Category: Oliver Twist

In 1839, Charles Dickens published Oliver Twist, a novel that depicts an accurate portrait of London’s criminal underworld throughout his young protagonist, Oliver. The success of Dickens’ Oliver Twist resides in its realistic portrayal of the degraded lives of the criminals that dwelled in nineteenth-century London, as well as in its criticism of the falsity and hypocrisy of the Victorian institutions.

When the novel was first published in 1839, critics complained about the graphic representation of violence, misery and thieves, to which Dickens replied in his Preface of Oliver Twist in 1858: “I saw no reason, when I wrote this book, why the very dregs of life, so long as their speech did not offend the ear, should not serve the purpose of a moral, at least as well as its froth and cream”.

In this essay, I will attempt to analyse the criminal class that inhabited London by focusing on the following characters: Fagin, Sikes, Nancy and Monks. Finally, I will explain the socio-political circumstances associated with the early Victorian period which Dickens describes in Oliver Twist: the Poorlaws and workhouses; and, subsequently, I will address the question of how boys like Oliver were forced to become part of this underworld London.

Even if Oliver is the main protagonist of the story, Fagin, Nancy or Sikes allow Dickens to explore various issues of the early Victorian period such as criminality, abuse and poverty. In this part of the essay, I will focus on the description of these characters mentioned above, as they represent a precise depiction of the underworld.

After running away from Mr Sowerberry, Oliver walks to London until he encounters Jack Hawkins, also known as Artful Dodger, a young delinquent who introduces him to Fagin, otherwise known as the Jew, and his gang of pickpockets. Fagin’s physical appearance was created to produce immediate disgust, as we can observe in this fragment:…and standing over them, with a toasting-fork in his hands, was a very old shrivelled Jew, whose villainous-looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted red hair (Dickens 72).

With this description, Charles Dickens ensures that the readers’ first impression would be negative and unpleasant, as well as he provides them with a real representation of an underworld criminal. In addition, the detailed description of Fagin’s dirty hideout introduces the readers to a world of poverty and misery, but also to a world of lies where first impressions are crucial.

The next character I would like to present is Nancy, who is introduced to another young lady called Bet. Dickens depicts them as “not exactly pretty … but they had a great deal of colour in their faces”. Later, Dickens points out their “free and agreeable manners”, which indicates that they are probably mistresses. Based on this portrayal, we can conclude that Nancy is a fallen woman, a woman who transgresses the Victorian conceptions of femininity and domesticity.

As the novel progresses, readers realize that Nancy is a victim of the bad environment in which she has grown up: living in Fagin’s house and being the mistress of another wicked man, Sikes. However, there is still goodness in her, as she acts like a mother to Oliver and warns Rose about Fagin and Monks’ plans of kidnapping him. In conclusion, Nancy’s character is used to portray the unfair circumstances of the lower-class women during Victorian times.

In contrast to Nancy, Bill Sikes is one of Dickens’ nastiest characters. A member of Fagin’s gang and Nancy’s lover, he is described as a cruel and violent man who mistreats Nancy and his dog, Bull’s-eye, without remorse. As the novel progress, Sikes’ violent behaviour increases until he finally ends up murdering Nancy when he finds out that she has betrayed him. Dickens did not make him a redeemable character, and, in the end, his death will be as brutal as his behaviour: he hangs himself while trying to escape from the police.

Even if he did not belong to the underworld, I would like to focus on Edward Leeford, also known as Monks, as he represents how a character can be evil even if they have grown up in a suitable environment. Monks are Oliver’s half-brother, and though he has grown up in a comfortable environment, Monks will put his own wounded feelings before anything else, and that is the reason why Monks perfectly illustrates that more than poverty and a bad environment is required to become a criminal.

And now, I will like to focus on the description upon the contemporary issues of the Victorian era, such as The Poor Law Amendment Act, which was introduced in England just three years before Oliver Twist’s publication; and the Workhouses, “an institution that was intended to provide work and shelter for poverty-stricken people who had no means to support themselves.”

Through the novel, Dickens points out the deficiencies of the workhouse system. Thus, there is no coincidence that Oliver Twist opens with the description of a workhouse in which Oliver has been born:

Among other public buildings in the town of Mudfog, it boasts of one which is common to most towns great or small, to wit, a workhouse; and in this workhouse, there was born on a day and date which I need not trouble myself to repeat, (…) the item of mortality whose name is prefixed to the head of this chapter.

As children feared workhouses’ harsh living conditions, a life of delinquency was the only option left for them. This is the case of Oliver but, sadly, for many other orphan boys who were taught to steal, and later caught and brought in front of a judge. Dickens was aware of this situation while he was in the process of writing Oliver Twist, so he might have been interested in portraying these public punishments to children as he did with Dodger, when he is taken into custody for being in possession of a silver-snuff box.

Even though Oliver’s ending is a happy one, the question that still remains is: if Oliver had been a regular orphan boy, would have he become part of the London underworld? In my opinion, Oliver would have become a thief, even against his own will, because he would not have had a better option.

In conclusion, Dickens’ Oliver Twist is a novel that clearly portrays how the London underworld worked, thanks to remarkable characters such as Fagin, Nancy or Sikes; its realistic description of London, depicted as a cruel and miserable place; and the scenes of crime and negligence, which were a crucial part of the misfortunes of the inhabitants of the underworld.

This story is set in the perspective of a child named “Oliver Twist”. He suffers an unfortunate life as his mother dies upon childbirth and was sent to a “farm” for young orphaned children.

Upon working, Oliver feels the need to request more food. This request was faced with an undesirable income as it angers the house board and beadle, Mr. Bumble. He was so fierce for this request that he decided to foist Oliver off as an apprentice to some workers in the village. Eventually, Oliver is taken up by a coffin-maker named Sowerberry. He is given the job of “mute mourner” which required him to sleep at night among the coffins. After a fight with another colleague Noah, regarding his mother, Oliver took the choice to run away to London, to make his fortune.

On the outskirts of London, he is approached by a very well-dressed young boy as known as the “Artful Dodger”, a thief that is currently an employee of a crime boss named Fagin. Oliver knew he was desperate for help and food, and follows the Dodger to his house. Upon entrance, he meets Fagen who immediately employs Oliver to join Dodger and Bates, in robbing a man (Mr. Brownlow) of his handkerchief. Due to the fact that the duo, Dodger and Bates were experienced in this area, they were quick to hide and were successful in this robbery. Detrimentally for Oliver (an innocent onlooker), he was spotted running away (wanting to escape from his role in crime). Mr. Brownlow immediately suspected Oliver and hauled him to jail. Oliver was released into Mr. Brownlow’s custody after the realization that Oliver did not partake in the crime. Mr. Brownlow nurses Oliver for some time then makes a promise to Oliver that he’d educate him properly. Shortly after, he was given the job to return books and money to a bookseller, and he never returned to Mr. Brownlow’s home. This causes a huge misunderstanding believing that Oliver has once again, taken the money and ran away. But in reality, he was picked up by Nancy, an associate of Fagin’s, and taken back to the criminal gang. (Criminal gang of Fagin, Dodger, Bates & Nancy).

The following chapters of this novel recount Brownlow’s multiple attempts to find Oliver and many of Oliver’s attempts to escape Fagin, his criminal associate Sikes and the other boys. Fagin demands Oliver to accompany Sikes and another thief known as Toby Crackit in a house-breaking in a country village, which goes awry. Oliver is shot in the arm in the attempt, by a servant named Giles of the Maylie house (the house being broken into) Oliver nearly dies but walks back to the house the very next morning and is nursed back to health by Rose, Mrs. Maylie and a local doctor named Lorsborne. After having a brief conversation, Lorsbone takes Oliver back into London to find Mr. Brownlow, before discovering that he has gone to visit the West Indies. Oliver is crestfallen but is happy nonetheless with the Maylies, and is educated properly by an old man in the Maylies’ village. The trip continues in London, Rose is visited by Nancy (part of the criminal gang), who wishes to come clean about her involvement in Oliver’s oppression and Oliver finds that Brownlow is back in the city, having returned from the West Indies.

During this, Mrs. Corney, mistress of the workhouse, receives a package from a woman named Old Sally, which Sally, in turn, received from Oliver’s mother upon her death. This package marks an important point in the story as it contains Oliver’s family history, which is of interest to a friend and shadowy associate of Fagin’s named Monks. Nancy proceeds to meet with Rose and Brownlow in secret with regards to Oliver’s parentage Noah, sent to spy on Nancy, overhears the conversation and reports it to Fagin. After some major misunderstanding, Fagin tells Sikes that Nancy peached on the whole gang, despite the fact that she didn’t incriminate Fagin or Sikes to Brownlow. This results in Sikes, raging, kills nancy, then goes on the lam with his dog.

The book follows along stating that Brownlow realizes that he recognized Oliver as representing the picture of a woman in his parlor, and also recognized a man he comes to realize is “Monks”. Brownlow then pieces the mystery together and solves the case. Oliver’s original father is the Monk’s father, and the Monk’s mother defrauded Oliver’s mother, an unwed woman named Agnes, of the inheritance Oliver’s father, Edwin intended to leave to Oliver and Agnes. Monks make his intent clear and wishes, to destroy the facts of Oliver’s parentage in order to keep all the inheritance to himself. But Brownlow, seeing the heaviness of the situation, confronts Monks with the facts, and Monks agrees finally, to sign an affidavit admitting his part in the conspiracy to defraud Oliver.

This book continues and reveals that all the members of Fagin’s gang are all caught: Noah, Charlotte, his partner the Dodger, and Fagin himself. Sikes dies, by accident, attempting to escape a mob that has come to kill him following Nancy’s death. Brownlow manages to secure half of Oliver’s inheritance for Oliver and gives the other half to Monks, who spend it in the New World on criminal activity. Rose Maylie, long in love with her cousin Harry, eventually marries him, after Harry purposefully lowers his social station to correspond with Rose’s Rose was said to be of a blighted family, and in the novel’s final surprise, this ‘blight’ is revealed: Rose’s sister was Agnes, meaning that Rose is Oliver’s aunt.

At the novel’s end, Oliver is restored to his rightful lineage and is adopted by Brownlow. The pair live in the country with Harry, who has become a parson, and Rose, along with Osborne and Mrs. Maylie. Oliver can, at last, be educated in the tranquility and manner he deserves, as the son of a gentleman.

Charles Dickens wrote profusely on social issues in London, and one of the most famous examples is his vehement opposition to Smithfield, a weekly meat market in east London that was notorious for its extremely poor hygiene and cruel treatments of its cattle. The horrors of the marketplace were described in sickening detail in Dickens’s now famous passage from Oliver Twist (1838), and pamphleteers campaigned furiously for it to be removed to outside the inner city walls. Dickens too was involved in the campaign against the cattle market: in 1851 The Times published his article “A Monument of French Folly” under the title “The Smithfield of Paris”, in which he draws comparison between this “reeking central abomination” of London and the Poissy abattoir on the outskirts of Paris. The market was not opposed simply because of practical reasons, but also because of how it violated Victorian concerns of public health, and the image of London as a polished, metropolitan Christian city. Dickens’s description of the vile conditions of English abattoirs, especially when in contrast with Poissy, uses similar stylistic devices to the passage in Oliver Twist to conjure the horrors of East London meat markets during the mid-Victorian period.

The famous passage in Oliver Twist comes from Chapter XXI, during Oliver’s trip through London to complete the ill-fated burglary. One of the most striking features of the passage is the visceral description, as shown in the first line — “…a thick steam, perpetually rising from the reeking bodies of the cattle, and mingling with the fog, which seemed to rest upon the chimney-tops, hung heavily above.” The pungent sweat of the cattle mixing with the city air creates a close, physical atmosphere; the inhalation of animal waste is one of the repulsive images that occur throughout the passage. The idea of an all-encompassing physical atmosphere is also perpetuated by the first sentence: “It was market-morning.”(Dickens, p.171) The hyphenation of “market-morning” means that “market’ is being used as a modifier — it unites the two words as a single idea, suggesting that this morning in particular is devoted entirely to the meat market, and submerged in its hideousness. This is also suggested by the shortness of this sentence; the morning is characterised by nothing else. “Ankle-deep with filth and mire” (Dickens, p.171) also contributes to the visceral feeling of the passage, as the stresses on “deep”,”filth” and “mire” emphasise the abundance of animal waste in Smithfield. This sentence is also similar to a line of the article “A Monument to French Folly” describing East London on this market morning — “…you shall see the little children… trotting along up the alleys, mingled with troops of horribly busy pigs, up to their ankles in blood…”. Although the most grotesque part of this sentence is the coupling together of the children and the pigs through the choice verb of “trotting”, the foul image of streets running with blood is not one that should be forgotten quickly. Deeply evocative descriptive language is characteristic of Dickens, and the stylistics of each passage here capture the horrific conditions of Smithfield.

Dickens was concerned about how the market posed a danger to the public health of London — indeed, he cites his main reason for visiting Poissy as an inspection of the vastly better sanitary conditions of the Parisian abattoir — but he is also troubled by how the existence of this meat market in its current state undermines the refined image that the capital city posed to the world. 1851, the year when the article on Poissy was published, The Great Exhibition was unveiled by Queen Victoria: a showcase of the British Empire’s culture and industry, it attracted some 15,000 visitors. The existence of an ethical cess pit such as Whitechapel and Smithfield meat markets alongside a triumphant exhibition of all that the Empire had to offer is somewhat extraordinary, and the coexistence of the two encapsulates the deeply conflicting social elements of mid-Victorian London. One of the most troubling elements of Dickens’s descriptions here is how he depicts the people of the meat market as base and immoral— people are bestialised in both descriptions, and both passages produce Boschian images not only of the animals about to be slaughtered, but of the people whose livelihood was the market. The area of Smithfield has a rich history of violence and crime — in medieval London it was a sight for public execution, and was where the Peasant’s Revolt gathered to meet in 1381 — and its reputation as an area of prostitution, rape and murder continued into Dickens’s era. In the Oliver Twist passage, he lists the elements that make up the cacophony of the market: “ … the bellowing and plunging of beasts, the bleating of sheep, and the grunting and squealing of pigs; the cries of hawkers, the shouts, oaths, and quarrelling on all sides…” Dickens creates a hierarchy through this list; the cursing of the hawkers placement low down the list suggests that this unrefined behaviour is on par with, if not lower, than the bellowing cattle. By having the actions of the people immersed in a list of animal noises Dickens highlights the lack of refinement, and perhaps lack of self respect as a human being, of taking part in such an event.

One of the reasons the meat market is so troubling is because it reflects back to the refined middle classes of London, every market morning, that which they choose to ignore — the bestial and brutal side of our own species, and the way in which the people of the market have adapted to that. In the journal, the ‘othering’ of the people of the meat market occurs in relation to the French, not just through straightforward comparison, but mainly by the deliberately comical tone of delusion that Dickens takes up as an English narrator: “One of these benighted frog-eaters would scarcely understand your meaning, if you told him of the existence of such a British bulwark [i.e. the existence of Smithfield]”. In every instant he remarks upon the practicality of the French abattoirs, Dickens takes care to remind us “of a Great Institution like Smithfield”, which is of course deeply ironic. The style in which Dickens writes of London meat markets is engrossing, not just in how it sensationalises the appalling nature of these places for public consumption, but also in how we can pick apart the different ways in which meat markets are troubling to the Victorian urban conscience through the treatment of each issue; the darkly comic address of English delusion and baseness is far more perturbing than the bickering over the practicalities of the markets, and the images of historic Smithfield as a gothic entity continue to reside in the public conscience today.

In this essay, I will be talking about how the children are used as a literary device in novels in the 19th century. I will be comparing two stories; they are “Oliver Twist” published in 1838 and “Le Papa de Simon” published. Both of the stories illustrate a boy, around a young age who is not accepted in the society or maltreated by it. The setting of the stories takes place in a social context of the middle or lower class environment. The relation between the reader and the main character is a big literary device to convince the reader that the repulse of these children insides of the society is not adequate.

The authors of the novels use a similar type of character as in physically and mentality. Both protagonists in the novels are boys around the age of eight to nine. They are described as “timid and have an almost awkward manner.” Directly at the beginning of “Le Papa de Simon”, Simon gets beat up because he has no papa being doing that the author creates weak characters physically as a literary device so that the readers have empathy towards him. Charles Dickens creates Oliver Twist with weak physical qualities and a quiet character. So that all decisions are taken by the antagonist Oliver just follows them without any resistance. The author makes Oliver like a visitor in Fagan house and life to afterwards project the abuse of the children and their use in lower victorian class or the whole society in itself. The empathy is a literary device here used to get the message and the thought of the author to the readers in the 19th century who were usually the aristocracy and the bourgeois.

What causes them to not be accepted in society was because they have no dad to protect them and give them a certain social status. They are constantly brought down, used and mocked by society. In “Le Papa de Simon”, Simon is being attacked by kids from his class. They mock him about having no dad. “He felt a great sinking in his heart” is one of the many lines where the other describes Simon’s feeling about having no dad. The Victorian society was a hierarchy based so the poor class was used and had no real representation inside the government. Therefore the society hierarchical based respect was also reflected inside the classes themselves. Orphans were the lowest in term of respect and importance to the country; they were only seen has workers or slaves.

As result writers became the lawyer of these kids and by using those kids. They expressed themselves, told the society that it needs to change and evolve through their novels. The use of no dad was very important especially a boy because the dad was supposed to raise him, to make tough and to introduce him to the business world. At the time the Industrial Revolution was happening, and everything became business related. As a result, the dad became the bridges between the childhood and the business life.

The text Oliver Twist by Charles Dickson and the book Lord of the Flies by William Golding deal with child characters that are forced to assume adult roles because they’ve been excluded from society in some way. The authors want to make their purpose clear that men in positions of power are often not the best role models. The authors explore this through character development, social norms, and emotional morals. Children will go through a change throughout their young lives, particularly in Lord of the Flies could be described as “growing up”, acquiring a thirst for knowledge and loss of innocence. The children inhabiting the island assume their adult roles by attempting to govern themselves.

It is evident that the boys need some type of democracy; they elect Ralph to lead and establish a hierarchy, much like real western society. Establishing a strict society with disorderly boys was bound to fail as they retreat into a primitive state of mind competing for survival. As savagery begins, Ralph craves control and order, “the attraction of wildness had gone.” It is possible to argue that both the boys on the island and Oliver Twist are forced to govern themselves at a young age. The governing bodies, “the Board” are portrayed as faceless people who are not to be trusted as they hold Oliver’s fate in their hands. Throughout Oliver Twist, the men in positions of power do not set a good example for future generations.

The representation of adults in Oliver Twist is not completely awful, as it is in Lord of the Flies which draws some parallels between the boys governing methods and that of adult government systems. Mr. Brownlow, who is of the upper class, is represented in more of a positive light since he treats Oliver with care meaning that he no longer has to fend for himself. Hierarchy in victorian times often dictated how one was treated. On the other hand, in Lord of the Flies, in the initial attempt to set up a democracy the boys used a conch to call meetings. As the group divides the shell becomes a reminder of jurisdiction.

Throughout the book, Golding often restates the idea that children’s innate sense of wrong is influenced by “the old life.” The loss of innocence is evident at the end of the novel, “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of a true, wise friend called Piggy.” Similarly, Oliver is described as having experience beyond his years and as he grows he realizes more and more about the cruelty of society. He has been told he has become accustomed to suffering and has suffered too much. He is blind to this which shows that he has accepted that he has been rejected by society. The emphasis on this reveals his loss of innocence as a child of his age should not be in such a situation.

Oliver Twist, a novel written by one of history’s most well-known authors, Charles Dickens, shows exactly how brutal life can be for a person without a proper place in society. Set during the Industrial Revolution era of Great Britain, Oliver Twist is a boy born with no place in society and is cast off into one of the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Oliver frequently faces trials and tribulations that constantly buffet him in the stormy seas of life, causing him to regularly be in the midst of trouble. However, people with a sharp eye for detail might notice that there is a frequent pattern that could be found in Oliver Twist, and with that pattern, an understanding of the approximate direction of the novel is trying to go in. By taking a deeper look at the story through the use of the structuralist lens, and by using tools such as binary oppositions to locate recurring patterns in text, specifical patterns about Oliver’s struggle with authority, it becomes clear that Oliver Twist is not only just a classic battle of good versus evil but also an early analysis of the cruel conditions and struggles for poor people that resided in England at the time.

Towards the end of the first chapter, it becomes clear that one of the main running themes throughout the book will be about the struggle and confusion Oliver Twist has with finding a place to belong. This can especially be seen when the narrator comments on Oliver’s confusing position (in the social hierarchy) after the death of Oliver’s mother, “he might have been the child of a nobleman or a beggar; it would have been hard for the haughtiest stranger to have assigned him his proper station in society”(Dickens 6). This is further reinforced since Oliver would be going to an orphanage, and effectively become one of the lowest rungs of society, he would be “despised by all, and pitied by none” (Dickens 6).

In the second chapter, it is shown that Oliver has sadly fallen victim to the harsh conditions that accompany him in such a cruel society. The mentality of “survival of the fittest” has taken over the minds of everyone, even including the authorities above Oliver Twist. The overseer of the workhouse at which Oliver resides, Mrs. Mann, reinforces this idea in the early chapters by requisitioning “ the greater part of the weekly stipend to her own use”(Dickens 8) and allowing the other children of the workhouse to grow weak and ultimately parish over time due to malnutrition and starvation, following a philosophy that giving less food over time will result in a strong worker who is not dependable on subsistence(Dickens 8). This shows the audience that Mrs. Mann has her own problems to worry about, and doesn’t mind if she loses a couple of “fledglings” along the way. After all, nobody would miss some abandoned children anyways.

However, by overworking Oliver Twist, by the time he was of the ripe age of nine, as sickly and frail as he may seem, has gained a so-called “sturdy spirit”(Dickens 9) and was ready for the tasks at hand that laid before him. Later on in the chapter, the iconic scene occurs that has been cemented into the minds of people whenever they hear the name “Oliver Twist”. Rather than face starvation and parish, Oliver twist drew the short end of the stick among his comrades and had the task of asking for more gruel befallen on him. However, when he did ask for more, Oliver received a blow to the head and general shock for his question, one man even remarked that “ I know that boy will be hung.”(Dickens 21). This further reinforces the cruel conditions at the time for widens the gap between Oliver and his place among people in society.

After this incident, Oliver was made a public example to others by being flogged and thrown into solitary confinement, only being let out to be washed at a cold, outdoor pump under supervision. Again trapping Oliver away from society and separating him from the others. As Dickens puts it, “during the period of his solitary incarceration, Oliver was denied the benefit of exercise, the pleasure of society, or the advantages of religious consolation.”(Dickens 23). Later on in the chapter, Oliver was put on sale as if he were livestock for slaughter. However, after much debate, it would, later on, be decided that Oliver would go under the apprenticeship of Mr. Sowerberry, an undertaker and coffin maker. And so, Oliver Twist undergoes another change in domicile. When the Sowerberry gives Oliver the scraps that the family dog had neglected to eat, Oliver devours them with such ferocity that a philosopher would turn on their head.

This shows just how miserable life was coming from the workhouses of England, how underfed the children were and the cruel conditions they were subjected to, resorting to eating even the smallest scraps for sustenance. The rich unknowingly lavished in luxury and enjoyed full and proper meals, without any knowledge (or care) of the cruelty that was occurring underneath them. After his meal, Oliver was told that “your bed’s under the counter. You don’t mind sleeping among the coffins, I suppose? But it doesn’t much matter whether you do or don’t, for you can’t sleep anywhere else ”(Dickens 44).

Flashing forward to the near future, Oliver runs away from the Sowerberry residence after he is beaten, battered, and bruised. Marching back to London, roughly 70 miles away, Oliver Twist is at his ends. However, just as all hope seems lost for Oliver, he meets a peculiar boy who says he knows a guy who can take Oliver in, a man who is known as “The Artful Dodger”(Dickens 88). Oliver has to resort to crime in order to make ends meet, a sad reality that even lives up to today’s standards. So far the conditions Oliver Twist has been in have been ruthless to the bone, and the sad fact that not only Oliver Twist is going through these events, but so are other people and children who have nowhere to go in society. However, even when taking up a life of crime as a pickpocket, Oliver Twist gets framed for something he did not do, and after many more trials and tribulations, from being locked a prison cell, to being locked in a room without any human contact for days by Fagin, to being sent to live with Bill Sikes, a murderer and a general monster of a man.

The famous ​Oliver Twist​ originally written as a book by Charles Dickens now made into a film and directed by Roman Polanski released in 2005 demonstrates that people can make life-changing decisions that help affect their fate. Oliver has to overcome the struggles of living in London during the Victorian Era as an orphan with no one to protect him. Oliver, Nancy and the young pickpockets are all victims of fate but they do make life-changing decisions that affect their fate in the future. In ​Oliver Twist​, it is suggested that people can make life-changing decisions that affect some of their fate but to an extended degree fate is mostly chosen for them.

Polanski suggests that in many ways Oliver is a victim of fate. He was born into poverty and taken to the Orphanage before he was one, Oliver didn’t even have a name, Mr Bumble chose Oliver’s name. Oliver was beaten, deprived and showed harm at such a young age, showing that the orphanage was not an enjoyable place to be. Oliver is unable to change the fact that he is an orphan, just like he is unable to alter how he pulled the short straw meaning he had to go ask for more gruel which was forbidden to do so. When Oliver walked up to Mr Bumble and asked him very politely ‘Please sir, I want some more’ we were shown a close

up of his face. We could see the fear and anxiety on his face as he knew something bad would happen since it is prohibited to ask for more of anything at the orphanage. Oliver was then thrown out of the orphanage and it was by utter coincidence that Oliver met the Artful Dodger, a member of a gang of juvenile pickpockets led by the elderly criminal Fagin, at the market. When Oliver was in the market by himself it was a wide shot, this showed us how weak, vulnerable and how easily he could have been manipulated. He didn’t want to be involved in the violation he was taken in by Fagin not understanding what he was going to ought to do. The film ​Oliver Twist​, explores the idea that it is often fate that controls people’s outcomes in life, not their choices.

The director highlights how characters such as Nancy and the young pickpockets are caught in a world where they have few choices. Nancy who is a prostitute is simply under Bill Sykes power during the film. Oliver Twist is set in a patriarchal culture so Nancy being a woman already has little power but being a prostitute confirms that she is at the very bottom of the social hierarchy. Nancy’s clothes are very revealing and she is covering her face with too much make-up which makes her look cheap. This implies that she sells her body to make money for her to live. Most often when we see Nancy, Polanski uses a high angle shot to make Nancy look small, petty and frowned upon. Nancy is restricted in the world she is living in because she knows if she leaves and tells Sykes and Fagin she would be beaten to death and when she is found telling about Oliver’s location she is killed by Sykes. The Artful Dodger and Charlie Bates grew up on the streets until they were taken in and taught how to pickpocket by Fagin. Fagin says “fine fellows, fine fellows’, which shows that he is satisfied with their work. He is the first real father figure that they have ever had, he feeds them, provides them with clothing and is their role model nevertheless Fagin teaches them how to steal and pickpocket for his profit. If Dodger and Bates were to tell the traps about Sykes and Fagin’s location and what they were doing, Fagin and Sykes would be executed or hung for stealing and the young pickpockets would have no social welfare system to look after the young pickpockets apart from the workhouse which is more unpleasant than living with Fagin and Sykes. ​Oliver Twist​ implies that to a considerable extent characters have limited control over what occurs in their lifetime.

On the other hand, Polanski demonstrates that to a certain extent people can make life-changing decisions. Oliver decides to be loyal towards Mr Brownlow and an example of this is when Oliver has been kidnapped and he tries to escape from Fagin to go back to Mr Brownlow. Oliver also tries to protect Mr Brownlow’s possessions when he is being kidnapped saying ‘They belong to Mr Brownlow. Send them back. The books and the money’. Oliver also calls out to Mr Brownlow when Sykes and Toby Crackit try to burgle his house. Nancy also makes life-changing decisions in the film. Nancy tells Mr Brownlow about the whereabouts of Oliver and the location of Fagin’s den. She wants to protect and defend Oliver and is willing to do anything including sacrificing her own life to improve the life of Oliver. Nancy says to Fagin “I won’t stand by and see this done” and this shows how she is willing to do anything to free Oliver from his dreadful life. The soundtrack is non-diegetic, dramatic and suspenseful, it adds tension and alerts the audience to the dramatic action taken by this character. The director of ​Oliver Twist​ highlights the belief that people can rise against their fate.

In ​Oliver Twist​ Oliver explores the truth that everyone can make life-changing choices but the majority of the things that do happen to him are determined by fate. Oliver, who is a victim of misfortune and Nancy plus the young pickpockets are unable to escape can to some extent, make life-changing decisions. Most people

Choose one of Dickens’ journalistic essays and relate it to any one of his novels.

Dickens’ 1863 journalistic essay ‘Some Recollections of Mortality’ (hereafter: ‘Mortality’) explores the human fascination with death, and the wretched conditions in which it often occurs. By comparing his essay to passages concerning death in Oliver Twist (1837–1839), interesting observations can be made particularly about the carelessness regarding death, ways to look upon it, and death as spectacle within contemporary popular culture.

Carelessness towards the dead is vividly depicted by Dickens through a focus on location and dehumanisation, highlighting the detrimental outcomes of poverty. Oliver encounters death with Mr. Sowerberry in a visibly poor area, as reflected in the people: “bodies half doubled,” “crouching mechanically,” depicted as physically lower, mirroring their lower-class status (37–38). The houses are “mouldering,” and overtaken by “decay,” anticipating scenes of death (38). He likens the poor to rodents, as the line: “the very rats, which here and there lay putrefying in its rottenness, were hideous with famine,” is echoed later on the same page: “they seemed so like the rats he had seen outside,” highlighting their malnutrition, typical of depictions in the anti-Poor Law movement (38). This dehumanisation is carried further when the dead body is described as “something covered with an old blanket,” implying its lack of recognisable form (38). Interestingly, a brief passage in ‘Mortality’ gruesomely depicts, “lying on the towing-path with her face turned up towards us, a woman, dead a day of two,” indicating that her ‘humanness’ is recognisable, but the carelessness implied strikes a similar chord to Oliver Twist (‘Mortality’, 106). In fact, the carelessness towards the dead body is almost violent in ‘Mortality’ as “the stumbling hoofs had been among the hair, and the tow-rope had caught and turned the head” eliciting a “cry of horror,” (‘Mortality’, 107). Whereas the depiction in Oliver Twist elicits sympathy for the starved body, in ‘Mortality’ the mistreatment of the dead body is more horrific, eliciting shock.

This carelessness frequently translates into a numbness Dickens uses to describe the way we look at death, “something that could not return a look,” (‘Mortality,’ 106). Noticeably, selfishness is a recurring theme, not only “as who would say, ‘Shall I, poor I, look like that, when the time comes!’” but also when death becomes a business, as for Mr. Sowerberry who—rather than expressing concern that a “new system of feeding” has made coffins “narrower and more shallow,”—remarks: “three or four inches over one’s calculation makes a great hole in one’s profits,” (‘Mortality’ 105; 26–27). This insensitivity, “like looking at waxwork,” is perhaps unsurprising given the prevalence of death in the late Nineteenth Century (‘Mortality,’ 106). White provides the statistic that “forty three children out of every 100 born there would die before their first birthday as late as 1896,” and indeed the birth and death of the baby in ‘Mortality,’ seems almost a matter of routine as the girl “cleaned the cold wet door-steps immediately afterwards” (88; ‘Mortality,’ 109). It seems also a matter to routine to the clergymen who “compressed” the service “into four minutes,” by a grave “so full, that the uppermost coffin was within a few feet of the surface,” (41). Dickens’ description of “purposeless, vacant staring at [death]” serves to emphasise that it has become the norm (‘Morality,’ 106). Yet there is still something haunting about death, particularly with Nancy’s ‘look of death’: it is her eyes which Sikes cannot endure. Ledger suggests: “Nancy’s glassy dead eyes synecdochally reprise the murder scene to a chilling effect,” as evidenced by Sikes before his death: “‘The eyes again!’” (Ledger, 71; 412). Rather than responding vacantly, Sikes responds with terror, undoubtedly indicating his guilt, literally laid bare by the “brilliant light” of the morning (384). Thus, Dickens employs the look of death, and the looking at death, to emphasise its normality, as well as its possible indicting effect.

The most visceral aspect of death in Dickens is the depiction of death as spectacle, awakening a primal hunger to seek justice and indict someone. Dickens compellingly describes the masses as they crowd by the morgue in Paris, who “took in a quantity of mire with [them]” (‘Mortality,’ 103). ‘The Mass’ is ever-present in Dickens’ work, perhaps unsurprisingly, as “Greater London, at 6.58 million people, was home to one in five of the population of England and Wales,” an overwhelming amount of people which leads predictably to an animalistic herd-instinct (White, 204). In ‘Mortality’ Dickens describes a gruesome urge to see the dead body: “unholy fire kindled in the public eye, and those next the gates beat at them impatiently, as if they were of the cannibal species and hungry,” one man even “made a pounce,” becoming almost completely animal (‘Mortality,’ 105). A strikingly similar cannibalistic impatience is felt in the pursuit of Sikes, where the sheer cacophony, “shouted,” “roared,” “cried,” blurs the animal and the human, and as a “cluster” the people become indistinguishable from each other, forming essentially a tidal-wave of “wrath and passion,” (410–411). Arguably, this depiction of death, or anticipated death, as a spectacle undermines the sympathy garnered for the dead earlier on in Oliver Twist, though perhaps the desire to see Sikes dead is justified given his guilt in the murder. Regardless, Ledger reminds us that “it is well known that Dickens’ public performances of his Sikes and Nancy reading were electrifying,” thereby problematising death in Oliver Twist as it becomes a form of entertainment (73).

The fascination surrounding death, particularly the violent ones, shows Dickens’ awareness of popular culture, and renders his fiction a response to reality; in his words: “IT IS TRUE,” (lvii). A common occurrence at the time, witness statements of jealous murders gave “detailed and often sensational accounts,” suggesting Dickens portrayed events in a similar vein, particularly taking inspiration from William Hone’s 1815 pamphlet regarding a “frenzied knife attack,” (Ledger, 66–69). The violence describing Nancy and Sikes is almost unbearable: “nearly blinded with the blood that rained down from a deep gash in her forehead,” “there was a sudden jerk, a terrific convulsion of the limbs,” (383). Dickens never shies away from gruesome detail, sensationalising deaths perhaps to respond to the bloodthirst of the public. Indeed, the desire for the morbid is laid bare in the disappointment felt when it does not happen. The “ragged boys” in Oliver Twist, attracted by “the spectacle,” who “varied their amusements by jumping backwards and forwards over the coffin” uttered “very loud complaints at the fun being over so soon,” (40–41). Similarly, the crowd in ‘Mortality,’ is disappointed when it turns out the man was killed by a falling stone: “we could have wished he had been killed by human agency—his own, or somebody’s else’s: the latter, preferable,” expressing their desire for violence (‘Mortality,’ 103). “Dickens’ transformation of this raw material of popular culture,” is thus undeniable, as he uses his real-life observations to inform his novel and sensationalise death, and to highlight the violence present in reality in a way that the reader cannot escape it (Ledger, 29). Structurally, too, the plot is propelled by violent death, as Schor states: “Nancy, of course, tells her story only to die,” and it is her murder which indicts Fagin’s gang and thus brings the novel to an end, suggesting to some extent that death is necessary to restore order (27).

To conclude, the exploration of death in ‘Some Recollections of Mortality’ provides useful parallels to death in Oliver Twist, where death seems to elicit sympathy as well as amplify carelessness and insensitivity. Most significantly, however, the portrayal of death in Oliver Twist, as informed by popular culture, frequently comes to its apex in episodes of violence, where it becomes a spectacle both to provide entertainment and highlight the violence present in reality.

Primary Texts

1. Dickens, Charles. Oliver Twist. Ed. Kathleen Tillotson. Oxford World’s Classics edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapters IV, V, XLVII, XLVIII, L.
2. Dickens, Charles. ‘Some Recollections of Mortality’. In Selected Journalism 1850–1970. Ed. David Pascoe. London: Penguin Books, 1997. Pp. 102–110
3. “First published in All the Year Round, 16 May 1863. The text here is taken from The Uncommercial Traveller.” (102)

Secondary Sources

1. John, Juliet. ‘‘Personal’ Journalism: Getting Down into the Masses’. In Dickens and Mass Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. 103–131
2. Ledger, Sally. ‘Dickens, popular culture and popular politics in the 1830s: Oliver Twist’. In Dickens and the Popular Radical Imagination. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pp. 65–106
3. Schor, Hilary M. ‘The uncanny daughter: Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby, and the progress of Little Nell’. In. Dickens and the Daughter of the House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. 19–46
4. White, Jerry. London in the Nineteenth Century: ‘A Human Awful Wonder of God’. London: Jonathan Cape, London, 2007.