Great Expectations Essay, Research Paper

Oliver Twist

In Oliver Twist, Dickens shows that only Oliver remains untainted by evil despite the ill-treatment he receives, and the darkness and corruption that surround him chiefly as a result of his goodness and “sturdy spirit” (Oliver Twist, Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1974: 49, hereafter referred to as OT). Fagin fails to instill “into his soul the poison” which he hopes will “blacken it forever” (OT: 185). By contrast, the blackening” process seems to have affected most of the other characters in the novel. Bumble, the exemplar of workhouse injustice, cannot rise above muddle and perverse official thinking. Magistrate Fang, the exemplar of workhouse injustice, irrationally and arbitrarily abuses his authority. The New Poor Law has transformed the workhouse, an institution originally designed to help the poor, into a house of punishment; and callous officials like Bumble and Fang have contrived to make conditions worse. Hardened criminals such as Fagin and Bill Sikes thrive; this is a world devoid of humanity and social justice. Dickens makes his intentions clear in the preface to the Third Edition of Oliver Twist: “[I intend] to draw a knot of such associates in crime as really do exist; to paint them in all their deformity, in all their wretchedness, in all the squalid poverty of their lives” (OT: 34). The thieves and assorted underworld characters in this novel are full of wretchedness and misery. They did not become criminals of their own volition: unless slums were cleared, one could not expect any moral improvement in their lives.

To survive in this world, one must either be rich, or be sufficiently strong to preserve one’s essential goodness of heart. As a “parish child”, Oliver is “a half-starved drudge – to be cuffed and buffeted through the world – despised by all, and pitied by none”, the “victim of a systematic course of treachery and corruption” (OT: 47). Yet despite Fagin’s attempts to turn him into a thief, Oliver remains uncorrupted by crime; ultimately he is thrown into the arms of Brown low (who helps him to recover his fortune), and subsequently encounters the angelic Rose, who turns out to be his aunt. Despite the ill treatment meted out to him in Fagin’s den, Oliver nonetheless prays for his forgiveness, once the Jew is taken into custody.

But can the other characters in the novel remain equally pure in intention? Oliver’s mother, Agnes, indulged her sexual desires; and as her lover died before they had the chance to marry, she had to suffer the inevitable consequences – penury and humiliation. Nancy, a prostitute since childhood, is bound to Bill Sikes, not only emotionally but also financially; and considers herself irredeemable, despite the fact that the narrator suggests that she is not totally corrupt. She fails to see that her guilt is socially imposed. When she attempts to help Oliver, this act of generosity leads to her death. The implication is clear; if Nancy could have been extricated from the corrupting influences around her, she might have had the chance to reform. However, in this indifferent, callous world of nineteenth century London, no one had thought of helping her – something which, as Reed suggests, provides an indictment of the largely middle-class Church of England and its adherents (Dickens and Thackeray: 78), which believe that working-class prostitutes such as Nancy are irredeemable.

It seems that Rose Maylie might be thought of as much the same kind of person; she is illegitimate and thus not able to enter respectable society. However, her compassionate, forgiving spirit gradually comes to dominate the narrative. Her first significant act is to protect the injured Oliver from the criminal underworld. She subsequently joins forces with Brownlow; all of them are saved; and Rose herself learns the truth about her parentage. Just like Oliver, she achieves a kind of ‘victory’, by solving the mystery of her own birth (Dickens and Thackeray: 79), as she discovers she is not illegitimate through the sister of the fallen Agnes. Clearly Oliver Twist suggests that redemption from evil is possible, so long as one remains true to one’s generally good intentions. However, those who transgress have to suffer punishment – hence Agnes dies, and Nancy is murdered, despite their attempts to redeem themselves.

The conscious injustice and the crimes of Fagin, Bill Sikes and their group have to be punished more severely. Justice is meted out to Mr. Bumble through his marriage to Mrs. Corney for money, and his marriage precipitates a fall “from all the height and pomp of beadle ship, to the lowest depths of the most snubbed henpeckery” (OT: 328). Both Mr. and Mrs. Bumble become paupers in that same “workhouse in which they had lorded it over others” (OT: 477). Monks is not a criminal by profession; but nonetheless attempts to prize Oliver’s inheritance away, by virtue of the fact that both have the same father. He eventually dies in prison after squandering his share of the inheritance, and being involved in fraud (OT: 476).

At first glance, Fagin’s criminal underworld seems to resemble a charitable institution, in that it offers food and protection for several waifs. But behind this facade lurks an atmosphere of unrestrained exploitation. As in the state of England as a whole, the sense of community in the thieves’ den is informed by self-interest, or, in Fagin’s words, regard for the “number one” (OT: 387). Fagin realized that it is this philosophy that drives his thieves to crime; but it also ensures their survival as a unit. He tries to explain this to Clay pole:

You depend upon me. To keep my little business snug, I depend upon you. The first is your number one, the second my number one. The more you value your number one, the more careful you must be of mine; so … a regard for number one holds us all together (OT: 388).

If anyone forgets this notion, then punishment is swift and savage. Nancy is punished for her acts of generosity; Oliver is threatened, locked up and called ungrateful for wanting to lead a crime-free life. Fagin himself approves of capital punishment, as it is a convenient way to dispose of potential informants. Such punishments are meted out by Bill Sikes, a hardened criminal who bullies and terrifies the boys, and eventually murders Nancy. None of these characters escape Dickens’ retributive punishments. Haunted by Nancy’s phantom, Sikes accidentally hangs himself – a death whose self-punishing nature, as Reed remarks, is accentuated by his belief that Nancy’s eyes appear before him, thus causing him to slip (Dickens and Thackeray: 81). Fagin’s den is eventually discovered; and the Jew himself is sentenced to execution, allowing him plenty of time for possible repentance. Instead he is filled with despair at the prospect of death. Although aware of his guilt, he feels no repentance, only fear at having to pay the price for his actions by death. Fagin’s authority was once founded on fear; according to the retributive scheme of the novel, it is appropriate that he himself should experience suffering and fear, prior to death.