ChatterBank1 min ago
Oliver Twist
8 Answers
Is this a story about Fagin?
Or about Oliver?
Who is the central character?
Or about Oliver?
Who is the central character?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To have a truly valid opinion on your good question requires a knowledge of the author, Charle Dickens own history and its influence on the story and characters. Seen through that lens, one would have to conclude that the story is autobiographical in nature. Dickens was born into the poorest of poor families in Victorian England (as I'm sure you already know) and was thrown into debtor's prison, only to emerge with spirit intact and was able, nearly miraculously given the times and culture, to pull himself up by his bootstraps to become the fine and respected author for which he is known.
Oliver is a pseudo Dickens, in my opinion. Certainly, only one that experienced such a childhood could write so excruciatingly about it. (Even considering Dr. John Waller's supposed expose').
In my opinion, movies and plays have often portrayed Oliver as a pawn and only capable of reacting to his situations rather than the naturally resourceful and sefl-reliant kid that he was in the novel and this colors our modern sensibilities as to the nature of the novel...
Oliver is a pseudo Dickens, in my opinion. Certainly, only one that experienced such a childhood could write so excruciatingly about it. (Even considering Dr. John Waller's supposed expose').
In my opinion, movies and plays have often portrayed Oliver as a pawn and only capable of reacting to his situations rather than the naturally resourceful and sefl-reliant kid that he was in the novel and this colors our modern sensibilities as to the nature of the novel...
I'm not sure the victiomhood you perceive is anything that Dickens and his character Oliver could relate to. I believe that function is primarily an invention of the 21st century mind that seeks to find refuge in being the set upon individual that requires something larger, such as government to "save" or rescue him.
Oliver is self reliant, but has the ability to use those around him, such as Fagin to survive and even thrive, just as did Dickens.
Don't overlook the fact that Fagin was clearly a Jew and his character reflects the attitudes of that society towards Jewishness that wasn't very flattering. The antiSemitism so rampant in the first edition of the novel was toned down in subsequent editions by Dickens. (I've a friend who has a valuable First Edition). Some speculation exists that the character is, again, based on a real life personage with whom Dickens had experience in his youth... (Rambling sentences are clearly du jour, no?)
Oliver is self reliant, but has the ability to use those around him, such as Fagin to survive and even thrive, just as did Dickens.
Don't overlook the fact that Fagin was clearly a Jew and his character reflects the attitudes of that society towards Jewishness that wasn't very flattering. The antiSemitism so rampant in the first edition of the novel was toned down in subsequent editions by Dickens. (I've a friend who has a valuable First Edition). Some speculation exists that the character is, again, based on a real life personage with whom Dickens had experience in his youth... (Rambling sentences are clearly du jour, no?)
I am dragging this from the mists of time as it is a good length of time since I read the book. I don't think I agree with Clanad. I don't think Oliver was self reliant, he was very much a "victim" outside forces within his control ie the Poor Law. Yes, he survived but that was down to luck as much as anything.
Fagin was a hugely important character and in the films predominates. can't remember if this is so in the book
Fagin was a hugely important character and in the films predominates. can't remember if this is so in the book
Hi Rosetta ... x
I think that that is also the case in the book (Fagin being a central character ... if not THE central character).
Despite the title, I wonder if the book is really about Fagin, and Oliver Twist is a vehicle used by Dickens to illustrate certain aspects of Fagin's character, and various facets of the world within which Fagin exists.
Ultimately, Dickens passes judgment on that world. Whilst in the film, Fagin dances off with Dodger, having decided that he'd "better think it out again", in the book, Fagin is hanged.
I think that that is also the case in the book (Fagin being a central character ... if not THE central character).
Despite the title, I wonder if the book is really about Fagin, and Oliver Twist is a vehicle used by Dickens to illustrate certain aspects of Fagin's character, and various facets of the world within which Fagin exists.
Ultimately, Dickens passes judgment on that world. Whilst in the film, Fagin dances off with Dodger, having decided that he'd "better think it out again", in the book, Fagin is hanged.
Dickens uses the characters and situations in the book to make a pointed social commentary, attacking the hypocrisy and flaws of institutions, including his society's government, its laws and criminal system, and its methods of dealing with poor people. Dickens basically believed that most people were good at heart but that their good impulses could be distorted by social ills.
Throughout the novel, Dickens uses Oliver's character to challenge the Victorian idea that paupers and criminals are already evil at birth, arguing instead that a corrupt environment is the source of vice. Oliver was well spoken compared to the cockney scraggamuffins in the gang. He was also 'appalled' that they actually robbed people for a living.
We must also remember Dickens� audience. To us, his social criticism might have been more effective if he had focused on a more complex poor character, like the Artful Dodger, Fagin or Nancy, but the audience may not have approved (a thief, a jew and a prostitute?). Dickens's Victorian middle-class readers were likely to hold opinions on the poor (and Jews) that were only a little less extreme than those expressed by Mr. Bumble, the beadle who treats paupers with great cruelty. Oliver Twist was criticized for portraying thieves and prostitutes at all. Given the strict morals of Dickens's audience, it may have seemed necessary for him to make Oliver a saint-like central figure to appeal to the masses. Making Fagin a central character � albeit covertly � rather than a low class thieving Jew would probably have lead him to be strung up himself.
The Victorians loved the idea of a poor little rich boy being abandoned and abused (against his better morals) to the wiles and whim of the lower classes and "crafty" Jew population, and then finally bought back from his own odyssey to his 'proper' societal status. That being, Oliver, probably was the central character at the time.
Throughout the novel, Dickens uses Oliver's character to challenge the Victorian idea that paupers and criminals are already evil at birth, arguing instead that a corrupt environment is the source of vice. Oliver was well spoken compared to the cockney scraggamuffins in the gang. He was also 'appalled' that they actually robbed people for a living.
We must also remember Dickens� audience. To us, his social criticism might have been more effective if he had focused on a more complex poor character, like the Artful Dodger, Fagin or Nancy, but the audience may not have approved (a thief, a jew and a prostitute?). Dickens's Victorian middle-class readers were likely to hold opinions on the poor (and Jews) that were only a little less extreme than those expressed by Mr. Bumble, the beadle who treats paupers with great cruelty. Oliver Twist was criticized for portraying thieves and prostitutes at all. Given the strict morals of Dickens's audience, it may have seemed necessary for him to make Oliver a saint-like central figure to appeal to the masses. Making Fagin a central character � albeit covertly � rather than a low class thieving Jew would probably have lead him to be strung up himself.
The Victorians loved the idea of a poor little rich boy being abandoned and abused (against his better morals) to the wiles and whim of the lower classes and "crafty" Jew population, and then finally bought back from his own odyssey to his 'proper' societal status. That being, Oliver, probably was the central character at the time.
It was only his second novel and he wrote it in monthly parts - in fact he was still doing the same with the first one, Pickwick, when he started; and I think it overlapped with the writing of Nicholas Nickleby towards the end. So he wasn't yet very experienced and though he seems to have had the general outline of the plot in his head he was making up the details as he went along. At the start, Oliver is the central character, and the title indicates this was always Dickens' intention. But he tended to get sidetracked occasionally and concentrate on other characters (he left Oliver lying in a ditch for three months at one stage) and Fagin is one of these. Dickens's villains were at least as interesting as his heroes; Fagin's memorable, while Oliver himself is more a type of an innocent child than a complex character. Dickens used him to show the perils of Victorian life, but he doesn't really have a solution; all he can hope is that some nice rich man like Pickwick or the Cheerybles or Brownlow turns up and makes everything all right again. None the less, Fagin and Sykes get what's coming to them, and the book returns to Oliver at the end as must always have been Dickens' intention. So yes, I think he's the central character to the story Dickens was telling, even if he's not the one you remember most vividly. Fagin may be colourful but that doesn't make him central.
1 to 8 of 8
