I recently drove to Petoskey, Michigan, to see my mother, then five days later drove back again. I always listen to books on CD when I drive to my mother’s. I visit my local library and check out more books on CD than I will need for the round-trip ride because on rare occasions, I start listening to a book and either I don’t like it or I don’t like the reader’s voice. Because I specifically wanted to listen to Oliver Twist, I played that first. I liked the reader’s voice, which was a perfect pairing for such a tale as Oliver’s story. And, I liked the Dickens novel well enough, so I kept listening.

During my twenties I read mostly British literature written before 1900 — Dickens, Daniel Defoe, George Elliot, Thomas Hardy, Jane Austen, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and the Bronte sisters, among others. I like to refer to that as my “early Brit-lit phase.”

Oliver Twist has many of the elements found in the Dickens novels that I so enjoyed when I read them in my twenties. The secondary characters are interesting, quirky, and sometimes so delightfully nasty that I truly enjoy their downfall. The plot threads are complex and engaging — twisting, turning, separating then rejoining, surprising me, yet making me sigh, “But of course!” There are the Dickensian themes of poverty, cruelty, and snobbery. The heroes have to rise above their circumstances, like poverty or the sins of others, which they are blamed for and held in contempt for, even though they’ve had no part in the events that have befallen them. And, of course, there are the good-natured, kindly characters who help along the way. But in Oliver Twist, the good, especially the women, are portrayed as sainted angels upon the earth — too good to walk upon the lowly soil. But thankfully, for the long-suffering Oliver, it’s beneficial they do because they are able to discern in Oliver all that is noble and good and become his staunch allies. (I guess one sainted person can always recognize another.)

I didn’t, however, like Dickens’ portrayal of Fagin, the criminal ringleader. Fagin is Jewish, and Dickens hammers that point over and over again, continually referring to Fagin as the Jew, rarely using his name Fagin. It wasn’t necessary to describe the character as Jewish because Fagin’s religious or ethnic background has no bearing on the story. It’s a racist stereotype.

On the other hand, Dickens’ novels often exposed the wretched conditions faced by the poor. I was struck by the theme of poverty in Oliver Twist and how relevant it is today. Characters could be arrested for sleeping in doorways. Adults and children in the workhouses and poorhouses were overworked, underfed, and mistreated by the people who ran those “charitable” institutions. The poor were labeled lazy and stupid, and believed to be one step away from a life of crime. By creating one narrative — that all poor people were undeserving — society could dismiss the poor with one wave of its hand and justify their mistreatment. With his fiction, Dickens spoke on behalf of the poor and forced Victorian society to face a harsh truth. But sadly, we haven’t come far. As I listened to Oliver Twist, it struck me that those same prejudices and stereotypes are still being repeated — this time about the poor and homeless in our current society.

I’ve read eight of Charles Dickens’ novels, and the one I rank as his best is Great Expectations, which was serialized from 1860 to 1861 in a weekly publication. The story of Pip and his rise and fall lacks the full-on sentimental mush found in Oliver Twist (although a bit of sentimentality can be found). Pip is a much more complex character, whose desires and dreams get in the way of his own happiness and cause heartache to those he loves. Pip’s growth as a person and his final realization and acceptance of his faults is a much more nuanced and mature story than Oliver Twist, which was written and serialized from 1837 to 1839. I’ve read Great Expectations twice, and I’ve listened to it three times. Each time I revisit the novel, my appreciation for the genius of Great Expectations grows. I think Dickens was truly at the height of his story-telling prowess when he penned Pip’s story. I plan to read more of Dickens’ novels, so if I change my mind, I’ll blog about it.

Others choose A Tale of Two Cities as Dickens’ best, but not me. I tried reading that novel twice in my twenties and didn’t finish it either time. A few years ago, I started listening to it on tape. I thought I might appreciate it more as an older adult. Nope. I was ready to stop less than halfway through because my aging hadn’t improved the novel. But my son called one night when I was out walking my dogs, listening to A Tale of Two Cities. Turns out he didn’t like the novel either, but he read the whole book anyway. “Well,” I told him, “if you can take it, I can take it too.” And I finished listening to it. But I didn’t grow to like it. A couple of years ago I started reading The Old Curiosity Shop, but I couldn’t finish it. Partly because the character Daniel Quilp is the most evil and vile character I’ve ever come across in a book. (Granted I don’t read horror books or stories with serial killers.) And partly because I couldn’t stand the unrelenting suffering Little Nell faces.

But Dickens is one of my favorite authors. He is a master of dialogue, irony, humor, satire, social commentary, melodrama, metaphor, and characterization. His memorable characters spring to life from the pages of his books. This, along with his delectable plots and vibrant dialogue, makes his stories perfect for dramatization as miniseries and movies.

I also like The Pickwick Papers, David Copperfield, Hard Times, and A Christmas Carol, which I read or watch every Christmas. In a month or so, I want to listen to David Copperfield, which I read about forty years ago, because I have a copy of Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver on my to-be-read pile. I loved David Copperfield when I first read it. But I wonder — after reading it again — if I will I rank it with Oliver Twist or Great Expectations or somewhere in between.

***

If you’re a writer . . . you might want to read some Dickens to appreciate his characterization and dialogue. When it comes to creating characters, especially secondary ones, Dickens’ motto could be “Go bold or go home!” Characters like Uriah Heep (a bad guy) and John Wemmick (a good guy) capture the imaginations of readers. Reading Uriah Heep’s dialogue makes my skin crawl.

Dickens’ dialogue can be satirical, duplicitous, menacing, sentimental, comical, and heartfelt. Every time I read Great Expectations, I marvel at how Dickens distinguishes between Wemmick’s office and home personas. Wemmick’s transformation by degrees as he leaves his employer’s office and walks home is mesmerizing. Wemmick’s mannerisms, opinions, and especially his way of speaking undergo a radical change. Wemmick knows he must be one man at work, but that he can be another man at home.