Comments on: What Little Dorrit Should Have Learned from Jane Austen about Money

By: Laurel Ann

Laurel Ann — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:39:09 +0000

Hi K.L.S, , thank you for your thoughtful comments in Dickens’ defense. I agree with everything you say. One should not compare Austen’s life experience with Dickens.

As the title of this post states, “What Little Dorrit Should Have Learned from Jane Austen About Money,” I was inferring that the characters in Little Dorrit could learn something from Jane Austen about finance, not the novels author Charles Dickens.

I appreciate your concern, but I have every respect for Mr. Dickens and his personal family financial struggles as a child and adult. Both Austen and Dickens were troubled by money concerns – but in entirely different ways. I aplogize if you misinterpreted my meaning. It was not meant as a sight to either author.

Cheers, Laurel Ann

By: K.L.S.

K.L.S. — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:18:43 +0000

Hello there!

I can see where you’re coming from about Austen knowing about money. But you should not say that Dickens needs to learn things from Austen, especially when it comes to money!

Dickens comes from a later time period than Austen does, and they were brought up in completely different circumstances. Austen lived somewhat comfortably, while Dickens lived in a Debtor’s Prison for some time! He had to work in a Blacking Factory to gain money! He probably “saw the inside of a pawnbroker’s shop” a few times! Austen did nothing of that. She knew nothing of debtor’s prisons or factories, and God forbid she ever even looked at a pawnbroker shop!!

Do not judge one author’s writing by another. They wrote about what they knew and where they grew up and what they experienced while growing up. Dickens lived in London and around it. Jane Austen elsewhere. (I’m a bit more up to date on Dickens’ history, not Austen’s, so sorry. I can’t remember where she grew up) as well as Bath. Both in somewhat comfort, if I may say so (at least, compared to Dickens’ early life).

Another thing, Dickens was writing about what money does to people, more than about money itself. Have you read the book? What happens to Merdle is all about money! True, he doesn’t go into details about the money Dorrit owes and how much he inherits and everything in between, but it’s not about that. It’s about how the characters deal with their financial problems and the hypocrisy of some compared to the goodness of others.

I love Jane Austen dearly, but when it comes to poverty and money, and the depth of human character, sometimes Dickens tops her. True, he idealized a lot of his characters (aka Amy Dorrit) but sometimes we like to have faith in characters who love goodness and strive to do the right thing.

So, I beseech you, do not compare the two. They both have their own type of writing, and they both are wonderful in their own ways.

By: Jennifer E. Howland

Jennifer E. Howland — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:45:38 +0000

Since Dickens is primarily and comprehensively moral in his larger approach to the writing of his books, financial lessons only come in a subtle fashion in terms of consequences of immoral financial irresponsibility. Advice here is that there is “nothing new under the sun” in the sense that man is always suffering from love of money. However, what you are overlooking, sadly enough, is what Dickens is suggesting here be the response to love of money, which is to NOT love money. That is your financial advise.
The production, cast and acting, as you say, are of great quality. However, the power of the book lies in the moral paradox that Dickens saw in society among the two moral authorities in the book, represented by Mrs. Clemens and Amy. Of course, Mrs. Clemens represents the majority of what is wrong with morality at the time (and now) while Amy Dorrit represents what is right. Dickens rightly divides all characters in the book into two categories along these lines. One represents the wicked Pharisees and all their hypocrisy with their wicked villainous critics. The other represents the New Testament, as mentioned by Amy directly–Jesus, Master teacher, healer, savior from whom she draws all her strength and being for her actions and reactions to her circumstances. It is too bad the the adaption left out the most powerful and moving catalyst of life–God Himself. Maybe Dickens had a revelation of his own that the person who did this adaptation missed. It was clear to me when I read it (page 817 of the 1937 edition).

By: Mags

Mags — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:45:44 +0000

Having seen LD already via the Fangirl Underground *cough*, I will say that it feels like a Law and Order “ripped from the headlines” kind of thing in many ways. I don’t want to give away too much, but it will feel familiar in the light of recent events. Not planned, of course, as it was adapted and filmed prior to these events, but it’s kind of eerie how it all played out.

I will also add that Andy Serkis absolutely steals the show as the oh-so-evil Rigaud. No scenery is left unchewed. He was having way too much fun.

By: Ainsley

Ainsley — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:41:25 +0000

Very witty post–loved every bit!