Talk:Bleak House

Please ID a Book with a similar Title

Back in college, I remember reading a short story (or Novella - about 80 pages long - it may have been edited down, but was meant for native speakers of German) with a remarkably similar title - Das Öde Haus (The Bleak House) but I can't remember the author, and it surely wasn't Charles Dickens. In Das Öde Haus, a man rents out a flat in a rather run-down house, and one day notices a tiny sound coming out of the corner of his room. Intrigued, he listens for it day after day, until he can pick up a rather small voice that seems to speak to him directly. Unlike Edgar Allan Poe's The Telltale Heart, the tiny sound or voice starts out unintelligible, but begins to make sense with time, until it has finally impressed upon him the urgency of doing favors for it, and ultimately having to obey it. (Not a good idea if you have to keep paying the rent, I guess, as he was ultimately thrown out for nonpayment of rent, if my memory serves me right.)

Can anybody identify this story from the description above? And even more important, who was its author? It's not Charles Dickens.

Google says that E.T.A. Hoffmann wrote a story called "Das Ode Haus" (probably published in Der Sandmann). His WP article has a link to Gutenburg - try there? JackyR 14:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You've been very helpful!

E.T.A. Hoffmann appears to have written the story in 1817, a year after he published Der Sandmann.

Excerpt Says Little

The following quotation from the book originally formed the body of the article, but obviously says nothing about the book.

(Quotation)

On such an afternoon, if ever, the Lord High Chancellor ought to be sitting here - as here he is - with a foggy glory round his head, softly fenced in with crimson cloth and curtains [...] and outwardly directing his contemplation to the lantern in the roof, where he can see nothing but fog. On such an afternoon some score of members of the High Court of Chancery bar ought to be - as here they are - mistily engaged in one of the ten thousand stages of an endless cause, tripping one another up on slippery precedents, groping knee-deep in technicalities, running their goat-hair and horsehair warded heads against walls of words and making a pretence of equity with serious faces, as players might.

Bleak House by Charles Dickens

The name of Mercury was a nickname given to footmen by Dickens in this novel because they were used as messengers like the winged god and also by the standards of the day appeared godlike.I don't know whether anyone else used this term. In chapter 48 he refers to "Mercuries ...reposing in the hall."and "Mercury takes another flight" .It is a typical literary joke of Dickens which he keeps up throughout the book. In the ninteenth century very wealthy families would select male servants who were very tall and with good features for these positions. They were bewigged and dressed in 18th century costume and were stationed at the main door to recieve visitors and also assist them into and out of carriages, and to deliver messages by hand. An obvious symbol of wealth and status.In the BBC version of Bleak House, Lady Dedlock addresses her footman by the name of Mercury. This is not in the book and I do not think it would have happened.Dickens is fond of using classical allusions and has Richard refer to his beloved Ada as Minerva on at least one occasion.

Hello unnamed person. Yes, you're completely right. Mercury is the third person narrator's tongue-in-cheek characterisation of the various footmen (they are interchangable) in service to the Dedlocks. I cringed when I saw that in the adaptation & I've removed Mercury from the minor character list accordingly.--Ibis3 05:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ibis, We have only just seen this adaptation in Oz. It was good to find someone who has actually read the whole novel. There are some scenes in this adaptation where the young ladies meet gentlemen who do not have their jackets on. This would have been unthinkable in victorian times. If it had happened by accident it would have been quickly remedied and profuse apologies given. Even I can remember in my distant childhood of the 1940s that gentlemen did not appear without their jackets in front of ladies. Why did they change the deathbed scene of Jo so that it was Esther and not Mr Woodcourt who said the Lord's Prayer? Also, some of the characters, e.g. Mrs Snagsby, who were left out, were so crucial to the narrative that their omission completely alters the story. I've just watched another episode and now Mrs Rouncewell has called the footman "Mr. Mercury" and also Mr Bucket refered to him as "Mercury". The crucial scenes between the policeman and the Dedlocks are so changed as to alter the whole story. Oh,dear.It's getting worse. Booklover

Hi Joan (aka Booklover), I've just restored your comments by reverting to the last version that had them. No problem. :) Feel free to get in touch via my talk page if you need anything in the future. Anyway, you might want to register so you can sign your edits and comments with your name (which you can do even now by clicking on the signature button over the edit screen -- it will just sign with your IP address). --Ibis3 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary

Either today or tomorrow, I'm going to try to add as rational a synopsis as I can manage. I'll miss out the minor plotlines, and simply give the broad trajectories of Esther/Jarndyce/Woodcourt, Ada/Rick, Esther/Lady Dedlock, Lady Dedlock/Tulkinghorn. With lots of spoiler warnings, of course. Ajcounter 16:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't need many just a top and tail "spoiler" "endspoiler" as included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate pattern. Also it would be nice to have a shortish "Plot introduction" that acts as a spoiler free taster to anyone who would like to think about reading the novel. Also you might like to consider joining the project. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

Hi, I'm the person who added the legacy stuff - and you're a person who wasn't signed in, so I hope you find this here. The ref for the Bondswoman's Narrative is under References, a few lines below. That paragraph has been "improved" since I wrote it, so if I ever put a linking footnote in it's certainly gone now.

But you're right, there is a Q about original research and books. I'm not sure I've seen it resolved consistently. Because if taking information from the novel is original research, then most Plot Synopses are original research, unless derived from Amazon! Of course there are novels for which lit crit with a synopsis has been published, but this by no means covers all books which make it into WP. In fact, much of the information in the "Analysis and Criticism" section is also direct from the novel. I know this because I wrote those bits: and since that section also has no cites you have no more reason to believe it than the "Legacy" section. So you may feel it is better to remove all material drawn from the novels themsleves.

Actually, I now can't remember whether the comparison to Bleak House uses a direct description of Bondswoman, or is mentioned in the intro/notes to Gates' edition. So at least one of use will have to, ahem, follow the reference and check (I'd borrowed the book from a library). WP's footnoting - and my knowledge of it - have both moved on rather a lot since I first put that in, so it would now be possible to give quite thorough refs without disrupting the flow too much.

For now, I'm putting that section back to what it was, simply because the code seems to be buggered and it's unreadable (maybe a temporary development glitch): please do reinstate "cites" where you feel appropriate, until such time as one of us checks the ref. Not necess, as § deleted.

Meanwhile, it would be very good to have your comment on where you would be comfortable drawing the line between info taken directly from a novel, and information taken from secondary sources (the ideal). JackyR | Talk 18:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Stbalbach's taken it out without giving the reason, but left Bondswoman under "References". *sigh* Can we sort this out here, please? JackyR | Talk 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism evident

The first paragraph of this article ends with a question (bad form in an encyclopedia), which I suspect means it was lifted from some instructor's or education service's website. Any ideas? Thor Rudebeck 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thor, I agree with you. Whether or not it's plagiarism, it's a badly-organized paragraph, and the material leading up to that question doesn't belong in the introduction. It would be better off in a section on literary criticism or social context. If nobody chimes in soon, I'll jump in just to tidy it up. Greginnj 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bleak house, Kafka, Modernity

The striking similiarities between Bleak house and The Trial (Kafka) are striking. Anybody else think Bleak house a precursor to modernism? Beauraucracy as theme is an interesting one.

Esther's Disease

It does not say anywhere in the novel that Esther has contracted smallpox. Dickens intentionally left it ambiguous to open up allusions to the 1850's outbreak of cholera. It is pretty obvious that Esther has smallpox, but it is not stated explicitly.

There is a note in the Oxford World classics edition that Esther may have suffered from Erysipelas 15:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugobarnaby (talk • contribs)

Esther's Description as being "coy", perhaps written from a "feminist" point of view

Looking at the way that the description of Esther, in relation to the novel, as being described as "coy" behaviour - I wonder if that comment was written from, perhaps, a biased point of view rather than a non-judgemental view. Considering the behaviour and, after reading the novel, I don't think that it is possible that the character of Esther was being acting in that manner. Considering how the character progresses and behaves throughout the book and her sense of morals and such, it may be possible she was truly modest and not behaving in a manner that would be truly considered "coy". Is it possible that that section there could be changed slightly so it would reflect a non-judgemental view of her. Or perhaps look at both sides, from both the feminist and anti-feminist views. EmilyGreene1984 4:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor Characters

I notice they don't include Mrs. Pardiggle and her boys, nor the elder and younger Turveydrops, although Caddy Jellyby (alone of her family) is included as a major character, which I would dispute. I'm guessing that is because much of this article seems to derive from the 2005 BBC dramatisation, which dropped the Pardiggles; presumably if it had been prompted by the 1985 series it would have included them, but omitted the Jellybys. Are there any plans to bring the article back into line with the book? Swiveler (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added Mrs Pardiggle, as I think her attitude to her "good works" is an important, although minor, theme. Thank you for the suggestion. Please feel free to edited my contribution. Proxxt (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a character, "Chest Rockwell," under 'Minor Characters." His description involved something to the extent of being a moving statue at Bleak House with "ripped pecs" who entertained Ada and Esther by "putting on pec shows." Now, I haven't finished Bleak House but I assume that this character doesn't actually exist and his addition to this page was vandalism; I deleted his entry. I'm just looking for some clarification that his presence was, indeed, a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.39.174 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Charley is a major character; we know her for more than half of the book and she is important. Any thoughts? hannah.JOY. (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Major or minor, should "portentous" be replaced with "pretentious" in characterizing Conversation Kenge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lackiss (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Manor of Marr

The first section of the article described Jarndyce & Jarndyce as concerning the Manor of Marr. As far as I know this is never mentioned in the novel, so I think this needs to be changed to say that this was a case Dickens had in mind, if indeed he did. Phiz's illustration of Vholes's office seems to have "Maine Estate" written on one of the filing cabinets, though whether this is anything to do with his connection with Richard Carstone is unclear. 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugobarnaby (talk • contribs)

Define or explain "law writer"?

The main article identifies Nemo as "a law writer" but there is no explanation of that elsewhere on the main page. (Possible inferred meaning from "[Dedlock] recognizes the handwriting ...".) If you've read the novel, seen the film adaptations or know about that era of history then you know what "law writer" is. If you're reading the main article from a contemporary, naive viewpoint, "law writer" might imply something else. Nemo was, sort of, a human Xerox machine, paid to neatly copy or rewrite legal documents. He did not "write law" the way a contemporary legislator or Member of Parliament or member of their staff would write a new law. I hope someone can explain that better and maybe include it on the main page. AdderUser (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi,

I notice that some original illustrations are being added and removed by two different editors.

Since the article is rather monotonous to look at, these are a great improvement IMHO. Could the editor removing them say why here, please? As far as I understand it, they are certainly out of copyright, being over a century old. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression that the other user was on vandal patrol and reverted what (he/she thought) had a high likelihood of being vandalism (user with no user page, no edit summary). They're probably worth putting back, if their copyright status on Wikipedia is all sorted out. Stephenb (Talk) 14:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia not a forum for advertising a hotel!

The section "Bleak House, Kent" is a shameless piece of advertising with no relevance to the entry whatever. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.46.82 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulkinghorn's motives

The current synopsis states that "Tulkinghorn is convinced that Lady Dedlock's secret might threaten the interests of his client, Sir Leicester Dedlock…"

I would strongly suggest that Tulkinghorn is not in the least motivated by the interests of his client, but by his sadistic desire to accumulate his client's, and others' , secrets in order to increase his stranglehold over them. He is a miser of darkness and I find no suggestion in Dickens' text that professional duty plays any role in his thinking (other than as a convenient excuse for underhanded deeds). Indeed, Tulkinghorn's ethical responsibility to Sir Leicester would be to keep the latter informed of his efforts to uncover Lady Dedlock's past and seek Sir Leicester's directives as to whether to proceed or not. Instead, he initiates a clandestine operation of his own accord and when it reaches its culmination, rather than telling Sir Leicester directly, he uses the information for his own enjoyment in humiliating and terrorising Lady Deadlock.

Thus I think the synopsis should be changed to something along the lines of "Tulkinghorn, who takes a sinister glee in accumulating dark and sordid secrets relating to his clients, initiates his own surreptitious investigation into Lady Dedlock's past." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.4.36.201 (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of setting

I cannot argue with a legal historian butI can say from my knowledgeof railways that a date of 1827 is surely a little early. Although trains themselves do not figure there is a reference to the coming network throughout the country and the construction of tunnels and cuttings. As the first railway in the modern sense did not open until 1830 this pouts the action well into the 1830s, I would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.27.91 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bleak House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130509122707/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007820/Charles-Dickenss-Bleak-House-holiday-home-sale-2m.html to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007820/Charles-Dickenss-Bleak-House-holiday-home-sale-2m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Esther's Birthday; and "modesty."

The statement that Esther's aunt had "macabre vigils on her birthday each year" isn't quite true. One birthday scene is described, in which Esther tries to ferret out what her life story is, but the aunt refuses; although she perhaps drops some hints which Esther will understand later in life. I believe that no mention of any other birthday (involving the aunt) is made in the novel; and there's no indication that this sort of scene was repeated each year. If anything, the text simply indicates that her birthday was not celebrated.

Also, "Esther's portion of the narrative is an interesting case study of the Victorian ideal of feminine modesty." That statement seems mighty close to being an individual person's opinion based on interpretation, to me. It seems as if it's clearly true; but just the same, I think it's reasonable to question its appropriateness. Especially with no reference included.

Thanks for your helpful comments, but please sign! Rwood128 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bleak House/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs a total overhaul to conform with the Novels template. I've just put in an infobox so at least that's done.--Ibis3 05:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bleak House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310101448/http://books.google.com/books?id=NwBEAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=NwBEAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310101450/http://books.google.com/books?id=JpvP1yPvsZoC to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=JpvP1yPvsZoC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bleak House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123114444/http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/dickens_london_map.html to http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/dickens_london_map.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Boodles and Coodles

First an extract copy from Boodle's: "In Fiction":

In Charles Dickens's 1853 novel Bleak House, ch. XII "On The Watch", a satirical paragraph mentions the Lords Boodle and Coodle, Sir Thomas Doodle, the Duke of Foodle, etc., alluding to the famous club and thereby to the closed set of politicians and other powerful men passing power among themselves. [This is taken from the Boodle's article. Rwood128 (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)]

Indeed so, Rwood128 and that is precisely why that quotation had a preamble of "First an extract copy from Boodle's: "In Fiction":"49.195.199.82 (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

In (Sir) Anthony Parsons's autobiographical "They Say The Lion - Britain's Legacy to the Arabs - A Personal Memoir" ISBN 0-224-02829-4, he includes at p.17 and p.19 two references to "boodles and coodles"; first, in the political establishment that ebbed and flowed around "Nuri Said Pasha" Nuri al-Said, and secondly about that group's influence in precipitating the Chief of the Iraqi General Staff, General Nuruddin Mahmoud out of his office into retirement, during a few days anarchy in Baghdad in 1952. 220.235.50.75 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The second item above might be included in the Boodle's article rather than in this one. The first item belongs in a discussion of satire in Bleak House, which, so far, is not adequately dealt with. Indeed the subject is only directly mentioned in the lede. This article emphasises plot and character and deals poorly with the other aspects of what is a major novel. Rwood128 (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"La Maison d'Âpre-Vent" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect La Maison d'Âpre-Vent. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 6#La Maison d'Âpre-Vent until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Gallery

Is the recent addition really needed? Seems excessive and probably against policy. Rwood128 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it (it being I who added it). I wasn't sure whether it was a useful addition, but the fact you've noted this probably settles the question. Celuici (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When is the novel set?

I've just added a sentence to the final paragraph of the introduction, which deals with when the novel is set. Dickens took a keen interest in the Detective branch, and wrote several articles about it in Household Words; see the observations about about Bucket and the footnotes to it. The Metropolitan Police established the Detective Branch in 1842; and of course there is the reference in the novel to the railways. Dickens with his love of realism would surely not have intended the novel to be set in the 1820s, as Holdworth suggests. Sindri2 (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source added does not mention the Dickens novel. This counts as WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't the place to research details like this. The effort you have taken is appreciated, but unfortunately goes against WP policy. Furthermore, it assumes that the story takes place in an historical time. It is also possible that Dickens included contradictory details that mean the story does not match any real time. Ashmoo (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what I intended. My reference to the date of the establishment of the Detective Branch isn't "original research" at all; it's referenced historical fact. I'm merely adding an interesting detail to a pre-existing discussion about the historical setting of the novel. I certainly do not assert or "assume" that Dickens intended the novel to be set at a particular time in history, and indeed I doubt that he intended to do so. However, the fact provides some broad context in any discussion of the period which Dickens might have had in mind. The delinquencies of the Court of Chancery had long existed by the 1850s; the novel could just as easily have been set in the late 18th century, but the references to the railways and the Detective Branch suggest (I emphasise, suggest) that this was not what Dickens had in mind. It is no more than interesting matter to speculate on, which you apparently want to shut down.

I don't consider that any reference to a source must refer to the subject matter of the Wikipedia Article under consideration. A sourced fact may obviously, if relevant, go to establishing time, place, or numerous other relevant matters. 137.22.177.170 (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)