Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens

“You will profit by failure, and will avoid it another time. I have done a similar thing myself, in construction, often. Every failure teaches a man something, if he will learn.”

Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens is the tale of the intertwining lives of 19^th Century British families, from different social and economic statuses. Little Dorrit was born and raised in the Marshalsea debtors’ prison. She meets Mr. Clennam, who had just returned from his travels abroad, after his father died and left a mysterious watch for Mrs. Clennam. After seeing his mother being unusually nice to Little Dorrit he begins to suspect that his mother, the watch and Little Dorrit are all connected. He also suspects that his mother had taken some part in the financial state of the Dorrits. Mr. Clennam, with the help of friends and high powered connections investigate this case. What we find out in the end is a bigger twist to the story than Mr. Clennam ever suspected when he began to investigate.

Like many 19^th Century, English classics, Little Dorrit is a humongous text that explores the unfair working of society, the gap in the upper and lower classes and especially, the obsession people have with money. I found this book was sometimes very confusing and at other times very intriguing. The start was very long and it only became to be interesting only a third of the way in, mostly because it was when I started to understand the story – others more proficient in classic literature may completely disagree with me. What I found the hardest to follow were all the jumps from each family every few chapters. However, I didn’t worry about this too much because I had already learnt from Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, which followed the same style. And as expected, the confusion all pays off when all the characters come together to form part of just one story.

Warning: This is a somewhat lengthy review  of the ideas on the book and it contains  some spoilers.

As I mentioned, the start of the book was very lengthy and slow, however, the ending is quite rushed. In the last few chapters, everything happens at once and is all quickly narrated by Mrs. Clennam. I thought it was just me who didn’t understand the ending but while reading online reviews and analysis I found out I wasn’t the only one. If you would like to find out what actually happens in the end, that is very confusing but the most crucial part of the plot (and very fascinating too), I recommend you read, http://www.shmoop.com/little-dorrit/ending.html

Personally, what I took out from the story was the Dickens’ analysis of common human characteristics.  I found that the characters in the book each painted a caricature of a human trait or flaw. Mr. Clennam seemed the only 3-dimensional character, who had real emotions and layers. Other characters were exaggerated in personalities and behaviours, from this I interpreted it as Dickens’ way to comment and satirize the Western society. An example was Blandois who was the criminal, the assassin and thief of the story. Blandois probably had some troubles in youth that affected him but Dickens’ did not bring this layer to the novel. Instead, the only side to Blandois we know is the mischievous and vicious nature of his. Blandois does not feel guilty, he is cold hearted and all he wants is money. Even in his physical appearance he was described as stereotype of the villain, with a moustache and anyone who comes in contact with her is frightened by his appearance. In contrast we have Little Dorrit who brings more to the tables than Blandois but is still quite a 2-dimensional character. Little Dorrit is that devoted – almost a slave – to her father and siblings. She is kind, compassionate and caring therefore people respect her in the prison but, on the other hand, society (mostly her family) takes advantage of her. Little Dorrit had admirable qualities. Qualities that the world needs, the world would be a better place without the Blandois or the Merdles of the world, however, one must also learn to stand up for themselves and the number one person should always be yourself. Little Dorrit also represented the Victorian ideal of woman but taken to the extreme. They were supposed to be completely devoted to the man of the family, the father and then the husband – just like Little Dorrit did and Pet Gowan does. These are definitely not ideals in our society anymore, woman definitely do not have to be submissive. Society has changed so much that if Dickens meant this or not, I felt that Little Dorrit was exaggerated to critique the expectation and ideals for a woman of that time period. 

Another strong point was the society’s obsession with money. People were valued through their socio-economic status. Dickens knew, or implied, that this was absurd. Mr. Merdle was the most praised and admired men of the society. He was praised because of money, money, money. In the end he was nothing more than hollow, a phoney and an intelligent scam artist. Mrs. and Mr. Merdle repeatedly used the word “society” in the conversations and reasoning for behaviour.  Mr. Merdle didn’t particularly enjoy the dinners and parties he had to attend but did so for “society”. Mr. Merdle lived his life to impress society and to maintain society’s expectation of him. However, Mr. Merdle wasn’t able to cope with the pressures and guilt. Even Mr. Rigaud/Blandois had a fascination with being a “gentleman”. The only good wealth as represented by Dickens comes from steady growth and hard work. Mr. Merdle and Mrs. Clennam both made their money quickly and amorally, they both lived with a heavy consciousness. Mr. Merdle walked while “clasping his wrists as if he were taking himself into custody” and Mrs. Clennam became bed/wheelchair bound woman. In the end they both had their downfalls. Little Dorrit married Mr. Clennam and was quite happy. This was because she did not accept her quick money and didn’t lead a futile and materialistic life.

I would also like to point out, quickly without going into any depth, the unjust corruption explored in the novel. The Barnacles held all the power in the Circumlocution office and in the England of the story. This led to nowhere, nothing progressed. Corruption in power is very dangerous to a country, especially when there is a monopoly. Nothing gets done and there is no one with sufficient power that can complain.

I quite enjoyed the book, it wasn’t one of the best novels but it was still enjoyable. It was quite lengthy and wordy but the ending was worth it   (after I read a summary of the ending ). I’d like to finish this extensive review by mentioning a quote from the book that I found really interesting and really sums up something that happens today. The quote sums up why there are bullies, why some critique and put down others. Here’s the quote, 

“When I have heard him talk to Papa during the sitting for the picture, I have sat wondering it could be that he has no belief in anybody else, because he has no belief in himself.”