LONDON. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln’s Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snowflakes - gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun. Dogs, undistinguishable in mire. Horses, scarcely better; splashed to their very blinkers. Foot passengers, jostling one another’s umbrellas, in a general infection of ill-temper, and losing their foot hold at street-corners, where tens of thousands of other foot passengers have been slipping and sliding since the day broke (if this day ever broke), adding new deposits to the crust upon crust of mud, sticking at those points tenaciously to the pavement, and accumulating at compound interest.
Are you able to visualize what is happening in this passage?
This is from Bleak House by Charles Dickens, if you are curious.
Michaelmas out this bitch, yo, and LC up in Lincoln’s crib. Weather is off the hook, frfr. Streets so muddy like Noah’s flood just got done, I ain’t even be shook if a Dino come roaring up at me lmao. Chimney smoke be hanging low like Snoop Drizzle in town and ash be falling like fuckin snow, no cap. Watching the dogs and horses getting about covered in filth like they be swimming in it. Shit is wild, fam, homies on foot got no rizz, they be slipping and sliding on mud just tryna get along down the street for reals, stepping in mud and it be stepping back on them like they only drip.
Yes I can. And disagree with virtually everyone else; I think that this along with virtually everything else by Dickens is absolutely top class writing. The meaning of every individual phrase isn’t the point, the whole passage just gives the perfect impression of the scene he is trying to convey. Also, remember much of Dickens’ stuff was written to be read out loud. Try that, it helps!
All right, so taste aside, I would make the argument that Dickens’ writing is absolutely not “top class” by virtue of the fact that he was paid by the word and many have argued this contributed to his style of employing a lot of run-on sentences in his work. Don’t get me wrong—I do think he was a good writer, but I tend to agree that his verbosity detracted from the quality of his writing, not added to it.
Tl;dr the weather sucked. Everything was muddy and covered in soot.
Sure. It paints a very vivid picture, I love it.
Never read anything by Dickens before except for A Christmas Carol (and that was for school) but this is now on my reading list :^)
Oh of course it’s Charles fucking Dickens Yeah I get the gist of it but it’s unpleasant to read and doesn’t tell me much
No, because aphantasia. I love the turns of phrase, though.
I started reading, I drifted away at about the mud part so I restarted. This is really not my cuppa tea when it comes to text. On the second run I did better but no, I didn’t manage to visualize everything. The Megalosaurus sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. The text is convoluted, boring, and depressing but yes I guess I see the shitty street, the animals, the people -a crowd-, the miserable weather.
I’m aware of more information I’m not really processing but I’m just too annoyed at the text to apply the necessary brainpower required to digest it. It’s almost 2 AM and I’m tired.
Then I make it to the end and realize it’s Dickens, and that explains everything. I never liked his writing. Good night.
I can’t really visualize things in general. Due to that, if you tell me it’s muddy that’s most of the information I get. My brain won’t automatically try to put mud on the horses or add other details.
Here the specifics help a lot and I have a better sense of the muddy day for it.
Oddly enough I overthought the first sentence, and imagined the Lord Chancellor was some type of local decorative feature like the Duke of Wellington. Then I realized it’s probably just a guy with a fancy title sitting at a table in a pub?
The rest is mostly straightforward to me. The text feels the way it literally reads - a bit muddy?
The streets are so full of fresh mud that they may as well be prehistoric mud flats after a Great Flood. I imagine it’s quite a large street leading up a big hill if he could imagine a giant dinosaur making the walk. So I picture basically a solid river of mud rising up in the distance.
If there are normally cobblestones or whatever, they’ve disappeared beneath the muck. I don’t know exactly what a chimney-pot is, but black smoke is pouring from the chimney somethings and mixing with the falling drizzle into dirty soot water. The rain is so blackened - and the weather so dreary - that the city itself could be in mourning.
It’s so muddy that the dogs are just dirty shapes in the muck, the horses have mud all the way up to their blinkers… which I read as blinders first, so I imagined it up to their heads and necks, like only the top 10% of the horse is actually visible and most of that is the headgear, and the rest of the horse is mud. I don’t know if that’s what a horse blinker is though.
The foot traffic feels cramped and irritable in the muck, people holding umbrellas against the dirty rain. It also sounds like a lot - tens of thousands of people walking the same paths. The edge of the sidewalk or whatever at the street corner is probably invisible under the mud, and because of that people keep slipping in the same spots. This pushes the mud more and more in the same directions, forming gross layered piles of muck in specific places against the sidewalk or something, causing more people to slip, adding more to the local mud (compound interest)
The day is so dark and dreary that it may as well be night. Overall, it’s muddy, raining, sooty, and depressing. There’s a big, wide, muddy street up a hill, filled with a constant flow of unhappy people.
I don’t know if I would actually read this for leisure, but I like it. I think I’m on the same page for most of it? But I still have no idea what’s up with Lord Chancellor. Is he a person staring out a window at the scene in the street? Does his title imply nobility and fancy clothing? What does the inside of the Lincoln’s Inn Hall look like?
Random question -what’s your favorite book? I’m really vibing with your interpretation here.
Thanks! Oof, I don’t know a particular favorite book, but favorite author is the late great Sir Terry Pratchett.
Hah dang you should have told me to read the rest of the sample before I read the study! Now I’ll never know how far I’d get before I stopped imagining some nobleman drinking at a pub for no reason. I’m certain I would have figured it out eventually… but 35 English students never figuring that out? Almost half?
Given a dictionary and the words solicitor, injunction, affidavit, talk of tripping each other up with arguments and a literal reference to a “pile of money”?! They couldn’t make the leap to “court of law”? Couldn’t functionally use the dictionary as a tool for comprehending a sentence?
…That’s really scary, huh…
I also read the news about the same research article you did.
I was surprised how much I could understand, based on how much trouble people in the study had. Sounds like a wet miserable city our Lord Chancellor is in.
I have aphantasia so I can’t visualize much of anything. But I did understand the passage.
I read a lot of fictionalized historical diaries as a kid (i.e., diary entries written from the POV of a fictional character living during important historical events) because they were given to me as gifts and the writing style is somewhat similar, though not as creative with imagery as Dickens.
What does understanding mean for you in this sense?
I don’t mean to come across as ignorant or disrespectful - just curious. A big part of my understanding of that passage is the process of visualization. When I read that passage, I feel it. It’s wet, it’s filthy, everyone is upset and I imagine faces scowling. That’s what “understanding” means to me as a process.
I sort of just try to contextualize the words and their meaning and draw upon my experiences to fill in the blanks. I still have other senses and my own mental concept of things and how they fit together. I can imagine “faces scowling” or a muddy street and how that affects the story and its setting, just not visually.
I will often infer the emotions of a scene and place myself within that context, since I usually am drawn to more character-driven experiences. I know what a room will look like based on the description, I just can’t hold an image of it in my mind.
I should also note that there are levels of aphantasia and everyone is different. I kind of have a little bit of visualization, but not much. Like limbs moving, some motions, etc. kind of like stick figures that can barely move. It doesn’t allow me to “see” things with any detail, and if I were to try to visualize (for example) a golfer taking a swing, the swing gets to the ball and then stops. There’s no physics applied to it.
I actually joined a psychological study in undergrad, because it was mandatory to do some, that was about visualizing and that’s how I discovered that I have aphantasia. They asked me to visualize and describe certain things and I was like, “I can’t” for basically every question. The researcher’s face was sort of priceless, lol.
because it was mandatory to do some
Usually understood to be a violation of ethics if they didn’t provide you the opportunity for an alternative assignment btw.
Thanks for the explanation. It’s very interesting to learn about how others perceive the world.
Yeah, there totally were alternatives, but they were like, writing a 20-page paper or presenting a topic directly to the professor during her office hours.
It seemed like more of a time-save for me and a boon to the researchers to just do some studies. I think it was only 5-10 and it was really simple to sign up.
yea and I don’t like how its written
Yes. But I van imagine my children being clueless. English is our third language but I think that’s not the issue. They just haven’t read enough. They are consumers and aren’t accustomed to active reading.
The absolute best strategy for most reading comprehension struggles is read aloud. Active discussion is good too.
Or I also like to tell my high schoolers to be contrarian with the text. To argue against it, to try to prove it wrong, even to the point of bad faith. “You’re saying the book sucks - I want receipts. Tell me about it.” I don’t really have training in teaching english but I will happily pressure high schoolers into reading the books in English class.
Yeah, the real struggle my kids deal with is dyslexia. But I know that even a dyslexic van be bitten by the reading virus so I still have hope.
Yeah, and I can translate it for you if need be.
Yes, but it’s really cumbersome to us foreigners.
