Yes, I also think they had rather different deals when it came to sales of bound volumes. But I don't have the numbers in my head.
No doubt. Six hundred pounds at the time really was a small fortune, though... throw in some royalties from the sales of bound volumes and that makes a yearly income that even the average nobleman didn't get, judging by what I've read in Austen, Thackeray and Trollope about yearly incomes.
Yes. Although Trollope did write in instalments.
Oh. Well, makes sense, I suppose.
Heh. You may not be as enthusiastic about Thackeray's other work. The difference in quality seems to be much greater between some of his works and others, where Dickens has more of a steady output. Although some Dickens books are much better than others. I rather like Little Dorrit. Tale of Two Cities is perhaps his easiest read. I liked it, but I don't know if I would call it his best. I like Bleak House as well. Not such a great fan of Hard Times. And I never warmed to David Copperfield the way some people do.
I don't really intend to read Thackeray's other work any time soon, except perhaps for Barry Lyndon. When a famous author is only known for one book, there's generally a good reason for that (though not always).
And I guess I shall have to read the half dozen or more candidates for the title of Dickens' best work before choosing, then.
William Makepeace Thackeray - Vanity Fair
- 17/05/2011 11:19:50 PM
911 Views
What version was yours?
- 18/05/2011 05:34:43 AM
634 Views
From the "The World's Classics" series by Oxford University Press.
- 18/05/2011 06:27:27 PM
657 Views
He wasn't actually known for his writings in Punch
- 18/05/2011 12:21:37 PM
746 Views
Oh. I must have missed that part in the introduction.
- 18/05/2011 07:21:29 PM
714 Views
I must have missed that part in the introduction.
- 18/05/2011 07:21:29 PM
714 Views
they may not have mentioned it
- 18/05/2011 07:30:20 PM
687 Views
No, they did, I just forgot about it.
- 18/05/2011 07:53:17 PM
604 Views