Wordsworth’s poem “Lines Composed Upon Westminster Bridge” paints a picture of London much different than many of the other writers or artists we have read from for this class. Rather than depicting a dirty, poor, and overpopulated city, Wordsworth gives the impression that London is just another fixture part of England’s natural beauty. That said, he writes about London in this poem using very romantic language and imagery. The first line of the sonnet alone is enough to show the reader this romantic nature of the poem: “Earth has not anything to show more fair.” In this line, the reader is told to think of London as a part of the Earth; not just the world, which would take away form the natural imagery Wordsworth is so accustomed to invoking. The hyperbole of this line is also evident to me right away, and tells me that this poem is absolutely romanticizing London. Throughout the rest of the poem, Wordsworth using other words such as, “majesty, beauty, bright, glittering, and mighty” to promote this glamorized, romantic image. He compares it images from nature: “Never did sun more beautifully steep /
In his first splendour, valley, rock, or hill.” This stands out to me especially, given that romantic poetry valorizes nature. Here, Wordsworth is talking about the collections of “Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples,” which are obviously not natural objects or wonders. Perhaps most especially notable is line eight, where he states the city is, “All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.” The fact that he calls to attention the air quality as “smokeless” tells me that the rest of the poem is trying to make out London to be something that it is not; he is trying to prove that London is not what others make it out to be.

Sherlock Holmes is of course a very beloved character, and the setting of his stories being London seems to be a significant part of his character. Considering all that I’ve read so far about London in the novels and other texts (it is crowded, it is easy to blend in, it has a lot of poverty, crime is a rampant issue, etc.) I could see why Conan Doyle would be so inclined to write stories about a detective in London. During the Victorian Era, policing was a developing profession. As we read about in Oliver Twist, mobs of onlookers and other people on the street took it upon themselves to apprehend criminals. This was not (as we read) a very effective means of policing. In the first Sherlock story we read, “The Red Headed League,” we also are exposed to some of the problems/corruption with this developing force. One of the characters in on the stakeout is a police officer. He at one point says of Sherlock, “He has his own little methods, which are, if he won’t mind my saying so, just a little too theoretical and fantastic, but he has the makings of a detective in him. It is not too much to say that once or twice, as in that business of the Sholto murder and the Agra treasure, he has been more nearly correct than the official force.” His dismissal of Sherlock as someone with simply the “makings of a detective,” only “nearly more correct than the official force” (which we know is a gross underestimation of his skills and success) reveals him to be a very proud and self-serving man.

Conan Doyle’s method of writing is very easily accessible for any reader (especially in comparison with Dickens and Austen). His language is simplified, and his sentences are mostly concise. Part of what makes his stories so easily understood is how well he describes the characters, settings, props, and action of his stories; his stories are very descriptive, without overdoing it. For example, consider the following passage from “The Red Headed League”: “I had called upon my friend, Mr. Sherlock Holmes, one day in the autumn of last year and found him in deep conversation with a very stout, florid-faced, elderly gentleman with fiery red hair. With an apology for my intrusion, I was about to withdraw when Holmes pulled me abruptly into the room and closed the door behind me.” This opening to the story immediately pulls the reader into the room with Watson, creating a clear image of the scene, and especially of the man in it. That said, London, being such a big and bustling city, is a place that is full of noteworthy and descriptive people and places. Readers would easily be able to call such images to mind not only from Conan Doyle’s writing, but also from their own experiences.

After looking at all of the images from each of the collections, Dore’s and Thomson’s, I was really struck by how different they seem to be. While each are portraying London from the working classes, they seem to have very different images of what the horrors of this class entail. In Dore’s illustrations, the viewer gets a sense for how horrible conditions were for the poor in London at this time. His images of these people in many different setting including markets, work, and homes are all illustrated to be very dark. In comparison, the few images which represent the upper classes of society are colored in a much brighter and whiter way. This color contrast alone is relating to the viewer the stark contrast of the classes, and the injustice of these deplorable differences in condition.

In Thomson’s photographers, it is with a much more forgiving and upbeat tone that the viewer takes in the scenes. This is especially made evident in the text accompanying the images. For example, the viewer is often given a short history of the person in the image, telling a story of someone who has overcome odds, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and outweighed the evils of their condition with hard work and sacrifice. A specific example from the image titled Workers on the “Silent Highway” perfectly demonstrates this attitude: “Fortunately, the very nature of their occupation compels the men to enjoy plenty of fresh air and invigorating exercise, and this naturally counteracts the evil effects resulting from their occasional confinement in cabins unfit for human habitation.”

In order to better express the truth in this argument, consider the following two images, each depicting a similar scene:

In the first, the scene is clearly overcrowded. There are multiple ships, all one on top of the other. There are also many men at work, all of whom seem to be seriously employed in completing a task. These jobs appear to be very dangerous: there are men supported only by the bows of the ship, some are covered in what must be heavy ropes, and others are climbing unsupported up the masts. Add in the the fact that there are no empty space in the image, and the subsequent darkness of it, and the viewer gets a sense for how undesirable a job of this nature would be.

On the other hand, the second image appears significantly less scary. In it, there are only two men on a much smaller vessel, which is also not overcrowded by a multitude of other ships. While the men still appear to be employed in a task of some sort, their jobs look less vigorous and dangerous than those depicted in the illustration.

While the photo is by its nature more realistic than the illustration, it still seems to be holding back from revealing the true nature of their position. This is evident in the quote stated above which describes why their jobs are “fortunate.” The illustration therefore almost seems more truthful. However, it too seems to hold some level of exaggeration in order to favor a certain point of view of the subject. After all, it seems impossible that so many ships could ever truly function if they were that close to one another. Therefore, it takes a close reading of both images, analyzed and interpreted with open-mindedness and a concern for the true condition of the poor, working class of society to get a realistic depiction of the truth.

One of the most obvious themes of this novel is marriage. That said, the first passage that stood out to me as I was reading Austen’s novel happens when Charlotte becomes engaged to Mr. Collins:

The whole family, in short, were properly overjoyed on the occasion. The younger girls formed hopes of coming out a year or two sooner than they might otherwise have done; and the boys were relieved from their apprehension of Charlotte’s dying an old maid. Charlotte herself was tolerably composed. She had gained her point, and had time to consider of it. Her reflections were in general satisfactory. Mr. Collins to be sure was neither sensible nor agreeable; his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary. But still, he would be her husband. — Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want. This preservative she had now obtained; and at the age of twenty-seven, without having ever been handsome, she felt all the good luck of it. (Austen, 120).

What I find so interesting about this quote is the stake the entire family seems to have in the engagement of one of its daughters. The bride herself feels “lucky” for becoming engaged to a man at her age, especially “without having ever been handsome,” despite the fact that Mr. Collins is such an unagreeable man to take as a husband. Then of course there are her sisters to consider, who are rejoicing about the union because it means that they could be given the chance to be married soon next. Finally, the brothers are grateful to not have to worry about the shame and expense of a sister who is an old maid. For a modern reader such as myself, these motives are highly unsatisfying in seeing characters get married. It in no way evokes the same kind of reaction from me as when reading about Jane and Lizzy’s engagements. Their bridegrooms at least seem to be men whom they admire and love. For Charlotte, the entire marriage is more of convenience and advantage, just like Mr. Bumble’s in Oliver Twist.

The tone of this passage seems to suggest that Austen’s novel views this aspect of society, where women marry only for the advantage of their family and to avoid becoming an old maid, with contempt. The description of Mr. Collins that Lizzy gives us here is what really sets this contemptuous tone. The suggestion that his attachment, “must be imaginary” is a comical way to represent his character. This description also inspires sympathy from the reader for Charlotte, who has no interest in either men or marriage. However, as stated about, “it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune. This suggests that to not marry would make a woman of such social rank stupid. The comparison of the marriage to a preservation of self is another example of how the language is inspiring the reader to feel sympathy for Charlotte, and contempt for the way in which society is forcing her to merely preserve herself from a wanting status, whether that include want of money or relations. As this passage suggests, not getting married would be shameful for the entire family, and leave the girl not only broke, but unfavorable to her friends and relatives.

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.