My rating: 4 (of 5) “stars”
I own a Penguin Popular Classics edition, which was published in 1994. I can’t remember when or where I bought it, but only got around to reading it last year. Penguin no longer publishes the “Popular Classics” series, it was discontinued in 2013; But Penguin publishes several different editions of this book, including abridged versions for young readers. “David Copperfield” was originally published in twenty installments by Bradbury & Evans in 1849/1850.
Charles Dickens tells the story of David Copperfield, from the day of his birth to his days as a mature man. Copperfield is a wonderful character, and Charles Dickens tells a dramatic story which is still relevant today. Dickens was such an elegant writer, here is an excerpt, copied from the “Project Gutenberg” online version of the book: “Lovers had loved before, and lovers would love again; but no lover had loved, might, could, would, or should ever love, as I loved Dora.”
So why did I give the book only four out of five possible “stars?” — As much as I love his writing, Charles Dickens lingers. While reading the book, I frequently wished he had murdered some of his darlings….
The phrase “murder your darlings” means that writers should be ruthless during the editing process and cut any words or sentences that are superfluous; anything that doesn’t move the story forward; anything that an author thinks is oh-so-clever. Cut, and then cut some more!
The phrase “murder your darlings” is often attributed to the writer Scott F. Fitzgerald. But it was, in fact, Sir Arthur Thomas Quiller-Couch (1863-1944) in one of his lectures on the Art of Writing at the University of Cambridge, who first said “Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.” (On Style, lecture delivered on January 28, 1914).
All too often, Charles Dickens lingered when he should’ve murdered his darlings. He described too many scenes in too much detail. While reading the book, too often I thought, “just get on with it!”
And that’s why I only gave the book four of five “stars.