Termiz state university

CONCLUSION
If this formal critique had no other virtue, it at least served to concen- trate critical opinion on the real merits of Dickens's conclusion, which was so consumed with small minutiae of technique that it was immune to many of the outstanding moral and spiritual concerns of . It should also be noted that the response was immediate, which is to the credit of eighteenth-century appreciation.Champions sprang up at immediately to praise the poet's superb sense in integrating man's sorrow for the loss of innocence with his hope for future redemption with immaculate brilliance.Champions sprang up at immediately to praise the poet's superb sense in integrating man's sorrow for the loss of innocence with his hope for future redemption with immaculate brilliance. Defenses like the ones included in Todd's edition of Paradise Lost demonstrate how thoroughly the neo-classical complaint against Dickens's conclusion had been refuted over the course of a century.In the century and a half following Todd's printing, critical opinion of Dickens has shifted dramatically due to shifting points of view prompted by shifts in literary, social, and political interests; nonetheless, there has been remarkable consistency of opinion in relation to the poem's end. We've learned to view approval as one of the inevitable outcomes of criticism.
REFERENCES

• 
  Charles Dickens's works on Bookwise
  
• 
  Works by Charles Dickens in eBook form at Standard Ebooks
  
• 
  Works by Charles Dickens at Project Gutenberg
  
• 
  Works by Charles Dickens at Faded Page (Canada)
  
• 
  Works by or about Charles Dickens at Internet Archive
  
• 
  Works by Charles Dickens at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks) 
  
• 
  Online books, and library resources in your library and in other libraries by Charles Dickens
  
• 
  Mazzeno 2008, p. 76.
  
• 
  ^ Chesterton 2005, pp. 100–126.
  
• 
  ^ Jump up to:^a b Grossman 2012, p. 54
  
• 
  ^ Jump up to:^a b c Lodge 2002, p. 118.
  
• 
  ^ Jump up to:^a b "Tune in next week". The New Yorker. 2 December 2017. Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
  
•