The Pickwick Club discussion
In which Oliver Twist is covered
>
May 1 - May 7 Book the First, Chapters the First through the Seventh
message 1:
by
Jonathan
(new)
May 02, 2013 12:06AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
What I find interesting about the first seven chapters is that Oliver seems to have been born into a world of caricatures here. We have the self-important bloated beadle Mr. Bumble, Mrs. Mann, who is obsequious to him, but utterly cruel to the children, the virago Mrs. Sowerberry and the perfect example of the hen-pecked husband, Mr. Sowerberry, who would probably be nicer to Oliver, if it were not for his wife. Sometimes, drawing his figures as caricatures paradoxically gives more life to them, just consider the pauper woman attending Oliver's birth. If it were not for her drinking issue, one would hardly remember her. And yet, even though all the characters are rather flat, his social criticism seems to be all the more efficient.What jars, however, to my mind, are short moralizing passages of the intrusive narrator speaking, such as: "I wish some well-fed philosopher, whose meat and drink turn to gall within him; whose blood is ice, whose heart is iron; could have seen Oliver Twist clutching at the dainty viands that the dog had neglected. I wish he could have witnessed the horrible avidity with which Oliver tore the bits asunder with all the ferocity of famine. There is only one thing I should have liked better; and that would be to see the Philosopher making the same sort of meal himself, with the same relish."
Another interesting detail is that with Noah Claypole we have the first of quite a few charity school boys in Dickens whose moral currents have turned awry.
Tristram wrote: "What I find interesting about the first seven chapters is that Oliver seems to have been born into a world of caricatures here. "It wasn't that that struck me so much as that everybody surrounding Oliver is nasty, evil, just a bad human. In these early chapters, at least, there's not a single nice or decent person. Mr. Sowerberry comes closest, but even he doesn't have the decency to overcome his wife's nastiness and be nice to Oliver.
It's such a depressing, discouraging look at the human race. It's particularly notable after the decent, innocent characters who people much of Pickwick. I have to wonder what turned Dickens so negative in such a short period of time.
Mod
In Background and Resources, we talked about the social impact that this novel, in particular, and Charles Dickens, in general, had on early Victorian England. I think you have found an excellent example of PERSUASIVE writing that would actually move the reader (And, Queen Victoria was one of many) to move on behalf of the poor and orphaned. Great find!
Mod
I don't want to spoil any of Pickwick for you, in case you will end up reading the rest of that in the future, but without saying who is involved, there is a dark, morbid view of a debtor's prison and a keen focus on the "poor" side of that jailhouse towards the end of Pickwick. Something which really struck me was Dickens said openly: "This is not fiction." I have never read anything like this in a fiction book before. He obviously felt so strongly about their plight that he reminded the readers that this part of the work was REAL. This was towards the end of the novel, and I think that was the point, where he moved from light-hearted comedy to a more realistic view of the world he lived in.
It does leave us wondering did something happen in his life, or did he witness something happen to someone else, or a meet a person or persons with certain difficulties at this time of his life, which triggered such a fierce reaction in his writings. Perhaps, anyone who has read some of the biographies we have mentioned may be able to shed some light on this.
It's possible that something changed in his life, but I wonder if it's also possible that with his growing success, he was able to "be himself." As I remember the situation, he'd begun Pickwick with the instructions to write something light and entertaining that'd give the illustrator, (the star of the show), plenty of opportunities to do his work. Oliver Twist was his from the beginning, and he was free to crusade against social ills.By the way, I've just come from reading Bleak House, written much later, and I'm struck by unexpected similarities. In Chapter 5, the poverty-stricken part of the nameless town is the prototype of Tom All Alone's--the houses that have to be propped up to keep from crashing into the street, and that are inhabited by squatters.
Elisa wrote: "It's possible that something changed in his life, but I wonder if it's also possible that with his growing success, he was able to "be himself." As I remember the situation, he'd begun Pickwick wit..."I actually read someplace that when Pickwick Papers was started the deal was that Dickens write sporting sketches that went with pictures the illustrator, who was a bigger shot than Dickens at that time, provided and that Dickens soon found himself fighting over how things would develop in the story with the illustrator. After a few instalments, this fight was settled in Dickens's favour. (view spoiler)
Jonathan wrote: "Tristram wrote: "What jars, however, to my mind, are short moralizing passages of the intrusive narrator speaking, such as: "I wish some well-fed philosopher, whose meat and drink turn to gall with..."Thanks, Jonathan, but it was not too difficult as these chapters abound with brief passages like the one I mentioned.
Adam wrote: "That so many of the poor are vile people or driven to crime is a commentary in itself. Contrast that with Oliver's inherent goodness despite his unfortunate circumstances in early life and he stands out as the biggest charicature of all; a boy of nobler bloodlines who refuses to go bad as a result of circumstance."There is something in that. He is, at least in these first seven chapters, presented as such a goody-two-shoes (where on earth did that expression arise, I wonder? Ah, a quick search tells me that it was the title of a 1765 children's story) that, when you think about him (which I didn't do initially, being too absorbed in the very quick moving action), he seems unreal, artificial, not true to life.
Adam wrote: "That so many of the poor are vile people or driven to crime is a commentary in itself. Contrast that with Oliver's inherent goodness despite his unfortunate circumstances in early life and he stands out as the biggest charicature of all; a boy of nobler bloodlines who refuses to go bad as a result of circumstance."I wonder if Dickens really saw a cause-and-effect-relationship between poverty and crime the way that e.g. Zola, the "French Dickens", did. After all, Dickens's works abound in characters who are rich or well-to-do and evil, and there are so many noble poor in his books who remain untainted by their vile surroundings. This is perhaps a question we should keep in mind while reading Oliver Twist.
I'd also agree with you, Everyman, that Oliver is a rather unearthly goody-two-shoes - I rather like that expression -, and that it is difficult to imagine a boy who has lived through a childhood like Oliver's and who yet remains so gentle, naive and good. As the story unfolds, we might see a reason for this - you already hinted at it, Adam.
I have the impression that Oliver is a vacuum which gives the other characters the opportunity to develop and act out their cruelties. He is definitely not a very believable character; his asking for more might have been the result of being bullied by the hungry boys in the workhouse, but the way he stands up for his mother against Noah, Charlotte and Mrs. Sowerberry does not seem to go well with his general gentleness, as far as I'm concerned.
Mod
I'm definitely reading the revised version. Mine begins: "Among other public buildings in a certain town, which for many reasons it will be prudent to refrain from mentioning, and to which I will assign no fictitious name, (and the rest is probably the same as yours:) there is one anciently common to most towns, great or small: to wit, a workhouse;"That's interesting. In Wikipedia I ran across a reference to Dickens writing: "The Mudfog Papers" in 1837, but since I hadn't taken time to look it up, and I'd never heard of that name before, I was keeping an open mind on whether or not "The Mudfog Papers" really existed, or whether they were the result of a creative Wikipedian. That'll teach me to be a skeptic!
I agree with what you, Everyman, Adam, Tristram, say about Oliver. I'm not a believer in the blank slate theory of human development, but I think children have to have some sort of moral influence in their lives to develop principles, and as we've seen his early life presented, where would any good influence come from? Hmmm, I haven't read ahead, and I don't remember. Is Oliver literate? If so, there must have been some influence from someone we haven't seen in the book. Glancing ahead, he can read "London" on the signpost--so someone's taught him something. 'Some of the old nurses' talked to him about his mother. So, is it reasonable to think that he has encountered some good and friendly influences in life, but it's not a factor in the story that Dickens is telling?
I apologize for harping on Bleak House, but I've just been looking at it. Here's, from 20 years later, a depiction of what someone brought up in extreme deprivation would be like:"Name, Jo. Nothing else that he knows on. Don't know that everybody has two names. Never heerd of sich a think. Don't know that Jo is short for a longer name. Thinks it long enough for HIM. HE don't find no fault with it. Spell it? No. He can't spell it. No father, no mother, no friends. Never been to school. What's home? Knows a broom's a broom, and knows it's wicked to tell a lie. Don't recollect who told him about the broom or about the lie, but knows both. Can't exactly say what'll be done to him arter he's dead if he tells a lie to the gentlemen here, but believes it'll be something wery bad to punish him, and serve him right--and so he'll tell the truth."
Mod
Can anyone offer a satisfactory explanation as to why this was changed. It says here "which for many reasons it will be prudent to refrain from mentioning". What were the real reasons? Was Mudfog an actual or a fictional place? If it was real I could see that there may have been an outcry because the author is slamming the local parish at times. If it is a fictional place, then why did he decide to un-name it, and what good did it do, as there were already thousands who had read the original text? Any thoughts? Opinions on this?
Mod
I suppose he could mean that their unnecessary attentions would have "smothered" him, pun intended. As it was, "Oliver and nature fought out the point between them." Oliver won. Is this struggle for the beginning of his life going to spill over into the rest of his life? If so, will he win the second struggle?
Mod
That is, until we put on our clothes. Once they put his rags on him, his class distinction was immediately obvious. He "fell into place at once - a parish child - the orphan of a workhouse..." And, thus we are introduced to one Dickens' most memorable characters Oliver Twist, who we are told will "be cuffed and buffeted through the world, despised by all, and pitied by none." Let's see if this prophecy rings true in its entirety.
Jonathan wrote: Can anyone offer a satisfactory explanation as to why this was changed. It says here "which for many reasons it will be prudent to refrain from mentioning". What were the real reasons? Was Mudfog an actual or a fictional place? If it was real I could see that there may have been an outcry because the author is slamming the local parish at times. If it is a fictional place, then why did he decide to un-name it, and what good did it do, as there were already thousands who had read the original text? Any thoughts? Opinions on this? "Mudfog is definitely Dickens's invention. (And a metaphor he'll be using till the end of his life, I'd say.) So, after doing some digging on Google, I think there's a fairly simple explanation. Dickens was writing "The Mudfog Papers" at the same time that he was writing "Oliver Twist", and publishing them in the same periodical. So, at that time, situating the workhouse in Mudfog seemed perfectly reasonable.
Then, having finished the novel, I'd guess that he decided that the social criticism would be sharper if he did not name the town--because that way, the criticism applies to 'Everytown'. He's not criticizing the Poor Laws as applied in Brighton, or in Manchester; he's criticizing them as they exist everywhere.
And, it's not a problem that thousands have read the original text; he's going to reach tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more. (And 170 years pre-Google, it's a lot harder for someone to check up on variant versions.)
Mod
Very well put and satisfactory indeed! Does this seem reasonable to everyone? Does anyone have an alternative theory?
Jonathan wrote: "The circumstances surrounding his birth... Why would the presence of "experienced nurses, and doctors of profound wisdom" have caused the unnamed infant to "have been killed in no time", as the nar..."I have an idea, but I don't feel confident in it. If Dickens had just mentioned nurses and doctors, I'd think he was being sarcastic about the efficacy of the medical profession. But, his adding in aunts and grandmothers weakens that idea. So, it's Oliver himself who fights to live, and wins, and other people would have hindered, not helped.
I wonder if there's any chance that this relates to our earlier question of: what makes Oliver a good and innocent person when he's been brought up in such a squalid environment? Could it be that he was simply born a good and innocent person, and the influence of other people can't change that, just as he was born with a will to life, and the influence of other people wasn't needed to get him breathing?
This is a very vague thought, and I'm not standing by it. ;)
As I read, I'm trying to spot things that are unfamiliar concepts, and use Google to help figure them out. So far, I've tracked down what Daffy was--evidently a trade-named laxative that they'd mix with gin, and I've read up on mutes--this was an interesting link: http://www.historyextra.com/qa/victor...
Tristram wrote: "I wonder if Dickens really saw a cause-and-effect-relationship between poverty and crime the way that e.g. Zola, the "French Dickens", did. After all, Dickens's works abound in characters who are rich or well-to-do and evil, and there are so many noble poor in his books who remain untainted by their vile surroundings."That's an excellent point. We will indeed meet some noble and honest poor as we read deeper into Dickens (I hope it's not a spoiler to note that Little Dorrit is set in a debtor's prison, where you meet a lot of poor people, but the greater villains in that book are not in the prison.)
But I don't think Dickens could avoid realizing that crime, at least publicly obvious crime, is more prevalent among the poor than the rich. He was, after all, a very astute observer of human nature.
Jonathan wrote: "Elisa wrote: "I'm definitely reading the revised version. Mine begins: "Among other public buildings in a certain town, which for many reasons it will be prudent to refrain from mentioning, and to ..."According to the site given below, Oliver Twist was initially intended not as a stand-alone novel, but as part of the Mudfog papers, "which were a series of sketches based on a fictional town called Mudfog and the learned society satirically called "The Mudfog Society for the Advancement of Everything." In the first installment of Oliver Twist in Bentley's, Dickens specifically situates Oliver in Mudfog, but these references are removed from the later volume publications."
The Mudfog papers sound more like the Pickwick Papers. I wonder at what point in writing OT Dickens decided to switch it from part of the Mudfog papers to an independent novel. It may be interesting, as we read along, to wonder whether we can spot the shift in thinking. Might it be as early as Chapter 8, about which I can't say more until next week because we're only up to Chapter 7 here? But I think Chapter 8 would have been either late in the second serial section or possibly the beginning of the third.
The site quoted from above:
http://oneyearinbooks.blogspot.com/20...
Jonathan wrote: " The author seems to be inferring that we are all equal at birth.That is, until we put on our clothes. Once they put his rags on him, his class distinction was immediately obvious. "
Shakespeare, of course, said it best.
Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furr’d gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw doth pierce it.
Lear, Act 4 Scene 6
Mod
There is a note on that term in my copy. It says the drink was named after a 17th century cleric Thomas Daffy. It was originally called Daffy's Elixir Salutis - a medicine made from a tropical shrub. The note continues, "'Daffy' became slang for unmixed gin;" and that is probably the context in which it was used here.
Mod
I wonder if Mr. Dickens was working from a list of these outrages and incorporating them into these episodes as he went along. I probably will not continue the laborious task of reverse-engineering the novel, as it tends to be a slow and tedious process.
I was, however, wondering how reading things like this made everyone feel. Was this kind of treatment believable to you or did you think it was an exagerration?
* I am reading the text of the original installments, (I am told). Later manuscripts changed his age at this point to 9 years of age to correct the author's timelines. I am finding a lot of rookie errors made by Dickens in penning what he considered to be his first real novel.
Mod
"Please, sir, I want some more."
Jonathan wrote: "I was, however, wondering how reading things like this made everyone feel. Was this kind of treatment believable to you or did you think it was an exaggeration?"
Keeping in mind that Dickens was in his early life a journalist as well as a novelist, I wouldn't be surprised if each of these things didn't have a basis in fact, but that all of them happened to one boy I think is an exaggeration. In this respect, I see Oliver not as a single character so much as as a composite.
Mod
"One slang verse of 'twisted' was 'hanged'...;" as in "twisting as one swings on the rope".
It seems to me the gentleman's prophecy opens the question that this novel is going to answer for us: Will Oliver Twist, or will he not, be hanged?
Mod
Secondly, "instead of compelling a man to support his family as they had theretofore done, took his family away from him, and made him a bachelor!" The narrator used the word "divorced", but the notes in my copy say that this was more of a legal separation, not a legal divorce, as in actually ending the marriage. As we can probably guess, all of this stuff is true.
The imposed divorces and the control given to the overseer, a person such as Mrs. Mann, were still in tact after the 1834 Act, which was put into place "to deter by unpleasantness the able-bodied poor." In other words, the actual reasons the legislation was put in place for were the "fictitious" reasons given by the Board in the novel. Clearly, Dickens was targeting both the writing of this Poor Act and the fallacies of it in practice.
How does everyone feel about the workhouses breaking up the families in an effort to make things unpleasant for the man unable to support them?
Mod
Compare that to the lines of Milton's Satan (IV, 75-8):
Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heav'n.
I found this reference to be interesting as it definitely adds some weight to the author's line above. I am wondering if Dickens quoted this on purpose. He often made references to Shakespeare and 18th Century fictional works. Any thoughts?
Mod
That is a good answer and well put. This is probably the truth. By putting all of the evils in one institution, and placing all of the abuse on one individual, it becomes an exagerration. I would say that we are getting a one-sided, twisted (no pun intended) view of the parishes and the workhouses. But, there is no doubt there were a number of atrocities going on, and very few sympathists to lend a hand. Thankfully, Dickens said something and I truly believed this helped start a quiet and mini-revolution.
Jonathan wrote: "How does everyone feel about the workhouses breaking up the families in an effort to make things unpleasant for the man unable to support them?"
Not surprising for the times. The women and children were vulnerable and deserved the protection of society. The man should have been strong enough to tend for himself (as well as his family).
The same division tends to be true in many homeless shelters today. There are very few intact or male-headed families in the shelters; most are women and children, and many (particularly those set up for victims of domestic violence) are officially non-male. (Thus perpetuating the false stereotype that domestic violence is primarily male-on-female violence, whereas in actuality it is about equally initiated as male-on-female and female-on-male.)
But a great many families today that are dependent on public assistance would recognize the pattern you mention as the norm even now.
Mod
..."
Things are entirely different now. There are many people on Welfare who own their own homes and live happily in them with their families. Obviously, this system is susceptible to abuse, which it receives its fair share of. This abuse of the system is exactly what the Board in the novel and the Act of 1834 in real life was intended to stop.
Here, it seems like there is a nationwide cry for welfare reform, which has been an ongoing battle for years. Taking into consideration the arguably heartless approach of the 1834 Poor Law, and watching as those on Welfare and government programs in this country are often 100-150 pounds overweight, do you think there might be a happy medium somewhere in between? Is it fair that those who do not work are able to eat and live just as well as those whose income they are grabbing a share of? Is it heartless to take a man's wife because he cannot pay his bills?
It is my opinion that if we reverted to the Old System here, and created workhouses for the poor, where they would be underfed, overworked, and separated from their families (which reminds me of what the Nazis did as soon as the trains arrived at the concentration camps), instead of free paychecks, comfortable homes, favorable bankruptcy laws, yada! yada! yada!, that we would see a whole slew of people all of sudden find themselves ready, willing, and able to find and perform gainful employment. This was the intention of the 1834 Act: to make conditions in the workhouses so unbearable that people would take responsibility for themselves. Unfortunately, they did not take into consideration the collateral damage which could and did occur. How does one determine who is needy and who is able-bodied and what should be done for the helpless?
I think the lesson of Oliver Twist, at least through this portion of the text, is that making things unbearable for all of the poor is not a sufficient solution to that question. Next, solution please!
Everyman wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Elisa wrote: "I'm definitely reading the revised version. Mine begins: "Among other public buildings in a certain town, which for many reasons it will be prudent to refrain from me..."I think it was fairly common for Dickens's first few novels to start as material intended to fill some narrative frame. The Old Curiosity Shop is another obvious example since it starts with a first-person-narrator, who meets the main characters and then is suddenly dropped completely from the story. This is because the novel originally appeared in a weekly serial written by Dickens, which was called Master Humphrey's Clock. Here Master Humphrey, surrounded by his friends, reads out stories the manuscripts of which he stores in his clock. - But Dickens soon decided to get rid of first-person-narrator, Mr. Humphrey, and to write from an omniscient narrator's point of view.
This shows that Dickens's first novels were anything but carefully planned, they just developed in the process of being written - that's probably why Jonathan could spot so many rookie mistakes in his edition. I mean Dickens was writing several things simultaneously, and was it not when he started Oliver Twist that he decided to resign his position as a reporter and make his living as a freelance novelist? He must surely have been under great pressure to write in order to earn his bread.
Elisa wrote: "I wonder if there's any chance that this relates to our earlier question of: what makes Oliver a good and innocent person when he's been brought up in such a squalid environment? Could it be that he was simply born a good and innocent person, and the influence of other people can't change that, just as he was born with a will to life, and the influence of other people wasn't needed to get him breathing?"I think this is a very convincing way of reading this little passage that is equally critical of medical science and a family's over-excited attentions to a newborn baby. One could even go as far as to say that Oliver mirrors Dickens's belief in man's actual goodness, which he must have entertained as a social reformer. So on the one hand, Oliver serves as a composite in order to show all the abuses that parish children were subject to at that time, and on the other hand he seems to embody the principle of humanity being good in its core.
That said, however, I would like to point out what another of my favourite authors, Joseph Conrad, once said: Half of a book is with the author, the other half is with the reader. So maybe, when writing the chapter, Dickens was just in a satirical mood and that's why he added this very quirky side blow at doctors and relatives. We should not forget that Dickens probably had only a very general idea of what was going to happen when he was writing these first chapters. After all he was still writing on his Pickwick Papers simultaneously, and he had to have his instalments ready at a certain date. So these novels were not as carefully planned as his later works.
But still, I think it is wonderful to see how it all falls into place, and even if he may not necessarily have intended it to be read that way, the fact that we are stimulated into thought by passages like this one shows what a great experience reading a novel like Oliver Twist and sharing it with like-minded people is. This is Dickens: Writing what was also regarded as entertainment and yet giving it all a sub-text that is complex enough to have people discuss it centuries later.
Jonathan wrote: "Finally, I must say that I was outraged at the two rules imposed by the Board, which may be the actual villain so far in this book. First of all, after having decided that life in the workhouse was..."What Dickens wrote here is still gruesomely true of public discussions in present-day Germany. Luckily, we have moved away from the view that people being provided with their daily necessities should depend on charity; instead there are social rights granted by the state. However, certain people still tend to think that the social security system encourages scrounging and the tendency to remain idle. Thus unemployment can be presented as a personal failure rather than an insufficiency of, let's say, globalization. What can a person do if jobs are, for instance, transferred into low-wage-countries?
We have these terribly insipid and at the same time perfidious afternoon talkshows where, from time to time, they put up these glib scroungers that do exist but that are in no way representative of unemployed people, and they say: Why should I work, if I can get by living on dole money? - The idea behind it is, I think, to alienate people with jobs from unemployed people so that they do not notice that the problem of poverty is part of the system and that they would applaud politicians for curtailing social benefits.
As one can see, Dickens still has a lot to say to people of our time.
Adam wrote: "That is a very interesting point. Was it perhaps his inexperience in working with these attributes that made him polarise them in the way that he did for this story? "Hmmm, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, Adam. Do you want to say that Dickens's inexperience led him to put up the rather shaky equation of rich and vile on the one hand, and poor and noble on the other?
Adam wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Can anyone offer a satisfactory explanation as to why this was changed. It says here "which for many reasons it will be prudent to refrain from mentioning". What were the real reas..."Thanks for providing this link. I'd think there might be several motives on Dickens's part for having removed the name Mudfog from the book version of Oliver Twist. For starters, I would like to support Elisa's view - or was it someone else who came up with it? - that by leaving the town nameless Dickens was able to increase the critical impact of his novel, i.e. he criticized the Poor Law in general, not the way it was actually enforced in a particular town. Secondly the name Mudfog is anything but flattering, reeking of ignorance (fog) and filth and corruption (mud), especially if set in connection with such a big question as the Poor Law. Maybe Dickens did not want to carry his point about Chatham too far, as more astute readers would have been able to identify Mudfog as Chatham, and risk incurring the wrath of the inhabitants of that city for no special reason. After all, why should Dickens alienate a part of his readership without really making a point?
Oliver Twist was born into misery and it looks like he was born for misery. He was born to be despised. Tell me what have a nine year done to evoked such hate and jealousy from the people around him.The first seven chapters are an account of one of the saddest I have ever read. I want to jump in the novel, take that cane from Mr. Bumble to thrash him and everyone else who harm my Oliv.
Very few person cared for the orphans including the church folks who were glad to get any of them off the church hands. Imagine deliberately starving children because they are poor. It looks like to be poor was a disease.
Mod
I largely base my ratings on here, on whether I wanted to jump into a book or not, at some point. It doesn't necessarily matter if it would be to help someone, to meet someone, or just because whatever they happen to be doing is so much better than what I happen to be doing (such as reading). Although, there are just a few of things I would enjoy more than a good story or a well written book.
I find it interesting that someone else wanted to jump in this book. This may have been the only one of Dickens' books which I did not find realistic enough to feel invited. That's probably why I gave it 3* instead of the usual 4*. But, I do find it humorous that someone else things of getting in a book and taking part in the events as they unfold. What a novel idea!
Mod
Yeah, that would be horrible. It should be unthinkable. Even holding back part of their sixpence half-penny per week for personal gain is outrageous. These are most likely exaggerations. Some of this stuff such as the separation of the husbands and wives as if they had arrived at Auschwitz instead of a workhouse actually happened and there was no need to exaggerate.
I should think that most of the social workers, as we would call them nowadays, actually entered that field or took that position to help the poor, needy, and orphaned. Mrs. Mann and Mr. Bumble are obvious exaggerations, which probably led people to overact to this novel. But, I do think there were many problems that needed to be dealt with and Dickens did what it took to start a wave of reform on how the Victorians dealt with the poor.
Jonathan wrote: "Marren wrote: "Imagine deliberately starving children because they are poor. It looks like to be poor was a disease."Yeah, that would be horrible. It should be unthinkable. Even holding back part..."
Maybe one has to take into account the principles of utilitarianism in order to understand the tenets of the Poor Law at that time. According to Jeremy Bentham, man's actions are governed by the will to avoid pain and the strife for pleasure, and the government's task was to increase the benefits of society by punishing and rewarding people according to their actions. Putting this together, people at that time might have thought: We have to see to it that unemployment and poverty will not coincide with pleasure by making social welfare disagreeable to its recipients, thus instigating them to find themselves work as quickly as possible. I don't know if Dickens had utilitarianism in mind here, but he constantly talks about Philosophers in this context so that he might well be aiming at Bentham and others here.
Even in this respect, the novel is still of relevance today, because I have the impression in Germany citizens are more and more subject to what I would call Behütungsterror, i.e. the terror of protection, what with bans on smoking, the proliferation of Political Correctness, and all sorts of ways in which the State tries to meddle with people's private lives. I would strongly reject the notion of the State having the right to educate people or even the duty of keeping them from harming themselves, its sole function being to keep them from harming each other and to guarantee civil rights. But that's a horse of a different colour, as my old English teacher used to say.
Marren wrote: "Oliver Twist was born into misery and it looks like he was born for misery. He was born to be despised. Tell me what have a nine year done to evoked such hate and jealousy from the people around hi..."I can imagine how you feel, even if Oliver himself hardly rouses any feelings in me since he is so pale a character. When it comes to jumping into a novel - a very nice idea, actually - I'd jump into Pickwick Papers and take part in its conviviality ;-)
Mod
That seems to sum up what they were actually trying to do pretty vividly. Obviously, Dickens was opposing this with his pen. It seems as though because he was coming from a poor background, as his father was laden with debts, and he had to work in awful circumstances, which we are seeing Oliver go through as well, that he has taken the side of those who are in rightful need of assistance but are unable to satisfactorily get it. Rather than, and I think it would be interesting to read a work along this line, an author taking sides with the new system and showing us the merits of making life miserable for those who are just out for a free ride. I do not agree that this would be the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, but I would be interested in reading a different viewpoint, nonetheless. Maybe have the orphan take advantage of the system and live an extravagant lifestyle on the government's and the parish's dime, and plead the case of the 1834 Act. (By the way, you speak English remarkably well. It is your second language?)
Mod
That's where we agree. I gave that 5 stars because I so wanted to join in on the fun, become a member of the first Pickwick Club, and follow the illustrious gentleman and his fellow observers around 19th Century England and see the sites. My word! that book was fun and about ten times better than I originally thought it would be!
Jonathan wrote: "Tristram wrote: "We have to see to it that unemployment and poverty will not coincide with pleasure by making social welfare disagreeable to its recipients, thus instigating them to find themselves..."Given the realities of the Poor Law at that time it would probably have been extremely difficult for an orphan to take advantage of the system and live an extravagant lifestyle at other people's costs, and that is maybe the reason why, to my knowledge, no author has written such a story.
(English is not my second language, but I have always been of the opinion that the most useful thing you can learn in school is languages, and therefore I was especially interested in languages. I also spent a year in England and am teaching English and History at school, but school English is often a long way from real English and that's why I'm avid for picking up idiomatic English wherever I can. - Besides I like English very much, because it has such a large vocabulary and the use of participles allows for a rather fluent syntax. German is very good as a scientific language, I think, because it allows you to express virtually anything in one single word. What I paraphrased as terror of protection in one of my earlier posts can be made into one word in German; Mark Twain and his essay on the terrible German language is not too far off the truth in that respect.)
Jonathan wrote: "Tristram wrote: "When it comes to jumping into a novel - a very nice idea, actually - I'd jump into Pickwick Papers and take part in its conviviality ;-) "That's where we agree. I gave that 5 sta..."
I have got that feeling about Pickwick Papers especially around Christmas time, thinking of the wonderful scenes at the Wardles' place.
Thinking of TV and films, I would also not mind jumping into Seinfeld from time to time, although I'm afraid I could not put up with George too long ;-) Another triumvirate I'd like to join is the Dude and his two chums in The Big Lebowski, and I'm afraid I would like to hang around with them for such a long time that I'd hardly be able to find my way out of that movie again.
Mod
Yes, I felt the same way about Seinfeld. It is very similar to The Pickwick Papers: a show about nothing; a book about observations. 1) Neither one was supposed to have much of a plot. 2) Four main characters not much engaged in the everyday rhetoric of life, and left to explore the intricacies of society, each one with their own quirkiness. 3) Both sets of characters wind up in prison.
I went to see Jason Alexander's stand-up show the other night. He talked a lot about Seinfeld. I had often wondered how much The Pickwick Papers influenced Larry David or Jerry Seinfeld. He made no mention of the Papers, but he did say that Larry David kept a notebook of observations on every thing that happened to him, and that a lot of their bits came right out of that notebook. How Pickwickian!
Tristam wrote: "Another triumvirate I'd like to join is the Dude and his two chums in The Big Lebowski..."
I do not think I have seen that film. I should probably check it out.
Jonathan wrote: "Marren wrote: "Imagine deliberately starving children because they are poor. It looks like to be poor was a disease."Yeah, that would be horrible. It should be unthinkable. Even holding back part..."
" Mrs. Mann and Mr. Bumble are obvious exaggerations, which probably led people to overact to this novel."
Why do you describe them as obvious exaggeration? You believe people in their positions would not act the way they did?
Tristram wrote:I can imagine how you feel, even if Oliver himself hardly rouses any feelings in me since he is so pale a character. When it comes to jumping into a novel - a very nice idea, actually - I'd jump into Pickwick Papers and take part in its conviviality ;-) Are you one of the persons who are attracted only to bold, energetic or charismatic etc characters in a novel?
Oh I am always eager to jump into many novels I read. It is a old habit. haha
The Pickwick Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Oliver Twist (other topics)Oliver Twist (other topics)
The Merchant of Venice (other topics)
Our Mutual Friend (other topics)
Dickens and the Workhouse: Oliver Twist and the London Poor (other topics)
More...
