Oliva-
Good nigth:
I can not see the last posts in the web page of the Reading club, I only can see the first 200, I only can see the lasts one by using the tool Historial in the bar of my navigator.
I agree with Olivia, Isidro, I think you misanderstood that part of the Chapter, I think that Pancks has designed several of them to do several tasks by using the misterious notebook, and he has given them money for their expenses, and he regrets how fast his money is running out.
I do not share your opinions about John. Perhaps he is not very inteligent, but he is noble and gentle. He is not a man of action, he is a dreamer, but as I already said: What can you expect from men of action? Wars, taxes, troubles (the quote is not mine, it's from a film). He loves Amy without expecting anything in return, is there something higher?
The next chapter is very interesting. We have again Arthur and Mr Gowan matching for Pet's love. And we have another mother (think about Mrs Merdle, another mother, not a father) concerned about her son's marriage. I think that she dislikes Pet, very much, because she thinks her son deserves something better, altough she sees it could be a good marriage. And is surprising to find Arthur not bored by Mr Gowan's mother -as he predicted- but very embarassed. I find this chapter a little similar to that one in which we have the meeting between the Dorrit Sisters and Mrs Merdle. Indeed Mr Gowan seems a good man, or at less, a honest man who says what he thinks, but I am afraid he is not very inteligent and he doesn't know his own mother.
Good night.
In my view, Mr Pancks is an intelligent man that knows many people and that has in his note- book many information,very well organize on an alphabetic order; and we have seen that he knows even the smallest details. Thus, when the matter of the recommendation of Little Dorrit emerged on the conversation that Mr Clennam, Flora and Mr Casby had in Mr Clennam’s office, Mr Pancks demonstrated to know very well all the details of the subjects they treated. For example, he was who informed the Gasbys about the partnership between Mr Clennam and Mr Doyce. And when they spoke of the recommendation of Little Dorrit, he specified that Mr Garby didn’t recommended her, that he knew nothing about her, that the name was mentioned to him and that the only thing that he did was to pass the name on. Otherwise, when he asked Mr Clennam about if he had any relationship with Clernnam of Cornwall, after Mr Clennam’s negative answer, he retorted that he knew this, because he had before asked Mrs Clennam. So, he is a man that collect much information about relationship of next of kin, being very interested in verifying the accuracy of the information.
Mr Pancks had decided to start an inquiry about Little Dorrit’s family, and Mr Clennam got very perplexed by this and adopted a defensive position, but when he knew that Mr Pancks had taken this initiative on his own account, he gave him all he knew about the family, with the condition that he spoke as little as possible about this matter, that he didn’t informed Mr. Casby, nor his mother; and that he informed him when he found anything about Little Dorrit’s family.
So, we have to recognize that Mr Pancks is deploying a great activity. Thus, he is charged of Mr Casy’s dirty affairs what takes him much time, and his personal inquires require much more time of dedication than hi has; therefore he is using Young John’s services. And, in my opinion he must already have hints of something important, because, if not, he would not spend any money. We can not forget that he declared Mr Clennam that he was a man of business, whose object was to get money. In conclusion, the money he is devoting to this issue is not a spend but an investment.
But Mr Clennam is worried because he is thinking of the possibility that Mr Pancks could discover something concerning Little Dorrit’s family that were embarrassing for his own family and that he didn’t keep the secret.
In conclusion, I think that Mr Pancks is about to discover something very important, because he is not a generous man that should spend money for helping people; in my opinion, he spends some money in this issue because he has seen that he can obtain much more. Don’t you think so?
In believe that Mr Gowan is not a good man, he constantly gives Arthur and Doyce backhanded cumpliments, he is always thinking about what is best for himself.He gets what he wants but with lies but never telling the truth. Well this is my opinion. Don´t you think?
He is just a man of the world, María, a man of the day, in my opinion...You can not expect many things from him, altough, in my opinion, he is not really bad. We have lots like him in our days.
I don't see very well why Mr Pancks only has selfish motivations...
Olivia and Rosa, thank you very much for your explanation of the passage that I called the game of cards and that there was an assignment of tasks. After reading your comments I have understood very well all the passage. Mr Pancks, Mr Rugg and Young John being so hermetic in their research, Mr Clennam would be very satisfied with the procedure, that is being carried according with his desire of confidentiality. Such is the secrecy in their conduct that they look like conspirators, doing honour to the tittle of the chapter.
And as to the compliments of Mr Rugg to Mr Pancks, as Olivia says, we will see. We can not know now whether Mr Rugg has or not a second intention. But we can not forget that in this time, as Laura said, the first worry of parents was to marry their daughters, and that they did what were necessary to achieve their target.
Otherwise, in my view, encouraging Young John to maintain his position of sufferer without hope is a nonsensical and even unhealthy to him. I think that Young John’s mother position is very wise, accepting that his son should help Mr pancks in his inquiry, because this activity could be good for his drooping spirits. Moreover, Mr Rugg said that so depressed was his daughter, after the breach of promise of marriage, that she ate less of ten ounces per week; however, we have seen her in the dinner making up “some of her arrears”, what is a hint that she is already recovered. So, we must trust that Young John can follow her path soon, recovering the urge to eat and the joy of living.
In my opinion, Dickens announce us the imminent arrival of Mr Rigaud in an indirect way. Mrs Plornish seems to be a very observant woman and she has seen Mr John Baptiste Cavalletto looking “towards where his own country is”. She has repeatedly seen the same look on him whenever he reaches the top of the steps at home; and she thinks that it seems as if he were looking for someone that he doesn’t want to see.
This way of anticipating future events is a singularity that Dickens uses repeatedly in his novels. We have seen that whenever he makes an indication as direct as this, the anticipation takes place, because he always ties loose ends.
So, the premonition is going to take place, and if Mrs Plornish has seen a glimpse of an undefined fear in John Baptiste’s look, we can give a concrete shape to this fear, and forecast the sinister appearance of Mr Rigaud around Bleeding Heart Yard.
I think that it is very interesting this way of showing something that is not present in the reality, through the indirect way of projecting two looks that give us a weak trace of the original image, knowing that we have the necessary elements to give it a complete sense. If we could follow the path of the look of Mrs Plornish until John Baptiste eyes, and look into his imagination, we could recognize the image of Mr Rigaud, as the shape that he was intended to look for on the horizon.
The reading of this paragraph has reminded me the painting of Velazquez “Las Meninas” in which we can see that the looks of the characters of the painting are complemented with the looks that come from outside.
Good morning:
Yes, Isidro, I quite agree with you. John Baptist seems quite watching and worried, like if he were expecting something that he fears and dislikes. Could it be Rigaud? He run away from him. What could he have to do at Bleeding Heart Yard? I don't know, but knowing the man, nothing good...
In the last chapter we can see how Arthur is still trying to convence himself that he is not in love with Pet, and he is also stressed about the Gowan situation, but he can not find the way to solve his problems.
Intelligent as Arthur is I have to admit that he is a man who need to be helped by someone.
Rosa, I usually find your comments very interesting and I share many of them; but in this moment I am going to express my disagreement with your suggestion that dreamer men are better than men of action. I think that it is not fair to say that men of action are responsible of all evils of the world. In my view all of us could name many people of action that have done good thing for the welfare of humanity. Let us not be Manichaean; we must recognize that good and evil are shared between the different kind of men, whatever it be the classification we do.
In my view, the questions “ can you expect something good of a man of action?” and “can you expect something good of a dreamer man?” have not predetermined the answer. It would be necessary to analyse each case to know the answer.
For example, I think that we could classify Little Dorrit between the people of action, because she faces the real problems of her family, as many women do every day all along the world. She works outside home and takes care of his father, she makes the laundering and the sewing of the family, she looks for jobs to his brother, and her responsibilities seems not to be an end.
Otherwise, I think that we could consider that the Father of Marshalsea is a dreamer man that do nothin and that will never produce anything. His life, absorbed in his chimeric reality, without doing anything for the others or for himself, is a clear nonsense that only can drive to madness.
So, I think that it would not be good that Young John should fall in a similar drift; and the best thing that someone could do for him is to help him to get out his self-absorption, because this would be the best way that he stop being miserable.
Good night:
Of course not all bad things are came from men of action, but if you think it carefully, you will realize that many of them, do. I didn't want to generalize in an absolute way. Some of them are useful and valuable people, like firemen, policemen, inventors, astronauts...But also, people who do wars and crimes: terrorists, dictators, criminals. The people who dreamt, said someone whose name I can not remenber, the things that are imposible today are the architects of the future, people who dared to think that the impossible could be possible. The artists, the writers, the philosophers...are dreamers. Think it carefully, if Hitler had decided to stay at home and be only a regular painter, we probably had saved the Second World War. But no, because he was rejected at the academy, he decided to take revenge from the society, and he became a politician, or something like that... Without dreamers, we couldn't have poetry, art, books. Perhaps we couldn't be now reading Little Dorrit, because nobody had the idea of writting it. But if you don't agree with me, I would recomend you to revisite Historia de una escalera, by Buero Vallejo ("better to be a dreamer than to be a useless fop", or something like that, says there one of the characters)...But, for being honest, I must confess you that I think that the world would be a better place if we had more dreamers. Altough, it always would be necesary to have someone who made real those dreams...
Anyway, I think that John has nothing to do with Mr Dorrit. John is a dreamer, but he is a good person, also, and he is willing to hepl the people that he cares about, even if those people don't love him. I think this is not Mr Dorrit's case, who is just a lazy, a looser and useless man. He wants to help Mr Pancks and Amy, and even he is sorry because he has not money from is own, and he has to accept Mr Panck's. Mr Dorrit doesn't care very much about the lifes of the people around him, he only wants to be care by his daughter, when he should be who care her. But, even being a working girl, as you accurately say, Amy is, in my opinion, a dreamer. She locks herself in her room, only with Maggy, and daydreams about her own life. And Fanny is also a working girl, but I think she is not really a girl of action, I think she is more like her father, selfish and not aware of the real situation, which, in my opinion, is not the same. For not mentioning Pip's case.
I hope I have been more clear this time. Good nigth.
Rosa, your suggestion of dividing the world in this way amazing me very much. In my view it is ever a risk to label people, because each person is a complex reality. For example, in the case of Amy we could classify her as a woman of action because she do all she can to face and resolve the real problems of her family, she is a woman of action because she consumes her life sewing, making dinner for his father, keeping the house clean, looking for jobs for his brother,.... And this is not incompatible with her also being a dreamer; thus, he carry the heavy burden of his family, but this doesn’t prevent her to dream. So I think that she also could be classified as a dreamer; it depends on the point of view that we take to do the classification. And in the case of Hitler, depending of the point of view, he could be considered a man of action; but we can also consider him as a paranoid dreamer, because he was a man that conceived a monstruos idea of the world and he intended to put into practice his idea; and in my opinion certain ideas are more dangerous than the bullets.
Otherwise, I think that it is not convenient to use the criterion of authority as a way of obtain a conclusion, because a thesis must be based in strong grounds. The criterion of authority was discarded in philosophy and in science much time ago, therefore I don’t consider a very good idea to use this criterion in the dialectical fight; although, obviously, it can be used to illustrate a reasoning.
For example, you say that you heard once in a film the expression, “What can you expect from men of action?”; and don’t see how can you use this in favour of your position, because the answer of this question depends on the concrete situation. And when you uses the expression, "better to be a dreamer than to be a useless fop" you are cheating in a double way. First, you pretend to use the authority of Buero Vallejo in your thesis; however, it is not legitimate to put the phrase out of context. Secondly, you change the object of discussion, because instead of comparing dreamer men to men of action, you substitute “men of action” by “useless men”, identifying them, and introducing a negative connotation. Otherwise, it is not necessary to turn to Buero Vallejo to demonstrate that it is not good to be a fop; but it was not the issue.
In conclusion, I think that our thoughts are similar. Thus, I said that we could neither attribute the good nor the evil to any category of human beings, because we ever will find good and evil in whatever classification that we do. And you say that “not all bad things are came from men of action” and that “some of them are valuable people”. So, if you should also admit that between dreamer people, not only are valuable people as artists, writers, philosophers..., but paranoid, lunatic, criminal, degenerate of all kind, we would totally agree.
I'm sorry. In my last comment:
....as a way of obtaining a conclusion"
......"and I don’t see how you can use this in favour of your position,.....
Good evening:
What I was trying to do is to prove that you can find things which can support both kind of ideas. In fact, I think that other of the problems in the world of our days is that we have not men (it can be women, also). I'll try to explain, we have many individually good people, but mediocre people. People unable of doing any valuable, to join other people to make possible an achieve. People good, but without great gifts. People who is unable of doing anything good for the common goodnes, for the well-being, for every people sake, I don't know if I am not explaining it well... I think this is also in the roots of the actual depression, which is not only an economical one. We are lacking of true leaders. Who usually are a combination of braveness, action, boldness, sense, sensibility and imagination. And we have became very coward (men of action are not usually coward, I recognize that this is one of their advantages), and selfish. We want to do which is rigth, but we lack of the strength to do that. Unfortunately, I do not consider myself an exception... When you want to do something good, you can't have selfish motivation. This is something extremelly hard, I know, but is the essence of goodness. Perhaps the middle way would be what a Japanese Tea Master said: "The greatest pleasure in this world is to do a good deed in a secret way and that this would be discovered by chance".
Well, perhaps it's only that I am very fond of John.
Allow me to finish with a Dickens' quote: "A nation without fantasy, never will have a great place under the sun".
You will find it in the Dickens Dossier, in the magazine La aventura de la historia, nº 160, which I recommend to read, for better undertanding Dickens' times.
Have a nice day.
Rosa, I have to confess that your last comment seems to me very confusing. I find very difficult to follow the train of your thought, perhaps, because of my difficulty in understanding English language.
Otherwise, I don’t know why you say that not only there are men in the world, but also women. Of course!!! I remind you that If I talked of men of action was to comment the declaration “What can we expect from a man of action?” that you said you had heard in a film. When I read this sentence in your comment, I understood that the word “men” was used for you in a general way, and I used it in the same way; I think that it would have been absurd not to include women. In fact, I put a women, Little Dorrit, as an example.
I see that you admit the complexity of the human beings and of the reality in general. I think that the reality is complex, but this doesn’t mean that we can not find the way of discriminate between good and evil. But, in my opinion, we have to take care when we make judgments about people, and try not to make generalisations, because each person is a singular and unique being.
Remember that our discussion was about Young John. I had said that there was not convenient to encouraging Young John to maintain his position of sufferer without hope, because it was a nonsensical and even unhealthy to him. Remember that such was his disappointment and his upset that he adopted a negative attitude in relation with the clients of his mother’s business; and that when Mr Clennam visited her mother he had sitting in a chair in a little parlour, between “the sheets and table-clothes,...like the last mariner left alive on the deck of a damp ship without the power of furling the sails.” Do you really think that we should encourage Young John to maintain this destructive attitude? My answer to this question is not.
In my opinion, we must not intend to justify Young John’s sad situation comparing him with a philosopher, a writer or an artist, because his state of mind have nothing to do with the state of a creative mind. And we must to take care with the accurate use of the concepts in our reasoning to avoid making sophistry instead of consistent arguments. Thus, we must avoid false identities; for example, from the premise that all philosophers, artists, writers, scientists,...are dreamers, we can’t conclude that all dreamers are creative, innovative, useful or valuable people, because all of us know that it is not right.
Good night:
You say you have problems to difficult English language? I can not believe that! But you write so well! It is me who have great pains to explain myself in it!
I have tryed to say that we, in our days, lack of people with ideas an ability of action, leaders. Perhaps because I tryed to translate the Spanish expression in a very literal way, you couldn't undertand it.
In my opinion, dreamers are more harmless and peaceful, I think this is the real core of the question, but I couldn't say it with the proper words. I didn't think about, I couldn't find them. Perhaps, because of that, I think I like them more. I think we are parting of the real point of the question, that it was John's personality. I like the way in which you describe his situation, because this is pretty much your mood when you have suffered a disapointement. It is not good to let a person to be in that situation, but sometimes it's necessary to give him (or her) some time, it's not healthy to rip them away from their current condition. Sometimes you should let them to get away from it slowly. Almost nobody has died of a failed infatuation. John has no concrete talent, he can not be compared with an artist, or philosoper, but I think he has something in common with them. He is a good man, who is not a small thing, even more in these times of today, and he wants to help. He is not like Tip, who I liked more at the beggining of the novel, but who is now very unsympathetic to me. who is just a bum.
I'll try to comment very soon something about the next chapter.
Good nigth.
I mean "to understand"
Hi Rosa and Isidro, I mean it is a pleasure to read your discussions about the characters of the book we are reading. I would love to participate in them, but I am unable to write what I feel in English. I don´t have enought words to get into a discussions, but at least I enjoy reading it, because at the same time I learn reading yours comments.
I wanted to say also that at the end of chapter XXVI I feel pity by Arthur because when he goes walking with Gowan to his house he realizes that he was only invited to meet Mrs. Gowan due to she wanted make Arthur to feel bad hearing the Meagles insulted by Mrs. Gowan. What do you think about?
I did the last commentary, which is billed as "Anónimo".
Good afternoon.
I don't know what is going on, but this is the third time that I have to post this.
I am glad, María,that you like them. I would like to have more people comenting.
I think that Mr Gowan apreciates Arthur, and he doesn't want to harm him, but, altough good, he is very naive, and doesn't know his own family, nor Arthur feelings. His mother wants to have some information about the Meagles, and because of that, he wanted to meet Arthur. She doesn't want to hurt Arthur's feelings, by scorning the Meagles. She couldn't because she didn't know anything about his love to Pet.
I have liked very much the way in which Dickens describes Mr Meagles and Arthur's visit to Ms Wade's neigborhood. It's like taken from a horror tale.
We have again the Tattycoram girl and the intriging Ms Wade. She has run away, this was to be expected. I understand her feelings, but I think she is exagerating. We can see that Mr Meagles is actually a good man, because he is really worried about Tatty, and he feels he has not treaten her in the best way, and he could have called the police and force her to come back home, but he didn't, but I think that the way in which he carries the whole thing, being he a practical man, is a little inmature ("count to twenty five, Tatty, count...") and naive. And I feel very uncomfortable about Ms Wade's intentions, because almost nobody shelters in her house an almost unknown girl for nothing. Perhaps she wants to use her to some obscure design...She is a very misterious woman...
Hi Little Family!
What is happening with the blog? I can only see until January 19th and it's impossible to update it in any way.
Well, I hope to be able to post this.
After reading chapter XXVIII, I've been revising the "Nobody's saga", I mean, chapters: XVI, XVII, XXVI and XXVIII. Through them Dickens describes the feelings that a person in love might feel in different situations concerning the loved one in such an ironical way that it's impossible not to emphasize with Arthur. But the last one not only is ironical, but also very beautiful.
Beautiful is the description of the landscape that Arthur is enjoying on his going to the Merdle's.Beautiful is his encounter with Pet. Very beautiful and painful is the way in which he discovers that Pet and Gowan are going to be married, a fact that kills any hope of him being loved by Pet.
Very moving is Pet's request to Arthur to take care of her father and how Dickens made us realize that Pet knows about Arthur's feelings.
Beautiful as all that I've mentioned is, nothing more heart-rending that the poetry of the simbolism of the roses and the image of Arthur throwing them to the River.
This chapter is, by now, my favourite one.
Good night!!!!
María del Campo, thank you by your kind words. I encourage you to keep writing, because the more you write the better you will do in the future. That's the only way to improve.
I agree with you about what you say of Mr Clennam.
Mr Clennam went to dinner at Mrs Gowan’s home reluctantly, but he could not reject Mr Gowan’s invitation. Really, the dinner couldn’t be more annoying for him.
First of all he had to assist to the deployment of the proud, arrogance and haughty of a family, full of Barnacles and Stiltstalkings that had ever had England in their hands.
I think that it is very fanny the way in which Dickens explains Lord Lancaster Stiltstalking’s policy abroad, as a representative of the British Majesty. He iced several European courts and he had enough power still now to shade and to cool all around him; and, in consequence, he froze all the dinner. And so cold was Mr Clennam that, much startled as he was by the things he had heart all night, he could say anything.
However, Mrs Gowan’s haughty and contemptuous conversation seemed to awake him of his indolence, and he rejected her suggestions about the shrewdness deployed by the Meaggles to secure her son. But at the end, he got very thoughtful fluctuating between considering that Mr Gowan had put him a trap to play with him, or thinking that he had no right to have this suspicion. So Mr Clennam remains the same: a sufferer, always fearful of having a disappointment, and at the same time concerned about not hurting others.
In my opinion Tattycoram’s problems have no her source in Mr Meaggles’s family, because they have always treated her very well, as herself recognized in chapter II when, talking to Miss Wade, he said: “When my temper comes upon me I am mad. I know I might keep it off if I only tried hard enough, and sometimes I do try hard enough, and at other times I don’t and won’t......(....).......They are nothing but good to me. I love them dearly; no people could ever be kinder to a thankless creature than they always are to me. Do, do go away, for I am afraid of you. I am afraid of myself when I feel my temper coming, and I am as much afraid of you. Go away from me, …..!”
As we see here on her own declaration, Tattycoram’s problems don’t come from Meagles’s family but from herself. Perhaps her lack of affection when she was a little child determined her bad temper, and her tendency to suffer uncontrolled fits of anger and jealousy. Therefore, her problems, being problems of nature disposition, always will accompany her. And in my opinion, she will be very unhappy, because Miss Wade has an strong character, and it is possible that she not be as patience to her as Meagles’s family.
Otherwise, I find very strange that Miss Wade had so much interest in Tattycoram. Don’t you see something dark in her? We know that when Miss Wade saw Tattycoram very sad and angry in chapter II and said to her: “I am sorry to see you so”, Tattycoram retorted: “you are nor sorry...you are glad. You know you are glad. I never was like this twice, over in the quarantine yonder; and both times you found me. I am afraid of you.”
So, it is clear that Miss Wade was very attentive to Tattycoram during and after the quarantine. She wrote to Tattycoram and she met her in the church. In my view, Miss Wade broke Tattycoram’s initial opposition, with her insistence, but Tattycoram will be very unhappy when she should discover that Miss Wade will not be able to appease her inner urge. Because she is a mystery, as Mr Meagles says; a woman “with a smile that is only seen on cruel faces”.
Isidro, I agree with you. Of course, Tattycoram is not a balanced person, but I don´t think that Meagle´s family had treated her as good as they think. The way in that he says to her always that she has to count five and twenty shows us that they had treated her as a fool. Well, I don´t think that she is really wise; were she wise she won´t go with Miss Wade.
Ms Wade is a weird person, and the thing that Tattycoram haven´t seen her strange character, prefering her than Mr Meagle´s family gives us information about her lack of intelligence.
Also, the fact that Mr Meagles don´t give up looking for her, says us that he is a good person and he is really worried for her.
As you have said, how Dickens describes us the way Miss Wade see other people, and how she laugh give us a piece of information to know that she is not a good person and that Tattycoram have chosen the wrong decision. So, finally, I think that Tattycoram behaves as a teenager and she would return with Meagle´s family when she were less stubborn and proud.
Do you think that she would come back after knowing Miss Wade?
Good nigth:
Yes, Mónica, I quite agree with you. The Meagles are not good. They are just paternalist. They were always rubbing on Tatty's face that she was nodoby and has no family. And of course Tattycoram has problems. She is, like Jane Eyre, in a dependant position, but she is not as inteligent as Jane was. I think she has not done well in trusting herself to Ms Wade. Nobody helps you without expecting anything in return. You sais she behaved like a teenager. But she is just a teenager, like Pet! And Pet is getting married, and look how concerned and worried is she!
Well I have a different point of view... Because perhaps the Miagles didn´t realize that Tatycoram was suffering when they pampered to Pet infront of Tatycoram´s face.
Knowing what fathers feel about their children is very difficult to hide the feelings in front of another person, Although when you adopt a child your first though was to treat it as your own child.
On the other hand it is also seems logical that Tatycoran be jealous about Pet, she is very pretty, she is getting married and so on.
Tatycoran also complains of her bad luck when she says ...life is such a random lottery. Which means that it will be the true daughter and not an adopted one.
Monica, I agree with you. Certenly, Tattycoram is not an intelligent woman. In my view, she should not expect that with Miss Wade she will live better than with the Meagles, because her evil impulses come from her turbulent and uncontrollable inner. I agree with María del Campo; Mr Meagles and his family have treated her very well. Perhaps Mr Meagles should not say to her five and twenty every time she is bound to externalize her natural aggressiveness; but it is possible that much as he repeated her, when she was very young, to be calm and to think a little before speaking to avoid a temperamental answer, she lost control many times; and therefore Mr Meagles has acquired the habit of telling her count five and twenty, an expression appropriate to a little girl,but not to a girl of eighteen. However, it is not so important; the most important thing is that the Meagles love her.
I think that Miss Wade is a disturbing woman with a dark and stormy inner that is shown through very disquieting expressions. I said some days ago that her sexuality seemed to have a certain disturbance, and it seemed that I was talking of homosexuality. However, I didn’t mean so, I was thinking of something worst. If Miss Wade and Tattycoram felt an homosexual attraction they could love each other and be happy. But I think that Miss Wade’s look and her attentive smile in chapter II demonstrate that she doesn’t feel love for Tattycoram; and her smile of chapter XXVII that “ is only seen on cruel faces” shows us the incapacity to feel love.
In my view, Miss Wade enjoys seeing the suffering of others; she enjoys seeing Tattycoram suffering and her smile betrays her. Tattycoram notice it and when Miss Wade sayd that she was sorry of seeing her suffering, Tattycoram says: “You are not sorry,... you are glad”. Moreover, in the previous conversation about the forgiveness she was against; and she also had a very bad premonition to Pet, anticipating the darkest omens.
So, if Tattycoram went away because she was jealous of Mr Meagles, and she could not stand so much demonstrations of affection round her, she is going to be happy if she has masochistic tendency. But, In my opinion, she is going to be wretched.
Good night:
I find your idea very interesting, Isidro, I haven't realized that. But, in my opinion,two women couldn't be happy and live together during XIX th century. Even in XX th it was very difficult. Even more that if they were men. But I think that Ms Wade, in fact, wants to use the girl for some obscure and misterious purpose, as I said.
I'm sorry. In my last comment I obviously meant that Tattycoram was jealous of Pep having Mr Meagles affection.
In chapter XXVIII, we can feel Pet’s sensitivity in her conversation to Mr Clennam. As we know that love is blind, we can not blame her for loving a man like Mr Gowan. At least, we have to recognize that she has demonstrated to have an exquisite delicacy in the way of communicating to Mr Clennam her next marriage. The moment chosen, the roses, the silences, and the quiet emotion, her concern about her father’s suffering when she left home, the way as she entreats Mr Clennam to support his father.....
Otherwise, Pet said to Mr Clennam that her father liked him very much and we see that it is completely right, when at the end of the chapter Mr Meagles shows him how much he would have liked having him as a son in law.
I have enjoyed reading chapter XXVIII, I believe that Dickens makes a wonderful description about the place where Mr. Clennan is walking and I agree with you Isidro about the behavior of Pet. She has a very nice way of saying to Mr. Clennan that she is getting married Gowan, though when she gets closer to him I had the impresion that she was going to say something very different, maybe for the roses or because she was there waiting for him. Well at least they remain as friends, which is a good thing.
Tattycoran had a wretched childhood because she lived in a social institution that took charge of children without parents. As we know, in these institutions, the relationships are governed by neutral rules that are strictly enforced, without taking into account the feelings of the children. So, children generate frustration and aggressiveness, and having no room to the affections, they don’t learn to express emotion but to repress them.
When Tattycoram started living with the Meagles, she continued acting according to the patterns of behaviour that she had developed previously; that is, she reacted with aggressiveness whenever she felt upset, and therefore she suffered very much; and she got puzzle before the expressions of affect.
Tattycoram was at ease during the quarantine, because the relationships then were more impersonal, but when she heard that the quarantine ended, she got very upset because this implied the return to the affective family life which disturbed her very much; therefore she had a fit of anger.
Tattycoram, after having cried, having claimed unfairly of the Meagles, and having vented, she admitted the truth of her situation. Thus, she says in chapter II: “when my temper comes upon me, I am mad....They are nothing that good to me. I love them dearly; no people could ever be kinder to a thankless creature than they always are to me.”
So, she knows that the Meagles are good with her, and that there is a mad inner tendency that she can not control. The last crisis arose in a similar situation that in chapter two; that is, when Pet rejected the idea of travelling, which Tattycoram felt as an opportunity for escaping from an affective atmosphere that asphyxiates her.
The difference between the first fit of anger and this one is that, while in the first fit she saw that Miss Wade was a menace to her, and she rejected her; now she is so stubborn, that she can not judge with objectivity.
We have seen that one of Pet’s concerns is that his father is going to become very sad after her marriage and her subsequent living home, therefore she asked Mr Clennam to accompany him. Had Tattycoram been an intelligent woman, she would have realized that Pet’s marriage implied her leaving the house; and that this would have the consequence to herself of becoming the center of the family’s attention.
But Tattycoram’s tantrum was so strong that she lost the capacity of thinking clearly and her immaturity prevented her from recognizing her mistake and reverse. Thus, when Mr Meagles and Mr Clennam met her in Miss Wade’s home, she could have calmed; but, as Miss Wade is very intelligent, she did what was necessary to stimulate Tattycoram’s resentment and encourage her proud. Therefore she spoke ironically and contemptuously of the possibility of returning with Mr Meagles. She knew that her talking this way was going to put Tattycoram in a situation in which was impossible to her thinking with calm. Thus, Miss Wade’s attitude triggered Tattycoram aggressiveness and put her in the situation of choosing between these two ideas: “the possibility of being “again a foil to his pretty daughter, of being a slave to her pleasant willfulness and of recuperating her “droll name again....”; or the possibility, implied in her discourse, of being a free woman with the ability to decide for herself.
Don’t you see Miss Wade manipulation? Don’t you perceive her intelligence? She present the problem so that it seems that Tatticoram must choice between to be an slave and a toy to Pet, or to be independent and master of her decisions. So, Miss Wade posed the problem in a way that Tattycoram’s answer was predictable.
But, in my opinion, Miss Wade is not going to give her more independence than the Meagles’s family, and it is possible that Tattycoram should not like Miss Wade’s games.
If you want to read my new commentaries, go to Litle Dorrit Continuation, because from now on, I am gooing to post there.
Have a nice day.
In my view, it is a pity that the problems with the blog have paralyzed the steady pace of comments we had reached in the firs half of the course. I thought that we were going to break widely the record of the blog surpassing the amount of a thousand comment. But technology plays dirty tricks and we have nothing to do.
For my part, I will keep writing even if no one read the comments that I write, because my goal is to improve my capacity to write in English. I started writing comments in English because I was unable to talk in this language, and I thought that my writing could be an opportunity to reinforce the new vocabulary and a way to think in English.
Moreover, after having written many comments, I have realized that the best way to know in depth a book is to write about it. Thus, I know very well “A tale of two cities” because I have written many comments about it, and the same thing I could say about “Emma” or “Little Dorrit”; however, I have not a knowledge so accurate, for example, of “Great Expectation” or “Hard Times”, because I have read them without writing anything about them, and so I don’t remember them as well as the novels on which I reflected more.
You are quite rigth, Isidro, but I think that you are going to miss all the interesting conversations...The point of this is to improve your writting by talking with other people, I think so...
Even so, I'll try to keep posting here, too, because I will miss your commentaries, and I would regret to lose them.
I think that the problem with the blog has an easy solution and it would be repaired, because this problem not only affects the comments related to Little Dorrit but the whole blog.
In my opinion, it is better to continue using the original address, because this way, when the blog be repaired, we will have all the comments together. Moreover, the new address also will stop working when it exceed two hundred comments; and then it would be necessary to start again in a different one. Don’t you think that this is too tiresome?
From my particular point of view it is indifferent the place where I post my comments, but from the point of view of the department of English, I consider that to maintain the blog maimed would be a great lose, because the blog, in its current state, doesn’t show the importance of this innovative project in his full dimension; an initiative that has achieve thousands of interventions of teachers and students in a short period of time.
The blog is a sign of modernity, and shows the dynamism of a department that has managed to use the new technologies to improve the learning of English.
I’m sorry. In my last comment I meant
….”an initiative that has achieved thousands of interventions....”
I share Affery’s astonishement when she saw Mrs Clennam showing interest by Little Dorrit’s familly and kissing her in chapter XXIX; she could not believe what she saw: a sensitive and compassionate Mrs Clennam. And I liked very much her ironic reference about the possibility of the arrival of the general goodness of people round her, imagining “the other clever one kissing Little Dorrit next, and then the two clever ones embracing each other and dissolving into tears of tenderness for all mankind.”
I also think that Mrs Clennam’s attitude with Little Dorrit is very strange, taking into account her attitude with his son in their first meeting after 20 years. If Arthur had seen his mother’s tenderness with Little Dorrit, he would have reinforced his suspicion that his mother hid an unspeakable secret in connection with Little Dorrit’s family.
And this suspicion is also reinforced by the presence of Mr Pancks that, as an scavenger bird, is hovering round Little Dorrit and Mrs Clennam, what is a sign that he is smelling something. In my opinion, Mr Pancks is on the verge of discovering something about Little Dorrit that is going to revolutionize the novel. Don’t you think so?
What do you think about the possibility of Mr Clennam and Little Dorrit being brothers? Don’t you think it possible that Mr Pancks should discover that Little Dorrit is a secret daughter of Mr Clennam’s father?
I glad you have mentioned that.
Well, I don't know if Clennam and Dorrit are siblings. I don't think so, but, in my opinion, Arthur perhaps is not Mrs Clenam's son. And if they are, I think that Amy is not the daughter of his father, which it would be quite impossible, if we considered thar she was born in the prison. No, but there is something very strange about the Clenams, as I said. And all the chapter about the new dreams of Mrs Affery is not enlightening at all. It ads even more mistery. We have that strange guy, Mr Blandois that I am sure is Mr Rigaud, a.k.a. Mr Lagnier (this guy has changed his name more times than Prince), lurking arround the house...and they allow him to come in! What does he want? Nothing good, just see how he behaves when he is whit Mrs Clenam, and how he behaves when he is alone!
Yes Rosa, I think that you are right. Amy can’t be Mr Clennam’s daughter because he was in China much time before she was born. So, if there is a problem of illegitimacy of one of them, it is more likely that Arthur not be Mrs Clennam’s son, what would explain Mrs Clennam’s abhorrence to him. However, there still remain the possibility that they be relatives. Don’t you think so?
In any case, It seems clear that Mr Pancks’s dirty nails hovering over Mrs Clennam’s home, and his attentive and inquisitive glance are casting upon the house the most dark omens. And if this were not enough, the unexpected arrival of Mr Blandois is the prove that something wrong is going to happen.
When we see that an unscrupulous and criminal man as Mr Rigaud, that passes by Mr Blandois, achieves to gain the confidence of Mr Flintwinch, we can begin to imagine who will be the victim.
I think that Mr Flintwinch is relying too much, drinking friendly with Mr Blandois, without knowing anything about him. Don’t you think so?
He is very cunning (Rigaud-Lagnier-Blandois or what ever he be), and such kind of people is dangerous. He has Jeremiah and Mrs Clennam eating from his hand. I think he knows Jeremiah, but Jeremiah doesn't know him. His strange interest about the clock, the portrait, the house... All this staff smells like blackmail to me...
Charles Dickens was born on February 7, 2012, 200th years ago. His childhood was so difficult that no one could have imagined that he could create an imaginary world so rich as the one he left us, and that he would achieve so important a place in English literature.
When he was twelve years old, after his father’s imprisonment in Marshalsea’s prison for nonpayment of debts, he had to start working ten hours a day in a factory of bitumen to help his family that lived in jail with his father. Surely, the hardship conditions that he lived being a teenager left a deep mark on him that determined his interest in showing the living conditions of the working class. But, only having a great intelligence and tenacity, a vivid imagination and sensitivity and high doses of irony and sense of humour, could he create a large number of characters that are part of the universal imagination.
I only know a little part of his extensive work, but I am impressed by his deep knowledge of human nature, his capacity of capturing the essence of the events described and his ability to express accurately, and sometimes in a poetic way, the most diverse situations. Thus, in “A tale of two cities”, Dickens showed us an impressive and poetic image of misery and horror of people, in London and Paris, at the end of eighteen century. “Little Dorrit” shows that people still suffered many hardships in nineteen century, living in a situation of ignorance and impotence before the ineffectiveness of a corrupt administration. In “Hard times” and in “Great Expectations” Dickens explores the possibility of improving society through the education, and the dangers derived of an education focused exclusively in material success, ignoring the importance of feeling. In Chistmas Carol, he insist in the idea that a life obsessed by material success, without taking into account the feelings of people, becomes a sad and empty life.
200 years have passed, but Dickens will live while characters as Mr Carton, Doctor Mannete, Mr Clennam, Little Dorrit, Pip, Joe, Mr Gradgrind, Scroog and many other remain in the collective imagination of Humanity.
Good morning:
In my opinion, this Rigaud-Blandois or whatever he be, knows something about the Clenams...something that they don't want to be talked about...and he is willing to tell it, therefor, the possibility of blackmailing...I think that his visit to the Clenams house had the purpose of "exploring the land".
Check the Google Doodle of today!
Good morning:
My aunt has just told me that, this week, the TV contest Saber y Ganar is going to be about Dickens. Yesterday, they talked about Oliver Twist. The schedule of this tv program is a bit problematic, but, if you can watch it...
Good nigth:
I have just been in the Dickens reading at the Elisa Tavern. Do you want to know if I have liked it? Well, I did, and I did not. The performers seemed quite good, and the texts chosen, interesting. All of them in period costumes, with musicians in period costumes too, performing popular tunes in folk instruments, and with some people disguised like Dickensian characters. It could have been very good. Now, the bad things: in my opinion, the organization was not good. They started half an hour later than they should, the place was very small for such many people. It was hard to watch or even to hear the performers. Very crowdy, extremely much. A real pity, because the atmosphere seemed very good, and many of the people there were people whose native language was English. We had to go before they finished, because it was becaming late, and such many people in such a small place were absolutely unbearable to me.
As I said, a pity...
"SUMMARIZE"
I am going to be politically incorrect and begging your pardon in advance for what I am just going to say.
My job as a "civil servant" my new girlfriend who demans a bit of time of my "spirit presence", and she is on her right of doing it,of course, the english classes, my dart´s,football´s teams, my home´s duties , my social life in general, it leave me very little time to enter into the blog and read all the interesting comments that you two(ISIDRO AND ROSA) write every day and what is more the possibility of writing my own opinions about all that you say or what i have recently read.
So please, and i am trying to talk in a constructive way, SUMMARIZE A BIT, FOR GOD´S SAKE, ;-)
As far as I am concerned it could help people to participate more in the blog and conversations among bloggers probably would be more interesting to get along.
Sorry if a have been so harsh in my words in class or here, but I consider it necessary in order to give another point of view for the blog to survive.
hoping to have been taken my opinions into account , now i´ll be waiting desperately for your "gun´s shoots" hehe.
Good morning to all.
Ah, Fernando, but I think we have got a problem, as the astronaut would say...
We are very few people commenting there,regulary, I think this is the bad thing, so, it seems that conversation is monopolized by two people (which I think it's not true). Anybody who wants can post there, I think so.
Have a nice day.
Of course Rosa, don´t you think that if you realize that something is going wrong you will be the first person who will change the tendency?
In other words , it seems that you think everything is ok, so let us doing as usually, but in my "particular" opinion is whorthy to at least try something different, who knows, maybe people would surprise you a bit.
It not only happens here in little dorrit´s blog, but also in film´s one, What a coincidence...
Good evening
Talking of other things, have you all noticed a button which is near to the "refresh" button and the "stop"(X) one , at the top of internet explorer´s page which is called "vista de compatibilidad"? its form is like a broken piece of sheet, I recomend to you to click or unclick that button in order to improve the quality in the sight of the blog. For those who have problems to see it clearly.
Have a nice day, as Rosa says ;-)
Fernando, don’t restrain us to write freely, please.
We all have different commitments and interests, and sometimes we have to give up certain things, but we cannot pretend that others be subordinated to our interests.
I conceive the blog as a good complement of the the class. It gives us the opportunity to express our opinion about Little Dorrit, and to maintain between us a communication without restrictions about anything. In my opinion this lack of restriction is one of the best qualities of the blog, because this enable to write, not only about the novel, which is its centre of interest, but about whatever else.
The novel, considered in itself, is an inexhaustible source of ideas, and you can discover countless different prospects relating the novel with the author, the period of the novel, the present time, the human nature,...
So, being the possibilities unlimited, I don’t think that the interventions of some can imply any hindrance to others, but on the contrary a stimulus, because these interventions can cause many others. In fact, the friendly controversy that Rosa and I have had during several days has caused several interventions of different mates; and even yourself have written several comments related to this topic, contradicting this way the position that you intended to held.
wow Isidro, it the first time I can see you writing about others things not related to the book, furthermore of talking about this issue with the rest of the class and their giving me the same opinion or at least in a similar way, not all of them have been pronounced(of course), I, in my modest opinion(I am not the defender of lost causes, ;-)))we have concluded that the lack of interest in the blog, not taking into account the little free time that most of us don´t have about taking part here,some of the objections are related with the quantity and extensions of your comments(not all of us knows a lot about literature or have a good level writing english as you both have) I am not talking about restrain you from writing whatever you want to do it, but like in a neighbourdhood community who everybody tries to adapt his customs in order to get on well with the rest of the people, I think you can hear different points of view not only for your personal improving but also for the improvement of the rest. I realize that carmen want us to enter here more often than we do, but Sorry Isidro of being such stubborn as a mule, I have encounter this problems in two weeks when i have accepted to take part in the blogs.
After that if you consider, or Rosa, that I am totally wrong, you can continue keeping Carmen attention in order of your personal, exclusive and selfish improvement. "I have SAid"
Hava a nice Day Isidro, I hope my words haven´t caused you any trouble.
First of all, I assure you that your words have not caused me any trouble; on the contrary, they give me the opportunity of writing this comment in English. I don’t know what is your problem, but in my case, I have enrolled in this course with the only intention of learning English; and, as I think that the best way of improving my writing is to participate in the blog, I write in it as much as I can.
I want you to know that my first interest is to achieve a correct expression in English. If I had been worried about what other could think of my comments, I couldn’t have participated in the blog. When I began to post comments, I supposed that, being all of us students, we would be comprehensive with the faults of others; and I didn’t think that any of us could become a judge of others.
Otherwise, you say that it is the first time that I write “about other thing not related with the book”, which is not right, but if it were truth, I don’t see why it could be something negative to anyone. Perhaps you think that your comments can be a pattern for other, not only in the length but also in the content. Do you really think that you are an example to follow? Do you thing that you are legitimated to put the rules to the others?
I would be very worried if I thought that the lentgh and the quantity of my comment could be any hindrance to others, but I am very calm because, as I said you the last day, much as I proposed it, I could not exhaust the subject, because the possibilities are endless.
Fernando, obviously, my last comment was directed to you. I began to write thinking in your comment but only after having posted it I realized that I didn’t named you; so, I apologize.
In my last comment, it would be better:
......."Only after having posted it did I realize that I didn't named you"......
uhmm, a dialectic fight, how amazing you are isidro(i am refering to you, ;-))
I have to confess that the way you express yourself, and how accurate you are in your expressions mesmerize me a bit.
I am not here to serve as a guide for anyone, and of course i don´t like to hear myself so many times.
I am just saying that my experience here has been like i have told you before, that not only me agrees with that opinion and that my only goal is to open the possibility for increasing the participation to everyone in the blog.
You don´t realize that this is a real problem(you are free to write as many comments as you want, I am not saying that it´s strictly forbidden for you to write)
there is no more blind who doesn´t want to see.
finally, it is clear that the final goal for everybody here is to practise writing english, but also this blog should have the possibilty of being attractive to all, and it is what I am focusing my arguments, dear Isidro.
Dear Fernando, I agree with you that it would be better that much people participate in the blog.
But I think that all mates are adult people and they take their own decisions as they want; for example, I know some mates that are very busy and they can do all things that they would like; so, if they don’t write on the blog is because they are chosen other priorities.
If you think that you can achieve that people write more, making the blog more attractive, come in!!! But I will not intend it because I don’t like to adopt paternalistic attitudes.
Moreover, “attractive” is a term relative; therefore, when you think that the blog should be adapted at your point of view, you are considering that your view is the best. Don’t you see that this position is too pretentious?
In my opinion, the best option is to let people express themselves freely, because this way we guarantee the plurality of ideas.
Finally, I only want to tell you that, what is really important in an argument is his consistence, which depend on his inner logic. Therefore we must avoid the use of expressions like “there is no more blind than who doesn’t want to see”, because this kind of cliches don’t demonstrate anything, and they can be applied, without any sense, to anyone. Thus, don’t you think that this saying could you applied to yourself?
I'm sorry. In my last comment:
......"Don't you think that you could have applied this saying to yourself?".............
Sorry Isidro, but I think this is going to nowhere, do you think i am pretentious person because i have been pointing out that we have arrived at by consensus about the blog with the rest of the class? Let me tell you that the arrow has been launched in the opposite way.
Of course people is enough adult to take their own decisions and probably, you are going to do the same,as allways, but at least i am pretty content about telling you "my opinion", it´s up to you if my opinion is worth for you or not.
I agree that people have priorities, work, home, children, studies, social life, but i assume the blame of being a paternalist person, and i am very proud of it, I am not gaining anything doing that, As Carmen says I am like Lancelot, but i prefer be likewise to Don quijote because it seems like tiltting at windmills, jeje.
I don´t want to have the reason, my prompt is to express my opinion, because we are in a democracy, and you must accept my free right to apologize, don´t you think?
However,I am glad of having taken advantage of that conversation, I am not as good as you are writting, but i don´t mind, i don´t like to be perfect, just keep on improving everyday.
This is my last post to this issue, it has become to a personal quarrel , and i don´t like quarreling, even when there is no referee in order to achieve the balance between us and to correct our mistakes.
You win, and sorry for bothering you with nonsenses.
Fernando, I want to remind you that our dialogue began when you asked Rosa and me, on February 9, not to write so long comment as we used to do because you had many personal affairs and you were overwhelmed. Then, you said that if we wrote fewer and shorter comments, the blog would bi more attractive and it would be more interesting to get along. And, after shooting with ammunition so thick, you said that you would be waiting desperately for our “gun’s shoots.” So, I am very surprised that you now play the role of a victim.
Otherwise, I would not say that our dialogue has become a personal quarrel; in my opinion, it is still what it was at the beginning. At least from my part I have tried to place my interventions in the level of a dialectical dispute, which in my point of view is an activity noble and dignifying.
Finally, I remember you that, I have advocated for freedom, from the beginning; I said that, in my view, the best option was “to let people express themselves freely, because, this way, we guaranteed the plurality of ideas”. And my intention has been all time to defend my freedom before you proposal of putting me a restriction. My comments were not directed against anyone in particular; my reasoning didn’t try to enter into a personal level, therefore I don’t accept the term quarrel to name our dialogue.
And, as you say that you only are the spokesman of your class, let mi say to each of you that I respect your point of view, and that my only target, all along this dispute, has been to defend the right of everyone to participate in the blog freely. However, I don’t want to go against the consensus of a class. So, knowing that you think that my interventions constrain your participation, I’ll try to damage as little as possible. In this sense, I think it a good thing that this dispute has been developed in this old address, which is a siding that does not interfere with the new blog journey. So, I stay here, by the moment.
Good morning:
I have read again some of the last chapters, and I realized some things that I didn't see the first time that I do. Perhaps Mr Gowan was not as nice as I thought; perhaps Pet was even more stupid that I believed, or there is something that I didn't understand there. Mrs Gowan, Mr Gowan's mother, didn't aprove the marriage, in my opinion, of his son and Pet, because she feels that his son could have chosen something better. And so doesn't Mr Meagles, Pet's father. Because of that, she asks Arthur to soothe the relations between her father and Henry when she had gone. And it seems she doesn't want to marry him, because she says she is going to miss her home and her family. But his father, aparently, is not forcing her to marry Henry, because it seems he dislikes him. Why, then, is she marrying him? In the XIX th Century, many girls married because their families wanted them to do so, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Which is more, she seems to be found or Arthur, and this makes his pains more acute because he knows very well that he is going to lose her forever. Have I misunderstood the chapter?
I am sorry if somebody feels that this post is very long, but I belived that the purpose of this blog was to practise our English and our writting, in an advanced level, not elementary and, therefore, I thought, the commentaries should not be telegrams, but have some ideas.
Good morning:
I have read again some of the last chapters, and I realized some things that I didn't see the first time that I do. Perhaps Mr Gowan was not as nice as I thought; perhaps Pet was even more stupid that I believed, or there is something that I didn't understand there. Mrs Gowan, Mr Gowan's mother, didn't aprove the marriage, in my opinion, of his son and Pet, because she feels that his son could have chosen something better. And so doesn't Mr Meagles, Pet's father. Because of that, she asks Arthur to soothe the relations between her father and Henry when she had gone. And it seems she doesn't want to marry him, because she says she is going to miss her home and her family. But his father, aparently, is not forcing her to marry Henry, because it seems he dislikes him. Why, then, is she marrying him? In the XIX th Century, many girls married because their families wanted them to do so, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Which is more, she seems to be found or Arthur, and this makes his pains more acute because he knows very well that he is going to lose her forever. Have I misunderstood the chapter?
I am sorry if somebody feels that this post is very long, but I belived that the purpose of this blog was to practise our English and our writting, in an advanced level, not elementary and, therefore, I thought, the commentaries should not be telegrams, but have some ideas.
Ummh... I suppose so. But, even so, she doesn't look very happy, I don't know, it's like if she was doing something of what she wouldn't be pretty sure...
Well, for me it is clear that Mrs Affery is not a sleepwalker or nothing at the sort, but her husband wants her to think that. I am almost certain that she was not asleep when all those strange things happened in the house. But everybody treats her as an inferior, and she thinks she is. That Mr Rigaud is a very clever man. He not only changes his name, but I am sure he is impersonating someone, the real Mr Blandois, perhaps, and posing as a respectable man. Perhaps he killed him and took the letter that he produced in front of Jeremiah and Mrs Clennam. And I think he already knew the house, the misterious watch and even the late Mr Clennam. And I am sure he is going to blackmail the Clennams. In my opinion, he knows something about the family, something that the don't want to be told, and he is willing to tell it, unless he would be paid. Could it be something about Arthur's origins? Perhaps something concerning the way in which the Clennams did their fortune, may be a not clean one? We will see...
Good afternoon.
Ummh... I suppose so. But, even so, she doesn't look very happy, I don't know, it's like if she was doing something of what she wouldn't be pretty sure...
Well, for me it is clear that Mrs Affery is not a sleepwalker or nothing at the sort, but her husband wants her to think that. I am almost certain that she was not asleep when all those strange things happened in the house. But everybody treats her as an inferior, and she thinks she is. That Mr Rigaud is a very clever man. He not only changes his name, but I am sure he is impersonating someone, the real Mr Blandois, perhaps, and posing as a respectable man. Perhaps he killed him and took the letter that he produced in front of Jeremiah and Mrs Clennam. And I think he already knew the house, the misterious watch and even the late Mr Clennam. And I am sure he is going to blackmail the Clennams. In my opinion, he knows something about the family, something that the don't want to be told, and he is willing to tell it, unless he would be paid. Could it be something about Arthur's origins? Perhaps something concerning the way in which the Clennams did their fortune, may be a not clean one? We will see...
Good afternoon.
Good evening:
In my opinion, Mrs Plonwish is a sort of Little Dorrit with her own father, the Old Nandy, because she feels an exagerated admiration to him. But they are more sympathetical, nicer. The reaction of Fanny and Mr Dorrit, when they see Amy with the Old Nandy is exagerated: after all, she is doing nothing, but helping an old man. As Beatriz said, both Fanny and Tip behave in a selfish, snobish way. Even Mr Dorrit is such a hypocrite with Old Nandy when he invites him to have the tea, puting him apart, like if he were going to contaminate the others, and making a fool of him. And the poor old chap doesn't realize. Mr Dorrit is even more ridiculous than Nandy. Neither Fanny nor Tip are ashamed of their behaviour in front of a stranger, as Arthur is. They don't mind if their are desgracing their own father. They only think in their own and inmediate benefits. In my opinion, they don't care at all of the family's reputation (and I think that this, Mr Dorrit does.) Clearly they are overreacting, and I suppose that Dickens put this episode there to make their characters more selfish and Little Dorrit more altruistic. And we have here again Pancks, the gipsy, the fortune-teller. What had he found out? What is he intending? Why Amy is so afraid when he is with Mr Clennam?
If you are planning to go to London:
http://viajes.es.msn.com/recomendaciones/fotos.aspx?cp-documentid=160527682
The London of Dickens.
We see once more Little Dorrit’s bare heart; she is sensitive, respectful, honest, candid. Really, I also think, as Beatriz, that it is a miracle that she can be so wonderful a woman, having grown in such a hostile environment. It is very moving to see her helping Mr Nandy selflessly, and also her distress when she realized that she had caused her father’s anger.
On the contrary, Funny is presumptuous, disrespectful, hypocritical and vain. In my opinion, Fanny’s obsession in showing her family in a high social level is a little comic. We saw it very clear in her discussion with Mrs Merdle when she presented herself as belonging to a family of high status. And now, in chapter XXXI, we see her to make a scene, only because she saw his sister accompanying an old friend of her father when he came to Marshalsea to pay a visit to him. Don’t you think that she is magnifying a conduct very naive and irrelevant?
Fanny looks down on Mr Nandy because he is very poor and she thinks that Amy’s conduct, accompanying him in the street, is a dishonour. However, in my opinion, she overestimates his family’s social status, because Mr Dorrit is only a beggar that conceals his sad condition after his tittle of Father of Marshalsea that only is an illusion. Mr Dorrit’s phantasmagorical aristocracy is a perfect disguise to hide his condition as a beggar; and Fanny have delusions of grandeur trying in all moment to feed a myth.
Yes, Isidro, you are quite rigth. The Dorrits are snobish, and mean. Really, as somebody said up, it is difficult to understand how a girl like Amy could come from a family like this.
In my opinion, Amy loves Arthur, and Arthur loves Amy, but, for different reasons, they don't want to say it. Perhaps they don't even know. Of course none of them consider the posibility of a marriage, for me that is clear: Arthur feels he is too old for a girl like Amy, and perhaps he wouldn't marry a girl grown in a prison. Amy just can not marry a gentelman like Arthur, nor even dream with that, and very probably she just doesn't to get married because, as she says, she feels her place is near to her father. To cry, and do such scenes is not so strange when you are a teenager (well, Amy is twenty two, I think). And I think that all the Pet affaire is very fresh to Arthur, too much to allow him to think about marriages. I think that perhaps he really didn't want to marry Pet for the same reasons, but he doesn't want to marry Amy (he is older, he has not much money...) but, even so, he doesn't want to see her married with Mr Gowan.
And we have again Pancks, the gipsy, the fortune teller, making his apparition, drunk, but not of wine (altough he has had several beers), but of a great excitement...He has made, apparently, a great discover. What could it be?
Good night.
fols this is your CAPTAIN SPEAKING, I am going to say and what I say will be what we are going to do. I have read with surprise the "dialogue" about the length of the posts. Let me remind you, and particularly you, Fernando, whom I ask to transmit this to the rest of your class that this is a free forum to express ourselves, focussing our comments on the novel we are currently reading. we are therefore free to say, analyse what we wish, provided that we do it with respect; as to length, it would be advisable that we write enough to express or say what we we think fit and if some of you find it another post too long, don´t read it. I will because I am the teacher. If all of you were writing and all posts would be long then I may not have time to read them all fully, and then we would have to try to make them shorter, but quite honestly I do not think that long posts hinder bloggers from posting, some people just don´t even enter to see what we are doing!!! My advice to you is post, it will better your writing and your comprhension and use of grammar. If you donñt want to don´t. But please, we are wasting time with these issues when what we all should want is to LEARN ENGLISH. concentrate on that.
Fernando, I know that your life is busy at the moment, but if you want to improve your English you have to write and listen, and perhaps you have to drop some of your other activities. For those of you who are not active outside, the blog is an enjoyment which enables us to think about our novel and analyse it better, why can´t we all be happy doing what we like? leave this side and go on the new section. I won´t return to this one.
02/05
Pablo Advanced 1-F
Hello
Fantastic the part about the conversation between Count Fosco and Walter!!!
For sure Fosco is the best character in the novel, what a cool brain he has, he is a gentleman in all time and he always takes his time for a decision…
He told to Walter that he was plotting alone what doing with Anne and how they could take money…
And Fosco loves Marian so much or may be is not love is admiration, he admires Marian, he thinks she is fantastic, he feels like 18 years old !!!
Walter shows us he is very brave and he has courage find Fosco in the night and speaking and arguing for Laura´s sake…
The end is being very interesting
04/05
Pablo Advanced 1-F
Hello
Wow I am completely surprised with the end of the chapter, It was fantastic how Fosco realised that he had to change his position and to leave London, It is the best for him.
The story which is written by Fosco is Fantastic and It has many details about how Sir Percival and himself prepaired everything to get the money.
I want to finish the nover jet for knowing the end.
If some one wants to be updated with latеst technolοgies after
that he must be pay a visit this wеbѕite anԁ
be up to date everу daу.
http://terryuѕedbuckettrucks.xangа.сom/753007477/quick-facts-about-uѕed-bucket-trucks/
Feel free to visit my page - Trucks For Sale By Owner
Тhаnks for finally ωrіting about > "LITTLE DORRIT (Charles Dickens)" < Loved it!
my web site; http://www.biggreeneggmanual.com/buying-guide/
Take a look at my web site :: grill recipes for the big green egg
Thanκs for finally writing about > "LITTLE DORRIT (Charles Dickens)" < Loved it!
Also visit my web page: http://www.biggreeneggmanual.com/buying-guide/
Also see my site :: grill recipes for the big green egg
Ι always uѕeԁ to study pаragraph in nеws papers but
now as I am a uѕer of net so from now І am using net foг artіcles, thankѕ to web.
My website - okc roofers
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about insurance. Regards
My web-site cheap health insurance plans
Ηeуа i am for the primarу time herе.
I found thіѕ board and I to find It truly helpful & it helped me out
a lot. I hope tо ρresent one thing again and help others likе
you аidеd mе.
Here іs my ωeb pagе :: make money buying and selling cars
Publicar un comentario