Bleak House by Charles Dickens - February Book Club Online

[pedln]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome to join in
 

Bleak House                            
by Charles Dickens

                   

Bleak House is the 10th novel by Charles Dickens, published in twenty monthly installments between March 1852 and September 1853. It is held to be one of Dickens's finest novels, containing one of the most vast, complex and engaging arrays of minor characters and sub-plots in his entire canon. The story is told partly by the novel's heroine, Esther Summerson, and partly by an omniscient narrator. The story revolves around the mystery of Esther Summerson's mother and it involves a murder story and one of English fiction's earliest detectives, Inspector Bucket. Most of all, though, the story is about love and how it can cut through human tangles and produce a happy ending. The house where Dickens lived spent summers with his family, beginning in 1850, is said to have inspired his novel of the same name.  Among others, he wrote David Copperfield in this house.

The Old Man of the Name of Tulkinghorn  (click to enlarge)

INSTALMENT XI XII

DATE of PUBLICATION    Jan. 1853 Feb. 1853

CHAPTERS 33-35  36-38

DISCUSSION DATES April 5--Apr.9  April 10--Apr.14

Mr. Smallweed Breaks the Pipe of Peace (click to enlarge)

               Some Topics to Consider

Chapter  XXXIII  Interlopers 1. Who would you say are  the "Interlopers" referred to in the title of this chapter? 2. What is the peculiar smell, the "foetid effluvia" observed by witnesses in Chancery Lane?  Can it be connected to what is known of  "spontaneous combustion"? 3.  Mr. Snagsby's mental suffering is so great, he entertains the idea of turning himself in - to be cleared if innocent, punished if guilty.  Do you believe it will turn out that he is responsible, at least in some small part,  for  Krook's death?   4. What brings the Smallweeds down to the Sol's Arms?  What interest do they have in Krook's Rag and Bottle?  How did Mr. Tulkinghorn become connected to this unsavory family? 5. How does Lady Dedlock take the news from Mr. Guppy that the letters have been destroyed?  How did you interpret Mr. Tulkinghorn's reaction when he encountered Mr. Guppy in the Dedlocks' library?    Chapter XXXIV  Turn of the Screw 1. Were you expecting some sort of repercussions following Mr. George's refusal to comply with Tulkinghorn's request to hand over samples of Mr. George's former captain's handwriting?  Why was the letter from Smallweed particularly upsetting to Mr. George? 2. Were you at all surprised at Mrs. Bagnet's tone with her husband's old comrade?  What more do we learn about Mr. George in this installment? 3.  What might  Mrs. Rouncewell be doing in Mr. Tulkinghorn's office? What was Mr. George's reaction when he saw her there? 4.  Wasn't this "turn of the screw" particularly cruel and devillish of Tulkinghorn? 5.  Does Mr. Bagnet know what his old friend was forced to do, in order to save the Bagnet family from ruin?    Chapter XXXV  Esther's Narrative      1. After several weeks in the sickbed, have you noticed a change in Esther's sense of responsibility and view of her position in the family? 2. How does Dickens break the news to his readers that Esther's face has changed?  How do you imagine her appearance now? 3. Is it difficult to believe that Rick Carstone has changed in his regard for John Jarndyce?  What might have changed him?  Isn't he still in the army in Ireland? 4.  Is it a stretch to believe that Miss Flite has walked 20 miles in her dancing slippers to tell Esther that a veiled lady has been enquiring after her - and that this same lady is said to be the Lord Chancellor's wife?   Does this mean what it seems to mean? 5. Do you believe Miss Flite when she says that the Judgment of her suit will come shortly and all of her birds will then be released?    Do you have any idea why she addresses Esther as Miss Fitz-Jarndyce?

 

Related Links:
 Characters in Bleak House by Groups;  Map of London  1851 (double click); UNSOLVED MYSTERIES ; Interactive Map of London

 

                                                  

Bleak House  "A dreary name," said the Lord Chancellor. "But not a dreary place at present, my lord," said Mr. Kenge.

DLs:  JoanP, Marcie, PatH, Babi,   JoanK  

[Jonathan]

I'm completely serious, BABI, about Esther seeing the saving graces along with the shortcomings in Mrs Jellyby. Those are qualities she admires and would like to find in herself. And does find in herself. Just as she finds Mrs Woodcourt 'a sharp little lady,' so is she. She doesn't know what to make of Mrs W's confidences. Are they harmless? Are they designing? Esther's narrative includes so much soul-searching that the reader cannot tell when to trust her.

All along she has had someone confiding in her, from school-mates to guardians. From Richard and Ada to Caddy and Peepy. Everyone comes to her with their secrets and problems. So why not Mrs Woodcourt? She did fish for an invitation to Bleak House. Her son and his future would be uppermost in her mind. Are we certain that she sees Esther as a threat to her plans? After all. Allen won't be back for three years. How does she know that Allen is interested in Esther. She wouldn't have got it from him. He tells his mother nothing about girls in his life. Is, in fact, indifferent to girls, which must have been good news for Esther. It's a very clever conversation that Esther reports, but it's more about her feelings than objective fact about Mrs Woodcourts intentions. But, perhaps I'm being naive.

With Dickens' style the reader can make a case for anything. Honestly and even solemnly.

[Jonathan]

I believe it was about this time that Dickens' own marriage was breaking down. Was he, like Mr Jellybe, shedding tears over it? Some of these scenes may have been written through tears. Was he disappointed that Mr Jellybe couldn't articulate his sorrows?

[JudeS]

Jonathan
Uhumm....How nice of you to say that Dicken's marriage was breaking down.  He fell in love with an 18, yes eighteen, year old actress and broke up his house hold in 1858. He was 45. I don't know all the details but I did read only one child, Kate, stood by her Mother while the others sided with their Father .Could it be the money?
Anyhow , the actress, Nell Ternan, and Dickens spent some time in France and rumor had it that she even had a child by him. However the child passed away in infancy.
Dickens was dramatic even in private affairs.  First he had a partition built down the center of the bedroo he shared with his wife of 20 years.. Then he denounced his wife to the newspapers.  He spent the last twelve years of his life in Gad Hills Place in North Kent. Still anxious to preserve his image as a pillar of Victorian morality, Dickens purchased a house for Nell near London where he visited her "secretly".
Enough Gossip ! How complex a man our Dickens was !

[Babi]

  You're right, LAURA, but I can't help thinking that even Mrs. Jellyby's total
involvement with her 'mission' is a way for her to ignore and escape her marital
and maternal responsibilities. I think she was very unhappy with her life and found
a way to change it.

 JOAN, I didn't realize that affair with the younger woman had taken place about
this time. That does put another light on the whole thing. I wonder if Dickens was
'testing the waters' on this subject, consciously or unconsciously.  It's another
example of an alliance that a family might greatly approve, but the young lady in
question would not be at all happy about.  (This particular 'young lady', I realize,
was not some sheltered miss.)
 That was my own thought, PatH, that Mrs. Woodcourt was worried because she knew of
her son's attachment to Esther and hoped to persuade Esther that it would not be
suitable. I thought describing her son as fickle and careless was an especially
unkind gambit.
 
 JONATHAN, you are a kind soul, to see the saving graces in Mrs. Jellyby. As a
mother myself, I perhaps take a harsher view than I should of a woman who neglects
her children as she did. One thing I can well understand, would be the 'withdrawal'
from a situtation with which she was most unhappy.

  But now Charley and Esther meet again with some old acquaintances, and the story takes
a sad turn from a happy wedding. 

[JoanP]

"With Dickens' style the reader can make a case for anything."

That's the truth, Jonathan!   I am so happy that we are reading this together and comparing notes!  I have to confess that I totally misread the purpose of Mrs. Woodcourt's visit to Bleak House...thought she was there to pursuade Esther to marry her son so he wouldn't marry someone in India or China. 
Now I can see why Esther would be uncomfortable during these chats - if she does in fact "like"  Allan - and gets the feeling that Mrs. Woodcourt does not approve of her as a suitable wife for her son.

No, Babi, you're right - the object of Dickens' affection was not a "sheltered miss" - but carrying on with this popular public figure, father of 10!

My heart went out to both of the Jellybe parents in their reduced circumstances - Mr. Jellyby aware of the condition of his home and his children... and Mrs. Jellyby, unable to envision a wedding breakfast in her mean and filthy front room.  It was all beyond her, her mission is her only escape. 
Esther concluded that it was her guardian who made the whole experience "genial."  But John Jarndyce concluded that it was Dame Durden who brought sunshine and summer air to the procedings.  I'm looking forward to whatever Dickens had in store for these two.

[JoanP]

Does anyone know the difference between cholera and typhoid fever?   Is there a difference?  What is sweeping through London at this time?  How is it transmitted?  How contagious is it?  Lots of questions going into the next sad chapter, Babi!

[PatH]

What Jo has, and transmits to Charlie, is surely smallpox.  Esther's remark "I was very sorrowful to think that Charlie's pretty looks would change and be disfigured, even if she recovered--" refers to the scarring that occurs.  I didn't know that blindness was a possible complication, but it turns out it is.

The mortality rate is 30%, so they are lucky.

[PatH]

I was a little surprised that they wouldn't have been vaccinated, but couldn't find out for sure how common vaccination would have been then.  Here is a rather lengthy history of vaccination that implies it was already common in England by 1800.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/

Here is a one-page description of onset, symptoms, contagiousness, etc.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp

Dickens was pushing things a bit to have Charlie infected from Jo so early in his illness, and to become sick so quickly, but after all, he wasn't an epidemiologist.

[Laura]

As I read through the end of Chapter 31, I assumed that Esther’s blindness was temporary.  I think I thought this because of the footnote in m B&N edition:
“Blindness could be one effect of smallpox when lesions spread to the eyes.”
I assumed that once the lesion cleared, sight would be restored.

I was just reviewing the passages I marked in the chapter and read the questions in the heading.  Having done so, I now fear that Esther’s blindness will be permanent.

I had marked this foreboding passage:

“I had no thought, that night --- none, I am quite sure --- of what was soon to happen to me.  But I have always remembered since, that when we had stopped at the garden-gate to look up at the sky, and when we went upon our way, I had for a moment an indefinable impression of myself as being something different from what I then was.”

I coupled this quote with the discussion question, “Why do you think Dickens chose this outcome of Esther’s illness,” and now I think she may be permanently blinded!  Oh no!

[PatH]

Goodness, Laura, I hope not; that's a harsh fate for a heroine.  Let's hope it's the temporary form.  At least, unlike Dickens' readers, we won't have to wait a month to find out.

[bookad]

what a sad chapter 31 is; after I was finished wanting to slap Mr. Skimpole, who really is devoid of any feelings for others it seems....why didn't  he  give everyone a heads up regarding the possible contagious nature of Jo's illness, he being a past medical man with knowledge of this sort!!!...after this episode of his behaviour I can't say I find his antics cute anymore

why did Jo have to be put out in the barn by himself when he was so ill, rather than nursed within the house, sounds rather cruel to do this to such a young person; especially 2 pages later Charley's succumbs to the disease and is looked after so compassionately by Esther

this chapter was the first one I read that I didn't have to struggle with, there were so many emotional moments every time I turned a page

Pat-that was quite interesting reading about Jenner's history in medicine, and his part in bringing forward the use of vaccines that we take for granted today

Joan-from reply 632-so interesting to find how Dicken's history compares with the book--there are some notes also in the book that he wrote while publishing a small newspaper ..about his views on many matters of his day

fascinating how one book can lead a reader in so many directions

Deb

[Babi]

 I found it surprising that Caddy's unfortunate papa had settled his bankruptcy, JOAN.
“gone through the Gazette,” was the expression Caddy used, as if it were a tunnel, —
with the general clemency and commiseration of his creditors; and had got rid of his
affairs in some blessed manner, without succeeding in understanding them; and had
given up everything he possessed (which was not worth much I should think, to judge
from the state of the furniture), and had satisfied every one concerned that he
could do no more, poor man."  Surprising, because after all we've learned about
Chancery, I wasn't expecting a more realistic and reasonable outcome in the area of
bankruptcy.

 I agree, PAT. Smallpox is the only thing I found that leaves the scarring. By good
fortune, I found this item: And, it was in the 19th century that England placed a ban on
inoculation and then made vaccination compulsory. In fact, the British government passed
a law by the Act of Parliament in 1853 making smallpox vaccination mandatory to curb the
spread of the disease.     Is it a coincidence, do you suppose, that this chapter was published in Dec. 1852, and the law was passed in 1853?

 Esther did want to tend to Jo inside the house, BOOKAD, but the danger to the other
members of the household was apparently the overriding factor in Mr. Jarndyce's concern.
Charley, on the other hand, was more than just a maid to all of them. Esther would not
have tolerated her banishment to the barn. I suspect she would have insisted on moving
out there with her, to care for her.

[PatH]

Jarndyce shows a nice sense of balancing his obligations here.  It is his duty as a human being to see that Jo is taken care of.  He also has a duty to his servants to shield them from harm.  Jo will be well cared for--the loft-room is comfortable, and he is looked after, but the servants and family are not endangered.  Charlie, as part of the household, gets cared for by the household.  And because Esther is so fond of her, she insists on caring for her.

Skimpole, however, is contemptible.  Turn the boy out, he'll do something or other, no concern of ours.  He doesn't even try to be useful medically, saying Esther would be better at it.

Esther says that Jarndyce "...never seemed to consider Mr. Skimpole an accountable human being" but I think he's perfectly accountable.  He knows exactly what he is doing, and his highly refined line of being a child is carefully thought out and a lot of hooey.  He's a parasite himself, but heaven forfend that someone else should be helped.  Grrr.

[PatH]

What has happened to Jo?  His fever probably broke in the night, leaving him more rational and aware, but he was still a pretty sick puppy, and yet he has managed to disappear so well that 5 days search can't find him.

Babi, thanks for settling the question of prevalence of vaccination.

[JoanP]

From  chronology posted the other day -

May, 1851 - Speech to  Metropolitan Sanitary Association. This was the speech that Dickens gave  the year before he wrote Bleak House.  There is a copy of the Norton Critical.  It says that Dickens was earnest in the Sanitary cause...He was convinced  "that Sanitary reform must precede all other social remedies - even Education and religion cannot help until Cleanliness and Decency are achieved.

The Board of Health was established in 1848.  It recommended reforms for pure water supply, but was unable to implement proposals because of opposition from a few noisy landlords interested in the maintenance of abuses and because of indifference on the part of the government."

We'll have to wait to til another day to hear about Jo.  I can't believe that he was recovered sufficiently to move on, but we'll just have to be patient.  The same thing with Esther's blindness.  I believe she'll remain blind, but your posts give me hope.  So, blindness is a effect of small box.  I can see, from all the evidence that you have cited, including that footnote, that this is not cholera or typhoid fever, as I has suspected earlier.
 

[Jonathan]

There's a very strong suggestion that Skimpole helped Jo to move on.

Skimpole, with his medical training, saw at a glance that Jo was a great health risk to everyone near him, and wanted him isolated at once, thrown back onto the street and forced to look out for himself.

'He's not safe, you know. There's a very bad sort of fever about him.'

Mr Jarndyce is listening, takes the advice, but goes only so far as finding a place for Jo in the stable. To prevent his wandering off during the night, the door is fastended on the outside. Much speculation follows about how he managed to get out. It's implied he needed help, with a strong hint that it must have been Skimpole!

Skimpole does try to put himself into Jo's position, when he ponders what he might do if he were. Even suggesting the commision of a crime, being incarcerated, and then getting the health benefits resulting from that. One does have to wonder about Skimpole's survival skills. Amazing man as well as contemptible.

[JoanK]

Yes, all sympathy for the man is dead at this point! It almost dies in Jarndyce, too, but then he decides that S is "not accountable". Double Grrrr.

I hadn't thought of Skimpole being the one who moves Jo on. If he was, tripple Grrrrr.

And half a grrr to Dickens for leaving Esther to her fate at this point, and making us wait while he deals withother characters.

[PatH]

I hadn't thought of Skimpole moving Jo on either.  It makes sense.  That's how Jo got out but everything was still locked.  And Skimpole gives a hint when he plays a song "apropos of our young friend", and is very gay the rest of the evening:

  "Thrown on the wide world, doom'd to wander and roam,
  Bereft of his parents, bereft of a home."

I still wonder where Jo went.

[JudeS]

Of the last three exciting and worrisome chapters I wrote dowm only one sentence that I found profound. That is by Mr. Jellyby to Caddy.
"Unless you  strive with all your heart to make a home for your husband you had better murder him than marry him if you really love him"

This sentence from a man who never says more than three words at a time.
What sorrow in those words. What deep suffering. Caddy gets her character from her Father and , like him, feels deeply.
Unlike him I think she will have a happier life.  At least I hope so.

I also didn't think of Skimpole spiriting away Jo.. but it makes sense.
Skimpole is so awful he could have thrown Jo in a ditch somewhere.. but he woulldn't endanger himself by touching Jo or getting too close to him.
Jo could even be one of his children for all we know.Skimpole is one of the awful characters that Dickens is so wonderful in
inventing. I still wonder why Jarndyce   keeps him around.
. My Kindle says we have only completed 50% of the book.
Much still awaits us.

[JoanP]

"Unless you  strive with all your heart to make a home for your husband you had better murder him than marry him if you really love him."

Jude, that IS really quite an observation, when you think about it.  I think too about Dickens' home life...his wife said not to be much of a housekeeper, (much like Mrs. Jellyby?) - leaving the running of the household of ten children - to her younger sister.  There's a lot going on here beyond the surface of this story.

- Skimpole is so maddening - I really hope Dickens lets us know just why John Jarndyce puts up with him before the novel is finished.  There just has to be more to the story than the stated reason -  that he has not developed beyond childhood, psychologically and that Jarndyce is sympathetic to his shortcomings.  

So much talk about the relationship between parents and children, so many orphans - questions about their parents, possible reunions with parents, I can't help but think that we will not only find out what has happened to Jo - but also who HIS parents are...

 Smallpox is transmitted through contact then?  We are fairly certain that Esther has contracted smallpox from caring for Charley...and that Charley got it from caring for Jo.  That seems to indicate that Jenny and/or Liz will also suffer from it - as they were caring for Jo before Charley came into contact with him, doesn't it?

[Babi]

 I think you must be right, JONATHAN. I had forgotten he door was fastened from the
outside, and Skimpole is the only one who would have meddled with the arrangements for
Jo. Poor child.

 We must face it, JOANK. "Making us wait" is key to a successful series. Why else were
those long lines waiting for the next issue?

 JOANP, I have to believe that sooner or later Jarndyce will finally recognize Skimpole
for what he is. That grinning leech must get his come-uppance. It's possible that Jenny
or Liz might be infected, also. I do hope not; I doubt if either of them would get the
care they needed.

 The contagion must have been fairly widespread.  Remember those foreboding lines we read
just before Esther and Charley went into the brickmaker's cottage?  Towards London, a lurid glare overhung the whole dark waste; and the contrast between these two lights, and the fancy which the redder light engendered of an unearthly fire, gleaming on all the unseen buildings of the city, and on all the faces of its many thousands of wondering inhabitants, was as solemn as might be.

[PatH]

JoanP, not only Jenny and Liz, but the baby too could be in danger.  It may be that Jenny and Liz have already had it.  The CDC site says that generally, direct and fairly prolonged face-to-face contact is required to spread it, and it can also be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects like bedding.

[pedln]

Is it a coincidence, do you suppose, that this chapter was published in Dec. 1852, and the law (mandatory vaccination) was passed in 1853?

Babi, I don’t think it was coincidence.  The more we learn about Dickens and the era in which he lived, the more I think his works helped bring about change. Muckraking fiction?  It makes me wonder about other examples – like Harriet Beecher Stowe and Upton Sinclair.

I appreciate the timelines given here as I really hadn’t thought about when Jenner practiced and when people were first vaccinated for smallpox.

it can also be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects like bedding.

Can’t you imagine what the bedding was like at the Tom-all-alone.  I’m not surprised Jo wasn’t vaccinated, even Charley.  And why would Esther’s godmother have had her vaccinated when she thought she should never have been born.  And if it wasn't mandatory in 1852, no doubt there were many who fell through the cracks.

Statistics for smallpox deaths in London in 1844 – over 10,000 total

Smallpox London 1844

[Jonathan]

'I still wonder where Jo went.'

Dickens thinks of everything, Pat. I seem to remember reading that Jo talks about finding a place to sleep on a bed of warm bricks down by the kilns. I wondered about Jo turning up in the Bleak House area, some distance from London. A London street child is not likely to leave his familiar neighborhood. But he does tell us that he followed Liz and Jenny when they returned home. The answer to every question can be found somehwere in the book, it seems.

Is Mr Jarndyce looking for a homemaker? The marriage scene in BH is certainly not a happy one. Dickens takes every opportunity to comment on it. Is it a marital problem that turned Skimpole into the man he is?

[Jonathan]

The Appointed Time, Chapter 32. What an amazing chapter! What a tour de force of descriptive writing to present a case of spontaneous combustion for the reader's consideration. It's true. It actually happens, Dickens tells us in his preface.

'I do not wilfully or negligently mislead my readers...there are about thirty cases on record'

Mr first question - why Mr Krook? What did he ever do, to deserve such a strange fate? And did he feel it coming on? He closed up shop early. Kept the evening to himself. Agreeing to meet Mr Weevle at midnight with the packet of letters.

He's made to walk the valley...'the perplexed and troublous valley of the shadow of the law'...what a strange twist to the verse in Psalm 23: 'the valley of the shadow of death.' To die the strangest death, 'of all the deaths that can be died.'

And the dozen pages for the reader between those two quotes surpass in strangeness everything I have ever read. We'll have to think about this.

[JoanP]

Jonathan, I've a footnote attached to this title - "The Appointed Time" 1

1 See Job 7:1:  "Is there not an apponted time to man upon earth?"  

But that's a good question, why is it Krook's time?  What did he do to deserve death?  Someone really wanted to get their hands on those letters - but who knew that this was the appointed time he planned to turn them over to Mr. Guppy and Mr. Weevle?  Lady Dedlock knew that Guppy had some incriminating letters, but who would she have told?  Did Krook tell anyone about the letters?  Did he let anyone read them?  But who?

I guess we'll have to wait for the next installment - just like everyone else.

[PatH]

Strange, grim, and bizarre.  Dickens certainly deftly builds up to his climax, with increasingly forceful sights, smells, and uncomfortable feelings.

Is spontaneous human combustion possible?  The idea was controversial in Dickens' time, and is even more controversial now.  There seem to be occasional cases that fit, but usually another explanation is possible--the fire starting from outside, and various conditions leading to almost complete destruction of the body without the fire spreading.  I don't want to go into the gruesome details, but if you Google spontaneous human combustion you'll get several articles.  My theory is that Krook drank so much gin that his body was flammable, but that isn't really possible; he would die from the overdose long before that.

It makes for a good story, though, and other authors have used the device too.

[PatH]

What happened to the letters in a feminine hand, presumably from Lady Dedlock to Hawdon?  They're probably "the tinder from a little pile of burnt paper".

[PatH]

I love the imaginative literary curlicues in Dickens' descriptions.  Here's one from the beginning of the chapter: "...where some wise draughtsman and conveyancer yet toils for the entanglement of real estate in meshes of sheepskin, in the average ratio of about a dozen sheep to an acre of land."

[JoanP]

PatH, I'm waiting for the appearance of Mr. Bucket on the scene.  Actually, I thought he'd be here by now.  I'm sure he'll let us know more on the details of spontaneous combustion.  Is there enough to consider Krook's death a murder at this point?  We don't even have a body for an autopsy to determine "cause of death."   Dickens defends the idea of spontaneous combustion in the Preface. But you have to wonder how how familiar his readers are with this phenomenon.  At the end of this installment, he tells us -

"O Horror, he IS here!  and this from which we run away, striking out the light and overturmomg  one another into the street, is all that represents him."

And then -

"Spontaneous Combustion, and none other of all the deaths that can be died."  

Dickens leaves no doubt as to how Krook died.  But is it murder?  This is so like Nemo's death - in the same house.  Both suspicious.  But can murder be proved.  We need Mr. Bucket on the scene.

Love those "imaginative literary curlicues" too, PatH.  Thanks for noting them.

[Laura]

The time for starting the next installment has snuck up on me!  Yikes!

I wonder if Mr. Skimpole did do something with Jo…thank you for that food for thought, Jonathan.

I know I read about spontaneous combustion in another Victorian novel.  I think it was Woman in White.  Anyway, I still find the whole concept to be bizarre.  Being the doubting Thomas that I am, I am suspicious that the yellow liquor is not a result of spontaneous combustion, as I think we are led to believe.  However, I can’t give any other alternative.  I guess I am suspicious because so many instances in this novel we find out that “things are not as they first seem.”

I had assumed that the chapter title of “The Appointed Time” referred to the time that the letters were supposed to be handed off.  I hadn’t thought of it as someone’s time to die.  The double meaning of the title adds another nuance to the chapter.

Based on the reading, we are to assume that the letters burned up too.  We’ll see…

[Babi]

 JONATHAN, do you remember the local constables repeatedly telling Jo to 'move on'. It
seems he finally 'moved on' out of London entirely. He had planned to go to his warm
spot when Esther and Charley found him. I would have expected him to go there when he left.
 As for Skimpole, I don't believe a bad marriage can explain his character. It goes too
deep for that. Any marriage that he undertook would be a bad one for his poor wife and
children.
  "The Appointed Time" is strange. I fear I cannot believe in spontaneous combustion
in a human being. "Thirty cases on record" does not move me. There are hundreds, if not
thousands of reports of weird beings with absolutely no real, believable evidence.
 It is my personal opinion that Mr. Krook, unwashed, greasy, and sodden drunk, either
dropped dead into the fire, or caught fire and was too drunk to save himself.
  I do like your comment on the 'valley of the shadow of the law', Jonathan. Well noted!

 LAURA, I, too, thought the 'appointed time' was the appointment to hand over the letters.
I note, tho', that apparently they were being handed over only so that Mr. Weevle could
read them and tell Krook what they said. Krook expected them back, but it appears Guppy
had other ideas about that.
  After reading JOANP's post, I think she is right. Dickens had more than one 'appointment'
in mind. So sly, so subtle.

[JoanK]

"Unlike him(Caddy'd father) I think she will have a happier life.  At least I hope so." And maybe make a happier life for her father.

The combustion is such a strange plot device. I guess it didn't seem as strange in Dickens' day, when there were many more strange beliefs. But it seems to me to be very "not Dickens". He may stretch coincidence to the breaking point, but he's usually very this-worldly, if you know what I mean. Now if Poe had written it.....

The number of orphans is, I suspect, very realistic for his time. He really was concerned with the social problems that were around him, and that was certainly one of them. The problems of the "deserving poor", those who were poor through no fault of their own, is a focus in all of his books: children first, then women, then men who had been impoverished through the actions of others.

But he also doesn't believe in social solutions to the problems. The awful "philanthropy" in Bleak House, the dreadful orphanage in Oliver Twist. I'm surprised he even supported manditory vaccination, if he did. That leaves him with nowhere to go, except a few Mr. Jarndice's helping one or two individuals.

[JudeS]

I hope to return to the discussion on Monday or Tuesday.
Twenty people for Passover and houseguests all week long.
Hope I make it through this next week.

[Babi]

 Have a wonderful week, JUDE, ...and make sure those guests help you with the chores. After
all, this is family, right?  We won't be doing much for Easter, sadly.  I don't think I'm up to dyeing
eggs. I'll have my Sunday sermon from my favorite TV preacher, and hopefully see a lovely
Easter parade.  Hmm....probably some Easter candy, too.  Heaven knows I could now afford to
actually gain some weight.

 We learn now what has happened to poor Jo.  Such sad words from such a small boy.
 He is content to have a resting place among warm kiln bricks.  Charley, alarmed, says, "But don’t you know that people die there?”
“They dies everywheres,” said the boy. “They dies in their lodgings — she knows where; I
showed her — and they dies down in Tom-all-Alone’s in heaps. They dies more than they lives,
according to what I see.”
  Can you imagine living in a place where people die 'in heaps'?  Alone, with no helper or protector?
 "Bleak" is such a very apt word.

[PatH]

I wonder if Jo is afraid of death?  He doesn't seem to be; he seems to take everything without questioning.

[JoanP]

A happy Easter - and Passover to all!  JudeS, I hope you make it through a week with 20 houseguests.  You're running a bed and breakfast over there! We'll look for you on Monday or Tuesday.  If not, we'll send out a search party!

 I thought I was having it rough for the past 10 days. We were in CA to celebrate husband's brother's 80th birthday - returned home on Monday at 3am.  When we reached home, son#3 and his four little ones (10 and under) were here to visit over their Spring Break.  At least they were asleep when we came in, but were awake and ready to start the fun at 6 am DST - which meant we had three hours sleep!
 
Have been running ever since - ice skating, zoo, mall monuments,  museums - until an hour ago when they pulled of the driveway.. Oh, I forgot to mention that the other three grandchildren who live here in Arlington were with us most of that time too - ages 4-9.
 Bruce has declared "quiet time for the rest of the afternoon..."
Easter dinner and an egg hunt with the local grandchildren.  As long as we don't serve lamb...

[JoanP]

Interesting posts - reading them all together in one sitting, I'm seeing the story a bit differently than when I read it "on my own"...

"I guess I am suspicious because so many instances in this novel we find out that “things are not as they first seem.”

 Laura, I'm going to keep this in mind, no matter how much fairy dust Dickens tosses our way.  Some things that he writes are clearly fact, though they may stretch credibility they are so coincidental.  Skimpole Smallweed arrives with his wife - and the news that she is Krook's sister!  Imagine that!  Their attorney, Tulkinghorn (!) is checking this to be sure.  They claim that Krook's Rag and Bottle is theirs -  and padlock the door.  That much is fact.

"I fear I cannot believe in spontaneous combustion in a human being. "Thirty cases on record" does not move me."  Babi

-

"The combustion is such a strange plot device. I guess it didn't seem as strange in Dickens' day, when there were many more strange beliefs. But it seems to me to be very "not Dickens". JoanK

I'm going to agree with you, Babi - and suspend belief that Krook died of Spontaneous Combustion.  And JoanK you're right - "this is not very Dickens."  I went back and reread  Dickens' Preface as you did, Babi, to find out exactly what he said about those 30 known cases of Spontaneous Combustion. Will quote a bit of it here -

"The possibility of what is called Spontaneous Combustion has been denied since the death of Mr. Krook.
I have no need to observe that I do not willfully or negligently mislead my readers, and that before I wrote that description I took pains to investigate the subject.  There are about 30 cases on record - 'minutely investigated and described by....'  The appearances beyond all rational doubt observed in that case, are the appearances described in Mr. Krook's case..."
In Bleak House, I have purposely dwelt upon the romantic side of familiar things."

So what is Dickens saying here?  See if you agree.  He's defending his description of  what spontaneously combusted remains of Krook look like, based on testimony  given in court at the time  - of thirty cases.  He's NOT saying this is what happened to Krook - he's saying that the condition of his remains resembles what happens in spontaneous combustion.  Just like Nemo's death seemed to be from an overdose.  Was Nemo's death suicide, or did someone make it look like that?  Did Krook die from spontaneous combustion - or did someone make it look like that?
I think Dickens leaves the question open at this point.
 

"It is my personal opinion that Mr. Krook, unwashed, greasy, and sodden drunk, either dropped dead into the fire, or caught fire and was too drunk to save himself."

 Babi - I'm not ready to accept the fact that his death was accidental and somehow timed to occur at midnight. I believe there is a murderer  - and that if he isn't stopped, there will be more such strange deaths.  Where's Bucket when we need him?

[JoanP]

Two questions...do you believe that Jo is dead?  It doesn't seem possible that he could have survived. Babi, I think he planned to return to the brickmakers and die on the spot where by the kiln where he knew from past experience that it was warm.  But how did he get out of that locked barn?  This has never been answered.  In my mind, someone had the key and took him somewhere.  Who had access to the key?  Skimpole is a distinct possibility. But why?  Does Jo know too much - about Lady Dedlock?

Jo doesn't seem to be afraid of death - he doesn't seem to fear anything, does he?  Except maybe the sermons of the Rev. Chadband, Pat.