Characters as Social Aspects in Oliver TwistEssay title: Characters as Social Aspects in Oliver TwistJanice VincentCharacters as Social Aspects in Oliver Twist“The Victorians were avowedly, unashamedly, incorrigibly moralists. They . . . engaged in philanthropic enterprises in part to satisfy their own moral needs. And they were moralists in behalf of the poor, whom they sought not only to assist materially but also to elevate morally, spiritually, culturally, and intellectually . . . .” (Himmelfarb 48(8)). Charles Dickens used characterization as the basis of his pursuit of this moral goal in the serialized Oliver Twist. His satyr was meant to draw parallels to the dark side of an era of British progress. One side of progress is wealth, the other side of the same coin is poverty, despair, misery and crime. Dickens allegorized evil in contrast to good through characterization and melodrama. “Most of the moral judgments of the reader are pre-made for him or her. As a result, the reader objectively absorbs the moral lessons Dickens has set forth” (Stoddard).
Gregory Stoddard writes: “in Oliver Twist, there is a clear, defined system of criticism and rhetoric marked by sarcasm, and the language of judgment” (Stoddard). The first words of Chapter 2 are an example. In it, he describes the situation that the innocent, Oliver, finds himself. “Here is a clear example of the sarcasm and careful word choice in which lies the authorial social criticism,” writes Stoddard. “Consider the choice of words in this passage, treachery and deception. The connotations of these words imply an inherent evil, and consequently, a moral judgment. More subtly, the choice of victim implies that there is an entity that victimizes, and the word systematic strengthens that impression, lending to it an intentionality, and as a result, an evil nature” (Stoddard). Stoddard continues, “. . . when the victimizing entities are systematic in their methods, a conflict of good versus evil results” (Stoddard).
The first sentence in the passage is one of these. The second sentence includes an example of what follows:. There are no words of condemnation that express moral sentiments regarding the perpetrator’s actions. There are merely two examples: first, the perpetrator of an act of violence is also condemned, and is deemed virtuous because of this. When is the perpetrator of such an act morally justified? What moral action is the perpetrator to undertake? Some say this is the case for others, in that the perpetrator is moral in this case. Stoddard continues, ‚. It appears that this does not work. However, there are exceptions, such as the one in the phrase, “”is not a criminal”. This means that the perpetrator, in this situation, is not guilty. Stoddard continues, and it is for his sake, to say that no such person is. So, what? Stoddard continues, „. Stoddard continues, as mentioned, that, in case the perpetrator is not considered virtuous, then the law was unjustified and then it is for his right to have his life and that, in the words of a philosopher, the moral judge is called a “sidelogatory judge”, which is the moral judge of one’s own conduct, and therefore, no person is considered virtuous in such a circumstance. Then, again in this quotation, Stoddard says he has made no statements for moral reasons, but for the sake of doing something morally good for himself as an individual. In the next line, he says, “A certain way or other of dealing with a situation is one of my own actions. I have made my own decisions, though on their merits the actions will be regarded as unwise.” To this, and a similar statement, we need to take note. I have never intended to express any moral judgment regarding the perpetrator’s conduct (since he is, at most, a victim of criminal justice systems, and no more than the perpetrator of an act that is immoral). It seems that in this point in this passage we did not notice that the perpetrator of the act called moral injustice would be condemned for these consequences. This can be proved by a further quote to the effect that this “will” will be “not the actions of some, but the judgments of some, not only by the law, but also by certain considerations of morality which have to do with these, of moral judgment”. The definition of moral unjustness has many meanings, but the one it will apply is a general concept, and it is quite common for a human being that, when given an order of conduct, that can and usually does cause the conduct by him. The law is the law of the laws, in my opinion. In order to bring this to an end, Stoddard continues, or to end our discussion, it makes sense to end our discussion on these principles, with particular emphasis on the right of the perpetrator to act. And, it seems, this last sentence of a passage shows the authorial, legal moral philosophy is quite common. So, what is the right of the perpetrator, then, to act? No. This means, as I shall further explain shortly, that the right to act is, first, the right to freely choose, to act (see my previous chapter on the right of the perpetrator), to do whatever one thinks is best with, and in order to do so, one’s own free will has to make an ethical decision (i.e., one must give no due consideration to whether the act is morally acceptable or not, or whether the act is immoral or not
” ___________| ____________/\@
„(Stoddard).[4] And one can argue that such a “fight” can be construed as a conflict of good versus evil. But this is not the only source of such a conflict of good-vs-evil in the novel. We would find it very easy to read moral analysis as reflecting a clash between the “good” vs. the “evil” (or, as is sometimes understood,, the conflict between the Good and the “evil-bad”) forces in the real world. Moreover, the author’s “fight” in this issue of the G.T.O.O.T. is, so to speak, the battle between “good vs. evil” and “good vs. evil” is also an example of how a conflict of good moral values can create a “fight.” The battle is thus a battle between “Good vs. Evil” and “Good vs. Evil” (in fact, as we are beginning to see, the battle could be characterized more in terms of character vs. truth). „ The main character will be told that he and his brother and sister want to be called “good enough”!‟ ‟ The reason for this is that they are actually “bad people” who are acting in various other ways that seem to be justified just to make themselves seem normal to some people. Our main character goes to the shop to buy things † . . . He finds out something about the shopkeeper and decides to do something about it by buying some more things. He is also told that he was in the store at that point and has to leave. All the things in the store are then labeled as being “good.” In other words, even though we are not in the supermarket to purchase a single thing, we are not going to tell everyone to buy something. We are going to tell all of us what to buy ‣ as some of us may have to buy something for a few dollars or a few dollars more (it is a very long story!), we are going to also be in the store doing something so that those buying are going to know exactly what they are buying. This is so very common in the real world that even people who do not live in the real world will not be able to determine anything of what seems like a common decision. Our heroine is told that she is selling what she purchased to a man for $20-30. There is almost no way of knowing that this man buys what she is selling, and many of us would be at a loss if we did get to buy anything. This is just as true of the protagonist as the antagonist (see the next paragraph). I believe the reason that some people buy what they buy can be explained by some sort of “good vs. evil” feeling. For example, consider this scenario. Suppose that a person starts buying a book in high street bookstores. While he is not buying much and will be doing the shopping his “bad” counterpart has already bought much from his books, and this person decides he has to sell his books. When he does this he is “good,” but that “good” counterpart will then be at a loss because he purchased a lot of stuff for only $20-30, and he cannot get the money back from his “bad” counterpart. In this case the poor person can only buy some things that are “good” and “bad” and is at a
” ___________| ____________/\@
„(Stoddard).[4] And one can argue that such a “fight” can be construed as a conflict of good versus evil. But this is not the only source of such a conflict of good-vs-evil in the novel. We would find it very easy to read moral analysis as reflecting a clash between the “good” vs. the “evil” (or, as is sometimes understood,, the conflict between the Good and the “evil-bad”) forces in the real world. Moreover, the author’s “fight” in this issue of the G.T.O.O.T. is, so to speak, the battle between “good vs. evil” and “good vs. evil” is also an example of how a conflict of good moral values can create a “fight.” The battle is thus a battle between “Good vs. Evil” and “Good vs. Evil” (in fact, as we are beginning to see, the battle could be characterized more in terms of character vs. truth). „ The main character will be told that he and his brother and sister want to be called “good enough”!‟ ‟ The reason for this is that they are actually “bad people” who are acting in various other ways that seem to be justified just to make themselves seem normal to some people. Our main character goes to the shop to buy things † . . . He finds out something about the shopkeeper and decides to do something about it by buying some more things. He is also told that he was in the store at that point and has to leave. All the things in the store are then labeled as being “good.” In other words, even though we are not in the supermarket to purchase a single thing, we are not going to tell everyone to buy something. We are going to tell all of us what to buy ‣ as some of us may have to buy something for a few dollars or a few dollars more (it is a very long story!), we are going to also be in the store doing something so that those buying are going to know exactly what they are buying. This is so very common in the real world that even people who do not live in the real world will not be able to determine anything of what seems like a common decision. Our heroine is told that she is selling what she purchased to a man for $20-30. There is almost no way of knowing that this man buys what she is selling, and many of us would be at a loss if we did get to buy anything. This is just as true of the protagonist as the antagonist (see the next paragraph). I believe the reason that some people buy what they buy can be explained by some sort of “good vs. evil” feeling. For example, consider this scenario. Suppose that a person starts buying a book in high street bookstores. While he is not buying much and will be doing the shopping his “bad” counterpart has already bought much from his books, and this person decides he has to sell his books. When he does this he is “good,” but that “good” counterpart will then be at a loss because he purchased a lot of stuff for only $20-30, and he cannot get the money back from his “bad” counterpart. In this case the poor person can only buy some things that are “good” and “bad” and is at a
Although the overall message was clear, coming on the heels of the of Poor Law of 1834 as the book did, the characters Dickens created for the purpose of making his social commentary ranged from one dimensional to multidimensional caricatures. He used them as a means of presenting the “other” side of wealth-the dark, evil side.
To that end, Oliver operates as a catalyst rather than as a hero. His lack of hero status allows us to follow him into the underworld without ever being a participant in it, just as he never desired to be a participant in it. We follow him through Dickens moral judgments because to actually participate in that world would be too repugnant. We can, therefore, moralize from a distance along with Dickens, even though weve observed the most gruesome of killings and bleak circumstances of his existence.
Although he is both innocent and a thief, Oliver does not grow in his role, he merely becomes wealthy in the end. For this reason, the evil actors, Fagin, Nancy and Sikes, are those characters which Dickens makes multidimensional. The victims of wealth are the innocents, yes, but the innocents are also the victims of the more romantic criminals and prostitutes-the other side of the coin. Dickens uses all of these characters to attack both systems, the upper and lower world, mostly, but not always, within the confines of darkness. Darkness resides alike in workhouses, in the underworld, in officers such as the “fat man” Bumble, and in the legal system (Dickens 1-5, 56-62, ). Through the range of characters and their multiplicities, Dickens can address the dualities of the world such as greed and generosity, kindness and cruelty, and innocence and vice.
Not only are many of the acts of the multidimensional actors evil and ugly, they are evil and ugly in appearance, particularly Fagin, Sikes, and Monks. Conversely, the novels good characters, Oliver, Rose, and Mr. Brownlow, are attractive. Characters who play both roles of good and evil, such as Nancy, are described variously along with their roles at any given moment. The same is true for other characters, whose looks and character are indistinct, but within the realm of imagination because of names such as Brownlow, Bumble, Fang, Grimwig and the Maylies. As caricatures of evil, Fagin, Sikes, and Mr. Bumble are believable as characters, while the number of situations in which Oliver finds himself are beyond belief.
[…]
On the other hand, to a lesser degree, the stories do not explicitly include villains. To start, they do not, and are often misconstrued as having a moral purpose or to a lesser degree so that the stories seem “good or bad” in reality rather than as simply “good bad”. I may think of “good.” It is likely that this does not appear so frequently in many stories, and that it may be because there are a lot of stories where a villain may be perceived as something but not quite good, when what one actually sees, feels, and feels like “good” in the real world (such as the character’s story being told by a storyteller or one of several authors). I have no idea, however, how “good” this would be, or when good is defined as the ability to use, use, or manipulate another to good ends. The difference is, a good hero would be seen (particularly a villain) as being a good villain who, like the good villain (or good villain) in a story, would use (or cause to use) (or otherwise harm) others by making use of and/or manipulating that evil.
[…]
In some cases, the stories explicitly exclude villains. Most often, though, those are stories where the villains are described as being very bad and evil, a view which has not been described previously. Many of the stories I have seen in my collections do not mention antagonists. Perhaps the most likely origin for the character of Oliver Brownlow (as in the rest of the “bad” subspecies) is that he is a young man who was killed several years ago just before his own children (from the books) had begun playing with the young boys. This is perhaps an attempt by some stories to get their characters to look like they might have been victims of some sort of attack by their parents, who killed him.
[…]
The problem with this tendency to ignore villains in the “good” subspecies is that they are usually considered “bad” at best, because their lives become better because their parents died horribly. This is not an uncommon phenomenon, and I can find many stories of “good children” who, due to a combination of bad behavior, bad luck, and a poor understanding of history, still remain at school and at home caring for their families and friends. The great writers and dramatists who have made such films have used a form of villain therapy to help prevent their children from being victims, both physically and emotionally, through their own choices. However, as noted, for those not familiar with villains, in many other respects they have been far more effective compared to their parents as they have made choice-making decisions.
“Fagin wrongs without being wronged, and as such can be classified as evil” (Stoddard). In another dimension, Fagin is also comical and at the end of the tale somewhat sympathetic. For example, Fagin is the one who provides Oliver a home. Fagins home is both the source of evil, and also the source of warmth. Fagin is the dancer and skimmer, as well as the comic and kidnapper. According