Oliver Twist

[3rd book of 2021. All paintings in this review by English painter John Atkinson Grimshaw.]

In a sense, with my reading of Dickens so far, a lot of his novels have felt like precursors to Great Expectations, which remains my favourite novel, of the ones I’ve read so far. This one is an interesting novel, and not entirely what I expected, despite Oliver Twist being as ingrained into the English psyche as Robin Hood. I remember, as a schoolboy, having to dress up as Victorians to visit an old manor from the era in the countryside and us all claiming to be Twist himself, with no knowledge of any other character, or perhaps, of Oliver himself. There is a photograph of me in “Victorian” clothes, standing at base of a large oak tree.


"Reflections on the Thames”—1880

Firstly, it struck me that Oliver Twist is a violent novel, for Dickens, and a novel of gritty and realist nature. In the beginning there are flashes of Dickens’ later playfulness and humour, especially throughout the whole of David Copperfield (so far his most “fun” novel), but on the whole this had a different flavour to what I’ve read so far. We enter the world of thieves, prostitutes and murderers in the backdrop of grimy, dark London streets. It put me partly, for this reason, in the mind of Grimshaw’s London paintings, which grace this review. I was also surprised by how little Oliver himself is in the novel, especially the latter half. Compared to the later works I’ve mentioned thus far, which are in the first-person, this novel moves around a lot to follow its cast of, mostly, hideous characters.


“Nightfall down the Thames”—1880

The issue I had with the middle section of the novel was the fading of Oliver’s character. Of the orphans I know so far he has been the weakest one. David Copperfield is perhaps my favourite, then Pip, and lastly, Oliver. Though we get a sense of him initially and we pity him (the oldest trick in the book: who can’t pity an orphan?) but I feel Dickens doesn’t give us much of his character to connect with. And as said previously, he seems to be removed from a lot of the book. There were moments I felt for Oliver, but I wasn’t nearly as invested, and perhaps that has to do with the third-person narrative. Either way, notwithstanding my feelings towards him, I felt annoyed that the story began spiralling further and further away from him and into the lives of the villains. When the novelist sets Oliver up as the protagonist, indeed, even names the book after him, the scenes without him feel like annoying distractions from the true tale. In the end he was missing for so long that I almost forgot about him and eventually became reinvested in the side characters, who had become more important than Twist. And although we were with a cast of villains, Dickens kept it loosely based around Oliver and his true identity, and all the mysteries of the novel.


“Evening On the Strand Looking Towards St Mary’s, London”—1892

As with most Victorian novels, the unravelling happens quickly at the end and gives a satisifying ending. The Goodreads system fails here as this stands as having the same rating as David Copperfield, which in reality is not the case. This is far inferior to that, and more so to Great Expectations. It is a short read though, for Dickens (500 pages odd) and only his second novel. We see how far he goes.

Παράδεισος είναι να διαβάζεις Ντίκενς τα Χριστούγεννα δίπλα από το τζάκι, πίνοντας σοκολάτα και τρώγοντας Lebkuchen ενώ ακούγεται στο background το σαξόφωνο του John Coltrane. Μεγάλωσα με τον Ντίκενς και τα μυθιστορήματα του σε παιδικές και εφηβικές εκδόσεις και κάθε φορά που ανοίγω εκείνα τα βιβλία με πιάνουν τα ζουμιά. Το συγκεκριμένο είναι ένα βιβλίο γνωστό σε όλους και από εκείνα που αξίζει να διαβάσει κανείς και ως ενήλικος για να ξανανιώσει έστω και για λίγο την παιδικότητα και τα συναφή συναισθήματα που στις μέρες μας συναντά κανείς περισσότερο σε ρομαντικούς ενήλικες παρά σε παιδιά και εφήβους.

Το έχω στις αγγλικές εκδόσεις Wordsworth που για αγγλόφωνους συγγραφείς είναι μια χαρά μιας και είναι πολύ φθηνό και δεν χρειάζεται και μετάφραση που πολλές φορές υποβαθμίζει το αρχικό κείμενο και χαλάει το ύφος του συγγραφέα.

5/5 χωρίς δεύτερη σκέψη

Историята е добре известна, а името Оливър Туист е нарицателно за бедно и безпомощно сираче, за онези неща, през които нито едно дете не заслужава да премине. Едва ли ще разваля ефекта от книгата като издам, че всичко свършва благополучно за малкия Оливър, а злосторниците си получават заслуженото в духа на добрите стари възпитателни традиции от викторианската епоха.

По-важното обаче е, че с този роман Дикенс насочва фокуса върху редица социални недъзи в бързо индустриализиращата се страна. От една страна, са огромния брой бедни, които обитават мръсните лондонски коптори, от друга – тогавашният морал, който не допуска в доброто общество извънбрачни деца и “съгрешилите” им майки. Имаме и много близък графичен поглед към престъпния свят и неговите класически представители – крадци, изнудвачи, убийци, сводници. Тези обитатели на подземен Лондон (където днес са скъпите жилищни райони) са изтипосани като тотални карикатури от Дикенс, с почти анимацонни щрихи в стил Дисни-злодей. Влиянието на тези образи е много силно в попкултурата, само си спомнете за британската група Artful Dodger, която носи името на един от героите – джебчията, чието име е преведено на български като Хитрата лисица.

Наред с това, Дикенс не пропуска нелицеприятния образ на “институциите”, призвани да се грижат за социалните маргинали – приютите за бедни и сиропиталищата към енориаршиите, злоупотребите на персонала в тях и цялостното отношение на обществото към въпроси, които днес определяме с елегантни изрази като социално неравенство и социално изключване. Доколкото долових и определени християнски послания за великодушие и милосърдие към “греха” да си беден и изпаднал, Дикенс поставя идиректно интересни въпроси, на които едва ли и днес има отговор. А именно, доколко мизерното съществуване може да се вмени в отговорност на този, който го понася, или е нещо, което сполетява човека като болест, продукт на лош късмет.

Нямам отговор. Само знам, че от всички несправедливости по света считам тези срещу деца за най-лошия вид. Затова и премеждията на малкия сирак Оливър заиграват и днес по жалостивата струна на нашата природа.

*Read it for school and decided to re-read it because I just loved this book so much!

This book is worth re-reading again and again!
I really love this classic, although it is so miserable and sad.
I promise I will write a review for it after exams.

The film is better. There I said it. It has taken me five years to read this book, five whole years.

To me that says a lot. I just could never get into it. Perhaps if I’d not seen the film I would have enjoyed the story more. I may have seen the charmless characters as part of Dickens attack on society and its lack of social justice. Instead I just saw them for what they were: charmless.

There’s just a certain lack of life within these pages. Oliver, the protagonist, is somewhat unlikable himself. And that’s odd. He just did not have a great deal about him other than a child’s curiosity and a will to survive on the harsh streets of Victorian London. I sympathised with him where I could, I felt sorry for his situation, though I never liked him. So that made the book hard to read from the start. I was not remotely invested in him.

For example if you compare this to another popular work of the era Jane Eyre, you will see how poor Dicken’s characterisation is. From the get go the reader is made to care for Jane and her plight. Her story drives the narrative forward. The social obstacles she faces feel like obstacles; they don’t define the story: she does. With Oliver I felt like it was the other way round and I simply could not enjoy the book as a result.

You have no idea how relieved I was to finish this today. My battle is over. I was determined to finish it. Getting through Ulysses was easier than this.

This was the first Dickens novel I ever finished. (Edit to add: actually my second. My first was associated with a major failure at leading a group read on the internet, so I guess I suppressed it.) I did have Great Expectations assigned in college twice, but as I wasn't a particularly diligent student, and was an even more excruciatingly slow reader than I am today, I didn't get past the first few dozen pages either time. So for me it's quite an accomplishment to have finished this, even though it's one of the shorter ones.

People today don't have a lot of patience with melodrama, and there's a fair amount of it in Oliver Twist. The representatives of the workhouse bureaucracy, the murderers and thieves, the beneficent strangers, and--of course--angelic child Oliver himself, all could come under a contemporary reader's criticism for being absurdly over the top, showing us characters we are too-obviously expected to love or hate. It took a while for me to appreciate it, too, but with the wicked characters especially, eventually it was easy to fall into the often near-hallucinogenic drama of it all.

At this point, I'm more critical of the "good" characters, who are nowhere near as interesting to follow as the "bad" ones. There are a couple of long passages about Rose in particular, that drift dangerously close to mawkishness in their depiction of a perfectly perfect young woman. Thanks to the discussion in the Dickensians! group read, I was better able to understand the probable origins of these passages in Dickens' own experiences, and be more tolerant of them.

The character that stood out the most for me, over and above Mr. Bumble, Fagin, Bill Sikes, the Dodger, et al., was Nancy. She had to have been a challenging character for readers to relate to in her time. For me today, she came across as someone who's able to rise above her circumstances, and become more heroic than Oliver could ever aspire to, because of the action she took despite the dangers she was facing.

The flow of the book is a bit off, largely due, I gather, to the circumstances behind its serialization. It's a kind of three-act affair:

Act I: a funny, horrible, and sometimes bawdy section featuring Oliver's early life at the workhouse and at a couple of workplaces outside it.
Act II: Oliver vacillates back and forth between comfortable surroundings and awful ones.
Act III: a somewhat boringly-presented mystery, the madness of crowds, and a number of happy and terrible (and sometimes very violent) ends.

Though each has its strengths, I'd give the nod to my "Act III" because it's more nuanced, and because the last sentence or two of the novel nearly made me cry despite my 21st-century cynicism. My understanding is that Dickens edited Oliver Twist a number of times, but in my opinion, he never managed to create an entirely coherent piece out of it. Many individual parts of it are excellent, though.

9/25/2023: added a "read" date to reflect my having read the supplementary material after the novel. I don't have much commentary on the commentary, except to say that it was interesting to see interpretations from different decades, and dealing with different aspects of the novel. Reading this material extended my Oliver Twist "reading hangover" by reinforcing my memories of some of the more striking passages in the book. On the whole, I see this book as being by a relatively young author, not 100% in control of his material, his id, or his quirks, but already having the ability to draw in an audience and keep them there.

I'll take a short break from Dickens, then complete my read-through of Bleak House (including the supplementary material in the Norton edition), which was interrupted when the "Dickensians!" group read of this book started.

چارلز دیکنز با بهره گیری از فضا و معضلات جامعه ی زمان خود اولیورتویست را می افریند،داستانی ساده و نسبتا گیرا،هر چند شخصیت ها عمدتا سیاه و سفیدند و چندان پردازش نشده اند اما نمایش خوبی از زشتی و زیبایی های جامعه انسانی ست برای مخاطب نوجوان..
گاه لذت بخش است که به کتاب های دوره کودکی برگردیم و اینبار با نگاهی متفاوت آنها را بخوانیم..

Oliver Twist could stand on the strength of its colorful characters alone. Dickens used his insightful eye to take in and store away all the images he was seeing in London's poorer neighborhoods back in the days when his own family found themselves in and out of the debtor's prison, always on the verge of utter ruin.

However, the book is more than just interesting characters. It's a wonderfully enthralling tale to boot, seldom slowing down for long stretches. Certainly there is melodrama, but even the most harden heart has to melt just a little for poor little Oliver, his slender shoulders so often put-upon.

The author is sometimes criticized for these characters' outlandishness or dramatic flights of fancy. Cantankerous comedy and theatrical bombast aside, surely colorful personages parade about from page to page, but if that's what Dickens saw on the streets he so often tread in his youth, how can he be blamed for describing them so realistically? More valid in my mind are the criticisms against Dickens' female characters. His heart-of-gold prostitute Nancy feels a bit flat, her lines too scripted. But perhaps this is an unfair, modern sensibility seeing something old and haggard within something that was not so hackneyed in its day? And since Oliver Twist was one of the author's very first works, the condemnation should be tempered in consideration.