The great coincidences of Oliver Twist... (with spoilers of it & Jane Eyre besides)
Lee John Moore
obviously mustn't have been so acutely aware of the ridiculous
coincidences back then.
I mean really: I could have let pass the chance abduction of Twist by
Nancy and Bill Sikes when he ran the errand for Mr Brownlow. But the
coincidences were so recurrent that they became absurd. Never mind that
Mr Brownlow had been acquainted with Twist's brother and Father before
they met; that the girl whose house Twist helped rob turned out to be his
sister; that Twist had a chance encounter with Monks in an Inn when he
retreated to the country with the Maylies. I didn't know whether to laugh
or cry by the time Noah Claypole and Charlotte walked all the way to
London only to pick out The Three Cripples as a place to stay. And there
are so many more coincidences besides!
To think I was so bothered by a single massive coincidence in Jane
Eyre: there was a great distance between Jane and Mr Rochester's estate
when she abandoned him, and at the point of exhaustion and starvation she
begged for help at a house that it was eventually revealed to be full of
her relatives. But at least Charlotte Brontė rendered it more a
spiritually guided destinty (the apparent ignis fatuus that led Jane to
Moor House might as well have been a guiding star).
ISTM that Dickens has no such excuse. At least I can't find anything in
the subtext that might even remotely attempt to excuse them.
--
Lee John Moore
"Beware of the Anglo Catholics - they're all sodomites with
unpleasant accents." - Evelyn Waugh (Brideshead Revisited)
delatane
large numbers of coincidences in Oliver Twist:
> ISTM that Dickens has no such excuse. At least I can't find anything in
> the subtext that might even remotely attempt to excuse them.
This is like complaining about the loud explosions in Star Trek, or
the improbability of anyone speaking in blank verse in Shakespeare, or
the lack of vocal ability in Britney Spears. In effect, it says that
Dickens has no excuse for being Dickensian.
D. Latane
p.s. this really is me; for the last month my formerly trusty pine
account won't access usenet.vcu.edu. No one knows why.
Rich Clancey
>I hadn't read Oliver Twist for at least 21/22 years (middle school) and
>obviously mustn't have been so acutely aware of the ridiculous
>coincidences back then.
I had a similar experience after about thirty years. If you
want to read Dickens, you are going to have to reconcile
yourself to some hokey plot gimmickry, frequent paens to an
embarressingly dated Victorian ideal of middle class life, and
a downright annoying lack of reference to sex, among the many
other criticisms often made over the years.
Those of us who love Dickens love him even though his work is
riddled with technical flaws like these. That said, I must add
that the coincidences in Oliver Twist were more distracting than
these technical flaws usually are.
On the other hand, you get the memorable Mr. Noah Claypole,
Mr. Bumble, Fagin, Sykes, and Monk. You rarely get that many
fascinating creeps in one novel. Plus a guy named Master
Bates. Really, should we get picky about technicalities like
the world's lamest plot?
--
rich clancey
The troublesome ones in a family are usually either
the wits or the idiots. -- George Eliot
Lee John Moore
> Lee John Moore done wrote:
>>I hadn't read Oliver Twist for at least 21/22 years (middle school) and
>>obviously mustn't have been so acutely aware of the ridiculous
>>coincidences back then.
>
> I had a similar experience after about thirty years. If you
> want to read Dickens, you are going to have to reconcile
> yourself to some hokey plot gimmickry, frequent paens to an
> embarressingly dated Victorian ideal of middle class life, and
> a downright annoying lack of reference to sex, among the many
> other criticisms often made over the years.
I knew a lot of what to expect. Apart from the Dickens I read at school,
I've read Great Expectations, A Christmas Carol, The Chimes and The
Cricket on the Hearth in the past four months alone. I read The
Old Curiosity Shop, Bleak House and Dombey and Son around ten years
ago, but admittedly, my memory of those is weak. Dickens always manages
to annoy me (that's part of his attraction) but to this degree? Never
before.
After posting, I did a lot of Googling and found references to this kind
of thing in other Victorian literature, somebody even citing Jane Eyre as
another classic example. But as indicated in the last post, at least
Bronte made Eyre's coincidental fate look more like the result of divine
intervention. As to other Victorian literature, I've very recently read *
novels by the Bronte sisters, Hardy, Conan Doyle and Wilkie Collins, and I
really can't say I've noticed anything on this scale in those. Indeed,
Wilkie Collins seemed able to contrive far more sophisticated plots than
that of Oliver Twist, with far less coincidence (a pity his friend Dickens
couldn't learn something from that).
* my current weekly reading list is here:
http://www.greatreads.co.uk/booklist.html (Everything in red is read.)
//
> On the other hand, you get the memorable Mr. Noah Claypole, Mr.
> Bumble, Fagin, Sykes, and Monk. You rarely get that many
> fascinating creeps in one novel. Plus a guy named Master Bates.
> Really, should we get picky about technicalities like the world's
> lamest plot?
I don't think it should be beyond criticism, no. I thought it started so
well, and I was really impressed at Dickens' bitter invective which seemed
deliberately aimed at the Poor Laws; the late Victorian remnants of which
I can even recall my great grandmother discussing when I was a child.
It's just a shame the political aspect seemed to weaken quite drastically
as the novel progressed and such plot holes (as the coincidences) occurred.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not unappreciative of Dickens. He's one of the
few authors who can not only trigger nostalgic trains of thought, but
change the very aspect and atmosphere of locations I'm already familiar
with. Walking my dog across the forecourt of a former Victorian Workhouse
last night, I found that Oliver Twist had given it a far more portentous,
haunting air. Not since Emily Bronte influenced the nocturnal atmosphere
of the nearby moorlands has an author had such a spine-tingling,
real-world effect.
Lee John Moore
> Lee John Moore <nor...@cafe-society.com> wrote, after citing the
> large numbers of coincidences in Oliver Twist:
>
>> ISTM that Dickens has no such excuse. At least I can't find anything in
>> the subtext that might even remotely attempt to excuse them.
>
> This is like complaining about the loud explosions in Star Trek, or
> the improbability of anyone speaking in blank verse in Shakespeare, or
> the lack of vocal ability in Britney Spears. In effect, it says that
> Dickens has no excuse for being Dickensian.
So you don't agree that the coincidences are far more prolific in OT than
his other novels then? Or does this kind of plot-hole affect his earlier
novels? Until Oliver Twist, the earliest I'd read was The Old Curiosity
Shop. In fact, my doubt about laughing or crying when Noah Claypole walked
into the Three Cripples is a feeling only matched by the death of Little
Nell. And I can think of at least one famous Dubliner who felt likewise. ;)
delatane
> One may as well being with delatane's letter to the newsgroup:
>
> > Lee John Moore <nor...@cafe-society.com> wrote, after citing the
> > large numbers of coincidences in Oliver Twist:
> >
> >> ISTM that Dickens has no such excuse. At least I can't find anything in
> >> the subtext that might even remotely attempt to excuse them.
> >
> > This is like complaining about the loud explosions in Star Trek, or
> > the improbability of anyone speaking in blank verse in Shakespeare, or
> > the lack of vocal ability in Britney Spears. In effect, it says that
> > Dickens has no excuse for being Dickensian.
>
> So you don't agree that the coincidences are far more prolific in OT than
> his other novels then? Or does this kind of plot-hole affect his earlier
> novels? Until Oliver Twist, the earliest I'd read was The Old Curiosity
> Shop. In fact, my doubt about laughing or crying when Noah Claypole walked
> into the Three Cripples is a feeling only matched by the death of Little
> Nell. And I can think of at least one famous Dubliner who felt likewise. ;)
OT was Dickens first novel, since Pickwick is neither a novel nor
intended to be a novel. While Dickens later prunes his coincidences
(and no one work argue that OT is his masterpiece anyway), the
"faults" of OT are congruent with his art, which is not "realism."
Within the context of its times it's an amazing application of
Bulwer's stupid "Newgate" mode to attack the New Poor Law (1834), and
it's a novel which somehow has managed to survive into the
21st-century. Think of it--more people today have probably seen
"Oliver!" than "Earnest!" (I can't say that says much about theatrical
taste.) So you can take OT's coincidences or leave them, but I for one
don't see much point in objecting to them based on, it would seem,
criteria from a different world.
D. Latane
Lee John Moore
>> So you don't agree that the coincidences are far more prolific in OT than
>> his other novels then? Or does this kind of plot-hole affect his earlier
>> novels? Until Oliver Twist, the earliest I'd read was The Old Curiosity
>> Shop. In fact, my doubt about laughing or crying when Noah Claypole walked
>> into the Three Cripples is a feeling only matched by the death of Little
>> Nell. And I can think of at least one famous Dubliner who felt likewise. ;)
>
>
> OT was Dickens first novel, since Pickwick is neither a novel nor
> intended to be a novel. While Dickens later prunes his coincidences
> (and no one work argue that OT is his masterpiece anyway), the
> "faults" of OT are congruent with his art, which is not "realism."
I suspected some might consider it a rejection of realism in favour of
fantasy, but it's something I find difficult to comprehend. If true,
there's a fine line between symbolism and laziness. Even if Twist's
chance encounters with Mr Brownlow, Mr Monks, and Miss Maylie were
symbolic of blood ties being so strong that they were felt before the
characters knew they existed, other utterley random but equally
spectacular coincidences (such as those involving Claypole and Charlotte)
put paid to that.
> So you can take OT's coincidences or leave them, but I for one don't see
> much point in objecting to them based on, it would seem, criteria from a
> different world.
What can I say? I'm not an intellectual. I just read the book, it's
fresh in my mind and I'm just very interested in why Dickens would do
something like that, and whether it really is dismissable as art or
laziness.
James Spencer
Moore <nor...@cafe-society.com> wrote:
> One may as well being with Rich Clancey's letter to the newsgroup:
>
>
> I knew a lot of what to expect. Apart from the Dickens I read at school,
> I've read Great Expectations, A Christmas Carol, The Chimes and The
> Cricket on the Hearth in the past four months alone. I read The
> Old Curiosity Shop, Bleak House and Dombey and Son around ten years
> ago, but admittedly, my memory of those is weak. Dickens always manages
> to annoy me (that's part of his attraction) but to this degree? Never
> before.
>
> After posting, I did a lot of Googling and found references to this kind
> of thing in other Victorian literature, somebody even citing Jane Eyre as
> another classic example. But as indicated in the last post, at least
> Bronte made Eyre's coincidental fate look more like the result of divine
> intervention. As to other Victorian literature, I've very recently read *
> novels by the Bronte sisters, Hardy, Conan Doyle and Wilkie Collins, and I
> really can't say I've noticed anything on this scale in those. Indeed,
> Wilkie Collins seemed able to contrive far more sophisticated plots than
> that of Oliver Twist, with far less coincidence (a pity his friend Dickens
> couldn't learn something from that).
This is a very very common plot ploy in Victorian literature; look at
the absurd coincidences in Pride and Prejudice. Some of it, of course,
arises from the fact that people in that class ridden era traveled in
very small circles but still, if you are going to read 19th century
British literature, you simple have to accept this part of it.
Personally, I think these books have to be evaluated ignoring the
coincidences and with that in mind, Oliver Twist deserves it's fame.
It's not just the great characters (who can forget Fagen, Sykes or
Bumble) but it is also the utterly horrifying picture of Oliver's life,
a life that Dickens understood was not all that unusual in the England
of the mid-19th Century. So what if in the end, he gives us a happy
ending through an unbelievable device: the rest of the book is what
it's all about.
Spence
--
James P. Spencer
Rochester, MN
"Badges?? We don't need no stinkin badges!"
Lee John Moore
//
> This is a very very common plot ploy in Victorian literature; look at
> the absurd coincidences in Pride and Prejudice.
A novel which, of course, wasn't written during the reign of Queen
Victoria, and whose coincidences aren't exactly on a par with Oliver
Twist. Of the coincidences I recall, they could all pertain to the
aristocratic 'small world' phenomenon you go on to discuss.
> Some of it, of course,
> arises from the fact that people in that class ridden era traveled in
> very small circles but still,
Quite, unlike Oliver Twist who was one of many paupers who didn't mix in
aristocratic circles at all until coincidence alone involved him with a
different class (who just happened to be his relations).
> if you are going to read 19th century
> British literature,
Which I have been since my childhood. Maybe it's a British thing? I
take it Americans aren't brought up on them the way we are?
> you simple have to accept this part of it.
It's not that I haven't accepted it. It's that people keep telling me how
prevalent this is in Victorian literature. I've been reading Victorian
literature for many years, but not until Oliver Twist have I found such a
ridiculous *chain* of coincidences.
> Personally, I think these books have to be evaluated ignoring the
> coincidences and with that in mind, Oliver Twist deserves it's fame.
I agree that Oliver Twist deserves its fame, but that hardly renders it
above criticism.
> It's not just the great characters (who can forget Fagen, Sykes or
> Bumble) but it is also the utterly horrifying picture of Oliver's life,
> a life that Dickens understood was not all that unusual in the England
> of the mid-19th Century. So what if in the end, he gives us a happy
> ending through an unbelievable device: the rest of the book is what it's
> all about.
I think we've just about gone full circle now.
Jim Ward
> This is like complaining about the loud explosions in Star Trek, or
> the improbability of anyone speaking in blank verse in Shakespeare, or
> the lack of vocal ability in Britney Spears. In effect, it says that
> Dickens has no excuse for being Dickensian.
Speaking of Star Trek, if someone farts before being transported down
to a planet, is the fart also transported?
delatane
> fresh in my mind and I'm just very interested in why Dickens would do
> something like that, and whether it really is dismissable as art or
> laziness.
Frantic overwork would be more probable than artistic laziness.
Dickens had seriously overcomitted himself in the late 1830s.
D. Latane
Rich Clancey
And before we change the subject to Star Trek Farts, I want
to concede that I too have found the coincidences in Oliver Twist to
be more of a flaw in that book than in any other of Dickens' works.
Youthful bad judgment and deadline pressures about covers it. If he'd
written nothing else but "Oliver", the "Sketches" and the episodic
"Pickwick", I'd have said that he was no novelist and should stick to
the short stuff. I think the next one was "Nicholas Nickleby", and
with that we're dealing with a major novelist.
A R Whitaker
something like that, but I do recall the professor's talking about
coincidences and authors' frequent asides along the order of ". . .
without which, dear reader, there would have been no story." Many
authors believed, or appeared to believe, that nothing interesting
ever happened except by coincidence. Other authors developed the idea
that ordinary lives and ordinary events an make interesting stories,
and I think that would be harder to do.
David J. Loftus
appealing that they will see them where there aren't any -- in
real life, I mean -- so I suppose the acceptability or irritation
of their relative frequency in a work of fiction is something
of a matter of taste.
David Loftus