Blog Post 2: Close Reading of Oliver Twist

Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens is a story that has always been close to my heart. My first encounter with the tale was through a VHS tape of the musical movie “Oliver!” created in 1968. The musical didn’t take away the brutality that poor Oliver faced, Nancy being beaten to death and Sikes being hung, but it did leave out some important plot points such as him being shot in his robbery with Sikes and being taken care of by Miss. Rose and Mrs. Maylie, Dodger and Fagin’s ending, and the whole plot point of the mystery man “Monks”. I first read the novel the whole way through my sophomore year of college. I had read other Dickens novels but this one by far is the one with the most wit.

The passage that I chose to address was the introduction of Oliver to The Artful Dodger:

“Mr. Dawkin’s appearance did not say a vast deal in favour of the comforts which his patron’s interest obtained for those whom he took under his protection; but, as he had a rather flightly and dissolute mode of conversing, and furthermore avowed that among his intimate friends he was better known by the sobriquet of ‘The Artful Dodger,’ Oliver concluded that, being of a dissipated and careless turn, the moral precepts of his benefactor had hitherto been thrown away upon him. Under this impression, he secretly resolved to cultivate the good opinion of the old gentleman as quickly as possible; and, if he found the Dodger incorrigible, as he more than half suspected he should, to decline the honour of his farther acquaintance.” (Dickens 62)

This passage, the introduction of Dodger shows that the he is a shifty character through and through. Oliver refers to him as “flightly, dissipated, careless turn, and incorrigible”. These are all words that do not have the best moral standing. A flightly person is usually someone who does not pay attention very much or who does not keep to what they say. This makes Oliver already a little distrustful of Dodger. Furthermore, Dodger’s impression does not extend to only himself. Dodger also represents his patron, an older gentleman that Oliver will soon meet named Fagin. Oliver’s foreshadowing of Fagin through Dodger turns out to be right on target. Fagin is an old swindler who trains young boys of London or who come to him to be criminals and thieves. He pretends to be a nice old man who cares about these boys but really, he only cares for the wealth he makes from them. The act of pretending does not only start from him but also spreads to Dodger.

From the very first encounter with Dodger, Oliver does not trust him or more or less think that he does not have the highest moral standing. This may be due to Dodger’s appearance being outside of the norm for a boy his age. When the two meet Dodger is drinking a beer, which is peculiar for someone of his age to do. He is described as “a strange boy” only a few lines earlier and described as wearing a coat that is far too big for him. The image of a boy drinking beer in a coat too big for him gives the appearance of pretending. Our first image of Dodger indicates that he is someone who pretends. This would be normal for a boy his age, playing pretend and using the imagination, if it wasn’t for how serious he took it. Dodger doesn’t only dress like a young man he also talks like one. Not many boys his age would know the word “sobriquet” let alone use it in a casual conversation with someone they just met. So, his pretense spreads to his speech and actions as well. And what is pretending but a way of covering up the truth, for children it is reality and for Dodger it was his criminal demeanor. Oliver is right to be wary of Dodger and his employer. Dodger ends up being shipped off to Australia for his extensive pick pocketing and stealing record. And Fagin ends up losing his life to his life of crime. In the end pretense or pretending got them nothing but misfortune and suffering and Oliver’s first impression of the Dodger and Fagin through Dodger, was correct.

Work Cited:

Dickens, Charles. Oliver Twist. Penguin Classics, 2002.

B3: “Close Reading” of Poverty in Gustave Dore’s Art

For a bit of practice doing “close readings” on images, I decided to analyze a photo from Gustave Dore’s London: A Pilgrimage collection for this blog post. The image I selected is titled ‘A City Thoroughfare.’ For reference, I attached a link to the image.  The first thing I noticed when looking at the image is that a lot is happening; it is a chaotic scene. People are in carriages side-by-side, the street is filled with other people on foot, and the two rows of buildings on either side frame all that is happening. Everyone is trapped on this one street. The style is very shadowed; the lines between individuals are not distinct. Shading is heavily used. It appears to be blended and blurred on purpose. No individual looks like the center of the piece. Rather, it appears that the chaos is spotlighted over the individual. Only lower-class citizens are presented. Identifiable people in the image are all working class. Identifiable individuals include policemen, men moving large boxes, carriage drivers, and children crammed into the top of a carriage. The rest of the people seem to just be a mass, stretching the whole way to the end of the view.

The image is very dark in physical composition and tone. The sketch has no ray of light or any type of hope presented. It is only dark. For the most part, the individual is unidentifiable; it is just the mass of people presented. This represents the lower-class as a group rather than as individual people, showing the dehumanization of this social class. On the right side of the image, the faces that can be seen are crammed into small areas, and although their expressions are not entirely present, the ones that are presented appear to be in disgust or pain. The hustling street does not look like somewhere glorified, rather it appears stifling and painful. No one looks like they want to be there, and nothing about it is comfortable. This is the dark side of London that tourists and the upper-classes avoid.

The depiction serves as a raw look at lower-class lives, and it shows these people as an indistinguishable group on a busy street. The chaos shows how the lower-class was forced to live uncomfortably, in pain, and was valued less than the upper-class citizens who would never dare to be trapped in such a congested street. The image evokes feelings of disorientation as there are not very many people who stand out in the image, nor are there very many ways to determine the location of this street in relation to the rest of London. It looks at London in a very realistic and unglorified manner. If anything, it shows the extreme side of poverty in London. The dark nature demonstrations how the social hierarchy erased the individual in mid-Victorian London, and it places the viewer in an uncomfortable position of viewing the lower-class’ suffering.

Dore, Gustave. London: A Pilgrimage: ‘A City Thoroughfare’. British Library, London. Web. <https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/london-illustrations-by-gustave-dor>.

William Wordsworth’s poem “Composed upon Westminster Bridge” and William Blake’s poem “London” offer two starkly different views of the city. Whereas Wordsworth’s poem seems to be bathed in light, soaking up the silence of a bright new day, Blake’s appears bogged down with the dreariness he sees around him. Each poem offers a different narrative of the city, and some of the key ideas I saw both of the authors using were visual cues with light and aural notes with the senses of sound, to communicate their visions of London.

As I previously mentioned, the stark contrasts of each of the poets’ usage of light is apparent. In Wordsworth’s poem, the shining promise of a new day is upon him, and it helps to illuminate the beauty he is surrounded by. Everything he describes around him is “bright and glittering in the smokeless air.” The calm that emerges because of this light fills Wordsworth with the joy he professes here, and he can then view the city with a more appreciative tone. Blake, however, contrasts Wordsworth in his descriptions of the city. While Wordsworth says the air is smokeless, Blake says the churches’ walls are blackened, and he notes how the chimney sweepers cry. Blake’s word choice, with words like “blackning” and “midnight” lend to a very dark image of London. Coupled with the melancholy imagery he uses when describing the individuals he sees, and the hopelessness inside of them, Blake’s view of London is a very depressing one, to say the least.

Wordsworth and Blake both use sound in their poems to convey their messages as well. The morning Wordsworth is discussing is described as silent and calming, to the point where even “the very houses seem asleep.” The only sound that is really conveyed in his poem is the sound of the river freely flowing, which is a calming sound. Blake’s poem, however, communicates a much more chaotic scene through his usage of sound. There are men crying, infants crying out of fear, and “youthful harlots” who are cursing. Each of them seems stuck in their melancholy viewpoints with no escape, and it makes it so that the scene is very unappealing. If it were quiet, at least Blake could be offered some calm to gather his thoughts. I think this is part of the reason why he focuses so much on the people in this poem: they are what he can make sense of, because they are being so loud.

The two representations of London are definitely apparent in these two poems, but they both speak to some of the same ideas in describing their surroundings. Wordsworth and Blake both mention the Thames – Wordsworth sees it as free flowing, Blake describes it as chartered. They also both mention places of worship in the poems (temples and churches, respectively). I think it’s interesting how different their representations of the city are, and how Wordsworth’s poem seems so full of hope, while Blake sees no escape. I wonder, too, if Wordsworth would consider Blake to be the dull man devoid of soul he describes in lines two and three, as Blake passes by the majesty. I’m intrigued by the slightly different historical periods they were written in, given that they were written eight years apart. I’d be interested to see how this history ties in to their shaping of their viewpoints.

Blog Post 1: Thematic Analysis of Pride and Prejudice

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin is a book that has always been special to me. It’s one of the books that I grew up reading and helping me fall in love with literature. It’s one that I’ve read so many times that I could probably recite it. However, in this specific reading of the text I started to focus on themes that really stood out to me. One theme that has repeatedly caught my eye is the theme of innocence in this novel. Throughout Elizabeth Bennet’s telling of the social debacle that ends in her and her sisters’ marriage innocence has come up in comparison of two of her sisters: Jane and Lydia.

Jane Bennet, who falls in love with a Mr. Bingley, is the eldest of the Bennet girls. Her innocence is seen as one related more to piety and purity than of youth. She is the most beautiful out of all of her sisters as well has having a good heart and a gentle nature. Her description is often of that of an angel. Because she is so good hearted and gentle she is seen as innocent or pure. Also, because she is older her innocence is something that is free given because she is mature enough to understand it. Her innocence is not something that is physically part of her but more of part of her personality.

Lydia Bennet, who runs away with the dastardly Mr. Wickham, is the youngest of the Bennet girls. Her innocence is directly related to her youth. Lydia is a reckless girl who doesn’t care for the rules of society or self-preservation. She’s a wild child who runs away with a man and her innocence is shown by the idea that she simply too young to understand the magnitude of what she’s done. Her innocence is something that is physically hers and something that she cannot see the value in like her elder sister, Jane, can.

Though innocence was highly valued in Victorian society through the two sisters’ depictions it seems that Jane’s form of innocence had a higher value. Though the innocence of youth is something that considered desirable it can be argued that it’s more likely to be linked to naivety than something of more value. It’s because of Lydia’s inexperience and recklessness that she ends up in the position she’s put in by the end of the novel, married to a man who is stuck with her and she’s constantly in debt. However, Jane’s form of innocence is much more desirable in society’s eyes. Hers is a quiet innocence more so connected to the idea of purity. She is young yes, much not as young as Lydia whose innocence can be taken advantage of.

Something that always stands out to me any time I read Dickens’ fiction is how he seems to suggest to readers all the ways in which their society and/or its systems are corrupt or unjust. He typically seems to do so using satire, as well as in his depiction of distinct characters such as Fagin, Mr. Bumble, and Oliver Twist. In Oliver Twist, one of the things I picked up on as a criticism of the relationships between men and women, and especially the role of women in these relationships, as portrayed by Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Corney. After everyone is brought to justice in the final chapters of the novel, there is a moment where the focus of the story becomes an account from this married couple:

‘It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,’ urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

‘That is no excuse,’ replied Mr. Brownlow. ‘You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.’

‘If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, ‘the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.’

Laying great stress on the repetition of these two words, Mr. Bumble fixed his hat on very tight, and putting his hands in his pockets, followed his helpmate downstairs. (Dickens 422)

What stands out in this passage is how their relationship is solely based on advantage. Mrs. Corney is only good to Mr. Bumble as far as the law gives him an advantage over her, and in thanks to her (i.e. her inheritance). In this case, he is made responsible for his wife’s actions, actions which he facilitated, and the law is no longer his friend. Prior to this, he is grateful for how the law binds the two together because it promoted him to being a master in the workhouse, rather than simply a beadle. Sadly, he quickly realizes that even this “promotion” is not favorable to him; his wife is the mistress and he must only do what is favorable for her. It is this demotion from master that really seems to cause Bumble to resent his wife. In other words, Bumble calls the law “a ass” because it is foolish to believe that his wife acts the way he orders her to.

The relationship between Bumble and Corney is in a way not what is suggested by the law, which creates a system where men are in control and women must submit to their husbands, who in a way, become like the law since as it says in the quote, they must act according to their direction. Rather, Mr. Bumble is portrayed in this quote, and throughout the novel, as a cowardly excuse for a man (evidenced by the fact that he could only blame his wife if she was absent from the room), or at least the kind of masculine gentleman the law promotes.

For me, this kind of behavior from Mrs. Corney creates a sense of admiration for her because she is pushing back against the image of the Angel of the House, which the reader sees in Rose Maylie. However, the difference in these two characters is their station in life. Mrs. Corney is a modest employee of the parish, while Rose is a beneficiary of an estate. This suggests that the law is only truly useful to those who are in power – the ones who have the money to wield power (i.e. the rich white men). Even characters such as the Bumbles, who are unlikeable for their villainous roles in the novel, receive some sympathy for readers as a result of the lower station in life, and how that affects their happiness and opportunities. As Bumble states, experience is really what matters, and the way society is set up in Victorian England leaves a lot to be desired for most in the way of truly experiencing the effects of the law on their society. Oliver Twist’s story is entirely a testament to that fact.