Grab,

I think it's all to do with peoples tastes. The work ranks high with me for the sheer imagination. I agree, the books could probably have done with a good edit - it took me ages to get into it, also the Beeb got the 2 books down to 4hrs with out missing a beat. The 3rd book was never edited properly by Peake (would have probably doubled in size!); however, the contrast to the world of Gormenghast - which to me asked whether I was reading about the past ages or future - was another example of his imaginative powers. I suppose I'm not in the habit of dissecting the quality of prose (we had to choose between English Lit. & Geology for 'O'-level at school and I did the latter).

Like you I always found Dickens tedious to try and read. The dramatisations were always enjoyable - quality soaps! (:-)). I finally got through Nicholas Nickleby (fairly efficiently on streetcar rides to and from work) after watching the RSC stage production. I learnt to skip through the bits of tedious prose. It's struck me that TV has also learnt on paring down the stories to the essentuals, and manged to do so with out losing the essence. I seem to remember the BBC productions would run to 13 episodes whereas they can do them in a couple now - eg. Oliver Twist and David Copperfield.

One point that struck me a few years ago re. reading Dickens was that I had no trouble in reading Zola. I then realised that this may be because I was reading a modern English translation of his work. I wondered whether a modern English translation of Dickens would be more readable.

So, as said, it all comes down to what you are looking for in a story. Out of interest, what are your favourites?

Regards Rana