Our Mutual Friend

It's time for another under-educated Dickens ramble.

I wasn't really aware of Our Mutual Friend until I heard the fantastic 20 part Womans' Hour drama in 2009. I was a little confused at first but I think that's forgivable in any Dickens story where the main character goes by three different names, all of them beginning with J.

So when I saw that the current Dickens season included Our Mutual Friend, I assumed it was this version. I didn't even twig when I saw that it had 10 episodes rather than 20, I just thought they must have joined them together to make half hours. Then I noticed that each episode was an hour long and I made a definite note to listen.

Apparently the 10 hour version dates from 1984 and it feels old. Listening to two dramatisations of the same story made 25 years apart really underlines some of the things that I think we (over-critical, obsessive listeners) expect in our modern dramas.

The most interesting to me is that 1984 version is twice as long but contains about half as much atmosphere. Okay, so the 2009 version drops the sub-plots involving the Veneerings but this is supposed to be a radio drama and, whatever it is that's going on with the Lammels, you'd be hard pressed to call it drama.

I'm sure that the 1984 version remains more faithful to the content but, in doing so, the atmosphere and the very human stories of its characters are lost for large sections. I'm half way through listening at the moment and I honestly couldn't care less about John and Bella. Lizzie and Eugene are more interesting but then their story is much more interesting to start with.

The 2009 version is like a delicious sauce, reduced down from something that - though perfectly fine originally - has become tasty and strong and special through concentration. I felt drawn into the fantastic atmospheric world of the river, Abbey Potterson's inn, Veuns' shop and Harmony Hall. I could picture every scene as tendrils of mist crept eerily over everything and believe completely that John might fall for the sharp, fickle, mercenary Bella as she sparred with him.

But the difference that stands out most of all is the casting. Now I don't know the ages of the actors in either version but everyone in the 1984 version sounds around ten years older than the 2009 version. And considering half the cast is playing young lovers, or would-be-lovers, young is probably a good starting point. There's also very little variation in the 1984 voices. Compare that to Daisy Haggard's Bella and Lizzie Watts' Lizzie. It's a different world of distinctive and memorable individuals. Our Mutual Friend is next on my list of Dickens books to buy and, when I read it, Bella will sound exactly like Daisy Haggard and Lizze will sound exactly like Lizzie Watts.

I don't mean to suggest that I'm not enjoying listening to the 1984 version, because I am. But it's impossible not to be running a constant comparison between the two. I don't know if Mike Walker is intentionally working is way through dramatising all of Dickens but I say: crack on!

That brings me back to the subject of A Tale of Two Cities, which I wrote about before Christmas. Because the dramatisation was podcast, I held off listening to it. It's been sitting, unlistened to, on my ipod like the last chocolate that you've saved because you know it'll be the best of the whole tray. Last night I finally finished reading the book (no comment on whether I cried at the end) so it's time to listen. But I'm determined not to waste this on a week of 20 minute bus journeys, or to tune out in work while I'm doing something else. Like my last chocolate I want to savour enjoy it and I just happen to have a 3+ hour train journey to Warrington tomorrow.

I can't wait.

Any excuse is a good excuse

In my book, any excuse for a Dickens season is a good one. And a 200 year anniversary is about as good as excuses get. Although Dickens was born in February, no one will begrudge the BBC starting their season in time for Christmas. In fact, I think they've shown more restraint than I might but then I'm rather partial to Dickens dramatisations, especially when they're on a suitably large scale.

That's why (with the possible exception of the Cabin Pressure special) the new version of A Tale of Two Cities is the radio programme that I'm most looking forward to this Christmas. I was surprised to see the BBC promoting it as the first version for radio in twenty years: I had no idea that the previous version 4 Extra dates from 1989. Maybe 20 years isn't as long ago as I think it is.

I always felt there was something fascinating about Dickens but, until I read A Christmas Carol, I never managed to get further than the first page or so of anything I tried. Probably because of the staggering sentence lengths. I think perhaps I couldn't understand why he was so respected when he didn't know how to express himself concisely. But, when I had a little more patience, I threw myself into A Christmas Carol and loved it like a private secret. I felt as though it had revealed the hidden code and truth behind every adaptation and reinterpretation of the story.

Over the last few years I've kept an eagle eye out for the various Dickens dramas that have appeared on 4 Extra. Although there have been some great versions of Oliver Twist, Little Dorrit and other well known books, I've most enjoyed the stories I didn't know.

I'm not sure what initially put me off A Tale of Two Cities, probably the idea of the setting. I don't really know what I was expecting but I do know that I was very wrong. The seven hour 1989 version drew me in to a surprising extent. There's a clarity to the story that I love and the threads that draw the characters ever closer are strong and fascinating. A Tale of Two Cities fascinated me and I decided to by a copy of the book.

The time between a decision and me actually acting on it can be long. Very long. And for some reason my irrational wariness had returned. Okay, so A Christmas Carol is one thing. But A Tale of Two Cities... well... a book set in the French revolution is going to be hard going. What if I can't make it through? I love the story but what if it's all just too grim?

Idiot.

I love books, with rather fastidious care and attention to corners I keep them safe, never crack a spine and refuse to lend them - even to my closest family - for fear of the terrible fates that might befall them. This is not an attitude that lends itself to buying second hand books. That much book-abuse is just too hard to look at. But in Dunster there's a little second-hand/rare book shop and there I found a little pocket copy of A Tale of Two Cities. It's not glamorous but it's small, has delicate thin pages and a blue cloth cover (something I find irresistible in any book).

I started reading that night and I couldn't believe what a fool I'd been. Not only was it easy going but I couldn't believe the humour of it, nor how much it touched me.

"A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other."

Has anyone ever put it better? I can't imagine how.

So I am very much looking forward to the new adaptation. Hopefully five 45 minute plays will do it justice, it's a story that deserves its every vile tw, ever good deed and every tragic turn in all their perfect detail. My only complaint is that Carl Prekopp will be wasted as Jerry Cruncher.

Oh, and I do wish it was being broadcast a little closer to February. I've not quite finished reading yet.