Open Prompt III--October 16th: Don't Judge a Book by it's Bank Account, Social Critique in Oliver Twist

2009, Form B. Many works of literature deal with political or social issues. Choose a novel or play that focuses on a political oe social issue. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the author uses literary elements to explore this issue and explain how the issue contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.

England’s industrial revolution during the middle of the nineteenth century was a time of poverty, overcrowding, and suffering among the lower classes.  Charles Dickens’ famous novel Oliver Twist explores the social debates over poverty, and in particular the question of the relationship between poverty and morals.  At the time, there was a prevailing theory that the poor were inherently immoral and to blame for their own situation.  Dickens explores this idea and ultimately shows the reader that the relationship between class and morality is much more ambiguous: rather than poor people being inherently immoral and upper class people inherently virtuous, good and evil, morality and vice, can occur in both the poor and the rich.  He demonstrates this through several key characters: Oliver, the pure but poor protagonist; Mr. Bumble and Monks, rich but evil men; and Nancy, a poor and morally ambiguous character.  Dickens thereby encourages his readers to be more benevolent toward and less judgmental about the poor—an attitude he reinforces through a pattern of images of watching and being watched, suggesting that we, too, are being watched and judged by God on how we treat our fellow man. 

Dickens uses his innocent protagonist, Oliver Twist, as a demonstration of the moral purity which can exist despite poverty.  Oliver begins the novel as an example of an innocent human being doomed from the beginning, showing the reader that he himself was not to blame for his own misfortune.    Indeed, far from portraying Oliver as weak in any way, as the Social Darwinism of the time suggested about the poor, the details surrounding his birth suggest that Oliver is actually stronger than the upper classes.  The narrator notes that, had Oliver been born into a wealthy home, he would have died, and that it was the necessity of a struggle which caused him to gain the strength to live.  From that point on, Oliver is hit again and again with all of the struggles of the poor, and yet never wavers from his saint-like disposition. Despite thievery seeming the only way to survive, Oliver is appalled at Fagin’s pickpockets and refuses to steal.  Through this, Dickens presents a society in which the poor are pressured to turn to evil as a means to survive, and where the poor can be virtuous despite this pressure.  At the same times, Dickens critiques the solutions presented for poverty, especially the workhouse, which was based off of the idea that the poor were “evil” without exception and from birth.  He shows that the workhouse is counterproductive, and that someone poor like Oliver must leave that environment in order to have even a minute hope for survival.  Demonstrating his biting humor, Dickens wrote that the lower classes choose between “being starved by a gradual process in the house, or by a quick one out of it.”  In this environment, Dickens argues, it is extremely difficult for the poor to remain virtuous—if they cannot, like Oliver, they will meet their demise as victims of society.

Dickens juxtaposes Oliver’s poor purity to an array of decidedly evil characters who are upper or middle class, showing the reader that bad can exist in the rich as easily as in the poor.  One example of this is Mr. Bumble, the cruel owner of the parish-house in which Oliver spends his early childhood.  Mr. Bumble embodies the type of human who is supposed to be helping the poor; instead, he is using his power for personal gain and increases the lower classes’ struggles.  Mr. Bumble ends his life in the very workhouse he once presided over, representing the ultimate downfall of those who act immorally.  Another “evil” and wealthy character is Oliver’s half-brother, Monks.  Monks is Oliver’s rich, high-born brother, but he is both unhappy and a despicable human being, and likewise meets his demise.  Dickens shows us that the rich and poor alike can be horrible people.  Indeed, the only “good” people in the novel who are wealthy, like Rose, are the ones who assist the poor.

Though the novel contains mostly characters who are morally “black and white,” there is one morally ambiguous character who exhibits both good and evil traits: Nancy.  This ambiguity serves to demonstrate the good which can exist in everyone, no matter their social status.  By all of society’s standards, Nancy is evil: she is a thief; a drinker; and is even implied to be a prostitute in the description of her “free and agreeable…manners” and high “colour”.  However, she commits a clearly good action in sacrificing herself to save Oliver’s life.  This surfacing of Nancy’s conscience despite her seemingly immoral character shows that there is hope for those who are “evil” because of their situation.  It is not the lower classes inherent nature to be evil, Dickens shows us through Nancy’s change of virtue.  We all have good in us which yearns to be brought out, so by changing the flawed system, we may eliminate both the evil brought on by poverty, and the evil, as in the case of Mr. Bumble, brought on by control of the poor.

As the reader decides how to judge these various characters’ morals and status, they are confronted with recurring themes of being judged and watched by God.  Oliver and Mrs. Mann watch Mr. Bumble approach the workhouse in the very beginning of the novel, Mrs. Mann passing judgments on Oliver and the Beitle all the while.  Noah is instructed by Sikes to watch and follow Nancy, and form a conjecture about her actions -- a judgment which will ultimately decide her fate.  Another example of judgment deciding fate is Sikes’ vision of Nancy’s eyes after he has killed her.  He is afraid of her ghost watching him—and he finally sees “her”, and loses his balance and plummets to his death, accidently hung by his own rope.  The reader can see that these “eyes” are the eyes of God, or God acting through Nancy’s soul, pushing Sikes to his demise so that he can be duly punished.  Indeed, all of the characters in the novel are watched and judged by God, and only those characters who are good and benevolent and help others have a happy conclusion to their tales.  Those who do not, like Sikes, or Nancy—still an ultimately “fallen” woman—are punished. 

These characters—Oliver, Monks, Bumble, and Nancy—collectively represent the possibility of good and evil in anyone, despite their circumstance.  Through eliminating the conventional perceptions of the poor’s inherent evil nature, Dickens encourages his upper class readers to help the lower class, but in a different, more effective way than the corrupt workhouse.  Dickens provides an incentive for his readers: in showing the unlimited and ambiguous nature of what kind of people are good or evil, Dickens demonstrates that anyone can and should attempt to be good and help those less fortunate. Dickens does this by showing many positive upper class characters helping the poor and being rewarded, and negative upper class characters ignoring or exploiting them and being punished.  Dickens suggests to the reader the threat of consequence in the afterlife through the unhappy circumstance of Monks.  Handed a second chance to be good, Monks throws it away and end his life in suffering.  Dickens’ readers are handed the same chance as they read Oliver Twist, and learn from Monks’ mistake not to throw it away.

Through this array of characters Dickens critiques society’s conventional perception of the poor as automatically evil, and shows the reader that good and bad can exist in anyone, poor or rich.  Oliver’s purity despite his unfortunate circumstance is contrasted with Monks’ and Bumble’s evil despite their good fortune, and all three characters’ flaws and virtues are compared in the contradictory character of Nancy.  Through her and his other characters Dickens argues that to try and “fix” the poor is the wrong way to approach England’s growing poverty—it is the oppressive system which must be fixed, and the evil rich who run it who must be corrected.  By showing that the poor can be saved, Dickens encourages his upper class audience to help the lower class.  Monks throwing away his chance at redemption is a light threat added to Dickens’ message and broader meaning—the upper classes have sinned by hurting the lower ones, and the only way that the reader can avoid God’s wrath is to change.