Of course Dickens wrote great literature!
But did he?
As I recall most of his early work at least was written for "penny dreadfuls" and/or serialisations. He wrote, as a journalist, for swift and profitable publication - in the cheapest mass media entertainment of his tiime.
It is only subsequently that some people have decided that his work is great literature - and they have made further commercial success out of promoting Dickens' work as "great literature".
Is there any chance at all that when Dickens sat down with pen and paper that he even dreamt that his work would still be in print even ten years on?
There have been a number of questions here recently about genre and similar things and these have frequently come back to issues of quality and (commercial) viability.
These things are importan - often very important (just to get the work out there) - but - I would like to stress the importance, for all of us, of just - writing.
Dickens would not have had a chance of producing "great literature" if he hadn't sat down and written something, anything in the first place.
What do people think?
David
I forgot to add, Good question David, keep them coming.
Mention the name Charles Dickens, and people wrongly surmise that all his work is great literature. Regarding English literature, he is not in the same league as, Jane Austen, Henry James, George Eliot and Joseph Conrad. Yet, Dickens is recognised as a brilliant author. Even though it took him many attempts to polish his craft.
Dickens acknowledged best work is, Bleak House, David Copperfield, Great Expectations, Hard Times and Little Dorrit.
Our Mutual Friend is more than one novel. A Tale Of Two Cities sells more copies than the others, yet, it is not recognised as his best work.
Dickens last unfinished work, The Mystery of Edwin Drood, was strongly influenced by Wilkie Collins of The Moonstone and The Lady in White, fame, which is the original WhoDunnit.
Dickens and Collins were friends. They would visit the fleshpots of Paris.
Dickens was cruel to his ex-wife. Until his death his children were not allowed to visit their mother. He was extremely wealthy and yet he complained to friends about the maintenance payments he could well afford.
Dickens could never win Husband-of-the-Year, but he set up a home for destitute women. He and his books were responsible for much social reform, so hats off to him.
'Is there any chance at all that when Dickens sat down with pen and paper that he even dreamt that his work would still be in print even ten years on?'
The test of a good novel is whether it stands the test of time. That the story is as fresh in the mind of the reader as it was when it was first published.
There are other tests, the readers affection for a novel and whether a novel is re-readable.
I completely agree.
So let's stop posting on here and get some work done! ;)