Charles Dickens’ “Night Walks” and Elizabeth Banks’ “Campaigns of Curiosity” both represent poverty and the working class in that both authors put themselves on the level of the classes they are speaking about. Dickens leaves his house to experience his version of houselessness, and Banks poses as a housemaid to know more about the working class.

In Dickens’ “Night Walks,” Dickens leaves his house to experience houselessness. He says that he does this because he cannot sleep, and he just wished to get through the night. The result is what he calls an “amateur experience of houselessness,” which led him to “sympathetic relations with people.” He would not have encountered these people if it weren’t for his insomnia, and it was not his direct intent to seek them out and empathize with them. However, he begins to equate himself with them as he goes on his walks, and he consistently uses the word “we” in his descriptions of the houseless. Dickens represents those on the street in some gruesome ways, effectively communicating the impact these people had on him. When Dickens discusses the children in Covent Garden, his descriptions of the children were particularly impactful for me. He says that the children sleep in baskets, fight over food, and are thieves. At the end of the passage, he says “A painful and unnatural result comes of the comparison one is forced to institute between the growth of corruption as displayed in the so much improved and cared for fruits of the earth, and the growth of corruption as displayed in these all uncared for (except inasmuch as ever-hunted) savages.” Any description of a person as a savage definitely comes from a place of privilege, but the passage communicates the idea that the city is failing its children, as they are not cared for, and nobody cares if they are taken care of. I think that the nighttime setting is important because the houseless population comes to life, as Dickens describes. Those in the city who are at home, asleep in their safe beds, are paying no mind to the chaos and havoc going on in the streets surrounding them. The idealized version of the city is swept aside for this realistic representation of the people suffering at the hands of their misfortunes, and Dickens appears to be the only privileged man aware of it – and the only one willing to speak of it.

Elizabeth Banks uses a similar place of privilege in order to speak about the working class in “Campaigns of Curiosity.” She is first made aware of her naivete in the first chapter, when she offers the sewing woman a “better” job. The working woman couldn’t be more offended, and she accuses Banks of trying to take away her independence. Banks recoils, confused as to how a working woman could be considered independent. The whole scene was humorous to me, but I admired the way Banks handled the situation: she tried to understand. She sought out a job that would allow her to be an “ordinary servant.” Once she finds a job, she gets a wake-up call. She did not realize how much work would be involved in being a housemaid, and how unlivable their wages were. Annie tries to teach Elizabeth the ways of the house, but she can’t help but laugh when Elizabeth underestimated the work. On page 29, Annie tells Elizabeth that it’s too bad she “took such a hard place for [her] first time in service!” On the same page, Elizabeth says that she pitied herself for all of the work she had to do. She subjected herself to the pains and struggles of the working class, but she was easily able to evade them as she saw fit. She even has to get food from her own home rather than buying it with her earnings. Her privilege is clear in that scene because she evades the confines of the working class and uses her wealth to benefit her, even though she wanted to experience being in the working class to its fullest. Therefore, she brought her own privilege into her experience, and her experience was biased by her greater wealth than the woman she was emulating. Although her intentions may have been just, her methods were not. However, because her wealth is so clearly juxtaposed by the working class, it makes the struggles of the women all the more clear, and it paints them in a very respectable light.

Both Dickens and Banks take themselves out of their places of privilege in order to understand and speak about those in poverty and the working class. Their understanding, then, is influenced by their own wealth and success, and it shapes how they view the people they speak about. There is a barrier created in each of their pieces that both of the authors must overcome, but I would argue that it gives the reader a more thorough understanding of the wealthy and the poor/working class because of that discrepancy. The reader is able to know the authors’ presuppositions, and the reader is able to see how the author shapes him or herself based on what they find out. In taking themselves out of their privileged places, they are able to communicate the struggles of the poor and of the working class, and they serve as witnesses to their experiences. If it were not for them, the reality of poverty and of the working class may not have been as evidently clear.

Works Cited:

Banks, Elizabeth. Campaigns of Curiosity. F. Tennyson Neely, 1894.

Dickens, Charles. The Uncommercial Traveller.  ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dickens/charles/d54ut/chapter13.html.

In “Composed upon Westminster Bridge”, William Wordsworth claims that the morning view of London while upon the bridge is one of the greatest things that the Earth has to shoe. He states that the “Earth has not anything to show more fair” which makes the claim that this perspective of London in the early morning light is the most amazing thing that the world has to offer. Wordsworth makes note of the way that the morning beauty clothes the entire city making it impossible to not see its wonder unless a person a truly dull with no vision of how amazing the image actually can be to the world. The calm that he experiences at looking upon the morning sun over London is one only due to the silence of the city as the buildings and businesses have yet to awaken and spoil the clear and calming air.

Wordsworth seems to fall into the realm of transcendentalism and the idea that spirituality can be found when a person has the opportunity to walk alone with nature. In the third line, Wordsworth states that the view is “A sight so touching in its majesty”. By using the diction of “majesty” which is often a term used in connection with God, Wordsworth is implying that the sight has a type of spiritual quality to it at this time of day that would be hard for a person to miss, He goes on to make a list of things that are lying silent in the beauty of the morning such as “Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples”. The list contains industrialized and often busy places that bring noise and clutter to the atmosphere when they are in full business. By making note of the silence and clarity that the morning brings to these places, Wordsworth seems to be making a movement against becoming too involved in the capital that people miss the value of the visual.

Throughout the poem, Wordsworth is presenting a picture of London a living entity whose true beauty is found when it first awakens. He personifies the nature within the scene claiming that “The river glideth at his own free will”. By stating the river flows by its will, he is giving life to an image that others might see as just a passage in the bustle of daytime. Wordsworth personifies the river as a way of representing London as more than just the capital enterprise that it might be seen as during business hours. He seems to personify London as a whole by claiming that in the calm and silence “all that mighty heart is lying still”. London is being presented by Wordsworth as a heart, the organ which keeps the body alive, as a way of showing that it is the city that holds the people together and only in the calm of morning can it be still without the bustle of the waking world. Through the use of personification, Wordsworth portrays London as a living city that is most beautiful when it can be silent.

Wordsworth’s poem makes me think about times when I have woken up to watch the sunrise before the majority of the world has awoken for the day. Sometimes I enjoy going for walks and being out in the world before business begins and cars fill the roads because it is very quiet and allows me to see things people miss when they are rushing back and forth to get a job done. “Composed upon Westminster Bridge” really reminds me of being on vacation and just getting to sit on a balcony at the beach to enjoy the waves before it becomes littered with people and beach towels. I think Wordsworth’s poem makes an important claim about the need to enjoy a city before it is fully awake.

The work of John Thomson and Adolphe Smith really struck me, and the photographs had a particularly lasting effect on me. Thomson’s photograph “The Crawlers” was the first image that stuck out to me when I was viewing the group as a whole. Upon closer inspection, there’s so much to unpack in it. First and foremost, the woman is at the center of the photograph, and it is well composed to make her the focus. She does not face the camera, but rather she looks down at the ground as the photo is taken. She appears exhausted, leaning up against the wall to rest her head. As she sits on the stoop, she is holding a baby in her lap. At first glance, it appears as if the baby is covered with its own blanket; actually, the woman is covering the baby with her shawl, protecting the child and herself at the same time. The focus of the image is blurred behind the woman, which heightens her prominence and brings her to the forefront even more. The leading lines in the door and on the wall also direct the focus to the woman’s face, which is arguably the most important part of this image; she is wrinkled, worn, and exhausted, clearly at odds with her situation. While the baby is an important part of this image as well, the child is out of focus, its face overexposed. The photograph is also angled down to the woman, and it was clearly taken when Thomson was standing up. The angle makes the woman seem even smaller and, coupled with her sitting position, it makes her appear all the more weak.

I’d like to compare “The Crawlers” with one of Gustave Dore’s illustrations, which communicates a similar idea. Dore’s image “Orange Court – Drury Lane” depicts a much more chaotic scene. The illustration itself is very thin, and it depicts a narrow street that appears to be even narrower as it continues to the back of the image. Several people line the walls of the street; men, women, and children alike are all crowded together. There are several men in top hats, and many of the women have their heads covered, but the children do not appear to be as protected from the elements. On the left side of the image, there is a man working at some sort of a device. An elderly woman walking with a cane is at the front of the image. Dead center, however, is a girl who looks young. She is barefoot, and she is carrying a baby who appears to be the same size as her. This girl is separated from the chaos of the people surrounding her, and she has room around her, which makes her all the more prominent. There are other girls around her carrying their own children, but this girl is at the forefront of all of them. There is heavy shading in this image, particularly further up the street, which gives it a somber, nighttime note. While there are many people in the image, many of them appear emotionless as their faces are stagnant. The girl holding the child, however, has a solemn look about her face.

When comparing the images, the first point I noticed is that they both depict women with young children. Both of these women in each of the images are the focal point of the image, and their struggle with their children and their situations is apparent. I was drawn to the expression on the woman’s face in “The Crawlers,” and the same emotion drew me to the girl in the illustration. The girl in the illustration, however, does not communicate her emotions as clearly because she is surrounded by the chaos of the population. She appears to be washed out by everyone else in the image, and I believe that to be the point. I did not notice the girl on first glance, and it was only after a closer viewing that I saw her facial expression. While the woman in the photograph is alone, the girl in the illustration is purposefully surrounded. It makes her all the more vulnerable, as she is likely to be swept up in the chaotic population. The viewer of the illustration has many other people to look at, which can communicate the reality of the situation as well. The woman in the photograph, however, is the only subject, which heightens her situation in a different way: the viewing audience has no choice but to look at her.

I personally found the illustrations to be very exaggerated and overwhelming, and I’m inclined to say the photographs held more truth for me. While it can be argued that truth lies in the fact that the illustrations show more of the situation at hand, and more people experiencing the detriments of it, there’s something about the photograph that resonates with me more. It just feels as if it was a raw moment that would have happened regardless of whether or not someone was there to view it. The illustration, however, feels contrived to me. Maybe that’s just my way of denying the horrible nature of the situation, but this one woman’s struggle in “The Crawlers” resonates with me much more than the scene in “Orange Court – Drury Lane.”

While urbanization and population are not overarching themes in “A Christmas Carol,” their presence in the story as a theme relate it to Dicken’s essay, Night Walks. Urbanization and population do exist as key themes in Night Walks as Dickens reflects on the restlessness of London and its juxtaposition with the quiet and lonely night life of houseless people. I found Night Walks to represent in part a non-fiction version of “A Christmas Carol” when considering the idea of putting yourself into the shoes of a less fortunate person. This seems to occur in Night Walks, just without the influence of a ghost from the main character’s past. 

In the beginning of “A Christmas Carol” when we are first learning about Scrooge, two men looking for donations for the poor solicit Scrooge for money. As the men explain why they are in need of donations, Scrooge inquires about the social institutions that his taxes fund. With these social institutions still existing, prisons and union labor houses, Scrooge explains that this is enough charity for himself. Further, when the men point out the insufferable conditions of those institutions, Scrooge exclaims “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides— excuse me— I don’t know that.” (Dickens, Kindle Locations 127-128). This exclamation leads us further into the values Scrooge holds especially as they relate to the poverty situation in London during this time period. 

Night Walks provides us with a more interpretive representation of population in London that I thought was particularly expressed in one quote. “The wild moon and clouds were as restless as an evil conscience in a tumbled bed, and the very shadow of the immensity of London seemed to lie oppressively upon the river.” (Dickens). In this, Dickens portrays London with immensity and goes further to describe it as having an oppressive effect on nature, and in that sense, the people who live there. The feeling of immensity is not clearly described as being felt by the speaker, as they still describe their current scene as desolate. 

I think the significance of population in these stories relates to the overall struggles with poverty that were prevalent in nineteenth century London. Scrooge sees these struggles as relating to one’s laziness or lack of skills while keeping a closed mind towards the possibility of one not having control over their economic or social position. I found the contrast between Scrooge in the beginning of “A Christmas Carol” and Dickens in Night Walks to be thought provoking because I began to think about how the differences in these characters could be identified in social and political figures and ideologies today.

Endlessly snarky, a bit insufferable, and utterly genius, Sherlock Holmes is a man known intimately by many British and American readers alike. His legacy has grown to an enormous reach—in fact, with the multitude of successful adaptations like Warner Bros.’ Sherlock Holmes, BBC’s Sherlock, and CBS’s Elementary, you would be hard pressed to find someone that’s never heard of the man at 221B Baker Street. In fact, it is (I believe) a source of pride for Londoners that this man, grown so famous that he seems more historical than fictitious, conducted his best work out of a little flat in their own city. The fact that 221B Baker Street is a real place makes the stories a little more exciting for fans…or maybe that’s just me, but I do hope we get the chance to stop by his doorstep!

Indeed, Sherlock’s residency in London is very important to the stories he exists within. Many aspects of the story rely on the rich, urban setting that London provides. Just one obvious example is that since London is a city, it is filled with many people, meaning that there are many more people physically in one square block of the place than is common in most other towns. This fact means that statistically there will be more criminals, because there are more people; therefore, the cramped spaces also lend themselves to conflict more easily.

We can clearly see how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle formed the plot of  “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle” around the bustle of London at Christmastime. Once Holmes and Watson have discovered the incidents leading up to Peterson being left with Henry Baker’s hat and goose, and learn the circumstances under which the Countess of Morcar’s blue carbuncle was stolen from the Hotel Cosmopolitan, all that was left to do was to fill in the details in the middle. Their literal goose chase (clever, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle!) eventually brings them to Covent Garden—a marketplace where it would have been all too easy to blend in without being seen. The true events that occured could potentially have been lost forever at such a place, that is, if the detective were anyone other than Mr. Holmes.

When Holmes and Watson discover James Ryder, head attendant at the Hotel Cosmopolitan, it doesn’t take long for them to discern that they have their man—but what could possibly have been his motive? Or his method? Sherlock sees a working class man and quickly understands his motive:

“Well, the temptation of sudden wealth so easily acquired was too much for you.”

The method, as Ryder explains, seems to have derived from a great anxiety about traveling through London with the gemstone on his person. Ryder says:

“But how to get to him in safety? I thought of the agonies I had gone through in coming from the hotel. I might at any moment be seized and searched, and there would be the stone in my waistcoat pocket. I was leaning against the wall at the time and looking at the geese which were waddling about round my feet, and suddenly an idea came into my head which showed me how I could beat the best detective that ever lived.”

The lengths at which Ryder went to in order to remain undetected with the stone seem absurd to me as a reader, who wonders, “why not just play it cool and blend in with the crowd?” All his plots involving the goose were, of course, all for nothing, as the gemstone never actually makes it into his hands.

Knowing this, and knowing that he will be too scared to try such a trick again, Holmes decides against turning this man in—an act that would certainly ruin his life. This choice aligns with Holmes’ statement early in the story about the crime scene, or lack thereof, in London:

“No, no. No crime. Only one of those whimsical little incidents which will happen when you have four million human beings all jostling each other within the space of a few square miles. Amid the action and reaction of so dense a swarm of humanity, every possible combination of events may be expected to take place, and many a little problem will be presented which may be striking and bizarre without being criminal. We have already had experience of such.”

Holmes is positive that the case will not involve legal crime, which ends up being untrue. He is correct, however, to comment on the increased incidents that occur in such a place as London, as not all being criminal.

Finally, this passage reminded me of something Sherlock has said in another of his stories, “The Adventure of the Copper Beeches”:

“It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.“

“You horrify me!”

“But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.”

If anything, I was glad to find that Holmes consistently defends the activities of Londoners as mischievous or troublesome at worst, and according to the above quote, held in check by the ever-present townspeople. His take on the countryside, though particularly dark, is very interesting, because what he says about concealment is actually quote true. Either way, Holmes’ allegiance to London is charming and a reassuring testament that he knows very well the city that he services.

References:

Doyle, Arthur Conan. “Adventure 7: “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle”” and “Adventure 12: “The Adventure of the Copper Beeches”.” The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Lit2Go Edition. 1892. Web. 17 May, 2018

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.

In terms of close reading images, there seems to be a lot to dissect when it comes to the photographs of London by John Thomson. Thomson, in his collection Street Life in London, presents images of the jobs and life seen within the streets of London and the lives that these working individuals lived during these working hours. Two images in particular stood out to me as they seemed to represent the darker side of the street life. “The London Boardmen” and “The Crawlers” both depict an unsavory image of life within the London streets when faced with old age or physical inabilities.

The image entitled “The London Boardmen” portrays an older man walking with an advertising sign both on the front of his body and the front of his hat. As a boardman, the older man is acting as a physical advertisement for whatever he is being asked to promote which gives very little compensation. Jobs such as these were left as one of the only options for making a living if a person does not have education or is not physically capable of doing much else except walking. The man within “The London Boardmen” photograph appears to be of significant age, upon inspection could be judged to be within his seventies or eighties. It stands out as significant to notices that he appears to be holding a cane in his left hand that he is using in order to walk. His entire job is to walk around as an advertisement yet he is using a cane and appears to be walking with a lean that might cause discomfort walking around the streets all day. Upon close viewing of the photograph it strikes me the sad expression that the man has on his face. He does not appear to have any enjoyment for the job that he is doing which brings a somber tone to the photograph as I would have hoped that by so late in a person’s life they would be in a place that they are happy.

The image entitled “The Crawlers” portrays an older woman sitting with a baby in her arms on what appears to be a doorstep. The quote describing the content of the image claims that the old woman in the photo was the widow of a tailor and had been living with her daughter and son-in-law but soon left to the streets after much fighting with the family leaving her penniless and in the streets. In the photo, the woman appears tired and worn out leaning her head against the stone wall. Her skirt looks worn and dirty as if she has been too long out on the street without anything. It strikes me as significant the way her body seems to be weary and frail as she leans against the wall seemingly for support as if she has been sitting there for a long period of time. The image seems to portray the impact on older women when they are left with no one to care for them and no means to care for themselves due to old age or lack of knowledge for jobs. Her face is covered in harsh lines and a frown which gives a somber tone as the woman does not appear to be happy nor have been happy in a long time.

In comparison, both “The London Boardmen” and “The Crawlers” by John Thomson depict the effects of a lack of physical ability and personal means on individuals in London once the reach the elder part of their lives. These two images show individuals in the later stages of their lives in which they are seemingly alone and forced to find their own ways to get by in any means necessary in the streets of London. The photographs should be examined together as they each have a very somber mood and force the viewer to see a darker side to the stories or images that might come to one’s mind when they think of London. For myself, personally, these images made me feel very sad for the individuals within them as the elderly where I have grown up have been retired or cared for by their families where they are not expected to continue working passed their ability or treated in an alienated manner. I believe Thomson’s images “The London Boardmen” and “The Crawlers” allow for the darker side of the London streets to be seen.

Although I do not particularly consider myself a Charles Dickens fan, Oliver Twist is one of the most impactful novels I have ever read. I can vividly remember being horrified the first time I read it in high school. Dickens powerfully describes some of the most gruesome conditions faced by the poor in nineteenth-century London, and by doing so, his novel provides modern-day readers at a glimpse of how dehumanized the lower classes were in England at the time. Dickens develops a realistic tale, and through his vivid descriptions, the horrific results of extreme social stratification are highlighted as a key theme.

The representations presented in Oliver Twist substantially relate to the British Poor Laws of the nineteenth-century. These laws forced families in poverty into workhouses, which were comparable to prisons. Despite a decent size of the English population experiencing poverty, the general gap between classes created a lack of understanding which created the laws of the time. Dickens is sure to create a bold distinction between the classes through his characters. As represented in the novel, Dickens believed workhouses amplified the worst attributes in people of power. This is illustrated by characters like Sowerberry and Mr. Bumble. The power is used by them to hold the lower classes hostage. Descriptions of Sowerberry do not necessarily paint him as inherently evil, but rather as a character who is insensitive to people grieving and he does nothing to help those who he watches to suffer. This makes him a very human character and relates him to many readers of both then and now. Sowerberry thinks of Oliver in terms of profit rather than thinking of what would best help Oliver. Mr. Bumble likes power and outwardly uses it to manipulate people. As he reigns over the workhouses, he does so in an inhumane way. He meets his fate at the end of the novel, but he ultimately represents the hypocritical “charitable” institutes.

In contrast, Dickens paints a more sympathetic image of those experiencing poverty and those who have no other choice, this is mainly developed through Oliver. Oliver’s spirit remains although he is forced to live on unsustainable amounts of food and sleep in shameful sleeping quarters. Dickens highlights Oliver’s spirit and innocence in a manner that illustrates the good nature of the poor, despite the cruel treatment from the other classes. When Oliver is born, the narrator says he could be the “the child of a nobleman or a beggar.” When the authorities intervene and wrap him in the identity-erasing parish clothes he is “badged and ticketed, and fell into his place at once—a parish child—the orphan of a workhouse.” This illustrates clearly that Oliver had no chance against the authorities, and they stepped in when he was vulnerable to force him into a life where he has no other choice. Oliver develops into a realistic symbol for those suffering in poverty at the time, and he serves as a symbol of nineteenth-century poverty for modern-day readers.

Dickens also does not glorify the conditions the boys in Oliver Twist are forced through, rather he describes them for what they were: filthy and miserable. This keeps poverty from looking desirable, and it shows the desperate need for change, pulling on the hearts of nineteenth-century readers. From the beginning of the book, readers are set with the conditions when they read about how the children are treated. Dickens writes parish children

“had contrived to exist upon the smallest possible portion of the weakest possible food, it did perversely happen in eight and a half cases out of ten, either that it sickened from want and cold, or fell into the fire from neglect, or got half-smothered by accident; in any one of which cases, the miserable little being was usually summoned into another world.”

Although this is only one of the many descriptions Dickens provides of the conditions in Oliver Twist, and it speaks to the nature of poverty in London at the time. Dickens does not shy away from showing the grueling nature of these conditions, highlighting the raw reality of poverty through his use of characters representing social classes and grueling descriptions of workhouse conditions.

Works Referenced:

Dickens, Charles. Oliver Twist. 1838.  <http://literatureproject.com/oliver-twist/index.htm>.

Richardson, Ruth. Oliver Twist and the Workhouse. 2014. Web. <https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/oliver-twist-and-the-workhouse>.

Two art works that stood out to me in the Gustave Dore’s illustrations. The first one is “A Ball at the Mansion House”.Gustave Dore put a lot of effort with the little details in this print. The women’s dresses and the small details of layers and decorations make them look elegant and expensive. It really show you what social class they are in. The chandeliers have a lot of detail and even the walls with the columns.  This image makes me feel smug for some reason. Just the way they present themselves with their posture and their facial expressions.

Another print that stood out to me was the print of a mother and her kids in poverty. They look like they are trying to sell items to get money. This print is darker then the “A Ball at the Mansion House”. The lines are really close together making the image darker and dull. He made this print darker to show the poverty in London and not all things are great. There are families who have to make their own work, so they can get by. The people in this image are slouching/slumping, they look tired and upset. The women is resting her elbow and you can tell be her facial expression she is looking lost. There is a man looking down on her. He doesn’t look like he is in poverty by this top hat and coat. It looks like to me he is shaming her.  Looking at this image it makes you feel sad for them. There is nothing happy about this image at all. There are two kids wrapped up in a blanket looking cold, just wanting a place to stay.

Comparing the two you can see the difference between the two. You can tell that it is about two different social classes by the way they look. But with the body language they have really speaks volumes. In art it is hard to express feelings through paintings especially black and white. He did a good job of using the body language to show you what they are feeling.

These  images are the difference between two social classes. The lower class needs to create work so they can live day to day. They have no days off. Whereas middle/upper class can go to balls and not worry about money. He showed that by the lightness of “A Ball at the Mansion House” and the darkness in the other image.