MINISTRY OFHIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
GULISTAN STATEUNIVERSITY
«StylisticFeatures of Charles Dickens’s works»
Gulistan‑2008
1. CharlesDicken’s works
1.1General Notes on Charles Dicken’s works
CharlesDickens was born at Land-port, then a suburb of Portsmouth, where his fatherheld a clerkship in the Navy Pay Office. He spent his youth at Chatham andLondon where he had to submit to a life of great hardship. His father beingimprisoned for debt, the boy was, for a time, packer in a London blackingwarehouse. Later he was placed in a solicitor's office, where he acquired theknowledge of legal affairs afterwards displayed in his novels. The boy'seducation was mainly achieved by extensive reading and keen observation ofpeople and things around him. In 1831 Dickens obtained an engagement as parliamentaryreporter. Before long he tried his hand at original composition, and wroteshort descriptive essays on the London scenes familiar to him, collected asSketches by Boz in 1835. The success of the Sketches decided the course of hislife. The immense popularity of his next publication The Posthumous Papers oftlie Pickwick Club (1836–37) spread his fame all over Europe. The remainder ofhis life's story is a record of literary triumphs and of his visits to America(1842 and 1867), Italy, France and Switzerland. In 1858 Dickens began to givepublic readings from his works, which, due to his great histrionic talent,proved an extraordinary success.
Dickenscreated a series of novels, specially notable for critical and for comictalent, for critical treatment of Victorian England. All Dickens's great works –Oliver Twist (1837–38), Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (1838–39), TheOld Curiosity Shop (1843–44), Mar-tin Chuzzlewit (1843–44), Dealings with theFirm of Dombey and Son (1846–48), The Personal History of David Copperfield(1849–50), Bleak House (1852–53), Hard Times for These Times (1854), LittleDorrit (1855–57), A Tale of Two Cities (1859), Great Expectations (1860–61) – carrya profound moral message. At the same time Dickens is bent on Correcting publicgrievances, like the defects of the new outrageous Poor Law and the workhousesystem, the miseries of the debtors' prisons, the clumsiness and injustice ofthe governmental and legal systems. Dickens-is at his best at depicting low andmiddle-class life and at inventing unforgettable striking characters. A greatmany of them have become recognized types in English fiction.
Dickensalso tried his hand at the historical novel, as in Barnaby Radge (1840–41) andA Tale of Two Cities, at a vast number of short stories and also at writing forthe stage. His last novels include Our Mutual Friend (1864–65) and theunfinished detective story of The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1870).
Amongthe most popular and productive novelist as Charles Dickens, whose combinedsocial Critism with comedy and sentiment to create a tone that the worldidentifies as Victorian lake chancer and Shakespeare before him. Dickensenjoyed inviting or vast array of memorable character in novels such as «OliveTwist (1837 -39), «A Tale of Two Cities» (1899) and «Great expectative (1860–61)His heart felt Critism helped to change British institution that badly neededreform, especially prisons and schools Charles Dickens was the most popular Britishauthor of the Victorian Age, the more than a hundred years after his death hiswork is still popular both in print and in dramatic and musical versions. Themagic that millions still find in Dickens novels can be traced at least in partto the eccentric, colorful array of characters that he created, the gullibleRickwick of «The Rickwick Papers». (1836–37) the villainous Fagin of «OliverTwist» (1837–39) the pathetic little Nell of «The Old Curiosity Shop (1840–41)the misetly zeroage of «A Christmas Card» (1843) the Shiffles Micarofer of «DavidCopperfield» (1849–50), the bite Miss Havisham of «Great Expectations» (1860–1861).
Thebasis for many of these characters lies in Dickens own experience. In fact manypeople believe that his father was the model for Micawber and his motherinspired Mrs Nickleby in «Nicholas Rickelby» (1838–39).Dickens was born inPortsmouth in Southern England, the second of eight children. His father was aclerk who worked or the navy. The family repeatedly moved in order to escapecreditors. When his father was finally sent to a debtor’s prison Charles, thentwelve begun working in a warehouse pasting labels on pots of shoe blacking.After a sudden inheritance improved the family’s fortunes, Charles found workat a lawyer’s clerk and then as a reporter. His literary career begum with thesuccess of «Secteles by Bor», a collection of vulgates about life in the citythat he wrote for a London newspaper:» Bor» led to «The Pickwick Paper» hisfirst novel.
WhileDickens has entertained millions with his novels, he also intended them as meanof social reform, Human welfare could not keep place with the technologicaladvances of his time, and Dickens did much to expose evil by products ofindustrializing: child labor, debtors prisons, ruinous financial speculation,inhuman legal procedures, and mismanagement of schools, orphanages, prisons,and hospitals.
Dickensmany novels add up to a vast panorama of human nature and specifically ofVictorian life. One except from one novel is very small simple indeed.
Thefollowing selection from «Oliver Twist «, however, can be read as a serialinstallment. When Charles Dickens was ten years old his taken to prison fordept.
LittleCharles Dickens was the second of eight children had to go to work in ablacking factory, where he worked from early morning till late at night. Whenhis father came out school. But at15 he left school to work as or clerk inlawyer’s office. As a reporter in Parliament made him acquainted with thegovernment, and aroused in him or deep contempt for the English parliamentarysystems contempt that lasted all his life and reflected in many of his life andreflected in many of his works becoming with «The Pickwick Club» (1836–37).Inhis work there is much humor. But flu humor is often turned info irony andsatire. Which the author used as powerful weapon with which to criticize andexpose various evils in English social and political life, the capitalistexploiting system of workhouses in «Oliver Twist» (1838), bourses, so-callededucation in «Nicholas Nicely «(1839)» David Copperfield» (1850) and others,capitalist cruelty and injustice in all his works. In 1836 dickens was asked bya firm of publishers to write a letter for a series of etchings. His workexceeded the stimulated task and thus «The Dartmouth Papers of the «PickwickClub «solo publications. This work at once lifted Dickens info the foremastrank as popular writers of fictions. He followed up this triumph with a quicksuccession of costuming novels in which he mastery depicted the life ofcontemporary society. His «Oliver Twist «deals with social problems. The novelends in a happy issue which has become a characteristic feature of the greaterpart of Dickens works. His next novel «The book deals with another burningquestion of the day that of the education of children in English privateschools. Immediately after the publication of the novel Dickens was bombardedwith letters protesting the statement. But the facts being ascertained, a schoolreform was carried out in England. Dickens next publication was «The oldCuriosity Shop «.
In1841 he visited the USA and Canada to lecture on his works on his works. On hisreturn he wrote «American Notes «and a novel «Martin Chuzzlewit «.In these two booksDickens gives a highly realistic picture of American bourgeoisie society itshypsography, ignorance and greed. He shows the disgusting in influence of moneyand directs all the force of his satire against False American democracyagainst slavery, and the corruption of the American press.
AlthoughDickens never rose to the revolutionary level he was one of those writers whoall his life used his pen in the fight against the evils of the capitalistsystem.
1.2 Charles Dickens' periods
Much of our modern difficulty, in religion and other things,arises merely from this: that we confuse the word «indefinable» with the word «vague.»If some one speaks of a spiritual fact as «indefinable» we promptly picturesomething misty, a cloud with indeterminate edges. But this is an error even incommonplace logic. The thing that cannot be defined is the first thing; theprimary fact. It is our arms and legs, our pots and pans, that are indefinable.The indefinable is the indisputable. The man next door is indefinable, becausehe is too actual to be defined. And there are some to whom spiritual thingshave the same fierce and practical proximity; some to whom God is too actual tobe defined.
But there is a third c] ass of primary terms. There are popularexpressions which every one uses and no one can explain; which the wise manwill accept and reverence, as he reverences desire or darkness or any elementalthing. The prigs of the debating club will demand that he should define histerms. And, being a wise man, he will flatly refuse. This first inexplicableterm is the most important term of all. The word that has no definition is theword that has no substitute. If a man falls back again and again on some suchword as «vulgar» or «manly,» do not suppose that the word means nothing becausehe cannot say what it means. If he could say what the word means he would saywhat it means instead of saying the word. When the Game Chicken (that finethinker) kept on saying to Mr. Toots, «It's mean. That's what it is – it'smean,» he was using language in the wisest possible way. For what else could hesay? There is no word for mean except mean. A man must be very mean himselfbefore he comes to defining meanness. Precisely because the word isindefinable, the word is indispensable.
In everyday talk, or in any of our journals, we may find the loosebut important phrase, «Why have we no great men to-day? Why have we no greatmen like Thackeray, or Carlyle, or Dickens?» Do not let us dismiss thisexpression, because it appears loose or arbitrary. «Great» does mean something,and the test of its actuality is to be found by noting how instinctively anddecisively we do apply it to some men and not to others; above all, how instinctivelyand decisively we do apply it to four or five men in the Victorian era, four orfive men of whom Dickens was not the least. The term is found to fit a definitething. Whatever the word «great» means, Dickens was what it means. Even thefastidious and unhappy who cannot read his books without a continuous criticalexasperation, would use the word of him without stopping to think. They feelthat Dickens is a great writer even if he is not a good writer. He is treatedas a classic; that is, as a king who may now be deserted, but who cannot now bedethroned. The atmosphere of this word clings to him; and the curious thing isthat we cannot get it to cling to any of the men of our own generation. «Great»is the first adjective which the most supercilious modern critic would apply toDickens. And «great» is the last adjective that the most supercilious moderncritic would apply to himself We dare not claim to be great men, even when weclaim to be superior to them.
Is there, then, any vital meaning in this idea of «greatness» orin our laments over its absence in our own time? Some people say, indeed, thatthis sense of mass is but a mirage of distance, and that men always think deadmen great and live men small. They seem to think that the law of perspective inthe mental world is the precise opposite to the law of perspective in thephysical world. They think that figures grow larger as they walk away. But thistheory cannot be made to correspond with the facts. We do not lack great men inour own day because we decline to look for them in our own day; on thecontrary, we are looking for them all day long. We are not, as a matter offact, mere examples of those who stone the prophets and leave it to theirposterity to build their sepulchers'. If the world would only produce ourperfect prophet, solemn, searching, universal, nothing would give us keenerpleasure than to build his sepulcher. In our eagerness we might even bury himalive. Nor is it true that the great men of the Victorian era were not calledgreat in their own time. By many they were called great from the first.Charlotte Brontë held this heroic language about Thackeray. Ruskin held itabout Carlyle. A definite school regarded Dickens as a great man from the firstdays of his fame: Dickens certainly belonged to this school.
In reply to this question, «Why have we no great men to-day?» manymodern explanations are offered. Advertisement, cigarette-smoking, the decay ofreligion, the decay of agriculture, too much humanitarianism, too little humanitarianism,the fact that people are educated insufficiently, the fact that they areeducated at all, all these are reasons given. If I give my own explanation, itis not for its intrinsic value; it is because my answer to the question, «Whyhave we no great men?» is a short way of stating the deepest and mostcatastrophic difference between the age in which we live and the earlynineteenth century; the age under the shadow of the French Revolution, the agein which Dickens was born.
The soundest of the Dickens critics, a man of genius, Mr. GeorgeGissing, opens his criticism by remarking that the world in which Dickens grewup was a hard and cruel world. He notes its gross feeding, its fierce sports,its fighting and foul humour, and all this he summaries in the words hard andcruel. It is curious how different are the impressions of men. To me this oldEnglish world seems infinitely less hard and cruel than the world described inGissing's own novels. Coarse external customs are merely relative, and easilyassimilated. A man soon learnt to harden his hands and harden his head. Facedwith the world of Gissing, he can do little but harden his heart. But thefundamental difference between the beginning of the nineteenth century and theend of it is a difference simple but enormous. The first period was full ofevil things, but it was full of hope. The second period, the fin de siécle,was even full (in some sense) of good things. But it was occupied in askingwhat was the good of good things. Joy itself became joyless; and the fightingof Cobbett was happier than the feasting of Walter Pater. The men of Cobbett'sday were sturdy enough to endure and inflict brutality; but they were alsosturdy enough to alter it. This «hard and cruel» age was, after all, the age ofreform. The gibbet stood up black above them; but it was black against thedawn.
This dawn, against which the gibbet and all the old crueltiesstood out so black and clear, was the developing idea of liberalism, the FrenchRevolution. It was a clear and a happy philosophy. And only against suchphilosophies do evils appear evident at all. The optimist is a better reformerthan the pessimist; and the man who believes life to be excellent is the manwho alters it most. It seems a paradox, yet the reason of it is very plain. Thepessimist can be enraged at evil. But only the optimist can be surprised at it.From the reformer is required a simplicity of surprise. He must have thefaculty of a violent and virgin astonishment. It is not enough that he shouldthink injustice distressing; he must think injustice absurd, an anomalyin existence, a matter less for tears than for a shattering laughter. On theother hand, the pessimists at the end of the century could hardly curse eventhe blackest thing; for they could hardly see it against its black and eternalbackground. Nothing was bad, because everything was bad. Life in prison wasinfamous – like life anywhere else. The fires of persecution were vile – likethe stars. We perpetually find this paradox of a contented discontent. Dr.Johnson takes too sad a view of humanity, but he is also too satisfied aConservative. Rousseau takes too rosy a view of humanity, but he causes arevolution. Swift is angry, but a Tory. Shelley is happy, and a rebel. Dickens,the optimist, satirises the Fleet, and the Fleet is gone. Gissing, thepessimist, satirises Suburbia, and Suburbia remains.
Mr. Gissing's error, then, about the early Dickens period we mayput thus: in calling it hard and cruel he omits the wind of hope and humanitythat was blowing through it. It may have been full of inhuman institutions, butit was full of humanitarian people. And this humanitarianism was very much thebetter (in my view) because it was a rough and even rowdy humanitarianism. Itwas free from all the faults that cling to the name. It was, if you will, acoarse humanitarianism. It was a shouting, fighting, drinking philanthropy – anoble thing. But, in any case, this atmosphere was the atmosphere of theRevolution; and its main idea was the idea of human equality. I am notconcerned here to defend the egalitarian idea against the solemn and babyishattacks made upon it by the rich and learned of to-day. I am merely concernedto state one of its practical consequences. One of the actual and certainconsequences of the idea that all men are equal is immediately to produce verygreat men. I would say superior men, only that the hero thinks of himself asgreat, but not as superior. This has been hidden from us of late by a foolishworship of sinister and exceptional men, men without comrade-ship, or anyinfectious virtue. This type of Cesar does exist. There is a great man whomakes every man feel small. But the real great man is the man who makes everyman feel great.
The spirit of the early century produced great men, because itbelieved that men were great. It made strong men by encouraging weak men. Itseducation, its public habits, its rhetoric, were all addressed towardsencouraging the greatness in everybody. And by encouraging the greatness in everybody,it naturally encouraged superlative greatness in some. Superiority came out ofthe high rapture of equality. It is precisely in this sort of passionateunconsciousness and bewildering community of thought that men do become morethan themselves. No man by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature; buta man may add many cubits to his stature by not taking thought. The best men ofthe Revolution were simply common men at their best. This is why our age cannever understand Napoleon. Because he was something great and triumphant, wesuppose that he must have been something extraordinary, something inhuman. Somesay he was the Devil; some say he was the Superman. Was he a very, very badman? Was he a good man with some greater moral code? We strive in vain toinvent the mysteries behind that immortal mask of brass. The modern world withall its subtleness will never guess his strange secret; for his strange secretwas that he was very like other people.
And almost without exception all the great men have come out ofthis atmosphere of equality. Great men may make despotisms; but democraciesmake great men. The other main factory of heroes besides a revolution is areligion. And a religion again, is a thing which, by its nature, does not think6Ј men as moreor less valuable, but of men as all intensely and painfully valuable, ademocracy of eternal danger. For religion all men are equal, as all pennies areequal, because the only value in any of them is that they bear the image of theKing. This fact has been quite insufficiently observed in the study ofreligious heroes. Piety produces intellectual greatness precisely because pietyin itself is quite indifferent to intellectual greatness. The strength ofCromwell was that he cared for religion. But the strength of religion was thatit did not care for Cromwell; did not care for him, that is, any more than foranybody else. He and his footman were equally welcomed to warm places in thehospitality of hell. It has often been said, very truly, that religion is thething that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equallyimportant truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary manfeel ordinary.
Carlyle killed the heroes; there have been none since his time. Hekilled the heroic (which he sincerely loved) by forcing upon each man thisquestion: «Am I strong or weak?» To which the answer from any honest manwhatever (yes, from Caesar or Bismarck) would «weak.» He asked for candidatesfor a definite aristocracy, for men who should hold themselves consciouslyabove their fellows. He advertised for them, so to speak; he promised themglory; he promised them omnipotence. They have not appeared yet. They neverwill. For the real heroes of whom he wrote had appeared out of an ecstacy ofthe ordinary. I have already instanced such a case as Cromwell. But there is noneed to go through all the great men of Carlyle. Carlyle himself was as greatas any of them; and if ever there was a typical child of the French Revolution,it was he. He began with the wildest hopes from the Reform Bill, and althoughhe soured afterwards, he had been made and mounded by those hopes. He wasdisappointed with Equality; but Equality was not disappointed with him.Equality is justified of all her children.
But we, in the post-Carlylean period, have be come fastidiousabout great men. Every man examines himself, every man examines his neighbors,to see whether they or he quite come up to the exact line of greatness. Theanswer is, naturally, «No.» And many a man calls himself contentedly «a minorpoet» who would then have been inspired to be a major prophet. We are hard toplease and of little faith. We can hardly believe that there is such a thing asa great man. They could hardly believe there was such a thing as a small one.But we are always praying that our eyes may behold greatness, instead ofpraying that our hearts may be filled with it. Thus, for instance, the Liberalparty (to which I belong) was, in its period of exile, always saying, «For aGladstone!» and such things. We were always asking that it might bestrengthened from above, instead of ourselves strengthening it from below, withour hope and our anger and our youth. Every man was waiting for a leader. Everyman ought to be waiting for a chance to lead. If a god does come upon theearth, he will descend at the sight of the brave. Our prostrations and litaniesare of no avail; our new moons and our Sabbaths are an abomination. The greatman will come when all of us are feeling great, not when all of us are feelingsmall. He will ride in at some splendid moment when we all feel that we coulddo without him.
We are then able to answer in some manner the question, «Why havewe no great men?» We have no great men chiefly because we are always looking forthem. We are connoisseurs of greatness, and connoisseurs can never be great; weare fastidious, that is, we are small. When Diogenes went about with a lanternlooking for an honest man, I am afraid he had very little time to be honesthimself And when anybody goes about on his hands and knees looking for a greatman to worship, he is making sure that one man at any rate shall not be great.Now, the error of Diogenes is evident. The error of Diogenes lay in the factthat he omitted to notice that every man is both an honest man and a dishonestman. Diogenes looked for his honest man inside every crypt and cavern; but henever thought of looking inside the thief And that is where the Founder ofChristianity found the honest man; He found him on a gibbet and promised himParadise. Just as Christianity looked for the honest man inside the thief,democracy looked for the wise man inside the fool. It encouraged the fool to bewise. We can call this thing sometimes optimism, sometimes equality; thenearest name for it is encouragement. It had its exaggerations – failure tounderstand original sin, notions that education would make all men good, thechildlike yet pedantic philosophies of human perfectibility. But the whole wasfull of a faith in the infinity of human souls, which is in itself not onlyChristian but orthodox; and this we have lost amid the limitations of apessimistic science. Christianity said that any man could be a saint if hechose; democracy, that any man could be a citizen if he chose. The note of thelast few decades in art and ethics has been that a man is stamped with anirrevocable psychology, and is cramped for perpetuity in the prison of hisskull. It was a world that expected everything of everybody. It was a worldthat encouraged anybody to be anything. And in England and literature itsliving expression was Dickens.
We shall consider Dickens in many other capacities, but let us putthis one first. He was the voice in England of this humane intoxication andexpansion, this encouraging of anybody to be anything. His best books are acarnival of liberty, and there is more of the real spirit of the FrenchRevolution in «Nicholas Nickleby» than in «The Tale of Two Cities.» His workhas the great glory of the Revolution, the bidding of every man to be himself;it has also the revolutionary deficiency: it seems to think that this mereemancipation is enough. No man encouraged his characters so much asDickens. «I am an affectionate father,» he says, «to every child of my fancy.» Hewas not only an affectionate father, he was an over-indulgent father. Thechildren of his fancy are spoilt children. They shake the house like heavy andshouting schoolboys; they smash the story to pieces like so much furniture.When we moderns write stories our characters are better controlled. But, alas!our characters are rather easier to control. We are in no danger from thegigantic gambols of creatures like Mantalini and Micawber. We are in no dangerof giving our readers too much Weller or Wegg. We have not got it to give. Whenwe experience the ungovernable sense of life which goes along with the oldDickens sense of liberty, we experience the best of the revolution. We arefilled with the first of all democratic doctrines, that all men are interesting;Dickens tried to make some of his people appear dull people, but he could notkeep them dull. He could not make a monotonous man. The bores in his books arebrighter than the wits in other books.
I have put this position first for a defined reason. It is uselessfor us to attempt to imagine Dickens and his life unless we are able at leastto imagine this old atmosphere of a democratic optimism – a confidence incommon men. Dickens depends upon such a comprehension in a rather unusualmanner, a manner worth explanation, or at least remark.
The disadvantage under which Dickens has fallen, both as an artistand a moralist, is very plain. His misfortune is that neither of the two lastmovements in literary criticism has done him any good. He has suffered alikefrom his enemies, and from the enemies of his enemies. The facts to which Irefer are familiar. When the world first awoke from the mere hypnotism ofDickens, from the direct tyranny of his temperament, there was, of course, areaction. At the head of it came the Realists, with their documents, like MissFlite. They declared that scenes and types in Dickens were wholly impossible(in which they were perfectly right), and on this rather paradoxical groundobjected to them as literature. They were not «like life,» and there, theythought, was an end of the matter. The realist for a time prevailed. ButRealists did not enjoy their victory (if they enjoyed anything) very long. Amore symbolic school of criticism soon arose. Men saw that it was necessary togive a much deeper and more delicate meaning to the expression «like life.» Streetsare not life, cities and civilizations are not life, faces even and voices arenot life itself Life is within, and no man hath seen it at any time. As for ourmeals, and our manners, and our daily dress, these are things exactly likesonnets; they are random symbols of the soul. One man tries to express himselfin books, another in boots; both probably fail. Our solid houses and squaremeals are in the strict sense fiction. They are things made up to typify ourthoughts. The coat a man wears may be wholly fictitious; the movement of his handsmay be quite unlike life.
This much the intelligence of men soon perceived. And by this muchDickens's fame should have greatly profited. For Dickens is «like life» in thetruer sense, in the sense that he is akin to the living principle in us and inthe universe; he is like life, at least in this detail, that he is alive. Hisart is like life, because, like life, it cares for nothing outside itself, andgoes on its way rejoicing. Both produce monsters with a kind of carelessness,like enormous by-products; life producing the rhinoceros, and art Mr. Bunsby.Art indeed copies life in not copying life, for life copies nothing. Dickens'sart is like life because, like life, it is irresponsible, because, like life,it is incredible.
Yet the return of this realization has not greatly profitedDickens, the return of romance has been almost useless to this great romantic.He has gained as little from the fall of the realists as from their triumph;there has been a revolution, there has been a counter revolution, there hasbeen no restoration. And the reason of this brings us back to that atmosphereof popular optimism of which I spoke. And the shortest way of expressing themore recent neglect of Dickens is to say that for our time and taste heexaggerates the wrong thing.
Exaggeration is the definition of art. That both Dickens and theModerns understood. Art is, in its inmost nature, fantastic. Time brings queerrevenges, and while the realists were yet living, the art of Dickens wasjustified by Aubrey Beardsley. But men like Aubrey Beardsley were allowed to befantastic, because the mood which they overstrained and overstated was a moodwhich their period understood. Dickens overstrains and overstates a mood ourperiod does not understand. The truth he exaggerates is exactly this oldRevolution sense of infinite opportunity and boisterous brotherhood. And weresent his undue sense of it, because we ourselves have not even a due sense ofit. We feel troubled with too much where we have too little; we wish he wouldkeep it within bounds. For we are all exact and scientific on the subjects wedo not care about. We all immediately detect exaggeration in an exposition ofMormonism or a patriotic speech from Paraguay. We all require sobriety on thesubject of the sea-serpent. But the moment we begin to believe a thingourselves, that moment we begin easily to overstate it; and the moment oursouls become serious, our words become a little wild. And certain moderns arethus placed towards exaggeration. They permit any writer to emphasize doubtsfor instance, for doubts are their religion, but they permit no man to emphasisdogmas. If a man be the mildest Christian, they smell «cant» but he can be araving windmill of pessimism, «and they call it 'temperament.» If a moralistpaints a wild picture of immorality, they doubt its truth, they say that devilsare not so black as they are painted. But if a pessimist paints a wild pictureof melancholy, they accept the whole horrible psychology, and they never ask ifdevils are as blue as they are painted.
It is evident, in short, why even those who admire exaggeration donot admire Dickens. He is exaggerating the wrong thing. They know what it is tofeel a sadness so strange and deep that only impossible characters can expressit: they do not know what it is to feel a joy so vital and violent that onlyimpossible characters can express that. They know that the soul can be so sadas to dream naturally of the blue faces of the corpses of Baudelaire: they donot know that the soul can be so cheerful as to dream naturally of the blueface of Major Bagstock. They know that there is a point of depression at whichone believes in Tintagiles: they do not know that there is a point ofexhilaration at which one believes in Mr. Wegg. To them the impossibilities ofDickens seem much more impossible than they really are, because they arealready attuned to the opposite impossibilities of Maeterlinck. For every moodthere is an appropriate impossibility – a decent and tactful impossibility –fitted to the frame of mind. Every train of thought may end in an ecstasy, andall roads lead to Elfland. But few now walk far enough along the street ofDickens to find the place where the cockney villas grow so comic that theybecome poetical. People do not know how far mere good spirits will go. Forinstance, we never think (as the old folk-lore did) of good spirits reaching tothe spiritual world. We see this in the complete absence from modern, popularsupernaturalism of the old popular mirth. We hear plenty to-day of the wisdomof the spiritual world; but we do not hear, as our fathers did, of the folly ofthe spiritual world, of the tricks of the gods, and the jokes of the patronsaints. Our popular tales tell us of a man who is so wise that he touches the supernatural,like Dr. Nikola; but they never tell us (like the popular tales of the past) ofa man who was so silly that he touched the supernatural, like Bottom theWeaver. We do not understand the dark and transcendental sympathy betweenfairies and fools. We understand a devout occultism, an evil occultism, atragic occultism, but a farcical occultism is beyond us. Yet a farcicaloccultism is the very essence of «The Midsummer Night's Dream.» It is also theright and credible essence of «The Christmas Carol.» Whether we understand itdepends upon whether we can understand that exhilaration is not a physicalaccident, but a mystical fact; that exhilaration can be infinite, like sorrow;that a joke can be so big that it breaks the roof of the stars. By simply goingon being absurd, a thing can become godlike; there is but one step from theridiculous to the sublime.
Dickens was great because he was immoderately possessed with allthis; if we are to understand him at all we must also be moderately possessed withit. We must understand this old limitless hilarity and human confidence, atleast enough to be able to endure it when it is pushed a great deal too far.For Dickens did push it too far; he did push the hilarity to the point ofincredible character-drawing; he did push the human confidence to the point ofan unconvincing sentimentalism. You can trace, if you will, the revolutionaryjoy till it reaches the incredible Sapsea epitaph; you can trace therevolutionary hope till it reaches the repentance of Dombey. There is plenty tocarp at in this man if you are inclined to carp; you may easily find him vulgarif you cannot see that he is divine; and if you cannot laugh with Dickens,undoubtedly you can laugh at him.
I believe myself that this braver world of his will certainlyreturn; for I believe that it is bound up with the realities, like morning andthe spring. But for those who beyond remedy regard it as and error, I put thisappeal before any other observations on Dickens. First let us sympathies, ifonly for an instant, with the hopes of the Dickens period, with that cheerfultrouble of change. If democracy has disappointed you, do not think of it as aburst bubble, but at least as a broken heart, an old love-affair. Do not sneerat the time when the creed of humanity was on its honeymoon; treat it with thedreadful reverence that is due to youth. For you, perhaps, a drearierphilosophy has covered and eclipsed the earth. The fierce poet of the MiddleAges wrote, «Abandon hope, all ye who enter here,» over the gates of the lowerworld. The emancipated poets of to-day have written it over the gates of thisworld. But if we are to understand the story which follows, we must erase thatapocalyptic writing, if only for an hour. We must recreate the faith of ourfathers, if only as an artistic atmosphere If, then, you are a pessimist, inreading this story, forego for a little the pleasures of pessimism. Dream forone mad moment that the grass is green. Unlearn that sinister learning that youthink so clear; deny that deadly knowledge that you think you know. Surrenderthe very flower of your culture; give up the very jewel of your pride; abandonhopelessness, all ye who enter here.
2. Main part
2.1Repetitions Used by Charles Dickens
CharlesDickens was born at Land port, in Port Sea on February 7, 1812. His father wasa clerk in the Navy Pay-office, and was temporarily on duty in the neighboarhound. Very soon after the birth of Charles Dickens, however, the familymoved for a short period to Norfolk Street, Bloomsbury, and then fur alongperiod to Chatham, which thus became the real home, and for all seriouspurposed the native place of Dickens. The whole story of his life moves like aCanterbury pilgrimage along the great roads of Kent.
Butif they had not been lifted in the air by the enormous accident of a man ofgenius, the Dickens’s, I fancy, would have appeared in poorer and poorerplaces, as inventory clacks, as caretakers, as addressers of envelopes, untilthey melted into the masses of the poor.
Allexpressive stylistic means of the language are used by the author in order toreveal the content of the text better.
Ina good fiction we usually have the of the unity of the expressive means andwhat is expressed otherwise the artistic creativity cart exist.
Inthis selection we see the worldview of the writer of course. Mind is an endlesssource in underlining ideas, concepts so is the language endless in itsopportunities of expressing words which serve the writer’s aims. «All the wordsare in the lexicon-dictionary of the nation but it doesn’t mean that they aresimply repeated minute-after-minute», noted once the great Russian writer A.S. Pushkin[1. Пушкин.А.С. Полное собрания сочинений. 1949, том12, стр. 100]
Manyauthors use a number of stylistic devices very often and writhingly but in somecases they use some of them especially often-gladly. In such cases we say thatthe writer likes the stylistic device better than other ones.
So,in our case, Charles Dickens uses many times repetitions. The essence of it isthe usage of repetition in language unites two more times. Peculiar features ofrepetition is that it has many functions and the writer uses them incombinations with other words frequently. Repetitions serve for Charles Dickensto open new possibilities in telling his artistic ideas and thoughts moreclearly and poetically, emotionally, to escape from dry language. The roots ofrepetitions goes far deeply into oral folk poetry: the works of folklore weremeant to improve its people and to help people to remember the material easily:they were passed from generation to generation without changing the content ofthe poem. Repetitions helped people to keep in their memory the content and theform to remember better, the role of repetitions was great. Theoretical basisof repetitions existed already in antique rhetorical works. Working out thetheory of repetitions antique stylists meant the apply of the revisions in oralspeech. As the beginning and the end of the clauses or periods had more effecton the listeners special interest was paid to the place of repetitions. Fromthere we have the classification of repetitions, on the bases of which therelie the structural order of the repetition in the periods.
Ofcourse, not all the enumerated by the rhetoric’s structural types could befound in Charles Dickens’s books.
Anaphora– the repetition of one and the same lexical unite at the beginning of thesentence or lexical unite at the beginning of the sentence or clause is used indifferent exceedingly many-sided variety. Well the court be clime with wastingcandles here and there the fog hang heavy in it, as if it would never get out, wellmay the stained glass windows lose their color and admit un light of day intothe, well may the unstated.
Repetitionshelped to keep in their memory the content and the form to remember better, therole of petitions was great. Theoretical basis of repetitions existed alreadyin antique rhetorical works. Working out the theory of repetitions antiquestylists meant the apply of the revisions in oral speech. As the beginning andthe end of the clauses or periods, had more effect on the listeners specialinterest was paid to the place of repetitions. From there we have theclassification of repetitions, on the bases of which there lie the structuralorder of the repetition in the periods.
Ofcourse, not all the enumerated by the rhetoric structural types could be foundin Charles Dickens’s books.
Anaphora– the repetition of one and the same lexical unite at the beginning of thesentence or clause is used in different exultingly many snidely.
Wellman the court be dim, with wasting candles here and there, well may the faghang heavy in it, as if it would never get out; well may the stained glasswindows lose their color and admit no light of day into the place; well may theuninitiated from the streets be detached from the entrance by its owlishaspect.
Herethe repeated word combination is characterized by its comparatively littlesemantic and role of repetition is to unite, to fasten together separate partsof the thought. Such uniting function other is failed by anaphoric repetition,especially when auxiliary words are used as the repeated unites.
Ina number of cases the repeated word is semantically more substantial, its roleis not only in the function of uniting its meaning also plays certain role, butit is not the main or decisive for the important of the whole statement. Inmajority of cases it is an introductory word or a part of a couples sentence;repeated, they create certain background for the whole statement.
Supposinghis head had been under water for a while. Supposing the first blow had beentruer. Supposing he had been shot. Supposing he had been strangled. Supposingthis way, that way, the other way. Supposing anything but getting unchainedfrom the one idea for that was inexorable impossible.
Supposingis not sense backbone of the statement, but the word plays certain role increating the background of the statement, in expressing the emotional state ofhe image, of the character.
«Ishouldn’t care so much if it wasn’t so ridiculous. I was ridiculous enough tohave a stranger coming over to marry me, whether he liked or not. It wasridiculous enough to know what an embarrassing meeting it would be… It wasridiculous enough to know I shouldn’t like him» (Our Mutual Friend. P 55).
Herewe must note some semantic shifts which take place in those frequent statementswhich follow after the repeated unites but they themselves are not repeated.
Thecenter of sense heaviness of the extract falls on the notion, picked out by anaphoricrepetition, both the force and the dependence of the following words becomemore lessened, they would turn into concepts, which are adopted notindependently from the specific nature, as in some of equal value, synonymical.
Usuallyin the research works on stylistics anaphora as a repetition, in which thebeginning of the extract excerpt is subjected to increase. As the above sitedexamples show anaphora does not always pick out semantically important part ofthe statement. The same can be said about epithermal the repetition of the endsor their parts.
Bythe way however the less the tie-link between the repeated unit with thegeneral content of sentence, the lesser lexical weight will it have, the lessthen we can speak about the increasing of the taken part of the statement bymeans of repetition for example:
– Dearme- I quite forgot, – replied the other. What will you take Sir? Will you takepart wine, Sir? A cherry wine, sir? I can recommend the ales.
Therepeated sir turned into the form of politeness, it influences only on thestylistic coloring of the statement, giving it the shade of politeness. Butmore often, there are cases, when epithermal underlines the thought, importantfor the content of the excerpt.
Ring=round repetition influences rather sufficiently on the semantics of therepeated word combinations appearing for the second time, completing theparagraph, it turns out to be more full semantically than in the beginning ofthe paragraph, as in the circling framed set off ring of the extract there aredescriptions of many phenomena, characteristic traits or situation, more fullydiscovering the content of the repeated unites.
Yetmore was a miss with him than Miss Peecher’ simply arranged little workbox ofthoughts could hold. For, the state of man was murderous. The state of the manwas murderous, and he knew it.
Invery significant quantity of cases changes Dickens uses meeting point in thestatements of the hero, which was interrupted in his speech its author’scommentary: «Still wasting the precious hours» – said the monk at length,turning to the elder sister as he spoke. «Still wasting the precious hours onthis vain trifling.» (Nicholas Nickleby, I. 81)
Insuch cases repetition formally keeps the signs of the point repeated unites aresituated at the end of one sentence and the beginning of another one, but thenature of the repetition changes, there is no the end of one and the beginningof the other thought, as such sentences we have at meeting point in it onesection of one and the same thought is repeated, gaining formal signs of ameeting point. That is the reason we can name such phenomenon as false meetingpoint. Often Charles Dickens places his remark after one word, pronounced bythe acting person in the very beginning of this remark. The meaning of thisrepetition is not clear, as it is spoken as cut off pram context and it isexplained interpreted only in the second half of the to be at hand «Unless»,interposed the man with the campstool» unless Mr. Winkle feels himself aggrievedby the challenge»
Especiallyshould we analyze one of the types kinds of catch up, which is used by Dickensglad. This kind of repetition is met at the end of the first sentence, isrepeated at the beginning of the second one, at the end of the second and atthe beginning of the third one, at the end of the third at the beginning of thefourth and (further). We shall have uninterrupted chain of catch was, as ifthey are wounded one on the other, forming chain repetition for example:
«Tothink better of it» returned the gallant Blando is, would be to slight a lady,to slight a lady would be to deficient in chivalry towards the sex, andchivalry towards the sex is a part of my character».
Chainrepetition does not premed more fully discovery of the meaning of the repeatedword or word combination. Fastenings, formed by repetition at the end of onesentence at the beginning of the following sentence cement the unity of thestatement, as a rule give the sequence of thoughts or actions, which followeach other immediately. Sometimes Dickens intertwines the chain of catch ups inthe system, which looks like similar chain repetitions, but with more complexpictures; «He Saw» the portrait of Lady Dedlock over the mantel shelf, in whichshe is represented on a terrace with a pedestal upon the terrace, and a vase,upon the pedestal and her shawl upon the vase, and a prodigious piece of furupon the shawl, and her arm on the prodigious piece of fur, and a bracelet onher arm.
Herethe fastening are stretched out seizing between their repeated ends the wholesentence, the beginning of which enters a new word or a word combination, whichis repeated through one sentence at the end of the following sentence, seizingin its turn, when repeated another part with the newly introduced repeatedunites.
Chainrepetition is one of the types of repetitions a significant part of whole arekept in the works of folklore. Sometimes Dickens especially indicates points toa definite concrete
2.2Stylistic Devices used in «Nicholas Nickleby»
Thisbook is best, out of all the Dickens books. If you should just read one ofDicken's, it should be this one. This captures all of the suspense that hecreates in any of his books. I reccomend this boook to anyone who is lookingfor a long and satisfying read.
Moneyversus virture, poverty set against wealth, hero against the ills of society,plus the combined forces of the duty to family and bond between sister andbrother. Any Dickens novel will bring you the perfection of character, theordinary individual through thought and deed becomes the extraordinary.
Throwin a sarcasm still alive today, mainly through the use of superlatives whichover emphasize the importance of «Lord somebody» and deftly turn these titled aristocratsfrom dieties of fortune into over inflated balloons. Dickens, in a time ofVictorian sensibility, turned to an arsenal of adjectives for dealing with thelong engrained antediluvian British nobility. Exquisite descriptions allowingthe reader to visit each character as if you were in the literal sense, sittingin their living rooms observing their lives right down to the tea kettlewhistle.
AllDickens novels are loaded with the stuff of glory, but never too far fetchedthat he can't drive home the plight of the impoverished, the cycles of povertyand the deep suffering he witnesses daily in the streets of London. What betterway to emphasize injustice than to contrast sick and orphaned children withrich old misers?
Comparinghis observations on injustice, you will find it relevant today, in a differentguise perhaps, from Lord Somebody and his buffoons in parliament to ourcorporate welfare state and over saturated market economy.
Howdoes one survive a world as cruel as one directed by a corrupt guardian unclein the money lending business? Only Nicholas Nickelby can answer that. Withnothing but youth on his side and a good upbringing in the country, Nicholaslearns his values will need to be tested at the risk of his own safety andreputation. As he defends his character and the honor of his family, not tomention saving a few lives of those much worse off than he, he gains enoughgood karma to last several lifetimes as he follows his heart to the wealth thatawaits him like a holy grail. Like any hero, he sets off a chain reaction ofgood luck for his family and aquaintances, until the book exhausts itself inbecoming one riotous, joyous celebration of life. As one last task, Nicholaswith all his honor, attracts the only one thing he is missing, an equallyflawless damsel to be rescued from a cruel, self centered father.
Unlikehis later works, this one is brimming with sweet hyperbolic idealism andexageration, like youthful optimism, it does not carry the same intimatecharacter intropsection he develops later.
Itis worth it to settle into this novel to witness the sharp black and whitejuxtapose of the good character versus corrupt.
WhereasDickens balanced this with gray areas between rich and poor in other novels,this work is direct, simple and explicit in it's quest for moral ground. Wealthmatches wealth of spirit and Dickens can make it infectious with his keenobservations of human behavior and his absolute dedication to matching hiswords to his heart.
Freshfrom his success on «Oliver Twist» as a political satirist of note, Dickensturns his sights toward the abuse of Yorkshire schools – a national disgrace – inwhich children were effectively abandoned for a fee. Neglect, physical abuse,malnourishment, cold, and ill health were endemic. This political attackbecomes the setting for an expansive tale of the Nickleby family and theirongoing struggle against the evil of their uncle Ralph. The usual collection ofsub-plots, comedy and Dickensian characters rounds out a lengthy but fulfillingread that nobody will be sorry they started.
2.2.1Other StylisticFeatures Used by Charles Dickens in «Oliver Twist»
Dickenss novels first appeared in monthly installments, including «Oliver Twist»(1837–1839), which depicts the London underworld and hard years of thefoundling Oliver Twist.
CharlesDickens is considered to be one of the greatest English novelists of theperiod. Dickens works are characterized by alters on social evils, injusticeand hypocrisy.
Inthe thirties of the XIX century English capitalism entered a new stase ofdevelopment. England become a classical capitalist country. At the some timeEngland was experiencing on, acclamation of contradiction both at home andabroad. In India and Ireland national-liberation monuments were developingwhile the metropolis itself witnessed powerful upsurge of labor movement knownas chartist. The period of this tense stresses was attended by the appearanceof a new literary current-critical realism. The critical realism of the 19thcentre flourished in the 1840s and in the beginnings of the1850s. One of thegreatest writers of this period was Charles Dickens a brilliant novelist whorevealed truths of his time «Hard Time» he called this time.
OliverTwist is one of the best works of Charles Dickens, Belinsky V.G a well-knownRussian critic wrote. The merit of the novel is in its truth to reality,sometimes arousing indignation, always full of every and humor, its fault is inthe ending which is in the mourner of the sentimental hovels of the pastcentre…
Allthe of «Oliver Twist», of the good cranks and villains in particular, anddelaine sharply and ritually».
Thenovel was written in 1837–38. It tells the story of an orphan boy of unknown parentage.Born in a workhouse, brought up under cruel conditions, the hero runs away fromthe workhouse to London, were he falls into the hands of a song of thieves. Heis resented from them by the benevolent rich Mr. Brownlow, but the thieves makehim join the once again and partake in their foul dealings. The novel ends withOliver Twist being adapted by Mr. Brownlow. The adventures of the boy-hero wereused by Dickens to describe the lower depth of London. He makes his readersawes at the in humanity of city life under the conditions of capitalism. Themain hero of the novel is a kind boy but he is thrown into the awful conditionsunder which the children of the poor were brush-up. The novel exposes hecruelth of the bourgois philathopists.
1. Topicality of the theme
CharlesDickens life was very hard. His childhood was an unhappy period. His childhoodpassed in stresses for surviving in difficult conations of the XIX centuryEngland. His novel «Little Darrit» is about miserable life of his parents.
Oneof the creators of characters in all the world s literature is the Britishnovelist Charles Dickens. His novel «David Copperfield» describes one of D…tourist character named Uriah Heep. The story is harried by its win hero, DavidCopperfield a young boy. He has arrived at Mr. Wickfield s, were he is to boardwhile altitudes school. Mr. Wickfield has allowed practice. The story is set inthe mid-nineteenth century, Charles Dickens stile is very unique and original.He uses in some time he uses short sentences, especially when he wantsdeemphasize something important. It is repetition are also interesting and wehave them almost in all his book. «Oliver Twist» can give us some imaginationabout its author s style. Here we have many examples of using polysemanticwords. One of such wage we come across in chapter II. Oliver had not beenwithin the walls of the workhouse a quarter of an hour, and had scarilycompleted the devolution of second slice of bread, when Mr. Bambel, who hadhanded him over to the core of an old woman, returned, and telling him it wasboard had said hi was to happen before it forth word.
Inthis sentence one should pay attention to his to the words «workhouse» and «board».The first is public institution for reception of paupers in a parish or groupof parishes. The inhabitants of workhouses were selected to most brutalexploitation. In «Oliwer Twist» Dickens gives a realistic picture of thehorrible existence in workhouse.
Theword board has many meanings the meaning is
OliverTwist» is an excellent, fascinating and compelling novel which I had thepleasure of reading. This book is exceptionally well narrated whichdistinguishes Dickens as one of the greatest English story writers. The issueshe raised are timeless particularly societal issues pertaining to dealing withpoverty, class differences, child labour, orphans and the disadvantaged insociety. He highlights the need to care for others and not to be selfish.Dickens did a good job of enlightening the middle class in Britain of thehardships that the poor had to endure during his time.
OliverTwist is a very young, innocent orphan who lost his mother at birth. He isthrust into the cruel and unforgiving world. I was moved by the numeroushardships and challenges that he had to endure at such a tender age, includingbeing shot at. He was moved away from the workhouse when he innocently asks forsome more food, taken to as an apprentice undertaker and after some troubleruns away only to get into a group of thieves and robbers.
Dickenspaints a grim, dark and horrifying picture of life of the poor in VictorianEngland. The author produced some memorable characters like Fagin the miser andthe gang of thieves that included The Artful Dodger, Mr Bumble at theworkhouse, Nancy the kind hearted whore with motherly instincts, Mr Grimwig whois always threatening to eat his head and those of others, Sikes the murdererand others.
Thankfullythe book has a happy ending for Oliver. However, Nancy touched my heart and Ifelt that she should not have met such a grisly demise. Some unfortunateanti-Semitic references taint an otherwise exceptional novel.
Thisis excellent reading for those who like a well written story with excitingtwists and turns.
Ihave read a number of Dickens books and can certainly call myself a big fan ofhis work. Considering the overwhelming popularity of «Oliver Twist,» it's a bitsurprising that it took a graduate class to present the first opportunity formy getting to read it. While the book is good, it is not without its problems.I found the character of Oliver to be a little flat and a whole lot ofunbelievable. Furthermore, Dickens played around with a lot of themes dealingwith knots and mazes which was mildly tiresome.
Andwhile I got a couple of big belly laughs out of Bumble's character, I wasreally peeved with Nancy's outcome. For those who have not read it, I am beingcryptic for a reason.
Allin all it is a clever little book, though it is clear it is one of his first.However, when you compare this one to the likes of «David Copperfield» and «Dombeyand Son,» it leaves a bit to be desired.
Forthose who have never read Dickens and are afraid to pick up one of his manynovels that are half a foot thick, start with «A Christmas Carol» or «Great
Expectations»….andthen give «Twist» a whirl.
OliverTwist was Dickens's first serious novel, after the comic Pickwick Papers. It istrash but his potential shows through.
ThePenguin Classics version seen here gives us the book as it was originallyserialized in magazines, and it is filthily anti-semitic, as is The Merchant OfVenice by Shakespeare and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, two other filthilyanti-semitic British pieces of work. We have an established tradition here ofJew hatred in jolly old England.
Thecharacters in Oliver Twist are caricatures given to us as pure good or pureevil. I don't know which are worse. Rose Maylie is so sickeningly sweet andgood as to be worse than the bad uns. So is Oliver Twist for that matter.Reading about either of them is like eating french toast with gobs of maplesyrup but leaving out the french toast. Just spoon that maple syrup into yourmouth straight.
Beautyand goodness are equivalent to each other. Rose Maylie is so pretty, pretty asa picture, pretty as two pictures, and so is our pansy goody two shoes OliverTwist. Perfection is too weak a word for them.
Meanwhile,the Jew is a despicably ugly character, both physically and morally. And whenOliver wakes up and looks out a window he spies the Jew, and he wakes upscreaming The Jew! The Jew!
Thisedition of Dickens's viciously anti-semitic work identifies its primary villainas The Jew perhaps 300 times. It's The Jew this, The Jew that. If someone triedto get this garbage published today, the only publishing house that would takeit would be from Aryan Nation.
Theproblem with completely slamming this trash is that even though the charactersare one dimensional, either goody goody good or bad uns, and even though it isa sledgehammer of constant Jew hatred, you still have a fledgling Dickens, aneophyte Dickens, which is like having a rookie Reggie Jackson on your team. Heis going to hit some homers and win some World Series games. He has awesometalent and it does show.
Thereis a confirmed tendency to hero-worship the famous. Dickens or Shakespearecould have written any old garbage, and often did, and still most people wouldpraise it to the skies because they really aren't looking past the name.
Doyou have the independence and the true taste to really tell the wheat from thechaff? Very few people do. And Reggie Jackson struck out an awful lot, and hada big mouth which his foot fit easily into, and was never accused of being anice guy.
Thisearly version of Oliver Twist reeks. Get the musical instead. Or look for alater version, one that doesn't scream about The Jew ten times a page.
Theintroduction tells us that Dickens had Jewish friends who told him that thisbook was anti-semitic, and Dickens answered basically «yes, but most Fagin typecriminals ARE Jews». Even so, he deleted some of his references to The Jew andadded a nice Jew as a minor character in one of his later books. Big deal. Thatdoesn't balance Fagin. Oh, I've ripped out your liver? Here, have a twinkie.
NOTESON «OLIVER TWIST»
AsAngus Wilson says,
…the somber tone of Oliver Twist, coming after Pickwick Papers,was a surprise, though no disappointment, to contemporary readers… With OliverTwist Dickens the master of grand social vision, and Dickens thejournalist, come to the front of the stage, while Dickens the comedian ofPickwick Papers retires into comparative shadow.
Itis as if Dickens were eager to demonstrate his own versatility and to avoid beigntypecast as the author of a particular kind of fiction: in the context of the1830s it is hard to think of a more abrupt change…
Dickensdrew on various literary and dramatic models in his second novel. The Gothicnovel may well have contributed 'a certain supernatural element implied in thediabolic character of Fagin, and in the mysterious absence of his footprintsafter he has peered in upon Oliver in his country retreat, and in the wholephantom character of Monks'. The eighteenth-century picaresque novel may havesuggested 'the disputed – inheritance – cum – illegitimate – son plot' (cf. TomJones and Humphery Clinker). Popular melodrama of the kind that Dickens enjoyedin the London theaters made its contribution, notably to the stylized and implausibledialogue at certain points. Most obvious of all to Dickens' first readers wouldhave been the influence of the so-called 'Newgate novel', which flourished inthe 1830s; to this category belong such once-popular works as Bulwer-Lytton'sPaul Clifford (1830) and Eugene Aram (1832), and Harrison Ainsworth's Rookwood(1834). Such novels glamorized the criminal classes (the heroes of the firstand third are highwaymen). At the end of the decade Thackeray satirized thisschool of fiction in his Catherine (serialized in 1839–40), narrated by'Ikey Solomon, junior' (Ikely Solomon had been the prototype for Fagin); and inFrazer's Magazine (August 1840), describing the crowd at a publicexecution, he contrasted the real-life Nancys with those depicted in Dickens:
Iwas curious to look at them, having, in late fashionable novels, read manyaccounts of such personages. Bah! what figments these novelist tell us! Boz,who knows life well, knows that his Miss Nancy is the most unreal fantasticalpersonage possible;… He dare not tell the truth concerning such young ladies.
Mostobviously, there is the satire on the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 and itseffects. Peter Fairclough notes that the opening chapters of the novel appearedwhen a campaign by The Times attacking the Act was at its height. As Faircloughsays,
Thechief object of the new Act was to stop the benevolent Allowance System–adevelopment of the granting of wholesale outdoor relief by many humane J.P.'s,whereby labourers' wages were supplemented to subsistence level bycontributions to the Poor Rate–by abolishing out-relief to the able-bodied [seeNote, Poor Laws].
Oliveris born into the pre‑1834 system, and sent to one of the baby farms whichwere a feature of the early nineteenth-century provision for pauper orphans.But by the time he is nine years old (Ch. 2) the new Act is in effect and hisfate is settled by one of the elected Boards of Guardians that had been newlyestablished. Humphry House has commented that Bumble's still being beadle afterthe introduction of the new Act was perfectly possible: 'all the details didnot change at a stroke, and the early reports of the Commissioners are full ofcomplaints of unsuitable officers taken over from the old system.
Dickenswas to continue his attack on the inhumanity of the workhouse system: almostthirty years later, in his last completed novel, Our Mutual Friend, it is stilla target. But it is not the only topical aspect of this early novel; indeed,according to House, 'A novel could hardly have been more topical than OliverTwist, ' Saffron Hill, where much of the action takes place, was notorious inthe period as a haunt of thieves, prostitutes and fences, and in making it thebase of Fagin's activities 'Dickens was… using a contemporary topical allusionwith which a great number of his readers would have been quite familiarbeforehand' (House). The brief reference to Oliver's narrow escape at beingapprenticed to a chimney-sweep alludes to the plight of the climbing boys,another contemporary scandal.
Oliveris a sort of male Cinderella or princess disguised as a goose girl; and hisinnate gentility (manifested, for example, in his speech–a product of his birthrather than his environment) is flagrantly non-realistic. Similarly, there is aproblem arising from the conflict between the impulse of Dickens's part tosatirize with righteous indignation and the impulse to turn anything andeverything to comedy. Bumble is not, a priori, a figure of fun but the corruptrepresentative of an evil system. In the novel, however, he is a comedian, andsome of the scenes in which he appears (for example, his courtship of Mrs.Carney) have little or nothing to do with the attack on the poor law. This isan aspect of Dickens' art not confined to this novel (compare, for instance,the treatment of Mrs. Gump in Martin Chuzzlewit, where the exposure of herincompetence as a nurse is almost lost sight of in the rich eccentricities ofher monologues)….
Evilis rendered with much more conviction than good. Beside Fagin, the benevolentMr Brownlow is insubstantial; even Nancy, though her activities as prostituteare scarcely touched on (Dickens never uses the word in the novel) and hersexuality is played down, is a human(i) portrait in a way that the virtuousRose Maylie is not. Between these groups, as Wilson says, move 'the passivefigure of Oliver himself and the mechanical figure of his sinister half-brotherMonks.
2.2.2Stylistic Features used by Charles Dickens in «Hard Times»
Beginningin 1854 up through to his death in 1870, Charles Dickens abridged and adaptedmany of his more popular works and performed them as staged readings. Thisversion, each page illustrated with lovely watercolor paintings, is a beautifulexample of one of these adaptations.
Becauseit is quite seriously abridged, the story concentrates primarily on theextended family of Mr. Peggotty: his orphaned nephew, Ham; his adopted niece,Little Emily; and Mrs. Gummidge, self-described as «a lone lorn creetur andeverythink went contrairy with her.» When Little Emily runs away withCopperfield's former schoolmate, leaving Mr. Peggotty completely brokenhearted,the whole family is thrown into turmoil. But Dickens weaves some comic reliefthroughout the story with the introduction of Mr. and Mrs. Micawber, andDavid's love for his pretty, silly «child-wife,» Dora. Dark nights, mysteriouslocations, and the final destructive storm provide classic Dickensian drama.Although this is notDavid Copperfieldin its entirety, it is a greatintroduction to the world and the language of Charles Dickens
Writinga review of Dickens is very daunting. What can you say that's new? The greatestminds and writers of each generation are compelled to offer their opinions ofhis writings. Well, I feel compelled as well, simply because his writing hasmoved me so much.
Ihave come to Dickens late in life, right on the cusp of 50 years of age. Whenyounger, I feared him to be cloying and contrived and it never took more than apage or two to confirm these fears. Besides, for English speaking readers, «CharlesDickens» is such a household word, his works so well known, it's almost as ifhe comes pre-read.
Ina happy circumstance, I recently picked up a copy of «Great Expectations» on awhim, which has been in my girlfriend's bookshelf forever (isn't a copy of someDickens' novel always close at hand?). A raced through Great Expectations andmoved quickly to this novel, David Copperfield.
Iwon't re-hash too much what millions have felt and said about Dickens, exceptto say that it was a real thrill to feel that rush of excitement again about awriter – that tremendous feeling that makes you want to tell everyone you knowabout your discovery. I can't ever remember feeling this much concern for agroup of characters before in any novel. In David Copperfield, Dickens createda character driven page-turner of over 1000 pages.
Nowriter before or since has been able to create an emotional bond between bookand reader the way Charles Dickens could. One of the great pleasures of thebook is the depiction of Uriah Heep, a villain that ranks up there with thedemons of Milton or the murdering kings of Shakespeare. His power of others isastonishing and very creepy. The book is full of great characters, though, andfor me one of the most memorable was James Steerforth: one of life's charming,natural winners. Dickens insight into this character is phenomenal, subtle, andsomehow haunting. Steerforth is one of those characters that will forever seem «modern»and knowable.
Forpure descriptive writing, a reader could search the classics of literatureforever and not find anything to best «the storm scene» near the end of thebook. Nothing I could say will come close to the feeling of reading theseparticular pages. I don't know anyone that has read this book withoutcommenting on its power.
Theremust be other readers out there like me, thinking Dickens one of those classicwriters from another age; worth knowing about but not worth reading. For thosereaders considering David Copperfield, I envy you. You are about to make one ofthose exciting discoveries that make life worth living. – Mykal Banta
Iam a big reader, but in general, I'm a big reader of short novels. I just don'thandle the large ones too well, and that's why I've been slow to get to DavidCopperfield. I've read a lot of Dickens's other stuff, and I've loved it all. Icount Hard Times and A Tale of Two Cities and Oliver Twist and A ChristmasCarol and a couple of others among my favorites. I was never able to makemyself read David Copperfield though.
Untilthe last several weeks. I decided that it would be good for me to get throughthe whole thing, and I must say that it was a rewarding experience.
Iparticularly enjoyed the comedy of the novel. It has some of Dickens's mosthumorous moments and characters. Mr. and Mrs. Micawber are the sort ofcharacters you know even before reading the novel, and the novel really startsgoing once they appear. Mr. […] and David's aunt provide nice moments, too.
And,of course, there's that Dickensian melodrama that we all love. That's probablywhy this book has been so popular through the years. David is a likeablecharacter (particularly when he grows up), and his life definitely has itstraumas and its highs. David's appealing, and it's pretty easy to becomeemotionally attached to the fellow as he makes mistakes and experiencestriumphs and dark times. That's one thing about a thousand page novel; you geta little of everything.
There'splenty of interesting social commentary, particularly on the role of women.Dickens's philosophy on love it pretty evident, too, in the later stages of thenovel, and that's pretty interesting.
So,it's a good book for all those who like the big novel, and for all those wholike Dickens, it's, of course, a cannot miss. It's long but worth it.
Ihave always liked Dickens – I used to say that A Tale of Two Cities was myfavorite – but this work is truly extraordinary. Like all of Dickens' novels,this one contains an amazing number of complex and colorful characters. Thenovel is in the first person, with the voice looking back as an older man atthe entirety of his life. What struck me most about the book was Dickens'ability to write in a way that simultaneously captured both the emotions of achild as the young Davy experienced these events and those of the man who waslooking back on them. With magnificent characters, an interesting plot, and aclear theme, this is truly a masterpiece.2.2.3 On the «Bleak House»
I was whilst engaged upon Bleak House that Dickens, for thefirst time in his career, complained of feeling overwrought. He began thewriting of this book in November, 1851, just a year after the close of DavidCopperfield, and was busy at it until August 1853; the first of the usualtwenty monthly parts appeared in March, 1852, with illustrations by Harlot K.Browne. Doubtless the story cost him a great deal of trouble, for he had sethimself a task alien to his genius – that of constructing a neatly elaborate «plot,»a rounded mystery with manifold complications, to serve as the vehicle for hisattack upon a monstrous abuse. His letters of the time show that he was notworking with the old gusto; he felt his other literary tasks, going onconcurrently, very burdensome, to say nothing of the strain imposed by amateuracting and ceaseless social engagements. Of course the method of monthlypublication, with author but a little in advance of printer, was,notwithstanding Dickens's deliberate defense, as bad a one as novelist has evercontrived, and we, who owe to it so many of Dickens's blemishes, cannot condemnit too severely. Imagine him to have written how, when, and where he pleased,making his books short or long with regard only to their subject, and choosinghis own time for putting forth the complete story, how different would be thepossession bequeathed to us!
In the serial issue David Copperfield had not had a greatsale; Bleak House began at once with a larger, and presently rose to acirculation of nearly twice that attained by the earlier and better book. Thewise man does not try very hard to explain such statistics, but it seemsintelligible that the opening chapters of Bleak House should haveexcited that sort of curiosity which in the public at large means interest;there is a lawsuit involving a great fortune, and there is a mystery affectingaristocratic lives. Herein lay novelty; for the two preceding books, Dumberand Copperfield, had opened with childhood, and followed a regularbiographic tenor. Dickens's first idea with regard to their successor was tocall it Tom-all-Alone's, and to make Jo the centre of interest;obviously a project of no great promise and soon abandoned. I have somewhereread a suggestion, that in the changed character of his later works, where «plot»takes the place of biographic narrative, we are to note the influence ofDickens's friend, Wilkie Collins; but in the year 1851 Wilkie Collins hadpublished only his first, and uncharacteristic, work of fiction, Antonina,and it is more likely that, if influence there were of one novelist upon theother, Bleak House had its part in the shaping of Collins's successfulwork; Inspector Bucket, at all events, certainly gave a new type to thenovelists of crime.
Dickens thought he was making an advance in art. He had beenoccasionally reproached for the old-fashioned, happy-go-lucky progress of hisstories, and now set himself resolutely to amend the fault. The result was afiction which his biographer considers very nearly perfect. «Look back from thelast to the first page of the present novel, and not even in the highestexamples of this kind of elaborate care will it be found that event leads moreclosely to event or that the separate incidents have been planned with a morestudied consideration of the bearing they are severally to have on the generalresult. Nothing is introduced at random, everything tends to the catastrophe,the various lines of the plot converge and fit to its centre, and to thislarger interest all the rest is irresistibly drawn» (Forster, Bk. VIII, Chap.I). Now, if we omit the objectionable word «plot,» this is a description offaultless art in the constructing of a story; it will apply, in its degree, toevery fine drama, scenic or narrative. But in the case before us itsapplication is imperfect, owing to Dickens's failure to distinguish between artand artifice. In the fable of Bleak House there is much ingenuity, butan almost total disregard of probability the fitting of incidents suggests amechanical puzzle rather than the complications of human life; arbitrarycoincidence takes the place of well-contrived motive, and at times the motivesuggested is glaringly inadequate. Briefly, the plot is not a good plot;infinite labour was wasted in a mistaken direction and here, as in so many ofDickens's novels, we have to enjoy the book in spite of its framework.
To make matters worse, the scheme is not homogeneous; intermingledwith this weft of elaborate pattern are patches of a totally different order ofwork, the chapters of autobiography supposed to be written by Esther Summerson.In Copperfield, the first-person narrative was a great success, for itwas indeed Dickens himself who spoke throughout, with all his qualities ofhumour and observation, vigour and pathos, allowed free play; one understandsthat the memory of his delight in achieving that masterpiece tempted him to arepetition of the same method. The result was most unfortunate. Of EstherSummerson as a woman we are liable to form no conception whatever, and weutterly refuse to believe that any hand save one penned the chapters bearingher signature. An attempt is made to write «in character, '' but it is speedilyabandoned, and I imagine it would be an easy thing, by the changing of a veryfew words on each page, to incorporate these Esther portions with the rest ofthe narrative. The object, presumably, of writing a book in this way is toobtain the effect of varied points of view regarding characters and events; butit is of necessity a mistake in art. With a skill much greater than that ofDickens, the device is employed in Daudet's «Le Nabab» where one still feelsthat the harmonious construction of the novel is unwarrantably disturbed.
So much for technicalities. To come to the root of the matter, BleakHouse is a brilliant, admirable, and most righteous satire upon themonstrous iniquity of «old Father Antic the Law,» with incidental mockery ofallied abuses which, now as then, hold too large a place in the life of theEnglish people.
Needless nowadays to revive the controversies which the bookexcited; we know that the Court of Chancery disgraced a country pretending tocivilization; we know that, not long after the publication of Bleak House,it submitted to certain reforms yet it is interesting to remember that legalluminaries scoffed at Dickens's indignation and declared his picture utterlyunlike the truth. One of these critics (Lord Denman) published a long andsevere arraignment of the author, disputing not only his facts, but histheories of human nature. This novel, asserted Lord Denman, contained allDickens's old faults and a good many new ones. Especially bitter was hislordship on the subject of Mrs. Jellyby, whom he held to be a gross libel onthe philanthropic cause of slave emancipation. Many readers, naturally, foundsubject of offence in Mr. Chadband. Indeed, Bleak House seems to havearoused emotions in England very much as Martin Chuzzlewit did inAmerica, the important point being that in neither case did Dickens's satireultimately injure him with his public; in the end, the laugh was on his side,and with a laugh he triumphed. Not a little remarkable, when one comes to thinkof it, this immunity of the great writer. Humour, and humour alone, could haveensured it to him. It is all very well to talk of right prevailing, of thepopular instinct for justice, and so on; these phrases mean very little.Dickens held his own because he amused. The noblest orator ever born, raisinghis voice in divine wrath against Chancery and all its vileness would not havetouched the «great heart of the People» as did these pages which makegloriously ridiculous the whole legal world from His Lordship in his High Courtdown to Mr. Guppy on his high stool.
The satire is of very wide application; it involves that wholesystem of pompous precedent which in Dickens's day was responsible for so muchcruelty and hypocrisy, for such waste of life in filth and gloom andwretchedness. With the glaring injustice of the Law, rotting society down tosuch places as Tom-all-Alone's, is associated the subtler evils of anaristocracy sunk to harmful impotence. With absurd precedent goes foolishpride, and self-righteousness, and every form of idle egoism; hence we have agroup of admirable studies in selfish conceit – Harold Skimpole, Mr.Turveydrop, Mr. Chadband, Mrs. Jellyby. Impossible to vary the central thememore adroitly, more brilliantly. In Bleak House London is seen as a meredependance of the Court of Chancery, a great gloomy city, webbed and meshed, asit were, by the spinnings of a huge poisonous spider sitting in the region ofChancery Lane; its inhabitants are the blighted, stunted and prematurely oldoffspring of a town which knows not fresh air. Perfect, all this, for thepurpose of the satirist. In this sense, at all events, Bleak House is anexcellently constructed book.
There is no leading character. In Richard Carstone, about whom thestory may be said to circle, Dickens tried to carry out a purpose he had onceentertained with regard to Walter Gay in Dombey and Son. That of showinga good lad at the mercy of temptations and circumstances which little by littlewreck his life; but Richard has very little life to lose, and we form only ashadowy conception of his amiably futile personality. Still less convincing ishis betrothed, Ada, whose very name one finds it difficult to remember. Nothingharder, to be sure, than to make a living picture of one whose part in thestory is passive, and in Bleak House passivity is the characteristic ofall the foremost figures; their business is to submit to the irresistible. Yettwo of these personages seem to me successful studies of a kind in whichDickens was not often successful; I cannot but think that both Sir LeicesterDedlock and John Jarndyce is, each in his way, an excellent piece of work,making exactly the impression at which the author aimed. Compare Jarndyce withMr. Pickwick and with the brothers Cheeryble. It is to their world that hebelongs, the world of eccentric benevolence; he is the kind of man Dickensdelighted to portray; but Mr. Jarndyce is far more recognizably a fellow-mortalthan his gay predecessors; in truth, he may claim the style of gentleman, andperhaps may stand for the most soberly agreeable portrait of a gentleman to befound in all Dickens's novels. Sir Leicester, though he shows in the full lightof satiric intention, being a figurehead on the crazy old ship of aristocraticprivilege, is a human being akin to John Jarndyce; he speaks with unduesolemnity, but behaves at all times as noblesse oblige, and, whensinking beneath his unmerited calamities, makes no little claim upon oursympathetic admiration. We have travelled far since the days of Sir MulberryHawk; the artist, meanwhile, had made friends in the privileged class of hiscountrymen, and had learnt what the circumstances of his early life did notallow him to perceive, that virtue and good manners are not confined to themiddle and lower orders. He would not go so far as to make Sir Leicesterintelligent; in spite of personal experience, Dickens never reconciled himselfto the thought of «birth» in association with brains. His instinctive feelingcomes out very strongly in that conversation between the Baronet and theIronmaster which points to Dickens's remedy – the Radical remedy – for all theevils he is depicting.
That the Dedlock tragedy is the least impressive portion of thebook results partly from Dickens's inability to represent any kind of womansave the eccentric, the imbecile, and the shrew (there are at most one or twosmall exceptions), and partly from the melodramatic strain in him, which sooften misled his genius. Educated readers of to-day see little differencebetween these chapters of Bleak House and the treatment of any like «mystery»in a penny novelette. There is no need to insist on these weaknesses of themaster; we admit them as a matter of critical duty, and at the same time pointout the characteristics, moral and intellectual, of Victorian England, whichaccount for so many of Dickens's limitations. Had he not been restrained by aninsensate prudishness from dealing honestly with Lady Dedlock's story, LadyDedlock herself might have been far more human. Where the national consciencerefuses to recognize certain phases of life, it is not wonderful that nationalauthors should exhibit timidity and ineptitude whenever they glance in the forbiddendirection. Instead of a picture, we get a cloudy veil suggestive of namelesshorrors; it is the sort of exaggeration which necessarily results infeebleness.
Dickens was very fond of the effect produced by bringing intoclose contact representatives of social extremes; the typical instance is LadyDedlock's relations with crossing-sweeper Jo. Contemporary readers saw in Jo afigure of supreme pathos; they wept over his death-bed, as by those of PaulDombey and of Little Nell. An ecclesiastical dignitary could not find words ofsolemn praise adequate to his emotions at the end of Chapter XLVII. «Unculturednature is there indeed; the intimations of true heart feeling, theglimmerings of higher feeling, all are there; but everything still consistentand in harmony. To my mind nothing in the field of fiction is to be found inEnglish literature surpassing the death of Jo!» That expressed the commonjudgment; but there were dissentients, especially Lord Denman, who afterdeploring the introduction of so much squalor – «the author's love of low lifeappears to grow on him» – went on to protest against Dickens's habit ofdiscovering «delicacy of virtuous sentiment in the lowest depths of humandegradation.» We know that Lord Denman was here quite right; for, though virtuemay exist in the ignorant and the poor and the debased, most assuredly thedelicacies of virtue will not be found in them, and it is these delicacies onwhich Dickens so commonly insists. If one fact can be asserted of the lowestEnglish it is that, supposing them to say or do a good thing, they will say ordo it in the worst possible way. Does there, I wonder, exist in all literature,a scene less correspondent with any possibility of life than that descriptionof Jo's last moments? Dickens believed in it – there is the odd thing. Not aline, not a word, is insincere. He had a twofold mission in life, and, from ourstandpoint, in an age which has outgrown so many conditions of fifty years ago,we can only mark with regret how the philanthropist in him so often overcamethe artist.
His true pathos comes when he does not particularly try for it andis invariably an aspect of his humor. The two chief instances in this book arethe picture of Coavinses' children after their father's death, and the figureof Guster, Mrs. Saxby’s slave-of-all-work. Nothing more touching, more natural,more simple, than that scene in Chapter XV where Esther and her companions findthe little Convinces locked up for safety in their cold garret, whilst theelder child, Charley, is away at washing to earn food for them all.
«'God help you, Charley!' said my Guardian. 'You're not tallenough to reach the tub!'»
«'In patens I am, Sir, ' she answered quickly. 'I've got a highpair as belonged to mother.'»
That is worth many death-beds of ideal crossing-sweepers. We seeit is a possible and intelligible thing that Charley should be a good girl, andher goodness takes precisely the right form. She is healthy in mind and body;her little figure makes one of the points of contrast (others are Mr. Boythorn,and Caddy Jellyby, and Trooper George, and the Bagnet household) whichemphasize the sordid evil all about her. Anything but healthy, on the otherhand, is Mrs. Snagsby's Guster, the poor slavey whose fits and starved stupiditiessupply us with such strange matter for mirth. She belongs to the Marchionessgroup of characters, wherein Dickens's hand has a peculiar skill. «Guster,really aged three or four and twenty, but looking a round ten years older, goescheap with this unaccountable drawback of fits, and is so apprehensive of beingreturned on the hands of her patron saint» – the parish – «that except when sheis found with her head in the pail, or the sink, or the copper, or the dinner,she is always at work. The law-stationer's establishment is, in Guster's eyes,a temple of plenty and splendour. She believes the little drawing-roomupstairs, always kept, as one may say, with its hair in papers and its pinaforeon, to be the most elegant apartment in Christendom…. Guster has somerecompense for her many privations.» The wonderful thing about such work asthis is Dickens's subdual of his indignation to the humorous note. It is whenindignation gets the upper hand, and humour is lost sight of, that he fallsinto peril of unconsciously false sentiment.
Among the characters of this book there is not one belonging tothe foremost groups of Dickens's creations, no one standing together with Mr.Micawber and Mr. Pecksniff; yet what novel by any other writer presents such amultitude of strongly-featured individuals, their names and their personsfamiliar to everyone who has but once read Bleak House? As I havealready remarked, most of them illustrate the main theme of the story,exhibiting in various forms the vice of a fixed idea which sacrificeseverything and everybody to its own selfish demands. The shrewdly ingeniousSkimpole (I do not stop to comment on the old story of his outward resemblanceto Leigh Hunt), the lordly Turveydrop, the devoted Mrs. Jellyby, the unctuouslyeloquent Mr. Chadband, all are following in their own little way the example ofthe High Court of Chancery – victimizing all about them on pretence of the mostdisinterested motives. The legal figures – always so admirable in Dickens – ofcourse strike this key-note with peculiar emphasis; we are in no doubt as tothe impulses ruling Mr. Kenge or Mr. Vholes, and their spirit is potent forevil down to the very dregs of society, in Grandfather Smallweed and in Mr.Krook. The victims themselves are a ragged regiment after Dickens's own heart;crazy Chancery suitors, Mr. Jellyby and his hapless offspring, fever-strickendwellers in Chancery's slums, all shown with infinite picturesqueness – whichindeed is the prime artistic quality of the book. For mirth extracted fromsordid material no example can surpass Mr. Guppy, who is chicane incarnate; hiswithdrawal from the tender suit to Miss Summerson, excellent farce, makes asgood comment as ever was written upon the law-office frame of mind. That wehave little if any frank gaiety is but natural and right; it would be out ofkeeping with the tone of a world overshadowed by the Law. To regret thatSkimpole is not so engaging as Micawber, with other like contrasts, is merelyto find fault with the aim which the novelist sets before him. Yet it isprobable enough that the rather long-drawn dreariness of some parts of the bookmay be attributed to the overstrain from which at this time Dickens wasavowedly suffering.
In his Preface he tells us that he had «purposely dwelt on theromantic side of familiar things.» But the word romantic does not seem to bevery accurately applied. In using it, Dickens no doubt was thinking of theDedlock mystery, the involvement of a crossing-sweeper in aristocratictragedies, and so on; all which would be better called melodrama than romance.What he did achieve was to make the common and the unclean most forciblypicturesque. From the fog at the opening of the story to Lady Dedlock'smiserable death at the end, we are held by a powerful picture of murky,swarming, rotting London, a marvelous rendering of the impression received byany imaginative person who in low spirits has had occasion to wander aboutLondon's streets. Nowhere is Dickens stronger in lurid effects; for a finehorror he never went beyond Chapter XXXII – where it would, of course, be wideof the mark to begin discussing the possibility of spontaneous combustion.Masterly descriptions abound; the Court in Chapter I, the regions of the Lawduring vacation in Chapter XIX, Mr. Vholes's office in Chapter XXXIX, are amongthe best. The inquest at the Sol's Arms shows all Dickens's peculiar power ofgiving typical value to the commonplace; scene and actors are unforgettable;the gruesome, the vile, and the ludicrous combine in unique effects, in therichest suggestiveness. And for the impressive in another kind – still shadowedby the evil genius of the book, but escaped from the city's stifling atmosphere– what could be better than Chapter LVII, Esther's posting through the nightwith Inspector Bucket. This is very vigorous narrative. We, of course, forgetthat an amiable young lady is supposed to be penning it, and are reminded ofthose chapters of earlier books where Dickens revels in the joy of the road.
As a reminder that even in Bleak House the master did notaltogether lose his wonted cheeriness by humble firesides, one may recall theBagnet household, dwelling at a happy distance from Chancery Lane. Compare thedinner presided over by the Old Girl beside her shining hearth with thatpartaken of by Mr. Guppy, Mr. Jobling and Mr. Smallweed at their familiarchop-house. Each is perfect in its kind, and each a whole world in little.
Conclusion
Repetitionis a language of an emotionally rich excited speech that is why its use andfunction in the repetition speech of the hero and in the author’s speech itsubstantially differ from each other. Thus, appearing in the direct speech ofhero, repetition witnesses about excited and agitated state of the spacer forexample: Behold Mr. and Mrs. Baffin beaming!
Asa rule in such cases we have thrice repetitions of words which differ withsignificant emotional substantiality even out of repetition. Repetition, thusplays double role it emphasized certain part of the speaker and at the sametime serves the author as a means of presenting the speaker’s state at momentof speaking.
Thegreatness of the E. realists lies not only in their satirical portrayal of thebourgeoisie and in the ruling classes but also in their profound humanism whichis reveal in their sympathy for the laboring people. These writers createpositive characters who are quite alien to the vices of the rich and who arechiefly common people. The best works of the realist writes, the world of greedand cruelty is contrasted to a world where all the unwritten laws of humanismrule in defiance of all the sorrows and inflections that befall the heroes.
Thecritical realists of the 19th century didn’t and due to their worldoutlook couldn’t find a way to eradicate social evils. They strive for no morethan improving it by means of reforms which brings them to a futile attempt oftrying to reconcile the antagonistic class forces the bourgeoisie andproletariat. The E. working class, however created a lit of its own which canbe in full justice, called the character lit, for it developed among theparticipants of the chartist movement before and after the revolutionary eventsof 1848. The chartist writers introduced a new theme into E. lit.-the struggleof the proletariat for its rights. The 2nd half of the 19thcentury in E. produced a number of outstanding poets such as Alfred Pennyson(1809–1892), Charles Algernon Swinburne (1837–1909) and other.