Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Transcription

1 Truth and Persuasion: The Language of Realism and of Ideology in "Oliver Twist" Author(s): Michal Peled Ginsburg Source: NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, Vol. 20, No. 3, Twentieth Anniversary Issue: III (Spring, 1987), pp Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: Accessed: :52 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction

2 Truth and Persuasion: The Language of Realism and of Ideology in Oliver Twist MICHAL PELED GINSBURG The representation of speech in a novel can be seen as the point in which r alism reaches perfection: since the represented object and the represen medium are one and the same-language-the very distinction between dium and object which is at the basis of representation but which represen tion also seeks to camouflage, if not to obliterate, is no more. From a dual which is always also a duplicity and a lie, we move to simplicity and tr We know, however, that an author does not "transcribe" (faithfully or fully or in an abbreviated form) the speech of characters since characters fictive, made up by the author, and their speech does not exist anywhere except on the page of the novel. Instead of speaking of "realism" we hence to speak of "realistic effect," that is to say, the manipulation of guage to create a certain impression. But there is more still: When in read for example, War and Peace-a novel in which large portions of the text are French-we notice that Napoleon speaks to his soldiers in Russian,2 we to conclude that the representation of speech is not only-and maybe even primarily-controlled by mimetic considerations but is also determ by compositional constraints. We can say that the reason for the Russian a tocracy speaking French is mimetic-it reaches towards a closing of the gap representation, it aims at accurate imitation, at truth; when Napoleon spea Russian, on the other hand, we are no more in the realm of realism and tr but rather in the realm of persuasion and rhetoric, which is another w saying that the author has some compositional purpose for which the rend ing of speech in a particular fashion is but a tool. I will call this latter way rendering speech figurative, or rhetorical, while the first one will be called contrast, literal or mimetic. Oliver Twist is in some respects similar to War Peace. We can say that the representation of the slang (or cant) of the crim nals obeys a mimetic logic or, as Dickens himself said in the Preface, is signed to "show [the dregs of life] as they really were" (though note moral qualification "so long as their speech did not offend the ear" and complementary, this time positive, moral aspect, that this "would be a ser to society").3 But the representation of Oliver's speech, as critics notic long time ago, cannot be understood in the same way. When Oliver sp 1 An earlier version of this paper was delivered as a lecture to the "Dickens Universe," University of California, Sant August, I would like to thank the faculty, graduate students, and continuing education students who particip the "Dickens Universe" for their helpful comments and suggestions. 2 For a discussion of patterns of speech in War and Peace, see Boris Uspenski, A Poetics of Composition, trans. Valentin rin and Susan Wittig (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), pp Charles Dickens, The Adventures of Oliver Twist (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. xxxi. All references to novel are to this edition and will be given in the text.

3 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG DICKENS' RHETORIC 221 standard English throughout the novel in spite of his li with "the dregs of life" Dickens is not trying to be accurat sive. Oliver's speech becomes "pure" speech and has to b metaphor for the pure soul. The incorruptibility of hi triumph of good over evil, of the individual over institutio interpretation of speech in Oliver Twist, proposed for e Page,4 does not take into account the full complexity o novel. A more detailed analysis of speech patterns in the better understand Dickens' rhetorical (rather than mimetic) a I would like, however, to open a parenthesis about th the rhetorical and mimetic purpose in the novel in general discuss how these purposes inform the way speech is rep professed aim in writing Oliver Twist was to show crime an their prosaic sordidness in order to make crime unattractiv of what Kathleen Tillotson called "moralistic realism," wher J. Hillis Miller puts it, that "undistorted pictures of real the consequences of bad or good acts, and persuade us to In "moralistic realism" the mimetic and the rhetorical inten exist without conflict, they also reinforce each other: t novel is, the stronger is its rhetorical power. However, makes all too clear, non-realistic fiction has just as much rh not more, and it is against this rhetorical power, ungrou romantic representation of the criminals-that Dickens writ seems that stripping the criminals of their "ribbons" and mance and clothing them with holed coats and dishevelle xxxii-xxxiii) did not change things much: we still find the c teresting than the good characters, in spite of realistic desc power does not only exist independent of realism (as in rom operate in contradiction with the realistic intention. I shall relation between "true stories," "false stories" (romance) tempt to persuade (moralistic realism) at the end of the pap ferent terms. But we need to make a rather long detour int the novel before we can come back to this problem. In his article "'A language fit for heroes'" Norman Page lin dling of Oliver's language to a literary assumption which novelistic practice and which can be found in many other n novelists as well (Walter Scott being the most impo According to this assumption, a character who speaks an from standard usage cannot achieve the dignity and stature 4 "'A language fit for heroes': Speech in Oliver Twist and Our Mutual Friend," The Dickensian, 65 (1969 ' There are two works that deal systematically with Dickens' language. The first is Randolph Q propriate Language (Durham: University of Durham, 1959) and the second is G.L. Brooks, The Andre Deutsch, 1970). Both works are extremely useful and give a strong sense of the skillfu Dickens. But they are both primarily catalogues of examples of specific features (such as dial play, and so on). They do not show how in a specific text these various aspects of language how they create a linguistic and thematic whole. 6 In his "Introduction" to Oliver Twist (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. vii.

4 222 NOVEL SPRING 1987 Anything which marks the hero's speech as idiosyncratic or as part specific class or group objectifies him, thus distancing him from b and reader and making identification with him difficult. It is surel that the novel, which came into being, according to lan Watt's pers sis, out of a growing concern with the individual, with that which lar to a specific time and place, does not easily accord speech the sp grants to time and place. The language of the hero has to b cific-unmarked-and so universal. Now the language of the impe rator (the undramatized narrator who is not distanced from the au is not subject to irony, but is rather the author's mouthpiece, r whether such a narrator can in fact exist) also has to be unmarked. tor too cannot be marked as belonging to a certain very specific cla group, or region, or else his narration will become subjective, an ject to a possible critique, open to irony, distanced. The language rator has to be unmarked in order to give the narration authori unmarked language the narrator's narration appears as objective say, as purely referential. Whereas marked language is subjective, i and mimetically accurate, unmarked language is seen as objective and hence a language of pure referentiality. The fact that mime and pure referentiality find themselves on two opposed sides, at lea as the use of language is concerned, hints at one of the inn dictions-and one of the limitations--of realism. According to the literary convention described by Page, the need to use unmarked language is clearly restricted to the treatment of major characters-heroes and heroines--and does not apply to secondary ones, who have the freedom of being as particular as the author would like them to be. The reason for that is obvious: the reader is supposed to identify with the hero or heroine in a way he is not supposed to identify with the secondary characters, so the secondary characters can be represented in a way that accentuates their potential difference from us, the readers. But the use of unmarked language in Oliver Twist cannot be fully explained by this convention. Whereas in a novel like Bleak House Jo can speak the language of the slums without losing moral stature, and he can do it because he is a minor character whom we are supposed to pity but not to identify with, in Oliver Twist a minor character such as Dick speaks the same language as Oliver (which is mimetically unjustifiable), even though he is a minor character. It is at this point that we conclude that the use of unmarked language serves a moral purpose: standard language is seen as pure and uncorrupted language and hence an adequate metaphor for the natural goodness of the soul which is uncorrupted by social pressures. Dick, like Oliver, is pure, and hence uses the same language as Oliver. The fact that the theme of the novel is that goodness, bestowed by nature or heredity, cannot be corrupted by immorality transforms the convention of the speech of the hero: the language of the hero is no longer simply an indication that he is not so particularized as to be totally different from us, but is an indication that he is naturally good. Conversely, the

5 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG DICKENS' RHETORIC 223 speech of Fagin, or Sikes, or Claypole, or Bumble, does not indica that they are secondary characters who can be as particular as o since they are not the object of the reader's identification, but rathe a sign of their corruption, of their deviation and lack of concern for tic-moral standard. A closer look at the speech patterns of other characters will require us to modify our conclusions still further. The fact is that unmarked speech is not used exclusively by moral characters since a character such as "the gentleman in the white waistcoat" in the early chapters of the novel uses the same unmarked language as Oliver. The same is true of Monks, who speaks the same standard, neutral, and unmarked language as Oliver in spite of his lifelong association with ruffians and criminals, in spite of his being a minor character, and most importantly, in spite of his moral evil. Unlike characters such as Sikes or Fagin, whose criminality, the novel suggests, is the result of social circumstances, Monks' depravity is natural rather than social and is hence expressed not through corrupted speech but through his body, in an illness. As we shall see later, this difference is indicative of the different way in which the lower class and the middle class are seen in this novel. It seems then that unmarked language is simply an attribute of the middle class, a class into which one is born and of which one always is a member. Unmarked language is primarily the language of the world of Brownlow and the Maylies; the fact that Oliver shares this language indicates that he belongs to that world not simply by virtue of his moral fortitude but also by virtue of his birth. Should we conclude then that unmarked language serves for social rather than moral characterization? Not quite. Nancy, for example, belongs to the world of Fagin, of the "dregs of life," is the intimate associate of Sikes, the person whose speech (as the narrator points out) is the most marked as "cant." Though Nancy's speech is never as strongly marked as Sikes' or Claypole's, when she is described as part of the gang, participating in their schemes and identifying with their lives, her speech is marked, indicating both her social and moral position. For example, in her conversation with Fagin about who will go to find out what happened to Oliver at the police station she says: "... it won't do; so it's no use a-trying it on, Fagin" (89); when she pretends to be Oliver's sister in order to get him back to Fagin she says, "Thank gracious goodness heavins" (107). And yet, in the interview between Nancy and Rose Maylie, in which so much is made of their social difference, but where the point is to show the spark of goodness in Nancy, her speech cannot be differentiated from that of Rose or later, Mr. Brownlow. In spite of her life of depravity Nancy still has a spark of this innate goodness which characterizes Rose or Oliver, a fact which explains not only her sympathy for Oliver but also her ability to communicate with Rose without any marked signs of their difference in her speech. We should note, however, that Nancy does not survive these interviews; it may be that she is able (or allowed) to speak as she does because she feels already the knife at her throat and already sees the coffin ready for her.

6 224 NOVEL SPRING 1987 One of the clear villains of the novel is Noah Claypole. Noah s standard English rather than slang but this has the same functi calls Oliver "workus" we are aware not only of his lack of schoo social class but also of his viciousness. His absolute villainy is co the fact that he always speaks the same marked language. The c lotte, however, is different. When we see Noah and Charlotte on th London his victim is not Oliver but Charlotte herself who, in spite ing the active agent of their joint crime-it is she who committed t cause Noah was too cowardly and selfish to do it himself-is rep the oppressed one, just as Oliver was. Accordingly, while Noah usual, marked language, the speech of Charlotte is utterly unm could have been anyone's. However, the moment the emphasis ch seeing Charlotte as a victim to representing her as the admiring co speech degenerates and resembles that of Noah. Compare, for Charlotte's speech when she is seen carrying a heavy load and b by Noah: "'Where do you mean to stop for the night, Noah?.. needn't be so cross'" (315), with her speech later in the scene: "'Lor, it is to hear yer say so!' exclaimed Charlotte, imprinting a kiss upo face" (319). Unlike Noah, Charlotte, and even more so Nancy, characters and their speech shows variations that direct our respon Since we identify "cant" with the brutality of Sikes and uneducated with the villainy of Noah we measure the difference of Nancy and from the brutality and treachery of the two men by the way they them in their speech. Even Sikes and Fagin at one momen lives-before their death, when they are victimized by the v treachery of others-are linguistically redeemed. Unlike Nancy, how is conveyed not through their capacity to speak a different lan are not conscious of the change in their moral position-but th blending of their speech into the speech of the narrator and the ap free indirect discourse. Thus the description of Sikes after the Nancy contains many instances of free indirect discourse: "He c and glanced up at the window, to be sure that nothing was visib outside... God, how the sun poured down upon the very spot! could he go, that was near and not too public, to get some meat Hendon. That was a good place, not far off, and out of most pe and so on (360-61). We have seen that the distinction between unmarked and marked language cannot be explained mimetically, and that rhetorically it does not always coincide with a conventional distinction (between major and minor characters) or a moral distinction (between good and bad characters) or a social distinction (between middle class and lower class characters). How can we then characterize this distinction? We see that characters who always use unmarked language belong to the middle class (and this includes Oliver too); they never depart from this form of speech no matter whom they talk to, no matter how they live, no matter what their other characteristics are (corrupt,

7 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG DICKENS' RHETORIC 225 pure, victim, oppressor). On the other hand, those who use ma show great variations in their speech patterns according to the ation. Against all our mimetic expectations (exemplified by My Fa the lower class characters who have the ability to switch back tween levels and registers of speech. The distinction between marked language is then one between a language that is alwa and language that varies according to circumstances. Unmarke context free; marked language is determined by context, by the time and place, experience and interlocutor, bring into the spe By definition, unmarked language is monolithic; only marked accommodate variations, can hence show particularity and indi surely curious that the middle class, which is historically respons ideology of individualism, expresses this ideology in a contradicto It does so in order to give its ideology the power it needs to prev always the same, unmarked language appears as the norm, and guage becomes a deviation. We have seen in the case of Nancy how the variations in he press variations in her moral position. The case of the Artful Dod different since the Dodger is the one character in the novel w his speech habits throughout and still reaches a certain moral s scene at the police station). It is important to see that while clearly says what the narrator wants to convey-that "this ain justice" (333)-he does not so much play into the hands of the narr fill the role which Fagin, in his conversation with Charley Bates, him: he makes a name for himself so that he would be remembered in the Newgate Calendar and serve as an example to the other boys. The moral stat ure of the Dodger is hence achieved through an act of social rebellion and resistance-the only one in the novel.7 Nancy regrets her past life and sees the fault for her misery in herself and her criminal associates, in her environment; but the Dodger attacks the entire system and says that he is not different from anybody else, no matter what his position---or speech-is. It is clear that the Dodger can make such a statement only because he, too, like Nancy, is about to disappear from the novel. (Oth erwise, as one of the women in the hotel where Nancy goes to see Rose says what is the point of being virtuous?) Unlike Nancy he does not die, but w simply do, not hear anymore about him. The fact that Dickens simply drop him out of the plot means that he cannot make him die, nor can he make him live; he cannot show him turning to be an honest citizen, nor can he show him continuing a life of crime. Within the framework of the novel the revolt of the Dodger is non-narratable, its consequences, unthinkable. Since in a novel where an opposition between marked and unmarked language operates, marked language serves always to distance a character from the reader the adherence of the Dodger to that language when he condemns society sig nifies that his speech is something we can enjoy, or even think has much truth in it, but is not something we ourselves will ever say. Oliver Twist i clearly not a revolutionary novel. 7 Mr Brownlow, in a similar situation in Mr. Fang's court, behaves quite differently. His reaction is that of personal indignation, the indignation of the gentleman who is not treated as a gentleman by another member of his class.

8 226 NOVEL SPRING 1987 Oliver's language is characterized not only by its purity hermetism: Oliver can understand only language-and speak ble him. This is also rhetorically, rather than mimetically, jus of the novel makes it clear that Oliver has to play a role d his birth by his father in order to be able to find his identit society; this role is that of the honest and innocent. What th brother add to this (the former involuntarily, the latter, inte he has to keep his innocence in spite of adverse circumstances presented as naturally good, and since his role is entirely p others, his behavior in the world is reduced to one of active o tance. Oliver does not have to acquire virtue, he just has to be to resist having his virtue corrupted. Virtue is not the result with experience and a free choice of alternatives but is a resis ence in order to adhere to a prescribed (even if unknown) r ley Bates who participates in a life of crime and yet emerges of it moral and virtuous, thanks to a fundamentally healthy sonality, Oliver cannot be involved in any experience that dif he has to end up being; otherwise he loses his identity and This is why, unlike Charley Bates, who learns something from with the world of Sikes and crime, Oliver, by definition, lear ing just arrived at Brownlow's house Oliver prays "to He though we were told before that in the farm and the work taught to pray and there is no reason to believe that he learn knowledge of heaven and prayers comes from within, togethe ral goodness, and is not something he learns. Similarly, at knows how to read even though it seems again quite unlikely or the workhouse he was taught anything. His education does Maylies; it is only improved and expanded there. Since he Oliver cannot learn evil from the evil world which surrounds him but cannot touch him, and he has no need to learn anything from the good world into which he is transferred. His knowledge too comes from within. On the level of speech the resistance to experience justifies Oliver's lack of understanding of the speech of the criminals and other immoral persons around him. The question of communication in the novel is hence not strictly a linguistic question, being determined as it is by moral resistance. This explains why Oliver does not understand Mr. Bumble's reference to the "board" or the gentleman of the board who tells him he is an orphan. This difficulty in communication locates the problem on the level of the signified rather than of the signifier (since both "board" and "orphan" belong to the unmarked language Oliver himself uses). The words "board" and "orphan" do not strike us at first as words the "knowledge" or understanding of which can corrupt the soul; but they have to remain opaque since they are synecdoches for the world of the parish, the poorhouse, the workhouse-a world of hypocrisy, brutality, and immorality, which Oliver does not and should not understand. The lack of understanding is not realistically but rhetorically motivated. Con-

9 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG j DICKENS' RHETORIC 227 versely, in the first meeting between the Artful Dodger and Oliver, Oliver has no difficulty with the rather cryptic phrase, "'Hullo, my covey! What's the row?'" but answers immediately and well to the point, "'I am very hungry and tired.'" However, when the Dodger continues to say, "'Walking for sivin days!... Oh I see. Beak's order, eh?'" Oliver's look shows surprise and the Dodger correctly concludes "'I suppose you don't know what a beak is'" (53-54). The question of understanding is not of acquaintance with certain signifiers, but of knowledge of certain signified; it is not so much that Oliver does not know a particular idiom where "beak" means "magistrate" and "mill" "jail" but rather that he does not know-in the strong sense of the word-what "magistrate" and "jail" are. He is innocent of the world of crime and hence also of the world of law. The implication of the law in the world of crime, which is thematically elaborated in the scene in Fang's court, is linguistically evidenced when the two law officers, Duff and Blathers, speak the same language as the criminals ("put up job," etc.) and are not understood by Rose and Mrs. Maylie, who find not only the expression but also the idea of "put up job" incomprehensible. We see that to understand an idiom is not a question of belonging to the same community that uses that idiom but rather being of the same moral qualities as the person who uses it. Back in Oliver's home town, Gamfield, the sweep, and the gentleman in the white waistcoat belong to different classes and use different languages but enjoy perfect understanding in their communication by virtue of their both being cruel and manipulative. The Dodger, on the other hand, has a more complex personality so that while his existence as a criminal is totally incomprehensible to Oliver, his basic good nature and playfulness (he is never shown to be cruel or vindictive) allows a certain communication between the two. We see that language patterns-both of speech and of comprehension-obey a logic that is not mimetic but rather rhetorical. Nancy's unmarked language in her encounter with Rose Maylie underlines her moral stance at the moment, Oliver's lack of understanding of the thieves' slang indicates his resistance to the world of crime. What can we make of Noah Claypole's inability to understand the same slang in spite of his clear moral affinity with the thieves? At Mr. Sowerberry's Noah's marked language serves to differentiate him from Oliver. Noah continues throughout the novel in the same speech pattern since there is nothing in him but straight villainy and he is unable to change his behavior and hence his speech. It is true that his language is not the same kind as the thieves' "cant" but since the aspect governing speech patterns is the rhetorical one, we would expect that the difference between him and the thieves will be played down rather than brought to our attention. The affinity between Noah and the thieves is clearly marked when he and Charlotte arrive in London. They arrive as a result of having already committed a crime, and Noah's intention is to continue a life of crime. His encounter with Fagin at the Three Cripples is not a result of chance (as is the encounter of Oliver with the Dodger) nor is it a result of someone's plan (as is Oliver's second encounter with the thieves when he is

10 228 NOVEL SPRING 1987 kidnapped by Nancy, or as Bumble's encounter with Monks is); the result of a deep affinity between Noah and the world of crime the world of treachery for which Fagin, rather than Sikes, stands ter of which is the Three Cripples. Noah chooses the Three Crip strong sense that this is the right place for him and his designs: " he stopped in front of one [public house], more humble in app more dirty than any he had yet seen; and, having crossed over and it from the opposite pavement, graciously announced his intention up there, for the night" (317). Given this, how can we explain the communication between him and Fagin, on the subject of crime the subject they have in common? In the first encounter between uses the term "the kinchin lay" and Noah does not understand Noah does not understand Fagin's remarks about the Dodger: "' mean by lagging and a lifer?' demanded Mr. Bolter [alias Noah 'What's the good of talking in that way to me; why don't yer can understand yer?'" (326). It seems to me that the reason for the derstanding between Noah and Fagin being stressed is in order Noah's similarity to--and difference from-oliver. Throughou Noah is one of Oliver's doubles, the other one being his half-broth Like Oliver, Noah depends on the parish; but while Oliver's de the result of his middle-class, affluent parents being dead, Noah's unable to support him because they are poor and drunk. Like works for Mr. Sowerberry; but while Oliver is the victim of op mistreatment, Noah is one of the oppressors. Like Oliver Noa from Sowerberry and goes to London; but while Oliver runs aw of being mistreated, Noah runs away after having committed a both enter London at the same point and encounter the same peopl ver resists the world of crime, while Noah seeks and finds it and i it quite easily. The verbal difficulty they both encounter is ju point of similarity and difference. While Oliver's lack of understa of the signified-the world of crime-no matter what signifier it in, Noah's lack of understanding is that of a particular idiom, not cept; once Fagin translates for him the "kinchin lay" he says, " the very thing!'" (323). Another way of opposing Oliver's language to that of other c that Oliver always uses language literally: the signifier always refe to the signified. A non-literal, or figurative, use of language will i usage where the signifier does not refer directly to the signified bu via another signified. This is the case not only of metaphor or iron of hypocrisy and lies. Oliver uses figurative language-pretend under pressure and threats and only at the very beginning of the then his words lie but his face tells the truth, as in the episode of ticeship to the sweep. All the characters in Mr. Brownlow's and Mr household are equally literal. The other characters show always manipulate language for different purposes, from the irony of th

11 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG DICKENS' RHETORIC 229 the hypocrisy of Mrs. Mann, to the lies of Bumble, to the affectation The figurative use of language differs from a literal use in that it requ context for interpretation; normally it is juxtaposed to a literal use of so that we can ascertain that the use is indeed figurative. Thus, to simple example, we know that Mrs. Mann's description of the orp "blessed infants" (7) is figurative because a page earlier she referred to them as "them two brats" (6). A whole set of conventions allows us that it is the former which is figurative rather than the latter (in this distinction between public utterance and a private one, addressed self or to a confidante). The literal use of language is context free-it is always the same, no m what the context is: Oliver addresses Fagin in the same way he ad Brownlow and in the same way he talks to himself. Figurative speech, o other hand, is context bound, it has different meanings in different c Oliver does not understand the possibility of different contexts giving ances different meanings (and in this already announces, in advanc plot, his middle class origin). For example, in the game played by t and Fagin Oliver understands what the game means: he knows that imitating a rich man looking at windowshops and afraid of thieves a amused by it because he thinks it is a game-as in fact it is at that mom does not occur to him that the same behavior can be transposed to context-a street, with a real bookseller, and a real gentleman-and ac it a different meaning-not a game but a theft. The impossibility o standing figuration-the idea that the same utterance can have a d meaning in a different context, explains as well Oliver's difficulty w slang of the thieves. Since slang is a "secondary language" it functions b signing a certain signifier a different signified from the one it has in usage, as when the Dodger asks Oliver if he spent any time in "the mill." Oliver's constant use of literal, unmarked language is a rejection idea that language is context bound, that different people speak dif according to who they are, where they are, and who they talk to. Again flexibility of figuration, literalness and unmarked language proclai everyone, everywhere, all the time, in no matter what situation, s should speak-the same language. And this linguistic rigidity is equat natural, innate morality and goodness, since things that are natura ways true and do not depend on circumstances. The unmarked, lite guage of the middle class is ideological language par excellence. The a try in the way marked and unmarked language are treated in the announces the ideological task of language. In Oliver Twist this is rather matic: Unmarked language characterizes middle class characters no what their moral qualities are, though the vast majority are good and t ones are treated as sick (Monks) or, if this "badness" is not as obviou of Monks-as for example in Grimwig-as eccentric. Lower class cha speak marked language, except in rare moments when they gain a mora ure, or are seen as victims (hence, less guilty than someone else); i

12 230 NOVEL ISPRING 1987 moments they speak unmarked language. This, however, happens only before they die; they cannot live to become members of the middle class. Good characters understand each other since they all speak the same language anyway; bad characters can understand each other regardless of class and speech differences. Evil hence can communicate itself across existing social and linguistic distinctions whereas goodness can communicate itself only by abolishing (momentarily, or utopianly) these distinctions. I would like now to show that the need to legitimize the universality and ubiquity-what I called the naturalness-of unmarked language and middle class morality is what motivates the plot of Oliver Twist. We usually see the plot of Oliver Twist as conventional because we think of it as ending with the discovery of the real father, the real name, and the inheritance. This is surely true; but it is important to see that most of Oliver's attempts in the novel are directed towards somewhat different discoveries, discoveries that will corroborate his story and will show that his version of the story of his life is the true one. Already early in the novel Oliver is summoned by Mr. Brownlow to tell his story. As Mr. Grimwig says, Mr. Brownlow should know the "Life and Adventures of Oliver Twist" (which is indeed the name of a story and resembles very much the title of Dickens' novel) in order to see whether Oliver has the right to belong to the Brownlow household to which he was previously admitted. Oliver does not get the chance to tell this story at that moment because having been sent out to return the books to the bookseller he is kidnapped by Nancy. His story is being replaced by Bumble's when the latter responds to an ad placed by Brownlow in the newspaper, with a promise of a reward. Bumble gives a distorted report of Oliver's life because he thinks that this is what Brownlow wants to hear; had he known that a different version of the story would fetch a higher price he would have told a different story. The telling of the story here is not motivated by a desire for an accurate and truthful representation but by a desire to sell and is controlled by what we can call the narrator's (here Bumble) analysis of the audience, the reading public who pays for the story. As Mrs. Bedwin says when Oliver asks whether the picture of the young woman hanging in her room is a "likeness," artistic representation is not necessarily, or even primarily, informed by a desire for accuracy (mimetic truth, "likeness") but rather by a desire to please the audience, or more precisely, to sell. Mimetic representation is, presumably, disinterested; rhetorical, or persuasive, representation is always implicated in monetary transactions, it has to persuade in order to please, it has to please in order to sell. When Oliver is rescued again from Fagin's gang and is sheltered by the Maylies his first desire is to prove to them that the story he told them (the story he didn't get a chance to tell Brownlow) is true, including the part about Brownlow. He needs to prove it because, as Losberne rightly says, the story as he tells it will not be believed in court. Oliver's story is agreeable to the Maylies, it is what they would have liked to hear (as Bumble thought his story was to Brownlow) but in order to go beyond the small circle of sympa-

13 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG I DICKENS' RHETORIC 231 thetic listeners he has to find corroborating evidence, he has to find witnesses. What characterizes Brownlow's and the Maylies' world is that they intuitively know that Oliver tells the truth; this is because Oliver is one of them and because they have, like him, a natural and innate knowledge, not mediated by experience. However, they are aware of the fact that they are surrounded by a world that operates differently, and this world needs to be persuaded. Oliver feels that his story can at any moment be endangered by different stories that are motivated not by the search for truth but by the search for gain. When he is kidnapped by Nancy she tells the people around her a sto about him---that he ran away from his loving parents and joined a gang thieves-and Oliver is helpless in remonstrating-or demonstrating---tha this is not the true story and that his story (that he is an orphan living with gentleman) is true. Nancy's story is motivated by her need to comply w Fagin's wishes, and these wishes are motivated by gain-the money he g from Monks for keeping Oliver in the world of crime. Oliver's attempt prove the truth of his story against competing versions motivated by gr constantly fails: the house he shows Losberne as being the one from whi he, together with Sikes and Toby, started out for the burglary is occupied by someone not known to him and does not resemble Oliver's description of When they get to Brownlow's house they find that the house is for rent and all its inhabitants far away; when Oliver suggests that they should go an find the bookseller, Losberne objects in order to prevent further disappointment. Oliver's story remains at that point without corroboration so that novel can continue without coming to a premature end (and the end of t novel comes when the proofs corroborating his story are indeed found). The next attempt to find corroboration is not more successful but is much more curious. It is the episode in which Oliver "sees" Monks and Fag through the window. When the others come in reply to his call they cann discover a trace of the two. In a totally inexplicable manner the two have dis appeared without leaving a trace. Were they really there or was it only O ver's delusion? or maybe it was only a story, a fiction created by him in desire to corroborate his story, to persuade his audience? The last hypothe sounds totally absurd to us and it is clearly not supported by anything else in the characterization of Oliver; to the contrary. And yet it is suggested throu a curious resemblance to another episode earlier in the text. During the visit of the two Bow Street officers to the Maylies' house, o of them tells the story of Conky Cheekweed. The detective who tells the stor tells it from the point of view-or through the growing consciousness and un derstanding-of another detective, named appropriately Spyers (the narrat is a spy, like Noah, like Nancy; he collects evidence). Chickweed's story also that of an apparition that no one else, except for Chickweed, can s Chickweed claims that he sees the person who has robbed him, who comm ted a crime against him (as Fagin and Monks did against Oliver) but the m ment he calls others to catch the criminal-and thus verify his story-the per-

14 232 NOVEL SPRING 1987 son disappears without leaving a trace and the story remains unco Finally the detective-spy-narrator discovers the truth: the apparit really exist, nor was it an illusion on the part of Chickweed (a around him think); it was simply an invention--a story concoct weed to "keep up appearances" (227). Chickweed does not inve simply to gain money-he has already gained it, he has already secured a comfortable position for himself; but he needs to suppo in order to legitimize his gain, and hence invents the story of the The officer tells the story of Chickweed because he think Chickweed who attempted the robbery on the Maylies' house Chickweed for Oliver; conversely, when Harry and Losberne t find Fagin and Monks after they disappear into thin air Losber that they need now the officers from Bow Street-presumably find Fagin and Monks, but maybe, in fact, in order to explain, as the apparition. Like Chickweed Oliver needs to see Monks and F to show that his story, which entitles him to membership in household and later to his father's inheritance, is true. The narrat plains how Monks and Fagin appeared and disappeared withou trace-he does not ground Oliver's story in reality; on the oth does not go as far as Spyers in showing the true nature and fu story. All we can do is to guess from the analogy between the The fact that the story of Chickweed is totally superfluous to the novel indicates that its function is on a different level-it appears provide us with a clue for interpreting Oliver's scene with Fag since the narrator apparently cannot comment explicitly on that sce We see that there are two kinds of stories: stories told in or money, regardless of truth, and stories told in order to legitimize gain (Oliver is already an heir to his father's money) and may, or true. The former type of story is clearly linked to the bad charact inals or the immoral ones (Bumble, Nancy at the service of Fa ter-in the case of Oliver-seems to be innocent, but the examp weed casts some doubt in our mind by emphasizing how much too are involved with money. Nancy, of course, understands t hence refuses to receive money from Rose or Brownlow in exch story (to be like Bumble) or to have the story be the instrument fo a different and legitimate place in society. The falsity of stories t gain, like the truth of stories told without any monetary interest unambiguous. But there are other stories that are neither stric strictly true since their only status is as fiction; they are stories roboration in reality. These stories are not strictly speaking "li cause there is nothing in reality we can judge them against, strictly "for sale," fabricated with the view of pleasing the public a price; they are not informed by a desire for gain nor are they s terested; they are motivated by a desire to legitimize. Their purpo suade others that a certain version of what takes place in the w

15 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG DICKENS' RHETORIC 233 ity, is the true one. These stories are neither strictly mimetic nor rhetorical but overlap both categories, are located at their intersection. call such stories fictions of legitimization, or ideological stories. What S as a narrator does is to spell out the "ideological" backbone of Chi story; the narrator of Oliver Twist does not do the same for Oliver's st the encounter with Fagin and Monks, nor does he question the statu own story, of his "Life and Adventures of Oliver Twist" in order to spe its ideological motivation. And yet the language of the narrator to a extent undermines the claims made by the manipulation of the direct s of the characters. The language of the narrator is not, as I shall demonstrate, of one style throughout the novel. Still, there is a style that we perceive as peculiar to the narrator and which can be characterized as "inappropriate language"-inappropriate, of course, in a very limited sense (not the sense in which Quirk uses the word"): it is a language marked by irony (saying the opposite of what is intended), by euphemism, by circumlocution, by an amplification that results in a mocking tone. A good example of this tone, taken from around the middle of the novel, is the opening of chapter 18: "About noon next day, when the Dodger and Master Bates had gone out to pursue their customary avocations, Mr. Fagin took the opportunity of reading Oliver a long lecture on the crying sin of ingratitude: of which he clearly demonstrated he had been guilty, to no ordinary extent, in wilfully absenting himself from the society of his anxious friends; and, still more, in endeavouring to escape from them after so much trouble and expense had been incurred in his recovery" (127). This passage is a typical example of the verbal wit of the narrator and of his parodic voice. In his analysis of the parodic voice of the narrator in the opening scene of Oliver Twist, Kucich remarks that these paragraphs contain a "curious doubleness": "a satiric voice making a pointed attack on the workhouse, and another, less restricted voice oriented in the same satiric way but unconcerned, even undiscriminating, as to the object of its fun."9 Kucich bases his conclusion on the fact that in this opening scene it is not only the workhouse that is subject to the satiric voice of the narrator but also Oliver himself; the fun the narrator has at Oliver's expense is not directed towards Oliver as a character but is, rather, "produced desultorily by the exaggerated, euphemistic formalism of the narrator's parodic tone."'0 The narrator's "inappropriate language," according to Kucich, is directed at no matter what and no matter whom: part of it is in service of a social satire but part of it escapes the constraints of satire and is a manifestation of independent, unrestrained, verbal wit. A closer examination of the narrator's voice in Oliver Twist does not, however, support this claim. 8 In his Charles Dickens and Appropriate Language. 9 John Kucich, Excess and Restraint in the Novels of Charles Dickens (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981), p Kucich, p. 207.

16 234 NOVEL SPRING 1987 It is important to note first of all the obvious: the narrator's voic ways this mocking, parodic voice, and besides "inappropriate lan find examples of "appropriate language"-straightforward langu ironic, non-euphemistic, as in the following passage: "Oliver, bei himself in the undertaker's shop, set the lamp down on a workm and gazed timidly about him with a feeling of awe and dread, w people a good deal older than he, will be at no loss to understand. ished coffin on black tressels, which stood in the middle of the shop so gloomy and death-like that a cold tremble came over him, ever eyes wandered in the direction of the dismal object: from which he pected to see some frightful form slowly rear its head, to drive him terror" (29). Kucich's analysis of the style of the narrator is importa it prevents us from coming to an erroneously simplistic conclusio parodic tone is reserved for the description of the "bad" characters a institutions under attack whereas the non-mocking tone is reserv description of the good and innocent, as in the passage just quote deed a page later the mocking voice reappears while still describi "Oliver had been too often subjected to the process to which the ver sive monosyllable just recorded ["whop"] bears reference, to ente smallest doubt that the owner of the voice, whoever he might be deem his pledge, most honourably" (30). Rather than talking, howeve "unrestrained wit" I will claim that there is a simple logic that gover ternation between the mocking and non-mocking voice of the narrat first passage quoted Oliver is alone; in the second he has come in with another character, in this case Noah Claypole. The satiric through various rhetorical devices condemns the behavior of such ch as Noah "contaminates," in the second passage, the treatment of Oliver's frailty is turned into a joke in the opening scene of the nov cich rightly claims it does,"11 it is because he is in the presence of t of the workhouse; the same frailty is described in a totally differen when Oliver is lying sick at Mr. Brownlow's or later on at the Maylies' The narrator then does not have one voice. Unlike his character Oliver who can protect his language from the contaminating effects of substandard usage and criminal slang, the narrator's voice changes according to the sce he describes; to that extent his style is always "appropriate." But this appr priateness of style on the part of the narrator undermines some of the implic claims that the manipulation of the direct speech of the characters has made. Whereas the speech patterns of the middle class characters themselves nev change, no matter what their condition, character, or addressee is, the narra tor, who seemed to accept middle class ideology, cannot, in his own narrative voice, conceive of human beings in such perfect hermetism. The scene he describes displays a power struggle where the presence of certain characters--good or bad, middle class or lower class-forces upon him a certain d tion in spite of the presence of other characters. In describing Oliver, th 11 Kucich, p. 206.

17 MICHAL PELED GINSBURG I DICKENS' RHETORIC 235 narrator's voice cannot remain immune to the pressures that fail to impinge upon Oliver himself. The narrator's voice becomes the indicator of the pressure that social relations exercise on individuals. This pressure is again not simple: we cannot say that the presence of "bad" characters or lower class characters forces upon the narrator a mocking tone that "contaminates" his description of the "good" or middle class characters. In each and every scene certain characters are "strong" and others are "weak" and the narrator betrays in his diction the amount of force that they exercise. It is enough that Oliver is with Bumble or Fagin or Noah for the narrator to assume, in describing Oliver, the circumlocutive, mocking tone he uses in treating these characters, as in the following passage: "In pursuance of this determination [that Oliver's indentures be brought before the magistrate right away], little Oliver, to his excessive astonishment, was released from bondage, and ordered to put himself into a clean shirt. He had hardly achieved this very unusual gymnastic performance, when Mr. Bumble brought him, with his own hands, a basin of gruel, and the holiday allowance of two ounces and a quarter of bread" (18). Bill Sikes is just as much a subject to the parodic narrative voice as is Bumble (Nancy "fainted, before Mr. Sikes could get out a few of the appropriate oaths with which, on similar occasions, he was accustomed to garnish his threats. Not knowing, very well, what to do, in this uncommon emergency... Mr. Sikes tried a little blasphemy: and finding that mode of treatment wholly ineffectual, called for assistance," [287]); but the irony that is directed towards Sikes does not "contaminate" the way Oliver is described when the two are together: "Oliver sat huddled together, in a corner of the cart, bewildered with alarm and apprehension: and figuring strange objects in the gaunt trees, whose branches waved grimly to and fro, as if in some fantastic joy at the desolation of the scene" (156). The power struggle between characters, where each has a certain amount of force he or she can exercise on the other characters, is revealed in the variations of the narrative voice, even as it is glossed over in the treatment of the direct speech of the characters. Whereas the way in which the direct speech of the characters is handled is commensurate with the view, typical of the early Dickens, that social problems are isolated and self-contained, the "contamination" we see in the shifts of narrative voice already announces the view of the later novels that society is a system of interrelated parts. The variations in the narrative voice show the narrator to be far from impersonal. He is, however, a "person" not because we can easily identify, through his language, his class, background, sex, age, and so on: the parodic language and, in a different way, the "serious," non parodic one, are artificial languages, languages of a mere narrative "voice." But the narrator is a "person" because he is shown, in his language, to enter social relations and to be influenced by them; his "personality" manifests itself, or maybe even is created, by these social relations, the relations of power and influence. When the narrative voice becomes homogeneous the narrator becomes impersonal. What I am alluding to now are the numerous passages in which the narrator

18 236 NOVEL I SPRING 1987 describes an urban scene, usually the slums of London. The occasion for these descriptions is the peregrinations of some specific character or characters such as Oliver (alone, or in the company of Sowerberry, the Dodger, Sikes, Toby), Fagin, Mr. and Mrs. Bumble, Nancy, or Sikes. But in this case, the fact that the description is occasioned by the presence of different characters does not have an effect on the style of the description which remains the same in all these passages. This impersonality of the narrator is clearly stated in the last description-the description of Jacob's Island and its neighbourhood in chapter 50-where the observer evoked in order to present the scene is a "visitor" (377) or a "stranger" (378). How can we, then, situate the narrative voice within the general problematic of truth and persuasion, realism and ideology? On the one hand, the narrative voice, in using a homogeneous language to describe different situations, shows the same disregard to context we have seen in the unmarked language of the middle class characters. This usage of language is related to an isolation of the speaker-who is a "stranger," a "visitor"-that is, it repeats the isolation-or hermetism-of Oliver and Oliver's language. It seems that precisely in those passages which "objectively" describe the slums of London and the plight of the poor, the narrative voice sees the scene with the eyes of the middle class, the class that sees unchangeability and isolation as the grounds for objectivity. In these cases the narrative voice merely betrays the ideology of realism. On the other hand, the variations of narrative voice according to the varying situations, where the narrative voice betrays its lack of immunity to social pressures, its inevitable participation in a totality of relations, undermines these very notions. It goes beyond the ideological notions of objectivity and realism, to present a view of social reality as the arena where different languages enter a power struggle. It then complements the work of demystification we have seen elsewhere in the novel, by showing how various languages compete for domination-for the ability to impose themselves on others and thus to persuade others of their truth.