Oliver Twist: Week 02 - Book 1: Chapters V - VIII

[Loretta]

Please discuss this week's reading below!

[Lynnm]

I forgot how quickly we meet the Artful Dodger and Fagin. The Artful Dodger is such a great character.

I usually don't use Wikipedia as a source, but was interested (and glad) to read that Dickens removed all the stereotyped caricatures regarding Fagin being Jewish out of Oliver Twist in later editions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagin

[Robin P, Moderator]

Thanks for finding that, I was struck by how glaring the Jewish stereotype was. Dickens was still very young and was probably reflecting the view of his time (which is rather scary too.) Benjamin Disraeli was roughly a contemporary of Dickens. I wonder if they had any acquaintance.
Those scenes reminded me of Slumdog Millionaire where children beg and steal for adults because they have no other choices to survive. These are all boys, I imagine others had uses for any young girls found on the London streets.

[Deborah, Moderator]

One thing that jumped off the page at me was in Chapter vi. Dickens talks about the grief of the family for the lost loved one in such a way that the reader questions if the deceased is loved at all. He talks about grief for the showing that disappears into calmness which I found very strange. I know he's being sarcastic, but it's still a strange mental picture.

I enjoyed the part when Oliver gets his own back from the bully, and his strength in carrying out he decision. The meeting of The Artful Dodger and Fagan was great.

I believe the stereotyping of Jews was very typical for the time period.

[Zulfiya]

Deborah wrote: "One thing that jumped off the page at me was in Chapter vi. Dickens talks about the grief of the family for the lost loved one in such a way that the reader questions if the deceased is loved at a..."

It was, unfortunately, typical. That is why the novel 'Daniel Deronda'(1876) by George Eliot was a humanitarian breakthrough. And one should also remember that it was written forty years after Oliver Twist.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Zulfiya wrote: "Deborah wrote: "One thing that jumped off the page at me was in Chapter vi. Dickens talks about the grief of the family for the lost loved one in such a way that the reader questions if the deceas..."

Zulfiya - I agree completely. I know the first time I read Victorian age fiction, I was horrified at the way Jews were described. A friend told me about it being typical for the time period. No less horrifying, but it is the way it was.

[Sasha]

Lynn, thanks for that Wiki article. (I avoid Wikipedia too, but one does what one has to.) I knew Dickens came under fire for the anti-Semitism in the book, but I didn't know he later excised some of it.

For me, this is where the book took a bad turn; I was shocked by what an anti-Semitic caricature Fagin was, and I found it unforgivable. I was unable to get over it.

Zulfiya, I'm gonna differ with you here: I've read some Victorian fiction, and while anti-Semitism is certainly rampant, it's not this intense. I found Oliver Twist way, way beyond the norm - for Vic novels and for Dickens.

I think it's important to avoid looking at older books through a too-modern lens; Huck Finn, frequently uses the N-word, but that doesn't make it racist. Oliver Twist, viewed through the lens of the time, is exceptionally bigoted.

[Lynnm]

Alex wrote: "For me, this is where the book took a bad turn; I was shocked by what an anti-Semitic caricature Fagin was, and I found it unforgivable. I was unable to get over it."

One thing to remember is that if we let the things that shock us in older literature make us close those books forever, that we won't have much left to read that wasn't published within the last few years.

Instead, use those things - racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc. - as teachable moments.

We learn from history - and all older literature has a historical component within them - so we don't repeat those mistakes.

And are we still making those mistakes but with other groups? For example, many Muslims are demonized in West today. In the U.S., certain immigrant groups are treated as second class citizens. So we can take a book like Oliver and update it to today.

[Malcolm]

Lynnm wrote: "Alex wrote: "For me, this is where the book took a bad turn; I was shocked by what an anti-Semitic caricature Fagin was, and I found it unforgivable. I was unable to get over it."

One thing to r..."

I so agree. That is the main reason why I am so poor on American literature regardless of whether the author was black or white.

[Anne]

Lynnm wrote: "One thing to remember is that if we let the things that shock us in older literature make us close those books forever, that we won't have much left to read that wasn't published within the last few years.

Instead, use those things - racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc. - as teachable moments.

We learn from history - and all older literature has a historical component within them - so we don't repeat those mistakes.

And are we still making those mistakes but with other groups? For example, many Muslims are demonized in West today. In the U.S., certain immigrant groups are treated as second class citizens. So we can take a book like Oliver and update it to today.
"

Those are very good points.

Most Europeans and Americans of today would find this depiction of Jews to be offensive and out-dated. In other ways, this book seems oddly contemporary. It was disturbing how similarly the poor/unemployed are described by certain Americans of today. Major-party candidates in America have risen in the polls after demonizing the poor and unemployed. They'd sound right at home in the 1830s-era England that Dickens was satirizing (and I don't mean that as a compliment).

[Malcolm]

Anne wrote: "Lynnm wrote: "One thing to remember is that if we let the things that shock us in older literature make us close those books forever, that we won't have much left to read that wasn't published with..."

I see where you're coming from, but I'm sure many - if not all - Jewish Americans and European Jews of yesteryear would have found certain aspects of Oliver Twist offensive likewise.

[Lynnm]

Malcolm wrote: "I see where you're coming from, but I'm sure many - if not all - Jewish Americans and European Jews of yesteryear would have found certain aspects of Oliver Twist offensive likewise. "

I'm not saying that it's not offensive - it is very offensive. I was definitely shocked, and that's why I started to research the issue.

But when I encounter something like this in older literature, I take that, and use it as a teachable moment. Because as others are saying, we see history repeating itself...just with different groups.

[Lynnm]

Anne wrote: ". In other ways, this book seems oddly contemporary. It was disturbing how similarly the poor/unemployed are described by certain Americans of today. Major-party candidates in America have risen in the polls after demonizing the poor and unemployed. They'd sound right at home in the 1830s-era England that Dickens was satirizing (and I don't mean that as a compliment). "

Good point. It's another thing that I'm shocked at - how certain politicians have no compassion for the poor and their suffering.

[Malcolm]

I may be mistaken as it was a few decades ago when I read it, but I'm think there's a 'caricature' of a Jewish money-lender at Derby day in Benjamin Disraeli's Sybil, which may come as a surprise, considering his Jewish heritage. As I say, I may be mistaken and thinking of a totally different author and novel.

Usually he tends to counter the usual racial stereotypes of Jews, for instance Sidonia, in Coningsby.

Lynnm, my previous comment was in reply to Anne's observations.

[Anne]

Malcolm wrote: "I see where you're coming from, but I'm sure many - if not all - Jewish Americans and European Jews of yesteryear would have found certain aspects of Oliver Twist offensive likewise." "Lynnm, my previous comment was in reply to Anne's observations. "

I'm confused by your comment. I agree that Jews would find it offensive then and now. I pointed out that most people of today (Jews and non-Jews alike) would consider the portrayal as offensive. On occasion I still meet anti-Semitic people, but they have been very rare in the cities where I have lived. I was agreeing with Lynn that older literature can be used for "teachable moments" and to discuss more contemporary issues. I then moved on to a completely different issue- attitudes towards the poor. I have never read this book before, so I've only read one chapter where a Jewish character has even appeared. I grew up in a poor neighborhood and now have been hit very hard by the Great Recession, so discussions of poverty and joblessness hit close to home.

[Malcolm]

Anne wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "I see where you're coming from, but I'm sure many - if not all - Jewish Americans and European Jews of yesteryear would have found certain aspects of Oliver Twist offensive likewise..."

Sorry, I was confused by the word immigrants in the general thread in context with America. Considering many 'Americans' of the 19th century were themselves also Jewish despite coming from Russia, Germany and places - I think of the Goldwyns and Rothschilds etc.

Anyway, in short, we all agree that Oliver Twist, contains an offensive caricature which readers, even in Dickens time, found offensive.

I'd have the same confusion with regard to talk of 'immigrants' if we were talking of Canada, Australia or parts of Africa.

[Loretta]

This is a first read for me, so I'm assuming the characterization of Fagin gets worse...? Certainly his introduction was offensive, but not quite horrifying yet.

[Loretta]

One thing that struck me in this section is that Oliver is really starting to become a character himself, rather than just a passive creature as he was in the first 4 chapters. (This does make sense considering how young he was in those first chapters--as he's growing up, showing more agency is logical.)

[Susan Margaret]

In chapter five Dickens paints a pretty bleak picture, even the rats were starving.
The very rats, which here and there lay putrefying in it's rottenness, were hideous with famine.

[Loretta]

Seeuuder wrote: "In chapter five Dickens paints a pretty bleak picture, even the rats were starving.
The very rats, which here and there lay putrefying in it's rottenness, were hideous with famine."

That was quite the dark chapter (but in a good way).

[Bea]

I hope I'm not changing the subject and I totally agree with everything people are saying about the offensive portrayal of Fagin in Dickens's book.

I find it interesting how Fagin has changed over time in adaptations. In the book, I was hard-pressed to find that Fagin had any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

In David Lean's 1948 film adaptation "Oliver Twist" ( highly recommended), Fagin is
played by Alec Guinness. The film does not make any reference to Fagin's religion, although Guinness is clearly dressed and made up to look like the illustrations from the book. He is slightly more sympathetic than Bill Sykes. (Robert Newton's portrayal of the later is terrifying.)

By the time we get to "Oliver!" the musical, Fagin is a jolly old father figure to a bunch of lost youth, larcenous but lovable. Interestingly, he continues to be costumed in a very stereotypical way.

I have always been flabbergasted that the way adapters have attempted to fix the problem is to make Fagin a more sympathetic character. I wonder why no one has thought to make Fagin a East Side London villain (after all he is a child abuser, predator and fence) without the stereotypical garb and make-up.

I don't think Fagin's religion is relevant to the plot of the story. I wonder why Dickens did it.

[Malcolm]

Bea wrote: "I hope I'm not changing the subject and I totally agree with everything people are saying about the offensive portrayal of Fagin in Dickens's book.

I find it interesting how Fagin has changed over..."

Lionel Bart who wrote the musical Oliver!, was himself Jewish, which probably explains your observation. And Bart was also from the East End of London, which was (and by all account still is) such a jolly place just after World War II. I think Bart just wanted to make an entertaining musical as this was the what he done best - wrote musical stage shows. An interesting point is, after Shirley Bassey had a number one hit with his song 'As Long As He Needs Me', Lionel Bart wanted her to play Nancy in the film version of Oliver!

By the way, Dickens based Fagin on an actual convicted criminal. He was not just a figment of his imagination.

But I think he may have focused on the lurid press descriptions of the court-case (I mean, what came out in court), and the first hand account of the teenaged child upon whom the Artful Dodger was based, who, according to the most recent of newspapers features, the great author interviewed personally, having first read police reports following his arrest.

I think, that obviously Oliver Twist is typical rags-to-riches yarn, but more than that, with regard to the plight of the poor, homeless, work-house born orphans of the time, it showed what became of them due to their institutionalised way of life - a downward spiral of crime. And Oliver started at the bottom of society. So just imagine, a downward spiral starting when at the bottom of society in the first place.

And also, it's a sort of a literary version of Hogarth's The Rake's Progress, but obviously Oliver is not a rake, and Dickens' morality tale is a far more positive picture. Oliver Twist - The Parish Boy's Progress.

[Jenn]

Loretta wrote: "This is a first read for me, so I'm assuming the characterization of Fagin gets worse...? Certainly his introduction was offensive, but not quite horrifying yet."

I agree with Loretta. So far with this reading Fagin is only introduced at the end of chapter 8 and the worst mention of him is being old, repulsive, and villainous-looking. While this isn't exactly a compliment to the man, I don't see how it is necessarily offensive. I actually thought he was portrayed in a good light when he kept the boys from stealing from Oliver. Unless his characterization changes later in the novel, I don't see what to be offended of just because he is called a Jew and happens to be old and poor. I hope that this comment is not offensive to anybody, just my opinion.

[Malcolm]

Jenn wrote: "Loretta wrote: "This is a first read for me, so I'm assuming the characterization of Fagin gets worse...? Certainly his introduction was offensive, but not quite horrifying yet."

I agree with Lore..."

I think he's not as 'poor' as he is painted. He is thriving on the black economy. In reality he must be worth quite a bit what with all the silver and silks and pocket watches etc that he fences. Obviously not for top whack, but I doubt if people in his position was giving it away. Consider his stash of hidden treasures his 'liquid assets' practically as good as ready-money in times of emergency and a quick get-away.

[Malcolm]

Currently I'm re-reading Uncle Silas. I've just completed Volume I. But I find Oliver Twist, the most easiest of Dickens' novels to read that I will re-read it once I've completed my current novel at hand.

Then I'll be able to participate in this discussion based on current reading rather than memory.

[Loretta]

Jenn wrote: "So far with this reading Fagin is only introduced at the end of chapter 8 and the worst mention of him is being old, repulsive, and villainous-looking. While this isn't exactly a compliment to the man, I don't see how it is necessarily offensive."

Yep. I imagine he gets worse, as others have suggested, but so far we've only been informed that he's repulsive looking.

And I hate to have to do this, but I'd like to remind everyone to please only discuss events that have happened in the book up to the point that we have read as a group.

I understand that we have many people who have read this book in the past, and therefore it can be very tempting to discuss a "current" event (i.e. one in the section we've just read) in light of "future" events (i.e. ones that have not yet occurred in the book).

Sorry to have to crack the whip on this, but many people are sensitive about spoilers.

If you all would like, I can also post a "spoiler" thread (not every week, just one main one) where those who are rereading can discuss future events. Yes, I know it's hard to believe (and I'm not being sarcastic) but some of us have made it through life without actually knowing the plot of Oliver Twist.

Again, this isn't a criticism. I'm just trying to maximize everyone's enjoyment.

[Lynnm]

Loretta wrote: "Jenn wrote: "So far with this reading Fagin is only introduced at the end of chapter 8 and the worst mention of him is being old, repulsive, and villainous-looking. While this isn't exactly a compl..."

Sorry, Loretta. You're right.

I brought it up at the first mention of Fagin because I know what is coming and wanted to address the issue as quickly as possible. I didn't want people to give up on the book in coming chapters because they found certain sections offensive. I thought that this way people know what is coming and they can, as I said, use it as a teachable moment.

Sorry for the spoiler. Didn't mean it that way. I was thinking of it as background information rather than a spoiler.

[Bea]

Loretta wrote: "Jenn wrote: "So far with this reading Fagin is only introduced at the end of chapter 8 and the worst mention of him is being old, repulsive, and villainous-looking. While this isn't exactly a compl..."

Sorry. I will re-read according to the group's schedule.

[Loretta]

@ Lynn and Bea: This wasn't a huge spoiler, and I don't think my enjoyment will be lessened at all. I just wanted to input the reminder so we're all on the same page.

And, again, if you want me to open a secondary thread for experienced readers to discuss future events, please let me know. I hope you'll all still join us in the main threads, but if you want to post about something that the current reading reminds you of re: the future reading, that would be the place to do so.

Thanks everyone for being such great participants!

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Loretta wrote: "One thing that struck me in this section is that Oliver is really starting to become a character himself, rather than just a passive creature as he was in the first 4 chapters. (This does make sens..."

I was so glad of this. The cardboard characterization of Oliver in the first section was making me really despair for the rest of the book. I'm still not totally into the book, but I think I will be so at some point. Dickens is pretty slow for me in that regard.

[Loretta]

I was relieved by this as well. I'm not sure Oliver had any dialogue at all in the first section (I'm pretty sure that every time he spoke was described in an expository fashion, rather than directly quoted). So hopefully this trend continues.

[Lauri]

I thought it was so incredibly sad when Oliver fought Noah over the disparaging comment about Oliver’s mother. Obviously Oliver can have no actual memory of his mother, nor do I believe anyone could have told him about his mother since she came to the town and landed in the workhouse in an already near-death state. So everything thing he is fighting for is that ideal image of a mother that likely only a child without a mother can conjure up in his/her imagination. I wanted to cry…

[Lauri]

I loved the writing style in the scene where Oliver first meets Fagin and the other boys. The sentences felt hard and choppy, as if mimicking the pecking of birds, as the boys each try to divest Oliver of his meager belongings:

“Upon this, the young gentleman with the pipes came round him, and shook both his hands very hard – especially the one in which he held his little bundle. One young gentleman was very anxious to hang up his cap for him, and another was so obliging as to put his hands in his pockets, in order that, as he was very tired, he might not have the trouble of emptying them, himself, when he went to bed.”

[Zulfiya]

Lauri wrote: "I loved the writing style in the scene where Oliver first meets Fagin and the other boys. The sentences felt hard and choppy, as if mimicking the pecking of birds, as the boys each try to divest O..."

An excellent quotation, Lauri.

[MadgeUK]

On the subject of Oliver's mother, orphans like Oliver were often given a small token by their mothers which were kept by the foundling hospitals/orphanages to identify the children. There is a heartrending display of some of these at the Foundling Hospital Museum in London:-

http://www.foundlingmuseum.org.uk/col...

For those interested in Victorian social history, this is an excellent museum to visit if ever you are in London (click around the website). Dickens was one of many of its illustrious patrons. It is located between St Pancras Station and Russell Square.

[MadgeUK]

Apart from his characterisation as a Jew, was Fagin so bad? He provided for the boys in a fatherly way and kept them away from the evils of living on the street, where begging and prostitution might have been their lot. He also tried to protect Nancy. I am not so sure that Dickens saw him as an entirely bad guy, just as someone who survived by thieving and fencing, which many did in those awful times. Nor do I think there is much evidence of 'abuse' other than the sort of physical discipline which Victorian fathers commonly handed out to their children.

Upon rereading the descriptions of Fagin as 'a very old shrivelled Jew, whose villainous-looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted read hair' I came to wondering whether if the word 'Jew' were left out of these descripitions, would he seem any worse than Bill Sikes? He is, after all, also described as a 'Pleasant Old Gentleman' and a 'Merry Old Jew' and at times seems as kindly in his own way as the other old gentleman Oliver later meets.

[Joyce]

Jarring, yes. But can we set the Jewish offense aside? Times have changed. The book isn't realistic anyway. Everything is exaggerated. I just wish there was a little more humor. I don't count the black humor as real humor. So far I haven't laughed once. Too sad, tragic, bleak. But the writing is amazing. Surely Dickens must have edited and re-edited to remove every unnecessary word.

[MadgeUK]

Yes, Dickens edited and re-edited a lot as this example of one of his manuscripts shows:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Dickens' humour improved in his later novels so perhaps it was something he learned to include - although I think Mr & Mrs Bumble are quite an amusing characters. Certainly Cruikshank portrayed them as such:-

http://web.missouri.edu/~westn/images...

[Joyce]

MadgeUK wrote: "Yes, Dickens edited and re-edited a lot as this example of one of his manuscripts shows:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic......"

Thanks for the link to the Daily Mail article. Fascinating.

Right now the only Dickens characters I can recall who've made me laugh are good-hearted ones. The baddies are a little too monstrous for laughter. Maybe it's just me.

[MadgeUK]

There is a lot of irony in the portrayal of the baddies and that can sometimes be difficult to spot. In Oliver there are several examples of situational irony where characters with the responsibility to aid Oliver don't, those expected to treat Oliver harshly do the opposite, and characters in the upper class fall to poverty while those in poverty become the upper class.

[Joyce]

All that is colorful and amusing, but does it actually make you laugh? Our only relief from the picturesque gloom is that a few good people populate Dickens' world. Another thought - does Dickens think bad behavior is learned? or that it's in the genes (so to speak)? Oliver is sweet and seemingly incorruptible. What about the baddies? Were they born bad? (I've only read through chapter 25, so maybe things will change.)

[Joyce]

I'm sorry if I'm posting my thoughts in the wrong place. I haven't quite caught on to the system here. But I'm enjoying the group!

[MadgeUK]

It makes me chuckle Joyce:) I don't think we get to know whether the baddies were born bad but I think Dickens tries to infer that they were often a product of their circumstances, of the terrible place that London was at that time.

We are now discussing the end of the novel so you are OK posting anywhere you fancy. Its good to know you are enjoying the read.

[Tango]

More brilliant writing and wonderful descriptions. I loved he physical description of The Artful Dodger, it is just so easy to imagine this young boy dressed like a man and his mannerisms. Although I agree that the descriptions of Fagin as the Jew don't sit comfortably with me I think that he compares quite favorably with characters such as Bumble and those running the workhouse where they were starving people to death. At least he feeds the children and gives them a roof over their heads which is much more than many seem to do.