The Pickwick Club discussion

Tristram wrote: "German is very good as a scientific language, I think, because it allows you to express virtually anything in one single word. "

I am waiting for the German novel in which each chapter consists of a single multi-page word. It seems not at all impossible.

Marren wrote: "Why do you describe them as obvious exaggeration? You believe people in their positions would not act the way they did? "

That's a fair question. I do believe that some people in their positions would act in the way that they did. What I find to be exagerrated is that it is one giant consiparacy against Oliver, that everyone who is placed in charge of him is cruel, greedy, and abusive, that none of them are afraid of any backlash, say, from the Board or the magistrate, thereby leaving us to swallow the fact that every principal involved (Mrs. Mann, every member of the Board, the Beadle, the Chimney Sweeper, the Undertaker) are all in cahoots and no one would blow the whistle on the habitual ill-treatment of a small child. It is a lot to swallow.

As a matter of fact, in the future threads, you will find me become incredulous as to the number of facts and coincidences we are asked to swallow. At least for me that should be one of the themes of this discussion: the believability of the synchronization of the events.

A quick, but interesting observation on the setting of this novel...

This book is believed to have been written in response to some important legislation passed in 1834 involving the Poor Laws. I've been tossing over a few of the details here. First of all, when the Board came up with some changes to avoid overfeeding the orphans and to separate the families so as to make the workhouse unpleasant enough to make the able-bodied men want to leave it, this was the equivalent of the Parliamentary Legislation. The Board basically reached, in the book, the same conclusions/decisions which Parliament (I am assuming, they would have been the ones to pass this bill) made in actuality.

That being said, in Chapter 3, where Oliver is threatened with being taken away as an apprentice by the Chimney Sweeper, there are several points which are not in line with the 1834 Chimney Sweeper Act. Number one, he is too young. After the 1834 legislation, the minimum age was moved from 8 years of age to 10. Number two, the magistrate was going to sign his indentures immediately. According to the 1834 Act, Oliver would have had to try it out for 2 months before the Magistrate would even consider signing the paperwork. We are given no reason to think that the magistrate is not an upstanding citizen and honourable member of the justice system. He certainly does the right thing in Oliver's case. So, we can rule out the possibility of him actually attempting to override the Law by holding the hearing in which Oliver is sent back to the workhouse. In other words, it is not like the 1834 Chimney Sweeper Act is in place, and the magistrate is going to ignore and send Oliver into that apprenticeship.

Therefore, as we read this, it appears that either these events are supposed to have taken place prior to 1834, or that the two Acts of 1834 were not actually passed (in Dickens' fictional world he has created here). Yet, he is basically making things fit the changes as they would have been after the new legislation. He has the Board pass reforms which coincide with the 1834 Poor Act. He has the magistrate alter his decision to fit what would have been proper according to the 1834 Chimney Sweeper Act.

I know these are just a few details, but I just found it interesting how Dickens handled the legislation which he was apparently dealing with in this work. And, furthermore, we are not to read these parts as if the Board and the magistrate are just going off of the 1834 legislation, they are the ones actually making these rules themselves. Very interesting!

There are several tools which Dickens uses here to get his point across. I wanted to take a second to point these out and get some feedback on the effectiveness of these tools.

Obviously, between Dickens and Cruikshank, the idea sprung that this work would open people's eyes to the plight of the poor and the orphaned. What is interesting to me is how they got the job done.

1. Entertainment & Popularity - It is as if Dickens planned his attack. He began The Pickwick Papers with light-hearted comedy until the number of readers grew to over 20,000. Then, he dropped the bomb on them. He sent Pickwick to the Fleet debtor's prison and spent several chapters describing the horrible conditions, the underhanded dealings of the warden, and the false balance of the scales of justice weighted in favor of violent criminals and handing poor, innocent debtors the short end of the stick. (Thieves and murderers were fed and clothed while the debtors were left to fend for themselves inside the prisons.)

2. The Novel as a Soap Box - Having gained the attention of the masses, he now begins to focus on the plight of the poor in general. The now Great & Powerful Boz uses his next novel to inspire action to help the poor and the orphans. He decides to use his knack for storytelling to get his point across, much like Jesus began the use of Parables to illustrate His lessons to the masses, one of which, The Good Samaritan, is brought to our attention again and again in this novel.

3. Symbolism - During the episodes, he employs many different tools of the trade to effectively deliver his point and persuade his readers into his way of thinking. In Chapter the Fourth, Bumble the Beadle displays a terrible case of the tell-tale heart. He makes the mistake of calling Oliver Twist his millstone; understanding the context from which that term was taken, we are left with the impression that Bumble is calling himself Oliver's offender. In Matthew 18:6, Jesus said that it would be better for someone to tie a millstone around his neck and be drowned, than it would be for him to offend one of "the little ones". If Oliver is the millstone, then Bumble is the offender.

4. Irony - Next, Boz uses some biting irony to sink his teeth into the unwitting Beadle. Mr. Sowerberry compliments Bumble's Good Samaritan button. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the hero actually stops on his journey to help a man who had been mugged, after several priests had turned a blind eye and passed him by. He went so far as to take the injured man to an inn and pay the innkeeper for looking after him until he returned that way. The irony of Bumble's situation is that he was given that pin to commemmorate him doing the exact opposite of what the Good Samaritan did: leaving a helpless man to die in a doorway, doing nothing whatsoever to assist him.

5. Imagery & Emotion - Finally, Dickens seeks to move his audience to action using vivid imagery which provokes feelings of compassion for the victim, and anger/outrage at the offenders. The final scene of Chapter the Fourth shows that his dinner consists of a dog's leftovers and his bed is made among the coffins.

Obviously, in these observations, I moved from the general scope of his early works and the overall working out of the plan to his actual use of literary tools to move his readers to action. Certainly, the latter part of the list could be extended to include such things as satire, sarcasm, illustrations, historical references, etc. I am just offering this up as a kind of summary of what we have discussed so far, and as food (not dog food, though) for thought.

Which literary tools do you think are most effective in persuasive writing? Why are they powerful?

What other famous works, by Dickens or others, do you think caused great changes in society?

Adam wrote: "Leaving aside artistic license for the moment, would enforcement have been made? Oliver was 9, so near the required age even after the change in legislation,but from what we know of London at that time, I have the impression that law enforcement was much less bothered by details that it is in modern times."

In my copy, reading from the original manuscript, he is 8, which under the old legislation was the minimum age requirement. His age was changed to 9 in future editions. Nevertheless, I am operating from the assumption that the magistrate is the first upstanding citizen that we meet in the book, and he seems to be going by the book, as he is the first character to actually give Oliver a say-so which is the way it was supposed to be handled. My point is that these new laws were not yet enforced (in the book) as they would have been (in reality) at the time. If they were, then the Board would not have had to come up with the new resolutions (making life miserable at the workhouses) because that would have already been seen to by Parliament. The trick is that Dickens actually has his characters implement the 1834 Acts of Parliament: the magistrate the 1834 Chimney Act; the Board comes up with the 1834 Poor Law. Interesting!

Jonathan wrote: "As a matter of fact, in the future threads, you will find me become incredulous as to the number of facts and coincidences we are asked to swallow. At least for me that should be one of the themes of this discussion: the believability of the synchronization of the events. "

I think we will find this a common thread of Dickens's novels. He relies heavily on coincidences, often unbelievable ones. (The same is true of most Victorian writers and many modern ones, though Dickens is a particular standout in relying on them.)

The theory is that his readers require a "willing suspension of disbelief."

Adam wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Hmmm, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, Adam. Do you want to say that Dickens's inexperience led him to put up the rather shaky equation of rich and vile on the one hand,..."

You are right with respect to the characters you listed, but I think that Mr. Brownlow is not as disinterested as he may seem in the first place. However, my ideas about him had better be placed into the thread following this one, just to keep things in that kind of orderliness that is dear to and that distinguishes every woman or man who lays claim to the honour of being a Pickwickian.

So let us discuss this in the next thread then.

Jonathan wrote: "Tristram wrote: "I would also not mind jumping into Seinfeld from time to time, although I'm afraid I could not put up with George too long ;-)"

Yes, I felt the same way about Seinfeld. It is very..."

Yes, you really ought to give The Big Lebowski a try. It's my favourite film ever!

Marren wrote: "Are you one of the persons who are attracted only to bold, energetic or charismatic etc characters in a novel?"

No, I would not say I was only attracted to bold, energetic or charismatic characters, but I have to admit that somebody like Edmond Dantès or even a disagreeable fellow like Wolf Larsen arouses more interest in me. The fact that I find it difficult to care for Oliver a lot, however, is not due to his being a victim and a helpless boy. What I meant by "pale" is that Oliver is not a very deep literary character but rather a stand-in for all those who suffered from the Poor Laws and its functionaries. I hope I'm not sounding too hard-hearted, but to me he lacks soul.

Everyman wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "As a matter of fact, in the future threads, you will find me become incredulous as to the number of facts and coincidences we are asked to swallow. At least for me that should be o..."

I don't really know whether I should consider Dickens's heavy reliance on coincidences a flaw or not. On the one hand, the use of coincidence is a very cheap tool when it comes to joining loose plot ends, but on the other hand, who has not ever been surprised and astonished by such coincidences in real life? They are unbelievable, but they do happen.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "German is very good as a scientific language, I think, because it allows you to express virtually anything in one single word. "

I am waiting for the German novel in which each ch..."

But even English has some words that can qualify as typically German with regard to their length, such as "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". By the way, this also makes German good for Scrabble ;-)

Tristram wrote: "Marren wrote: "Are you one of the persons who are attracted only to bold, energetic or charismatic etc characters in a novel?"

No, I would not say I was only attracted to bold, energetic or charis..."

hardhearted, ohhh noo, I did not see you in that manner. I was just curious to know why Oliver did not appeal to you.

Marren wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Marren wrote: "Are you one of the persons who are attracted only to bold, energetic or charismatic etc characters in a novel?"

No, I would not say I was only attracted to bold, en..."

That's reassuring, because sometimes things sound quite different in writing than if you say them and accompany them by facial expressions etc. - Somebody who really managed to describe the plight of a young boy, namely when he sees his father humiliated, is Dostoevsky in "The Brothers Karamasow"; here you can feel with the characters involved.

Oliver Asks for More

Oliver escapes being bound to a Sweep

Oliver plucks up a Spirit

I'm currently rereading Oliver Twist ,and have been finding your discussions very interesting. So I thought I'd add a couple of things resulting from that before reading the next chapters (and then the next thread on here.)

The Poor Law

As you know, Oliver Twist was originally published in monthly parts between Feb 1837 - Apr 1839, and this follows hot on the heels of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. It seemed a good idea to read a bit about this.

Previously it had been the duty of the parishes to care for the poor through alms and taxes. They could either go to the parish workhouse or apply for "outdoor relief", which enabled them to live at home and work at outside jobs. But the new Poor Law of 1834 grouped parishes together into unions. Each union had a workhouse, and the only help available to poor people from then on was to become inmates in the workhouse.

As Dickens tells us with bitter sarcasm in chapter 2, the workhouse was little more than a prison for the poor. Civil liberties were denied, families were separated, and human dignity was destroyed. The inadequate diet instituted in the workhouse prompted his ironic comment that,

"all poor people should have the alternative... of being starved by a gradual process in the house, or by a quick one out of it."

The Workhouse

There was some discussion as to whether Dickens might have exaggerated the conditions in the workhouses as part of his "persuasive literature" for effect.

I've been trying to find out if that's at all likely, and also if there's any actual workhouse which inspired the one in Oliver Twist. This book by Ruth Richardson, Dickens and the Workhouse: Oliver Twist and the London Poor might be worth a read. She wrote it after discovering that as a boy Dickens had lived within a mile of the "Cleveland Street Workhouse", which was very nearly demolished last year!

Part of the workhouse building continues to be maintained by the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and part of the site is also now occupied by Kier, the construction company responsible for demolishing the adjacent building. Some damage or loss of historical information may already have occurred while this was being sorted out, but it looks as if preservation of the original building is now settled.

Dickens lived in Cleveland Street from when he was nearly 3 to nearly 5 years old. But as we all know, Dickens's father was then arrested for debt and the family was forced to live inside the Marshalsea Debtors' Prison in Southwark.

The family returned to the same house in Norfolk/Cleveland Street several years later, when Dickens was nearly seventeen, and stayed until he was almost twenty. During that time, he was out at work as a young legal clerk, and training himself to become a shorthand court reporter.

Although it may have provided the idea, the Cleveland Street Workhouse was not the only model for the one in "Oliver Twist" though. Apparently he also based it on the Kettering Workhouse, in Northamptonshire, which he said had been his inspiration. The Kettering Workhouse's bad reputation for ill-treatment was apparently widely known.

Pictures of both the Cleveland Street workhouse, Dickens's childhood home, and some interesting articles (including a feature about a Dickens enthusiast from Toronto, Dan Calinescu (who apparently Peter knows!) stepping in to finance a blue plaque for the house) can be read by clicking on a link I posted (comment about 241) in the "Pickwick Club Lounge" thread.

Antisemitism and Fagin

The character of Fagin is introduced in these chapters, and this produced some comment in the group. I think one of the main criticisms of Oliver Twist has always been the antisemitism shown in the author's portrayal of Fagin as a "dirty Jew".

Sadly, it is in keeping with the time. Shakespeare had famously done this much earlier with Shylock in The Merchant of Venice in 1596, setting the play in 16th Century Venice, and it's disheartening to realise that even over 200 years later, that particular prejudice was still rife and actually ingrained into English society. With all great authors we hope that they will somehow manage to step outside the mores of their time, but maybe we expect too much.

Up to a point, Dickens did manage to do that - but only later. Apparently he expressed surprise, when the Jewish community complained about the stereotypical depiction of Fagin at the time Oliver Twist was written (1837). Dickens had befriended James Davis, a Jewish man, and when he eventually came to sell his London residence, he sold the lease of Tavistock House to the Davis family, as an attempt to make restitution. "Letters of Charles Dickens 1833-1870" include this sentence in the narrative to 1860.

"This winter was the last spent at Tavistock House...He made arrangements for the sale of Tavistock House to Mr Davis, a Jewish gentleman, and he gave up possession of it in September."

There is other additional evidence of a rethink, and we have to remember that Dickens was a very young man - still only 25 - when he wrote "Oliver Twist". When editing Oliver Twist for the "Charles Dickens edition" of his works, he eliminated most references to Fagin as "the Jew."

And in his last completed novel, Our Mutual Friend , (1864) Dickens created Riah, a positive Jewish character.

Jean wrote: "I'm currently rereading Oliver Twist ,and have been finding your discussions very interesting. So I thought I'd add a couple of things resulting from that before reading the next chap..."

very interesting. Thanks for the info.

You're welcome Jonathan. Looking at the next thread now :)

Hi Jean,

I found your information very enlightening and want to thank you for sharing it with us.

Especially the workhouse reality seems so unbelievable to the modern reader that he or she almost automatically assumes that Dickens must have exaggerated for effect. A similar situation arises with regard to the Yorkshire schools in Nicholas Nickleby although here Dickens seems to have scented the danger and forestalled it by saying in one of his forewords where he got his information from.

Tristram wrote: "Hi Jean,

I found your information very enlightening and want to thank you for sharing it with us.

Especially the workhouse reality seems so unbelievable to the modern reader that he or she almost..."

Nowadays, we have no problem swallowing a voracious cannibal, but we choke at Dickens' Beadle as being a little over the top. Realism I think does not have to be entirely realistic. Like Twain said of Huck Finn, he was drawn from life. But this does not mean that a single child could have achieved all of those mischievous feats. Similarly, the work house and the Beadle are allegorical. They represent the harsh system, as a whole, which poor children would have had to endure.

Allegorical in that Bumble? represents all the Beadles. Collectively, they could have been that treacherous.

Well we've learnt that frequently he based individual characters on actual people, haven't we, such as Ikey Solomon for Fagin and Allan Stewart Laing for Mr Fang.

I think Dickens just extrapolated the worst excesses from these people, and created his own characters from there. Sometimes it reads as if he is representing all beadles with Mr Bumble (in his "bumbling" arrogance!) and sometimes an individual.

Good point about the Yorkshire schools, Tristram :)

I comment a little on the next thread, Chapters the Eighth to the Fifteenth, but make more points on Chapters the Sixteenth through the Twenty-second. Thanks for reading and making further comments, Jonathan and Tristram :)

Tristram, reviving this discussion has me licking my chops to dovPickwick again. I say that once we finish, we begin again?

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "German is very good as a scientific language, I think, because it allows you to express virtually anything in one single word. "

I am waiting for the German novel in which each ch..."


That would be a literary treat only for the high-brow, though, as this word-combining priniciple does not work for verbs ...

Jonathan wrote: "Tristram, reviving this discussion has me licking my chops to dovPickwick again. I say that once we finish, we begin again?"

I have half a mind of joining you since I was a newcomer to the group when you were reading Pickwick and so I did not join the discussion. I would have to re-read the book, and I've never read two different Dickens novels simultaneously ...

This needs some thought, all in all ...

Tristram wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Tristram, reviving this discussion has me licking my chops to dovPickwick again. I say that once we finish, we begin again?"

I have half a mind of joining you since I was a newcom..."

For example, when we complete the last Dickens novel, then we read Pickwick again, since the group was nascent at the time and Pickwick, our namesake, didn't really get discussed.

I must say I like the idea of "going round again" too :) But it's a fair way off yet, and I'm not sure how many of Dickens's other stories and papers we'll have fitted in between.

I have only read TPP once. Happy to read it anytime. I will read in any order you guys want. Decent society and humanity issues aside, I for one don't have of follow rules. Guidelines only. I will follow the lead of those who know better!!

When it comes to bleak house... I will listen to it. One reading is all I could do. Good story but my eyeballs kept persuading my brain to wonder about. Anyone have a good narrator to recommend?

Jonathan wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Tristram, reviving this discussion has me licking my chops to dovPickwick again. I say that once we finish, we begin again?"

I have half a mind of joining you sin..."

I think it's a brilliant idea to start with PP all over again because in fact, Jonathan was the only one to really contribute to the discussions, as all the other inveterate Dickens fans here came later into the group. So we should definitely give Mr. Pickwick another chance, or rather: pay him the tribute he deserves and that is due to him, as soon as we have finished our Dickens marathon.

Tristram wrote: "I think it's a brilliant idea to start with PP all over again because in fact, Jonathan was the only one to really contribute to the discussions, as all the other inveterate Dickens fans here came later into the group."

Sounds good to me but I was wondering, if Jonathan was the only one to contribute who did he argue with and who was there to point out his grumpiness? :-}

There are certain degrees of grumpiness that need no pointing out ;-)