Posted on 12/29/2004 12:16:43 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
When you hear the name Charles Dickens, what comes to mind? A Christmas Carol? Sentimental tales of poor but loving families, or helpless orphans saved by wealthy benefactors? All of those impressions are accurate, but there’s a lot more to Dickens than that. In fact, there’s a lot more to this great novelist than even many literary critics have been able to see.
Author, editor, and critic Myron Magnet suggests that this is because so many readers and critics bring their own preconceptions to their reading of Dickens (along with many other authors). As Professor Lilia Melani of Brooklyn College summarizes, “Because of Dickens’s moral outrage and his attacks on society’s institutions and values, later critics, who were often Marxists, hailed him variously as subversive, rebellious, and even revolutionary.”
But in a provocative book Dickens and the Social Order, that’s recently been reissued, Magnet makes the point that Charles Dickens—the passionate reformer and champion of the downtrodden, a man usually hailed by modern liberals as one of their own—was actually more of a traditionalist than many people realize. Indeed, Dickens, with his emphasis on the reality of fallen human nature and the importance of families, echoed themes we have found to be so important in the lives of children and in keeping them out of a life of crime.
For example, Dickens lived in an age when many philosophers and writers promoted the inherent goodness of human beings, especially human beings unspoiled by civilization. But Dickens was completely unconvinced by that utopian idea. In an essay that can only be described as politically incorrect today, he wrote bluntly, “I have not the least belief in the Noble Savage. I consider him a prodigious nuisance, and an enormous superstition. . . . If we have anything to learn from the Noble Savage, it is what to avoid.” While Dickens had his doubts about civilized society, he viewed it as vastly desirable compared to the alternative.
That has left some critics wondering whether Dickens was not attacking society at all, but rather fallen human nature. That suggests that Dickens—radical as he was in some ways—would have very little in common with the kind of reformers today who operate by putting all the blame for society’s ills on someone else.
Magnet also demonstrates that Dickens’s attitude toward human nature is at the root of his strong belief in the need for families. In Barnaby Rudge, for example, the fatherless, untaught, and undisciplined characters are naturally inclined toward villainy, not saintliness. They have, as Magnet puts it, “undeveloped or defective souls” and “built-in . . . aggressiveness.” This illustrates why even imperfect families play a vital role in restraining the young from giving in to their worst impulses and teaching them to function in society.
In short, Magnet makes a strong case that radical critics who have seen in Dickens a reflection of their own political views have missed a great deal of what he had to say. It just goes to show the trap that even the most intelligent and educated readers can fall into. It takes more than intelligence to be a good reader—it also takes discernment, humility, and a willingness to listen to other people, beginning with the author. Without those qualities, reading can be downright dangerous.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
C'est la vie.
Not trying to be thread police... just thought I'd allow folks seeing this for the first time to join in the existing commentary...
This is slightly changing the subject; but did you know that Charles Dickens wrote a book titled,(I think!)"The Life Of Our Lord"? Like I said, I think that's what it was titled! :) Anyway, he wrote it for his children only!
He made a stipulation that they could only publish it when his children had died, or otherwise had finished reading it. Finally, it was published, sometime in the late 19th, early 20th century. I don't think it even was as well known, or a popular as many of his other novels were!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.