Oliver Twist: Chapters 9 - 17

[Sara]

I have at last caught up on both the story and reading the comments. I marked your quotation, Jean--wonderful, is it not? I also loved the observation that Grimwig, while not wishing anything ill on Brownlow, was so intent on being right that he could not help "most earnestly and strongly hope at that moment, that Oliver Twist might not come back." No thought to what it would mean to the boy not to "come back."

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

That's so true, Sara! I get the feeling that their relationship was an unequal one, and Mr. Brownlow must have put up with a lot from his friend.

I'm still thinking about his name: Brownlow. What is brown and also low? Roots, perhaps? Is he Oliver’s roots? And would this be metaphorical?

[Janelle]

Just back to the word ‘pilot’, I agree with Karin, it would be pilot of a ship. A pilot isn’t necessarily a member of the crew but someone who comes aboard to guide a ship through a particular area like a tricky coastline or coming into a port, something like that.

[Bridget]

I’m not sure which large tome Dickens had in mind, but I did notice he had Oliver wanting to be a “bookseller” and Mr Brownlow agreeing that was the better choice, perhaps a jab at Mr Bentley? I believe Jean has told us Dickens and Bentley were not getting along at this point of the story.

I also thought it was interesting that Mr Brownlow didn’t want to make a “coffin” of his heart. Coffins seem to pop up a lot near Oliver. Perhaps symbolizing how risky his life is as a malnourished, unloved orphan?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Janelle wrote: "Just back to the word ‘pilot’, I agree with Karin, it would be pilot of a ship. A pilot isn’t necessarily a member of the crew but someone who comes aboard to guide a ship through a particular area..."

What would be a pilot of a ship, Janelle?

We were talking about Mr. Grimwig's description:

"I know a friend who has a beef-faced boy; a fine boy, they call him; with a round head, and red cheeks, and glaring eyes; a horrid boy; with a body and limbs that appear to be swelling out of the seams of his blue clothes; with the voice of a pilot, and the appetite of a wolf. I know him! The wretch!”

I'm afraid I can't see how this could relate to someone steering a ship. Mr. Grimwig is hardly a sensible person to guide the way ... unless you think this boy would be?

No, I believe it is very probably just another rude comment by Mr. Grimwig on the boy's voice, which is like a fog horn, as Karin said. It would be very like Charles Dickens to choose this analogy, for for the specific reasons I gave.

[Janelle]

I’d imagine they’d have a loud voice :) but foghorn works too. But either way it’s not a whale.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

No, I think we got past that idea pretty quickly ...

I did say it was my best guess when Anna repeated her question, and nobody had come up with an annotated edition to explain. But as soon as Karin pointed out the pilot horn, that made far more sense. Think how often Charles Dickens uses ships and their equipment. He even had a whole shop of nautical equipment in Dombey and Son - and the real wooden midshipman still exists in London.

Because Charles Dickens was born in Portsmouth, he had a strong love of the sea, and sailing, and it stayed with him all his life.

Right it's well after midnight now, so that's all from me today!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Bridget wrote: "Coffins seem to pop up a lot near Oliver. Perhaps symbolizing how risky his life is as a malnourished, unloved orphan?..."

Excellent thought Bridget.

[Jim]

It seems to me that Dickens shows a bit of his relative inexperience as a novelist (and dramatist) from time to time. Isn't the closing of Chapter 14 (where the two old gentlemen essentially place a bet on whether Oliver can be trusted) a bit of dramatic overkill? We are being set up to expect Oliver to fail the test — especially knowing that Fagin's agents are sniffing around, intent upon re-capturing Oliver before he "peaches".

[Lee]

Message 178, Jean says... Is this like the Book of Job, where God is so sure of Job’s loyalty that he makes Job and his kin suffer all sorts of unpleasant things, just to prove to Satan that He knows Job better than Satan thinks? If this a good analogy, then Mr. Brownlow must represent God and Mr. Grimwig must represent his adversary, Satan.

Claudia makes some thoughtful observations about the Book of Job. Her quotes from the Bible are quite profound and relevant.

Jean has brought up a very interesting theory. It is true that the two men are observers of Oliver [Job], and both have opposite expectations of how he will handle his new freedom as he "gaily" turns the corner. Like God and Satan personified in The Book of Job, Mr. Brownlow and Mr. Grimwig are partners in observing from a distance whether or not Oliver will return. The difference is - we must assume an omniscient God will KNOW the future, whereas Mr. Brownlow is hoping for the best, and Mr. Grimwig is speculating the worst of all possible outcomes.

Thanks, Jean, for allowing me a space to insert some theological thoughts here, keeping in mind that The Book of Job, as Claudia points out, is very difficult to interpret.

God has not been introduced into this novel up to this point. The morality or lack thereof of the characters and the lack of social justice is highly developed, but I have not seen Dickens questioning the moral authority or justice of God. Mr. Grimwig is a cross and grumpy man but certainly not to be compared with Satan or any representation of the devil. And I don't view Mr. Brownlow as anything like God, either. I believe Dickens is addressing human weaknesses and human evil and greed, but is not questioning the justice of God.

For the Book of Job comparison to work, you would have to interject the divinity of a Supreme Being watching over the affairs of Mr. Brownlow or Oliver. I have not seen anything with this kind of theological import anywhere in Oliver Twist up to this point.

1) Mr. Brownlow is a good man but in no sense is he omnipotent. He has absolutely no powerover what happens to Oliver when Oliver walks out that door.

2) Mr. Brownlow is totally ignorant of the dangers which await Oliver on the street; he is not omniscient, and has no ability to foresee any problems for Oliver. He sits with Mr. Grimwig in front of his watch silently, clueless of what Oliver is about to encounter.

3) In the Book of Job, it is implied that Satan, a member of the Divine Council of the Old Testament (but not the Devil as we conceive him in the New Testament), is given permission by God to do whatever he wants to test Job. Satan is given power over "all that he has; only do not stretch out your hand against him!"Job 1:12b (New Revised Standard Version).

4) Mr. Grimwig is totally powerless to affect anything that will happen to Oliver. He simply made a gamble that Oliver would betray his trust. Beyond that, Grimwig is just an observer.

5) At this point, we certainly do not have Oliver complaining about his suffering or in any way thinking Mr. Brownlow might be the cause, whereas in the dialogues of Job Job’s friends certainly find fault with God’s justice.

I believe the most we can infer at this point is that Oliver is suffering far more than a little orphan boy should. Up to this point, Oliver perseveres in his innocence. Will that continue?

[Claudia]

Indeed "the Satan" (this could be according to some Jewish exegesis the most appropriate translation) appears in the first two or three chapters of the Book of Job. In Hebrew it means the Accuser or Prosecutor (as a member of the Divine Council indeed). As I hinted at Job 1:12 it is basically what I said above (Satan is allowed to test Job). Thanks Lee for quoting the verse.

Job is taken everything including his children and his health but he struggles on, and survives when he acknowledges deep inside, almost viscerally, his unwavering faith in God the creator of all things. Some Jewish comments on this may differ strongly (somewhere in the Talmudic book of Brakhot, comments from Nachmanides, one book recently written by an Isabelle Cohen, etc etc) from the Christian ones. But I think both Jewish and Christian interpretations agree with the gist of it, I tried to convey a few lines above. In my comments much earlier I quoted the "denouement" crucial verse from the King James version.

Anyway the Book of Job is perhaps the most atypical in the whole Bible, but it comes up quite often in literature (quoted and hinted at by Mrs Gaskell in North and South), thus triggering some additional, almost Talmudic, discussions.

[Lee]

Claudia says:But I think both Jewish and Christian interpretations agree with the gist of it. . .

Absolutely, I agree with you. My point was simply I didn't think the scene in Chapter 14 evoked a true comparison to the Book of Job.

Job 42:5 NKJV. “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You." Stunning quote from you, thank you.

[Claudia]

Indeed Lee! Jean provided us an opportunity to have one more look into the Book of Job and reflect to what extent Mr Brownlow's discussion with Mr Grimwig could be - or could not be - reminiscent of the Book of Job.
Thank you for your interesting contribution!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Lee G wrote: "I didn't think the scene in Chapter 14 evoked a true comparison to the Book of Job."

"I believe Dickens is addressing human weaknesses and human evil and greed, but is not questioning the justice of God.

Yes, I think you're absolutely right Lee, and thank you for your comprehensively argued explanation. Thank you too Claudia, for looking at the Jewish perspective on this. These are great insights 😊

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Jim wrote: "It seems to me that Dickens shows a bit of his relative inexperience as a novelist ... We are being set up to expect Oliver to fail the test — especially knowing that Fagin's agents are sniffing around, intent upon re-capturing Oliver before he "peaches"."

We are, yes, and you're right that it perhaps isn't as subtle as the later Charles Dickens would have made it ... but it is melodramatic, isn't it? And he knew his audience would love these "thrills and spills" after all his pontificating about the Poor Law and the philosophers.

I keep in my mind that at this point in his life, Charles Dickens was still thinking in a journalistic way, as he was still writing for the newspapers a mere few months earlier.

Thanks for bringing this up, Jim.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Chapter 15:

The scene is a pub “in the filthiest part of Little Saffron Hill; a dark and gloomy den, where a flaring gas-light burnt all day in the winter-time; and where no ray of sun ever shone in the summer”



"Bill Sikes and Bullseye" - Fred Barnard 1912

Bill Sikes is angry and takes it out on his dog “with a kick and a curse, bestowed upon the dog simultaneously”, whereupon the dog, although clearly used to this treatment, sinks its teeth into Sikes’s leg. Things escalate until Bill Sikes is threatening the dog with a poker and a clasp-knife, when fortuitously Fagin enters, with a humble air. Sikes, still enraged, tells Fagin he has got the upper hand over him, but Fagin calmly replies that they have a mutual interest.

“It’s all passed safe through the melting-pot,”

Fagin has fenced their latest haul, and gives Sikes his part of the proceeds, which he pretends is more than his share, but Sikes tells him to stop talking nonsense:

“Stow that gammon” and tells Fagin to ring for the innkeeper. Another Jewish man called Barney younger than Fagin, but nearly as vile and repulsive in appearance” and talking through his nose, answers the summons. Sikes demands to see Nancy, who is also there.

Nancy comes over, fed up with her job as lookout at Pentonville, and tells Fagin that Oliver has been sick in bed. She would have carried on, but a look from Fagin silences her.

As Nancy and Bill leave to hunt for Oliver, Fagin:

“shook his clenched fist; muttered a deep curse; and then, with a horrible grin, reseated himself at the table; where he was soon deeply absorbed in the interesting pages of the Hue-and-Cry.”

Meanwhile Oliver is making his way to the bookseller, lost in memories of his workhouse friend Dick. He is startled to be grabbed by a young woman, and it takes him a while to recognise her as Nancy. She has thrown her arms around him, crying out that Oliver is her brother, who ran away, breaking their parents’ hearts.

Bill Sikes appears, grabs the boy, and snatches the books out of his arms, accusing Oliver of stealing them.



"Oliver claimed by his affectionate friends" - George Cruikshank 1837



"Oliver Trapped by Nancy and Sikes" - Harry Furniss

Egged on by several bystanders, Bill doles out some punishing blows and calls on his dog Bull’s-eye to guard the boy.

“Weak with recent illness; stupified by the blows and the suddenness of the attack; terrified by the fierce growling of the dog, and the brutality of the man; overpowered by the conviction of the bystanders that he really was the hardened little wretch he was described to be; what could one poor child do!”

Nobody cares about Oliver, and he is dragged off along the winding labyrinth of dark narrow streets.

And back in Pentonville, night has fallen, and Mr. Brownlow’s household wait in vain for Oliver’s return.

This cliffhanger ends installment 7

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

My goodness, we need to take a breath here, as our worst fears have now come true, as Jim indicated.

We have gone from one extreme to the other. Fagin seems to be becoming increasingly villainous! The beginning of chapter 15 is particularly powerful, with the vile inn, and the vicious bully, Bill Sikes in a terrible fight with his dog. The way Bill Sikes brutalises his dog is heartbreaking, and I think Fred Barnard has captured this perfectly. (We know he was an excellent illustrator of Charles Dickens's novels, but this is the only one I can find for Oliver Twist, except for a colourised version of the same image. It’s possible he did more character studies.) Don’t you think this captures their relationship perfectly?

This scene could be read symbolically. It shows how extremely brutal and primitive Bill Sikes is, since we are told that the dog is also aggressive, barking and growling (as we would expect!) so that the reader gains the impression of two beasts fighting each other.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Concidences

Sometimes Dickens is criticised for his use of coincidence.

When Oliver dashes out to the bookseller, books and money in hand, it is an unplanned outing; moreover, he takes a wrong turn. Nancy and Bill Sikes cannot know where Oliver will be, yet he runs straight into them. We may notice several more coincidences in Oliver Twist. These coincidences may seem hard to believe, but without them the story could not move forward, and it is an age-old device.

Deus ex machina (Latin: “god from the machine”) has been around since the time of Ancient Greek and Roman theatre. It is when a person or thing that appears or is introduced into a situation suddenly and unexpectedly, and provides an artificial or contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty. Chris mentioned this earlier.

Even though Oliver Twist is a realistic novel with important subject matter, the use of coincidence was typical of Victorian novels.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

The Mob Mentality

Did the second part of this chapter remind you of when Oliver was captured once before, (when Dodger and Bates pickpocketed Mr. Brownlow’s handkerchief, and Oliver made a run for it) and sent to court?

Claudia did a great analysis of the mob mentality in chapter 10, commenting on how effective repeating the phrase “Stop Thief!” over several paragraphs was, and pointing up the changes in tenses and sense of immediacy. Today’s section is not in the present tense, but has the same feel. In chapter 10, people kept joining the mob, having no idea who they were chasing or why, and now people are all too keen to believe the worst of Oliver, with no proof either way.

Both of these are interesting commentaries on human nature, and the mob or follower mentality. They demonstrate how the real thieves and manipulators, such as Dodger and Charley Bates, or Bill Sikes and Nancy (the stooge in this case), can make use of the rising tide of passions, stirring up an indignant mob, and suddenly seem to be on the right side of justice and the law.

As Charles Dickens said earlier: “There is a passion for hunting something deeply implanted in the human breast.”

In today’s chapter 15, as well as the human desire for hunting Charles Dickens could also be thinking of another human desire: that of feeling moral outrage. When Nancy and Bill Sikes pretend that Oliver has run away from his family, the bystanders immediately side with Nancy against Oliver. They intimidate him and voice their indignation without really knowing anything about the case.

Even if Nancy were his real sister, Oliver could have had a good reason for running away. He might have been cruelly treated, or subjected to domestic violence, but the mores of the time mean that the bystanders are egging Bill Sikes on to be more violent. They are single-minded in their own moral righteousness, so sure in their own minds that Nancy and Sikes are acting within their rights, that these two are able to deliberately make use of this moral indignation, in order to kidnap Oliver in broad daylight.

It’s easy to think of examples today, where people are whipped up into this kind of moral indignation, and the comforting feeling of being part of a group of people who claim they are on the right side. Whenever anyone manages to arouse people’s moral feelings, they stand a high chance of winning an argument, even though they don’t make any sort of case, or know how to argue properly. Facts and logic are thrown out of the window.

This happens time and time again throughout history, and Charles Dickens has captured it perfectly and with great drama. His insights and observations of human nature continue to astonish me!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

And a little more …

The Hue and Cry

Bill Sikes and Nancy leave Fagin reading the “Hue-and-Cry” in the Cripples inn. It was published weekly, from the late 18th century until 1839, 2 years after this installment. The actual name of this newspaper was the “Police Gazette”, but it had originally been called the “Public Hue and Cry”. Every Saturday it was sent by the Bow Street magistrates’ court to mayors, magistrates, court clerks, prison officials, police and military officers, and other officials throughout the United Kingdom concerned with law and policing. The “Gazette” contained information about the criminals, including details about convicts on parole, wanted foreigners, military deserters, and the activities and locations of criminals. It also provided follow-ups on criminals it had previously listed, and advertisements offering rewards for the recapture of slaves who had escaped their masters.

Why can Fagin be so interested in this “Hue and Cry” newspaper?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

And yet a little more …

The end of Publication Troubles?

You can see from the original publishing schedule (my comment 4) that there was no issue for October 1837, so there was a gap of two whole months! Charles Dickens was by now in a serious dispute with his publisher Charles Bentley. His friend John Forster had done his best to help resolve the situation, and now his illustrator George Cruikshank was trying to mediate too.

There was no installment of Oliver Twist at all for September 1837, and on 16th September Charles Dickens threatened to resign the editorship of “Bentley’s Miscellany” completely. For a while it looked as if this was as much of Oliver Twist as anyone would ever read! But on 28th September Charles Bentley backed down, and signed a revised contract, agreeing to give Charles Dickens £500 extra for each of the two novels he was under contract to write.

In the meantime, during September Charles Dickens "came out" as it were, announcing to the public that he was the real "Boz". So far, his public had been reading ”The Parish Boy’s Progress by Boz“, and from now on they (and we) will be reading "Oliver Twist, or The Parish Boy’s Progress" by Charles Dickens.

The final installment of Charles Dickens’s first serial novel, The Pickwick Papers was now published. If you have an early edition, you may see that the title is “The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club by Boz”, just as his first works were called Sketches by Boz.

You may remember that so far Charles Dickens had been writing and publishing both serials each month—writing Oliver Twist in the first two weeks and getting some comic relief with The Pickwick Papers in the second. The The Pickwick Papers had been published as a monthly serial since March 1836. When we read, we think of them consecutively, but they were not written like that.

Now Charles Dickens had to reread the first few chapters of Oliver Twist, to remind himself of what had happened, but at least he had a bit of a breather before February, when his next serial Nicholas Nickleby was due to start. On the other hand, he was still immersed in his other projects, such as Sketches of Young Gentlemen and Memoirs of Joseph Grimaldi. And he had to suddenly switch from thinking he was writing just a few episodes to continue the Mudfog stories, to developing ”The Parish Boy’s Progress” into a full novel!

This, plus the earlier break when Mary Hogarth died, were to be the only time in his entire life that Charles Dickens ever missed a deadline.

Phew!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

The next issue of Oliver Twist, rescued from oblivion, was installment 8, in October 1837. So in view of these delays, we will have two days free, before we move on to chapter 16, on Thursday.

[Kathleen]

No comments yet? Guess I'll go first.

I have to say all this “the Jew” stuff is getting old and starting to grate on me. We've got it--can we just call him Fagin?

Sikes is a forever bad guy in my eyes now--irredeemable because of his treatment of his dog.

And yes, mob mentality is still alive and well, as is not believing the victim. It seems we (the mob) still take the easy way out always, letting our stereotypes do the deciding for us, rather than doing the work to find out what is true. I agree Dickens has created a wonderful dramatization here of this sad truth!

It’s funny, thinking of Deus ex machina, I realize it bothers me a lot more when writers use it to create a happy resolution than to create an unhappy one. Maybe because “the bad stuff is easier to believe.”

The publication info really adds a special layer to this read--thank you so much, Jean!

[Jim]

Why can Fagin be so interested in this “Hue and Cry” newspaper?

He wants to make sure his name doesn't appear!
It might also be worth his while to spot any the names of any other persons (friend or foe) in case there happened to be a reward offered. he wouldn't want to miss a chance of profiting by selling one of them out — as he has been expecting Oliver to have done! There is surely no 'honor among thieves'!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Kathleen wrote: "I have to say all this “the Jew” stuff is getting old and starting to grate on me. We've got it--can we just call him Fagin?..."

Sorry Kathleen, but if you are reading an early edition then you won't notice a difference until chapter 38! Charles Dickens then halted the printing of Oliver Twist, and changed the text for the parts of the book that had not been set.

I've talked a little about the reasons, and will come back to this again, but I'm afraid you are in for the lang haul! It might help to remember that this was a real person. Think of it like saying "the boy" for Oliver, or "the kind gentleman" for Mr. Brownlow (or indeed "the merry old gentleman" for Fagin!)

I know it grates though 😣 Charles Dickens uses "the Jew" 274 times to start with in the serial. Then during his lifetime he made more and more revisions to the book editions, and in the final edition in 1867, he replaced most of the references to "the Jew" with "Fagin", or "he".

You could try to get hold of a later edition - but otherwise I'm afraid there is not much point objecting! I expect we all feel like this. I'm so glad you're enjoying the read otherwise though 😊

"I realize it bothers me a lot more when writers use [Deus ex machina] to create a happy resolution than to create an unhappy one" That's fascinating, Kathleen! Perhaps it means you don't really believe it, as it seems too good to be true?

[Kathleen]

Bionic Jean wrote: "I know it grates though 😣 Charles Dickens uses "the Jew" 274 times to start with in the serial. Then during his lifetime he made more and more revisions to the book editions, and in the final edition in 1867, he replaced most of the references to "the Jew" with "Fagin", or "he"."

Oh my goodness--274 times! That's almost funny. Well I can take it, and I am enjoying it otherwise. :-)

"I realize it bothers me a lot more when writers use it to create a happy resolution than to create an unhappy one" That's fascinating! Perhaps it means you don't really believe it, as it seems too good to be true?

Yes, I think that's it exactly. I'm a negative Nellie I suppose!

[Karin]

Janelle wrote: "I’d imagine they’d have a loud voice :) but foghorn works too. But either way it’s not a whale."

Ship horns are very loud no matter what they sound like, even antique ones. Most people don't realize that the pilot whale is misnamed, and it's unlikely the boy sounded like a dolphin.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Jim wrote: "[Fagin] wouldn't want to miss a chance of profiting by selling one of them out..."

Yes, we're beginning to see just how manipulative he is, aren't we! Good thoughts ... I wonder if there are any more possibilities!

Any more thoughts about this installment Jim?

[Chris]

Chap 14 Bionic Jean wrote: Then today in chapter 14, Mr. Brownlow says: “I have been deceived, before, … but I feel strongly disposed to trust you, nevertheless; and I am more interested in your behalf than I can well account for, even to myself. The persons on whom I have bestowed my greatest love, lie deep in their graves; but although the happiness and delight of my life lie buried there, too, I have not made a coffin of my heart”

I'm so glad you pulled out this quote and the one following. Mr. Brownlow's words really moved me and I also continue to wonder about the connection. I wasn't convinced that the portrait was removed because they thought it was upsetting to Oliver. I think it was upsetting to Mr. Brownlow & his wounded heart to see the resemblance between the woman in the portrait & Oliver.

I found Mr. Grimwig to be quite the humorous character and once again Dickens balances the thoughts of Mr. Brownlow and Oliver which are weighted with emotion with an eccentric funny character.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I'm looking forward to the thoughts of those who haven't commented for a few days ...

and also those who pick up on further details in the extra information - not one person has mentioned the nursery rhyme nonsense! Or the illustrations. Or how Charles Dickens starts to develop his characters - Nancy and Fagin are both changing as we read. Let's have more on his developing style too, and the social conditions ...

It seems a good time to also say please let's not get stuck on detail, which diverts the thread and means some people can't read it all, but focus, as I asked in the tips. Most of you do this beautifully, and it really enriches our read. Thank you!

We have two days to think about what we have read so far, and the extra information posts. There are so many topics, and so many people following this thread (at least 79). Let's hear from you! 😊

[Chris]

Sue wrote: I was disappointed that Oliver didn’t have his opportunity to tell his story due to Mr. Grimwig’s arrival. I have a feeling that will be important.

I felt the same way!!
Also knowing that Nancy & Sikes were on hunt for Oliver, I was saying to myself, "No, no; let someone else take the books back!!!!

[Sara]

Just a couple of thoughts. One is that the use of the picture is a device we have seen in our other reads of Dickens. Even in such an early work, he is already putting in visuals for both us and the characters. The picture seems to me a wonderful way to have a character there, who isn't there.

And, on Fagin...isn't it sad that the general attitude of the public and the law toward these children makes them ripe for picking by Fagin. He seems almost a kindness to them, despite his sinister motives and his willingness to exploit them to the point of risking their lives, he is a source of food, shelter and companionship to them. More than Oliver got in the workhouse.

[Michael]

The rendering of Nancy in the two illustrations is interesting because of how physically unappealing she is. The text seems to present Nancy as a young woman but both artists age her. The two artists go opposite ways with Nancy's face; Cruikshank's fatness v. Furniss' angular, and masculine countenance. Furniss seems to use the template of how witches were portrayed.

In either case, these ugly portrayals of Nancy show the linkage society placed, going back to the Classical Greeks, between physical beauty and goodness. Within the Victorian context, given women from lower socioeconomic strata often showed the physical strain and injuries from their lives it was Middle Class and higher women who were held out as standards of beauty and goodness. One might add the popularity of physiognomy
and phrenology in linking physical traits to personality.

One just needs to compare how the righteous women in say "Bleak House" are illustrated.

[Sue]

This was such a short chapter. Dickens really knows how to leave us hooked. I can’t imagine waiting two months to see what happens to Oliver. And I at least have almost two centuries of the novel’s history to ease my mind a little bit as to whether he will live or die right away.

[Greg]

One thing that struck me about this chapter is the accidental complicity of the bystanders in the kidnapping; by their assumptions (which as Jean says has everything to do with the social mores of the time), the bystanders are doing real harm. I wonder if this was a way to challenge his readers, who existed within the same mores and social structures to question their own assumptions? Readers after all are another sort of bystander to the action.

Anyway, even in a very different set of modern mores, I felt a little convicted by it, across a lapse of a century of time! Some aspects of human nature seem immutable.

But mostly, I just felt sorry for Mr Brownlow waiting in the dark for Oliver's return, and Oliver too, who wanted so, so badly to prove Mr Brownlow right in the trust he granted him. 😥 I pretty much guessed something like this would happen, but it was like watching a movie between my fingers, waiting for what I dreaded to come to pass!

Thanks also for the insight into "Hue and Cry." I had no idea what that was all about, but now it makes sense.

[Connie]

I'm even more worried about Oliver now that Bill Sikes has entered the story. He was beating his dog for no reason, but the dog was strong enough to fight back. People who torment animals will do the same thing to humans. Gentle, sickly Oliver is no match for Sikes who seems much worse than Fagin.

[Karin]

Michael wrote: "In either case, these ugly portrayals of Nancy show the linkage society placed, going back to the Classical Greeks, between physical beauty and goodness. Within the Victorian context, given women from lower socioeconomic strata often showed the physical strain and injuries from their lives it was Middle Class and higher women who were held out as standards of beauty and goodness. One might add the popularity of physiognomy
and phrenology in linking physical traits to personality. ."


Excellent points. There were attractive women in the lower socioeconomic strata who didn't age as quickly, of course, but that would never do for this book, now, would it? I think the aging is a bit overdone for dramatic effect, but then I'm not fond of many illustrations from this era due to the style of the times.

I realize it's wrong in a number of ways, but as I may have mentioned early on, I tend to picture the characters as the actors from the film Oliver! from 1968 since I used to see that on TV. This also spoiled this book for me the first time I read it, and I'm finding it a better book this time around because I've lost those rose coloured spectacles.

[Lori]

Jean, you mention that Dickens chose to reveal his work as Boz as his own during this period while he was writing Oliver Twist. I have always wondered why he chose to use a pseudonym at the start of his career rather than just his name? Surely it wasn’t a confidence issue as he was a journalist and knew he could write. Was it more because he was writing fiction now and wanted to give it a try to see how successful he could be with it before revealing himself? This is a curious idea for writers and I understand it helps them when they want to try something different than their usual fare.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Why "Boz"?

Lori wrote: "Jean, you mention that Dickens chose to reveal his work as Boz as his own during this period while he was writing Oliver Twist. I have always wondered why he chose to use a pseudonym at the start of his career rather than just his name?..."

That's a very good question, Lori! Actually when Charles Dickens was older and commissioned other authors to write for "All the Year Round", he rarely allowed them to be attributed, preferring to keep them as in-house authors (even if they were - or went on to be - exceptional authors such as Elizabeth Gaskell or Wilkie Collins). So he clearly had a preference for keeping this information secret in some circumstances. What he said about other authors was that it would give them more control, and be able to sell their stories elsewhere.

I also think it was part of his quirkiness. We know Charles Dickens was a bit of a dandy, and flamboyant. He also liked to joke.

You probably know the story, that "Boz" derived from his younger brother's nickname. Augustus Dickens was called "Moses," which he pronounced "Boses," and this was then shortened to "Boz" (pronounced "boze"). Charles Dickens first used this in 1834 (3 years earlier than Oliver Twist) as his pen name when he began publishing the popular Sketches by Boz, and jokingly added the word "Inimitable".

Then Hablot Knight Browne came into his life in 1836, when Charles Dickens was looking for someone to illustrate The Pickwick Papers. His first two etchings for The Pickwick Papers were signed "Nemo", so evidently Hablot Knight Browne wanted a pseudonym too. Together they chose "Phiz" to complement "Boz".

But Hablot Knight Browne did not illustrate Oliver Twist - that was George Cruikshank as we know. So for just over 2 years - the run of the Oliver Twist serial - there was no Phiz to harmonise with Boz. Perhaps this fed into his decision to drop it at that point too. It happened exactly at the time when he decided to make Oliver Twist into a novel.

Also, although Charles Dickens liked the stylishness, perhaps when he was in dispute with Charles Bentley it was better not to be anonymous in any way, but to make that direct connection. He was becoming well known, and this would be a way of ensuring public support.

So "Boz" was dropped, and Charles Dickens went by "The Inimitable." In fact we read in The Life of Charles Dickens: The Illustrated Edition quite a few letters he had sent to John Forster, where he refers to himself as "The Inimitable", even many years later.

Perhaps he simply felt that "Boz" had served its purpose, over 3 years. It's a trigger - a fun, easy name to remember for when he was getting established as a writer, rather than a reporter. But now the name of Charles Dickens was increasingly on everyone's lips, he had no more need of "Boz". And as himself, Charles Dickens could follow all the other social projects that were so dear to him.

I think your theory is consistent with all this, and valid too 😊 Thanks Lori!

[Greg]

I do love the illustration by Fred Barnard - it's so beautifully rendered, and it's heartbreaking the way the dog is cringing away as far as he can, almost trapped by the wall.

I think I'm drawn to the illustrations that are less of caricatures, even though I know from your prior posts that Dickens liked caricatures himself and dictated quite closely how many of the illustrations were done. That's just a matter of my personal taste.

[Beth]

Back to Ch 14 briefly, regarding Mr. Grimwig: of the Bleak House characters, he reminds me most of Mr. Turveydrop, with his petty grievances against the surgeon and/or his assistant, and his over-the-top exclamations ("I'll eat my head!" in his case), and his friendship with another, older male character.

I can see a couple of reasons why Mr. Grimwig treats Oliver with distrust. First of all, since the narration itself describes him as enjoying being contrary, he'll disagree with Mr. Brownlow simply so he has an opportunity to bicker with him. Second, Brownlow says to Oliver, "I have been deceived, before, in the objects whom I have endeavoured to benefit". It's quite possible that Grimwig would have known about one of these instances of deception, and contradicts Brownlow in an attempt to protect him from disappointment in case Oliver decides to steal from him and run away.

So I see him as more of a genial character than some others do. He's certainly not as villainous as some of the others that we've seen so far.

[Petra]

I've now caught up with both reading the book and the comments. I'm so happy to be reading this story with the insights and thoughts of everyone.

Jean, thank you for the explanation of The Hue & Cry. It makes a lot of sense now, knowing the contents of the publication, about why Fagin would have been so interested in it. It would be like a summary about what's going on in his world and gives him a feel for the activities & locations of the "action" in his neighbourhood, as well as who was caught and how. It's almost like having a bit of a blueprint for where to put his boys into action in the safest way possible (in terms of being caught).

I was heartbroken that Oliver ran into Sikes and Nancy. That poor child can't get a break. I also feel badly for Mr. Brownlow. He's been hurt by deceit before; he'll surely feel that Oliver has deceived him. This will be a blow for him, for sure.

So far, this story contains a lot of hurt people: Mr. Brownlow, Oliver but also the criminals. Fagin, Bill, Nancy, The Dodger, Charley. All of them have been hurt by someone at some time to have fallen into the situation they find themselves in.

[Bridget]

Petra wrote: "Fagin, Bill, Nancy, The Dodger, Charley. All of them have been hurt by someone at some time to have fallen into the situation they find themselves in"

Petra, I like that thought. Its true and a very kind way to see those characters. Bill Sikes still scares me.

Beth, I agree with your view of Grimwig. It's totally plausible (to me) that he was trying to protect Mr. Brownlow's feelings. I think also that Dickens is using Mr. Grimlow as a proxy character for how many people of his class truly felt about the poor and indigent.

[Petra]

Bridget, Bill Sikes does seem like the worst right now. Some people, when hurt and damaged, go to the dark side and never return. ....But Dickens believes in redemption, so it is possible that Sikes will turn out better than he seems. He's in a bad place now, though. I hate the way he treats his poor dog. People can leave him, but his dog has nowhere else to go.

[Bridget]

Petra wrote: "Bridget, Bill Sikes does seem like the worst right now. Some people, when hurt and damaged, go to the dark side and never return. ....But Dickens believes in redemption, so it is possible that Sike..."

Yes, the poor dog (Bullseye) breaks my heart. (I'm very partial to dogs, like so many others here). And you are so right about Dickens believing in redemption. We've seen that so many times. Good point.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I've really enjoyed reading all these thoughts. Thanks all!

Time now to imagine that two months have passed, and we are able to read the next chapter ...

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Chapter 16:

Bill Sikes and Nancy drag Oliver through the streets as fast as they can, until they get to the cattle market:



"Sikes, Nancy, and Oliver Twist" - Felix Octavius Carr Darley 1888

“It was Smithfield that they were crossing, although it might have been Grosvenor Square, for anything Oliver knew to the contrary. The night was dark and foggy. The lights in the shops could scarcely struggle through the heavy mist, which thickened every moment and shrouded the streets and houses in gloom; rendering the strange place still stranger in Oliver’s eyes; and making his uncertainty the more dismal and depressing.”

Bill Sikes eggs Bullseye on to guard Oliver aggressively, and Oliver realises it is impossible to get away, and has no idea where he is.

Eventually they arrive at Fagin’s back-up place, and are greeted by someone in the dark:

“Let’s have a glim,” [light] said Sikes, “or we shall go breaking our necks, or treading on the dog. Look after your legs if you do!”

A candle reveals that it is Dodger, and Charles Bates is there too. Oliver is taken to Fagin:



Oliver's reception by Fagin and the boys" - George Cruikshank 1837

and Fagin and Bill Sikes argue about who shall have what: the money, Oliver’s fine clothes and the books. Oliver begs Fagin to return the books and money so that Mr. Brownlow and Mrs. Bedwin will not think he has stolen from them. Fagin realises that this is to their advantage, and he and Sikes are congratulating each other on Oliver’s fall from grace when Oliver tries to make a run for it. Fagin retrieves him and is about to beat him with a “jagged and knotted club which lay in a corner of the fireplace”, but Nancy grabs the club out of his hands and throws it into the fire.

Nancy argues, “He’s a thief, a liar, a devil, all that’s bad, from this night forth. Isn’t that enough … without blows?” She then blames Fagin for making her into a thief to make her living on “the cold, wet, dirty streets” until she dies. She berates Fagin at length, until in great distress and hysterical, Nancy faints.

Oliver is stripped of his new clothes and given:

“the identical old suit of clothes which Oliver had so much congratulated himself upon leaving off at Mr. Brownlow’s; and the accidental display of which, to Fagin, by the Jew who purchased them, had been the very first clue received, of his whereabout.”

He is locked in an adjacent kitchen, and because he is so exhausted, falls asleep.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

The previous chapter, chapter 15 was, you will remember, where Charles Dickens left his original readers in suspense for 2 months. Sue commented that it was a very short chapter, and since it ended with Oliver being snatched, with no clue of what might happen to him, I can imagine the public’s outcry when it looked as if there would be no more story! Essentially Oliver had been kidnapped by thugs, who might have killed him merely for his fine clothes and money. Connie said she feared for Oliver's future at this point; I think we all did.

The next thing to happen was that Charles Dickens said he would work out his contract, and finish the story—but he only had one installment in which to do it—this one!

What do you think his initial idea might have been? To follow the worst scenario, with a bloodcurdling end for Oliver? The Victorian public loved their gruesome tales, both in fiction and in real life.

The 1830s was a key period when there was a boom in cheap fiction for the working classes. “Penny bloods” was the original name for the booklets which developed into the infamous “Penny dreadfuls” in the 1860s. And the illustrations were equally gory. One publisher’s standing instruction to his illustrators was, “more blood—much more blood!” Here’s a good feature about them by Judith Flanders, who wrote our side read of The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London

https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victo...

Charles Dickens, who always had a keen eye to his public, could easily have gone this way, but he also recognised that that Victorians had their sentimental side too. And he knew he was on to a winner with young Oliver. Nobody else had yet put a child “centre stage” in a novel; had made the child a the hero in this way. Charles Dickens had started a new trend.

Back in January, when the two of them were still on good terms, he had said to Charles Bentley that he had “hit upon a capital notion”, and hoped the next number (containing Mudfog) would be “an exceedingly good one”. Two days later came the first reference to Oliver Twist, and Charles Dickens asked if Charles Bentley had met his hero, saying: “I have taken a great fancy to him—I hope he deserves it”.

In today’s chapter Charles Dickens seems to have given up on his young hero, putting him amongst the band of thieves again, but we feel sure that he must have worked out a plan!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Locations

Mr. Brownlow lives in Pentonville, at the north end of Clerkenwell in Islington, in a part of London that was partly reconstructed in the 18th century. It is likely that he would have lived in a stately house, in one of the Georgian terraces built at that time.

When Bill Sikes and Nancy capture Oliver, they lead him south into the old streets which had escaped the Great Fire of London in 1666, through Smithfield, where there is a famous meat market as Charles Dickens mentions. It still dominates the area, although now there are no live cattle on site. There also used to be a notoriously cruel market selling wild animals right up to the 1960s, and this comes into his later novels sometimes. When Charles Dickens remarks that “it might have been Grosvenor Square, for anything Oliver knew to the contrary”, this is to show his readers just how naive Oliver is, and lost in the great city of London, because Grosvenor Square is a fashionable upper-class residential area in the West End.

Bill Sikes and Nancy drag Oliver to one of Fagin’s less-used houses.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Locations and Bill Sikes

We learn a little more about Bill Sikes. Nancy comments on the church bell striking 8 o’clock. This must be St. Sepulchre’s Church, in Smithfield, because at the time there was a prison right opposite, called: “Giltspur Street Prison and House of Correction”. It had been established in 1791, and was used until 1849 (12 year after Oliver Twist). Then over the next 3 years a new prison was built called “Holloway City Prison”, which was still in use until 2016.

Clearly Nancy is thinking of specific prisoners who are about to be hanged “such fine young chaps as them!” and Bill Sikes replied that they were ”as good as dead”. We already knew that he was a housebreaker, and now we know he has been in prison for it (see the later post on Bartlemy Fair). Now by this account he had been in jail for just one night. What could be the reason for letting him out. Did Bill Sikes peach (tell) on the others in the gang, in order to get let off?

Nancy says she would be there for him, but Sikes is “unsentimental” and says “Unless you could pitch over a file and twenty yards of good stout rope, you might as well be walking fifty mile off … for all the good it would do me.”

He’s thinking of others breaking him out, with a rope thrown over the prison wall, which she could not do.

Either the thought of this, or the thought of him being hanged, or his accomplices, makes Nancy tremble and turn deadly white.