Talk:Our Mutual Friend

What does this mean?
"The book is largely believed to be the most halfway through, without hinting as to the ending." Is there a word missing from this sentence? It doesn't make sense to me. Natebailey 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can think of is that they were thinking of his unfinished novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood, which was finished halfway before he died? Otherwise, I was just thinking the same thing. 204.185.144.193 13:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Background to the novel
Is there a case for seeing the Tichborne claimant as providing a starting point for the novel? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture
This book was featured in the life of LOST character Desmond Hume, who carried a copy around with him, and later named his houseboat after it. Should there be a section for modern allusions to the book? --204.246.229.130 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jews in Victorian England - and Peel the "avid anti-Semite"
The section on this seems to have been inserted by a single red-link Wikieditor, and to rest heavily on a single source. The assertion of definite persecution of Jews, rather than toleration as citizens with something less than full civic rights, would benefit from provision of supporting evidence. Some of the statements eg “Church laws prevented Christians from lending money at interest” are clearly completely inapplicable to Victorian England (the Bank of England was founded c 1690, was it not?). A quote from Sir Robert Peel, asserted by the article to be an 'avid anti-Semite'- is said to summarise the attitudes of the period. The quote comes in fact from a debate a couple of decades previous to ‘’Our Mutual Friend’’ - in 1830 it is not clear why that quote – whose context is in fact this - "I am told the Jew is degraded by his exclusion—he is not excluded in the same manner that the Catholic and the Dissenter were—he is not excluded by anything in the nature of a taunt upon his form or profession of faith. The Jew is excluded merely because the Legislature requires, as the great principle of civil government, that all persons admitted to office should acknowledge the fundamental truths of the Christian religion. The Jew is not a degraded subject of the State, he is rather regarded in the light of an alien—he is excluded because he will not amalgamate with us in any of his usages or habits—he is regarded as a foreigner." should be regarded as representative of Peel's attitude (still less those of society in general) two decades later or indeed allowed to blank out other passages in the same speech: "But, I repeat, that if the Jews are entitled to this relief, so are the Quakers—so are the Separatists. On these grounds, then, Sir, I am not prepared to admit the principle, and I object to the mode of giving effect to the Bill; and I confess I do so with much regret. There is nothing in the conduct of the Jews themselves which ought to create the slightest prejudice against them. The upper classes of that people are eminent for charity and sympathy with the sufferings of their fellow men, and the lower classes are not marked by any vices beyond what is common amongst persons in that rank of life. I, therefore, cannot but feel the necessity of opposition as most painful; but there has been no case of practical oppression shewn, to call on us to give them relief." In 1845 Peel, piloted through the Commons the  Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill, saying at Second Reading ". I need only mention the names of Rothschild, Salomons, and Montefiore, to induce the House to look favourably at a measure which they, as the representatives of a great body of the Jews, say will be acceptable. When I consider what is the benevolence of that people—that it is not restricted by any sectarian views—when I look at the patronage they give—when I look at the rewards and distinctions they have received when they have entered into the honourable career of academical competition—when I see the prizes gained at the University of London by members of the Jewish persuasion, I must say it is a matter of personal gratification to me to propose a measure which shall give to them unrestricted admission to municipal offices, and shall, at the same time, be acceptable to the feelings of so great and powerful a portion of my fellow countrymen." In 1848, he made a powerful speech in favour of removing all remaining Jewish disabilities I have other motives that weigh with me. There are countries in which the Jews are still subject to persecution and cruel oppression. Twice within the last three or four years has a British subject, distinguished for his benevolence and philanthropy, Sir Moses Montefiore, repaired to distant lands, in the hope of mitigating the hard lot of the suffering Jews. He repaired to St. Petersburg for the purpose of imploring mercy towards the Jews in Poland. He repaired to the East for the purpose of relieving, if possible, the Jews in Palestine, from shameful wrongs, perpetrated on the pretext that they murdered Christian children in order that their blood might be available for the Passover.

He carried with him letters of recommendation from British Ministers, certifying his high character for integrity and honour, and the purity of the motives by which he was actuated. How much more persuasive would those letters have been if they could have announced the fact, that every ancient prejudice against the Jews had been extinguished here, and that the Jew was on a perfect equality, as to civil rights, with his Christian fellow-citizen. Place him on that footing of perfect equality, and the influence of your benevolent legislation will extend far beyond the narrow limits of your own country. You will exercise an authority and jurisdiction, even in foreign countries, which laws, however jealous of external interference, cannot exclude—the moral authority of a just and benevolent example. You will offer consolation to many a wounded spirit, and weaken the force of the prejudices and antipathies which harden the heart against the impulses of humanity; at any rate you will make it impossible to justify those prejudices by the example of England.

Consideration of dates will also cast some doubt upon Dickens blazing the trail for more sympathetic treatment of Jews. I have amended the section accordingly Rjccumbria (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Staplehurst inquest - Dickens careful to avoid giving evidence
A recent edit identifying Dickens' travelling companions went on to add Dickens was careful not to give evidence at the inquest as his affair with Ternan was not public knowledge. I have commented this out, partly because it seems to be speculation as to motive, but mostly because whilst Dickens did write to a friend "I don't want to be examined at the Inquests and I don't want to write about it.  It could do no good either way, and I could only seem to speak about myself, which, of course, I would rather not do" Dickens did not have to be careful not to give evidence at the inquest; as was customary for inquests it heard evidence only on the identification of the victims and the cause of their deaths. Dickens had nothing to say as to identification, and like other passengers had nothing useful to add on cause: evidence as to cause was taken only from railway servants. Rjccumbria (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
"Social commentary" is not a literary genre. Rwood128 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Au contraire; it is (eg "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844", "The Road to Wigan Pier" ) but those are non-fiction works. I entirely concur that 'social commentary' is not the most appropriate genre to allocate Our Mutual Friend to. One would normally refer to novels, even "condition of England" novels (eg Sybil or the Two Nations) as novels, rather than social commentaries - and the infobox for Sybil gives its genre as 'Fiction', even though it contains overt social commentary, in a way that OMF does not. Rjccumbria (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was too sure, but I hadn't come on "social commentary" as a genre. Britannica calls The Road to Wigan Pier a "political treatise", and I've seen "documentary" used. But anyhow as you say OMF is not a social novel. Rwood128 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See Social criticism a link that has been provided to you in a previous discussion. That does not mean that the genre in this infobox cannot be changed. Whatever you two decide on will be fine with me. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 11:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Our Mutual Friend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060522042613/http://www.19thnovels.com/ourmutualfriend.php to http://www.19thnovels.com/ourmutualfriend.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I checked the Wayback machine page found by the bot and it is correct, lets one see each chapter on one page, not just the first. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

UC Santa Cruz inline citations need new url
Two inline citations have out-of-date url links at the UC Santa Cruz Dickens project web site. Both were accessed in 2009, one has author Kate Carnell Watt and the other author is Robert L Patten. If one clicks on the Reference now, a general page about the project is reached, with no indication how to find the article cited in 2009. I have updated a few links in this article already, and hoped someone else might find these on the web site. They are not quite dead links, but useless links as the web site has been re-organized. A fresh search on google might find the correct link, and the article can be updated. One by one the references can be updated and put in more consistent format, avoiding the single brackets around the url and some words for articles found on line, using cite web format instead. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I found the new url for Watt, changed to cite journal format Prairieplant (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I found the new url for the Patten article. So this task is done. So many other refs are incomplete. Prairieplant (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Further reading section deleted
I deleted the Further reading section with its one book list. That one book seemed tangential to this article, unless someone else can find a noteworthy point that the book supports, and use it as an inline citation. The pages I read were speculating on why Dickens chose the name Riah for his character. That seems unimportant, as the author claimed that Dickens knew nothing of Hebrew, and went on to examine Hebrew roots for the name. Speculative, not informed, comments on those pages. I am sure there are more books to read about Dickens, which are not cited as References in this article. A newer biography of Dickens, other articles on Our Mutual Friend. If so, then add the section back again with worthy books & articles not already cited. Prairieplant (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

To Mr John Podsnap:
Maybe something for the enlargement of the article:
 * http://www.dw.com/de/brexit-tagebuch-39-airbus-kurz-vor-dem-abflug/a-44391829
 * https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/06/23/podsnappery-and-its-reverse
 * https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/podsnap --Soenke Rahn (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Original publication of novel in serialised form
There appears to be a contradiction in the section "Dickens and Our Mutual Friend", under "Historical contexts". The second paragraph begins thus: "Our Mutual Friend was published in nineteen monthly numbers". However, the section then concludes thus: "Sales of Our Mutual Friend were 35,000 for the first monthly number, but then dropped, with 5,000 for the second number and 19,000 for the concluding double number." This concluding statement appears to give the impression that there were only three numbers, not nineteen. Joe Gatt (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That sentence is making the point that sales dropped off greatly at the second number and were less than the first at the end, 19,000 is lower than 35,000. The sales for every number are not needed. The Roman numerals indicate the final numbers were 19 and 20. In the section Original publication, the opening sentence makes clear there were 20 numbers, with the last two issued as one, same as this sentence. Each of the 20 numbers is listed by date and chapters included, in Original publication, which makes it very clear that 20 numbers were published. I am sorry if you are confused by seeing only the sales of the first and last two numbers. It is clear to me, as the point is that sells dropped off in that serial run. Book sales are another matter and are not included in this article. I would prefer that sentence about initial sales in serial publication to be in the Original publication section, but I think another editor did some re-arranging and the sentence ended up where it is, just below the Original publication section. -- Prairieplant (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)