Jump to content

Talk:Oliver Twist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaccurate Intro?

[edit]

I hope this doesn't seem nitpicky, but that second sentence in the intro isn't quite right. It says "The story is about an orphan Oliver Twist, who escapes from a workhouse and travels..." Actually he is sold out of the workhouse to an undertaker, and he escapes from the undertaker. Just sayin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafong (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a "stoolie" or "stoolpigeon" in American terminology). In the resolution, is this really necessary? It's not actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.252.160 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism

[edit]

There should be some discussion here of the portrayal of Fagin in the book which led to accusations that Dickens was anti-Semitic. Oddly enough there are details of this in the article about Dickens himself but not here. 194.75.128.200 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of Fagin from the book - but, admittedly, also based on movie portrayals, is that he is a criminal. His Jewish identity isn't particularly played up.
I'm not sure what our Wikipedia anti-semitism standards are, but I'd sure like to see at least (A) identification of the source (person or group) applying that label. Better yet, when possible is also (B) the reasoning they apply. Since antisemitism entails hatred of Jews, I'm always interested to know whether a stereotype or accusation is deemed to be motivated by hatred by a particular source, who gives evidence of that motivation existing; as opposed to someone simply calling a stereotype or accusation antisemitic (leaving the reader to surmise that any stereotype or criticism of Jews is motivated by hatred. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different impression - at least from the book - in that I perceived Dickens to have played up the stereotype, calling him "The Jew" repeatedly. I will grant that it is possible that he meant this more as an identifier, as authors back then tended to refer to characters other than by their given names frequently. Nonetheless, the IP editor correctly notes that extensive treatment to this topic is given in the main Dickens article, based on this particular book, as it has been academically discussed from multiple sources, so I think a complete encyclopedic treatment of this book should at least include some of that discussion. Kansan (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this, I have gone ahead and incorporated/altered some of the relevant text from Charles Dickens into the Oliver Twist article. Kansan (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Charles Dickens and placed here

[edit]

for the attention of editors.

Dickens's technique of writing in monthly or weekly instalments (depending on the work) can be understood by analysing his relationship with his illustrators. The several artists who filled this role were privy to the contents and intentions of Dickens's instalments before the general public. Thus, by reading these correspondences between author and illustrator, the intentions behind Dickens's work can be better understood. These also reveal how the interests of the reader and author do not coincide. A great example of that appears in the monthly novel Oliver Twist. At one point in this work, Dickens had Oliver become embroiled in a robbery. That particular monthly instalment concludes with young Oliver being shot. Readers expected that they would be forced to wait only a month to find out the outcome of that gunshot. In fact, Dickens did not reveal what became of young Oliver in the succeeding number. Rather, the reading public was forced to wait two months to discover if the boy lived.

If it can be sourced, it may prove useful for this article.Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikey Solomon

[edit]

Shouldn't be there a reference to the model that presumeably inspired the novel? Ikey Solomon --Bienengasse (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy goes to Rose Maylie and Mr. Brownlow to warn them.

[edit]

In what chapter does she go to Brownlow? Rose tells him.("to his great surprise") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.52.100 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Nancy seeks out Rose at the place where Monks said she would be, Mr Brownlow has returned to London and Oliver has found him, brought him to meet the Maylies. Thus he is staying at the same place as Rose, who seeks him out for support when Nancy arrives. I do not remember the chapter number, but that is the sequence of events and why Rose has him as her first choice for helping Nancy and hearing what Nancy has to say. A sentence about Brownlow being found in London was added to the Plot summary. --Prairieplant (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy? or simple hard-heartedness?

[edit]

Article text refers to the workhouse guardians as 'hypocritically' attempting to apprentice OT to the chimneysweep, and as being 'savagely hypocritical' . Nobody in the workhouse makes any pretence to be kindly; they are all officially committed to the New Poor Law doctrine of 'tough love' for paupers. Most of the features of the workhouse regime Dickens has a go at will have been specified to the guardians by the Poor Law Commission. The idea that a harsh workhouse regime was necessary (not only in the interests of society as a whole, but also in the interests of the paupers themselves) was the prevailing orthodoxy amongst political economists of the day, and sincerely held. From the point of view of the 21st century, it may well look wrong and inhuman, but that does not make its 19th century adherents 'hypocrites'. (Interestingly, OT escapes chimney-sweeping because of a kindly old magistrate - Dickens is probably making a point here, with every confidence that his contemporary readers would get it. The New Poor Law was brought in to toughen up the treatment of paupers and to exclude magistrates from poor-law administration so far as reasonably practicable, precisely because they could not be trusted not to wreck a 'tough love' policy by unwarrantable lapses into kindliness, benevolence or Christian charity (which - as any political economist worth his salt could have explained - would be counter-productive in the long run).) Rjccumbria (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oliver Twist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism

[edit]

(In the book but not the 1968 movie version) Bill Sikes murders Nancy, and attempts to flee from a pursuing mob, who ultimately are attempting to send him to the gallows in response. He attempts to escape across a roof carrying a rope;

"He set his foot against the stack of chimneys, fastened one end of the rope tightly and firmly round it, and with the other made a strong running noose by the aid of his hands and teeth almost in a second. He could let himself down by the cord to within a less distance of the ground than his own height, and had his knife ready in his hand to cut it then and drop.

At the very instant when he brought the loop over his head previous to slipping it beneath his arm-pits, and when the old gentleman before-mentioned (who had clung so tight to the railing of the bridge as to resist the force of the crowd, and retain his position) earnestly warned those about him that the man was about to lower himself down—at that very instant the murderer, looking behind him on the roof, threw his arms above his head, and uttered a yell of terror.

“The eyes again!” he cried in an unearthly screech.

Staggering as if struck by lightning, he lost his balance and tumbled over the parapet. The noose was on his neck. It ran up with his weight, tight as a bow-string, and swift as the arrow it speeds. He fell for five-and-thirty feet. There was a sudden jerk, a terrific convulsion of the limbs; and there he hung."

i.e. that symbolism that Sikes was trying to escape being hanged but in doing so was hanged anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kku re your recent revert, the real problem is the poorly written sentence: "The many symbols Oliver faces are primarily good versus evil, with evil continually trying to corrupt and exploit good, but good winning out in the end"–"good versus evil" isn't a symbol. I'll accept the link if you can reshape the sentence, so that it makes sense. Rwood128 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hummmm... poorly written it is indeed. maybe we have to retrace the development of this entire paragraph. -- Kku (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kku. I did some work on it. Rwood128 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

I have just added a section on the book's reception, which I feel is important information because it explains why the book is a classic in addition to detailing its political impact in Victorian society. However, the section is empty cos I have just added it. Feel free to edit it if u like Stephanie921 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oliver_Twist&oldid=1239723011"