Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1896-01-15
DICKENS AS A READER.
His Style Was In Striking Contrast With
That of Thackeray.

That of Thackeray.
It was new thing for an author like
Dickens to read in public from his own
works, and there were many even among
his own friends who feared that the ex-
pertinent might be failure It was, in
fact, a splendid success. The author of
the "Christmas CAROL had every posi-
BILE quality which could be needed to
make great popular reader. He had
magnificent voice, capable Of expressing
every mood of human emotion without
any apparent effort or strain. He had a
strikingly handsome face, with eyes that
lighted like stars. He was natural
born actor-probably the best amateur
actor ever known in England AS an
after dinner speaker he had no equal in
his own time, and has had, so far as we
know no equal since. When such a man
came to read story like the Christ
mas Carol, one can easily imagine the
effect upon popular audience Or, in
deed, it may be that we are not quite
right in this-perhaps no one who did
not hear Dickens read the story could
imagine how the reading went home to
the hearts of all the listeners. 1t is not
likely that we shall ever listen to such
a performance again. The reading was
thoroughly dramatic in the best sense of
the word. Dickens acted all the parts.
In some of the readings specially in
that from "Oliver Twist" which told
of the murder of Nancy by BIZ Skies,
the effect was almost too terrible for the
audience. People held their breaths;
some could hardly keep from crying
aloud. Of course there was nothing of
this kind in the Christmas Carol. +"
The miser, Scrooge, was admirably act
ed, and he was the only harsh note in
the whole performance, and his harsh
note came to be softened before the end
1t was testimony to the genuineness
of Dickens dramatic powers that admir-
ers used to dispute about his impersona-
ton of some of his own characters. We
all had our own favorites and our own
disparagings. Many, for example, were
not satisfied with Dickens reading of
the part of Sam Weller. It was admira-
BILE comedy, they said, only it was not
Dickens Sam Weller, the Sam Weller
Dickens himself had taught us to ex-
pect. The very criticism showed what
reality there must have been in the
whole performance. Nothing could be
less like the reading Of an ordinary lee
ture hall than this vivid drama which
Dickens flashed upon his admirers.
Nothing could be less like Dickens
reading than Thackeray's lectures
Thackeray, although very poor speak
er in public, was delightful reader.
His reading was effective, beautiful and
touching. The close of the lecture on
George III used to be listened to with
rapt attention-every one dreading lest
the slightest interruption should cause
sentence or a word to be lost. The de-
livery of the two or three lines from
king Lear" was perfect in its way.
But it was only an English gentleman
of culture reading from a manuscript.
There was no attempt whatever at char
acterization. There was in that sense
no life about it. Thackeray very wisely
kept to what he could do we'll and east
ly and made no effort to stir his audi
ences to any such emotions as those
which we're constantly aroused by Dick
ems.
If Thackeray had given readings from
his novels, the result would most GER
tainly have been failure We should
only have heard Thackeray reading. We
should never have been led for moment
to believe that we were listening to
Rawdon Crawley or Major Pendennis or
Henry Esmond. But with Dickens all
was alive, the figures seemed to stand
upon the stage before US. There were
many fine public readers in Dickens
time and there have been many fine
public readers since his time; but no.
body else has done exactly what he did.
London News.