Charles

I hope you're using "post-modernist shills" ironically.

It looks like a runway if you use your imagination

He's overly sentimental and does way too much self insertion

you did't like Dick Swiveller or Quilp in Curiosity Shop? - Little Nell is ludicrously dull though
The Pickwick Papers and Hard Times are his other ESSENTIAL works, almost everything he wrote is good though (and canonical if that concerns you)

everybody who likes Dickens should read Thackeray's 'Vanity Fair'; arguably the best victorian novel

Dicken's sentimentality is only egregious in a few cases though really, Dostoevsky is easily as sentimental - Raskolnikov and Sonia; arguably the final passage of Brother K, Verkohevensky's death in Demons - if not more so.

Self-Insertion is not adequate grounds for criticism; cf. Chaucer, Dante, Huysmans etc.

because he's shit

so its impossible for you to reply to a thread and not be a faggot?

vertically or horizontally

Vertically, until it gets bumpy

I feel like perhaps you didnt come up with this yourself

Nicholas nickleby and great expectations bored me to death. They were unbelievably bad.

Geez. Henry Esmond, rather.

He's too subtle, and because expectations when initially reading him are not great, his superior art is too often missed.

His literal self-insertion (as a kind of ghost) in Carol is wonderful.

I met you in a previous Dickens thread and actually did go and read Vanity Fair.

Terrific book, but of a different class. Thackeray may have better insight into human psychology (though certainly with a Dickensian bent - Thackeray's characters are flattened by their own narrow-mindedness), but certainly lacks Dickens gift for language. There's a reason Joyce places Dickens at the top in the Oxen of the Sun chapter.

There are few techniques used in modern literature that weren't invented, prefigured or substantially improved upon in Dickens.

...

Greatest Victorian novelist coming through here.

he was pretty bad desu

A Tale of Two Cities was good

The rest is "eh" and most of his drama overly relies on the reader's sympathy for self-indulgent bourgeois anglo scum desu semmmpai

more sympathetic than french or russian bourgeois trust me

Hard Times is fucking awful. Horrible. The worst aspect of Dickens' sentimental contrivances magnified a hundredfold.

I love Dickens but must agree with this sentiment. An obvious political tract with the thinnest characterization. The nadir of his oeuvre.

A favorite between the ages of 8 and 14. Essentially a writer for very young people. Certainly inferior to Hemingway and Wells. Intolerable souvenir-shop style, romanticist clichés. Nothing I would care to have written myself. In mentality and emotion, hopelessly juvenile. Romantic in the large sense. Slightly bogus.

You got that from Nabokov, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come onto Veeky Forums, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend? See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!

wall of china was shit matt, sit down

That may be, but at least I won't be unoriginal. But I mean, if you have a problem with that, I mean, we could just step outside - we could figure it out.

His characters' psychologies are simple enough to be used as foundational principles by any writer, and his plots are god-tier.

outside of the limelight yes , like your career should've been