Dickens and Lawson

[Stephen Whiteside]

I've been asked to write an article comparing Charles Dickens with Henry Lawson - with particular reference, I think, to their effect on changing society. I'd be interested in any comments on the subject.

I am at a bit of disadvantage first off in that I haven't actually read a great deal of Dickens. I think I was put off him at school when all the English authors were shoved down our throats to the exclusion of everybody else. Since then, I've had a real aversion to reading English writers.

In recent years I've made a conscious effort to try to correct this. I read 'Jane Eyre' a couple of years ago, and thought it was absolutely fantastic.

I haven't had as much luck with Dickens, though. I tried 'The Old Curiosity Shoppe' and got about halfway through before throwing it aside in sheer boredom. The characters didn't ring true to me - too much exaggeration and caricature. To my mind, that's what you don't get with Lawson. If anything, his characters are understated. I find them more involving. They seem more real.

Maybe I relate better to Lawson because I am Australian.

It can obviously be said that both wrote about poverty. It is probably also true that both brought the realities of poverty to the attention of an educated, middle class audience. Dickens seems to have been very consciously trying to use his writing as a means of reducing society's iniquities. I guess Lawson was too, in a way, particularly through his involvement with the shearers' strike and the early days of the union movement. Still, there's an honesty, a reality in Lawson's work that I didn't detect so much with Dickens. Maybe it's just the dryness and the dust, and the monotony of the landscape.

Any suggestions?

[Heather]

Stephen did you know it is 200 years ago today that Charles Dickens was born?

[Stephen Whiteside]

Yes.

[croc]

...
Old mate... it's
Yeah.

[Stephen Whiteside]

Sorry. That was a bit abrupt, wasn't it. I was trying to do two things at once. Yes, I was aware of that and that, of course, is why the request has come.

[Stephen Whiteside]

Yeah.

[croc]

...
That's it Stephen... you've got it mate. 'Yeah'

I'm surprised old Charly never wrote a book called 'What the Dickens'

...c

[Maureen K Clifford]

I've just finished reading The Mystery of Edwin Drood - it took me forever - would rank as one of the most boring books I have ever
read , IMO lifeless, humourless and not at all something that engages today's reader, but it was written in an era that by virtue of its poverty and hardship was itself dark an dreary so no doubt it is a reflection of those times.. It was originally released in a serial form and was the last book that Dickens wrote as he he actually died before finishing it.


Personally I couldn't relate to it all - and really struggled through it whereas Lawson's work is engaging, picturesque, lyrical and vibrant. But he was writing of a country which was/is extremely colourful and bright compared to Englands drab and dirty streets.


Know who I would give the prize too

[croc]

G'day Maureen...

You want to be very happy that 'The Mystery of Edward Drood put you in a dreary state of mind; it bored old mate to death.

...c

[Stephen Whiteside]

Thanks for that, Marty. Looks like it will be very helpful.

Interesting comments, Maureen. (Why did you persevere with it?)