The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

We have come to the ending of our novel. Fagin and Sikes have been hanged, the Bumbles are now living in the Workhouse where they used to starve and torment others, Monks has lost his fortune, and Noah Claypole and Charley Bates have been scared straight. Conversely, Oliver Twist, Harry Maylie and Rose Maylie have their well-deserved happy endings, and Mr Brownlow, Mrs Maylie, and their various servants and friends now have happy families to which they belong.

What did you think of this section, and of the novel as a whole?

Did you have any favourite passages/quotations/characters/sections?

I'm still not clear on what happened to the Artful Dodger. Did anyone pick up on his fate? Are there other loose ends that you don't feel were well wrapped up?

How do you feel this ranks in the Dickens canon, if you've read much of it? If this is your first or one of your first Dickens novels, what did you think and how does it compare to other Victorian novels or to more modern fare?

Does Dickens do a better job describing his "good" characters or his villains? Which characters particularly moved you or left you cold?

Please share your thoughts about this section and the novel as a whole. Feel free to use or ignore the question prompts above.

I haven't reread with you, but I remember being annoyed at the fact that Oliver has noble parentage and it is implied that is why he stayed so good throughout his horrible childhood. This theme of "blood will out" seems like a very Ancien Regime idea, already obsolete in the 19th century.

This is Dickens' first "serious" book, coming after Pickwick Papers. His messages are a bit heavy-handed, though probably not more than contemporary writers. When Readers Review read all the novels in order, back in 2012-15, we saw that Dickens' plots got more complex. Although this book isn't particularly realistic, the social commentary on the workhouse and the criminal world seem to presage authors like Hugo and Zola.

As far as threads dropped, since the novels were written as serials, Dickens sometimes changed direction or dropped or beefed up a character based on audience reaction.

Robin P wrote: "I haven't reread with you, but I remember being annoyed at the fact that Oliver has noble parentage and it is implied that is why he stayed so good throughout his horrible childhood. This theme of ..."

Robin it is however interesting that Dickens has written half-brothers that are such a contrast. Perhaps that is more a comment on the mothers' influence (although obv in Oliver's case it would be purely genetic) and clearly Rose has the same sweet and loving disposition as Oliver despite her challenging childhood as well.

I certainly enjoyed the book better than the films or the musicals where the thieving youths are portrayed as lovable rogues (which are today’s equivalent of those low lives who cycle behind you and steal your bag or mobile phone).

Chapter 50-what brilliant writing! Especially enjoyed the description of Jacobs Island and the demise of Bill Sykes and his dog.

Chapter 51-then things started to fall apart from me. I was dismayed that Dickens ruined an auspicious young man to become a clergyman.

Chapter 53-I thought some of this final chapter was superfluous, just like an unwanted coda tagged onto a piece of brilliant classical music. The happier ever after tales made me nauseous, and I remember thinking ‘did Jane Austen write this?’

I agree the manufactured happiness of the Broadway and Hollywood versions do a great disservice to the story, which is a very dark look at the plight of orphans and the poor. It has never been one of my favorite Dickens novels, but I can see flashes of the brilliant writer he was to become. As for the very happy last chapter, I think it’s fairly typical of Dickens usually ended his stories.

Yes, I did not expect the story to be such a clear-eyed and depressing look at how tough life was for the poor and orphaned at the time. It is indeed impressive that Dickens tackled these challenging issues, particularly this early in his career, when he might have assumed there would be more money or interest in romances and humorous stories set among the gentle classes.

He never forgot the indignities of growing up poor. Although his family wasn't in a workhouse, they were in debtor's prison. So I think he always sympathized with the poor. Late in life, he was disappointed in his own sons, who had things easy and didn't seem to appreciate it.