Victorian Readings in 2022 - exploratory thread

We had been talking all over the threads so getting everything in one place. Quite a few of us seem to enjoy the Victorians so having a separate thread in Club 2022 to discuss them kinda makes sense. We can always drop the idea if it does not work but we may as well try.

A few questions we need to make a decision on:
1. Do we pick books to read as a group (1 per quarter or per half year for example) or authors or do we just let anyone read whatever they feel like as long as it is Victorian? Reading the same books/authors will make a livelier discussion but not all authors work for everyone so there is a trade-off. We also can do a hybrid - build a list of novels which is long enough to have variety and work off it.

2. Victorian vs. 19th Century - Victorian usually means just English (mostly British) so do we want to expand it to cover the world or do we want to keep it strictly Victorian?

3. Pre/post period novels of authors who worked in the Victorian era (1837–1901) - or how strict do we want to enforce the timeline? Take for example Arthur Conan Doyle or H. G. Wells - both of them have half their works in the period and half of them after that. I'd prefer to include all of theirs and any other author who crosses out as long as they have at least a few IN the period but I'd abide by the majority.

4. Non-novels reading - we were mainly discussing novels in the other threads but I made the title here Readings and not Novels on purpose - there are stories and poetry and drama and non-fiction (a lot of the explorers wrote in that time) in the same period. Do we want to include them (this also depends on Question 1 - if we are choosing specific novels to read, this one kinda answers itself).

I am sure I missed to think of something so please - share your ideas, comments and so on.

I'd be happy to host the thread next year unless someone else wants to - I have no particular qualifications besides really enjoying the writing of the period

Thanks for starting this. I’m not going to answer your questions only because I don’t want to influence the direction this thread goes. But I’m very interested and will try to follow the reading plan or theme.

I am interested. I have some items I'd like to re-read.

I think threads take on a life of their own. You'll get mostly 19th cent Brit novels with sidebars on Harriet Beecher Stowe, EA Poe, Henry James, and other Am lit that was influential in Britain.

I would expand to poetry and drama so as not to leave out Tennyson and Wilde. Ditto kid lit, to include Carroll and Nesbitt.

Leave out Brontes and Austen for my money, though my guess is that they'll creep in.

I'd be interested in a discussion thread like this. I'm still fairly new to Victorian/19th century literature (still not sure how I managed to pull this off and get a degree in English Lit, but I did), so I'm sure most of it would be new-to-me reads.

In terms of your general points, I would favor a hybrid model. Maybe have two to four group reads for the year, plus a list of other works. Enough to provide structure and spark discussion, but not so rigid as to feel like homework. I would also favor expanding the scope beyond strictly Victorian, both in terms of where the authors lived and in terms of when they were writing. It's not as though switches were flipped in 1837 and again in 1901 to dramatically alter the nature of those authors' works.

If we go with a hybrid model, I think we should definitely include things other than novels on our list of works. I know I tend to gravitate toward novels, so a nudge toward other categories of writing would be helpful.

Sounds like a good idea — it’s a period I keep coming back to, with a lot of pleasure. I’d guess the best way to structure it is to keep the boundaries flexible, because people will bend them anyway, or will be afraid to post if we’re too rigid about them. No-one ever believes you if you tell them that the first three decades of the 19th century are not “Victorian”. (And of course there’s the particular use of “Victorian” in Australia, geographical rather than historical…!)

If we do this, I expect I will end up reading at least a few 19th century novels from elsewhere in Europe — I’ve got a pile of Balzac waiting for me, for instance, and plenty of Russians and Germans I haven’t read yet. I’ve had Emilia Pardo Bazán on the TBR for ages too. And i’d probably also want to read some non-fiction from (or about?) the period.

I’m generally not very good at synchronising with planned group-reads of specific books, but people seem to like those, so maybe the thing to do would be to have an ongoing “miscellaneous” thread as well as dedicated threads for group-reads during the year.

When there was a post about “The charge of the Light Brigade” on the LT Facebook a little while ago, I semi-jokingly said I was going to re-read In memoriam — I suppose that could be a candidate for a group read?

>5 thorold: I am thinking of a single thread that is used both for a group read (if we do one) and for free style posting - splintering into separate threads will just dilute the whole thing plus books interact with each other - and sometimes a discussion about Pickwick makes someone see something in Casterbridge that you did not see before. Unless people want dedicated threads - that's kinda what we are mulling over. "The Victorian Tavern" for example. Or "The 19th Century Tea Room". Or something. :) Knowing this group - someone will come up with a recipe or 2 to throw into the mix as well - and probably a knitting design (ok - I am just semi-kidding). :)

>2 dchaikin: If you have strong preferences, share them though - I'd rather we have more information than less in such cases.

>3 nohrt4me2: Hands off the Brontes! :)

>4 shadrach_anki: Someone needs to explain to me one day how that happens. :) I was always under the impression that English Lit degrees means you essentially read a ton of works before you even get to the 20th century. But then that expectation is based on a Bulgarian Lit degree a friend has - a lot smaller language so things are different.

>6 AnnieMod: >4 shadrach_anki: I don’t think there is one single canon everyone agrees on any more.

When my father did English at Oxford in the fifties, the syllabus ended in 1837, but the Open University courses I took forty years later were heavily weighted towards the 19th and 20th centuries, including a lot of post-colonial writing. A module on Shakespeare was the only major chunk of earlier stuff. I don’t think they even offered any courses on Old English or Middle English at that time.

I like the idea of a proscribed list, maybe 10-12 books, that fit a stricter definition from which we all try to read at lest one book and only if there is a great deal of interest in a specific novel is there a group read. And, of course, balance the thread out with general discussion of anything that fits a looser definition of Victorian.

I'll probably read New Grub Street and/or work my way through the rest of the Barchester series.

Just peaking at my library - I’ve read only 4 books that really qualify, the last iffy:

Jane Eyre
Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens
Alice in Wonderland
Heart of Darkness ?? (1899/1910)

So, I’m a bit open on what we cover.

I think I've read most of the most popular Victorian novels, but I suspect CR will bring many Victorian era novels that I've not even heard of to my attention. It's a period I really enjoy.

I will read about everyone's reading with interest and pick up a few books that spark my interest. I'm most likely to participate, though, if we have some group reads. I think, for CR, these happen best when they are organic. I think we might stumble upon some common interests and decide to read books at roughly the same time so that we can discuss.

I think keeping a list of the books that people are reading or planning to read at the top of the general thread will help people form these unofficial groups.

I do worry a little about the thread becoming unwieldy if we include group read discussion in the general thread, but I'm up for trying it that way if everyone prefers. Group read discussions need to be able to include "spoilers" without hiding everything to have effective discussion. On a single thread, that might be difficult to manage and inhibit detailed discussion.

I don't care at all about keeping to a strict definition of "Victorian".

Thanks so much for starting up this discussion!

>1 AnnieMod: First of all, thanks so much for doing this. I love books from the nineteenth century, be they Victorian era writers or writers from a wider world. Two of my previous Club Read threads even had nineteenth century in the title line.

Regarding your questions:

1. hybrid - I like this idea as it gives focus as a group from time to time, but also leaves it open for those who may just want to do their own reading.

2. coverage - definitely world nineteenth century. I'd hate to ignore the rest of the world, especially the French and Russians!

3. pre/post - I like the idea of including authors whose works overlap and lead into or follow from other periods - Joseph Conrad (some post 19thC) and Jane Austen (pre Victorian) come to mind

4. Readings - great distinction. I really like the idea of including other nineteenth century writings, as it was a time of such intellectual ferment

Other - some may want to venture into more recent writing exploring this time
- thinking here of books like The Mad Woman in the Attic, or biographies

>6 AnnieMod: >7 thorold:

In my case....American university, the degree was technically an English degree (but not language, so literature), and I had a good amount of Shakespeare, some horror literature, American literature (after 1900), children's/YA literature, and Arthurian legends. Similarly, the only Victorian/19th century novel I know for sure I read in K-12 was Treasure Island in sixth grade. But really, I'm still not sure how I managed to, well, completely avoid basically an entire century's worth of literature for the entirety of my school career. Though considering I also somehow managed to get through that entire school career with no more than a supremely cursory knowledge of the American Civil War (seriously, all of my American History classes in junior high and high school either went up to the Civil War or started after it, and the American Heritage class I took at university was somehow similarly structured) perhaps I should not be quite as surprised as I am. ::deadpan::

I'm old, so Victorian lit, to me, is Brit lit 1830-1900.

What others are describing above sounds more like 19th century Western lit. Either direction sounds interesting.

I just want to read Middlemarch again. Read it aloud with my husband the first year we were married. Wondering how it will hold up 35+ years later. And maybe some George Gissing. I read most of his books in my 20s, and I can recall nothing about them.

I guarantee I am not interested in group reads of Brontes or the French, but it wouldn't put me off if others are.

My biggest worry if we expand to "World 19th century" is that we will be way too thin on the ground for any meaningful discussions. Yes - it will make it more inclusive and allow more variety and yes, there is a conversation to be had between people reading the Russians, Jules Verne, Zola, Henrik Ibsen, Knut Hamsun, the British Victorians, Fortunata and Jacinta and The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas (for example- just naming a few authors/groups/books that are in scope) but... do we really want to get that wide?

If the majority wants that, I am fine but just food for thought. One option may be to make it a 2 (or more?) years project - Victorians in 2022 (British and colonial) and World 19th century in 2023.

Just thinking aloud.

>14 AnnieMod: I like that option, and it keeps things more focussed, even though as >5 thorold: says, there will be some bending. I also like the optimism of thinking of 2023.

>15 SassyLassy: True and if someone decides to go for a French novel, so be it - the point is not to put restrictions which are stopping people from exploring but to allow people to explore in areas they either had not before or where they had but would like to return. Plus even if the group decides to go for the wider category at the end, one can just stick to the Victorians in their reading I suppose (that's my current plan for my reading (although everyone knows by now and my plans never work)) :)

As for 2023 - more pragmatic than optimistic on my side - splitting the year won't work for a lot of people so... why not split between years. :)

>10 japaul22: "I think keeping a list of the books that people are reading or planning to read at the top of the general thread will help people form these unofficial groups."

Either that or build a wiki here in LT or both (the thread can only be edited by one person; in the wiki anyone can add the books they are reading). But yes - that's partially why I prefer a single thread. But you do have a point about spoilers and allowing better conversations in a separate thread for specific books a few someones are reading.

>14 AnnieMod: I'm not suggesting expanding your topic or make you worry. Just making an observation that some folks seem to want to include other 19th century lit. A two-year plan such as you suggest sounds sensible.

I will check back in next year to see what you all decide.

>17 nohrt4me2: Nah - you did not make me worry - I had been thinking about that since I posted the thread :) That's partially why we have the thread this year - so we can decide what we want to do :)

>14 AnnieMod: Bother! I’ve got Bras Cubas on the TBR at the moment — that means it will have to stay there another year :-)

But apart from that, the proposal to split the topic seems sensible, on reflection. I could live with that.

A big advantage of reading Victorian literature is that much of it will be free on Project Gutenberg.

>20 baswood: And a lot of it will be available in most English language libraries and in cheap editions if one wants to borrow/buy them on paper instead.

So.... I had been thinking (again). How about this plan:

1. Select 4 novels (1 per quarter) - and run a separate thread for each of them so people do not worry about spoilers AND anyone can join when they want to. We will need to have one Dickens I suspect (unless most people disagree), a Hardy/Trollope/Wilkins maybe, probably one Elizabeth Gaskell and maybe something less standard? Or go for George Eliot to balance things out?

2. Pick up a list of another 12 (or more?) novels/short stories collections/poetry books , allowing introducing a few more authors into the mix for the year (if the author made the Quarterly, they are not eligible for these; 1 novel/collection per author -- it does not need to be their most popular and everyone can explore from there). Some of the authors I am thinking of here are Lewis Carroll‎, H. G. Wells‎, Robert Louis Stevenson, Oscar Wilde and Arthur Conan Doyle (I need to think on what from them though :)). Or select a few works per author (then the 4 above may still qualify).

None of those will be mandatory of course and anyone reading anything Victorian will be welcome (or pseudo-Victorian or same time, different place or somehow related to Victorian)...

I plan to update the top of the thread with what everyone is reading so we have a running list of what we had been reading (if noone minds me starting the threads that is...).

So what is needed now:
1. If you disagree with this plan, please say so. Unless I misread most answers, that is where we were converging.
2. Propose any novels/authors for the two categories. We will tabulate and see where we are by say December 1. That way we can make sure everyone has a book come January if they want to join :)
3. If you really really hate an author and/or a book, say so. We won't just kick them out but if it is a tie, that will help.

Anything else I am forgetting? And then in 2023 we do the same but for non-British authors of the 19th century :)

>22 AnnieMod: Any room for one or more Brontes? I’d much rather read any works by one of the Brontes than Dickens.

>23 SandDune: I'd really like the idea of 2 female and 2 male authors on the quarterlies - as modern as it will be, it won't be very representative if we go with 3 ladies and just one guy considering the authors of the era. 2/2 is already pushing it but I prefer not to go for a lower ratio. Of course - if everyone else prefers it otherwise, I get outvoted and we do whatever we all decide. :)

Other from that - sure. Worst case, you can skip the quarterly if Dickens is on the menu and I suspect that one or more of the Brontes will probably make the 12 - we do not have that many female authors after all... That's the idea of the 12 (we can call them tentative monthlies without making too much of a fuss with separate threads and all that or just keep them as a block with no order).

But if you want a Bronte up there, post a suggestion for which novel(s) and if enough people like the idea, up it goes.

Now... we can try for double threads - 2 novels per quarter, one male and one female author. May be interesting to see the contrast that way (Bronte vs Trollope/Hardy will be interesting). Then there will be a choice and still enough people reading together to make a meaningful discussion (and one can read both or either). The more I think about it, the more I like this as an idea. What worries me is overloading everyone with too many books and making it a chore.

I've been lurking on this thread, as I like this idea of a Victorian theme. I do not have enough cultural background to make any meaningfull suggestion, so I'll wait and see what authors and novels will emerge. If I can fit some of them in my readings, I will participe for sure, mainly to the group reads, probably not to the general thread where I'll lurk again, and pick some reading ideas...

Or I am overthinking the whole thing and we should just start simple - pick 1 or 2 novels for Q1 and build from there as the year goes. If someone likes that either better, please nominate novels (one male writer, one female). :)

I really like the one novel per quarter, especially of it’s a long novel. I think I can keep up with that. (One every two months would work well for me too, which comes out to 2 per quarter.)

> I like the format in >22 AnnieMod: above. As for additional authors for the mix, I would suggest Willkie Collins, George Gissing, George Meredith and possibly Ellen Wood, Harriet Martineau and Margaret Oliphant (Scottish), depending upon availability.

Really looking forward to this. I don't think there's an author mentioned here whom I don't like.

>23 SandDune: It might be difficult to look at Victorian literature without Dickens. His influence was everywhere.

>28 SassyLassy: additional authors for the mix I was thinking along similar lines: apart from Wilkie Collins, where I've read the two that everyone else has, all the authors SassyLassy mentions are on my "get around to some day" list, it would be great to have a nudge to read them. Fanny Trollope is another (apart from Domestic manners of the Americans, which we've probably all read or at least heard of).

Not mentioned yet (and I hesitate to add to all the lists!) — Thackeray was the first Victorian novelist I had a crush on, he'd be good if we're looking for short, light works, we could do Barry Lyndon and watch the Kubrick film...

We should try to do some poetry — Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Robert Browning, Tennyson, Christina Rossetti are the unmissable high Victorian poets, and of course it goes on into Hardy, Hopkins, and Kipling if we want to go that far. One option there would be to go for a single long work, like In memoriam or Aurora Leigh, but it might make more sense to pick and mix from a decent anthology: there's Daniel Karling's The Penguin Book of Victorian Verse and Q's The Oxford Book of Victorian Verse, (later updated by Christopher Ricks as The New Oxford Book of Victorian Verse), for instance.

>29 thorold: The problem with anthologies will be access -- most of the original collections will be in Project Gutenberg or elsewhere online; an anthology won't be yet (unless someone wants to assemble from different sources using the contents page - as the poems will be somewhere most likely) and they may be hard to procure by some people). Other from that - they would be a perfect way to cover poetry but...

>30 AnnieMod: Yes, that's true. And reading poetry on screen is never very satisfactory.

Archive.org has various editions of The Oxford Book of Victorian Verse (first published in 1912). However, it's only slightly shorter than the earlier The Oxford Book of English Verse, well over 1000 pages. So it's definitely not something we would want to read from cover to cover anyway.

OK, let's pick 2 novels (male and female author) for Q1 so people have a chance to find them. Depending on how it goes, we will play it by the ear for the rest of the year. Once Club 2022 is up and running, I will post threads for both selected novels and the "Victorian tavern" thread for anything else related to it. As usual - you can participate in both or in either or in neither - whatever you prefer.

The nominated novels here are pretty much the standard ones - so we kick it off - I hope to get to a lot more obscure authors and novels as the year progresses (plus the children authors, the genre novels and so on). Anyone mentioning a novel as a vote counts. If you prefer to read something else, mention it and it counts. I won't vote until the end - if there is a tie, I will break it (sorry, no time for real tie-breakers) :)

Male authors:
The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins
Vanity Fair by Thackeray
The Warden by Anthony Trollope
Tess of the d’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy
David Copperfield by Dickens
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

Female Authors:
North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell
Middlemarch by George Eliot
Villette by Charlotte Brontë
Lady Audley's Secret by Mary Elizabeth Braddon

Deadline: December 15 (gives us 2 weeks and enough time for Santa to procure the selected works).

A few notes: Wilkie Collins will most likely be the February author in the Author of the Month group so if we select him, we have 2 in 1. The Reading through Time group had reached the 19th century as well so their Q1 thread is "The 19th century".

>32 AnnieMod: Lady Audley’s Secret is the only one I haven’t read, so it’s a bit of a forced vote! But there’s nothing I’d really object to re-reading.

>33 thorold: You can always add something else you WANT to read, you know - get enough votes for it and it becomes it. :) I've read most of these as well through the years but a lot of people up-thread are just starting with the Victorians so starting with the staples (well, mostly - some of the authors do have more popular works but I like these better so... there is that) kinda made sense to me.

I've read all of these, too, though I might reread or can at least follow along in the discussion. I'd like to suggest a more obscure Dickens - maybe Our Mutual Friend, Martin Chuzzlewit, or Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby? I bet a lot of us have read the more popular Dickens novels.

Martin Chuzzlewit would get my vote over Copperfield, other things being equal. But I think Annie’s right about offering the staples first.

>35 japaul22: >36 thorold:

Those count as votes, right? Just making sure :)

>35 japaul22: For a few years in my mid and late teens, I was reading any Dickens I could get my hands on - in all 3 languages I could read them in. Nicholas Nickleby was the first Dickens I read in English. So I am always for Dickens. I find Copperfield to be more newbie-friendly than most of his other novels - I know that Oliver Twist is a usual start but I find Copperfield better for that if you are not 11 or thereabouts. Thus me starting there. But again - if people prefer Martin instead, that's fine by me. Or Two Cities. Or anything else really. Plus this is Q1 - we have more books to choose later on anyway.

>37 AnnieMod: all true! I think I was just assuming that most of our Club Read members have read most of the Victorian standards already. But I’m happy to go with the flow!

How about keeping the Martin votes on ice and see who else comes along first? If there are “Dickens-virgins” around, Copperfield is pretty much essential.

>39 thorold: fine with me!

>38 japaul22: I think we are somewhat split on that - which is why I went that way. If all/most of the votes go elsewhere or if we split between the two almost evenly, I will know for next quarter (and may go not for a female/male pair but for a popular/obscure instead).

>39 thorold: >40 japaul22: OK then - won't count them for now but we may unfreeze them :)

I haven’t read any, so all are good for me. I have copies if Tess, Copperfield and Middlemarch around the house, so those might be my votes.

(I’ve read only one Dickens - Our Mutual Friend)

>32 AnnieMod: Have all these books in the house, and have read all but two (the Gaskell and Trollope), but happy to reread one or all of the others!

My actual vote would be for David Copperfield (agreeing that is a good place to start) and North and South.

I'm not sure that Middlemarch would be a good starting point. Much as I love it, it seems to be the novel that has turned many a reader off Victorian literature when it is the starting point.

I'll have to check out the Author of the Month group again. Wilkie Collins is a huge favourite of mine.

>43 SassyLassy: I wondered between Middlemarch and Silas from Eliot. Eliot is not an easy author in either of her novels and all of them have oddities. But I could not skip her - we don’t have that many women in the canon. Plus as we are picking two, that may have been one way to play it - a starter from the male list and a more complicated staple from the ladies. And a read-along may actually help this book. Who knows - I may be all wrong but that’s how that one made my initial list.

I’ll post back if we select Collins (it will be a huge upset if we don’t - he had been leading and the deadline is today). Stop by and vote if you want - we have other options and we are picking Feb and March and everyone is welcome. :)

I've read all the novels listed, but I hope The Warden is chosen, so by quarter 3 I can nominate Dr. Thorne. ;)

For Dickens I want to read Hard Times, just to be different.

>32 AnnieMod: A group read might be all I need to patch some holes in my victorian reads! My vote would go to:
Male authors: Tess of the d’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy and David Copperfield by Dickens
Female authors: North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell and Middlemarch by George Eliot

I might join if other titles are selected, but those staples have my preferences!
Thanks AnnieMod to organise all this!

>44 AnnieMod: Good idea about a read along helping people reading Middlemarch for the first time.

Silas Marner was one that surprised me when I reread it this year for my book club. I had only read it before in my teens, and was surprised at how much more it seemed to offer this time around.

I'm happy to read anything by Eliot any time.

My votes:
I would read The Moonstone, Alice in Wonderland or Tess of the D'Urbervilles but not the others. Preference would be The Moonstone. The Warden is great but I've read it twice fairly recently, Vanity Fair is one I've read before but have no desire to reread, and I have no desire at all to read Dickens (sorry).

For the female authors I would read any of them except Middlemarch (it's a great novel but again I've read it twice fairly recently). My preference would be Villette or Lady Audley's Secret.

>48 SandDune: I would read The Moonstone and also would love to read Villette and Lady Audley's Secret. I am also okay with The Warden.

my vote is for The Moonstone from the male authors and Lady Audley's secret from the female authors.

I'm most likely to reread David Copperfield and North and South, so I will vote for those two.

>32 AnnieMod: Put in my votes for Lady Audley's Secret and Alice in Wonderland, at least for starters. Of the ten nominated novels, I've already read or started half of them, most within the past year.

Current standings:

Male authors:
David Copperfield by Dickens (4) - japaul22, raton-liseur, SassyLassy, dchaikin
The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins (3) - baswood, LadyoftheLodge, SandDune
Tess of the d’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy (3)- SandDune, raton-liseur, dchaikin
The Warden by Anthony Trollope (2)- LadyoftheLodge, ELiz_M
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (2)- shadrach_anki, SandDune
Hard Time by Dickens (1)- ELiz_M
Vanity Fair (0) by Thackeray

Female Authors:
Lady Audley's Secret by Mary Elizabeth Braddon (5) - thorold, shadrach_anki, baswood, LadyoftheLodge, SandDune
North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell (3)- japaul22, raton-liseur, SassyLassy
Middlemarch by George Eliot (2) - raton-liseur, dchaikin
Villette by Charlotte Brontë (2) - LadyoftheLodge, SandDune

A somewhat surprising leader in the Ladies category (or maybe not). :) If someone changed their mind, post below, it will count (just let me know if you are adding or replacing so I know what to count).

In other news - Wilkie Collins is officially the February 2022 author over in the Monthly Authors group if someone would like to join us there. The thread is going to be going up later today.

Great idea! Every year I say I've got to read George Eliot and still haven't, so I have to throw in a vote for Middlemarch. Would be interested in any of the other female authors as well.

From the guys, well I love Hardy but I'm not ready for a reread just yet. David Copperfield probably appeals most, or The Moonstone.

Just catching up a bit wit this thread -- I think I am happy with any of the male choices, as to the women I'd go for Villette.

Well it's before midnight so I guess I can still vote.
I've read David Copperfield twice, so probably won't reread it. I haven't read Martin Chuzzlewit, but I guess that's not a choice, so I think I will vote for Tess, which I read as a teenager many years ago.
For the female authors I vote for North and South, though I also own Lady Audley's Secret and would be happy to read it.

With all votes are in, David Copperfield and Lady Audrey’s Secret win for Q1. That’s going to be interesting for whoever decides to join us for both - they represent two very different sides of the period. :) As a reminder, we will also have a Victorian Tavern thread for any other readings from the period. :)

>57 AnnieMod: Thanks Annie.

Just looked at my 814 page copy of David Copperfield. I suspect I will not be able to learn Lady Audrey's Secret.

Liz (lyzard) in the 75 books group led a Virago group read of Lady Audley's Secret in 2020. She is amazingly knowledgeable and I always get so much out of her group reads. I'll post a link to the thread here, but it will contain spoilers as you go be careful!

https://www.librarything.com/topic/318457#7133160

>58 dchaikin: It’s 3 months after all - so who knows. :)

>57 AnnieMod: I'll try to join for the David Copperfield read (I voted for it after all!), although I'm a bit afraid by the length of the book. I'd better like it!
I like the idea of reading it in small chunks following the episodes in newspaper.

I think I will be mostly in the Victorian Tavern.