Simon Callow at Broadway.com: "Dickens’ conception of character is basically static whereas Shakespeare’s is entirely fluid."
Agree or disagree?
(Keep in mind that Callow is a HUGE Dickensian, so he's not saying "static" is necessarily a bad thing.)
« Guess what came today? | Main | Gad's Hill opens »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a010536c2d604970c016302d8f05d970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Callow on Dickensian characterization:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

I think that Callow, like many Dickensians (and non), looks too much as both the early Dickens and the comic Dickens side characters. I'd say that later Dickens (Eugene Wrayburn, Arthur Clennam, perhaps even Mrs. Clennam, etc) does show a more dynamic view of character.
Plus, I'm not as huge a fan of fluid characters (or Shakespeare, for that matter) as most mid-level analysis of lit seems to expect I should be. :-)
Posted by: Ian Miller | March 14, 2012 at 09:50 PM