Nicholas Nickleby is no different than other Dickens novels in that regard. Recently widowed Mrs. Nickleby arrives in London with her two children, Nicholas and Kate, to beg her brother-in-law, Mr. Ralph Nickleby, for financial assistance. Mr. Ralph Nickleby places his nephew in a position as a teacher in a boy's school in Yorkshire. Nicholas soon discovers that the school master, Mr. Squeers, is a harsh employer who fails to properly feed and clothe the boys placed in his care. After a confrontation where Nicholas beats Mr. Squeers "till he roared for mercy", he seeks employment elsewhere - first in the theatrical company of Mr. Crummles and then for the Brothers Cheeryble. Of course, the story ends happily, as every Dickens novel does: Nicholas finds happiness in life and love, Kate finds love and stability, and Mr. Ralph Nickleby and Mr. Squeers are both punished for their crimes.
This is not one of Dickens' best novels, but Dickens wrote nothing inferior. The twisted plots and characters keep the reader guessing throughout the entire novel. This novel did not succeed in intertwining the characters as well as his other works (Bleak House will always win that competition) but it is still filled with intrigue and adventure. Where Dickens did succeed is creating unique heroes and villains. Calling Nicholas "hot headed" is an understatement; most protagonists in classic literature are rational individuals. And normally the hero is fighting the system, whether harsh employers or the legal system, but Nicholas' self-proclaimed nemesis is his uncle.
Starkly different from the novel, the film adaptation is horrible. I bought it on DVD at the beginning of the year in preparation for finishing the novel. Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy, Crimson Peak) and Romala Garai (Emma 2009, Atonement) are two of my favorite actors/actresses, plus add Anne Hathaway and Jamie Bell (TURN, Jane Eyre 2011) into the mix and of course it will be fantastic! *shakes head miserably* The only adaptations I've seen that are worse than this one are some of the 80s and early 90s Austen adaptations. The acting wasn't bad; Charlie's acting style was a bit unrefined, but it was also toward the beginning of his acting career. (And he didn't have his fake American accent, which was the best part.) The travesty, as in all period dramas, was the omission of the bulk of the second half of the novel. The plot-line followed the novel relatively well throughout the first half of the movie, but somewhere in the second half the writers decided that they needed to cut something out and opted just to ignore half of what occurred. I fully understand that making a 800 page novel into a two hour movie is difficult, but the writers could have omitted some of the minutia in the beginning instead of failing to include the last few hundred pages of the novel.
My conclusion is this: read the book and watch the adaptation but don't expect a lot. Nicholas Nickleby shouldn't be your first choice when choosing a Dickens novel, but any Dickens novel is better than no Dickens at all. The last stop in Reading England 2015 is Lancashire for Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell!
