Dickens wrote back to the critics of Oliver Twist in his 1841 Preface to the Third Edition of the novel. He address the question of what makes a fit subject for art (in his case, fiction). While you can speak to this issue (as you began to do in your Letter to the Editor), pay attention here to the specific language and images (repetition, tone, sentence structure) he uses to make his argument.
"What manner of life is that which is described in these pages, as the every-day existence of a Thief? What charms has it for the young and ill-disposed, what allurements for the most jolter-headed of juveniles? Here are no canterings upon moonlit heaths, no merry-makings in the snuggest of all possible caverns, none of the attractions of dress, no embroidery, no lace, no jack-boots, no crimson coats and ruffles, none of the dash and freedom with which 'the road' has been, time out of mind, invested. The cold, wet, shelterless midnight streets of London; the foul and frowsy dens, where vice is closely packed and lacks the room to turn; the haunts of hunger and disease, the shabby rags that scarcely hold together: where are the attractions of these things? Have they no lesson, and do they not whisper something beyond the little-regarded warning of a moral precept?
But there are people of so refined and delicate a nature, that they cannot bear the contemplation of these horrors. Not that they turn instinctively from crime; but that criminal characters, to suit them, must be, like their meat, in delicate disguise. A Massaroni in green velvet is quite an enchanting creature; but a Sikes in fustian is insupportable. A Mrs. Massaroni, being a lady in short petticoats and a fancy dress, is a thing to imitate in tableaux and have in lithograph on pretty songs; but a Nancy, being a creature in a cotton gown and cheap shawl, is not to be thought of. It is wonderful how Virtue turns from dirty stockings; and how Vice, married to ribbons and a little gay attire, changes her name, as wedded ladies do, and becomes Romance."
I freakin' love Dickens! After reading this, I wanted to shout, "In yo' FACE, scrubs!" Alas, it is 2012, and those critics are long gone. I still applaud Dickens's bold response, as well as his loyalty to his own work of art, yes... art!
ReplyDeleteThe message sticks to its Dickensian style of sarcasm, while maintaining clarity; I love it. In slightly more mundane terms, Dickens believes these critics are just as biased as the novel's upper-class characters. How could they ridicule a novel that highlights the truth of characters like Sikes and Nancy, characters whom if real, would lose the spotlight to people higher on the hierarchical plane? They can't; and this is exactly what Dickens gets across in the second paragraph.
Once more, Dickens opts to capitalize nouns and adjectives he feels deserve praise. A "Thief" is not a piece of "meat," but a human being with human emotions, and therefore is capable of Romance, just like any upperclassman. The unusual capitalization is nothing short of brilliant; I could not help but smile while reading, not only because of the well-written message, but because identifying these little Dickensian habits is quite fun.
Brilliantly said. I could not have said it better myself, Troy. I do agree with you that Dickens is revealing the hypocrisy of the upper classes and the critics of his novel. The passages, while satirical, are still full of vigor and anger. One can just tell that Dickens is so upset that he is shouting at the hypocrisy of the readers. The passages have little pauses and have a number of question marks. It is as if Dickens have been storing his anger for a long time, and has finally found the perfect time to unleash his fiery speech.
DeleteIf there is one thing that really stands out, then it has to be the last sentence: "It is wonderful how Virtue turns from dirty stockings; and how Vice, married to ribbons and a little gay attire, changes her name, as wedded ladies do, and becomes Romance." Those who cannot face reality, or better, those who are "so refined and delicate a nature" as Dickens calls them, can only see things as they have always presented to them. If Nancy and Sikes had been presented as wealthy characters, they would have been regarded differently.
Great description, Ibrahim: "vigor and anger." Well said.
DeleteI agree with Troy, Dickens was able to defend his art of work and most important he was able to in other words give a wake up call to those that criticize his talent. I also like Charles Dickens for he is honest with his audience and reflects the truth, which many may criticize, because it is nt easy to accept the truth. Dickens is a wise man who through his writings is able to separate fantasy from reality.
DeleteI am one happy English professor.
ReplyDeleteI love how Dickens expose the horrors of London. I dont know why critics want to hide the horrors of society! Poor people exists, child labor exists, prostitution exists so why act like it doesnt. Critics are taken back by Dickens decision to write about these things because they feel like these problems are unchangeable; they feel the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Another thing, they things its inapproiate for these horrors to be exposed to children when children live these horrors as well. Children die from hunger and hard labor. Children represent innocence but living in London the children arent safe, they are tainted by the harshness of society
ReplyDeleteI can definitely identify Dickens' anger in these short paragraphs. Althoug there are no exclamation marks, the short cut off sentences and word choices says it all. His argument is not obscure and his rage reads right through everyline.Dickens affirms that the novel Oliver Twist is infact moral because his depictions of the character are from a realist perspective. The gore and the violence are esspecially seen in the relationships between Bill Sikes and Nancy. He says "Have they no lesson, and do they not whisper something beyond the little-regarded warning of a moral precept?". In other words dont these characters situations embody lessons of morality or the lack thereof thats not recognized by the greater public. I think Dickens argjument is quite clear that there is no black and white in real life, theres only graybecause thats just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this analysis. Dickens’s characters all teach a moral lesson. For this reason, Dickens’s novel is moral. He reveals his outrage in his response to critics by repetitively using a listing method to argue his point. For example, Dickens states, “Here are no canterings upon moonlit heaths, no merry-makings in the snuggest of all possible caverns, none of the attractions of dress, no embroidery, no lace, no jack-boots, no crimson coats and ruffles, none of the dash and freedom with which 'the road' has been, time out of mind, invested.” Dickens wants to point out that his characters are true and their stories are unfortunately others’ realities. He merely writes to expose the hash living conditions of the unfortunate. His writing is rejected because of its honesty. He presents both good and bad characters from each class system in his novel, showing that he does wish to attack/offend any one group. He only wishes to teach a lesson and influence a change in his society.
DeleteI'm so glad you all have decided to focus on tone. One of the high-water marks for critical reading is to be able to assess tone in writing. Appreciation of tone (anger, sarcasm, sentimental, ironic) is where the reader moves from comprehension to analysis. Well done! Let the conversation continue!
ReplyDeleteWhile I do like every bit of what everyone has said, totally agree that it is beautiful the Dickens used his words to slap the arrogance of his critics in their face. I have to wonder if prehaps Dickens just didn't like the criticism that he found from his readers. Is his passionate diatribe so much for the plight of the characters that reflects the life of many Londoners?.....or is Dickens taken aback by the criticism he found after writing his FIRST novel?..... We know Dickens loved his characters and was passionate about each one that he created, but could he have been so passionate about his characters and his expectations concerning having his first novel so well received that his anger and verbal tongue lashing that he gave to his critics was NOT spawned by his disdain for their shrewdness towards his characters or the people of his time who they resembled. But prehaps the tongue lashing that he gave to his critics was birthed out of egotism and his anger kindled because they choose to question the characters of his book whom he loved?..... After all this book is juvenilia (a work produced during the authors youth)and he may have had his literary pride dashed against the rocks of unchallenged success?.... After all he is human and therefore subject to err on the side of human emotions.
ReplyDeleteGregory, I think you make an important point: Dickens is human and here his feelings are clearly hurt. You can sense the sting behind them. But as Troy points out below, it is not a huge stylistic departure from the passages in the novel where he assaults Stupid, blind, ignorant society. Maybe the answer is that he always takes things personally, whether they are against him or against the segments of society with which he so deeply identifies.
DeleteBut because I am a teacher and it is my job to be a devil's advocate, maybe we should also notice those people/segments of society that don't tend to get Dickens's famous sympathy. Pay attention as you read this semester to places in the text where you think he is not entirely fair to certain characters.
I actually observed this too, but quickly reverted to my initial thought. Perhaps Dickens just didn't know how to react to negative criticism. I know if I had written something to great acclaim, and had it torn to shreds by critics, I probably would have responded similarly; this is because I am stubborn. I don't think Dickens and I share that stubborn quality though. Dickens responded in the same exact tone he used in Oliver Twist, the exact tone that the critics bashed him for; you've got to have respect for a guy like that. That's quite a ballsy move on his part. So while a part of me does agree with Gregory, I'd have to put my money on the side that promotes Dickens's bashful character and belief in equality, over his possible shrewd written backlash.
ReplyDeleteDidn't transcendentalism explode towards the mid 1800s? And didn't critics bash authors with similar mindsets? I think Dickens simply contributed to an idea that was rejected by the Stupid (yes, I capitalized S) majority; people are afraid of change, even the good kind.
Edit: Can you guys see my posts? My PC is being a douche. If you can, I am sorry for the 3 posts; they are all copy/pastes.
Dickens's language is what I found to be most compelling. While reading Dickens's response, it is through language that Dickens makes comments that I feel would make the intented audience irate. Dickens does not focus in on who he is referring to, however, surely, they know who he is meaning when Dickens says, "But there are people of so refined and delicate a nature, that they cannot bear the contemplation of these horrors."
ReplyDeleteIt is as though today when complainants are met with the response of, "Thank you, have a nice day!"
Dickens's response is almost sarcastic and condescending towards his target audience and rightfully so.
I really enjoyed this passage by Charles Dickens as he uses sarcasm to convey what he feels is the problem with the current upper-class society of this time. The anger he feels is very clearly illustrated as he describes how something as shallow as a petticoat or fancy dress can turn a woman into a lady in the eyes of the upper-class. "It is wonderful how Virtue turns from dirty stockings; and how Vice, married to ribbons and a little gay attire, changes her name, as wedded ladies do, and becomes Romance." In these lines I think the capitalization of vice and virtue is very important as these two words are complete opposites. For Dickens Vice can easily be disguised as romance with the proper attire. Dickens tries to express the fact that in order for an upper-class person to feel any sort of connection to a criminal is if the criminal is "in delicate disguise" or in upper-class attire. Charles Dickens attacks this "the clothes make the man" mentality of this time and I actually found it pretty hilarious how he sarcastically chooses to describe the upper-class as "so refined and delicate a nature." It is easier for the wealthy to accept criminals if they are well dressed, which is a pretty sad mentality in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHow different is that from today's situation? If all those Wall Street bankers were wearing hoodies, would they have received the bailouts they did? Isn't part of the problem with prosecuting the folks that caused the financial crisis is that it is hard to see them? They don't look like criminals, but are clothed in what we tend to see as success.
DeleteTHIS IS FROM JOE LOPRESTI, (whose computer is, to paraphrase the poetic language of Troy, also being a little douchey):
ReplyDeleteI was just blown away by how Dickens's descriptive language in this passage. When he states "none of the attractions of dress, no embroidery, no lace, no jack-boots, no crimson coats and ruffles... The cold, wet, shelterless midnight streets of London; the foul and frowsy dens, where vice is closely packed and lacks the room to turn" a highly vivid and detailed image of London is created, that is just simply desolate and decayed. The description of dress alludes to the "rags" that society is forced to wear, and that it is "exposed", most likely to the "beast" that has been plaguing Dickens works since day 1, poverty. In addition, the "cold, wet, shelterless midnight streets..." paints a picture of a dark and morbid London where sorrow and despair run rampant. As a matter of fact, the description of London instantly puts me right back into Oliver Twist, as that is exactly how I imagined London to be like when reading the novel.
Ugh, love it! I believe there is no better way to argue, prove a point, and make the other person feel knowledgeably impotent, than to use sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteDickens starts to list things that seem to be part of a dream or fairy tale land like moonlit heaths, merry-makings, attractive dressing attire, lace ruffle. He lists these things because this is what the critic wants to hear, this is what he considers art. Dickens says none of the things on the list are real or exist. Dickens then makes a contrast and starts to list things that are more grounded and real. "The cold, wet, shelterless midnight streets of London; the foul and frowsy dens, where vice is closely packed and lacks the room to turn; the haunts of hunger and disease, the shabby rags that scarcely hold together…" None of this is appeasing to see or read. He asks "Where are the attractions of these things?" Nowhere, it is not pretty so why try to lie and turn it into something it is not? Dickens's art is raw and real not pretty, glittery and pink.