Dead Caterpillar


The universe is a vast cosmic conspiracy ...

Charles Dickens is plain boring

Thursday, Jul 14th, 2011

Dickens ought to be dug up at Westminister Abbey and burned for his literary crimes against humanity.

Like so many of our cherished Victorian-era authors, Dickens was more prolific than God, having written more words than the combined sixty six authors of the Bible. The Bible of course, is that book which contains God’s entire revelation to mankind, including the life and works of Christ (in four accounts), the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Epistles, not to mention an entire history of the earth. Regardless of whether you believe in him or not, you gotta hand it to God for brevity.

Now in his defense, Dickens was no deity, but there’s a proverb which rings especially true in the literary world: there is great folly in the abundance of words. I have so much disdain for prolific authors.

And don’t give me that hoopla about Dickens writing at a different time, where people thought and talked differently. Longfellow, I like. Hawthorne, Irving and Poe, I love. And they all wrote English in the same era as Dickens. Charles Dickens is the Dan Brown of the Victorian era.

I have Great Expectations at the beginning of a Charles Dickens sentence but, by the end of it, I am asleep.

Christopher Nolan got his inspiration for “Inception” from Charles Dickens. Paragraphs written by Charles Dickens are books within books. Sentences are books within books within books.

The writing of Charles Dickens is so well nuanced, the meaning in it cannot be perceived.

Here is one question you will never hear me asking “Should I take a nap or read a Charles Dickens novel?”

I have discovered a cure for insomnia: Charles Dickens.

2 Responses to “Charles Dickens is plain boring”

  1. Truth says:

    As the Truth i totally agree with you. Charles Dickens is the Defintion of boredom.

  2. Adrian Petyt says:

    Dickens’ characters are often very charming and memorable. His social commentary is heartfelt and was very necessary in its time. He wrote some very memorable scenes. BUT GOOD GRIEF his plots were tedious and his over-written prose was painfully dull.

    An author much better appreciated in TV or stage adaptations than in the original!

Quiet the cricket sounds and leave a comment


two + = 11