Thoughts about reading fiction, nonfiction, & children's books, new & old
Charles Dickens wrote one book that never appears on his “collected works” lists. That is The Life of Our Lord, a “child’s new testament” that he wrote for his own children for Christmas one year. It was first published in 1934, 64 years after Dickens’s death.
In The Life of Our Lord, Charles Dickens retells the major events in the life of Jesus Christ. He obviously omits a lot, but he focuses on what he wants his children to know. It is an intriguing look at the life of Christ and at the specific faith of Charles Dickens. I appreciated the way he wrote as if speaking directly to a child, and I am glad I read it.
All that said, I wasn’t very impressed with this short children’s book. Publishers warned readers not to expect a typical Dickens book from it, and I have to say I agree: I don’t think it’s typical. It was written for children and for specific children at that (his own). For that reason the tone is incredibly casual.
As I read, I kept thinking “I want to write something like this for my own child!” Because Dickens is writing for his own purposes, he writes what he feels is most important, explicating his own theological understanding on the events of Christ’s life. It is perfectly appropriate, and yet it made me want to do the same with my own understanding and beliefs about the life of Christ. I want my children to know what I believe and what I love from the life of Jesus Christ.
While he was alive, Dickens asked that The Life of Our Lord never be published while he was alive; he wrote it for his family and wanted it to say in the family. In the 1930s, it was published by his descendants. More information can be found at Wikipedia.
The bottom line: I recommend reading The Life of Our Lord if you’re interested in Dickens’ faith and understanding of the life of Jesus Christ. The Life of Our Lord may interest you and inspire you, but I don’t think it’s full of quality Dickens writing. I’m not very inclined to whole-heartedly recommend that you read The Life of Our Lord; it’s purpose wasn’t for me or you or anyone else to read it. I felt like I was reading a personal letter Dickens wrote to his children.
Do you think it was right of Dickens’ descendants to publish The Life of Our Lord? Dickens hadn’t asked that publication be avoided forever, but he obviously wanted to keep it in the family. If you wrote something you never wanted published, what would you think if someone published your writing against your wishes? What if you’ve been dead a long time?
Have you reviewed The Life of Our Lord? Leave a link in the comments and I’ll add it here.
<< Previous Post A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith
Gay-Neck: The Story of a Pigeon by Dhan Gopal Mukerji Next Post >>
I'd love to hear your thoughts; please feel free to share them with me! However, please note that as the blog owner, I have the right to remove any comment that is off topic, defamatory, obscene, or abusive, or that uses language that is not family friendly. If you'd like further clarification, please read the comments policy.
This blog is a collection of my thoughts about books and reading and reviews of books I've read. I'd love to hear your thoughts, too. Please share!
For more information about my current challenges and projects, visit my Reading Lists page.
emma t
Friday, December 12, 2008 at 3:22 am
I downloaded the pdf because your post intrigued me… What I found interesting (and I kept thinking of you saying you’d like to write the story yourself, for your family, to express your own ideas) was the bits Dickens chose to highlight and which to leave out. For example 40 days in the wilderness goes by in two sentences, but there’s loads of details about honey and locusts which I could do without. Those forty days have always really fascinated me, and i would have thought children today would be interested in the idea of a man testing himself in that way. Clearly not thought appropriate for Victorian children though! It may not be his best work (and I just finished listening to unabridged Christmas Carol, which really is) but it’s extremely interesting and thanks for pointing it out – I’d never even heard of it.
Rebecca Reid
Friday, December 12, 2008 at 10:42 am
emma t, that’s exactly what I thought: he had some emphasis on things that I wouldn’t have considered most important; I’d like to redo it with my emphasis! I agree it’s interesting. Most people haven’t heard of it, but my husband had it so I had to check it out.
Welcome to the blogging world! I see you’re new around here!
Rose City Reader
Monday, December 15, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I am just fascinated to learn that this exists. I had never heard of it before. And I am on a Dickens kick.
As for your questions, although I think of myself as a sentimentalist, I am pretty hard hearted about honoring the wishes of dead people. Maybe something I picked up in my Wills & Trusts class in law school about such wishes being generally unenforceable, so it made me tough.
But when it comes to “burn my papers” type requests, I usually fall on the side of ignoring the request. Like the “new” book by Nabakov that I am looking forward to reading. What’s it called? Something about “Laura” but I can’t remember the name.
Billie Kinch
Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I received this book as a child in the 1940’s. I loved it. But the edition was an elongated left to right version with beautiful illustrations suitable as a child’s picture book. I would love to find a copy of that particular edition for my grandchildren.
Rebecca Reid
Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:58 am
Billie, oh, I think it would be lots of fun with lovely illustrations!