Just read Jane Eyre again. (Long sigh.) It's not really the story at all that I love, though it's a great one; it's the thoughts that Jane has. She's so real. She is a flesh-and-blood Christian woman trying to make her way in the world. What's so novel about this novel is that Jane talks to God and thinks about God as a person, not an idea. Christianity for her is truly a relationship. Modern "Christian" romances throw this terminology around all over the place, talking about relationships with Jeus, etc., but for Jane to remember God when her life is falling apart, in such a personal way, is new for the 19th century. Bronte did it much better than Oake, et. al. do.
I've gotta run -- wanted to say more, but don't have time. This is why my blogs are so few and far between (5 kids will do that to a woman).
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Friday, August 04, 2006
Oliver: Too Good to be True?
At our last meeting, we were talking about how Dickens portrayed Oliver. Did he actually believe someone could be that good? Or, was he presenting us with a caricature of an innocent child, in danger of being corrupted?
In defense of Dickens' orthodoxy, I found two excerpts that might shed light on this. First of all, it looks like Oliver is meant to symbolize what is good and pure. From the "Author's Introduction to the Third Edition" I quote: "I wished to show, in little Oliver, the principle of Good surviving through every adverse circumstance, and triumphing at last..."
Secondly, Rose acknowledges the source of Oliver's goodness when she says of him "He is a child of a noble nature and a warm heart...and that Power which has thought fit to try him beyond his years has planted in his breast affections and feelings which would do honour to many who have numbered his days six times over."
In light of this, Dickens' original title, The Parish Boy's Progress makes sense. Here is a boy who tirumphs over evil. Yes, he is helped and rescued from harm, (as is Bunyan's Christian), but by the grace of God he stays on the path. Looking at it this way, I have a hard time agreeing with Susan Wise Bauer that that title would have been used satirically, but then, I haven't been agreeing with her that much lately anyway.
Thoughts, anyone?
In defense of Dickens' orthodoxy, I found two excerpts that might shed light on this. First of all, it looks like Oliver is meant to symbolize what is good and pure. From the "Author's Introduction to the Third Edition" I quote: "I wished to show, in little Oliver, the principle of Good surviving through every adverse circumstance, and triumphing at last..."
Secondly, Rose acknowledges the source of Oliver's goodness when she says of him "He is a child of a noble nature and a warm heart...and that Power which has thought fit to try him beyond his years has planted in his breast affections and feelings which would do honour to many who have numbered his days six times over."
In light of this, Dickens' original title, The Parish Boy's Progress makes sense. Here is a boy who tirumphs over evil. Yes, he is helped and rescued from harm, (as is Bunyan's Christian), but by the grace of God he stays on the path. Looking at it this way, I have a hard time agreeing with Susan Wise Bauer that that title would have been used satirically, but then, I haven't been agreeing with her that much lately anyway.
Thoughts, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)