Anthony Trollope and Charles Dickens have been part of the most successful novelists of the Victorian era. Yet, Trollope doesn’t seem to appreciate “M. Popular Sentiment”, for this is the satirical nickname he gives to Dickens in his first novel
The Warden. Two decades later (in 1876) Trollope will say in his autobiography “ It has been the peculiarity and the marvel of the man’s power that he invested his puppets with a charm that enabled him to dispense with
human nature “ . He recognizes the genius of the man, but not of the work, which is a very problematic thing; for it is admitted that the writer can’t wish for anything more when his work is so good that the reader forgets about him: the work is self-sufficient. The first ambiguity - whether this sentence was a criticism or not - is now resolved. The more a novel progresses, the more its characters are taking liberties with their acting. Writers are often surprised to realize their plans for their plot must be changed, because they feel one of their
character is “alive” and therefore surprising. Trollope reproaches Dickens with doing the exact opposite : he tried to keep control on his “puppets”, and to Trollope this seems to be a mistake. How could childhood be represented without “human nature” and what does Trollope’s remark implies in terms of writing ? First it would be interesting to develop the question of “human nature”, trying to understand what –according to Trollope- is missing to the
children of
Oliver Twist. Then, the idea of
Oliver Twist as a tale will be discussed. “Subdue your appetites, my dears, and you've conquered human nature”, said Dickens. This leads us to a fundamental question : what is human nature ? Because if it is to “subdue your appetites”, have the children of
Oliver Twist failed into this representation ? It is not certain. The affirmation of Trollope is vague, and we have to clarify it. Darwin and Rousseau have asserted that there was no “fixed” human nature. In that case, isn’t it a bit presumptuous from Trollope to decide whether a character is or not endowed with human nature ? Yet it may be possible to guess or imagine what he meant by such an expression. He must have meant that Dickens’ characters didn’t say anything true to life. They are not “realistic”, they have no “humanity”, but once again, to what exactly do those concepts refer to ? Because each writer is somehow trying to say something that is, to him, true to life. Therefore, as “human nature” is a very vast and subjective idea,
realism as well. Children in
Oliver Twist all have a characteristic that makes them each special. The reader sees one aspect in Jack Dawkins ( or The Artful Dodger, whose name is almost a metonymy) : he is resourceful; and the description that is given of him when Oliver first meets him seems surreal (p. 66) : “as dirty a juvenile as one would wish to see; but he had about him all the airs and manners of a man (…)He wore a man's coat, which reached nearly to his heels “. He is a real “character”, like the ones you can find later in Charlie Chaplin movies (for example in
The Kid, when they pretend to eat a potato when they are eating shoe soles), he has specificities in his appearance that could make a good dramatic character of him. And it is surely not “realistic”, meaning the Artful Dodger has been done to be quite
absurd, as a lot of scenes happen to be in
Oliver Twist. It is clear that the reader must be familiar (at least in literature) with some atmospheres and some situations that can be found to be dreary and/or grotesque, or he won’t find any pleasure reading such a novel. Yet, the Artful Dodger is an evidence of Dickens’ “realism”, at least in social terms. The absurdity in the Artful Dodger is used by the author to show somehow, the absurdity of poverty for a child. A character that could seem simple -is “too simple” what Trollopans by this lack of “human nature” ? – is at last the result of more complex concepts. Charley Bates is also a caricatural personnage : his eccentricity, and seeing (or imagining, for this is all about it) him laughing all the time, could make us think of a joker, or of a jester. But, as a child, he embodies an aspect of youth which exists, and which could be called part of the “human nature” , for it is recognized as being present in almost every child's life : a carefree attitude. The things he sees, the scenes he lives, seem to be part of a game. He doesn't take seriously what is around him, and is one of the only child that -almost- has a child's behaviour in
Oliver Twist. And this is not a lack of humanity from the author - is "lack of humanity" what Trollope means when he writes "to dispense of human nature?" - to show us how we -the readers- are so surprised to find such a character. Isn't it a children story ? If we are so thrown by a carefree child and his eccentricity, it is because the author has been used us to conscious and crafty children. Charley Bates is besides the only child - with Oliver Twist- who finds a way to change his life, and make something "better" of it (from a moral point of view: the author's one). Yet a complete cliché would make of him someone mean (because he laughs at people), or someone innocent (because he would be the poor child unable to understand what happens): neither of these descriptions corresponds to him. Little Dick is also an exagerated character, really pathetical. Imagining him talking deeply moves the reader on the moment. "M. Popular Sentiment" can be accused of bringing mawkish
elements in his story. Yet, where else is infant death "denounced" in the book ? "Human nature" can be less dramatic, and more restrained than what Dickens depicts here. It is true that indifference and stoicism have been at several periods in history very fashionable in literature and philosophy. Infant death because of poverty or ill-treatment was however something that had to be fought against at the time, and the best way to make people react is (unfortunately?) to move them.
More reviews about the Oliver Twist