The first 15-20 minutes were a bit of a slog. One gets out of practise with that kind of dense, archaic dialogue (it's like a 19th-century version of West Wing's wonkish, rush-through-the-corridors talk, further obscured by plummy accents). But then the revelation: the languorous unveiling of a compelling, deeply human story - with more suspense and character than any dozen episodes of "CSI".

My first real, 'grown-up' novel was Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities". And my first PBS serial was "Upstairs, Downstairs". So it may be nostalgia, but "Bleak House" is already evoking the pure pleasure of both remembered experiences.

Perhaps you too, are less familiar with his characters?

...if I were Esther, I'd have him in half a second, even if he were old enough to be my father, as she points out. Not only has Lawson been impish eye candy since the days of "Star Wars" and "Local Hero," but his performance here in "Bleak House" masterfully communicates his private depressions and missed opportunities muffled by decades.

"The act of reading -- of hunkering down and focusing on one piece of writing at a time, all the way through -- is quickly becoming a luxury we can't afford"

- Sorry, but I do that almost every day. Including Bleak House, which is a wonderful book, if not quite as great as the previously Masterpiece-Theaterized "Our Mutual Friend". While I'm pleased that they still make TV programs like this, I'm not watching it - I'd rather read a book. (It's very easy to find time to read if you never watch TV).

Madame Defarge is truly a memorable character. So memorable, in fact, that many who have read "A Tale of Two Cities" would use her correct name. And those who hadn't, might do a quick search on Amazon, you know, to fact check and stuff.

"Dickens is one of relatively few writers whom people around the world feel they "know" even when they haven't read any of his work. His characters are so vivid that many of them -- Ebenezer Scrooge, Madame Lafarge -- have become, in the popular imagination, better known as figures of speech than as people. But Dickens was also a man of surprises, as any master of the serial form would have to be."

We too almost never watch TV, so finding something worthwhile recommended is a mitzvah. But...Please! A recommendation that comes in the MIDDLE of a series?? Unhelpful, to say the least. Don't critics have access to previews? Your subscribers deserve better.

I think Bleak House is Dickens at his best. It's not his most affecting (which I would give to Great Expectations) or the most enjoyable (which for me is the Pickwick Papers), but it is his most complete, deep and resonant. It is a long book, but I don't think it is a particularly fatiguing read. Dickens writing escapes the grueling slog of its subject matter-- the pointless and never ending work of the Chancery courts. I think anyone can find topical and relevant aspects of the novel; the problem of bueracracy that exists only to perpetuate itself hasn't gone away.

I've never been much of a Dickens fan; I prefer Thackerey and other Victorians. This Bleak House adaptation is mildly intriguing, but hardly the revelation and cultural monument described in this article. It's far too logey. I think the camera angles try capturing the frantic nature of the book, but otherwise this is something of a snooze.

I thought the Trollope adaptation, The Way We Live Now, was much sharper, better acted, and more compelling. Ditto Daniel Deronda. Hell, even The Golden Bowl from 30 years ago was better. Or any of the number of Henry James they did, like The Spoils of Poynton. Gillian Anderson, however, is superb, and it's good to hear her get props for The House of Mirth. Though she was physically wrong for the part, she had its soul.

I giggled with delight when I saw the headline of this article. This mini series has become my (not very well kept) secret obessession since I watched the first 5 minutes! S.Z. is right, it is fun watching the show in weekly installments...the anticipation of what happens next keeps the story spinning through my thoughts all week. And the acting! I can almost not bear to watch my other TV favorites because Bleak House is so superior. To those late to the show, do yourself a favor and just buy it in a few weeks...you won't be sorry. It's the best, most interesting and fun TV I've seen in years!

So am I the only person who thinks that it's just a bit ironic that Ms. Zacharek seems almost proud that she is enjoying the long, slow experince of watching a TV mini-series? From what I have heard, the series sounds like fun, but it can be nothing really like the experience of sitting with the actual book (Bleak House being one of my favorites of DIcken's, the other Our Mutual Friend). Perhaps Ms. Zacharek should stop watching now that she is hooked, and go back and start the book - you can do it! Read 2 chapters a day, you'll be done in no time (well, a month :-). If you think the TV series is deep and nuanced, just wait....

PS - Personally, I would blame the editor more for the Madam Lafarge/Defarge fiasco, Ms. Zacharek clearly said she hadn't read much, or any, Dickens.

Wasn't Lafarge a killer boy band of the 80s?

Inspired by numerous reassurances that Bleak House is Dickens's masterpiece, memorable for its glorious opening passages describing London in full fog and Jarndyce and Jarndyce in full deadlock, I once picked it up a few years ago. And again later. And again later.

Never could get past that opening fog, which, while indeed glorious and compelling (I think about it often), was so filling I stopped. Rather like my reaction to no-flour chocolate cake. One bite's enough.

Actually, of course, that was Debarge. The boy band. I think.

I'm glad that Dickens's novel is getting attention this year, in large part because the adaptation is apparently so well done. In the UK, where the adaptation aired last fall, the BBC let it be even more like Dickens's original serialization: it aired in something like fifteen episodes, much shorter and much more tantalizing.

Bleak House wasn't actually serialized in a periodical, though some of Dickens's later serialized novels (Hard Times, A Tale of Two Cities, and Great Expectations) were. Its installments came out monthly in stand-alone booklets, bound in blue-green (kind of an aqua color). Then, the novel was published in volume form once the serial run had ended.

The easiest way to get into reading Dickens--who is far from boring, if you give him even half a chance--is to get a good edition (such as one published by Oxford or Penguin or Everyman) that has all the illustrations and a rundown of when the installments were published. If you invest fifteen minutes, you can mark your book with the beginnings and endings of the installments. Then, just read one installment at a time, as the Victorians would have, and you'll find yourself able to appreciate the novel much more fully because you won't be trying to overload yourself. Generally, an installment is about 40 pages or 3-4 chapters. You'll also get a sense of just how much modern TV serials owe to the ebb and flow of Victorian serialized narrative.

Frankly, I don't much care how people get into Dickens--to my mind, there's no more glory in going straight to the books than there is in coming to them via a TV miniseries. But if you're liking the miniseries, try picking up the book. It's really marvelous, and it will feel so relevant in so many ways. Be patient with it. Your brain will thank you later.