Dickens' definitive "David"

This first appeared as a response to a review of "David Copperfield," but when I submitted the review, the system said that since it was a long reply, perhaps I should redo it as an opinion. So I am.


One reviewer called this definitive Dickens novel "light reading," and said that the young children in the house had enjoyed it very much. Anyone who thinks "David Copperfield" is "light reading" has my sympathy. Little kids who understand it, let alone enjoy it, must be a passel of little geniuses. Perhaps this was the Reader's Digest abridged version that was reviewed, or -- yes! This must be it! The comic book adaptation, which I didn't know had been published and must find and buy soonest.

Dickens is not unbiased in his characterization of young David, who, surprise, surprise, is based upon himself in his early years, upon his actual experiences, while Mr. Micawber is loosely based upon Dickens' father, another free-spending ne'er-do-well who kept the family constantly on the brink of financial ruin. Dickens did not have the glorious, angelic, innocent childhood that mars so many of his books -- parts of this one, "Oliver Twist," "Dombey and Son," and,worst of all, "The Old Curiosity Shop," which had me dying for Little Nell to shed her mortal coils for what seem like hundreds-plus pages before she does.

Perhaps Dickens wrote of childhood as he would have liked his to be, although it must be noted that, at least in certain higher socioeconomic classes, to which Dickens quickly ascended, based on his and one of his illustrator's ("Phiz"s) talents, innocence in extreme youth was de rigueur. (Even the Artful Dodger dodges the hanging assigned to most pickpockets of Dickens' day, and gets transported to a colony, lucky lad, in "Oliver Twist."

Beyond the fact that this book at first depicts and frequently mentions childhood throughout, "David Copperfield" isn't really a children's book. It's an examination of one person's life and the triumphs and tragedies that occur during it, as well as the dangers adults sometimes put their children in. And what child is going to understand Ditzy Dora? How does one explain to a child that there are adults who are children mentally, that there are grownups who lust after them enough to marry them, and then expect them to "grow up" because they've been to church and recited vows they probably don't even understand?

How do children understand "lone, lorn creeturs" or how others not only really DO care for them but also sympathize and comfort and reassure them each time the whine fills the room?

How do children understand a Steerforth, an Em'ly, and why Em'ly will remain a spinster forever because of a single escapade (sans nuptials) with said Steerforth? The children of this century do not understand the morality incumbent upon the citizens of Dickens' century -- nor should they have to, only know that it existed.

I read this book as a child, on my own, and understood most of it, but, then, I also read "Robinson Crusoe" at 9 and understood it. I've read "David Copperfield" many times since, as I have all of Dickens' novels (well, "Bleak House" only once, for good reason), and each time I glean more and more from them, and that's from more than 45 years of reading.

Dickens was the genius of his day and his day has never ended. He wrote for "the people" as did Shakespeare (with the exception of such plays as "Henry the VIII," because he didn't want to lose his head to the subject's daughter), and "the people" responded by honoring him as today we honor Stephen King as the reigning master of popular fiction that he is, English Lit majors like it or not. King rarely takes on the causes that fill Dickens' works, however; the inhumanity of the blacking factory (where Dickens actually worked as a boy, thanks to his father's irresponsibility) and child labor overall; the cruelties of Murdstones and Headstones and Quilps and Bumbles, et al; the horrible penalties dealt out by authorities for minor infractions; the plights of the poor and friendless, the hungry and needy who had to resort to beadles and such for a pity always withheld and a pittance very grudgingly given.

King shuns -- or so far has shunned -- social, economic and political issues, for the most part, though one day he may take them up; Dickens knew them first-hand as a child; learned more as a parliamentary reporter before becoming a novelist; and maintained his sympathies with the downtrodden to the end. In fact, he made great literature of them.

Nevertheless, Dickens' works are flawed by a severe case of sentimentality (some of it called for by the fictive fiats of the era, some of it welling up from his very own life) and by what many have rebuked him for most -- amazing coincidences to solve plot problems. I won't argue with Dickens on this, having had too many similar circumstances of my own.

Aside from those criticisms, "David Copperfield" is one of the greatest books written in English, with its colorful characters, requisite coincidences, animate inanimate objects, and scathing social commentary. Regardless of its great flaws, it will remain a classic as long as there are people who can read English -- a diminishing number every year in this country. I can foresee a time in which no one will even be able to read comic book adaptations of Dickens' great gifts to humanity.

But that day has yet to arrive. Next on the reading list for the "light reading" enthusiast and brainy brood I recommend "Our Mutual Friend."