Skip to main content

Can we call Great Expectations an autobiographical work, and why?

Great Expectations is semi-autobiographical.  It is often considered a revision of David Copperfield, Dickens’s other autobiographical work.  Both have young abused boys, and both feature love stories.  While David Copperfield has a happy ending, Great Expectations does not.  It shows us an older Dickens with a bitter view of love and life, but a more complex and realistic one.


Great Expectations features many aspects of Dickens’s life.  It takes place in and around Rochester, where Dickens was young and returned to live later in life.  He even based Satis House on a real house in Rochester, and the cemetery where Pip meets Magwitch is real, complete with the row of tiny headstones.


Pip’s experiences mirror Dickens’s also.  Dickens was a self-made man, even though Pip’s fortune was handed to him. He too fell in love young, though he later grew disillusioned with his wife when she wasn’t as young and pretty.  Unlike Pip, Dickens had many children.


Pip lives in London for a time, as Dickens did.  He also ends up in a debtor’s prison.  Dickens spent some time there in his youth, because his father was regularly down on his luck.  Young Charles Dickens was forced to work in a blacking factory.  It was not an experience he forgot or forgave.  It seems to inspire Pip's dislike of the blacksmith's shop.  When we hear the adult Pip commenting on his childhood, it sometimes seems like Dickens’s voice.



It is a most miserable thing to feel ashamed of home. There may be black ingratitude in the thing, and the punishment may be retributive and well deserved; but that it is a miserable thing, I can testify. (Ch. 14)



Unlike Pip, Dickens was very successful.  Pip had no talent, but Dickens did.  He was a famous author by the time he was a young man.  He was wildly popular, in fact.   Dickens was the literary rock star of his day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.