Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

“In spite of Nancy’s murder, Fagin is a greater villain than Sikes
...

Villainy and criminality in ​Oliver Twist ​can almost be used interchangeable however to
describe the difference between the two main antagonists, Fagin and Bill Sikes, it is
essential to look at their differing roles in the text and how Dickens uses these to impact
the plot and the reader
...
​The
readers at the time might know the association between the Jewish religion and money
and perhaps the undertones of dishonesty
...
All of those having been previously unavailable to Oliver, for example at the
workhouse at Christmas he had only been able to have​ two ounces and a quarter of bread
besides
...
Oliver isn't going to get the formal education a young boy
would expect, instead he is forced by Fagin into a world where he doesn’t belong,
illustrated by the fact his belief that the criminal slang ​pad the hoof ​must be ​french for
going out
...

Fagin’s villainy in the novel can be put down to the fact he is a child abuser and does it for
his own gain at the expense of the boys’ future and particularly Oliver
...
By using small boys he is
able to condition them into becoming the ​greatest man ​they can be when really he is
unfairly robbing them of their childhood to the extent that the description of the Artful
Dodger becoming a man by wearing a ​man’s coat which reached nearly to his heels’ ​is a
comical and out of place sight
...
​Dickens uses this to show how Oliver is reacting to this situation, it is only after his
kidnapping that we realise the lengths Fagin is willing to use in order to protect his
operation
...
Although not directly hurting Oliver in
this instance, it is suggested he did pay for Sikes assistance as the housebreaker ​plucked
the note from between the Jew’s finger and thumb
...
Sikes is the brute hand that ​seized Oliver by the collar ​and was
not afraid to be seen publicly with Nancy whereas Fagin is the one that pays them for their
share of the trouble
...
​His ego mythologised
himself like the newspapers that prevailed in Dickens’ time or it could be interpreted as just
stories, a work of fiction that ​wily old Jew ​tells his workforce
...
Noah is already impressed by his introduction of the
criminal world as it fits his elitist outlook on the ‘society’ with his plans of robbing​ women’s
ridicules, houses, mail-coaches, banks, ​and Fagin when he hears the praise of Noah
begins to explain his setup by ​blending truth and fiction together, as best served his
purpose
...

Yet somehow Fagin’s use of his wits and intelligence in his manipulation of his gang is
what makes his villainy worse, without his network he would be nothing
...
It could be seen as a form of abuse, he makes
the boys feel a ​pride in their profession ​as if they were skilled craftsman and not simply, in
the case of Noah Claypole later on in the text, stealing ​three pint pots and a milk-can ​from
an empty street
...
The Victorian morality the
readers at the time had may have meant they would have been offended by the
comparison between the two and therefore see Fagin as committing more moral crimes
against the poor boy that already in the past hadn’t been able to pray because ​nobody had
taught him ​yet by the end is shown to be almost the pinnacle of Christian morals as he
prayes with the villain at the end of his days shouting ​Oh! God forgive this wretched man
...
​ ​His supposed care for his ‘Pupils’ is a complete lie and this is
shown as he ​prepared [Oliver’s] mind by solitude and gloom to prefer any society to
companionship of his own sad thoughts ​and his regular beatings if they come home empty
handed
...
The use of poison is interesting as it can be seen as a cunning and underhand
way of achieving his means which later on in the novel he wonders if Nancy would ​consent
to poison ​Sikes
...
Yet Fagin

is hypocritically happy to use this method against young boys in order to gain his own
advantage
...
Even Sikes towards the end of the
text feels his guilty conscious due to what some more spiritual readers could see as
Providence
...

His villainous life has overtaken every other aspect, although surrounded by ‘pupils’ that
idolise him in his home, he is alone without a lover like Sikes had Nancy so much so that
even after his trial there ​was nobody there to speak to him
...


To conclude, I believe that in terms of the role of characters in ​Oliver Twist​, Fagin is the
main villain due to his deliberate and malicious treatment of Oliver who is the protagonist
and who Dickens has intentionally written as the poor parish boy we want to see succeed
...
Even after he ​beat [his pistol] twice with all the force he could
summon ​Sikes still needed to - despite the horror he recognised at the scene - ​seize a
heavy club and struck her down ​ensuring her death
...
Fagin and Sikes are similarly
punished mentally, with Sikes running from the prying eyes that ​appeared in the midst of
the darkness ​and followed him even to the end of days leading to the chapter ​Pursuit and
Escape
There is importance in the chosen title of the chapter,​ ​Sikes cannot continue trying to
escape from what he has done, so the only escape Dickens makes available to him is
death
...

In contrast, the true villain of the text cannot escape true legal justice like the criminal
Sikes
...
Fagin demise
mirrors that of insanity with him being struck down in ​paroxysm of fear ​that left him more
like a ​snared beast than a man​ rather than Sikes stoicism to avoid the justice system
...


To what extent do you agree with the view that by the end of Book 1 Oliver has
become a criminal
...
Throughout his short life Oliver has
been told he is a criminal by society yet he is a victim of the supposed punishment for his
crimes that hinder his normal development
...


The society around Oliver has a preconception that the young boy is a criminal
even before he becomes involved in the criminal world as they see that his status
as a pauper means he is a criminal
...
The higher class only
see the poor as an inconvenience to them with no purpose in their society yet the
irony is that many of them are driven to crime because of their socio-economic
situation and the lack of help from the ‘porochial’ workhouse
...
This lack of fundamental care could even be a
reason they resort to crime in the first place
...
Oliver is innocent yet
subjected to Mr Fang, whose very name suggests an animalistic and inhuman
nature, who sees Oliver as a “hardened scoundrel”
...

However the fact that Dickens openly criticized the justice system by presenting the
characters within it in an unfavourable light with comic aspects is supposed to make
the reader question whether they are actually making the correct decisions
...
Also
by making the abusers of Oliver, such as “Mister” Noah Claypole, unlikeable by his
need to punish Oliver for his crime of being a pauper by various “administered
kicks” some readers can see it as unjust treatment
...
By giving us a range
of reactions to Oliver’s position it helps the reader to form their own views of

Oliver’s potential criminality
...
Therefore the readers are more likely to agree with the view
that Oliver is not a criminal at the beginning of his childhood
...
” The entire first book has lead up to this final moment, it could be seen as
the moment all the talk of Oliver being a criminal comes true
...

It is important to note that Oliver did not know the final intention or destination of the
journey in previous chapters
...
Sikes alighted and, taking Oliver by the
hand, they once again walked on​
...
I believe that the action of Sikes’ taking
Oliver’s hand is significant, Oliver is not choosing to take part in criminal activity, the
normal protective instinct behind holding hands of a child has been replaced
deliberately with the intimidating “stoutly-built” Bill Sikes with “scowling eyes”
leading Oliver directly into danger
...

When Oliver finally understands what is going on he decides to “make one effort to
dart up the stairs and alert the family”, not caring if “he died in the attempt or not”
...
It certainly does not fit with Bill Sikes threats of
“Get up, or I’ll strew your brains upon the grass”
...
It
seems almost impossible to compare the ‘criminal’ behaviour of Oliver to the
brutality of Sikes of “assailing the animal most furiously” “snapping, growling and
barking”
...


In conclusion by the end of Book One, Oliver is a criminal in the eyes of the unjust
justice system at the time for breaking and entering a house but not for the act of
being born a pauper that they punish him for in his early years
...




---