Praised by Tolstoy, Orwell, and Chesterton

Why do you say "XIX" instead of "19th century"?

Doesn't it just look retarded?

Nabokov also loved Dickens.

A Tale of Two Cities pretty much got me into seriously reading literature (to be accurate, I would've been a true non-reader if not for that book; as is, I read here and there to the best of my ability). So I'm on the side of praise.

source? also that meeting between them two was a hoax i think

i'll go with tolstoy, orwell, and chesterton.

tolstoy and orwell seemed to have enacted real society change with their (stunningly beautiful at times) literature. wilde, james, and woolf are prose-heads who created beautiful empty sculptures without a strong sense of meaning or obligation to some higher set of ideals.

now, chesterton is a complete oddball in this conversation who reminds me as some kind of cross between borges and cs lewis. i guess i liked the man who was thursday but he isnt on the same level as orwell and tolstoy either.

imo dickens is fine. worthy of his spot of being well known and well read by middle schoolers but certainly not anywhere close to my personal favorite author.

Pro-Dickens

he's great brotha

not wilde

is this the cue for my line, "whose your favorite user?"

I cry when I watch the Muppet's Christmas Carol so I guess I'll go with Tolstoy Orwell and Chest the Best

Of course Tolstoy (on the other hand) lambasted Shakespeare. And though both Wolff and James criticized Dickens, neither was AT ALL anti-Dickens.
The criteria here's a little misleading.

He has his many partisans here, user. I'm one.

I'd say he's more liked than hated. Much more.

If you think people don't revere Dickens, then you're listening to the wrong people.

good post, m8.

probably knausgaard, desu

Once you start reading for things like form, style and other hardline aesthetic categories, he seems pretty pleb tier. But he's a great storyteller. He was the first author whose books I read one after another after another. Once I got into more high-brow stuff it became difficult to return to him with the same naive credulity, but he's great to read early on in one's tour of the Canon.

Wilde was a redditor

>high brow
ok there charlatan

they "complained of a lack of psychological depth, loose writing, and a vein of saccharine sentimentalism."

i hate modernists, they're so full of shit, as if the prose they spew is so ethereal and cerebral

Oh, brother. Here's an instance--
>To use a burning consciousness of one's own misery, of the shackles that cut one's own limbs, to quicken one's sense of life in general, as Dickens did, to shape out of the murk which has surrounded one's childhood some resplendent figure such as Micawber or Mrs. Gamp, is admirable--
that's Virginia Woolf in The Second Common Reader, the essay on Gissing. And there are many instances of both Woolf and James writing well of Dickens. My point had been
>don't be so sure.
Now I simply believe that your tendentiousness has led (you) astray.

>admirable
oh wow what a generous pat on the back, thanks virgie

>to quicken one's sense of life in general, as Dicken's did...
Learn to read, faggot.

"but the author is dead and high art is a made up category period blood on a canvas is the same as Michelangelo this leaflet I grabbed from the car wash is as meritorious as Gogol which is to say not meritorious at all because merit mean hierarchy and hierarchies are social constructs we build by stacking up the pieces of the corpse of a God who never really existed"

You are right. No one should have the right to criticize anything you like in any way.

>saccharine sentimentalism
this is undeniable and you just seem buttmad

Dostoyevsky, Amerifaggot.

ah the june bug has forgotten the Victorian context, leave you miscreant, you may not have some more

the imposter posture is not enough to make me dance in my stance.

thats for you bud