The Longer Novel: Please Sir, I want some more…
Some more Victorian literature is more like it! Because let’s face it, it’s way better than gruel. Most things are better than gruel.
So, to itch the “we want more” scratch, we’re taking a look at a slightly longer novel this week. Although to be fair to Dickens and Victorian novelists in general, this is still quite short (looking at you Trollope…) But at around 500 pages, Oliver Twist is our longest novel on the list.
We all know the story of Oliver, the boy who wanted more. Some of us have even seen the musical. Some of us have even been in the musical. With a minor solo. But no big deal. Moving on….
We meet Oliver at a boy of around 11 or 12. He is a timid and mild boy who gets the short straw and has to ask for more food, which has literally never been done before. Outraged, the authorities try to pawn him off as an apprentice and finally find a coffin maker willing to take him in, Mr. Sowerberry (I’m sorry, but Dickens’ is unmatched when it comes to names…)
We then follow Oliver as he runs away from his cruel colleague Noah and his situationship Charlotte, and ends up in the clutches of Fagin, (who may or not have been a Jew, I can’t remember…) and his band of merry gentlemen who steal from the rich and keep it all for themselves. We meet Jack, the Artful Dodger (best character) and Charley, as well as Bill Sikes (evil, worse than Fagin I would argue), Nancy and Monks. Of course Oliver has his ups and downs, getting away from the group only to be sucked back in, and there were times where I was groaning aloud, wondering why Mr. Dickens put this poor little boy through so much pain and misery. But, despite the absolute horrors that occur throughout this novel, it ends on a happy note, with Oliver being adopted by a couple of benefactors who restored my faith in humanity. Not to mention, we find out that Monks is Oliver’s half brother and has been working against him finding out about his inheritance. Good triumphs over evil in the end, and everyone gets what is coming to them. EXCEPT for Nancy and Bill’s dog. Not going to lie, that murder scene will always live in my head. Always.
This novel plunges into the darkest depths of the human soul, showing what we can truly be capable of, and yet it also highlights hope and redemption. During this time in history, these children were forgotten; left behind in the name of progress and the Industrial Revolution. They were seen as labour or additional costs, nothing more. The humanity that Dickens shows in characters like Rose, Mrs. Maylie and Mr. Brownlow hits all the harder because it seems so rare. You even have a hard time being mad at Jack or Charley, because they are just trying to survive. Even Monks and his mother, to a certain extent (maybe I’m just feeling charitable).
Oliver’s entire journey seems to be an allegory for the journey that many English people were taking at that time. They were moving from more rural areas into the city to find jobs, and the cities were becoming literal cesspools of poverty and waste. And people were desperate.
Dickens does a really good at de-romanticising this era, while at the same making it enjoyable. I love getting to know his characters and his world building is incredible, even when it is bleak.
It’s hard to sum up a story like Oliver Twist, except to say that it shows all aspects of humanity, good and bad. It is tragic, yet hopeful. It brings up a lot of interesting themes such as what to do when faced with poverty, abuse (emotional and physical), racism and classism. All of these are very indicative of Victorian literature, but I really think the most interesting issue he brings up is the death penalty. I don’t know that much about Dickens as a person, but I was trying to figure out his stance on this just from the text. The end scene with Fagin in the cell being confronted with his looming execution was really hard to read, as someone who is against the death penalty. Of course he was a terrible character and exploited women and children for money, but his slow descent into madness was cruel. It seems that Dickens was taking a rather staunch stance against it… but what do you think?
Other things to think about:
Nancy as a character and her absolute tragedy. Her story as a novel would have been so interesting. Poor girl just wanted to get out but was so brainwashed into this cult that she couldn’t leave behind the man who would bludgeon her to death.
What do we think of Dickens sense of humour and irony while telling these depressing stories? I personally love it and often laugh out loud when reading him, but it is hard to reconcile this sense of humour with the rest of the story… but is it done with a purpose?
His characters are often exaggerations or caricatures of tropes- does work for you, or does it take you out of the seriousness of the text a bit? Much of his writing is satirical and cynical, so in to me it works perfectly, but I know some people struggle with it…
I’ll wrap it up here. As always, if you have any thoughts or comments, please feel free to leave them below!
Happy Reading!