Dickens, Hardy & PGW

[Ken Miner]

As a great fan of Dickens and Thomas Hardy I was chagrined (if that's the
word I want) to find PGW liked neither. (Indicated in one of his letters
somewhere, I believe.) I have always wondered why.

When Dickens is mentioned in PGW, it is usually (correct me if I'm wrong) as
a dispenser of happy endings. Hardy occurs somewhere as the guy who coined
the phrase "life's little ironies" (an unfortunately too trivial title for a
group of very good short stories).

I checked Murphy for info; there is quite a bit about Dickens (such as the
fact that PGW put the Cheeryble Brothers in the wrong Dickens novel) but not
much about Hardy, and (unless I missed it) no speculation about why PGW
didn't care for either one of them.

If you see Dickens as the greatest optimist, and Hardy as the greatest
pessimist, in English literature up to PGW's time, how to explain PGW's
dislike for both of them? Perhaps comedy is independent of both those two
attitudes? (Maybe I've answered my own question.)

Ken

[Aunt Agatha]

Post by Ken Miner
As a great fan of Dickens and Thomas Hardy I was chagrined (if that's the
word I want) to find PGW liked neither. (Indicated in one of his letters
somewhere, I believe.) I have always wondered why.
When Dickens is mentioned in PGW, it is usually (correct me if I'm wrong) as
a dispenser of happy endings. Hardy occurs somewhere as the guy who coined
the phrase "life's little ironies" (an unfortunately too trivial title for a
group of very good short stories).
I checked Murphy for info; there is quite a bit about Dickens (such as the
fact that PGW put the Cheeryble Brothers in the wrong Dickens novel) but not
much about Hardy, and (unless I missed it) no speculation about why PGW
didn't care for either one of them.
If you see Dickens as the greatest optimist, and Hardy as the greatest
pessimist, in English literature up to PGW's time, how to explain PGW's
dislike for both of them? Perhaps comedy is independent of both those two
attitudes? (Maybe I've answered my own question.)
Ken

I think both Dickens and Hardy belong to the more serious writers, the
real literati, in Plum's mind. Wodehouse himself didn't think very much
of his own work, it was entertainment he was after and he also like to
read entertaining books, mystery books, pulp he even called it once if
I am not mistaken.
And then it's also a writers thing. You can't trust writers writing
about other writers. Even in his letters Wodehouse sometimes swings
back and forth with his praise or rejection.

Aunt Agatha

[Ken Miner]

"Aunt Agatha" <***@xs4all.nl.wooster> wrote in message news:191120071623119478%***@xs4all.nl.wooster...
[...]

Post by Aunt Agatha
I think both Dickens and Hardy belong to the more serious writers, the
real literati, in Plum's mind. Wodehouse himself didn't think very much
of his own work, it was entertainment he was after and he also like to
read entertaining books, mystery books, pulp he even called it once if
I am not mistaken.
And then it's also a writers thing. You can't trust writers writing
about other writers. Even in his letters Wodehouse sometimes swings
back and forth with his praise or rejection.
Aunt Agatha

Letters are indeed an odd medium. In one of Franz Schubert's letters, he
says negative things about Beethoven; but by all other accounts he admired
Beethoven greatly. So yes - I guess letters can reflect transient moods.

Ken

[Rich Clancey]

Post by Ken Miner
As a great fan of Dickens and Thomas Hardy I was chagrined (if that's the
word I want) to find PGW liked neither. (Indicated in one of his letters
somewhere, I believe.) I have always wondered why.

It's possible that by "Dickens" he meant "A Tale of Two Cities",
which for some reason is the Dickens novel shoved down the throats
of American students, and in my opinion one of the least engaging.
If his reading of Dickens was entirely "inspired" by school
assignments, Wodehouse might well have developed defenses. It's a
shame, because I've always seen a lot of overlap between the two.

Hardy is a different story. I can well imagine the Plumster
finding him too damned grim. I know I do. That's not a valid
literary criticism, it's just the reason I'm not reading any more
of Hardy.

What is odd is the amount of Shakespeare and Keats PGW quotes.
Both of those poets were capable of being humorous, but I wouldn't
label either of them as primarily Wodehousian.

[john wolfe]

Post by Ken Miner
As a great fan of Dickens and Thomas Hardy I was chagrined (if that's the
word I want) to find PGW liked neither. (Indicated in one of his letters
somewhere, I believe.) I have always wondered why.

Not wishing to give the impression I'm widely read in Dickens or Hardy (though
I have read a few books of both) let me try to find consoling words for you. I
think you shouldn't take Wodehouse's literary judgements too seriously.
Especially when you find them in his novels. He uses cliches for funny effects -
often very successfully. (BTW: not only literary cliches) So I can happily
accept that Schopenhauer is often good for a joke even if I'm sure Wodehouse
didn't know much about him. Or that 'Russian novelists' are a byword for darkest
gloom - though Dostojevski e.g is often wildly and grotesquely funny. It's all
part of Wodehouse's world.

j.w.