I have heard a lot about Pride and Prejudice, but this is the first time that I have picked up this book. Reading it for the first time was an experience. It took me awhile to understand what I was reading and what it was about.

One topic that caught my attention was how social class played into this society. The majority of the adults were invested in their social class and took pride in it. Mrs. Bennett wanted her daughters to marry rich. Right in the beginning Mrs. Bennet was excited to here that Mr. Bingley was moving into the estate near them,

“A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls” (Austen 6).

It shows how social class is important in this society. Mrs. Bennett this whole book wanted her daughters to marry into a wealthy family. Reading this book, it looks like to me that the older generation of Mrs. Bennet & Lady Catherine took social class seriously.  Whereas Elizabeth didn’t care, she just wanted to be with someone who has a good personality.

Lady Catherine really showed her social class through her words,

“Not so hasty, if you please. I have by no means done. To all the objections I have already urged, I have still another to add. I am no stranger to the particulars of your youngest sister’s infamous elopement. I know it all; that the young man’s marrying her was a patched-up business, at the expense of your father and uncles. And is such a girl to be my nephew’s sister? Is her husband, is the son of his late father’s steward, to be his brother? Heaven and earth! —of what are you thinking? Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?” (Austen 346).

Lady Catherine takes pride in her social status and finding out that Elizabeth was “thinking” about marrying Mr. Darcy her nephew. Lady Catherine was upset because the Bennet’s don’t have many connections. Also Mr. Darcy’s friends are wealthy, and they will have strong opinions about the marriage. The underline of this I believe is that Lady Catherine doesn’t want her to marry him because she wants her daughter to marry him.  She is using Wickham and Lydia’s elopement to try to scare Elizabeth away. Lady Catherine doesn’t want to be associated with Wickham and if Elizabeth marries Mr. Darcy they will have a connection and she doesn’t want her reputation  to be ruined.

Austen did a good job of tying in social class of the older generation into a generation that some just want to marry someone that they love.

I’d like to first give a little background on my relationship with Pride and Prejudice, because I am a huge Jane Austen fan, and although it may be the basic choice, Pride and Prejudice is unapologetically and with no hesitation my favorite Austen novel. My first experience with the novel was actually the 2005 adaptation (you know the one: Keira Knightley in earthy muslins, sweeping landscape shots, gorgeous score, and a brooding Mr. Darcy in that infamous rainstorm proposal scene. LOVE IT). Yes, it’s true, I watched the movie before reading the book. I happen to hold the unpopular opinion that it doesn’t matter whether you watch the movie before reading the book, particularly if both are good. Anyway, for those of you that have read the book for the class and have not seen the 2005 adaptation, it might be interesting to go back and take a look, as it is often criticized by Austen fans for straying from the novel at important points.

Clearly, I happen to love the movie, including the ways in which it differs from the novel, and have seen it approximately 36429384 times and counting (make that 36429385 by the time we depart, because what better way is there to prepare for a trip to England?). Though it is slightly different, the differences lend themselves well to the manifestation of an on-screen period drama. I also maintain that this version, as well as the similarly well-loved 1995 miniseries, helped form public opinion and perceptions of Pride and Prejudice, and of Austen herself (i.e. they have given way to masterpieces like Bridget Jones’ Diary, The Jane Austen Book Club, and Austenland—all comedies that are enjoyed by plenty of people who have never so much as touched an Austen novel).

I think I have digressed enough to make it very clear that Pride and Prejudice has had a great influence on the way I enjoy literature. After I read it, I couldn’t get enough, and started exploring the rest of Austen’s novels and similar novels from the Regency period and beyond. I hope that everyone loves the book as much as I do—I truly believe it has something for everyone, and each time I read it, it just keeps getting better. Again, I apologize for the rambling, but hopefully it is sufficient explanation for why this blog post will probably be very passionately written.

—

The scene that I’ve chosen to look at is part of a very interesting conversation that occurs between Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley, Caroline Bingley, and Elizabeth during Elizabeth’s stay at Pemberley to visit a bedridden Jane. The group sit around and talk about the qualities of a good woman; the tone of the conversation becomes tense, as the four individuals have opposing thoughts on the topic and come from very different social stations. It is Bingley’s comment, made in response to a praise of Georgiana Darcy’s accomplishments, that sets off the discussion:

“It is amazing to me,” said Bingley, “how young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished as they all are” (Austen 38).

The reason that I love this scene is because I think the way that each character contributes to the ensuing debate reveals much about their character and how they act in scenes throughout the novel. As seen in the above quote, Bingley is overflowing with praise and prepared at all times to be completely astonished by the talents of any woman he should meet. He goes on to describe several forms of feminine decorative arts and hand crafting endeavours as being perpetually impressive to him. This optimistic, kind, and not wholly unrealistic view of the accomplishments of females is a classic representation of Bingley’s ever cordial and gracious demeanor.

The notion that all women are equally talented, let alone talented at all, is absurd to Darcy, and subsequently Caroline, who effectively reiterates every one of Darcy’s opinions in a desperate attempt at winning his attention and approval. The two vehemently disagree with Bingley’s statement—one that was given innocently and was almost certainly not intended to create a new strain of discourse among the group. Caroline rattles off a list of traits that must necessarily be found in a woman before she can think to be called accomplished:

“Oh! certainly,” cried his faithful assistant, “no one can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved” (Austen 39).

Many of these traits, you will notice, could only be attained by women of Caroline’s standing, that is, women with the monetary resources to have a well-rounded education and with adequate leisure time to pursue so many different pursuits. This statement, then, is not only intended to uplift women of her own station (although it certainly does accomplish this), but is mostly meant to suggest the promotion of herself and her own talents, and probably specifically to the bachelor Darcy. This endeavour is less than successful, however, since Darcy later makes a pointed comment condemning “the meanness in all the arts which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for captivation” (Austen 40).

Elizabeth then criticizes Darcy and Caroline for being too severe in their criteria. Although her comments are delivered fiercely and are possibly rooted in her own bitter understanding that neither Caroline nor Darcy consider her to be a well-accomplished woman, Elizabeth’s stance on this topic is by no means unreasonable. She makes the most sensible case out of anyone in the party. She does not make the claim that all women are equally talented, like Bingley, but she comes to the defense of the only minorly accomplished women that Caroline and Darcy apparently expect to be masters of many kinds of feminine occupations. Elizabeth and Darcy’s final exchange effectively ends the conversation for good: 

“I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any.”

 

“Are you so severe upon your own sex as to doubt the possibility of all this?”

 

“I never saw such a woman. I never saw such capacity, and taste, and application, and elegance, as you describe united” (Austen 39).

As I tried to outline in this post, each character’s contributions to their debate about what makes a woman accomplished in extremely telling of their role as character in the bigger picture of Pride and Prejudice. Their opinions also work to foreshadow their actions, particularly in each one’s romantic endeavours. Bingley’s praise of accomplished women eventually extends to focus on the canonically perfect Jane Bennet, Caroline’s value of a complete mastery of all activities (which she believes herself to have) does not actually end up being enough to secure the man she wants (contrary to what she argues in this scene), and of course, Elizabeth and Darcy’s disagreement foreshadows the conflicts that their relationship must endure before finally ending up together—which only happens after each person acknowledges their faults along the way.

Here is a clip from the 2005 movie adaptation of Pride and Prejudice if you’d like a visual and comprehensive refresher on the scene I’ve been writing about!

My edition of Pride and Prejudice is the 2003 Barnes & Nobles Classics publication.

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.

There are a multitude of heart wrenching scenes and interactions throughout Oliver Twist that elicit deep sympathy for Oliver from the reader. In fact, after the first several chapters, I stopped being so surprised by the awful circumstances that Oliver continues to find himself in. Time after time, Oliver proves his mental and physical resilience as he is put to work and forced to live on almost no food and barely livable clothing and sleeping accommodations. To me, this seems to have been a device used by Dickens to emphasize Oliver’s good heartedness and strong spirit. By showing Oliver’s very human reactions to the grotesque events that occur in his life, Dickens is also putting an individual face, a face of childhood and innocence, on the concept of poverty in mid 19th century England.

There is one scene in particular that I think best represents the ideas I outlined above: an interaction between Oliver and another child named Dick. It goes as follows:

‘I heard the doctor tell them I was dying,’ replied the child with a faint smile. ‘I am very glad to see you, dear; but don’t stop, don’t stop!’

 

‘Yes, yes, I will, to say good-b’ye to you,’ replied Oliver. ‘I shall see you again, Dick. I know I shall! You will be well and happy!’

 

‘I hope so,’ replied the child. ‘After I am dead, but not before. I know the doctor must be right, Oliver, because I dream so much of Heaven, and Angels, and kind faces that I never see when I am awake. Kiss me,’ said the child, climbing up the low gate, and flinging his little arms round Oliver’s neck. ‘Good-b’ye, dear! God bless you!’

 

The blessing was from a young child’s lips, but it was the first that Oliver had ever heard invoked upon his head; and through the struggles and sufferings, and troubles and changes, of his after life, he never once forgot it. (Dickens 54).

This scene is painful for many reasons. For me, it was a reminder of the serious physical abuse and emotional neglect that the boys must have experienced at the hands of Mrs. Mann, a woman who was obviously only boarding the, to reap the benefits of their stipends, and who was responsible for the deaths, by starvation, of countless children. Despite the kind words and hopefulness of both boys, the way that Dick speaks about heaven and embraces Oliver during the interaction strongly implies that he knows it will be the last time they will see each other in this lifetime.

Most importantly, the detailed way in which this conversation was described, as well as its placement at the end of a chapter, right before Oliver makes his own way to London, forced me to pay attention to this scene. The narrator writes that Dick’s blessing resonated with Oliver so much that “through the struggles and sufferings, and troubles and changes, of his after life, he never once forgot it.” This statement is encouraging for Oliver’s story, if not Dick’s. After reading this passage, I certainly continued to notice the relentless tragedies, small and large, that afflict Oliver throughout the novel. However, with this perspective, I no longer have to wonder what keeps Oliver so strong and motivated to survive through his many conflicts—I just remember this scene and the profound impact it had on little Oliver.

Oliver and Little Dick, Sol Eytinge, Jr. (1867), Image taken from http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/eytinge/180.html

B5: Wordsworth’s Representation of London in “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge”

“Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, September 3, 1802” by William Wordsworth depicts a sleeping and arising London in the early morning. The narrator appears to be in awe of the city and the new nature the morning brings. It focuses on the beauty of the city, and a small second of the narrator’s life in which everything seems perfectly in place. This poem attributes value to the moments in life when everything slows down, and to the peace that comes as a result of these moments.

Based off of how glorified Wordsworth’s poem is, it is safe to conclude that he has positive relationship with London overall. The narrator in “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge” sounds like a traveler experiencing the scenic quality of the city for the first time or a person who being shocked back to an understanding of life just by passing over the Westminster Bridge. If Wordsworth had lived in London all his life, he most likely would have already been accustomed to the scene, and he would not have perceived this scene in the same sense. Since he is looking at the city with fresh eyes, he reproduces the city as a beautiful world. Wordsworth’s word choice reflects his impressed response. He uses words such as beautiful, majesty, and fair to describe the city, and his reaction to the scene is described as an unmatchable deep calm feeling. He goes as far to say that people who do not recognize the beauty are “dull.” Wordsworth’s awe and appreciation for London could not be any more explicitly stated.

The structure of the poem also works to emphasize the glory of London by drawing attention to the elaborate descriptions. The poem is structured as a Petrarchan sonnet, consisting of fourteen lines divided into two unequal sections. The first half of the poem, differentiates the beauty of the scene from anything else the narrator has ever experienced. It also describes the scene, and creates a foundation for the reader for the second half of the poem which looks at the effect of London on the narrator. By using this structure, Wordsworth successfully illustrates both the scene of London and the Thames from the bridge while emphasizing the unparalleled calming nature of the experience.

This poem draws out the idea of cities being just as beautiful and inspirational as rural areas and nature. The final line of the poem reflects this theme. The line, “And all that mighty heart is lying still!” is a paradox by itself. But, it connects London to existing as a metaphorical, majestic heart of the country. In the early morning, when London is still, the peace the beauty provokes is comparable to the feeling being surrounded by nature can induce. Since a lot of Wordsworth’s other works focus on nature, this comparison is justified as he speaks about London in a comparable way.

Personally, I related this poem to my own previous travels. As a visitor in any new area, I often feel similarly astonished by scenes with immense beauty. The first time I ever traveled to New York City, I can remember passing over the bridges entering the city, and being entirely in awe, especially since I was used to rural America. Yet, the people in the city, although very proud to be New Yorkers, seem to be so accustomed to life there that the wonder is gone. Wordsworth represents his relationship to the city in a manner relatable to any traveler or visitor to a new area, and his stylistic choices further emphasize the overwhelming calmness of these serene moments.

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.