large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb_21
large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb
English
8011
But the point seems to me that the preposterous perversion of truth and the ill nature and malice of the book are of consequence chiefly as indicating Dickens' own character, about which I care not a rap; whereas, the characters in American shortcomings and vices and follies as typified are immortal, and, moreover, can be studied with great profit by all of us to day. BUT THE POINT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PREPOSTEROUS PERVERSION OF TRUTH AND THE ILL NATURE AND MALICE OF THE BOOK ARE OF CONSEQUENCE CHIEFLY AS INDICATING DICKENS OWN CHARACTER BUT WHICH I CARE NOT ERAP WHEREAS THE CHARACTERS IN AMERICAN SHORTCOMINGS AND VICES AND FOLLIES AS TYPIFIED ARE IMMORTAL AND MOREOVER CAN BE STUDIED WITH GREAT PROFIT BY ALL OF US TO DAY
ust the kind of character Dickens liked, because he had himself a thick streak of maudlin sentimentality of the kind that, as somebody phrased it, "made him wallow naked in the pathetic." It always interests me about Dickens to think how much first-class work he did and how almost all of it was mixed up with every kind of cheap, second-rate matter. I am very fond of him. There are innumerable characters that he has created which symbolize vices, virtues, follies, and the like almost as well as the characters in Bunyan; and therefore I think the wise thing to do is simply to skip the bosh and twaddle and vulgarity and untruth, and get the benefit out of the rest. Of course one fundamental difference between Thackeray and Dickens is that Thackeray was a gentleman and Dickens was not. But a man might do some mighty good work and not be a gentleman in any sense. "MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT" White House, February 29, 1908. DEAREST KERMIT: Of course I entirely agree with you about "Martin Chuzzlewit. R JUST THE KIND OF CHARACTER DICKENS LIKED BECAUSE HE HAD HIMSELF A THICK STREAK OF MAUDLIN SENTIMENTALITY OF THE KIND THAT AS SOMEBODY PHRASED IT MADE HIM WALLOW NAKED IN THE PATHETIC IT ALWAYS INTERESTS ME ABOUT DICKENS TO THINK HOW MUCH FIRST CLASS WORK HE DID AND HOW ALMOST ALL OF IT WAS MIXED UP WITH EVERY KIND OF CHEAP SECOND RATE MATTER I AM VERY FOND OF HIM THERE ARE INNUMERABLE CHARACTERS THAT HE HAS CREATED WHICH SYMBOLIZE VICES VIRTUES FOLLIES AND THE LIKE ALMOST AS WELL AS THE CHARACTERS IN BUNYAN AND THEREFORE I THINK THE WISE THING TO DO IS SIMPLY TO SKIP THE BOSH AND TWADDLE AND VULGARITY AND UNTRUTH AND GET THE BENEFIT OUT OF THE REST OF COURSE ONE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THACKERAY AND DICKENS IS THAT THACKERAY WAS A GENTLEMAN AND DICKENS WAS NOT BUT A MAN MIGHT DO SOME MIGHTY GOOD WORK AND NOT BE A GENTLEMAN IN ANY SENSE MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT WHITE HOUSE FEBRUARY TWENTY NINTH NINETEEN O EIGHT DEAREST KERMIT OF COURSE I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT
large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb
file
download/librilight/large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb.flac