From Chapter V, pp 33-34
'Yer don't know who I am, I suppose, Work'us? said the charity-boy, in continuation: descending from the top of the post, meanwhile, with edifying gravity.
'No, sir,' rejoined Oliver.
'I'm Mister Noah Claypole,' said the charity-boy, 'and you're under me. Take down the shutters, yer idle young ruffian!' With this, Mr. Claypole administered a kick to Oliver, and entered the shop with a dignified air, which did him great credit. It is difficult for a large-headed, small-eyed youth, of lumbering make and heavy countenance, to look dignified under any circumstances; but it is more especially so, when superadded to these personal attractions are a red nose and yellow smalls.
...
Noah was a charity-boy, but not a workhouse orphan. No chance-child was he, for he could trace his genealogy all the way back to his parents, who lived hard by; his mother being a washerwoman, and his father a drunken soldier: discharged with a wooden leg, and a diurnal pension of twopence-halfpenny and an unstateable fraction. The shop-boys in the neighbourhood had long been in the habit of branding Noah, in the public streets, with the ignominious epithets of 'leathers,' 'charity,' and the like; and Noah had borne them without reply. But, now that fortune had cast in his way a nameless orphan, at whom even the meanest could point the finger of scorn, he retorted on him with interest. This affords charming food for contemplation. It shows us what a beautiful thing human nature sometimes is; and how impartially the same amiable qualities are developed in the finest lord and the dirtiest charity-boy.
Given the fact that Dickens is a writer and was a journalist at the time that he was writing this novel. The apparent misspelled words can only be intentional and done in order to convey the mindset of the people who are street dwellers. The word "gmake", "nkow" and "charit" are not like the intentional misspelled words that Dickens used such as "Yer" and "work-us". These latter two were intentionally done for pronunciation effects. While the misspelling of the aforementioned words as lsited above was done not for pronunciational purposes. But to have the text display the level of ignorance within the people by having the readers ponder over why a journalist such as Dickens was making these obvious and simple mistakes. The answer being Dickens knew that reading was not something many people could do so he demonstrated this level of ignorance in his own writing in order to engrave the actual ignorance of the street dwellers through his own penmanship.
ReplyDeleteYikes! This is a very good interpretation -- but some of the mistakes are mine! I had my spell-checker off unknowingly. I'm correcting it now -- though "yer" and "work-us" will absolutely remain, so Gregory's insights about those are valid and up for discussion!
ReplyDeleteNoah's background is important. The fact that Noah has experiences similar to Oliver (poor & mistreated) suggests that they should have a mutual understanding of each other because they both know how it feels to be mistreated. I would imagine similar experiences would create a relationship based on social advancement and a journey for a way out of
ReplyDeletethe current life, this passage nor the ones that follow
suggest such an outcome. Noah and Oliver would probably be a good team but Dickens does not foreshadow that in what we have read so far.
I disagree, I don't think Oliver and Noah have much in common to bind them as best friends or anything. Yes they have both been poor/mistreated and that's about all the similarities they have with one another. Noah definitely thinks himself superior to Oliver since he at least had both parents. Even if "his mother being a washerwoman, and his father a drunken soldier: discharged with a wooden leg" at least he knew who his parents were. Unlike Oliver who is just a "nameless orphan" making him inferior to Noah.
DeleteI do get where you are coming from Joseph C, why wouldn't Noah sympathize with Oliver and give him a break? I think the answer is that after Noah being stomped on and judged as a "no chance-child" for his parents positions by others, superior to him, he is finally in a sort of position of power himself. He is in a more advantageous position compared to Oliver. Even within the poor there are social sub-divisions. Noah takes advantage that Oliver is more unfortunate than he and rolls with it by bullying him. This makes him feel a lot better about his lesser misfortunes.
I agree with Joseph Carolan, Noah and Oliver should be able to connect and have a good relationship since they both eperienced the misery of poverty. However, Noah does not seem to view it this way for he treats Oliver as if he is superior, which I find ironic for he is no different than Oliver. Just because he gets treated a little better than him does not mean he is being treated well. It disturbed me that Noah had that type of attitude and I view him as ignorant for pretending not to know his real position. He is not better than Olive, he is being used and mistreated the same way.
ReplyDeleteAlthough both Noah and Oliver have similar backgrounds the narration suggest to the reader that there may be hope for Oliver whereas there is no hope for Noah due to his family background. "No chance-child was he, for he could trace his genealogy all the way back to his parents, who lived hard by; his mother being a washerwoman, and his father a drunken soldier: discharged with a wooden leg" the narrator states that because of Noah's family there is little hope for him in society. Oliver, although he is an orphan his parents' status in society are unknown meaning that he can be of noble-class or came from poverty-stricken parents.
ReplyDeleteSean, I agree. In reality both Oliver and Noah are idigent and impoverished. Dickens portrays these two individuals on two sperate platforms that deal with both social degree and status. Despite Noah's title,a charity-boy,a position that defernciates him from Oliver because he has parents. Not only does Noah has parental figures but his parents are employed; a status that Oliver can not claim. However, the author captures both boys in moments of dispair where he focuses beyond class and gives the reader better insight on their character.He compares Noahs ignominous appearance to Oliver's reaction after being kicked by Mr.Claypole. In thes two short paragraphs what the meassage that Dickens is trying to get across is that Oliver and Noah are on different levels because Olver responded to his worse moment with class and dignity something that Noah lacked; and was made obviose in his appearance.Dicken goes furth magnify Oliver's virtousness by describing him to be a "finest lord". Not only is Oliver casted into a diffrerent class but he is compared to royality; one of the highests ranks in hierarchy.This tone is not only promising for Oliver but Dickens sets a different standard for characterthat involves more than just money.
DeleteI definitely agree with what Sean and Christine - Dickens indicates at a future for Oliver. What other reason would there be for Dickens to label Noah as a "No Chance-child"? Dickens doesn't say that Oliver, even without his parents, has no chance. With that being said, Noah is used as a comparative character to Oliver - where Oliver will succeed and Noah wont.
DeleteAnother aspect of Noah and Oliver's interaction that seems interesting is that it is realistic. Although it would seem reasonable for both Oliver and Noah to be able to understand each other and become friends because of their similar background that is not always the case. This is often shown in history all time between different groups of people who are not the dominant group in a society. This is shown through history between minority groups or individuals of the same class that instead of forming an understanding instead turn on each other. The point is that if Noah acknowledges Oliver then he eliminates any sense of superiority which he does not want to give up.
ReplyDeleteSean is right here, and it is an important point. If Dickens is all about attacking the heartlessness of Government and inhumane laws, it could be tempting for him to glorify the poor. But -- perhaps with the exception of the "Appeal to Fallen Women" -- he often has a whole range of representations of the poor, from animals to angels. What do you folks make of Dickens's point in the final sentence? And do you think you are craving an alliance for Oliver (with the unpromising Noah) because he seems so alone? vulnerable?
ReplyDeleteHaving knowledge of Dickens's childhood makes reading through these chapters far more enjoyable, especially when he throws in an occasional sarcastic remark. Dickens makes very clear to us which characters he finds distasteful through character dialogue and/or description. For instance, Noah Claypole, the charity BOY, introduces himself as MISTER Noah Claypole, to administer his superior status; I found the title, mister, unfitting for a boy. To further denounce Noah's character, Dickens describes him as a "large-headed, small-eyed youth." Although these are physical characteristics, I feel they signify Noah's personality. The large head suggests Noah is arrogant, like a snobbish king on his thrown. The small eyes may convey a sense of social unawareness, and the undesirability to gain knowledge. These traits are usually coupled in reverse, with most "youth[s]" more reserved and eager to learn.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Troy about previous knowledge of Dickens's childhood being helpful in the reading of Oliver Twist. It definitely allows us as readers to catch on to things that we otherwise would have looked over and not payed attention to, such as the way Dickens describes his characters like Troy mentioned. Reading about Dickens previous to the novel, really allowed me to get a much deeper understanding.
DeleteDickens purposely mentions Noah's past to illuminate the development at the same time the backstory to his character. When he was young, he was poor with not the best parents. Now that he is older, he takes out his negative past on the poor. When Noah calls himself Mister Noah he tries to distiguish that he is an upper class. The way Noah looks down upon someone who is poorer then him makes him feel better about himself.
ReplyDeleteOne of Dickens's main objectives is to portray the lives of orphans in England realistically. The two passages work on two levels: the first is to illustrate the difference between Noah and Oliver; and the second is to assert the importance of hierarchy. Dickens makes it clear that Noah "could trace his genealogy all the way back to his parents." Unlike Noah, Oliver is just a "nameless" orphan, who cannot be acknowledged because he does not know his parents. This, of course, suggests that even among orphans, ranks/hierarchy can determine how one is viewed. Furthermore, I find it interesting that Dickens personifies "fortune." This is a way for him to indicate that characters are influenced by external powers, which can also include fate and destiny.
ReplyDeleteThe hierarchy reference is appealing; thanks for bringing it up. It's kind of like Dickens is saying, that power struggle also occurs amongst those within the same social class. Noah, Oliver's closest chance to social redemption, places Oliver below himself, just like the civilians of the upper class do. What a sad state of affairs.
DeleteI think Troy hits upon something important here: how old is Noah, anyway? Is he a "boy" or is he older (than Oliver) and so entitled to the perks of some kind of natural hierarchy? If hierarchy is one way that we as humans (Dickens talks about "human nature") make meaning, we will try and impose it even when solidarity seems so much more rational. Keep this in mind when we meet the other (street) children of the novel. Do they create a pecking order, or is there more of a family feeling?
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question Professor, and in fact one I asked myself, "how old is Noah, anyway?". I think he is slightly older than Oliver, perhaps a teenager, but definitely not an adult. That inference is based on the lines "Noah was a charity boy" and "no chance-child was he", which are allusions towards his age. I also agree with Troy in terms of their being a hierarchical theme going on here between Noah and Oliver. Finally coming back to Professor Reitz, I do think because he is older, Noah believes he is entitled to the perks of a natural hierarchy, as majority of adult characters in the novel show the same authority towards the younger characters as well.
DeleteI agree with Joe. I think many people feel a sense of entitlement above others when they are in a different level of authority, whether it's socially viewed as lower, or higher. Either way, I think many people feel a sense of knowledge on something that they feel is different from someone else. For example, the age difference between Noah and Oliver. Another example would be the higher and lower class. Someone in a higher class system may feel they are better because they achieve things easier or can afford the finer things in life. While as someone in a lower class may feel they have authority over the higher class, because without someone to serve the higher class, they would not be as successful or fortunate. I also have a feeling Noah is a few years older than Oliver, simply because of his "natural hierarchy" and his attitude towards Oliver, a young boy.
DeleteDicken’s wants to emphasize that Noah takes pride in being a part of the working class. This is noted in Noah’s introduction of himself to Oliver as “Mister Noah Claypole”. His decision to call himself “mister” is controversial to his actual age. Noah is described as a “charity-boy”, who is taunted in the streets by the shop -boys. If Noah was an adult, deserving of the title “Mister”, the street children would have displayed some respect for their senior.
ReplyDeleteDickens also shows that Noah takes pride in being a part of the working class by describing him as a person, “who lived hard by; his parents mother being a washerwoman, and his father a drunken solider”. It can be inferred that Noah, is influenced to be ambitious based on the lives/occupation of his parents. The choice to title himself as “mister”, can be read as Noah’s quest to climb the social ladder. This could be the reason why Noah, creates a clear distinction between himself and Oliver. He tells Oliver that “you’re under me”, noting that he is mindful of the cast system and of his place within this system. He has to place himself above Oliver, to achieve an elevation in class.
Interesting point: not sure if "pride" in the class is going on here (what other evidence do you have that he feels pride in solidarity with something larger than himself?) I do think you provide good evidence, though, for him as ambitious and eager to put some distance between himself and his parents, Oliver, etc.
DeleteDickens has further illustrated how alone Oliver really is. If I remember correctly Bumble made a statement in the previous chapters about naming the boys based on the letter in the alphabet he was up to.I couldn't help but notice how close the letter of each of their names were. Oliver which we presume is younger than Noah comes after him in alphabetic order as well as in the caste system. Despite how we [as readers] feel they should interact because they share a common ground being that they both the victims of a series of unfortunate events aka poverty in England they aren't; leaving Oliver utterly alone even when he is surrounded by others.
ReplyDeleteOh and I think the initial interaction between Noah and Oliver is a representation of Dickens. Didn't Dickens, or Andrea rather,mention how before being reduced to nothing he use to resent being in the presence of the poor? Is Noah a characterization of Dickens?
ReplyDeleteThis portion of the novel appears to have a less heavy tone than the previous ones, perhaps an attempt by Dickens to show that while Oliver is still not "safe" there is a certain sense of community growing. Noah's introduction is large and overstated, from his loud kicking to his request to be called Mister, making him appear to be a comic character. Though Greg makes reference to Noah's pronunciation as being demonstrative of his ignorance, Noah appears to be rather wise and helpful to Oliver, encouraging him after he breaks the window and providing a witty yet honest retort to Charlotte's request to leave him alone. As a few have noted this seems to be a start to a positive relationship in Oliver's life.
ReplyDeleteDickens arrives at comedy through his use of satire and a particularly poignant example occurs in the last few sentences of this quoted passage. The quality that Dickens seems to be admiring is not a positive one but the ability to ridicule others, which he seems to be calling an "amiable" quality. He also references this as being why human nature is sometimes "beautiful," even though it seems to be a significant argument for its opposite.
In this passage I really like how Dickens uses the improper spoken language of the work house boy to show that he was even better than Oliver because he had parents.
ReplyDeleteWhat catches my eyes are the pairings I noticed in the passage. Dickens clearly distinguishes as to who’s “higher” and “lower” then another from when Noah is “descending from the top” to speak to Oliver. Noah then states that he is a “charity-boy” and not someone like Oliver who’s “under” him. Even the characters’ actions display a difference in hierarchy. This is seen when Noah commands Oliver to “Take down the shutters” and then enters “the shop with a dignified air.” Dickens also shares about Noah’s genealogy and the differences in power and class there as well: “Noah was a charity-boy, but not a workhouse orphan” while his parents were a washers or “a drunk soldier.”
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned earlier, it is interesting to see people of the same social class create a division amongst themselves rather than join together in solidarity. In this case, it is Noah Claypole who quickly creates a distinction between himself and Oliver Twist because of the fact that he can trace back his lineage. His feeling of superiority is evident when he introduces himself to Oliver, "'I'm Mister Noah Claypole,' said the charity-boy, 'and you're under me." He immediately creates a separation by calling himself Mister, indicating that he is of a higher social class. It is interesting that Dickens informs the reader that Noah had been picked on by the other boys but now that he met Oliver he feels better about himself because he has someone else to pick on "But, now that fortune had cast in his way a nameless orphan, at whom even the meanest could point the finger of scorn, he retorted on him with interest." The last sentence especially stood out to me. Dickens states that "It shows us what a beautiful thing human nature sometimes is; and how impartially the same amiable qualities are developed in the finest lord and the dirtiest charity-boy." I understood it as Dickens saying that it is human nature to differentiate yourself from those below you when it relates to social class. Perhaps that's the reason why he uses the word "develop" because we are all born the same but our conditions in life and our environment then influence our human qualities and the way we perceive others.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the separation amongst the shop boys being a torture strategy that takes away all continuity between them, but adds acts as an extra punishment on them. Also the concept of family and family status determines how one may be treated. In Oliver's case, being he is considered the no name orphan, he falls desperately low in the social ladder. This is why Noah, despite facing the same scrutiny, and povershed conditions like Oliver and the others, he can treat Oliver as he does, mentioning his superiority to him. Ideally these young kids are to be broken down, convinced that no one wants them and that is why they are there. This afforded "food for contemplation" they may very well drive the book here on out as the children seem to be forced into the same mind frame as the oppressors.
ReplyDeleteAyeska ends here with a good thing to keep in mind as we read the novel: the tension between how we are born (human nature) and how society impacts us throughout life. We have a lot of evidence so far that Dickens believes the differences you see in society (for ex, social class) are all constructed. I'm thinking of his statement that Oliver looked like he could 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" (3). He says a similar thing in his "Workhouse" article. He also, however, seems to want to distinguish Oliver from this crowd (his English is much better than the other boys, for example). (Nice point made above about how Dickens himself was set aside from other boys in the blacking factory.) Can Dickens have it both ways?
ReplyDelete