Norden Farm Reading Group read Bleak House by Charles Dickens

Background to the Group

I set up Norden Farm’s Reading Group in March 2001. Membership has varied over the years but attendance averages at approximately 10 people. By far the majority of members are female, with usually one or two male members present per session. Age ranges from 20 - 70.

The group focuses exclusively on contemporary fiction, with one set text per month chosen by me, as the group’s facilitator. The aim of the group is to introduce people to new authors, and thus we have not (yet) read two set texts by the same author. At each meeting we spend approximately one hour discussing the book everyone has read in common, and then an hour discussing other books people have read or been recommended during the month.

BBC’s Big Read/Penguin Books Promotion

Having been force fed a diet of contemporary fiction for the past three years, I expected the group to respond positively to the opportunity to read a ‘classic’, despite the length (nearly 1,000 pages). An additional meeting was scheduled to discuss Bleak House.

Out of the 10 readers (including myself) present, 5 had read Dickens before, 2 had read Bleak House before and 8 had read other novels written during the same period.

At the time of the meeting, only one of the 10 readers had completed the book; most had read approximately half the book with one reader having completed the Introduction and Preface.

Following the usual meeting format, I went round the group asking for their initial thoughts. Bridget and Zoe both stated that they were enjoying it. Bridget had discovered she was a lazy reader as her usually quick reading style (i.e. skim reading some paragraphs) didn’t work with Dickens. However, she would be finishing the book. Zoe also found that she had to go back at times in order to identify characters.

Leila declared herself a Dickens fan - she had finished the book as it was one of her favourite Dickens, along with Our Mutual Friend. She described it as a ‘detective’ novel, loved the characters and said it would be hard to find a modern equivalent.

Tessa had found it very hard to get into, and wasn’t really enjoying it. Carol had also found it hard initially (partly due to being distracted on holiday - definitely not holiday reading) but was enjoying it more now. Sue found it took her a long time to get into it but stated that after page 500 or so it got much better.

Mary was still struggling to get into it, although was not finding it as bad as Great Expectations which she had read at school. She didn’t feel it was her sort of writing and was irritated by the style.

Frankie was enjoying it although wished she had more time - it isn’t the kind of book you can skim read. She felt that in Victorian times, people had a lot more time to read that we do now.
Jim loved the style of writing - a purple prose fan - although he is a slow reader. He liked the fact he could ‘hear’ the voices, and that Dickens was so obviously enjoying himself as he wrote it.

It was apparent that no-one was hating the book, although some were finding it a little hard going. It was generally agreed that people found Esther’s narrative easier to read, as they moved the story along well.

We then embarked on a more detailed discussion, starting with the characters. The group agreed that many of them were really caricatures, with some recognisable as being based on eminent figures of the time. One reader questioned whether Dickens had actually known anyone ‘normal’ but it was agreed that the satirical style of the book meant all the characters were portrayed ‘larger than life’. One or two readers particularly liked some of the ‘sleeper’ characters, such as Jo the sweeper.

In terms of the style, it was agreed that for the most part we as readers were used to a faster pace, and that it was necessary to take more time over Dickens, and actually savour the book rather than race through it.

Most readers didn’t have a problem with the vocabulary, nor bother with the notes at the end. It was agreed that the notes would be much better situated at the bottom of each page, even if this meant short pages, as given the number of notes, it wasn’t practical to keep turning to the back of the book. Appendix 1, which explained ‘Chancery’ was considered very useful, but most people hadn’t read the Preface and agreed that it was better to read it afterwards.

Readers particularly liked the idea of having a ‘Growlery’ and describing the wind as being in the east when things weren’t going so well!

At this point, Leila, as the sole ‘finisher’ was asked to give a summary of the events in the book for the benefit of other readers who hadn’t yet read to the end. A few questions were answered (or not) such as where does Mr Jarndyce get his money from, and what did the women actually spend their time doing?

Leila pointed out that Dickens could be seen as part of a continuum, fitting between Restoration literature, alongside contemporaries such as Trollope, Thackeray and Hardy and preceding the Brontes and Mrs Gaskell. His political and social influence shouldn’t be underestimated.

It was felt that fiction had over the years moved closer and closer to real life.

To bring the discussion to a conclusion, I asked what people considered constituted a ‘good read’ and the following ideas were put forward as things a ‘good read’ needs:
- to suit the context you are reading it in
- to give you something to think about afterwards
- to give you enjoyment of language/vocabulary
- to have a good story

I then asked people whether they thought Bleak House was a ‘good read’. 7 out of the 10 readers felt that it was.

At the end of the discussion, I asked how many people would now finish reading the book - 4 indicated that they definitely would, none of whom would have read the book without this prompt.

Annabel Turpin