I'm Japanese and I can read Dickens' works now, but with a great deal of effort. It can't be helped, I'm willing to admit btw.
I'm wondering how easily native English speakers can read his works. Is a dictionary necessary because they contain a lot of obsolete words? If so, what dictionary do you prefer when reading his works or other writers' classics?
I'd be glad if you would answer my question.
Dickens is generally pretty readable. I can read Dickens without special assistance, but occasionally I would need help with the historical associations, eg this line from Two Cities
France, less favoured on the whole as to matters spiritual than her sister of the shield and trident, rolled with exceeding smoothness down hill, making paper money and spending it
"sister of the shield and trident" is "England (personified by Britannia) and the mention of paper money is in contrast to the gold money used in Britain at that time. Nowadays, "paper money" is common, but it wasn't so at that time. The metaphor of "rolling down hill" (modern English would have "downhill") refers to the poverty that followed the French revolution.
I would say that I understand more than 99% of the text. But the language is difficult. It uses figurative language, and rare words like "magnificent potentate" and "wretched pilferer". I would expect many native children, or most non-native learners to struggle.
For comparison, Jonathan Swift (Gulliver) I need a good glossary. I understand (perhaps) 95%. Shakespeare: I need line-by-line help. I understand about 80%. Chaucer: I understand 50%. Beowulf: I understand 5%. Virgil (in Latin) I can probably guess about 1%
For Dickens I'd probably use a regular dictionary, if required. I would want an edition that had footnotes or similar to help with the historical context. For the older authors I'd use a specialist dictionary, or depend on the notes in the book. Most editions that are "for students" will have supplementary notes.
I don't have a problem with Dickens. He wrote in the mid to late 1800s and, based on the other books I've read from that period it seems written English by that time had already become what we are familiar with as "modern English" - identical in spelling, structure, grammar, form, vocabulary, etc to what we have today.
Anyone who is fairly well read won't have a problem with the vocabulary of Dickens. To be frank I have a much bigger problem with the vocabulary of modern sci-fi writer Jack Vance because he uses obscure words that probably few people were using even in the 1800s.
My guess is any English literature from prior to the early 1800s is going to be substantially different than the modern English that we're used to and would be more difficult.
I am also going to say yes and no, the people in this forum who are saying it is easy are a self selecting group of people who are good at English.
I am going to imagine my less bookish friends trying to read it, the language constructs have changed. The imagery has changed so metaphors especially will be difficult. References to social norms won’t immediately click with a modern reader.
Modern readers can find victorian novels too long winded and verbose. With as you say outdated language.
Yes and no. Ability to understand isn't the same as ability to read. Think of the difference as the difference between reading the book out loud and the ability to understand what was said. You can have perfect pronunciation, but understand nothing of what is written.
I am taking a couple diversions here, but they relate directly to your question.
When I was learning Danish in Denmark, we had to read Babette's Dinner (Da:Babettes Gæstebud). Important note: I read this book in Danish. The understanding of the book can be radically different, depending on your understanding of a few passages. My teacher, an formally trained artist, well educated and intelligent, who's mother tongue is Danish, insisted the guests were sober and the book was only about the difference between values. It is worth noting, it isn't about the difference between social classes. I disagreed, and I read up a single passage. They stumbled and crawled through the snow returning home. This one point, that they were clearly drunk at the end of the dinner, changed my teacher's understanding of the book.
The assumption is, the native speaker knows best, and I likely misunderstood the passage. However, I read the book with care, and understood if they acted drunk at the end of the dinner, they likely drank a good deal of wine at dinner. It is also supported by a central passage in the book, a drunkenly philosophical passage about beauty through beer goggles. Understanding this point was dependent on how carefully I read the book, and ability to reason if B, then A.
Likewise, Dickens can be understood if you read the book with care and are able to make logical inferences and deductions. Those are skills that do not automatically come with reading a book in one's native language. Reading the book with care in your second language is one skill you can develop in your native language. Drawing logical conclusions is a different skill you can develop in your native language.
Law schools in the U.S. require you have both an undergraduate degree and take the LSAT.
The lesson here is, legal reasoning is heavily affected by subjects that are the same in all languages. Reasoning is heavily affected by aptitude other than linguistic skill. It isn't everyone who can easily reason, or reason at all, so a book such as Dickens may be a difficult read for a native English speaker, while a non-native speaker who can easily reason will find it a light read.
The two skills you need to read Dickens are the ability to read carefully, and ability to reason. Your skill in English is less important.
Ampan-san, Well done reading Dickens. I enjoy his books, but they do require a bit of effort. Have you seen this article Edging Toward Japan: A Straight Line leads from Dicken's London to Murakami's Tokyo?
One difficulty is that society has changed a lot since he wrote. Dickens died on 9 June 1870, which would be near the start of the Meiji era. There are words that are unfamiliar, but they often refer to concepts that are unfamiliar: workhouse, debtors' prison, and the like. Dickens wasn't only a successful writer: he was a social reformer, who many things in his own society, such as the shameful treatment of the poor. Dickens frequently ridicules his bad characters, and exaggerates. You need to understand this when you read him. We have a word "Dickensian", which is used as a criticism: is we say that the conditions for workers is "Dickensian", it indicates disapproval. (Even though Dickens frequently describes happy occasions, we would not use the word "Dickensian" to describe them). Dickens frequently mocks unpleasant characters by describing them from their own point of view.
This question can't be answered, without noticing the elephant in the room:
General literacy and linguistic skills, both spoken and written, have tumbled incredibly in the last 10-20 years, in the English-speaking countries.
If you're talking about people born after (say) 1990, they struggle to read any book.
They can barely struggle through any short, simple novel. Doesn't matter if it's Victorian or not.
The sense of your question is about the grammar, vocab, slang, references, etc, in Victorian novels. For any English speaker born before - say - 1980, it's no issue.
But for the English speaking world, born after say 1990, no, they can't read a Victorian novel (and they can barely read Harry Potter or such.)
Recall that people born after about 2000 can't, for example, read a clock with hands, or recite the alphabet or the months of the year. So there's a major break in the answer to your question depending on which historical cohort you're talking about.
