Talk:Hard Times (novel)

Possible addition
Book 2 ('reaping') ends with Louisa collapsing at her father's feet. The words she uses are something like 'let me fall on the ground!'. Peter Ackroyd, in his biography of Dickens, lays the connection between these words and Dickens' own final words ('on the ground'). Far-fetched, but an interesting fact nonetheless. -- Cugel 11:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * It could be put in the miscellaneous section. --Knucmo2 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved Link
I moved the "A comprehensive Dickens page" link to the authors page

"Ergo"?!
remove the tiresome shit you write to look literate. It doesn't work it simply does not work.
 * Do it yourself then, and don't be so abusive. --Knucmo2 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Names
Should there be some discussion of the meaning of the names in this novel? Dickens always took special care in creating names that embodied the character. "M'Choakumchild" is an obvious example. Dickens implied through M'Choakumchild's very name that educators who taught nothing but facts were 'choking' their student's imagination/capacity for "fancy"/etc. Students of the text may find such a section useful. I am happy to do one myself if one is deemed necessary. --Bobby B 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a few changes re this, as quite often the article says things like "Dickens's lorious use of names" etc; this is opinion rather than fact TimothyJacobson (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is something in the names of the characters. Mr Gradgrind "grinds out graduates", Mr Bounderby is what they used to call "a bounder" (a disreputable man). Gradgrind also has two other younger sons, Adam Smith (named of course after the famous Scottish econimist) and Thomas Malthus, named after the demographer. Loo, Louisa's nickname, is a card game I believe. Katana Geldar 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

you do realise that i find the fact that you are all arguing and insulting each other over a fairly small matter rather disgusting (but i must admit, slightly amusing) and younger people such as me DO read the comments and so people should keep the swearing down a tad. Obviously i do not blame all of you but some are a lot worse than others. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.126.140 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody understand what is written on this article?
Is there something wrong with this article?

"Bounderby is rendered ecstatic by the news, as is Louisa's mother, who again is so overwhelmed that she is overcome yet again. Sissy is confounded by but piteous of Louisa." for example. Does this makes any sense? I can point to many other sentences that are equally incomprehensible.

Shouldn't the summary be written in order to be comprehensible?

I haven't read the book, but I really have a hard time understanding it from the summary.

--Akis 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is 'She'?
Who is 'She' in Other characters section? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

yruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.149.105 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Graphic
Why is there a photo of George Bernard Shaw, who simply criticized the work, and not Dickens? This is not to suggest Dickens' photograph should be included, but isn't Shaw's picture a little unnecessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.243.99.13 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because the article doesn't have many images in it, especially that far down the article. There is a picture of Dickens for use on Wikipedia. Where would you propose we'd put it? You can even do it yourself if you'd like. Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Relation to science?
I always wondered how Hard Times could be viewed as a critique of science, and not just industrial society. The whole idea of embracing "facts, facts, facts" kind of dulls the imaginative aspect of a scientist, which is important since one needs to have those moments of creative genius to be able to understand a conflicting body of evidence in a new light. I think "Hard Times" is, perhaps, a careful warning not to become the extreme opposite of a religious fanatic...that is, obsessed with facts and citations until it just becomes a bit absurd. This is kind of embodied in Wikipedia (which the comic "xkcd" periodically makes fun of) - kind of like the page on "why is the sky blue" that must have a reference for the sky appearing blue. Anyways, there's the example, I just thought maybe it would be an interesting aside on an alternative meaning of "Hard Times". I don't really have any sources to back up that argument, but I was always wondering.

24.150.80.14 (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there could be a reference out there for that... I wrote a few papers on this book, and when I was looking up sources I may have seen something about the view that it is critique of science. Its not far fetched given that Dickens wrote a lot about social issues, and one of the social issues during the Victorian era was the expansion of natural history (Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species just a few years after Hard Times was published). But, I digress. If you can find multiple sources that share that viewpoint, it could definitely go in the article. Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary
This is a very extensive article, apparently well researched, though I haven't read the book; but it is difficult to understand, in places, due to the author's lack of understanding of English vocabulary. I do not know if this is a superior high school class project [some parts have better vocabulary than others), or if just one reviewer is the author of this piece. It is also possible that the author is not a native speaker of English. [Some of the mistakes in vocabulary look like faulty translation to something close to the English meaning.] In any case, both vocabulary and idiom, in some places, are "off," making the reading tough going.  If you yourself have a large vocabulary, you will probably figure out what the writer INTENDED to say, but it is a burden to plough through it.  I agree with AKIS "Can Anybody Understand?" [above] I don't have the inclination to edit this piece, but someone needs to do so.  I wouldn't mind doing it, possibly, but I haven't mastered this format used by Wikepedia. -PetroniaresPetroniares (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "[...] it is a burden to plough through it." Then don't. Or, better yet, 'master this format used by Wikipadia' and edit it yourself. 83.249.179.117 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to improve this article and can certainly agree that it is often poorly written. Rwood128 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"This style of repetition (also seen in through the description of his house, "no little gradgrind"...) is the one that Dickens adopted so that authorities would not forbid the publishing of the novel."

The above doesn't make sense to me, as someone who is only vaguely familar with the book. 86.132.140.171 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no clue. I've even read the book! I did some research on the book shortly after I read it, and this doesn't ring a bell at all... maybe I'll remove it for being referenced in addition to not being clear... Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Themes: Dickens' sentimentality?
Under "Honesty" in the "Major Themes" section is the following:

What Dickens loses sight of is that it is not necessary that people living in poverty have love and honesty as inherent values and those who are rich are always bad. Dickens has created 'poverty and goodness' and 'richness and corruption' as two separate categories.

This is perfectly acceptable criticism of Dickens, and not just in this novel, but it surely belongs under "Literary Significance and Criticism" (and with a bit of rewriting at that). Someone wanted this sentence here, though, and I'd like to give them a chance to defend it before I change it. Scutigera (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hypocrisy as Theme
Mr. Bounderby is lecturing Stephen Blackpool on the rules of marriage ("You took her for better for worse") [book I, ch.XI] while himself living alone with a widowed woman of uncertain status. Later, Mr. Bounderby renounces Louise Gradgrind as she has a nervous breakdown brought on by a moral crisis, demanding she either return home or be cast out [book III, ch.III]. Mr. Harthouse serves as a foil to Mr. Bounderby, by being equally amoral, but tending towards a calculating cynicism rather than the blustering bullying of Mr. Bounderby. 83.249.137.51 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hard Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041105064003/http://home.vicnet.net.au:80/~hartwell/hardtime/introd.htm to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~hartwell/hardtime/introd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hard Times (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hard Times which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Preston cotton mill lockout
I looked at this Wikipedia article to see if there was any mention of the Preston cotton mill lockout of the early 1850s which is usually accepted as part of the immediate background and impetus for "Hard Times". There isn't.  Should n't there be?2.219.46.140 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not adde something. if you have a good source to hand? Rwood128 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Preston Lock-Out was the longest and most expensive industrial conflict in the history of Preston. It took place between October 1853 and May 1854." See . Rwood128 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)