The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Welcome to our read of Oliver Twist, one of Dickens' best known novels.

These first 10 chapters address Oliver's early years, from the time of his birth until he lands with Fagin and the Artful Dodger in London at the ripe old age of 10. If Dickens set out to write a novel portraying the evils of the workhouse/public orphanage system in England he could not have done a more moving and horrifying job than these opening chapters.

The sorry circumstances of Oliver's birth to an impoverished and presumably single mother who dies giving birth to him, attended by those who care not whether he survives or not, is summed up thus: Oliver cried lustily. If he could have known that he was an orphan, left to the tender mercies of churchwardens and overseers, perhaps he would have cried the louder.

Chapter 2 brings the famous Please sir, I want some more. and we learn that he was elected to try this as all the orphans were being systematically starved, and the punishment of further starvation and being locked up and beaten is well beyond bearing.

Chapters 3-7 feature his legal apprenticeship. He luckily dodges being sold to a chimney sweep of apparently excessive cruelty even for the magistrates deciding his fate, and is finally sold off to an undertaker, Mr Sowerberry, who treats him not exactly well, but more fairly, he is at least fed, and is in the process of learning a trade. All this comes to naught through the persecution of the charity-boy also working there who goads him unmercifully until he hits back, and then orchestrates a full on assault by the mistress and maidservant and a further beating from Mr Sowerberry. Oliver has finally had enough and runs away to London, enduring an arduous journey with continued starvation and loneliness, until finally he meets the Artful Dodger and is brought into the fold of Fagin and his team of pickpockets.

The section ends with Oliver in prison for a theft he didn't commit.

1. How credible do you think these descriptions of workhouses and orphanages were, and what effect might Dickens' writing have had on the public mood? Is it a step up for Oliver, or a step on the road to ruin?

2. What did you think of the final set-up, with Fagin and the boys working for him?

3. What effect do you think Oliver's childhood deprivation would have had on him?

4. Were there particular passages or sections that moved you or failed to do so?

Please share your thoughts on this opening section, even if it is just to let us know that you are reading along!

1. How credible do you think these descriptions of workhouses and orphanages were, and what effect might Dickens' writing have had on the public mood? Is it a step up for Oliver, or a step on the road to ruin?

From what I have read, this book is based on Dicken's own experiences as a child facing poverty and needing to provide for several younger siblings when his parents went to debtor's prison. His critique of the Poor Law of 1834 and the administration of the workhouse is presented in these opening chapters.

The juxtaposition of the starving children in the private asylum and the "fat gentlemen" of the board in control of workhouse affairs is truly an indictment of society at the time and is still relevant today. Folks who are marginalized tend to fall through the cracks today, just like the poor of the workhouses and private asylums of the time when the novel is set. When we marginalize folks there is a very real sense of loneliness, lack of compassion, human intimacy, and love. It's a shame we haven't learned from the past.

I feel sure that like the documentaries we have today, this kind of writing (albeit fictionalized) puts poverty in the faces of the upper class. While they (the upper class) might have known in a general sense that poverty exists Dickens' descriptions make it visceral.

I don't know if leaving the area he was born and raised in is a good idea or if he's jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I think he is self-aware enough that self-preservation kicked in and caused him to flee but he's also ill-equipped and naive in the ways of the world.

3. What effect do you think Oliver's childhood deprivation would have had on him?
He wouldn't know what healthy relationships look like and would have trust issues. Love, I imagine, wouldn't mean much to someone who has not only ever been loved but who has been abused. That's a lot to overcome.

4. Were there particular passages or sections that moved you or failed to do so?
The abject poverty was very moving for me. While not rich, I've always had food on my table. Poverty like Dickens' describes in a nightmare scenario. Another nightmare is when folks like Mrs. Mann take advantage of the resources that should be given to the children.

An interesting thing about this book is how Oliver remains sensitive, honest, and innocent despite his surroundings. This is a somewhat Romantic view. In later books, Dickens becomes more "realistic" in what such experiences do to a child.

The idea that the workhouses should be horrible in order to motivate people to somehow stay out of them hasn't left us, at least in the US. There are constant warnings about "lazy" people living off social programs. The reality is that most programs barely help recipients get by, and have so much paperwork and so many obstacles that many give up. The lack of national health insurance, subsidized child care and other services is tied to fears that some undeserving person (who usually doesn't look like me) would get them.

Frances wrote: "How credible do you think these descriptions of workhouses and orphanages were, and what effect might Dickens' writing have had on the public mood? Is it a step up for Oliver, or a step on the road to ruin?.."

The depictions of conditions seem to be fairly accurate. One thing surprised me though. Even though I've seen several versions of the musical, having 2 brothers in a 1970 high school production and my wife in charge of costuming a grammar school production with my son playing a "Fagin Boy" it somehow escaped me that the opening workhouse/orphanage scenes were NOT in London. They just seemed too big, dirty and full to exist in some smaller town outside London.
But while the conditions seem realistic, many characters seem to be exaggerated states of people with evil intent. However, as this is a Dickens novel, and an early one at that, and one where he is trying to make societal commentary, I understand and accept this characterization method.
I'm enjoying his writing here more than I anticipated. I'm getting a clearer picture of events than I did in my last Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, the reading of which left me with a lack of desire to ever read another Dickens novel.

Back in 2012, for the 200th birthday of Dickens, this group started the Dickens project. We read all his novels in the order he wrote them, with a biography after David Copperfield. We could really see how his work evolved from early books like Oliver to Our Mutual Friend, which became one of my favorites.

One thing to keep in mind is that we modern readers are often annoyed by the use of coincidences in the work of Dickens and other Victorians, for instance the same characters turning up at different points. But this was considered good writing, being able to fit all the parts together efficiently. Also, since the books were usually released as serials, it was easier for the audience to keep track if there weren't scads of new characters entering and leaving the story.

Brian E wrote: it somehow escaped me that the opening workhouse/orphanage scenes were NOT in London. They just seemed too big, dirty and full to exist in some smaller town outside London.."

I had the same surprise, but then realized on doing my little bit of research for the background section that every parish was responsible for the poor therein, and therefore while...
It was recognised that individual parishes would not have the means to erect or maintain workhouses suitable for implementing the policies of "no outdoor relief" and segregation and confinement of paupers; consequently, the Commission was given powers to order the formation of Poor Law Unions (confederations of parishes) large enough to support a workhouse. (from Wikipedia re Poor Laws)

So presumably every region across the country would have had a Workhouse and Orphanage, which people would do their damnedest to stay out of!

Robin P wrote: "Back in 2012, for the 200th birthday of Dickens, this group started the Dickens project. We read all his novels in the order he wrote them, with a biography after David Copperfield. We could really..."

Yes, I joined RR for the Dickens project, but started a few books late so had missed OT. I confess that I struggle somewhat with Dickens hyperbole and overly flowery language, however it does lend significant humour to his novels, and to be able to find some humour even in these grim opening chapters without appearing to mock the poor or downtrodden is quite a gift.

re the childhood deprivation-Gem and Robin you are right that his emotional neglect would likely leave him quite scarred and unable to form healthy relationships later, but I was also thinking about the physical deprivation-we forget today how starvation and malnutrition would also stunt and damage someone physically as, although we still have significant food insecurity, this is no longer something we see (or thankfully see very rarely) in the parts of the world where most of us live. I wondered how many of those children would have rickets or scurvy or diminished height and muscle wasting.

The lack of size of impoverished children made them useful as chimney sweeps, mine workers, etc. because they could get into small spaces!

Robin P wrote: "The lack of size of impoverished children made them useful as chimney sweeps, mine workers, etc. because they could get into small spaces!"

The poor actually remained smaller in average throughout their lives. Being tall was almost a synonym of being upper class. (view spoiler)[I have this bit of information from a footnote to or comment on Mansfield Park, where Mr. Rushford goes on and on about Henry Crawford's lack in inches (hide spoiler)]

What stood out for me in this first section was the ‘matter of fact’ violence that was present or in the background at every stage of Oliver Twist’s young life. Even his birth was surrounded by those capable of violence, including the violently drunk woman who tended the dying mother. Oliver’s mother herself had obviously been subjected to violence, both physical and emotional, in order to arrive at the state she was in when she turned up at the workhouse.

From then on Oliver was violently abused at the nursing home, back at the workhouse, at the funeral parlour and then with those threats of violence at Fagin’s which hung heavily in the air.

Dickens seemed to approach this everyday violence in almost jocular fashion, often through the character of Mr. Bumble who seemed proud of the fact that everyone expected him to give the nearest child a good thrashing. I felt sad when the only way Oliver could react to taunts about his mother was to turn to violence himself and then be subjected to a disgracefully savage beating by two women and a much bigger boy.

With the ‘throw away’ kickings that Oliver had to put up with, I was very surprised he wasn’t black and blue and totally disfigured rather than a handsome little angel suitable to lead a funeral procession.

Dickens may be satirising the hardships that workhouse/destitute children had to face but I began to dislike the constant violent scenes and atmospheres.

My worry is that I am pretty sure that there is even worse violence to come.

Frances wrote: "So presumably every region across the country would have had a Workhouse and Orphanage, which people would do their damnedest to stay out of!".."

Yes Frances, every reasonably sized town in England had to provide a workhouse for those who became destitute. Many towns and cities still have parts of these buildings standing but they are now used for different purposes. The National Trust has preserved one in Southwell, Nottinghamshire and it can be visited at certain times of the year.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visi...

In the wikipedia entry on Workhouses (which can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse ) it even mentions that Charlie Chaplin lived in a workhouse at one point in his life.

’ The comic actor Charlie Chaplin, who spent some time with his mother in Lambeth workhouse, records in his autobiography that when he and his half-brother returned to the workhouse after having been sent to a school in Hanwell, he was met at the gate by his mother Hannah, dressed in her own clothes. Desperate to see them again she had discharged herself and the children; they spent the day together playing in Kennington Park and visiting a coffee shop, after which she readmitted them all to the workhouse.’

I agree that the violence is disturbing in this early section, but I suspect it is realistic and that children like Oliver were considered a burden and really sub-human in some regards. I like the sardonic tone that Dickens employs here because I think it reflects the attitudes of people in power to those less fortunate; with a lesser amount of humor the realities of Oliver's life would indeed be too harsh to read.

The other very disturbing part of the novel is the portrayal of Fagin. It was completely unnecessary for the character to be Jewish, and how Dickens portrayed the old man is cruel and anti-Semitic in the extreme. I understand that Dickens received a great deal of criticism for the Fagin character and later softened his portrayal of Jewish characters. I also understand that such attitudes toward Jews were not uncommon in his time (alas, there are still such attitudes in our time), but it's hard to read.

As for Oliver, he is a child with no agency from the moment of his birth. He is unwanted and unloved, starved for both food and affection, and without any means of saving himself. When he finally and reluctantly makes known his desire not to be condemned to the life of a chimney sweep, he takes a small first step to be in control of his fate. But it isn't until his violent reaction to Noah Claypole's criticism of his mother that Oliver begins to become something other than a victim. His determination to run away from the Sowerberry home is huge - imagine any 10-year old child of today doing such a thing successfully. Of course, he then is swayed by Jack Dawkins and put into a dangerous situation with Fagin's gang, but he is too naive and desperate to recognize what is happening.

Nancy wrote: "The other very disturbing part of the novel is the portrayal of Fagin. It was completely unnecessary for the character to be Jewish, and how Dickens portrayed the old man is cruel and anti-Semitic in the extreme. I understand that Dickens received a great deal of criticism for the Fagin character and later softened his portrayal of Jewish characters. I also understand that such attitudes toward Jews were not uncommon in his time (alas, there are still such attitudes in our time), but it's hard to read.
"

Yes and unfortunately it gets worse in the next section. I am glad to hear that there was criticism even at the time and that Dickens took that criticism to heart and at least toned things down for future works.

Oh poor Charles Dickens! He wrote about a Jewish character who happened to be a bad man, that’s all. There are shed loads of Victorian novels containing Jewish characters Daniel Deronda is a typical example. We cannot impose today’s values on Victorian writers, otherwise we wouldn’t have much left to read. I don’t believe that they were deliberately derogatory to anyone. Let’s not forget this is fiction, had this been an essay I might have felt different!

I entered the read with an expectation that any anti-Semitic talk would just slide right by me. Yet I was still surprised by the degree of emphasis on Fagin's Jewishness. I did not anticipate that the character would be called The Jew more than he'd be called Fagin.

Neil wrote: "Oh poor Charles Dickens! He wrote about a Jewish character who happened to be a bad man, that’s all. There are shed loads of Victorian novels containing Jewish characters Daniel Deronda is a typical example. We cannot impose today’s values on Victorian writers, otherwise we wouldn’t have much left to read. I don’t believe that they were deliberately derogatory to anyone. Let’s not forget this is fiction, had this been an essay I might have felt different!
."

I believe that the posts your are referring to were in fact discussions of the effect that Dickens writings had on us, and our discomfort with how both the violence and the anti-semitism, while probably reflecting the reality of the time, were portrayed. These are legitimate areas for discussion and yes reflect a 21st century take on Victorian writing. If these things don't bother you, please feel free to say so, but we ask all contributors to refrain from mocking others for their impressions and opinions.

I have read a lot of Victorian and other historical literature, and I'm pretty confident the negative portrayals of Jews far outweigh the positive ones.

Ouch!
I’m not mocking anyone. I’m really sticking up for the author who is dead and gone. You could say I’m biased because Charles Dickens’s parents lived in the same road as me five minutes walk away.

I think a clarification is due on my part also. I am a huge fan of Mr. Dickens. He is and always will be my favorite author. I do not know if he was anti-Semitic or if he simply made a choice as an author, although I know what he was harshly criticized in his own day for the character of Fagin. Either way, I also know that such an attitude toward Jews was not unusual at the time Dickens wrote and is certainly present in the writings of others. I simply meant that to many modern readers his portrayal of Fagin and the constant derogatory references to his being a Jew is difficult to read.