Oliver Twist: Chapters 44 - 53

[Werner]

Anybody's death by hanging can rightly be seen as a tragedy, and especially anyone's death with the kind of mindset Fagin has --unremorseful, self-pitying, and bloodthirstily vindictive. But the real tragedy of his life (and I think Dickens would agree with this) isn't as much the fact that he died by hanging at the end of it as that he chose to spend it making himself into a person who gleefully did the kinds of things to others which, at the end, would make most people in his community want to see him hanged.

[Anna]

Since we were getting toward the end of the book, I watched the 1999 TV mini-series version of Oliver Twist (Masterpiece Theater). Although the film plot differed from the story in a few specific ways, this final scene with Fagin in the prison is incredibly realistic. I actually loved this version (although it's the only one I've seen besides the musical "Oscar"). With approximately 9 hours of action, the important plot points were substantially the same. I loved Michael Kitchen's Mr. Brownlow, and found Marc Warren's Monks masterfully portrayed.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Werner - "The real tragedy of [Fagin's life is] that he chose to spend it making himself into a person who gleefully did the kinds of things to others which, at the end, would make most people in his community want to see him hanged."

So true 😥

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Anna - I consider that to be an amazing adaptation, and as I said before, it is the only one to feature Monks! (the brilliant Marc Warren, as you say.)

The foremost playwright Alan Bleasdale adapted it, and boldly tried to capture the way he believed Charles Dickens would have written the story, if it had been a straightforward case of writing a novel, rather than the hit and miss way Oliver Twist evolved.

So Alan Bleasdale began with the back story, which we have just read compressed into 2 chapters. He spent 2 hours of broadcast time on this section, which we view before the scene where Oliver is born in the workhouse. He stayed faithful to those "back story" details, but obviously had to add a lot too. From then on, it is very authentic. (I have a large book about how it was made, to review shortly.)

I listed the main adaptations at the beginning of the first thread, and this 1999 one, plus the early David Lean one, are the ones I recommended there, even though this one is quite controversial. I'm so glad you can get it in the USA! All the actors are superb, and many were asked for (pestered, some of them say!) by the writer Alan Bleasdale. Did you spot a young Keira Knightley as Rose? She was only 14!

I'm really pleased you have returned Anna and hope to hear what you think about the chapters in this thread 😊 So, back to the novel, and we have reached the very last chapter ...

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Chapter 53:



"The Wrapper for the January 1846 edtion - George Cruikshank

The narrator relates what happens to the other characters, and confesses that it is difficult to leave them.

Harry and Rose marry in the village church where Harry is the parson, and Mrs. Maylie goes to live with them. Mr. Brownlow adopts Oliver and moves his household close by, just a mile from where the Maylies now live. Dr. Losberne initially returned to Chertsey, but is lonely, and so also goes to live in the village, where his new friend, Mr. Grimwig, frequently visits him. Giles and Brittles help in all three households.

Noah Claypole becomes a professional informer, and Charlotte aids him in his scams. The Bumbles are “reduced to great indigence and misery”, and end up as paupers, and thus separated, in the very same workhouse where they used to lord it over others. Brave Charley Bates, horrified by Sikes’s murder of Nancy, decides that an honest life is the best one. He “struggled hard, and suffered much”, for some time, but sticks at it and becomes "the merriest" livestock farmer in the Midlands.

At Mr. Brownlow’s suggestion, Oliver splits his father’s remaining estate of about three thousand pounds equally with Monks, as Mr. Brownlow is unwilling to deprive the elder son of the chance to pursue an honest career. However Monks moves to “a distant part of the New World”, and quickly squanders his inheritance. He returns to his criminal ways, and is thrown in prison, where he dies. The rest of Fagin’s gang are tranported, and die far from home.

Oliver and Rose remain close all their lives, surrounded by people who love them, and everyone connected with them is truly happy. Rose has several children of her own, whom we are told never suffer the fate of her sister or herself. In the church, a white marble tablet is erected, engraved with the name “Agnes”.



"The memorial tablet to Agnes; or The Church Plate" - George Cruikshank April 1839

The narrator tells us that although her remains are not there, if spirits do walk the earth then it is in this village church where Agnes will be found.



"The Shade of Agnes" - Harry Furniss 1910

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

An extra note about Noah ...

He was an "admitted approver" against Fagin, which means that he testified against him and received a free pardon as a consequence.

"pocketing half the penalty" Noah's scam was that after Charlotte had "fainted" and been given 3d. worth of brandy by kind publicans, he would then peach on them, making a complaint that the proprietor of the inn had violated the Sunday trading rules, and then pocketing half the fine.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Well Charles Dickens really knows what his audience wants! At the end of Oliver Twist, most of the characters have got what they deserve. The criminals and hypocrites are punished, and the virtuous live happily ever after. The only flaw in Oliver’s happiness is that Dick is dead. But since Dick told Oliver in Chapter 7 that he looked forward to going to heaven, we are presumably meant to understand from this that Dick also finds happiness, in the afterlife.

Fagin, who has taken such pains to keep himself safe, ends up being sentenced to the gallows. The gallows have thrown their shadow across the entire book, beginning with the comments (mistakenly about Oliver!) of the gentleman in the white waistcoat, but not until Chapter 52 do readers see the physical gallows for the first time. The scaffold stands in the rising sun surrounded by a crowd of people gaming, fighting, and joking to pass the time before the execution. In the end though the gallows is a ghastly means of entertaining the masses rather than a vehicle of justice.

I think you can tell now why I didn't want to post the wrapper as a cover! This wrapper is from the first of the 10 part 1846 edition, and proves how famous Charles Dickens's story had become. Just look at the 2 bottom right cameos!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Does anyone have further thoughts about the religious symbolism? As we know, Charles Dickens was a Christian, although not conventionally religious. He wrote that he believed in moral goodness and crafted his good characters to encompass the qualities promoted in the New Testament—humility, true charity, faithfulness, and willingness to forgive.

I see Oliver as a Christ figure in his final scene with Fagin. He weeps bitterly because Fagin does not want to pray, but only to escape. I think this implies that Oliver believes Fagin is refusing redemption, and will not receive God’s mercy.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Another motif …

Pocket-Handkerchiefs

I thought this was worth following up, since Michael featured one of the set pieces in the novel, and highlighted its religious significance. Charles Dickens has several motifs common in Victorian novels, such as letters, portraits and so on. Handkerchiefs also feature a great deal. Although they may not seem significant at the time, their symbolism is crucial.

John O. Jordan’s essay “The Purloined Handkerchief”, which I mentioned earlier; the title is a nod to Edgar Allan Poe’s story The Purloined Letter. Historically, he says, “purloined” is used to indicate retardation and displacement as well as theft. He concentrates on both the social and symbolic significance of handkerchiefs in the 1830s. We know from something as endemic to the novel as pickpocketing, that handkerchiefs were prized objects. These are what Oliver was trained to steal, and “pick the marks” (the embroidered initials) out of. The Artful Dodger was an expert in this, and you may remember that at one point it was reported by a bystander in a crowd that Jack Dawkins picked a handkerchief out of someone’s pocket, examined it and put it back as not being worth his attention! Coloured silk handkerchiefs were valued items, and Fagin took them to Field Lane, where they were suspended to flutter gaily in the breeze. Shopkeepers there did a roaring trade in stolen handkerchiefs.

Handkerchiefs continued to be used until the 20th century. Older friends here may remember handkerchiefs from the days before the ubiquitous tissues. Large white or check ones were for men, smaller white ones with lace edging, sometimes hand tatted, “for best”, for women, or printed with a floral pattern for everyday use. Embroidered initials in the corner of white handkerchiefs were used for both genders.

In the 19th century different types of handkerchiefs were an indicator of class. Interestingly all handkerchiefs were significantly larger than in the 20th century, which explains their use throughout Victorian literature, such as being tied up to make a knapsack (e.g. when Oliver ran away from the Sowerberry’s, and Noah Claypole arriving in London with his belongings tied up in the same way) or even to cover something. Mr. Bumble, that great ostentatious pretender, had two handkerchiefs, showing the reader that he belonged properly to neither class. He had a delicate lace-edged one he kept in his pocket, and put on his knee when daintily taking taking tea with Mrs. Corney, and also a more serviceable one under his hat which he used to wipe his brow! Gentlemen routinely used to show off their silk handkerchiefs, letting them drape from their back pockets under their topcoats or waistcoats, and thereby be easy targets for pickpockets. Mr. Brownlow would “wear” his like this, attracting the Artful Dodger and Charley Bates. I can imagine that Mr. Bumble’s would be a bright red silk hankerchief.

Mr. Giles, the butler at the Maylie’s house wipes his eyes with a “blue cotton pocket-handkerchief dotted with white spots”. We also came across a Belcher kerchief, worn by Bill Sikes. Remember I said that those had a distinctive pattern, and were called after Jim Belcher, a famous prize-fighter who wore them? As we’ve already spotted, necks and nooses are a recurring theme in Oliver Twist, and this is an extension of that idea. All working men would wear a kerchief, usually brightly coloured. Men’s handkerchiefs were about 30” square, so they could be worn as neckscarves. Ladies’ handkerchiefs were usually carried in a bag or reticule, tied at the waist, on top of the skirt.

The 19th century was when the printing process for fabrics really got under way. The development of the power loom, the availability of cheap cotton from America and improved dyeing techniques all played a part. Soon there were all sorts of brightly coloured patterns printed on cambric handkerchiefs, made from lightweight, closely woven white linen or cotton fabric. This type of handkerchief continued to be fashionable right through to the late 20th century. Snuff handkerchiefs were darker, with a pattern, for obvious reasons. You might come across designs or maps printed on men’s handkerchiefs featuring in 19th century novels. These were popular too.

Not many authors of the early 19th century other than Charles Dickens wrote about the labouring classes, so the significance of their dress code might pass us by! Belcher scarves (or kerchiefs) were very popular at the time of the novel; high fashion items for the working class. Wearing one would instantly single someone out as belonging to a particular social strata, just as much as a fancy lace-edged or cambric one would.

The reason Nancy asked for a handkerchief (or pair of gloves) from Rose, was because it would have a precious significance to her, representing a class and life she could only dream of. It would be personal too, perhaps fragranced, and probably having Rose’s initials embroidered in blue in the corner; certainly it would be made from fine white muslin or lawn, and edged with beautiful lace.

We can think of many instances like these from all Charles Dickens’ novels, such as a handkerchief being used to cover a dead baby’s face in Bleak House. Whenever a handkerchief is highlighted, our radars go up as it is bound to have a special significance. Bill Sikes’s belcher kerchief presages his death by hanging. The secretive Monks’s kerchief covers the identifying raspberry birthmark on his neck, and so on. All the main characters in Oliver Twist have a handkerchief of some sort, and “cravat”, "fogle“ or "wipe” are mentioned 50 times, plus half of George Cruikshank's 24 illustrations either feature or suggest one. If we add in the mentions of highly symbolic woven materials such as veils, coverings, shrouds, curtains and blankets, the number is far higher.

We can see where this is going to lead, but I think I have written quite enough to give you a good indication.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

The Death of Fagin (part 2!)

Yesterday I discussed John Sutherland’s essay “Why is Fagin Hanged?” Two years later, he returned to this subject in his new book of literary condundrums Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet?: Further Puzzles in Classic Fiction with a new essay, titled Does Dickens Lynch Fagin?

By then he had been contacted by quite a few experts, and one (in the The Cambridge History of English Literature) said baldly that “Dickens hanged Fagin for being the villain of a novel”. But there’s a bit more to it than that! Charles Dickens was not being sloppy with his facts at all. As I mentioned before, Charles Dickens had worked as a Court Reporter right up to the time when he began Oliver Twist, and was well aware of the legal position specifically at that time.

We need to remember that this is a novel written in 1837-8. The Poor Law Amendment Act was just beginning to bite, and the characters in Oliver Twist (not to mention his readers) would be used to a time before Act came in. A new Criminal Code Act was about to come in in 1838. Charles Dickens was keenly interested in all this, and needed to make sure his story, however dramatic, was sound.

A senior lecturer on legal history at University College London has answered some of the points.

He says that it is for the murder of Nancy that Fagin is tried, “for inciting rather than conspiracy, and so as a principal”. Legally speaking, at this time Fagin could be regarded as an accomplice. The penalty for this was death by hanging, and (as now in England with life imprisonment) fixed by law, giving the judge no option but to pass sentence of death.

This is why the crowd outside can anticipate the sentence, as soon as they hear the jury’s verdict.

The judge had no control over the timing of the hanging either, unless he ordered a respite. There were no appeals for criminal convictions before 1907, although the judge could appeal to a higher authority if he was unhappy with the verdict. Fagin could theoretically seek a royal pardon, but only through the judge.

The returned transported criminal Kags had said in chapter 50:

“The sessions are on … if they get the inquest over, and Bolter turns King’s evidence: as of course he will, from what he’s said already: they can prove Fagin an accessory before the fact, and get the trial on on Friday, and he’ll swing in six days from this, by G—!”

Execution of sentences were carried out the next weekday, so the crowd would have known the date of the hanging well in advance.

Prisoners were barred from giving evidence themselves before 1898, so Fagin could not have argued a defence that he did not incite Sikes to kill Nancy, and Noah Claypole “turning King’s evidence” (i.e. peaching on Fagin to get a lighter sentence himself) would hold. This would be reporting the overheard conversation between Nancy, Mr. Brownlow and Rose. Fagin would be allowed to make an unsworn statement, but these carried little weight.

Again the timing is critical! Before 1836, those accused of felony were not allowed counsel. This installment was 2 years later, and in fact Charles Dickens does mention Fagin looking imploringly at his counsel. However, according to the legal historian, there is plenty of evidence to show that this provision was frequently ignored in practice, even in the Old Bailey. Barristers had to be paid, so what Charles Dickens seems to be telling us here is that Fagin is being deprived quite lawfully of even such protection as a “good defence counsel” as Connie picked up.

In one of his later novels, there is a court scene where the prisoner does have a very good defence counsel. (Kathleen actually mentioned this yesterday, for a different point.)

What we can deduce from this is that on points of law, Charles Dickens was more historically accurate than a modern reader might appreciate! Mr. Bumble famously said earlier that the law was “a ass”. Hanging for Fagin might “feel” right to his readers, but the process here makes us very uneasy, as Bridget and Sara have both remarked. In fact we might even agree with Mr. Bumble, if it means that a prisoner cannot testify in their own defence.

One thing is for sure. Charles Dickens followed and reported on the law’s idiocies punctiliously.
  

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Oliver Twist is a novel steeped in the best sort of melodrama, but to be scrupulously fair, we need to acknowledge that there are some critics and writers who have not rated it very highly. It’s very theatricality comes under fire from George Gissing (1857-1903) here (under a spoiler for space reasons):

(view spoiler)[ “Too often he prefers some far-fetched eccentricity, some piece of knavishness, some unlikely occurrence, about which to weave his tale. And this, it seems to me, is directly traceable to his fondness for the theatre. He planned a narrative as though plotting for the stage. When the necessities of intrigue did not weigh upon him—as happily was so often the case in his roomy stories—he could forget the footlights; at the first demand for an “effect”, gas and limelight are both turned on. Cannot we often hear the incidental music? Dickens’s love for the stage was assuredly a misfortune to him, as author and as man.

In the idle mysteries which are made to surround Oliver, and in the incredible weakness of what is meant to be the darkest part of the story, we have pure stage-work. Chapter XVII contains a passage ridiculing the melodrama of the time, a tissue of mediæval villanies; what Dickens himself did, in these worst moments of his invention, was to use the motives of standard melodrama on a contemporary subject. Even the dialogue occasionally proves this. “Wolves tear your throats!” growls Bill Sikes, fleeing from his pursuers—a strange exclamation for a London burglar. And again, when brought to bay after the murder he calls one of the horrified thieves “this screeching Hell–Babe”— hrase natural enough on the boards of the Adelphi Theatre, but incongruous in a London slum. That part of the book in which Rose Maylie and her lover appear smacks rather of the circulating library than of the stage. We read of Rose in distress that “a heavy wildness came over her soft blue eyes”. I cannot remember that Dickens was ever again guilty of such a phrase as this; but the theatric vice appears in his construction to the end.” (hide spoiler)]

We’ve discussed the diction Charles Dickens uses, and accepted how this story had to appeal to middle-class readers, who would not have understood the London criminal street vernacular. We’ve also gone into detail about how the novel itself developed and was constructed—with no chance of turning back. He did all this against seemingly impossible odds, yet he still managed to create a story which has endured, makes (almost) perfect sense, and has even become a favourite! Ask anyone to name 3 novels by Charles Dickens, and Oliver Twist will probably be there. It is certainly in the top 5.

So I personally think this is a bit of sour grapes, as, socially conscious as he was, George Gissing never wrote anything like as exciting as Charles Dickens has done.

What do you think? Is this fair?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Each time I read Oliver Twist, my opinion of it rises a little higher. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed our read; the chance to delve a little more deeply, and all the marvellous insights and enthusiasm everyone has shown here. Thank you all for staying so focused, which is not easy in a close read over a long period.

I’ve written a lot already and only scratched the surface, but instead of writing more, I’ll open this up to everyone now. I have a feeling some may have read these final chapters in one chunk … so now’s your chance to come in with your thoughts.

A big thank you from me to everyone!

[Anna]

A big thank you also to you, Jean, for being a wonderful guide through Oliver Twist! And thanks to all the members of the group for great commentary and observations. I sure know much more than I ever imagined about Dickens, Oliver, and the time period during which it was written.
A quick comment about handkerchiefs - I inherited from my mother a handmade handkerchief box which contained all of her lovely tatted-lace edged and flowered handkerchiefs. A sweet memory and personal treasure.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

🥰 Anna.

[Sara]

I wish to echo Anna and thank you so much, Jean, for showing Oliver Twist to me in a very different light. I think it very much matters to know what occurred during the writing, which makes its existence at all a bit of a miracle.

I must agree with you about Gissing, but he is accurate that Dickens brings theater to his writing; what he misses is that that is what makes it exciting and sets it apart.

I also have several lace-trimmed handkerchiefs that were handmade by my Aunt. She was in her late 90s (97, I think) when she died in the 1990s, so she was from that era when girls were taught to do such useful things.

One thing Dickens always does, and gets my praise for, is tie up the story completely. There is not a single character that we are left wandering about, right down to the servant Giles. I think Claypool gets off too easy, but then I see him as someone who will slide quickly back into criminal activity or be done-in by someone he informs upon. There is always a kind of sigh of satisfaction that comes when you finish a Dickens novel, and it is never because the story has ended.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Sara wrote: "I wish to echo Anna and thank you so much, Jean, for showing Oliver Twist to me in a very different light. I think it very much matters to know what occurred during the writing, which makes its exi..."

Thank you 😊 This novel does seem like a bit of a miracle, I agree Sara! I agree about the satisfaction element you get with all the ends tied up, too ... although I can think of one importantish character who is not specified. I wonder if anyone can guess who I mean.

Actually two! And they are linked, although we never see them together.

[Claudia]

Jean, you did much more than just scratching the surface. You provided us with comprehensive summaries, illustrations, and useful resources that draw our attention to various themes that are to be seen later in Dickens's further novels!

A huge thank you to you, but also to all and everyone for your great comments and insights!

[Werner]

I echo the thanks several people have expressed already, both to Jean for her wonderful leadership of this discussion, and to all those who've taken part and shared such a wealth of insights!

By their very nature, reviews cover a book as a whole; they're more appropriately read (and written!) after a read than while it's in progress. My review of Oliver Twist was written about 15 years ago, and some 48 years after I read the book; now that this group read is completed, here's that link, for whatever it's worth: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... . (It was written too early to benefit from these discussions, but I've just added a link to our first discussion thread!)

Bionic Jean wrote: "Handkerchiefs continued to be used until the 20th century. Older friends here may remember handkerchiefs from the days before the ubiquitous tissues."

Being inclined to be set in my ways, I still use handkerchiefs in 2023. Also being, as my wife sometimes points out, not very observant, I assumed that everybody did until a point back in the 90s, when my middle daughter was bewailing the fact that she didn't have a tissue to blow her nose, and I asked, "Why don't you just use a handkerchief like everybody else?" My family kindly gave me a cultural update. :-) (I still think a case can be made that handkerchiefs are more environment-friendly, but I'm not dogmatic about it!)

[Sara]

Well, I have racked my brain and cannot think of anyone, Jean. If you had put this on one of your quizzes, I would have missed it! Please tell. What a tease! 🙂

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Werner wrote: "I echo the thanks several people have expressed already, both to Jean for her wonderful leadership of this discussion, and to all those who've taken part and shared such a wealth of insights!..."

Thank you so much for adding the link Werner! What a wonderful tribute to our group.

"I still think a case can be made that handkerchiefs are more environment-friendly"

I agree, and once tried to work this out i.e. balancing heating clean water, using machine energy and powder, as opposed to the processes involved in making and disposing of paper. Then my mother came in with the hygiene implications. If anyone had a bad cold when I was a child our hankerchiefs were put in a bucket of disinfectant. My parents didn't like the idea of all those germs from tissues floating around.

I was surprised though, to learn that in the 19th century, even villains have pocket handkerchiefs!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Sara wrote: "Well, I have racked my brain and cannot think of anyone, Jean. If you had put this on one of your quizzes, I would have missed it! Please tell. What a tease! 🙂"

Perhaps I will then 😁

The one character we were all convinced must be important to the story line was the “little ugly hump-backed man” in chapter 32. But we never see him again! Nor does he have a resolution in the final chapter.

In this post LINK HERE

I postulated a theory, (well several critics' theories!) but didn't spill the beans about us never hearing about him again!

The second one I referred to is Barney, the Jewish waiter at the Three Cripples. He's clearly part of Fagin's gang, so we could assume that he has been transported. Just one sentence, after we learn what happens to Monks, indicates this obliquely: "As far from home, died the chief remaining members of his friend Fagin’s gang."

But how the hump-backed man would ever be tracked down, or connected by the police, would need its own story! That whole episode is extraordinary, with none of the interior of the house looking as Oliver remembered it. But it fits well into the mesmeric feel of those chapters.

Blathers and Duff themselves don't need a resolution I don't think, as they are functionaries, and not really part of the plot. Neither is Mr. Fang.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Claudia wrote: "Jean, you did much more than just scratching the surface. You provided us with comprehensive summaries, illustrations, and useful resources that draw our attention to various themes that are to be ..."

Thanks Claudia! I'm so glad you found us, and enjoyed the read - and can give us a French/Italian/German perspective too 😊

[Lori]

I am wondering about the Sowerberry’s and Mrs. Mann? Did we get a wrap up for these characters? I don’t think so. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Jean, this was such a satisfying read and you have outdone yourself as usual with leading and inspiring us to think and share our thoughts.

It’s been a lot of years since I played Bet in my high school musical and I’d have to say that if people only know this story by a theatrical or dramatized version, they really don’t know all about this fantastic story. I am grateful for knowing about Dickens’s writing process and publication struggles. I always come away from a Dickens read with a larger perspective and a wealth of knowledge! Thanks to your hard work, Jean!

[Jim]

Regarding Fagin’s death sentence:
Fagin falls victim to what can only be called “rough justice.” Taking a broad view of the matter, the proper objective of law enforcement and jurisprudence ought to be to best serve the needs of society in which it operates. Quite apart from the legal niceties and even the eternal argument about capital punishment, he is deserving of the most severe penalty available because he has deliberately ruined the lives of several young people, manipulating them into a life of crime and degradation.
In an ideal world, he ought to be obliged to spend his remaining days performing some kind of service aimed at helping the kinds of people he has harmed. In view of his personality, habits and state of mind, along with the dysfunctional justice regime that prevailed, nothing like that could be achieved.
So there is no desirable sentence. The only good outcome here is that Fagin and his gang are out of business.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Lori wrote: "I am wondering about the Sowerberry’s and Mrs. Mann? Did we get a wrap up for these characters? I don’t think so. ..."

Gosh well spotted Lori Quite right!

Maybe he thought he'd done enough with Oliver noticing how small the Sowerberry's place was at the end. And then Oliver slipped out to find out about Dick, so perhaps he went to Mrs. Mann's ... although I was careful when summarising that part. It was so baldly said that I have a feeling Dickens may have intended us to infer (after we were told), that Oliver just "knew" Dick had died.

And thank you 😊

[Anna]

Jim wrote: "Regarding Fagin’s death sentence:
Fagin falls victim to what can only be called “rough justice.” Taking a broad view of the matter, the proper objective of law enforcement and jurisprudence ought t..."
That's an interesting view. It could be argued that Fagin kept these homeless orphans off the street and housed and fed when no one else cared. He did it with crime; he lived off their crime. But what would have become of them else? Could it be argued that he at least provided a home for the outcasts of the gutter?

[Sara]

Thank you, Jean and Lori. I thought that Mrs. Mann and the Sowerberrys, as persons running businesses, could be assumed to continue as before--her processing orphans and him processing their bodies as they perish, like poor Little Dick.

I understand your point, Anna. I have seen many productions where he portrayed just that way, as the only one who cares. When you leave Monk out of the story, you could say he saves Oliver when he arrives in London without any money, food or skills. Nancy feels some degree of obligation to him. She is unwilling to give him up to justice herself, even though you could make a case for his having ruined her life.

What strikes me here is that there is no good alternative for these children. It is crime or starvation, and we do not know what kind of childhood Fagin had or if he has ever had the opportunity to do something better with his life. As a Jew in this society, he has a double strike against him. When viewed as a whole, this is a tragedy for everyone who isn't born to wealth or rescued somehow (as Nancy would have been by Rose had she agreed).

[Chris]

I will echo everyone else's applause to you Jean for all the wonderful summaries, pictures, discussion of publication issues and analysis. Plus thanks to all in the group who so keenly brought observations to the discussions. It all greatly enhanced my reading!
We often discuss the use of names in Dickens work, did I miss any discussion about Oliver's? Could the Twist part of the name allude to the twist of fate or reversal of fortunes for Oliver?

I see Oliver as a Christ figure in his final scene with Fagin. He weeps bitterly because Fagin does not want to pray, but only

I didn't see Oliver as a Christ-like figure in his last scene with Fagin, but I did see him as a lamb (Christ) be led to the slaughter by those who wish to be rid of him throughout the novel. However, unlike Christ there were those who believed in him that were able to save him from death or a life of destitution.

[Janelle]

I would’ve liked to know what happened to the Sowerburys too, specifically that Mr was able to get away from Mrs, she was such a horrible woman and he was one of the few people who treated Oliver quite well in the early parts of the book.

I was just reading the Wikipedia page for Ikey Solomon the man that Dickens is believed to have based Fagin on and his life reads like a convoluted novel!
If anyone else is interested link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikey_...

[Sara]

Interesting read, Janelle.

[Lee]

A heart-felt thanks to Jean for her inspired lead through Oliver! The past few months as part of Dickensians have enriched my life with the new friendships & insights everyone has contributed. It is truly a privilege to have read this book with all of you. That so many of us around the world could be a part of this reading and share our ideas has been astonishing to me. 🥰

[Sue]

I want to thank you too, Jean. Reading Oliver along with your insightful commentary really helps me to place this book into Dickens’s life and works. It’s so interesting to see this as a jumping off point for so many of his ideas and writing methods. I enjoyed this read along very much. And thanks to all for the great discussions.

[Connie]

Jean, your insights into "Oliver Twist" have been fabulous! You created a wonderful experience for the group. I appreciate all the research you did while discussing the work.

[Petra]

Thank you, Jean, for all the work you put into making this read so enjoyable for all of us.

I can't recall whether I've ever read Oliver Twist before. I want to say that I have but this story seemed so new to me that I think I haven't.
I have seen the musical and, much as I love it, this story is much deeper and grittier than I expected it to be. It showed the underworld of London so well and how, if one is not protected, one has to live by any means that comes along. It was a world in which survival was one's only reason for acting and being.
Such a harsh world.

[Bridget]

Like everyone has said, my heart is full of gratitude to Jean for leading us so well through another read. The background information on how this book came together will stay with me a long time.

Was anyone else moved by the final paragraphs about Rose Maylie? I was surprised to find myself a little emotional. The way Dickens kept repeating “I would linger yet, I would paint her, I would show her, I would follow her” made me think he was using Rose Maylie to put into words the life that Mary Hogarth should have had. I imagine it might have been very emotional for him to write it.

I wouldn’t have had any of that context without Jean’s wonderful summaries, and all of the brilliant readers here. So thank you one and all.

[Karin]

Yes, Jean, this has been the most thorough and well explained GR book discussion I've ever been a part of! Thanks for all of the time and work you put into this!

[Shirley (stampartiste)]

I am always so sad when our annual big read is over, and this year is no exception. Having no previous knowledge of Oliver Twist, I was able to come to this story with a fresh slate. I always thought this was a children’s book, but the brutality of some of the events make me think I am wrong (unless mid-1800s sensibilities were different for children’s literature than they are today).

Which brings me to Chapter 50 and Sikes’ inadvertent hanging. (I did hold back and follow the reading schedule, but I didn’t have time to comment each day.). I can’t think of a better karma, poetic justice, getting one’s just desserts, or whatever idiom we use to apply to a situation like this. Sikes was just a perverse personality, and I was so glad that in the end, Sikes was done in by his own conscience or the mesmeric flow of the universe crying out for justice. However, I did feel terrible about Bullseye. That poor dog never stood a chance in life, and that made me sad for him. The redeeming part of this chapter for me was Charley Bates. I was so glad he turned his life around, and despite numerous struggles, he stayed the course and made a life for himself. Go, Charley!

One thing I wondered about in this chapter was the location of the house where Sikes died. Dickens didn’t mention it, but I wondered if it was the same house that the Bumbles visited the night they sold Agnes’ locket to Monks.

Jean, thank you for your detailed explanation on English law at the time of Fagin’s trial. Although it was satisfying, on one level, to see Fagin punished for having destroyed so many young lives, it was hard for my modern eyes to see what he had done to deserve hanging. But I can see where he was a participant in and an accessory to Nancy’s murder. Any pity I may have felt for Fagin was snuffed out when Dickens said of Fagin “…he began to think of all the men he had known who had died upon the scaffold; some of them through his means. They rose up, in such quick succession, that he could hardly count them. He had seen some of them die, — and had joked too, because they died with prayers upon their lips. So Fagin had indeed committed murder by condemning other lives to the scaffold, and he was himself unrepentant to the last.

I loved how Dickens wrapped up so many of the stories and intertwined the characters so that many would still be a part of each other’s lives. The only thing I was sorry about was how he just announced “Poor Dick was dead!” in Chapter 51 and said so little else about him after that. I was hoping that, like the Bumbles, Dickens would punish Mrs. Mann to the fullest, as she was technically a murderer of numerous infants and young children through neglect and abuse. Did Dickens forget about Mrs. Mann?

Jean, I will comment again after reading everyone’s comments, but I want to say right now how much I have enjoyed this group read, of all of the work you have put in, and for making this story come alive for me. So many things I would have missed, not understood or misinterpreted without your extensive knowledge of the world of Charles Dickens. Thank you so so much from a grateful reader on the other side of the pond!

[Claudia]

I too thought that it was the same house Shirley, but in fact Dickens did not mention it.

I too thought erroneously that Oliver Twist was a children's book but we saw that it is far from that.

However some abridged versions for children may have been expurgated from the worse things. Even the detailed and convoluted explanations of who is who, why and when, were a little bit too much for me, so that I wonder how a young audience could come to terms with this. Or were those in their early teens more precocious back then than nowadays - or, say, differently focused?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Lori wrote: "It’s been a lot of years since I played Bet in my high school musical and I’d have to say that if people only know this story by a theatrical or dramatized version, they really don’t know all about this fantastic story ... I always come away from a Dickens read with a larger perspective and a wealth of knowledge! Thanks to your hard work, Jean!..."

It makes me so happy to know that you and others feel this way, Lori. If there was only one reason for this read, that would be a good one and make all the hard work worth while! I only saw that musical for the first time a few months ago, and can see why it is so popular, but my word it does glamorise this sorry (and sometimes sordid as Kathleen said) but important tale. Thank you!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Jim wrote: "Regarding Fagin’s death sentence:
Fagin falls victim to what can only be called “rough justice.” Taking a broad view of the matter, the proper objective of law enforcement and jurisprudence ought t..."

This is a good point Jim, and well argued. I do think that Charles Dickens would have far more sympathy with ethical philosophers, rather than the "philosophers" he rants about. It was when philosophical theories based on economics were put in place in institutions, that he felt law enforcement and social policy had lost touch with ethics completely.

As a result, as Sara (and Beth) says "there is no good alternative for these children. It is crime or starvation."

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Chris wrote: "I will echo everyone else's applause to you Jean for all the wonderful summaries, pictures, discussion of publication issues and analysis ... Could the Twist part of the name allude to the twist of fate or reversal of fortunes for Oliver?"

YES! I do think this is the main point of his name. Thanks for highlighting this, Chris. And for your lovely words.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that there is a sort of deliberate "pun" with the name "Twist" ... There's a card game called "pontoon" or "blackjack" or "vingt-et-un" (twenty-one) as it was originally known. If you ask the dealer for a card, what do you say? Yes, "Twist!" You ask for more by saying "twist"! I had wondered which came first, the card game or the novel. It turns out that it's the game! It was a French gambling game popular at the court of Louis XV, and later favoured by Napoleon.

Since Oliver says to the master of the workhouse, "Please sir, I want some more", I believe Charles Dickens is having a little joke with us 😀

I'm interested in your religious interpretation too.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Janelle wrote: "I was just reading the Wikipedia page for Ikey Solomon the man that Dickens is believed to have based Fagin on..."

Thank you for this link Janelle! I'd researched Ikey Solomon for the first thread, and found a photograph, but could only post a little LINK HERE in case people assumed Fagin's life would parallel Ikey Solomon's. I said I'd complete it later, but now I don't have to write any more 😊

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Lee G wrote: "A heart-felt thanks to Jean for her inspired lead through Oliver! The past few months as part of Dickensians have enriched my life with the new friendships & insights everyone has contributed ..."

I'm delighted you have been with us Lee, and especially adding your helpful interpretations of the religious aspects. I'm frequently astonished too at how much we can all get out of our group reads 😊

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Sue wrote: "I want to thank you too, Jean. Reading Oliver along with your insightful commentary really helps me to place this book into Dickens’s life and works. It’s so interesting to see this as a jumping of..."

That makes me very happy Sue. I'm so glad you have found this to be a rewarding experience 😊

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Connie wrote: "Jean, your insights into "Oliver Twist" have been fabulous! You created a wonderful experience for the group. I appreciate all the research you did while discussing the work."

Thank you so much Connie! It's lovely to be appreciated, and I'm so glad you joined in too with your insightful comments 😊

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Petra wrote: "Thank you, Jean, for all the work you put into making this read so enjoyable for all of us.

I have seen the musical and, much as I love it, this story is much deeper and grittier than I expected it to be ...Such a harsh world..."

I think this is how I feel too, Petra. It's an amazing achievement, that Charles Dickens managed to convey this to his readers, who were used to him writing the frivolous madcap adventures of Mr. Pickwick. Yet they did not stop reading, and were completely taken up with the story and characters he invented. As indeed people are even today!

Thank you 😊

[Jim]

Summing up:
In his introduction to this novel, G. K. Chesterton wrote — referring to Oliver’s everlasting quotation asking for more — that ”Oliver Twist is not pathetic because he is a pessimist. Oliver Twist is pathetic because he is an optimist. The whole tragedy of that incident is in the fact that he does expect the universe to be kind to him, that he does believe he is living in a just world.
By presenting his protagonist as a boy holding such beliefs, Dickens was proclaiming his own belief in the possibility of a better world. This is undoubtedly among the darkest of Dickens’ works, set mostly in a vicious, dangerous world of degradation, crime and corruption. But in so doing, Dickens sought to demonstrate that evil CAN be overcome, by facing up to it and addressing the social ills that create such misery. He encountered heavy criticism from those in society who wished not to have such facts discussed; these were uncomfortable, unwelcome truths. It’s the sheer power of the forces (from both the underworld and the self-righteous authorities) coupled with Oliver’s undaunted spirit that make this such a compelling story.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Bridget wrote: "Like everyone has said, my heart is full of gratitude to Jean for leading us so well through another read. The background information on how this book came together will stay with me a long time...."

I'm so pleased Bridget - I do feel all things considered that it is astonishing that Oliver Twist ever became a novel, let alone such an important one.

"I wouldn’t have had any of that context without Jean’s wonderful summaries, and all of the brilliant readers here."
And thank you 😊 ...

You are absolutely right about Rose being an idealised Mary Hogarth. We saw this when Rose was first introduced, and Rose being stricken with a sudden illness, only to be snatched from the jaws of death was clearly wish fulfillment on the part of Charles Dickens. It would be nice to think that this was cathartic for him; to write it just a few months after 17 year old Mary had died in real life. However, as we know, sadly he would feel the need to write her into characters and scenes like this throughout his life.

The poetry of the quotation you shared is superb, and heart-rending:

“I would linger yet, I would paint her, I would show her, I would follow her”

I'm not a bit surprised you felt moved and emotional by these final paragraphs about Rose Maylie. Charles Dickens has the power to key into all our deep feelings. I loved the way the narrator said he didn't want to leave these characters, because that's exactly how I feel when I'm approaching the end of a novel by Charles Dickens.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Karin wrote: "Yes, Jean, this has been the most thorough and well explained GR book discussion I've ever been a part of! Thanks for all of the time and work you put into this!"

Thank you for this lovely compliment Karin. I'm really pleased you got a lot out of it, and hope you wil join in future ones too 😊

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "I am always so sad when our annual big read is over, and this year is no exception ..."

I'm sad too Shirley, (and very tired!) but happy that it has gone so well and been so rewarding 😊

Shirley (and Claudia too ) - "I always thought this was a children’s book ..."

You know, it drives me bananas that this myth is still perpetuated by the internet. I came across a question on google the other day: "What age is Oliver Twist suitable for?" and was intrigued enough to click. I shouldn't have ... the answer "9-12 year olds" made me utter a sound that scared my dog! 😂 Does it feel to you (anyone) that we have been reading a "children's book"? I expect it is because the title character is a boy, but surely it is absurd to think you have to have something in common with a title character! I'm reading Black Beauty at the moment ...

Mind you, some adaptations are suitable for children. I've just read Stories for Children from Dickens by his granddaughter Mary Angela Dickens, and was pleased that she included quite a lot of Charles Dickens's own dialogue. It's just a smattering of the story really, and tells up to the part where Oliver find a home with the Maylies, to make the happy ending. None of the bad characters are mentioned except Bill Sikes; it says that Oliver fell in with some "wicked thieves". And the attempted robbery is described, so it would be quite exciting for childen. I feel any child reading this would still gain a lot of pleasure when reading the book later.