Bleak House and Spontaneous Human Combustion

[Senex]

Charles Dickens is one of the greatest writers, ever. He exposes woo-woo thinking in the best way possible, he pokes fun at it and exposes it in a way that is both humorous and appalling and in a manner that may get someone off their bottom and want to change things.

Was his defense of spontaneous human combustion sincere (Krook in Bleak House gets lit up after a healthy amount of gin with no fire starter in sight) or do you think he defended this unusual plot device tongue in cheek? It seems odd to me one of the greatest minds in all of literature who unfailingly points out disingenuousness in people could have thought some people might combust after drinking for no particular reason.

Any thoughts from fellow Dickens' fans.

 

[GlennB]

Literal spontaneous combustion with no heat source to bring the fuel to its auto ignition temperature has to be woo. Either he didn't know or was tongue-in-cheek.

The wiki of Bleak House/Krook suggests Dickens believed in *very* spontaneous combustion, as it were.

 

[Senex]

Literal spontaneous combustion with no heat source to bring the fuel to its auto ignition temperature has to be woo. Either he didn't know or was tongue-in-cheek.

The wiki of Bleak House/Krook suggests Dickens believed in *very* spontaneous combustion, as it were.

I knew he defended it but you have to consider if he was sincere. The man had a wondrous sense of humor. Understatement and exposing insincerity was his specialty. Such a heroic figure (especially to me, I covet his abilities) having such a woo belief is hard for me to believe.

 

[GlennB]

"Exposing insincerity" in such an inexplicit way doesn't seem very bright to me, given the superstitious nature of the times. I'd guess that most readers would take his description as reasonable.

I don't know, but my money is on the fact that he actually believed it. €5 or so

 

[SpitfireIX]

Considering the state of medical knowledge in the 1850s, I could see Dickens at least accepting that SHC was reasonably possible.

 

[Senex]

I don't know, but my money is on the fact that he actually believed it. €5 or so

What's that in real money? Is it enough to get my chimney cleaned? The only way you know it's really clean is if you drop a boy down the top with a good brush and he emerges from the bottom.

Considering the state of medical knowledge in the 1850s, I could see Dickens at least accepting that SHC was reasonably possible.

I remember the first time I read the book I scratched my chin at this turn of events and thought to myself, "I didn't see this coming." It is disconcerting that such a brilliant piece of literature has this as a plot twist.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I remember the first time I read the book I scratched my chin at this turn of events and thought to myself, "I didn't see this coming." It is disconcerting that such a brilliant piece of literature has this as a plot twist.

I have a similar problem with science mistakes in a few of the Sherlock Holmes stories. "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" is considered one of the all-time great Holmes stories, but it just doesn't do it for me because of the physical impossibility of a snake's behaving as described. And don't even get me started about "The Adventure of the Creeping Man".

 

[hgc]

I have a similar problem with science mistakes in a few of the Sherlock Holmes stories. "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" is considered one of the all-time great Holmes stories, but it just doesn't do it for me because of the physical impossibility of a snake's behaving as described. And don't even get me started about "The Adventure of the Creeping Man".

You got a problem with that? How about that Conan Doyle was a promoter of the Cottingley Fairies hoax. He was blessed with a wonderfully analytic mind and a wild imagination for woo.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You got a problem with that? How about that Conan Doyle was a promoter of the Cottingley Fairies hoax. He was blessed with a wonderfully analytic mind and a wild imagination for woo.

My impression is that he dabbled in spiritualism and maintained a fairly open mind on the subject, until he lost several relatives (including a son) in the early years of the 20th Century. This appears to have sent him deep down the rabbit hole.

That aside, there are certainly other well-known cases where a person is regarded as a genius in one area, and as a hopeless crank in another.

 

[Senex]

You got a problem with that? How about that Conan Doyle was a promoter of the Cottingley Fairies hoax. He was blessed with a wonderfully analytic mind and a wild imagination for woo.

He was naive. No less a reformed believer as Harry Houdini could change his mind.

My impression is that he dabbled in spiritualism and maintained a fairly open mind on the subject, until he lost several relatives (including a son) in the early years of the 20th Century. This appears to have sent him deep down the rabbit hole.

That aside, there are certainly other well-known cases where a person is regarded as a genius in one area, and as a hopeless crank in another.

Charles Dickens never fell in the hopeless crank category (not that you insinuated that).

That Newton guy -- he had crank beliefs.

 

[commandlinegamer]

I have a similar problem with science mistakes in a few of the Sherlock Holmes stories. "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" is considered one of the all-time great Holmes stories, but it just doesn't do it for me because of the physical impossibility of a snake's behaving as described. And don't even get me started about "The Adventure of the Creeping Man".

I'd give Doyle a bit of latitude here: the science may be a bit off, but the deductive process was still applied. Much as I enjoy the stories I recognise his storytelling is a bit staid, compared to modern standards. The lack of explanation from Sherlock until the end may have made for reasonable cliff-hangers when serialised in The Strand Magazine, but I think Agatha Christie did a better job of providing clues along the way.