Sign in with Facebook
Violet wells's Reviews > Hard Times
Hard Times
by
by
Violet wells's review
bookshelves: classics
Jul 16, 2020
bookshelves: classics
Read 3 times. Last read July 8, 2020 to July 16, 2020.
Dickens wrote Hard Times as an attempt to increase sales of his flagging magazine and had to produce it in weekly instalments which probably explains why it's so bereft of inspiration and artistry. It's ironic that a novel lauding the importance of heart and imagination as guiding principles in social reform should have a mercantile consideration at root. Hard Times is a leaden rhetorical read. There's little subtlety in its sermonising. There's not even much of a story and what story there is doesn't always make sense. Most surprisingly of all it doesn't include a single memorable character. The characters are programmed automatons of the flimsy plot. Even the humour is relentlessly off key. The only positive note is his standard sentimentalised girl-woman only plays a minor role in this novel.
For me this joins A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield as duds in the Dickens' canon, though it doesn't possess the redeeming features those two novels possessed.
For me this joins A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield as duds in the Dickens' canon, though it doesn't possess the redeeming features those two novels possessed.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Hard Times.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
March 18, 2014
– Shelved
April 6, 2016
– Shelved as:
classics
June 30, 2020
–
Started Reading
July 8, 2020
–
Started Reading
July 8, 2020
–
26.04%
"Too much sermonising and not enough storytelling. This is tiresome so far."
page
100
July 8, 2020
–
Finished Reading
July 16, 2020
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-14 of 14 (14 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Marc
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jul 16, 2020 03:57AM
Spot-on, Violet. This book is great as an historical document (and, of course, also horrible), but Copperfield and the others are so much more appealing as literary creations!
reply
|
flag
Marc wrote: "Spot-on, Violet. This book is great as an historical document (and, of course, also horrible), but Copperfield and the others are so much more appealing as literary creations!"Thanks Marc. The best you can say about it is that his heart was in the right place.
That explains so much. This was a required read in a high school English class. It was an awful experience and I never even finished it. It turned me off to Dickens and I've not tried him since.
Josef wrote: "That explains so much. This was a required read in a high school English class. It was an awful experience and I never even finished it. It turned me off to Dickens and I've not tried him since."I loved Great Expectations, Bleak House and Little Dorrit, Josef.
I had to read this in university and hated it. But maybe I should give Dickens another try ... If even people who enjoyed his books dislike this one 😊 I mean, I liked A Christmas Carol 🤔
Thank you Violet for absolving me for giving up on Dickens halfway through this hideously depressing book
Sarah wrote: "I had to read this in university and hated it. But maybe I should give Dickens another try ... If even people who enjoyed his books dislike this one 😊 I mean, I liked A Christmas Carol 🤔"I've read most of his novels and I'd put this one down as the worst.
Magdelanye wrote: "Thank you Violet for absolving me for giving up on Dickens halfway through this hideously depressing book"Well done, Magdelanye. I wanted to abandon this countless times.
Well bummer Viola. All three on my shelf. Started A Tale of Two Cities years ago and gave up. Hope your next read is a winner.
Carol wrote: "Well bummer Viola. All three on my shelf. Started A Tale of Two Cities years ago and gave up. Hope your next read is a winner."Thanks Carol. Lots of people love A Tale of Two Cities but I found it rather lifeless and contrived.
The only positive note is his standard sentimentalised girl-woman only plays a minor role in this novel. Love your snark here:-)
Fionnuala wrote: " The only positive note is his standard sentimentalised girl-woman only plays a minor role in this novel. Love your snark here:-)"
I can't think of another writer who can often be so brilliant and so sloppily bad in the same book. Trouble with this book is that he's neither brilliant nor sloppily bad; just dull.
Dickens wrote for a different time & place, as did many other authors whose books are still read & enjoyed, if only the reader has the patience to glance backward. There was even a sold-old dramatic version of the novel locally, complete with acrobats, brought back by popular demand. Speaking of snark, admittedly Dickens is as much sociological commentary & British History as novel and his work would never be confused with that of Ann Pachett. There are some nice 4* G/R reviews by Lisa & others.
Probably around half a dozen of Dickens' novels were published weekly, and the rest were published monthly, so you'll have to come up with another reason to justify your dislike of this book.
