Public reader discussion about Hard Times in the WeRead Catalog by Charles Dickens.
By hill-mountain8664
His writing feels really dense and kind of dry to me—like there’s not much flow to it. And I’ve never found him engaging at all. I always end up losing interest and motivation halfway through trying to stick with a Dickens book. Plus, the characters never really felt relatable or especially sharp to me. Does anyone else feel the same way? I just don’t understand why he’s so popular.
By HiddenSwan6
I haven’t really been reading much lately, and I’m only 16. The last real book I got through was Lord of the Rings, so I don’t have much experience with anything more advanced. Can someone suggest a Charles Dickens book to start with and maybe explain why?
By whitepocket1983
Dickens was basically one of the only people back in the 1800s who could actually make a living as a writer. Mark Twain too. Still, it seems like neither of them had it easy financially, since being an author didn’t really pay the way you’d hope.
By CleverBrush96
I’d never read Dickens before, so I picked up *Oliver Twist* to start. I’m about halfway through (pg 230) and I’m honestly pretty bored. There are moments that are kind of sweet, but I can’t really latch onto the characters—they feel like they’re there to move the plot along more than they feel like actual people. And people rave about how beautiful his prose is, but I’m not getting that “poetic” vibe the way I do with authors I love (Woolf, Nabakov, Austen, Baldwin, etc.). This is starting to feel a lot like *White Teeth* for me—I ended up not finishing that one after about 100 pages earlier this year. I’ve had a few Dickens books on my list for a while (*David Copperfield*, *Great Expectations*, *Bleak House*), but now I’m not really excited about them anymore. Do you think *Oliver Twist* is a good representation of Dickens overall, or do the other novels feel different in tone/quality? I know this one is early (he wrote it at like 25), so I’m wondering how much his style actually changes. And is it worth pushing through the “dry” parts just to get into the rest of his stuff? Also, if anyone has a convincing reason to finish *Oliver Twist*, I’m open to it—I’m about to move on.
By StoryBottle
I’m thinking about grabbing *Great Expectations* and *A Tale of Two Cities* and was curious what people usually think about them—like how fun/engaging they are overall. I’m sure they’re great since they’re treated like timeless classics, but I’m not sure what the vibe is. Also, would you say *Oliver Twist* is worth adding too?
By paperbackreed7
Kinda weird they included the guillotine part—feels really ominous for a book about economics.
By EnzymeTicket
I’ve already got Hard Times and A Tale of Two Cities, but I’m not sure those are really the best first Dickens books to jump into. What would you all suggest starting with?
By poppy-corner
Hi! This is my first time posting here, so sorry in advance if I’m doing something wrong. I just wanted to share a quick rundown, along with a few of my favorite quotes and what I took away from Charles Dickens’ *Hard Times*: https://simrantinani.wordpress.com/2024/05/01/favourite-quotes-from-hard-times-and-why-bother/ I’d really appreciate any feedback!
By traildeep
I’m about 350 pages in and I’m honestly close to quitting, but since everyone calls it this huge masterpiece I feel like I must be missing something. Does it get more interesting later? Like, does it ever stop feeling so dry and lifeless and actually turn into a real story? I know it’s a long book and there’s some setup, but right now I’m just not motivated. I’ve also heard it described as the complete opposite, so I’m trying to stick with it, I just don’t know if it’s going to click.
By CuriousShelf
Not totally sure what I’m even looking for, but I’m coming out of a long-term relationship and everything feels like it’s changing fast in my life. I usually go for nonfiction—essays, psychology stuff—but I do read fiction too. Has any book really helped you through a rough stretch, or helped you get past a breakup? I’d love something that makes me feel motivated and like I can reinvent myself, but honestly I’m also just up for anything that’ll broaden my perspective. Any recommendations are welcome—thanks!
By ReaderPanda
I’ve seen this quote popping up a lot lately... “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” It seems like politicians who want a more totalitarian kind of society really love it. They’re controlling and domineering types, and they use this quote to make that sound okay, like they’re the “strong men” who are supposed to bring about the “good times”. But honestly, the quote isn’t really right across the board. Some of it feels like assumptions made to excuse hard, authoritarian rule. I’ll go through it piece by piece. Line 1 “Hard times create strong men”. Yeah, that part does seem true, at least a lot of the time in history. War, depression, sickness, disasters, all that kind of stuff tends to make people tougher, more resilient, and more determined. Line 2 “Strong men create good times”. Sometimes, sure. But sometimes not. It’s definitely not always the case. Mao Zedong was a strong man, but he also caused a massive famine through his own bad decisions when he rushed industrialization too fast. And you could point to plenty of other strong men, past and present, who made life miserable instead of bringing good times. Line 3 “Good times create weak men”. This one is also kind of hit or miss. Alexander the Great was obviously a very strong man, taking Greek power east all the way to India and spreading Greek culture and language for centuries after. But he came out of the “good times” his father, King Phillip II, had built. Phillip “transformed Macedon from a weak kingdom into a dominant power in ancient Greece”.(https://library.fiveable.me/introduction-to-ancient-greece/unit-9/rise-macedon-philip-ii/study-guide/3PzN597087x3exY2) So yeah, strong Alexander came from good times. That’s just one example that good times don’t automatically make weak men. Line 4 “Weak men create hard times”. That can happen, but it depends what “weak” means. If “weak” means being a pushover, then yeah, you’re probably going to get problems, unrest, corruption, and all that. So in that sense, sure. But if “weak” means peaceful and not domineering, then I don’t think that’s necessarily true. There have been rulers who were peaceful, good, wise, and educated and still had very prosperous times. One example is King Solomon in ancient Israel, under whom the nation was rich, peaceful, and flourishing. Objective So why are these shaky assumptions being pushed? What’s the point of it? What is this quote really trying to say? To me, it basically has one purpose: giving domineering men a way to justify being even more domineering. They want to tell ordinary people that we need strong, controlling men to lead us, and that if we put them above us, they’ll give us the “good times” only strong men can supposedly deliver. At least in their view. Basically, the people who repeat this want power, and they’re trying to convince others that we need that kind of rule in order to prosper. But history, then and now, keeps showing that strong men don’t always make life better; Kim Jong Un in North Korea is an obvious example. In a lot of cases, countries have actually done better materially, culturally, and socially under rulers who were less domineering. England under Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria comes to mind. Impeding Progress I honestly think this quote is pretty harmful. It treats non-domineering people as “weak” and acts like being peaceful and diplomatic somehow hurts progress and prosperity. But really, the quote itself is what hurts progress and prosperity. It hurts growth because it pushes people away from peaceful cooperation, which it sees as “weak,” and toward harsh control, which it praises as “strong”. That’s what really gets in the way. Human beings moved from animal savagery toward civilization, making progress in science, medicine, invention, technology, social order, and diplomacy. That came from thoughtful people who spent time thinking, not fighting. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Christ, Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Einstein. People like that are the ones who actually pushed humanity forward. But if they were around today, they’d probably be called “weak”. So yeah, I think the quote discourages the peaceful mindset that makes progress possible, and drags us back toward the violent, warring state we started from. It’s like taking a student about to graduate 12th grade and sending them back to 8th. It pushes us back into attitudes we spent centuries trying to move past... and kind of throws away all the progress we’ve made as a society.
By notebook_moon59
Hard Times by Charles Dickens, e1/2 (1 hour) “Facts” is really hammered home here, and it’s pretty effective. The whole thing feels like a sharp swipe at this obsession with measurable results, school systems, business, all of it, and the way it squeezes out imagination. Gradgrind is so rigid it’s almost funny, but also kind of bleak. At home with Tom and Louisa it gets even worse, I think, because you can see how that way of thinking just shuts them down. It’s only the first half but it already feels very strong. Louisa especially seems like she’s trapped in something she can’t really name yet. I’m not sure how it’ll all play out, but this was a good, biting listen.
By birch64
I’ve only read one Dickens thing so far, basically *A Christmas Carol* (a decade-ish ago). I keep telling myself I should try a full Dickens novel, and *The Goldfinch* making it sound “Dickensian” pushed me even more. I also remember reading that at some point he was paid per word, which is probably why some of his books end up so long. I’m totally okay with long books, but I really don’t want to jump into one that feels padded or like it drags just to drag. If I end up not liking him, I don’t want to waste time with more, so I’m trying to pick something that feels like it represents Dickens pretty well overall—something that’ll tell me if it’s worth going deeper after I finish.
By pineChapter
No major plot stuff, I promise. If you enjoyed it, that’s totally cool—I'm not trying to rain on anyone’s parade. I’m still allowed to hate it though, and right now I just put the book down for good and I kinda want to complain a bit because I really didn’t like it. I get that it’s aimed at a YA crowd, and I’m not that anymore. Back when I was a teen I probably would’ve thought it was super “deep” in a way I wouldn’t even be able to explain. (Also yeah, I get that it’s trying to do the whole emotional/rambling vibe.) But to me it basically felt like another fantasy of high school life—jocks, cheerleaders, losers, all that. That’s fine if you’re going for some John Hughes-ish vibe, but this book wanted to be more than that. It seemed like it was going for mental illness representation and trying to make you feel like it truly understands, and I don’t think it pulled that off since everything felt so thin and surface-level. The two leads especially bugged me. They came off really shallow, like that “I’m 14 and this is profound” thing. Being quirky or sounding a little smart doesn’t automatically mean the characters are complex. And the side characters felt like stock copies too—concerned parent, missing parent, checked-out sister, smooth best friend, counselor, bully. I never felt like there was any real depth anywhere, especially not with the people. And plot-wise, it was so predictable and run-of-the-mill that I swear you could predict everything with like the first 10 pages. I don’t think I’ve ever read a book where I said “that was dumb” out loud so many times. Anyway, rant over. Hope this is the right spot to drop my opinion, even if it’s not the positive kind.
By field_simple
Ugh, I really loved reading when I was a kid, then kind of fell out of it for years. Now I’m trying to get back into it, but I’m running into the same issue every time. When I read, I can’t seem to actually understand what I’m looking at. I have to concentrate hard, and usually go through the same part a few times before I get even the basic meaning. Then I end up rereading again, trying to catch all the details I missed the first go. It’s honestly pretty discouraging, because I feel like I’m not getting anything out of the book and it makes me frustrated and annoyed. Does this just come with practice, or is there something else I should be doing? Also—just to be clear—this happens with basically every book, even kids’ stuff and older classics from the 1800s.
By Prologue_Pink
While he stared at his own painting, he was basically thinking about how things would go after he’s gone. Like, should he write a will that basically boosts himself the same old way, or pretend to be humble? And he’s imagining giving his stuff to other guys like him—miserable humbugs over 55—so they’d carry his name on, live in his house, and make money off his estate. But then I’m not sure any of that plays out. It sounds like Josiah’s going to end up dying from some sudden fit out in the street, and then his will gets torn apart by the same sort of people who come for his wealth and property, going against what he actually wanted. And in the end it’ll probably just be a mess of paperwork, legal nonsense, and not much good coming from it.
By summerbutton
“Just give them facts. Nothing but facts. No extra ideas, just the real stuff.” Honestly, that kind of teaching pitch is pretty intense. Also, I feel like the whole “let kids grow with imagination” thing didn’t really show up in a big way until later, like with A Little Princess and Anne of Green Gables. I’m not totally sure though—there were probably other kids’ books in that period, and I only really remember Alcott’s work, but even that doesn’t seem to be about imagination in the same way. I do think this is one of the most memorable Dickens openings I’ve run into, right up there with “Marley is dead” from A Christmas Carol. In A Tale of Two Cities the quote feels kinda abstract at first, and in Bleak House it’s more like it just plunges into that foggy London and the Chancery stuff straight away.
By muddyCorner65
Dickens is my favorite, so I tried to read everything he wrote in one year. I did it through Audible since I’ve got a full-time job, but I still feel like it counts as reading. Call it what you want—I just wanted to brag a little to people who’d actually get it, haha. Also, quick confession: I haven’t gotten to Sketches by Boz yet, but yeah… what can you do?
By late_otter
I’ve never actually read the book, but I watch the films basically every Christmas, like almost every year, and I’ve seen a bunch of different versions 😂 This year the Christmas Carol series came out and it felt way darker, and it kinda went into more detail about why Scrooge is like that. So I’m curious—has anyone read the book? Is it just as dark, or did the films end up being more like what the book is?
By FolioComet1987
Hey all—curious for this month’s off-topic thing: has there been a book that just somehow showed up at the right moment for you? We always bring up the same kinds of books here—ones that really changed how you think, or helped you through something tough, or even just made you feel something when you were a kid. Was there one that genuinely had an effect on the way your life went, mostly because you read it when you did? What was it, and what made it matter to you?